CattleNetwork 03/11/2010 11:12AM
U.S. Representatives Diane Watson, D-Calif., and Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., this week introduced the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act (H.R. 4733) “To promote the well-being of farm animals by requiring Federal agencies to procure food products derived from certain animals only from sources that raised the animals free from cruelty and abuse, and for other purposes.” Not surprisingly, a Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) press release said: “The Humane Society of the United States, the nation’s largest animal protection organization, praised the proposal and encouraged Congress to act swiftly to pass the bill.”
Adding the words “cruelty” and “abuse” to this bill is an effective way for HSUS to get the shock value out of the legislation and make legislators erroneously believe cruelty and abuse is the norm on farms. It’s also a way to strong-arm the government into kowtowing to activists’ wishes for control over the American diet and the demise of animal agriculture one federal program at a time.
Farming industry advocates, however, dispute that this bill can guarantee welfare standards, and in fact, may hinder welfare on operations depending on type of operation, species, geography and other factors. In a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman said: “The American Farm Bureau Federation strongly opposes H.R. 4733, which would limit the federal government from purchasing animal products that are not ‘humanely’ produced. The legislation would mandate arbitrary ‘humane’ standards for food animal production absent the professional judgment of veterinarians and livestock producers.”
Stallman went on to say that “…modern animal agriculture has a consistent commitment to the best possible animal care and millions of research dollars have been committed to assuring the latest science-tested welfare practices. Every major U.S. livestock and poultry group has either a professionally-developed, science-based quality assurance program incorporating proven welfare standards, or has created specific science-based animal welfare practices to which their members adhere.”
Full story at Cattle Network
Showing posts with label Rep. Diane Watson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rep. Diane Watson. Show all posts
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
HSUS and the courts
Recently, a press release for HSUS legislative awards hit the media. HSUS, a nonprofit, and their lobbying affiliate the Humane Society Legislative Fund, “honored” 131 Congressional leaders for their work and/or votes on HSUS supported federal animal legislation.
To date 34 Federal bills have been introduced by legislators on behalf of HSUS. The most recent, HR 4733 Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, introduced by Representatives Diane Watson (CA-33) and Elton Gallegly (CA-24), would require Federal agencies to procure food products from animals raised “cruelty free”.
Lawsuits filed by HSUS often attract less attention, although these maneuvers have great impact on animal use.
A four-year suit filed by HSUS against USDA came to an end last November when the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the HSUS case challenging the government’s long-held decision not to include poultry in the humane slaughter act. The suit was originally filed in 2005 claiming that “other livestock" cited in the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 should be interpreted to include poultry. U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the USDA, saying Congressional intent to leave poultry out was clear. HSUS appealed and in November 2009 the appeals court panel ruled that HSUS did not have standing to sue in the first place.
In December, the nine year long HSUS battle alleging elephant cruelty against Ringling Brothers came to a close when Federal Court Judge Emmet Sullivan dismissed the suit. Discovering that the main witness against the circus had been paid nearly $200,000 by HSUS and other plaintiffs Judge Sullivan ruled, “The Court finds that Mr. Rider is essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness who is not credible, and therefore affords no weight to his testimony.”
More recently, in January 2010, HSUS lost its suit against Petland charging that thousands of puppies sold by Petland were from substandard breeders. HSUS maintained it had investigated 32,000 purchases, yet in court could only present 31 claimants in a five year period. The United States District Court in Arizona dismissed 29 of the claims leaving only 2 claimants who purchased dogs from stores now closed. The Court also rejected the broad claims relating to the sale of pets from substandard breeders, referred to by HSUS as "puppy mills."
According to the HSUS website, “The Animal Protection Litigation section conducts precedent-setting legal campaigns on behalf of animals in state and federal courts around the country. With a staff of 13 lawyers located in Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco and Seattle, a network of over 1,000 pro bono attorneys and dozens of active cases, The HSUS has the largest Animal Protection Litigation program in the country.” The full litigation list of 85 cases filed by HSUS, the Fund For Animals, and their animal rights allies can be found here humanesociety.org/litigation/docket
To date 34 Federal bills have been introduced by legislators on behalf of HSUS. The most recent, HR 4733 Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, introduced by Representatives Diane Watson (CA-33) and Elton Gallegly (CA-24), would require Federal agencies to procure food products from animals raised “cruelty free”.
Lawsuits filed by HSUS often attract less attention, although these maneuvers have great impact on animal use.
A four-year suit filed by HSUS against USDA came to an end last November when the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the HSUS case challenging the government’s long-held decision not to include poultry in the humane slaughter act. The suit was originally filed in 2005 claiming that “other livestock" cited in the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 should be interpreted to include poultry. U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled in favor of the USDA, saying Congressional intent to leave poultry out was clear. HSUS appealed and in November 2009 the appeals court panel ruled that HSUS did not have standing to sue in the first place.
In December, the nine year long HSUS battle alleging elephant cruelty against Ringling Brothers came to a close when Federal Court Judge Emmet Sullivan dismissed the suit. Discovering that the main witness against the circus had been paid nearly $200,000 by HSUS and other plaintiffs Judge Sullivan ruled, “The Court finds that Mr. Rider is essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness who is not credible, and therefore affords no weight to his testimony.”
More recently, in January 2010, HSUS lost its suit against Petland charging that thousands of puppies sold by Petland were from substandard breeders. HSUS maintained it had investigated 32,000 purchases, yet in court could only present 31 claimants in a five year period. The United States District Court in Arizona dismissed 29 of the claims leaving only 2 claimants who purchased dogs from stores now closed. The Court also rejected the broad claims relating to the sale of pets from substandard breeders, referred to by HSUS as "puppy mills."
According to the HSUS website, “The Animal Protection Litigation section conducts precedent-setting legal campaigns on behalf of animals in state and federal courts around the country. With a staff of 13 lawyers located in Washington D.C., New York, San Francisco and Seattle, a network of over 1,000 pro bono attorneys and dozens of active cases, The HSUS has the largest Animal Protection Litigation program in the country.” The full litigation list of 85 cases filed by HSUS, the Fund For Animals, and their animal rights allies can be found here humanesociety.org/litigation/docket
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
