<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Committee on Animals and the Law</title>
      <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/</link>
      <description>Sponsored by the Commitee on Animals and the Law of the New York State Bar Association
The opinions expressed and statements made by the bloggers are those of the blogger alone and do not reflect the opinions of the NYSBA, its sections, committees, special committees or subcommittees or any employee or other member thereof.  The NYSBA and all other entities mentioned above are not responsible for the accuracy of any information supplied by the bloggers, and the Committee on Animals and the Law retains the absolute right to edit or remove any blog entries that are deemed to be inappropriate.</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2013</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:57:34 -0500</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

      
      <item>
         <title>NY State senators pass bill to toughen penalty for killing police animals</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The NY state senate has passed a bill co-sponsored by Senator James Seward that would toughen punishment for people who kill or injure police animals.  The bill would increase the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony. The legislation now goes to the state assembly for consideration.

There has been renewed interest in the bill following the shooting death of FBI police dog Ape during a raid on a barricaded gunman.
According to Seward, "we owe a great debt of gratitude to the police and others who responded to the multiple scenes, put their lives on the line, and sacrificed to protect us all and that includes K-9 officer Ape"  
What do you think?

Please see: <a href="http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/state_senators_pass_bill_to_to.html">http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/03/state_senators_pass_bill_to_to.html</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2013/03/state_senators_pass_bill_to_to.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2013/03/state_senators_pass_bill_to_to.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:57:34 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Austin court allows implementation of Texas &quot;puppy mill&quot; law</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The Dog or Cat Breeders Act, passed by the Legislature in 2011 and implemented Sept. 1, 2012, requires commercial dog and cat breeders to be licensed by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulations, to submit to a pre-licensing inspection and provide minimum standards of care, or face fines.
A federal court Thursday rejected a motion by the Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (representing 305 American Kennel Club groups in Texas),to block the law from going into effect. 

Proponents of the bill intend to prevent puppy mills, and argue that the law hasn't gone far enough to safeguard animals from disreputable breeders.  They are calling on lawmakers to further increase the standards for care such as requiring minimum cage sizes and prohibiting cage stacking.

Opponents of the bill argue that the law is too vague and will only drive good breeders out of business.

For more info see: <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/2013/02/01/after-court-ruling-continued-battle-over-cat-and-d/">http://www.texastribune.org/2013/02/01/after-court-ruling-continued-battle-over-cat-and-d/</a>

What do you think?]]></description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2013/02/austin_court_allows_implementa.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2013/02/austin_court_allows_implementa.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:51:24 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Westchester To Establish Registry Of Animal Abuse Offenders</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The Westchester County Board of Legislators unanimously approved a new law that establishes a county-wide registry for animal abuse offenders.  
The following states currently have an animal abusers registry: California, District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maine, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. Proposed animal abuse registry legislation is in place in many other states as well, and the FBI is pushing for a federal bill.
Some studies show that there is a link between animal abuse, domestic violence and child abuse.  Such a registry could then potentially help animals but also people.
For more info see:
<a href="http://www.animalconcerns.org/external.html?www=http%3A//www.westchester.com/news/westchesternews/government/17370-westchester-to-establish-registry-of-animal-abuse-offenders.html&itemid=201211200720320.783099">http://www.animalconcerns.org/external.html?www=http%3A//www.westchester.com/news/westchesternews/government/17370-westchester-to-establish-registry-of-animal-abuse-offenders.html&itemid=201211200720320.783099</a>

What is your opinion on animal abuse registries?  Do you think it could advance animal welfare or is it going too far?
]]></description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2012/11/westchester_to_establish_regis.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2012/11/westchester_to_establish_regis.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Animal Cruelty</category>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Domestic Relations and Your Pets</category>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Domestic Violence/Restraining Order</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:45:06 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>World&apos;s 1st masters of laws program concentrates on animal law, lures animal welfare advocates</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Lewis & Clark Law School developed a yearlong Master in Animal Law Program with the Animal Legal Defense Fund in Portland, Ore.  Enrollment is expected to grow to 15 or 20 students in three to five year.
The success of this program mirrors the growing interest in this particular field.
The article in the Washington Post focuses on the story of a student who wants to use her degree to help fight breed bias.  See <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/worlds-1st-masters-of-laws-program-concentrates-on-animal-law-lures-animal-welfare-advocates/2012/10/23/6acef7b4-1cec-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/worlds-1st-masters-of-laws-program-concentrates-on-animal-law-lures-animal-welfare-advocates/2012/10/23/6acef7b4-1cec-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html</a> 
What do you think about Breed Specific Legislation?
Do you believe programs like this Master in Law could help with advancing animal welfare?
]]></description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2012/10/worlds_1st_masters_of_laws_pro.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2012/10/worlds_1st_masters_of_laws_pro.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Other</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:46:52 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>With No Animal Shelter Nearby, Bronx Rescuers Are Left to Their Own Devices</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The Bronx and Queens have not had their own animal shelters since at least 1985, in part because city officials have insisted that it is unnecessary and costly to have one in each borough. Instead, there is a "pet receiving center" in each of these boroughs that accepts drop-offs several times a week for transport to shelters in Manhattan and Brooklyn and on Staten Island, which offer a range of veterinary and adoption services.   The result is that residents take matters into their own hands.
A 2011 law increased financing for Animal Care and Control of NYC, a nonprofit group that contracts with the city to operate the shelters and receiving centers and provide other services. Its budget rose to nearly $11 million this fiscal year, up from $7.1 million last year, according to city health officials.

But for some people it is not enough and there is an urgent need for shelters in the 2 boroughs. Some people still dumped unwanted or injured animals outside because they cannot not wait for the receiving center to open, and don't want to spend the time or money to take them to a shelter in another borough.

See the New York Times article: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/nyregion/bronx-residents-without-a-nearby-animal-shelter-help-strays-on-their-own.html?nl=nyregion&emc=edit_ur_20121012&_r=1&">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/nyregion/bronx-residents-without-a-nearby-animal-shelter-help-strays-on-their-own.html?nl=nyregion&emc=edit_ur_20121012&_r=1&</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2012/10/with_no_animal_shelter_nearby.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2012/10/with_no_animal_shelter_nearby.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Shelter Issues</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:38:42 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>L.A. hoping to save shelter dogs and cats with ban on pet-store sales</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The Los Angeles City Council will consider this month a three-year ban on the sale of commercially bred dogs, cats and rabbits in pet stores. The idea is to steer prospective pet owners to local animal shelters to alleviate overcrowding and reduce the number of animals euthanized.  City officials also hope to cut demand from Puppy Mills.  
Opponents argue that the ban will only hurt and close down responsible pet stores.  It might also make things worst by driving people to sell their puppies on the Internet or some other unregulated way.  Instead it would be more efficient to have the city place rules on the breeding of pets so consumers in Los Angeles can be assured that if they buy a dog in a pet store that they're getting it from a very good breeder.  

For more details see: <a href="http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_21721517/l-hoping-save-shelter-dogs-and-cats-ban">http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_21721517/l-hoping-save-shelter-dogs-and-cats-ban </a>

What do you think?  
Should such a ban be put in place in NY?
]]></description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2012/10/la_hoping_to_save_shelter_dogs.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2012/10/la_hoping_to_save_shelter_dogs.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 14:49:44 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Status of Military Dogs Being Revisited</title>
         <description><![CDATA[ASPCA is urging to support the Canine Members of the Armed Forces Act.  According to the organization military dogs are "currently classified as "equipment" by the U.S. Department of Defense. This classification not only trivializes these animals' contributions, it also makes it difficult to transport dogs serving in foreign lands back to the United States for adoption once they're ready for civilian life."

The Bill would remedy this issue by instituting programs to assist with their placement and veterinary care after retirement from service.

See <a href="http://capwiz.com/aspca/issues/alert/?alertid=61336366">http://capwiz.com/aspca/issues/alert/?alertid=61336366 </a>

What do you think?  Would this Bill help Military Dogs in your opinion?]]></description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2012/06/status_of_military_dogs_being.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2012/06/status_of_military_dogs_being.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:55:10 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Bill Giving Shelters too Much Authority Not Voted on.</title>
         <description>The Examiner reported on February 15, 2012, that on February 15, Assembly Bill A05449A will be introduced in the NY state Ag Committee.  This bill would permit shelters to kill animals immediately if shelter staff determines that the animals are in &quot;psychological pain&quot;.  Yet, as the article explains, there is no definition of what constitutes psychological pain.   

Likewise, this bill would permit the same shelters to deny rescue groups&apos; attempts to adopt animals. 

You may read this article at http://www.examiner.com/animal-advocacy-in-birmingham/proposed-new-york-law-may-endanger-local-companion-animals. 

We were informed thereafter that Assemblyman Lentol declined to report this bill to the full Assembly.   

Do you think this bill should have been able to have a chance to be voted upon by the entire Assembly? And, why or why not? 

Would you support this bill?  And, why or why not?</description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2012/02/bill_giving_shelters_too_much_.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2012/02/bill_giving_shelters_too_much_.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Shelter Issues</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:04:38 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Happy Endangered Species Day</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Happy Endangered Species Day!   

Created by United States Senate in 2006, Endangered Species Day is the third Friday in May.  Every year for the past five years, wildlife refuges, zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, museums, libraries, schools, scout troops and community organizations have held Endangered Species Day events, not only to raise awareness of challenges facing endangered species, but to celebrate the success stories in endangered species protection - the Peregrine Falcon, Kirtland's Warbler, the Wyoming toad, among others.  So of course, you can't celebrate Endangered Species Day without celebrating the main legal tool for protecting endangered species - the Endangered Species Act (ESA).   In fact, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the ESA has saved hundreds of species from extinction since its inception in 1973. 

But the ESA, it appears, is only as strong as the political will to enforce it.  A recent budgetary rider put forth by Congress and signed into law by President Obama included a line delisting grey wolves from federal protection under the ESA in Montana, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and north-central Utah.   What is significant about this is that, under the ESA, delisting a species from protection should be a long process, including scientific study and public debate; yet this recent delisting was accomplished during a last minute budget compromise by Congress.  Although, as Keith Rizzardi of the ESA Blawg points out, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service may have delisted the wolves anyway, but for the problems with wolf management in Wyoming, the end result is that the ESA was significantly weakened by this eleventh hour legislation.  Rizzardi points out: "Sadly, by effectively repealing the ESA as applied to canis lupus, Congress has opened the door to a whole new world...." 

Why is this a problem?  Some history is in order.  The current ESA was passed by Congress in 1973, nearly unanimously.  The ESA, drafted in "recogn[ition] that endangered and threatened species needed worldwide protection through development of international treaties and conventions,"   aimed to make "endangered species protection of highest priority of the government."    In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that the "plain intent" of the ESA must be followed, "whatever the cost"  - arguably a recognition that science must trump economic and political arguments where the ESA is concerned.    As Law Professor Taimie L. Bryant writes, "The ESA, by protecting animals in fact, implies that animals are valuable, which in turn reinforces the norm of protecting animals."  

Over the years, the ESA was amended several times.  Notably, after the 1978 Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee Valley Authority v Hill, quoted above, Congress sought to weaken the power of the act by introducing exemptions from its stringent requirements.  Various other amendments honed the act, or strengthened it, amended listing and pre-listing requirements.

The current ESA works, in short, by "listing" endangered species, and then protecting the listed species.  Listing is a long process, requiring scientific study of the species in question, its habitat and threats to its survival, a comment period when independent scientists and the public may submit comments on the species, and a final determination to list the species or not.   Notably, the listing process must be "based solely on science, not on economics or other factors."   This requirement, that science trumps economic or political factors where endangered species are concerned, is the key to the successes of the Act.
	
The other side of the coin - "delisting" - removes federal protections from a species.  Delisting should only happen once a species has either recovered and no longer needs protection, or has become extinct.   Delisting, like listing, is to be based on scientific studies and an examination of the same factors as in listing.  Again, the final determination to delist should come only after scientific study and a lengthy comment period.  After delisting, the federal government is supposed to monitor the health of the species for five years.  

Despite these requirements, on April 13, 2011, for the first time ever, Congress, not the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, deliberately removed an animal - grey wolves - from the endangered species list.  There was no extensive study and no comment period.  Instead, the delisting was done behind closed doors, the language buried in an eleventh hour bipartisan budget proviso later signed into law by President Obama.   As Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber noted in a letter to the president, this delisting is "a highly undesirable precedent" on an issue that "deserve[s] open and informed debate."   

That is a good thing to remember on Endangered Species Day.  It is wonderful that the Senate created a day dedicated to raising awareness of the challenges facing endangered species.  But creating a feel-good holiday and doing the real work of protecting endangered species are two different things.  	
	
The Committee on Animals and the Law invites you to visit our Endangered Species Day page at:  
<a href="http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Endangered_Species_Day">http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Endangered_Species_Day</a>

 to become better informed about the important role the law plays in the protection of animal species in greatest need of our help.
<hr>
 1. Huffington Post, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leda-huta/senate-unanimously-declar_b_575853.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leda-huta/senate-unanimously-declar_b_575853.html</a>. 

2.  ESA Blawg, <a href="http://www.esablawg.com/esalaw/ESBlawg.nsf/d6plinks/budget_bill_delists_wolf">http://www.esablawg.com/esalaw/ESBlawg.nsf/d6plinks/budget_bill_delists_wolf</a>.

3.  A History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, US Fish and Wildlife Services, (2008).

4.  History of the United States Endangered Species Act, Florida Museum of Natural History Ichthyology Department, <a href="http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/education/ESA.htm">http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/education/ESA.htm</a>.

5. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978).

6. Similarity or Difference as a Basis for Justice: Must Animals Be Like Humans to Be Legally Protected From Humans? Taimie L. Bryant, 70 Law & Contemporary Problems 207-254 (2007).

7.   (Emphasis added), The Citizens' Guide to the Endangered Species Act, Earthjustice and the Endangered Species Coalition.
]]></description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2011/05/happy_endangered_species_day.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2011/05/happy_endangered_species_day.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Other</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 21:45:15 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Ban on Retail Sale of Dogs and Cats</title>
         <description><![CDATA[An increasing number of cities all over the country are banning pet stores from selling dogs and cats.  
Proponents of the bans say the aim is to increase the adoption of animals from shelters, and diminish the market for animals from substandard breeding facilities that supply some pet stores. Opponents say pet stores should be able to sell dogs and cats.
What do you think?  Is banning the retail sale of dogs and cats an effective way to fight "Puppy Mills" and increase shelter adoptions?  Do you believe that pet store should be able to sell dogs and cats?
For more details see: <a href="http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar11/110301k.asp">http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar11/110301k.asp </a>]]></description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2011/03/ban_on_retail_sale_of_dogs_and.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2011/03/ban_on_retail_sale_of_dogs_and.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Puppy Mills</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 13:09:49 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>NY State and Puppy Mills</title>
         <description><![CDATA[There has been an increasing number of states regulating or proposing to regulate commercial breeders. 

See blog posting Passage of Prop B and Aftermath <a href="http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2010/11/passage_of_prop_b_and_aftermat.html#comments">http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2010/11/passage_of_prop_b_and_aftermat.html#comments</a>
For a list of the state regulations for commercial breeders and dealers see: <a href="http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/Breeder_Bills-Table.pdf">http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/Breeder_Bills-Table.pdf</a>
Some animal rights activists fear New York may become the next "Puppy Mill State," as other states pass tougher laws on regulating animal breeding.  <a href="http://www.wten.com/global/story.asp?s=14072570">http://www.wten.com/global/story.asp?s=14072570</a>

What do you think?  Should NY follow the "trend" and adopt more stringent laws for companion animal breeders? ]]></description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2011/03/ny_state_and_puppy_mills.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2011/03/ny_state_and_puppy_mills.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Puppy Mills</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:33:36 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL PASSES TWO BILLS RELATING TO ANIMALS</title>
         <description>On January 18, 2011, the New York City Council voted to adopt two bills relating directly to animals.   Mayor Bloomberg is expected to sign both into law.  http://council.nyc.gov/html/releases/01_18_10_prestated_animals.shtml 

The first, entitled the &quot;anti-tethering&quot; bill, provides very specific parameters, both on time and manner, that dogs may be tethered.  The bill requires that a dog not be tethered for more than three consecutive hours in a twelve hour period, mandates the particular type of tether which may be used, the location in which the dog may be tethered (for instance in a place devoid of objects which may cause entanglement and in a manner which will keep the dog on the owner&apos;s property).  Additionally, if someone does tether a dog, that person is required to provide the dog with food, water and shelter.

Violations of this law would carry both civil and criminal penalties.  First time violators will receive a warning or a $250 fine if the dog is injured.  A repeat violator within one year will be chargeable with a class B misdemeanor.  In addition, there are civil penalties of between $250 and $500.

The second bill seeks to promote spaying and neutering of dogs by increasing the licensing fee on intact dogs from $11.50 to $34.00.    The increased revenue will go into a fund for free or low cost spaying and neutering, public education campaigns and other veterinary services for New York City residents.

What are your thoughts about these bills?  

The Anti-tethering Bill:

Should a person face both a civil and criminal penalty for one violation of this statute?
  
Are there any reasons that should a statutory exception to the tethering requirements?
The Licensing Fee Bill:

Do you think the increased cost of licensing an intact dog will actually promote spaying and neutering of dogs as it is intended to do?  Or, is this just another tax on New Yorkers?  

Do you think it may have the unintended effect of resulting in fewer owners licensing their dogs?</description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2011/01/new_york_city_council_passes_t.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2011/01/new_york_city_council_passes_t.html</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:27:03 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Passage of Prop B and aftermath</title>
         <description><![CDATA[On Tuesday, November 2, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act (or Proposition B) passed by very narrow margin in Missouri.  Although policy reform is most often generated through state legislatures, Prop B was a citizen-supported initiative.

The very controversial measure will amend existing laws regulating dog breeders to require any person who owns more than ten unaltered female dogs for the purpose of breeding to follow certain standards for feeding, veterinary care, housing, exercise and rest cycles between breeding.
No person will be allowed to have custody of more than 50 dogs for the purpose of breeding. Under the proposed statute, a crime of puppy mill cruelty will be considered a misdemeanor.

Supporters of Prop B, such as HSUS and ASPCA, touted the measure as a much-needed tool to help police Missouri’s large-scale commercial dog breeders and ensure dogs receive humane care. Opponents, such as the American Kennel Club and Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), called the measure excessive and unnecessary, since state and federal laws already govern Missouri’s breeders. They also said some of the provisions were cost-prohibitive and would force licensed breeders out of business.

However, it looks like the fight is not over.  As a state law, the measure is subject to amendments, changes or outright repeal by the legislature and Prop B could face a challenge in the coming legislative session.  Breeders and agricultural groups said they were formulating plans for repealing or diluting the new law, and lawmakers in both legislative chambers said that they would support such measures.
Supporters of the law are hopeful that lawmaker will respect the will of voters.

 

What do you think?
If the people have voted for a referendum which they believe is needed to protect animals, should the elected public officials and financially interested groups be able to overturn it?
Or
Do you believe that such topics should not be subject to ballot initiative in the first place?  In fact, opponent of Prop B like PIJAC believe that “Ballot initiatives favor organizations that have a lot of money because they can plant their message through the airwaves”. “And it makes it more difficult to educate voters the way you can educate legislators about the true impact of these types of proposals.”

 

For more info see:

<a href="http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/11/03/election-night-prop-b/">http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/11/03/election-night-prop-b/</a>

<a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/04/2396011/breeders-to-push-missouri-lawmakers.html">http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/04/2396011/breeders-to-push-missouri-lawmakers.html</a>

 

To view the act in its entirety: <a href="http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp">http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp</a>]]></description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2010/11/passage_of_prop_b_and_aftermat.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2010/11/passage_of_prop_b_and_aftermat.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Animal Cruelty</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:28:42 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Animal Abuse Registry</title>
         <description>Representative Diana Urban will re-introduce to Connecticut legislature a bill which seeks to require the state Department of Children and Families and the Department of Agriculture to cross-report animal cruelty and child abuse.  Part of the rational for the bill, as Representative DebraLee Hovey stated, is that “[t]here’s clear research that there’s a link [between animal and child abuse].”  Likewise, Urban also stated that “[t]his bill was formed to catch that link so that we might possibly step in before a child is abused or there is domestic violence in the home by recognizing if there is animal abuse in the home there is a red flag for future violent behavior there.”

Here is a link to one article about this topic:

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Bill-would-probe-link-between-animal-cruelty-688260.php

Do you believe that this bill should pass? And, why or why not?

Do you believe that New York should enact a similar bill? And, why or why not?</description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2010/11/animal_abuse_registry.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2010/11/animal_abuse_registry.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Animal Cruelty</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:17:24 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
      <item>
         <title>Does the new ACC policy violate Constitutional Rights?</title>
         <description>New York State Assembly Member Micah Kellner, in a letter, asked the Mayor and Health Commissioner of New York City  to repeal a new Animal Care &amp; Control of New York City (ACC) volunteer policy.

Link to the letter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36757391/Letter-to-Mayor-Bloomberg-re-Animal-Care-Control

According to the letter, the new policy threatens to expel volunteers for exercising their rights to free speech and to petition their government for redress of grievances. Specifically, the policy states that volunteers may not &apos;publicly criticiz[e]&apos; or cast the agency &apos;in a negative light&apos; without permission from ACC. It also prohibits them from &apos;[p]osting [criticism] on any internet site such as Facebook, My Space, Craigs List, etc.&apos; It further states that &apos;[v]olunteers are prohibited from distributing their personal information, or opinions in regards [to ACC] volunteers, staff, animals, and/or policies to the public.&apos; Those who do &apos;will be terminated.&apos;

Assembly Member Micah Kellner claims that this new policy violates 42 U.S.C Section 1983 which prohibits a state or municipal government to take action designed to prevent or intimidate people from exercising their First Amendment rights or punish them for doing so.  New York City has claimed that ACC is an independent non-profit, but in Kellner&apos;s opinion, ACC operates as a de facto government agency.  Therefore Section 1983 would apply.

Do you think ACC has the right to stop its volunteers from voicing their opinions about that organization and its policies, staff and animals?

For more info see: http://www.examiner.com/animal-shelters-in-san-francisco/nyc-mayor-asked-to-repeal-retaliatory-animal-control-policy </description>
         <link>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2010/09/does_the_new_acc_policy_violat.html</link>
         <guid>http://nysbar.com/blogs/animalaw/2010/09/does_the_new_acc_policy_violat.html</guid>
        
          <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Shelter Issues</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:12:36 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
