RFAmerican Governments A five to ten-year ban should be placed on animal abusers. Five year if it is a misdemeanor and ten years if it is a felony. Animal Abuse is defined as the neglect, not give nutriment or have a safe environment for your pet, anything cruel, anything to inflict harm to your pet, and most recently animal hoarding. On the other side having a five to ten-year ban on animal abusers can be bad not for the person abusing the animal but for the family members. The abuser may be the father or an older person according to the Human Society “predominantly men under the age of 30 and women over the age of 60 intentionally abuse their pets.” But if the ban is put on them other members of the family wanting the animal back would not be able to if they are in the same household for that specific time period depending on if it was a misdemeanor or a felony.
Another viewpoint discussed in “Five-year ban on animal ownership for felony abusers?” By the Citizens Court of New Hampshire states that “...that judges already have the power to ban offenders from owning animals for any amount of time. A mandatory minimum of five years will unnecessarily tie judges’ hands when a more nuanced approach may benefit an offender’s rehabilitation.” Animal Abuse has been around for many years ranging back to “Fighting dogs for sport, for example, has been traced back as far as the 12th Century” (Learning to Give) so this issue has been going on for a long time. Now animal abuse can be seen in farms, puppy mills, and at home. According to the Article “The Animal-Cruelty Syndrome” by Charles Siebert Before 1990, only six states had felony provisions in their animal--cruelty laws; now 46 do. In majority of the state’s animal abuse is seen as much as a felony. Some of the states include California, Florida, Colorado and many more. In other states animal abuse is seen as much as a misdemeanor such as North Dakota and South Dakota. California in 1988 on future ownership states that it may can ownership as a condition of probation but states like Delaware put in force in 1994 that shall ban future ownership for 5 years for misdemeanor; and 15 for a felony The relationship between animal abuse and other types of abuse can be related because if they can abuse the animal, they also can-do other things that are not morally right. According to Charles Seibert in his article “Significant reason for the increased attention to animal cruelty is a mounting body of evidence about the link between such acts and serious crimes of more narrowly human concern, including illegal firearms possession, drug trafficking, gambling, spousal and child abuse, rape and homicide.” If a person is to abuse their animal it can relate to other issues in the world that can also relate as a misdemeanor or a felony so, why not have the same kind of punishments as the crimes that other people commit to correlate how severe animal abuse is. This issue matters because animals should not have to be abused in households. Animals can suffer and should not have to go through what people in our society put them through. A defining moment that shined a light in “2007 arrest of the N.F.L. star Michael Vick for operating an illegal interstate dog-fighting operation in Surry County, Va” (Charles Seibert) The election that had the most impact would be state and local because of how many states either do have the misdemeanor of 5 year and the felony of 10 years. Colorado introduced a bill that stated that a 3-5-year ban be placed on a person trying to own an animal and that can be adjusted
0 Comments
VespertineCalifornia Politics Millions of pigs, calves, and chickens are forced to spend their lives confined in spaces so small they can't even turn around. Gestation crates, veal crates, and battery cages prevent animals from performing natural behaviors, thus causing injuries and significant physical and psychological stress. Many of us who consume animals and animal byproducts either don’t think about or don’t care where our food comes from, the process involved, and ultimately the price that the animals pay. Ten years ago, a ballot measure was passed that banned the confinement of veal, pigs, and egg-laying hens in spaces too small to allow animals to turn around, lie down, or stand up and extend their limbs (Proposition 2, 2008). What this proposition did not do was set specific requirements for those spaces. Proposition 2 did, however, pave the way for Proposition 12, or the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act, which set specific space requirements for the cages and spaces that farm animals reside within.
In the November 2018 elections, Proposition 12, officially titled the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act (and also known as the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative), was passed in the state of California. This proposition would prohibit the confinement of certain farm animals in cages or spaces below a specific square footage, as well as the sales of animal meat and animal byproducts from animals living in aforementioned spaces not meeting space requirements. In regards to what animals, it prevents baby veal calves, mother pigs, and egg-laying hens from being crammed inside tiny cages for their entire lives. The act intends to eliminate inhumane and unsafe products from the abused animals from the California marketplace. It is also argued that the act reduces the risk of people being sickened by food poisoning and factory farm pollution, and helps family farmers. The official ballot summary states that egg-laying hens are required to be raised in a cage-free environment after December 31st, 2021; it would prohibit certain commercial sales of specified meat and egg products derived from animals confined in cages or spaces that do not comply with the requirements set by the act; It defines sales violations as unfair competition; It creates good faith defense for sellers relying upon written certification by suppliers that meat and egg products comply with new confinement standards; It also requires State of California to issue implementing regulation (California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide November 2018," August 21, 2018). While 62.66% of voters were in favor of Proposition 12 and it was approved to become a state statute, that still leaves 37.34% of voters who voted against the proposition. In addition to a portion of voting citizens, there were multiple organizations who stood in opposition to the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative. The Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud argued that “Proposition 12 legalizes the cruel cages Californians overwhelmingly voted to prohibit ten years ago” (California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide November 2018," August 21, 2018). Jamie Johansson, president of the California Farm Bureau Federation, said, “All Proposition 12 does is allow trial lawyers to file predatory lawsuits against egg farmers, who provide some of the healthiest food on the planet. Proposition 12 would push egg prices higher in the state that already suffers from the nation’s highest poverty rate” (The Mercury News, “Proposition 12: Cage-free eggs, more room for farm animals on ballot,” October 20, 2018). Beginning in 2020, Proposition 12 was set to ban the confinement of calves (young domestic cows) in areas with less than 43 square feet of usable floor space per calf, and egg-laying hens (chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and guinea fowl) in areas with less than 1 square foot of usable floor space per hen. Beginning in 2022, Proposition 12 is set to ban the confinement of breeding pigs and their immediate offspring in areas with less than 24 square feet of usable floor space per pig, and egg-laying hens in areas other than indoor or outdoor cage-free housing systems based on the United Egg Producers' 2017 cage-free guidelines. These guidelines define cage-free housing as areas that provide 1.0 to 1.5 square feet of usable floor space per hen and allow hens to move around inside the area (California Attorney General, "Initiative 17-0026," August 29, 2017). The Sacramento (local) and United States (national) elections had little to no impact on the issue of farm animal confinement, and the issue was primarily impacted by the California (state) election. The issue was not specifically mentioned during the last election by any running candidates, however it was on the California state ballot as Proposition 12. In terms of the fiscal impact of the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, there will be potentially be a decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses, which would not likely exceed the low millions of dollars annually. In addition, the potential state costs could range up to ten million dollars annually, in order to enforce the measure (The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is prepared by the state's legislative analyst and director of finance). MCAmerican Governments Cosmetic animal testing is a method that is outdated and should be banned federally. A cosmetic product is defined as any product that is intended to come in contact with external parts of the human body. This includes products used for hygiene, makeup, or fragrance. Cosmetic animal testing is a process that is used as a way to ensure products are safe for human use. In society we deem unethical to try a new ingredient on a human being, so instead the product is tested on animals to ensure its effectiveness or safety. This is an important issue to raise awareness about because extreme animal cruelty is involved during cosmetic animal testing.
When a company labels their brand or even products on the packaging as cruelty free, this means they have used other methods to test their products on, and do not use animals. Many successful companies have already adopted alternative to animal testing. There are thousands of ingredients already out on the market that have been proven safe for consumer use, therefore companies will often use those ingredients in their products to avoid further testing. Companies also have the option of using non-animal tests for new ingredients, with over 50 different effective methods created. Some of the most popular methods used are: Invitro, tests on human cells and tissue; Insilico, computer model techniques; and human volunteers. So why is animal testing still in practice when there are better alternatives that offer better results? Companies believe that animal testing can be used for defense against court cases in the occasion of a consumer having a negative effect to their product. They also perform new animal tests to evaluate the safety of new ingredients. Although this method has been preferred in the past, thousands of large companies have evolved and found more effective, less cruel, and cheaper alternatives. The only way to keep companies from continuing to use this method is to instate a federal law banning cosmetic animal testing. In the latest election there were no laws passed to ban animal testing. Although states like California have passed laws against cosmetic animal testing, there is a push to have it banned federally. Currently the Animal Welfare Act is the only federal law regulating animal testing. The AWA states that animals used for testing need to be provided proper shelter, medical care, food, water and treatment. Not only is this law never regulated to ensure compliance, but this law excludes animals like rats, mice, and birds. There are also exceptions to this law. If the scientists feels that certain conditions will hinder the experiment, then the law does not apply. A new Federal bill, The Humane Cosmetic Act, was presented to Congress in 2014 and presented in three other session of congress. This bill has never had a hearing, but is expecting to be introduced to Congress again in 2019. This bill, “prohibits testing cosmetics on animals, effective on the date that is one year after enactment of this bill. No cosmetic may be sold or transported if the final product or any component was developed or manufactured using animal testing after that date, effective three years after enactment of this bill” (H.R.2790, 2017). The representative for this act is Martha McSally, Arizona's US Senator, who has just been elected into Senate in 2019. Aside from federal laws, there are some states that have passed laws to regulate animal testing. In 2000, California became the first state to pass a law requiring companies to use non animal testing alternatives that are validated by ICCVAM. New York and New Jersey passed the same law in 2007. In 2018, California updates this law and passed The California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act, authored by state Senator, Cathleen Galgiani, and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. This law prohibits import for profit, sell, or offer for sale any cosmetic product that was developed or made using an animal test. This law takes effect on Jan. 1, 2020. Although this law sounds effective, there are many loopholes within this law that can still allow some degree of animal testing. One of the major issues is this law allows manufactures to sell animal tested products in California, if they funded the animal test to meet the requirements of other countries they sell to. For example, China's law requires all imported cosmetic products to be tested on animals. Though this is a huge flaw in the law, it is a step in the right direction. Many people are hoping that California’s new law is going to influence other states to create the same changes, or even have an influence federally. According to the Huffington Post article, “California Just Officially Banned the Sale of Animal-Tested Cosmetics, U.S. Supporters and Vicki Katrinak, the program manager for animal research issues at the Humane Society of the United States stated, “they hoped the California law will encourage other state laws or changes at the federal level. We’re hopeful this law will encourage the federal government to pass the Humane Cosmetics Act” (Hanson, 2018). Not only are people hoping new laws will influence other states to make changes, but companies who still practice animal testing as well. Assembly member Linda B. Rosenthal stated the, “cosmetics industry was forced to respond to public clamor for environmentally conscious and safe cosmetics by creating paraben-free, BHA-free cosmetics and green cosmetics. Now the public is demanding cruelty-free cosmetics because many understand one can't look or feel beautiful if animals must suffer for it” (Engebretson, 2018). With pressures from different states, there is hope that the Humane Cosmetics Act will be passed the next time it is presented to Congress in 2019. "Lady of the Earth"CSUS student, CA Politics California is the first state and the only state, so far, in the Unites States to ban the sell of non-rescue animals. The Pet Rescue and Adoption Act, also known as the Assembly Bill 485, was set in place to reduce the mistreatment of animals such as dogs, cats, and rabbits (California Legislation Information 2017-2018). These types of animals are most commonly found in homes as pets, but the rise in demand for pure breeding, breeding for quality of animal, and mass breeding as lead to puppy mills and kitten factories. Mills and factories are created to increase mass litter production, female animals are used to breed litter after litter. Without human companionship, these female animals live a life in cages until their bodies are no longer needed or the health of the animal is extremely poor, so they are killed (Helping Hands Humane Society). These productions often have poor living conditions and health issues for the animals, which was a huge red flag for animal activists and the Humane Society of the United States, the HSUS organization specializes in animal protection (N. Golgowski 2018). Pet stores are now required to sell dogs, cats, and rabbits that are only rescued or donated by shelters (S. Luke 2018). This ban is to help stop the support of mass breeding facilities that have deplorable and inhumane conditions, as a consequence to private breeders or any pet sold illegally, there will be fine starting at $500. Another issue leading to Bill 485 were the over populated shelters which lead to more deaths and spending. It's estimated that California spends a quarter of one billion dollars to house and then euthanize the animals; also, an estimated 2.7 million healthy animals are being euthanized (Social Compassion in Legislation 2017). See the problem yet?
Bill 485 benefits not only the animals but the community too! When an animal is adopted, you are saving the lives of two; one that you have adopted, and the life that gets a second chance. Adopting animals that have over populated reduces the population alone with reducing spending and deaths. In one year, there could be about 8 to 12 million animals euthanized, wouldn’t you want to help break that cycle? Adopting adult animals is heartwarming, they are looking for companionship and have hope for love. Adult pets are often trained and some might even know some tricks, adult animals will easily adapt from cold hard shelter conditions to your loving home! Also, for you older folks, getting an adult animal means that animal has less energy compared a younger animal. This means if you want a dog that’s trained and older, it’ll be calmer around the house and easier to take care of! Overall there is a wide variety of different ages and breeds available. Adopting from a shelter is safe, they may not have the coziest living but that’s up to you to change. Animals that have been rescued and received by shelters are often vaccinated and neutered or spayed, you’ll be getting a healthy pet and a perfect start a healthy friendship. Every community in the United States has to have an animal shelter but its non-profit, what does this mean? It means that the money donated, or the money you spend adopting goes right back into the shelter to provide medical supply, cozy beds, food and other necessities the shelter needs to provide for the animals. And here is the best part for the penny pinchers, the cost of adopting is cut almost in half compared to buying from private breeders plus the savings on vaccinations (Helping Hands Humane Society)! How great is that! California is taking initiative and making a huge change for animals. Moving forward, California is now working on the ban on selling animal fur-based clothing and accessories. Joining with the Fur Free Alliance, California is on its way to be once again the first state in the United States to ban the sell of animal fur. The Fur Ban bill, also known as Bill 44, was introduced by assembly member Laura Friedman. On March 12, the first hearing on Bill 44 was taken place; it is to make it unlawful to sell, give, or manufacture fur products (Fur Free Alliance). Bill 485 will make a tremendous impact, Patrick O’Donnell is the assembly member who introduced the bill in 2017 (Social Compassion in Legislation 2017). It wasn’t until Governor Jerry Brown signed Bill 485 on October 2017 that set the ban to begin in January 2019. So, its been a few months in and there has been a 215.87% change from February 2018 compared to February 2019 in animals being fostered. Due to the less intake of animals, there is a decrease in outtake but we are seeing an increase in adoption levels from February 2018 to February 2019 with 7.86% for dogs and 29.41% for cats (The Animal Foundation, statistics and reports). This proves that the Bill 485 has made a positive change by decreasing animal homelessness population and increasing the sale of animals out of shelters. The revolutionary change is the puppy mills and kitten factories that will be shut down, pet stores and other private breeding corporations will most likely go out of business. Thanks to the local and state government officials that made Bill 485 possible and the communities that contributed! |
AuthorUndergraduate student generated content. Blog posting and updating done by Kristina Flores Victor, Assistant Professor of Political Science at CSUS Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|