California proposes animal-abuser registry

March 6, 2010

Should people convicted of felony animal abuse be forced to register with law enforcement, just like sex offenders? One California legislator thinks so, and has introduced  such a bill, one that would make California first in the nation. [Time]

“We think California is primed for this kind of a bill,” says Senate Majority Leader Dean  Florez, who introduced the legislation late last month. Florez believes it is an issue Californians care about deeply; almost 60 percent of state residents own pets; throw in farm animals and the figure rises to 80 percent.

The goal of the proposed registry, which includes crimes against both pets and farm animals, is to make it easier for shelters and animal adoption groups to identify people who shouldn’t be allowed access to animals. Law enforcement is also served, advocates believe, because of the well-documented evidence that suggests violence against animals often leads to violence against humans.

Abuses covered in the bill include the malicious and intentional maiming, torture, wounding, or killing of an animal. Cockfighting and animal hoarding would also be covered in the bill.

Florez wants funding for the proposed registry to come through a 2 to 3 cent sales tax on dog food, though supporters worry that Sacramento may not be in the mood for any new taxes. Florez is also open to the idea of having convicted offenders pay a fee towards funding the operation.


Loading...

15 Comments

  1. rogerfreberg says:

    hmmmm… just what we need… and how does this solve California’s economic, job, budgetary woes again? This is a distraction.

    Besides, the last time this happened, half of my favorite restaurants were put out of business… granted it was the ’70’s. ;)

    The guys and gals up in Sacramento need a little focus.

    Roger Freberg

    (2) 6 Total Votes - 4 up - 2 down
    • bobfromsanluis says:

      “… the last time this happened, half of my favorite restaurants were put of business ….” Um, the discussion is about animal abuse; how does that relate to restaurants being put out of business, unless the restaurants were serving abused animals? I really don’t see the connection …..

      (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
  2. thinkaboutit says:

    This taxpayer fully understands this would cost money. But the concept deserves a second look when one considers that people who abuse animals, and especially those mercilessly torture animals, do not stop there. Rather, they often do worse to people later on. This is particularly true of youths and teens who commit these sorts of acts If I can find the source information and stats, I’ll post them.

    (1) 7 Total Votes - 4 up - 3 down
    • willie says:

      A Famous FBI Profiler (John Douglas) considers an earlier “serious” animal cruelty history as one of the cumulative elements in profiling a sexual predator or serial killer.

      I doubt that there should be any significant cost involved (unless artificially constructed) in setting up and maintaining a serious animal abuser registry.

      (2) 2 Total Votes - 2 up - 0 down
  3. coyote says:

    Don’t these morons ever get it? The state is nearly bankrupt and they want to increase spending once again on a ridiculous piece of legislation.

    (4) 16 Total Votes - 10 up - 6 down
  4. bobfromsanluis says:

    From the article: “Cockfighting and animal hoarding would also be covered in the bill.” Well, if those who hoard like the lady who had so many animals in her house a year or two ago had to register as an animal abuser, her registration would follow her anywhere in the state. Hopefully there would be an internet site that would list all of those who are registered so that pet stores, breeders and shelters could check out people that are wanting pets to see if the person is on the list to stop them from buying or receiving pets they should not have. Same goes for those running cockfights; don’t let the feed stores sell to anyone who is registered as an animal abuser. I understand that most everyone is opposed to new taxes; perhaps a more creative way could be found to maintain the program; fines imposed on those who are caught abusing animals as a start?

    (-7) 15 Total Votes - 4 up - 11 down
    • Cindy says:

      Hummm, animal hoarders generally aren’t animal abusers in the sense of what an animal abuser is. They just have a tendency to save every abandoned dog or cat that they find. The animals end up in less than adequate and dirty conditions because of over crowding, much like our prison system. I don’t think of these hoarders in the same category as animal abusers. Any thoughts out there?

      (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down
      • bobfromsanluis says:

        Cindy: Animal hoarders may not intend to abuse the animals they take in, but that does not reduce the impact what can, and many times does happen. The lady in San Luis Obispo that was caught hoarding had dead animals in her freezer, had many animal feces inside her home, and many of her animals needed veterinarian attention; to me that sounds like animal abuse, pure and simple. People like her need professional help, and they need to be restricted in their ability to own animals, and I do think that people like her are abusers and should be treated the same as those who stage dog or cockfights. Just my opinion.

        (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down
    • bobfromsanluis says:

      I’m curious about the negative hits on my comment for this thread; do you all object to the possibility of a new tax only, a new law only, a combination of new tax and new law, or are you just not wanting to prosecute animal abusers? Seriously, I’d like to know, thanks.

      (0) 4 Total Votes - 2 up - 2 down
      • Cindy says:

        It is curious why you have 4 negative hits? Sometimes people will hit a negative if they disagree with only 10% of a post. I didn’t give you a negative but I wondered about your idea of not letting feed stores sell to animal abusers. Some food is better than no food, yes? It’s better that if an animal abuser is noted buying feed that he is reported as being in the animal business again.
        I would personally be willing to spend the taxes if it saves innocent creatures from abuse, at the same time, I hate the idea of creating bigger gov. I guess sometimes it comes down to the lesser of two evils. Animals matter, they come right next to humans and sometimes even before certain humans in my book.

        (1) 3 Total Votes - 2 up - 1 down
    • zaphod says:

      The New Times has a follow up not to miss.

      (0) 4 Total Votes - 2 up - 2 down
      • Cindy says:

        Interesting article and there you have it. Is this woman a criminal? I don’t think so. Looks like the “gob’mt” is just as messed up as she was. We already have laws in place to protect animals from abusers. After reading this article, I’m not inclined to spend any money expanding this program. Bigger gov is the last thing we all need, they are out of control, abusive and corrupt.

        (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
    • mkaney says:

      You got a negative hit from me because of your comment about not letting feed stores sell to anyone who is registered as an animal abuser. Now how does that make sense? Let’s say that wind up getting some kind of animal/pet, now you don’t want them to be able to feed it? And also because who is going to determine the point at which someone is hoarding? What is unsanitary to one cat might be heaven to another who was previously starving.

      (1) 3 Total Votes - 2 up - 1 down
  5. Lilylu says:

    Read my lips. No new taxes.

    (11) 15 Total Votes - 13 up - 2 down
  6. racket says:

    C’mon, you guys have already wasted enough of our money.

    (9) 15 Total Votes - 12 up - 3 down

Comments are closed.