Welcome to The Senate Site

By Allen M. Christensen
Utah State Senator, District 19

I'm sponsoring a new animal cruelty bill that will be available to the public as soon as it is finalized. [Update: here it is.] One of the most significant ways it differs from SB 117 is that it makes torture of companion animals (defined as domestic dogs and cats) a felony on the first offense.

SB 117 would have made torture of any animal a felony on the second offense, if the second offense occurred within five years of the first offense.

I expect that all bills on this topic (S.B. 102, S.B. 117, and H.B. 470) will be replaced by this new bill. I believe we will have the votes to pass it. The Deseret Morning News and the Daily Herald provide a little more background.

This bill is a compromise. I've heard from thousands of people from all points of the political spectrum with many opinions of what Utah state policy should be. Many are emotionally invested in the issue. This bill finds - I hope - a point of agreement between widely divergent interests. The Farm Bureau and the Humane Society have both approved this as an acceptable compromise bill.

[Update:] We added a short podcast on Senate Radio.

4 Comments:

 VilaD said...

Compromise is the finest example of democracy at work.

A lot of people on both sides won't be happy with the new bill, but we have to "start" somewhere.

2/22/2008 6:32 PM  

 JM Bell said...

Now, I understand adding the companion animals. That makes a good percentage of the angry voices call "compromise" and most everyone will stand around patting each other on the back. It's a political move, and makes Senator Christensen look a little less supportive of folks like Dahmer and Bundy. It gives him the election year wiggle room to pretend to be a champion of the family pet. I get that.

However, this just adds more suspicion to the notion that maybe industrial farming is the voice whispering in the Senator Christensen's ear.

Family farmers and ranchers don't treat their animals in a way that could be considered torturous. That's bad husbandry, not profitable and, over all, nonsensical. A mistreated animal doesn't taste near as good as one treated humanely.

So what companies are pressuring the change? What is the compelling reason to exclude most animals from torture retribution? What people have inspired the Senator to allow a slap on the wrist for lighting a goat on fire, stabbing a cow in the face, dragging a live llama down the freeway tied to the back of a Toyota, anon, anon.

That's the one thing I never really read, hear or see. Some explanation about the Senator's decision making process on why some animals should get tortured and folks shouldn't get all riled up.

Dogs and Cats are family pets, and, therefore, this compromise makes political sense. The rest of it still does not.

2/22/2008 7:34 PM  

 VilaD said...

The people who light the goat on fire and drag the llama down the street behind a pick up truck really shouldn't be considered farmers.

The answer to who may be influencing the Senator may possibly be the turkey and the pork industry here in UT. I've seen first hand how the turkeys are handled, fed, etc. and I've heard, (not seen) how the pigs are handled. It's typical industrial standards, (although I do know that the animals are treated much better here in UT than in other States.) Regardless, I still don't agree with the way it's done, and neither do any animal advocates.

The way SB 102 was written, farmers and ranchers were not to be considered for the first felony penalty, so I was never quite sure why the Utah Farm Bureau was so against it. I would agree with you that there is a lot that we do not know. It makes one wonder what's being allowed, or what some company would like to have as allowable.

In any case let's remember, regardless of the fact it is a political strategy, that a start has been made to move in the direction of the first felony, and a start is a hell of a lot better than nothing at all.

There is also still the fact that until more is done to punish the type of people who drag their livestock down the street behind a pick up truck, there will be more rallies, lobbying, and noise next year, and every subsequent year until things change.

2/22/2008 9:51 PM  

 Anonymous said...

I just wish Sen. Christensen understood that many people consider many more animals as "companion" animals, than dogs and cats. Rabbits for example (i think) come in third in terms of most owned. Many consider even horses, pot-bellied pigs, birds, even exotics (like snakes, spiders etc).

I don't know what is wrong with the Humane Society. If Christensen wanted to protect companion animals as he says, those animals listed above would be given as fair a chance as dogs and cats.

But oh well, as long as the Farm Bureau and the weak minded kill-shelter running Humane Society says it's ok, we should all just follow....

2/22/2008 11:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home