Policy Identification And Explanation Of The Ag Gag Law

Policy Identification and Explanation The policy I am researching is the Ag Gag law which was enacted in Idaho in 2014. Idaho code 18-7042 â€Å"INTERFERENCE WITH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION† states that a person commits the crime of interference with agricultural production if the person knowingly: is not employed by an agricultural production facility and enters an agricultural production facility, obtains records of an agricultural production facility, or obtains employment by force, threat, misrepresentation or trespass. Also, if a person enters an agricultural production facility that is not open to the public and, without the facility owner’s express consent or pursuant to judicial process or statutory authorization, makes audio or video†¦show more content†¦In 1991, North Dakota followed Kansas by enacting the â€Å"Animal Research Facility Damage Act.† The law prohibits â€Å"entering an animal facility and using or attempting to use a camera, video recorder, or any other video or audio recording equipment† without the effective consent of the owner (Pitts, 2012). North Dakota added more distinct parts to their law to allow farmers to use modern farming technology. Farmers have more room to do what they want without worrying about animal activists. North Dakota’s anti-cruelty laws aren’t as strongly defined as their Ag-gag law which makes animal activists unhappy (Wilson, 2014). Also, in 1991, Montana also passed Ag-Gag legislation entitled the â€Å"Farm Animal Research Facilities Protection Act.† Without effective consent of the owner, a person may not â€Å"enter an animal facility to take pictures by photograph, video camera, or other means with the intent to commit criminal defamation (Pitts, 2012). After a 21 year hiatus, Ag-Gag legislation resurfaced on March 2, 2012 in Iowa. It does not criminalize taking photos or video recordings. It instead makes it a crime to enter an agricultural faci lity under false pretenses† or to lie on application papers â€Å"with an intent to commit an act not authorized by the owner of the agricultural production facility, knowing that the act is not authorized.† (Pitts, 2012). On March 20, 2012, Utah