- It would allow an abuser to keep the abused animal during investigation and prosecution.
- It would allow the abused animal to return to the convicted abuser.
- It would allow pet dealers/stores to keep selling animals even after being convicted of abuse, cruelty or neglect.
- It would allow convicted abusers to have animals in the future.
Please visit the Richmond SPCA blog to get details about the bill and how you can make your voice heard to your delegate, and to Delegate Lee Ware. And please, pick up the phone and express your opposition - Let's put the pressure on!
----"It would eliminate the ability of a private humane society to assist with these abuse cases by providing care and adoption."
ReplyDeleteNOT TRUE.. Private human societies can still help by providing care and adoption with abused animals that are TRULY abused. If the animals are seized which they can still be, they would go to local shelters/organizations just like now.Only change in HB2482 is that a humane investigator cant come and seize your animals BEFORE you are found guild and give them to their OWN organizations for whatever personal gain they may get.
----"It would eliminate all references to “seizure” and would replace them with the word “forfeiture” to indicate that animals are "assets" and therefore should be treated like cars, jewelry, money, etc."
NOT TRUE... The would seize is still clearly used in this bill. However I also dont see how the word forfeiture automatically indicates that animals are assests or that they are to be treated like cars jewelry etc... That sounds like pure BS propaganda to me.
----"It would permit pet dealers and pet stores to continue to sell animals even following a conviction of abuse, cruelty or neglect."
Once again NOT TRUE.*The court shall repeal the prohibition if the person can prove to the satisfaction of the court that or restriction unless there is reason to believe the cause for the prohibition has ceased or restriction continues to exist.*
-Once again this statement clearly says the person HAS to prove to the SATISFACTION OF THE COURT FIRST and the court shall repeal ONLY if they can prove to the courts satisfaction that it should be repealed.
It is important to remove "prevent further disease progression" because that is unconstitutionally vague. Noone here is asking for its permanent removal in a sense. We just want things clarified. The current law covers ANY disease progression, not just "serious" and anything can progress into a disease.
If my cat gets a mosquito bit and I dont take her to the vet for emergency medical treatment then under the current law I am guilty of animal cruelty. Why? because I am not preventing further disease progression. Once again it has nothing to do with how "serious" it is, how "serious" it is, is NOT a part of the current law
Life itself can progress into a disease. So if I dont take my cat to the vet for emergency medical treatment just because its alive then under the current law I am committing animal cruelty.
There needs to be clarification in there.
READ the bill for yourself and see what it says. Everything I have copied comes from the bill. Fighting for animal rights is a noble cause and yes animals have rights, but so do people. By denying this bill you arent winning, noone is. As long as our current laws arent being improved upon to protect the animals and their owners then we are ALL losing. This bill is creating BETTER laws that protect the animals and their owners.
ReplyDeleteI have read this bill and agree w/ "Anonymous" on most of his/her remarks. In general, I would argue that this bill was meant to protect animals, however it likely gives too many "restored rights" to owner's at the discretion of the court. The focus of this bill should be to ensure that animals are provided safeguard from individuals whose characterlogical shortcomings and value system lacks the capacity, as evidenced by conviction of a Class 1 misdemeanor and/or a Class 6 felony, to ever be considered for pet ownership or sale again - regardless of meeting the threshold which "satisfies the court."
ReplyDeleteLets not confuse the patterns of behavior which have historically proven to be true of individuals who demonstrate such reckless disregard for others. We are dealing with individuals who have completely different moral and value systems. As part of this, they have developed an inflexible, stable, life long and altogether maladaptive means of interacting with others to meet their needs. Fast forward to the individuals who have finally been questioned and convicted of animal cruelty. Again, if history is any indicator, this "one dog" or "boarding establishment" has engaged in unlawful conduct, or certainly immoral behavior before his/her first arrest; this isn't their first rodeo!
This being said, the greatest error in this bill and in conflict with "Anonymous," is that yes, after a period of either 2 years or 10 years (depending on the frequency of offending and "satisfaction of the court"), both pet sellers and/or owners may appeal; I would argue that this is not in the best interest of any animal! Value systems are engrained. These individuals have demonstrated that when given the opportunity to care for an animal, whether under adverse circumstances or what may be their excuse, they resolved issues or inconveniences with the animal in an irresponsible manner.
Lastly, clarification on disease prevention would be helpful. I would argue that the example re: the mosquito bite is somewhat extreme. Clearly, you would need more evidence that the animal is ill. If you don't take the cat to the Vet, then I would argue that you are not using a reasonable standard of care consistent with the obligation of caring for an animal. My guess is that you, like most people who see their pets as part of the family, have better judgment and would inadvertently demonstrate the care needed. I can't say the same for those convicted of animal cruelty, as history indicates. And yes, life can progress into a disease. If you live long enough you are almost certain to develop cancer; getting old is tough.