Horses and the Law

About Milt

Milt Toby is an author and attorney with a lifelong interest and involvement in the horse industry. He grew up showing American Saddlebreds, then switched to hunters, dressage, and combined training. He was an American Horse Shows Association steward at some of the country’s largest horse shows, and he has been to the races on six continents. Milt’s sixth book, Dancer’s Image: The Forgotten Story of the 1968 Kentucky Derby, was published recently by The History Press. His earlier books include The Complete Equine Legal and Business Handbook and Ruffian. Milt is a past Chair of the Kentucky Bar Association’s Equine Law Section. His website is www.miltonctoby.com.

It’s difficult to gauge the effectiveness of clandestine videos and photographs when it comes to curbing abuse of animals at vast factory farms and at slaughter facilities, and as with most questions, the answer depends on who you ask. Animal welfare advocates use the images as proof of what they say are systemic problems; industry supporters claim that the whistle-blowers are picking on an unrepresentatively small sample of offenders.

There can be little doubt, though, that these images have raised public consciousness of a serious problem. And it’s equally clear that videos and photographs of deplorable conditions at equine slaughter facilities helped shape public opinion regarding the slaughter of horses for human consumption in this country.

Many of these disturbing images were made by animal welfare advocates working undercover, often posing as employees, without permission of the animal facility owners. Undercover reporting may have gained prominence with the growth of television in general and the popularity of 60 Minutes in particular, but the tradition is more than a century old, starting with Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. Published in 1906 and still in print, The Jungle offered a scathing expose of the meatpacking industry in turn-of-the-century Chicago. Public outrage over Sinclair’s revelations led to passage of the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. The Food and Drug Administration grew out of the latter.

It’s difficult to drum up much sympathy for the operators of huge factory farms and slaughter houses, unless you mix the words "money" and "legislators" in the same sentence. Pending in at least three states—Iowa, Florida, and Minnesota—is legislation that would criminalize undercover investigations in any animal facility. Not surprisingly, some of the heavy hitters in the commercial agriculture industry (including the Farm Bureau and trade associations representing pork, cattle, poultry, soybean, and corn producers, according to the New York Times) are supporting the bills.

It’s impossible to put a positive spin on images of animals being abused, and the proposed legislation eliminates the need to try. The bills put undercover investigators in the same class as eco-terrorists and also target organizations—mainly animal welfare groups—that distribute the reporting. Hiding animal abuse problems rather than solving them seems to be the legislative purpose.

Why these attempts to throttle undercover investigations and whistle-blowers should matter to people who care about horses is simple: insulating factory farms and slaughterhouses may be the primary goal, but the legislation paints with a much broader brush. "Any animal facility" arguably includes horse farms, equine rescue facilities, race tracks, and show grounds. We’ll enter a dark age if welfare advocates who disclose abuse of horses and the organizations who distribute those reports become criminals.

Should the law protect businesses and individuals from public scrutiny if disclosure of animal abuse threatens their bottom line?

Equine Law Meeting

The 26th Annual National Conference on Equine Law will be held in Lexington, Kentucky, on May 4-5. The conference will attract attorneys from across the country for case law and legislative updates as well as presentations on drafting equine contracts, collection of judgments, liability, the Thoroughbred auction process, recreational land use, copyright law and equine photography, WEG legal issues, taxes, and estate planning. Check out Horses and the Law later this week for blogs from the conference.

Filed under:

Comments

That is absolutely disgusting.  Talk about "big business" trying to hide what they're REALLY up to.

Those laws need to be squashed.  

It reminds me of the law that is ALSO trying to be pushed through that makes it illegal to video bestiality for any reason.  It would stop people from gathering evidence.



NotABreed 03 May 2011 3:39 PM

Wow, talk about an article with a "spin" in favor of animal RIGHTS groups, not animal WELFARE groups--BIG difference. For a would-be AR infiltrator to take many hours of footage in order to get a few minutes of carefully chosen sensational problems, and use that to condemn the whole animal industry, is what is at issue here. In addition, these AR infiltrators often *encourage* abuse by those who they find are easily influenced, so they can film it, and some even *participate* in it--and they are not prosecuted as criminal animal abusers themselves? What's wrong with this picture? Sorry, but the AR "industry" and AR terrorists are going too far in their attempt to paint animal industries as abusive money-grubbers only. When you think of the AR philosophy that one should not use animals at all, and certainly not eat them, then what they *really* think is that ANY use of animals is abuse--but the public wouldn't buy that, so the AR terrorists use nefarious BIG LIE propaganda to sway the public into questioning whether animal industries care about their animals at all. THE FACT IS, there are a whole lot of better ways to make money than in an animal industry--Wall Street executives could attest to that--and the vast majority of those involved in animal industries care very much for the animals with which they deal. Of course, if the attitude is no use of animals, it's a no-win with the AR fanatics, is it? The question then becomes, ARE WE GONNA LET ANIMAL RIGHTS *TRUE BELIEVERS* INFLUENCE LEGISLATION AND MAKE OUR LAWS TO CONTROL OUR FOOD SUPPLY ACCORDING TO THEIR IDEOLOGY? Not this American!



Marcy 03 May 2011 4:25 PM

After all that has been publicized, the industry's answer is to sweep it all under the carpet and pretend that it's all clean and pretty - and then call it "all the same across the board"?  NOT good.

It's clear that the intent of this legislation is to remove all transparency (authorized or not) from livestock operations.  However, while there is such a thing as the right to conduct one's business as one pleases, there is also the greater concept of social morals: where we stand, as a society, on certain principles.

Since both animal-keeping and slaughter are, by their nature, activities in which abuse and cruelty are never far off, it's doubtful that the entire industry should ever be allowed to exist without public accountability.  Now, to accomplish this, someone needs to get off their duff and actually go out in the field, examining various facility types and, taking into account the history of such facilities and opinions of all involved parties, assigning standards to such places.  A dairy farm's requirements are not the same as those of a horse breeding or boarding farm.  HOWEVER - welfare, health and safety of the animals must always come first.  This means that the inspectors must be knowledgeable, educated individuals with a deep awareness of industry needs combined with understanding of and, most important, COMPASSION for the animals involved.  It's very easy to just tar everyone with the same brush and say "all animal facilities" - but it's not RIGHT.

Theoretically, no-one can stop an individual from keeping or slaughtering an animal in his back-yard in any way they choose.  If someone sees them, that may be a different issue.  However, when a consumer's money is involved, whether it be spent on horse board, a good steak or a pair of pig-skin gloves, that consumer should have the right, IMHO, to exert an influence on how any product is delivered - and to know that a specific set of rules and regulations, carefully studied and applied, dictates the minimum standard at which THAT product must be delivered.  If I pay board, I want to know what kind of care my horse receives and reserve the right to show up at the barn to visit my horse and check up on him.  If I buy milk, meat or leather, then I reserve the communal right to appoint public representatives, who will inspect the facilities where the animals are kept and slaughtered.

So, what does this come down to?  PEOPLE.  EDUCATION.  MONEY spent on both of those by the government.  Willingness to understand that just because you have the right to do something, does not mean that doing it is right.  Realizing that money does not buy a clear conscience.



Sarah 03 May 2011 6:28 PM

Cruelty turned me into a vegetarian. All cruelty is crime and should be punished no matter where,when, or by whom whether in agriculture or research or any place else. The Humane Slaughter Act has not been enforced the way it should be and the government is at fault. Factory farming is cruel to begin with since animals do not have "elbow room". I stopped eating pork after seeing a photo of the inside of a hog barn on the cover of Progressive Farmer magazine. The pigs did not even have room to turn around. If the government was doing its job they would be secretly filming and documenting cruelty every place it might be and putting the perpetrators behind bars.  Agribusiness lies and having raised and owned many different kinds of animals(horses,dairy & beef   cattle,goats,sheep,chickens,ducks, guineas,geese and various pets) I know what is true and what is not. Cruelty wastes lives and meat and money. They would not need to recall any meat or have any dark cutters if they were doing everything right. Many people have become ill or died because of shortsighted greed and stupidity and it will get worse if the law helps them to get away with cruelty and neglect. The Animal Welfare Act should be strengthened and enforced to protect all animals so others will not need to do their job. It needs to include providing every animal with room to move around.



Elaine 03 May 2011 7:14 PM

I remember about 10 years ago I was working as a journalist in the horse industry. The Humane groups  wanted to buy staged photos of animal cruelity.  They were paying big bucks for film makers to stage photos of animal cruelity.  When the animal rights were asked why they were using bogus film they said it was to lie to Americans.  Dont believe ANYTHING you see from them.  I plan to release a book about the bylaws the animal rights groups are operating under.



Julie 04 May 2011 3:33 PM

Not a Breed,

Do you really expect anyone to believe your statement that animal rights groups encourage abuse? Please explain how this article is in favor of animal rights groups, and what the difference is that makes it not in favor of animal welfare groups.  What does it matter how many hours of footage is filmed to capture a few minutes of cruelty and abuse and those few minutes are chosen for exposure? If abuse is taking place in a facility and a few minutes of it are caught on video, no doubt it's happening throughout all the hours that aren't being filmed. However, if there is no abuse taking place and the facility has nothing to hide, no footage of cruelty would ever be exposed.   If facilities have nothing to hide they would not need to fear anyone filming from any animal rights or animal welfare groups, and they wouldn't be spreading misinformation and propaganda or labeling animal rights and animal welfare groups as terrorists.

Groups promoting horse slaughter claim that anyone who fights against the slaughter of horses is an animal rights terrorist.  It's ridiculous that horse owners who care about their horses and don't want to see them brutally slaughtered for their meat and served as a gourmet meal overseas, are being called terrorists for trying to protect horses from horse slaughter, which is an inhumane, barbaric and cruel injustice to America's horses.  We don't eat our horses in America and there is no market for horse meat in the U.S.  

There’s no reason horse owners who are trying to uphold the values and standards of our American culture should be called terrorists for trying to protect horses from horse slaughter.  However, because those in the animal agriculture industry cannot justify or defend the abuse of horse slaughter or any other crimes of animal abuse in animal factories and slaughter facilities, they have resorted to calling anyone who opposes them, terrorists, and now they're hoping to make it illegal for anyone to film them committing an abuse crime and attempting to expose it, leaving them completely unaccountable for any crimes committed.  

The lack of integrity and morals from the animal agriculture industry and especially the animal factory and facility operators who fear getting caught for violating the rules and regulations for their methods of operation and treatment of animals is blatantly obvious, but it completely defies logic that any legislator in the US, federal or state, would ever consider any legislation that helps any industry hide any crime of abuse.  

There's absolutely no justification for it.



Valerie 06 May 2011 6:37 AM

Another excellent example of why corporations need to be reined in. INC's are NOT living enities and do not deserve the same or more rights then living beings, people or otherwise. They are public corporatiosn so I find it hard to see how any of this is undercover. Buy a share of stock,show up and demand as a owner to inspect the facility. There should never be any examples of abuse, ever. If the employee can be influnced to break the law to abuse a animal then it wont stop with them at animal abuse. Fire them. You dont like undercover investiagions then dont give anybody a reason to have to do it. LAck of profit should be a reason to leave them alone? what kind of demented thinking is that?



Mustang Man 06 May 2011 1:18 PM

As a horse(s) owner and raise-on-the-farm gal, I support the right to film animal abuse, no matter who is doing it. When the big corporations got into farming back in the 60's, things started to go down hill. They are all about making a profit and who cares if an animal suffers. This is wrong now and always has been. I oppose horse slaughter in any form for any purpose. As far as the Farm Bureau, they have been a joke for a long time. No longer do they support the small, family farm. Mr. Toby, The Jungle was required reading for my college English class. Too bad it still isn't.



Maggie 06 May 2011 3:29 PM

Although I detest sensationalistic 'yellow journalism' I detest censorship and fascism even more.  Anyone with some level of intelligence should be able to see the intent of these types of laws are to protect the perpetrators of animal abuse and exploitation from public scrutiny.  There are already laws on the books that prohibit the admission of falsified evidence in both civil and criminal proceedings.  There is absolutely NO justification for this type of legislation other than to protect the 'guilty'.  One by one American liberties and 'freedoms' are being systematically removed in the name of national security and societal stability.  Sadly such are indicators of a diseased and decadent society...

~"In fact, if one person is unkind to an animal it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once large sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people." - Ruth Harrison, author~



DarrellC 06 May 2011 4:19 PM

Pingback from  Updated: National and local media coverage of proposed ban on humane undercover investigations | Minnesota Voters for Animal Protection



06 May 2011 5:43 PM