Politics and Law
Arkansas Farm Bureau Backs Cruelty Bill--Because It Doesn't Apply to Them
Published January 13, 2009 @ 07:25AM PT
The Arkansas Farm Bureau has steadfastly opposed strengthening its state's laws regarding animal cruelty. After all, if cruelty to animals ever really became illegal anywhere, without the term "cruelty" being watered down so much as to be meaningless, and such laws were ever really enforced, animal agriculture everywhere would be in some serious trouble.
So why is this interest group suddenly reversing its position?
1. They know--and they've been assured--that this is only about cruelty to dogs, cats, and horses (you know, those important animals who are worlds different from cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals, but, suspiciously, in ways that no one espousing this view seems able to articulate beyond "well, they're food because we raised them to be food"). According to the news article, "the proposal . . . would make aggravated animal cruelty of horses, dogs and cats a felony on first offense," but "the bill would protect animal husbandry and farming practices."
2. Then there's the definition of cruelty, which is key and which apparently has been watered down enough to suit the bureau.
McDaniel said Tuesday the legislation would provide a specific definition of cruel and inhumane treatment that causes injury or death to the animal. . . .
"This legislation includes very specific definitions of what constitutes cruelty, and places arrest authority in the hands of law enforcement officials," said Randy Veach, the bureau's president. "Those are the areas that have caused the most difficulty in past efforts to get an animal cruelty bill passed."
Veach said his group has opposed past felony proposals because the bureau believed the definitions were unclear.
3. And did you notice the mention of who has authority to determine when cruelty is present and to do something about it? This was a major sticking point for the bureau too. Animal-exploiting industries and individuals do not like it when animal protection groups such as humane societies have the authority to step in. They're OK with this bill because it doesn't allow humane officers to make arrests based on their own judgments of cruelty--only official law enforcement officers, far more likely than humane officers to look the other way or be persuaded that the humans' interests in harming the animal or staying out of trouble outweigh the animals' interests, can make such arrests. The Arkansas Farm Bureau reports that it refused to support previously proposed bills because they "continued the practice of allowing private citizens to have arrest authority."
4. It's worth repeating that the bill is of no consequence to "producers"; the Arkansas Farm Bureau's own press release praises the bill for "protecting the interests of agriculture" because it could only support the bill if the "rights of producers were secured." As such, this law would do nothing to stop or punish the most frequent and most severe cases of cruelty, which happen on farms and in slaughterhouses, not even abuses like the ones you read about the other day, documented by Virgil Butler in this very same state. (And besides, the atrocities documented by Butler were committed against mere chickens, and though no animals are really protected by the Humane Slaughter Act, the act doesn't even pretend to cover chickens--you can slaughter birds however you want.)
5. With all these provisions in place, why wouldn't the Arkansas Farm Bureau support this bill? Supporting this makes them look good. It does not a damn thing to protect the animals the bureau's industry is exploiting, abusing, and killing, so it's no danger to the bureau's members. But giving support to an anti-cruelty bill offers the illusion that the Arkansas Farm Bureau cares about animals. And most in the public, ignoring or not realizing the ways that this bill actually protects the abuse of farm animals rather than protecting the animals themselves and narrowly defines what constitutes (and who can stop) cruelty to other animals, will see this as evidence that such animals are protected by laws when they're not. "'We believe what is being proposed by the attorney general reflects a lot of work, input and agreement over what Arkansas’ law should include,' said [bureau president] Veach." Yes, the Arkansas Farm Bureau gets to look good, the attorney general gets to look good, and the animals get business as usual.
-----
Sources: Arkansas Farm Bureau press release, AP article at STLToday.com
Image courtesy of OpenRescue.org
Why Animal Rights? Why the ALDF?
Published December 30, 2008 @ 08:04AM PT
This post is a bit of a follow-up to yesterday's on the Animal Bill of Rights. Please watch the following video from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, explaining why animals' legal status must be changed and why the ALDF exists (and what it does). Then vote for the Animal Bill of Rights.
"The core problem that animals face is that they are treated in our society as if they are things. Their status in the law needs to be changed from the status of things to the status of sentient beings who have interests, whose interests should be protected."
"We envision a world in which the lives and interests of animals are protected by the law."
Featured Idea: Animal Bill of Rights
Published December 29, 2008 @ 01:19PM PT
One of the AR ideas posted to Ideas for Change in America centers on passing an Animal Bill of Rights, crafted by the Animal Legal Defense Fund. It calls for the following rights for animals:
The Right of animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect and abuse.
The Right of laboratory animals not to be used in cruel or unnecessary experiments.
The Right of farm animals to an environment that satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs.
The Right of companion animals to a healthy diet, protective shelter, and adequate medical care.
The Right of wildlife to a natural habitat, ecologically sufficient to a normal existence and self-sustaining species population.
The Right of animals to have their interests represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land.
Vote for this idea here. Following is what the ALDF has to say about this effort on its Web site, pointing out, among other things, the frustrating and disturbing fact that animals are still considered property in this country, "in most cases no different than a table or chair":
Throughout civilization, nations have codified the basic and essential rights of their people—rights that must not be infringed upon by the government or other individuals or entities. In the United States, our Bill of Rights enumerates cherished essential rights including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly.
However, as far as the law is concerned, the situation for animals in this country is dire. Despite the fact that they are living, feeling beings, animals in the U.S. are still considered merely “property” by law—in most cases no different than a table or a chair. When laws protecting animals do exist, they are often insufficient or full of loopholes. The federal Animal Welfare Act explicitly excludes birds, rats and mice—which account for the vast majority of animals used in laboratories. And there are no federal laws at all protecting the billions of animals raised for food from the most egregious abuses.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund’s Animal Bill of Rights is a petition to the United States Congress, stating the basic, inalienable rights that all sentient beings have—and that our government should protect.
Is the right "to an environment that satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs" enough for farm animals? Is the right "not to be used in cruel or unnecessary experiments" enough for the animals imprisoned in labs? No, these conditions are not enough. But I'd like to think that in the future, when we've really achieved the first goal listed, "for animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect and abuse," and we're no longer killing them for our convenience or pleasure or experimenting on them at all (i.e., once we've realized that all experiments on animals are unnecessary), we will be able to focus on their right to just appropriate environments--because their basic right to simply live will already be established. Go vote.
Fight for Animal Rights Ideas--Vote!
Published December 28, 2008 @ 07:02AM PT
Have you voted for animal rights ideas in the Ideas for Change in America project yet? We have just a few more days before first-round voting ends, so if you haven't yet, you need to get on it--now. I've noticed that a number of animal rights advocates and readers of this blog have voted on an idea encouraging Obama to go vegan in the agricultural policy section but haven't voted for animal rights ideas. Time to fix that, friends. But before you head over there, let's talk strategy.
Have you voted for animal rights ideas in the This round, which ends when the year does, is not about voting for every idea that you agree or kind of agree with. We need to vote strategically in both rounds, but in different ways. And this time, it's about getting the ideas that are best and that have a real chance to be voted into the final top 10 into the second round. So here are my tips:
* Read all the way through ideas before you vote on them; do not rely on just the idea headline--most ideas include more details in their summary, or even added-on ideas.
* Remember that agreeing with an idea personally or in theory isn't enough of a reason to vote for it. Vote for ideas that are clear, well written, realistic (realistic as in they must be ideas Obama & Co. have the authority to actually implement, work toward, or encourage), and in tune with your own ideals.
* Keep in mind at all times that only the top 3 ideas are moving forward. So if there are ideas in the top 3 that you don't think are as good as ones below, and you want to raise the ones below with your vote, don't vote for those ideas in the top 3 that you don't like as much--that's the equivalent of canceling out your votes for the lower ideas.
* Remember that in the second round, AR ideas will be up against ideas from all the other categories, and everyone will be voting on all ideas--we'll need votes from those for whom animal rights isn't a priority too.
* Feel free to change your mind. Now you not only can vote for ideas, but also can remove your vote from ideas by selecting the "Remove Vote" link below the idea's vote count (when you're logged in, of course).
In upcoming posts, I'll be highlighting some of the ideas that I think are both capable of making it into the second round and capable of then making it to the final top 10--and that also remain true to animal rights. You can even look forward to some self-criticism regarding the Animal Welfare Act idea that I penned and, ironically, don't support.
Industry Sues to Re-Allow Slaughter & Sale of Ill, Injured Animals
Published December 26, 2008 @ 05:00AM PT
In keeping with the holiday spirit, animal agribusiness groups went to court on Christmas Eve demanding to be allowed to push, shove, drag, and kick even the most ill and injured pigs, goats, and sheep to their death in California--federal law applies only to cattle, and slaughterers think that what is good for the U.S. government should be good enough for California's state government too. Industry publication Feedstuffs reported on December 25 that "the National Meat Assn. (NMA) has filed a lawsuit in a federal court in California seeking to overturn part of a California law passed this summer that bans the slaughter of non-ambulatory livestock for meat for human consumption, and the American Meat Institute (AMI) has moved to intervene in and broaden the action."
Feedstuffs further explains, "NMA and AMI maintain that federal law permitting the slaughter of non-ambulatory hogs, goats and sheep takes precedent over the California law [banning the slaughter of all non-ambulatory animals] and that animals are often non-ambulatory due to injuries, not disease." Oh, that makes it so much better! These animals are lame and dying because of abuse, neglect, and horrendous transport that have caused just injuries, not illnesses. Unbelievable.
We know that animal rights is an utterly foreign concept to the animal ag industry, but this move proves, once again, that despite all the pretty words and public relations posturing about its "humane" standards and good care, the industry doesn't give a damn about welfare either; the animals it kills en masse every day are just products, products from which the exploiters are determined to squeeze every last dime--even if they have to drag the tortured beings to their violent deaths. And the industry cares about human health just about as much as it cares about the animals. What matters--all that matters--is profit. I tire of being told, over and over again, by people and groups who desperately want to hold on to the idea that they are not contributing to a cycle of immense suffering and injustice that we have laws, that we have standards, for how animals must be treated and that they are sure those laws and standards are upheld, and the newsworthy instances that reveal the opposite are just exceptions. I tire of hearing this because it's simply and so obviously not true.
Never will there be a policy or a welfare law that makes a real difference. As long as these animals are commodities, as long as they are merely units of production, as long as humans profit from their death, they will suffer, period. Profit and cost-effectiveness will always be more important than the animals. And this action taken by the National Meat Association and American Meat Institute makes that as clear as ever.
And perhaps you noticed that chickens and turkeys are not mentioned here? Yes, that's right--we are reminded once again that the industry doesn't even have to ask for any more lax regulations with regard to the slaughter of birds--they can torture and kill tens of millions of chickens and other birds however they want every single day without having to worry about the silly so-called protection laws that apply to other animals. Indeed, I find myself wondering why the industry didn't spend this holiday season just being grateful for all the power to freely torture and kill that it does have instead of trying to get its greedy, bloody hands on more.
---
Photo source: Empty Cages gallery
Puppy Biden, Take 2
Published December 21, 2008 @ 09:36AM PT
As many of you have probably heard by now, Joe Biden will be adopting a second dog--from a shelter. I don't harbor any delusions that the specific conversation here had any influence on that decision, but the general widespread public outcry from animal rights and welfare groups and individuals surely had an impact. Let's be clear that I'm thrilled Biden is planning to bring a second dog into his home and that he's going the wiser, kinder adoption route this time, and I give him credit for the decision.
That said, I still like what Doris Lin of About.com had to say about the interview with George Stephanopoulos in which Biden made the announcement:
What's missing from the interview is any hint of an apology or sign of regret over the puppy mill purchase. Stephanopoulos' comment gave Biden the perfect chance to respond to the public, but instead of addressing the issue directly, Biden ducks. You can watch the video at Stephanopoulos' blog.
While adopting a shelter dog is a good move, in no way does it makes up for purchasing the first puppy from a puppy mill. Biden says that they've always had two dogs, so he could have adopted two dogs from a shelter.
. . . it might have been too late to stop that sale, but it's never too late for an apology. Biden's animal-friendly positions have been lauded within the animal protection community, so his actions send a strong message to the public. I just wish he would admit his mistake.
Before Obama Had His Warren, Biden Had His Shepherd
Published December 19, 2008 @ 01:20AM PT
Is the White House doghouse big enough for both Obama and Biden? In just one short week, both have raised the ire of consituencies through important selections. Yes, I realized a couple days ago that I'm one of the few not yet on the record saying, "What the hell?!" in response to soon-to-be-VP Joe Biden's purchase of a puppy from a breeder as opposed to adoption from a shelter or rescue. Consider this my official "What the hell?! What was he thinking?" response. There are some people who buy dogs from backyard breeders, pet stores, puppy mills, and so-called responsible breeders (no such thing in this world, folks--no such thing) without realizing the problems associated with that choice. It's becoming increasingly more difficult not to be aware, but it's not impossible. So I try not to jump on people immediately if it seems clear or even possible that they really didn't know any better when originally making that decision. Many, once informed and given the chance to reflect on the matter, commit to never buying an animal from a store or breeder again.
But Biden? Not one of those didn't-know-better types. Not by a long shot. (Indeed, it's frustrating to recall that Biden was even referred to as a "stalwart friend of animal welfare advocates" during the presidential campaign.) Even if someone really needs a certain breed of dog if he or she is to have a dog (and honestly, those instances of needing a specific breed of dog are incredibly, incredibly rare), there are plenty of rescue organizations that take in and adopt out purebred dogs as well as plenty of purebred dogs in shelters all across the country. Someone with Joe Biden's resources and public persona would have had no trouble finding and adopting a German shepherd.
So a reader sent me a private message last weekend asking what we can do about this faux paw (oh, I amuse myself) by Biden.
