Comments about ‘In our opinion: A bad agriculture bill’

Of course it's a bad bill. It's the Utah Legislature.

This bill is ridiculous, but then what more can we expect from Utah's Legislature.

An excellent article. While some animal rights groups may go too far in their zealousness, there still need to be doors open so people may document and report real animal cruelty.

Where's Redshirt and Mike Richards on this one? It's interesting how they avoid these articles that make their repub club look bad.

Why this bill? Why no protection for whistle blowers? Why now? Has Utah REALLY had issues with people trespassing on their properties? My fear is that a few richie farm boys have contributed some big time cash to someone's reelection campaign so that they can abuse animals.

We've seen, that when man receives just a little bit of authority, he will abuse it and exercise unrighteous dominion. Yes, especially over animals. That is why we need to encourage and protect those valiant servants, whistle blowers.

I for one, have had enough of this Utah legislature. Vote the bums out! All of them.

Can someone explain why pictures are a problem, if nothing WRONG is going on?

It is not appropriate to abuse animals except maybe it is ok to swat a fly. A lot of farms no longer have many animals they are concentrated in large feed lots,etc. Still it seems like a pretty dumb bill.

What is "private property"? What rights are we to give up as owners of private property?

How many Utahns would be in prison if someone watched over their shoulders and reported their Internet Activity? How many Utahns would be in prison if someone watched their drug use, or their sexual conduct?

When does "no" not mean "no"? If a woman can claim rape after she said "no", why can't a landowner/farmer/rancher claim trespass after he said "no"?

This subject is about legislating morality. Just how do the liberals feel about legislating morality? Should the government be in YOUR bedroom to approve YOUR sexual conduct? What is the difference between someone taking unauthorized photos of YOU and someone taking unauthorized photos of animals? The key word, is UNAUTHORIZED.

If criminal activity is suspected, let those who claim that activity report it to the proper authorities. Let the proper authorities go to a judge and get a search warrant. After they get a search warrant, let them inspect the "problem".

That's the way we do things in America. We are not Russia. We are not Nazi Germany. We don't kick down doors and haul people off to prison WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

Those who hate the Constitution will ignore the protection it guarantees to protect our liberties. Those who respect the Constitution will stand up for it even when it is politically incorrect to do that.

I guess some of see this from a different point of view. The pictures are taken by people that enter property under false pretenses, the real word is lie. They represent there purposes, be that to be an employee or a journalist or whatever, they enter to use false hoods to hide their true intentions. And then they take pictures that may or may not represent factual situations. You can thank groups like PETA, whose goal is to require all people to be vegans.

The ranches and farms are inspected on a regular basis to insure they are run in a responsible manner. However, under PETA's (and other like minded extremists) philosophy, it is impossible to responsibly run an agricultural business. I have met many ranchers over the years and everyone of them recognized the need to be responsible ranchers. Their livestock is their livelihood and they take care of them.

This bill is aimed at extremists such as PETA. While I believe that it is overly broad and may have constitutional issues, it is a step in the right direction.

"And then they take pictures that may or may not represent factual situations."

Could you please clarify this statement?

Are you saying the pictures would be altered?

I am confused.

Please read about how food producers and farmers and other conspiring men have rigged inspection prorocols (just like they are doing with this bill) before mnaking statements like this: "The ranches and farms are inspected on a regular basis to insure they are run in a responsible manner."

But this is my fave: "If criminal activity is suspected, let those who claim that activity report it to the proper authorities." Those who would claim it are not able to see it. And few animals have access to proper authorities.

Mike believes no one has any business knowing what goes on behind closed doors of any business that provides goods and services to the public. Good thing very few think like him -- except, of course, producers trying to cut corners for a buck.

As our nation begins to bleed the sharks of all denominations start their attack....

The idea that allows for freedom is that people will voluntarily, willingly and mostly obey the laws of our government. We just do not have the capability to prevent all the ways that people can break the law. Yet. The easiest way to lose a right is to abuse it.

Even so, there are some cases where greater surveillance and prevention of crime is needed, like in drug testing, licenses, meat inspection etc. And as our government spends large sums of money on crime prevention, it is likely that the criminals in our society spend much more on how to prevent government protection. It is likely that because of this by criminals, that freedom will be lost.

Farmers are businessmen. Their product ends up in the food of the public. Therefore under the charge for the federal government to promote the general welfare it is necessary that farmers follow the rules and regulations. If they do this willingly, fine, if they refuse they will lose the right and freedom of privacy in their business operations.

Further, if religious people continue the fight to have their businesses exempt from civil law, they might lose the right to operate a business. America will win out.

@Mike,
You are kidding, right? As far as I know, trespass is currently against the law, and a land owner can bar people from coming onto their property. Equating it to rape is astounding. Finally as far as the legislating Morality comment, isn't that what our fine republican legislature specializes in?

Mike Richards

A for profit farm that produces food for the public is a business operation. There are not any Constitutional protections for business operations even though the business operation is on private property. A business operation is not private property.

Trespass on private property is a crime. If a vigilante commits a crime in the obtaining of incriminating evidence of a crime, he may be prosecuted for that crime. But if the evidence shows a criminal action the farmer should also be prosecuted.

I am not a fan of government inspection visits. Like in the movies the criminal is tipped off.