The phrase in French means “fatted liver” and comes from a goose or duck that is force fed to produce the delicacy. The case is named after the main plaintiff, based in Canada, the Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec vs. Harris.

Harris’ office declined to comment on the filing. But advocates of maintaining the ban were quick to weigh in, beginning with Paul Shapiro, the Humane Society’s vice president of farm animal protection. According to Reuters, he claimed, “California has the right to prevent the commerce in such a cruel and inhumane product.”

That’s anything but certain. As the Los Angeles Times reported, the plaintiffs who challenged the foie gras ban expressed certainty that constitutional law was on their side. They said:

“We’re very confident that the district court’s judgment will be upheld on appeal. The decision was based on the simple fact that, in the field of meat and poultry, federal law is supreme. California does not have the right to ban wholesome, USDA-approved poultry products, whether it’s foie gras or fried chicken. We look forward to having our victory affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

The Ninth Circuit, however, took up the issue before. In 2013, it turned back an injunction by out-of-state farmers to put the California ban on hold until the matter could go through the courts.

That raises the possibility that the ban will be upheld again, triggering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Facing federal law

As CalWatchdog.com previously reported, Wilson ruled the ban ran afoul of federal poultry regulations — specifically, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, or PPIA. He wrote:

“This issue boils down to one question: whether a sales ban on products containing a constituent that was produced in a particular manner is an ‘ingredient requirement’ under the PPIA. California cannot regulate foie gras products’ ingredients by creatively phrasing its law in terms of the manner in which those ingredients were produced.”

The ban arose in 2004, after then-State Sen. John Burton, D-San Francisco, introduced Senate Bill 1520. The bill prohibited foie gras from being produced or sold in California, thereby ruling out imports of the fattened-liver delicacy. Wilson’s decision approved the importation and sale of foie gras, but did nothing to alter California’s prohibition on production.

The perils of prohibition

However the legal case against the ban may fare in higher court, observers have taken note of the practical effect of foie gras prohibition. Much like America’s experiment with alcohol Prohibition, 1920-33, banning foie gras appeared to increase Californians’ appetite for what was banned.

As Josh Barro detailed at the New York Times, demand for foie gras rose precipitously both immediately before and after the ban:

“‘We saw an up in volume two years ago when the ban went into effect,’ said Ariane Daguin, chief executive of the specialty food supplier D’Artagnan, which sells to both restaurants and consumers. ‘People wanted to see what the brouhaha was about. Now what is happening is all the chefs who are our friends and have been buying other things from us want to put foie gras back on the menu.'”

What’s more, as Robin Abcarian reported in the Los Angeles Times, fattened liver “never truly disappeared from menus.” Chef Ken Frank, a big foie gras proponent, told Abcarian he “skirted the ban by giving customers foie gras, randomly delivered, he said, with a note explaining the gift was a protest.”

Although he insisted he “went to great lengths not to violate the letter of the law,” Frank himself has been dragged into court by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, which brought suit against him and his restaurant in March 2013.

Assembly Bill 711 passed largely because of concern over the poisoning of the California condor. But the bill was amended at the 11th hour in a secret deal to postpone the effective date until 2019. If the need for the bill is really over concerns about poisoned Condors, what about the thousands of great birds which will have died by the time the bill finally goes into effect six years from now?

But not all of the state's Democrats voted for  AB711; representatives of rural areas in the state voted against the bill, or abstained.

Motive: A total ban on hunting

The bill isn't really about concerns over condors or lead poisoning, according to two opponents. They are Mark Gagliardi, a trustee of the Contra Costa Central Labor Council; and Lawrence Keane, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the shooting, hunting and firearms industry.

Gagliardi, a labor union leader, is very frustrated with Democratic Assembly and Senate members he helped get elected, but who voted for passage of AB711. “This bill will hurt the shooting industry, retailers and hunting,” Gagliardi told me in an interview. “They are making hunting unaffordable, and killing California jobs.”

Gagliardi said he goes to the Capitol two to three times each year to meet with lawmaker on labor issues. One day early in 2013, he was at the Capitol and noticed AB711 and a couple of other anti-gun bills were being heard that day in the Senate Public Safety Committee. So he went to the hearing and sat in the front row. Gagliardi said Democrats on the committee he helped get elected acted uncomfortable seeing him sitting there. Several asked him what he was doing at the Public Safety Committee hearing, and suggested he was out of his element.

While Gagliardi is a labor leader, that reaction promoted him to put together a large coalition of labor leaders to fight AB711. “Unions represent business in America, including the manufacturers of lead ammunition,” Gagliardi said. “We elect these people to go to Sacramento to create jobs, not to make them go away.”

Condor “science” 

“I am very much opposed to the Humane Society attempt to ban hunting in California, and the position of the head of the Department of Fish and Wildlife,” Keane told me.  According to Keane, Chuck Bonham, the department's director, completely caved under the pressure of the Humane Society lobbying and agreed to support the lead ammo ban.

“You can’t tell me with a straight face the Humane Society is okay with hunting as long as there is no lead in the ammunition,” Keane said.

Keane said the science proves there is not one species impacted by lead ammunition, and the existing lead ban has not had an impact on California condors. “They are still getting lead, but it’s from paint on water towers, and micro-trash,” Keane said. “This bill is solely about preventing hunting in California. The Humane Society doesn’t care about animals dying. There is no justification for delayed implementation of the bill. This is just an effort to restrict the use of ammo in states.”
best online casino sites
And according to Keane, the Humane Society needs California to pass the bill in order to pressure other states to do the same.

Keane said to be wary. If the Humane Society succeeds with AB711, the next ammunition under attack will be on shooting ranges.

Union members are sportsmen and hunters

Gagliardi also leads “Shoot for a Cure,” a national nonprofit that raises money for leukemia and lymphoma research through sport-shooting events. And he is a sport shooter and hunter. Gagliardi told me more than 65 percent of union members are active sportsmen, fishermen and hunters, and participate in many outdoor activities. The fees from hunting licenses and excise taxes on firearms pay for the conservation programs in the country and California, Gagliardi said.

“Hunters buy the licenses, and they clean up after themselves,” he said. “Not the Sierra Club or Humane Society. We can fix this the right way. We just need to get labor and industry together. The Humane Society has no stake in California other than to suck money from the state.”

Is lead really the culprit?

The ammo breakdown is interesting: 95 percent of the traditional ammunition is made with lead projectiles, 4 percent is steel for waterfowl hunting, and only 1 percent is alternative metals (copper, brass and tungsten), according to Keane. “There is no consumer demand for alternative ammo.”

As for the taxes which pay for conservation programs, Keane said there is an 11 percent federal excise tax on long guns, and a 10 percent federal excise tax on hand guns — all of which goes to pay for conservation in the U.S., and in California, based on the number of state gun purchases and licenses issued. “The California politicians who voted for this bill are demonizing the ammunition that pays for conservation programs.”

While all of the gun sales taxes and licensing funds go directly into conservation efforts, Keane noted the national Humane Society actually donates only 1 percent of its proceeds to animal shelters.

“Why does the Legislature have to micromanage the department head of the Fish and Wildlife Department?” Keane rhetorically asked. “Because the department took a look at the politics and decided, ahead, the bill would pass.”

Politics versus policy

Michael Sutton, President of the California Commission for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, also is the Executive Director of Audubon California, the sponsor of AB711.

“We've known about lead's toxic nature for decades,” Audubon California said in a fundraising email. “We've been fighting to get the lead out for years. And we're still experiencing its insidious effects on wildlife and people. Let's finish this job once and for all!

“We have rightly spent millions of dollars to bring these spectacular flyers back. It’s time to snuff out the lingering threat of lead poisoning while there is still time.”

However, according to Keane, extensive research has shown that traditional lead ammunition does not pose a health hazard for condors. A recent study found that, despite 99 percent hunter compliance, a ban on using lead ammunition in certain areas of the state under AB821 of 2008 failed to reduce lead poisoning in condors.

Keane added, “Wildlife management by politics, rather than science, is never a good thing.”

By Katy Grimes

A wealthy Sacramento couple has offered to make one of the largest private donations in Sacramento history to create a natural history museum for the city. Naturally, an animal rights activist and city officials are freaking out.

Paul and Renee Snider want to donate their extensive personal collection of mounted polar bears, lions, rhinos, dik-diks, and other animals, some of which are rare, and build a nearly 180,000 square foot museum to house them. The museum would also be the new home of the California Auto Museum, which desperately needs an updated building.

But it appears the Sniders are being thwarted by the Sacramento Planning Commission, along with an animal rights activist who finds the project distasteful, despite the decades of charity work the Sniders have done for the Sacramento area.

And that’s the problem. Radical activists and the government officials who listen to them would rather kill a privately funded project than let thousands of others enjoy it.

The animal rights activist and Planning Commissioner

At a planning commission meeting last week, animal rights activists got the ear of Planning Commissioner Kim Mack, and challenged whether the city of Sacramento should approve the museum with the Sniders’ game animals in the same building as classic cars.

The Sniders have asked the city for permission to buy the land for $1.25 million, and will pay to build the new museum building.

“Some members of the commission confined their comments to discussions about the design of the new museum, while others opined on the necessity of reaching out to the community regarding the content of the new building,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “Mack addressed the issue more directly. ‘I think that bringing stuffed endangered species into the mix is dangerous to the reputation of our community,’ she said.”

Mack, a politically active Democrat, has close ties to Mayor Kevin Johnson, and helped run his first campaign for Sacramento mayor. Mack also managed a grassroots support effort in the region for the first Obama presidential campaign.

Mack has also been involved with Johnson’s Sacramentans for Accountable Government effort to put a Strong Mayor Initiative on the ballot, essentially giving Johnson more power.

When Mack was a City Council candidate, she took heat because emails in support of the Strong Mayor Initiative were sent to people on an email list that originated from an Obama campaign list. Mack came under strong criticism for providing the Obama campaign email list to the Sacramentans for Accountable Government group.

And then, after losing in the city council primary, Mack was appointed to the Sacramento Planning Commission by Johnson.

It pays to have friends in high places, regardless of credentials.

The animal rights activist behind the effort to kill the museum is Jennifer Fearing, a well-known Humane Society radical, and California senior state director for the organization.

“Destroying wild animals for the thrill of the kill, for trophies, and for bragging rights is anything but good for the world,” the letter to the planning commission from Fearing said, as reported by the Bee. “We share Renee Snider’s awe of the ‘beauty of wildlife,’ but feel that awe is best shown through shooting them through lenses, not gun barrels.”

“The two-page letter also says the city would be selling valuable riverfront property too cheap, and suggests the attractions at the museum would be unlikely to draw many visitors,” the Bee said.

“A hybrid auto/dead animal museum seems unlikely to generate enough foot traffic over time to be sustainable. We also question the rationale for the city selling this property for $1.25 million — which seems an exceptionally low price for such valuable property,” Fearing said.

Fearing and the Humane Society are behind many of the anti-gun, anti-hunting bills in the California Legislature. One of their bills, AB711, would have unnecessarily banned lead ammunition for all hunting in California, but was killed in the committee process. Fearing and her cohorts are responsible for the recent ban in California on bear hunting with dogs, hunting using trapping, and the name change of the Department of Fish and Game to the Department of Fish and “Wildlife,” which most people questioned.

The Sniders

Several years ago, Paul and Renee Snider had offered to build a smaller history museum on the campus of California State University Sacramento, but were forced to give up that idea when members of the CSUS faculty became unhinged at the idea, and heavily protested the offer.

However, and quite ironically, it was CSUS officials who had previously facilitated the permission from the government of Tanzania needed for the Sniders to hunt exotic animals in that country.

Oh what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive.

Paul and Renee Snider are well-known as Sacramento’s first couple in charitable giving. There isn’t a charity in town unfamiliar with their selfless kindness and generosity. Renee Snider has been on the Board of Directors for decades of the River Oak Center for Children, where I first met her. The Sniders have donated millions of dollars to River Oak Center, helping to provide group homes, education facilities and care facilities for children needing behavioral health and mental health services.

I’ve been to the Sniders’ home and have seen the amazing museum wing with the animals on display. I sat on a local charitable board with Mrs. Snider. They are very generous and good people, but are being maligned by people who have no idea who they are, or of the many charities to which they give their considerable money and time.

The auto museum

The California Auto Museum is worth a visit. It has fantastic collections of cars, but could use an updated, climate-controlled building. The last time I visited, I saw Gov. Jerry Brown’s old 1974 Plymouth Satellite, from his first term as Governor of California in 1975, and took the nearby picture of it. These days, Brown has plenty of Capitol police escorts to drive him around.

Despite the kindness and generosity with which the gift of the museum is intended, because some froth at the mouth at hunting and hunters, the enjoyment so many others could be killed. A history museum and a new auto museum would be wonderful for Sacramento, and could be a place of learning as well.