By Dairy Herd News Source | Updated: March 28, 2011
Syracuse.com reports investigations by the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets and other experts show the Willet Dairy meets or exceeds animal-care standards despite accusations by an animal-rights organization.
An undercover worker from Mercy for Animals, a Chicago-based animal-rights group, released a video showing what it called inhumane treatment of cows and calves at Willet Dairy. Results from two investigations found the dairy’s workers used care practices equal to or above industry standards. The final reports showed no systemic abuse of cattle on the farm.
The investigation was completed by state Department of Agriculture and Markets, state Cattle Health and Assurance Program, state College of Veterinary Medicine Animal Health Diagnostic Center and ProDairy.
The investigation did find one dairy worker from the video hitting a cow on the nose with a screwdriver handle. That employee, Phil Niles, pleaded guilty to animal cruelty. He was fined $350, was fired from the dairy and is denied contact with animals for a year, according to The Post-Standard.
Apart from the charge against Niles, practices on the farm kept the 5,000-cow dairy cows clean and well cared for. Some of the practices Mercy for Animals found inhumane were common and according to the district attorney’s report, “not currently illegal in New York state.”
The undercover work who released the video admitted he is not an expert on dairy operations or New York state animal-welfare laws.
Source: Syracuse.com
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Senate panel OKs ban on undercover farm videos
By ANDREW DUFFELMEYER - Bloomberg Business Week
The Senate Agriculture Committee approved a bill Wednesday aimed at preventing animal rights activists from getting hired on farms to secretly record what they believe is the mistreatment of livestock.
The bill would make it illegal to secretly record and distribute videos and punish those who take jobs on farms only to gain access to record animals' treatment. Penalties include up to five years in prison and fines of up to $7,500.
The committee approved the bill on a voice vote, while the Republican-led House approved the measure 65-27 on March 17.
Critics of the bill say it would have a chilling effect on free speech and the question of whether it is constitutional could be challenged in court, something that could prove expensive for the state.
"Our primary concern is the constitutionality of the bill," said Adam Mason of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. "It seems like it's going to limit free speech of individuals."
The bill's manager, Democratic Sen. Tom Rielly of Oskaloosa, agreed the measure needs more work before it goes to the Senate floor for a vote.
But Rielly said he still believes the bill is necessary to prevent animal cruelty. Some animal rights groups film abuse of livestock without reporting it and then use it to gain publicity, Rielly said. Full story at link
The Senate Agriculture Committee approved a bill Wednesday aimed at preventing animal rights activists from getting hired on farms to secretly record what they believe is the mistreatment of livestock.
The bill would make it illegal to secretly record and distribute videos and punish those who take jobs on farms only to gain access to record animals' treatment. Penalties include up to five years in prison and fines of up to $7,500.
The committee approved the bill on a voice vote, while the Republican-led House approved the measure 65-27 on March 17.
Critics of the bill say it would have a chilling effect on free speech and the question of whether it is constitutional could be challenged in court, something that could prove expensive for the state.
"Our primary concern is the constitutionality of the bill," said Adam Mason of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. "It seems like it's going to limit free speech of individuals."
The bill's manager, Democratic Sen. Tom Rielly of Oskaloosa, agreed the measure needs more work before it goes to the Senate floor for a vote.
But Rielly said he still believes the bill is necessary to prevent animal cruelty. Some animal rights groups film abuse of livestock without reporting it and then use it to gain publicity, Rielly said. Full story at link
Friday, February 18, 2011
Budget amendment votes: fish yes, horses no
By Pete Kasperowicz - 02/16/11 05:09 PM ET The Hill
The House on Wednesday voted to maintain $7.5 million for a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service resource management program that gives grant money to private environmental groups.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) said the program's authorization has expired, but yet, "the money just keeps rolling on." McClintock's amendment was rejected in a voice vote.
The House did approve an amendment from Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) that would remove $2 million from the Bureau of Land Management as a way of protesting the Bureau's effort to manage the wild horse population in western states.
Burton criticized the Bureau's practice of transporting horses thousands of miles and keeping them in pens and said the cost of the program has more than tripled in the last 10 years. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) agreed and said the Bureau should control the size of herds through contraception, a less costly alternative.
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) opposed Burton's amendment and said Congress has caused problems by preventing the slaughter of wild horses. But Burton's amendment was approved regardless.
Both amendments were considered as part of H.R. 1, the GOP's FY 2011 spending bill, which the House is considering throughout the week.
The House on Wednesday voted to maintain $7.5 million for a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service resource management program that gives grant money to private environmental groups.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) said the program's authorization has expired, but yet, "the money just keeps rolling on." McClintock's amendment was rejected in a voice vote.
The House did approve an amendment from Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) that would remove $2 million from the Bureau of Land Management as a way of protesting the Bureau's effort to manage the wild horse population in western states.
Burton criticized the Bureau's practice of transporting horses thousands of miles and keeping them in pens and said the cost of the program has more than tripled in the last 10 years. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) agreed and said the Bureau should control the size of herds through contraception, a less costly alternative.
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) opposed Burton's amendment and said Congress has caused problems by preventing the slaughter of wild horses. But Burton's amendment was approved regardless.
Both amendments were considered as part of H.R. 1, the GOP's FY 2011 spending bill, which the House is considering throughout the week.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
St. Joseph MO could pass rules to mirror Prop B
Regardless of the outcome of current bills to repeal Prop B, the City Council is supportive of passing an ordinance to give the city authority to inspect local dog kennels. The proposed ordinance changes would update the local regulations for breeders of dogs or cats to mirror Proposition B.
St. Joseph dog breeders may operate on a tighter leash by the end of the year.
The City Council showed support Tuesday for an ordinance that would grant the city authority to inspect local dog kennels. The bill also would update the local regulations for breeders of dogs or cats to mirror Proposition B, which voters approved in November.
Under current city ordinances, the city does not inspect kennels that are inspected or licensed by another agency. The Missouri Department of Agriculture currently licenses and inspects the two breeding kennels within the city limits. No boarding or rescue kennels operate in St. Joseph.
The ordinance, like Proposition B, would require breeders to provide larger kennels for their animals and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area; would prohibit stacked cages; and would limit the number of animals a breeder could keep in a facility, among other regulations.
At least three bills are circulating in the state Legislature to repeal or reduce the authority of Proposition B.
Rick Smith, manager of St. Joseph Animal Control and Rescue, said the possibility of repeal should not affect the council’s decision.
“Even if the Legislature goes on to revise Prop B, that doesn’t mean you have to change the ordinance,” Mr. Smith said. “We can have stricter regulations than the state.”
Both of St. Joseph’s commercial breeders, Barbara Hoerath and Crystol Malchose, told the council the regulations would harm their businesses. When council member Donna Jean Boyer tried to ask a question, Ms. Hoerath immediately jumped in with the answer.
“So if it’s not repealed by the state ...” Ms. Boyer began.
“... I will move. I’ll have to move out of the state,” Ms. Hoerath said.
Full story
St. Joseph dog breeders may operate on a tighter leash by the end of the year.
The City Council showed support Tuesday for an ordinance that would grant the city authority to inspect local dog kennels. The bill also would update the local regulations for breeders of dogs or cats to mirror Proposition B, which voters approved in November.
Under current city ordinances, the city does not inspect kennels that are inspected or licensed by another agency. The Missouri Department of Agriculture currently licenses and inspects the two breeding kennels within the city limits. No boarding or rescue kennels operate in St. Joseph.
The ordinance, like Proposition B, would require breeders to provide larger kennels for their animals and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area; would prohibit stacked cages; and would limit the number of animals a breeder could keep in a facility, among other regulations.
At least three bills are circulating in the state Legislature to repeal or reduce the authority of Proposition B.
Rick Smith, manager of St. Joseph Animal Control and Rescue, said the possibility of repeal should not affect the council’s decision.
“Even if the Legislature goes on to revise Prop B, that doesn’t mean you have to change the ordinance,” Mr. Smith said. “We can have stricter regulations than the state.”
Both of St. Joseph’s commercial breeders, Barbara Hoerath and Crystol Malchose, told the council the regulations would harm their businesses. When council member Donna Jean Boyer tried to ask a question, Ms. Hoerath immediately jumped in with the answer.
“So if it’s not repealed by the state ...” Ms. Boyer began.
“... I will move. I’ll have to move out of the state,” Ms. Hoerath said.
Full story
Friday, January 28, 2011
MO Senate Ag approves bill changing Prop B measures
By: The Associated Press 01/27/11 1:33 PM
A Missouri Senate panel has given its approval to a bill changing the state law for dog breeders.
The Senate agriculture committee endorsed legislation Thursday that would modify a ballot measure approved by voters in November.
The bill would delete the limit of 50 dogs per breeder and give licensed breeders up to 180 days to correct serious violations before they face criminal charges.
The measure would still require veterinarians to do an onsite examination of the dogs at least once per year. Veterinarians would also care for seriously injured dogs and euthanizing them, if necessary.
The legislation next goes to the full Senate.
In the House, a committee considering similar bills finished hearing testimony Thursday and will debate amendments to them next week.
Dog breeding bill is SB113
A Missouri Senate panel has given its approval to a bill changing the state law for dog breeders.
The Senate agriculture committee endorsed legislation Thursday that would modify a ballot measure approved by voters in November.
The bill would delete the limit of 50 dogs per breeder and give licensed breeders up to 180 days to correct serious violations before they face criminal charges.
The measure would still require veterinarians to do an onsite examination of the dogs at least once per year. Veterinarians would also care for seriously injured dogs and euthanizing them, if necessary.
The legislation next goes to the full Senate.
In the House, a committee considering similar bills finished hearing testimony Thursday and will debate amendments to them next week.
Dog breeding bill is SB113
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Poaching Statistics — HSUS style
Few people ever challenge the statistics that animal rights groups toss out. Perhaps if we did so more often, their credibility would increasingly be damaged.
by Steve Sorensen
(Originally published in the Warren Times Observer, January 22, 2011.)
Why would the HSUS say anything to imply an equivalence between hunting and poaching?
The radio ad says over 100 million animals are killed by poachers each year. That number comes from the Humane Society of the United States and it can't be true.
Here it is, directly from the HSUS website: "In the United States, wildlife officials estimate that for every animal killed legally by hunters, another is killed illegally, amounting to perhaps more than 100 million wild animals poached each year."
These days, we hear so many big numbers that many people tend to accept them without question. But I have a few questions.
The first one is simple: "Really?"
Think about it.
If the HSUS is correct, and if those 100 million poached animals are averaged equally among the 50 states, Pennsylvania would lose about two million animals to poachers each year.
No one knows exactly how many animals are poached in Pennsylvania, but it's far less than two million. Jerry Feaser, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, says that "on average, about 1,000 individuals are added to Pennsylvania's revocation list for hunting and trapping license privileges annually."
If all 1,000 are poachers, and if each poached 10 animals, that's only a tiny fraction of two million - one half of one percent.
That leaves 1,990,000 unsolved poaching cases in Pennsylvania. I have more confidence in our wildlife conservation officers - and the general public - than that.
My second question - where does the HSUS get its outlandish poaching estimate? Feaser said even he wonders about that.
Answer: I think it comes almost totally from thin air.
Full story ....
by Steve Sorensen
(Originally published in the Warren Times Observer, January 22, 2011.)
Why would the HSUS say anything to imply an equivalence between hunting and poaching?
The radio ad says over 100 million animals are killed by poachers each year. That number comes from the Humane Society of the United States and it can't be true.
Here it is, directly from the HSUS website: "In the United States, wildlife officials estimate that for every animal killed legally by hunters, another is killed illegally, amounting to perhaps more than 100 million wild animals poached each year."
These days, we hear so many big numbers that many people tend to accept them without question. But I have a few questions.
The first one is simple: "Really?"
Think about it.
If the HSUS is correct, and if those 100 million poached animals are averaged equally among the 50 states, Pennsylvania would lose about two million animals to poachers each year.
No one knows exactly how many animals are poached in Pennsylvania, but it's far less than two million. Jerry Feaser, spokesman for the Pennsylvania Game Commission, says that "on average, about 1,000 individuals are added to Pennsylvania's revocation list for hunting and trapping license privileges annually."
If all 1,000 are poachers, and if each poached 10 animals, that's only a tiny fraction of two million - one half of one percent.
That leaves 1,990,000 unsolved poaching cases in Pennsylvania. I have more confidence in our wildlife conservation officers - and the general public - than that.
My second question - where does the HSUS get its outlandish poaching estimate? Feaser said even he wonders about that.
Answer: I think it comes almost totally from thin air.
Full story ....
Friday, January 21, 2011
HSUS lobbying agendas
HSUS state directors have a full schedule planned for the month of February. There are three areas of lobbying activity. Lobby Day 101 seminars cover lobbying skills and teach attendees how to influence a legislator. Grassroots Meetings are for discussing current HSUS legislative initiatives; legislators from the district are often invited to attend. Humane Lobby Days at state capitals where activists meet with legislators and distribute handouts are also on the agenda.
In February HSUS directors will be working in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Schedules for all these events can be found at the HSUS event calendar
Know what animal-related bills HSUS is preparing to introduce in your state. Get organized and be prepared for the HSUS 2011 initiatives.
In February HSUS directors will be working in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Schedules for all these events can be found at the HSUS event calendar
Know what animal-related bills HSUS is preparing to introduce in your state. Get organized and be prepared for the HSUS 2011 initiatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
