Welcome

******

A recent ballot initiative passed in California is for the birds. It's also for the pigs, the cows and other farm animals that we eat for consumption. It is Proposition 2, and it passed by an overwhelming 63% to 37% margin and goes by the name "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act." If Proposition 2 has any fault, it provides for embarrassingly minimal standards regarding the confinement of farms and should go much further.

On November 25th, the Pittsfield City Council will vote on a proposed ordinance that is based upon California's Proposition 2.* Because there are no factory farms in Pittsfield and the overwhelming majority of Pittsfield farmers ethically handle their animals, the local economic impact and disruption should be minimal. But that is all the more important to pass such an ordinance-to send a strong message that farm animals should at the very least be able to stand up, lay down, and turnaround.

It is about time we start thinking about farm animals. When we think of animal cruelty, we think of cruelty to pets, horses, and blood sports such as bull fighting or dog fighting. But we never think about the cruelty that lurks behind the eggs we purchase in Styrofoam containers, the gallon of milk, and the neatly wrapped meat that is behind the plastic-wrap that accounts for infinitely more animal suffering. Grocery products look so different from the actual animals they come from, mentally, we block out the fact that once came from a sentient being that wants to live, can feel pain, and suffers in confinement.

While most of us are not vegetarians, let alone vegans (also not consuming eggs or milk), we do expect the farm animals that we use and consume to be humanely handled. Proposition 2 and the petition before the Pittsfield City Council addresses living conditions before slaughter, an area that is almost completely devoid of federal or state animal rights regulation both in California and here in Massachusetts. On our nation's factor farms, where the overwhelming percentage of meat, eggs, and dairy products are produced, animals live a life of hell in an effort to maximize efficiency. Today, veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg laying hens are confined in cages barely larger than their bodies.

In most factor farms, veal calves are taken from their mothers (dairy cows) when they are just hours or days old and then tethered by their necks in crates too narrow for them to turn around or even lie down comfortably. Pigs are confined to gestation crates during nearly their entire four-month pregnancies - metal stalls only two-feet wide that are barren and do not even provide enough room for the pig to turn around. Pigs are highly intelligent, social animals that can even be taught dog tricks, but they suffer terribly and develop crippling joint disorders and lameness due to the extreme confinement. Egg‐laying hens are confined in battery cages so small that they can't spread their wings or even walk more than a few painful steps. According to the ballot's sponsors, "Each caged hen has less space than a sheet of letter‐sized paper on which to live for more than a year before she is killed." For these farm animals, every moment of their lives is a living hell.

I would rather the chickens, pigs, and cows that I eat come from a farm where they are free to roam wide-open green pastures and live relatively natural lives on local farms before slaughter. Proposition 2 and its counterpart that is before the Pittsfield City Council will in no way restore these happier open-range farm conditions. Even after Proposition 2's passage, many farm animals will literally not see the light of day, will sit in their own poop and urine, and will inhale air that is so laden with ammonia that masks are necessary.

Under the very modest measure, "a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from: (a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and (b) Turning around freely."

The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act is not nearly enough, but it is a beginning. How can one possibly justify a farming practice that does not allow a farm animal to lie down comfortably, stand up, and fully extend their leg? How can we tolerate not allowing an animal to at least be able to turnaround freely? Why should local Berkshire producers have to compete with factory farms that economize by maximizing animal suffering? Already, the entire European Union has already banned veal crates and is phasing out gestation crates and barren battery cages. It is time for the City of Pittsfield to outlaw such cruel farming practices by passing an ordinance.

Rinaldo Del Gallo, III

The author is a local attorney whose columns have been published in newspapers and magazines across the country.

* UPDATE MARCH 7, 2008. The Pittsfield City Council is scheduled to vote on this Tuesday, March 10, 2008. If you would like to speak on this during the open microphone session, you may sign up between 7:00-7:30 PM. It is item 14. The Pittsfield City solicitor has approved it for form and legality. Rinaldo Del Gallo submitted the original petition and it was slightly modified by the City Solicitor's Office.

* UPDATE MARCH 11, 2008. On Tuesday, March 10, 2008, the Pittsfield City Council voted in favor of the ordinance, 6-4. (Voting FOR: Councilors Mike Ward, Kevin Sherman, Daniel Bianchi, Jonathan Lothrope, Gerry Lee. AGAINST: Anthony [Tony] Muffuccio, Matt Kerwood, Lou Markham. NOT PRESENT: There is presently no Ward 3 Councilor). As of March 11, 2009, it is not yet an ordinance of the City of Pittsfield. It has to be voted on again on Tuesday, March 24, 2009 for a SECOND READING (the next city council meeting). The public may sign up to speak BEFORE 7:30 PM at Pittsfield City Hall on the day of the second reading (Tuesday, March 24th). If it passes the second reading, it becomes ORDAINED as an ordinance. (Yes, the proper word is "ordained.") If you would like to write to the Berkshire Eagle regarding this ordinance, you may do so at letters@berkshireeagle.com; for the Pittsfield Gazette, gazette@berkshire.net, for the Advocate, you may write at news@advocateweekily.com.

******

Here is the Proposed Ordinance, as amended by the Pittsfield City Solicitor's Office

CITY OF PITTSFIELD
IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
AN ORDINANCE

AMENDING THE COE OF THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD
CHAPTER 2½ -- Animals and Foul

Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Pittsfield as follows:

SECTION I.

That the Code of the City of Pittsfield, Chapter 2½--Animals and Flowl, as amended, shall be further amended as follows:

ARTICLE III-FARM ANIMALS CRUELTY

SECTION 2½-30 - Purpose To prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.

SECTION 2½-30 - Definitions For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:

DEFINITIONS.- For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings:

(a) "Calf raised for veal" means any calf of the bovine species kept for the purpose of producing the food product described as veal.

(b) "Covered animal" means any pig during pregnancy, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen who is kept on a farm.

(c) "Egg-laying hen" means any female domesticated" chicken, turkey, duck, goose, or guinea fowl kept for the purpose of egg production.

(d) "Enclosure" means any cage, crate, or other structure (including what is commonly described as a "gestation crate" for pigs; a "veal crate" for calves; or a "battery cage" for egg-laying hens) used to confine a covered animal.

(e) "Farm" means the land, building, support facilities, and other equipment that are wholly or partially used for the commercial production of animals or animal products used for food or fiber; and does not include live animal markets.

(f) "Fully extending his or her limbs" means fully extending all limbs without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the case of egg-laying hens, fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens.

(g) "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or syndicate.

(h) "Pig during pregnancy" means any pregnant pig of the porcine species kept for the primary purpose of breeding.

(i) "Turning around freely" means turning in a complete circle without any impediment, including a tether, and without touching the side of an enclosure.

(j) "Per instance of violation" shall mean the violation of this ordinance upon any given animal per day, wherein if the same act is performed on another animal even during the same day, it shall constitute another violation.

SECTION 2½-30 - Prohibitions In addition to other applicable provisions of federal, state and local law, a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from:

(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and

(b) Turning around freely.

EXCEPTIONS.- This chapter shall not apply:

(a) During scientific or agricultural research.

(b) During examination, testing, individual treatment or operation for veterinary purposes.

(c) During transportation.

(d) During rodeo exhibitions, stale or county fair exhibitions, 4-H programs, and similar exhibitions.

(e) During the slaughter of a covered animal in accordance with the provisions of any statute relating to humane methods of slaughter, including but not limited to Mass. Gen. L. c. 94 § 139D, and other applicable law and regulations.

(f) To a pig during the seven-day period prior to the pig's expected date of giving birth.

SECTION 2½-30 - Enforcement

Any person who violates any of the provisions shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $300 per instance of violation. Any police officer, local animal officer, or local official who is officially charged in whole or in part with the welfare of animals or the supervision of livestock or agriculture may impose this fine which shall be owed to the City of Pittsfield. No person shall in any way impede any such authorized person from examining his or her livestock to determine if there has been a violation of this ordinance.

.
SECTION 2½-30 - Enforcement

If any provision of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance arc severable. If the fine is determined to be unlawful, the fine shall be the maximum that a municipality may impose under law.

SECTION II: This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon enactment.

Approved as to Form and Legality,

Pittsfield City Solicitor

(On March 4, 2008, the Committee on Ordinance and Rules, a subcommittee for the Pittsfield City Council, reported and recommended that this petition be approved.)

The following links have excellent videos (last retrieved March 7, 2009) about Proposition 2, which this Pittsfield City Ordinance is based:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKu6ry0kj1Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AWiyURo7Xo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcAX4kvsq7g&feature=related