Kentucky Senate takes aim at ‘harassing’ drones photographing livestock, food production

FRANKFORT — A bill backed by Kentucky’s poultry industry and approved by the Senate Thursday would subject drone operators to new restrictions that opponents warn could help hide health and safety hazards in food production.

Critics worry that Senate Bill 16, sponsored by Sen. John Schickel, a Republican from Northern Kentucky, could criminalize more activities than lawmakers realize and that it’s part of a long line of so-called “ag-gag” laws enacted across the country to block whistleblowers and watchdogs from investigating the conduct and practices of industrial agriculture. 

Schickel on the Senate floor said Kentucky’s poultry industry has large “chicken houses” and processing facilities around the state, and the industry had asked for help dealing with drones flying over and “basically harassing” their facilities. 

Graham Hall, a government affairs manager with Tyson Foods, testified in favor of the bill when it passed the Senate Agriculture Committee earlier this week. Hall said drones could “hinder” their business and endanger employees and livestock, saying a drone landed on a “live haul” truck in Wilkesboro, North Carolina. The North Carolina town in 2020 temporarily prohibited drones from flying over a local Tyson facility that had a COVID-19 outbreak after some TV stations flew drones over the facility for news coverage. 

SB 16, which passed the Senate along a largely party line vote, would add concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and commercial food manufacturing or processing facilities, such as meatpacking plants, to a list of “key infrastructure,” such as energy or military research installations. Flying drones over these sites is classified as misdemeanor trespassing under state law. 

The bill restricts more than drones. It also would impose restrictions on any photography or filming of CAFOs and food-processing sites.

CAFOs are meat, dairy, and egg operations where hundreds or thousands of animals are raised together in a confined facility; Kentucky had 150 of them as of 2022. Such facilities have been the target of animal rights groups investigating instances of animal cruelty and health violations. 

The bill would criminalize flying drones above or on such facilities. It prohibits recording and distributing photos or video of CAFOs or food manufacturing or processing facilities, even when photographed or filmed from the ground. 

Sen. Jason Howell, R-Murray, said facilities “come under fire a lot from well-meaning activists that interrupt operations” and that the bill was “narrowly tailored” to protect the facilities. 

But critics of the bill, including some Democrats who voted against the legislation, believe it could have far-reaching and  unintended consequences. 

The environmental legal group Kentucky Resources Council, which has strongly opposed the legislation, cites multiple examples of how the law could be misused or misinterpreted: Employees or inspectors taking photos or videos of workplace violations could run afoul of the restrictions. So could a neighbor taking video from their own property, or someone simply taking photos at zoos, horse tracks or pumpkin patches, which could constitute an “animal feeding operation, ” the council has warned. 

“This bill may prevent the documenting and chill the reporting of dangerous conditions at commercial food manufacturing and packaging facilities that threaten worker or public safety,” an email from the legal group stated. “Workers or visitors to these facilities would be criminally liable for recording or reporting proof of an illegally and potentially dangerous source of food, defective equipment, or a spill or release of a hazardous materials, or transmitting documents to a government agency.”

Todd Blevins, the Kentucky state director of the Humane Society of the United States, echoed those concerns and also questioned whether the bill would be constitutional on First Amendment grounds. Other state laws restricting video and photo recording around agricultural facilities have been litigated, with some laws being struck down in court. 

“It just doesn’t seem like smart policy to pass something that’s been found unconstitutional more often than not,” Blevins said. 

In an interview after SB 16 cleared the Senate, Schickel said he thinks some of Kentucky Resource Council’s concerns are “farfetched” but that any potential unintended consequences created by the bill would be fixed. 

“Agriculture by its nature can be distasteful to some,” Schickel said. “I think these groups have harassed these businesses, and these businesses have to protect their operations and their customers.”

“Tyson does a great job and these other corporations are providing that service,” he said. “Kentucky benefits from it.”