The Iowa Legislature seems to have struck a wise balance in its passage last week of a bill that would curb undercover videotaping of livestock operations. But whether it accomplishes its intended goal remains to be seen.

The bill, which passed the Iowa Senate by a vote of 40-10 and was signed into law by Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, makes it a serious misdemeanor to fraudulently gain access to an agricultural operation to secretly make video or audio recordings without permission of the farm or business owner.

The legislation does not prevent someone who legitimately works for an ag operation from recording or reporting suspected animal abuse. Nor should it.

What it does do is provide some measure of protection against activists who have an agenda beyond the mere welfare of animals.

While several other states are considering similar laws, Iowa is the first to pass one.

The original legislation would have made it a crime for anyone to record footage of an agricultural operation without permission of the owner. That would have been a mistake.

While it is natural for us to want to protect those in the agricultural industry, the original law, by its very nature, would have implied an effort to cover up wrongdoing.

The greatest disservice any institution can do to itself is to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing among its members — or to be perceived as doing so.

Certainly, the majority of farmers who treat their livestock with care and compassion would no more approve of those who engage in animal abuse than would an undercover activist.

But if that undercover activist is a member of a group that promotes a vegan lifestyle, then what is the motivation for making a secret tape?

Is it to ensure that animals are humanely treated on their way to our tables or is it to ensure that livestock never make it to the dinner plate at all?

And what are these activists doing with their undercover videos of alleged abuse?

Are they taking them to the owner of the livestock operation or the authorities to bring prompt aid to the animals in question — or are they releasing them to the media in hopes of skewing national sentiment?

The sponsor of the Iowa bill, Democrat Joe Seng, is also a veterinarian, one who presumably makes animal welfare a top priority. He said that while the legislation discourages someone from sneaking into livestock facilities it doesn’t prohibit someone who legitimately works there from reporting alleged animal abuse.

The legislation also offers a degree of protection against unauthorized people tracking disease into a livestock operation, Seng said.

“I feel that we did something that was needed. It more than anything sends a message,” Seng said. “But I didn’t think it was real egregious to the animal welfare people.”

Neither, apparently, did the animal-welfare people. Although opponents still feel the bill is overreaching, they were reportedly pleased that it had been watered down.

The goal should not be to prevent legitimate whistle-blowers from exposing legitimate cases of abuse. It should be to prevent people from misrepresenting themselves and the livestock industry.

Those who are truly engaging in animal abuse need to be punished, not protected. They do as much to hurt the industry as those with hidden cameras and agendas.

As for the rest, they need to get proactive.

The best way ag operations can avoid misrepresentation is to take the power away from the video camera — not through legislation but through transparency.

Treat your animals right. Open your operation to tours, if possible. Share your story on a website. Educate the public. Take the video camera into your own hands and show people what you’re really doing. In the process, you may even improve your business.

In the end, nothing fights a hidden agenda better than the open truth.

User Submitted Photos