New York Bill to Require Training before Adopting Cats

The proposal would require those adopting cats to complete a training program on how to properly care for animals as well as toughen penalties for cruelty convictions.

Posted: October 4, 2007 5 a.m. EDT

Printer Friendly

New York Cat Adoption Bill
A new proposal would obligate New York residents to undergo training before adopting a shelter cat or dog.
New York State Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington introduced a bill last month that would strengthen cruelty laws and attempt to reduce incidents of animal cruelty in an effort to ensure the humane treatment of animals in the state, according to the proposal.

Proposed changes include requiring those who adopt a cat or dog from a shelter to complete a training program before receiving the pet. The program would teach people how to properly care for a cat or dog and inform the new owners of the penalties associated with animal cruelty charges. The training would be required for adults and children ages 6 and older.

The bill also calls for additional penalties and court-ordered psychiatric analysis for those convicted of animal cruelty and seeks to change the social service law so that those who are required to report child abuse are also required to report incidents of animal abuse.

The bill would amend the state’s Agriculture and Markets Law and has been referred to the Committee on Agriculture where members will decide whether the state assembly should vote on the issue.

Printer Friendly

 Give us your opinion on
New York Bill to Require Training before Adopting Cats

Submit a Comment   Join Club
Earn 1,000 points! What's this?
Reader Comments

MO    Long Beach, CA

12/1/2011 7:52:30 AM


You show no references to backup your "facts." Where does it say to enforce this we would need another law and veterinarians would have to report unregistered animals brought in for care? Where does it say you will be forced to purchase insurance for your dog? A 12-year-old can hardly take care of his or herself, much less a cat, unless educated on how to take care of it, so that argument is invalid.

Comparing the sale of animals to the sale of firearms is like comparing broccoli to cars. I promise, the Red Coats won't be invading your village to take away your land and your animals anytime soon, so take a deep breath and turn on Fox News.

Your fear mongering and histrionics regarding this bill are borderline frightening, and so is your lack of using spell check.

Gregory Girard    Beverly, MA

11/30/2011 7:26:21 AM

Anyone that supports animal shelters, or merely pet ownership in general, should scream out in opposition to this bill, and the many laws that would need to follow to create a complete regulatory structure controlling all pets and work animals. The day the new law went into effect, there would be no qualifed adopters, and a year-long waiting list on the course. What if you have a cat and want a another? Do you still need the license? Basically, shelters will suffer an administrative burden to be avoided, and prospective pet owners will go out-of-state or through private sales. In a few weeks, shelters would cease to exist due to a regulatory burden that does not encumber other means of aquiring pets. To prevent this, a new law would need to require all pet owners in the state to be take the course and pass (be licensed), and then every single pet transaction would have to be registered with the state and approved to ensure that the buyer and seller were licensed. But what about out-of-state purchases where one party is not under obligation comply. A new law would be needed to requires all pet sales to be brokered through state-licensed pet dealer, just like with firearms. Naturally, the transaction is taxed. To enforce this, we will need another new law that requires every pet to be registered in the name of the owner, so even in a private sale, the animal could not be re-registered if the proper state transfer was not filed. Veterinarians would be required to report any unregistered animal brought for care. Since the state must consider the public safety and dogs can harm people, every dog must be insured in order to be registered. Violations of the laws composing this new regulatory structure would consist of fines, state detention of the animal, and eventual it would euthanized for lack of compliance -- all this in the name of preventing abuse. The true victims are the animals whose currenly short and pleasant path to a new loving home will be converted to traffic-clogged, pothole covered state toll road with roadblocks along the way.

I could write a book on the desperately misguided, freedom-killing, atrocity of this bill. However, we expect our liberal politicians to work to destroy our lives, liberty and pursuits of happiness as a matter of tradition and ideology. If the United States is to have any chance of bright future, our education system should lead us to the goal where every American who is over 12 years old that reads this bill should know immediately it is a liberal power grab on behalf of the state, functioning as seed that will be nurtured as the means to grow a large, cumbersome, intrusive beaucracy that dengrates out way of life. It would destroy the network of existing of animal shelters and strip away our liberties while throwing millions of homeless animals under the bus.

Gregory    Beverly, MA

11/30/2011 4:29:41 AM

With no intent to broadly diminsh the people behind the comments, it requires a certain degree of profound naivite and lack of inside into how gov't destroys freedom to do anything but scream opposition to this outrageoud bill. In other words, only a liberal could fail to see the unprecedent disaster this would bring to its principle victims: homeless pets throughout the state. Virtually any non-liberal person, or a 4th grader, would immediately grasp that not only would it be necessary to have children. Unless one is to argue that failed parenting of humans is less consequential to society than failed parenting of pets. And it SHOULD be obvious that it would virtually eliminate all pet aquisition through shelter adoption overnight for the 99% of us that simply do not have the motivation or time to deal with the nonsense. And what about the fact that the person who adopts is not the caretaker? Do we have to license a legally designed "caretaker" and no one else is allow to interact with the animal? Yes, to make this bill meaningful, we musth have licensing of all persons who are to come into contact with the animal. All this bill/law would do is leave shelters full of homeless animals while mainstream pet aquistion migrate to private sales/transfers such as from breeders, online adds, and such. It does absolutely nothing to stop the number 1 reason for cat abuse, which is people being so brainwashed by liberal scaremongering about the humane practice of declawing that instead of declawing, they dump the cat off on the side of the highways. Dogs have their own issues. But if anyone ACTUALLY cares about cats, work to shutdown liberal scaremongering and promote ways that people may continue to keep their lifelong commitment as pet parents. Any gov't intervention that complicates the adoption process is contrary to the best interest of homeless animals everywhere. Back off on taking my freedoms and those of cats!

TJF    Miami, FL

8/14/2011 2:41:57 PM

I love this idea....we ALL can learn new things about cats, including their various health probmes to watch out for, like litter box issues, urologic problems and how they manifest, etc. etc. I have had cats for twenty years and just this weekend read some vet journal articles on the urologic syndrome of cats and learned a lot more on the car of my cat.

View Current Comments

Top Products