Arkansas Farm Bureau Backs Cruelty Bill--Because It Doesn't Apply to Them

The Arkansas Farm Bureau has steadfastly opposed strengthening its state's laws regarding animal cruelty. After all, if cruelty to animals ever really became illegal anywhere, without the term "cruelty" being watered down so much as to be meaningless, and such laws were ever really enforced, animal agriculture everywhere would be in some serious trouble.

So why is this interest group suddenly reversing its position?

1. They know--and they've been assured--that this is only about cruelty to dogs, cats, and horses (you know, those important animals who are worlds different from cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals, but, suspiciously, in ways that no one espousing this view seems able to articulate beyond "well, they're food because we raised them to be food"). According to the news article, "the proposal . . . would make aggravated animal cruelty of horses, dogs and cats a felony on first offense," but "the bill would protect animal husbandry and farming practices."

2. Then there's the definition of cruelty, which is key and which apparently has been watered down enough to suit the bureau.

McDaniel said Tuesday the legislation would provide a specific definition of cruel and inhumane treatment that causes injury or death to the animal. . . .

"This legislation includes very specific definitions of what constitutes cruelty, and places arrest authority in the hands of law enforcement officials," said Randy Veach, the bureau's president. "Those are the areas that have caused the most difficulty in past efforts to get an animal cruelty bill passed."

Veach said his group has opposed past felony proposals because the bureau believed the definitions were unclear.

3. And did you notice the mention of who has authority to determine when cruelty is present and to do something about it? This was a major sticking point for the bureau too. Animal-exploiting industries and individuals do not like it when animal protection groups such as humane societies have the authority to step in. They're OK with this bill because it doesn't allow humane officers to make arrests based on their own judgments of cruelty--only official law enforcement officers, far more likely than humane officers to look the other way or be persuaded that the humans' interests in harming the animal or staying out of trouble outweigh the animals' interests, can make such arrests. The Arkansas Farm Bureau reports that it refused to support previously proposed bills because they "continued the practice of allowing private citizens to have arrest authority."

4. It's worth repeating that the bill is of no consequence to "producers"; the Arkansas Farm Bureau's own press release praises the bill for "protecting the interests of agriculture" because it could only support the bill if the "rights of producers were secured." As such, this law would do nothing to stop or punish the most frequent and most severe cases of cruelty, which happen on farms and in slaughterhouses, not even abuses like the ones you read about the other day, documented by Virgil Butler in this very same state. (And besides, the atrocities documented by Butler were committed against mere chickens, and though no animals are really protected by the Humane Slaughter Act, the act doesn't even pretend to cover chickens--you can slaughter birds however you want.)

5. With all these provisions in place, why wouldn't the Arkansas Farm Bureau support this bill? Supporting this makes them look good. It does not a damn thing to protect the animals the bureau's industry is exploiting, abusing, and killing, so it's no danger to the bureau's members. But giving support to an anti-cruelty bill offers the illusion that the Arkansas Farm Bureau cares about animals. And most in the public, ignoring or not realizing the ways that this bill actually protects the abuse of farm animals rather than protecting the animals themselves and narrowly defines what constitutes (and who can stop) cruelty to other animals, will see this as evidence that such animals are protected by laws when they're not. "'We believe what is being proposed by the attorney general reflects a lot of work, input and agreement over what Arkansas’ law should include,' said [bureau president] Veach." Yes, the Arkansas Farm Bureau gets to look good, the attorney general gets to look good, and the animals get business as usual.

-----

Sources: Arkansas Farm Bureau press release, AP article at STLToday.com

Image courtesy of OpenRescue.org