I cannot take credit for this photo. It was taken by Alex Gibson, who now resides in Australia. These were my chickens when I lived at a farmhouse during graduate school at the University of Illinois.

I want to give a brief shout-out on a webinar presented by Elizabeth Rumley from the National Agricultural Law Center on the “Legal Issues in Animal Agriculture: Regulating Living Space.”  I had an opportunity to hear Elizabeth Rumley present during this online agriculture law class last year and she’s one smart cookie (she’ll be presenting again this year).  You can also read my previous post on the topic.

The webinar is on Thursday, May 10th from 12:00 – 1:00pm and costs $50.00.  You can register here.  Make sure to calendar a quick 45 min. lunch break so you can be back at your desk in time for this webinar on the local food movement with the American Bar Association (moderated by yours truly).

These were my beloved Holsteins during my masters at the University of Illinois. I used them for a research project on dry and wet distillers grain. I have to say, the dairy beef steers grew on me...

I have updated my New York Farm Animal Welfare Law Outline and you can view it now on JD Supra.  I highly recommend that livestock producers in New York have a general understanding of these statutes.  I highly recommend that every single farm in the state of New York have a good working relationship an attorney, veterinarian and Cornell University extension specialist.  Devise a defensive plan that works for you.  I recommend keeping accurate written records of health conditions, body condition scores, mobility issues, and noted improvements.  Know your rights and who to call when some unexpected visitors come knocking on the barn door.

In the words of Bob Dylan, “the times they are a changin.’”  But I wonder if farms, ranches and agri-businesses are keeping up with the changing times.  I recently read Don Tyler’s article in this month’s issue of the Feedlot magazine titled “Are Activists Courting Your Employees?”

Let’s face reality — livestock operations should be concerned of the possibility that animal activist groups will send undercover workers or prey upon cash-strapped workers to gather electronic evidence that may be used to harm the farm, ranch or feedlot.  Tyler recommends having an updated employee handbook implementing policies regarding social media, smartphones, reporting acts of animal abuse and discipline for silence, discipline for animal abuse, and tampering with business assets (e.g., seeds, feed, chemicals, farm equipment).

Not only do I recommend implementing policies for these issues, but I also recommend enumerating proper animal handling techniques in the employee handbook and periodically training employees on these techniques.  And for my readers that do not have an employee handbook:  ”Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200,” and go directly to an attorney’s office (who is licensed in your jurisdiction) to discuss whether it is appropriate for you to have an employee handbook.  For my beloved readers that do have an employee handbook, please take some time this week to consider whether it needs a “makeover” (or perhaps just a few tweaks) to address concerns.

I love monopoly. Must be my entrepreneurial spirit. Smart entrepreneurs protect their business and pay attention to details like employee handbooks.

If you haven’t done so already, I suggest reviewing the “Livestock & Liability” article by Lauren P. Caggiano (@lcagg on Twitter) on pages 32-34 in this issue of the Feedlot magazine.  In this article, I recommend that cattle feedyard operators seek counsel on environmental laws and perhaps hire a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (“CAFO”) consultant to devise a plan to ensure compliance with federal, state and local laws.  Additionally, I suggest keeping written records of animal handling techniques and education and be especially vigilent on hiring practices.  Furthermore, I also recommend that cattle feedlots should have an updated employee handbook and consider implementing a policy to deal with the usage of smartphones with video capabilities.  I also noted a few excellent resources in the article including the National Agriculture Law Center and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (“USDA”)  National Agriculture Library.

I found this great image at TwoEyeBalls.com. You can purchase a print by emailing emily@twoeyeballs.com.

This weekend I discovered that the National Agriculture Law Center has a helpful state-by-state analysis of animal cruelty laws in the United States.  Even though there are several federal statutes that regulate this issue, animal cruelty statutes vary significantly from state-to-state.  It is interesting to pull up the statutes in various states and run a comparison.

Though the National Agriculture Law Center works hard to make sure that the its resources are updated, before relying on the information posted in its Reading Room you are encouraged to speak to an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.  The law is ever-changing, particularly in the area of livestock animal cruelty law.  There likely is a proposed bill in your state right now on this issue as you read this blog.  Or, a judge in your state might be issuing a decision today that changes the law in your state.  Look at the website.  Use it as a resource.  But it cannot replace the guidance given by a licensed attorney who stays abreast of changes in animal cruelty law.

This photograph was taken at an American Junior Simmental Association Regional Classic.

Over the next few months I will be participating in an online animals and agriculture production law and policy course for attorneys coordinated by Prof. Drew Kershen from the University of Oklahoma, College of Law.  Prof. Linda Chezem, Elizabeth Rumley, Esq. & Rusty Rumley, Esq. will be co-teachers for the course.  The weekly course will discuss important animal agriculture law/policy issues including animal welfare/cruelty, animals used for scientific research, veterinary care, animal slaughter/harvest, U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) National Organic Program, livestock identification, food labeling, use of antimicrobials, food safety, land use and zoning concerns such as livestock sitting statutes, international trade, and the USDA Grain, Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (“GIPSA”) proposed regulations.

I am very excited for the course and I know it will be worth-while.  I hope to post information on this blog applicable to my readers so please stay tuned.  If you are an attorney and interested in participating in the course in the future please contact Prof. Drew Kershen at dkershen@ou.edu.

I am speaking today in Atlantic City at the New Jersey State Bar Association’s (“NJSBA”) Annual Meeting on a couple farm animal law issues.  One of the topics that I will be addressing today includes an overview of state legislation/regulation over the amount of space given to farm animals.

Seven states have had laws sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States (i.e., Florida, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, California, Maine, and Michigan) whereas nine states have had laws sponsored by the agricultural community (i.e., Georgia, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, Indiana, Utah, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama).  It was an interesting exercise to compare and contrast the existing confinement laws at the state level.

The timeline for these confinement laws is as follows:

2002:

Florida:  This was the first state to propose and pass a livestock confinement law in the United States via a ballot initiative for a constitutional amendment (55% in support).  The law prohibits confining/tethering a “pig during pregnancy” so that she cannot turn around freely.  Exceptions include:  (1) necessary veterinary care, and (2) sows/gilts who are seven days or less before due date (“pre-birthing period”).  Violations of this state law include imprisonment for one year or less and/or a fine no greater than $5,000.00.  The law became effective in November 2008 and to date there have not been any convictions under this law.

2006:

Arizona:  This was the first state to pass a law that covers the confinement of both veal calves and pregnant sows.  It also passed this law via ballot initiative (62% in favor).  The law proscribes confining or tethering veal calves or pregnant sows for “all or a majority of the day” by prohibiting animal from:  (1) lying down and extending limbs or (2) turning around freely.  Exceptions include:  (1) veterinary care, (2) pre-birthing period (7 days before due date), (3) scientific research, (4) transportation, (5) exhibition, and (6) harvest.  The law will go into effect on December 31, 2012.  Violations of this state law include imprisonment for six months or less and/or $2,500 maximum fine ($20,000 maximum fine for an enterprise).

2007:

Oregon:  This was the first legislatively passed statute in the U.S. and it applies to pregnant sows only.  The statute prohibits the confinement of a pregnant pig if the person “confines a pregnant pig for more than 12 hours during any 24-hour period in a manner that prevents the pregnant pig from: (a) Lying down and fully extending its limbs; or (b) turning around freely.”  Exceptions include:  (1) transportation, (2) exhibition, (3) harvesting, (4) scientific research, (5) veterinary care, and (6) pre-birthing period (7 days before due date).  The law doesn’t go into effect until January 1, 2012 and makes it a Class A violation punishable by a fine of $720 or less ($1,440 maximum for an enterprise).

2008:

Colorado:  This law in Colorado covers both veal calves and “confined pregnant” sows.  It makes it unlawful to prevent an animal from standing up, lying down and turning around without touching the sides of the enclosure.  Exceptions include:  (1) scientific research, (2) veterinary care, (3) transportation, (4) exhibition, and (5) harvest.  The effective dates for the law are January 1, 2012 (for veal calves) and January 1, 2018 (for sows).  Penalties include 3-12 mos. imprisonment and/or $250-$1000 fine.  Colorado may also include community service.

California:  Not only does this law apply to pregnant sows and veal calves but it also applies to laying hens (first state to do so).  This law passed by a ballot initiative (“Proposition 2″) with 63% of voters in support.  The law prohibits the prevention of an animal from lying down, standing up and fully extending limbs or turning around freely.  Exceptions include:  (1) scientific research, (2) veterinary care, (3) transportation, (4) exhibitions, (5) harvest, and (6) pre-birthing period (7 days before birth).  The law allows local governing body to adopt/enforce its own animal welfare law/regulations.  The effective date for this law is January 1, 2015.  In 2010, California passed a law that prohibits shelled eggs from being sold for human consumption in California if the farm is not in compliance with California’s animal care standard.  This law will go into effect on January 1, 2015 and imposes maximum imprisonment of 180 days or fine of $1000.  There are currently interstate commerce clause concerned on this particular law that is currently being examined.

2009:

Maine: This law applies to both pregnant sows and veal calves.  It makes it unlawful to prevent an animal from “[l]ying down, standing up and fully extending the animal’s limbs; and [t]urning around freely.” (emphasis added).  Exceptions include:  (1) scientific research, (2) veterinary care, (3) transportation, (4) exhibition, (5) harvest, and (6) pre-birthing period (7 days prior).  The law does not allow for an affirmative defense that the animal was kept in compliance with best management practices.  This law also allows for a local governing body to adopt and enforce its own animal welfare laws.  This law went into effect on January 1, 2011.

Michigan:  Michigan’s law applies to pregnant sows, veal calves, and laying hens and makes it unlawful to prevent the animal from lying down, standing up, and fully extending limbs or turning around freely.  More specifically, laying hens must have access to at least 1 square foot of floor space.  Exceptions include:  (1) scientific research, (2) veterinary care, (3) transportation, (4) exhibitions, (5) harvest, (6) pre-birthing period (7 days before).  Interestingly, a violation is a civil offense in Michigan (vs. criminal offense) allowing the Michigan Department of Agriculture to bring a civil action for injunctive relief.  The effective dates for the statute are October 1, 2012 (for laying hens and sows) and October 1, 2019 (for veal calves).

Oklahoma:  Oklahoma was one of the first states to have a response statute from the agriculture community.  Oklahoma’s law prohibits local governments (i.e., municipalities, counties, or political subdivisions of the state) from enacting/enforcing any “order, ordinance, or regulation concerning the care and handling of livestock within its jurisdiction.”  The law reserves the power for the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry to implement policies for animal handling/care.

South Carolina:  South Carolina’s law also prohibits local governments from enacting “ordinances, orders, or other regulations concerning the care and handling of livestock and poultry. . .” but reserves this right to laws enacted by the General Assembly and regulations promulgated by state agencies.  This law does not apply to land use and zoning regulations or nuisance suits related to agriculture operations (i.e., Right to Farm Act).

Georgia:  This law prohibits local governments from adopting or enforcing any ordinance, rule, regulation, or resolution regulating “animal husbandry practices involved in the production of agricultural or farm products on any private property.”  It effectively reserves this right to the state legislature.  Again, this law does not apply to land use and zoning regulations.

Ohio:  I previously blogged on this topic.  The constitutional amendment creates a “Livestock Care Standards Board” to govern “the care and well-being of livestock and poultry” in Ohio.  The Board is comprised of thirteen members:  (1) Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture, (2) a food safety expert, (3) two members from Ohio agriculture organizations, (4) a veterinarian, (5) the State Veterinarian, (6) the dean of The Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, (7) two members from Ohio consumer groups,  (8) a member of a county humane society organized under Ohio law, amd (9) three family farms (one appointed by the Governor, one appointed by the House, and one appointed by the Senate).   A unique prohibition– no more than seven board members may be from the same political party.  The Board has the authority to establish standards subject to the authority of the General Assembly.  The law requires that that Board consider agricultural best management practices for care and well-being, biosecurity, disease prevention, animal morbidity/mortality, food safety, and the protection of local/affordable food for Ohio consumers.  The Ohio Department of Agriculture has the authority to oversee and enforce the livestock care standards.  You can find both proposed and effective standards here.

2010:

Alabama:  This state also now prohibits local governments from adopting rules & regulations regulating animal husbandry and reserves this power to the State Veterinarian.

Indiana:  Indiana’s state code allows for the state board of animal health to “establish standards governing the care of livestock and poultry.”  When adopting the standards, the board should consider (1) the health and husbandry of the livestock and poultry, (2) generally accepted farm management practices, (3) generally accepted veterinary standards and practices, and (4) the economic impact on livestock/poultry farmers/sector and consumers.

Utah:  Utah has created an “Agricultural Advisory Board comprised on 14 members representing each of the following” groups:  (1)  Utah Farm Bureau Federation, (2) Utah Farmers Union, (3) Utah Cattlemen’s Association, (4) Utah Wool Growers’ Association, (5) Utah Dairymen’s Association, (6) Utah Pork Producer’s Association, (7) egg and poultry producers, (8) Utah Veterinary Medical Association, (9) Livestock Auction Marketing Association, (10)Utah Association of Conservation Districts, (11) the Utah horse industry, (12) the food processing industry, and (13) a consumer affairs group.  When establishing standards, the Board shall consider food safety, local availability/affordability of food, and acceptable practices for livestock and farm management.  Members of the Board will be appointed by the Commissioner and will hold a four-year term of office.

West Virginia:  In West Virginia, the legislature created a Livestock Care Standards Board comprised of thirteen members from the following groups:  (1)  Commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Agriculture (ex officio non-voting chairperson of the Board), (2) Director of the Animal Health Division (ex officio non-voting), (3) a veterinarian, (4) the Dean of the West Virginia University, College of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Design, (5) a member representing a county humane society that is organized under state law, (6) a food safety expert, (7) two West Virginia consumers, (8) two members representing West Virginia agriculture organizations –one of whom must be a member of the “largest organization in the state” and the other must be a member of a statewide livestock organization, and (9) three people representing family farms — at least two of whom are from a family farm.  Like Ohio, “[n]o more than seven members of the board may be of the same political party. . .”  The West Virginia Department of Agriculture will administer and enforce the standards established by the board.  The Board will have the power to establish standards governing the (a) care and well-being of livestock, (b) maintenance of food safety, (c) encouragement of locally grown food, and (d) protection of West Virginia farms and families.  When establishing standards, the Board will consider:  (a) best management practices, (b) biosecurity, disease prevention and mortality data, (c) food safety practices, and (d) the protection of local, affordable, food  supplies for consumers.

Louisiana:  Louisiana created a Board of Animal Health with the powers to establish standards for the care and well-being of livestock and poultry.  The Board shall consider the following factors:  (1) health and husbandry of livestock/poultry, (2) generally accepted farm management practices, (3) generally accepted veterinary standards and practices, and (4) economics for both livestock/poultry producers and consumers.  Local governments in Louisiana are also prohibited from adopting rules/regulations for animal husbandry reserving this power to the Commissioner of Agriculture.

Whew.  I’m tired.  Long blog post.  If you are still with me, my next question is this –what is next on the horizon?  Will more states adopt the Livestock Board framework?

There are several states with either proposed bills to create farm animal welfare boards or HSUS sponsored legislation to mandate space for farm animals.  The Animal Agriculture Alliance did a nice job with this summary on pending legislation at the state level (last updated in December 2010).  I would also like to note this pending bill on the federal level.

I would also like to encourage my readers to get involved in your state’s policy making.  You lose your right to complain when you sit on the sidelines.  For those of you who are in New York, please review this previous post on changing the law through involvement in New York Farm Bureau.  I also recommend speaking to law makers (or their aids) directly.

If you are seeking counsel on compliance with the confinement laws in your state, please contact an attorney licensed in that jurisdiction.  This post, or any other post on this blog, should not be construed as legal advice and is for informational purposes only.  These statutes impose serious civil/criminal penalties for violations so it is very important that you seek legal counsel regarding compliance with any of the aforementioned laws.

I took this picture during graduate school at the University of Illinois Beef Research Farm

I have previously noted on this blog my admiration for Dr. Temple Grandin as an animal scientist.  She truly is an extraordinary woman and has done so much for the livestock industry.  Last night, I was reading National Cattlemen’s Beef Association‘s (“NCBA”)Beef Issues Quarterly for Fall 2010 and on Page 23 there is a great interview with Dr. Temple Grandin.  I posted a few excerpts below that complement some of my previous posts/articles.

Dr. Jason Ahola:  Dr. Grandin, you’ve worked with the beef cattle industry on animal care and handling for years.  Can you tell me mroe about the changes you’ve seen over time?

Dr. Grandin:  Since I started out in the 70′s, I’ve seen a lot of improvements. * * * You see it in things like low-stress handling workshops; you didn’t have that before.  There’s a lot more awareness today.  The good sector of the industry- the people who are doing a good job-has expanded. * * * I feel very strongly about the industry’s communication with the public.  People in agriculture haven’t done a good job of communicating what they do.  I think ranchers need to be putting videos up on the Web of just the normal chores out on the ranch. * * *

I have previously raved of my love for social media on this blog (both as an attorney and agriculture woman) and how important “agvocacy” is both on- and off-line (but see this post regarding balancing technology and tradition).  In the last few years, we (the agriculture industry) keep hear how consumers want to “hear our story” — so much so that some of us are tired of hearing about how we need to “tell our story.”  But it is so important for the future of the agriculture industry.  When I have conversations with urban consumers in New York City do not like to buy meat products from “factory farms” I ask them what could be done to change their impression of the meat industry.  Time and time again I hear “I want to hear the story of the cattle producer who brings in his calf in the middle of the blizzard” or “I want to meet the sheep producers that care for their lambs on Christmas morning” or even “I want to understand that the animals are chickens being taken care of properly.”

I took this picture in the Sandhills of Nebraska while interning with the American Simmental Association

Not only can social media add transparency of your farm/ranch but it also helps generate a positive public image.  Livestock producers need to pay attention both to their brand/public image but also to their relationship with the consumer.  It can be one of the several necessary defensive moves against livestock animal cruelty charges.  For those of you who are just getting started with social media, I have posted the NCBA Young Producer Council (“YPC”) social media guides in this previous post.

Dr. Jason Ahola:  Based on your work and the changes you’ve seen, do you think animal welfare is a priority for cattle farmers and ranchers?

Dr. Grandin:  * * * I think we have to look at everything that we do and say, “If I brought my New York wedding guests out, what would they think?”  I can take people to our big packing plants here in Colorado and have them watch cattle going up the chute, and they say, “Wow, I just can’t believe they’re going so calmly up the chute.  This isn’t so bad.” * * * Simple changes to facilities . . . can make a huge difference.

I recently spoke to a group of livestock producers on livestock animal cruelty law in New York.  One of the recommendations that I gave to those folks were to walk/drive around their farm and make note of all the “broken windows.”  ”Broken windows” are the things that you see all the time but never notice.  I first heard this term from my pastor when I lived in Wyoming.  If a lay person from the public would come to your farm today, what would they see?  Are there any “broken windows” on your farm/ranch that need fixed to make sure you are putting your livestock operation with the best foot forward?  Are you participating in voluntary animal welfare programs and bragging about this involvement online?  Pay attention to public perception.  Make sure you are doing the “simple changes” to your facilities that make a big difference.

Dr. Jason Ahola:  Obviously you’ve seen the main concern for farmers and ranchers is proper care and welfare for animals.  I think the average farmer or rancher with a hundred head is also facing tough economic times.  What do you recommend for those folks as the single most important thing they should be doing to make a difference for animal care when working cattle?

Dr. Grandin:  Calm down.  You’ve got to calm down.  There are a lot of low-stress handling techniques but you can’t learn any of that stuff if you don’t calm down.  And then you’ve got to make sure that in the squeeze chute and coming out of the squeeze chute you’ve got non-slip flooring, because animals panic and fall down when they slip. * * * There are places for fancy things.  Large feedyards and large ranches where you have a lot of employee turnover is a place for fancy facilities.  But a small ranch can really make do with rudimentary facilities, especially if you calm down. * * *

What I love about this answer from Dr. Grandin is that #1 thing that cattle handlers can do from an animal welfare standpoint is to “calm down” and pay attention to their demeanor when working livestock.  This doesn’t cost a thing- maybe just a little more time for being calm and patient when cattle aren’t behaving the way they should.  Even so, I still recommend that livestock producers work with an extension specialist to make sure they are using the proper equipment and facilities to lower stress.  However, I love that Grandin points out that “calming down” is the most important animal handling technique.

For those of you who are NCBA members, I encourage you to read her full interview in your Beef Issues Quarterly.  She’s one brilliant woman with common sense and a heart for the livestock industry.  I was able to meet her for the first time last year at a book-signing in New York City.  She was a little confused how a cattle girl ended up in the Big City…

I have written blogs/articles and have spoken on livestock animal cruelty law in New York and my various recommendations for building a defense.  Among them, I recommend that livestock producers have an employee handbook in place that enumerates recommended animal handling procedures and regularly train employees on those procedures.  An employee handbook is not a contract but is instead a general guide to policies for that farm.

What animal handling guidelines should you use?  That depends on the laws of your state the specific needs of your organization.  You can use voluntary animal welfare programs as a starting point.  For example, I recently completed the Beef Quality Assurance program which included some recommended handling techniques for vaccinations and transportation.  For those of you who are cattle producers in New York, have you explored the New York State Cattle Health Assurance Program(“NYSCHAP”)?  I wrote a brief post on NYSCHAP here.

So when is the last time you updated your employee handbook?  Does it have enumerated animal handling procedures? I recommend working with your veterinarian, extension specialist and/or your attorney to make sure the employee handbook contains guidelines compliant with state and federal law.

I will be speaking at the New York Farm Bureau (“NYFB”) Farm Animal Welfare Symposium titled “Why Isn’t Good Care Enough?” in Syracuse on April 7, 2011.  The event is closed to NYFB members only.  Kay Johnson Smith, the Executive Vice President of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, will be the keynote speaker.  Other speakers on the panel include Steve Kopperud of Policy Directions Inc., Dr. David Smith from the New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets, Laura Harshbarger, Esq. from Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, and Kathy Finnerty from the New York State Cattle Health Assurance Program (“NYSCHAP”).  In preparation for the conference, I would love to hear from New York livestock producers regarding the farm animal welfare issues that are most important to them.  Please post your thoughts here or email me at cari@rinckerlaw.com.

As an aside, Happy National Ag Day!  Be an advocate for agriculture today and help spread the good word on the work that farmers, ranchers, and agribusiness folks are doing to give Americans the safest, highest quality, most affordable food in the world.