Environmental activists fear proposed law will send mixed signals with gas industry
By: Joe Holden
Updated: March 8, 2013
Wilkes-Barre, Luzerne County- House Bill 683's primary sponsor is a Democrat. A co-sponsor is also a Democrat. Additionally, seven Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors. The bi-partisan effort to crack down on those who trespass on farmland to obtain video and pictures illegally seems to deal solely with weeding out those who interfere with agriculture operations in the state.
But some are questioning if the law passes, could it be applied to those who regularly photograph, videotape and document natural gas operations. Scott Cannon pointed out much of the industry occupies large tracts of farmland across the Northern Tier of Pennsylvania. Cannon, who produces documentaries critical of the industry, is convinced House Bill 683 could be misapplied to include natural gas companies.
"Most of the gas wells I see are on farmland," said Cannon. "So does that make gas drilling on farm land an agricultural process? I can see the gas industry using that to come after us."
The language of H.B. 683 does not clearly define where a person would be in violation if he or she obtained footage or pictures of so-called agricultural operations. Cannon takes that to mean someone could be prosecuted under the terms of the law if they were taking pictures of any farm from public property. Even ones with drilling rigs.
The bill's sponsor told Eyewitness News Friday evening there was no connection between the bill's language and the natural gas industry. Rep. Gary Haluska (D-Pa.) said the idea for the bill came from the Farm Bureau and was developed to address trespassing by those looking to exploit farmers. When asked if he could understand how the bill could be misinterpreted given the sprawling natural gas industry, he responded: "Maybe what we need to do is have some hearings."
Other lawmakers who are co-sponsoring the bill also defended the bill's original intent saying it had nothing to do with the gas industry.
Still environmental activists don't want to open a door.
"If you videotape from a public or private road, or transmit, which means you post it online, that could be a felony," said Cannon. "That's a big deal."
But some are questioning if the law passes, could it be applied to those who regularly photograph, videotape and document natural gas operations. Scott Cannon pointed out much of the industry occupies large tracts of farmland across the Northern Tier of Pennsylvania. Cannon, who produces documentaries critical of the industry, is convinced House Bill 683 could be misapplied to include natural gas companies.
"Most of the gas wells I see are on farmland," said Cannon. "So does that make gas drilling on farm land an agricultural process? I can see the gas industry using that to come after us."
The language of H.B. 683 does not clearly define where a person would be in violation if he or she obtained footage or pictures of so-called agricultural operations. Cannon takes that to mean someone could be prosecuted under the terms of the law if they were taking pictures of any farm from public property. Even ones with drilling rigs.
The bill's sponsor told Eyewitness News Friday evening there was no connection between the bill's language and the natural gas industry. Rep. Gary Haluska (D-Pa.) said the idea for the bill came from the Farm Bureau and was developed to address trespassing by those looking to exploit farmers. When asked if he could understand how the bill could be misinterpreted given the sprawling natural gas industry, he responded: "Maybe what we need to do is have some hearings."
Other lawmakers who are co-sponsoring the bill also defended the bill's original intent saying it had nothing to do with the gas industry.
Still environmental activists don't want to open a door.
"If you videotape from a public or private road, or transmit, which means you post it online, that could be a felony," said Cannon. "That's a big deal."
Comments
I too, doubt the intent of HB683. According to the site Legiscan Rep. Haluska it seems receives many times more dollars from energy companys than from agriculture. In 2012 he received more than twice the amount from energy than agriculture. In 2010 he got over 5 times more from energy than ag. So, I question his honesty. I also question his ethical judgement, that's it's legal to abuse, torture and mistreat animals, but it's a felony for someone to stop it.
Chino, CA incident is a good example of whistle blowing doing good. They were torturing downed cows with high pressure hoses to the face to induce what were obviously very sick cows on the verge of death, to get on their feet.
The people proposing this legislation don't want you to see downed cows going in your food supply. The Chino slaughterhouse supplied beef for school lunches. They are closed now. It caused the largest beef recall in U.S. history. It seems like these people don't care how horribly these animals suffer or how many people get sick from contaminated meat, what matters to them is that nobody see it happening.
jill j.
May 1, 2013 at 8:10 pm
