Stop Maryland's season of cruelty: fall bow hunting -

Aquarius-WY wrote:

Sorry, I am in a hurry and posted that poorly.
The last sentence in that previous post was Raptor's answer ...
Raptor wrote:
"To stop the abuse on the factory farms. If people know they are on video and that video can be viewed by the public, they will be on their best behavior. It could save lots of animals from suffering."

I never said I had a good memory. Or that I always mean everything I say. Or that everything I say is exactly what I mean.

It is good to see you posting again and I hope you're doing well, AQ. That I DO mean.

Medicinebow wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks. I thought she had stated so in the past. I just didn't want to spend my time researching it.
So it's cameras in slaughterhouses and on factory farms....and they are cheap to boot!!
I hope you are doing well.

Nice. So you call your research assistant to find it.:)

hiss of death wrote:

<quoted text>You mean PETA "plants" who are on the job under false pretenses ?<quoted text>Criminals would be accurate.
Heroes ? Now there's some wishful thinking.

I do have to admire anyone with enough guts to pull something off like that. If animals are being tortured, it's flat out wrong and illegal. Getting a job "under false pretenses" and filming the operations that document cruelty may also be "wrong," I don't think it warrants seven years in prison- for someone who simply wanted to make life a little better for the animals who can't speak for themselves.

Cayenne wrote:

<quoted text>
Today is such a perfect day. It's Dr. Seuss's birthday and there are so many celebrations here today! My boys' school had the most uber-fantastico birthday celebration today and we are going to a Dr. Seuss festival tonight too.(It's really is a mommy's perfect day.)
Anyway, this is for you:
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.
Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
The best thing you can do for animals is go vegetarian. At a minimum, don't eat any factory farmed animals because the entire industry treats them as though they are machines and nothing more. That's a fact.

Congratulations on your wonderful day and all the celebrations going on. I wish I could say the same about things here. It's been a rough week and I am so glad it's Friday. I need a drink! BTW, I do plan on eating more wild game. My freezer is full of it.

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
"What are the requirements?"
Requirements of what? Cameras I don't endorse?
Self-imposed monitoring? Is that the same as filming people against their will and invading their privacy, like the cameras at my workplace, and on the street corners?
While we CAN leave it up to people to choose to purchase from places where abuse isn't happening, I'd bet 98% of the population have no clue what happens to the animals before their meat arrives to market. I see it all the time. Someone walks up to the meat counter, looks to see what's on sale, checks the date and makes their choice.
As much as I care about animals, even I have never asked the butcher where the meat came from.
The people that do their shopping that way (which is almost everyone I know) tell me how absolutely cruel and awful it is to have deer and elk meat in the freezer, because someone had to kill an animal for it. Their freezer is full of beef, chicken and pork and they see that as perfectly okay.
Here's a suggestion: Every package of meat should have the life story of the animal on the package including the age at slaughter, where and how it lived, what was injected into it throughout it's life, how big it's "cage" or pasture was, and how it was killed. For good measure they could include how many offspring it leaves behind.

I do endorse the use of cameras....by those who want to monitor their own business. They get to share that with whomever they want. Or not at all. They get to decide how many cameras they should have as well as the quality or whether they should be networked or not. They get to decide on their storage capacity needs and how/if any form of monitoring occurs.

They get to decide if they want to farm out (no pun intended) the responsibility to someone else :)

Here's two suggestions.

1.) Decide what's best for you and engage in business relationships with others that make sense based on your view of how the world should work. If you don't care where your meat comes from then don't ask. If you do...then ask.

2.) Decide what's best for everyone else and convince your elected representatives of how 'we' should deal with the behavior of others that you think should be regulated, and vote accordingly.

peteoo wrote:

<quoted text>
I do endorse the use of cameras....by those who want to monitor their own business. They get to share that with whomever they want. Or not at all. They get to decide how many cameras they should have as well as the quality or whether they should be networked or not. They get to decide on their storage capacity needs and how/if any form of monitoring occurs.
They get to decide if they want to farm out (no pun intended) the responsibility to someone else :)
Here's two suggestions.
1.) Decide what's best for you and engage in business relationships with others that make sense based on your view of how the world should work. If you don't care where your meat comes from then don't ask. If you do...then ask.
2.) Decide what's best for everyone else and convince your elected representatives of how 'we' should deal with the behavior of others that you think should be regulated, and vote accordingly.

Excuse me. Bill O'Reilly is starting now. I have to go change the channel.

Cayenne wrote:

<quoted text>
Clue: I'm a vegan. My letter are my dollars when I choose vegan instead of meat. I support HSUS, PETA, Mercy for Animals, Farm Sanctuary, Animal Place and every other animal welfare and animal rights and animal rescue group out there! Every single time I make a purchase, I make it MY business to know where my food, cosmetics, clothing, toiletries, etc. comes from. I vote with my pocketbook every time I make a purchase. I use letters, phone, fax, social media to make my voice heard that, as a conscientious consumer, ethics and compassion are just as important as quality. Companies are stepping up too. Gosh, vegan is f*ing everywhere! I love it.

Most of the food I consume would be considered vegan or at least vegetarian. In fact we had a "vegetarian" over for dinner last weekend. Funny thing was she claime to be vegetarian.....but eats chicken. Go figure. I wonder how many that actually consider themselves vegan/vegetarian actually consume animal products from time to time?

You aren't the only one that is concerned where their food comes from. I've been known to ask restaurant managers about where they get their food. I believe it's important to know.

The same goes with the products I purchase...I seek out US made goods. It's not just something I do when I think about it. It's important to me to know how my money is being spent. I also seek out gun/hunting friendly businesses. I let the owners know why I purchase from them.

I like buying American. I'd hate to think my money is going to support someone that isn't suppose to be here. Like that help you hire that your unsure if they are legal or not. I'd make damn sure I know they are legal before they get my money.

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice. So you call your research assistant to find it.:)

You are mistaken again. AQ and I have never spoken....but we have exchanged emails.

I'm hoping to get to his place or him to mine for a little fly fishing.

Then we can talk all about you :)

peteoo wrote:

<quoted text>
I do endorse the use of cameras....by those who want to monitor their own business. They get to share that with whomever they want. Or not at all. They get to decide how many cameras they should have as well as the quality or whether they should be networked or not. They get to decide on their storage capacity needs and how/if any form of monitoring occurs.
They get to decide if they want to farm out (no pun intended) the responsibility to someone else :)
Here's two suggestions.
1.) Decide what's best for you and engage in business relationships with others that make sense based on your view of how the world should work. If you don't care where your meat comes from then don't ask. If you do...then ask.
2.) Decide what's best for everyone else and convince your elected representatives of how 'we' should deal with the behavior of others that you think should be regulated, and vote accordingly.

1. Good point, but people shouldn't have to "ask" if their meat was not tortured before it became meat.
2. I have no interest in deciding what's best for others.

Medicinebow wrote:

<quoted text>
Most of the food I consume would be considered vegan or at least vegetarian. In fact we had a "vegetarian" over for dinner last weekend. Funny thing was she claime to be vegetarian.....but eats chicken. Go figure. I wonder how many that actually consider themselves vegan/vegetarian actually consume animal products from time to time?
You aren't the only one that is concerned where their food comes from. I've been known to ask restaurant managers about where they get their food. I believe it's important to know.
The same goes with the products I purchase...I seek out US made goods. It's not just something I do when I think about it. It's important to me to know how my money is being spent. I also seek out gun/hunting friendly businesses. I let the owners know why I purchase from them.
I like buying American. I'd hate to think my money is going to support someone that isn't suppose to be here. Like that help you hire that your unsure if they are legal or not. I'd make damn sure I know they are legal before they get my money.

"The same goes with the products I purchase...I seek out US made goods."
Too bad you can't insist that the roads and bridges you drive on were American made.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-bridges-ro...

Medicinebow wrote:

<quoted text> You are mistaken again. AQ and I have never spoken....but we have exchanged emails.
I'm hoping to get to his place or him to mine for a little fly fishing.
Then we can talk all about you :)

LMAO.

Cayenne wrote:

<quoted text>
Today is such a perfect day. It's Dr. Seuss's birthday and there are so many celebrations here today! My boys' school had the most uber-fantastico birthday celebration today and we are going to a Dr. Seuss festival tonight too.(It's really is a mommy's perfect day.)
Anyway, this is for you:
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.
Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
The best thing you can do for animals is go vegetarian. At a minimum, don't eat any factory farmed animals because the entire industry treats them as though they are machines and nothing more. That's a fact.

I like to have a meat dish with my vegetables. It was a great hunting season and wouldn’t you know it, even more hunting opportunities next year.

This is a travesty for animals.
Here's a clue to the ARA's going undercover to shoot videos of abuse in Iowa. Just maintain you seriously wanted a job after they try to convict you. It would be hard to prove you lied on the application.

Oh yeah, it's also a travesty for humans. It is now illegal for photographers like me to shoot a beautiful sunset in the state if it shows a cow grazing on a pasture in the foreground?

We need some people with common sense and decency running this country.

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP)— Iowa became the first state Friday to make it a crime to surreptitiously get into a farming operation to record video of animal abuse.

Republican Gov. Terry Branstad signed the law despite protests, letters and campaigns launched on Twitter and Facebook by animal welfare groups that have used secretly taped videos to sway public opinion against what they consider cruel practices.

But Branstad's action wasn't a surprise. Iowa is the nation's leading pork and egg producer, and the governor has strong ties to the state's agricultural industry. He signed the measure in a private ceremony and issued no statement about his decision.

Legislatures in seven other states — Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York and Utah— have considered laws that would enhance penalties against those who secretly record video of livestock, though the efforts have stalled in some states.

Iowa's law makes lying on a job application to get access to a farm facility a serious misdemeanor, punishable with up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $1,500. A second conviction carries harsher penalties. It won overwhelming approval in the Iowa Legislature on Tuesday.

Animal rights groups had called on Branstad to veto the bill, saying it ignores strong public sentiment that favors proper treatment of animals and methods of oversight that ensure safe food.

"Iowans deserve to know where their food is coming from, they deserve to know how the animals they're consuming have been treated, they deserve to have the farms held accountable for the conditions in these facilities," said Suzanne McMillan, spokeswoman for the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "He's really going against all those concerns and priorities that Iowans hold."

But John Weber, who grows grain and raises hogs near Dysart, about 100 miles northeast of Des Moines, said most farmers don't abuse or mistreat their animals and there are systems in place to deal with mistreatment when it's reported. He called the new law a good piece of legislation.

"It will give some protection for farmers from people who enter their facilities fraudulently," he said.

Iowa farmers have felt under attack since activists distributed a series of videos that they claimed showed the mistreatment of animals, from pigs being beaten to chicks being ground up alive. The state typically has more than 19 million hogs and 54 million egg-laying chickens in barns and confinement buildings.

Sen. Joe Seng, a Davenport Democrat and veterinarian who sponsored the bill, said the measure strikes a balance by discouraging animal activists from sneaking into livestock facilities but not prohibiting someone who legitimately works there from reporting animal abuse.

The bill that passed was changed from an earlier version due to concerns that language making undercover video recording illegal could violate free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution.

Craig Hill, president of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, has said he hopes Iowa's action can lead the way for other states to pass similar legislation.

The Utah House has approved a bill that would make it a misdemeanor to film on private agricultural property without the owner's consent, and the measure is now awaiting debate in the Senate.

This country's gone haywire! Or is it "underwire?" Now they want to tell us what kind of bra we can wear!!
http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/170374/155...

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

This country's gone haywire! Or is it "underwire?" Now they want to tell us what kind of bra we can wear!!
http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/170374/155...

Sounds like a "no bra" policy is in order :)

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

This is a travesty for animals.
Here's a clue to the ARA's going undercover to shoot videos of abuse in Iowa. Just maintain you seriously wanted a job after they try to convict you. It would be hard to prove you lied on the application.
Oh yeah, it's also a travesty for humans. It is now illegal for photographers like me to shoot a beautiful sunset in the state if it shows a cow grazing on a pasture in the foreground?
We need some people with common sense and decency running this country.
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP)— Iowa became the first state Friday to make it a crime to surreptitiously get into a farming operation to record video of animal abuse.
Republican Gov. Terry Branstad signed the law despite protests, letters and campaigns launched on Twitter and Facebook by animal welfare groups that have used secretly taped videos to sway public opinion against what they consider cruel practices.
But Branstad's action wasn't a surprise. Iowa is the nation's leading pork and egg producer, and the governor has strong ties to the state's agricultural industry. He signed the measure in a private ceremony and issued no statement about his decision.
Legislatures in seven other states — Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York and Utah— have considered laws that would enhance penalties against those who secretly record video of livestock, though the efforts have stalled in some states.
Iowa's law makes lying on a job application to get access to a farm facility a serious misdemeanor, punishable with up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $1,500. A second conviction carries harsher penalties. It won overwhelming approval in the Iowa Legislature on Tuesday.
Animal rights groups had called on Branstad to veto the bill, saying it ignores strong public sentiment that favors proper treatment of animals and methods of oversight that ensure safe food.
"Iowans deserve to know where their food is coming from, they deserve to know how the animals they're consuming have been treated, they deserve to have the farms held accountable for the conditions in these facilities," said Suzanne McMillan, spokeswoman for the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "He's really going against all those concerns and priorities that Iowans hold."
But John Weber, who grows grain and raises hogs near Dysart, about 100 miles northeast of Des Moines, said most farmers don't abuse or mistreat their animals and there are systems in place to deal with mistreatment when it's reported. He called the new law a good piece of legislation.
"It will give some protection for farmers from people who enter their facilities fraudulently," he said.
Iowa farmers have felt under attack since activists distributed a series of videos that they claimed showed the mistreatment of animals, from pigs being beaten to chicks being ground up alive. The state typically has more than 19 million hogs and 54 million egg-laying chickens in barns and confinement buildings.
Sen. Joe Seng, a Davenport Democrat and veterinarian who sponsored the bill, said the measure strikes a balance by discouraging animal activists from sneaking into livestock facilities but not prohibiting someone who legitimately works there from reporting animal abuse.

"Oh yeah, it's also a travesty for humans. It is now illegal for photographers like me to shoot a beautiful sunset in the state if it shows a cow grazing on a pasture in the foreground?"

No, that's not what is states. It's against the law to lie on an application to gain access to someones private property for the purposes of surveillance. You OK with someone lying on job applications?

THe owner could simply post no cameras allowed and search their employees. Many places do that.

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Good point, but people shouldn't have to "ask" if their meat was not tortured before it became meat.
2. I have no interest in deciding what's best for others.

too funny....

Medicinebow wrote:

<quoted text>
"Oh yeah, it's also a travesty for humans. It is now illegal for photographers like me to shoot a beautiful sunset in the state if it shows a cow grazing on a pasture in the foreground?"
No, that's not what is states. It's against the law to lie on an application to gain access to someones private property for the purposes of surveillance. You OK with someone lying on job applications?
THe owner could simply post no cameras allowed and search their employees. Many places do that.

You forgot to include the last paragraph of that article when you responded to it. It reads:
"The Utah House has approved a bill that would make it a misdemeanor to film on private agricultural property without the owner's consent, and the measure is now awaiting debate in the Senate."

When I said, "Oh yeah, it's also a travesty for humans. It is now illegal for photographers like me to shoot a beautiful sunset in the state if it shows a cow grazing on a pasture in the foreground," that was misinterpretation on my part. That particular bill is in Utah, not Iowa, and so far it has only passed the house.

I don't know what the Iowa bill states exactly, but I interpret this Utah measure as to mean, if I'm driving down the interstate, I have to stop and get permission of the owner of a farm in order to take a picture of his property, whether it's just for scenery or a sunset.... if there's an animal on it.

No, I'm not okay with lying on an application. But I'm also not okay with an employer searching an employee. More importantly, I'm definitely not okay with animal abuse AND trying to hide animal abuse. Some laws are best broken. Saving animals is one where I sympathize with the law-breaker, as long as no one gets hurt and property isn't destroyed.

Once you enter someones private property its the owners choice if they wish to not allow filming....private owners rights. If you are on public property nothing stops you from filming on to the property where there are animals.

Some employers reserve the right to inspect private individuals and their cars. The federal gov't does the same. You are free to choose other employment.

"Some laws are best broken" Yeah we see that with animal rights terrorists. They have the sae mindset you do.

I don't believe it's a good idea to choose to break laws. It's a good idea to change them if you don't agree with them.

Should I be allowed to violate your rights because "they're best broken?" Some of the things you post make no sense.

Medicinebow wrote:

Once you enter someones private property its the owners choice if they wish to not allow filming....private owners rights. If you are on public property nothing stops you from filming on to the property where there are animals.
Some employers reserve the right to inspect private individuals and their cars. The federal gov't does the same. You are free to choose other employment.
"Some laws are best broken" Yeah we see that with animal rights terrorists. They have the sae mindset you do.
I don't believe it's a good idea to choose to break laws. It's a good idea to change them if you don't agree with them.
Should I be allowed to violate your rights because "they're best broken?" Some of the things you post make no sense.

"Some employers reserve the right to inspect private individuals and their cars. The federal gov't does the same."
And you're okay with this?
I'm NOT! Illegal searches, and presumption of guilt, is something EVERYONE should have a serious problem with.

"You are free to choose other employment."
Sure, there's an idea. When someone puts in 29 years with the company, just start doing illegal searches, so they leave and lose the pension they've worked for. What better way to screw the little guy even more.

Raptor wrote: "Some laws are best broken"
MB wrote: "Yeah we see that with animal rights terrorists. They have the sae mindset you do."
Every normal person has that mindse. At least they should. I bet you do, too.
Or are you saying you wouldn't break a law to save a life? What if it was a human life?
If your neighbor was beating a child, would you trespass on his property to intervene? If a child, or a dog, was drowning, would you trespass to try to help? I would. Life trumps laws IMO. That doesn't mean I would want to change trespassing laws though.