While I agree that PETA and HSUS have carried out some shady stuff, they
have managed to uncover some pretty nasty stuff. The abuse of pigs in Iowa
and Richmond, Virginia would not have made the light of day if had not been
for undercover photography.
While I certainly decry fake photographs, as that does not help anyone, I
also decry corporations that abuse animals and the environment, for the sake
of making money. So if we have ethical farmers and breeders they would not
have anything to hide.
Unfortunately Corporate America has way too much influence with law makers,
take PG&E in the San Francisco, it takes the tragedy of loss of life to
begin to reign them in. If it was not for the likes of Erin Brockovich that
went after them for pollution, and it is still happening today.
So I would say PETA & HSUS do the right thing and don't fake evidence and
Corporate America act responsibly and ethically. There would be no need for
these types of laws trying to make it on the books.
Mike
_____
From: artshow_photo@yahoogroups.com [mailto:artshow_photo@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of LeahMurray
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 9:07 AM
To: artshow_photo@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [artshow_photo] Re: Now we're interfering?
Interesting read -- Monsanto (MySatan to amused farmers who sit on both
sides of the GMO fence) has the deep pockets necessary to lobby for passage
of a law, whereas most farms do not.
I don't think we photographers really appreciate the negative impact that
PETA and HSUS have had on the farming community: a lot of farmers would
consider a deal with Monsanto to achieve a common goal akin to signing away
their souls to the devil. And however reluctantly, they might conclude that
it was a necessary evil in order to fight off the predations of a greater
evil like HSUS or PETA.
For the farmers, these laws aren't at all about the fine arts photographer
on the roadside taking photos of the lovely rolling hills dotted with sheep
or round bales: they are totally about protecting their livelihood from
unscrupulous activists who use the photoshopped end results to bring down a
nightmare of litigation and red tape on an innocent businessman in the tough
rural marketplace.
I wear both hats -- I spend a LOT of time photographing farms and
agricultural subjects, and I've had to work long and hard to gain the trust
of the farm community around what I do, thanks in no small part to the
over-zealous and judgemental animal rights activists based in the good ol'
US of A.
For me, laws that say that I have to get permission to photograph a farmer's
products and workplace are just an extension of the way I already do
business -- and in my not so humble opinion, that is the right way to do my
business, so the law is just enshrining and validating my choice of business
practice while protecting myself and my farming colleagues from the rabid
activists of the world. In my book, it might even be worthwhile getting
into bed with MySatan to accomplish this.
(Jury's still out on that one for me: I am VERY wary of a business that on
one hand has the deep pockets to help me lobby for a greater good for my
business community and then on the other hand, forces me into buying seed
from them because they only produce terminal seed and it has become illegal
to save your own seed and grow your second year of crop from that. Hence
the MySatan lable: you really have to be aware of the fine print when
making deals with Monsanto.)
It ain't all good or all bad: if it was, it wouldn't be an issue for so
many people.
Leah M.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://artshowphoto.com/support.htm
PLEASE READ....PLEASE TRIM POSTS!!! Keep quoted material short.
Repeat or create accurate subject lines.
If you want to advertise services related to art shows or photography, either in a forum post or on the resource web site, please contact the forum owner for permission.
Resource web site at
http://ArtShowPhoto.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment