Hey folks, I just read this article about a bill in California. Not a GMO bill. Not a gestation crate bill. A bill about videoing livestock.
The bill is California Assembly Bill 343 and it forces those who video animal mistreatment a mere 48 hours to report it to local authorities such as the sheriff’s department.
You may think – wow! That’s just like the bill that was submitted in Iowa that outlaws people from coming onto the farm and videoing the livestock…but it’s not. This bill forces action in a timely fashion instead of videographers waiting until a more opportune time to submit the footage. It doesn’t make it illegal for those wanting to go undercover to gain employment but does place some pressure on their motives.
The auction yard owner quoted in the article says he supports the bill because “I want to know if we’ve got a problem…let’s do something about it now.”
Read the article and then comment below what you think – do you think the bill is good for agriculture or bad?
And don’t forget about the giveaway – entries close on Monday night. Head on over there and check it out!
Until next time,
~ Buzzard ~
Comments
4 responses to “California Bill 343 – Turn That Video In Pronto!”
Hard one this. I don't agree with banning undercover videotaping. The onus should be on the farmer ensuring animals are being treated correctly. However, I do agree with the 48 hour rule (in fact, I'd prefer if it was 24 hours or even 12, you can do a lot in just a couple of minutes if you know what you're doing). Fact is, if you see something "bad" happening, you don't hold off reporting it just so you can get more and more footage, you "nip it in the bud" so to speak. The only downside is that there is such a disconnect between the public and farming that everyday practices could misrepresented to the public. If you were to show footage of an animal being castrated to an average joe soap on the streets of LA, would they find it horrifying? (and yes, that's just a random example, but what other daily things could a person unfamiliar with AG find utterly horrifying and alien to them?)
Ian – I completely agree. While I don't appreciate activists going undercover and videoing common practices and looking for animal abuse, I don't think banning videography portrays the transparency we want to achieve.
I completely agree that it should be reported immediately! Waiting days, weeks, even months to reveal the footage doesn't actually help any animals. That type of footage release seems to me to be aimed at media coverage for the organization or person who did the taping. If it's for the best animal care to be provided it should be reported immediately!
Thanks, it's great to hear other people's side of this one. I think I'm going to write a blog on this one too.
Interesting. I agree, even though I don't like the idea of undercover videos, I like how the videos need to be submitted within 48 hours. With this approach I think it'll lead to a more transparent agriculture and allow the farmer/rancher to tell their side of the story as well.