• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump's USDA drops animal abuse reports, tries to blame Obama

HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
The one thing an administration that lies so much on a regular basis needs to remember, if you try the "blame Obama defense" make sure there are no contradictory facts or people to bite you.

ANIMAL WELFARE INSPECTIONS DATA WIPED FROM USDA SITE: The USDA on Friday cleared its website of inspection reports and other information related to its enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and Horse Protection Act.
Click to expand...

This data is used to track animal abusers. So the Trump administration tries to blame the Obama administration
APHIS says the move followed a “comprehensive review” over the past year that involved looking at court rulings and privacy laws — suggesting the change was not brought on by the new administration
Click to expand...

But the former USDA communications director sets the record straight
former USDA Communications Director Matt Herrick tweeted on Sunday afternoon: “Decision by @usda 2 remove animal abuse reports not required. Totally subjective. Same option given 2 past admin. We refused. #transparency”.
Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/m...-inspections-data-wiped-from-usda-site-218593

http://inthesetimes.com/rural-ameri...cruelty-aphis-animal-welfare-act-horse-soring
 
A public, government compiled and published, database of animal abusers?
Hmm... wonder how I feel about that.

I want to value redemption and not brand people for permanent retribution from others. I oppose "lists" in general.
OTOH, public knowledge is important and some of those crimes can be cold and calculating.

Balancing privacy with public interest is quite the pickle. It would appear a decision was made by the Trump Admin here.
 
You're really twisting yourself into knots trying to defend this idiocy. Why?

Jaskalas said:
A public, government compiled and published, database of animal abusers?
Hmm... wonder how I feel about that.

I want to value redemption and not brand people for permanent retribution from others. I oppose "lists" in general.
OTOH, public knowledge is important and some of those crimes can be cold and calculating.

Balancing privacy with public interest is quite the pickle. It would appear a decision was made by the Trump Admin here.
Click to expand...
 
Jaskalas said:
A public, government compiled and published, database of animal abusers?
Hmm... wonder how I feel about that.

I want to value redemption and not brand people for permanent retribution from others. I oppose "lists" in general.
OTOH, public knowledge is important and some of those crimes can be cold and calculating.

Balancing privacy with public interest is quite the pickle. It would appear a decision was made by the Trump Admin here.
Click to expand...

It's not what you seem to think it is.

"The reports apply to 7813 facilities that keep animals covered by the law. Roughly 1200 of these are research labs, which are often housed at major academic centers or run by government agencies themselves, including the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the act covers animals like dogs and chimpanzees, it does not cover rodents like laboratory mice.

USDA inspectors routinely visit facilities and upload inspection reports like this one to the agency website several months later. Labs, companies, and others covered by the act are also required to file annual censuses like this one cataloging the number and kinds of animals in their care.

Inspection reports contain little, if any, personal information about individuals.

Public access to the reports has led to scores of media reports like this article in The Boston Globe in 2012 documenting problems at Harvard University’s primate research facility; the university later closed the trouble-prone New England Primate Research Center. Similarly, the reports allowed Nature and The New Yorker to report on the chronic abuse of goats held at the private company Santa Cruz Biotechnology in California, once the world’s second largest marketer of research antibodies. Several months after the Nature report, USDA in a rare move revoked the company’s license to market the antibodies."

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/trump-administration-blacks-out-animal-welfare-information

Seems like this kind of information is important to the public at large

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/wildlife-watch-usda-animal-welfare-trump-records/
 
You'd think that, wouldn't you? Makes me wonder about the ulterior motives behind the move. And makes one wonder if the USDA is going to hide animal abuse in this fashion, what's next? Hiding inspection data from packing houses? As if that wouldn't have serious results. Has not anyone ever read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? Looks like that's where we're headed back to...

Victorian Gray said:
Seems like this kind of information is important to the public at large.
It's not what you seem to think it is.

"The reports apply to 7813 facilities that keep animals covered by the law. Roughly 1200 of these are research labs, which are often housed at major academic centers or run by government agencies themselves, including the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although the act covers animals like dogs and chimpanzees, it does not cover rodents like laboratory mice.

USDA inspectors routinely visit facilities and upload inspection reports like this one to the agency website several months later. Labs, companies, and others covered by the act are also required to file annual censuses like this one cataloging the number and kinds of animals in their care.

Inspection reports contain little, if any, personal information about individuals.

Public access to the reports has led to scores of media reports like this article in The Boston Globe in 2012 documenting problems at Harvard University’s primate research facility; the university later closed the trouble-prone New England Primate Research Center. Similarly, the reports allowed Nature and The New Yorker to report on the chronic abuse of goats held at the private company Santa Cruz Biotechnology in California, once the world’s second largest marketer of research antibodies. Several months after the Nature report, USDA in a rare move revoked the company’s license to market the antibodies."

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/trump-administration-blacks-out-animal-welfare-information

Seems like this kind of information is important to the public at large

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/wildlife-watch-usda-animal-welfare-trump-records/
Click to expand...
 
Animal abuse, especially the factory farm type, is exceptionally brutal. The list should have been plastered up on every grocery store wall tbh.

Animal testing is even worse. The undercover videos almost scared me straight about a decade ago, will power not so great though.
 
IMO, this is just another symptom of how the very wealthy, you know, folks exactly like Trump and his billionaire buddies like to hide their activities in their efforts to sustain the "money begets power begets more money begets more power ad infinitum" circle of riches that they all know and love.

Witness how Trump has already attempted to silence any voices within his grasp that may expose what he's doing behind closed doors and what gov't agencies he wants to butcher up that represented obstacles to his grab for the gold when he was "just another greed-driven billionaire kind of guy."

His actions in this regard greatly reduces the chances of his personal prejudices and desires for more money/power being exposed along with who he really is and whose interests he actually represents. I mean, his defiant refusal to divest himself of his business holdings and his casual refusal to release his tax returns really does say it all about his priorities and what possible conflicts of interests he wants to hide from public scrutiny, doesn't it?

I'd dare hazard a guess that if he had released his tax documents before the last presidential election someone else would be our current POTUS.

The public and the media should pay heed to this ploy of the very wealthy, especially since they now have one of their very own in power AGAIN (thanks for nothing you working class rust belt Trump voters). Watch how they will surreptitiously allow themselves more tax breaks, loopholes and corporate welfare as they, with abject condescension, toss table scraps and crumbs at the very working class folks who idiotically put these money manic ferrets (no offense to ferrets) back in charge of the hen house AGAIN.
 
Last edited:
Jaskalas said:
A public, government compiled and published, database of animal abusers?
Hmm... wonder how I feel about that.

I want to value redemption and not brand people for permanent retribution from others. I oppose "lists" in general.
OTOH, public knowledge is important and some of those crimes can be cold and calculating.

Balancing privacy with public interest is quite the pickle. It would appear a decision was made by the Trump Admin here.
Click to expand...

It's about farm animals. Not your cats and dogs.


Edit : oops, lab animals, not farm animals. Me bad.
 
Last edited:
Jaskalas said:
A public, government compiled and published, database of animal abusers?
Hmm... wonder how I feel about that.

I want to value redemption and not brand people for permanent retribution from others. I oppose "lists" in general.
OTOH, public knowledge is important and some of those crimes can be cold and calculating.

Balancing privacy with public interest is quite the pickle. It would appear a decision was made by the Trump Admin here.
Click to expand...
You forgot the part where the Trump admin decided to blame Obama.
 
Jaskalas said:
Obviously it wasn't for individual household pets.
I was thinking farms.




Sounds like a minority (15%) are research labs?
Click to expand...
lulz so I was right the first go around.

I thought government entities are not allowed to erase public record til x number of years?
 
Jaskalas said:
A public, government compiled and published, database of animal abusers?
Hmm... wonder how I feel about that.

I want to value redemption and not brand people for permanent retribution from others. I oppose "lists" in general.
OTOH, public knowledge is important and some of those crimes can be cold and calculating.

Balancing privacy with public interest is quite the pickle. It would appear a decision was made by the Trump Admin here.
Click to expand...

What is your view on health inspection reports at restaurants in your area? Should they not be published or a list maintained of eateries that fail health inspections?
 
dank69 said:
You forgot the part where the Trump admin decided to blame Obama.
Click to expand...
In this topic I found an interesting question regarding balancing privacy with public interest. There are plenty of trash topics for the Trump Admin and its childish behavior. The forum could stick to drooling if you'd like, interrupted by shouts of fake news, or we can try to appreciate a diamond in the rough.

In the public interest for food safety we void privacy and give restaurants a number rating. Are the details of those inspections also available? With the right app your phone could beep as you walk inside a place, flashing the rating and the top issues blow. Walk into a place and your phone could scream roaches in the kitchen, among other things. As it's public data someone else could compile and permanently publish the lowest rating and the worst problems. Would they be forced to use the most recent data, or can the past become a permanent mark that never goes away?

The more time passes with the Internet's free flow of information at our fingertips, and the more data published, the more we find ways to use that data. It's possible to even abuse or use it in ways never imagined with impacts far greater and wider reaching than originally conceived. Like the sex offender registry. If an 18 year old kissed a 17 year old... or a frat party involved streaking and those crimes become prosecuted. You're thrown in with the rest and a list with addresses is now compiled online. Anyone with a purpose can hunt them down and hurt them. Or same thing with the food inspection, if an address is in the data your phone can alert you as you get near the place. Go on a date, return to their place... phone tells you to GTFO.

I find there are both privacy interests and public interests at play on such subjects. In this case, is there no privacy to a business, must all their practices be published? Not just available to government inspection but to the public at large? So I'm guessing the argument here is for animal safety, and that is determined to also be a public interest. Especially if it made its way into law. So what was decided exactly, specific classifications of businesses or facilities that work with animals must be inspected and publicly reported on? Does this include shelters and veterinarians?

Where I'm coming from is... when has P&N previously discussed the competing moral imperatives between privacy and public interest? I opened by stating I don't know how I feel about that. Where would I draw the line? I want to recognize who has crossed it and for what reasons? I'm sure P&N has had related topics before, but perhaps not one of this exact nature. Why should I know who, identifiably, has violated regulations, instead of just letting the government office responsible deal out a measured and just response?

When I say I don't like lists, I don't like burning people with scarlet letters. Those are scars that do not heal. To ostracize people like second class citizens is something I have a general problem with. Such marks stand between them and redemption. We say forgiveness is a virtue because all too often humans do not forgive. Just ask anyone with a criminal past.
 
Jaskalas said:
In this topic I found an interesting question regarding balancing privacy with public interest. There are plenty of trash topics for the Trump Admin and its childish behavior. The forum could stick to drooling if you'd like, interrupted by shouts of fake news, or we can try to appreciate a diamond in the rough.

In the public interest for food safety we void privacy and give restaurants a number rating. Are the details of those inspections also available? With the right app your phone could beep as you walk inside a place, flashing the rating and the top issues blow. Walk into a place and your phone could scream roaches in the kitchen, among other things. As it's public data someone else could compile and permanently publish the lowest rating and the worst problems. Would they be forced to use the most recent data, or can the past become a permanent mark that never goes away?

The more time passes with the Internet's free flow of information at our fingertips, and the more data published, the more we find ways to use that data. It's possible to even abuse or use it in ways never imagined with impacts far greater and wider reaching than originally conceived. Like the sex offender registry. If an 18 year old kissed a 17 year old... or a frat party involved streaking and those crimes become prosecuted. You're thrown in with the rest and a list with addresses is now compiled online. Anyone with a purpose can hunt them down and hurt them. Or same thing with the food inspection, if an address is in the data your phone can alert you as you get near the place. Go on a date, return to their place... phone tells you to GTFO.

I find there are both privacy interests and public interests at play on such subjects. In this case, is there no privacy to a business, must all their practices be published? Not just available to government inspection but to the public at large? So I'm guessing the argument here is for animal safety, and that is determined to also be a public interest. Especially if it made its way into law. So what was decided exactly, specific classifications of businesses or facilities that work with animals must be inspected and publicly reported on? Does this include shelters and veterinarians?

Where I'm coming from is... when has P&N previously discussed the competing moral imperatives between privacy and public interest? I opened by stating I don't know how I feel about that. Where would I draw the line? I want to recognize who has crossed it and for what reasons? I'm sure P&N has had related topics before, but perhaps not one of this exact nature. Why should I know who, identifiably, has violated regulations, instead of just letting the government office responsible deal out a measured and just response?

When I say I don't like lists, I don't like burning people with scarlet letters. Those are scars that do not heal. To ostracize people like second class citizens is something I have a general problem with. Such marks stand between them and redemption. We say forgiveness is a virtue because all too often humans do not forgive. Just ask anyone with a criminal past.
Click to expand...

Why is publishing a list of animal abusers a problem? They have clearly broken laws and thus part of the punishment is being know as an animal abuser. Provided the violation is also spelled out and whether remedial actions are taken, I don't see an issue.
 
sdifox said:
Why is publishing a list of animal abusers a problem? They have clearly broken laws and thus part of the punishment is being know as an animal abuser. Provided the violation is also spelled out and whether remedial actions are taken, I don't see an issue.
Click to expand...

Ya know, it's almost like he hasn't bothered to read the various articles. <shrug>
 
Jaskalas said:
In this topic I found an interesting question regarding balancing privacy with public interest. There are plenty of trash topics for the Trump Admin and its childish behavior. The forum could stick to drooling if you'd like, interrupted by shouts of fake news, or we can try to appreciate a diamond in the rough.

In the public interest for food safety we void privacy and give restaurants a number rating. Are the details of those inspections also available? With the right app your phone could beep as you walk inside a place, flashing the rating and the top issues blow. Walk into a place and your phone could scream roaches in the kitchen, among other things. As it's public data someone else could compile and permanently publish the lowest rating and the worst problems. Would they be forced to use the most recent data, or can the past become a permanent mark that never goes away?

The more time passes with the Internet's free flow of information at our fingertips, and the more data published, the more we find ways to use that data. It's possible to even abuse or use it in ways never imagined with impacts far greater and wider reaching than originally conceived. Like the sex offender registry. If an 18 year old kissed a 17 year old... or a frat party involved streaking and those crimes become prosecuted. You're thrown in with the rest and a list with addresses is now compiled online. Anyone with a purpose can hunt them down and hurt them. Or same thing with the food inspection, if an address is in the data your phone can alert you as you get near the place. Go on a date, return to their place... phone tells you to GTFO.

I find there are both privacy interests and public interests at play on such subjects. In this case, is there no privacy to a business, must all their practices be published? Not just available to government inspection but to the public at large? So I'm guessing the argument here is for animal safety, and that is determined to also be a public interest. Especially if it made its way into law. So what was decided exactly, specific classifications of businesses or facilities that work with animals must be inspected and publicly reported on? Does this include shelters and veterinarians?

Where I'm coming from is... when has P&N previously discussed the competing moral imperatives between privacy and public interest? I opened by stating I don't know how I feel about that. Where would I draw the line? I want to recognize who has crossed it and for what reasons? I'm sure P&N has had related topics before, but perhaps not one of this exact nature. Why should I know who, identifiably, has violated regulations, instead of just letting the government office responsible deal out a measured and just response?

When I say I don't like lists, I don't like burning people with scarlet letters. Those are scars that do not heal. To ostracize people like second class citizens is something I have a general problem with. Such marks stand between them and redemption. We say forgiveness is a virtue because all too often humans do not forgive. Just ask anyone with a criminal past.
Click to expand...
Just pointing out that it was odd for you to speculate that maybe the Trump admin did this for a good reason when they obviously knew they had no good reason since they tried to blame Obama when asked about it. In your rush to get on the soap box you ignored pertinent information and are still trying to dismiss it as petty.

That said, I'll tell you exactly what is going on here. Trump has issued a direct order to all his minions to undo every single thing Obama and his minions did that they can legally undo, because Trump (and Bannon, etc.) hate Obama with a white hot passion. Doesn't matter what it is, if Obama fingerprints are on it, get rid of it. "But sir, this is going to have these negative eff..." "Don't fucking bother me with the details. I don't have time for the details, I'm busy tweeting about The Apprentice ratings. Just get rid of it!"
 
Last edited:
If anyone wants to see how some of their "leaders" act in real life, just go to Inhofecruelty.com.

Your "leaders" are empty people with no sense of respect for any life, let alone animal life. But remember that the whole system is corrupt - top to bottom so things are in their favor. When you keep voting for guys like Inhofe and most others, your just making this evil system grow stronger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top