4 ms·

I grew up similarly and it's part of the reason I've cut back on my meat. Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how

I grew up similarly and it's part of the reason I've cut back on my meat. Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam. And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1] [1] https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch70/sect18-7042/ https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t...

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. This kind of corp-captured government is one more reason I'm certain we're in the 1910s again. I'm finding it easier to count the exceptions to that. (they had appropriate housing, we have fewer labor-related deaths). source: am an annoying genealogist
rmbyrro 3y ago
wow, one year in jail just for trespassing or taking a photo and doing absolutely no damage. I wonder how much it costs to buy a legislature house. Can't we crowfund buying it to make "modern" farming illegal?
- toolz 3y ago
  I personally empathize more with the concerns of poor humans than I do mistreated animals and increasing food costs seems likely to increase their pain. I'll gladly wait for technology to improve the lives of animals, but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Enforcing ignorance is the answer? > but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively What about the activists who are motivated by a genuine belief that this is wrong and believe it's their life's work to raise awareness of the issue? Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?" Seems to be the combined wishes of the constituents. Same theory applies to most topics. You can see this in how different states poll on firearms (or abortion, etc) and the types of laws they have on that topic. As an extreme example, the same person can carry the same gun in two different states and be lawful in one and committing a felony in another without causing any damage simply because the values and beliefs expressed by the populations results in different laws. They might even qualify to carry lawfully in both states but are missing a piece of paper confirming it. That's how the laws works - break it and suffer consequences. Maybe it's worth it depeding on your moral convictions. Don't like it, then change the law. In the case of agricultural tresspass, the law is not likely to change in ID based on the current views of the population there.
      - vlovich123 3y ago
        In a representative democracy, the will of the population isn't so directly represented in the laws that are held. Given the role money and lobbying have in politics, there's no way to conclude that any given law has the broad support of the people vs "this isn't important enough for me to get worked up over vs issues that are more immediately pressing to me" or even "powerful economic powers are acting to sway the opinion of the general population". There's even [1] which adds credence to the idea that laws are passed by the will of the wealthy, not by the will of the constituents. Also immoral laws can be passed when the people in power are immoral. Immoral people can gain power through alternate ways than following the will of the constituents. More importantly, we have ideals and principles that supersede the will of the public. Arguably the most sacred ideal in America is the First Amendment with respect to protections about speech & this is pretty adjacent in that the law is criminalizing speech for something that should arguably be a civil matter at best. Laws like this are not dissimilar to passing a law protecting employers from employees trying to document unsafe working conditions. So the idea that the law is purely an expression of the wishes of the constituents is nice but not borne out in the structure of modern democratic governments, not borne out in practice because of how power & money intermix, & invalidated by the idea that we have principles that supersede the wishes of those constituents. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
  - dr_dshiv 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - smileysteve 3y ago
    Your conclusions are all wrong. Beef is incredibly expensive in terms of costs of food, land, and water -- and in high density situations - rapid disease spread (and post consumption disease spread via cancer, metabolic, and heart disease) By promoting sustainable diets, mostly vegetarian with optional beef splurges - food costs decrease - food transport costs decrease - disease caused by diets decrease
  - KittenInABox 3y ago
    Improving the lives of animals directly improves the lives of humans. Who do you think is eating them? Feeding them? Building their shelters and living near them? Slaughtering them and butchering them? Animal welfare is a public health issue. People have caught bird flu and died!
- giantg2 3y ago
  "wow, one year in jail just for trespassing" Many western states have much stricter views on property rights and trespassing than the coasts. The penalties are generally higher even if not dealing with this specific scenario. Even regular ID trespassing law can carry 6mo-1y jail time depending on the circumstances, etc. One often overlooked thing that isn't particularly applicable in this case is the biosecurity aspect involved in agricultural trespassing. Even trespassing in agricultural areas without taking pictures can carry higher penalties in many states.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    in other states, these penalties only exist for slaughterhouses, if you broke into a Beyond meat factory and filmed you wouldn’t be eligible for same penalties
    - giantg2 3y ago
      I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most of the agricultural trespassing, disruption, etc laws don't just apply to slaughterhouses, but also include the farms and such. Many states have general secret recording that apply to nearly all scenarios if you're referring to recording. If you're talking about just trespass, if you "broke" into a beyond meat facility you would in fact face similar penalties in other western states with similar property rights culture. I believe even the ID law would result in 6-12mo maximum jail if you broke into the factory (might even qualify as burglary with higher penalties depending on specifics).
      - whimsicalism 3y ago
        Utah at least specifically only protected things like slaughterhouses. I am not familiar. The penalties in these laws are higher than just generic secret recording.
        giantg2 3y ago
        I think both depend on which state. Do you have the law that prevents the recording in UT? I only see the tresspassing law. Which by the way, would appear to be a class B misdemeanor if it was agricultural land or if it was a building (same for both your examples).
merpnderp 3y ago
I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this? Because around here feedlots are only for finishing cattle and typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.
- notesinthefield 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - pests 3y ago
    No one said that. They did not live the entire lives in the feedlot. Anything else, you read into.
    - neolefty 3y ago
      Probably responding to this from a parent comment: > Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      yes they did say that, we can all read
      - pests 3y ago
        They said they don't spend all their time in the feedlots... are you sure about that?
        whimsicalism 3y ago
        > Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives ?
  - toolz 3y ago
    There is no hypocrisy in cattle farming. No species on earth other than humans care about another species existence other than how it will benefit their own species. I'm not saying humans shouldn't be different, but there is no hypocrisy in keeping in line with every other species in the known universe.
walthamstow 3y ago
Money is speech, but photos are not apparently
- earth-adventure 3y ago
  A picture is worth a thousand words, so the voice of the industry would become too expensive (bribes, oh excuse me, lobbying and consulting) if the public can use pictures. Hence, pictures are forbidden.
- tengbretson 3y ago
  You should read the linked law. You may find it reasonable.
  - walthamstow 3y ago
    Unless my understanding of 'misrepresentation' is incorrect, and I'm neither a lawyer nor an American, but I find the law to outlaw basic journalism, including and especially the below section which seems to specifically outlaw undercover journalism. What's reasonable about that? > (c) Obtains employment with an agricultural production facility by force, threat, or misrepresentation with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the facility’s operations, livestock, crops, owners, personnel, equipment, buildings, premises, business interests or customers;
    - tengbretson 3y ago
      If the definition of undercover journalism is simply lying about ones identity in order to publish secrets with the intent to cause injury to another party, then yes, absolutely, I'm in favor of outlawing it, and a 1 year max seems generous.
      - mschuster91 3y ago
        There's a difference between publishing actual secrets and publishing evidence of someone breaking the law. We're seeing with Boeing what happens when law-breaking is swept under the rug for too long.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hollywood_court 3y ago
So that's the 'small government' I see so many folks talking about online.
bequanna 3y ago
I agree with you--feedlots are disgusting and cruel. However, cattle do not spend their "entire lives" at a feedlot. Usually only the last few months (or less) before slaughter. Prior to that, that majority of cattle live in very open and pleasant conditions.
barbazoo 3y ago
> Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam. And then being shoved into a truck, shipped who knows how many thousand miles to a butchering facility that does it for 3c cheaper and then end up in a line with all your peers to be killed in a horribly industrialized way. When I lived in central Europe there was a story about pigs or cows, I don't remember, being shipped to Morocco for butchering, imagine that! People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced. > And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1] Same in Canada. Very disappointing.
- maleldil 3y ago
  > People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced. No, because most people wouldn't care.
m3047 3y ago
I think what they're saying there is "I was just taking pictures... noooo, you will break my camera!!! you evil brute!" when you say GTFO is no defense. Not saying there aren't weird laws. Check the notions of boxed squares (miles) and airspace. Some of these need addressing at the federal level.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. This kind of corp-captured government is one more reason I'm certain we're in the 1910s again. I'm finding it easier to count the exceptions to that. (they had appropriate housing, we have fewer labor-related deaths). source: am an annoying genealogist

rmbyrro 3y ago

wow, one year in jail just for trespassing or taking a photo and doing absolutely no damage. I wonder how much it costs to buy a legislature house. Can't we crowfund buying it to make "modern" farming illegal?

toolz 3y ago
I personally empathize more with the concerns of poor humans than I do mistreated animals and increasing food costs seems likely to increase their pain. I'll gladly wait for technology to improve the lives of animals, but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Enforcing ignorance is the answer? > but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively What about the activists who are motivated by a genuine belief that this is wrong and believe it's their life's work to raise awareness of the issue? Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?" Seems to be the combined wishes of the constituents. Same theory applies to most topics. You can see this in how different states poll on firearms (or abortion, etc) and the types of laws they have on that topic. As an extreme example, the same person can carry the same gun in two different states and be lawful in one and committing a felony in another without causing any damage simply because the values and beliefs expressed by the populations results in different laws. They might even qualify to carry lawfully in both states but are missing a piece of paper confirming it. That's how the laws works - break it and suffer consequences. Maybe it's worth it depeding on your moral convictions. Don't like it, then change the law. In the case of agricultural tresspass, the law is not likely to change in ID based on the current views of the population there.
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      In a representative democracy, the will of the population isn't so directly represented in the laws that are held. Given the role money and lobbying have in politics, there's no way to conclude that any given law has the broad support of the people vs "this isn't important enough for me to get worked up over vs issues that are more immediately pressing to me" or even "powerful economic powers are acting to sway the opinion of the general population". There's even [1] which adds credence to the idea that laws are passed by the will of the wealthy, not by the will of the constituents. Also immoral laws can be passed when the people in power are immoral. Immoral people can gain power through alternate ways than following the will of the constituents. More importantly, we have ideals and principles that supersede the will of the public. Arguably the most sacred ideal in America is the First Amendment with respect to protections about speech & this is pretty adjacent in that the law is criminalizing speech for something that should arguably be a civil matter at best. Laws like this are not dissimilar to passing a law protecting employers from employees trying to document unsafe working conditions. So the idea that the law is purely an expression of the wishes of the constituents is nice but not borne out in the structure of modern democratic governments, not borne out in practice because of how power & money intermix, & invalidated by the idea that we have principles that supersede the wishes of those constituents. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  [flagged]
- smileysteve 3y ago
  Your conclusions are all wrong. Beef is incredibly expensive in terms of costs of food, land, and water -- and in high density situations - rapid disease spread (and post consumption disease spread via cancer, metabolic, and heart disease) By promoting sustainable diets, mostly vegetarian with optional beef splurges - food costs decrease - food transport costs decrease - disease caused by diets decrease
- KittenInABox 3y ago
  Improving the lives of animals directly improves the lives of humans. Who do you think is eating them? Feeding them? Building their shelters and living near them? Slaughtering them and butchering them? Animal welfare is a public health issue. People have caught bird flu and died!
giantg2 3y ago
"wow, one year in jail just for trespassing" Many western states have much stricter views on property rights and trespassing than the coasts. The penalties are generally higher even if not dealing with this specific scenario. Even regular ID trespassing law can carry 6mo-1y jail time depending on the circumstances, etc. One often overlooked thing that isn't particularly applicable in this case is the biosecurity aspect involved in agricultural trespassing. Even trespassing in agricultural areas without taking pictures can carry higher penalties in many states.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  in other states, these penalties only exist for slaughterhouses, if you broke into a Beyond meat factory and filmed you wouldn’t be eligible for same penalties
  - giantg2 3y ago
    I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most of the agricultural trespassing, disruption, etc laws don't just apply to slaughterhouses, but also include the farms and such. Many states have general secret recording that apply to nearly all scenarios if you're referring to recording. If you're talking about just trespass, if you "broke" into a beyond meat facility you would in fact face similar penalties in other western states with similar property rights culture. I believe even the ID law would result in 6-12mo maximum jail if you broke into the factory (might even qualify as burglary with higher penalties depending on specifics).
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      Utah at least specifically only protected things like slaughterhouses. I am not familiar. The penalties in these laws are higher than just generic secret recording.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        I think both depend on which state. Do you have the law that prevents the recording in UT? I only see the tresspassing law. Which by the way, would appear to be a class B misdemeanor if it was agricultural land or if it was a building (same for both your examples).

merpnderp 3y ago

I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this? Because around here feedlots are only for finishing cattle and typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.

notesinthefield 3y ago
[flagged]
- pests 3y ago
  No one said that. They did not live the entire lives in the feedlot. Anything else, you read into.
  - neolefty 3y ago
    Probably responding to this from a parent comment: > Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    yes they did say that, we can all read
    - pests 3y ago
      They said they don't spend all their time in the feedlots... are you sure about that?
      - whimsicalism 3y ago
        > Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives ?
- toolz 3y ago
  There is no hypocrisy in cattle farming. No species on earth other than humans care about another species existence other than how it will benefit their own species. I'm not saying humans shouldn't be different, but there is no hypocrisy in keeping in line with every other species in the known universe.

walthamstow 3y ago

Money is speech, but photos are not apparently

earth-adventure 3y ago
A picture is worth a thousand words, so the voice of the industry would become too expensive (bribes, oh excuse me, lobbying and consulting) if the public can use pictures. Hence, pictures are forbidden.
tengbretson 3y ago
You should read the linked law. You may find it reasonable.
- walthamstow 3y ago
  Unless my understanding of 'misrepresentation' is incorrect, and I'm neither a lawyer nor an American, but I find the law to outlaw basic journalism, including and especially the below section which seems to specifically outlaw undercover journalism. What's reasonable about that? > (c) Obtains employment with an agricultural production facility by force, threat, or misrepresentation with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the facility’s operations, livestock, crops, owners, personnel, equipment, buildings, premises, business interests or customers;
  - tengbretson 3y ago
    If the definition of undercover journalism is simply lying about ones identity in order to publish secrets with the intent to cause injury to another party, then yes, absolutely, I'm in favor of outlawing it, and a 1 year max seems generous.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      There's a difference between publishing actual secrets and publishing evidence of someone breaking the law. We're seeing with Boeing what happens when law-breaking is swept under the rug for too long.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hollywood_court 3y ago

So that's the 'small government' I see so many folks talking about online.

bequanna 3y ago

I agree with you--feedlots are disgusting and cruel. However, cattle do not spend their "entire lives" at a feedlot. Usually only the last few months (or less) before slaughter. Prior to that, that majority of cattle live in very open and pleasant conditions.

barbazoo 3y ago

> Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam. And then being shoved into a truck, shipped who knows how many thousand miles to a butchering facility that does it for 3c cheaper and then end up in a line with all your peers to be killed in a horribly industrialized way. When I lived in central Europe there was a story about pigs or cows, I don't remember, being shipped to Morocco for butchering, imagine that! People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced. > And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1] Same in Canada. Very disappointing.

maleldil 3y ago
> People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced. No, because most people wouldn't care.

m3047 3y ago

I think what they're saying there is "I was just taking pictures... noooo, you will break my camera!!! you evil brute!" when you say GTFO is no defense. Not saying there aren't weird laws. Check the notions of boxed squares (miles) and airspace. Some of these need addressing at the federal level.