In a 2008 case in California, the HSUS inserted someone into a slaughterhouse for an investigation of "downer cows" -- cows that are "non-ambulatory" -- unable to walk. These cows have a higher risk of having mad cow disease so if they are being used for food there is a slight risk to public safety.
According to the New York Times:
Consider again the time frame: the Humane Society investigator began shooting film in early October. If what he saw was really a danger to the food supply, didn’t he and Mr. Pacelle have a responsibility to bring it to the federal government immediately? Instead, the undercover investigator stayed on site for another six weeks. Even then, the federal government didn’t learn of the video until it was leaked to The Post at the end of January — nearly two months later.Well, you do the math. Mr. Pacelle and HSUS do these undercover investigations -- and go on filming for weeks -- not because they care about animals but because they want to get as much media attention as possible. Because media attention translates into dollars for them. What does the suffering of a few cows matter when compared to filling the bank accounts of the Humane Society of the United States? So what if there's a remote possibility that someone in the U.S. could develop mad cow disease? That would just mean more money for HSUS because they would have more ways to attack the cattle industry.
Mr. Pacelle claims that the San Bernadino district attorney’s office — to which he gave the tapes in late November, so that it could prosecute the abuse — asked him not to show the video to the U.S.D.A. until it had completed its investigation. But I read several news articles quoting San Bernadino officials contradicting that account...And even if that were true, why did he release the video to The Washington Post — well in advance of the completion of the district attorney’s investigation? Well, you know the answer to that one: he just couldn’t stand the thought of one more day passing without making a big splash.
Does anyone really believe it took six weeks of filming for someone to get enough video evidence in this case, and that animals had to continue to suffer all this time? Well, sometimes you have to film a lot of footage when you plan to edit it a certain way. The plant was closed down once the federal authorities finally got involved, but that was only after Pacelle and HSUS had been milking the case for media attention.
In this case the USDA forced the company to recall 143 million pounds of meat -- the largest beef recall in U.S. history. But because it took so long for HSUS to turn over their video and inform the government about the problems at the plant, most of that meat had already been eaten by the time the recall was issued. So, if there had been something wrong with the meat, the recall wouldn't have done any good.
This is not how we want undercover investigations to be conducted in Tennessee but this is how HSUS conducts their investigations and why they want Gov. Haslam to veto HB 1191/SB 1248. They sit on evidence for weeks and months while abuse continues, even when it threatens public safety. The Animal Cruelty and Abuse bill would require someone to turn over photos or video of abuse of livestock in an investigation within 48 hours to law enforcement authorities.
Please contact Gov. Haslam NOW and ask him to sign this Livestock Cruelty and Abuse Bill into law!
(615) 741-2001 or email him: bill.haslam@tn.gov 
Posts
As someone who conducts animal cruelty investigations, I have seen firsthand that, although horrible to see, these long-term investigations are required. If you take one photo or one day of video, their defense is, "That's a new employee. We've retrained him." or "That was an isolated incident." You have to show that this abusive behavior to animals is the norm for these places. That the employees abuse animals and the ones who don't look the other way - either b/c they don't care or they are fearful of being fired for speaking out. They need to document the managers and vets on staff walking right by the abuse and not blinking an eye.
ReplyDeleteIf this law were to protect animals, why does it only apply to livestock? Why not ALL animals?
I don't have a problem with animals being slaughtered, but we have an obligation to make sure they are treated as humanely as possible before being killed.
I appreciate your comment and I understand what you're saying. This bill doesn't stop anyone from carrying out a long-term investigation. It just requires them to turn over their photos or video every 48 hours to law enforcement. I know that you would like to show a pattern of abuse but it's also important to stop the cruelty as quickly as possible and address any food safety issues quickly.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about other states but in Tennessee it's not unusual for laws to make a distinction between livestock and pets. This bill specifically addresses cruelty to livestock, perhaps because they have most often been the subject of undercover investigations. Maybe at some point there will be a bill addressing other animals.
I agree that we have an obligation to make sure that animals are treated humanely before slaughter. I think this bill helps do that by ensuring that any film evidence of abuse is turned over quickly.
Hi Holly:
ReplyDeleteWhat organization of animal rights for animal rights group do you work for? Rather than continue to film what you consider abuse and sit on the information would it no be better to hand over the information to a neutral party day after day after day so that the "chain of evidence" is protected so that your case would be stronger? When do you and your group decide "enough is enough" in your line of work? Two weeks, two months, a year? What is an acceptable "cut off " date for filming the abuse and reporting to the persons who have the authority to act to stop it? I would think that if you investigate animal abuse that you would want it stopped ASAP. I would love to be proved wrong but it seems that you and your group want to stick to your own methods and are not willing to try another path at the expense of the safety of our food supply and for the animals themselves. I for one would be perfectly happy if the law covered all animals.