HARTFORD, CT " A proposed task force to study the link between cruelty to animals by children and violent acts by adults is both unnecessary and will have the unintended consequence of allowing extremist animal rights groups access to the state"s legal system, schools and children"s minds, an investigation by The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) shows clearly.
ASDA has no doubt that such a link between animal cruelty and violence exists, and we believe society should respond both decisively and with compassion. However, the task force simply cannot accomplish its goals in an ethical manner, because only a handful of children under the age of 18 are charged with animal cruelty offenses in Connecticut, and even fewer are convicted.
The result of the task force, which is being sponsored by Speaker of the House James Amann and chaired by Rep. Diana Urban, will mean only the creation of another meaningless and wasteful layer of bureaucracy in the juvenile justice system, and the intrusion of animal rights groups into the state"s schools and social services agencies. There can be no other conclusion, based on the clear record of what has occurred nationally and in other states.
For dog owners, professionals and hunters, the issue boils down to the clear conclusion that the task force would be used as yet another way of brainwashing our children to embrace the animal rights agenda, while doing nothing to help solve the actual problem.
The task force is being formed now, and meetings are set to begin this month. We urge dog owners to contact Rep. Amann and Rep. Urban to express opposition to this task force. Their email addresses are Jim.Amann@cga.ct.gov and Diana.Urban@cga.ct.gov. Connecticut residents also should contact their own legislators and senators. Please feel free to use any information from our analysis (see below) in your letters, and also to cross-post and forward this article to your friends.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of people who own or work with dogs of breeds commonly used for hunting. We vigorously oppose the animal rights agenda, which seeks to gradually eliminate the private ownership of dogs and other animals, and to ban hunting and using animals for food. ASDA encourages sporting dog owners and professionals to join us in this fight with your membership and participation. We are funded solely by donations from our members. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org.
The announcement for the task force sent up the first red flag for ASDA. Only a small part of it actually focused on children who hurt animals, or the fact that some of these children grow up to become violent adults. Instead, the bulk of the announcement described irrelevant emotional issues that are exploited by animal rights groups, such as the Michael Vicks dog fighting case and cruelty at a slaughterhouse for cattle in California, combined with broad generalities about "the place of animals in society."
Our society does not condone real cruelty to animals in any form. However, that does not mean that we accept animal rights groups" definition of cruelty to encompass farming, eating meat, raising animals, owning dogs and hunting. The mainstream of American society clearly accepts those things as both ethical and desirable.
First, let"s look at the facts that are clearly established in research. There is a clear link between children from abusive families and the tendency for this tragedy to extend to the abuse of animals. In addition, there also is a clear link between many violent adult criminals and a reported history of abusing animals as children. The real issue is how to break those links.
The first step in breaking the link is to identify children who have abused animals, and then to see that they " and their families " get the help that they need. But this is where the idea of a task force breaks down, as statistics for the past several years show very few arrests of minors for animal cruelty, and even fewer convictions.
A national database study profiled 9,049 cases of animal abuse. Of those, 44 of them were alleged to have been committed by children under the age of 10, 222 by children aged between 10 and 14, and 451 by minors aged between 14 and 18. Thus, only 8% of the animal abuse allegations were against juveniles.
Connecticut"s statistics are even lower. There were 19 cases of animal abuse in that state in 2007, and only four involved violent acts against animals (the rest were mostly for things like neglect or abandonment). Of those violent acts, only one allegedly was committed by juveniles (Teen-aged boys broke into an animal shelter and wounded a dog with a pellet gun. No charges were filed.). In 2006, there were 32 total cases in Connecticut, with seven involving actual violence to animals. None of the allegations were against juveniles. In 2005, the state had 27 reports of animal cruelty, with 12 involving violence. Two involved juveniles, and both cases were counted twice in the statistics. One case involved a child who swung a dog against a tree. The other case was about police reports of a group of teen-aged boys who trapped, beat and poisoned many cats, resulting in 20 animal deaths. No charges were ever filed in this situation.
Thus, over the three-years of data, only three cases involved juveniles, and two of those did not result in convictions; the disposition of the third case was not reported.
It is likely that other children who hurt animals are never charged with animal cruelty as part of a plea-bargaining arrangement. These arrangements are common in an overloaded court system. In plea bargains, people most often plead guilty to a lesser crime, in exchange for a lighter sentence. However, there is no need for these juveniles to fall through the cracks, as counseling can be ordered by a judge as part of a plea bargain agreement.
Actual convictions for animal cruelty or a guilty plea in a plea bargain arrangement are the only ethical justification for government to mandate counseling for a child. Under this criterion, no more than one child would have received help from a mandatory intervention program over the past three years, the data shows.
Rep. Urban sponsored a law mandating anger management therapy for minors who are convicted of animal cruelty. According to Urban, the law took effect four years ago, and only one child was ever ordered to undergo therapy (a child who killed puppies). It must be noted, however, that this was the only child who was convicted over this four-year period.
The issue of actual convictions is central. Rep. Urban correctly points out that there may be many other instances of animal abuse by minors that do not result in mandatory intervention. However, it simply is a violation of the American idea of justice and civil liberties for the courts to impose a sentence on someone who has not been convicted of a crime. The courts are not empowered under the Constitution to dictate the lives of people who are not proven to be guilty of a crime.
We also believe that there is no reason for these children to fall between the cracks of current social services programs. Available research shows that most of these reports come from programs to help women who are victims of domestic violence, or from families who have been adjudicated to work with children"s service agencies because of substantiated allegations of child abuse. In each situation, if there is a failure of the system to address the problem of animal abuse in counseling and therapy, the solution is to correct these deficiencies in current programs.
However, from a civil liberties and constitutional perspective, it is never appropriate to mandate treatment of any kind for people who are not convicted of any crime, including animal abuse. Please keep in mind that only one child was convicted of animal abuse in Connecticut over the past four years.
Given that stark fact, what will the task force actually do?
Two things are probable. First, they are likely to recommend a "Big Brother" intervention program to reach children who may abuse animals. Second, they are likely to recommend a prevention program focused on the schools.
Intervention means identifying a likely population of adolescents who may abuse animals, and then providing mandatory counseling. Keep in mind that counseling already is mandatory for adjudicated child abuse cases, and that voluntary counseling is available in domestic violence programs. An intervention plan will identify children who come from troubled families, who do poorly in school, who present behavior problems in school or in the community, or whose families are involved in programs to help the poor.
These children already have been stigmatized among their peers, and this simply will make it worse. They will be given still more reasons to feel anger and powerlessness, and to believe that their lives are out of their control. These are the major factors that cause abuse in any form. Intervention takes a bad situation and makes it worse. No one likes being watched by Big Brother, even if he is smiling.
Prevention means education and developing positive peer pressure. This is done by exposing all children to the program, and schools are the usual place where it happens.
The only existing school programs are authored and sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which is a radical animal rights group that opposes many mainstream cultural values such as eating meat, owning animals and hunting. HSUS is not the local Humane Society that helps animals. Instead, HSUS is a powerful national political organization that actively works for laws that will accomplish its own animal rights agenda.
ASDA has studied these in-school programs in detail. All of them blatantly evangelize the HSUS animal rights agenda. The programs specifically target the schools, and HSUS also has formed several alliances with domestic violence groups.
The HSUS program is called First Strike®. Here is the organization"s brief description of it: "The First Strike® campaign can help in the process of bringing professionals together from a variety of agencies. We facilitate workshops and provide educational materials specifically for various professionals working to prevent family violence" (such as by promoting school and) inter-agency collaborations to reduce animal cruelty, family and community violence."
Another statement urges educators and social workers to "teach elementary schoolchildren in your community to be kind to animals via KIND News, a nine-times-a-year newspaper published expressly for kids. The prize-winning publication is produced by The National Association for Humane and Environmental Education (NAHEE), the youth service division of the HSUS. NAHEE also produces other publications and has programs like Adopt-a-Classroom"."
School children are given printed materials written by HSUS and encouraged to visit various online communities sponsored by HSUS, such as The Humane Teen Network. A review of this organization"s website shows blatant sermonizing against hunting, animal ownership, farm practices, rodeos, circuses and kennels. The flashy format is accompanied by music videos performed by pro-HSUS rap singers and pop idols such as Brittney Spears. Kids are being advised to turn in their friends, parents and neighbors.
HSUS is waging an all-out battle to control the minds of our children, and to seduce them into beliefs that are at odds with the mainstream of American society and their parents. We think this is wrong, and we urge Reps. Amann and Urban to disband their task force and forcefully disavow the animal rights agenda for our children.
Connecticut: Danger in the Details
