Counterintuitive Spring 2023

Supportive 3 (Beef article)

Claim- With 98% of farms and ranches in the U.S. family owned and operated, I know that today’s food is grown by people who care about the animals, the environment and the final retail product.

The author believes that the simple fact that the majority of farms are family-run plays a role in the ethical and safety practices of the handling of animals. If these small, loving, family oriented businesses truly care about the animals, there should be no reason that a push for ag-gag laws is being made. Transparency is often very effective in the improvement of conditions in business settings. For instance, the publishing of radiologists’ records in catching mammograms has driven down rates of missed cancers. This same sentiment logically applies to the meat industry. Whistleblowers should be allowed to use video evidence to expose the deplorable conditions in slaughterhouses and on farms, so in turn these supposedly loving family farms will be shamed into stopping their mistreatment of animals. Evidence is already copiously across the internet that reveals this dark side of animal treatment. Google “Mcdonald’s chicken abuse” and then take another look at ag-gag. The name of these laws themselves is very suspect, as if something is trying to be hidden by an intentional gagging. The abuse of animals and the intentional suppression of these activities does not look to me like today’s food is grown by people who care about the animals. Rather, it makes me question if the Manson family is in the shadows running our nation’s meat industry.

Supportive 2 (agweb article)

Claim- The farmers take immediate action when they learn of any mistreatment and do not want to hire anyone who doesn’t have the animals’ welfare always at the top of their mind.

Ag-gag advocates and farm owners are going to great lengths to make sure that activists, or anyone previously affiliated with activist groups, are not hired to work on the farms. Criminal action can be taken against someone who fails to report prior association with an animal activist group upon being hired to work in the slaughterhouse or at the farm. These are exactly the people who have the animals’ welfare as a top priority. In some states, reporting abuse can be considered acts of terrorism. Labelling those who are worried about the animals’ conditions as terrorists and refusing to hire anyone who is or ever was an activist is the exact opposite of wanting to hire workers who care about the animals. This is obviously the businesses looking out for their reputations, forcing silence and removal of those who might taint their image, which is already quite low due to the efforts of the people that they failed to gag.

Antagonistic 2 (lcanimal article)

Claim- Although each state’s Ag Gag legislation is different, they are all written to ensure abuse on factory farms are left unreported and hidden from public scrutiny.

The origin of ag-gag laws is reasonable: to deter people from setting animals free or destroying slaughterhouse property. Unfortunately, ag-gag opponents have warped the intent of these laws to appear to be silencing all whistleblowers and allowing animals to be mistreated. Animal advocates put blinders on and ignore everything else but their goal: to destroy the companies they deem to be against their interests. The videos that have surfaced, claiming to expose the cruelties to animals inside these farms, are often simply footage of regular slaughter. The sad reality of eating meat is that the animals must be killed, and this is apparently antagonistic to the activist agenda. These whistleblowers attempt to rile up the public with their footage and media campaigns. The ag gag laws are meant to prevent these predatory practices that are intended to destroy our nation’s farms. In no way are they what they have been described as: laws meant to silence all opposition to the meat industry.

Antagonistic 1 (alternet article)

Claim- In other words, these laws turn journalists and the investigators of crimes into criminals.

Ag gag laws are not trying to vilify journalists or criminal investigators. This statement attempts to appeal to emotions and change the intended purpose of the laws, painting these two groups as victims of categorical injustices. Infiltrating an establishment on false pretenses to expose the visually disturbing yet normal practices that go on there should not be allowed. Businesses will have to live in fear and trepidation whenever hiring someone new, worried over whether or not this person will launch an attack and media frenzy after filming the animals inside and misrepresenting what goes on as abuse. Ag-gag laws are meant to give farms privacy to go about their operations without the nuisance of prying eyes and cameras trying to capture any misstep that could be taken.

2) Antagonist to Gag law:

Insert the best quote that demonstrates the authors’ failure to supply sufficient evidence.

Ronnie and Katherine provide good points throughout the article on why Ag law should be put to the stop. However the authors fail to provide any strong evidence of why it should be put the end.The author is only talking through animals point of view.

Insufficient Evidence Refutation:  They don’t think outside the box. Most of the states probably are using safer ways in slaughtering in animals which is why they don’t need Ag Law stopped.  The author mentions that Ag Law causes threat to public health and environment, but she doesn’t provide any evidence or examples related to it. The author hadn’t provided any proof of Ag Law causing threat to animals, public health or environment with their negative comments. Furthermore Ag law doesn’t have to be put to stop, just the way of killing method can be changed. The workers have right to keep their working ethics in privacy, after all it’s free country. Most of the population survive on meat, so slaughtering will continue but in safe ethical way.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/shocking-reporting-factory-farm-abuses-be-considered-act-terrorism-if-new-laws-pass?paging=off

Antagonistic #1

“ALEC’s sole purpose is to write model legislation that protects corporate profits. Industry then pushes state legislators to adapt the bills for their states and push them through. The idea behind the Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act is to make it illegal to “enter an animal or research facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other or other means with the intent to commit criminal activities or defame the facility or its owner.””

Rebuttal: It seems as if this author is saying that walking into a business owners place of work with a camera is an okay thing to do. This is especially appalling when the known purpose of the photographs and videos is to hurt the business. But if we were to flip the roles and come into his place of work video taping everything he did with the intent to defame him, then surely it would not be okay.

Antagonistic #2

“Consumers have a right to know how their food is produced. Ag Gag legislation is a direct threat to the rights of the consumer, as it will shield the agriculture industry from any public scrutiny or inquiry.”

Rebuttal: Although consumers do have the right to know where their food is coming from and how it got onto the plate in front of them, there is a moral way to find their answers. For example, they may call the company directly or contact their state representative. That being said, it is unfair to post gruesome videos that depict meat farms in a negative light when it is certainly untrue.

Supportive #2

“An agricultural Affairs Committee member who supports the bill appropriately summarized how the activist group has crossed the line, by stating the following in her weekly legislative update. “By releasing the footage to the Internet, with petitions calling for a boycott of products of any company that bought meat or milk from Bettencourt Dairy, the organizations involved then crossed the ethical line for me. The goal of changing behavior then became ruining a business.””

Rebuttal: The goal of changing behavior then became the goal of stopping animal cruelty completely. If ruining a business is a casualty in that goal, then it must be done. The intention behind releasing the videos was not to ruin peoples livelihoods but to make the rest of the world aware of the horrors behind the scenes.

Supportive #3

“What’s more, I also know that PETA and HSUS supporters are usually behind these terrible videos depicting animal abuse. And, if they aren’t behind the camera catching the action, they are usually the ones initiating the abuse. And, these organizations strategically release these videos to wreak havoc on the agriculture industry, which usually results in litigation, loss of jobs and a direct shot at the markets.”

Rebuttal: This author is trying to point the finger at the very people whose lifes’ mission is to save farm animals from a brutal reality.  The abuse these organizations are inflicting, if any, is on the employees who spend each day carelessly murdering hundreds of animals.

Antagonistic 1)  Stacking the Deck Rebuttal

“In other words, these laws turn journalists and the investigators of crimes into criminals.”

These laws are not meant to criminalize reporters for the sake of their career, but because the incidents with animals they choose to report are not necessarily fair to all other farms. Many farms that treat animals as humanely as possible are being misrepresented by the isolated evidence from a handful of farms that choose cruelty and abuse over humane treatment.

Antagonistic 2) Stacking the Deck Rebuttal

“Whistleblowers are crucial in exposing animal cruelty, unsafe working conditions and health, labor and environmental violations.”

These factory farms don’t represent the entirety of farms in the US. There are many others, such as dairy farms, where animals are treated fairly and humanely. Only highlighting the unfair treatment sheds a bad light on everyone. Especially since the “whistleblowers” are undercover, that makes it doubly unfair to release footage. The cameramen are there under false pretenses and that is a violation of privacy.

Supportive 2) Inconclusive Evidence Rebuttal

“Upon finally learning of the mistreatment, the dairy owner immediately terminated all employees associated with the unforgivable acts.”

Had someone not been there documenting the abuse against the animals, it most likely would have taken much longer to catch the abusers, if at all. If we make it illegal to catch animal abuse in the act, we are letting it go on indeterminately. Although it is unfortunate that the unsuspecting dairy owner was charged with animal abuse, it’s better to have stopped the abuse than for him to continue in his work not knowing how his employees were acting.

Supportive 3) Insufficient Evidence Rebuttal

“With 98% of farms and ranches in the U.S. family owned and operated, I know that today’s food is grown by people who care about the animals, the environment and the final retail product.”

But the other 2% of farms are factory farms, and we’ve seen the abuse and awful living conditions. Why wouldn’t we want to eliminate that if at all possible? If we suppress the undercover workers, we not only take away our right to free speech, we also eliminate the possibility to improve the quality of life for workers and animals on factory farms alike.

Antagonistic 1:

“But as we’ve seen with the Ag-Gag bills, state laws often are written by big corporations. Nowhere is that more obvious than in states where cruel methods of treating animals are exempted from state laws on the basis of their being classified as “customary.”

Rebuttal: According to the article entitled, “Idaho Dairymen’s Association Speaks Out Against Animal Activists’ Motives, Methods”, this bill is not designed to limit the amount of animal cruelty reports or disable a persons ability to report unlawful treatment of animals. In fact, there will be phone line that may be used to report animal abuse or mistreatment immediately after it happens. The bill proposed was also written up by the Senate without the help of big corporations.

Protagonist 2:  “Opponents of Senate Bill 1337 who participate in or condone this type of conduct call it an “Ag-gag” bill to mislead people into believing that the bill will enable Idaho farmers to hide animal cruelty. Testimony before the Senate and House Agricultural Affairs committees has clearly demonstrated that SB 1337 does not prohibit lawful reporting, investigation and prosecution of animal cruelty. There is a hotline at the Idaho State Department of Agriculture to immediately report any abuse or perceived abuse. This hotline can be anonymous if the caller chooses.”

Antagonistic 2:

“Ag Gag is a term to describe state-level legislation aimed at punishing whistle blowers on factory farms throughout the United States. These bills have recently been sweeping the nation, and are the agricultural industry’s attempt to hide the abuses and horrific conditions animals on factory farms must endure. Although each state’s Ag Gag legislation is different, they are all written to ensure abuse on factory farms are left unreported and hidden from public scrutiny.”

Rebuttal: The author of the article, “Do you Support Ag-Gag laws?” shed some light on the fact that many of these whistle blowers go into the farms undercover and instigate occurrences of abuse amongst animals. The author seems to think that these animal organizations are going into the farm factories with the mindset that they will find evidence of abuse even if there is none present. As a result of this, the agriculture industry suffers.

Protagonist 3: “What’s more, I also know that PETA and HSUS supporters are usually behind these terrible videos depicting animal abuse. And, if they aren’t behind the camera catching the action, they are usually the ones initiating the abuse. And, these organizations strategically release these videos to wreak havoc on the agriculture industry, which usually results in litigation, loss of jobs and a direct shot at the markets.”

Antagonistic 2: “2) If recordings are allowed, individuals are forced to submit footage to authorities in an unrealistically short turnaround time, making it impossible to document patterns of abuse. ”

-The law that would force individuals to submit the footage right away is reasonable because it prevents them from tampering with the evidence and making the company or the abuse look worse than it is in reality. There are already things in place to offer an outlet for people to anonymously report abuse, like a hotline at the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. The hotline can be used to report a pattern of abuse if the caller reports the abuse every time they witness it or hear about it. They would do so immediately instead of sitting on the evidence for a while and not doing anything to stop the abuse when they see it.

Antagonistic 3: “Signed into law in 2012, it was the first to criminalize secretly videotaping a farm without the owner’s permission.”

-This sentence claims that making the act of secretly videotaping a farm without the owner’s permission illegal is a bad thing. However, videotaping without permission goes against privacy rights that protect humans in the U.S. Unless the owner allows the workplace to be taped, it should not be allowed. Farms are workplace environments that are privately owned. It is wrong for people to videotape their coworkers doing work in their cubicles in an office setting, so it should be wrong for people to videotape their coworkers doing work on a farm setting as well.

Supportive 2: “Every one of the more than 500 dairy farm families in Idaho practices compassionate animal husbandry and does not condone any sort of abuse towards their animals. ”

-This claim is empty and insufficient. If all of the dairy farm families in Idaho practice compassionate animal husbandry, then abuse wouldn’t have been reported by animal rights activists. The activist group seeking to block SB1337 reported abuse that occurred on a farm by employees. The owner of the farm did not abuse the animals, but his employees did. Therefore, this claim has insufficient evidence because members of the family of this dairy farm did not practice compassionate animal husbandry.

Supportive 3: “However, we know activists are misrepresenting themselves in applying for jobs on farms, hoping to surreptitiously record incidents on the farm that can be used to their advantage.”

-If activists were to go into the farms and reveal that they were there to record the crimes for evidence, they would be kicked out and the crimes wouldn’t be reported, so of course they are going to hide their actual identity. It’s similar to a police officer going undercover and becoming a member of a gang that participates in illegal acts. In both instances, individuals are gathering information from incidents that support their theories of crime and illegal acts in order to have sufficient evidence to accuse and punish the culprits.

• Katherine and Ronnie make a good reasoning unto why Ag Gag laws should be put to a stop, but they really do not  fight for why they would like the laws to be released. If the Ag Gag laws exist in only these six states maybe there is an agreeable reasoning to why they are in these states. All though it is upsetting seeing the mistreatment of animals, isn’t it sad when we humans kill a flying bug or mosquito, or kill a mouse because it is a pest? Or because they are so small and really do not matter to the human mind ; that we really do not care because we have no use for these species. I agree that Ag- Gag laws should be put to a stop, but we also need meat in our bodies, we could take care of the animals in a healthier way let them grow healthy and strong, put them to sleep then cut open there meats in a clean and safe environment.
• Congress state a good point with explaining the dangers of Ag Gag. The one that sticks out to me the most is Food Safety. The safety of our food is important. If it is not being properly handled then there should be no killing of animals. I do not want to eat diseased, aerated, not clean meat. After reviewing this article I can see that we are not only harming the animal species but we are harming ourselves and should really come up with a clean and healthier way to get our meats.
•  The people going in with these cameras to uncover the horror behind the walls of these factories are brave. They are for the protection and healthier treatment of our animals. They may be spies but they are a great spy to protect our business from undercover activities.
• Even our dairy products are being messed with in a way that can harm our bodies. We are feeding the animals that we receive our dairy products from unhealthy food. Then the turn out is bad unhealthy dairy products for us human beings.

Works Cited:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/shocking-reporting-factory-farm-abuses-be-considered-act-terrorism-if-new-laws-pass?paging=off

http://www.lcanimal.org/index.php/campaigns/ag-gag-laws-states-of-disgrace/what-is-ag-gag

http://beefmagazine.com/blog/do-you-support-ag-gag-laws

Conservationists join animal rights groups to challenge Idaho ag gag law