DA Declines to File Charges in California Wood Chipper Case

April 17, 2003 San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie M. Dumanis recently upheld her office's earlier decision not to prosecute the owners of a California egg farm whose employees destroyed thousands of live chickens by throwing them into wood chippers.

Dumanis's decision closes the door on animal advocates' hopes to file animal cruelty charges against the owners of Ward Egg Ranch. In early April, the DA's office had ruled that Ward Egg Ranch did not violate California's animal cruelty laws because it did not act with malicious intent and had followed the advice of a veterinarian. (At the time, the DA also suggested that wood chippers are commonly used as a means of euthanasia in the poultry industry, a claim later repudiated by industry sources.)

The DA, however, decided to reopen the case in mid-April after Dumanis received numerous complaints from animal advocates, including The Humane Society of the United States, which argued that malicious intent was not required under California law. Nonetheless, after further investigation, Dumanis came to the same conclusion on May 9 that her office did in early April: that the Ward Egg Ranch owners did not act with criminal intent and therefore should not be charged.

"We understand that there are those who are outraged by this means of disposal," the San Diego Union-Tribune quoted Dumanis from a prepared statement. "But we have looked at this case very closely and, after thorough review, we believe the ranch owners did not do anything criminal under the law as it is written."

The HSUS had tried to persuade the DA that the Ward owners deserved to face charges in the case, which dates back to late February when the San Diego County Department of Animal Services looked into complaints that employees were tossing thousands of live chickens into wood chippers. The animals were so-called "spent hens"—egg-laying hens who were no longer productive. The animals could not be moved to a "kill facility" in northern California because of the Exotic Newcastle Disease quarantine in San Diego County. The fatal avian virus has already forced the destruction of nearly 3.5 million birds in southern California.

In an April 15 letter to the DA, Wayne Pacelle, an HSUS senior vice president, wrote: "Apparently, you have been led to believe that feeding adult birds into a wood chipper is an acceptable means of killing small birds. Let me say emphatically that no reputable animal welfare authority could possibly condone such a barbaric and reckless method of killing. Neither The HSUS nor the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses this conduct. Given that you may have been misled about the acceptability of the practice, we respectfully ask you to reconsider your decision and charge the owners of Ward Egg Ranch with numerous violations of California's animal-protection laws."

The HSUS had argued that only the law should dictate whether charges are filed in the Ward case, and California law stipulates that it is illegal to subject any animal to "needless suffering" or "unnecessary cruelty"—and this includes farm animals. What's more, The HSUS noted, the Golden State animal cruelty law does not require proof of malicious intent, as the San Diego County DA ruled.

"Minimal protections do exist for the consideration of farmed animals in California," Pacelle wrote in his April 15 letter, "and we continue to believe that stuffing animals into a shredding machine is a clear violation of those protections."

The ultimate injustice with the San Diego County DA's decision lies not in the present, but in the future, The HSUS believes. For the decision risks telling other farmers that it's acceptable to kill chickens via a wood chipper. The HSUS could not disagree more.

"Throwing 30,000 live animals into a wood chipper is a gruesome and unjustified act of animal cruelty," Pacelle wrote. "I would submit to you that this case involved a degree of suffering almost unprecedented in our experience."

Dr. Michael Appleby, The HSUS's vice president for Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture, concurs. "When animals have to be killed, there is a responsibility to kill them as humanely as possible. Using a machine designed for a completely different purpose—in this case, shredding branches—is not euthanasia. It is a case of expediency taking precedence over humanity."

Read the full text of The HSUS's letter to the San Diego County District Attorney on the following page.

April 15, 2003

Bonnie M. Dumanis
San Diego County District Attorney
330 West Broadway, Suite 1300
San Diego, CA 92101

Dear Ms. Dumanis:

On behalf of the 7.2 million members of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), I write to urge you to reconsider your decision not to prosecute two owners of Ward Egg Ranch for directing their employees to throw thousands of live hens into wood chippers. Apparently, you have been led to believe that feeding adult birds into a wood chipper is an acceptable means of killing small birds. Let me say emphatically that no reputable animal welfare authority could possibly condone such a barbaric and reckless method of killing. Neither The HSUS nor the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) endorses this conduct. Given that you may have been misled about the acceptability of the practice, we respectfully ask you to reconsider your decision and charge the owners of Ward Egg Ranch with numerous violations of California’s animal protection laws.

The HSUS has extensive experience in working with the AVMA on numerous issues regarding animal welfare, including farm animal welfare. Our review of the AVMA’s literature, including the organization’s latest 2000 report about euthanasia, provides no support for the contention that the AVMA finds using a wood chipper to be an acceptable means of killing hens. Moreover, today we reviewed a statement from an AVMA staffer that reads, in part: “No one at the AVMA has authorized the use of a wood chipper as a means of euthanasia. As you know, the 2000 Report on the Panel on Euthanasia does not list this as an acceptable or conditional means of euthanasia; in fact, the report does not address it any fashion.” This statement contradicts a claim attributed to your office that was reported in the San Diego Union-Tribune to indicate that you believe that the AVMA endorsed the conduct in question.

A determination from your office that it is not illegal to throw live hens into a wood chipper could put millions of animals in California’s egg farm industry at risk, especially because of the imposition of an emergency quarantine, in response to the deadly outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease, on the movement of birds throughout large portions of California.

In addition, your office reportedly gave substantial weight to the alleged opinions of veterinarians with the U.S. Department of Agriculture who provided the farmers with “permission” to use the wood chipping device. As The HSUS knows from speaking with the San Diego County Department of Animal Services, the two veterinarians were, at best, consultants for the USDA working on the Exotic Newcastle Disease outbreak and do not speak for the federal agency. One of the veterinarians, Dr. Gregg Cutler, even reportedly denied knowing about the mass killing at the farms and an affiliation with the USDA. Also, the California Department of Food and Agriculture reportedly shared with the USDA that its approved method of euthanasia was carbon dioxide. Again, I would hope that you would agree that a veterinarian acting as a consultant working on avian disease issues for the USDA should not be able to determine what constitutes either humane slaughter or animal cruelty in California.

As we cited in our March 7 letter to you, it is illegal in California to subject any animal to “needless suffering” or “unnecessary cruelty”. Cal. Penal Code § 597(b). Although these prohibitions are not meant to interfere with the killing of animals for food, the legislature did not grant the farm animal industry immunity from California’s animal cruelty statute. Minimal protections do exist for the consideration of farmed animals in California, and we continue to believe that stuffing animals into a shredding machine is clear violation of those protections.

Moreover, such protections exist for farm animals without any requirement of proving malicious intent. As you will note, not only is malice not specified in paragraph (b) of Penal Code section 597, but California’s animal cruelty law has been held to not be a specific intent crime. It is a general intent crime that does not require proof of malice unless specifically required. People v. Farley, 109 Cal.Rptr. 59 (1973). Therefore, although we understand your office concluded there was no crime in the current case because there was no criminal intent, there evidently is no basis for that conclusion in the law.

Throwing 30,000 live animals into a wood chipper is a gruesome and unjustified act of animal cruelty. I would submit to you that this case involved a degree of suffering almost unprecedented in our experience, simply based on the raw numbers of animals fed into a mechanical device designed to shred wood. Based on the evidence above, and what you have been presented by the San Diego County Department of Animal Services, The HSUS again urges your office to reconsider its decision to not charge the owners of Ward Egg Ranch with cruelty to animals.

Thank you for your consideration of our request.

Sincerely,

Wayne Pacelle
Senior Vice President
Communications and Government Affairs

Eric Sakach, Director
West Coast Regional Office

cc:
John Carlson, San Diego County Department of Animal Services
Dr. Mark Goldstein, Executive Director, San Diego Humane Society and SPCA

See the Video

Buckeye Egg Farm Disaster

Buckeye Egg Farm Chicken Rescues

Related Links

Chickens

California, Nevada and Arizona Use Questionable Tactics to Battle Newcastle Disease

Florida Decides Not to File Cruelty Charges Against Cypress Foods

The Chicken Factory Farm