Legislatures to Consider "Ag-Gag" Laws « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics

Legislatures to Consider "Ag-Gag" Laws

[105 posts] [21 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 2 years ago by Bear
Latest reply from Red Sun Rising

Tags:

12…6 Next »

Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

From The New York Times:

Getting caught is a drag.

Just ask Kirt Espenson, whose employees at E6 Cattle Company in western Texas were videotaped bashing cowsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ heads in with pickaxes and hammers and performing other acts of unspeakably sickening cruelty.

Yet if some state legislators have their way, horrific but valuable videos like that one will never be made. ...

In their infinite wisdom the legislatures of Iowa, Minnesota, Florida and others are considering measures that would punish heroic videographers like the one who spent two weeks as an E6 employee, who was clearly traumatized by the experience. (I spoke to him on the phone Saturday, with a guarantee of anonymity.)

MinnesotaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Ã¢â‚¬Å“ag-gagÃ¢â‚¬Â law Ã¢â‚¬â€ isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t that a great name? Ã¢â‚¬â€ would seek to punish not only photographers and videographers but those who distribute their work, which means organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and Mercy for Animals, which contracted the videographer for the E6 investigation.

Full article.

(Related: Issue 2 discussion)

Posted 2 years ago #
Twixlen
The Weston District
Login to Send PM

The Ag-Gag proposals are so wrong-headed it's hard to even understand how they can be justified. I don't agree with much of Mercy for Animals' does, but in this, I do. To not allow filming is to suppress an important form of activism, at all levels. I'm thinking of Rodney King. There needs to be a Rodney King cow.

Posted 2 years ago #
paktinat
WP
Login to Send PM

I'm curious, what is the claimed justification of these proposed laws?

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Twixlen wrote >>
The Ag-Gag proposals are so wrong-headed it's hard to even understand how they can be justified. I don't agree with much of Mercy for Animals' does, but in this, I do. To not allow filming is to suppress an important form of activism, at all levels. I'm thinking of Rodney King. There needs to be a Rodney King cow.

*puts on Devil's Advocate hat*

Suppressing activism is the point.

Current practices enable more food at a lower price point. Activists, via their proposed "solutions", would increase the cost of food without appreciable benefit.

Food prices as a percentage of income are already a problem at the lower income levels:

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-us-income-groups-get-squeezed-by-food-prices-2011-2

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

What a shame, that people can't just let markets work and require government intervention to achieve their preferred outcome.

Posted 2 years ago #
mwood

Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

Twixlen wrote >>
The Ag-Gag proposals are so wrong-headed it's hard to even understand how they can be justified. I don't agree with much of Mercy for Animals' does, but in this, I do. To not allow filming is to suppress an important form of activism, at all levels. I'm thinking of Rodney King. There needs to be a Rodney King cow.

*puts on Devil's Advocate hat*
Suppressing activism is the point.
Current practices enable more food at a lower price point. Activists, via their proposed "solutions", would increase the cost of food without appreciable benefit.
Food prices as a percentage of income are already a problem at the lower income levels:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-us-income-groups-get-squeezed-by-food-prices-2011-2

Slightly off-topic, but this figure should be used any time someone argues that a flat tax is a "fair tax".

"Ag-gag" laws like this can only be explained by lobbying.

Posted 2 years ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

I think I posted about a Florida ag-gag law proposal back on one of the HSUS/Livestock Care Standards Board threads, too. Hadn't heard that term yet then.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Bear wrote >>
What a shame, that people can't just let markets work and require government intervention to achieve their preferred outcome.

Damnit Bear... almost had a coffee soaked monitor reading that coming from you! ;-)

*adjusts Devil's Advocate hat*

You'd have a point, though, if it wasn't for government regulation. If activists force more expensive means of production through regulation, then that effectively limits market choice.

Right now, if one wants to purchase free range organic eggs ( for example ), one can pay the $3.69 or so per dozen. On the other hand, someone of more limited means can still purchase conventional eggs at $1.89 or so per dozen.*

Force expensive production and everyone pays at least the higher price.

Production can't scale up ( that leads to the factory farms / production methods you're against ) and, since the lower cost eggs are out of the equation, there's more demand for the remaining eggs ( which are of limited supply ). Gee, increased demand and reduced supply... Oh, how I wonder what that would do to price...

So, if you really were in favor of free markets you sure as hell wouldn't be in favor of increased regulation based on the bleatings of trustafarians. Limiting activism, in this case, is serving the public good.

* Costs taken from memory of the last time I bought eggs, so could be off but illustrate the price difference.

Posted 2 years ago #
mwood

Login to Send PM

rus wrote
So, if you really were in favor of free markets you sure as hell wouldn't be in favor of increased regulation based on the bleatings of trustafarians. Limiting activism, in this case, is serving the public good.

Anyone who supports free markets should have far bigger issues with US farm policy than Ag-Gag rules. To be clear, the way most food in produced in this country is produced has much more to to with ridiculous government subsidies that it does with free market forces.

Also, does this Devil's Advocate hat obstruct your vision so much that it seems reasonable to limit free speech so that eggs *might* cost a bit less?

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

mwood wrote >>

Also, does this Devil's Advocate hat obstruct your vision so much that it seems reasonable to limit free speech so that eggs *might* cost a bit less?

First off, it's not *might*, it's *do*.

Second, I used eggs to illustrate the point, but feel free to substitute beef, chicken, pork, etc. and check for the same result.

"Humane" treatment costs too much ( not just in dollars, but in available food) for no appreciable benefit.

I've linked to this before, but to illustrate why I put "humane" in quotes, see Mike Rowe's TED talk:

Get the Video Player

Compare and contrast the "humane" method and the in practice method as Mike did. It's on the long side for the web ( 20min ) but it's worth your time, even if it covers a bit more than the subject of this thread.

Posted 2 years ago #
rustbelt

Login to Send PM

It's always...odd...to hear those on the right talk recently about the need for *less* government regulation in the wake of:

* The ongoing financial collapse caused by banks & financial companies engaged in outright criminal activity

* The failure of the BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico

* Frequent problems with our food supply & production that lead to nationwide illnesses & deaths

* Well-publicized dangers with the Davis-Besse nuclear plant.

But if you just hate regulation, then by all means enjoy driving your Corvair while glowing radioactive green and eating your tainted tomatoes. The market rules!

Posted 2 years ago #
joev
Merion Village
Login to Send PM

Rus, you really love to make this argument, don't you? ;)

I think a truly free market allows consumers to look into production and see how things are made.

Judging by your last few posts, your argument seems to be: If we let consumers look in, they'll be horrified and agitate to have animal care standards increased, resulting in more costly animal products.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so if I didn't characterize that properly, then I apologize.

I think even less sophisticated consumers realize that if they want improvements in care, that's likely going to mean an increase in cost. But isn't that how the free market is supposed to work? The goal of capitalism isn't the cheapest product - it's the best product.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

rustbelt wrote >>

But if you just hate regulation, then by all means enjoy driving your Corvair while glowing radioactive green and eating your tainted tomatoes. The market rules!

Regulation based on, say, health risks is different than regulation based on OMG ICKIE!!!!

Like, I'm sure you're not in favor of regulation for regulation's sake, right? How about regulations restricting abortion to only the first trimester? That's a regulation, so it must be good... ;-)

If you like, call it an advocacy for smart regulation.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

joev wrote >>
Rus, you really love to make this argument, don't you? ;)

Hey, nothing has broken here yet, so while monitoring I can play with this particular ball of yarn ;-)

joev wrote >>

I think a truly free market allows consumers to look into production and see how things are made.

Up to a point, I agree, but I part company when a vocal minority can inflict regulatory damage ( see: lawfare ) against entities they're ideologically opposed to.

joev wrote >>

Judging by your last few posts, your argument seems to be: If we let consumers look in, they'll be horrified and agitate to have animal care standards increased, resulting in more costly animal products.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so if I didn't characterize that properly, then I apologize.
I think even less sophisticated consumers realize that if they want improvements in care, that's likely going to mean an increase in cost. But isn't that how the free market is supposed to work? The goal of capitalism isn't the cheapest product - it's the best product.

Which is where things are now, isn't it? One can choose to buy the free range, organic eggs. One can also choose to buy the conventional eggs.

If the free range, organic eggs are the "best" product ( insert criteria here ) then they would succeed in the marketplace on their own merits, yes?

Posted 2 years ago #
jackoh
The Village
Login to Send PM

rus wrote
Which is where things are now, isn't it? One can choose to buy the free range, organic eggs. One can also choose to buy the conventional eggs.

So why do we need another (ag-gag) law?

Posted 2 years ago #
Cookie
Flyntonville
Login to Send PM

jackoh wrote >>
Which is where things are now, isn't it? One can choose to buy the free range, organic eggs. One can also choose to buy the conventional eggs.
So why do we need another (ag-gag) law?

Because bleatings of trustafarians something something.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

jackoh wrote >>
rus wrote
Which is where things are now, isn't it? One can choose to buy the free range, organic eggs. One can also choose to buy the conventional eggs.
So why do we need another (ag-gag) law?

Point of fact, we're not getting one are we? Article mentions other states, but not Ohio...

Still, animal welfare does not benefit humans in any appreciable way. In fact, on the lower 1/3rd of the economic scale* there's harm through rising commodity prices.

Fighting advocates of animal welfare through lawfare is using their tactics against them. C'est la guerre.

* Argument to be made that all economic brackets are harmed by rising commodity prices, of course, but on the lower end the effect is more profound.

Posted 2 years ago #
racheltb
clintonville
Login to Send PM

Argument about free market aside, the proposed ag-gag law is to prevent whistle-blowers on truly cruel behavior. I can't see how beating an animal's skull is economically beneficial to a farmer. Parties could argue until eternity about what is humane and how much space and care animals truly need. The videos this law attempts to address are for a different purpose: uncovering despicable behavior that affects production in no way.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

racheltb wrote >>
I can't see how beating an animal's skull is economically beneficial to a farmer.

Cheap disposal / kill method? I don't know if it's commonplace now, but friend of mine used to use a sledgehammer to kill cows for slaughter years ago. Old job.

Posted 2 years ago #
CheeseFoodie
Harrison West
Login to Send PM

They're farms, not Guantanamo, the "normal" farm has nothing to worry about. If you're afraid of someone taking pictures or filming your operation, change those things that you are afraid to have filmed.

Posted 2 years ago #