Print
Email
Share

Advocates push for Animal Abusers Registry

by MIMI JUNG / KING 5 News

Bio | Email | Follow: @MimiJungKING5

KING5.com

Posted on July 22, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Updated Thursday, Jul 22 at 9:45 PM

Would you want to know if you were living next door to a convicted animal abuser? A new movement is under way to start registering animal abusers like we do sex offenders.

You'd never know it now, but 17-year-old Max had a hard start in life.

"We got Max from a shelter," said Renee Young, dog owner. "He'd been abused. All his legs had been broken. He had a tattoo on his stomach. God only knows what that was from."

And though Max has lived his last ten years in the lap of luxury, he still has some emotional scars.

"He jumps and attacks if someone comes up behind him. If you pick him up a certain way, he gets very, very agitated," said Renee.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund says animal abuse is a very serious problem in the United States and they believe not enough is being done to curb it.

"Animal abusers are in every community in this country and they range from people who commit neglect , who don't feed their animals, don't provide veterinary care, to people who commit major felonies, torture and killing of animals, long term abuse," said Joyce Tischler, Animal Legal Defense Fund.

That's why they're spearheading a movement to get states to create a central animal abuser registry, much like a sex abuser registry. They say a registry would help neighbors protect their animals and allow shelters to do better background checks before making adoptions.

"Someone convicted of felony animal cruelty or felony animal abuse would be mandated to register with the local county sheriff or police, his or her name, address, employer, photograph, fingerprints," said Tischler.

But Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron argues that while the registry sounds noble in theory, states just don't have the resources to enforce it.

"Making sure they're in the registry, making sure they're living where they say they're living. In my judgment those resources could be better used pursuing more important types of crimes, homicides, rapes, assault," said Miron.

Proponents argue a registry could do double-duty, protecting people as well as their animals.

A 1997 study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University found animal abusers are five times as likely to commit violent crimes against people.

"The FBI has been tracking animal abusers, violent animal abusers, since the early 1970s because they have found most serial killers started by violently abusing and killing animals," said Tischler.

Max is safe now, but Renee thinks a database would be very helpful to others like him.

"It's a tiny little step on our part to help the animals," she said.

Several states are considering animal abuse registry legislation. Volunteers track cases in a database called Pet-Abuse.com. More than 16,000 accused or convicted animal abusers are listed.

Print
Email
Share

To add a comment, please register or login.

1000 characters remaining

Submit

We welcome your comments on this story's topic. Off-topic comments, personal attacks, and inappropriate language may be flagged and removed, and comment privileges blocked, per our Terms of Service. Thanks for keeping the comments space respectful.

Privacy Policy

You have indicated this comment should be removed.

Close

The comment has been submitted for review. Thank you .

Comments: Displaying 1 - 14 of 14

bazwest said on July 23, 2010 at 2:53 PM

How many new tax dollars is this program worth to you ferretgal? $25, 50, 75 per month? This idea is a stupid idea. It will not solve the problem, it will just become unmanageable and expensive. Animals will get abused, if someone wants to do something productive about the problem then increase the penalties that the courts can impose on the perpetrators. Fine them and make them pay for their animal abuse issues, seize their property if they can't pay, but don't saddle the taxpayers with this.

48281354
Flag this comment

ferretgal said on July 23, 2010 at 1:49 PM

This is the BEST idea I've heard in ages! As for Professor Miron....Not so long ago, people like you thought abuse of women and children was OK--after all, they were just property, right? And they probably argued the same thing: it would "cost too much" to make abusers responsible for their actions. I would much rather my tax dollars went for this than a lot of the *&$@! they want to spend it on--like the stupid tunnel to replace the viaduct? Hey, why not brand them on the forehead--so they can't hide it--then we don't have to worry about costs for registering and follow up--it'll be right there for everyone to see! Regarding the comments about slaughterhouses: While I am a vegetarian, I realize that many kindhearted people still eat meat. However, equating "recreational" abuse of animals with an unpleasant job like working in a slaughterhouse--you should be ashamed of yourself! And I bet most people who work there feel that way as well!

48277821
Flag this comment

vileone said on July 23, 2010 at 12:14 PM

I am all for doing this the legal way,which is why protecting are animals are important to pet owners and if that means a registry then so be it but if we don't get this then why cant pet owners take things into their own hands when someone injures,kills or abuses a pet,your pet?The courts do nothing for animal abusers,maybe get 6 months while the family is sick with grief everyday of the loss or the reminder of the abuse their pet suffered,I'm sorry this is just not fair,as i stated earlier every felon should have restrictions on pet ownership,they should not be able to own one ever

48270839
Flag this comment

bazwest said on July 23, 2010 at 10:40 AM

This story highlights how wasteful government programs continue to make their way into our society. There is the obligatory 'tug at the heart strings'--who wouldn't want to protect the cute fuzzy animals from the evil animal abusers right? But lets look at the implications: These programs are not free--a team of people would have to be employed to collect and enter data in the data base. Resources and money would be spent to "get the word out" about animal abusers. The new program immediately goes about insuring that it continues to exist and is viewed as "necessary" in the eyes of the public. People must know how to access the information. These functions will require a hefty advertising budget. Office space must be acquired and software developers hired to write and maintain the data base software. The new employees will need ongoing training...thats always expensive. Here's the rub--animal abusers will still abuse animals at the same or an even higher rate. Money Wasted.

48263409
Flag this comment

luvmylabsxoxo said on July 23, 2010 at 10:02 AM

People remember this though.... it has been proven that people who abuse animals often start out with that sick behavior then move on to human victims... often children... .so maybe a database isn't the answer but maybe something like going thru a criminal background check might be?... if you commit a felony maybe you shouldn't be able to own/care for animals period....i dunno the exact answer but i think something should be done to protect innocent animals and people from these sickos!

48260119
Flag this comment

liberterius said on July 23, 2010 at 9:27 AM

SO does this mean any American who works honestly at a slaughter house is going to get their name put on a list? This is ridiculous, another way of people using excuses to fear their neighbors, and to hold something a person might have done maybe as a stupid teen follow them their entire lives! Give me a break, all we need is given the Police more reason to act like Nazis. THIEVES are not even in a national database. Sounds like some people have too much time on their hands and need to feel as though they accomplished something with a ridiculous cause.

48257269
Flag this comment

lsmith5870400119 said on July 23, 2010 at 8:42 AM

If they can't keep track of animal abusers any better than they can for sex offenders, well good luck with the program.

48253284
Flag this comment

loulilou said on July 23, 2010 at 8:20 AM

I think this is a great idea and I support it 100%. I have no tolerance for animal abuse and think the absusers deserve a very harsh punishment and have no right owning any animals period.

48251119
Flag this comment

realitybites2 said on July 23, 2010 at 7:19 AM

Animals, like children are defenseless and they need laws to protect them. More so for animals since our laws seem to treat them like property and not living beings...unborn fetuses get better treatment than animals in our country.

48245019
Flag this comment

crazytrain247 said on July 23, 2010 at 6:32 AM

can we mark you for stupidity? if so, youd be a repeat offender!

48240609
Flag this comment

cvn65 said on July 23, 2010 at 5:20 AM

I don't support a registry. However, if there was to be one I think that only those that need to know should have access to it. Law Enforcement and anyone licensed like vets. Also animal shelters as well. But to do this the same as with sex offenders. Oh please give me a break.

48233409
Flag this comment

totalfat said on July 23, 2010 at 4:37 AM

I think any and all crimes should require the perpetrator be marked visibly in some way. A tattoo, brand, or something else perhaps. For example if someone cheats on their spouse, they would have to have a red letter 'A' embroidered on all their clothes.

48229609
Flag this comment

vileone said on July 22, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Would be nice to have this in all 50 states,1 thing i would like to point out,i do not think that anyone with a any kind of felony should own any animal at all,i read just this week a man in tenn dogs got out and killed 1 elderly man and injured 3 others,the dogs were own by a known sex offender,now in my mind if this man violated a person what makes you think he wouldn't do the same to his dogs?sick i know yes but we really need some laws here to protect animals from very bad people,these people should have very little freedom and they should have restrictions on owning animals

48218209
Flag this comment

lunaazule said on July 22, 2010 at 10:01 PM

I just want to ask that man (?) who said funds should be used for "important" matters like homicide if he ever heard that most killers begin with hurting animals. Or does he also believe humans are born fully grown. p.s. : Tell him I'v got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

48216639
Flag this comment

Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?

Register Now

Member Benefits

Link your account to your Twitter or Facebook account for easier login!

Link your account to your Facebook profile Link your account to your Twitter profile

Check box to receive Free Special Offers

* - Indicates required field

Check box to receive Free Special Offers

Connecting to

You may need to allow pop up window for this step of registration

Just one more step:

Please take a moment to review the available e-mail newsletters has to offer. Place a checkbox next to the newsletters you wish to subscribe to.

Welcome.

Thank you for becoming a member of KING5.com. You now have full access to the best local coverage and late breaking news from KING5.com. Soon you will be redirected to the page you were seeking, and a confirmation email will be delivered to you.

You will need to respond to the confirmation e-mail for your account to be activated.

KING5.com is dedicated to bringing you exceptional news and outstanding information services, all while personalizing it to your liking. We're sure you'll enjoy being a KING5.com member! If you need assistance, please contact us.