Animal activists take to the states

Groups unable to make much progress at the federal level

By Sara Wyant

Dozens of new provisions were added to both the House and Senate farm bills this year, but noticeably absent was a new "animal welfare" title that would have required strict new rules regarding the care and feeding of livestock. That's not to say that so-called "animal rights" groups aren't trying. Several bills have been introduced in Congress, including one that would curb the use of antibiotics and another bill requiring new standards for any meat products purchased by the federal government.

But absent a lot of momentum on the federal stage, groups like the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) are increasingly turning to the states to push new bills or adopt ballot initiatives. And more often than not, they are succeeding. As HSUS points out on their web site:

"Between 1990 and 2006, animal advocates squared off against hunters and other animal industries in 38 statewide ballot campaigns, winning in 26 campaigns and marking a huge surge in the use of the process on animal issues. To provide a contrast, in the previous 50 years--between 1940 and 1990--there were about a half dozen animal-related initiatives, and our movement prevailed in only one campaign--and that measure was later overturned by a subsequent ballot measure advanced by opponents of the reform."

In the last couple of years, HSUS won big with livestock initiatives in Florida and Arizona. Now, California, New Hampshire and Colorado are facing some of the same. In California, for example, HSUS is pushing for a ballot measure that prohibits the confinement of hogs, veal calves and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Petitioners have until Feb. 22 to get 650,000 signatures required to secure placement on this fall's ballot.

But already, the potential impact is influencing business decisions. For example, Hormel Foods announced recently that their Farmer John sow breeding facilities in California will be shut down, moving production to existing farms in Wyoming and Arizona. High feed costs, along with an increasingly difficult regulatory authority were cited as reasons for the move.

In Colorado, livestock groups were put on notice by HSUS leadership and the group's local representation that HSUS would push state legislation similar to the ballot initiative language in California. They were also warned that if such legislation was unsuccessful, they could expect a statewide referendum on these issues.

Emotional appeal

"Most of these initiatives have little to do with science or fact, but rely heavily on emotional appeal," says Steve Kopperud, an animal industry consultant with Policy Directions in Washington, D.C. Speaking to a group of state agricultural chairmen in St. Louis, MO. recently, he outlined how some of the strategies are evolving at the state level, as activists try to move around the agriculture committees to others dealing with taxes, judiciary, and health.

The push to ban horse slaughter in the U.S. was akin to the discovering the camel's nose was under the tent when it came to changing livestock industry practices, says Kopperud. For example, HSUS developed graphic videos showing horses going into a slaughter facility and generated a huge public outcry that led to two state bans on processing horses for meat--even though the products are only used in zoos and for export to other countries.

"Before the horse slaughter issue surfaced, we knew we had about 90 to 100,000 animals who met their end in a humane way and maintained some economic value for the owner," Kopperud says. "We also knew that if we made it illegal, we'd have 90 to 100,000 horses with no place to go." USDA recently reported that the number of horses exported to Mexico is up 312 percent, he added.

"Most consumers don't want a personal relationship with their food. They want farmers to say: We're doing the right thing, trust us."

"The most fundamental thing you can do is demand evidence, not emotion," he told the state ag chairs. "And tell agriculture groups to put up or shut up,"

Kopperud says he is seeing more and more ag leaders form coalitions to promote and protect livestock production at the state level, but more work is needed.

"If we spent one-tenth of what we spend on promoting our products to promote our producers, we'd be a lot better off," he emphasized.

Editor's note: Columnist Sara Wyant is president of Agri-Pulse Communications, Inc. and publishes a bi-weekly newsletter, Agri-Pulse, on food and farm policy. For more information, you can e-mail her at Agripulse@aol.com.

2/4/08
1 Star WK\3-B

Date: 1/31/08

Readers Comments Pam — 02/03/2008 12:02:33 To quote from above: "Before the horse slaughter issue surfaced, we knew we had about 90 to 100,000 animals who met their end in a humane way and maintained some economic value for the owner," Kopperud says. Ah, no.... before the horse slaughter issue surfaced, people were not aware of the atrocity of the practice. Now they know... And it is a FAR cry from humane. It is a horrible death for our horses. And owners should be ashamed for doing that to animals under their care for the all mighty dollar to feed Europeans. Enough. S.311 and HR 503 needs to be passed to stop our participation in this practice. It will cause breeders to be more responsibility and STOP as there will no longer be an outlet to dispose of the unwanted horses they alone have created to be killed in this awful manner for a buck... It's shameful. Readers Comments vicki — 02/03/2008 10:02:58 Perhaps you would see movement on the federal legislation on horse slaughter if people like Larry Craig (who received money from a pro slaughter organization) didn't put a hold on the bill. Let the bill go to the floor for a vote and see what happens. Your comments on 90,000 to 100,000 horses with no place to go is misguided. What happened to the hundreds of thousands of horses when the slaughter counts dropped from over 400,000 to 90,000? It's a shame that you have to legislate humane treatment of animals but without laws, people like Michael Vick abuse animals for profit. Animal industries can exist without torturing animals. There is no justification for getting downed animals on their feet by using forklifts and electric prods - clearly in violation of the humane slaughter act. They feel pain just as we do. Imagine yourself with a broken leg, in excruciating pain and someone trying to get you on your feet with a forklift and rolling you over and over again. How would you like to be forcefed with a metal rod down your throat or be forced to live your entire life standing up in a small crate that you couldn’t turn in? These are living beings that feel pain. Nobody wants to shut down the livestock industry. If the industry would wise up and follow the guidelines that are in place, you wouldn’t be seeing all the legislation that is being brought forward. Those few downed cows are not going to bankrupt the industry. The guidelines call for the animals to be euthanized. Police your own. The few that are torturing the animals are giving the entire industry a bad name. Instead of defending the morons that are doing this, why not do something about it and stop the inhumane treatment? Those of you that are operating by the rules are being hurt by the few that don’t. Add Your Comment Name: Email: New: You can now post a comment without the need of registering. Enter your name and email. Your email will not be displayed. All comments are monitored and will be removed if considered inappropriate. Enter secret word: 112 Recommend | 2 Comments

	Web hpj.com

Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2008.  High Plains Publishers, Inc.  All rights reserved.  Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com