More laws on the way following Vick case
By Gina Spadafori
December 30, 2007
The Associated Press has an overview story here on the actions of advocacy groups to advance animal-related legislative agendas:
The Humane Society of the United States expects legislators in about 25 states will consider strengthening dogfighting laws in 2008, said Michael Markarian, the organization’s executive vice president. It and other animal advocacy groups also hope to see changes in federal laws to make it easier to prosecute dogfighters.
Yeah, but … isn’t dog-fighting already illegal? Couldn’t it be argued that some of these groups are really just looking for more reasons to raise money? Hmmmm …
“Those are the sort of sounds-good-and-feels-good laws. What’s harder to push for is the nuts and bolts that deal with the economics of actually enforcing animal cruelty laws,” [Randall] Lockwood, [senior vice president for animal cruelty initiatives for the [American] Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] said. “Frankly if law enforcement has no place to put the dogs they might seize in a dogfighting raid, that raid is not going to take place.”
Lockwood used to work for the HSUS, by the way, and is probably the nation’s top expert on why dogs attack people. The A, by the way, helped to evaluate the Vick dogs for placement, while the HSUS and PETA pushed for another option.
Here’s the rest of the piece. Be sure to wander over and see the PETA posters, and wonder why a group whose leader has advocated for the execution of all pit bulls is so gosh-darn worried about these ones.
And think before you write those year-end charity checks.
New Year’s resolutions: I am so glad 2007 is almost over. I got plans for 2008. You?
I read the article and and I think that adding dogfighting to the racketeerting laws would provide a really useful way to get at these people, especially the attendees. Good idea there.
But the ASPCA guy’s point about enforcement makes sense too. Busting cruelty is one thing. Getting a DA to file charges and a judge to apply a meaningful sentence appears to be something else. Does not having a place for animals to go really affect whether or not law enforcement will act? Not around here.
Breeding limits look like a slippery slope that doesn’t really address the issue, which is how the animals are cared for, as the man from Virginia points out, regardless of how many someone has. I’m a convert on that one, partly because of being educated on the issue by all of you on this blog.
In the case of HSUS and PETA, fundraising is no doubt the major motivation, as usual, other than, oh yeah, an end to the keeping of companion animals.
2008? Santa brought me a pair of rollerblades. Waiting for a stretch of nice weather to try them out with Niki. Should be safer than trying to run him beside a bicycle. We both need more exercise. Also want to continue helping out at our shelter and learning more about rescue.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 30, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
I’ve not seen evidence that more laws are required to deal with dog fighting. It’s already illegal in all 50 states, and a felony in 48 states.
There’s plenty of evidence that existing anti- dog fighting laws have had spotty enforcement at best. It’s not been a priority for law enforcement authorities.
Much of what’s being proposed is knee jerk, and some is excessive. Like upping the penalty for a dog fighting conviction to make it worse than a rape conviction. Yes, dog fighting is bad, and is appropriately a criminal offense. But to say it is worse than rape is irrational and insulting.
I get tired of seeing politicians leap onto an emotional bandwagon in the heat of an uproar, and propose new laws to add onto existing laws that are not being adequately enforced. Why? So we can have more laws that aren’t going to be enforced?
I agree that HSUS and PETA are exploiting this issue to keep the donations rolling in. But the politicians are no better.
Here’s a novel idea; enforce the laws already on the books.
Comment by LauraS — December 30, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
The story just showed up on the CNN site.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 30, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
I get really excited whenever I see a column that addresses lawmakers working on legislature that will help animals.
And then I am thoroughly let down when I read, “The Humane Society of the United States expects legislators in about 25 states will consider strengthening …” The operative words here are WILL CONSIDER STRENGTHENING.
All I can say is GET SOME BACKBONE AND JUST DO IT. HOnestly, all they do is procrastinate.
Like LauraS wrote, “Here’s a novel idea; enforce the laws already on the books.”
Comment by Lynn — December 30, 2007 @ 8:00 pm