national-geographic-photographer-arrested-taking-photos-kansas feedlot

[knabe]

the reading half.

 

[aj]

The "bottom" half. ;D

 

[Limiman12]

Back to the original topic......  There is a big difference between having nothing to hide and allowing full access to a photographer who likely has an agenda.......

NBC. Selectively edited to make it appear that Zimmerman had volunteered that Martin was black

They also edited Palins interview to make her appear more of an idiot

Press edits out Obama's screw ups like 57 states etc


If some one were to ACCURATLY portray our herd, they would tell of a herd that is probably over fed, is cared for, and welcomes human interaction.

  If a photographer went out with a motive they could take a picture of the one or two heifers that are putting EVERYTHING into their calf and are losing flesh, they could photograph the four month old calf that we put a couple hundred in vet bills into when she had the worst case of scours I have ever seen a calf live through but she still is not "thriving" or they could photo the couple of cows that the vet sowed her eye shut to treat the pink eye or the couple of calves that we will be treating tonight and make our herd look just as bad as the neighbors "drop of in the spring pick up what's left in the fall herd". That does have a feed shortage and pink eye epidemic.......

Depending on the view point they could show that five year old little girl hugging the sick calf that was dying begging her to live when we dropped her off at the vet, or the severely dehydrated calf.

The cow with her eye sowed shut, or the chiropractor that got up and worked for two hours before work to help his dad get the cows the treatment that they needed, only to do the same after work three days later.

Full transperency is great, but giving that kind of access to the photographer looking for a Pulitzer is suicide.

 

[chambero]

We sell our commercial calves into a natural beef program.  We are subject to a third-party audit every year that evaluates our facilities and our animal handling practices from an animal welfare standpoint.  Frankly, its not much fun and that folks that do it are very critical about very minor things and they come across as very animal-rights oriented.  As part of that whole process, we are required to have and maintain a document called our "Biosecurity Plan".  As part of that document, we are supposed to document every person that ever sets foot on our property, keep all gates locked at all times, etc.

Those very voluntary guidelines they  (the small portion of the the general public that is particularly concerned about food animal safety) want us to follow absolutely prohibit us from allowing someone to do what this photographer did. Taking off from an airport and photographing an operation is fine - knowingly (or unknowingly) trespassing on property to unload your paraglider and take off?  That's just flat wrong and I'm really surprised Nat Geo would sanction him doing that.  They usually have their act together better than that.  If they were wanting to take pictures closer than they could with a normal plane then they were going to be flying so low they'd scare the cattle anyway.

If National Geographic (or any other legitimate press entity) called me wanting to photograph my operation I would allow them to.  We have nothing to hide.  But if I drive up and out of the blue find a Chinese dude sitting in my pasture next to a trailer and see paraglider buzzing around, the sheriff is getting called and I would proceed as these folks did.  Just like I did when I found two crazy women riding horses cross country through my pasture.  Or trespassing hunters. etc. etc.

 

[aj]

It can be a tit for tat situation sometimes.....I agree.

 

[vc]

(pop)

 

[knabe]

It can be a tit for tat situation sometimes.....I agree.

that was in national geographic?

 

[aj]

Interesting topic......knabe keep us a breast of the situation.