So I’ve been sparring with Mike Barnett of the Texas Farm Bureau in the wake of the Conklin Dairy Farm abuse scandal. It’s good natured sparring, of course (I am a firm but well-mannered luchador), because, while we disagree on a great deal, I did truly appreciate his post titled Zero Tolerance for Animal Cruelty.
I was struck by the piece because Barnett said exactly what needed to be communicated to his industry in the wake of the Conklin Dairy news breaking. He said it just when ag professionals usually go into their defensive crouch or start “handwaving,” that is, making irrelevant arguments in hopes that consumers will look away from the horrible truths in front of them. From Mike Barnett’s terrific post:
Already I can hear the industry’s defense. “There are a few bad actors…” “We have industry initiatives to train livestock producers…” “We have scientific standards for animal care…”
All of that is true. Those are arguments I’ve used myself. I wholeheartedly agree with each of them. But it doesn’t matter.
What matters are the horrible images of animals being mistreated by depraved and sadistic human beings who are part of agriculture.
Spot on. It was refreshing to hear this from someone at a state Farm Bureau of all places, those entrenched bunkers of US agriculture. This is exactly what the Farm Bureau should be doing in this moment — not advocating for and defending farms at large as if they were lawyers, but taking a stand and going after the Conklins who’ll ruin the name of good farmers nationwide. Indeed, what consumers want from ag right now is an Al Pacino moment from And Justice for All, where the righteous defense attorney goes after the monster he was assigned to defend.
Unfortunately, it’s not really in ag’s DNA to go after their own (unlike the organic side of the fence where we freaking relish the opportunity to pigpile on bad actors). Couldn’t the Farm Bureau start a petition to ask for stricter sentencing of Billy Joe Gregg, the accused abuser at Conklin Dairy? Couldn’t they call for a letter writing campaign calling for a revocation of owner Gary Conklin’s license to sell milk in Ohio? They could, and it might be a smart PR maneuver, but I can just hear uncomfortable wincing and coughing coming from the Farm Bureau about that plan.
Instead, ag’s knee jerk response is to shoot the messenger when these horrid videos come to light. Both Mike Haley and Ray Prock Jr., two self-described “agvocate” farmers whom I would call pals of mine (via Twitter), took the opportunity recently toexpress their horror at the Conklin events, but also to go after Mercy for Animals and the videographer who captured the sadistic abuse on camera. I don’t think either one did this out of a desire to propogandize or “spin,” but, rather, out of outrage that the camera person didn’t stop the sadism. That’s a reasonable position, but it swims upstream against the public’s desire for justice and, instead, comes off as messenger shooting. Indeed, even Mike Barnett started taking aim at the videographer in the comments of his blog, calling the MFA video “gotcha propaganda” (I called it “citizen journalism” — we agreed to disagree). Outside the inner circle of agricullture, I do believe that MFA videographer is considered a hero, so I’d be very careful about villifying him or her.
(I would love to have readers of this blog offer their opinions on that in the comments below. Was that video “gotcha propaganda” or “citizen journalism”? Should the videographer have stopped the abuse or kept on filming?)
If ag is truly interested in ending animal abuse on its own, without government regulation, then they’ll need to take a different tact from messenger shooting in the future, a tact more like Mike Barnett advises in his blog post when he says:
“Let the livestock industry take the lead in making an example of [animal abusers]. We-as an industry and as individuals-must be out front in making it known that these actions will not be tolerated. Animal abuse is wrong. And it must be stopped.”
Farm Bureau, don’t rely on press releases and sound bytes. Get your media teams to consider how best to truly “take the lead” and “make an example” of animal abusers before the next piece of citizen journalism/gotcha propaganda surfaces on YouTube.
Because I don’t think you’ll like the alternative.
~
By the way, the photo above is a crappy cell-phone shot I took of a billboard that just went up 5 blocks from my house. I believe the billboard went up right afer the Conklin news broke.
Thanks for your fair representation of my blog comments.
I’ll not rehash our sparring (good natured, of course!) on my blog: http://www.txfb.org/TxAgTalks/post/2010/05/26/Zero-tolerance-needed-on-animal-abuse.aspx
But I would like to comment on our differences on “citizen journalism” and “gotcha propoganda.”
From what I read the MFA videographer filmed many hours of abuse. The abuse occurred over a four week period. Why not document one or two instances of abuse, turn it over to the authorities, and bring the abuse to an immediate end?
Instead, the videographer continued filming this extreme, sadistic example of animal abuse. The dairy cows and calves continued to suffer as the videographer by his very action encouraged (yes, encouraged…the guys knew they were being filmed…at least parts of the film indicate that) the abuse. The resulting footage is featured prominently on the MFA website. It is used by MFA in an attempt to raise funds. It is used by MFA to promote their cause, which is “rejecting dairy, and other animal products, and adopting a vegan diet.”
Citizen reporting? I don’t think so. MFA is using an isolated incident to tarnish a whole industry. That’s “gotcha propoganda.”
BTW: Unless you readers get the wrong idea of where I’m coming from: Animal abuse is wrong. Abusers should be condemned by the industry. And as I said in my blog, lock them up and throw away the key.
Mike Barnett
One or two incidents caught on tape would garner 1 or 2 misdemeanors under current Ohioan animal cruelty laws, assuming the videographer “got lucky” and was able to catch egregious examples of sadism on camera. If the person caught on camera was convicted and the judge handed down the maximum fine (again, not a sure bet), at 90 days per violation, that’s just 90-180 days in jail.
As is, Billy Joe Gregg, the only person arrested in this case, has just 12 misdemeanors against him. In my mind, that’s terribly light for the serial killer glee that young man expressed in describing his delight for hurting the animals. (Glad they also got him on a weapons charge — that’s a felony. Big kudos to the cops on that one).
So put yourself in that videographer’s position. Imagine being undercover. You’ve seen with your own eyes that sadistic abuse is rampant on that dairy, that even the owner takes part in it. Do you go to the authorities after one or two incidents? Or do you keep filming until you feel like you’ve got enough to shut down the whole operation?
Because even with 20 hours of thoroughly damaging footage, owner Gary Conklin is still free and the dairy hasn’t lost any business licenses. What would it take?
And you advocate for less footage? Less evidence? I really don’t understand your point of view, I have to say.