Animal Abuser Registry?

SAN FRANCISCO — California may soon place animal abusers on the same level as sex offenders by listing them in an online registry, complete with their home addresses and places of employment.

The proposal, made in a bill introduced Friday by the State Senate’s majority leader, Dean Florez, would be the first of its kind in the country and is just the latest law geared toward animal rights in a state that has recently given new protections to chickens, pigs and cattle.
Mr. Florez, a Democrat who is chairman of the Food and Agriculture Committee, said the law would provide information for those who “have animals and want to take care of them,” a broad contingent in California, with its large farming interests and millions of pet owners. Animal protection is also, he said, a rare bipartisan issue in the state, which has suffered bitter partisan finger-pointing in the wake of protracted budget woes.
“We have done well with these laws,” he said.
Last fall, California became the first state to outlaw so-called tail-docking of dairy cows, where the tail is partly amputated to ease milking. In 2008, voters in the state passed Proposition 2, which gave hens, calves and pigs more room in their crates or cages. That law has upset many in the California egg industry and prompted some agriculturally-minded residents to even talk about seceding from the state.
Under Mr. Florez’s bill, any person convicted of a felony involving animal cruelty would have to register with the police and provide a range of personal information and a current photograph. That information would be posted online, along with information on the person’s offense.
The bill was drafted with help from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an animal-protection group based in Cotati, Calif., north of San Francisco. The group has promoted the registry not only as a way to notify the public but also as a possible early warning system for other crimes.
“We know there’s a link between those who abuse animals and those who perform other forms of violence,” said Stephan Otto, the group’s director of legislative affairs. “Presumably if we’re able to track animal abusers and be able to know where they live, there will be less opportunity where those vulnerable to them would be near them.”
In addition to sex offenders, California lists arsonists in an online registry, and the animal abusers would be listed on a similar site, Mr. Florez said. Such registries have raised privacy concerns from some civil libertarians, but Joshua Marquis, a member of the defense fund’s board and the district attorney in Clatsop County, Ore., said the worries were unfounded.
“Does it turn that person into a pariah? No,” Mr. Marquis said. “But it gives information to someone who might be considering hiring that person for a job.”
He added: “I do not think for animal abusers it’s unreasonable considering the risk they pose, much like the risk that people who abuse children do.”
One supporter of the proposed law, Gillian Deegan, an assistant commonwealth’s attorney in Botetourt County, Va., says such a registry could also be valuable in tracking people who run puppy mills and animal-fighting rings, as well as hoarders, who sometimes collect hundreds of animals, often resulting in neglect.
“A lot of times these people will just pick up and move to another jurisdiction or another state if they get caught,” said Ms. Deegan, who has written on animal welfare laws. “It would definitely help on those types of cases where people jump around.” One Web site — Petabuse.com — already offers a type of online registry, with listings of animal offenders and their crimes.
Such registries have been introduced in other states, but never passed. In 2008, a similar bill in Tennessee stalled after passing the State Senate.
That legislation was endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States, said Wayne Pacelle, the president and chief executive of the society.
Mr. Pacelle said that the proposed financing mechanism for the California bill, a small tax on pet food, was “an extremely controversial idea” and unpopular with the pet food industry.
Taxes are usually opposed by Republicans in California, and that gives Mr. Pacelle doubts about the bill’s prospects.
“The idea of that succeeding in this climate in California is not high,” he said.
But the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Florez, who recently helped establish an Animal Protection Caucus, which includes Republican members of the State Senate and Assembly, says he is confident that he has the votes to move the measure forward and estimates that the registry would cost less than $1 million to establish. He also said his background — he hails from the farming-friendly Central Valley — will help the cause.
“I think people think, well, if Dean is supporting it,” he said, “it can’t be that off the wall.”

Buddy's Law Has Been Written!!!!

Colorado Law as it currently stands:

Colorado Statutes, Title 18, Article 9, Part 2
Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-202

Animal cruelty is defined as: “Knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence overdrives, overloads, overworks, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beats, allows to be housed in a manner that results in chronic or repeated serious physical harm, carries or confines in or upon any vehicles in a cruel or reckless manner, or otherwise mistreats or neglects any animal, or causes or procures it to be done, or, having the charge or custody of any animal, fails to provide it with proper food, drink, or protection from the weather, consistent with the species, breed, and type of animal involved, or abandons an animal” or “recklessly or with criminal negligence tortures, needlessly mutilates, or needlessly kills an animal.” Conviction of Cruelty to Animals is a Class 1 Misdemeanor with a minimum fine of $400, maximum fine of $5000. In addition to any other fine, a surcharge of up to $400 shall be paid to the county where the violation occurred to be put into the Animal Cruelty Prevention fund. A subsequent conviction of Cruelty to Animals carries of minimum fine of $1000, maximum fine of $5000 and a minimum of 90 days imprisonment or home detention, maximum imprisonment of 18 months. Anger Management or other psychological treatment as defined by the court is required, cost of care may also be assessed.

Aggravated Cruelty is: “knowingly tortures, needlessly mutilates, or needlessly kills an animal.” A conviction of Aggravated Animal Cruelty is a Class 6 Felony with a maximum fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 18 months, minimum of 90 days in prison or in-home detention. Subsequent conviction of Aggravated Animal Cruelty is a Class 5 Felony with a maximum fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for up to 3 years. Exemptions are made for farming, draft or pack animals, rodeos, veterinary care, research, hunting and trapping.

Colorado Law with it's revisions into Buddy's Law:

Colorado Statutes, Title 18, Article 9, Part 2
Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-202

Neglect of an Animal is defined as: “Knowingly overdrives, overloads, overworks, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beats, allows to be housed in a manner that results in chronic or repeated serious physical harm, carries or confines in or upon any vehicles in a cruel or reckless manner, or otherwise mistreats or neglects any animal, or causes or procures it to be done, or, having the charge or custody of any animal, fails to provide it with proper food, drink, or protection from the weather, consistent with the species, breed, and type of animal involved, or abandons an animal” or “recklessly or with criminal negligence tortures, needlessly mutilates, or needlessly kills an animal.”

Conviction of Neglect of an Animal shall be charged as follows: Class 1 misdemeanor with a minimum fine of $1,000 and a maximum fine of $5,000. Further, those convicted with Neglect of an Animal shall not be allowed to possess, own, care for or otherwise have access to companion animals in the State of Colorado. A second conviction of Neglect of an Animal shall be charged as follows: Class 1 misdemeanor with a minimum fine of $5,000 and a maximum fine of $10,000. Second convictions may also face a prison sentence of 12 months minimum and 24 months maximum.

Animal cruelty is defined as: “Knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence overdrives, overloads, overworks, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beats, allows to be housed in a manner that results in chronic or repeated serious physical harm, carries or confines in or upon any vehicles in a cruel or reckless manner, or otherwise mistreats or neglects any animal, or causes or procures it to be done, or, having the charge or custody of any animal, fails to provide it with proper food, drink, or protection from the weather, consistent with the species, breed, and type of animal involved, or abandons an animal” or “recklessly or with criminal negligence tortures, needlessly mutilates, or needlessly kills an animal.”

Conviction of Cruelty to Animals is a Class 5 Felony charge with a minimum fine of $50,000, maximum fine of $500,000. In addition to any other fine, a surcharge of up to $4,000 shall be paid to the county where the violation occurred to be put into the Animal Cruelty Prevention fund. A subsequent conviction of Cruelty to Animals is hereby charged as follows:

Class 2 Felony

Minimum - 8 years prison, $5,000 fine. Maximum - 24 years prison, $1,000,000 fine.

In addition to the above stated, also imposed shall be mandatory psychological counseling, 5,000 hours of useful community service, not in a veterinary clinic, animal shelter or other place where animals are present, and all related costs of care may also be assessed. The second conviction may also be defined as Aggravated Cruelty.

Aggravated Cruelty is: “knowingly tortures, needlessly mutilates, or needlessly kills an animal.” Exemptions are made for hunting and trapping, however the procedure must be completed in a timely and humane manner with no undue suffering.

In rare cases, an individual may commit a crime of a heinous or otherwise inhuman act against a companion that does not fall into the above categories. As with the case of the People of the State of Colorado V. Steven Clay Romero, a jury or judge may elect to impose harsher punishments than those stated above provided that the defendant: "has shown total lack of compassion toward living beings either animal or human, has more than 2 convictions for any of the above charges, or poses a real and immediate threat to the community in which he or she lives." In these cases, a minimum sentence of 10 years prison and a maximum sentence of 25 years prison may be charged. Any person receiving such sentence must submit for mandatory psychological evaluation and perform 5,000 hours of useful community service, not in a veterinary clinic, animal shelter or other place where animals are present.