Judge Dismisses Lawsuit, Rules In Favor Of Right To Privacy

Judge Dismisses Lawsuit, Rules
In Favor Of Right to Privacy

WACO —(AP)— A judge has dismissed a lawsuit that sought the release of names, addresses and other information for farmers and ranchers who use livestock protection collars that are lethal to predators.

U.S. District Judge Walter Smith said giving out such information would violate the federal Freedom of Information Act, which exempts the release of people's personal information.

The suit pitted several ranchers, the Texas Farm Bureau and the American Farm Bureau Federation against the Animal Protection Institute, a Sacramento, Calif-based animal rights group.

The U.S. Agriculture Department sided with the activist group, which filed an open records request in 1998, arguing the public had a right to know who gets protection collars, which the group claims are provided by the government and paid for by taxpayers.

The collars contain bladders filled with sodium fluoroacetate, known as compound 1080, and are attached around the necks of sheep and goats. They are designed to deliver a lethal dose of the toxicant to a coyote that punctures the bladder while attacking the collared animal.

The Agriculture Department keeps a database tracking who uses the chemical collars, how many were dispersed and other details including the names and addresses of recipients.

Smith dismissed the case Sept. 30 after several years of legal wrangling. The judge said farmers and ranchers could be at risk of attack and harassment from extremists if the information were released.

API attorney Nicole Paquette dismissed that notion and called the ruling disappointing.

``We are paying for this and we are subsidizing ranchers to kill predators. It's ludicrous how many animals are being killed out there under the guise of protecting livestock,'' she said.

She said an appeal was planned.

(So just exactly what would this group have people believe they want to do with the information? Of course their intent is to harass; what other purpose could the information serve? It was to be a hit list, pure and simple. As for taxpayers "subsidizing" the use of collars, the process in Texas is mostly private, as is its funding. — Ed.)

Joe Maley, of the Waco-based Texas Farm Bureau, hailed the decision: ``We're hoping that issue has been laid to rest. We've never felt like FOIA was intended to provide personal information.''