Track Animal Cruelty at the FBI

Please take a moment to phone or e-mail in support of some great legislation.

source for more information

The idea is good but the application is poor. The problem with this is what constitutes animal cruelty. Just like the idea making it a felony...which is great...until some one's life is ruined because they shoot a stray mangy viscious dog when it chases a kid down the road (which happened near me and now the man is facing loosing everything).

Depending on your law enforcement officers, you can wind up facing felony charges of animal cruelty for nonsense. I agree that animal cruelty needs to be delt with. However I think that the fact that is it given more attention the human cruelty is not only wrong, but a bit disturbing.

Could you imagine how people would react if bouncing a single check (of any amount) would make you an instant felon? And your name and info would then be available for public record and that record be accessible to you employer who may choose not to employ you any more because having financial problems makes you more likely to embezzle or steal from a company? If you have never forgotten to write down a check you're lucky, but many people have and not everyone has over draft coverage.

Animal cruelty needs to be punished but I think sometimes the zealousness behind it is very unrealistic...it seems like it is one of the biggest points for abuse of power.

Frenchkissed,

Though I take animal cruelty very seriously, I will look at this bill text carefully since I agree that criminal records now destroy most employment opportunities for reformed criminals. It has gotten to be ridiculous the way we are confusing lawbreakers with terrorists, etc. If this trend is not reversed we will have a true Gulag system in this country. So I don't take slapping any criminal charges upon someone lightly, let alone a felony.

So I was alarmed at this in your Puppy Farmer link:

"Perhaps the first step would be for the California Federation of Dog Clubs to join some larger, stronger agricultural organization. (Citrus Growers have managed to get a law passed eons ago that the theft of one orange is a felony in California). Then there could be a far more effective alliance to present facts and votes to legislators and supervisors and councils. It is the money and the votes that rule these dimwits, not the good of the people. It needs to be the other way around."

I hope you will not get involved with that Citrus Growers group. That is horrible that someone grabbing one orange to fill a hungry child's tummy could be slapped with a life-ruining felony conviction! I know there is a serious problem with citrus theft and brokering to major grocery chain stores, but the one orange = felony? Yipes!

Also I am not keen about some things I have read about the Center for Consumer Freedom. Are you sure that dog people are involved with this group?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040501956.html
Our Pious Babylon

By Harold Meyerson
Thursday, April 6, 2006; Page A29
"Working chiefly under the aegis of his Center for Consumer Freedom, Berman has accused Mothers Against Drunk Driving and kindred groups (in the words of one of his Web sites) of "junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to push their radical agenda." Another Berman Web site was devoted to dismissing the dangers of mercury levels in fish.

Berman's center was jump-started in 1995 with money from Philip Morris, and, thanks to memos that were made public in the discovery process during the lawsuits against Big Tobacco, his strategic vision is now plain for all to see. "The concept," he wrote Philip Morris at the time, "is to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists." The industries apparently have appreciated Berman's work. According to the Center for Media and Democracy, a former Berman associate has produced documents showing that Coca-Cola, Wendy's, Tyson Foods, Cargill and Outback Steakhouse are among Berman's largest donors."


Bogus 'Consumer' Group Stripped Of Domain Names

Restaurant and Bar Lobby Behind "Orwellian" PR Campaign

http://www.cspinet.org/new/200302201.html
"A trade association representing chain restaurants and taverns has surrendered the domain names of two sites designed to hijack web traffic away from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the pro-nutrition advocacy group. The trade association, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), had registered cspinot.com, where it attacked CSPI and it's web site, cspinet.org. CCF had also purchased smartmouth.org, a domain name almost identical to that of Smart-Mouth.org, where CSPI provides information for children about nutrition and food marketing.

CCF is one of a shadowy trio of tax-exempt front groups run by Washington lobbyist Richard Berman. That trio also includes the American Beverage Institute, which fights laws designed to curb drunk driving, and the Employment Policies Institute, which is opposed to raising the minimum wage, particularly in the labor-intensive restaurant industry. CCF used to be named the Guest Choice Network, which was founded with seed money from Philip Morris. Berman controls all the organizations, which operate out of Berman's for-profit business, Berman & Co. The current funders of these groups are not disclosed, but Berman's groups are associated with executives from table-service restaurants like Outback Steakhouse,Chili's, and Pizzeria Uno.

"The so-called Center for Consumer Freedom deceives the American people every day of the week by posing as a consumer group, when it's really a front group that does P.R. dirty work for the restaurant and tavern industry," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But even I was surprised that Rick Berman and his henchmen would stoop so low as to stop young kids from getting valuable nutrition information. I'm never surprised, though, by the goofy and low-brow tone of his efforts. Berman's a real bottom-feeder." ..."

A long time ago, I was on Parole for a legal violation. I had many long chats with my Parole officer, and in my stupid younger days, I was considered a violent offender. Before anyone says anything, my "violence" was threats that were never compounded, it was not a felony, and I learned my lesson and satisfied all conditions of my parole, and it was over 10 years ago.

Anyway, one night when I had a meeting with my P.O., I don't know how we got on the subject, but he told me that the two types of people his office are most strict on are anyone who was convicted of animal abuse, and arsonists. Arsonists are always looking for a bigger thrill, but he told me flat out that if I had robbed a bank and killed two people in the process, he'd be more concerned about a 15 year old kid that was arrested for animal abuse. He said there's something about people who abuse animals that marks an indifference about all living things, and they're much more likely to become sociopaths as far as the legal system is concerned. He quoted studies that said that a majority of rapists, and murderers had abused animals as children, which to me makes sense, since most of the people on this forum regard their dogs, cats, birds, monkeys, or whatever, as living entities, and would no sooner physically or emotionally abuse their pets, than they would their "human" children. Even hunters that I know brag about their skill at killing their prey with one shot. They don't brag about shooting a deer 18 times before it dies.

I don't agree that killing a dog that's harassing children is animal abuse, or that killing a dog that's chasing your livestock is animal abuse, BUT, anyone who sexually abuses an animal, anyone who KNOWINGLY causes an animal to be malnourished while under their control, anyone who engages in criminal activity (i.e. dog fighting, cock fighting, baiting...etc.) involving an animal, or anyone who does anything to an animal which would be considered torture if done to a human, whether the person doing it is adult or child, should be held accoutable with a felony, and should be tracked for future transgressions.

If the Pennsylvania Parole office feels these people are more likely to commit more serious crimes, then isn't it worth looking at? I don't completley agree with an 18 year old who had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, then having her parents cry rape even though she was more than willing, having to register as a sex offender the rest of his life, although most people think that he's an evil person and should pay, but I'd have no pity on a 12 year old who was dissecting neighborhood cats having to register as a violent sociopath the rest of her life.

I can drive to a house 10 miles from my house, where they have horses that should be 1100 pounds, and they're only around 600 pounds. Animal control won't do anything because the people say they're feeding the horses, and they have hay there. That is cruelty, the people are SICK, and there should be some teeth in the law to do something about it. That meat processing plant for the government thought they were above the law until pictures of them abusing the cattle made the news the other day. The plant is shut down, but the guys driving the forklifts into the poor crippled cattle are going home to raise their children, and maybe babysit other people's children.

I don't feel that people who legitimitely abuse animals can ever be reformed, just as I don't feel that sexual predators can ever be reformed. If it's a stigma that sticks with them the rest of their lives, then I can live with it. I've been in prison, I know the different types of people in there, and I know what happened to child abusers in there, I also know what happened to dog fighters in there. You've got to be pretty low before people in prison start thinking you're worthless scum.

Yeah, the big thing is what is animal cruelty. I'm getting tired of shooting a dog that is threatening your children/livestock/you being cruelty. I can't wrap my brain around how shooting your own dog (if done properly) is cruelty.

Its not something I would under most circumstances, but how is it more cruel than euthanaisa? I'd say its less so. My father shot a fear biter once (one of the hounds, and we did try to work with her first) . . . I suspect it was better for her (and certainly for us, who would have had to wrestle her into a crate) to die instantanously from a bullet to the head than be dragged off to a strange place with strange people who poke her with things. I certainly don't approve of people shooting dogs they don't want . . . but I dont' approve of them euthanizing them either. But .. where's the cruelty?

If we want a law like this, then we better be really, really clear on the kinds of "cruelty" that lead to other crime.

And I agree.

The problem is classification of animal cruelty. Are you cruel because you let your dog live too long? (one man recently charged) Are you cruel because you shoot a dog for killing your live stock? Or what about destroying live stock because it was damaged? (this is actually a problem because a lot of city people don't understand how country life works).
What about being convicted of cruelty because you can't afford to take your dog to the vet but you are caring for it as best as you can?
I am not talking about people who set kittens on fire (and those people should be taken out back and shot) I am talking about the blanket application of a lable without looking at the true nature of the crime.

For example. In my state, if you urinate in public you can be charged with a sex crime. If you moon some one you can be charged with a sex crime. Do you really think that the antics of a stupid kid trying to be funny and mooning some kid across the road should warrant the same punishment as the rape and sodomy of a 6 year old?

I agree.

To some, I should be charged with animal cruelty for chaining my dogs out. It doesn't matter than my entire lifestyle/scenario is not being considered, but because of that one fact-the chains- I'm an animal abuser.

As for shooting dogs, I've seen dogs shot and I've seen dogs euthanized via Euthasol. When done properly, neither is worse than the other.

That's the big problem, to me, if there was any common sense in our laws whatsoever, many things would be left to the investigating officers to decide. Luckily, living in Montana, the law is quite clear that shooting a dog that is harassing your livestock is perfectly legal, and I don't think that any sheriff's deputy in the state would bother filing a report if you shot a dog that is harassing your children. We actually had a neighbor's dog, that other neighbors considered a menace to begin with, attack one of my wife's barrel horses and tear open her face and it required 14 stitches. The horse was insured for $30,000 but we didn't feel that we should turn it into our insurance, so we called the Sheriff. When the deputy showed up, he asked if we shot the dog, I said no, he said why not? I told him flat out that I could never bring myself to kill a dog, and that's my right. He then informed me that I could demand that the neighbor euthanise the dog within 24 hours, but all I wanted was for the neighbor to pay the vet bill, and for them to finally be told they couldn't leave their 3 large dogs terrorize all the livestock in the neighborhood. They paid, they got a $500 fine, and they kept their dogs fenced in from then on, and all has been well for 4 years now, no animal died, my wife's horse's face healed. If I had been told that no matter what, the dog would have had to be destroyed, I never would have called the Sheriff, and my insurance would have paid, but it was nice that we have the option here how far we want to push things.

That, to me, is an example of laws having absolutely no common sense when they're written, and the writer's of such laws not having a clue of what common sense is. If a person has a dog, the person can't afford to pay their own electric bill for heat, and their dog isn't in tip top shape, they're not being cruel intentionally in any way to that dog. Worst case scenario, maybe the dog should be removed from their home until they get on their feet. If that same person is taking in a new dog every week, while they can't care for themself, then it starts to get kinda "iffy" legally, but still, if they're not intending to be cruel to the dogs, then once again, take them away until the person is in a better position to have them. Then again, if that person decides to take that dog and fight it to try to get money to put them in a better position, take the dog, lock the person up, and have them do serious time.

It all comes down to the intent of the person committing the act. It's easy for an elderly person to think they're doing what's best for an animal, even though they're really not. It's easy for a poor person to think that because their dog is living better than they are, even though their dog isn't living well at all, then they're doing right. It's easy for a high school student to think that baring his buns to the opposing team is just a joke. In all 3 cases, the person doesn't think they're doing anything wrong, and morally, they may or not be, but they have no bad intentions. But take that same college kid and have him drop his drawers in the middle of a nursery school, and there's no way he doesn't know it's wrong, and nobody can justify it for any reason. That's what laws need to look at, and it all comes back to common sense.

We're becoming a nation of many laws, but until those laws can actually make some kind of sense, and the people enforcing those laws can use their common sense in enforcing them, they're just Draconian. There are no absolutes in anything, but the laws seem to think that everything is black and white. The person who chains their dog a few hours a day because their dog loves being outside and they can't afford $2000 for a fence around their yard, is the same as the person who chains their dog out 24 hours a day because it intimidates neighbors, or they don't want the dog but are too lazy to find it a new home, are two different people altogether. A cop could see that when they came to investigate, a jury could see that when it came to trial, but if the law states that "no dog shall be chained at any time," the jury and the cop would have to ignore the mitigating factors of the first person and treat them identically to the second person.

We have two related problems that are leading to this:

One are laws that are just plain poorly written, or written by the ignorant, or written without thinking throught the consequences (see no dog chained at any time)

Then there is overcriminalization: Where things that were civil offenses, or very minor offenses, become much more serious or get put into a catagory "sex crime" "Violent crime" where they do not belong. See . . peeing in public (used to be a civil offense most places).

A little off topic here...but a prime example of stupid laws.

There is a peice of legislation being introduced into Tenn. that if you are fat you will not be allowed to eat in public. Restaraunts caught serving fat people will be stipped of their service liscense. The actual term is "obese" people based on the current medical definition however the current medical definition uses BMI to guage obesity and even thin people who are poorly muscled can be catagorized as "obese" based on that measurement.
Point blank it is another STUPID law.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/01/no-fat-people-allowed-only-slim-will-be.html

and they say California is weird. Oh wait are you in CA? There are so many deterent laws its crazy. I know they urinating in public is littering here and to me its 10xs worse than throwing something on the ground. There is a 3rd thing that warns as potential serial killer but I forget. Playing with fire and abusing animals are the other 2.
Being chraged is not being convicted. Hopefully the judge and jury would see the difference when it comes to cruelty. I blame the da/prosecuter actually filing on violators. I know the SF DA rarely charges drug cases so I wonder about animal cruelty. We don't get those complaints at my dept so I don't know.

I checked this out on govtrack and don't see a problem with this bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-2439

So I did contact senators. Here are other ways of contacting if you prefer to write your own letters.
http://www.votesmart.org/search.php?search=98366&x=15&y=10

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=A

The bill doesn't increase penalties for animal cruelty or define it.

Not that it is related to this bill, but I think some of those prosecutions against people that shoot a dog in self defense when it is attacking have more to do with a prosecutor that is anti-gun, rather than pro-dog. That happens even when people use a gun to defend themselves from home invasions at times. It can be very political when a gun is involved, unfortunately.

That's the problem. It doesn't define it. Just like "sex offender" has come to mean, in some states, any crime associated with sex . . . and the definition crosses state lines with you. Thus, there are cases where the 19 year old who sleeps with his sixteen year old girlfriend (statutory rape) is now a "sex offender" for life, labeled with the paedophiles and serial rapists. For a while, before the law was struck down, people convicted of consentual honosexal activity in Texas were "sex offenders" and if they left Texas, carried that label, and had to abide by those restrictions. An apartment complex I used to live in had to turn down an application from a gay man who was just such a Texas "sex offender."

With the definition of "animal cruelty" being just as vague and often just as broad (overfeeding your dog? Ok, sure, its cruel, and perhaps should be punished . . . but does it make you a threat to society?) (shooting a dog, yours or one threating you or your livestock . . . brutal . . . but cruel? Why?) people could end up on the FBI watchlist who either have not done something wrong, or if they have done something wrong, what they have done, is not the sort of act that makes them a future threat to other human beings.

Lilavati, I don't know if it's been rectified here or not, but for quite some time, if someone was charged with a sex related offense - even prostitution or soliciting a prostitute, that put them on the list. And they weren't removed, even if the charges were dropped, dismissed or it went to trial and a not guilty verdict came down.

While I can see the practical need for tracking REAL sex offenders, all these lists are one more method of getting closer to being able to "justify" tracking ALL of us.

And you know what I really resent more than anything? That it's come to the point that even I - who have never subscribed to the conspiracy du jour thinking, now have to look at so many things 'through a glass darkly.'

I didn't know prostitution counted, but that was exactly my point. "Sex offense" and "Violent offense" are now so broad that they have lost all meaning . . . except for giving the government a lot of people to track. Now I didn't know about being on the list even if not convicted . . . I'm pretty sure THAT is outright unconstitutional.

I'm not sure if its a conspiracy . . . I think its more poorly written laws and public hysteria . . . but its stupid, inefficent and, frankly, a violation of the rights of people who are NOT the actual targets of the laws. We don't need to add "cruelty" to the list . . . define cruelty as the intentional torture of an animal (or some such, probably more specific than that) and I'll support the bill. But using what ever definitions the states have? No thanks.

It's my understanding, (could be wrong), that the data would not be used to track people, but rather to compile statistics that could give a big picture about animal abuse and where to allocate resources. But the point about how will the FBI make sense of all the different local definitions of animal abuse is a good one.

I have fears, too, and I don't think they are unfounded, about the way ALL of us are being tracked even when we are NOT violating any laws. This is off the original topic, but I just saw this article about the new fingerprinting requirements the EU may impose. (Guess we are already doing it to them.)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23120034/page/2/

But the article covers a lot of other ground, too. It says that if you use express mail services, they now keep the sender/receiver/contents in a governement database with no expiration date apparently. What is with that? It just goes on and on and we are not talking about any crimes involved at all.

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3580
December 24th, 2007
FBI building massive biometric database

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4629&tag=btxcsim
March 9th, 2007
FBI’s data management headaches escalate with Patriot Act

http://www.gsnmagazine.com/cms/market-segments/intelligence/459.html
DHS launches ICEPIC program to identify "non-obvious" relationships
New analytic tool for immigration enforcement and counter-terrorism
By Jacob Goodwin, Editor-in-Chief
Published January 30th, 2008
"DHS plans to establish an immigration enforcement database that will gather personal information on hundreds of thousands of individuals and then use "link analysis tools" to look for what it calls "non-obvious relationship patterns" that could help the department identify illegal aliens, criminals or terrorists. "

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/fbi-proposes-bu.html
FBI Proposes Building Network of U.S. Informants
Share July 25, 2007 1:01 PM

"The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort to boost its intelligence capabilities...

....The aggressive push for more secret informants appears to be part of a new effort to grow its intelligence and counterterrorism efforts. Other recent proposals include expanding its collection and analysis of data on U.S. persons, retaining years' worth of Americans' phone records and even increasing so-called "black bag" secret entry operations...
-------------------------------------------------------------

So that is why the animal cruelty database didn't worry me too much, other than concerns about usefulness. They seem to have trouble managing all the data they are collecting about law abiding people already.

Do they? Or do they want us to THINK they do?

Big brother is watching you!

Well, they CAN, at least electronically. I once dated someone who worked at the NSA . . . they are perfectly capable of tracking every electronic communication in the US . . . they don't because: its illegal, its expensive, and its pretty pointless.

The truth is, if the government wants to know where you are, and you take advantage of such modern convinces as cell phones, debit cards, the internet, etc, they probably know where you are, or would if they wanted to. They just don't care.

But its different when they are paying attention to YOU.