In a continuing series of articles about undercover whistleblower videos at animal use facilities, APE interviews Nathan Runkle, executive director of Mercy for Animals.
BACKGROUND
Animal protection group Mercy for Animals (MFA) this week released video and photographs documenting several incidents of severe abuse of calves at a large-scale animal agriculture facility in Hart,Texas.
The images were caught on hidden camera by an MFA investigator who gained employment at E6 Cattle Company in order to uncover possible cruelties.
In the footage workers repeatedly strike the skulls of sick or frostbitten calves (who might be only days, weeks, or months old) with pickaxes, claw hammers, and small household-type hammers in an effort to “euthanize” them.
At other moments in the video the ill and sometimes frostbitten young animals are thrown roughly, or discovered to be still alive in piles of carcasses, or suffering from wounds and sores, or lying in puddles of their waste and/or blood, swarmed by flies.
In some cases the frostbite was so harsh that it caused their hooves to fall off, so the calves were trying to walk on nubs, according to Castro County district attorney James Horton.
E6 Cattle Company owner Kirt Espenson told Animal Policy Examiner (APE) that he takes responsibility for the abuses that occurred at his facility, admits he failed to properly train some of the employees in how to care for the calves, and was appalled by the incidents of cruelty.
Nathan Runkle, executive director of Mercy for Animals, recently spoke with APE about the incidents at E6 Cattle Company. Please see full interview below.
[For more articles and background on this topic, including the full interviews with prosecutor Horton and E6 owner Espenson, please see the links at the bottom of this article.]
APE INTERVIEW WITH NATHAN RUNKLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF MERCY FOR ANIMALS
APE: We’ve talked before, thank you so much. You gave me your time at the [The Humane Society of the United States'] Genesis Awards, too, so we’ve covered a lot of questions already. I’m going to ask you the difficult questions first.
As I mentioned I just got off the phone a little while ago with Kirt Espenson, who owns E6 Cattle Company which is of course where MFA [Mercy for Animals] shot the video that included some pretty egregious scenes of animal abuse. One thing that Mr. Espenson mentioned while we were talking– And I’d like to run this by you and get your confirmation or your reaction one way or the other.
If I understood him correctly and I think I did, he mentioned that one of the four [individuals] who he knows of who were committing these abuses–that among them was actually the MFA undercover fellow. And he is depicted as well in some video footage, I believe he said, ‘using a hammer’ on a calf?
RUNKLE: Well, the use of the hammer was standard practice at this facility and it was the only euthanasia method provided by Kirt Espenson for his employees to use, and that’s why we’re asking for him to be criminally charged, because he failed to have any animal welfare training or policies, and through his negligence, and by not providing a humane or safe alternative, really left his employees with no option but to euthanize sick and dying calves in this way.
So we have on hidden camera our investigator complaining multiple times to Kirt about the use of the hammers and Kirt saying that it’s OK to kill the calves in that manner.
APE: I want to give you a chance to answer questions that you might get, and that I know I might get from readers. A lot of people– Obviously I believe there’s a lot of admiration for undercover agents, undercover operators, because I think, and many people feel, that it takes a lot of courage to go into a situation like that. A lot of people might also look at it and say, “How could you possibly bring yourself to commit that kind of cruelty?”
RUNKLE: Well, this abuse is taking place right now behind closed doors as we speak. I mean, the only way to end it and to enact stronger laws is to expose this abuse. And sometimes going undercover means that you have to do your job exactly as you’re instructed by your supervisors. And that’s how we can gather evidence and build a case to hold these companies accountable, and to push for meaningful change that will prevent this abuse from happening in the future.
APE: OK. I understand from– I was told by Mr. Espenson that he’s taking responsibility for having failed in instructing some of the employees properly and he said repeatedly that this was a very unusual set of incidents, and that this is not standard practice at his facility. What would you say to that?
RUNKLE: I would say that based on our evidence that’s completely untrue, and that this was the accepted and expected manner of killing calves at this facility, and as I’ve said and as the video evidence shows, was something Kirt was very well aware was taking place. And our investigator was really the only voice that these animals had, and he brought this up to Kirt multiple times.
It was only after repeated conversations that the owner agreed to buy a gun. But even after that it was a small low-powered gun that wouldn’t penetrate the calve’s skull, either. And we believe that Kirt instructed this gun to be purchased because it was cheaper than some of the other models.
So as the owner of this company it’s his obligaton to provide a safe and a quick method of euthanasia and that’s something that he failed to do over and over again.
APE: On the [MFA] website I see that you guys say that Mr. Espenson actually instructed the workers to carry out the killings in that manner with the bludgeoning, etc. Did I understand that correctly?
RUNKLE: Well, we’re saying that he failed to provide any other option, and on the video… There are two video clips, one of him saying yeah, it’s OK for him to use the hammer, and the other about how they deny veterinary care to all the [inaudible word] calves.
APE: OK, I’m sorry– There are actually video clips of him saying it’s OK for them to use the hammer?
RUNKLE: Yeah, our investigator says, “Hey do you have a rifle, because there isn’t one available,” and Kirt says, “Oh, ask so-and-so.” And the investigator says, “OK, and if the rifle’s not available, is the hammer OK?” And Kirt says, “Yeah.” And the investigator says, “Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.” And Kirt says, “Yeah, it’s OK.”
So he’s very well aware of it, and now that he’s been caught red-handed, he’s trying to back-pedal to save his company. But the reality is that [inaudible phrase] any sort of welfare training or policy, or providing an alternative to the employees, he directly supported this abuse.
APE: OK. And again, I’m bringing to you the comments that Mr. Espenson made so that you can have a chance for rebuttal. Another point that he made was that he says why didn’t the investigator, the undercover fellow, just come to him, and say, “Look, these horrible things are happening”?
RUNKLE: He did. He did multiple times. And that’s when you see, when he’s on hidden camera, and this issue is brought up he [Espenson] literally shrugs it off and says, “Yeah, it’s OK.”
This is a culture of cruelty and neglect. He was aware that this was going on. This was how all the employees at the facility did it. There was no alternative, and there was no training in place. So he did. And in fact it was on our investigator’s last day, he went and himself got a gun to try to ease the suffering of these animals, but then he was instructed by Kirt to get a gun that was so low-powered that it probably wouldn’t even work.
APE: OK. One thing that I forgot, actually, to ask Mr., um, uh– I’m sorry, my brain isn’t working so great because I watched that video pretty late in the evening, and then it was difficult to sleep. So– But– Which I believe is a reaction that many people are having after seeing it. In any case, Mr. Espenson– I’m sorry, um… um… I’m sorry. Why did– I forgot to ask Mr. Espenson, actually, about the de-horning, through cauterization or whatever it’s called–the burning. Is that standard practice or is that a variation from how it should be done?
RUNKLE: De-horning is a standard practice but the American Veterinary Association guidelines recommend that [anesthesia] be used before and after the procedure. And no anesthesia was being used at this facility, which leads to acute and chronic pain in the animals.
APE: In defense of what happened at E6–although he [Espenson] did try to make– He did make the point repeatedly that he did take full responsibility for what had happened. Mr. Espenson said that one contributing factor he wanted to point out for these abuses and these incidents was unusually severe weather that that part of Texas was having in the weeks prior to the investigation, and that that caused things to not go as well as they normally do there. Do you have any information or material about that?
RUNKLE: If animals are sick or injured they should be provided veterinary care, and if animals cannot be treated by a veterinarian, they should be humanely euthanized, and to fail to provide animal welfare training or policies, or a method of euthanasia that would provide a quick death for his employees [to use] is negligent and constitutes animal cruelty.
APE: Why did you guys select E6? Did you have information that there were problems there to begin with?
RUNKLE: No. E6 was selected completely at random, and as soon as our investigator set foot in there he felt that there were calves who were suffering from untreated injury and illness, and the investigation was launched from there.
APE: Is that how most of your investigations– How you select the facilities for most of your investigations? Are they at random?
RUNKLE: Yes. All of MFA’s past investigations have been selected completely at random.
APE: So in your estimation, then, does the fact– Well, let me ask something else. Do you find abuses at all of the facilities you investigate?
RUNKLE: Yes. Abuse runs rampant in industrial agriculture where these animals are treated as commodities or little more than meat, milk, or egg-producing machines. And every time we’ve sent an investigator into a factory farm, slaughterhouse, or hatchery, they emerge with shocking evidence of egregious animal abuse, whether it be sadistic cruelty by workers, or the day-to-day intensive confinement these animals are subjected to, where they’re deprived of even the ability to stand up, lie down, turn around, or extend their limbs. Abuse is the rule rather than the exception in factory farm environments.
APE: OK. So you have never sent an investigator into one of these facilities and had them come back to you and say, “Look, there’s nothing to worry about at this one.”
RUNKLE: That’s correct. Yes.
APE: Because of course what I hear repeatedly when I’m interviewing folks in the ag industry or its supporters is that these types of incidents are quite rare.
RUNKLE: That has certainly not been true in our case. One hundred percent of our investigations have uncovered animal abuse at these facilities and have been conducted at random, which shows that animal agri-business is incapable of self-regulation, and that we need stricter state and federal laws to protect animals from abuse, and we need oversight, because currently the only real watchdogs that farmed animals have are undercover investigations at animal protection organizations.
APE: Officially is it the USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] who’s supposed to be sending in inspectors on a regular basis?
RUNKLE: Well the problem is that there’s not a single federal law that provides protection to farmed animals during their lives. There is the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act which exempts poultry, and that is rarely enforced. But on the farm, there are no federal protections for these animals.
article source
