Animal rights lawyers, need your help!

[RadEggs]

I am creating a ballot initiative to help chickens, and I would like to know if this is legal:
My initiative is to classify chickens as amenable species (for the humane methods of slaughter act) in oregon, my state, but I am not sure if I can do that, because the HMSA is a federal law, and in the law it states that amenable species are designated by the Secretary of agriculture. Is adding another species just in Oregon legal? Can I do this? Thanks for your help!
If not, do you guys have any suggestions?

Glowy says thanks!

 

[RadEggs]

Or tag some if you know any on BYC!

 

[RadEggs]

My ultimate goal is to get the Humane Society to sue Perdue Farms (the Oregon location).
This will not effect small farmers, because there is not any way to enforce without suing.

 

[saysfaa]

I am not a lawyer. I didn't know what an amenable species is so I looked it up. This is what I found.

Amenable species is a term used within the context of USDA's meat and poultry inspection program to signify exotic species (livestock and fowl not covered by the statutes) that might be added to the laws and thus be eligible for mandatory federal inspection

Since chickens are covered by the statutes, how could they possibly be an amenable species?

Hm, another definition, from Cornell is
"Amenable species. A species that is, and whose products are, subject to the Act and regulations promulgated under the Act, except as the Act may provide."

The Act, in this case, is the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Certainly chickens are already subject to that. So, they are already an amenable species.

 

[Brooks_]

My ultimate goal is to get the Humane Society to sue Perdue Farms (the Oregon location).

Why Perdue? It is unlikely that they own the processing plant.

This will not effect small farmers, because there is not any way to enforce without suing.

It would be easier to sue small farms; they don't have a legal department like Perdue & Tyson and such do.

 

[RadEggs]

Why Perdue? It is unlikely that they own the processing plant.

It would be easier to sue small farms; they don't have a legal department like Perdue & Tyson and such do.

They are the largest processing plant in the state

 

[Brooks_]

They are the largest processing plant in the state

Let me rephrase, what is Perdue doing that is wrong?

 

[Florida Bullfrog]

I am an attorney. I don't do animal rights law civilly. I sometimes prosecute animal abuse cases.

My 2 cents is I wouldn't necessarily trust animal rights organizations to have the power to sue private entities or individuals based upon the groups' notions of what is and isn't humane. What they consider inhumane I might consider good fun on a Saturday afternoon (such as hunting feral chickens with a pellet gun). Many of those organizations would ban the eating of meat if they could. I don't trust them.

Doing a completely superficial glance of Oregon's slaughtering laws, it looks like they require typical mammal livestock to be rendered unconscious before killing or killed with a single blow resulting in instant death, with there being a religious exception. If chickens were added to that list, I would guess it wouldn't be legal to wring a chicken's neck. However, I also see that the slaughter provision for mammals also requires a license, and that private farms slaughtering for their own use are exempt from the license requirements. I cannot discern whether that would also exempt a private farm from the proscribed methods of slaughter.

 

[RadEggs]

I am an attorney. I don't do animal rights law civilly. I sometimes prosecute animal abuse cases.

My 2 cents is I wouldn't necessarily trust animal rights organizations to have the power to sue private entities or individuals based upon the groups' notions of what is and isn't humane. What they consider inhumane I might consider good fun on a Saturday afternoon (such as hunting feral chickens with a pellet gun). Many of those organizations would ban the eating of meat if they could. I don't trust them.

Doing a completely superficial glance of Oregon's slaughtering laws, it looks like they require typical mammal livestock to be rendered unconscious before killing or killed with a single blow resulting in instant death, with there being a religious exception. If chickens were added to that list, I would guess it wouldn't be legal to wring a chicken's neck. However, I also see that the slaughter provision for mammals also requires a license, and that private farms slaughtering for their own use are exempt from the license requirements. I cannot discern whether that would also exempt a private farm from the proscribed methods of slaughter.

The thing is, there is no way to enforce this law, except suing, so it would not affect any small farmers, as no one is gonna sue them. The way perdue slaughters chickens violates the law, as the rules are they should be rendered unconscious before being hung upside down and slaughtered (paraphrased) but currently they are hung before being rendered unconscious. The reason that is wrong is that they slowly suffocate when hung upside-down upside-down, causing immense pain.
Also no, all most animal rights organizations, especially peta, shout out to those a holes, are not trustworthy. I only plan on reaching out to the Oregon Humane Society as they have money and volunteers, and I don't disagree with most of their views.
Thank you for your imput.