Dairy Alarmism

Unless you can substantiate the bolded claim in some way, I'm not buying it. It sounds like another assumption. (Forgive me if I'm wrong.)

I'm not sure why that would be so hard to accept. Laws are generally not passed, especially not all of a sudden after an industry has existed for years, without some reason that makes people think it's needed (even if needed for bad reasons, as one can argue here).

All the coverage of it I've seen, including from the anti-gag side, which is the side the press as a whole is on--again unsurprisingly, the press obviously has reason to hate gag laws--says it was a reaction to some high profile exposes by people posing as employees. One example is this Atlantic piece:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/the-ag-gag-laws-hiding-factory-farm-abuses-from-public-scrutiny/254674/

In Idaho, the law was written after a group (gaining access thru false creditionals) used footage of employees abusing animal and released to the public while the individuals were being prosecuted...which cost the industry a lot (your call on whether they deserved it).

FWIW, I don't really care for the laws as written either. It does seem like uncessary protection and a step too far in the case of actual animal abuse takes place (which most farm owners would probably actual like to know. NONE of the farmers I know personally have anything but the utmost care for their animals).

I'd rather keep waiting to see if anyone has anything better than a gut feel.

I read what it's about and it mentions you can't go there and video tape/take pictures. No where did I see that people aren't allowed in.

I didn't realize it was contagious, but it looks like you caught my quoting problem.

I didn't see anything against going in either. I read just one of the articles, an article from Forbes, thinking they'd be the most Ag-friendly, but they weren't in this case.

Whether or not you can legally visit one of the sites may be beside the point, since I'm pretty sure you'd still need explicit permission from the owner or face jail time for trespassing. But laws prohibiting photography is alarming, IMO. Even a pro-Ag person should be wondering what they're trying to hide.

This will probably get lost in this long *kitten* post so here goes.

With every cent you spend on dairy, you are supporting a cruel industry that abuses animals. (This goes for eggs and meat too.) Health benefits aside, this is all the reason I need to stay away from the stuff.

Taking a crazy guess here.... You've never been on a dairy farm, have you?

Yeah, you do know that every farm operates like the one they feature on an agenda pushing documentary right? Visiting a real farm to get actual facts is out of the question, I mean how the hell would that support a failing argument?

=D

Visiting a real dairy farm IS out of the question. Big business is in bed with the g-ment, and has created many laws disallowing you from knowing what is going on behind closed doors. In many states, ag-gag laws make it a crime to use surreptitious means to get onto a farm, make it crime to whistleblow about bad conditions for both the workers and the animals, and good luck getting an invite.

Go ahead and call up a large farm and say "I'd like to visit your farm to see what conditions the animals/workers are experiencing" and see how quickly you get hung up on.

Some smaller farms might let you on, and if you continue to eat dairy, those would be the farms to patronize. Like Joel Salatin's farm.

I'd rather keep waiting to see if anyone has anything better than a gut feel.

?? I didn't offer a "gut feel." I cited an Atlantic article that discusses the background of the laws. If you have a problem with my interpretation of the article I'm happy to discuss it, but claiming I cited my gut is inaccurate and unfair.

My apologies. With the way you presented it, asking why it would be so hard to accept, I thought you were going more from intuition. The Atlantic piece (which I did not read) looked more like additional info, unrelated to your opening sentence.

No offense intended.

I got more or less the same response from QuietBloom:
"Probably nothing. But some organizations (*cough* PETA *cough*) would just love to get some footage they could snip and paste together to suit their agenda. Heck, they can take a dog training video and make it look like abuse. In fact, they think owning animals as pets should be outlawed. "

It seems you two assume that any controversial industry or organization will have specific laws guarding their secrets. Is that true? Do we have laws preventing access to and photography of abortion clinics? Churches? Oil wells? Gun manufacturers? National borders? The list could go on forever.

I know that in some cases access is restricted, and for good reason, but it's done by individual owners. But I'm not aware of any laws prohibiting photography, nor any laws beyond general trespassing/ consent of owner regarding access.

Are there any such laws that you're aware of, or are we just going to assume that there aren't because it suits your pre-existing opinions?

If you get to speculate reasons as to why they would have these laws because "they might need to hide something", then I think it's only fair to speculate as to why the laws might be "needed". Neither one of us sat in on the drafting or signing into law of those.

I would guess gaining access for photos/videos by people faking credentials was a problem in the industry necessitating an actual law on the books. I think that's a fair speculation.

I've been waiting for someone to come along and point out the error in my thinking, someone who will point to other legislation that mirrors the special protections afforded the Ag industry. But the longer I wait, the more I'm thinking there are no such laws.

Stringing a set of assumptions together until they fit your opinion may work for you, John, but they're not making a very convincing argument.

So far there hasn't even been a good argument as to why the Ag industry should be treated so differently.

But if somebody more knowledgeable than me comes up with something, I'll be glad to hear it.

I'm just speculating again, but I think the hypothesis for support of the laws is that a damaging video (that may have been edited or obtained illegally) could cause an overnight crippling effect on the industry which would cost the jobs of many overnight. And this crippling affect would be judged in the court of public opinion before any chance to right wrongs or even verify the evidence.

The media is in pretty much uniform disapproval of all such laws so finding anything in support is tough.

I'm just speculating again, but I think the hypothesis for support of the laws is that a damaging video (that may have been edited or obtained illegally) could cause an overnight crippling effect on the industry which would cost the jobs of many overnight. And this crippling affect would be judged in the court of public opinion before any chance to right wrongs or even verify the evidence.

The media is in pretty much uniform disapproval of all such laws so finding anything in support is tough.

I think you're probably right in that the Ag industry and lobbyists used that argument. It's just strange that the legislature in Idaho went along with it. It seems to me that the concerns on the other side are just as important, if not more so.

IIRC it passed something like 65-14 in the state house, and 25-10 the state senate (in Idaho), so I would presume it has decent support from lawmakers all sides.

A handful of other states have passed similar laws.

On the surface, and applied to other industries equally, the wording sounds sketchy as hell...but to at least take it from the side of dairy farms, crippling evidence, obtained illegally, that wasn't even from your farm, widespread, or even factual, that you had no time to refute because that doesn't make news headlines, could cripple your cash flow and your business overnight. That could potentially cost states with a lot of ag business a lot of money and tax dollars.

I read what it's about and it mentions you can't go there and video tape/take pictures. No where did I see that people aren't allowed in.

I didn't realize it was contagious, but it looks like you caught my quoting problem.

I didn't see anything against going in either. I read just one of the articles, an article from Forbes, thinking they'd be the most Ag-friendly, but they weren't in this case.

Whether or not you can legally visit one of the sites may be beside the point, since I'm pretty sure you'd still need explicit permission from the owner or face jail time for trespassing. But laws prohibiting photography is alarming, IMO. Even a pro-Ag person should be wondering what they're trying to hide.

Why is no photography alarming? Farms are businesses, and all businesses have trade secrets. No business will allow you to wander into their private facilities and photograph or video tape, with express permission. That has more to do with corporate espionage, than trying to cover up mistreatment of animals. It's pretty much a standard for every business. I can't think of any business that would allow me to just walk in and snap pictures, unless I'm on a specific guided tour.

So now we know why some of these laws are being written. It doesn't make it any better, though. There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Yep. That's why I thought it was odd (no offense, however) that you called me out on the reason given--it's the opponents who have been saying that's why, and I think it's generally not disputed.

I think the public should oppose the laws, but I guess I'm just cynical in that the reaction here to me seems to suggest that BigAg/Dairy is acting unlike other businesses or that people assume politics in other ways is beyond the influence of money. It's sadly not--insert evidence of unfortunate political/business/interest group bedfellow of your choice--although there's also lots of other evidence of problematic political influence of agricultural interests, IMO.