Jackrabbit Journal

Dear Commissioner Blackham:

Thank you for your response to my email to Gov. Herbert regarding HB 187.  While I appreciate your time, I disagree with your position on several points.

First, I have seen videos of animal mistreatment taken by workers that that have been used to expose the owners of dairies and other animal operations.  These were not faked videos, they contained content that was quite sickening to a small dairyman like myself, and the owners of the operations were subjected to the appropriate legal penalties.  This shows that such videos do have a place in our justice system and as public information.

Second, an animal operation treats generally its animals according to the commitment of its owners, and some owners are more interested in profit than in the conditions of its animals.  I have seen such lack of commitment by owners in person as well as in videos.  Thus, to say that an animal operation has nothing to gain by mistreating its animals is only half the story: does it have anything to lose?  If the answer is no, then there is no down side to mistreating them.  We know that such mistreatment does occur.  In fact, we know that conditions at many CAFOs are appalling – which is why people are willing to pay more for my product over one produced by a factory-farm.  I consider truthful videos to be a public service, and I encourage them.

As to non-truthful videos, agricultural or otherwise, they are a scourge.  However, laws governing defamation and libel already exist to deal with these.  If further protection is needed, it should address the misuse of factual evidence – not its collection.

Third, the bill fails to define how an owner must “consent,” nor who may file such a complaint.  Imagine if one of my employees happened to be mistreating an animal (something I hope will never be the case) and the event was filmed. I would want such an event to come to light, and I would discipline that employee fully as well as engage the legal system if appropriate.  However, theoretically the employee could file a complaint under this law claiming that without written consent by me, the taker of the video broke the law.  Does a verbal or even nonverbal understanding that we encourage photos protect the photographer or filmmaker from prosecution?

Who decides whether a crime has been committed?  Nowhere in the bill does it say that it is the owner of the business.  Without copious and time-consuming recordkeeping by me (recordkeeping I frankly do not have time for), thus bill puts my customers and visitors at risk of prosecution by any overzealous prosecutor or law enforcement personnel.  While I have faith in my local government, I am opposed to creating to opportunity for abuse by government at any level.

Your answer suggests that the issue is not filming and photography at farms, but rather the use of this factual information to produce an untruthful result.  If that is so, then HB 187 does not address the problem, and is an unfortunate diversion from the problem.  It criminalizes any such documentation, even when used truthfully, and as such does the public a great disservice.

I reiterate my opposition to the bill, and ask that you and Governor Herbert reconsider your support of it.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for the recent email regarding HB 187.  Governor Herbert is aware of the bill and asked me, the State’s Commissioner of Agriculture and Food to directly respond to you.

I see that you are a small dairy operator who works with animal agriculture too.  I’ve been raising turkeys all my life in Sanpete County.  The intent of the bill is not to protect animal abusers, but to protect growers and animal agriculture from the misleading videos taken by some over-zealous groups.   In your email you mentioned you take pride in the treatment you offer you animals.  I believe you.  But what would happen if someone who was determined to find a problem on your farm came there and video-taped a temporary problem, or even helped create that  problem just to take pictures of it?  That’s happened in several cases across the U.S., and even here in Utah.

Large animal operations have nothing to gain by mistreating their animals.  Those workers who do, are terminated.  The videos you see on the Internet, for the most part, are not reflecting reality.

I hope this helps answer your questions about HB 187 and why farmers feel they need additional protections from trespassers.

Sincerely,

Leonard Blackham

Utah Commissioner of Agriculture and Food

Today I sent the following message to my Governor and State Legislators regarding HB 187, the “Agricultural Operation Interference Act”:

Dear Sir,

I am writing to ask you to oppose HB 187.  I run a small dairy outside
Paragonah, and we are proud of how we treat our animals.  We always
welcome visitors – with or without cameras.  In my opinion, someone who is
ashamed of how they treat their animals is in the wrong business.  And if
they’re not ashamed, why do they care if someone takes photos or video?
That’s tantamount to an admission of guilt.

Factory farms compete with most small farmers in southern Utah, and
presumably the rest of the state as well.  Please, let those big guys
succeed on their own merits.  If they can’t do as the public wants, we can
- and the public should have access to information that demonstrates the
difference. Please, let the public decide!

Thank you for your consideration.