A registry of animal abusers: a good or bad idea?

In California, Senator Dean Florez has proposed the creation of a registry of  animal abusers, which would be funded by increased taxes on pet food. An article in the L.A. Times plainly titled "A registry of animal abusers is a bad idea" is clearly against this proposition. Whether or not this author is credible as a person is unknown to me, considering that I couldn't find the author's name, but the paper itself is one that many read nation-wide, while its intended audience is that of California.
Whoever the author is, they argue that it serves no purpose and shouldn't be done when there is no registry on drug dealers or domestically violent people. They also claim that the cost of such a registry, which would be paid for by new taxes placed on pet food, would be far too much and should not be paid for by those who are not responsible for animal abuse. They provide decent enough evidence, but why should a registry not be created? Their own evidence against one supports one. Animal abuse is commonly linked with the development of "serial killers and school shooters". While there's a registry for sex offenders to warn people of those who are prone to that kind of behavior, should we not also be warned of the possibility of people who may be prone to murder? While they push that the cost would be outrageous and that the people convicted of animal abuse should be allowed to start over like all the other criminals in the U.S., except for sex offenders, I have to disagree.
I agree that the cost for the registry should be found elsewhere, I don't agree that animal abusers should be allowed to start over if sex offenders cannot. Most animal abusers have the same tendencies towards murder and abuse that most sex offenders have towards rape, child pornography, etc. So, while the author believes that a registry of animal abusers is a bad idea, I think it is a very good idea.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-registry26-2010feb26,0,1167169.story