The only time anyone is going to be arrested for a photographing a farm is when they try to photograph one of the animal factories run by major agribusinesses. The business will call the police, the police will arrest the photographer using one of these laws so that the public won't be able to see how the animals are treated. That's the purpose of the laws - they were bought and paid for by the animal factories, not the little local farmer with a couple cows and some chickens.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh
Not sad, just a polite way of saying that there is no reason to argue with someone that can’t even base their position on their own first hand experiences.
I don't know much about bribing politicians and having laws made to stop people from watching you abuse animals.....but wouldn't it be cheaper to just build a 20 foot fence around the property so no one could see in?
That would be an awfully big fence. These places have a lot of property. Then you need to maintain the fence. And people to ride the fence and enforce the no trespassing. Conagra and the other giants have a lot of money and in the long run it is cheaper to let the police take care of it for them.
That was kind of a tongue in cheek remark Bob.
It's hard to deny the existence of factory farms when you can buy boneless skinless chicken breasts for $1.99 / lb., but there are more and more enlightened farming operations like this one.
If I was a real farmer I'd be all for the exposure of these factory farms - sure it turns a few people vegetarian but it also makes others more inclined to support their local family oriented farm.
Mike → "Junior Liberatory Scientist" ✌
Mark Bittman had an interesting opinion piece in the NYT a while back, advocating for fake, soy-based, "chicken" over industrial production. Lets face it, industrial chicken is bland and you have to assume it is toxic, nevermind the issue of suffering. For many purposes, one would never know/taste the difference.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/op...bittman&st=cse
Peter Y.
If this bill goes through then the American Society of Shoplifters should try to get CCTV cameras in shops banned and the Drunken Speeding Motorists Club should lobby against speed cameras.
Steve.
A couple of years ago I was doing a shoot for the local county economic development board. While photographing an empty hole in the landscape (site of a future Walgreens!) I had a cop come sliding up behind me (I was standing across from the site on a side road, no traffic at all).........he came rushing up excitedly demanding to know why I was photographing the construction site. I told I was shooting for the county and showed him a letter from economic development........he started muttering about 9/11 and stomped off back to his car.
I have told this story locally to a number of people in and out of the county government and every single one has justified his actions.
If it had been a farm I probably would have been shot.
"There are two dirty words in photography; one is 'art', and the other is 'good taste'." - Helmut Newton
I didn't say anyone took a bribe. Politicians are bought in more sophisticated ways these days. And no, considering the size of "the property" owned by large agribusinesses, I doubt that it would be cheaper.
There have been many articles written about the real purpose of these laws. Here's one you might find interesting relating to the Utah law.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/5...lands.html.csp
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks