I found another editorial featuring wacky mentality, on the topic of animal welfare

No Gravatar

This one is off-the-charts wacky – out of Australia. An editorial posted on the 9News website explains a so-called industry think tank claims fighting for measures to protect animals from cruelty is making life worse for animals.

The Australian Farm Institute, obviously a pro-factory farming group, spins the heck out of this one and so does the writer. The example of the sow crate is used – in claiming that if these crates are not used, it puts piglets at risk. The argument doesn’t hold water, as the piglets would only be in danger if the farmers forced them to live in close quarters.

Before the advent of factory farms, pigs lived in the farm yard and the piglets were fine. Then writer claims cage-free systems for egg producers would lead to bird flu outbreaks, as the chickens would be infected by wild ducks and water birds.

Again, before factory farms came along, chickens did just fine, thank you. The writer actually claims in a free-range system, it would be impossible to stop the chickens from mingling with water birds. Actually, if you take their smart phones away, they can’t text the water birds to come over.

The Wacky Meter just spiked way over to the red zone.


PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic

Confusing story out of Arizona, concerning proposed animal-cruelty laws

No Gravatar

I’m not quite sure what to make of an article posted March 11 on the Arizona Daily Sun website – under the headline: “Lawmakers create cruelty exceptions for farm animals.”

The story starts out as reporting the state legislature had created special exceptions in regard to acts of animal cruelty, for farmers and ranchers. (Translated – “factory farms.”)

So apparently two provisions were removed, so that factory farms could be protected. But then we read that one of the provisions removed would have stripped the power from police departments to investigate acts of cruelty on the farms. The power would have completely fallen under the Department of Agriculture.

If that provision had remained, police would not have been able to investigate the abuse of the horses, goats and sheep in back yards. But then the article suggests new language was added to allow police to investigate and alert the Department of Agriculture.

But the we read where:

Also gone is a mandate that anyone with a video, photograph or other evidence of cruelty must turn that over to the Department of Agriculture within five days or risk jail time and a fine.

It seems to me allowing police to investigate animal cruelty on farms and removing ag-gag regulations would be opposed by factory farms and would not be considered as exceptions for factory farms.

The one aspect reported from the new bill that does go easy on farmers is one that set a penalty of six months in jail and a $2,500 fine if the act of abuse is inflected on a farm animal. The article notes:

Existing laws make many forms of abuse of any animal, farm or domestic, a felony with potentially two years in state prison and a $150,000 fine.

But then the articles notes the measure might not gain passage unless the concerns of farmers and ranchers are addressed, as if they are not yet getting any special treatment in the bill.

So is it that the farmers and ranchers want complete immunity from charges if they are found to be abusing animals and do they not even like the lesser charges included in the bill, even though the story seems to indicated they are getting exceptions?

Wow. We need some clarification here.


PACK MENTALITY BLOG: Compassion - teamed with Science and Logic