By Mindy Ward and Jeff DeYoung, Missouri Farmer Today
Friday, February 26, 2010 11:27 AM CST
CHESTERFIELD -- With consumers now two generations removed from life on the farm, explaining how their food made it to the dinner table is more complicated.
Dave Drennan says that those in the animal-rights movement manipulate and twist agriculture’s story to suit their agenda. And, consumers are listening and watching.
As video footage of tail-docking and dehorning of dairy cattle stream across television and computer screens, all Dave Drennan could do was cringe.
“There are common-sense reasons dairy farmers do this, to protect themselves, other cows and the food supply,” he says.
Drennan, executive director of the Missouri Dairy Association, says that while many Missouri dairy farmers do not use the practice of tail-docking, many will cauterize horns.
“It protects the farmer from getting gored while working with the cows,” he says. “And, if they are all about animal well-being, this protects other cows from hurt from being gored. Isn’t that what they want? A safe environment for the cows.”
He says the issue surrounding tail-docking also focuses on safety. Tail-docking started as a way to protect farmers from illnesses spread by cow urine and feces during the milking process. It was also an attempt to keep the feces and urine from finding its way into the milk supply.
However, these two concepts are lost in the story, Drennan says. Many consumers do not visit a farm to learn about their food. Rather, they rely on the media.
“Families do not take that weekend trip to Grandma and Grandpa’s farm anymore,” he says. “They are not tied to agriculture. They do not see just where their food comes from and what we do on the farm.”
Full story at link ....
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Ohioans have spoken about animal care
Kudos to Representative Zach Space (D, 18) for taking a stand to defend agriculture against the unwarranted measures of HSUS to force their opinions on others. We hope Representative Space will also write to the IRS and request that HSUS be investigated for these continuous and excessive lobbying practices.
Chillicothe Gazette March 1, 2010
Ohioans have spoken about animal care
Dear Mr. Pacelle,
I was disappointed and troubled to hear of the recent decision by the Humane Society of the United States to move forward with attempts to further their political agenda and force it on the people of Ohio. This news proves that clearly you and your organization have not been listening.
HSUS was obviously not listening when residents across the state of Ohio spoke in one voice -- overwhelmingly supporting Issue 2 and ensuring that Ohioans regulate our own standards for animal care. HSUS was obviously not listening when a majority of Ohio's federal and state delegation endorsed the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board -- overwhelmingly denouncing the HSUS' efforts to undermine it. And HSUS was obviously not listening when farmers across the state of Ohio weighed in on this disastrous policy -- overwhelmingly opposing it.
In addition to a majority of Ohioans, Issue 2 also had great support among Ohio's legislators, Governor Strickland and groups representing animal interests, including The American Humane Association and the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association. It is unconscionable to me that an outside group would come into our state and claim that they know better.
The OLCSB was created just four months ago with a strong mandate by the people of Ohio, and it would be wrong for it to be hijacked by overzealous special interests based out of Washington, D.C. Our board will ensure that livestock and animals in Ohio are treated humanely and that our agricultural producers -- a major sector of Ohio's economy -- are not unfairly penalized with unacceptable regulations.
The experts that will make up the OLCSB are the best sources for determining Ohio's minimum standards of care for our animals, and not a liberal group whose real intentions are less about animal care and more about control over what we in Ohio eat.
Your attempts to dictate our state policies regarding animal care are misguided, and I will not stand for them. Ohio's standards of animal care should be determined by those who know the issue best and have a vested interest in the outcome -- Ohioans.
I joined the farmers of my district to support the passage of Issue 2, which passed with almost 64 percent of the vote on Nov. 3. Ohioans statewide have spoken. It is clear exactly where they stand on this issue.
Mr. Pacelle, Ohio has spoken. Why haven't you been listening?
Chillicothe Gazette March 1, 2010
Ohioans have spoken about animal care
Dear Mr. Pacelle,
I was disappointed and troubled to hear of the recent decision by the Humane Society of the United States to move forward with attempts to further their political agenda and force it on the people of Ohio. This news proves that clearly you and your organization have not been listening.
HSUS was obviously not listening when residents across the state of Ohio spoke in one voice -- overwhelmingly supporting Issue 2 and ensuring that Ohioans regulate our own standards for animal care. HSUS was obviously not listening when a majority of Ohio's federal and state delegation endorsed the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board -- overwhelmingly denouncing the HSUS' efforts to undermine it. And HSUS was obviously not listening when farmers across the state of Ohio weighed in on this disastrous policy -- overwhelmingly opposing it.
In addition to a majority of Ohioans, Issue 2 also had great support among Ohio's legislators, Governor Strickland and groups representing animal interests, including The American Humane Association and the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association. It is unconscionable to me that an outside group would come into our state and claim that they know better.
The OLCSB was created just four months ago with a strong mandate by the people of Ohio, and it would be wrong for it to be hijacked by overzealous special interests based out of Washington, D.C. Our board will ensure that livestock and animals in Ohio are treated humanely and that our agricultural producers -- a major sector of Ohio's economy -- are not unfairly penalized with unacceptable regulations.
The experts that will make up the OLCSB are the best sources for determining Ohio's minimum standards of care for our animals, and not a liberal group whose real intentions are less about animal care and more about control over what we in Ohio eat.
Your attempts to dictate our state policies regarding animal care are misguided, and I will not stand for them. Ohio's standards of animal care should be determined by those who know the issue best and have a vested interest in the outcome -- Ohioans.
I joined the farmers of my district to support the passage of Issue 2, which passed with almost 64 percent of the vote on Nov. 3. Ohioans statewide have spoken. It is clear exactly where they stand on this issue.
Mr. Pacelle, Ohio has spoken. Why haven't you been listening?
Friday, February 26, 2010
Strickland and Kasich denounce HSUS ballot initiative in Ohio
Ohio Gov. Denounces HSUS Ballot Plan
By Pork news source Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Ohio Democratic Governor Ted Strickland and his GOP rival candidate John Kasich both declared their opposition to a ballot measure being planned by the out-of-state activist organization the Humane Society of the United States. The Washington, D.C.-based animal rights organization has prepared to use paid petition gatherers to place on the November ballot a measure to overturn State Issue 2, which was approved by Ohio voters by a nearly 2-1 margin just under four months ago.
Issue 2 created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to allow broad public input into farm animal care issues. The HSUS plan would force the Care Board to adopt HSUS policies.
Both gubernatorial candidates endorsed Issue 2 and now agree that it’s wrong for HSUS to attempt to overturn the will of Ohio voters.
"If we want to eat, and if we want access to affordable and inexpensive food, it is important for the agricultural community within our state not to be hamstrung and to have their hands tied behind their back by those who do not fully appreciate the value of what happens on our farms," said Gov. Strickland.
Referencing HSUS’s "extremism," candidate Kasich said, "No outsiders ought to come in here and try to destroy our farms."
Last week a HSUS watchdog Web site, www.HumaneWatch.org was launched which plans coverage on HSUS’ efforts at the national as well as state levels. “Ohio and Missouri are big battlegrounds for HSUS this year and we will be covering them extensively,” says David Martosko, Center for Consumer Freedom, the site's sponsor.
"The Ohio pork industry demonstrates to its consumers that the well-being of hogs in the state is a top priority," says Dick Isler, executive vice president, Ohio Pork Producers Council. “I would add that HSUS should try to work with the Animal Care Standards Board, not try to highjack it."
The Ohio governor candidates join Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern and Ohio Republic Party Chairman Kevin DeWine, who also condemned the HSUS plan during a broadcast of OFBF's radio program Town Hall Ohio.
"We don't need extreme out-of-state groups coming into Ohio. It just shows the political angle of the Humane Society," said DeWine.
"It's pretty remarkable. We haven't even had a chance to write the rules and somebody else is going to tell us what the rules should be," said Redfern. He added that HSUS "is clearly out of touch with Ohioans."
HSUS, which is not the parent of locally operated humane organizations, advocates for reducing and eliminating consumption of animal products.
Source: Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
By Pork news source Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Ohio Democratic Governor Ted Strickland and his GOP rival candidate John Kasich both declared their opposition to a ballot measure being planned by the out-of-state activist organization the Humane Society of the United States. The Washington, D.C.-based animal rights organization has prepared to use paid petition gatherers to place on the November ballot a measure to overturn State Issue 2, which was approved by Ohio voters by a nearly 2-1 margin just under four months ago.
Issue 2 created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to allow broad public input into farm animal care issues. The HSUS plan would force the Care Board to adopt HSUS policies.
Both gubernatorial candidates endorsed Issue 2 and now agree that it’s wrong for HSUS to attempt to overturn the will of Ohio voters.
"If we want to eat, and if we want access to affordable and inexpensive food, it is important for the agricultural community within our state not to be hamstrung and to have their hands tied behind their back by those who do not fully appreciate the value of what happens on our farms," said Gov. Strickland.
Referencing HSUS’s "extremism," candidate Kasich said, "No outsiders ought to come in here and try to destroy our farms."
Last week a HSUS watchdog Web site, www.HumaneWatch.org was launched which plans coverage on HSUS’ efforts at the national as well as state levels. “Ohio and Missouri are big battlegrounds for HSUS this year and we will be covering them extensively,” says David Martosko, Center for Consumer Freedom, the site's sponsor.
"The Ohio pork industry demonstrates to its consumers that the well-being of hogs in the state is a top priority," says Dick Isler, executive vice president, Ohio Pork Producers Council. “I would add that HSUS should try to work with the Animal Care Standards Board, not try to highjack it."
The Ohio governor candidates join Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern and Ohio Republic Party Chairman Kevin DeWine, who also condemned the HSUS plan during a broadcast of OFBF's radio program Town Hall Ohio.
"We don't need extreme out-of-state groups coming into Ohio. It just shows the political angle of the Humane Society," said DeWine.
"It's pretty remarkable. We haven't even had a chance to write the rules and somebody else is going to tell us what the rules should be," said Redfern. He added that HSUS "is clearly out of touch with Ohioans."
HSUS, which is not the parent of locally operated humane organizations, advocates for reducing and eliminating consumption of animal products.
Source: Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Getting to Know HSUS
By Rick Jordahl | Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Layer by layer, the facade of the Humane Society of the United States is being peeled back revealing the group’s far-reaching objectives. The world is learning that at the center is an animal rights group with much more on its agenda than saving dogs and cats.
Australian wine maker, Casella Wines, learned the hard way. After the company’s commitment to donate $100,000 was roundly criticized by many consumers of the wine makers’ Yellow Tail wine, the company reevaluated their commitment to HSUS.
In exchanges with the Animal Agriculture Alliance, Casella has decided that “future support for animal welfare will go to organizations specifically devoted to hands-on care, such as rescue, sterilization, feeding, or disaster assistance.”
Casella Wines’ wish to aid and support animals seems genuine and the company’s misdirected donation, while unfortunate, is understandable. HSUS fund-raising tactics excel at generating donations from those who are unaware of the group’s extensive agenda.
More layers of the HSUS exterior will be peeled back with last week’s launch of the Web site www.HumaneWatch.org . Sponsored by the Center for Consumer Freedom, the site’s objective is to educate the public about what HSUS is and what it is not. CCF is a non-profit organization supported by over 100 companies and thousands of individual consumers.
“People mistake HSUS for an animal welfare group that manages pet shelters,” says David Martosko, CCF director of research. “Part of the objective of HumaneWatch.org is to correct that misperception.”
Full story at Pork Magazine link
Layer by layer, the facade of the Humane Society of the United States is being peeled back revealing the group’s far-reaching objectives. The world is learning that at the center is an animal rights group with much more on its agenda than saving dogs and cats.
Australian wine maker, Casella Wines, learned the hard way. After the company’s commitment to donate $100,000 was roundly criticized by many consumers of the wine makers’ Yellow Tail wine, the company reevaluated their commitment to HSUS.
In exchanges with the Animal Agriculture Alliance, Casella has decided that “future support for animal welfare will go to organizations specifically devoted to hands-on care, such as rescue, sterilization, feeding, or disaster assistance.”
Casella Wines’ wish to aid and support animals seems genuine and the company’s misdirected donation, while unfortunate, is understandable. HSUS fund-raising tactics excel at generating donations from those who are unaware of the group’s extensive agenda.
More layers of the HSUS exterior will be peeled back with last week’s launch of the Web site www.HumaneWatch.org . Sponsored by the Center for Consumer Freedom, the site’s objective is to educate the public about what HSUS is and what it is not. CCF is a non-profit organization supported by over 100 companies and thousands of individual consumers.
“People mistake HSUS for an animal welfare group that manages pet shelters,” says David Martosko, CCF director of research. “Part of the objective of HumaneWatch.org is to correct that misperception.”
Full story at Pork Magazine link
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Wisconsin farm groups counter HSUS efforts
Brownfield
February 23, 2010 by Bob Meyer
Members of four Wisconsin farm groups will be visiting the State Capitol Wednesday to hand deliver a letter to members of the State Legislature. The letter calls into question the activities and actions of the Humane Society of the United States. Among other things, the letter states; “HSUS isn’t your local animal shelter; it’s a lobbying organization,” pointing out many Americans donate thinking the money is going to the local humane society when in fact it is funding the anti-animal agriculture motives of HSUS. The letter reiterates charges that less than 4 percent of HSUS’ budget actually goes to animal shelters.
The letter closes with the farm groups cautioning the lawmakers not to be fooled by people who say they care for animals while attacking those who actually do. “We feed animals. We feed people. We are the Wisconsin farmer members of:
Wisconsin Dairy Business Association Wisconsin Pork Association
Wisconsin Corn Growers Association
Wisconsin Soybean Association
They will also present the legislators with an empty plate bearing a label:
An Empty Plate
That’s what the Humane Society agenda promises.
HSUS deceptively uses this name to fund a PETA-inspired anti-meat campaign. Don’t be fooled.
HSUS isn’t your local animal shelter.
HSUS cares about fund-raising.
Wisconsin farmers care about animals.
Get the facts at www.Humanewatch.org
HSUS has been the driving force behind referendums in several states outlawing the use of gestation crates for pigs, calf crates and battery cages for chickens.
February 23, 2010 by Bob Meyer
Members of four Wisconsin farm groups will be visiting the State Capitol Wednesday to hand deliver a letter to members of the State Legislature. The letter calls into question the activities and actions of the Humane Society of the United States. Among other things, the letter states; “HSUS isn’t your local animal shelter; it’s a lobbying organization,” pointing out many Americans donate thinking the money is going to the local humane society when in fact it is funding the anti-animal agriculture motives of HSUS. The letter reiterates charges that less than 4 percent of HSUS’ budget actually goes to animal shelters.
The letter closes with the farm groups cautioning the lawmakers not to be fooled by people who say they care for animals while attacking those who actually do. “We feed animals. We feed people. We are the Wisconsin farmer members of:
Wisconsin Dairy Business Association Wisconsin Pork Association
Wisconsin Corn Growers Association
Wisconsin Soybean Association
They will also present the legislators with an empty plate bearing a label:
An Empty Plate
That’s what the Humane Society agenda promises.
HSUS deceptively uses this name to fund a PETA-inspired anti-meat campaign. Don’t be fooled.
HSUS isn’t your local animal shelter.
HSUS cares about fund-raising.
Wisconsin farmers care about animals.
Get the facts at www.Humanewatch.org
HSUS has been the driving force behind referendums in several states outlawing the use of gestation crates for pigs, calf crates and battery cages for chickens.
Jolley: Five Minutes With David Martosko & RICO, The HSUS Dog
Cattle Network 02/23/2010 07:46AM
It was a busy Monday, much like any other Monday this winter. The old bones were aching from clearing the driveway of the output of still another snowstorm. I was thinking a couple aspirins and a nap might be a good idea when Rob Cook perked things up. He had just forwarded a press release to me.
“Did you get this?” he asked in his email.
I looked at the headline: ”Racketeering Lawsuit Fingers Humane Society of the United States?.”
Now that’s an attention grabber. A vision of the ever dapper Wayne Pacelle, the top gun at HSUS, decked in prison stripes instead of Armani, flashed through my head. “Who,” I thought, “was giving HSUS the finger?”
Turns out it was Ringling Brothers, those kindly circus folk that HSUS and a few other animal rights organizations hammered with an animal cruelty charge a few years ago. In October, 2008, Federal Court proceedings began in a case involving a 2007 lawsuit filed against Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, claiming their famous elephants were subjected to ‘cruel and inhumane treatment.’
The suit alleged that the circus staff “routinely beat elephants, chain them for long periods of time, hit them with sharp bull hooks, break baby elephants with force to make them submissive, and forcibly remove baby elephants from their mothers before they are weaned.”
After some top flight lawyers on both sides of the issue fought it out in court, ‘mano a mano,’ Ringling Bros was exonerated. On January 27, the Entertainment Law Digest reported “A federal judge dismissed for lack of standing an animal cruelty lawsuit against the owner of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey, saying the lead plaintiff, a former elephant caretaker, had received nearly $200,000 in illegal payouts from animal rights advocates.”
It didn’t take long for Barnum lawyers to strike back with that RICO suit, did it? Uncovering the existence of the suit were the folks at Center for Consumer Freedom who posted a link to the papers on their just opened web site www.humanewatch.org. David Martosko, one of the more outspoken folks at CCF and their Director of Research, was my first call.
“Would you be able to respond to a few questions?” I asked. Damn right, he would. Here’s the story from his side of the fence.
Interview at link ..
It was a busy Monday, much like any other Monday this winter. The old bones were aching from clearing the driveway of the output of still another snowstorm. I was thinking a couple aspirins and a nap might be a good idea when Rob Cook perked things up. He had just forwarded a press release to me.
“Did you get this?” he asked in his email.
I looked at the headline: ”Racketeering Lawsuit Fingers Humane Society of the United States?.”
Now that’s an attention grabber. A vision of the ever dapper Wayne Pacelle, the top gun at HSUS, decked in prison stripes instead of Armani, flashed through my head. “Who,” I thought, “was giving HSUS the finger?”
Turns out it was Ringling Brothers, those kindly circus folk that HSUS and a few other animal rights organizations hammered with an animal cruelty charge a few years ago. In October, 2008, Federal Court proceedings began in a case involving a 2007 lawsuit filed against Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus, claiming their famous elephants were subjected to ‘cruel and inhumane treatment.’
The suit alleged that the circus staff “routinely beat elephants, chain them for long periods of time, hit them with sharp bull hooks, break baby elephants with force to make them submissive, and forcibly remove baby elephants from their mothers before they are weaned.”
After some top flight lawyers on both sides of the issue fought it out in court, ‘mano a mano,’ Ringling Bros was exonerated. On January 27, the Entertainment Law Digest reported “A federal judge dismissed for lack of standing an animal cruelty lawsuit against the owner of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey, saying the lead plaintiff, a former elephant caretaker, had received nearly $200,000 in illegal payouts from animal rights advocates.”
It didn’t take long for Barnum lawyers to strike back with that RICO suit, did it? Uncovering the existence of the suit were the folks at Center for Consumer Freedom who posted a link to the papers on their just opened web site www.humanewatch.org. David Martosko, one of the more outspoken folks at CCF and their Director of Research, was my first call.
“Would you be able to respond to a few questions?” I asked. Damn right, he would. Here’s the story from his side of the fence.
Interview at link ..
Racketeering Lawsuit Fingers Humane Society of the United States
Multi-Million Dollar Animal Rights Group Accused Of Corruption; Lawsuit Available At HumaneWatch
Washington - In a landmark RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit certain to have far-reaching implications for the animal rights movement, Feld Entertainment and the Ringling Brothers circus sued the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), its lawyers, and several other animal rights groups last week. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) unearthed the lawsuit in federal court records today. CCF is making the lawsuit available online at its newest website, www.HumaneWatch.org
"America's farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, research scientists, fashion designers, and restaurateurs have seen for decades how the animal rights movement can behave like a mobbed-up racket," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "But it's still shocking to see the evidence laid out on paper. In a treble-damage lawsuit like this, a jury could actually do the humane thing and finally put HSUS out of business completely."
Full Story ....
Washington - In a landmark RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit certain to have far-reaching implications for the animal rights movement, Feld Entertainment and the Ringling Brothers circus sued the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), its lawyers, and several other animal rights groups last week. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) unearthed the lawsuit in federal court records today. CCF is making the lawsuit available online at its newest website, www.HumaneWatch.org
"America's farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, research scientists, fashion designers, and restaurateurs have seen for decades how the animal rights movement can behave like a mobbed-up racket," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "But it's still shocking to see the evidence laid out on paper. In a treble-damage lawsuit like this, a jury could actually do the humane thing and finally put HSUS out of business completely."
Full Story ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
