Ag-Gag laws: Utah Woman being prosecuted for videoing slaughterhouse from the road!

[Anchor]

Eye opening article I just read here: (via reddit)

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/first-ag-gag-arrest-utah-amy-meyer/6948/


"Amy Meyer wanted to see the slaughterhouse for herself. She had heard that anyone passing by could view the animals, so she drove to Dale Smith Meatpacking Company in Draper City, Utah, and from the side of the road she could see through the barbed-wire fence. Piles of horns littered the property. Cows struggled with workers who tried to lead them into a building. And one scene in particular made her stop.

“A live cow who appeared to be sick or injured being carried away from the building in a tractor,” Meyer told me, “as though she were nothing more than rubble.”

As she witnessed this, Meyer did what most of us would in the age of smart phones and YouTube: she recorded.

When the slaughterhouse manager came outside and told her to stop, she replied that she was on the public easement and had the right to film. When police arrived, she said told them the same thing. According to the police report, the manager said she was trespassing and crossed over the barbed-wire fence, but the officer noted “there was no damage to the fence in my observation.”

Meyer was allowed to leave. She later found out she was being prosecuted under the state’s new “ag-gag” law.

This is the first prosecution in the country under one of these laws, which are designed to silence undercover investigators who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms. The legislation is a direct response to a series of shocking investigations by groups like the Humane Society, Mercy for Animals, and Compassion Over Killing that have led to plant closures, public outrage, and criminal charges against workers.

(my emphasis above)

Also from that article...


It’s telling that the owner of the slaughterhouse Amy Meyer filmed happens to be Darrell H. Smith, the town mayor. (Mayor Smith, the meatpacking company, and the local prosecutor did not return phone calls for comment). If that’s shocking to you, it shouldn’t be. In Iowa, for example, the nation’s first ag-gag law was sponsored by Rep. Annette Sweeney, who is the former director of the Iowa Angus Association.

[Sidney]

Can you say conflict of inetrest. Those laws should be deemed invalid on that alone.

[blufire]

Many times on Avalon I feel like the ‘red-headed step child’ because I more often than not have a far different view or understanding or different mind set. I tend very much to the practical, pragmatic and common sense and this is how I veiw this article . . . so I apologize upfront if what I am about to say offends or frustrates members or guests . . . . .


"Amy Meyer wanted to see the slaughterhouse for herself.


If you don’t want to see animals being slaughtered then don’t go to slaughter houses. The word slaughter is used for a reason. It is very self explanatory. They aren’t called ‘killing houses’ which would say animals just are being killed and die. They are called ‘slaughter houses’ and have been since the need for large amounts of meat were needed for millions of people. The word slaughter means ‘brutal killing’. It takes a very specific individual that can endure, accept and perform this type of work.


“A live cow who appeared to be sick or injured being carried away from the building in a tractor,” Meyer told me, “as though she were nothing more than rubble.”

I am perplexed why this is so troubling. I have done this very same thing on my farms. I have had horses, goats and large dogs become injured on the farm and the only way too easily, humanely and safely (for farmer and animal) move a large animal that can weigh over 2,000 pounds is with a tractor. Please explain to me how these animals when sick or injured should be moved and transported.


If that’s shocking to you, it shouldn’t be. In Iowa, for example, the nation’s first ag-gag law was sponsored by Rep. Annette Sweeney, who is the former director of the Iowa Angus Association.

Again . . . is this a surprise? This is not shocking to me, it is sensible . . . . This representative is ‘representing’ her constituents and being in the meat industry she understands that these people in her district who are farmers and ranchers need to be represented and supported. Who else would represent farmers and ranchers . . . .a vegan politician or someone from peta?

Should slaughterhouses that out right abuse animals and do not have humane practices be prosecuted . . . YES. Should slaughterhouses and their owners be prosecuted for the very thing that this business is established and providing a massive need in the food industry . . . NO.

[blufire]

Red headed step child here again . . . .Something was nagging in the back of my mind and after reading through the article again I now completely discount Amy Meyer’s story because of the following statement.


Piles of horns littered the property.

This simply and factually could not be true because in both the meat and dairy industry all bovine are now naturally ‘polled’ which means they no longer naturally grow horns. Google herds of dairy and meat herds and you will see. This trait (not growing horns) was genetically hybridized into the industry years ago because animals with horns are a danger to each other, the rancher and dairymen. Horns get hung in fences and equipment and in each other. If there is a genetic throw back and a calf begins to grow horns they are removed at an early age and that particular animal will not be used for breeding.

I also discount or do not believe her story because if horns were to be a by-product in the slaughterhouses they most definitely would not be discarded. All by-products of slaughtered animals (guts, bones, sinew, hooves, horns) are taken to dog and cat food factories. I apologize because I know this is not a pretty thought, but it is truth.

So perhaps her being prosecuted under this ‘ag-gag’ law is justified if she is in fact lying.

[william r sanford72]

i think the issue for me isnt the farm...its the fact that whistle blowers are targeted and the feds and state back it.i know how farms work.i iam surrounded by them.used a tractor to help pull a sick cow outta a water hole once.its a fact of life around here.a life and living.death is a part of it.abuse is abuse.respect the land for its gift and the animal for its life.balance is key.

[Conchis]

I think what gets me about this law and other laws that outlaw the filming of a police officer for instance is that on one hand, law enforcement can use anything in plain sight as evidence of a crime, but apparently citizens can not. We've started down a whole double standard set of laws that apply to the citizenry, but not to officials. If privacy means one thing to them and another to us, then we have a problem.

[donk]

I think what gets me about this law and other laws that outlaw the filming of a police officer for instance is that on one hand, law enforcement can use anything in plain sight as evidence of a crime, but apparently citizens can not. We've started down a whole double standard set of laws that apply to the citizenry, but not to officials. If privacy means one thing to them and another to us, then we have a problem.

Amen to that conchis, and I'd add that what better way to obtain your own set of standards, or at least to get indiscercions slip past the public eye, than miring it in an emotionally charged issue, such as treatment of animals (or food units, depending on how you look at them). How quick this gets lost in the "animal sympathizer" vs "business person" debate.

[Maia Gabrial]

I think that taping this type of thing is the same as taping bad cops in action. In other words, recording a violation going on is our right. Even the Supreme Court said so. But even if she trespassed, it's still something we all need to know.And it becomes a wake up call to the slaughterhouse workers. Maybe they need to be reminded of their humanity.... I feel strongly against treating all animals as if they're nothing. I've seen enough videos to turn my stomach. I'm so glad I'm a vegetarian....

[ThePythonicCow]

Should slaughterhouses that out right abuse animals and do not have humane practices be prosecuted . . . YES. Should slaughterhouses and their owners be prosecuted for the very thing that this business is established and providing a massive need in the food industry . . . NO.


i think the issue for me isnt the farm...its the fact that whistle blowers are targeted and the feds and state back it.i know how farms work.i iam surrounded by them.used a tractor to help pull a sick cow outta a water hole once.its a fact of life around here.a life and living.death is a part of it.abuse is abuse.respect the land for its gift and the animal for its life.balance is key.

Never let it be said that the one known here as blufire is timid :).

I agree with most of what you say, blufire, but I think william r sanford72, and other more recent posters above, raise the key point that concerns me. If this Utah woman was keeping to public property while taking her pictures, prosecuting her, with apparent dishonest claims that she had gone past the fence, isn't right in my book.

Yes, slaughter houses slaughter. But they shouldn't get to abuse the law to keep what's visible from being seen.

[ThePythonicCow]

This simply and factually could not be true because in both the meat and dairy industry all bovine are now naturally ‘polled’ which means they no longer naturally grow horns.

Dang - you're right - even I'm polled and hadn't noticed:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/customavatars/avatar2030_1.gif
Here's a proper Holstein, like my ancestors used to be:

http://images.all-free-download.com/images/graphiclarge/holstein_cow_54338.jpg

[DeDukshyn]

Red headed step child here again . . . .Something was nagging in the back of my mind and after reading through the article again I now completely discount Amy Meyer’s story because of the following statement.


Piles of horns littered the property.

This simply and factually could not be true because in both the meat and dairy industry all bovine are now naturally ‘polled’ which means they no longer naturally grow horns. Google herds of dairy and meat herds and you will see. This trait (not growing horns) was genetically hybridized into the industry years ago because animals with horns are a danger to each other, the rancher and dairymen. Horns get hung in fences and equipment and in each other. If there is a genetic throw back and a calf begins to grow horns they are removed at an early age and that particular animal will not be used for breeding.

I also discount or do not believe her story because if horns were to be a by-product in the slaughterhouses they most definitely would not be discarded. All by-products of slaughtered animals (guts, bones, sinew, hooves, horns) are taken to dog and cat food factories. I apologize because I know this is not a pretty thought, but it is truth.

So perhaps her being prosecuted under this ‘ag-gag’ law is justified if she is in fact lying.

how hard would it be to find out if she was lying? Couldn't they just say, "You're lying, and present the evidence and quickly get the story swept under the table?" -- note that that didn't happen. I'm not say she's not lying -- could well be. But wouldn't it be really easy to fix without having to rely on a law that can be pulled anytime someone speaks out whether they are lying or not?

The real issues here to me is massive conflict of interests. Shouldn't there be things in place to keep corporate interests as far away from politics as possible?

My 2 cents.

¤=[Post Update]=¤



This simply and factually could not be true because in both the meat and dairy industry all bovine are now naturally ‘polled’ which means they no longer naturally grow horns.

Dang - you're right - even I'm polled and hadn't noticed:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/customavatars/avatar2030_1.gif
Here's a proper Holstein, like my ancestors used to be:

http://images.all-free-download.com/images/graphiclarge/holstein_cow_54338.jpg

My relatives ranch had horned cattle as far along as I can remember. It must be a new thing ... and bones stick around for a while ...

[DeDukshyn]

<trim>

Yes, slaughter houses slaughter. But they shouldn't get to abuse the law to keep what's visible from being seen.

Paul,

I think you mean: "...to keep what's INVISIBLE from being seen." ;)

[ThePythonicCow]

The real issues here to me is massive conflict of interests. Shouldn't there be things in place to keep corporate interests as far away from politics as possible?

Well, yeah, that is one of the basic problems we're facing ... living in a fascist state where corporate interests and political interests are almost indistinguishable.

[DeDukshyn]

The real issues here to me is massive conflict of interests. Shouldn't there be things in place to keep corporate interests as far away from politics as possible?

Well, yeah, that is one of the basic problems we're facing ... living in a fascist state where corporate interests and political interests are almost indistinguishable.

And this is the story here. And the real problem in my opinion. Anything else is distraction from the problem in my book. Even if the view is valid from another perspective, I think we can all parse out the real issues being brought to our attention, even if they are a little "fancified" or "dramatized" -- although that certainly doesn't help any situation.

[blufire]

Me again.

In doing some follow up reading this evening I discovered that literally just today all charges were dropped against Amy. This is good news and is a perfect example of when our judicial system works for everyone concerned.
I would like to see Amy's video but could not find it.

Her entire 'animal cruelty " stance rests on the cow being transported in the tractor. . . So I guess my original question stands. . . Why would this be considered animal abuse?

[DeDukshyn]

Me again.

In doing some follow up reading this evening I discovered that literally just today all charges were dropped against Amy. This is good news and is a perfect example of when our judicial system works for everyone concerned.
I would like to see Amy's video but could not find it.

Her entire 'animal cruelty " stance rests on the cow being transported in the tractor. . . So I guess my original question stands. . . Why would this be considered animal abuse?

I don't know if it would be, depending on how it was done (can't really say anything without seeing the video) For me, her story is not really the point, it is the reaction of the authorities, which was what it was regardless of whether her story is truthful or not. Seems a little extreme.

Thanks for the update on her story.

[blufire]

Me again.

In doing some follow up reading this evening I discovered that literally just today all charges were dropped against Amy. This is good news and is a perfect example of when our judicial system works for everyone concerned.
I would like to see Amy's video but could not find it.

Her entire 'animal cruelty " stance rests on the cow being transported in the tractor. . . So I guess my original question stands. . . Why would this be considered animal abuse?

I don't know if it would be, depending on how it was done (can't really say anything without seeing the video) For me, her story is not really the point, it is the reaction of the authorities, which was what it was regardless of whether her story is truthful or not. Seems a little extreme.

Thanks for the update on her story.

Well, I guess from the company's point of veiw being harrassed and accused of false animal abuse and possible lies about piles of horns heaped everywhere would be a tad extreme as well. . . Just a thought

How about that video Ms Meyers?

[DeDukshyn]

Me again.

In doing some follow up reading this evening I discovered that literally just today all charges were dropped against Amy. This is good news and is a perfect example of when our judicial system works for everyone concerned.
I would like to see Amy's video but could not find it.

Her entire 'animal cruelty " stance rests on the cow being transported in the tractor. . . So I guess my original question stands. . . Why would this be considered animal abuse?

I don't know if it would be, depending on how it was done (can't really say anything without seeing the video) For me, her story is not really the point, it is the reaction of the authorities, which was what it was regardless of whether her story is truthful or not. Seems a little extreme.

Thanks for the update on her story.

Well, I guess from the company's point of veiw being harrassed and accused of false animal abuse and possible lies about piles of horns heaped everywhere would be a tad extreme as well. . . Just a thought

How about that video Ms Meyers?


Not really comparable -- there are crazy people here and there and these people aren't running "us" ... we have to hold corporations / authorities / leaders to better standards than crazy liars with cellphone cams. ;)

[ThePythonicCow]

Well, I guess from the company's point of view being harassed and accused of false animal abuse and possible lies about piles of horns heaped everywhere would be a tad extreme as well. . . Just a thought
If this is a small company, that still essentially represents an extension of the one or few people who own it, then perhaps so.

If this is a large corporation, then I suspect not. Large corporations are not moral beings; they are engines of profit, power and control. A large corporation will worry about this in proportion to its impact on legal fees and public image.

That may be the essential distinction where it appears (from where I sit) that you and I diverge. Yes, large corporations, especially when encountered through interactions with individuals representing them, can be viewed as essentially moral beings, like most of us individuals (barring the psychopaths and such), with suitable justifications for their actions.

However in my view, large corporations are (1) in their very essence psychopathic, and (2) currently endowed with greater legal, financial and political powers than any individual could ever hope to amass. Corporations don't die. They cross international borders routinely for tax, legal and resource benefits. In the US, corporations can make unlimited political donations, but not individuals (not even someone with the wealth of a Bill Gates). They have a vast infrastructure of legislative and regulatory support. Corporations cannot be imprisoned or executed; their only non-voluntary legal death is via the bankruptcy courts, for failure to make sufficient profit or accumulate sufficient assets to meet legal obligations. They are above the law, act with essential impunity from the law, and (ab)use the law and regulations as instruments of power wielded over weaker corporations and individuals. Large corporations really only need worry about the law when opposing an even larger or more ruthless corporation.

I'm not saying they are all bad ... not at all. They are immense, complex, and a major element of our civilization, with many aspects, good, bad and indifferent. But the essential lack of a binding moral framework results in the most ruthless corporations dominating, which is a key element of the ills befalling our civilization.

[DeDukshyn]

I think that was well said Paul. I think the size of the company might have some significance. But still, at the same time I am of the opinion that all meat eaters should know how their food gets to the table. I do, and I also enjoy a good steak now and again, and try my best to make choices that support local ranches that I can visit and check in on operations, etc. Everyone should know what plant their meat came from and how they get it from animal to food. Back in the day you had to do it yourself so you had a fully informed decision.

[Anchor]

The ONLY reason I posted this thread was the idea of someone not being allowed to video from a public space, and some industry getting special treatment. For me this was not an animal abuse story.

I'm quite glad that the charges have been dropped - and its no wonder they have lots of interest shown in Amy buy people like us.

Those "Ag" guys have had a run in with the Streisand effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect).

[sigma6]

It takes a very specific individual that can endure, accept and perform this type of work.

I can only imagine.

[blufire]

If this is a small company, that still essentially represents an extension of the one or few people who own it, then perhaps so.

If this is a large corporation, then I suspect not. Large corporations are not moral beings; they are engines of profit, power and control. A large corporation will worry about this in proportion to its impact on legal fees and public image.

Paul . . . I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around this type of thought. Whether it is a small company or large corporation is not justification for me as an individual to lie, trespass, harass, abuse, fraud or slander.

I think there is much more to this particular story regarding Amy Meyer. The fact her video is not available makes me suspect that it would not support her case from the activist point of view. I have been very aware lately of stories in the news and threads here on PA that have been ‘spun’ to fit the needs of extreme activists . . . . . this thread comes to mind http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?58664-Another-Farm-Under-Siege--This-Time-in-Canada&p=667941#post667941 These types of stories are not helpful in any way in trying to move from a more balanced and productive place.


The ONLY reason I posted this thread was the idea of someone not being allowed to video from a public space, and some industry getting special treatment. For me this was not an animal abuse story.

Anchor . . . I don’t think in this particular case you can separate the two. From what I have read this company did not get ‘special’ treatment. Was there a emotional knee jerk reaction and confrontation from both sides in this event . . .absolutely. The ag-gag in this case actually benefited Amy Meyer because she clearly knew what she could and could not do while videoing. I have not read this law and do not know the specifics.

If we as a group are to change what is happening around us on a global scale then I feel very strongly that everything we do should be with the utmost respect, integrity, honor, truth, honesty as possible and for everyone involved. I try to look from all angles and from both sides . . . . balance . . its always tricky.

[ThePythonicCow]

If this is a small company, that still essentially represents an extension of the one or few people who own it, then perhaps so.

If this is a large corporation, then I suspect not. Large corporations are not moral beings; they are engines of profit, power and control. A large corporation will worry about this in proportion to its impact on legal fees and public image.

Paul . . . I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around this type of thought. Whether it is a small company or large corporation is not justification for me as an individual to lie, trespass, harass, abuse, fraud or slander.
I was not trying to justify whatever Amy Meyer did.

Sometimes the protester is mostly in the right in such cases, and sometimes they are lying, trespassing and slandering.

The bit about the piles of horns that you noticed suggests the latter in this case, or at least someone who is rather confused. Perhaps there was a small pile of horns, awaiting shipment to the pet food factory, or perhaps she can't tell a horn from some other byproduct of slaughtering cows. My guess is that, at the very least, she's stretching the truth.

But I don't know ... I simply lack enough to say in this case.

What I was speaking to, my concerns with the essential amorality, increasing immorality, of large corporations, is something I am rather more certain of, and more concerned about.

[Firinn]

Charges dropped

http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/amy-meyer-charges-dropped/6998/