Hidden Cameras On Agricultural Property May Be Prohibited In Utah

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Filming on farms, ranches and dairies could be prohibited in Utah by a bill moving to the Senate this week, despite concerns that animal abuse will go unreported.

The prohibition is needed because "national propaganda groups" are hiding cameras on agricultural property and using the footage as part of their larger agenda of shutting down the operations, said Rep. John Mathis, R-Vernal, the sponsor of House Bill 187. The bill, which passed the House 60-14 Friday, would make it a misdemeanor to film on private agricultural property without the owner's consent.

Allowing the groups to continue to film on private property is "akin to a neighborhood watch group that goes into your home and hides cameras because you may one day do something to your kids," Mathis said.

Multiple animal rights groups have launched national campaigns against the bill, which they said will penalize people who uncover animal abuse. Among those groups is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which has sent a letter from actress Cloris Leachman to lawmakers.

"Citizens' right to document cruelty to animals_wherever it occurs_is crucial in helping local, state, and federal officials enforce anti-cruelty laws," Leachman wrote in her letter.

The bill will protect businesses to the detriment of animals, said Suzanne McMillan, director of farm animal welfare for The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

"Bills like this only serve to heighten suspicion that the agricultural industry has something to hide," McMillan said. "Americans deserve to know how their food is produced, and responsible farmers should welcome that transparency."

The proposed law is also overly broad and could limit the ability of whistleblowers to document illegal actions, said Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City.

Last year, similar bills failed in Iowa, Florida, New York and Minnesota.

The involvement of national groups will likely hold little sway over Utah lawmakers, however. Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, who is a cattle rancher, said opponents of the bill want to control agriculture but have no understanding of how hard farmers and ranchers actually work.

"Nobody wants to go slop around in cow manure in the middle of the night or at six in the morning, and they certainly don't want some jackwagon coming in and taking a picture of them," Noel said.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[Nina Schipperke]

01:42 PM on 02/29/2012

Woo hoo..
I can see it all now.
Whistleblower breaks law.
Utah spends gazillions of dollars of taxpayer moola prosecuting whistleblower under an unconstitutional law.
Trial lawyers put down payments on beachfront property in Malibu.
What a country...

[Andrew Gunther]

06:11 PM on 02/28/2012

Want some farms/farmers who love having folks take pictures? www.animalwelfareapproved.org The only farmers who have anything to fear from Cameras are doing something wrong why be so ashamed of what you do that you need a law to stop people seeing it?

[HazelPethigFan]

08:25 PM on 02/28/2012

You really think that farmers should allow trespassers to walk onto any farm to put up cameras no matter what just because you people say so?

Good luck trying to do that.

[Andrew Gunther]

08:43 PM on 02/28/2012

No, but there is a law of trespass isn't there whats so special about these farms? What are they hiding?

Special laws to protect Big Ag is really paranoid in a time when transparency is paramount.

[Punks]

09:09 PM on 02/28/2012

I agree. I am sure those that have the most to hide are not going to invite you on the property for a look see.
For those that are voiceless and vulnerable, there has to be a way to moniter what is being done to them. And for the rest of us, we must have food stuff that is humanely and cleanly produced.
This has nothing to do with how hard farmers work. Many of us work hard. That is not an excuse for behaving poorly.

[lambdin1]

04:19 PM on 02/28/2012

Animals need our welfare and concern. I'm for private property rights. I'm torn between the two. If I were an ethical producer I would not fear cameras. If I was not I'd fear them of course. There seems to be a middle ground somewhere. I'm not sure where it is.

[Cydsterie]

03:13 AM on 02/29/2012

Vegetarianism?

[DrugSniffingCat]

04:15 PM on 02/28/2012

It is always about the almighty dollar... doesn't matter who suffers.

[noodles865]

12:56 AM on 02/28/2012

When you think about it our government is bizarre-can you imagine a judge hearing and ruling on a case where the judge was directly involved,and could benefit in any way as to the way they ruled.this is like a cover up -yet its a cover up everyone is watching how can they introduce and change laws where they have the potential to benefit directly from.I know all laws benefit its people in some way,this just seems a little to direct.The Republicans have done nothing but scream about their rights being taken away from them or diluted in some way,yet these bills do just that.how does this benefit anyone but those who are breaking the law.if anyone steps a foot on their property and takes a picture of a pretty sunset they could be arrested.there is no reason why,if we choose to eat meat we cant see them cared for and humanly killed.there is no reason we should not know what goes into our potential food source and rally to have any unnecessary chemicals,which can effect our bodies.this law benefits just one aspect of our society food producers who break the law.and are vile in the treatment of or giving no dignity or sympathy as to suffering of that food source.

[Ray Wigton]

11:58 PM on 02/27/2012

Not a "letter from actress Cloris Leachman"!!!! - Oh my. If I were a Utah legislator, I know I would be intimidated by that!
"they certainly don't want some jackwagon coming in and taking a picture of them" Did he say jackwagon?
Though I would oppose this type of legislation, not for the same reasons. If somebody wants to film me feeding the pigs or milking cows, go right ahead. I think more people need to know where that food comes from. The problem is that legislation of this sort is used to prosecute selectively depending on who you are and who you offend.
I wonder how long it will be before we get accused of plant cruelty?

[noodles865]

12:16 AM on 02/28/2012

Come on thats not reasonable if they filmed and everything was by the law what is there to hide if your not ashamed of what is happening if your not breaking any laws why would you care.It is not as if this was a snipit of a conversation where it could be taken out of context this shows what goes on at the companies (no longer farmers companies).I so agree with the dreaded cloris leachman thing though

[The Big M]

12:17 AM on 02/28/2012

Ray, you were doing okay, your point about selective prosecution seemed realistic. . .
but then you had to go and make that last comment about "plant cruelty." Such a
dim-witted comparison makes me think you might be dumber than a jackwagon!

[Ray Wigton]

12:48 PM on 02/28/2012

Thanks for the insult! Why don't you try sharing your opinion instead of responding to mine. My point about selective prosecution is based on studies of how minorities in the USA are prosecuted for crimes that the charges are normally not brought against white people for committing. My comment on eating plants - well - I'm a botanist and after studying the little guys to the point where its almost personal - you know they are the bottom of the food chain. So I make a little joke and I would hope you would just kind of chuckle and enjoy it. But no! You are an animal lover and you thought I was maybe making fun of people like you. To that extent, only when the behavior is extreme.

[Sunwyn Ravenwood]

11:54 PM on 02/27/2012

And for those of you who care nothing about animals, how about children?

T"he results concluded that for a 100,000 animal increase in a county, there were 123 more infant deaths under the age of one per 100,000 births and 100 more infant deaths under the age of 28 days per 100,000 births. As well, the research suggests that a doubling of animal production induces a 7.4 percent increase in infant mortality.

...this phenomenon is a result of air pollution, most likely from ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. These two gases are toxic pollutants that also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Hydrogen sulfide is also responsible for deaths annually as farmworkers enter poorly ventilated manure containment systems and die almost instantly. As the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production indicated in their final report earlier this year, “facilities can be harmful to workers, neighbors, and even those living far from the facilities through air and water pollution, and via the spread of disease. Workers in and neighbors of [these] facilities experience high levels of respiratory problems, including asthma.” This is significant for policy since most of the regulations on CAFOs to date have been implemented under the Clean Water Act — not the Clean Air Act."

http://grist.org/food/bad-meat-bad-air-bad-health-why-do-we-still-have-cafos/

How many more babies will die to enrich greedy corporations?

[Sunwyn Ravenwood]

11:50 PM on 02/27/2012

As the direction of animal agriculture industry lobbyists, including chemical companies Monsanto and Dupont, lawmakers in Florida, Iowa, and Minnesota have introduced bills that would criminalize whistle blower activities. The bill in Minnesota is advanced by Rep. Rod Hamilton, who is past president of the Minnesota Pork Producers, seeks to label any such recordings as “eco-terrorism”.

Passing laws favoring Big Food is the newest industry strategy. One of the more notorious earlier attempts was Monsanto’s campaign to pass bills prohibiting the labeling of milk as containing artificial hormones in 14 states across the country. They failed everywhere except in Ohio – and that momentary success was overturned by the courts. Monsanto is a driving force behind the new Iowa law....

Video and photographs, shot covertly by an investigator who gained employment at the cattle company, shows workers bashing calves’ skulls with axes and hammers leaving injured but still-live animals in piles of carcasses, and neglecting those with illnesses, injuries, and wounds.

The video of E6 Cattle Company abuses is an ugly example of what goes on behind the scenes in the factory farm (CAFO) cattle industry. According to the local district attorney, the hooves of some animals froze off during sub-zero temperatures causing them to walk on “nubs.” See it yourself, but be forewarned is it is ugly and disgusting. While this video does not represent all ranchers, it is emblematic of the abuses commonly found on factory farms (CAFOs).

[Sunwyn Ravenwood]

11:48 PM on 02/27/2012

...Wright County Egg Farms of IA had more than 5,000,000 eggs recalled because of a whistleblower. If photos and videos had not been taken, imagine how many Americans may have been hospitalized or even died from E. coli?

The Florida bill would make it a felony for anyone to film or photograph farm activities without the farm owner’s written consent. Norman said it’s targeted at animal activists who gain employment at farms to make undercover videos to post to the Internet.

Similar legislation is currently pending in Iowa, where a bill introduced by Rep. Annette Sweeney, a rancher herself, aims to prohibit individuals or groups from “interfering with an animal facility or crop operation.” The language defines distributing audio or visual recordings as interference, with first offenses charged as aggravated misdemeanor and any subsequent convictions carrying felony status. Under the Minnesota bill, a person could be sentenced to 5 years in jail.

The bills provide that, “A person who photographs, video records, or otherwise produces images or pictorial records, digital or otherwise, at or of a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture operations are being conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner, commits a felony of the first degree.”

http://howtoeliminatepain.com/food-allergies/factory-farms-cafos-seek-protection-from-whistleblowers-by-pushing-legislation-making-photographs-and-videotaping-of-animal-abuse-a-felony-in-violation-of-the-first-amendment-rights-of-all-americans/

[bcmom]

10:03 PM on 02/27/2012

Where are all those Christians when you need them?

[Tquin]

09:10 PM on 02/27/2012

This is just following the transparency as reflected by the current administraton in the White House. What is good for the goose is good for he gander.

[Mrs Robinsons]

09:06 PM on 02/27/2012

Just remember that the sort of person who is motivated enough to put a camera on a farm to shut it down..
is just a stones throw away
from the sort of person who is educated in behavior modification
and can turn a
farmer and their farm into exactly the sort of hovel that they CAN shut down.

[Sunwyn Ravenwood]

11:40 PM on 02/27/2012

Drivel.

Read "Animal Factory" by David Kirby and "Fear of the Animal Planet" by Jason Hribal and you will understand what people are talking about here.

[Nina Schipperke]

01:45 PM on 02/29/2012

Off the meds?

[altohone]

08:22 PM on 02/27/2012

Rep. Noel- ranching is hard so animal abuse is justified? He should find two new jobs. He clearly does not like ranching and is not qualified for politics.

[yukonsam]

04:32 PM on 02/27/2012

Why stop at slaughterhouses and feed lots? Why not make it a crime to document any crime by any GOP lobbyist or campaign donor?

Isn't that what this is really about? Making it a misdemeanor won't stop anybody from making the films. What it will prevent is using the "illegally obtained" footage in a court of law to document the criminal acts of the industry being filmed. The legislators probably didn't think of that, but the lobbyists who wrote the bill sure as hell did.

[oakhilliron]

08:34 PM on 02/27/2012

By your reasoning we should put cameras in the homes of all welfare recipients to document the use of drugs or sales of ebt cards and the improper use of those funds. It is a step toward the old russia.

[yukonsam]

09:56 AM on 02/28/2012

What reasoning is that? That corporate lobbyists are writing legislation to immunize their clients from criminal prosecution, and gullible fools in the legislature are swallowing it as a privacy argument?

[Amber Heath]

09:31 PM on 02/27/2012

farms and slaughterhouses should be subject to inspection which may include secretly filming, but this should not be done by any random citizen. in that respect I can sympathise as such people would have no restrictions on how they edited and presented their footage, and they have no business doing it. if they want to go around trying to uncover animal abuse they should pursue a career in the field instead of playing vigilante animal saviour

[Sunwyn Ravenwood]

11:42 PM on 02/27/2012

You mean they should be done by the inspectors appointed by the politicians bought and paid for by the lobbyists working for the corporations who are committing the crimes?

Good luck with that.

[yukonsam]

09:59 AM on 02/28/2012

Every citizen has the right and responsibility to document and report crimes in progress... no matter how rich and powerful the criminals are, or how many message board posters they hire.

[peacekitten]

04:22 PM on 02/27/2012

HP, you should learn to hide your codes better that say you are going to delete a comment before it's even published.  don't do stories like this one if you can't take what's going to be said about it  no matter how reasonable.