June 6, 2007
Dog Fighting Penalties May Worsen
The days when one could slyly slip down to a basement, enjoy a beer, put a couple hundred bucks down, and gather around a ring to watch two dogs maul each other to death may soon become an activity worth more than a slap on the wrist. The Washington Times reports that a bill going before the D.C. City Council today proposes to increase penalties for attending a dog fight from a misdemeanor to a felony, with a maximum five years imprisonment.
Reports of dog fights have decreased in the past few years, but recent incidents -- namely, the allegations against NFL quarterback Michael Vick and his participation in the events in Virginia -- make this a politically opportune time to send such a bill in for consideration. Participating in a dog fight (i.e. owning the dog or organizing the event) is illegal in every state and D.C. -- it's a felony in 48 -- but attending one is only a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions. Just last month, President Bush signed into law the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act, which includes a provision making it a felony to participate in interstate commerce for the purpose of dog fighting.
The bill's supporters argue that the felony provision should be broadened to include attendees because it can be extremely hard to pinpoint the actual participants, when raids immediately send everyone scattering. And in addition to the cruelty aspect, dog fights are a breeding ground for other crimes, including drug trafficking and gambling. Making simply being in the room a more serious offense, supporters hope, will help stamp out these activities, or at least the venues where they're likely to occur en masse.
Though we'd like to think that disgust with dog fighting is fairly universal, there are still the Clinton Portis's of the world, so we hope the Council listens carefully to the bill's supporters and votes that sometimes not everything you do "on your own property" should be legal.
Photo by Eye Captain.
|
Good. I can't believe such an idiotic, savage trend still exists. People are disgusting sometimes. Thank goodness for that moron Michael Vick getting busted and bringing this to the public's attention.
AKC and Dog Fanciers object, saying this bill contains the following provisions:
• Mandatory spaying or neutering of all dogs and cats 6 months of age or older unless the owner possesses a breeding permit.
• The breeding permit application process requires that the owner’s premises be inspected. Anyone with an animal “capable of breeding” must secure a breeding permit, even if the animal is never bred. The fee for the breeding permit is unspecified and could costs hundreds of dollars.
• Any “nonprofit” organization that claims to be “concerned with humane treatment of animals” may legally enter private property and confiscate another person’s animals. Any individual who qualifies as a nonprofit organization can bring suit in a DC court and by sworn affidavit or testimony demonstrate that the seizure is necessary.
• Every section of the ordinance in which animal owners are referenced is amended to insert the term “guardian.” Removing the classification of dogs as property could open the door to a host of challenges. If people do not own their dog, then what legal responsibility do they have to properly protect and care for them? Use of the term “guardian” represents a first step toward eliminating an individual’s right to own, breed and participate in events with dogs.
• The ordinance establishes non-economic damages for “loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, love, affection, and services”, subjecting veterinarians to new financial liability. The cost of veterinary services must increase to cover costs of liability claims established by the proposed amendments.
Just as a side note: the dog in the picture is not a fighting dog. He lives at the lighting shop in Penn Quarter, and I see him on the way to work. His name is Mike.
i like mike.
Mike's a good looking dog.
You linked to the wrong bill, Heather; that's last year's version, which didn't pass. Here's the one that passed.
Thanks mrmoonpie, the link should be corrected in just a minute.
I can't believe this is really considered a crime. It's really just getting blown out of proportion because of Michael Vick and his affiliation. Just a thought!
N.B. Clinton Portis has had a change of heart. See "Portis Recants Words About Dogfighting" in the Post.
@ lkrsdog: That thought is ridiculous. You say you can't believe attending a dogfight is a crime. Read the article again, particularly the part about "maul each other to death." That isn't hyperbole.
It's about time. If you read the weekly Animal Watch column in the Washington Post, the stories of dog fighting and abuse are depressing, and the same every week. Rather than demonize or ban specific breeds, it's about time we crack down on the humans who are abusing and tormenting and warping these animals.
Just to set the photographic record straight, the dog's name is Batch. He used to live at Illuminations, but he recently moved to my block of T St NW. He is one friendly pup!
Mike or Batch, whoever he is, is a boxer not a pit bull.
Okay, I don't think you're going to get anyone commenting here (seriously) in favor of dog-fighting, but doesn't have any reaction to the items Mike brings up in his comment? Is this an accurate portrayal of the legislation, and if so, has it been thoroughly ghost-written by the Humane Society and PETA and just delivered to the Council for passage? I find it hard to believe that a wholesale changing of "pet owner" to "pet guardian" throughout the ordinance was seriously suggested by a Council member as a response to dog fighting, or a comprehensive mandate on spaying and neutering cats as well as dogs.
If DC wants to add some new rules to the books to look like they're cracking down on activity that's already illegal, fine, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense to make wholesale changes to "pet policy" in the District. At least not without making sure the debate is on all the provisions of the legislation, rather than just the "no brainer" riling-up-the-public issue of dog fighting.
Thanks, Nate.
Until I've a copy of the bill as written, I'm not able to say for a fact it's not something truly radical behind an easily-supported anti-dog fighting mask.
In other words, I've enough doubts that I want to verify the sales pitch. Even the mandatory spay/neuter provision (unless one wants to apply for a breeders' license and pay a to-be-determined fee, and undergo a home inspection) seems pretty radical to me.
That's a very cute dog! I love the pic. I don't see why this was not a potd (I kid!). O
n a serious note, I am very happy that this inhumane behaviour will be treated as a crime and not just a slap on the wrist.
In the Virginia exurbs, the indigenous Good Ol' Boys and immigrant Latino agricultural and construction workers have found they have a common interest - chicken fighting (as it is genteelly called).
When I asked, I was told his name was Mike! I demand an investigation of the name of this adorable pooch!