Proposition 204

Jay Heiler and Stan Barnes discuss this proposition, which would mandate humane treatment of animals before slaughter.

Transcript:

Michael Grant:
Tonight on Horizon, the treatment of animals before they're slaughtered is an issue voters will decide in November. A focus on proposition 204. Plus Watergate figure John Dean in town recently to talk about NSA warrantless spying. He'll talk about that on Horizon tonight.

Announcer:
Horizon is made possible by contributions from the friends of Eight, members of your Arizona PBS Station. Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Good evening. I'm Michael Grant. Welcome to Horizon. Proposition 204 mandates that pigs and veal calves are treated humanely before they're slaughtered. The proposition outlines a number of circumstances that are considered by supporters of the proposition to be inhumane. Opponents disagree, say the changes would increase costs to consumers. Larry Lemmons gives us an overview of proposition 204.

Larry Lemmons:
Proposition 204 would currently affect only one farm in Arizona, the Snowflake Company Pigs for Farmer John or PFFJ. The company has provided this video to reporters and has refused requests from the media to see the facility in person citing safety concerns. The proposition would make it a class one misdemeanor to confine a pig during pregnancy or a calf raised for veal that prevents the animal from lying down, fully extending its limbs or turning around freely. Supporters -- supporters of the proposition say animals PFFJ are being treated inhumanely. Providing this video claiming it was shot in secret.

Arizona Factory Farm Employee:
There are so many and they're in such confinement that you can't believe how many are stacked in rows.

Larry Lemmons:
Supporters got a boost when Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio came out in favor of the proposition.

Joe Arpaio:
I may be called a tough guy but I still have a heart for animals. We don't have to brutalize animals even though they're going to be slaughtered.

Larry Lemmons:
Opponents have been peppering the state with prop 204 is hog wash signs. There are currently no farms raising calves for veal in the state, which is an argument opponents use. But supporters say passage of the proposition would serve as a deterrent for companies who might consider setting up such operations. Opponents say passage of the measure would result in higher costs for food and would encourage farm operations to leave the state. If passed companies would have until 2013 to comply with the regulations.

Michael Grant:
With us now to talk about the pros and cons of proposition 204, Political Media Consultant Jay Heiler who supports the proposition and Stan Barnes the president of Copper State Consulting Group who opposes the proposition. Gentlemen good to see both of you again.

Both Jay Heiler and Stan Barnes: Good to see you.

Michael Grant:
Jay, why should people vote for proposition 204?

Jay Heiler:
Well Michael, the premise behind the measure is that current practices in farming operations of the sort we have in Northern Arizona and elsewhere around the country do not come port with traditional standards of humane treatment for animals. So in an attempt to address that, the measure offers a very narrow prescription which says that in the case of veal calves and pregnant hogs who are confined in gestation crates as they're called, the animal must have at least enough room to extend its limbs and lie down and to turn around in a circle. It does not create any generalized requirement of free range treatment or humane treatment. It just very simply states that you cannot confine these animals for their entire lives so intensively that they have no freedom of movement whatsoever. Because that doesn't come port with our values as a society about our responsibilities toward animals.

Michael Grant:
Stan, why is this a bad idea?

Stan Barnes:
Well, in one sense I'm relieved because I understand the proponents of 204 when they first drafted this initiative wanted piped in music and daily massages for the animals, too, just to make sure everything was good there. Its hog wash. That's why we call it hog wash. Because we boiled it down to one silly word because it's a silly initiative. It's brought to us by out of state animal rights activists, as Jay referenced a national campaign, a national political agenda that started in Florida four years ago and is now in Arizona. We don't even have a veal industry in Arizona, yet half of this proposition deals with veal. Or the proposition deals with an industry that isn't even here. And the hog industry is not just about snowflake but it's about 4-h students all over Arizona and Tucson, one of the affiliate broadcast stations there did a story about 4-h kids worried about going to jail because there are now criminal penalties for raising animals in ways that have been done for years that are veterinarian-approved. So it's useless regulation that's likely to drive farmers out of business, put 4-h kids out of that business and doesn't do anything for the consumer or the animal.

Michael Grant:
Stan, as a former legislator you will recall that there's a couple of things that you shouldn't watch being made, and one of those is legislation and the other is sausage. Seriously, though, if in fact inhumane things are being done on the way to the process, why shouldn't we intervene to address that?

Stan Barnes:
That's part of the problem with this proposition is it sets up a premise that there is inhumane treatment where there is none. The American Veterinary Medical Association, the authority on what to do with animals, says it's humane. And that's the end of the story. If we were just about that, that would be a question worth debating. But the experts say it is humane. What's not humane is the way the humane society is spending over a million dollars to attack Arizona farmers and ranchers while 30,000 dogs and cats are put down for lack of funding in Maricopa County.

Jay Heiler:
Well, and Stan is spending over a million dollars to divert the public's attention from what the issue is. It has nothing to do with 4-h clubs, nothing to do with kids raising animals. And because their argument is so weak they keep trying to point to that and say that that's what this is about. This is very clearly about factory farming methods that have taken hold all over the United States, including now in Arizona and could continue to grow in Arizona. And it simply asks the public to examine whether or not these methods are humane. And they are not humane. And there are many, many hundreds of veterinarians who will tell you that they're not humane, including from our own state. We have many of them enlisted in this effort to pass this measure. These animals are confined, Michael, for their entire lives in a space that's two feet wide where they cannot have any freedom of movement at all. They rub against these crates until they have hideous sores on their bodies which then have to be treated and the animals have to be pumped with antibiotics to prevent the lesions from infecting the animal more broadly. These are not humane conditions. They won't let anybody in the facility to see it in Arizona, which is a big tip-off to everybody. So we've provided that footage that was in your lead-in so people can see what happens inside the facility.

Stan Barnes:
The footage that Jay's talking about of course was done illegally in trespassing manner. P.E.T.A., Farm Sanctuary, Animal Liberation Front all do things illegally to further their agenda. Jay's clients are doing the same thing.

Jay Heiler:
There's nothing illegal about it. It is with a taken by somebody on the premises legally. There's no statute in Arizona that says you may not take pictures of a hog operation, Stan. I'm sorry you never got that one passed.

Michael Grant:
Jay, what about a point that Stan made that these things tend to be accretive? If Arizonans were to pass this is there a larger plan to move on to other animal rights issues?

Jay Heiler:
No, Michael. I'll tell you what the plan is. The plan is to allow the public to begin to consider whether modern-day, factory farming techniques comport with our values about human responsibilities toward animals. That's what the plan is. And I think that's a very healthy plan and it's a good thing. People are not aware of these things. And some people might not want to be made aware of them. But a lot of people do. And there is no -- his campaign keeps talking about all that kind of -- accretive stuff, the slippery slope. That is hog wash. The public is never going to support any type of dramatic, animal measure about animal husbandry. So I don't really think you're going to see that. What you're going to see is people trying to in good faith decide, okay, how far can we go in the name of efficiency in how we treat living, feeling, being.

Michael Grant:
We've got an obviously animal cruelty statutes. Why is this different?

Stan Barnes:
This is different because it goes way too far. We have cruelty statutes for cruelty. Michael, these animals are in perfect temperature-controlled environments where they have plenty of food and plenty of water, in a veterinarian care, and approved methods. There's nothing inhumane about. It but if you have a political agenda that includes a meatless society, there is something inhumane about it. The number one fund of this organization that jay represents is the humane society of the United States. They're spending so far $700,000. And the leader of the humane society in the United States just made news the other day for talking about wanting to refer to dogs as canine Americans because that's more appropriate. These people don't have the same globe view you and I do especially when they spent that money on a political attack of Arizona farmers and ranchers while their main mission of saving dogs and cats goes ignored and they put down 30,000 last year in Maricopa County.

Michael Grant:
Jay, if it is a national problem why do we address it in Arizona? If New Mexico doesn't have a similar prohibition I would think one possible outcome is, well, let me move my large operation from Eastern Arizona to Western New Mexico.

Jay Heiler:
Mike, that's more misinformation. First of all the humane society of the United States has 9 million members in the United States. It is very much a mainstream organization. The gentleman to which he refers is a friend of mine. His name is Wayne Pacelli. He's a great guy. And the remark that he refers to was made in jest and he's taking it out of context and misleading people with. The reason we're doing this in Arizona is because Arizona offers an opportunity to have people ask this about a farm that's operating within our borders and to take steps to consider it and decide if the people want to say, well, okay, we're going to raise animals for food. We're going to slaughter them, we're going to eat them. In the meanwhile we have a responsibility to not treat them inhumanely. And all the measure says is that they must have enough room to extend their limbs and turn around and lie down. Now, if you think that it's humane to confine an animal so intensively for virtually its entire life that it doesn't even have that limited range of movement, then I don't think -- I don't think that most of the people will agree with, that Stan. I don't think the public will support that.

Stan Barnes:
90% of the pigs raised on the farm he's talk about run around together in pens. 90% of them. The others that are giving birth so they don't roll over on their babies, so they don't eat their young, so they don't turn around and eat their own feces.

Jay Heiler:
It doesn't apply to birth. It applies to the gestation period. They're moved to different crates when they give birth. It's just more disinformation.

Michael Grant:
Well, on that point, Jay Heiler, thank you very much for joining us. Stan Barnes appreciate the input.

Jay Heiler:
Thanks, Michael.

Stan Barnes:
Thanks, Michael.

Michael Grant:
Best of luck in November to both of you.

Michael Grant: He was the first person from the Nixon administration to go to authorities investigating Watergate. Lately former Nixon counsel John Dean has become a critic of the Bush Administration with his latest target being spying without wiretapping warrants. Dean was in town recently to take part in a town hall about national Security Council spying. The event was hosted by the A.C.L.U. of Arizona and its central chapter. Horizon's Mike Sauceda talked to Dean about the event and NSA spying in the Bush and Nixon Administration.

Mike Sauceda:
John, thank you for joining us here on Horizon. You're here in the valley to talk about NSA spying about an event hosted by the local A.C.L.U. Chapter. Tell us about that.

John Dean:
The whole question of Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping remains unresolved. The congress -- some in the congress seem inclined to give him virtually a pass by saying whatever you're doing we'll make legal. And others in the congress don't think that's a very good policy. So the congress hasn't resolved it yet. There are a lot of citizens who don't have all the details. So I came over here to Phoenix because I think the A.C.L.U. does such a wonderful job. They're really a nonpartisan organization, they're somebody who really is concerned about the constitution and enforcing it. So I'm happy to come over here and lend my voice to their effort and help explain these things and all their nuance because the question and answer he sessions are generally pretty interesting for both the audience and for those who participate and try to answer the questions.

Mike Sauceda:
There was a ruling recently that said warrantless wire tapping was illegal. What are the issues at hand?

John Dean:
Well, very basic issue is whether or not he's in compliance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Another issue is whether he's violating the fourth amendment, which indeed requires that there be a warrant before you have an unlawful search or seizure or a search and seizure under those conditions will be unlawful without the warrant. And a judge in Detroit, based on a lawsuit that was initiated by the A.C.L.U. and very carefully structured, indeed we have a lower court opinion that says indeed the president is breaking the law. Very strong, sophisticated, able judge. She's somebody who's been around. She was the assistant U.S. attorney so she's been a prosecutor. She was also the wife at one point of a member of congress and back in Washington so she knows how that game is played. She's now been on the bench a number of years. She's used to taking tough stands on tough issues and doing what she believes is right. And I think she's made a very right decision here. A lot of people have -- a lot of academics have been picking at her decision, but I think there's some implications they don't understand. I've been told one of the reasons she did the decision when she did it is that there was some reason to believe that the government might be trying to get the case away from her to pull the jurisdiction away from that court. But now we've had another case, a similar case. And the way the government's defending itself against these cases is to invoke what's called the state secrets privilege, where typically if they invoke this privilege and say, listen, this material is so sensitive we can't even defend ourself-in this case. We can't even show anybody, the plaintiffs who are trying to stop this action, why we're doing it or even acknowledge that in fact we're doing it. And this has put the kibosh on any number of cases. She first said, hey. The president's publicly admitted. It forget the state secrets act it's not even in play here because he's acknowledged he's doing it. So let's go from there and decide if he's breaking the law. The government again is appealing this saying we can't defend our self-because we'll have to devastate secrets. Typically when you cut through this it's a lot of smoke. I'm somebody who's been on the inside as a white house counsel. I know how the game is played. This is smoke. And 99% of the cases. But we had another judge in the northern district of California, in another case, who is indeed said, hey, forget the state secrets law. This is a question whether AT&T has indeed conspired or joined with the government to break the National Security Law in this area and engage in the warrantless wire taps.

Mike Sauceda:
You think that President Bush's actions in the NSA spying actually rise to an impeachable offense. Why is that?

John Dean:
Well, that actually came up, and I was doing a -- playing your role with Senator Barbara Boxer. We were actually talking about her novel. And it was the day that she observed that bush had admitted that he indeed had ordered the NSA warrantless wiretapping notwithstanding the for instance intelligence security act which prohibits that very activity. So I just couldn't resist adding to the conversation that this is the first president we've ever had who's admitted an impeachable offense. Because it's a very serious felony to break that law. And it's a law that's been in existence for several presidents. It was passed post-Watergate to resolve the problem of what presidents should and should not do, where the lines have been drawn. And all the presidents before bush had complied with the statute to the letter. Bush didn't even want to use the statute. He could have gone to the what they call the for instance intelligence surveillance court and gotten permission to do the very things he was doing but rather he just decided he would sort of in your face with the law and go ahead and do it and he's still doing. It and the congress hasn't resolved it. I called it an impeachable offense because clearly they say that a serious felony obviously is an impeachable offense. Bush argues that as commander in chief that he doesn't have to pay any attention to the law. A lot of presidents have not believed their powers as commander in chief are quite that broad. So we haven't resolved that debate. I think it's going to have to be resolved politically. I don't think it will go to impeachment myself. There could well be impeachment hearings if the democrats gain control of the congress. But I just -- it's too late in this president's term that it's likely that you would ever have an impeachment. An impeachment of course is the equivalent of an indictment with the senate having to then either convict or not convict. And at this late stage I can't imagine the senate ever finding two-thirds of that body to vote this man to hold him responsible of that.

Mike Sauceda:
President Nixon thought he had the right to do warrantless wire tapping because of national security. Doesn't President Bush feel the same way?

John Dean:
Exactly. Nixon did about a half dozen warrantless wire taps. He was trying to run down leaks of national security information. The whole basis of the undertaking was because it was threatening his ability to govern in areas of national security and he had to know if somebody on his staff or in the national security agency was -- which is part of the white house, executive branch -- was leaking. So they wire tapped a few newsmen who were getting these leaks and a few staff people who they suspected of being the leakers. They never did find the leak, ironically, but this would become part of the bill of impeachment against Nixon. He could have well used the same claim if he had ever gone to trial in the senate when he was threatened with impeachment. Of course he resigned before anything really ever happened because he was told he didn't have the votes because that wasn't the only thing that was troubling about his presidency. But it is ironic that here we have Bush, you know, three, four decades later doing exactly what Nixon did but doing it on a much, much larger scale. I mean, as I say, Nixon had a half dozen of these. We're talking thousands upon thousands of people that this administration is covertly or surreptitiously survey Americans purportedly if somebody has ties to Al-Qaeda. But who knows? How do they know that? They can't really be sure. So I'm told there's a lot of fishing going on. And we don't have many of the details of the program. But it's quite a remarkable in your face approach that he's insisted on as part of his powers.

Mike Sauceda:
Even if President Bush is found to be on solid legal ground when it comes to warrantless wiretapping, is it effective?

John Dean:
Well, you know, that's a good question. A lot of people will tell you that wiretapping and electronic surveillance is such a grind, you really have to narrow it down to your suspects. Typically people who are likely targets are very aware their phone or e-mail or whatever it is might well be under surveillance. And so they're very cautious in using this. So whether or not they could ever find anybody or not is a good question as a practical matter. And the only way that it could ever be found that Bush had the authority to do this indeed will be if congress gives him that authority retroactively. And there are bills that are pending, there's a fairly hefty debate on as to which way it should go or whether indeed it's proper at all to retroactively approve his activities.

Mike Sauceda:
In terms of being secretive and in terms of gathering more power for the presidency, is the Bush Administration worse than the Nixon Administration?

John Dean:
I wrote a book. It's called "Worse than Watergate." and the subtitle of that is "The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush." and I did it before anybody else was talking about the excessive secrecy of this book. I wrote the book basically was doing the research in 2004 and -- 2002 and 2003 when everyone was really just ignoring it. Today I think everybody acknowledges we have the most secret presidency we've ever had. Now a lot of people say, well, yeah, 9/11 we have. To that's not true. All this started before 9/11. 9/11 has been used as an excuse in many instances for secrecy that's totally unrelated to anything having to do with national security. It is the disposition of this presidency; it's a part of their effort where they believe in particularly Dick Cheney that somehow Watergate and Vietnam weakened the presidency. He's one of the few people that has any sort of real understanding of the presidency in North American who happens to believe this. I have not seen any diminution in the president's powers as a result of that. He's always had those inherent powers. But anyway, Cheney has used this as a vehicle to bolster presidential powers. Secrecy is just a tactic.

Mike Sauceda:
This sounds very depressing. Do you have any hope for our country?

John Dean:
I've written to two I guess you might call depressing books. "Worse than Watergate" I was fascinated and talking about it when no one else was talking about it. Then I looked to try to understand why doing this which conscience "book where I found --" conservative without conscience "so these aren't my opinions as to who has no conscience. It shows what the science tells us about it. And this has provoked so many questions like yours. Well, what do we do about it? That looks like it's going to be my next book. You know, I don't have all the answers. Didn't have all the answers before. But I know where to get them. And I'm starting to gather them right now. So stay tuned for that answer.

Mike Sauceda:
John Dean, thank you for being on Horizon.

John Dean:
Thank you.

Mike Sauceda:
There are four propositions on the November ballot that will deal with immigration. One would make English the official language of the state. Another would deny bail to illegal immigrants. Another would not allow illegal aliens to get punitive damages. The last would expand the list of government services denied to illegal immigrants -- hear arguments on both sides Thursday at 7 on horizon.

Michael Grant:
Thanks very much for joining us on a Wednesday evening. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.