(not) why you should support SB1520

[Guest guest]

It is not accurate to say Senator Burton somehow " forced "

Sonoma Foie Gras to support SB1520, especially since they have on their

own initiative hired a lobbyist to push for the bill to be signed and

certainly have a choice in the matter. The reason they support the bill

is it will give them a monopoly on foie gras production for the next 7

1/2 years and save them money from having to fight APRL and IDA's

lawsuit. It is still better for the animals to have one small farm we can

continue campaigning against (and to have all foie gras sales and

production stopped after the phaseout) than having bigger farms set up

here and probably lose our lawsuit since judges typically uphold the

status quo.

It does a disservice to make disingenuous and illogical statements to

bolster the real reasons SB1520 is in the best interest of the animals

even though a small producer does happen to favor it too. I wouldn't go

forwarding the below message around unless you want to continue confusing

and upsetting people who want to see this cruelty stopped one way or

another.

-- Bryan

StopForceFeeding.com

At 09:08 PM 9/14/2004, you wrote:

lauren Sullivan

<waldenhdt

waldenhdt

Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:52:12 -0700 (PDT)

baarn

[baarn] Why you should support SB1520

WHY YOU SHOULD SUPPORT SB 1520: From the bill sponsors: Association

of

Veterinarians for Animal Rights, Farm Sanctuary, Viva!USA, LA Lawyers

for

Animals

Some animal activists may be confused about SB 1520 because two

animal

advocacy groups and a few individuals have been running advertisements

and

sending out alerts criticizing the bill and urging activists to oppose

it.

Please don’t be misled. SB 1520 may be the most important bill for

animals

that has come along in some time. Here are a few reasons that you

should

support SB 1520 and some responses to the misguided criticisms that

have

been raised against it.

1. SB 1520 will implement a complete ban on force feeding and the sale

of

foie gras. If SB 1520 is enacted, beginning in 2012 it will be unlawful

in

California to force feed ducks or geese to produce foie gras. What’s

more,

it will be illegal to sell in California foie gras that was produced

by

force feeding birds anywhere in the world. That means SB 1520 will

affect

not only California’s foie gras producers but foie gras producers

everywhere. SB 1520 will be the first law ever to ban both production

and

sale of foie gras. While a few other countries have banned force

feeding

within their borders, none has banned the sale of imported foie gras

produced by force feeding birds elsewhere.

2. SB 1520 will set an important precedent for animals. SB 1520 will be

the

first law in the United States to ban force feeding of birds to produce

foie

gras. This practice, up until now, has been an accepted farm animal

practice. SB 1520 will serve as a precedent not only for banning foie

gras

production in New York (the only other state in which foie gras is

produced;

a similar bill banning force feeding is currently pending there), but

also

for banning other common and cruel farm animal practices throughout

the

nation. For the first time, a legislature will have declared, contrary

to

the position of the agriculture industry which has been adopted in

some

states, that industry is not immune from anti-cruelty legislation and

does

not get to define what is or is not cruel treatment of farmed animals.

This

important precedent will even benefit animals outside the context of

farming

-- for example, research animals, since the research industry

regularly

makes a similar argument that it is immune from anti-cruelty

laws.

3. SB 1520’s phase-out period is unavoidable: While it is true that

SB

1520’s ban on force feeding and the sale of foie gras will not take

effect

until 2012, that is not a reason to oppose the bill. Unfortunately,

no

common farm animal practice has ever been banned anywhere in the

world

without a phase-out period. In fact, Europe’s ban on force feeding has

a

phase-out period of fifteen years. Sadly, legislators consider not only

the

interests of animals but also the interests of businesses that profit

from

abusing animals when they evaluate animal protection legislation. It

is

therefore extremely naive and unrealistic to think that a law banning

force

feeding will ever be enacted in California or anywhere else without

a

phase-out period. A ban with a phase-out period is far better than no ban

at

all. Furthermore, SB 1520's precedent-setting value will be realized

immediately. Foie gras production itself will be affected

immediately

because there will be a strong financial disincentive to establish new

foie

gras farms or to expand existing foie gras operations in California when

a

complete ban on force feeding will be going into effect within just a

few

years.

4. The foie gras industry will not succeed in overturning SB 1520. The

foie

gras industry may use the phase-out period to try to get SB 1520

repealed

should it become law. But, that is not a reason for animal advocates

to

oppose enacting the bill in the first place. It simply means our

public

education work is cut out for us. If we do our job right, and we will,

by

2012, more people than today will be aware of the cruelty of foie

gras

production. By that time, more laws banning force feeding will be in

place

in other countries and, hopefully, in New York, where the only other

foie

gras producer in the United States does business. It will be even

harder

then for the foie gras industry to justify itself than it is now.

Furthermore, getting a law repealed is an uphill battle under the best

of

circumstances. Repealing animal protection legislation is even more

difficult. As a prime example, consider industry's recent attempts to

repeal

the California law banning the sale of kangaroo products. Despite

tremendous

effort, industry failed three times. Californians and their legislators

are

extraordinarily reluctant to take protections away from animals once

the

protections have been granted. It is difficult to get laws

protecting

animals passed, but once they pass it is equally if not more difficult

to

repeal them.

5. SB 1520 is better than lengthy and uncertain litigation or a

ballot

initiative about the cruelty of foie gras production. Although SB

1520

immunizes foie gras producers from civil or criminal liability for

force

feeding until 2012, this is not a reason to oppose the bill, either.

The

immunity goes hand in hand with the phase-out period. By definition,

during

a phase-out period there is immunity from liability for engaging in

the

practice that will be actionable when the phase-out period ends. In

any

event, it makes no sense to oppose SB 1520 only to preserve the right

to

litigate whether force feeding violates existing anti-cruelty laws.

Litigation is extremely precarious and uncertain, and it typically

takes

many years to complete the litigation process. SB 1520 ensures a

complete

ban on force feeding by a certain date, something no litigation can

promise.

That is why the animal activists who have a pending lawsuit against

Sonoma

Foie Gras, California’s only foie gras producer, are supporting SB 1520

even

though it will prevent them from continuing with their case. They know

the

bill is better for animals. In this particular case, their lawsuit is

even

more uncertain than is normal in litigation because Proposition 64,

which

will be on the November ballot, threatens to take away their legal right

to

proceed with the suit. In other words, regardless of what happens

with SB

1520, if Proposition 64 passes the pending lawsuit against Sonoma Foie

Gras

will be dismissed, and it will no longer be possible for anyone other

than a

government prosecutor to ask a court to declare that its force

feeding

practices are cruel. The local district attorney has already

declined to

prosecute Sonoma Foie Gras despite being presented with extensive

evidence

about the cruelty of force feeding and there is no reason to think he

will

change his decision. Similarly, although a ballot initiative

banning foie

gras would be wonderful, getting an initiative on the ballot and

then

getting it passed is an extremely difficult and expensive process and

there

is no guarantee of success.

6. Sonoma Foie Gras is supporting SB 1520 because it has no choice.

That

Sonoma Foie Gras has removed its initial opposition to SB 1520 and is

now

supporting the bill does not mean the bill is good for Sonoma Foie Gras

and

bad for animals. Obviously, Sonoma Foie Gras would prefer that there not

be

a law that bans force feeding. But Senator Burton forced Sonoma

Foie Gras

to remove its opposition in exchange for getting a limited phase-out

period

added to the bill.

 

7. The language of SB 1520 was carefully drafted to protect

animals: SB

1520’s few critics have attacked the bill because of language that was,

in

fact, very carefully chosen to protect animals. This highlights the

fact

that their attacks are ill considered. For example, activists have

been

urged to oppose the bill because of an amendment that omitted language

that

the critics say would have helped those in the foie gras production field

to

find other employment. In fact, that language was proposed by

Sonoma Foie

Gras and would have required that public funds be used to assist Sonoma

Foie

Gras and its workers, in most cases by retraining them to perform

other

menial tasks in the animal-abusive agriculture industry. The

language was

omitted because of the insistence of the bill’s sponsors to ensure that

your

tax money is not spent on subsidizing Sonoma Foie Gras and training

its

workers how to continue abusing animals.

8. All the major animal protection groups across the country support

SB

1520. Only two animal advocacy groups Humane Farming Association and

Friends

of Animals, and a few individuals have gone on record opposing SB 1520.

By

contrast, the following groups, spanning the spectrum from moderate to

what

some may consider extreme, have explicitly endorsed the bill: Association

of

Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR), Farm Sanctuary, Viva!USA,

Los

Angeles Lawyers for Animals, The Humane Society of the United States

(HSUS);

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA); The

Fund

for Animals; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA); In

Defense

of Animals (IDA); American Anti-Vivisection Society; United Poultry

Concerns; Last Chance for Animals; Animal Protection Institute (API);

Animal

Legislative Action Network; California Lobby for Animal Welfare;

United

Animal Nations; Animal Place; The Paw Project; Animal General

Hospital;

Gourmet Cruelty, Compassion Over Killing, Vegan Outreach and Vegan

Action.

 

Viva!USA

www.vivausa.org

PO Box 4398

Davis, CA 95617

530/759-8482

530/759-8487 fax