Comments on: On California’s Animal Abuse Registry Proposal

By: Hannah

Hannah — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:44:12 +0000

Well i guess i agree aswell. THEY NEED DEATH SENTENCE!!!!

By: Hannah

Hannah — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:42:44 +0000

THIS IS JUST PLAIN SICK!! They are not workers of God they are workers of the devil! THIS IS SICKNING!!!
The video you seen made me cry. Who in the right mind would ever do this!?! I SAY DEATH SENTENCE NOW NOW NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God help all animals of the world, i speak from my heart and I wish i could do something more to help!
IF U R AN ANIMAL ABUSER AND YOUR READING THIS…….IM COMMING AFTER YOU!!!
This is an 13 year old….pouring out her true feelings…
God bless this agency for being so caring!
Hannah

By: Ames

Ames — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:20:54 +0000

I think they should be exposed. And I think prison should be a punishment more readily used against animal abusers. I’m watching Miami animal police at the moment, this one man had been keeping six horses and nine pigs without food or water. The horses were standing in a deep layer of poo and their hooves had begun to rot. One of the pigs had died from starvation and the other eight had eaten it out of necessity and the owner had five of the six horses removed and a six thousand dollar fine and no jail time. what the fuck is wrong with the law? Theres a maximum of $500,000 fine for illegal copying of movies here in Australia.
oh and the eight remaining pigs were euthanized.

By: Paul Gilbreath

Paul Gilbreath — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:37:08 +0000

Just a clarification: I’m not saying we shouldn’t protect ourselves from the Dahmers of the world. But Dahmers exist in a particular cultural context, and that context includes us saying, as a society, that it’s all right to jail/kill the less powerful. Take away the social support for violence — and violence includes prisons — and violence would be rare indeed.

Forgive the double-post spam: I just want to reiterate that intersectionality means emptying prisons as much as it does emptying other kinds of cages.

By: Paul Gilbreath

Paul Gilbreath — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 17:26:14 +0000

The “scarlet letter” sex offender registry programs in California make me ashamed of my state. Branding someone who once exposed themselves in public or, god forbid, flirted with an imaginary 14 year old on an NBC tabloid show, is the height of paternalist sexism. And even in extreme cases (rape, dogfighting) I don’t see the sense or ethics in labeling someone for life based on one evil act.

Also, we’re playing with fire when we endorse any aspect of the prison-industrial complex. It’s not hard to imagine a registry program for anyone who’s ever monkey wrenched an animal industry; say, by rescuing chickens from a poultry farm.

IMO we should refrain from jailing, or promoting the jailing of, anyone.

By: Denise Regan Photography

Denise Regan Photography — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:25:27 +0000

I agree with the law. Animal abuse is heinous. But if there’s gonna be an animal abuser registry, anyone working in a medical research lab needs to be on it. Sorry, but you can’t create a law like this and not expend it to EVERYONE who abuses animals. Research labs adopt from shelters too and there are even people who breed animals specifically to be tortured in the name of human comforts. Do you take medications for restless leg syndrome or let your doctor prescrine something for your kid’s Obsessive Disobedient Disorder? If so, you support animal abuse.

The law is admirable, but if California’s gonna do it, they need to open their eyes all the way.

By: Crystal

Crystal — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:00:49 +0000

“Some might say that this is speciesist and unfairly focuses on cats, dogs and horses, leaving only the “unnecessary” abuses of animals raised for food to ever be included.”

This.

As far as I’m concerned, there is very little difference in people who abuse animals as part of the food system, and people who abuse animals when it is not part of the abuse system. Both cases of abuse are completely voluntary and completely unnecessary. I’m not interested in driving the divide between cats/dogs/”pet” animals and sheep/cows/chickens/”farm” animals any further.

By: Stephanie Ernst

Stephanie Ernst — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:37:58 +0000

Admin note: My apologies to Chris and others in the conversation that his comment is appearing here a full two days after he wrote it. I’ve been distracted by the health issues of one of my dog companions this week, and in addition to being behind in reading posts and comments, I’ve also neglected to check the spam filter too apparently. Lo siento.

By: Marji

Marji — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:59:51 +0000

Let me add: I think it would be fair to offer a registry to government run shelters and some qualified privately run animal shelters…if it worked. If the program fails, toss it.

That said, it should be noted that animals do not exist solely in animal shelters. It is easy to acquire an animal through craigslist, backyard breeders, unscrupulous breeders, puppy mills, pet stores, parking lots, flea markets. I do not say this to deter the proposed program (even if I disagree with it), just that it won’t necessarily mean a reduction in animal abuse if animal shelters deny adoption based on past misbehavior.

By: Marji

Marji — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:57:17 +0000

Canada has a program of mandatory therapy for sex offenders. Their recidivism rates are much lower than in the US.

The fact remains that the comparable program – sex offender registries – does not work. Why would try to emulate a failed program?