Undercover photographers to be punished worse than the animal abusers they film
by Katerina Lorenzatos Makris
A proposed Iowa law would punish those who secretly video or photograph possible animal cruelty on Iowa farms more harshly than those who commit the abuses, said state Rep. Jim Lykam.
“Some of the penalties for taking a video or a picture were higher than animal abuse even,” Lykam said in a phone interview about Iowa House File (HF) 589. “The senate majority leader [Sen. Mike Gronstal] had some concerns about the penalties for the bill being so severe. So if the bill ends up passing I would think they’re going to have to bring some of those penalties down.”
Iowa state Rep. Jim Lykam Photo: Courtesy of Iowa state Rep. Jim Lykam
Law would prevent 'devastation,' says bill sponsor Sweeney
The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Annette Sweeney, told Animal Policy Examiner that higher penalties are warranted in order to deter unauthorized visitors from entering farm facilities and spreading disease to the animals.
“The reason why we had that in here is because of the larger devastation that can happen,” Sweeney explained. “If you have a stiff penalty—and what we’re looking at here is that somebody with a virus or a bacteria on their person can cause over a million dollars worth of damage just entering one farm area. The devastation with the larger facilities—it could wipe out a million dollars worth of pigs.”
Lykam countered, “I don’t condone breaking into somebody’s private property. I don’t condone somebody tearing up somebody’s property. If they broke into somebody’s place to do that, or damage somebody’s property to do it, then they should be charged with that. Make those penalties harsher, not on somebody that sees a problem. I would call that whistleblower protection. If a citizen sees something and reports it, I don’t think he should be penalized for that. If they see something they ought to be able to report it.”
“We already have laws for breaking into a place or vandalizing,” Lykam continued, “so some people were questioning should we strengthen those laws for the people who are actually breaking the law rather than somebody who sees something and then tries to document what he’s seen by picture—whether a cell phone or camera or whatever.”
Questions on who the law might punish
Lykam said he is also trying to clarify whether the law would apply only to workers who sought employment specifically so as to obtain undercover video and photos, or if other employees would also be punishable under its provisions.
“We’ve got some different opinions on it and different lawyers looking at it,” he said. “I ask the question, what if somebody went in, and under good intentions they needed a job, and they got a job, but they worked there four months and they said ‘Boy, I just don’t like this facility, and it’s doing some things I don’t think are right’? The way I read the bill, if they’d have taken any pictures of that, they’d have been guilty of a crime, even though that’s not the intention they had.”
Farmers want protection
Lykam emphasized that he understands the points of view of farmers who feel besieged by animal protection groups. “It’s been real touchy, we’re here in Iowa and agriculture is a big industry to us, so they want some protection too. And obviously there are some maybe overzealous people [among animal welfare activists] that are bending the laws pretty heavily.”
“I’m not a vegetarian, I eat a steak or a chop,” Lykam said, “but I think the animals ought to be treated humanely."
Asked if laws protecting farmed animals should be strengthened, Lykam replied, “Obviously, the good producers, that’s their livelihood, so it’s to their advantage to have healthy animals and to treat them right. Whether it’s a dog breeder or a cattle breeder, there are always going to be some bad actors. There’s a lot of good people but obviously the bad actors are the ones that drag the whole industry down, whether it be in agriculture or in the companion animal business.”
Lykam said he was not surprised when HF 589 passed the House by a vote of 66 to 27 last week: “We are an ag state and I’m in the minority party. The majority has 60 votes; we only have 40. And we have a lot of farmers in the legislature. They have a different perspective on that issue and they want some protection too. We’re trying to get to some type of a balance, where the animals are treated humanely, but people can’t be just busting down gates and busting locks and things like that.”
Commenting on how entrenched his fellow legislators are in their positions, Lykam said, “On both sides, whether it’s from people who are for or against the legislation, yes, any time you get into an animal issue, it is a very, very emotional issue.”
To voice an opinion yea or nay on HF 589, contact:
Rep. Annette Sweeney
Sen. Tom Rielly
Please note: Concerned citizens from outside the state may express opinions to Iowa legislators, but it is recommended that they identify themselves as non-Iowans.
