Why oppose SB 83/HB 224? Here are some FACTS.
>
> * This is an animal rights agenda driven bill. Animal Cruelty is already a felony in NM. Cases are already being prosecuted.
>
> * Fiscal Impact Report, 1/24/13 states:
> AOC: New laws, amendments to existing laws and new hearings have the potential to increase caseloads in the courts, thus requiring additional resources to handle the increase.
>
> PDD: .....any increase in the number of prosecutions will bring a concomitant need for an increase in indigent defense funding.
>
> NMCD: If the offender is incarcerated at NMCD for this new fourth degree felony, a parole term of one year would also attach.
> Cost, male incarceration per year: ca. $38,000, probation ca.
> $2,200. Female incarceration per year: ca. $29,000, probation ca. $2,200.
>
> AODA: The addition of great bodily harm cases to the definition of extreme cruelty to animals will likely increase the number of cases that must be litigated, and some of them are likely to require expert testimony so they may have a fiscal impact on DA offices.
>
> How many animal cruelty cases and ordinance violations are
> already being reported under CURRENT animal cruelty statutes?
> According to the Feasibility Study, January 24, 2012, prepared by > the NM Animal Sheltering Board and Regulation and Licensing Dept. in response to Senate Memorial 36, 2011 Regular Legislative Session
> (Exhibit 2, pg. 2), in 2009, nine out of 25 state animal control agencies reported ca. 4514 cases and violations; in 2010 six agencies reported ca. 5425; and in 2011 seven out of 25 agencies reported ca.
> 1189 cases and violations. Current law identifies abuse. If we expand the definitions and penalties for animal cruelty, how many cases will be litigated and at what cost?
>
> FIR Conclusion:
> PDD suggests substantial revision.
> AODA concludes that criminal liability based on a negligence standard would make animal abuse statute conform to more of the criminal law. The implication here is that we are thus giving animals legal standing in our courts comparable to children.
>
> We all respect, even love our animals but we relate to them
> differently. Under NM law animals are property; we must treat them humanely, but they do not have "rights." Commenting on this same bill in 2011, internationally acclaimed NM author and falconer Steve Bodio of Magdalena wrote:
>
> NO ONE defends cruelty. But what hunters and other people who are not familiar with "rights" debates usually don't grasp is that by humanizing the language referring to animals or the crimes against animals, the public and the judiciary are forced to see animals AS HUMAN. When we legislate to make rodents the legal equals of children, we have lost all sense of proportion---and also increased expenditure in a time of financial crisis by creating a whole new class of "criminals," most of whom are no such thing.
>
> This exact point was also made by PDD on 3/24/11, stating:
>
> The bill's "commonly accepted activities not otherwise prohibited by law" language is unconscionably vague and will lead to court challenges....while the bill certainly has the laudable goal of protecting animals from cruelty, the language ought to be tailored to better ensure citizens that they will not be subject to arbitrary prosecutions.
>
> There is already evidence that though this bill claims to exempt commonly accepted practices as well as hunting, there is already evidence that this assertion is disingenuous. In a letter from Wild Earth Guardians, Animal Protection New Mexico, and the Sierra Club to the NM Game Commission and the Director of the NM Dept. of Game and Fish dated June 15, 2011, a warning is given that if the NMDGF does not include "rabbits; hares; porcupines; skunks; coyotes; river otters and squirrels" under the definition of "furbearers," this may necessitate seeking protection for these animals "under animal cruelty statutes" (pg. 2).
>
> The taxpayers of NM are already spending significant sums on animals, yet for the animal rights lobby, paid to promote the morally subversive premise that people and animals must be equal in the law, there is no limit. So, just a cursory look, how much are we spending?
>
> * Wild Earth Guardians, in June 2012, sued the NM Dept. of Game and Fish for allowing trapping in the Gila Wilderness costing the Dept. $385,000 to defend its right to manage State wildlife resources (Abq.
> Journal, 6/6/12 C3)
>
> * The Feasibility Study, January 24, 2012, prepared in response the SM
> 36, 2011 Regular Legislative Session, reported that statewide,
> counties with animal control departments that responded to the survey
> budgeted a total of $27,011,719 (exhibit 2, pg. 3). The amount spent
> per intake animal ranged from $710.20 for Animal Humane Abq.; $413.45
> for Abq. Animal Welfare Dept.; $454 Santa Fe S&HS;
> $443 Town of Edgewood; $294.75 Taos Humane Society to give a few
> examples of how much money counties are spending on animals falling
> under the current responsibility of animal control departments. Per
> county resident per animal the cost annually is $37.64 for Edgewood
> residents, $4.57 for Aztec residents, with other areas somewhere in
> between.
>
> * In addition to the already substantial costs of animal control, the
> already significant prosecution of ordinance and cruelty violations,
> the Feasibility Study for SM 36, 2011, recommended that to provide
> financial assistance to low-income households to have their companion
> animals spayed and neutered, a TAX be added onto the current
> inspection fees on pet foods: "The fee would most likely be passed on
> to consumers at the retail level and the impact would be
> $0.025 per pound of food purchased for each customer" (p. 22). If this
> model were implemented every pound of pet food purchased by every
> resident of NM will increase in price by $0.025!
>
> * The Animal Sheltering Board received an initial outlay of tax
> dollars ca. $300,000. The sunset date has been repeatedly extended,
> currently until June 1, 2014. To date, this Board has cost NM
> taxpayers approximately $600,000 in appropriations. The $27,011,719
> being spent by animal control agencies statewide apparently need
> additional oversight to insure humane euthanasia and maintain and
> operate healthy and clean living conditions for animals housed in
> those shelters.
>
> * In the Abq. Journal, every Friday, in the section devoted
> exclusively to animals, there is a list of 12 organizations that
> "rescue" animals just in the greater Abq. area. Each and every one of
> these organizations solicits money from the public. In Valencia County
> alone, one of the three poorest counties in the state, one
> 501 (c) (3) (non-profit) rescue declared $62,937 in donations on their
> 2009 IRS tax return! How much money is donated statewide, do you
> think?
>
> So, when is enough enough? One in four New Mexicans or 552,000 people
> live below the poverty level. In 2010 71% of children born in NM were
> born into poverty (Abq. Journal, 1/27/13 A 1). According to SB 83/HB
> 224, not one of these people can have a pet because they can't afford
> veterinary care.
>
> The main purposes of SB 83/HB 224 are to give animals legal standing
> in our courts and to terrorize ordinary animal owners by imposing
> attitudes and standards that they may not share and possibly cannot
> meet. The bills are about punishing people not helping animals.
> These bills will legalize harassment of ordinary animal owners and
> open the door to legal persecution of anybody who is doing anything
> with their animals that animal rights activists object to!
>
> Though they claim that hunting and trapping are exempt, they have
> already tried to strong arm the NMDGF repeatedly. What do you think
> they have in mind for ordinary folks without the financial resources
> to fight back? Our animals can already be seized by the state at our
> expense if there is suspicion of abuse.
>
> People who have animals and are trying to do their best to care for
> them are already frightened that if they ask for help with an animal
> that had an accident and they can't afford a veterinarian, they will
> be accused of a crime! If their dog gets out of the yard and is hit by
> a car, they will be accused of a crime. If their dog is attacked by
> loose dogs, they are afraid they will be accused of dog fighting and
> are afraid to seek veterinary treatment. There is ALREADY an
> atmosphere of FEAR among animal owners....not one of confidence that
> help is near for their animals.
>
> This legislation applies to ALL animals, domestic and wild. My pasture
> is full of gopher holes. If this legislation passes, how will I get
> rid of them? Prairie dogs, possibly carrying plague fleas, will over
> run playgrounds and spiders will enjoy all of the legal protections of
> children.
>
> Please oppose SB 83/HB 224. Passing bad bills does not make good law.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
<
>
> * This is an animal rights agenda driven bill. Animal Cruelty is already a felony in NM. Cases are already being prosecuted.
>
> * Fiscal Impact Report, 1/24/13 states:
> AOC: New laws, amendments to existing laws and new hearings have the potential to increase caseloads in the courts, thus requiring additional resources to handle the increase.
>
> PDD: .....any increase in the number of prosecutions will bring a concomitant need for an increase in indigent defense funding.
>
> NMCD: If the offender is incarcerated at NMCD for this new fourth degree felony, a parole term of one year would also attach.
> Cost, male incarceration per year: ca. $38,000, probation ca.
> $2,200. Female incarceration per year: ca. $29,000, probation ca. $2,200.
>
> AODA: The addition of great bodily harm cases to the definition of extreme cruelty to animals will likely increase the number of cases that must be litigated, and some of them are likely to require expert testimony so they may have a fiscal impact on DA offices.
>
> How many animal cruelty cases and ordinance violations are
> already being reported under CURRENT animal cruelty statutes?
> According to the Feasibility Study, January 24, 2012, prepared by > the NM Animal Sheltering Board and Regulation and Licensing Dept. in response to Senate Memorial 36, 2011 Regular Legislative Session
> (Exhibit 2, pg. 2), in 2009, nine out of 25 state animal control agencies reported ca. 4514 cases and violations; in 2010 six agencies reported ca. 5425; and in 2011 seven out of 25 agencies reported ca.
> 1189 cases and violations. Current law identifies abuse. If we expand the definitions and penalties for animal cruelty, how many cases will be litigated and at what cost?
>
> FIR Conclusion:
> PDD suggests substantial revision.
> AODA concludes that criminal liability based on a negligence standard would make animal abuse statute conform to more of the criminal law. The implication here is that we are thus giving animals legal standing in our courts comparable to children.
>
> We all respect, even love our animals but we relate to them
> differently. Under NM law animals are property; we must treat them humanely, but they do not have "rights." Commenting on this same bill in 2011, internationally acclaimed NM author and falconer Steve Bodio of Magdalena wrote:
>
> NO ONE defends cruelty. But what hunters and other people who are not familiar with "rights" debates usually don't grasp is that by humanizing the language referring to animals or the crimes against animals, the public and the judiciary are forced to see animals AS HUMAN. When we legislate to make rodents the legal equals of children, we have lost all sense of proportion---and also increased expenditure in a time of financial crisis by creating a whole new class of "criminals," most of whom are no such thing.
>
> This exact point was also made by PDD on 3/24/11, stating:
>
> The bill's "commonly accepted activities not otherwise prohibited by law" language is unconscionably vague and will lead to court challenges....while the bill certainly has the laudable goal of protecting animals from cruelty, the language ought to be tailored to better ensure citizens that they will not be subject to arbitrary prosecutions.
>
> There is already evidence that though this bill claims to exempt commonly accepted practices as well as hunting, there is already evidence that this assertion is disingenuous. In a letter from Wild Earth Guardians, Animal Protection New Mexico, and the Sierra Club to the NM Game Commission and the Director of the NM Dept. of Game and Fish dated June 15, 2011, a warning is given that if the NMDGF does not include "rabbits; hares; porcupines; skunks; coyotes; river otters and squirrels" under the definition of "furbearers," this may necessitate seeking protection for these animals "under animal cruelty statutes" (pg. 2).
>
> The taxpayers of NM are already spending significant sums on animals, yet for the animal rights lobby, paid to promote the morally subversive premise that people and animals must be equal in the law, there is no limit. So, just a cursory look, how much are we spending?
>
> * Wild Earth Guardians, in June 2012, sued the NM Dept. of Game and Fish for allowing trapping in the Gila Wilderness costing the Dept. $385,000 to defend its right to manage State wildlife resources (Abq.
> Journal, 6/6/12 C3)
>
> * The Feasibility Study, January 24, 2012, prepared in response the SM
> 36, 2011 Regular Legislative Session, reported that statewide,
> counties with animal control departments that responded to the survey
> budgeted a total of $27,011,719 (exhibit 2, pg. 3). The amount spent
> per intake animal ranged from $710.20 for Animal Humane Abq.; $413.45
> for Abq. Animal Welfare Dept.; $454 Santa Fe S&HS;
> $443 Town of Edgewood; $294.75 Taos Humane Society to give a few
> examples of how much money counties are spending on animals falling
> under the current responsibility of animal control departments. Per
> county resident per animal the cost annually is $37.64 for Edgewood
> residents, $4.57 for Aztec residents, with other areas somewhere in
> between.
>
> * In addition to the already substantial costs of animal control, the
> already significant prosecution of ordinance and cruelty violations,
> the Feasibility Study for SM 36, 2011, recommended that to provide
> financial assistance to low-income households to have their companion
> animals spayed and neutered, a TAX be added onto the current
> inspection fees on pet foods: "The fee would most likely be passed on
> to consumers at the retail level and the impact would be
> $0.025 per pound of food purchased for each customer" (p. 22). If this
> model were implemented every pound of pet food purchased by every
> resident of NM will increase in price by $0.025!
>
> * The Animal Sheltering Board received an initial outlay of tax
> dollars ca. $300,000. The sunset date has been repeatedly extended,
> currently until June 1, 2014. To date, this Board has cost NM
> taxpayers approximately $600,000 in appropriations. The $27,011,719
> being spent by animal control agencies statewide apparently need
> additional oversight to insure humane euthanasia and maintain and
> operate healthy and clean living conditions for animals housed in
> those shelters.
>
> * In the Abq. Journal, every Friday, in the section devoted
> exclusively to animals, there is a list of 12 organizations that
> "rescue" animals just in the greater Abq. area. Each and every one of
> these organizations solicits money from the public. In Valencia County
> alone, one of the three poorest counties in the state, one
> 501 (c) (3) (non-profit) rescue declared $62,937 in donations on their
> 2009 IRS tax return! How much money is donated statewide, do you
> think?
>
> So, when is enough enough? One in four New Mexicans or 552,000 people
> live below the poverty level. In 2010 71% of children born in NM were
> born into poverty (Abq. Journal, 1/27/13 A 1). According to SB 83/HB
> 224, not one of these people can have a pet because they can't afford
> veterinary care.
>
> The main purposes of SB 83/HB 224 are to give animals legal standing
> in our courts and to terrorize ordinary animal owners by imposing
> attitudes and standards that they may not share and possibly cannot
> meet. The bills are about punishing people not helping animals.
> These bills will legalize harassment of ordinary animal owners and
> open the door to legal persecution of anybody who is doing anything
> with their animals that animal rights activists object to!
>
> Though they claim that hunting and trapping are exempt, they have
> already tried to strong arm the NMDGF repeatedly. What do you think
> they have in mind for ordinary folks without the financial resources
> to fight back? Our animals can already be seized by the state at our
> expense if there is suspicion of abuse.
>
> People who have animals and are trying to do their best to care for
> them are already frightened that if they ask for help with an animal
> that had an accident and they can't afford a veterinarian, they will
> be accused of a crime! If their dog gets out of the yard and is hit by
> a car, they will be accused of a crime. If their dog is attacked by
> loose dogs, they are afraid they will be accused of dog fighting and
> are afraid to seek veterinary treatment. There is ALREADY an
> atmosphere of FEAR among animal owners....not one of confidence that
> help is near for their animals.
>
> This legislation applies to ALL animals, domestic and wild. My pasture
> is full of gopher holes. If this legislation passes, how will I get
> rid of them? Prairie dogs, possibly carrying plague fleas, will over
> run playgrounds and spiders will enjoy all of the legal protections of
> children.
>
> Please oppose SB 83/HB 224. Passing bad bills does not make good law.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
<
