News Briefs and Updates June 7, 2015

SAOVA Friends,

We have recently added an informational page on Agency Rulemaking to our website.  We have included a guide to the rulemaking process prepared by the Federal Register which can answer basic questions on the rulemaking process such as how an agency decides to begin rulemaking and the role Congress may or may not play in the process.

Animal rights and environmental groups often submit petitions to various agencies to initiate the rulemaking process in order to advance their agendas. These groups have found it is easier working through the rulemaking process than advocating for federal legislation as it is generally very difficult to get a bill passed by Congress.  Links to rules we have selected for this page show the diversity of departments, species, and animal use covered by these petitions where various groups have demanded change.  An agency will sometimes deny acting on a petition.

Please visit the new Agency Rulemaking page http://saova.org/Agency_rulemaking.html 

We trust this will become a useful resource for your information and research needs.

Thank you for reading. Cross Posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to identify and elect supportive legislators

saova@earthlink.net 

http://saova.org   

EPA FINALIZES CLEAN WATER RULE

EPA and the U.S. Army finalized the Clean Water Rule May 27. In its ruling release, the EPA states the rule does not create any new permitting requirements for agriculture and maintains all previous exemptions and exclusions.  According to EPA the rules will apply only to those waters with a "direct and significant" connection to larger bodies of water that are already protected. Critics of the rule argue that it will unduly expand federal influence. American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman said the EPA’s original proposal “dealt more with regulating land use” than water quality, and that the farm organization is still reviewing the final rule, particularly as it addresses streams, ditches, small ponds and isolated wetlands.   Congress is working on bills that will require EPA to withdraw the rule and to adhere to limiting principles that would ensure that any new proposal conforms to the jurisdictional limits set by Congress and affirmed by the Supreme Court.  See S 1140 Federal Water Quality Protection Act   http://tinyurl.com/q63cvnp  and HR 1732 Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 http://tinyurl.com/p8w9jyx which passed the House and has been received in the Senate.

CONNECTICUT PASSES SUNDAY HUNTING BILL

On June 3, the Connecticut Senate approved legislation that would allow Sunday archery hunting for deer on private lands in the Constitution State. Championed throughout the process by the Connecticut Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, HB 6034 now heads to the Governor for his consideration.  The Sunday hunting ban in Connecticut originated from the American colonial era when puritanical “blue laws” were commonly enacted to encourage church attendance.  With the passage of HB 6034, Connecticut now joins the 45 other states throughout the nation that allow for Sunday hunting in some capacity.  Allowing Sunday hunting in Connecticut will fundamentally increase private property owners’ freedom to choose how to manage their land and its natural resources, and will provide an additional adaptive management tool for the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to effectively manage wildlife resources within the state. Additionally, Sunday hunting will result in increased economic activity for the state and will increase access to the resource for Connecticut’s 21,000 archery hunters.  Source: Sportsmen’s Link http://tinyurl.com/q93nnnj

NORTH CAROLINA PASSES PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT

NC House and Senate voted to override Governor Pat McCrory's veto of House Bill 405, a law that supporters say protects private property rights but opponents say suppresses whistleblowers. Nicknamed an "ag-gag" bill, animal rights groups claim the measure will hide animal cruelty by preventing undercover investigations. “The Property Protection Act, a result of careful bi-partisan negotiations, balances the rights of business owners with the rights of their employees to strengthen North Carolina trespass laws”, stated Representative John Szoka (R-Cumberland), primary bill sponsor. Szoka continued, “The bill protects property owners against those who gain access to non-public areas of the owner’s property and then engage in activities that go beyond the permission given by the owner. The bill is narrowly focused on illegal activities not on infringing on the liberties of whistleblowers or press.”  Bill Sponsor Senator Brent Jackson, a farmer representing Duplin County, says employees will not be liable for filming in areas where they are allowed to be. “This has to do with employees going to places they’re not allowed to go,” he said. “As long as they’re allowed to move in those facilities, they wouldn’t be liable.”

PENNSYLVANIA SENATE PASSES ONEROUS TETHER, SHELTER BILL

Senate Bill 373 to amend the state’s cruelty laws unanimously passed the Senate and will be sent to the House.  The bill prohibits a dog from being tethered outside if a severe weather alert has been issued; or for more than 30 minutes if the temperature is below 32 degrees. Compliance with this requirement would be impossible for those who work and are not home should temperatures or weather change during the day.  This would also have direct, negative impact on field trials and winter dog sports.  The bill also sets specific standards for shelter and bedding for dogs that are kept outdoors.  SB 373 requires dog housing to be moisture proof with a floor raised 3 inches from the ground, wind proof, and have an eight-inch overhanging roof to keep out rain. These requirements would force dog owners, breeders, and sportsmen who keep dogs outside in winter to virtually custom build new dog houses.  The bill includes size requirements for dog houses and prohibits certain types of bedding such as hay.

Current PA law already states that it is an offense “to deprive any animal of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter or veterinary care, or access to clean and sanitary shelter which will protect the animal against inclement weather and preserve the animal's body heat and keep it dry”.  Look up SB 373 http://tinyurl.com/l3949q6  and contact your Representative now to oppose these burdensome and unnecessary regulation changes.  http://tinyurl.com/mtsxsgt

TENNESSEE ACTIVISTS COMPLAIN ABOUT NEW ABUSER REGISTRY

Animal advocates are unhappy with the new registry claiming it is not strong enough. The original bill would have placed everyone who committed abuse, including hoarders and those convicted of even misdemeanor violations, on the TN Bureau of Investigation online registry.  However, the bill was amended to only place felony convictions for animal cruelty on the registry.  Activists are already considering campaigning to elevate some animal cruelty violations to felony charges which would then allow those convicted to be placed on the registry.  Chattanooga Humane Educational Society Executive Director Bob Citrullo told reporters people who commit animal abuse progress onto other things like murders and serial killings.   In May TN lawmakers passed the first statewide abuser registry in history.  Should activists resurrect this issue, we can only hope this will be a lesson learned for lawmakers that zealots are never satisfied.

TEXAS LAWMAKERS PASS RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH AMENDMENT

Sportsmen’s groups are applauding members of the Texas state House and Senate for passing Senate Joint Resolution 22, a constitutional amendment to protect the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife in the state of Texas. Voters will have the opportunity to ratify the amendment on November 3, 2015.

“Adoption of the Right to Hunt and Fish amendment will safeguard the hunters and anglers of Texas from extreme animal rights groups dedicated to abolishing America’s outdoor tradition,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “This important constitutional safeguard will protect wildlife and promote conservation.”

Language for the amendment includes the following:

“The people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject to laws or regulations to conserve and manage wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing are preferred methods of managing and controlling wildlife.”

Nearly 3 million people spend more than $4 billion dollars a year on hunting and fishing in Texas. That translates into $415 million raised in state and local tax revenue. Passage of the Right to Hunt and Fish amendment ensures that money, as well as the 65,000 hunting and fishing related jobs, will stay in Texas. Source: NRA

They're Here – Freedom Golden Retrievers and Other Doggy Immigrants

Do we really need to import rescue dogs to the U.S.?

As I see it, one of my jobs in life is to wander around social media and burst people's illusions about animals. Most of the time this occurs when I find articles online about animal rights topics, especially if they relate to dogs. If there is an article about dog breeders, for example, you can always find animal rights people making nasty comments and telling lies, so it's a pleasure to jump in and start correcting them. If you just stick to the facts it's enough to drive most of them crazy.
On the other hand, sometimes I have friends who post stories that seem to need some comments. These situations require more delicacy because I would like to keep my friends.

For example, last week I had an old college friend post a story about 36 Golden Retrievers rescued from Turkey and brought to Fulton County (Atlanta) Georgia. I am quite certain that my reaction to this story was different than hers. My friend is a kind-hearted person who likes animals in a general way and has a couple of mixed breed dogs. She supports HSUS without thinking much about it. I re-posted the story on Facebook knowing full well that it would unleash a firestorm of disapproval from just about every dog person I know. And it did. People pointed out that we already have dogs suffering from canine influenza, especially in the Chicago area, that was likely brought in from dogs from Asia. Many people believe this new strain of canine influenza probably came in with dogs rescued from Korea, with the aid of the Humane Society of the United States. What diseases might rescue dogs from Turkey bring with them?

People also pointed out that shelters in Georgia routinely ship dogs north so they can be adopted. So, how can a group justify bringing in more dogs – dogs from outside the country? Are they just bringing in these purebred dogs so they can sell them for more money? Aren't they simply acting like a pet store? But pet stores are under fire these days, while shelters and rescues are usually exempt from many of the laws that regulate pet stores or seek to ban them. Isn't this just the worst kind of retail rescue?

Not only was this story all over the media, but it was put out in an official press release on PRNewswire. How's that for maximum exposure for these “Freedom Golden Retrievers”? Nothing like a catchy patriotic name to make the public want them even more, right? (Why does that name make me think of Freedom Fries?)

It's kind of amazing that the National Rescue Committee chair of the Golden Retriever Club of America supports this rescue action, saying, "We support Adopt a Golden Atlanta for helping these Golden Retrievers who will now have a second chance in life. Among the 95 rescue programs for Golden Retrievers in our network, it is well understood that each meets the local need before accepting a dog from another area – including dogs from abroad. I can assure you that no Golden Retriever is at risk due to rescuing Goldens internationally.” If Golden Retrievers have no problem being adopted in this country, perhaps Golden Retriever rescue might consider encouraging people to actually buy a Golden Retriever from a breeder? What a novel idea: buying a purebred dog. I'm surprised the AKC or the Golden Retriever Club of America didn't think of it.

It truly is wonderful to have a waiting list for every rescue dog in your breed, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we need more than rescue dogs if purebred dogs are going to survive. We need to be supporting breeders instead of bringing in rescue dogs from outside the country. We have people in the United States still complaining about pet overpopulation and blaming breeders for dogs in shelters. How long do you think it will be before there is some animal rights-themed article attacking Golden Retriever breeders for having too many dogs in rescue or shelters?

By the way, a search on Petfinder for Golden Retrievers nationwide found 1586 Goldens or Golden mixes and 11 dogs listed with Adopt A Golden Atlanta, contrary to their statements in the news release. So, it seems there are actually quite a few Goldens in the United States in search of homes without bringing in “Freedom Golden Retrievers” from Turkey. Even if many of the Golden Retrievers on Petfinder aren't purebreds, it doesn't explain the discrepancy in the statement from Adopt A Golden Atlanta. Most of the dogs waiting to be adopted on their site look like purebreds to me, though I am not an expert on Golden Retrievers and I don't know the history of the dogs.

Please don't think that I don't like Golden Retrievers (I do); or that I am opposed to rescue (I'm not). But I am opposed to importing rescue dogs to the United States from around the world, especially when breeders in the United States are under attack. ARs and some rescue people blame breeders for dog overpopulation which, frankly, doesn't exist anymore. I'm also opposed to the very real likelihood of dogs from other countries, imported in large numbers, bringing in diseases to the United States, especially when those dogs have risky backgrounds. We've already seen it with the dogs “rescued” from the Korean meat markets and there is every chance it will happen again.

All of this is happening just a few months after many people were disturbed by online articles written by animal rights people wondering where they were going to get rescue/shelter dogs after all the dogs in the U.S. were spayed/neutered:

Where Will The Puppies Come From? Dr. Emily Weiss

Where are the puppies going to come from? I have been waking up night after night lately in a panic thinking about this question...

Really – where will the puppies come from?! In many communities around the country we are reaching a crisis point … the crisis is that we are running out of puppies! There are many communities that simply do not have juvenile dogs entering their sheltering system and, in many cases, the adult dog population entering the shelters has significantly decreased – and significantly changed. What those in this field have laid the foundation for and have worked so hard for is happening! … At HSUS Expo this year, I heard a few people mention the next step for some shelters may be to find ways in which we become the source for puppies for folks.

And then there was this jaw-dropping blog earlier this year:

The Coming Shelter Dog Shortage

… The ideal thing would be for No Kill to find some way to co-opt the industry – to make sure there is a big enough supply of shelter dogs for community No Kill shelters to be able to maximize their market share. The most obvious way to do this would be to start importing homeless dogs from overseas. [Emphasis mine.] This would not be a permanent solution, because foreign countries are beginning to use TNR for street dogs, which will eventually drop their populations to sustainable levels. But until that happens, foreign countries would be a good source of supply for shelter dogs. We would be helping the shelter system in the United States while saving huge numbers of street dogs overseas.

Another way to tackle the problem would be for volunteers to breed litters which would then be donated to their local shelter for placement. This would have many advantages …

And, voila! Just like that we see some of these things start to happen with shelters and rescues. More dogs from overseas are being imported to the U.S. for resale – adoption. Meanwhile, animal rights groups continue to pursue their agenda against American breeders, making it harder to breed with more and more breeding regulations.

The words on the Statue of Liberty say, “Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …. “ They don't say, “Send me your street dogs for dog flipping and retail rescue.”

We need to decide right now what we want to support – rescue dogs from overseas with no particular background, no health guarantees, no socialization, and every possibility of bringing new diseases into the U.S. If we go down this path there is no end to it. The U.S. can become the repository of dogs rescued from countries all over the world because we all know there are enough people with big hearts – and lots of money – to keep bringing in more rescue dogs. Or, we can support American dog breeders and purebred dogs with known backgrounds from breeders who try to breed healthy, well-socialized dogs. The truth is that dogs are in competition for homes and if you are supporting “Freedom Golden Retrievers” instead of well-bred puppies from a good breeder, you are hurting the future of your breed.

-- Carlotta Cooper

News Briefs and Updates May 17, 2015

SAOVA Friends,

We have written before about animal abuser registries and how dangerous they are.  Establishing animal abuser registries is a campaign championed by the California-based Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) whose mission is to use the legal system to change the current property status of animals and advance the interest of animals under the law.

ALDF asserts that registries will not only prevent criminal conduct, but will also raise public awareness about the connections between animal cruelty and human violence. ALDF is a major promoter of the theory that animal abusers go on to victimize people. They have even gone so far as to say animal abusers are potential serial killers, citing the cases of Albert DeSalvo, the Boston Strangler; Jeffrey Dahmer; Ted Bundy; and other infamous serial killers.  

Manchester Metropolitan University researchers Heather Piper and Steve Myers looked at such claims and found a surprising lack of any actual valid evidence for it. They write, “Research supporting the supposed links is based mainly on extreme and non-representative samples. Accounts suggesting links between those who have harmed animals and later violence toward humans often rely on the same small sample of extreme criminals in the US. Researching a limited population to produce a broadly applicable generalization is problematic. Any number of life experiences could also be shown to correlate with the behavior. A further problem is that much of the research tends to suffer from fallacies of logic. Just because some serial killers have harmed animals, this does not mean that all or even the majority of those who harm animals will become serial killers. Yet this stance is taken in much of the literature.”

Now that the FBI has established a category for felony animal abuse and is preparing to collect data on animal cruelty crimes through its National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), it may become increasingly difficult to maintain logic over hysterics when dealing with proposed animal abuser registry bills. 

All abuser registry bills must be read very carefully to ascertain what sections of cruelty law apply. If the proposed registry bill is written to include misdemeanor offenses, then failure to provide specified shelter or tethering a dog incorrectly could place someone on the registry.  Dog breeders and sportsmen pride themselves on the care provided to their dogs.  Regardless, one should never assume it is impossible to become involved in a disagreement with local officials over the adequacy of shelter or condition of kennel dogs.  Lose the argument and your name, photograph, and case information could be included in an online registry which animal activists can access. Any information placed online about animal abusers will be widely circulated, putting these individuals at risk of harassment and vigilante justice.

Registries would also include hoarders who represent a large percentage of animal cruelty cases. Animal hoarding refers to the compulsive need to collect and own animals for the sake of caring for them that usually results in accidental or unintentional neglect or abuse. Animal hoarding is a mental disorder and approximately 40 percent of object hoarders also hoard animals. Hoarders have an intense emotional attachment to the animals in their care and confuse loving the animals with the reality of their inability to provide a safe, clean, and healthy home for them. Treatment of hoarders by mental health services is a far better solution than years of public exposure and humiliation on web site lists where they are unrealistically stereotyped as dangers to society.

The first registry bill was introduced in Colorado in 2002.  Since then hundreds of bills introduced to enact animal abuser registries have been unsuccessful in twenty-seven (27) states.

It is not completely clear why in the current session the Tennessee Legislature became thoroughly enchanted with the animal abuser registry bills introduced by Senator Jeff Yarbro (D21-Nashville) and Representative Darren Jernigan (D-60). The online animal abuser registry was supported by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI). As first introduced the bills included misdemeanor offenses for general animal cruelty charges which could have placed every dog breeder, owner, and sportsman in the state at risk. The House passed this version. Fortunately, a Senate substitute proposed by Senator Brian Kelsey (R-31) removed the section citing general animal cruelty.  This substitute passed the Senate and was then accepted by the House.

ALDF suffered over a decade of failure with their registry campaign. This year Tennessee sadly became the first state in the nation to honor their campaign by enacting a registry bill.

Thank you for reading. Cross Posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to identify and elect supportive legislators

saova@earthlink.net 

http://saova.org   

ALDF OPENS NEW FRONTIER FOR ANIMAL PERSONHOOD

May 15, 2015. Christopher A. Berry, ALDF Staff Attorney, writes on the ALDF blog “What are the legal implications for splicing human cells into nonhuman animals? When does an animal become a person—how much human material is required? Where do we draw the legal line? Cutting-edge research in “chimera” science blurs traditional morality and raises critical new questions. And human protection laws may provide the clues we need to solve this puzzle.”

Berry continues, “. . . for more than a decade scientists have been creating human-animal chimeras by grafting human stem cells into animal bodies. This results in purely human cells replacing some of the animal parts.” “A traditional use of these chimeric and transgenic creatures involves grafting human immune cells into mouse bodies because this is thought to produce more accurate results in biomedical research that uses the mice to study human diseases. But a string of recent revolutionary new research involves humanizing animal brains, resulting in chimeras and transgenics with significantly enhanced cognitive abilities.”

Berry reports that in one study from 2013, researchers implanted human glial progenitor cells—a type of brain cell that supports neurons in the brain and contributes to cognitive function—into mice brains, causing a significant increase in mouse learning ability and change in behavior.  Berry warns there are no laws regulating this type of research humanizing animal brains and no requirement that any animals that might eventually exhibit human-like intelligence receive human-like rights.

One researcher involved in this project quickly dismissed any idea that the added cells somehow make the mice more human. "This does not provide the animals with additional capabilities that could in any way be ascribed or perceived as specifically human," he says. "Rather, the human cells are simply improving the efficiency of the mouse's own neural networks. It's still a mouse." (New Scientist  http://tinyurl.com/mgpq2tm)

However as they believe this area of research lacks proper regulation, ALDF filed a formal rulemaking petition with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asking that agency to enact regulations under the Public Health Services Act. The Public Health Services Act imposes a duty on HHS to protect the rights of human research subjects in all federally-supported research. 42 U.S.C. § 289. These protections include informed consent, assessment of risks and benefits, and equitable selection of subjects. 45 C.F.R. §§ 46.101, et seq. Specifically, ALDF’s rulemaking petition asks HHS to enact regulations that (1) require special oversight of all research involving human-animal chimeras and transgenics, and (2) require that animals exhibiting human-like intelligence as a result of those experiments be granted all protection normally given to human research subjects. HHS has until December 2017 to respond to ALDF’s petition.

Berry summarizes ALDF’s efforts. “While the adoption of ALDF’s rulemaking proposal helps promote the welfare of human-animal chimeras and transgenics by requiring additional oversight, the real value is in obtaining personhood status for those animals exhibiting human-like intelligence. As it stands now, the only member of the animal kingdom with personhood status is the human species. By compelling the legal system to recognize that biologically manipulated animals with human-like intelligence and at least a drop of human DNA ought to receive the same rights as human research subjects, we can build a bridge between rights for humans and rights for all the other animals.” 

Source: ALDF Blog http://tinyurl.com/lalllqm

INDIANA DNR RULE CHANGES

The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has posted proposed rule changes for Section 312 IAC 9-10-16 Dog training ground permit. The proposed rule changes would adversely affect beagling in Indiana by placing time restrictions on field trials and unreasonably limiting training opportunities.   No fences that divide the training ground into parcels less than 10 acres would be allowed.  This would eliminate smaller pens necessary for use in training unstarted dogs and puppies. Permits would not be issued or renewed without the pen first being inspected by a conservation officer or wildlife biologist. Inspection process may include the removal of a sample of rabbits for biological examination.  Additional record keeping has been proposed including name and address of each person from whom rabbits are obtained and the dates and numbers of all rabbits released into the training ground. Also required would be the recording of date of death or discovery of a dead rabbit and proximate cause of mortality of any rabbit. Records must be kept for three years and made available at inspections.  There are questionable and vague requirements for supplemental feeding and watering of rabbits, with no criteria listed, and specified percentages of types of cover.

The rule with proposed changes is posted at IDNR http://www.in.gov/nrc/2377.htm with a link to submit comments.  On June 4, 2015, at 5:30 p.m., at the Fort Harrison State Park

Inn, 5830 North Post Road, Roosevelt Ballroom, Indianapolis, Indiana the Natural Resources Commission will hold a public hearing on this and other proposed amendments.  Submit your comments now.

PENNSYLVANIA TETHERING AND SHELTER BILL ON THE MOVE

Senate Bill 373 to amend the state’s cruelty laws has unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and is now eligible for a floor vote.

The bill prohibits a dog from being tethered outside for more than 30 minutes if the temperature is below 32 degrees. Compliance with this requirement would be impossible for those who work and are not home should the temperature drop during the day.  This would also have direct, negative impact on field trials and winter dog sports. 

The bill also sets specific standards for shelter and bedding for dogs that are kept outdoors.  SB 373 requires dog housing to be moisture proof with a floor raised 3 inches from the ground, wind proof, and have an eight-inch overhanging roof to keep out rain. These requirements would force dog owners, breeders, and sportsmen who keep dogs outside in winter to virtually custom build new dog houses.  The bill includes size requirements for dog houses and prohibits certain types of bedding such as hay.

Current PA law already states that it is an offense “to deprive any animal of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter or veterinary care, or access to clean and sanitary shelter which will protect the animal against inclement weather and preserve the animal's body heat and keep it dry”.

Animal rightists and those with no practical experience in animal husbandry or dogs’ needs should not be writing Pennsylvania law.  Look up SB 373 http://tinyurl.com/l3949q6 and contact your Senator now to oppose these burdensome and unnecessary regulation changes.  http://tinyurl.com/kf9qpwf

TN Alert: animal abuser registry advancing

SAOVA Friends,

We have a serious situation in Tennessee as the animal abuser registry bills continue to move forward.  The House version, HB 147, sponsored by Rep. Darren Jernigan (D, 60) has cleared the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and has been referred to the Government Operations Committee.  The Senate companion bill, SB 1204, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Yarboro (D, 21) has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and has been referred to the Senate Calendar Committee where it could be sent directly to the Senate floor for a vote.

The bills require the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to establish an online registry of anyone convicted of an animal abuse offense.  This includes even misdemeanor animal cruelty charges for failure to provide proper shelter or tethering a dog resulting in bodily injury. 

Dog breeders and sportsmen pride themselves on the care provided to their dogs.  Regardless, one should never assume it is impossible to become involved in a disagreement with local officials over the adequacy of shelter or condition of kennel dogs.  Lose the argument and your name, photograph, and case information will be included in an online registry which animal activists can access. Any information placed online about animal abusers will be widely circulated, putting these individuals at risk of harassment and vigilante justice.

Establishing animal abuser registries is a campaign created in 2002 and championed by the California-based Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) whose mission is to use the legal system to change the current property status of animals and advance the interest of animals in the legal system. In its history, ALDF has never promoted legislation to help people. Its litigation and legislative efforts are aimed at setting legal precedent for elevating the status of animals or adding costly regulations within animal agriculture, research, and pet industries that will undermine our use and ownership of animals.   ALDF justifies the need for a registry with the claim that convicted animal abusers pose a real, ongoing threat to pets, family, and community; further claiming their actions will escalate to committing crimes against people. ALDF has even gone so far as to say animal abusers are potential serial killers.

The first registry bill was introduced in Colorado in 2002 and failed. Dozens of registry bills are introduced annually. These attempts have continually failed in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and previously in Tennessee.  After suffering years of failure with their registry campaign, ALDF announced a new plan to create its own "Do Not Adopt List" which would contain the names of animal abusers from all 50 states. List information would be obtained from district attorneys nationwide after cases have been disposed.

Not even the HSUS or the ASPCA are in favor of these online registries.

In testimony submitted against the New York City registry, The American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) stated, “We have questions about the concept of animal abuse registries because we know of no evidence that they can achieve their purported aim, and we worry that they may instead unwittingly do more harm than good.  There are serious practical issues surrounding the concept of animal abuser registries, including the risk that having animal cruelty crimes associated with a long-term abuser registry could inadvertently decrease the prosecution of such offenses, that registries overlook the importance of addressing mental health issues often seen in animal cruelty offenders and that properly maintaining an animal abuser registry requires that there is a uniform, centralized tracking of animal crimes, which currently does not exist.”

HSUS issued the following statement of opposition to online registries. “Animal cruelty—like other crimes—must be reported, classified, and analyzed in a comprehensive manner that results in swift and efficient enforcement of the law and the general improvement of society. It is not clear that the current round of proposals to create a public registry database would materially advance these goals. In fact, it probably does nothing to help these people learn a new way of viewing and treating animals.”

Why is the Tennessee legislature pursuing this course of action to enact an unpopular registry and further the animal rights agenda of ALDF?

ACTION NEEDED.

DO NOT let the legislature continue to move forward with an animal abuser registry which would make Tennessee the first state in the nation to embrace this animal rights program.  Establishing the ALDF-inspired registry will bring shame forever to the state of Tennessee.

Contact your Representative and Senator immediately to oppose the animal abuser registry.  Find House member contact here: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/members/ and Senate member contact here: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/senate/members/

More information on animal abuser registries can be found at the SAOVA website:

http://saova.org/ALDF_AbuserRegistry.html 

Please cross post widely.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance

Working to identify and elect supportive legislators

saova@earthlink.net 

http://saova.org