Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Wednesday, February 13, 2008About my husband
By Janis Christensen
When my husband, Allen, was a little boy, his family traveled regularly from Ogden, Utah, to Malad, Idaho, to visit relatives. Near the border between the two states and along the Malad River, there was a glue factory outside of which were regularly corralled horses who were to meet their end in the factory. Allen thought oftentimes how he might approach the factory by night and free the horses. When he was 18, Allen had a buckskin quarter horse named Nick. He loved Nick and did all he could to care for him. It was necessary for Nick to have an operation, but the horse was young and frisky and would not settle down enough to recuperate. Eventually the horse tore open the surgical incision and, in exhaustion, laid itself in the nearby Milad River. Allen waded out to encourage Nick, wrapped his arms around the horse’s head to lift his nose above the current and wept as Nick died in his arms. In 1989, Allen decided that our family needed a cat and dog. For Christmas, he presented the children with a beautiful gray, part Siamese kitten and a papered Shih Tzu puppy. The kitten we named Loretta after "the coal miner’s daughter" and the puppy was Kim Chi, known to us affectionately as Kimmie. Allen and the puppy developed an incredible bond. We all loved her, but Allen loved her the most and it was obvious that she liked him best. She would wait excitedly for him to pull into the garage each night and then the two of them would go through a welcome home ritual and just hang out. We had that dog for 13 years. Once during that time, Kimmie was frightened by neighborhood fireworks and ran away. My husband, myself and our children cried for 4 days. We passed out hundreds of fliers with Kimmie’s photo. We had a couple false alarms, but after 4 days , a person 2 miles away called and said they had our dog. We feared it was another false alarm, but Allen went to check it out. . Kimmie recognized the sound of his truck and was so excited. We all felt as if we had been given another chance at life with this animal we adored. In October of 2001, Kimmie was aging. She couldn’t move as fast, plus her hearing was almost gone. I was in Provo shopping at University Mall with my daughter. I received a call on my cell phone from Allen. He was sobbing so hard, I couldn’t understand him. I finally was able to understand that he had pulled into our garage, Kimmie was there and had failed for the first time ever, to get out of the way of Allen’s truck tire. He had hit and killed his precious pet and his pain was unspeakable. Maybe sharing these very personal experiences will help some of you understand who my husband really is and why I am angered by those who would depict him as a heartless, inhumane animal-hater. The persons promoting that image have also misrepresented how SB 117 compares to legislation nationwide and what it will really accomplish. The Allen Christensen I know and love is on the side of animals and is promoting a strong animal rights bill which can actually make it into our law books. I hope you will support his efforts on behalf of the animals in our midst - and I hope you will help refute false impressions of good people wherever they occur.
posted by The Senate Site at 9:54 PM | Link
|
Radio Free SenateYour Government 2.0 Lab
Keep in TouchCurrent Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
27 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
We're not going to play that game on this particular blog post, "anonymous." Thoughtful constructive feedback is always welcome.
Mrs. Christensen shared a very personal biographical perspective and I appreciate knowing it.
I appreciate what Mrs. Christensen has shared, but SB117 is not a good bill and will not be unless it can be amended on the floor and made better.
It is not the "comparison" to other states that I am concerned about.
It is the chance that the animal cruelty laws in existence will be weakened by this bill if it passes into law.
I much more in agreement with a law that will include the issue of the link between domestic violence and animal torture. People that will deliberately hurt an animal will do so to another human being.
SB117 is being discussed today on the floor as I type this, and I wish I could be up at the capitol in person today to so the senators aware I am very interested in the proceedings for this bill.
If what Mrs. Christensen says about her husband is true, then why on earth is he so against making animal torture a felony in Utah? I would honestly like to know how he & his wife would feel under the following circumstances:
1. Their next door neighbor lured Kimmie into his yard, fatally shot their tiny dog, then threatened Mr. Christensen with the same gun as his family watched.
2. Kimmie was put in the oven by someone who was upset with his wife.
3. Kimmie was barking in their fenced-in back yard, lured to the fence by a neighbor, and cut across the nose with a knife.
4. Kimmie got out in front of the Christensen home, was shot by a neighbor and lay dying in another neighbor's arms while the Christensens were away from home.
Seriously, would it be okay to give that neighbor a slap on the wrist (if that) knowing that if he did it again within 5 years he would get charged with a felony? And I guess if the neighbor did this 5 years and one day later then oh, well. Why not nip it in the bud? Anyone that can do these things to a defensive animal would have no problem doing it to a child. And with the argument that the laws against child abuse aren't as strong-whose fault is that? The same Senators' who vote against making animal cruelty a felony.
What a joke! Mr. Christensen is a total redneck. This column does nothing for me. It's funny how he views animals. Apparently, he may have a semi soft bone for dogs but for all others, they don't deserve to be treated humanely. Why don't you, Mr. Christensen, do a good deed for once, and spend a day helping out at Shelter or Best Friends animal sanctuary and see the abuse cases that come in everyday for all types of animals. See what human trash does for fun!! Maybe you to, Mr. Christensen pulled some of the shinanigans and thats why you won't do the right thing? Can someone please explain to me why doing the RIGHT THING is sooo hard?? I hope you get yours in the next life you hipocrit!!
Anonymous, if you really are concerned about animal welfare, then you should respond to pages like this with maturity.
Insulting Senator Christensen does not further the cause for Animal Rights, and just causes the legislators to not take the groups for Animal Advocacy seriously.
Please think, and even better, do some research on the issue to back up your opinion. Or just state your opinion strongly, but without insulting people.
It seems that Senator Christensen is trying to support a bill that he thinks is good for the animals and the farming industry. But SB 117 isn't good for our pets.
We know this because other states have the 2nd offense felony law, and it doesn't work! why else would people fight SB117 so hard?
It's nice to know that Senator Christensen is passionate about his own pets. Unfortunately , that sentimentality doesn't help the people who fight against animal cruelty and this law only hinders it.
I can only guess that Senator Christensen hasn't figured out how to balance what is morally right with the influence the farming industry has. Other states have strong animal cruelty laws and still manage to have a high food animal production level!
Animals are more than ever a test of our character, of mankind's capacity for empathy and for decent, honorable conduct and faithful stewardship. We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights, power or a claim to equality, but in a sense because they don't. They all stand unequal, innocent and powerless before us.
Hopefully the House will not pass SB117. If it does pass, Utah will fail this character test and remain in the top 5 states in the nation with the weakest animal protection laws.
Let's make animal torture a felony on the first offense. A lot can happen in 5 years that no one knows about, and in that time the perpetrator may have moved on to humans. Protect animals and humans by passing SB102.
SB102 is no longer available for passage. However, there is another, very acceptable, option. It is HB470.
HB470 is sponsored by Representative Sheryl Allen. You can read the bill and it's status at this url:
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0470.htm
HB470 current status: bill sent to agencies for fiscal input with the House Rules Committee
HB470 is not a good alternative. In the first paragraph line 2 of the handout presented by Anne Davis of the AAAU it states that it is a second offense felony bill. Look at the definition of torture. Look at the definition of companion animal. Read the exemptions. This is a bill crafted after Sen. Christensen's theme and only used as a smoke screen carrying with it only the promise of future trips to the hill! Look...if you want the prosecutors to have a first offense felony option, don't take the compromise. If you want to make a difference, don't give up the fight now. They will tell you this is your only chance...they are lying. They will tell you the "interested" parties are on board, they are not. Sen. Davis will be back next year and those supporters of a first offense felony will be there too. You're not alone though they say you are. The right choice is to give prosecutors the felony OPTION when approaching these cases. These are not mandatory minimums, these are tools the prosecutors need when the offense reaches egregious in nature.
helpushelpthem.org at no time and has in no way ever felt that Sen. Christensen is an animal hater. In-fact, were we not on opposite sides of this issue, we would probably lobby for the man.
HB470 is a better option than SB117, and SB102 is gone.
Senator Davis will indeed have time to craft a bill for next year. Regardless of that fact, one of the two bills above, SB117 or HB470, is more than likely going to pass. Which one would you prefer that bill to be?
If neither one passes, then we are no worse off than we were before the session started
A first offense felony is definitely something to strive for, but the current legislative body is never going to pass that kind of bill. Because of that fact alone, yes, there will be more trips to the Hill to support Senator Davis and Henry's Law next year.
In the absence of reason, the loudest voice prevails. You are right, if neither passes we are no worse off...if either passes we are.
If you agree a first offense is something worth working towards, if follows then that a second offense is not your first choice.
The particulars are in the bills and I don't know that this is the place to discuss them. Know, however, that with close review the two bills you speak of do in-fact weaken the current law. Pay close attention to what would be neglegent acts. Compare those to the bill we have and you will see.
The current legislative body reacts to constituent pressure. I promise you that Senators Bramble and Christensen know which side of the fence their constituency is on. Unfortunately they do not feel bound by their office to reflect that same voice.
It is not a pipe dream! We gather, garner and identify the support for the first offense every week!
If the current legislative body is never going to pass the bill, we will take it to their voters...look who is up for re-election! I think of it this way. Why not fight to win, instead of fighting to be on the team that others tell you will win?
It is called prosocutorial priviledge...and it is necessary that prosecutors have the tools to employ it.
If either of these two gets through, we are done for at best three years, and most likely five. Is that worth it? The compromise I mean?
Explain to me my error and I may follow your path...
What you're truly looking for then, is for neither of these bills to pass.
Although I'm not sure why you would think that it would be 3 to 5 years that we would be stuck with whatever bill passes. Unless of course there is some law I am not aware of that says a newly passed bill can't be amended within a certain period of time. I don't think there is, but I could be quite mistaken about that.
SB102 cannot be resurrected until the next legislative session. End Of Story.
If the Legislators are hell bent passing a bill amending the animal cruelty laws, so they can look good for re-election, then HB470 is the lesser of 2 evils.
Now, if what the people truly want is a first offense felony, and the Legislators obviously haven't delivered it for the last couple of years, then the people need to be made aware that it is time for a change and to elect someone new.
If the people don't speak, and the same Legislators are elected, then it just means the work will have to continue to make the changes we are looking for.
Something to keep in mind:
Democracy, when done properly, is a series of compromises.
Each side will get little of what they want, and a little of what they don't want. No one side is going to win completely.
Democracy also means that change can always be effected, especially if the voting population will make their voices heard via voting and communicating with their elected officials.
Sometimes it's the People that must be lobbied to in order to get changes made, and not the Legislators. Yeah, I know, lobbying to People who have a million different things on their minds is a daunting prospect.
Right, right and right again. Very well put.
SB102 is done. But Henry's Law is not.
When you speak of the lesser of two evils, you imply no other option is available. The truth is that a better day can be had.
There is no need to compromise on this issue when we are dealing with a constituency so in support.
And compromise can be in other aspects of the legislation. The first offense felony option needs to be part of the foundation. Again we are not discussing mandatory minimums...we are allowing the executive and judicial arms to complete their intended tasks. It is theirs to interpret and enforce...not ours.
It looks now as if the best way to win this battle is to put more of the battle in the hands of the people. Let them continue to contact and attempt to persuade their own elected officials to vote the constituent voice.
As this year winds down on the hill, we'll see the fate of SB117 and HB470. I'm hoping both find an end absent enactment.
Then the battle will begin again; this time with clearer ideas of whom to help from office. We target those voters, simply making them aware of voting histories, affording the voters their opportunity to affect change. Finding delegates is no big battle, educating the public is only difficult because of the numbers involved. Lobbying to the people isn't changing their minds, rather it is lending validation to their opinions...allowing them then to voice these positions.
I will concede when faced with the lesser of two evils...you are right. I hope you then too concede that another way can be had.
Another way, which is to have the first offense felony built into the law, is not simply an option, it is imperative.
Now to what we are dealing with for this year.
-I know that all the Legislators are aware that Henry's Law is a big issue, which brings out a lot of passion and emotion.
-I also know that human nature being what it is, that the Legislators will be looking to be re-elected for another term in office and they will want to pass bills that may seem favorable to the People.
- This being said I feel that one of the bills, 470 or 117, will most definitely be passed by both House and Senate. HB470 is much better by far than 117. 117 must not be allowed to get through the House of Reps alive.
-We could ask that neither bill go through. However, with the way things are going on the UT Hill, I don't think the Representatives or the Senators would go for that.
- Asking the House Reps to stop 117 and (possibly) approve 470 does not mean that we are done fighting for Henry's Law. It simply means we want the lesser of 2 evils to be chosen before the battle begins anew next year.
Senator Christensen is not "on the side of animals" as long as he continues to believe that torturing them deserves no more than a slap on the hand. Any legislator who doesn't support a first-offense felony for animal torture should be ashamed of helping Utah continue to look like a backward, redneck state. The stories of Senator Christensen's love for his own pets is meaningless if he doesn't care about others' pets being cruelly abused.
I'd first like to say that it is very refreshing to find a site where for the most part the bloggers appear to be intelligent and mature-even when they do not totally agree. Obviously, I also would rather see neither bill pass as I have read them both, and they do nothing to improve upon what we already have in place for Utah's animals.
As for Senator Christensen, I have sent him two very polite emails, one of which was sent to all of the Senators. I received very professional and supportive replies from several senators and then the below from Senator Christensen:
"The humane society is misleading you. The information presented is incorrect. SB117 will give Utah one of the strongest animal protection laws in the country. Keep pushing and no law will again get passed. Senator Christensen
Today I received this response from him when I asked him to please pull SB117 for the obvious reasons:
"If I pulled SB117 there would be nothing passed again this session. A first offense felony will not pass. It's been tried and failed.
Sorry, but animals need more protection than what we currently have.
Sen. Christensen"
What is he thinking? Has he read his bill, or did he just go through what we already had frantically marking out all the favorable things? (That's what it looks like if you go in and read it.) For a man who allegedly wanted to set horses free from the glue factory, and who held his horse in his arms as it died, and who suffered immensely when his 13-year-old deaf dog didn't get out of his way in the garage (which brings me to wonder why anyone would leave their beloved 13-yr-old, slow-moving & deaf dog in the garage in the first place)he certainly has removed a lot of protection-especially from livestock and other animals-the list is LONG!
I can understand how Mrs. Christensen wants to try and support her husband, but I didn't see her in the room last year when Senator Christensen stated, "An animal is an animal, and I will never pass a felony animal torture bill."
I totally agree with the comments regarding that fact that the people of Utah obviously have to get more involved and elect people who will support Henry's Law.
While I appreciate the fact that Mrs. Christensen is "standing by her man" is it possible she confused her stories? Did anyone else notice the striking similarities between Senator Christensen's childhood horse story with that of child actor Roddy Mcdowall lying next to his movie horse "flicka" with her head in his lap as she lay in the frigid stream fighting the infection from her wounds?
hmmm....I had not noticed that until you pointed it out.
However, Sunhiker, I would prefer to give Senator and Mrs. Christensen the benefit of the doubt before accusing them of that kind of duplicity.
Senator Christensen sounded very pro-animal during the hearing Wed. But the proof is ALWAYS in the pudding.
All I can say at this point is that the "lesser of two evils" implies that no other option is available. There is another option.
To enact one of these two bills is to weaken our current animal law. Please read and compare the definition of neglect.
In the most empirical of senses, the verbage will tell the story. Now, who would be onboard to weaken our current laws? Someone not aware.
See, they wave first offenses in front of your face and hide what is really being said. And for goodness sake, read what constitutes torture in 470...it is ludacris to think that a prosecutor is going to be able to ever meet that definition.
470 is a bill that comes from Christensen's own backyard, and is a way for these leaders to sneak out under the guise of anti-animal abuser.
Stop saying that one of these two will be passed...that is an invalid assumption. And stop believing there is not alternative! I promise you there is.
Think now to why you or anyone has supported Henry's Law in the past. Please write the reasons down. Measure those against the two bills before the legislature...
Are any of the reasons worthless? Others would have you believe that your reasons aren't good enough and you can sacrifice and that you should...I would have you believe that there is a way to see your ideals become reality...And I would have you know that success can be had.
I have a little 14 year old (almost 15) Shih Tzu. She also can not hear well any longer along with other problems. I would never think of stashing her in the garage as I consider her a family member! Since Senator/Doctor Christensen (also a Pediatric Dentist in Ogden) knows that his little dog beloved pet, as he refers to her, can not hear well or move well or probably even see very well for that matter, why then, is he not always on the look out for her if they are in the habit of banning her to the garage anyway...that is, if she is loved, adored and consider so precious to them?
I am confused.
Look anonymous, I don't know what you aren't grasping about what I posted, but at no point did I say there was no other alternative, or that the fight for Henry's law should ever stop until it has succeeded. Please do not put "words in my mouth".
Henry's Law is the alternative we are looking for, and that fight will be continued.
What I said, if you were paying attention, is that if one of those bills ends up being passed this session, then 470 is better than 117.
By all means, we should contact the legislators and tell them that neither bill is acceptable, (and they are not).
Anonymous said:
Stop saying that one of these two will be passed...that is an invalid assumption.
I hate to burst your bubble, but unless the legislators decide to listen to the fact that we do not want either of those bills, the chance that one of those bills is going to reach the Governor's desk is a very real possibility.
It is confusing. And it is also confusing as to why he votes contrary his constituency. I'm sure with an election coming that voting history will come into play.
Well, don't burst my bubble!!! Okay, maybe one will, but I still think that with such a close vote SB 117 doesn't have the legs. Unfortunately it is getting misleading but good press. As for HB 470, its so early I'm not sure how it will play out. Right now alot of phone calls and emails are being made in opposition to both. In fact tomorrow Henry will be in North Ogden - yes Christensen's stomping ground - gathering more support for the first offense felony option. That translates to even more phone calls and emails next week.
helpushelpthem.org
I've sent in my emails about the bills, and will send a few more.
I think you're right about SB117, I just hope that enough noise is made about 470 to get the legislators to boot that one as well.
Thanks...
If there is anyway you can get the word out please do.
A group hiding beneath Henry's name is pushing hard for HB 470. It's the same group that tried during the special session to get Henry's Law changed to a second offense felony. Its the same group that tried to stop the last Henry's Law rally, and the same group that is pushing to get Henry's name taken off of the bill itself.
Listen to what they have to say, read their website...watch carefully for the misdirection, and wonder why they want people not to contact one of Henrys Law's biggest opponents...
The best help we can get is the help getting others to read the bills and compare the realities.
Post a Comment
<< Home