by Petaluma, California — A California animal rights activist has been sentenced to jail after breaking into a poultry slaughterhouse and removing four chickens in what she described as a rescue mission, a case that has sparked sharp debate over activism, property rights, and animal welfare laws.
Jail Sentence Handed Down in Sonoma County
Zoe Rosenberg, 23, a recent graduate of University of California, Berkeley, was sentenced to 90 days in jail after being convicted of felony conspiracy and three misdemeanor charges tied to a 2023 break-in at a Petaluma Poultry facility owned by Perdue Farms.
The ruling was issued in late October, with Rosenberg beginning her sentence on December 10 at the Sonoma County Jail. Under the judge’s order, she must serve 30 days in custody, after which she becomes eligible to complete the remaining 60 days under house arrest.
Rosenberg is expected to be released from jail December 24, according to statements from her organization.
Restitution Exceeds $100,000
In addition to jail time, the court ordered Rosenberg to pay more than $100,000 in restitution to Petaluma Poultry. Her legal team has indicated that the restitution amount will be challenged in a future hearing.
Court records show the penalties stem from a series of nighttime intrusions that prosecutors say occurred over a two-month period in 2023.
Prosecutors Detail Coordinated Operation
According to the Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office, Rosenberg and other members of the animal rights group Direct Action Everywhere allegedly entered the slaughterhouse in disguises, moved through restricted areas, removed live chickens, stole business records, and placed tracking devices on 12 transport trailers.
Authorities said the actions went far beyond a single incident and amounted to an organized effort. Prosecutors also noted that footage from inside the facility was later shared online by activists.
The district attorney’s office stated that Rosenberg publicly framed the June 13 incident as a rescue, but argued that evidence presented at trial contradicted those claims.
Activist Says Chickens Were Sick and Neglected
Rosenberg has maintained that her actions were justified, saying the chickens — later named Poppy, Ivy, Aster, and Azalea — were ill and neglected.
“I will not apologize for taking sick, neglected animals to get medical care,” Rosenberg said following her conviction.
In social media videos cited in court coverage, she expressed concern about her health while incarcerated, saying she fears limited access to specialized medical care. Despite that, she said she remains committed to animal advocacy.
“I am filled with remorse for every animal I have failed to save,” she said in a statement released by her legal support group.
Company and Farm Groups Push Back
Petaluma Poultry strongly criticized the activists’ actions. Company spokesperson Andrea Staub said the ruling “underscores the seriousness” of the break-in and reinforces the rule of law.
She added that the actions showed a “reckless disregard for employee safety, animal welfare, and food security.”
The Sonoma County Farm Bureau also condemned the incident, warning that similar actions could endanger workers and disrupt food supply chains.
Support From High-Profile Figures
Despite the conviction, Rosenberg has received public support from some prominent figures, including actor Joaquin Phoenix.
“Criminalizing people for rescuing suffering animals is a moral failure,” Phoenix said in a statement shared by DxE, arguing that compassion should not be punished when systems fail to protect vulnerable animals.
Debate Over ‘Right to Rescue’ Laws
Direct Action Everywhere has argued that California’s “right to rescue” principles should extend beyond vehicles — where state law allows people to break into cars to save animals in immediate danger — to include farms and industrial facilities.
Prosecutors and the court rejected that interpretation, ruling that the law does not permit trespassing, theft, or surveillance inside private agricultural operations.
Case Fuels Ongoing Legal and Ethical Debate
The case has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over animal rights activism, industrial farming practices, and the limits of civil disobedience. Supporters see Rosenberg as acting out of moral necessity, while critics say the verdict was necessary to protect workers, businesses, and the legal system.
As Rosenberg transitions to house arrest later this month, the legal arguments surrounding restitution and future enforcement against activist groups are expected to continue.
Should animal rescue laws be expanded to cover farms, or did the court get this right? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
