Letter to Mother Jones about Neighbors Opposed to Backyard Slaughter
Dear Mother Jones Editors,
The piece you allowed to run on your website yesterday (about “DIY Slaughter”) was so poorly thought out that it doesn’t deserve a direct response, which is why I’m writing to the Mother Jones editors. I’m one of the founders and organizers of Neighbors Opposed to Backyard Slaughter, and I’m proud of the work we’re doing to prevent harm and protect animals in Oakland. We are in complete support of urban farming and of the policy changes Oakland recently made to allow people to grow crops to feed themselves or to sell as an additional source of income. We think that’s fantastic, but we also think it’s a very bad idea to sanction and encourage people to keep and kill animals.
Despite what appeared to be an attempt at investigative journalism in a clearly biased opinion piece (though Mother Jones didn’t position it as an Op Ed), the author got several things wrong. Megan Webb, the director of the city shelter (Oakland Animal Services), has formally expressed concerns on the shelter’s website about the “influx” of “farm” animals appearing at the city shelter. If our city’s shelter director’s concerns are not enough of a warning of what’s to come, all we need to do is look at what other cities are experiencing. The Minneapolis-based animal rescue group, Chicken Run Rescue, says the number of hens surrendered and abandoned since the city passed a law allowing chickens has tripled. We can’t even take care of dogs and cats in our underfunded shelter in Oakland, despite there being laws and regulations about how pets should be treated. The last thing we need to do is add more animals and more potential problems. The Precautionary Principle alone begs for such prudence.
Also, the home occupation permit that the author mentioned in her post (and that I mentioned above) allows people to sell PLANT-based crops only. It absolutely does not include eggs and honey. Having one slaughter hobbyist get (mis)information from another does not “good journalism” make, though that’s exactly what Mother Jones says is one of their values. Did no editor check this contributor’s “facts”?
As for the author’s dismissal of our perception that this is elitist foodie-ism and her guess that eggs from backyard hens “would likely be cheaper,” that’s also not what the facts show. When you factor in the costs of building/buying a coop and building fencing and protection from predators, we’re talking about $4,000. And that doesn’t even include the care and feeding of the birds – if they stay healthy – which amounts to between $250 and $300/year. People will inevitably cut costs so that they’re not paying over $2.00 per egg, and the animals will suffer for it. We stand by our perception that allowing animals in backyards increases bragging rights and locavore cred but does nothing to alleviate the issues that people living in food deserts in Oakland currently face.
Finally, the author’s inclusion of El Cerrito also warrants a correction. City attorneys provide guidance; they do not make “rulings.” The Supreme Court case cited by the El Cerrito City Attorney during guidance dealt with a ban on ritual slaughter specifically targeting the Santeria religion. The case clearly upholds the principle held by the Supreme Court that laws that are neutrally crafted and generally applicable do not violate the religious clauses of the First Amendment. An outright ban on all slaughter (as opposed to only ritual slaughter) would meet the requirement of being “neutrally crafted” and “generally applicable.” This information has been provided to the El Cerrito City Council, and they have agreed to revisit a ban on slaughter.
The bottom line is that there is no problem Oakland has that the proliferation of farmed animals in backyards will solve, and I encourage Mother Jones to cover this important issue in a thoughtful, responsible, unbiased article.
Colleen Patrick-Goudreau
6 Comments for this Post
February 3, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Thank you Colleen for making the voice of animals heard. The people killing animals should not be the ones we look to for guidance on how to best treat animals, it is so refreshing to hear a true voice of compassion that cuts right through the fog and speaks truth to power.
February 8, 2012 at 10:48 am
It’s ironic that in a letter accusing someone else of not checking their facts, you don’t provide citations for any of yours, especially when several of your assertions contradict the heads of the organizations in question.
For instance:
From your letter: “Megan Webb, the director of the city shelter (Oakland Animal Services), has formally expressed concerns on the shelter’s website about the “influx” of “farm” animals appearing at the city shelter.”
From the Mother Jones piece: “While the number of chickens at the shelter has gone up in recent years, from 213 in 2009 to 340 in 2010, shelter director Megan Webb ***attributes that increase to the city’s crackdown on fighting roosters in 2010***, when the city confiscated hundreds of roosters. Aside from that, said Webb, “I’ve asked several of my animal control officers and ***they don’t feel like we have been seeing more livestock-type animals in the field or being impounded in the shelter.***”
And again:
From your letter: “… the home occupation permit … allows people to sell PLANT-based crops only. It absolutely does not include eggs and honey.”
From the Mother Jones piece: “Oakland Food Policy Council coordinator Esperanza Pallana told me that under current rules, residents who obtain a home occupation permit are allowed to sell plant-based crops and raw agricultural products—which includes eggs and honey, but not meat.”
There are only a few ways to interpret these contradictions: One, the directors of the agencies overseeing these policies could be wrong about their content. Two, the author of the Mother Jones piece could have falsified their quotes. Or, three, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Which one is it?
February 8, 2012 at 10:54 am
Thanks for bringing the facts to the table, it is upsetting to see people who don’t even do basic research making fallacious assumptions and asking questions that are designed to antagonize people rather than illuminate truth.
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/CEDA/o/PlanningZoning/OAK029859
“Initial change on Zoning Code to allow ‘crop growing activities’ as a home occupation as part of General Planning Code clean up process. ‘Animal raising’ is not being addressed as part of this process.”
February 8, 2012 at 10:57 am
Thanks, Ian. I bet that took about 1 minute to locate. Remember when Heather Klein, from the Oakland Planning Dept., stood at the podium the night that zoning change was made and said – I think about 15 times – “this is for plants only. this does not allow for animal products of any kind. this is for crops. crops. plants. not animal products or animals.” I would imagine journalists and people concerned with good journalism would want to do their due diligence and find – along with the link you provided – the minutes for that meeting. I imagine they’re also on the city’s website.
February 8, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Also, also, also:
The quotes from the shelter director in Colleen’s letter came directly from writings the shelter director published on the official city’s shelter website, whereas the quotes in the Mother Jones letter were only heard by the author herself. Even if I were to posit in the extreme that all the hens and roosters the shelter sees are from cockfighting (which is clearly untrue if you’ve seen the birds in person), cockfighting cannot explain the increase in other fowl (pigeons, quail, ducks, geese), goats, and pigs.
Again, these are independently verifiable fact, whereas those published in Mother Jones were not.
April 2, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Hi Coleen,
Nice letter. I, unfortunately, just heard a report on my favorite local radio news show, Cross Currents on KALW, “celebrating” local agriculture featuring Novella Carpenter. I left a comment on their site that getting an alternative opinion, e.g. one from you, would be useful. But I doubt they’ll pay any attention to me, so this is just a heads up that if you ever get a spare minute you might want to contact them. Cross Currents, of all shows, should provide a more complete picture of this issue than they have to this point.