Bigjake
Member
Tri-Valley Herald
Trespass laws for farms get tougher
Farmers push through law barring animal rights activists in name of homeland security
By MODESTO BEE
Monday, January 05, 2004 - SACRAMENTO -- Animal-rights activists are sneaking into barns to snap photos of penned-up pigs, freeing chickens from cages and vandalizing farm equipment.
In response, farm groups and rural law enforcement agencies launched a massive lobbyingeffort this year to push a bill through the Legislature to strengthen trespassing laws on farms and ranches. They did it in the name of homeland security.
Led by state Sen. Chuck Poochigian, a Fresno Republican who represents a giant swathof San Joaquin Valley farm country, supporters argued that animal rights groups could be infiltrated by terrorists trying to contaminate the nation's food supply.
Effective immediately, a trespasser on land or buildings where "cattle, goats, pigs, fowl or any other animal is being raised, bred, fed or held for the purpose of food for human consumption" can be fined $100 for a first offense and, for a second offense, up to $1,000 and sentenced to six months in jail.
Under the old law, "our officers can do nothing more than cite such trespassers with a $10 fine and ask them to leave the property," said Stanislaus County Sheriff Les Weidman in a letter to lawmakers, echoing the main argument to strengthen the penalty.
There are alternatives, however. There are about 20 trespassing laws on the books. Only one carries the meager $10 fine -- the others already are linked to the higher $100 penalty. Prosecutors have the flexibility -- and they use it to charge a trespasser on a farm or ranch with the higher fine.
Poochigian said his bill removes any ambiguity about the various trespassing laws and gives law enforcement another "arrow in the quiver" to protect farmers, their animals and, ultimately, consumers. But animal rights activists claim the new law is part of a state-by-state effort to clamp down on protesters who are critical of giant animal operations.
While many activist groups that opposed Poochigian's law don't condone violence, they generally shrug off sneaking onto a farm to take photos as an act of civil disobedience -- an effort to document what they perceive as animal abuse.
But farmers and ranchers have been growing weary ofharassment and mischief from activists, and they're nervous about strangers tracking in diseases to vulnerable animals. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the anti-terrorism rallying cry became a popular and effective tool to take aim at the animal rights movement.
"There's growing concern about terrorism, and people can hit that hot button to justify severe laws to punish those who may be viewed as a threat to certain industries," said Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president of the Humane Society of the United States.
Poochigian disagrees. He said the law is about terrorists -- and trespassing is still trespassing. "I don't understand what the problem is," Poochigian said. "The law will not affect any law-abiding citizen. It will not affect the rights of protesters or First Amendment rights."
So is "food terrorism" real? The U.S. Food and Drug Administration drew attention to the issue in an October report. "The threat to the U.S. food supply is more than theoretical," the report said.
"When U.S. troops entered the caves and safe houses of members of the al-Qaida terrorist network in Afghanistan in the months following the Sept. 11 attacks, they found hundreds of pages of U.S. agricultural documents that had been translated into Arabic."
"A significant part of the group's training manual is reportedly devoted to agricultural terrorism -- specifically, the destruction of crops, livestock and food-processing operations."
Jerry Gillespie, director of the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security at the University of California, Davis, said the agriculture industry needs to take the concerns seriously with more vigilance and increased security.
"It's going to be major cultural change for us to patrol the borders of our farms and ranches," Gillespie said. "I think if we're serious about protecting our food supply, that's something we have to weigh. We have to know who's coming and going on our ranches and processing plants."
In February, two women sneaked into a Corcpork Co. pig shed in Tulare County through a ventilation-access panel. The company, which markets pork products under the Farmer John label, says it has 90,000 animals at its disease-controlled facility. No one can enter without showering and wearing sanitary protective clothing. The women managed to flash off a few shots from a digital camera before employees caught them and called the police.
Days before, California State University, Fresno, had held a conference of eco-radicals and animal rights activists that had police in town on edge.
The women told Tulare deputies they were just passing through and wanted to take photos of the hogs. One woman said she was an artist who paints pictures of animals. Prosecutors weren't impressed with their story.
"You want to take pictures of pigs, you go to the fair," said John Gomez, deputy district attorney in Tulare County. "We believed they were there to interfere with the business in one way or another."
The women were cited with misdemeanor trespassing and later pleaded guilty to trespassing with intent to interfere with a lawful business. They were placed on two years' probation, ordered to perform community service, and fined $100 -- the exact punishment in Poochigian's new law.
Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, one of only five legislators to vote against the bill, said many lawmakers are scared to offend the powerful agriculture industry. She said she doubts a $100 fine will deter terrorists.
"This was really just an attempt to continue to hide from public view the deliberate cruelty to living things that goes on in industrial agriculture," said Hancock, who has been pushing a bill to ban small cages used to raise calves for veal.
"To try to insinuate that this had anything to do with homeland security is just silly."
Trespass laws for farms get tougher
Farmers push through law barring animal rights activists in name of homeland security
By MODESTO BEE
Monday, January 05, 2004 - SACRAMENTO -- Animal-rights activists are sneaking into barns to snap photos of penned-up pigs, freeing chickens from cages and vandalizing farm equipment.
In response, farm groups and rural law enforcement agencies launched a massive lobbyingeffort this year to push a bill through the Legislature to strengthen trespassing laws on farms and ranches. They did it in the name of homeland security.
Led by state Sen. Chuck Poochigian, a Fresno Republican who represents a giant swathof San Joaquin Valley farm country, supporters argued that animal rights groups could be infiltrated by terrorists trying to contaminate the nation's food supply.
Effective immediately, a trespasser on land or buildings where "cattle, goats, pigs, fowl or any other animal is being raised, bred, fed or held for the purpose of food for human consumption" can be fined $100 for a first offense and, for a second offense, up to $1,000 and sentenced to six months in jail.
Under the old law, "our officers can do nothing more than cite such trespassers with a $10 fine and ask them to leave the property," said Stanislaus County Sheriff Les Weidman in a letter to lawmakers, echoing the main argument to strengthen the penalty.
There are alternatives, however. There are about 20 trespassing laws on the books. Only one carries the meager $10 fine -- the others already are linked to the higher $100 penalty. Prosecutors have the flexibility -- and they use it to charge a trespasser on a farm or ranch with the higher fine.
Poochigian said his bill removes any ambiguity about the various trespassing laws and gives law enforcement another "arrow in the quiver" to protect farmers, their animals and, ultimately, consumers. But animal rights activists claim the new law is part of a state-by-state effort to clamp down on protesters who are critical of giant animal operations.
While many activist groups that opposed Poochigian's law don't condone violence, they generally shrug off sneaking onto a farm to take photos as an act of civil disobedience -- an effort to document what they perceive as animal abuse.
But farmers and ranchers have been growing weary ofharassment and mischief from activists, and they're nervous about strangers tracking in diseases to vulnerable animals. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the anti-terrorism rallying cry became a popular and effective tool to take aim at the animal rights movement.
"There's growing concern about terrorism, and people can hit that hot button to justify severe laws to punish those who may be viewed as a threat to certain industries," said Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president of the Humane Society of the United States.
Poochigian disagrees. He said the law is about terrorists -- and trespassing is still trespassing. "I don't understand what the problem is," Poochigian said. "The law will not affect any law-abiding citizen. It will not affect the rights of protesters or First Amendment rights."
So is "food terrorism" real? The U.S. Food and Drug Administration drew attention to the issue in an October report. "The threat to the U.S. food supply is more than theoretical," the report said.
"When U.S. troops entered the caves and safe houses of members of the al-Qaida terrorist network in Afghanistan in the months following the Sept. 11 attacks, they found hundreds of pages of U.S. agricultural documents that had been translated into Arabic."
"A significant part of the group's training manual is reportedly devoted to agricultural terrorism -- specifically, the destruction of crops, livestock and food-processing operations."
Jerry Gillespie, director of the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security at the University of California, Davis, said the agriculture industry needs to take the concerns seriously with more vigilance and increased security.
"It's going to be major cultural change for us to patrol the borders of our farms and ranches," Gillespie said. "I think if we're serious about protecting our food supply, that's something we have to weigh. We have to know who's coming and going on our ranches and processing plants."
In February, two women sneaked into a Corcpork Co. pig shed in Tulare County through a ventilation-access panel. The company, which markets pork products under the Farmer John label, says it has 90,000 animals at its disease-controlled facility. No one can enter without showering and wearing sanitary protective clothing. The women managed to flash off a few shots from a digital camera before employees caught them and called the police.
Days before, California State University, Fresno, had held a conference of eco-radicals and animal rights activists that had police in town on edge.
The women told Tulare deputies they were just passing through and wanted to take photos of the hogs. One woman said she was an artist who paints pictures of animals. Prosecutors weren't impressed with their story.
"You want to take pictures of pigs, you go to the fair," said John Gomez, deputy district attorney in Tulare County. "We believed they were there to interfere with the business in one way or another."
The women were cited with misdemeanor trespassing and later pleaded guilty to trespassing with intent to interfere with a lawful business. They were placed on two years' probation, ordered to perform community service, and fined $100 -- the exact punishment in Poochigian's new law.
Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, one of only five legislators to vote against the bill, said many lawmakers are scared to offend the powerful agriculture industry. She said she doubts a $100 fine will deter terrorists.
"This was really just an attempt to continue to hide from public view the deliberate cruelty to living things that goes on in industrial agriculture," said Hancock, who has been pushing a bill to ban small cages used to raise calves for veal.
"To try to insinuate that this had anything to do with homeland security is just silly."
to jail.