Farmed
Animal Watch
A Project of Animal Place
November 12, 2001
(To Search This Page Press Ctrl F)
Issue #40
CONTENTS
UPDATE ON THE “DOWNED ANIMAL” PROTECTION AMENDMENT
(For background information, see issue #38.)
1. Humane Farming Association’s 2nd Alert Opposing the Amendment
2. Farm Sanctuary’s Response to Concerns about the Amendment
3. Animal Legal Defense Fund Analysis of the Amendment
1. HUMANE FARMING ASSOCIATION’S 2ND ALERT OPPOSING THE AMENDMENT
The Humane Farming (HFA) issued a 2nd alert concerning the “downed animal”
protection legislation (the Ackerman-Houghton amendment) which the House of
Representatives passed as an attachment to H.R. 2646, the Farm Security Act (the
“farm bill”). HFA contends that, if passed, the amendment will “result in
harm to animals for years to come.” The alert lists a “growing
number” of animal protection organizations that have voiced concern about the
amendment. It addresses: the veterinary care exemption, report language,
criminal penalties and civil penalties, and specifies immediate action to be
taken.
HFA disagrees that only animals who become ambulatory after receiving veterinary
treatment are exempted from the protections of the amendment. HFA states the
amendment “NEVER” requires that animals regain their ability to walk, or
that the treatment be effective in relieving pain and suffering. It asserts
that, even if the treatment has no effect, it will be “perfectly acceptable to
ignore the animals’ excruciating pain, load them onto trucks – and send them
off to a slaughterhouse for even more abuse.”
HFA asks why report language is necessary if, as proponents claim, the amendment
is not problematic. HFA states that the report language, which attempts to
clarify the meaning of the amendment, equates to a non-binding statement by a
legislator. The alert declares “if one intends to prohibit animals that
can’t walk from going to slaughter - then THE STATUTE ITSELF NEEDS TO SAY
THAT.”
HFA points to failures of the “Humane Slaughter Act” as an example of why
criminal penalties are “essential” to legislation. The organization also
takes issue with claims that the amendment will enable the USDA to levy fines of
up to $10,000. It notes that proponents fail to state publicly where it is
written that the $10,000 fine will apply. The alert points out that the USDA,
which reportedly will formulate regulations for the amendment, opposed the
actual Downed Animal Protection Act (H.R. 1421).
HFA concludes: “The inability to pass a good law is never a legitimate reason
for passing a bad one.” It urges animal advocates to immediately contact
agriculture committee member Senator Leahy, who may be introducing a similar
amendment in the Senate.
“Downer Amendment Opposition Grows,” HFA Alert #2, AR-News, November 7,
2001.
http://express.envirolink.org/cgi-bin/WebX.fcgi?50@118.Emc8akjWe05^0@.117f7245
2. FARM SANCTUARY’S RESPONSE TO CONCERNS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT
In a response to the HFA alert, Gene Bauston, cofounder of Farm Sanctuary and
one of the amendment’s leading proponents, disagrees with HFA’s
interpretation of the veterinary exemption. Bauston states that the veterinary
care “must render the animal ambulatory, and if it doesn’t, the animal must
be humanely euthanized.” He explains, “this is clearly the intent of the
legislation, and it is being further clarified in report language to avoid any
confusion.”Bauston cautions that “HFA’s effort to promote different downed
animal language in the Senate than passed the House would force the bill into an
agribusiness friendly conference committee, and very dire consequences.”
Concerning penalties, Bauston points to section 312 of the Packers and
Stockyards Act as the provision that will enable fines of up to $10,000 be
levied. This, too, he notes, is contained in the report language. The following
is the text of the report language:
“This committee finds that the transport and marketing of downed livestock is
inhumane and that meat from downed livestock may be unsafe for consumption.
Therefore, the provisions in this bill aim to discourage producers from moving
downed animals to market as well as to discourage the sale of these animals for
slaughter. As has been found in states that have passed similar legislation, the
committee believes that by decreasing the value of downed animals brought to
market, producers will be encouraged to either send animals to market before
they become nonambulatory or to provide appropriate care or euthanasia on the
farm. Removing the market for downed animals is also expected to encourage
better treatment of livestock at every step from farm through slaughter as a
precaution to avoid ambulatory animals becoming nonambulatory.
The committee recognizes that livestock often become nonambulatory because of
disease and that it is important to test downed animals for diseases that may be
a threat to food safety such as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE).
Therefore, the committee suggests that USDA work with producers and others to
collect the necessary samples from animals euthanized on the farm, in transport
or at intermediate markets, for conducting tests.
The committee directs that care intended to return a downed animal to an
ambulatory state must be administered by a veterinarian and does not include
coercive actions such as the use of electric prods, pushing or dragging the
animal. Veterinary care should only be attempted if it is reasonably likely to
render the animal ambulatory. If the veterinary care does not render the animal
ambulatory, the animal must be humanely euthanized. The committee directs that
this bill is to be enforced pursuant to section 312 of the Packers and
Stockyards Act.
The committee notes that a more holistic approach to the problem may be needed
if the provisions in this bill are not sufficient to end the marketing and
slaughter of downed animals.”
“Farm Sanctuary’s Response to HFA’s Downed Animal Alert,” Gene Bauston,
Farm Sanctuary,
received Nov. 12, 2001.
“Downed Animal Bill Passes U.S. House of Representatives,” NoDowners.org,
Farm Sanctuary.
http://www.nodowners.org/dapa_hr.htm
3. ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND ANALYSIS OF THE AMENDMENT
A two-page memorandum from the Animal Legal Defense Fund to the Society for
Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL) addresses the following questions:
1. What statutory methods of enforcement will apply to the amendment?
2. What effect will the veterinary care exemption cause?
3. Will report language suffice to fix any problems?
The memo recognizes four avenues in the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA) for
enforcement of the amendment. They include petitioning the Secretary of
Agriculture to investigate an alleged violation and levy a monetary penalty for
damages incurred because of the violation. The Secretary may also suspend the
registration of anyone who is found in violation, which would prevent them from
conducting business at a stockyard. These are contained in section 203, 204, and
210 of the PSA. Section 312 is not included among the avenues of enforcement or
otherwise mentioned.
The memo states that the veterinary care exemption “permits the sale or
movement of a downed animal after the animal has received veterinary
care....even if the veterinary care fails.” In concludes that “animal
advocates should not support this Amendment without the committee report
language, but must understand that even with that language, there may be a large
loophole in the Amendment.”
“Downed Livestock Amendment,” memorandum from Piper Hoffman of the ALDF to
Cathy Liss of SAPL, November 2, 2001.
http://www.aldf.org