District attorney says he needed undercover video to make calf abuse case

The district attorney who filed animal cruelty charges against employees and the owner of a large-scale calf-raising farm this week says he probably “wouldn’t have a case” if not for covert video provided by an animal protection group.

Castro County DA James R. Horton said that without the footage from Mercy for Animals (MFA) “we wouldn’t have anything” in terms of evidence against the suspects in the beating deaths of dairy calves at E6 Cattle Co. in Hart, Texas.

During a two-week period in March, an MFA undercover investigator obtained footage and photographs of workers at E6 bludgeoning and stomping calves to death.

Armed with the images from MFA, Horton charged five workers at the facility with state jail felonies on charges of cruelty to livestock/animals. E6 owner Kirt Espenson and foreman Arturo Olmos face Class A misdemeanors for cruelty to livestock, according to a spokeswoman in the district attorney’s office.

Proposed legislation would outlaw undercover videos of animal abuse

Over the past year lawmakers in three states—Florida, Minnesota, and Iowa—introduced bills that would restrict or prohibit covert videos and photography at animal use facilities.

The bills failed to pass in Florida and Minnesota. The Iowa bill, House File (HF) 589, passed the General Assembly's House and is now pending in the Senate. It would allow for felony convictions, fines, and imprisonment with penalties stiffer than those imposed for the abuse itself, according to Sen. Matt McCoy, who opposes the proposed legislation.

“A person is guilty of animal facility interference,” states the bill’s description on the Iowa legislature’s website, “if the person acts without the consent of the owner of an animal facility to willfully… produce a record which reproduces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility…” or “…possesses or distributes a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility…”

Q&A with Castro County District Attorney James R. Horton

ANIMAL POLICY REPORTER (APE): I’m wondering if you have any feelings one way or another about the type of legislation that would prohibit undercover videos of the kind that was shot in this case.

JAMES HORTON: I don’t know anything about that sort of thing. I wasn’t aware of any legislation like that. We don’t have anything like that in Texas. I’m not aware of it anyway.

APE: From the point of view of a prosecutor, do you have any thoughts on that type of law in general?

HORTON: Not really.

APE: Well, let me ask you this way. Do you feel that the video provided to you in this case was useful?

HORTON: Oh, yeah. We couldn’t prove anything without it.

APE: How would you feel if you were no longer able to use that kind of video?

HORTON: Well, I just wouldn’t have a case, probably. We wouldn’t have anything.

Bill’s supporters say it protects farmers, animals, and the food supply

Iowa Rep. Annette Sweeney, a cattle rancher and chief sponsor of HF 589, told Animal Policy Examiner: “We are concerned about individuals just coming onto our places and taking video without the owners knowing—or pictures—and when you come onto somebody’s place, you can have a virus or disease on your person. It’s amazing. I think that if people realized how much that people carry on their person, it is rather scary.”

“What we’re trying to do with this is if somebody sees abuse—it’s already in code—you’re supposed to go, and there’s proper authorities, go to the sheriff, go to a deputy, go to your county supervisor, you go to report it to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, or to the USDA [United States Department of Agriculture],” Sweeney said.

When asked about the Iowa bill, Communications Director Sarah Hubbart of Animal Agriculture Alliance said, “We definitely see this as an important way to protect farmers from undercover extremists who have one goal in mind, and that’s to eliminate the entire animal ag industry.”

Animal protection group leader says covert videos needed to expose abuses

“It’s about a chill effect on activists from speaking truth to power,” said Mercy for Animals Executive Director Nathan Runkle in an interview about the undercover video ban bills. “In a free society, the only way that we’re going to make things better is if there can be a free discussion and a free debate about our treatment of and obligation to farmed animals.”

“Without undercover investigations we simply can’t expose what’s going on,” Runkle continued, “and they know this, and that’s why they’re so scared. In fact these pieces of legislation speak to the effectiveness of investigations. They have been effective nationwide in bringing animal abusers to justice—both companies and individuals—and resulting in jail time. It’s been effective in changing corporate policies and leading to increased animal welfare laws on a state level. So they’re effective, and that’s why they oppose them.”

Sweeney countered, “It is rare for people to abuse the animals, because if you’ve ever been in the livestock area and you see a grown man cry because he has lost a couple of sow and litter of pigs because he tried everything he possibly could do, it would totally change the outlook of people on the livestock industry.”

For more details on this development, please check this page again soon.

For background information:

E6 Cattle Co. workers and owner charged with animal cruelty in calf deaths

VIDEO - Wayne Pacelle and others on bills to curb undercover videos

Calf farm owner admits he failed to prevent severe abuse of dairy calves

Calf abusers probably won’t get jail time, prosecutor predicts

Calves hammered, kicked, and burned in new Mercy for Animals undercover video

News media could face prosecution under animal abuse whistleblower bill

Rich lobbies back 'unconstitutional' ban on undercover videos, says lawmaker

Undercover whistleblowers endanger animals and food, says lawmaker (Part 1)