MO Senate works on anti-anti-puppy mill bill
by Bob Priddy on May 11, 2010
The effort by the legislature to make it harder to pass the puppy mill petition proposal is inching forward in the legislature. The proposed law would require any petition issue placing any controls on animal agriculture to get a two-thirds majority to pass. It sets animal agriculture apart from all other issues that might go to the voters through petition campaigns.
The bill is a reaction to the petition seeking a statewide vote on regulations for dog breeding operations. Agriculture interests say it adds almost nothing to the current state regulations and is a precursor to a later petition they say would kill animal farming.
Joplin Senator Gary Nodler says backers re relying on an inflammatory phrase to touch public emotion, namely “puppy mills,” when he says is a term that is intended to unfairly describe dog breeders. He likes the phrase to a racial slur.
Sponsor Bill Stouffer of Napton is confident his proposed anti-anti puppy mill amendment can get through the Senate, then the House and get on this year’s ballot. IT will need only a simple majority from voters to become law. Link
Many states are looking into ways they can protect farmers and ranchers from emotionally based initiatives that have nothing to do with the proper care of livestock and everything to do with control. This is certainly a unique idea and it will be interesting to see the debate on this plan. We’ll stay tuned for how this ends up.
Showing posts with label Missouri. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Missouri. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Beef: More Than What's For Dinner
A lot more than ‘what’s for dinner’
By Jim Hamilton Neighbor Newspaper, Missouri
Senior writer
Published:
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:09 AM CDT
May is “Beef Month,” an observance started 45 years ago to salute the beef industry from pasture to plate.For many of us, that “industry” is just a part of everyday life. Mostly, we’re not ranchers or cowboys, but just folks with a few cows. The average herd size in Missouri is 36, according to the Missouri Beef Industry Council. Some of us have many more than that, and many are similar to me and my neighbor, running five head on shared pasture.
Large or small, we’re all part of a $1.5 billion industry in this state, and our cows are among more than 2 million head thriving on 12 million acres of Show-Me pastures. Tally all of our beef and dairy cows, calves, bulls and steers and we take care of 4.45 million head of cattle. That’s about two bovines for every household in the state.
Fever losses of 50 to 90 percent in Missouri herds were devastating to farmers and ranchers in the 1850s-1860s. A century-and-a-half later, cattle owners face an equally insidious adversary in animal welfare activists.Regardless of the semantics of the organizations – animal “rights,” animal “welfare” or animal “protection” – the gist of the threat is the same: the ruination of animal agriculture.
Beef cattle producers have survived disease outbreaks, crippling market cycles, soaring production costs and misleading cholesterol claims, but no former challenge was any greater than that now posed by animal rights activism.
Any threat to animal agriculture is a threat to more than the livestock producer.
If you enjoy a beef taco, pizza or hamburger, you are under attack.
If you drive a Schwan’s truck, work at Walmart or frequent a Subway sandwich shop, animal rights is about you.
If you’re a school cook, furniture salesman, car dealer, homebuilder or an accountant, animal rights is about you. Read More
National Beef Month is a great time to remind everyone how they are connected to the beef industry and all of agriculture. The old saying goes that if you aren’t hungry or naked, thank a farmer. It’s a simple but entirely true statement. That’s why these attempts by animal rights groups to eliminate the ability of animal agriculture to function in this country should be a concern to everyone. It’s nothing less than an attack on the ability to feed and clothe ourselves.
By Jim Hamilton Neighbor Newspaper, Missouri
Senior writer
Published:
Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:09 AM CDT
May is “Beef Month,” an observance started 45 years ago to salute the beef industry from pasture to plate.For many of us, that “industry” is just a part of everyday life. Mostly, we’re not ranchers or cowboys, but just folks with a few cows. The average herd size in Missouri is 36, according to the Missouri Beef Industry Council. Some of us have many more than that, and many are similar to me and my neighbor, running five head on shared pasture.
Large or small, we’re all part of a $1.5 billion industry in this state, and our cows are among more than 2 million head thriving on 12 million acres of Show-Me pastures. Tally all of our beef and dairy cows, calves, bulls and steers and we take care of 4.45 million head of cattle. That’s about two bovines for every household in the state.
Fever losses of 50 to 90 percent in Missouri herds were devastating to farmers and ranchers in the 1850s-1860s. A century-and-a-half later, cattle owners face an equally insidious adversary in animal welfare activists.Regardless of the semantics of the organizations – animal “rights,” animal “welfare” or animal “protection” – the gist of the threat is the same: the ruination of animal agriculture.
Beef cattle producers have survived disease outbreaks, crippling market cycles, soaring production costs and misleading cholesterol claims, but no former challenge was any greater than that now posed by animal rights activism.
Any threat to animal agriculture is a threat to more than the livestock producer.
If you enjoy a beef taco, pizza or hamburger, you are under attack.
If you drive a Schwan’s truck, work at Walmart or frequent a Subway sandwich shop, animal rights is about you.
If you’re a school cook, furniture salesman, car dealer, homebuilder or an accountant, animal rights is about you. Read More
National Beef Month is a great time to remind everyone how they are connected to the beef industry and all of agriculture. The old saying goes that if you aren’t hungry or naked, thank a farmer. It’s a simple but entirely true statement. That’s why these attempts by animal rights groups to eliminate the ability of animal agriculture to function in this country should be a concern to everyone. It’s nothing less than an attack on the ability to feed and clothe ourselves.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Resuming Horse Processing in Missouri
January 12, 2010
Viebrock backs bill for horse slaughterhouses
Bill aims to bypass ban on horse meat inspections.
Chad Livengood
News-Leader
A Greene County lawmaker wants to make the slaughtering of horses for human consumption legal in Missouri.
But state Rep. Jim Viebrock has a lot of hurdles to clear.
Viebrock, R-Republic, intends to file legislation this week aimed at bypassing a federal ban on meat inspectors working in horse slaughtering plants by getting processors to pay for the inspections.
In September 2006, Congress barred any federal funds from being spent by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on inspecting the nation's three remaining horse slaughtering plants in Illinois and Texas -- effectively putting them out of business.
But Congress did not out-right ban the slaughter of horses and shipping the meat overseas to markets in Europe and Asia, where the meat is a delicacy.
Viebrock said the proposed legislation would create state-level USDA inspectors by allowing the Missouri Department of Agriculture to levy inspection fees on slaughterhouses. The state's Department of Agriculture would pass those fees onto USDA, requiring no federal funds, he said.
Read More
Many states are struggling to deal with the large influx of unwanted horses due to an extremely depressed horse market. This is largely blamed on the closing of domestic harvesting facilities. While they can still be shipped to Canada or Mexico, the cost of transporting them that far and virtually eliminated any salvage value. So for owners who can no longer care for their horses, their options are extremely limited. This is ends up costing state and local governments money when they have to assume the care. Several states are investigating how they help solve the problem and most of the answers continue to look at how domestic processing of horses can be resumed. Not only would that add value back into the horse market, but it would also reduce the suffering that these unwanted horses are now being forced to endure.
Viebrock backs bill for horse slaughterhouses
Bill aims to bypass ban on horse meat inspections.
Chad Livengood
News-Leader
A Greene County lawmaker wants to make the slaughtering of horses for human consumption legal in Missouri.
But state Rep. Jim Viebrock has a lot of hurdles to clear.
Viebrock, R-Republic, intends to file legislation this week aimed at bypassing a federal ban on meat inspectors working in horse slaughtering plants by getting processors to pay for the inspections.
In September 2006, Congress barred any federal funds from being spent by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on inspecting the nation's three remaining horse slaughtering plants in Illinois and Texas -- effectively putting them out of business.
But Congress did not out-right ban the slaughter of horses and shipping the meat overseas to markets in Europe and Asia, where the meat is a delicacy.
Viebrock said the proposed legislation would create state-level USDA inspectors by allowing the Missouri Department of Agriculture to levy inspection fees on slaughterhouses. The state's Department of Agriculture would pass those fees onto USDA, requiring no federal funds, he said.
Read More
Many states are struggling to deal with the large influx of unwanted horses due to an extremely depressed horse market. This is largely blamed on the closing of domestic harvesting facilities. While they can still be shipped to Canada or Mexico, the cost of transporting them that far and virtually eliminated any salvage value. So for owners who can no longer care for their horses, their options are extremely limited. This is ends up costing state and local governments money when they have to assume the care. Several states are investigating how they help solve the problem and most of the answers continue to look at how domestic processing of horses can be resumed. Not only would that add value back into the horse market, but it would also reduce the suffering that these unwanted horses are now being forced to endure.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
HSUS Wants To Restrict Dog Ownership In Missouri
MO ballot proposal approved for circulation
December 28, 2009 by Julie Harker
Brownfield Ag News
The HSUS ballot initiative cracking down on dog breeders in Missouri, which is seen as a threat to all of animal agriculture in the state, has been approved for circulation by the Missouri Secretary of State’s office. While the Missouri Department of Agriculture is not able to take a stand on the proposal – which would limit operators to 50 or fewer female breeding dogs – Ag Director Jon Hagler tells Brownfield they’re well aware of the intentions behind it, “HSUS has made no secret about the fact that they’re not for ANY animal agriculture.”
Hagler says the department’s role is that of public education, “And we want to reach out and let folks know that there are no better stewards of animal welfare, no better stewards of the land than farmers and Missouri farmers have always been at the forefront of that.”
Hagler says the bad actors of dog breeding are unlicensed and that the department has and will continue to crack down on those operators, “They’re giving a bad name to not only the legitimate, professional, licensed breeders in Missouri but also to all of agriculture.”
Meanwhile, Missouri ag groups (Missouri Animal Ag Coalition) and lawmakers are coming up with strategies to meet the threat head-on. Just under 100-thousand certified signatures are needed on the so-called “Puppy Mill Cruelty Protection Act” proposal to put it before Missouri voters next November. The group called Missouri for the Protection of Dogs – supported by both the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) – has until May 2nd to collect signatures. The state legislature has the power to overturn ballot proposals that are approved by voters. Link
It’s been exciting to see family farmers and ranchers and the agriculture groups they belong to working together to protect their ability to raise animals. Look at this bill for what it really is, its intention is to restrict how many dogs you can own. The next bill that HSUS put’s forward could be to restrict how many cows, pigs or acres you can own. This proposal has nothing to do with animal welfare and everything to do with control.
December 28, 2009 by Julie Harker
Brownfield Ag News
The HSUS ballot initiative cracking down on dog breeders in Missouri, which is seen as a threat to all of animal agriculture in the state, has been approved for circulation by the Missouri Secretary of State’s office. While the Missouri Department of Agriculture is not able to take a stand on the proposal – which would limit operators to 50 or fewer female breeding dogs – Ag Director Jon Hagler tells Brownfield they’re well aware of the intentions behind it, “HSUS has made no secret about the fact that they’re not for ANY animal agriculture.”
Hagler says the department’s role is that of public education, “And we want to reach out and let folks know that there are no better stewards of animal welfare, no better stewards of the land than farmers and Missouri farmers have always been at the forefront of that.”
Hagler says the bad actors of dog breeding are unlicensed and that the department has and will continue to crack down on those operators, “They’re giving a bad name to not only the legitimate, professional, licensed breeders in Missouri but also to all of agriculture.”
Meanwhile, Missouri ag groups (Missouri Animal Ag Coalition) and lawmakers are coming up with strategies to meet the threat head-on. Just under 100-thousand certified signatures are needed on the so-called “Puppy Mill Cruelty Protection Act” proposal to put it before Missouri voters next November. The group called Missouri for the Protection of Dogs – supported by both the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) – has until May 2nd to collect signatures. The state legislature has the power to overturn ballot proposals that are approved by voters. Link
It’s been exciting to see family farmers and ranchers and the agriculture groups they belong to working together to protect their ability to raise animals. Look at this bill for what it really is, its intention is to restrict how many dogs you can own. The next bill that HSUS put’s forward could be to restrict how many cows, pigs or acres you can own. This proposal has nothing to do with animal welfare and everything to do with control.
Monday, September 28, 2009
MO Attorney General Weighs CAFO Options
Attorney general weighs CAFO options
September 26, 2009 11:20 pm—
JoplinGlobe.com
A decision could come at any time on an appeal of the state permit that allowed construction of a 65,600-chicken CAFO within a mile or so of Roaring River State Park.At the same time, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster is weighing whether to continue an appeal of a circuit judge’s decision that would prohibit construction of CAFOs, or confined animal feeding operations, within two miles of state parks and historic sites. That appeal is pending before the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals at Kansas City.
The two cases are connected. When Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce ruled last year that a 4,800-head hog CAFO could not be located within two miles of the historic village of Arrow Rock, she cited the permit problems associated with the chicken CAFO near Roaring River as evidence that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources lacked the ability to protect state parks and historic sites from the detrimental effects of CAFOs.
Koster has asked for more time to weigh the options over whether he will continue the appeal of the two-mile buffer that was started under Gov. Matt Blunt’s administration. He was given that time last week when the Court of Appeals granted a 30-day extension. The next hearing date on the appeal of the two-mile buffer is set for Oct. 28. In the meantime, Koster is getting hit from all sides.
Ag interests
State agricultural interests, including the Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Agribusiness Association, are encouraging Koster to continue the appeal, arguing that Joyce had only half the facts when she issued her decision. Read More
There always seems to be some confusion on the part of those who are opposed to CAFO’s about what these operations are. Most of the time they are simply a family farm. They are run by people who have lived their entire lives in these areas. Many times, they are built by families that are trying to provide an opportunity for the next generation of their family to become involved in agriculture. They are not the faceless, uncaring business that some try to paint a picture of. The only thing that a CAFO means is that the farm is of a size that it needs to have an approved nutrient management plan. Having situations like the one in Missouri, leaves many family farms in a limbo as to what they will be allowed to do in their future.
September 26, 2009 11:20 pm—
JoplinGlobe.com
A decision could come at any time on an appeal of the state permit that allowed construction of a 65,600-chicken CAFO within a mile or so of Roaring River State Park.At the same time, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster is weighing whether to continue an appeal of a circuit judge’s decision that would prohibit construction of CAFOs, or confined animal feeding operations, within two miles of state parks and historic sites. That appeal is pending before the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals at Kansas City.
The two cases are connected. When Cole County Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce ruled last year that a 4,800-head hog CAFO could not be located within two miles of the historic village of Arrow Rock, she cited the permit problems associated with the chicken CAFO near Roaring River as evidence that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources lacked the ability to protect state parks and historic sites from the detrimental effects of CAFOs.
Koster has asked for more time to weigh the options over whether he will continue the appeal of the two-mile buffer that was started under Gov. Matt Blunt’s administration. He was given that time last week when the Court of Appeals granted a 30-day extension. The next hearing date on the appeal of the two-mile buffer is set for Oct. 28. In the meantime, Koster is getting hit from all sides.
Ag interests
State agricultural interests, including the Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Agribusiness Association, are encouraging Koster to continue the appeal, arguing that Joyce had only half the facts when she issued her decision. Read More
There always seems to be some confusion on the part of those who are opposed to CAFO’s about what these operations are. Most of the time they are simply a family farm. They are run by people who have lived their entire lives in these areas. Many times, they are built by families that are trying to provide an opportunity for the next generation of their family to become involved in agriculture. They are not the faceless, uncaring business that some try to paint a picture of. The only thing that a CAFO means is that the farm is of a size that it needs to have an approved nutrient management plan. Having situations like the one in Missouri, leaves many family farms in a limbo as to what they will be allowed to do in their future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)