|
ARKANSAS
CATTLEMEN’S ASSOCIATION OPPOSE PASSAGE OF
INITIATED ACT 1.
The Arkansas Cattlemen's
Association (ACA) has grave concerns as to the wording of the animal
cruelty initiative. “Arkansas family farmers are the first to come to the
defense of animals” according to Al Wright ACA president and cattle farmer
from DeQueen. “However, this bill is misleading and will lead to farmers
having to defend themselves in court, instead of doing what they do best
and that is feed this country.”
The problem family
farmers and ranchers have with Proposed Initiated Act 1 (or the animal
cruelty bill) is that it contains a huge gray area when it comes to animal
agriculture. According to Wright, “the so-called exemptions are more of an
affirmative defense.” The bill states, “Routine, accepted
livestock-management practices are exempt.” What concerns the ACA is that
the bill doesn’t clearly define what is “routine and acceptable.”
Furthermore, the bill doesn’t state who gets to determine what is “routine
and acceptable” and it doesn’t explain how a practice becomes acceptable
or unacceptable.
“We feel this bill
leaves Arkansas family farmers unprotected against out-of-state radical
animal rights groups such as the ones that are funding this initiative,”
stated Wright. According to figures from reports filed with the Ethics
Commission through July 15, 2002 more than 77% ($50,000) of monetary
contributions were donated by two radical animal rights groups, which are
headquartered in New York and Washington DC.
The support from the
radical animal rights group “Humane Society of the United States” (HSUS)
is a major cause of concern. “There is no doubt that HSUS is against
family farmers raising livestock,” states Claude Smith, Executive Vice
President of the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association.
“We want the citizens of
Arkansas to know that a vote against this bill is not a vote against
animals; instead it is a vote for Arkansas family farmers.” Smith went on
to say “It is our intent to help educate the public concerning the way
this particular bill is written. Once the bill is defeated, the Arkansas
Cattlemen's Association will work with the state legislature to come up
with a new bill that will protect animals and Arkansas family farms.”
# # #
The Arkansas Cattlemen’s
Association represents the more than 30,000 cattle farmers and ranchers
across the state of Arkansas.
For
more information, contact Claude Smith, 501-224-2114,
tubby@arbeef.org or visit
www.arbeef.org |
CITIZENS
FOR A HUMANE ARKANSAS SUPPORT PASSAGE OF
INITIATED ACT
1.
In the wake of recent allegations about potential misapplication of The
Arkansas Animal Cruelty Act (Proposed Initiated Act 1) and a vote of
opposition from the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, two retired
Arkansas Supreme Court justices are speaking out.
“Act 1
has been very carefully drafted to protect farmers and hunters from the
kind of absurd interpretations mentioned in the arguments made against its
passage,” said David Newbern, who served on the Court from 1985 through
1998. “Act 1 limits interpretation of it by specifically exempting
routine agricultural practices and by providing a hunting and fishing
exemption which was actually drafted by the Game and Fish Commission Legal
Staff.”
“The
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission explains its eleventh hour opposition to
the Animal Cruelty Act on the grounds that by taking a deer out of season
or shooting one duck over the limit, the offender could be prosecuted for
a felony,” said Steele Hays, a member of the
Court from 1980 through 1994. “It is inconceivable there would be
any such attempt for the taking of game, legally or illegally, by
conventional means. The Animal Cruelty
Act is aimed at deliberate, malicious cruelty to animals, which Arkansas
hunters, farmers, and naturalists would be the first to condemn.”
“Opponents of Act 1 cannot name one person in the 37 states that have such
a law who has been charged or convicted as they suggest might happen
here. I do not believe the "scare tactics" being used by the opponents of
Act 1 will frighten Arkansas voters,” added Newbern.
Initiated Act 1’s farming exemption excludes “routine accepted livestock,
poultry, or aquaculture management practices.” This exemption is based on
terminology already established in existing Arkansas law.
"Routine accepted
livestock management practices" is listed in Arkansas Code Annotated
17-101-307(b)(3) and (5) as activity excluded from the requirements to
obtain a veterinary license.1
Act 1’s
exemption protecting hunting, fishing, and other game and fish activities
was provided to the Act 1 campaign in an Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
(AGFC) memo dated September 25, 2001.2 In the memo, AGFC
General Counsel James Goodhart recalls similar exemption language included
in cruelty legislation by Rep. Jim Wood at the Commission’s request in the
1999 and 2001 sessions. Mr. Goodhart then writes to AGFC Director Hugh
Durham, “I have noted (and highlighted) that the draft initiated act
submitted to you by Mr. Poole contains a very similar exception (although
not identically worded) for AGFC-administered activities as was included
in the bills previously sponsored by Rep. Wood. That being the case, Jim
Watson and I express no objection to the initiated act. The act itself
essentially would do what Rep. Wood sought to accomplish in the previous
failed legislation attempts. However, we would recommend that you point
out to Mr. Poole that the language of the exception should be modified
slightly to read:
Engaging in the lawful taking of game or fish, or any other activity
authorized by Amendment 35 of the Arkansas Constitution, Chapters 41
through 46 of Title 15 of the Arkansas Code, and or any
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission regulations promulgated thereunder.”
Immediately after receiving the above referenced memo, the Act 1 campaign
incorporated the AGFC Legal Division’s suggested language into the
initiative exactly as proposed by their General Counsel.
The Arkansas Animal Cruelty Act seeks to establish a Class D felony
penalty for knowing acts of animal torture, mutilation, maiming, burning,
and poisoning, and for malicious acts of killing, starvation, or
disfigurement. The measure would also make all forms of human-instigated
animal fighting (including cockfighting) a Class D felony. 37 states
currently have felony penalties for extreme acts of animal abuse.
#
# #
NOTES 1 and 2: Copies of the existing livestock exemption language in
A.C.A. 17-101-307 and the Game and Fish Commission memo are available via
fax upon request. Phone (501) 455-9661, Fax (501) 455-2269
For more information,
contact, Lyndon Poole Citizens for a Humane Arkansas, P.O. Box
30340, Little Rock, AR 72260
www.humanearkansas.org |
