Day: May 2, 2005

California Senate Bill 662 – Humane Slaughter of Poultry

BILL NUMBER: SB 662	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT



INTRODUCED BY   Senator Migden


                        FEBRUARY 22, 2005


   An act to amend Section 19501 of the Food and Agricultural Code,
relating to animals.



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST



   SB 662, as introduced, Migden.   Animal slaughter.
   Existing law provides that cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep,
swine, goats, fallow deer, and poultry, not including spent hens and
small game birds, shall be slaughtered by prescribed methods.
   This bill would provide that the slaughter of spent hens and small
game birds is governed by these provisions.
   Because this bill would change the definition of a crime, this
bill would impose a state-mandated local program.


  The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
   This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.



THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:



  SECTION 1.  Section 19501 of the  Food and Agricultural Code  is
amended to read:
   19501.  (a) Cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, goats,
 or  fallow deer, or poultry shall be slaughtered by
the methods prescribed in this section. No state agency shall
contract for, purchase, procure, or sell all or any portion of any
animal, unless that animal is slaughtered in conformity with this
chapter. This chapter applies to any person engaged in the business
of slaughtering animals enumerated in this section, or any person
slaughtering any of those animals when all, or any part of, that
animal is subsequently sold or used for commercial purposes.(b) All
cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, goats,  or
 fallow deer  , or poultry  subject to this part,
or poultry subject to Part 1 (commencing with Section 24501) of, Part
2 (commencing with Section 25401) of, and Part 3 (commencing with
Section 26401) of, Division 12 shall be slaughtered by either of the
following prescribed methods:
   (1) The animal shall be rendered insensible to pain by a captive
bolt, gunshot, electrical or chemical means, or any other means that
is rapid and effective before being cut, shackled, hoisted, thrown,
or cast, with the exception of poultry which may be shackled.
   (2) The animal shall be handled, prepared for slaughter, and
slaughtered in accordance with ritual requirements of the Jewish or
any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter
whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the
brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the
carotid arteries with a sharp instrument.
   This section  does not apply   applies 


to the slaughter of spent hens and small game birds, as defined by
the department by regulation.
  SEC. 2.
  No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of
Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs
that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be
incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction,
eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime
or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government
Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

Pennsylvania House Bill 213 – Eco-Terrorism

PRIOR PRINTER'S NOS. 215, 1072                PRINTER'S NO. 1177


------------------------------------------------------------------------



        THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA


------------------------------------------------------------------------



  HOUSE BILL


* No. 213 * * Session of 2005 *


------------------------------------------------------------------------


        INTRODUCED BY GODSHALL, BALDWIN, BELFANTI, BENNINGHOFF, BUNT,
           CRAHALLA, CREIGHTON, DENLINGER, FRANKEL, GERGELY, GOODMAN,
           HERSHEY, HESS, HUTCHINSON, LEDERER, LEH, R. MILLER,
           S. MILLER, PICKETT, SEMMEL, STABACK, STERN, TANGRETTI,
           YOUNGBLOOD AND CAUSER, FEBRUARY 2, 2005


------------------------------------------------------------------------


        AS AMENDED ON THIRD CONSIDERATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
           MARCH 16, 2005


------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     AN ACT


     1  Amending Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 42 (Judiciary and
     2     Judicial Procedure) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated
     3     Statutes, adding an offense and a civil action relating to
     4     ecoterrorism.


     5     The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
     6  hereby enacts as follows:
     7     Section 1.  Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated
     8  Statutes is amended by adding a section to read:
     9  § 3311.  Ecoterrorism.
    10     (a)  General rule.--A person is guilty of ecoterrorism if the
    11  person commits an offense against property intending to do any
    12  of the following:
    13         (1)  Intimidate or coerce an individual lawfully:
    14             (i)  participating in an activity involving animals
    15         or an activity involving natural resources; or
    16             (ii)  using an animal or natural resource facility.
    17         (2)  Prevent or obstruct an individual from lawfully:


------------------------------------------------------------------------


     1             (i)  participating in an activity involving animals
     2         or an activity involving natural resources; or
     3             (ii)  using an animal or natural resource facility.
     4     (b)  Grading and penalty.--
     5         (1)  If the offense against property is a summary
     6     offense, an offense under this section shall be classified as
     7     a misdemeanor of the third degree.
     8         (2)  If the offense against property is a misdemeanor or
     9     a felony of the third or second degree, an offense under this
    10     section shall be classified one degree higher than the
    11     classification of the offense against property specified in
    12     section 106 (relating to classes of offenses).
    13         (3)  If the offense against property is a felony of the
    14     first degree, a person convicted of an offense under this
    15     section shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment fixed by
    16     the court at not more than 40 years and may be sentenced to
    17     pay a fine of not more than $100,000.
    18     (c)  Restitution; costs and fees.--Any person convicted of
    19  violating this section shall, in addition to any other penalty
    20  imposed, be sentenced to pay the owner of any damaged property,
    21  which resulted from the violation, restitution, attorney fees
    22  and court costs. Restitution shall be in an amount up to triple
    23  the value of the property damages incurred as a result of the
    24  offense against property. In ordering restitution pursuant to
    25  this subsection, the court shall consider as part of the value
    26  of the damaged property the market value of the property prior
    27  to the violation and the production, research, testing,
    28  replacement and development costs directly related to the
    29  property that was the subject of the specified offense.
    30     (C.1)  IMMUNITY.--A PERSON WHO EXERCISES THE RIGHT OF          <--
    20050H0213B1177                  - 2 -


------------------------------------------------------------------------


     1  PETITION OR FREE SPEECH UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OR
     2  THE CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA ON PUBLIC PROPERTY OR WITH THE
     3  PERMISSION OF THE LANDOWNER WHERE THE PERSON IS PEACEABLY
     4  DEMONSTRATING OR PEACEABLY PURSUING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
     5  SHALL BE IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION FOR THESE ACTIONS UNDER THIS
     6  SECTION OR FROM CIVIL LIABILITY UNDER 42 PA.C.S. § 8317
     7  (RELATING TO ECOTERRORISM).
     8     (d)  Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
     9  words as phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
    10  subsection:
    11     "Activity involving animals."  A lawful activity involving
    12  the use of animals or animal parts, including any of the
    13  following:
    14         (1)  Activities authorized under 30 Pa.C.S. (relating to
    15     fish) and 34 Pa.C.S. (relating to game).
    16         (2)  Activities authorized under the act of December 7,
    17     1982 (P.L.784, No.225), known as the Dog Law.
    18         (3)  Food production, processing and preparation.
    19         (4)  Clothing manufacturing and distribution.
    20         (5)  Entertainment and recreation.
    21         (6)  Research, teaching and testing.
    22         (7)  Agricultural activity and farming as defined in
    23     section 3309 (relating to agricultural vandalism).
    24     "Activity involving natural resources."  A lawful activity
    25  involving the use of a natural resource with an economic value,
    26  including any of the following:
    27         (1)  Mining, foresting, harvesting or processing natural
    28     resources.
    29         (2)  The sale, loan or lease of products which requires
    30     the use of natural resources.
    20050H0213B1177                  - 3 -


------------------------------------------------------------------------


     1     "Animal or natural resource facility."  A vehicle, building,
     2  structure or other premises:
     3         (1)  where an animal or natural resource is lawfully
     4     housed, exhibited or offered for sale; or
     5         (2)  which is used for scientific purposes involving
     6     animals or natural resources, including research, teaching
     7     and testing.
     8     "Offense against property."  An offense under Article C of
     9  Part II (relating to offenses against property).
    10     Section 2.  Title 42 is amended by adding a section to read:
    11  § 8317.  Ecoterrorism.
    12     (a)  Civil action and relief.--An individual aggrieved by the
    13  offense of ecoterrorism, as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 3311(a)
    14  (relating to ecoterrorism), may in a civil action in any court
    15  of competent jurisdiction obtain appropriate relief, including
    16  compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable investigative
    17  expenses and reasonable attorney fees and other costs associated
    18  with the litigation. Upon a showing of cause for the issuance of
    19  injunctive relief, a court may issue temporary restraining
    20  orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions as may
    21  be appropriate under this section. During any period that an
    22  action under this section is pending, a court may order the
    23  cessation of the activity forming the basis of the complaint.
    24     (b)  Valuations.--In awarding damages under this section, a
    25  court shall consider the market value of the property prior to
    26  damage and production, research, testing, replacement and
    27  development costs directly related to the property that has been
    28  damaged as part of the value of the property as well as damage
    29  to any records, data and data-gathering equipment or devices.
    30     (c)  Limitations.--Damages recovered under this section shall
    20050H0213B1177                  - 4 -


------------------------------------------------------------------------


     1  be limited to triple the market value of the property prior to
     2  damage and actual damages involving production, research,
     3  testing, replacement and development costs directly related to
     4  the property that has been damaged.
     5     Section 3.  This act shall take effect in 60 days.

Pat Robertson: Federal Judges More Dangerous Than Al Qaeda

Well, Pat Robertson takes the right wing attacks on federal judges to its logical conclusion by claiming that federal judges are more dangerous to the United States than Al Qaeda, telling ABC’s George Stephanapolous,

Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that’s held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.

Robertson apparently believes that out-of-control federal judges are more of a threat than Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the U.S. Civil War.

Wait a week, and Pat will be arguing that the death of Terri Schiavo was worse than the Holocaust and the Black Death.

Source:

Robertson: Judges worse than Al Qaeda. Derek Rose, New York Daily News, May 2, 2005.

Jolene Blalock Speaks Her Mind on Enterprise Demise

Wow, Jolene Blalock speaks her mind in the New York Times on the cancellation of Enterprise,

As Jolene Blalock, who played the Vulcan officer T’Pol on “Enterprise,” explained: “The stories lacked intriguing content. They were boring.” A lifelong “Star Trek” fan, Ms. Blalock said she was dismayed by early “Enterprise” scripts that seemed to ignore basic tenets of the franchise’s chronology, and that offered revealing costumes instead of character development. “The audience isn’t stupid,” she said.

I’ve heard from people that the last couple seasons have been much better, but I imagine a lot of folks were like me who tuned in for the first few episodes of the first season and just never gave the show a second shot.

It also didn’t help that Enterprise was sandwiched between the disaster that was Star Trek: Voyager and the release of the Star Trek: Nemesis film, both of which, if anything, further drove long-time fans away from the franchise when what it desperately needed was to attract new fans. Watching Blalock’s early season strip act was the third strike as far as I was concerned.

The writers complain in the NYT story that it was difficult writing for both long-time fans and newcomers. What the Trek franchise desperately needs is the same sort of reboot that SciFi did with Battlestar Galactica. Do a re-telling and reimagining of TOS with entirely new actors, writers and directors.

Source:

Its Long Trek Over, the Enterprise Pulls Into Dry Dock. Dave Itzkoff, The New York Times, May 1, 2005.

Arkansas Legislature Debates Amendment to State Constitution to Protect Right to Hunt

In March, the Arkansas legislature began debating Senate Joint Resolution 1 which would create a ballot item which, if approved, would amend that state’s constitution to create a right to hunt, fish and trap.

The proposed amendment reads, in part,

(a) Hunting, trapping, fishing, and the taking of wild animals, birds,
and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for
the people of Arkansas.

No part of this Amendment shall be deemed to supersede Amendment
35 of the Arkansas Constitution or the Game and Fish Commission’s authority
to promulgate rules and regulations consistent with Amendment 35 and this
Amendment.

The Arkansas Fish and Game Commission has expressed concern that the amendment might undermine its ability to regulate hunting, fishing and trapping in the state, which lead the sponsors of the proposed amendment to modify language that was seen as undermining Amendment 35 of the state constitution which created the Fish and Game Commission and empowered it to oversee wildlife conservation in the state.

The amendment was also modified after some feared it would allow hunters to hunt on private property even where property owners did not want hunters.

Some lawmakers, such as Rep. Jodie Mahoney, argued that the amendment was not needed since hunting and fishing are not currently threatened in Arkansas.

Sen. Steve Faris, who co-chairs the joint committee writing the amendment, disagreed noting that hunting, fishing and trapping have come under assault from animal rights activists in other states,

This puts a mechanism in the (state) constitution for hunting and fishing to be forever protected. It’s a sacred thing for this state.

Under Arkansas’ constitution, an amendment only requires that a majority of the both houses of legislature approve it, followed by a majority of voters at the following subsequent election. Currently, supporters of the amendment are aiming to have it on the November 2006 ballot.

The full text of the proposed amendment can be read here.

Source:

‘Right’ word proves irksome. Seth Blomely, March 18, 2005.

Joint committee debates proposed constitutional amendments. Wesley Brown, Arkansas News, March 18, 2005.

Tel-Aviv Bans Circuses With Animal Acts

In March, Israeli animal rights group Anonymous for Animal Rights succeeded in persuading Tel-Aviv to ban animal circus acts within the city.

According to a press release from the group,

We are happy to announce that we successfully completed our campaign against animal circus acts, as the Municipality of Tel-Aviv banned animal circus acts.

The Mayor of Tel-Aviv, Ron Huldai, instructed the municipality to avoid any future contracts with circuses that use animals of any sort in their shows.

Its unclear, however, how permanent such a ban is if it depends on the whims of a single individual.

Source:

Tel-Aviv bans circus animal acts. Press Release, Anonymous for Animal Rights, March 13, 2005.