Commission would combat efforts by Humane Society of the United States
by Tim Thornberry February 16, 2010
LEXINGTON, KY - As animal rights organizations look to press a stronger anti-cruelty agenda with the state's legislators during the next session, pro-farm groups are hoping the formation of a new commission will allow the state to manage its own standards for animal care.
On a recent visit to Kentucky, Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) visited with supporters to rally the troops for the legislative session. The organization's agenda included shoring up existing anti-cruelty laws including those against cockfighting and the practice of soring as it pertains to walking horses.
When asked if his association was against animal agriculture, he said the HSUS is not against it by any means, adding that theirs is not an anti-meat campaign but an anti-abuse campaign.
But not everyone is convinced of that.
Even in a slow economy, the agriculture industry in Kentucky, and the animal agriculture sector in particular, has been a major contributor to economic development throughout the state. Last year, livestock production accounted for nearly $2.5 billion in cash receipts. Over the years, anti-cruelty groups have voiced concerns over the treatment of livestock — so much concern that they have worked to introduce legislation in many states to change laws governing how the animals are kept.
But pro-farming organizations are hopeful that a new piece of legislation recently introduced in the state Senate will keep such initiatives out of Kentucky.
Senate Bill 105 was brought before the Senate Agriculture Committee by Sen. David Givens with a full meeting room of supporters and non-supporters present.
The bill would create a 14-member Kentucky Livestock Care Standards Commission which would set rules for the treatment of animals on the farm, be administered by the Kentucky Department of Agriculture and chaired by the state's agriculture commissioner. The legislation would also prevent local governments from passing standards that are stricter than those set by the commission.
Full Story ..
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
R-CALF: Group Takes Proactive Stance On Animal Welfare Issues
Due to concerns about how groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other extremist organizations are railroading animal-care regulations in several states, R-CALF USA members who attended the group’s recent annual convention in Rapid City, S.D., felt it was imperative to get policy on the books to emphasize that cattle farmers and ranchers are the experts when it comes to the proper management of their livestock.
Statistics show that the U.S. live cattle industry generates to the national economy about $50 billion dollars per year.
R-CALF USA members will vote on the following proposed resolution this spring via a mail-in ballot:
Be it resolved: R-CALF USA opposes extremist animal rights individual’s or groups’ views and tactics that impair animal owners’ Constitutional rights to the pursuit of life, liberty and the right to own property.
“Our animals are a tremendous investment in our livelihoods, so of course we’re going to give them what they need to be healthy and productive,” said R-CALF USA Member Jim Foster, who sponsored the proposed resolution. “These extremists’ threats are real and come in various forms, including media attacks and ever-increasing state ballot initiatives whereby these activist organizations end up deciding how we ranchers should manage our animals and then convince unknowing voters to approve these radical restrictions in a general election.”
“Having this sort of policy on the books will simply make it official where we stand on the matter,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee. “Farmers and ranchers, without doubt, are the best stewards of their land and livestock because that’s what they rely on to pay their bills.”
Source: CattleNetwork
Statistics show that the U.S. live cattle industry generates to the national economy about $50 billion dollars per year.
R-CALF USA members will vote on the following proposed resolution this spring via a mail-in ballot:
Be it resolved: R-CALF USA opposes extremist animal rights individual’s or groups’ views and tactics that impair animal owners’ Constitutional rights to the pursuit of life, liberty and the right to own property.
“Our animals are a tremendous investment in our livelihoods, so of course we’re going to give them what they need to be healthy and productive,” said R-CALF USA Member Jim Foster, who sponsored the proposed resolution. “These extremists’ threats are real and come in various forms, including media attacks and ever-increasing state ballot initiatives whereby these activist organizations end up deciding how we ranchers should manage our animals and then convince unknowing voters to approve these radical restrictions in a general election.”
“Having this sort of policy on the books will simply make it official where we stand on the matter,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who also chairs the group’s animal health committee. “Farmers and ranchers, without doubt, are the best stewards of their land and livestock because that’s what they rely on to pay their bills.”
Source: CattleNetwork
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Farm Bureau draws a line against animal activists groups
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Erma Harris, Managing Editor
Educating the public about animal activists and encouraging farmers to pay attention to what has happened in other states already, was the main focus of a meeting held recently by the Oregon County Farm Bureau.
Kelly Smith, director of maketing and commodities for Missouri Farm Bureau, said the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is getting signatures on a petition to place dog breeding limitations on the November ballet so that owners of these businesses cannot have more than 50 dogs for breeding purposes. Smith said the HSUS is using photos of puppy mills, in horrible conditions to get the public to join this movement and donate money. He said Missouri has been targeted by HSUS because Missouri is among the top dog breeders in the United States.
According to the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners Web site, the ballot measure is sponsored by animal rights groups: Humane Society of United States (HSUS), American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Humane Society of Missouri and Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) has filed with the Secretary of State a ballot measure titled "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act" against dog breeders to be presented on the November 2010 ballot for a vote of the people of the state of Missouri. It applies to breeders with 10 or more intact female dogs, limits the number of breeding female dogs to 50 per kennel, limits breeding to no more than twice in any eighteen-month period, requires daily exercise, veterinary care for any injury or illness, and requires controlled temperatures not to exceed 85 degrees or fall below 45 degrees. Facility and pen size requirements far exceed that which legal, licensed breeders currently must have to be in compliance with state and federal laws. Many of the requirements are virtually cost prohibitive when allowing only 50 breeding dogs maximum for generating income.
Smith said this is only the beginning of a campaign that will set regulations on all animal agriculture. "Those of us in agriculture livestock production had better pay attention to what's happening," he said. "This is a very, very important issue and quite frankly, we've faced a lot of challenges, but this issue, is not just an agricultural issue, it's a grain farmer issue, anybody that eats across the nation, this is an issue for them, too."
Full story ....
Erma Harris, Managing Editor
Educating the public about animal activists and encouraging farmers to pay attention to what has happened in other states already, was the main focus of a meeting held recently by the Oregon County Farm Bureau.
Kelly Smith, director of maketing and commodities for Missouri Farm Bureau, said the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is getting signatures on a petition to place dog breeding limitations on the November ballet so that owners of these businesses cannot have more than 50 dogs for breeding purposes. Smith said the HSUS is using photos of puppy mills, in horrible conditions to get the public to join this movement and donate money. He said Missouri has been targeted by HSUS because Missouri is among the top dog breeders in the United States.
According to the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners Web site, the ballot measure is sponsored by animal rights groups: Humane Society of United States (HSUS), American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Humane Society of Missouri and Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) has filed with the Secretary of State a ballot measure titled "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act" against dog breeders to be presented on the November 2010 ballot for a vote of the people of the state of Missouri. It applies to breeders with 10 or more intact female dogs, limits the number of breeding female dogs to 50 per kennel, limits breeding to no more than twice in any eighteen-month period, requires daily exercise, veterinary care for any injury or illness, and requires controlled temperatures not to exceed 85 degrees or fall below 45 degrees. Facility and pen size requirements far exceed that which legal, licensed breeders currently must have to be in compliance with state and federal laws. Many of the requirements are virtually cost prohibitive when allowing only 50 breeding dogs maximum for generating income.
Smith said this is only the beginning of a campaign that will set regulations on all animal agriculture. "Those of us in agriculture livestock production had better pay attention to what's happening," he said. "This is a very, very important issue and quite frankly, we've faced a lot of challenges, but this issue, is not just an agricultural issue, it's a grain farmer issue, anybody that eats across the nation, this is an issue for them, too."
Full story ....
Animal welfare initiative could divide Ohio veterinarians
February 11, 2010
By: Jennifer Fiala
For The VIN News Service
A war that waged between two factions of California’s veterinary profession in 2008 could repeat itself in the Buckeye State as the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) works to determine its stance on a proposed constitutional amendment designed to cement minimum housing requirements for pigs, veal calves and hens.
Veterinary insiders are calling the initiative Ballot X — a currently nameless proposition pushed by an activist consortium led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The immediate goal: to collect the 600,000-plus signatures needed to guarantee a spot for the “anti-cruelty measure” on the Nov. 2 ballot.
“If they don’t collect the signatures, this will all be a moot point,” says Jack Advent, OVMA executive director.
Yet Advent and others doubt that will be the case. If history is any guide, attracting supporters will be no problem for HSUS, a political powerhouse with an undefeated record in terms of pushing ballot measures across the country in the name of animal welfare.
Much like its cousin initiatives that have passed via citizen referendum in Florida, Arizona and California, Ballot X seeks to mandate that egg-laying hens, pregnant sows and veal calves live in quarters that allow them to extend their limbs and turn around, effectively banning traditional sow gestation stalls, veal crates and battery cages. It also requires that cows and pigs are slaughtered in manners deemed humane by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).
If enacted, the law would give the state’s newly minted Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board — an entity proposed last year by the Ohio Farm Bureau and other agribusiness groups — six years to set the new humane requirements in a state that ranks second in egg production and ninth in swine production. The proposed mandate also requires the board to adopt minimum standards for euthanasia and downer animals. Violators would face misdemeanor charges that carry a maximum $1,000 fine and/or a yearlong jail sentence.
At face value, the push for greater welfare requirements is hard to object to. But it's not so simple for the OVMA, whose leadership remains uncertain about where the association ultimately will stand on Ballot X. Among veterinarians, animal welfare is a polarizing and politicized topic. Even as practitioners spend their lives promoting the well-being of animals, it is non-DVM activists who appear to be guiding American attitudes on welfare. Some veterinarians are sympathetic to public sentiments; others find the position overly simplistic.
Considering the controversial nature of Ballot X, the OVMA is determined to take it slow. Within the next few months, officials plan to poll the group’s membership, hold a welfare forum in Columbus and start traveling the state to take the pulse of veterinarians.
“We need time to discuss this and have an open exchange with our members,” says Jack Advent, OVMA executive director. “Obviously no one wants to go to the ballot; it’s not going to be a pleasant experience for anyone. We’re going to look at animal housing, and there’s no rushing to judgment on this. These issues are too complex.”
What feeds the uncertainty? The answer boils down to politics, emotion and the push and pull between agriculture science and society’s ethics. For starters, there’s no consensus about whether veal crates, sow gestation stalls or battery cages are harmful or inhumane, even from the AVMA, which states that all housing systems carry pluses and minuses. As far as the nation’s largest veterinary membership body is concerned, science doesn’t point in any one direction when determining, for example, whether free-range housing is superior to battery cages. Case in point: While the public might suspect that tight quarters might be harmful to animals, free-range housing — a system favored by many activists — leaves livestock greatly exposed to communicable diseases, parasites and animal-on-animal aggression, the AVMA contends.
Full story ....
By: Jennifer Fiala
For The VIN News Service
A war that waged between two factions of California’s veterinary profession in 2008 could repeat itself in the Buckeye State as the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) works to determine its stance on a proposed constitutional amendment designed to cement minimum housing requirements for pigs, veal calves and hens.
Veterinary insiders are calling the initiative Ballot X — a currently nameless proposition pushed by an activist consortium led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The immediate goal: to collect the 600,000-plus signatures needed to guarantee a spot for the “anti-cruelty measure” on the Nov. 2 ballot.
“If they don’t collect the signatures, this will all be a moot point,” says Jack Advent, OVMA executive director.
Yet Advent and others doubt that will be the case. If history is any guide, attracting supporters will be no problem for HSUS, a political powerhouse with an undefeated record in terms of pushing ballot measures across the country in the name of animal welfare.
Much like its cousin initiatives that have passed via citizen referendum in Florida, Arizona and California, Ballot X seeks to mandate that egg-laying hens, pregnant sows and veal calves live in quarters that allow them to extend their limbs and turn around, effectively banning traditional sow gestation stalls, veal crates and battery cages. It also requires that cows and pigs are slaughtered in manners deemed humane by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).
If enacted, the law would give the state’s newly minted Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board — an entity proposed last year by the Ohio Farm Bureau and other agribusiness groups — six years to set the new humane requirements in a state that ranks second in egg production and ninth in swine production. The proposed mandate also requires the board to adopt minimum standards for euthanasia and downer animals. Violators would face misdemeanor charges that carry a maximum $1,000 fine and/or a yearlong jail sentence.
At face value, the push for greater welfare requirements is hard to object to. But it's not so simple for the OVMA, whose leadership remains uncertain about where the association ultimately will stand on Ballot X. Among veterinarians, animal welfare is a polarizing and politicized topic. Even as practitioners spend their lives promoting the well-being of animals, it is non-DVM activists who appear to be guiding American attitudes on welfare. Some veterinarians are sympathetic to public sentiments; others find the position overly simplistic.
Considering the controversial nature of Ballot X, the OVMA is determined to take it slow. Within the next few months, officials plan to poll the group’s membership, hold a welfare forum in Columbus and start traveling the state to take the pulse of veterinarians.
“We need time to discuss this and have an open exchange with our members,” says Jack Advent, OVMA executive director. “Obviously no one wants to go to the ballot; it’s not going to be a pleasant experience for anyone. We’re going to look at animal housing, and there’s no rushing to judgment on this. These issues are too complex.”
What feeds the uncertainty? The answer boils down to politics, emotion and the push and pull between agriculture science and society’s ethics. For starters, there’s no consensus about whether veal crates, sow gestation stalls or battery cages are harmful or inhumane, even from the AVMA, which states that all housing systems carry pluses and minuses. As far as the nation’s largest veterinary membership body is concerned, science doesn’t point in any one direction when determining, for example, whether free-range housing is superior to battery cages. Case in point: While the public might suspect that tight quarters might be harmful to animals, free-range housing — a system favored by many activists — leaves livestock greatly exposed to communicable diseases, parasites and animal-on-animal aggression, the AVMA contends.
Full story ....
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Proactive or reactive? Kentucky starts process to create livestock commission
by Kristy Foster Farm and Dairy.
FRANKFORT, Ky. — In an effort to stop animal rights activists from invading the Bluegrass State, the Kentucky Senate Ag Committee passed a bill Feb. 4 to create the Kentucky Livestock Care Standards Commission.
New bill
The bill that would create a commission to set rules for how animals are treated and cared for on farms.
The Senate Bill 105 is sponsored by Agriculture Committee Chairman David Givens.
The full Senate is expected to consider the bill the week of Feb. 8. The bill would create a 14-member Kentucky Livestock Standards Commission chaired by the state agriculture commissioner. The state veterinarian would be a nonvoting member.
Full story ...
FRANKFORT, Ky. — In an effort to stop animal rights activists from invading the Bluegrass State, the Kentucky Senate Ag Committee passed a bill Feb. 4 to create the Kentucky Livestock Care Standards Commission.
New bill
The bill that would create a commission to set rules for how animals are treated and cared for on farms.
The Senate Bill 105 is sponsored by Agriculture Committee Chairman David Givens.
The full Senate is expected to consider the bill the week of Feb. 8. The bill would create a 14-member Kentucky Livestock Standards Commission chaired by the state agriculture commissioner. The state veterinarian would be a nonvoting member.
Full story ...
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Turning Dogs into Vegans: Proof that HSUS Follows the Animal Rights Religion
HSUS announced its new dog food, inappropriately labeled Humane Choice. The meatless product uses no animal protein among its ingredients. Why are we even surprised at the total arrogance of HSUS in marketing a product that will impose their vegan philosophy on canines.
Turning Dogs into Vegans: Proof that HSUS Follows the Animal Rights Religion
Friday, February 5, 2010, 12:39 PM by Wesley J. Smith
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the richest animal rights organization, I think, in the world, with assets of more than $200 million. Unlike the SPCAs around the country and other humane societies that have no connection to HSUS, it is not an animal welfare organization that merely seeks to improve the treatment of animals. It is animal rights all the way.
But it is also very cleverly hides its true goals. HSUS’s leader, Wayne Pacelle, is very professional. He wears suits, he speaks softly, and unlike PETA’s alpha wolf Ingrid Newkirk, he doesn’t openly spout the animal rights dogma. But he is a true believer, and HSUS–which owns no [update: pet] shelters–is in a cold war of attrition against all animal industries, albeit one that employs legitimate tools of democracy, such as the lawsuit and public democratic initiative, to make life difficult for animal industries.
Full story ...
Turning Dogs into Vegans: Proof that HSUS Follows the Animal Rights Religion
Friday, February 5, 2010, 12:39 PM by Wesley J. Smith
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the richest animal rights organization, I think, in the world, with assets of more than $200 million. Unlike the SPCAs around the country and other humane societies that have no connection to HSUS, it is not an animal welfare organization that merely seeks to improve the treatment of animals. It is animal rights all the way.
But it is also very cleverly hides its true goals. HSUS’s leader, Wayne Pacelle, is very professional. He wears suits, he speaks softly, and unlike PETA’s alpha wolf Ingrid Newkirk, he doesn’t openly spout the animal rights dogma. But he is a true believer, and HSUS–which owns no [update: pet] shelters–is in a cold war of attrition against all animal industries, albeit one that employs legitimate tools of democracy, such as the lawsuit and public democratic initiative, to make life difficult for animal industries.
Full story ...
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Will California increase bear hunt limits?
State officials say the bear population, which stands at 38,000, would remain healthy with increased hunt limits. Wayne Pacelle (HSUS) immediately announced that if the California Fish and Game Commission widens the hunt, HSUS will put a measure on the California ballot by 2012 to ban hound hunting of bears. Pacelle continued by bragging they have won 5 ballot initiatives in a row and could win a hound hunting ban by a large margin.
California considers dramatically expanding the number of black bears hunters can kill
By Paul Rogers progers@mercurynews.com
Watch out, Smokey. Keep your head down, Yogi.
Saying that California's black bear population has quadrupled in the past 25 years, state Fish and Game Department officials are drafting new rules that could increase the number of black bears killed by hunters each year in the state by 50 percent or more.
The proposal also would allow hunters for the first time to use global positioning system devices on the collars of hounds that they use to track bears, along with automatic triggers that alert hunters when their dogs have treed a bear.
State hunting managers say the rules — which would increase the current limit of 1,700 killed annually — would offer more people the opportunity to hunt and wouldn't significantly affect the health or size of the overall black bear population in California, now at 38,000. The growing bear population also is increasingly causing problems, they note.
"There are more reported incidents of bears causing private property damage," said Doug Updike, a wildlife biologist with the state Department of Fish and Game. "People are moving into bear habitat, and we have more bears that are more widely distributed. We are having more interactions between bears and people."
But animal rights groups promise to fight the proposed new rules, starting Thursday when the state Fish and Game Commission holds a hearing in Sacramento. A final vote is expected April 21.
Full story ....
California considers dramatically expanding the number of black bears hunters can kill
By Paul Rogers progers@mercurynews.com
Watch out, Smokey. Keep your head down, Yogi.
Saying that California's black bear population has quadrupled in the past 25 years, state Fish and Game Department officials are drafting new rules that could increase the number of black bears killed by hunters each year in the state by 50 percent or more.
The proposal also would allow hunters for the first time to use global positioning system devices on the collars of hounds that they use to track bears, along with automatic triggers that alert hunters when their dogs have treed a bear.
State hunting managers say the rules — which would increase the current limit of 1,700 killed annually — would offer more people the opportunity to hunt and wouldn't significantly affect the health or size of the overall black bear population in California, now at 38,000. The growing bear population also is increasingly causing problems, they note.
"There are more reported incidents of bears causing private property damage," said Doug Updike, a wildlife biologist with the state Department of Fish and Game. "People are moving into bear habitat, and we have more bears that are more widely distributed. We are having more interactions between bears and people."
But animal rights groups promise to fight the proposed new rules, starting Thursday when the state Fish and Game Commission holds a hearing in Sacramento. A final vote is expected April 21.
Full story ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
