Animal abusers should be registered

At first glance, the proposed animal cruelty database seems like a case of governmental overreach. The idea of putting people convicted of abusing Fluffy or Mittens on a publicly accessible website looks a lot like a modern version of the pillory — and in a way, that seems to be part of the point.

But at the same time, there is no denying that people are among us who will actively abuse, or passively neglect, animals. There is also no denying that such people should be kept away from owning and caring for pets.

The bill, introduced last week by California Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter), would require anyone convicted of felony animal abuse to register with local law enforcement. Such people would be required to submit a photo and their home address, which would then be listed on a website.

As local shelter officials point out, the database would make it much easier for workers to ensure the puppies and kittens under their care make it into loving hands. Consider the following scenario: A man with a history of animal cruelty in Eureka moves to Burbank. Should he be able to walk into the nearest shelter and get a kitten? Logic says no, but shelter workers have no easy way to check statewide criminal records.

Under the bill, those records — which are already public, if time consuming to obtain — are readily available to anyone. In this interconnected and networked age, it is becoming increasingly foolish to insist that public data in one city be somehow hidden past its physical borders.

We do have some concerns, however. The proposed database may give the impression that animal abusers are on the same level as sex offenders. We understand that animals are innocents and special protection must be given, but those who have abused children are guilty of a far more heinous crime. Steps should be taken, if and when the animal cruelty database is set up, not to blur the line between these two crimes.