How Far Will It Go?

While the idea of an Animal Abuser Registry is controversial, how far will legislators across the country go with this idea?

The question lies in what and who will be included in these proposed registries? Or does this merely sound like a fundraising winning lotto for the animal rights groups? Just how much money has been donated to these groups to “help the abused animals”? 

According to Phil Arkow of the National Link Coalition (an organization that educates people about the link between animal and human abuse), “Animal abuse is not only the tip of the iceberg of family violence, but it's often the first warning sign and the one a neighbor is most likely to call in." (Is this an open door to another potential harassment or nuisance complaint against breeders and owners?) Currently, nineteen states allow pets to get restraining orders. (I am curious how the pet does this.) It actually is the Judge issuing an Ex Parte Order, but remember that terminology in legislation that will bite you. Four states have included animal cruelty under the definition of domestic abuse, according to a May 19, 2011 KTLA News report. These four states are Colorado, Indiana, Nevada and Tennessee. All 50 states have animal cruelty statutes and laws, and the federal government has the Animal Welfare Act.

Currently, no state or national animal abuser registry exists. In 2001, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) drafted the Offender Registration and Community Notification “model laws” collection, according to Stephen Otto of the ALDF. This was based on “Megan’s Law”, dealing with sex offenders. Since this time, several states have used this as a basis in their attempts to accomplish the same thing with respect to animal abusers. For 2011 to date, seventeen states have enacted legislation to create an Animal Abuser Registry, up from eight states as of March 2010. These states include: Alabama (HB225), Connecticut (HB5013, HB5185, SB871, HB5362, HB5396), Hawaii (SB266, SB839, HB361, HB644), Maine (LD760/HP567), Massachusetts (H2228, S876), Nevada (AB118), New Hampshire (HB526), New York (A1766, A1506, S3804, A0299, S2015, A5373, S3971), Oregon (HB2742), Pennsylvania (SB921), Rhode Island (SB141), South Carolina (S226), Tennessee (HB1743, SB1590), Texas (SB779), Vermont (S41), Virginia (HB1930) and Washington (SB5144, HB1800).  Suffolk County, New York (No. 1879-2010) became the first jurisdiction, on October 12, 2010, to enact such a registry, followed by Rockland County, New York (No. 9234) on May 17, 2011. If Virginia passes this legislation, home of the crimes of Michael Vick, he would have to register as an Animal Abuser. In a statement from Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States (H$U$), “animal abuse is not deemed by professionals as a pre-disposed, hard-wired condition. People who abuse animals stand a much better chance of being rehabilitated.” It would seem that dear ole Wayne was arguing to reintegrate Vick into society, while arguing for a law that would cause him to register as an animal abuser, but then had to do a little two step, considering the $50,000.00 “grant” from the Philadelphia Eagles to the H$U$! Let’s also not forget that dog fighting has more than tripled in Pennsylvania since the signing of Vick to the Eagles team, according to the Pennsylvania SPCA.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund is actively pursuing ongoing legislation to enact this registry across the country.  “A little over a year ago, the Animal Legal Defense Fund launched our national campaign – ExposeAnimalAbusers.org – to raise awareness and garner support for the adoption of animal abuser registry laws across the country,” states Stephen Otto, ALDF’s Director of Legislative Affairs. Please note, this organization is a 501C3 organization, and by IRS statutes, cannot actively lobby for legislation. Is nobody from the IRS watching these organizations?

One of the problems lies in the fact that this is so dangerously close to raising the level of animal rights above that of human rights (remember that restraining order). There is a huge difference in animal rights versus animal welfare. Another problem lies in the definition of abuse-by whose definition is abuse and how and whom will be interpretating this definition? Let me give you an example: A breeder has a surprise inspection; this breeder is written up for an unclean water bowl (the pet just finished eating and getting a drink, dropping food particles in the water). Is this write-up considered abuse or just a lack of opportunity to clean the water dish? Will this infraction be considered abuse, and place this breeder on the Animal Abuser Registry, even though they take very good care of ALL of their animals? I do not condone animal abuse at all, but I have to question who is defining abuse.

Some of the terminologies in these pieces of legislation are worded to eliminate commercial and hobby breeders, not to make “things better for the animals”, as the American public is led to believe. Another problem with such a registry is that most states simply do not have the funding for this proposed registry, nor the enforcement. Part of the terminology in proposed legislation allows for the state to “solicit and accept” grants, donations...from any source. It also requires the abuser to pay a fee to be registered on this registry. I do not know of any other registry that requires the abuser to pay a fee. Another issue is, using Texas SB779 as an example, if you are on this registry, and are enrolled in or intend to enroll in a private institution of higher education, the enforcement office for this registry will forward this institution the information included on the registry. The natural presumption would be that by enrolling in higher education, you are trying to better yourself, so would this forward of information make this private institution prejudicial towards you?

 Does this proposed registry violate Constitutional rights of offenders who have served their time in jail, especially when you consider the volume of information to be included on each offender? What about the offender who “someone in the public” does not feel has been properly punished, and with the information disclosed in this registry, finds them for a little “vigilante justice”? Would this registry be a useful tool for breeders, shelters and pet stores-enabling them to check the registry and not sell to a past animal abuser? Or is this another attempt by the animal rights groups to enact far over-reaching legislation? While the concept of an Animal Abuser Registry should be a simple one, in proposed legislation, the reality of it may turn out to be far different. The terminology used makes it more complicated than necessary and heavy handed, presumably to the tune of the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

To date, only the two counties mentioned earlier have actually enacted this registry. All other attempts have failed. It remains a controversial issue with strong feelings on both sides of the issue. If you are not in one of the states attempting to enact this legislation, just wait a bit-you will be!

By Debi R***