Posted on 11/15/2004 6:47:38 AM PST by Calpernia
Guard dogs on commercial properties would be outlawed, towns could not legally stop people from feeding feral cats and a medical diagnosis would be required to euthanize an animal.
Police would be trained to perform CPR on injured cats and dogs, and they would be the front line in animal abuse probes. Special teams of county prosecutors also would be created to handle the cases, much like they already do for child abuse, sex offenses and major crimes.
These are just a few reforms being proposed by leaders of Gov. James E. McGreevey's Animal Welfare Task Force, a group charged with overhauling the way New Jersey handles animal welfare issues.
The nearly 200 pages of draft recommendations, obtained by The Star-Ledger, are still under review by the full 30-member task force, and with McGreevey due to leave office Nov. 15, it is unclear whether any action will be taken on the task force recommendations.
Still, the proposals already are causing a stir within the task force itself and among animal control officers and town officials who would be charged with taking more responsibility for animal welfare.
"We're supposed to do this while solving crimes and handling homeland security? I'm concerned. I'm already 20 officers down from what I should be," said Dover Township Police Chief Michael Mastronardy, who just ended his term as president of the New Jersey Association of Police Chiefs.
"We would never be able to provide the (animal) services to the degree that these people would expect," he added.
McGreevey appointed the task force in February 2003 to recommend improved ways to monitor shelters, investigate animal cruelty and deal with euthanizing strays. Currently, animal control and shelters are handled by a fragmented network of private and public agencies with little state oversight from the Department of Health and Senior Services.
The governor's office yesterday would not comment on the proposals.
"It's in draft form, not in final form," said Micah Rasmussen, a McGreevey spokesman. "We want to wait until the task force does something with it or we have it."
Judith Leiberman, task force chairwoman and a counselor to the governor, did not return telephone calls to her office.
As it stands, the report suggests sweeping changes in how towns, pet owners and animal shelter operations deal with animals.
For example, every town would be forced to hire a trained abuse investigator as well as require its police to be newly trained in all aspects of animal abuse prosecution and detection as they assume the job of responding to animal abuse calls. The SPCA, created more than 100 years ago to investigate animal abuse, would essentially be sidelined and county sheriffs would be required to become central record-keepers on abuse cases.
Overall, the report recommends creating a new animal protection system, funded in part by increased license fees, primarily to care for the more than 120,000 stray animals picked up annually from New Jersey streets.
While traditional spay and neuter programs would be increased, towns would be stopped from rounding up feral cat colonies or preventing people from keeping large groups of animals. Overcrowded shelters would not be able to euthanize unwanted animals except for medical reasons, and the report recommends building more shelters through government and private cooperation.
"What they want is obviously unrealistic," said Roseann Trezza, executive director of the Associated Humane Societies, the largest private animal shelter operation in the state with three shelters and a zoo. "In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to euthanize any animal. But in reality, people do not want to adopt many animals we find and the job of animal protectors is not to merely prolong life, but to relieve suffering," said Trezza.
Not all of the proposals, such as statewide cat licensing, are controversial.
"I think many of the ideas being proposed are good ideas, but there are a few that are causing concerns and we are addressing them with individual task force member responses to the draft," said Nina Austenberg, a task force member and head of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office of the Humane Society of the United States.
Other officials criticized the reach of the task force.
"They have no assimilation with reality here. The people who came up with this seem to be all from just one end of the equation. We want to help cats and dogs, but maybe we should concentrate on enforcing the laws and improving the things already in place," said William Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities.
Part of the ongoing controversy surrounding the task force was the hiring of two task force leaders by the Department of Health and Senior Services to lead a new Office of Animal Welfare back in June. Without any notice to the task force, Cheryl Maccaroni and Gwyn Sondike started their new jobs this past summer.
Task force member Stu Goldman, an SPCA agent, said the two are among those authoring the final report and now recommending giving the new office widespread authority over animal issues. Goldman said yesterday he is resigning from the task force, claiming he and other members were ignored during their deliberations.
Sondike and Maccaroni did not return calls requesting comment.
Health Commissioner Clifton Lacy declined comment yesterday on the draft report through a spokeswoman. But he previously defended the creation of the new Office of Animal Welfare, explaining it was needed to revive mandated shelter inspections and enforce requirements that animal control officers be certified.
The task force report justified sidelining the SPCA because of a State Commission of Investigation report that revealed widespread mismanagement in individual county SPCAs and no oversight by the state chapter.
The new code is based off of what was inacted in Canada.
Animal Lovers and Others
by Alan Caruba
November 4, 2004
People say that all the really bad liberal ideas start in California and then ooze out from the left coast to cover the rest of the nation. Not so. I believe that New Jersey is ignored for its egregiously stupid, liberal ideas, and I want to set the record straight.
Until November 15, we still have a disgraced Governor, James E. McGreevey, who will leave in his wake a State whose bonds are approaching “junk” status and his very own Animal Welfare Task Force.
Recently, the State’s largest circulation newspaper, the Star-Ledger, got its hands on the nearly 200 pages of draft recommendations that are under review by the 30-member task force. One, I might add, a task force whose members largely represent the animal rights movement. In short, the task force, like just about every other government entity in the Garden State, is rigged.
Among the recommendations under consideration is the inclusion of animal abuse laws under the State’s criminal code, increasing penalties, and creating new prosecution units. This, by the way, would put animals on a par with humans, a status they do not enjoy anywhere else. Pained as they were, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, just tossed out a case representing the world’s whales, porpoises, and dolphins, saying they had no standing to sue the President over the U.S. Navy’s use of sonar equipment. Congress still shows no intention of granting animals the same status before the bar of justice as humans. This is a good thing.
One more reason for not giving criminal code status to animal abuse laws is the fact that every police force in the State would then have to enforce those laws and, in the process, might be distracted from things like homeland security or the pursuit of murderers, rapists, thieves, and drug dealers. Animal rights advocates, however, rarely show the slightest concern for the welfare of humans.
Another task force recommendation would ban chaining or tethering dogs for any reason. The next obvious step is to ban keeping them on a leash. Some dogs, though not the ones I know, need to be tethered. Even some dogs, if they could speak, would tell you this. However, they can only bark. They’re dogs, not humans.
The task force also wants state regulations that would permit people to create--get ready--free roaming, neutered feral (wild) cat colonies “to reduce euthanizing unwanted cats.” I am not sure how one goes about neutering a wild cat, but such details are of little concern to the task force. What is important is that the crazy old lady at the end of the street who feeds or keeps 30, 40 or 50 cats will be free to do so. Remember to stay down wind from her house.
It gets better or worse, depending on your point of view. The task force wants to make it a “mandatory duty” for veterinarians and everyone involved in animal care to report animal cruelty. This would put such behavior, despicable as it is, on a par with child abuse, a criminal act that most people believe is of far greater importance. Here again, law enforcement authorities would have to divert their personnel from crimes of considerably more significance.
And did I mention the task force wants to require towns to offer animal control services 24 hours a day, seven days a week? If you think property taxes are high now, just watch them rise if this recommendation becomes law. More than 120,000 stray animals are picked up annually from the streets of New Jersey. Animal shelters are filled to over-flowing, and, yes, most end up being euthanized because they will never be adopted.
The State’s Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection recently announced that bear hunters would be banned from all parks and wildlife management areas under the control of the DEP. New Jersey held its first bear hunt in 33 years last year to cull the estimated 3,200 bears roaming the most densely populated State in America. This year, though, DEP Commissioner, Bradley Campbell, has refused to process more than 3,000 applications filed by hunters. What is his and fellow animal rights advocates’ answer to the problem? A bear birth control program. You just cannot make up stuff like this. A longer bear-hunting season will have the same effect and actually put money into the State’s coffers. The ban is being challenged in the courts.
None of this even begins to deal with the estimated 170,000 deer that freely roam the State, a source of endless auto accidents that kill the deer and, occasionally, drivers and passengers. It doesn’t touch on the thousands of federally protected Canadian Geese that befoul parks, golf courses, and other campus settings.
I have no doubt that the departing Governor’s Task Force on Animal Welfare will spawn a raft of very bad legislation to make life miserable for animal owners and others. As it is, without waiting for the full report, the State’s Health Department has added an Office of Animal Welfare to insure that the over-worked personnel at shelters be properly certified and a raft of inspectors be hired to monitor the shelters.
If some of these animal rights recommendations become law in New Jersey, you can be sure that advocates in every other State will seize upon that fact to introduce them in yours. Meanwhile, in California, the beloved and much protected cougars will continue to make dinner of the occasional jogger. The condors, a specie of vulture, which the federal government spent millions to “save”, will no doubt clean up the mess the cougars leave behind.
Canada’s Law:
The House of Commons of Canada
BILL C-17
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals, disarming a peace officer and other amendments) and the Firearms Act (technical amendments)
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
R.S., c. C-46
CRIMINAL CODE
1. The heading of Part V of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS, DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
2. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 182:
Cruelty to Animals
Killing or harming animals
182.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) causes or, being the owner, permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal;
(b) kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately;
(c) kills an animal without lawful excuse;
(d) without lawful excuse, poisons an animal, places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by an animal, administers an injurious drug or substance to an animal or, being the owner, permits anyone to do any of those things;
(e) in any manner encourages, promotes, arranges, assists at or receives money for the fighting or baiting of animals;
(f) trains an animal to fight other animals;
(g) builds, makes, maintains, keeps or allows to be built, made, maintained or kept a cockpit or any other arena for the fighting of animals on premises that he or she owns or occupies;
(h) promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive animals are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated; or
(i) being the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part of the premises to be used in the course of an activity referred to in paragraph (e), (f) or (h).
Failing to provide adequate care
(2) Every one commits an offence who
(a) by a failure to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal causes it pain, suffering or injury;
(b) being the owner or the person having the custody or control of an animal, abandons it or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, air, shelter and care for it; or
(c) negligently injures an animal while it is being conveyed.
Punishment
(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.
Punishment
(4) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (2)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Order of prohibition or restitution
(5) The court may, in addition to any other sentence that it may impose under subsection (3) or (4),
(a) make an order prohibiting the accused from owning, having the custody or control of or residing in the same premises as an animal during any period that the court considers appropriate but, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a minimum of five years; and
(b) on application of the Attorney General or on its own motion, order that the accused pay to a person or an organization that has taken care of an animal as a result of the commission of the offence the reasonable costs that the person or organization incurred in respect of the animal, if the costs are readily ascertainable.
Breach of order
(6) Every one who contravenes an order made under paragraph (5)(a) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Application
(7) Sections 740 to 741.2 apply, with the modifications that the circumstances require, to orders made under paragraph (5)(b).
Definition of ``animal''
( In subsections (1) to (7), ``animal'' means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.
3. The definition ``child'' in section 214 of the Act is repealed.
R.S., c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 38
4. Paragraph 264.1(1)(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal that is the property of any person.
5. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 270:
Disarming a peace officer
270.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, without the consent of a peace officer, takes or attempts to take a weapon that is in the possession of the peace officer when the peace officer is engaged in the execution of his or her duty.
Definition of ``weapon''
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), ``weapon'' means any thing that is designed to be used to cause injury or death to, or to temporarily incapacitate, a person.
Punishment
(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.
R.S., c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 11
6. Sections 274 and 275 of the Act are replaced by the following:
Corrobora-
tion not required
274. If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1 , 155, 159, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 212, 271, 272 or 273, no corroboration is required for a conviction and the judge shall not instruct the jury that it is unsafe to find the accused guilty in the absence of corroboration.
Rules respecting recent complaint abrogated
275. The rules relating to evidence of recent complaint are hereby abrogated with respect to offences under sections 151, 152, 153, 153.1 , 155 and 159, subsections 160(2) and (3) and sections 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272 and 273.
1992, c, 38, s. 2
7. The portion of subsection 276(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
Evidence of complainant's sexual activity
276. (1) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1 , 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272 or 273, evidence that the complainant has engaged in sexual activity, whether with the accused or with any other person, is not admissible to support an inference that, by reason of the sexual nature of that activity, the complainant
R.S., c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 13
8. Section 277 of the Act is replaced by the following:
Reputation evidence
277. In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1 , 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272 or 273, evidence of sexual reputation, whether general or specific, is not admissible for the purpose of challenging or supporting the credibility of the complainant.
9. The heading before section 444 and sections 444 to 447 of the Act are repealed.
R.S., c. 42 (4th Supp.), s. 2; 1996, c. 19, par. 70(j)
10. Section 462.47 of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:
Nullité des actions contre les informateurs
462.47 Il est entendu que , sous réserve de l'article 241 de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu, aucune action ne peut être intentée contre une personne pour le motif qu'elle aurait révélé à un agent de la paix ou au procureur général des faits sur lesquels elle se fonde pour avoir des motifs raisonnables de soupçonner que des biens sont des produits de la criminalité ou pour croire qu'une autre personne a commis une infraction de criminalité organisée ou une infraction désignée ou s'apprête à le faire.
1997, c. 16, s 6(1)
11. Subsection 486(2.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Testimony outside courtroom
(2.1) Notwithstanding section 650, if an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1 , 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 266, 267, 268, 271, 272 or 273 and the complainant or any witness, at the time of the trial or preliminary inquiry, is under the age of eighteen years or is able to communicate evidence but may have difficulty doing so by reason of a mental or physical disability, the presiding judge or justice, as the case may be, may order that the complainant or witness testify outside the court room or behind a screen or other device that would allow the complainant or witness not to see the accused, if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the exclusion is necessary to obtain a full and candid account of the acts complained of from the complainant or witness.
1997, c. 23, s. 19
12. (1) Subsection 810.01(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Appearances
(2) A provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.
1997, c. 23, s. 19
(2) Subsection 810.01(6) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Variance of conditions
(6) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.
1993, c. 45, s. 11
13. (1) Subsection 810.1(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Appearances
(2) A provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.
1993, c. 45, s. 11
(2) Subsection 810.1(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Judge may vary recognizance
(4) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.
1997, c. 17, s. 9(1)
14. (1) Subsection 810.2(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Appearances
(2) A provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.
1997, c. 17, s. 9(1)
(2) Subsection 810.2(7) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Variance of conditions
(7) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, of the Attorney General or of the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.
1997, c. 18, s. 115
15. The portion of Form 11.1 of Part XXVIII of the French version of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
But this is linked through to the task force review in NJ.
Enforcement of Cruelty to Animals Sections of the Criminal Code
Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("SPCAs") have statutory mandates under their provincial Animal Welfare Acts to prevent cruelty to animals.
Many provincial statutes designate SPCA Inspectors as peace officers entitled to exercise the powers of a police officer where an animal is in distress. A number of senior Inspectors have law enforcement backgrounds as ex-police officers or RCMP officers.
Inspectors are trained to investigate crimes, to lay charges and to assist crown counsel to prosecute cruelty offence cases.
Training is provided by the RCMP, other law enforcement agencies, provincial humane societies and seminars conducted by the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies.
In various provinces, SPCA Acts allow SPCA Inspectors to exercise the powers of a police officer, to obtain search warrants and to issue Orders requiring people to take such action as is necessary to relieve animals of distress. Inspectors may seize animals in distress, and where necessary may destroy or sell them.
CFHS has developed an Inspectors' Manual educating Inspectors on Criminal Code issues, including criminal law procedures, evidence gathering, laying of charges, Charter rights, how to deal with an accused offender, assisting in preparation for trial and the trial itself.
CFHS is preparing a Prosecutors' Manual in cooperation with crown attorneys and criminal lawyers, to provide to crown prosecutors relevant criminal cases and principles applicable to prosecution of crimes against animals.
Less than 1/3 of 1% of all animal abuse complaints go to court. (See Enforcement Chart).
In 1993, the Alberta SPCA had investigations involving 61,734 animals and 21 court cases.
In 1997 - 98, 362 criminal charges were laid across Canada. Only 167 accused were found guilty (46%), 167 accused had their cases stayed or withdrawn (46%) and 8% were disposed of by other methods.
In 1996 - 97, there were 645 charges laid throughout Canada. 196 persons were held to be guilty (30%), 190 cases were stayed or withdrawn (29%) and 251 were acquitted (39%).
During 1995 - 97, Ontario SPCA inspectors/agents handled 12,824 - 15,827 complaints of animal abuse each year, giving rise to 35 - 52 charges per year and 11,000 - 16,000 animals removed from owners.
In Ontario there were 28 Inspectors and 350 Agents in 1998.
SPCAs have lost confidence in the ability of the criminal law system to properly address crimes against animals. Amended provisions of the Criminal Code are expected to raise these cases from summary convictions to hybrid offences, which will be treated much more seriously by Crown Attorneys and judges.
SPCAs often incur substantial costs to prosecute criminal cases. In several cases costs have amounted to $30,000 - $60,000. Cost recovery for veterinary care and sheltering of abused animals would assist SPCAs in carrying out their mandate.
In reading the Animals and the Criminal Code for Canada. The documents the task force in NJ is reviewing now is suppose to be based on this 'success story'.
The lanuage for hunting and meat livestock is open to interpretation. Our Canadian neighbors seem to have given themselves the opportunity to go Vegan. And now NJ joins them.
>>>>
It is a defence to any of the offences against animals that the accused acted with legal justification or excuse or with "colour of right." What constitutes a sufficient excuse or justification has to be decided on the facts of each case, and "colour of right" means an honest belief in a state of facts which, if true, would be a legal justification of excuse. For example, it has been held to be justified to kill an animal that is attacking or threatening to attack another animal (R. v. Fusell, 1920), but the tracking and killing of a dog that had frightened the accused's sheep without attacking and then left and ceased to pose any danger was not justifiable (R. v. Etherington, 1963). Statutory authorization also constitutes legal justification, so it is not an offence for example to kill an animal in accordance with provincial hunting regulations. <<<<<
Obviously, the politicians in NJ have too much time and money on their hands.
That is an understatement.
With this new criminal status code, you would be charged the SAME as shooting a human.
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animaluse/trapresearch/legislative/nj072602news.htm
More than one year after a state investigation produced a damning indictment of New Jersey's animal welfare system, Gov. James E. McGreevey yesterday established a task force to help overhaul the system and prevent future abuse and neglect.
McGreevey said the task force will seek to update the "archaic" laws that govern New Jersey's animal welfare and animal control programs. A major focus will be addressing an overpopulation problem among domestic animals that results in 51,000 strays being put to death annually.
The Governor said the commission also will eventually tackle the issue of overpopulation among wildlife. Its charter members include animal rights activists who seek to ultimately abolish hunting.
Last April, the State Commission of Investigation completed a three-year probe of New Jersey's Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and issued a report alleging that many of the county chapters were rife with thievery, misconduct and financial mismanagement. The privately run
agencies, the report said, frequently ignored blatant cases of animal cruelty and in some cases contributed to abuse by running dirty, disease-ridden shelters.
McGreevey said the SCI report exposed a "pattern of abuse and malfeasance" and "deplorable conditions" that were "completely unacceptable."
"The time has come to take a proactive step towards designing a new future for animal welfare in New Jersey," McGreevey said in a statement. "The Animal Welfare Task Force will help us meet that goal."
The task force will consist of 30 members and report recommendations to McGreevey within a year. Saying the problem was urgent, the Governor said he would begin to implement the recommendations as they came in, rather than waiting for a complete report.
Frank Arnemante, a lawyer for the state SPCA, would not comment yesterday.
McGreevey made his announcement at a Statehouse news conference where he was joined by animal rights activists -- as well as three strays that had been rescued: Montana, a 3-year-old German shepherd; Shyla, a 3-month-old pit bull mix, and Punky, a 5-year-old diabetic cat. Montana climbed and slobbered all over the Governor, who said he hoped to get his own German shepherd to bring into the governor's mansion next year.
Administration officials said the Governor has not chosen all the members of task force. But Theresa Fritzges of the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, whom McGreevey invited to speak yesterday, said the Governor has asked her to be on the task force.
The Alliance is a 20-year-old organization that has vehemently opposed hunting throughout the state, protesting government-sponsored efforts to reduce deer herds by lethal means. The group opposes the use of animals for clothing, food and medical or commercial testing. Its members also have opposed sport fishing.
McGreevey also invited to the news conference Linda Ditmars, who actively campaigned against a proposed bear hunt in New Jersey two years ago and called hunting "legalized animal abuse." She is a member of the Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting, a national group that also opposes the use of animals for food and clothing.
Gwyn Sondike, another task force member present yesterday, runs an animal rescue operation in Somerset County and also opposes hunting.
McGreevey said the task force would have an opportunity to address overpopulation issues among wildlife. "The first charge will be domestic, but then the task force may proceed to wildlife," he said. But he said a ban on hunting was not on his agenda.
Fritzges said the task force's first objective would be to address issues involving domestic animals, adding she feels the laws defining "adequate shelter" for animals are too weak. For example, she said, they could be strengthened to specify that doghouses should be properly insulated and not face the wind.
As for wildlife issues, Fritzges said: "I think it's premature to know exactly where this task force is going. ... However, I do not see any problem with a body that speaks for animals to investigate ways other than killing to deal with controlling wildlife. Fish and Wildlife speaks only for hunters."
McGreevey's choice of advisers and the task force's scope alarmed some sportsmen.
"The animal rights people have been working for years to get a body to oversee or replace Fish and Wildlife because of their opposition to hunting and fishing," said George Howard, a member of the state Fish and Wildlife Council who also belongs to the New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen. "Sportsmen should be concerned if this commission is led by animal rights activists to look at controlling wildlife."
With the bear population rising, discussions have begun again on launching a hunt, and some think the new commission will become a state-sanctioned advocacy group to stop it.
"If this commission takes an animal rights approach toward our wildlife, we'll see what we already have witnessed since the animal rights people stopped the bear hunt -- more bear and more bear problems," said John Hoinowski of the United Bow Hunters of New Jersey.
Stephen Vantassel owns Wildlife Damage Control and is a Certified Wildlife Control Professional. He is a nationally known writer including having been an assistant editor for Wildlife Control Technology magazine, author of numerous ADC articles as well as The Wildlife Removal Handbook rev.ed and the Wildlife Damage Inspection Handbook rev. ed. Mr. Vantassel is also a vocal critic of the growing animal rights movement. He has exposed the fallacies and deceptions of the animal rights protest industry through debate, lecture and publication.
Disclaimer: WDC seeks to provide accurate, effective and responsible information on resolving human/wildlife conflicts. We welcome suggestions, criticisms to help us achieve this goal. The information provided is for informational purposes only and users of the information use it at their own risk. The reader must consult state/federal officials to determine the legality of any technique in the reader's locale. Some techniques are dangerous to the user and to others. WDC encourages readers to obtain appropriate training (see our informational literature at our Store ), possibly hire a professional (for help in finding one e-mail after visiting the previous link) and understand that proper animal damage control involves patience, understanding that not every technique/method works for every situation or even 100% of the time. Your use of this information is governed by this understanding. All information here is the copyright of Stephen Vantassel (Wildlife Damage Control). We welcome potential users of the information and photos to simply ask for permission via e-mail. Finally, WDC welcomes e-mail but understand that all e-mails become property of Wildlife Damage Control.
Then I guess the penalty for shooting humans better be reduced to "cruelty". Kind of puts a whole a new spin on things, doesn't it?
With the use of the term 'animal' that means ANY animal.
Bird and deer hunters better look out.
What about fish? Are they considered 'animals' as well?
Why do these people have to go so far overboard????
The problem with any commission or task force is that the only ones interested in serving and chosen seem to be animal rights wackos.
I deplore animal cruelty and neglect, but pushing such extreme measures insures that nothing useful will be accomplished.
http://www.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/governor/njnewsline/view_article.pl?id=1036
McGreevey Announces Members of Animal Welfare Task Force
McGreevey Announces Members of
Animal Welfare Task Force
(TRENTON)—Governor James E. McGreevey today announced the membership of the Animal Welfare Task Force. The members of the Task Force will bring their extensive knowledge ofanimal cruelty, animal overpopulation and animal welfare issues to help prevent cruelty to New Jersey’s animals and address the burgeoning population of homeless animals.
“The time has come to take a proactive step towards designing a new future for animal welfare in New Jersey,” said McGreevey. “The members of the Animal Welfare Task Force will help us meet that goal.”
Created by Executive Order in July, the Animal Welfare Task Force will address issues that affect animals throughout the State, including: current laws governing animal abuse and neglect, overpopulation and animal welfare; the manner in which the anti-cruelty laws are enforced throughout the State; animal overpopulation; and the animal shelter system in the State.
The Task Force will issue recommendations to the Governor, the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the Department of Health and Senior Services within a year.
The members of the Task Force represent diverse organizations and interests related to the prevention of animal cruelty and enhancement of enforcement, including:
· Nina Austenberg of Flanders, Morris County
· Steven J. Dash of Egg Harbor City, Atlantic County
· Camillo DiDonato of Hamilton, Mercer County
· Dante DiPirro, Esq of Titusville, Mercer County
· Linda J. Ditmars of West Trenton, Mercer County
· Karen L. Dixon of Deptford, Gloucester County
· B. Stephan Finkel of Levittown, Pennsylvania
· Theresa Fritzgers, Ph.D. of East Windsor, Mercer County
· Sheriff Ralph Froehlich of Union, Union County
· Stuart Goldman of Lincroft, Monmouth County
· Archie Gottesman of Summit, Union County
· Mary Gotz-Rother of South Orange, Essex County
· Nancy E. Halpern, DVM of Princeton, Mercer County
· Lisa Handel of Freehold, Monmouth County
· Lara F. Heimann of Princeton Junction, Mercer County
· Laura Jones of Yardley, Pennsylvania
· Elaine A. Kaufmann, Esq. of Edison, Middlesex County
· Paul Levinsohn, Esq. of Princeton, Mercer County
· Judith Lieberman, Esq. of Jackson, Ocean County
· Cheryl A. Maccaroni, Esq. of Titusville, Mercer County
· Sharon McGreevey of Woodbridge, Middlesex County
· Michael Melchionne of Waretown, Ocean County
· John J. Queenean of Cape May, Cape May County
· Sherry Ramsey of Freehold, Monmouth County
· Gwyn Sondike of Short Hills, Essex County
· Faye E. Sorhage, V.M.D, M.P.H. of Newtown, Pennsylvania
· Gordon Bernard Stull, V.M.D, BS of Vincenton, Burlington County
· Alan VanSavage of Montclair, Essex County
· Lisa B. Weisberg, Esq. of New York, New York
· Honorable Richard J. Williams of Linwood, Atlantic County
I'm on the SCI site now and it seems fish are included. The details of this proposal have not been made available to the public though. It is a 'surprise' we will be getting today.
What about human animals?
That is a PDF download of the 178 page report. I would love to copy and paste portions here but the Adobe free pdf to html converter can support the size of the doc.
My wife founded and runs an animal rescue organization, even fights to have animal abuse taken seriously in our state since it's now essentially ignored. And she'd be the first to agree that this NJ law is ludicrous.
MM
Excerpt from that PDF:
The SPCAs are accountable to no governmental authority. Because there are no standards, rules or guidelines governing their composition, operation, training or activities, there is no consistancy or uniformity in their make-up, functioning or enforcement of the laws. These autonomous organizations present a true hodgepodge of extreme diversity and a danger to the state's structured system of law enforcement. Once individuals in a county receive a charter from the state SPCA, they control the selection, discipline and removal of their members, officers and agents; the election of terms of office of members of the board of directors; the content of any by-laws; the formulation of any rules or regulations; what training, if any will be provided; how they will enforce the animal cruelty laws, and how they will spend the income. As a result, the SPCAs run the gamut in effectiveness of operation, scrupulousness in financial matters and enforcement of the cruelty laws. While some are operated in a highly professional manner, according to set rules and regulations, others are run as the personal domain of a well entrenched few who discard the rules on whim. Many individuals involved in these societies are dedicated to the welfare of animals and committed to functioning within an organized, structed environment, while others are 'wannabe cops' or motivated by personal gain. Because the SPCAs operate outside the realm of government, they have become havens for those who cannot obtain legitimate law enforcement positions.
(snip)
The PDF is worth a download and READ!
http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/spca.pdf
Excerpt:
The movement [SPCA] had its roots in the efforts of Henry Bergh, a European aristocrat who, following his appointment in 1863 to a diplomatic post at the Russian Court of Czar Alexander II, championed the cause of animals against inhumane treatment. Bergh soon immigrated to America, but only after stopping in London to confer with the president of England's Royal Society. In February 1866, Bergh delivered an impassioned speech at New York City's Clinton Hall before an audience that included influencial government and business leaders.
In recounting the horrific practices in America of the inhumane treatment of animals, he emphasized that the protection of animals had neither class lines nor political boundaries. Bergh's speech was covered extensively by the press. Recognizing that anti-cruelty statutes were meaningless in the absence of enforcement, Bergh's approach was two pronged. His efforts culminated in the New York Legislature's passage of a charter incorporating the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on april 10, 1866, and nine days later, of an anti-cruelty law that vested the society with the authority to enforce it. Bergh, whose successes were due largely to his political and social connections, was elected as the society's first president.
Say what you will about feral cat colonies, but they do a good job of keeping down the pests. I'm actually a bit saddened by the loss of them in recent years.
I wonder if anyone knows if it's illegal to hunt with a bow. My son made a rather good bow out of mesquite and a homemade arrow. He's figured out how to tie a ten-foot string to the rig so he won't loose it. Now he's bugging me to go fishing. It's actually a very good, accurate system he set up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.