Hear the words straight from the director of a pet shelter in South Dakota that the intentional confusion caused by the HSUS is hurting local shelters. You will also hear her say that they give 97% of their budget towards the animals they care for. Why can't the HSUS do that?
Showing posts with label Humane Society of the United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Humane Society of the United States. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
Joplin Humane Society Forced To Change Name
April 28, 2010
No Affiliation
By Karen Aquino Special to The Globe
JOPLIN, Mo. — As more and more Americans are putting the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) under the microscope, I would like to clarify a common misconception. A recent national study reveals that 7 of 10 Americans believe that the Humane Society of the United States is an “umbrella group” for local humane societies. This is not the case and seems to be the belief of many people in our region.
The Joplin Humane Society is in no way affiliated with the Humane Society of the United States or any other national organization. The Joplin Humane Society receives no funding or support from HSUS and we are an independent entity from a funding, oversight and philosophical perspective.
This misconception is so pervasive in our region that the Joplin Humane Society’s board of directors has made the difficult decision to change the name of our organization to reflect the fact that we are independent, local shelter. Our new name will also encompass our mission to promote the human-animal bond, prevent cruelty to animals and elevate the standard of care for animals in the four-state region.
The new name of the Joplin Humane Society will be announced at noon April 30 during a ribbon-cutting ceremony.
The Joplin Humane Society was founded in 1948 and provides care for 12,000 animals each year. All of our funding comes from private donations and fees for service.
Karen Aquino
Joplin
Many local pet shelters are suffering due to the deliberate confusion being caused by the HSUS. Consequently, the animals are the ones that pay the biggest price. The constant ads asking for money by the HSUS would make anyone believe that they are involved in direct pet care, but nothing could be further from the truth. It’s a shame that so many local shelters are having to change their name in an attempt to distance themselves from the worlds wealthiest animal rights group. While the HSUS puts millions of dollars into salaries, fundraising, lobbying and buying stock in companies, our local shelters continue trying to operate on the pennies put in a pickle jar on the counter. If you want to help pets, please donate to the local shelters in our communities that actually help pets in need.
No Affiliation
By Karen Aquino Special to The Globe
JOPLIN, Mo. — As more and more Americans are putting the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) under the microscope, I would like to clarify a common misconception. A recent national study reveals that 7 of 10 Americans believe that the Humane Society of the United States is an “umbrella group” for local humane societies. This is not the case and seems to be the belief of many people in our region.
The Joplin Humane Society is in no way affiliated with the Humane Society of the United States or any other national organization. The Joplin Humane Society receives no funding or support from HSUS and we are an independent entity from a funding, oversight and philosophical perspective.
This misconception is so pervasive in our region that the Joplin Humane Society’s board of directors has made the difficult decision to change the name of our organization to reflect the fact that we are independent, local shelter. Our new name will also encompass our mission to promote the human-animal bond, prevent cruelty to animals and elevate the standard of care for animals in the four-state region.
The new name of the Joplin Humane Society will be announced at noon April 30 during a ribbon-cutting ceremony.
The Joplin Humane Society was founded in 1948 and provides care for 12,000 animals each year. All of our funding comes from private donations and fees for service.
Karen Aquino
Joplin
Many local pet shelters are suffering due to the deliberate confusion being caused by the HSUS. Consequently, the animals are the ones that pay the biggest price. The constant ads asking for money by the HSUS would make anyone believe that they are involved in direct pet care, but nothing could be further from the truth. It’s a shame that so many local shelters are having to change their name in an attempt to distance themselves from the worlds wealthiest animal rights group. While the HSUS puts millions of dollars into salaries, fundraising, lobbying and buying stock in companies, our local shelters continue trying to operate on the pennies put in a pickle jar on the counter. If you want to help pets, please donate to the local shelters in our communities that actually help pets in need.
Monday, April 12, 2010
HSUS Not All About Saving Puppies
It's not all about saving puppies at the activist Humane Society
DAVID MASTIO is deputy editorial-page editor at the Washington Times. Contact: dmastio@washingtontimes.com. • April 11, 2010
The Humane Society of the United States sparked quite the controversy last week, beginning with accusing the Iowa egg industry of animal abuse and ending with sniping between the group and Rep. Steve King. King charged the group is run by vegetarians who want to take meat off American tables. The Humane Society claimed King is among America's most anti-animal politicians.
So who is right?
The Humane Society defines anti-animal politicians based on a scorecard. In the latest annual report on its Web site, no Iowa representative or senator gets a passing grade, though King gets a big fat zero. Of course, plenty of the grade has little to do with animals. Expecting Republicans to sign on to global warming, gun control and expanded federal spending guarantees GOPers won't do very well.
When King alleges the group is run by vegetarians intent on taking meat off America's tables, he is just taking Humane Society honcho Wayne Pacelle at his word. Pacelle is a vegan - a vegetarian who not only doesn't eat meat but also refuses cheese, milk and eggs. In a long interview with Vegan.com, Pacelle says he wants to bring people along to "as compassionate a diet as they can handle." His own vegan diet being the most compassionate.
And then, of course, there is the fact that the Humane Society funds People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, according to its most recent IRS disclosure forms posted on the group's Web site. PETA openly campaigns to stop the consumption of meat. "Meat is Murder," you know. Read More
Many people are starting to see the HSUS for who they really are, including this editor from the Washington Times. All of us are certainly interested in making sure that all animals are well taken care of. That’s why those of us in animal agriculture love what we do because we get the opportunity everyday to take care of our livestock. When we do that, we also take care of our neighbors as well by providing them with a safe, affordable food supply. That’s the real story of animal agriculture, a story worth celebrating.
DAVID MASTIO is deputy editorial-page editor at the Washington Times. Contact: dmastio@washingtontimes.com. • April 11, 2010
The Humane Society of the United States sparked quite the controversy last week, beginning with accusing the Iowa egg industry of animal abuse and ending with sniping between the group and Rep. Steve King. King charged the group is run by vegetarians who want to take meat off American tables. The Humane Society claimed King is among America's most anti-animal politicians.
So who is right?
The Humane Society defines anti-animal politicians based on a scorecard. In the latest annual report on its Web site, no Iowa representative or senator gets a passing grade, though King gets a big fat zero. Of course, plenty of the grade has little to do with animals. Expecting Republicans to sign on to global warming, gun control and expanded federal spending guarantees GOPers won't do very well.
When King alleges the group is run by vegetarians intent on taking meat off America's tables, he is just taking Humane Society honcho Wayne Pacelle at his word. Pacelle is a vegan - a vegetarian who not only doesn't eat meat but also refuses cheese, milk and eggs. In a long interview with Vegan.com, Pacelle says he wants to bring people along to "as compassionate a diet as they can handle." His own vegan diet being the most compassionate.
And then, of course, there is the fact that the Humane Society funds People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, according to its most recent IRS disclosure forms posted on the group's Web site. PETA openly campaigns to stop the consumption of meat. "Meat is Murder," you know. Read More
Many people are starting to see the HSUS for who they really are, including this editor from the Washington Times. All of us are certainly interested in making sure that all animals are well taken care of. That’s why those of us in animal agriculture love what we do because we get the opportunity everyday to take care of our livestock. When we do that, we also take care of our neighbors as well by providing them with a safe, affordable food supply. That’s the real story of animal agriculture, a story worth celebrating.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Letter From SD 4-H Office to National 4-H Office
I was very pleased to see my home state send this letter (posted below) to the National 4-H Headquarters. 4-H alumni from around the country are very concerned about this. Unfortunately, in my conversation yesterday with a public relations specialist from USDA, I was informed that Lisa Hampton, the lady listed as the contact for this conference, would not be taking any calls or answering any questions. How incredibly disappointing it is that those who are leading our national 4-H program are refusing to talk to the volunteer leaders who are the lifeblood of this organization. Without those volunteers, there wouldn’t be a 4-H program. This was true when I was a member myself and it’s the reason I became a volunteer leader. Hopefully more states will continue to share their frustration with this embarrassing situation.
I would like to also mention that I tried to talk to the National 4-H office before I made any mention of this on my blog. I hope they will learn a lesson here that if they had been willing to talk about this right away that this thing may have been handled differently. Instead, they are still refusing to talk about it.
Date: April 6, 2010
To: Lisa Lauxman Director, Youth Development, National CYFAR National 4-H Headquarters
From: Dr. Latif Lighari Associate Dean and Director South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service
Re: South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service Position on HSUS at National 4-H Conference
I am writing to register the strong concern of the South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service regarding a program offered by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) at the 2010 National 4-H Conference on March 23. We are deeply troubled that the HSUS proposal would have been reviewed by the national conference planning committee and found to be acceptable. To consider a group that is known to be controversial and less than supportive of U.S. agriculture is ill-considered.
The South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service, which administers the South Dakota 4-H program, does not agree with the policies and practices of the Humane Society of the United States as they relate to U.S. agriculture. The South Dakota 4-H program has a long and honored tradition of helping young people understand the role of science and critical thinking when forming their own personal opinions. We understand our responsibility to be vigilant with regard to the messages, however subtle, that children may encounter through programs offered by 4-H.
South Dakota 4-H leadership would not knowingly allow our youth delegation to attend a national program that has not been properly vetted. Had we known that this program would be exclusively presented by HSUS, we would not have encouraged minor 4-H members to attend.
As your colleagues, we request that you give thoughtful consideration to implementing a more rigorous peer review of all future programs. In keeping with our commitment to youth, we ask that the review consider not only the proposed topic to be presented, but also track record and common interests of the presenter and affiliated organization.
I would like to also mention that I tried to talk to the National 4-H office before I made any mention of this on my blog. I hope they will learn a lesson here that if they had been willing to talk about this right away that this thing may have been handled differently. Instead, they are still refusing to talk about it.
Date: April 6, 2010
To: Lisa Lauxman Director, Youth Development, National CYFAR National 4-H Headquarters
From: Dr. Latif Lighari Associate Dean and Director South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service
Re: South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service Position on HSUS at National 4-H Conference
I am writing to register the strong concern of the South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service regarding a program offered by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) at the 2010 National 4-H Conference on March 23. We are deeply troubled that the HSUS proposal would have been reviewed by the national conference planning committee and found to be acceptable. To consider a group that is known to be controversial and less than supportive of U.S. agriculture is ill-considered.
The South Dakota Cooperative Extension Service, which administers the South Dakota 4-H program, does not agree with the policies and practices of the Humane Society of the United States as they relate to U.S. agriculture. The South Dakota 4-H program has a long and honored tradition of helping young people understand the role of science and critical thinking when forming their own personal opinions. We understand our responsibility to be vigilant with regard to the messages, however subtle, that children may encounter through programs offered by 4-H.
South Dakota 4-H leadership would not knowingly allow our youth delegation to attend a national program that has not been properly vetted. Had we known that this program would be exclusively presented by HSUS, we would not have encouraged minor 4-H members to attend.
As your colleagues, we request that you give thoughtful consideration to implementing a more rigorous peer review of all future programs. In keeping with our commitment to youth, we ask that the review consider not only the proposed topic to be presented, but also track record and common interests of the presenter and affiliated organization.
HSUS Releasing New Video Today
MEDIA ADVISORY
Humane Society of the United States to Release New Undercover Investigations Revealing Rampant Cruelty at Egg Factory Farms
WHAT: Press conference to announce The Humane Society of the United States’ latest undercover investigations into major egg producers. The HSUS will release video footage revealing appalling suffering at multiple egg factory farms and outline critically-needed reforms in animal agribusiness.
The HSUS will also release a new report detailing the problems inherent in cage confinement of laying hens and the importance of the national movement toward cage-free production systems.
WHO: Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS
WHERE: Des Moines Marriott Downtown
700 Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa
Or by teleconference. RSVP to Erin Williams, 301-721-6446 or ewilliams@humanesociety.org
WHEN: 10:00am CST, Wednesday, April 7
I caught wind of this yesterday and wanted to share it with all of you. No doubt this will be the same dog and pony show that most of their other video debuts turn out to be. Pacelle will stand there, show some edited footage from an undercover employee that should’ve been working rather video taping. Along with that, Pacelle will claim that all laying hens are abused. All of us involved in animal agriculture want to see our livestock treated correctly. However, HSUS has a much different goal that’s it’s trying to accomplish. In fact they are so desperate to come up with these undercover videos that they do whatever they can to make them look really bad. Such was the case in New Mexico. You can read here about how the resulting investigation showed that this “shocking abuse video” showed nothing at all. By the way, has anyone heard what the over/under is on Wayne using the indefinable term “factory farm”?
Humane Society of the United States to Release New Undercover Investigations Revealing Rampant Cruelty at Egg Factory Farms
WHAT: Press conference to announce The Humane Society of the United States’ latest undercover investigations into major egg producers. The HSUS will release video footage revealing appalling suffering at multiple egg factory farms and outline critically-needed reforms in animal agribusiness.
The HSUS will also release a new report detailing the problems inherent in cage confinement of laying hens and the importance of the national movement toward cage-free production systems.
WHO: Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The HSUS
WHERE: Des Moines Marriott Downtown
700 Grand Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa
Or by teleconference. RSVP to Erin Williams, 301-721-6446 or ewilliams@humanesociety.org
WHEN: 10:00am CST, Wednesday, April 7
I caught wind of this yesterday and wanted to share it with all of you. No doubt this will be the same dog and pony show that most of their other video debuts turn out to be. Pacelle will stand there, show some edited footage from an undercover employee that should’ve been working rather video taping. Along with that, Pacelle will claim that all laying hens are abused. All of us involved in animal agriculture want to see our livestock treated correctly. However, HSUS has a much different goal that’s it’s trying to accomplish. In fact they are so desperate to come up with these undercover videos that they do whatever they can to make them look really bad. Such was the case in New Mexico. You can read here about how the resulting investigation showed that this “shocking abuse video” showed nothing at all. By the way, has anyone heard what the over/under is on Wayne using the indefinable term “factory farm”?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Pacelle Is Paranoid of "Paranoid" Agriculture
HSUS calls ag response “paranoid”
March 29, 2010 by Julie Harker
Brownfield Ag Network
Increasing efforts to restrict livestock industry practices by animal rights groups in the U.S. are defended by the head of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Wayne Pacelle recently spoke with Brownfield, “All of our campaigns related to food animal production are about humane production standards, humane transport and humane slaughter. I mean, I defy anyone to show me any statement where we say we want to eliminate animal agriculture.”
Pacelle says concerns in agriculture that HSUS campaigns to crack down on irresponsible dog breeders, like the one in Missouri, have anything to do with livestock agriculture are unfounded. Pacelle says, “It’s an irrational and paranoid response.”
Pacelle says the goal of HSUS is not to shut down livestock production but to improve the treatment of animals raised for food. Members of ag groups in states such as Ohio and Missouri continue to work toward stopping what they say are HSUS attempts to eventually shut down livestock production in their states.
Dale Ludwig is one of the leaders of the Missouri Animal Ag Coalition and is the Executive Director of the Missouri Soybean Association. He tells Brownfield one only need to look at the track record of HSUS in other states, where they often start with an issue that deals with pets, raise vast sums of money, then follow up with additonal regulations on animal agriculture. “I think they continue to misrepresent what the facts are and they can say things like we are paranoid,” says Ludwig. “All you have to do is look at what they have done in other places” and ” you could make the assumption that’s what they will do here.” Read More
You can always tell what the biggest threat is to an organization by what they are focusing their time on. In this case HSUS is losing supporters like rats off a sinking ship. That is why we have seen Wayne doing so many interviews with ag media as of late trying to portray him and the HSUS as the victims in this debate. He wouldn’t be playing this card if it weren’t for the impact that everyone is contributing to. They are quickly learning that no amount of slick advertising can compete with the individual stories and influence that farmers and ranchers can have.
March 29, 2010 by Julie Harker
Brownfield Ag Network
Increasing efforts to restrict livestock industry practices by animal rights groups in the U.S. are defended by the head of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Wayne Pacelle recently spoke with Brownfield, “All of our campaigns related to food animal production are about humane production standards, humane transport and humane slaughter. I mean, I defy anyone to show me any statement where we say we want to eliminate animal agriculture.”
Pacelle says concerns in agriculture that HSUS campaigns to crack down on irresponsible dog breeders, like the one in Missouri, have anything to do with livestock agriculture are unfounded. Pacelle says, “It’s an irrational and paranoid response.”
Pacelle says the goal of HSUS is not to shut down livestock production but to improve the treatment of animals raised for food. Members of ag groups in states such as Ohio and Missouri continue to work toward stopping what they say are HSUS attempts to eventually shut down livestock production in their states.
Dale Ludwig is one of the leaders of the Missouri Animal Ag Coalition and is the Executive Director of the Missouri Soybean Association. He tells Brownfield one only need to look at the track record of HSUS in other states, where they often start with an issue that deals with pets, raise vast sums of money, then follow up with additonal regulations on animal agriculture. “I think they continue to misrepresent what the facts are and they can say things like we are paranoid,” says Ludwig. “All you have to do is look at what they have done in other places” and ” you could make the assumption that’s what they will do here.” Read More
You can always tell what the biggest threat is to an organization by what they are focusing their time on. In this case HSUS is losing supporters like rats off a sinking ship. That is why we have seen Wayne doing so many interviews with ag media as of late trying to portray him and the HSUS as the victims in this debate. He wouldn’t be playing this card if it weren’t for the impact that everyone is contributing to. They are quickly learning that no amount of slick advertising can compete with the individual stories and influence that farmers and ranchers can have.
Friday, March 19, 2010
HSUS Legislation in Congress
HSUS supports bill to re-define animal cruelty
John Maday Monday, March 08, 2010
U.S. Representatives Diane Watson (D-Calif.) and Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.) introduced H.R. 4733, the “Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act,” last week. The bill would set federal standards regulating housing and animal treatment on operations that supply food to government purchases such as the School Lunch program. The Humane Society of the United States immediately issued a release praising the proposed bill.
Such a law would, in practice, apply to virtually all livestock operations, since the USDA purchased food from packers and processors, not from farms. Without full traceability of every product back to its farm or ranch of origin, packers would need to require compliance from all their suppliers to continue selling meat or dairy products to the government.
The HSUS release is available online. Link to Article
I didn’t get this post last week when I was on the road, but I wanted to make sure everyone is aware of this bill. Anyone who follows the HSUS knows that they would love to get federal legislation passed that would accomplish what they have been trying to do on a state-by-state basis. What is probably the most irritating part of this is the title of the bill itself. It implies that unless you change your management practices that you are being cruel to your farm animals. We know that’s not true. Please take a moment to contact your elected officials in Washington DC and visit with them about this bill.
John Maday Monday, March 08, 2010
U.S. Representatives Diane Watson (D-Calif.) and Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.) introduced H.R. 4733, the “Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act,” last week. The bill would set federal standards regulating housing and animal treatment on operations that supply food to government purchases such as the School Lunch program. The Humane Society of the United States immediately issued a release praising the proposed bill.
Such a law would, in practice, apply to virtually all livestock operations, since the USDA purchased food from packers and processors, not from farms. Without full traceability of every product back to its farm or ranch of origin, packers would need to require compliance from all their suppliers to continue selling meat or dairy products to the government.
The HSUS release is available online. Link to Article
I didn’t get this post last week when I was on the road, but I wanted to make sure everyone is aware of this bill. Anyone who follows the HSUS knows that they would love to get federal legislation passed that would accomplish what they have been trying to do on a state-by-state basis. What is probably the most irritating part of this is the title of the bill itself. It implies that unless you change your management practices that you are being cruel to your farm animals. We know that’s not true. Please take a moment to contact your elected officials in Washington DC and visit with them about this bill.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Jolley: Pacelle, Yellow Tail & Mary Kay
Jolley: Pacelle, Yellow Tail & Mary Kay - What A Tangled Web We Weave
By Chuck Jolley
03/12/2010 07:13AM
My “Five Minutes with Wayne Pacelle” interview was written as a news piece which means loaded questions are not permitted. A loaded question is something like the infamous “Have you quit beating your wife, yet?” It presupposes guilt and gives the respondent no options at claiming innocence.
The comments that came after the interview was published have no such limitations. What makes them interesting is their unedited nature. Anyone can comment and go on the attack or mount a fevered defense. I’ve just reviewed all those cards and letters and found no fevered defenses of Wayne Pacelle or the HSUS. It’s to be expected, of course, considering the vast majority of the Cattlenetwork audience is Ag people who have a serious bone to pick with HSUS.
But here is the real reason. With millions of people chattering constantly on social web sites, it’s impossible to fool all of the people all of the time. Some of the time, maybe. The problem, of course, is people will find out about little excursions with the truth and they get very angry when they do. People who play fast and loose with the facts generally don’t like the harshness of public opinion when they’re found out.
And now we have the most recent incident involving HSUS and their list of corporate sponsors. We all know about the infamous [yellow tail] wine incident. The Australian winery, wishing to curry more favor in the American marketplace, mistakenly contributed $100,000 to HSUS. They thought they were backing a fine, upstanding organization that enjoyed widespread good will and did good works in saving animals in distress.
The backlash started immediately. Using social networking, the Ag community roared its disapproval highlighted by Troy Hadrick’s now famous Youtube video.
Over 12,000 people and a dozen curious cows have watched as he marched into a cattle pen and poured his last bottle of [yellow tail] wine onto the ground.
[yellow tail] blinked and rethought their generosity. America’s cowboys enjoyed their triumph. Then came the Mary Kay debacle.
Time for America’s cowgirls to take center stage. They protested and Mary Kay’s response was quick and to the point.
Maybe it’s time to call the chief execs of each of those companies and ask just two questions: “Do you realize HSUS is using your good name to promote their agenda?” If he does, then the proper follow up question is, “Do you fully understand their agenda?”
A yes to both questions means Troy Hadrick will have to grab one of their products, march back into that cattle pen again and do his thing. Here’s hoping he won’t have to turn his back yard into a solid waste disposal site. Read the Entire Article
I’m with Chuck, I don’t want to have to turn my back yard into a solid waste disposal site either. ~ Troy
By Chuck Jolley
03/12/2010 07:13AM
My “Five Minutes with Wayne Pacelle” interview was written as a news piece which means loaded questions are not permitted. A loaded question is something like the infamous “Have you quit beating your wife, yet?” It presupposes guilt and gives the respondent no options at claiming innocence.
The comments that came after the interview was published have no such limitations. What makes them interesting is their unedited nature. Anyone can comment and go on the attack or mount a fevered defense. I’ve just reviewed all those cards and letters and found no fevered defenses of Wayne Pacelle or the HSUS. It’s to be expected, of course, considering the vast majority of the Cattlenetwork audience is Ag people who have a serious bone to pick with HSUS.
But here is the real reason. With millions of people chattering constantly on social web sites, it’s impossible to fool all of the people all of the time. Some of the time, maybe. The problem, of course, is people will find out about little excursions with the truth and they get very angry when they do. People who play fast and loose with the facts generally don’t like the harshness of public opinion when they’re found out.
And now we have the most recent incident involving HSUS and their list of corporate sponsors. We all know about the infamous [yellow tail] wine incident. The Australian winery, wishing to curry more favor in the American marketplace, mistakenly contributed $100,000 to HSUS. They thought they were backing a fine, upstanding organization that enjoyed widespread good will and did good works in saving animals in distress.
The backlash started immediately. Using social networking, the Ag community roared its disapproval highlighted by Troy Hadrick’s now famous Youtube video.
Over 12,000 people and a dozen curious cows have watched as he marched into a cattle pen and poured his last bottle of [yellow tail] wine onto the ground.
[yellow tail] blinked and rethought their generosity. America’s cowboys enjoyed their triumph. Then came the Mary Kay debacle.
Time for America’s cowgirls to take center stage. They protested and Mary Kay’s response was quick and to the point.
Maybe it’s time to call the chief execs of each of those companies and ask just two questions: “Do you realize HSUS is using your good name to promote their agenda?” If he does, then the proper follow up question is, “Do you fully understand their agenda?”
A yes to both questions means Troy Hadrick will have to grab one of their products, march back into that cattle pen again and do his thing. Here’s hoping he won’t have to turn his back yard into a solid waste disposal site. Read the Entire Article
I’m with Chuck, I don’t want to have to turn my back yard into a solid waste disposal site either. ~ Troy
HSUS Kicks Off OH Ballot Initiative
Animal Standards Fight Restarts in Ohio
03/14/2010
NAFB News Service
Hoosier Ag Today
The Ohio House voted 90 to 0 last week to establish the Ohio Livestock Standards Board. At the same time, Wayne Pacelle was in Ohio to kick off another constitutional ballot issue. The issue, backed by the Humane Society of the United States, would require the farm standards board to ban - extreme confinement - of pigs, chickens and other animals for most of their lives, prohibit using sick or injured cows for human consumption, and eliminate inhumane euthanasia methods.
Under the program, farm owners or operators would be barred from - tethering or confining any calf raised for veal, pig during pregnancy, or egg-laying hen, on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending his or her limbs, or turning around freely. A half-dozen exceptions are listed, including ones for fairs, rodeos and 4-H shows.
If 402,275 valid signatures of Ohio registered voters are collected by June 29, the proposal will be placed on the November ballot as a statewide constitutional issue. Pacelle expects to have, “thousands of volunteers hitting the streets - to gather signatures.” The Ohio Farm Bureau and other agricultural organizations that supported Issue 2 last fall have vowed to fight the HSUS proposal. Link
Not wanting to leave the issue of animal welfare and care in the hands of professionals and experts, Wayne Pacelle (who was a history major in college) and the HSUS is launching their ballot initiative in Ohio. They want to force the newly approved and not yet formed Livestock Care Standards Board to accept certain guidelines based on pure emotion and little science. Fortunately it appears that the citizens of Ohio are quite aware that farmers and ranchers are the real experts on animal care. It will be essential to keep the momentum gained from last years vote carrying forward.
03/14/2010
NAFB News Service
Hoosier Ag Today
The Ohio House voted 90 to 0 last week to establish the Ohio Livestock Standards Board. At the same time, Wayne Pacelle was in Ohio to kick off another constitutional ballot issue. The issue, backed by the Humane Society of the United States, would require the farm standards board to ban - extreme confinement - of pigs, chickens and other animals for most of their lives, prohibit using sick or injured cows for human consumption, and eliminate inhumane euthanasia methods.
Under the program, farm owners or operators would be barred from - tethering or confining any calf raised for veal, pig during pregnancy, or egg-laying hen, on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending his or her limbs, or turning around freely. A half-dozen exceptions are listed, including ones for fairs, rodeos and 4-H shows.
If 402,275 valid signatures of Ohio registered voters are collected by June 29, the proposal will be placed on the November ballot as a statewide constitutional issue. Pacelle expects to have, “thousands of volunteers hitting the streets - to gather signatures.” The Ohio Farm Bureau and other agricultural organizations that supported Issue 2 last fall have vowed to fight the HSUS proposal. Link
Not wanting to leave the issue of animal welfare and care in the hands of professionals and experts, Wayne Pacelle (who was a history major in college) and the HSUS is launching their ballot initiative in Ohio. They want to force the newly approved and not yet formed Livestock Care Standards Board to accept certain guidelines based on pure emotion and little science. Fortunately it appears that the citizens of Ohio are quite aware that farmers and ranchers are the real experts on animal care. It will be essential to keep the momentum gained from last years vote carrying forward.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Consequences of HSUS Actions
U.S. Consumer Egg Prices Could Rise by 25 Percent if Animal Rights Activists Get Their Way
Gov't Spending on Food Assistance for the Needy Would Increase by $169 million
Cheap Imports Would Increase Food Safety Dangers
WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Consumers would be forced to pay 25 percent more for eggs soon if animal rights activists succeed in getting only non-cage eggs sold in the U.S., according to a new study by a respected economic consulting group. That increase would cost consumers $2.6 billion more each year for eggs, a nutritional staple in the American diet. The higher costs would strain Americans' budgets during a difficult economic climate.
Federal spending on food assistance programs for children and the needy also would increase by $169 million annually if the government could only purchase cage-free eggs, according to the study by Promar International, a Washington, D.C. economic consulting firm. Significant amounts of eggs are purchased for the school lunch and breakfast program ($47 million annually); Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC-$100 million); and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP-formerly the Food Stamp Program).
The study predicts that such a dramatic consumer cost increase could open the door to a sharp rise in egg imports from other countries that have far lower food safety and animal welfare standards than the United States. Egg imports could rise from virtually zero today to 7 billion eggs annually, seriously straining the ability of the U.S. government's food safety inspection system.
"If we have to start importing eggs into this country we will increase our food safety risks," said Gene Gregory, president of United Egg Producers, a national cooperative of U.S. family egg farmers. "I don't think American consumers really want to play Russian Roulette with every carton of eggs they buy, which is essentially what would happen if we allow special interest groups to force a ban on the most modern, sanitary egg housing systems in the world. Those systems are used to produce 95 percent of the eggs that American consumers buy every day."
Read More
Regardless of what the Humane Society of the United States tries to tell us, their actions are either going to make our food more expensive, less safe or both. Those are the only possible outcomes of their stated goals. For the voters that continue to support their measures, these are consequences for their actions as well. This part of the story isn’t being told very well and it needs to be. Having a safe, affordable, domestically grown food supply is vital to our nation’s future success.
Gov't Spending on Food Assistance for the Needy Would Increase by $169 million
Cheap Imports Would Increase Food Safety Dangers
WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Consumers would be forced to pay 25 percent more for eggs soon if animal rights activists succeed in getting only non-cage eggs sold in the U.S., according to a new study by a respected economic consulting group. That increase would cost consumers $2.6 billion more each year for eggs, a nutritional staple in the American diet. The higher costs would strain Americans' budgets during a difficult economic climate.
Federal spending on food assistance programs for children and the needy also would increase by $169 million annually if the government could only purchase cage-free eggs, according to the study by Promar International, a Washington, D.C. economic consulting firm. Significant amounts of eggs are purchased for the school lunch and breakfast program ($47 million annually); Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC-$100 million); and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP-formerly the Food Stamp Program).
The study predicts that such a dramatic consumer cost increase could open the door to a sharp rise in egg imports from other countries that have far lower food safety and animal welfare standards than the United States. Egg imports could rise from virtually zero today to 7 billion eggs annually, seriously straining the ability of the U.S. government's food safety inspection system.
"If we have to start importing eggs into this country we will increase our food safety risks," said Gene Gregory, president of United Egg Producers, a national cooperative of U.S. family egg farmers. "I don't think American consumers really want to play Russian Roulette with every carton of eggs they buy, which is essentially what would happen if we allow special interest groups to force a ban on the most modern, sanitary egg housing systems in the world. Those systems are used to produce 95 percent of the eggs that American consumers buy every day."
Read More
Regardless of what the Humane Society of the United States tries to tell us, their actions are either going to make our food more expensive, less safe or both. Those are the only possible outcomes of their stated goals. For the voters that continue to support their measures, these are consequences for their actions as well. This part of the story isn’t being told very well and it needs to be. Having a safe, affordable, domestically grown food supply is vital to our nation’s future success.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Nebraska Lawmakers Discuss Horse Facility
Published Saturday October 3, 2009
Horse slaughterhouse debated
By Martha StoddardWORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN — Nebraska could rein in neglect and abandonment of horses and spur on economic development by welcoming a horse slaughterhouse to the state, a panel of lawmakers was told Friday.
Such a facility could give horse owners a way to deal with injured, dying or unaffordable animals, members of the Agriculture Committee heard.
“Slaughter is not pretty, but it is a humane, economical way for an owner to dispose of an unwanted horse,” said Debby Brehm, Nebraska director for the American Quarter Horse Association.
Banning horse slaughter has led to greater suffering for horses and to problems with people abandoning horses, she said.
Brehm told of friends who transported two horses to a local sale barn and took them inside, only to find that two other horses had been left in their trailer, abandoned.
Larry Henning, a Gretna veterinarian, said the Nebraska Veterinary Medical Association supports humane slaughter and transport because there are few alternatives for unwanted and unusable horses.
“Death is not inhumane,” he said. “Starvation and neglect are.” Read More
As with many other states, Nebraska is dealing with many unwanted horses. Those against harvesting horses will say that it’s still happening as many horses are crossing our borders to be harvested thus proving that it doesn’t help. However, what they fail to comprehend is that that option has become cost prohibitive for many. People wouldn’t be abandoning their horses if they had some monetary value left. Opening a facility in the United States would help with this situation and it would also allow us to make sure that it’s being done correctly.
Horse slaughterhouse debated
By Martha StoddardWORLD-HERALD BUREAU
LINCOLN — Nebraska could rein in neglect and abandonment of horses and spur on economic development by welcoming a horse slaughterhouse to the state, a panel of lawmakers was told Friday.
Such a facility could give horse owners a way to deal with injured, dying or unaffordable animals, members of the Agriculture Committee heard.
“Slaughter is not pretty, but it is a humane, economical way for an owner to dispose of an unwanted horse,” said Debby Brehm, Nebraska director for the American Quarter Horse Association.
Banning horse slaughter has led to greater suffering for horses and to problems with people abandoning horses, she said.
Brehm told of friends who transported two horses to a local sale barn and took them inside, only to find that two other horses had been left in their trailer, abandoned.
Larry Henning, a Gretna veterinarian, said the Nebraska Veterinary Medical Association supports humane slaughter and transport because there are few alternatives for unwanted and unusable horses.
“Death is not inhumane,” he said. “Starvation and neglect are.” Read More
As with many other states, Nebraska is dealing with many unwanted horses. Those against harvesting horses will say that it’s still happening as many horses are crossing our borders to be harvested thus proving that it doesn’t help. However, what they fail to comprehend is that that option has become cost prohibitive for many. People wouldn’t be abandoning their horses if they had some monetary value left. Opening a facility in the United States would help with this situation and it would also allow us to make sure that it’s being done correctly.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
HSUS Says New Henhouse Not Compliant
J.S. West to build henhouse compliant with Proposition 2
By John Holland - jholland@modbee.com
J.S. West and Cos., an egg producer based in Modesto, announced today that it will build a henhouse aimed at complying with Proposition 2.
This will be the first commercial project that meets the standards for hen enclosures approved by state voters last year, company president Eric Benson said.
The Humane Society of the United States, a leading backer of the proposition, disagreed. It said the new housing, increasing the floor space per hen to 116 square inches, would leave the birds too cramped.
Benson said he was not surprised by the reaction and plans to move forward with the $3.2 million project. It will house about 150,000 hens — 8 percent of the company’s flock — at one of its operations near Livingston.
“No matter what the Humane Society thinks, we believe at J.S. West that this housing is Proposition 2-compliant,” Benson said.
Jennifer Fearing, senior state director for the Humane Society, said both sides in the battle over Proposition 2 agreed last year that it would not allow the enclosures planned by J.S. West.
“The amount of space proposed here is clearly not enough space for ‘fully extending all limbs without touching the side of an enclosure or another bird’ as defined under Proposition 2,” she said in an e-mail. Read More
As was to be expected, the HSUS is quite upset that anyone is going to continue egg production in California. Their goal was to eliminate the industry in that state, but now there are some that are going to attempt to comply with Prop 2. The HSUS wrote the proposition with vague language so that they could twist the interpretation any way they wanted. In doing so, they figured everyone would be to scared to even try complying. Eventually a judge will have to determine what is and isn’t legal. Until then, expect to hear the HSUS claim any proposal as being in violation of Prop 2.
By John Holland - jholland@modbee.com
J.S. West and Cos., an egg producer based in Modesto, announced today that it will build a henhouse aimed at complying with Proposition 2.
This will be the first commercial project that meets the standards for hen enclosures approved by state voters last year, company president Eric Benson said.
The Humane Society of the United States, a leading backer of the proposition, disagreed. It said the new housing, increasing the floor space per hen to 116 square inches, would leave the birds too cramped.
Benson said he was not surprised by the reaction and plans to move forward with the $3.2 million project. It will house about 150,000 hens — 8 percent of the company’s flock — at one of its operations near Livingston.
“No matter what the Humane Society thinks, we believe at J.S. West that this housing is Proposition 2-compliant,” Benson said.
Jennifer Fearing, senior state director for the Humane Society, said both sides in the battle over Proposition 2 agreed last year that it would not allow the enclosures planned by J.S. West.
“The amount of space proposed here is clearly not enough space for ‘fully extending all limbs without touching the side of an enclosure or another bird’ as defined under Proposition 2,” she said in an e-mail. Read More
As was to be expected, the HSUS is quite upset that anyone is going to continue egg production in California. Their goal was to eliminate the industry in that state, but now there are some that are going to attempt to comply with Prop 2. The HSUS wrote the proposition with vague language so that they could twist the interpretation any way they wanted. In doing so, they figured everyone would be to scared to even try complying. Eventually a judge will have to determine what is and isn’t legal. Until then, expect to hear the HSUS claim any proposal as being in violation of Prop 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)