New state law targets animal rights activists, (Ca.)

AP ^ | 9 December 2003 | DAISY NGUYEN

[Grampa Dave]

New state law targets animal rights activists Tuesday, December 9, 2003

By DAISY NGUYEN Associated Press Writer

LOS ANGELES -- A new state law designed to shield farms from protesters and protect the food supply from contagious disease has angered activists, who say the law will keep them from documenting animal abuse.

The law, which takes effect Jan. 1, makes trespassing on lands where animals are raised for human consumption a misdemeanor punishable by six months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine. Currently, someone who trespasses faces a citation and a $10 fine.

This year, seven states considered bills to make so-called animal and ecological terrorism subject to stiffer penalties, said Sandy Liddy Bourne of the American Legislative Exchange Council. The bills are based on model legislation developed by the Washington-based group.

State Sen. Charles Poochigian, R-Fresno, introduced the California law in February to prevent the potential spread of disease between animal farms and to curb increasing acts of violence by animal rights activists, said Deborah Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the senator.

Several animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, opposed Poochigian's bill, arguing that its real purpose is to stop attempts to document inhumane conditions at farms.

Poochigian wrote in his proposal that an outbreak similar to the Exotic Newcastle poultry disease, which killed more than 3 million hens in Southern California earlier this year, could occur if a trespasser were to inadvertently spread a disease.

U.S. Agriculture Department officials believe farm workers spread Exotic Newcastle to egg farms through their clothing and shoes. The quarantine for the disease cost more than $160 million.

Some members of the Pacific Egg and Poultry Association have reported that trespassers entered their farms, burned trucks and stole animals, said Debbie Murdock, a spokeswoman for the group. She declined to give further details because some of the cases are under investigation.

Trespassing on animal farms is at the core of a highly publicized case that played out at a Central Valley duck farm in September.

Four animal-rights activists broke into the farm and stole birds being raised for the delicacy foie gras, or fattened liver. The activists, from the San Francisco-based group the Animal Protection and Rescue League, shot video footage of the act to publicize what they called the mistreatment of the animals.

The owners of Sonoma Foie Gras in Farmington sued the activists for trespassing. The farm, which raises about 20,000 ducks, is one of two U.S. producers of foie gras, made when ducks or geese are fed through a tube down their throat so their livers expand.

The league, along with In Defense of Animals, in turn filed a lawsuit alleging that Sonoma Foie Gras violated state anticruelty laws by force-feeding the ducks. Both lawsuits are pending.

David Blatte, an attorney for the Animal Protection and Rescue League, said the new law addresses legitimate safety concerns but also suppresses free speech.

"Really they're scared of having these images made to the public, because it causes an incredible backlash to the industry," said Bryan Pease, one of the activists named in the lawsuit.

Food producers disagree, saying the new law protects their businesses and consumers.

"There are better ways to make a point than going on to ranches and hurting the welfare of the birds," said Bill Mattos of the California Poultry Federation. "Stay off the ranch. If you have to protest, do it in a civil manner without having to trespass on the property."

[Grampa Dave]

This is a step in the right direction.

[Grampa Dave]

Ping your list for one small victory for farmers, ranchers and others who produce the food we need to stay alive.

[Grampa Dave]

One small victory for those who provide the food that we need to keep us alive.

[Viking2002]

In other words, you tofu-munching vermin, your belligerence and infantile tantrums are incompatible with a civilized society. From now on, jail time awaits.

[countrydummy]

Bump!

[Grampa Dave]

"In other words, you tofu-munching vermin, your belligerence and infantile tantrums are incompatible with a civilized society. From now on, jail time awaits."

You summed it up very well. I don't want these eco terrorists messing with the food my family eats and needs to survive.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for your bump.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Birds being raised for the delicacy foie gras, or fattened liver?

Can't be good for you!

I'll stick with beef and chicken!

The legislation is a good move!

[AuntB]

Yes, it is. Thanks for the ping, Gramps.

[republicofdavis]

I don't know why we have to make up a reason for a perfectly sensible law. I mean, take the activists at their word that this is only to hamper them. So? You're trespassing, an illegal act. Pay the consequences.

I think the phony reasoning (fear of contamination) gives those on the other side the ability to claim that the public is being duped.

[Grampa Dave]

Who says that it is phoney.

There were turkey farms in Eastern Sonoma county that were closed down due to some type virus. Strange that no virus hit other farms in the same area, across the road and on both sides of the infected areas. Rumors were around for years that the owners were targets of what happened.

[tbpiper]

New state law targets animal rights activists

Thought they were going to issue something like a duck stamp with bag limits an'all that.

[B Knotts]

I attend various dairy goat events, and bioterrorism is a big topic these days. Also, with the Newcastle (chicken) outbreak, there is a renewed emphasis on good sanitation practices to control the spread of diseases.

There is serious concern about these things, and the fact that it affects the ability for these lunatics to try to harass farmers is, honestly, ancillary.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

This reminds me of a sign on the King ranch.

"Posted no trespassing survivors will be prosecuted"

[republicofdavis]

"Who says that it is phoney."

I do. We clearly know what this law is about and are glad for it. You offer some completely unverified rumor. Why hide it?

You come on to my premises uninvited and film something, it's trespassing. You should be punished. I don't see why it has to be made complicated. Next you'll hear these groups screaming about "paranoid big agri-businesses." The fact that law is based on some kind unprovable "what if" scenario plays right into these people's hands.

[Vidi_Vici_Vinnny]

Advice for animal rights activists in California.

This is your butt.
o
This is your butt in jail.
O

ANY QUESTIONS?

[Grampa Dave]

Every thread about elf, alf, and Peta and their terrorists acts, we have some loopy/libbytarian freeper jumping to defend them and claim that these acts are not terrorism.

Take your loopy/libbytarian excuses for these scumbags to another poster.

[republicofdavis]

"Take your loopy/libbytarian excuses for these scumbags to another poster."

you picked the wrong guy, gramps

I am no libertarian and am certainly no defender of PETA, et al. I don't know why you're having such a hard time with my point, it's not that complicated.

Liberals lie to get legislation passed. We don't, or at least we shouldn't. It is a trumped-up charge to say that this legislation is proposed because of fear of attack. The legislation would stand on its own as a simple enforcement of property rights.

I didn't think that we, on this forum, supported our elective representatives using specious reasoning to pass restrictive laws. Next time it could happen to us. I prefer the truth.

[republicofdavis]

and what did I say that was "libertarian?" My point is to enforce property rights. I can't see where I touched on anything having to do with libertarianism. Perhaps you need some educating. And you sure do jump quickly to gettin' contrary with someone you don't even know who was trying to have a reasonable discussion.

[Lurker]

Rule 308 should cover all acts of trespassing.

Problem solved.

Next.

L