Iowa passes law prohibiting on-farm photography

What comes to MY MIND is why would anyone want to take pictures of my place unless it's to be up to no good?

__________________
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow the fields of those who don't."-Thomas Jefferson

I am up to violating an average of 6 laws a day personally...working towards 10 as a New Years resolution!!!

__________________
www.salmonslayer-simplelife.blogspot.com

Just a note for those that say you are not doing anything wrong. I was told by the local humane society it is illegal to keep a dog in an electric fence. They took me to court because my goat dog was housed in an electric fence(thats where the goats are LOL). The agreement that the judge came to was I had to make my fence with something the dog could SEE so it would not touch the wire. So one stand of the fence became the ribbon type electric fence. It "P"ed me off that I had to change anything to please these type nuts.

How did they find out about your operation?

The Utah bill more directly addresses picture taking.

Utah HB 187 or Don

I never liked the ribbon fence. It isn't very durable and it never seemed to make good enough contact to keep our animals in.

I have mixed thoughts on this topic.

The AR people can be nutcases, yes but occasionally they do have a point. The fact that they have brought public attention to the conditions battery hen houses has made more and more families look for smaller, local sources of eggs. I do think large farms and the commodification of livestock has led to abyssmal conditions for these animals and the public should be made aware so if they have an ethical problem with such practices, they can make better choices if they wish to.

The fact that there is a growing interest in purchasing from local, small-farm enterprises who humanely treat their livestock often for far more money than conventionally produced animal products is partly because of this exposure. I believe it contributes to the growth of my little local poultry business.

But then, the AR people go waaay to far and seem to be on a mission to turn the human population into vegans. The fact of the matter is that to get meat on the table, you gotta slaughter the animals and that isn't pretty or easy. One can do one's best to make a "humane" killing but I don't know of any way to completely reduce 100% of the stress or trauma an animal experiences or the blood and carnage. The videos are always going to cause distress in most viewers no matter what farm or processing plant does the killing. I butcher alot of animals and I find it to be extremely unpleasant business but a necessary one. And of course no farm with livestock is immune from all the injuries and accidents that animals have. Manure happens - wherever and whenever it wants to.... This is just normal day to day stuff.

Part of the problem is that modern people are so very detached from their food supply. I am certain some people make no connection between a living chicken (an abstract mental construction formed by pictures and video rather than real experience to a modern city dweller) and a chicken sandwich. Most certainly don't think about the process of getting a live bird into sandwich form. And when they see it on YouTube, even when the process is well done, they are shocked, horrified and grossed out, equating it to some horror flick or another.

So really, I am not certain what is right or wrong in this since both good and bad come of it.

This is a direct quote from PETA's mission statement on their website:

Quote:
PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in laboratories, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds, and other "pests" as well as cruelty to domesticated animals.

And they are the ones that 'define' cruelty to domesticated animals and are financing the push to change/strengthen the laws covering this definition. Their definition.

Many members of PETA in the upper echelons of management have stated that they are starting with the easiest targets, such as factory farms but their ultimate goal is to curtail all pet breeding and ownership and all livestock production. Don't think they can't (or won't) target the small-farm enterprises with careful humane practices eventually. All they have to do is convince the huge number of city people who are horrified by the actual slaughter of an animal, no matter how humane, that this is a horrible practice to contribute to their efforts to stop these horrible practices and they will have the funds to go after these people like they are doing now with the commercial farms.

I do see that there are things that should be addressed in some of the factory farm setups but I truly see PETA as being terroristic in their approach to the situation. These are not rational people with rational goals.

So if its illegal to take photos of a fellers farm.... I wonder if they will prosecute the federal government for doing so with their satellites?

__________________
"Nothing so needs reforming as other peoples habits." Mark Twain

These people lie and falsify information on job applications to gain access to private property. In many places, recording a conversation without consent is not legal. Why should it be legal for someone to film and record on private property without consent? I don't care if they are growing hogs or horseradishes.


I have seen many of these 'under cover' videos. They are professionally cropped, edited, with audio deletions and enhancements before being pimped to the media. Besides the obvious issues with undercover filming on private property without consent, the manipulation of the materials that happens in an effort to manipulate the viewer is another major issue.

__________________
"For if you start dancing on tables, fanning yourself, feeling sleepy when you pick up a book... making love whenever you feel like it, then you know. The south has got you.”

Again, it is not illegal to take photos of 'private property' if you are on a public road, etc. ... and I would presume that includes if you were flying over someone's farm ... or taking photos via satellite.

What these laws are actually making illegal is falsifying the information on an employment application to get a job on a farm, commercial farm, slaughter plant, etc. for the purpose of taking photos on/in that facility without permission of the owners. What the law is trying to do is put some kind of 'teeth' into this practice which has become somewhat of a hazard to livestock people ... and has been for years.

No doubt PETA has serious problems and I am not in agreement with their policy or practices. I agree with everyone on that. I do not support them whatsoever. But not all whistleblowers have a PETA agenda.

It just depends on the legislation, how it's worded. Blanket legislation may not be what's needed. I haven't read this piece of legislation so I am not sure of the particulars but that isn't my point. Cheering hurray! No more employee farm pictures without thinking through the entire ramifications of that isn't necessarily a good thing either. Not everything that's come of those pictures and films has been negative, especially for livestock and small farmers.

Let's face it. Most large farms will not let people on the premises with a camera. They'd be insane to do it. People think of farms with animals grazing in a green pasture with chickens pecking around a barnyard. They see pictures of factory farming and that's not a farm. That's cruel and filthy. These practices may be industry standard but that doesn't make them ethical. Not at all. It simply makes them profitable. People need to understand that and no better way than with a picture - it being worth 1000 words and all. Seeing is believing.

Do I think pictures of a small, clean family farming operation with cattle grazing and chickens pecking around a henyard is going to have the same effect on the public as a battery hen house with 150,000 chickens locked in metal cages with half thier upper beak sawn off? No, I do not. It's like taking pictures of a dog in a backyard and calling it cruel confinement of an animal. Most people will not buy into that. People want to eat animal products and have pets and will not go along with banning human involvement with animals completely.

The trouble with PETA and like organizations are they take misleading pictures. They will take pictures of your hens in molt and call it cruelty. But not every whistlyblower operates like that. Sometimes, those pictures ARE necessary to make changes, especially when fighting big business. Industry standards are not always the best way to treat animals and the public needs to see what is going on so they can make better choices as consumers. The public also needs more education on where their food comes from and that best comes from small farmers working within their own communities.

I agree with both of these statements. But I think the laws passed regarding falsifying information give employers some rights in those situations where the employee is looking for employment for the purpose of taking those misleading photos, which they did not have before.

And the small farmers themselves can and should take the kind of pictures that will present 'humane' practices ... and try to market those with a PR slant ... just as has been so successful for PETA. The small farmer can't hire the high-dollar PR people like PETA does but there is no reason they can't learn to use some of the methods successfully.

Yes they should, and first up should be the county assessor who uses google earth photos to scan the parcels for any added 'improvements', or what look to be improvements, or what he says are improvements, or that extra little driveway extension that you put in, or the new fencing, looks like you painted your garden shed, Hmm haven't seen that tractor there before would that be 'personal property, oh and wait is that an outhouse you have there, Uh-Oh...

Well, where I lived before, the county assessor's office used to have a couple of people who drove out and looked at the property personally. They had plats of what was there on their last 'inspection' and checked if there had been any new buildings, etc. added. I don't remember anyone complaining that this was not legal.