Become a Fan

Commenting Guidelines

  • "Be the person your dog thinks you are." ~Unknown.
    We welcome comments. Supportive feedback is what we enjoy most, but tips for improvement are valued too. It’s not required that you agree with us, only that you express your opinion civilly. Comments are moderated and will be posted following review. Read more.

« Everybody wins when you join the Richmond SPCA Supper Club | Main | H.B. 2482 pulled for study after massive response from animal lovers »

January 24, 2011

Comments

Sarah

Thanks for the wonderful article, Ms Starr! Everything about this bill seems like a step back. I'm happy to help spread the word.

Michelle Miller

I will make this call! Where did people get the idea it is OK to abuse anything? What is the motivation behind this bill..there is always something hidden in the cracks of something like this!

Misty Loveless

Im shocked of you Ms. Starr and your blatant disregard for the truth of what this bill would do. Lets clarify the TRUTH out about some of your comments:

----"It would allow the person or entity charged with animal abuse to self-impound the allegedly abused animals (thereby enabling continued abuse during the investigation and prosecution of the alleged abuse crime)."

NOT TRUE. HB 2482 still ALLOWED officials to remove and seize any ABUSED animals. The bill clearly states:

"Animals are subject to seizure if (i) under a direct and immediate threat or (ii) the owner or custodian is unable to or does not provide adequate impoundment."

Which means If there is abuse and cases of immediate threat or danger AND if the owner cannot provide adequate housing, food, water, exercise, and care then the animals ARE subject to seizure.

Once again there is nothing protecting people who are abusing animals or not providing adequate care. Nothing in the new bill prevents TRUE cases of abuse and inadequate care from having their animals TAKEN away from them.

----"It would return the abused animals to the person or entity convicted of animal abuse so that the person or entity could sell the animals (and, of course, continue to abuse them)."

-----" * It would allow convicted abusers to have animals in the future."

Once again NOT TRUE.. The bill clearly states:

*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 would eliminate the ability of a private humane society to assist with these abuse cases by providing care and adoption."

NOT 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.

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.

Robin Robertson Starr

Misty -

I am publishing your comment but providing my own response to it so that you are not permitted to mislead and confuse our readers with your inaccurate statements. Everything I said about House Bill 2482 (which by the way got killed because of public and editorial outrage, but you and your group of breeders and others do not seem to realize that) was absolutely accurate. Nothing you have said in all of your ranting actually contradicts any of my points - in fact, you confirm them. For example, as I said, the bill would have allowed the person or entity charged with animal abuse to self-impound the allegedly abused animals. That is a fact. The only time that this outcome would be altered would be if there was a showing of a direct and immediate threat or (not "and" as you say) the owner would not or could not provide adequate impoundment. Clearly, this is an absurdly high and totally undefined standard. When on earth would a person charged with animal abuse actually make a direct and immediate threat to abuse the animals in the future (unless they were nuts)? They would be likely to abuse the animals if left with them but not likely to actually make such a direct threat. Without such a threat, the animals would be left with the charged abuser. Let us only imagine leaving an abused child with a parent charged with abusing the child unless the parent made a direct threat to continue the abuse after being charged.

I am not going through all of your subsequent claims because they are all equally inaccurate and hysterical. I must address one claim however because it is so bizarre (to use the specific word that the Richmond Times-Dispatch editorial page used to describe this whole bill). You say 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." Leaving aside the numerous spelling and syntax issues, what personal gain do you possibly think anyone with a private humane organization gets from the organization taking in an abused animal? This statement reflects both your paranoia and also your focus on the solely monetary value you and those like you place on animals' lives.

Saving abused animals is an important part of the mission of this organization and others in the humane field. That life saving work costs us many thousands of dollars to care for their physical and emotional injuries. When they are well, the Richmond SPCA adopts them out to a loving home for $95 or less, never more. How is this benefitting any of us personally? I know it is tough for you to understand but those of us with humane organizations and rescue organizations do this because we love and are concerned for animals' well being. If we wanted financial benefit, I assure you we would be doing something else with our time.

Your final suggestion that something in this now defeated bill would have actually protected animals is ludicrous. It would have put them even more at the mercy of abusers than they already are. The Times-Dispatch was quite right when it called this ill-conceived bill "bizarre." That actually is a very generous term for it. There are others that occur to me.

The comments to this entry are closed.