You are here: Home / Archives for animal rights activists

NCBA: Latest EPA move ‘mind-boggling’

February 20, 2013 By Leave a Comment

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is blasting the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for releasing detailed information on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to activist groups.

According to NCBA, the information was requested by the groups—including the Pew Charitable Trust, Earth Justice and the Natural Resources Defense Council—through the Freedom of Information Act.  The immediate past president of NCBA, J.D. Alexander, says the fact that EPA granted the request is, in his words, “mind-boggling”. 

“This action by the EPA is actually almost unbelievable,” Alexander says. “I just can’t comprehend their irresponsibility in releasing this information to known ag opposition groups that could pose some very terroristic attacks on our industry.”

In addition to bio-security concerns, Alexander says the release of information makes it much easier for activists to harass farm and ranch families.

“You know, beef producers are usually pretty private people,” he says, “and one of the big things that is of concern is when—I’ll use myself as an example—my name, my address, pertinent things about my private business are out there for known terrorist groups to have access to.”

Alexander points to an incident that took place in California in January of 2012, when an activist group called the Animal Liberation Front used arson to destroy 14 trucks at California’s largest feed yard, Harris Ranch Feedlot of Coalinga.

NCBA says the information released by EPA cover CAFOs in more than 30 states.

Filed Under: Events/Organizations, Livestock, News, USDA/Government Tagged With: , , , , ,

Egg bill called ‘a very, very scary proposition’

February 18, 2013 By Leave a Comment

Tyson Redpath is a food and agriculture lobbyist with the Washington D.C. consulting firm The Russell Group.  A native of Ohio, Redpath has also served on the legislative staff of current Speaker of the House John Boehner, advising Boehner on policy matters concerning agriculture.

Speaking at the recent Governor’s Ag Conference in Kearney, Nebraska, Redpath called the so-called egg bill in Congress “a very, very scary proposition” and said that hog and cattle producers have good reason to be concerned about the bill.  Redpath believes it’s not just about eggs—it’s a platform for HSUS to pursue broader restrictions on animal ag production.  And he’s convinced that HSUS will attempt to attach the egg bill language to the next farm bill.

Brownfield’s Ken Anderson visited with Redpath.

AUDIO: Tyson Redpath (8:32 MP3)

Filed Under: Feature Programs, Rural Issues Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Pork producers remain opposed to egg bill

January 24, 2013 By 2 Comments

Despite Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack’s recent admonishment to livestock groups that they need to stop fighting with each other, one of Iowa’s representatives on the  National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) board of directors says the group remains firmly opposed to the so-called “egg bill” in Congress.

John Weber of Dysart, Iowa says NPPC still believes that the legislation, which dictates cage size for egg-laying hens, would set a very bad precedent for the livestock industry.

“We certainly want to stay away from federal mandated legislation dictating on-farm production,” Weber says. “We want to maintain that independence—that freedom for producers to make a choice on how they produce pork.”

As congressional ag committees prepare to restart the farm bill process, there is some speculation that the main proponents of the egg bill—the United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States—may attempt to attach the legislation to the next farm bill.

“We think that’s a possibility that there could be an attempt to introduce it as part of the farm bill, or the livestock title,” Weber says. “It’s certainly eligible to come up as a stand-alone piece of legislation, or it’s eligible to be attached to other pieces of legislation.

“So we are just basically taking a wait-and-see—or observation—pattern on it.  We want to follow it very closely.”

In a recent interview with Brownfield, Ag Secretary Vilsack cited opposition to the egg bill, from other farm groups, as an example of the kind of in-fighting that he—Vilsack—believes is damaging rural America’s political influence.

AUDIO: John Weber (4:51 MP3)

Filed Under: Events/Organizations, Livestock, News Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Nebraska pork leader questions NeFU marketing approach

December 14, 2012 By 1 Comment

The president-elect of the Nebraska Pork Producers Association, Jan Miller of Belden, thinks a Nebraska Farmers Union initiative to market meat products directly to clients of health and fitness centers in Omaha and Lincoln is a neat concept.

But Miller does have some issues with the marketing approach being used. For starters, she says, the notion that some methods of producing pork are “healthier” than others.

“The frustration that we have as pork producers as a whole is that, no matter how your pork is raised, it is a healthy product,” Miller says. “We just got the American Heart Association seal of approval on our pork tenderloin—and that’s from all pork producers, not just from a select few.”

Miller is also frustrated by what she feels is misuse of the term “locally grown”.

“My pork is locally raised, but just because of the logistics of where I’m at up in northeast Nebraska, I can’t sell it to individual consumers like other people can,” she says, “and I feel insulted when a smaller producer says that my pork isn’t locally raised because I market through the packer.”

The Nebraska Farmers Union’s Farm to Fitness program is an outgrowth of its collaboration with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).  It emphasizes that the products come from animals that are “humanely raised”. 

That’s another bone of contention with Miller.

“We shouldn’t expect as producers that everyone has to raise livestock the same way,” Miller says. “Pork production is unique—there are several different methods that can be used—and each method has its advantages and disadvantages.”

Miller and her husband, Jim, run a 150 sow farrow-to-finish operation.  They keep their sows in group pens and do not use gestation stalls. 

“We see a lot of aggression and the fighting that would be a lot harder to manage with bigger groups of sows,” she says.  “I would much rather be in a gestation stall situation where I can individually care for each sow every day, versus watching them in groups.

“But in our operation, what we do works for us.”

HSUS argues that gestation stalls are inhumane and is pushing for their elimination.

AUDIO: Jan Miller (5:16 MP3)

Filed Under: Events/Organizations, Livestock, News Tagged With: , , , , ,

Animal rights people?

December 13, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Commentary:

I laughed when I read a post on the social network Facebook poking fun at what my friend called “animal rights people.”

He wrote, “I can’t believe those animal rights people! A friend of mine invited me to her cat’s BIRTHDAY PARTY! I’m not going. Besides, my dog is getting married that day.”

How many of you buy Christmas gifts for your pets? Or for other people’s pets? Does that make you an “animal rights person?”

Country music’s darling Miranda Lambert has a foundation that supports animal shelters and the Humane Society of East Texas. MuttNation Foundation’s mission raises money to build animal shelters for better care; increase pet adoption and encourage responsible pet guardianship; rehabilitate sick or unsocialized animals; fund spay/neuter programs; reduce/eliminate euthanasia of healthy animals; and train shelter dogs for purposes of therapy programs, assistance for wounded military personnel and dogs-in-prisons programs.

Do you think Miranda is an “animal rights person?”

Days earlier, posted on Miranda Lambert’s Facebook page I found this: “If God didn’t want us to eat animals, He wouldn’t have made them out of meat.”

There is a big difference between animal rights and animal welfare. I think the definitions by North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance are succinct and clear:

Animal Welfare supports humane treatment and use of animals and believes that humans have a responsibility for their care. Animal Welfare includes responsible care of animals used by humans for service, research, food, education, those kept in zoos or sanctuaries, and especially those animals kept by pet owners. Animal welfare is based on a principle of ownership of animals, a common sense approach that animals should be treated well and that animal cruelty is wrong. Animal welfare sets standards and guidelines for animal use and management based on sound veterinary and animal husbandry research and practices.

Animal Rights (AR) is a radical ideology that attempts to elevate species of animals to equality with humans by applying human interpretations of morality. A core tenet of animal rights philosophy is that no species on this planet is better than another; therefore, humans have no right to dominate over, use, breed, or eat nonhuman species.

Giving your cat treats and allowing it to sleep on your furniture doesn’t mean you believe your cat is capable of the same emotional and moral feelings or judgments as those of human beings.

Because you have a birthday party for your cat doesn’t mean you believe your cat has the same rights as a child. Face it, having a birthday party for your cat is really more about you than it is about the cat. My siblings and cousins and I had many a birthday party for cats, dogs, tame rabbits, wild rabbits, and at least one squirrel. Even at a tender age, we were quite clear on the difference between animal rights and animal welfare.

It is interesting to see how the animal rights philosophy has become more readily accepted in recent years, but should come as no surprise considering that most people today have never seen their meat “on the hoof.” In the past, animal rights activists made noise, but there was still a strong bond and link back to the farm.

If those who consume the food grown in this country are to have a connection to the farm, those of us on the farm are going to have reach out to them.

Filed Under: AgriNews Column, Feature Programs, Two Cents Tagged With: ,

Neb. Farmers Union launches ‘humanely-raised’ marketing project

December 9, 2012 By 1 Comment

The Nebraska Farmers Union has launched a new marketing program for so-called “humanely-raised” livestock and poultry products.

The program is called Farm to Fitness.  Farmers Union spokesman Graham Christensen says the program will use health and fitness centers as drop points for cooperatively-purchased food orders.

“Many gyms and friends I have that work in gyms have wanted to find ways to bring better nutrition to their clientele,” Christensen says, “and when talking further about that and talking about some of the projects we’ve worked on—creating new markets for farmers and ranchers—this seemed like just low-hanging fruit…something that would be easy to do—something that would be a great connection.”

The program is the first initiative under Farmers Union’s agreement with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to help identify, expand and promote new markets for humanely-raised livestock products in Nebraska.  Christensen hopes it’s the first of many such projects.

“We do have other things in the works, but this seemed like a really good one to start off with, as there’s definitely a customer awareness on where their food comes from,” he says. “A lot of folks in the urban areas, they want to know who their farmer is and how their product was raised.”

In 2011 the Nebraska Farmers Union and HSUS announced the formation of the Nebraska Agriculture Council, with its main goal being to create new market opportunities for farmers and ranchers who want to market “humanely-raised” meat and poultry products.  HSUS said that, as part of the agreement, it would not pursue an animal welfare ballot initiative in the state.

“This new program is clear evidence that the HSUS collaboration with the Nebraska Farmers Union is delivering results that are good for animals, good for farmers and good for consumers,” says Joe Maxwell, director of rural development and outreach for HSUS.

AUDIO: Graham Christensen (5:27 MP3)

Filed Under: Events/Organizations, Livestock, News Tagged With: , , , , , ,

HSUS files complaint against Pork Board

November 28, 2012 By Leave a Comment

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has filed a complaint with the USDA over the National Pork Board’s use of checkoff funds.

HSUS claims the Pork Board is using checkoff dollars to fund lobbying efforts of the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC).

At issue is what HSUS says is the Pork Board’s involvement with NPPC’s Pork Alliance program. Because funds from the Pork Alliance program are used for lobbying purposes, HSUS argues that it is illegal for the Pork Board to be associated with that effort.

In an email to meatpoultry.com, the National Pork Board said that it is not a member of the Pork Alliance, although it does sponsor a dinner at the fall meeting of the Pork Alliance.

In late September, HSUS filed a lawsuit charging that the Pork Board “struck an unlawful deal” when it bought “The Other White Meat” slogan from NPPC in 2006.  HSUS says the sale was nothing more than a way for the checkoff-funded Pork Board to funnel money to NPPC. 

It is illegal to use checkoff dollars for lobbying.

Filed Under: Events/Organizations, Livestock, News, Top Stories Tagged With: , , , , ,

HSUS ‘a big loser’ in elections

November 12, 2012 By 4 Comments

Elections always produce some big winners and some big losers.

According to the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Consumer Freedom, on its web site HumaneWatch.org, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was a big loser last week.

HumaneWatch says one major loss for HSUS was the defeat of Measure 5 in North Dakota, a ballot initiative to make certain forms of animal cruelty a felony.  HSUS’ lobbying arm spent more than 675 thousand dollars in support of the measure, but it was defeated by a 65 to 35 margin.

Another example cited by Humanewatch is the Fourth District congressional race in Iowa, where HSUS made Representative Steve King its major target in his race against former Iowa first lady Christie Vilsack.  The Humane Society Legislative Fund spent upwards of a million dollars to oppose King, insinuating he supported dogfighting.  In the end, King beat Vilsack by eight percentage points.

Steve King agrees that his victory was a big defeat for HSUS.

“They are the ones that I think are—in addition to Christie and Tom Vilsack—are the big losers,” King says. “They put a million dollars into this race against me—a million dollars—in order to advance their vegan agenda by driving another agenda and trying to make this race about something other than what it was.”

King, a member of the House Agriculture Committee, says it’s proof that you can stand up to HSUS—and win.

“And when I go back to the ag committee and people shrink and fear that HSUS can take on and wound a candidate—well, we’re living proof that it doesn’t work,” King says.

“You always still have to tell the truth—at least to Iowans.”

King has been a frequent critic of HSUS.  Earlier this year, he was successful in adding an amendment to the House version of the farm bill that prohibits states from regulating the means of production of agriculture products.  King believes that is what prompted the HSUS attack ads against him in the Fourth District congressional race.

AUDIO: Steve King (1:07 MP3)

Audio courtesy of Dennis Morrice, KLEM, LeMars, Iowa

Filed Under: Events/Organizations, Livestock, News Tagged With: , , , ,

HSUS advertising targets Iowa congressman

October 18, 2012 By 5 Comments

The political arm of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is devoting a significant portion of its campaign budget this year to the District 4 congressional race in northwest Iowa.

That race pits Congressman Steve King—a frequent critic of HSUS—against Christie Vilsack, wife of U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

HSUS is running TV ads that criticize King for his opposition to bills related to dogfighting and other pet protection proposals.  But the HSUS ads don’t mention the battles they’ve had with King on agricultural issues, which King says is the real reason he’s being attacked.

“They’re attacking me because I have stepped up to defend the feed grain production and the livestock production that we have here,” King says, “and so they create other issues to divert the attention of the voters.

“But the truth is, if you let them have their way—and, of course, Christie Vilsack is supported by them, so you have to believe that she supports their agenda—they’re anti-meat and, by the way, they’re anti-pet ownership, too.

Earlier this year, King was successful in adding an amendment to the House version of the farm bill that prohibits states from regulating the means of production of agriculture products.  King claims that is what is really behind the HSUS attack ads.

Meanwhile, Christie Vilsack was asked about the HSUS advertising during a campaign event in LeMars, Iowa.

“I don’t have any control over the Humane Society—they can do what they’re going to do, just like all the other independent expenditures,” Vilsack says.

“But as far as the Humane Society, they’ll have to make their decisions on their own about where they’re going to put their money and how they’re going to advertise.”

The Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) earlier tried to make a one-thousand dollar contribution to the Vilsack campaign.  But campaign officials say they declined the donation, citing their policy of not accepting money from groups that lobby the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The president of the HSLF, Mark Markarian, has called King “the self-appointed leader of opposing animal welfare laws in Congress”.  He says King has “one of the most extreme voting records on animal protection in the entire nation.”

Markarian refused Brownfield’s request for an interview.

Dennis Morrice, KLEM Radio, LeMars, Iowa contributed to this story.

Filed Under: Events/Organizations, News, Top Stories, USDA/Government Tagged With: , , ,

Is South Dakota next on HSUS’ list?

October 11, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Missouri ag groups have experience pushing back on attempts by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to restrict animal agriculture practices. The Missouri Farmers Care Coalition is lending its resources to animal ag groups in North Dakota that are fighting an HSUS-backed ballot measure there. Could South Dakota be the next HSUS target?

“We kind of feel like South Dakota might be next on the list. They do not have a ballot initiative there this year but it would not surprise me if they had one there in two or four years,” says Missouri Farmers Care Operations Manager Dan Kleinsorge. Hehas spent two weeks in North Dakota helping ag groups there work to defeat “Measure 5” which they believe would open the door to strict regulations on livestock agriculture in that state.

“You know,” Kleinsorge tells Brownfield Ag News, “One of the things that HSUS really pushes is that every state should have felony animal cruelty statutes and there are only two states that don’t: North Dakota and South Dakota. North Dakota is working to rectify that on their own.”

Kleinsorge says a broad coalition in North Dakota is working on animal welfare legislation for all animal species that would be threatened if Measure 5 is passed. The HSUS-backed Measure 5, which goes before voters next month, would create a cruelty felony statute for the mistreatment of dogs, cats and horses.

MO Farmers Care assists ND ag groups

Filed Under: Events/Organizations, Livestock, News Tagged With: , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »