Slashdot Mirror
California To Create Public Animal Abuser Registry
An anonymous reader writes "California legislators are moving forward with plans to create a public, online, animal abuser registry identical in function to the public sex offender registry. Is this the slippery slope to further government mandated lists and registries?"
I'd like to see you try tell a Liger twice...
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
Cruelty to animals, it is said, is often a precursor to graver crimes.
Yeah, right. What orifice was that pulled out of.
It would also be a boon to law enforcement because animal abuse, the bill's authors' say, often escalates to violence against people.
I was once out with a woman who trained dogs. This rather large dog went ape shit towards this woman and child. The owner of the dog talked to the dog and "scolded" it for its behavior. That was it. The trainer said that the owner of the dog was an idiot because one day that dog is going to attack someone and maybe seriously hurt them or kill a child. The owner should have put that dog in a head lock, slammed it into the ground, and let in know by no uncertain terms that its behavior was wrong. I guess preventing deadly attacks by dogs is now illegal.
Abuses covered in the bill would include the malicious and intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding or killing of a living animal.
Good bye pharmaceutical and any other animal based research in California! No more hunting. Oh, and when a heard of deer needs to be thinned out, does that mean they're going to ask the deer to take birth control and leave the state? Will they offer relocation to the deer? Just wanna know.
It would also target pet hoarders...
Good bye private animal rescue centers!
the issue is simple. Do Republican members ... really want to be seen on the side of animal abuse? I don't think they do."
Oh God. I'd rather have someone kick the shit out of their dog than beat the shit out of me.
Veal comes pretty close.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Maybe, but if so we certainly could also consider adding some of those PETA loonies.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Doesn't apply to private animals then?
No, but it does apply to animals' privates...
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Apparently you have not paid any attention on how actual farming is implemented recently.
It's not quite the land of sunshine that is painted on the tele.
No, I'm afraid farming today is fairly beyond the concept of humane.
on if they torture it to death to make it taste better. Or cut its throat and let it bleed to death. Or maybe just forced to live in the livestock equivalent of cube farm 24/7.
(I'm making these remarks somewhat tongue-in-cheek... I'm not particularly zealous about animal rights. There's certain ones I like to eat, and I don't feel too horrible about animals food with humane handling while they're alive. But I do think that systemically perpetrated suffering while the animals are alive presents a moral problem, and realize we have a system that, well, presents it.)
Tweet, tweet.
The title means "miserable ones" It's about a guy that was in jail, served his time and had to carry a document identifying him as a former criminal. Then pretty much everyone in society that knew he was a former criminal because of that identification made his life outside of prison a living hell. There is a lot more to it that comes later but that is the gist of the beginning.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Sheep farms could background check employees against this type of list.
I thought they were already doing that when they ask "Are you from New Zealand?"
Peta volunteers have killed animals in their vans just after pickup, they often make no attempt to rehome animals.
Ok, great reason to create a registry of Bedwetters also, then (however).
Whenever you move into a new house, you will be required to inform all your new neighbors that you were a persistent bedwetter past the age of 5.
Since all past bedwetters are dangerous and cannot be trusted. It is a behavior that once practiced may never leave the person. They may suppress it for the rest of their lives, but underneath the potential is there especially given a one in a million encounter.
From Wikipedia: "The triad links animal cruelty, obsession with fire setting, and persistent bedwetting past the age of five to violent behaviors; particularly homicidal behavior"
FWIW, what you're thinking of is called the MacDonald Triad. But to be fair, what the MacDonald triad means is that while many (most?) serial killers exhibited those behaviors, but not all people who exhibit those behaviors go on to become serial killers.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Consider that under some interpretations, failing to license your pet is "abuse"... there have already been confiscations citing a few fleas as "abuse"... In San Francisco, failing to provide "quality food" (which is not defined by their new law) is "abuse"... the ways an ordinary pet owner could find themselves on this list is endless, everyone can play!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
If they didn't violate the trust of people who send animals to them, thinking that it'll be good for the animal... I might agree.
Don't give an unwanted animal to PETA. Give them to the Humane Society. They'll try. They spend money on actual animals, instead of just obnoxious advertising campaigns and donations to terrorist groups who firebomb research labs and the like.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Or, of course, you could just throw out the crude attempt to classify people based on their crimes, and classify based on psychological evaluation. What you really want is a list of sociopaths, whether they be the blue collar flavor who flip out and kill somebody, or the white collar flavor who can keep their inhumanity in check long enough to make it through business school and do some real damage...
You should read David Brin's book Sundiver. It is set in a society that has this system. His portrayal of it seems reasonable (although "seems reasonable" and "is correct" are two very different beasts, I know), and is definitely not something I want to live in the middle of. I'd vote against this proposal.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
I think we should do an experiment. Release pets into the wild and see what happens.
Nature always finds a way.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.