You need to check this stuff out better.

And, once again, those kinds of activities are already illegal both in civil law and criminal law–everywhere–and an amendment like the one just defeated in OK would do NOTHING to stop them, because such an amendment is a restriction on state and local GOVERNMENTS, not activists. You cannot possibly be as obtuse as you sound and still be able to remember to breathe.

Just one point….you said: Your argument is ridiculous, nonsensical and illogical, not to mention reactionary” Well, I don’t think it is reactionary, nonsensical or ridiculous to be concerned because there are so many incidents where the AR radicals are harming farming activities that several states have passed laws to protect farmers. Here is just a short list of the AR attacks: burned down a new research facility at UC Davis, burned a whole fleet of trucks at one animal facility, released various kinds of farm animals from farm facilities, etc. When these kinds of activities are taking place, there is clearly a problem. This isn’t standard criminal activity, this is radical domestic terrorism, plain and simple, and has been so described by state attorney generals.

An animal used in agriculture is common personal property. They’re not works of art, ancient artifacts, etc. If a rare breed, they are perhaps valuable, but money damages would always compensate for their loss. And yes, just like everyone else who is the victim of a crime or a civil wrong, you have to pursue your remedy, with or without a lawyer. I can guarantee that if an animal rights group is implicated (deep pockets), and there’s a criminal conviction or plea (certain win), and significant damages, a lawyer would fall all over him/herself to take such a case and get some easy money. Not to mention that most responsible people who run a business have this thing called “insurance” that would cover such losses. I’m not sure why every other type of business person in the U.S. has to take risks that someone might propose regulation that would make their business more cumbersome, but somehow the farm industry thinks it’s entitled to some “special snowflake” protection that no one else on god’s earth gets.

And in any event a constitutional amendment would do NOTHING to stop people who would do such things from doing them. NOTHING. If they’re willing to commit a criminal act, it’s not going to stop them because it’s in a constitution instead of the statutes that are already there. The ONLY people/entities that SQ 777 (RIP) would have hampered was state and local governments–not animal activists doing illegal activities. The reason this POS amendment was proposed was in reaction to recent state and local legislation that either restricted chemical spraying more than federal law, and/or required GMO labeling–it’s nothing whatsoever about activists stealing/freeing/harming animals. Your argument is ridiculous, nonsensical and illogical, not to mention reactionary. And thank goodness, it is now moot as well.

I am well aware of the difference between criminal and civil cases. I am also well aware that in order for an individual who has been “harmed” by a radical activist that the harmed person has to have the funds and an agreeable lawyer to take their case. In many cases, activists seek out the elderly, the single persons, and individuals who may not be in a position to deal with a lawsuit. That is why special laws may be needed which address this type of crime. It is not the same as stealing a car. When you cause animal disruption, whether death or destruction of specific identification of each animal, then you are causing a long term harm even if an animal is recovered. Or in the case of some birds and animals, the critter has been de-sexed…thru drugs or operations, thus destroying its ability to reproduce. If this is a rare critter, the damage may not be able to be addressed adequately.

No private organization can legally seize animals they don’t own. If they do, they’re subject to prosecution for theft, and to civil lawsuit as well. If you’ve got an issue with the animal cruelty laws, talk to your legislature, city council, county board, or whoever’s laws you’ve got a problem with.

And while I’ve read about abuses by some animal activists, I’ve also read about and seen evidence, including first hand evidence of horrendous abuses of animals in “agriculture.” There should be a BALANCE between commercial practice and humane, reasonable treatment of animals, and right now, there are an awful lot of thumbs on the scale in favor of the commercial end of things–i.e. ag gag laws and criminalizing whistleblowing on the awful practices that exist in large factory farms.. THAT is what is fascism.

I was an attorney for quite a while, and you seem to have missed that there are two kinds of law–criminal, which you describe, and civil, which you seem to have forgotten about. Before, during or after those trials/fines/prison, if the farmer sues the individuals who let the minks out, or any organization who encouraged, or funded, or assisted them, they’d get paid for the value of the minks. Not to mention that no piece of paper, constitutional or not, stops people from doing bad things if they’re determined to do so. You know–how people still murder other people and drive drunk even though they’re illegal. Fortunately, the citizens of OK have spoken on this god-forsaken “amendment,” and for once, good sense prevailed. Now, if you and other like you are still worried about animal activists, you can go lobby the very conservative state legislature for some actual common-sense protections for family farmers to no be overburdened by state regulation or activist interference, instead of handing the big-ag companies carte blanche to suck the state dry.

Here is the problem. Being prosecuted under present law does not necessarily correct the problem. Example: A mink farmer’s minks are released. They are domestic animals, not knowing how to fend for themselves. Many killed on roadways. Some starve. Others killed by other predators. The animal rights activists who released the mink go to jail, have a court date, and end up spending time in prison. However, the mink farmer has now LOST his critters, LOST his income and that is NOT replaced by sending those s.o.b. activists to prison. So, this person has been harmed and the harm has not been corrected. The only correction was punishing the ARs. Get the difference? The dead and lost animals were NOT replaced and no monies were provided to the farmer for those animals. In some cases the animals being worked with are rare and as such are irreplacable. But then, the ARs who “care” so much about animals, really do NOT care a bit about animals. They care about their agenda of NO ANIMAL USE.

Thanks for not reading, and for making my point. I SAID, you can’t give an example of these groups interfering or harming animal operations where they WEREN’T prosecuted under existing law (which indicates other laws are needed). And you provide examples of groups BEING prosecuted (which indicates that existing remedies are adequate). Like most idealogues, you are so blind in your stridency that you can’t even read, much less think.

Yeah, I’m sure those liberal hippies at Fox News are all over planted stories by animal rights activists.