AnimalRights.Net

BILL NUMBER: AB 732	AMENDED

 BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 23, 2003

 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  APRIL 22, 2003

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Hancock

FEBRUARY 19, 2003

An act to add Sections 599g and 599h to the Penal Code, relating

to crime.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 732, as amended, Hancock.  Crime.

   Existing law generally prohibits cruelty to animals.  Existing law

also provides that any person who subjects an animal to unnecessary

cruelty or deprives it of necessary food, drink, or shelter is guilty

of a crime punishable by imprisonment in a county jail or in the

state prison, by a fine not exceeding $20,000, or by both

imprisonment and fine.

   This bill would provide that any person who confines  in an

enclosure  or tethers a  pregnant  pig <strike> during

pregnancy </strike>  on a farm  so that the pig is unable to

turn around freely is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment

in a county jail for a period of one year, a fine of up to $1,000, or

by both that imprisonment and fine, as specified.  This bill would

also provide that any person who <strike> raises a calf in conditions

under which it is tethered and unable to turn around freely, lie

down with its legs and neck outstretched, and groom itself </strike>

 confines a calf in an enclosure, or who tethers a calf, on a

farm in a manner that prevents the calf from turning around in a

complete circle or grooming itself completely or who does not feed a

calf a daily diet containing sufficient iron to prevent anemia or

sufficient solid food to prevent impairment of the development of its

rumen  is guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment in a

county jail for a period of one year, a fine of up to $1,000, or by

both that imprisonment and fine.  Because this bill would create new

crimes, it would impose a state-mandated local program.

  The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local

agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the

state.  Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that

reimbursement.

   This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this

act for a specified reason.

   Vote:  majority.  Appropriation:  no.  Fiscal committee:  yes.

State-mandated local program:  yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.  Section 599g is added to the Penal Code, to read:

   599g.  (a) Any person who confines <strike> in an enclosure or

tethers a pig during pregnancy so that the pig is unable to turn

</strike>  a pig during pregnancy in an enclosure, or who tethers

a pig during pregnancy, on a farm in a manner that prevents her from

turning  around freely is guilty of a crime punishable by

imprisonment in a county jail for a period of one year, a fine of up

to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and

fine.

   (b) This section shall not apply <strike> if the pig is undergoing

an examination, test, treatment, or operation carried out for

veterinary purposes provided that the period during which the pig is

confined or tethered is not longer that is reasonably necessary.

</strike>  during the prebirthing period.

   (c) The following definitions shall govern this section:

   (1) "Prebirthing period" means the seven day period prior to the

pig's expected date of giving birth.

   (2) "Turning around freely" means turning around in a complete

circle without any impediment, including a tether, or in the case of

an enclosure, without touching any side of the enclosure.

   (3) "Enclosure" means any cage, crate, or other enclosure in which

a pig is kept for all or the majority of any day, including what is

commonly described as the "gestation crate."

   (4) "Farm" means the land, buildings, support facilities, and

other equipment used in the production of animals for food or fiber.


   (d) This section shall take effect on January 1, 2007. 

SEC. 2.  Section 599h is added to the Penal Code, to read:

   599h.   (a)  Any person who <strike> raises a calf in

conditions under which it is tetheredand unable to turn around

freely, lie down with its legs and neck outstretched, and groom

itself </strike>  confines a calf in an enclosure, or who tethers

a calf, on a farm in a manner that prevents the calf from turning

around in a complete circle or grooming itself completely  is

guilty of a crime punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a

period of one year, a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or

by both that imprisonment and fine.  

   (b) Any person who does not feed a calf a daily diet containing

sufficient iron to prevent anemia or sufficient solid food to prevent

impairment of the development of its rumen is guilty of a crime

punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a period of one year,

a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and

imprisonment.

   (c) The following definitions shall govern this section:

   (1) "Enclosure" means any cage, crate, or other enclosure in which

a calf is kept for all or the majority of any day, including what is

commonly described as the "veal crate."

   (2) "Farm" means the land, buildings, support facilities, and

other appurtenances used in the production of animals for food or

fiber. 

SEC. 3.  No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to

Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because

the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school

district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or

infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty

for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the

Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the

meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California

Constitution.

While surfing the web the other day I ran across an interview with Ingrid Newkirk published on an Australian animal liberation site. The interview was originally from the Australian publication Vegan Voice and dates back to 2001.

Anyway, the interviewer asks Newkirk several questions related to accusations from Gary Francione and others that in reaching accommodations with Burger King that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals had softened its abolitionist stance. Newkirk dismisses such suggestions and adds that the U.S. media do not seem to think PETA has abandoned its radical pose (emphasis added),

We have an abolitionist approach, but I always say that while our heads are in the clouds and we fight for total liberation, our feet are firmly planted on the ground. For example, I don’t think people should ride horses (which has been too radical for even an animal rights feminist publication to print in the U.S., believe it or not), but if I see someone beating a horse I’m going to try and stop them even if I can’t take their horse away from them. I must say, the press doesn’t share this idea that we are namby pamby: They know that if there’s a rat or cockroach involved, PeTA is the group here that will stick up for that poor blighted animal publicly (we are currently defending sharks due to the hysteria over the recent attacks!) and we will always stick up for the A.L.F., so they call us and we do.

Source:

Ingrid Newkirk – taking on the critics. Vegan Voice, 2001.

Back in May, David Cantor announced the formation of a new animal rights group, Responsible Policies for Animals. The group’s goal is to get universities to drop their animal agriculture programs. But it was the title of the group’s first press release/fact sheet that really catches the eye,

10,000 Years Is Enough

The factsheet claims that “animal agriculture today bears no resemblance to the original” form of animal agriculture 10,000 years ago, which is belied a few paragraphs later,

Universities must not serve industries that torment and destroy animals, breed animals in order to kill them, and perpetuate the animals-as-property ethical disaster.

So 10,000 years ago animal agriculture did not mean breeding animals to kill them and treating animals as property? Apparently Cantor has a very idiosyncratic idea of what animal agriculture means.

The group argues that universities should abandon teaching animal agriculture because,

Teaching animal agriculture diminishes our universities’ credibility and intellectual integrity.

Somehow I doubt most universities are going to be concerned about having their intellectual integrity questioned by animal rights activists who apparently believe that animal agriculture originally did not involve breeding animals to kill them for food (many animals did have multiple uses, of course, including cattle for milk and labor and sheep for their wool).

Oddly enough, though, the group concedes the much-debated issue of animals being killed as a byproduct of crop growing, although it is spinned here as an argument against animal agriculture,

Far more mice, voles, and other small animals are killed in crop harvesting and protection than if crops were not grown to make animal products. Such carnage is based on destructive, archaic attitudes rejected by intellectual and spiritual leaders and much of the general public — all who have “done their homework.” Universities should reject them as well.

Much of the general public opposes the killing of mice and voles in the act of crop harvesting? Twenty bucks to the first person who can show me a scientific poll by a major polling organization showing even 25 percent of Americans oppose crop harvesting because it is cruel.

On the other hand, does this mean Cantor is willing to take vegans and vegetarians to task for all the poor voles who die to provide their cruel diets?

Source:

10,000 Years Is Enough: Time to Stop Teaching Animal Agriculture. Responsible Policies for Animals, Press Release, May 2003.

In May California Assembly member Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) withdrew a bill she had introduced to ban the use of gestation crates for pigs and enclosures/tethers for cows.

The bill was supported by a number of animal rights groups, including Farm Sanctuary which successfully pushed a ban on pig gestation crates in Florida. The bill apparently did not have the seven votes it would have needed to clear the Assembly Agriculture Committee.

The bill will likely surface again and if it fails Farm Sanctuary or some other group will likely try to put it on the California ballot as an initiative. Why California? Because, as in Florida, the bill would affect almost no one in the state. As an analysis of the bill commissioned by the Assembly Agriculture Committee noted,

California has roughly 27,000 sows and gilts (or first time pregnant female pigs) being farrowed (per CDFA Resource Guide 2001), which is down from 58,000 in 1993. Nationally, the total number of sows and gilts are estimated at 5.8 million, as of April 1, 2003, per National Pork Producers’ Council. California is a net importer of pork products, producing an estimated one-half of 1% of the state’s demand. California has one large sow-gilt operation, estimated to house between 5000 to 10,000 animals, and another 350 operations with over 50 animals.

The total number of calves slaughtered in California, under federal and state inspection for 2001 totaled 105,000, down from a high of 296,000 in 1996. This is believed to be a very small percentage of the nation-wide total calves slaughtered. It is roughly estimated that California veal processors import well over 98% of their veal from out-of-state producers. There is one known full time veal producer within the state, and his production method is referred to as the European method, which complies with and would be permitted under the definitions of AB 732.

So passing the ban would largely be meaningless except animal rights activists could then portray such legislation as being adopted across the country when they start to push it in states where pig production is more significant. Not a bad strategy.

The committee’s analysis was not impressed by the science either way, though it did note the American Veterinary Medical Association’s statement that “Current scientific literature indicates that gestation stalls meet each of the aforementioned criteria [for acceptable sow housing], provided the appropriate level of stockmanship is administered.” But overall, the analysis concluded,

What science is correct? Scientific references made by the proponents and opponents have used different parts of the same or similar studies to support their positions. The age of some of the studies referenced may no longer be relevant due to the changes in the swine breeds, knowledge gained and improvements made to gestation pens used today versus those used 25 years ago. Most studies have focused on specific health issues and have made assumptions regarding other observations which have been referenced by supporter and opponents to support their conclusions. Studies must have the ability to have a consistent environment or control, and test animals in a fashion that can be evaluated for specific purposes, in order to have a valid conclusion.

Because the level of cattle and pig production in California is so small, the main effect of the bill, in fact, would likely be to shift jobs in these industries into other states,

State law cannot and will not influence the husbandry practices of other states, so sows, gilts and veal calves will likely to continued to be produced using current methods. The impact to our state farm workers will be that fewer year-round employment opportunities will exist.

The full text of the proposed bill can be read here.

Sources:

Bill Analysis: AB 723. May 1, 2003.

Bill banning crates for pregnant pigs pulled. Larry Mitchell, Chico Enterprise Record, May 9, 2003.

S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
       ________________________________________________________________________

                                         2260                                  

                              2003-2004 Regular Sessions                       

                                 I N  A S S E M B L Y                          

                                   January 29, 2003
                                      ___________                              

       Introduced  by M. of A. GRANNIS, HOYT, SMITH -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M.
         of A. GLICK, JOHN, SWEENEY -- read once and referred to the  Committee
         on Environmental Conservation                                         

       AN ACT to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to state
         ownership and control                                                 

         THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
       BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:                                               

    1    Section 1. Section 11-0105 of the environmental  conservation  law  is
    2  amended to read as follows:
    3  S 11-0105. State ownership and control.
    4    The  State of New York owns all fish, game, wildlife, shellfish, crus-
    5  tacea and protected insects in the state, except those legally  acquired
    6  and  held  in private ownership AND POSSESSES IN TRUST FOR THE PUBLIC AN
    7  INTEREST IN PUBLIC FISHING FROM A VESSEL ON ALL WATERWAYS OF  THE  STATE
    8  THAT  ARE  NAVIGABLE IN FACT OR NAVIGABLE IN LAW.  Any person who kills,
    9  takes or possesses such fish, game, wildlife,  shellfish,  crustacea  or
   10  protected  insects  thereby  consents that title thereto shall remain in
   11  the state for the purpose of regulating and controlling  their  use  and
   12  disposition.
   13    S 2. This act shall take effect immediately.                          

        EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                             { } is old law to be omitted.
                                                                  LBD00906-01-3
.SO DOC A 2260          *END*                    BTXT                 2003  

A few weeks ago, Channel Islands National Park announced that it now believes that Anacapa Island is now free of non-native black rats which were a threat to endangered bird species on the island. On June 20 an animal activist went on trial before a federal judge on charges of trying to sabotage the rat eradication program.

Bob Puddicombe, 52, is the founder of the Channel Islands Animal Protection Association which, along with the Fund for Animals, filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against the eradication plan. Puddicombe is accused of attempting to sabotage the eradication plan by giving rats an antidote to the poison used in the eradication.

Prosecutors allege than on October 24, 2001, Puddicombe and another man, Robert Crawford, arrived at the island in an inflatable boat to spread food pellets with vitamin K. Vitamin K is an antidote to many common rat poisons.

Crawford plead guilty to interfering with the activities of a federal agency and illegally feeding the antidote to rats. He was fined $200.

Puddicombe denies the charges and his public defender argued before U.S. District Court Judge Willard McEwan that the government could not prove that Puddicombe actually scattered any food pellets on the island.

If convicted, Puddicombe could face up to six months in jail and a $5,000 fine.

Sources:

Attorneys clash in island rat case. Sylvia Moore, Ventura County Star (California), June 21, 2003.

News briefs from around California. Associated Press, June 21, 2003.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals activist Charlie McKenzie, 24, was arrested on June 20 for throwing a pie in the face of Smithfield Foods Europe president Raoul Baxter.

Baxter had just begin giving a speech at the World Pork Congress when McKenzie jumped onto the stage yelling, “Meat pimp!” and then tossed the pie into Baxter’s face. McKenzie also unfurled a banner before she was escorted off stage and arrested.

Baxter told the crowd that, “It tastes nice, I can’t wait for lunch,” before cleaning himself off and proceeding with his speech.

McKenzie was later released after Baxter declined to make a complaint against her.

PETA’s Dawn Carr told the Daily Star (UK),

It may have taken Mr Baxter only moments to wipe the pie off his face but the mess of animal suffering, environmental destruction and lifethreatening disease that his company causes won’t disappear so easily.

We want people to stop and think about adopting a humane and healthy vegan diet.

Of course the speeches at the World Pork Congress show the sort of effect that PETA is having on curbing meat eating. Baxter’s speech was largely about how Smithfield has been successfully expanding into several international markets. A representative from Brazil later gave a speech detailing how pork production in that country had increased 116 percent from 1994 to 2002. Go veg? Apparently the other white meat still enjoys a wee bit more popularity.

Sources:

It’s tofu at the top. The Daily Record (UK), June 21, 2003.

Protester evades security. Farmers Guardian (UK), June 27, 2003.

Splat! Meat Boss Is Left Pie Eyed. Sunday Mercury (UK), June 22, 2003.

It’s The Business; Veggie Might. Daily Star (UK), June 21, 2003.

The New York State Assembly recently approved a bill that would protect the right to fish on all navigable waterways in the state. The bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Pete Grannis, outlined the need for the bill in a memorandum attached to the bill,

In February, 1997, the NYS Court of Appeals ruled in DOUGLASTON MANOR, INC. V. GEORGE BAHRAKIS that landowners who specifically “own the river bed” can regulate fishing on their property. Historically, NYS law has been interpreted to mean that any navigable waterway could be accessed by the public. The state retains easements that entitle the public to certain recreational uses. Until the DOUGLASTON MANOR decision, fishing was considered to be part of the public trust that was part and parcel of the “navigability” of a waterway.

With its action, the state`s highest court has potentially granted exclusive fishing rights to anyone owning land traversed by a recognized navigable waterway. Under this ruling, while navigable waterways would remain accessible for boating, tubing, etc., all fishing from a boat whether anchored, motoring or simply drifting through, might now be considered trespassing unless prior permission is obtained from the landowner. This restriction will apply to all navigable rivers, including those stocked with fish raised in publicly funded state hatcheries.

. . .

Left unchallenged, this unfortunate ruling may result in the closure of large sections of major rivers to public fishing. This holds particular peril for the vast majority of the state`s roughly 1.1 million licensed fishermen who do not own private fishing rights. Not to be overlooked in this equation is the nearly $15 million these residents pay in annual license fees and in surcharges on the purchase of fishing equipment, which over the years has been instrumental in helping to finance the Salmon River`s climb to the status of a world class fishery.

The bill is now under consideration in the State Senate. You can read the full text of the proposed law here.

The Observer’s Michael Specter wrote a nearly 6,000-word profile of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals chief Ingrid Newkirk that revealed her to be even more bizarre than her already bizarre media persona lets on.

Of course one accusation constantly leveled at animal rights activists (and vehemently denied by same) is that they care more about animals than human beings or are even outright misanthropes. Newkirk, however, always wears her misanthropy on her sleeves. Specter writes,

. . . When we were in Savannah, she told me, in the most unequivocal terms, that the world would be an infinitely better place without humans in it at all. I must have shown my astonishment, because by the time I got back to New York, later that day, she had already written thousands of words to me, of which this is only a sample:

‘There are a billion mean tricks of nature. And human beings, who aren’t “a thing apart” but part of nature, are cruel, out of sheer obliviousness if nothing else, but often out of malice or selfishness. A few clothes and a Jag and being able to read the NYT don’t separate “us” from or elevate “us” above the other species! . . . Why does feeling superior mean being able to treat those “beneath us” with contempt? That’s what the Nazis did, isn’t it? Treated those “others” they though subhuman by making them lab subjects and so on. Even the Nazis didn’t eat the objects of their derision.

It doesn’t come as any surprise then that not only did Newkirk have herself sterilized at the age of 22, but she actively opposes anyone having children,

I am not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it’s nothing but vanity, human vanity.

Apparently humans are outside nature, being the only species to reproduce simply for the sheer vanity of it all.

Some of Specter’s accounts are hard to believe. For example, we know from Newkirk herself that PETA doesn’t target children, but Specter seems to thing that it does,

Because circuses appeal so widely to the young, they arouse PETA’s particular wrath (circuswatch.com). One night in December, I stood in front of the Savannah Civic Center when the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus came to town. Newkirk and several colleagues were there, and they spent the evening bearing placards, dodging police and hectoring scores of families who were entering the coliseum with young children. (‘Elephants are mammals!’ they shouted. ‘Mammals have hair. Do you know how trainers remove that hair so the elephants will look good for you tonight? They burn it off with blowtorches. Please make this your last visit to the circus.’) The PETA video truck was parked nearby. With elegiac music playing in the background, a continuous loop of clandestinely shot footage ran on the truck’s two giant screens, each showing trainers beating, shocking, whipping and even shooting elephants. The children who saw the video were horrified, and their parents were furious.

This is impossible, since just last year Newkirk said that PETA never engages in that sort of behavior at circuses,

TUCKER CARLSON: Last spring, I took my children to the circus here in Washington. I had my four-year-old son, very nice boy, in my arms walking up to go into the circus. And some monster from PETA leans forward and shoves in his face a photograph of a wounded elephant, and says, “This is what the circus is,” to my four-year-old son.

NEWKIRK: I doubt it very much.

CARLSON: I watched it. He was in my arms. And I want you to apologize for that.

NEWKIRK: If anyone did that, I absolutely apologize.

CARLSON: Well, good.

NEWKIRK: Because everything we do is based at adults. We’re asking adults be responsible. You were telling me about giving your children meat and milk. They’re going to be to grow up to be tubs of lard. They’re getting heart attacks.

And the clearest example of what PETA is all about is Specter’s description of what greets visitors who enter PETA’s Virginia office building,

Inside, the building could have been designed by Dr. Doolittle. There is a quotation from Leonardo da Vacini chiseled into the lintel about the reception area. ‘The day will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals the way they now look upon the murder of men.’

Of course, like most everything that emanates from PETA, this is sheer fiction. Da Vinici never said or wrote that. Instead, it was put into his mouth by a novelist in the 1930s and has been misattributed to Da Vinci ever since Jon Wynne-Tyson messed up the attribution in a collection of animal rights related quotes.

Somehow it seems like a fitting thing for PETA to affix a fake quote from Da Vinici in their reception area. At least the group is consistently wrong.

Source:

Mother Nature. Michael Specter, June 22, 2003.

The Ohio State Senate unanimously approved a bill that would strengthen penalties against those who destroy crops, timber, livestock, farm or laboratory equipment. Such crimes would be increased to felonies depending on the amount of destruction and those convicted of such crimes would have to pay fines up to double the loss to the victim.

The bill is targeted a response to reports of animal rights and environmental extremists who have attacked labs and farms.

The Associated Press quoted animal rights activist Ritchie Laymon of Protecting Our Earth’s Treasures as comparing the proposed law to “veggie libel” laws in several states — though surely even an animal rights activist can see the difference between saying “eating meat is bad” and simply destroying farm equipment. According to Laymon those who are victims of such attacks do not usually press charges because,

It would open a can of toxic worms the livestock industry is afraid of.

Not quite. The reason farms usually do not press charges is that police usually do not catch the person doing the vandalizing.

The full text of the proposed law can be read here.

Sources:

Bill would target vandalism, violence. Associated Press, June 19, 2003.

Ag Industry Says Farmers Need Protection Bill. Ohio News Network, June 19, 2003.