For immediate release:
19 August 2021
David Pearl 202-483-7382
Dover, Del. – PETA received a USDA report revealing a recent violation of the law at Family Butcher Shop, Inc., Haass, outside Dover. In response, the group sent a letter today to Delaware Attorney A.J. Rupu with a call to consider this issue and, if necessary, bring charges of cruelty to animals against the enterprise and the employee who shot a pig twice in the head. with a gun that a colleague told him would not work on her. When the pig remained standing and alert, the worker cut her throat. She remained conscious until another worker fired a shotgun at her.
“This alarming report shows that this pig survived a long, painful death at the Haass family butcher’s shop,” says PETA Senior Vice President Daphne Nachminovic. “PETA is calling for a criminal investigation on its behalf and calling on all compassionate members of the public to help prevent more animals from suffering in slaughterhouses by going vegan.”
PETA, whose motto is in part that “the animals are not ours to eat” – opposes arrogance, a worldview focused on human superiority. The group notes that pigs, sheep, cows, chickens and other animals feel pain and fear and value their lives, just like humans.
For more information visit PETA.org or subscribe to the group on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram…
This is followed by PETA’s letter to Rup.
19 August 2021
Delaware State Attorney
Dear Mr. Roop,
I hope this letter will correct you. I would like to ask your office (and relevant local law enforcement agencies, if you deem appropriate) to investigate and bring appropriate criminal charges against the Haass, Inc. family butcher’s shop. and the worker responsible for repeatedly shooting a conscientious pig in the head and cutting the animal’s throat on August 4 at a slaughterhouse located at 3997 Hazlettville Rd. outside Dover. The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) documented the incident in an attached report, which states the following:
“An employee who performed the stunning during the day suggested that he might try to stun the sow with a hand-held captive bolt stunning device (HHCB) that is used to stun cattle, but a second employee stated that HHCB did not. work with sows of this size. IPP [FSIS Inspection Program Personnel] watched as the first employee took out two (2) 0.25 HHCB devices and attempted to stun the sow. The pig remained conscious, which was obvious as it remained upright and alert. The first employee then approached the sow with a knife and was about to try to cut her neck (for bleeding), but IPP told him to stun the sow again. The officer then rebooted HHCB and attempted a second stun. The second stunning attempt was unsuccessful as the sow [remained] upright and alert. Since the staff did not have additional equipment to attempt to stun the sow, IPP stepped back to confer. At that time, the first worker tried to cut off the sow’s neck; however, the sow was in an uncomfortable position, and even though he could reach the neck, the worker was unable to completely cut the neck (ie, the sow did not bleed) and the sow remained conscious. The staff then took the 20-gauge shotgun from another part of the establishment and tried to stun the sow. The first shot from a 20 gauge shotgun (3rd total stunning attempt) successfully rendered the sow unconscious … “1
This behavior appears to violate 11 Del. C. § 1325 (b). It is important to note that FSIS action does not invalidate state criminal liability for slaughterhouse workers who commit acts of cruelty to animals.2
Please let us know what we can do to help you. Thank you for your attention and for the hard work you are doing.
Assistant Investigation Manager
1FSIS District 80 Manager Todd Fury, Suspension Notice, Haass Family Butcher, Inc.… (4 August 2021) https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2021-08/M8892-NOS-08042021.pdf.
2See Nat’l. Meat Assoc. v. Harris, 132 C. Ct. 965, 974 n.10 (2012) (“… states may impose civil or criminal sanctions for cruelty to animals or other conduct that also violates [Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA)]… See [21 U.S.C.] §678; Wed Bates vs. Dow Agrosciences, OOO, 544 US 431, 447 (2005), stating that a preemptive clause prohibiting state laws “in addition to or different from federal law” does not conflict with a “equivalent” state provision. While FMIA is ahead of many state slaughterhouse laws, it leaves some room for regulation in the states. “)