A Haunting Look at Downed Animals

Re “Last Frontier of Animal Rights? The Farm,” by Clifford Rothman on July 6: Rothman’s article and the picture of the bleeding cow on its knees haunted me all night.

Articles like this dignify a newspaper and make journalism a powerful tool to redress wrongs in parts of our society.

FINO CALAMARO

Pacific Palisades

*

Absolutely no one should be led to believe there is now a kinder and gentler meat industry in California. Sen. David Roberti’s tragically misguided downed-animal law has served only to perpetuate the painful exploitation of sick and injured farm animals. That is precisely why that law was actively opposed by literally thousands of conscientious animal rights activists.

A careful reading of that corrupted law reveals that it never requires euthanasia or veterinary care of any kind. That’s never.

The law allows sick and injured farm animals to be loaded onto trucks and taken to slaughter for human consumption.

BRADLEY S. MILLER

National Director

The Humane Farming Assn.

San Francisco

*

Former state Sen. David Roberti replies:

The California Downed Animal Protection Act, which became effective on Jan. 1, 1995, represents a wonderful example of dozens of animal protection organizations working together toward a common goal, helping animals. Groups ranging in scope from the ASPCA to the State Humane Assn. of California to local humane societies each played a role in passing California’s new downed-animal law. It is too bad that a group like the Humane Farming Assn. continues to actively criticize this effort.

As your July 6 article indicates, California’s new law is helping prevent intolerable animal abuse. Among other protections, the law requires that downed animals (animals too sick to walk) receive immediate attention, instead of being left to suffer for hours or days as was typical before the law went into effect.

Prior to the law, Farm Sanctuary documented dozens of downed animals left to suffer at stockyards, but since it has been in effect, the organization has found only three. Of these, two were immediately euthanized, and the third was rescued and taken to the organization’s shelter for farm animals.

DAVID ROBERTI

Los Angeles

*

Thank you, thank you for running Clifford Rothman’s story on the mistreatment of livestock. When cruelty is exposed, action can be taken to end it.

I hope the article will raise a question in the minds of some of your readers: Should those of us who are unwilling to look an animal in the eye, shed its blood and hear its cries be paying someone else to do it for us?

PHYLLIS ELLIOTT

Los Angeles

*

Anyone would be distressed by the condition of the cow described in your story. Responsible farmers care very much for their animals and do not want to jeopardize their livelihoods by mistreating animals.

But I am also concerned about the article’s implication that farm-animal abuse is widespread.

Statistics indicate otherwise, as the story noted. But the activist featured in the story was allowed to brush off those statistics as tainted. This sort of “conviction by anecdote” generates controversy and headlines without truly advancing animal welfare.

The California Farm Bureau Federation does not condone the mistreatment of animals. Our policy encourages aggressive efforts by the livestock industry to communicate the best modern animal husbandry and handling practices. It further states that non-ambulatory animals should be humanely transported to immediate slaughter or euthanized to prevent suffering.

RIA DE GRASSI, Director

Animal Welfare and Livestock

California Farm Bureau Federation

Sacramento