Jump to content
BC Boards

Whoa. Another huge salvo in the HSUS wars.


Tommy Coyote
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't know how to transfer the info over here so if someone could that would be nice.

 

Apparently Steve King (R-Ia) came out against the HSUS yesterday. Started a very big dadoo. He stated the argument that they have a hidden agenda - want everyone to become vegetarian - la, la, la

 

HSUS responded with another salvo that he has the worst animal rights record in congress.

 

This is getting ugly. People who are not familiar with farming and the industry really don't have any concept what the fight is even about. They just think Steve King is totally nuts.

 

Its over on TPM LiveWire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gonna be interesting to see how long the pressure keeps up here in Iowa. The producers are beginning to get pissed.

 

Humanewatch.org alerted us about the egg producer deal before it came across on the news or other places. Hopefully the alerts will prepare folks better so that they are ready for presenting believable arguements.

 

Deb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I caught this over on the Democratic Underground. I check in there just about every day to see what's going on in politics. I inadvertantly got into it over there with the PETA people. I had no idea how many PETA supporters come in on that board - but quite a few and they are pretty militant.

 

Today they are not only discussing how crazy this Steve King is but there is also a huge online ad from PETA out on the side. Paul McCartney and lots of absolutely horrible video from slaughterhouses. Honestly, it is enough to make anyone a vegetarian.

 

Boy, they are bringing out the big guns on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how it all comes out in the wash, we may soon know which is in the minority and which is in the majority.

 

 

This was just posted in an area newspaper in regards to the Wyoming puppy mill:

 

http://southwestiowanews.com/articles/2010...af244020881.txt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I caught this over on the Democratic Underground. I check in there just about every day to see what's going on in politics. I inadvertantly got into it over there with the PETA people. I had no idea how many PETA supporters come in on that board - but quite a few and they are pretty militant.

 

Today they are not only discussing how crazy this Steve King is but there is also a huge online ad from PETA out on the side. Paul McCartney and lots of absolutely horrible video from slaughterhouses. Honestly, it is enough to make anyone a vegetarian.

 

Boy, they are bringing out the big guns on this.

 

Honestly, I've gotta disagree with you on how many "militant" PETA supporters are on DU. I mean, check out any thread that involves reducing meat consumption for health/environmental reasons and most of them are "MMMmm...meat. PETA sucks." And probably the most "militant" of the animal rights supporters on there does AMAZING work with dog rescue.

 

Personally, I'm not a PETA fan. I believe they go overboard on a lot of issues. However, I am a staunch animal rights supporter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I've gotta disagree with you on how many "militant" PETA supporters are on DU. I mean, check out any thread that involves reducing meat consumption for health/environmental reasons and most of them are "MMMmm...meat. PETA sucks." And probably the most "militant" of the animal rights supporters on there does AMAZING work with dog rescue.

 

Personally, I'm not a PETA fan. I believe they go overboard on a lot of issues. However, I am a staunch animal rights supporter.

Maybe I just managed to tangle with the most far out on the board. I wish PETA would just stay out of animal rescue. Their idea of rescue is to take animals out of bad shelters and euthanize them. They should let the people who know what they are doing and who have the funds and resources to do it right handle the rescue operations.

 

I am a big animal rights supporter, too. But I just don't think that being overly zealous helps anyone. But I sure wish they would throw their considerable weight against the puppy mills in Missouri. We have more puppy mills here than in any other state. And they are just awful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long article in the Dallas Observer, 8 pages: http://www.dallasobserver.com/2010-04-15/n...animal-rights/1

 

 

This final paragraph on page 8 made me shudder and wonder where it will all end up:

 

"Animal agriculture has either tried to argue science, or economics, or food security. They've done everything but the moral argument for what they do with animals. And if they can't make the moral case, they will lose in the long run."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long article in the Dallas Observer, 8 pages: http://www.dallasobserver.com/2010-04-15/n...animal-rights/1

This final paragraph on page 8 made me shudder and wonder where it will all end up:

 

Honestly, I don't think factory farms can ever make the "moral argument" and that's why they haven't tried it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can an organization lead by someone who is morally against the consumption of animals and is guiding that organization's activities really formulate a moral plan for raising animals destine for slaughter and human consumption? Wouldn't any slaughter/consumption plan be morally abhorrent to this person? Would someone who is morally against the consumption of animals AND who has determined they have the political power to legislate changes towards their moral point of view be saticified until they have legislated their morals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can an organization lead by someone who is morally against the consumption of animals and is guiding that organization's activities really formulate a moral plan for raising animals destine for slaughter and human consumption? Wouldn't any slaughter/consumption plan be morally abhorrent to this person? Would someone who is morally against the consumption of animals AND who has determined they have the political power to legislate changes towards their moral point of view be saticified until they have legislated their morals?

 

I think someone who lives in the real world and has a firm grasp of political realities would accept the fact that he's not going to get enough people to support banning the consumption of animals to achieve that particular goal. He might well not be able to get majority support for that particular goal even within his own organization. Yet he would still think the reduction of animal suffering in meat production was worth working for.

 

IMO, there is a huge market for meat that has been humanely produced. If I were a meat producer who could market to those consumers, I would be making my case to them, instead of trying to defend the practices of other producers for which a moral case cannot be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he is trying to prevent the consumption of animals, he's trying to make sure that animals that are raised for consumption are handled in a morally correct way. So, break each small area of ag down and determine what the most morally correct way to handle each animals is.

 

Most people don't know enough about livestock management to be able to vote in an informed manner, that is what is being counted on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest on the Iowa Egg deal....

 

BTW, we have heard of other situations where video was staged, at one raid the claim is that the malnourished injured dog in a promo video and photos was of a breed that the breeder did not raise. Yes, it was a hunting dog, but the breeder did not breed those types of hunting dogs. We also heard of volunteers running out into a corn field and reappearing with a plastic bag of puppy bones, kinda one of those "Yeah, right" moments for me. Anyway, the idea that the video was staged does not surprise me in the least.

 

Iowa Egg Videos Staged???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think someone who lives in the real world and has a firm grasp of political realities would accept the fact that he's not going to get enough people to support banning the consumption of animals to achieve that particular goal. He might well not be able to get majority support for that particular goal even within his own organization. Yet he would still think the reduction of animal suffering in meat production was worth working for.
Honestly, I do not think he believes he will be able to legislate no animal consumption; however, it would not surprise me if he feels he can make food animal production so cost and/or regulation prohibitive that very few (only the large) do so. Small scale egg production is already there (likely pushed for by the large scale producers).

 

What the HSUS initiatives and tactics are doing is pushing the small scale producers towards leaving the market.

 

Advocates of fair trade decry the populist tactics. "The Humane Society is dividing people and making our jobs a lot harder," says Tim Gibbons, communications director for the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. "They're causing the industry to say, 'You're either for us, or you're for the Humane Society.' And that's not the truth."

 

Gibbons says the D.C. group has put independent farmers, many of whom oppose confinement, between a rock and a hard place. To support the Humane Society would be to incur the wrath of "big ag" in their state and potentially endanger their businesses, Gibbons asserts. But endorsing livestock boards could subject the small farmers to costly, burdensome regulations favored by big ag — and similarly endanger their livelihood.

 

"You don't have to be either/or," Gibbons insists. "There is another position out there, and that's having independent family farmers raising livestock ethically on open, competitive markets. It's good for a state, and for farmers, and our national security, and for a whole multitude of reasons it's good for the economy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, there is a huge market for meat that has been humanely produced.
Is your defintion of humanely produced meat pasture fed? If so, do you think the USA can pasture feed 94.5 million cattle, 64 million hogs/pigs, 5.7 million sheep and 3 million goats (plus all other grazing animals) on 408.8 million acres of pasture?

 

Yes, some practices should change; however, there is a practical side to changing current meat production practices that is being ignored during the emotional campaign for change. I don't think the idyllic view of cows/ pigs, sheep, and goats grazing freely on pastures is possible with the current amount of pasture land in the USA; the general public either needs to compromise on this idyllic vision or be willing to provide more land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

Mark wrote:

Is your defintion of humanely produced meat pasture fed? If so, do you think the USA can pasture feed 94.5 million cattle, 64 million hogs/pigs, 5.7 million sheep and 3 million goats (plus all other grazing animals) on 408.8 million acres of pasture?

 

There's pasture and pasture, grazing land and grazing land. If "pasture" is well watered eastern grass land you can pasture at least 5 ewes per acre or 2 cows. There are parts of west Texas where 40 acres per cow would be more like it.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that we are running into with our calf project, weighing the cost to save the calves against what the eventual return is estimated to be at slaughter time, each one that we lose increases the the end expense of the others, each one that we treat with expensive meds and treatments increases the end expense that much more. Way back I had a vet tell me to be careful when working with the "Save them at all Cost" mentalities, he said that some are meant to die. He was also one to destroy an animal in the fast and least expensive way possible, the idea was that once they were dead they were dead and don't know the difference anyway (blunt force trauma or bullet to the head). You could spend huge amounts trying to save an animal that is ill due to stress or maybe a weak immune system just to have it die the next time it is stressed when you have even more money into it. It's gotten to the point where if you want to survive in the business of agriculture you have to be very aware of your expenses and know just how much you can put into each animal before losing the farm. Ultimately when it comes down to market time no one is interested in paying you more for the calf that cost you twice as much to raise, you would have been money ahead letting it go in the first place. It's a hard thing for some to grasp, some feel that you should spare no expense when it comes to saving an animal. Others feel that you need to destroy those that your not going to put more money into, even though they may pull through and yet others fell that you should not have them if you can't afford to spare any expense.

 

 

 

So is it morally right to not treat some due to the expense of the treatment compared to margin of profit at the end. It all comes down to, a farmer has to make enough to survive, otherwise they may as well go out and work for someone else. Many already have, some are working for the big confinements and getting paid more money by doing that then raising their own and they don't have the headaches or risks associated with the potential loss. The big corporations are better suited to absorb a loss due to one thing or another. Many of the farmers we know of that are still plugging away are one stroke of bad luck away from losing the farm. Sometimes business decisions have to made that would not be considered if money was no object and in some cases the decisions do not come easy. Many of those decisions are under fire and considered inhumane or not morally correct when looking from the outside in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the HSUS initiatives and tactics are doing is pushing the small scale producers towards leaving the market.

 

Evidence?

 

You quote someone as saying,

Advocates of fair trade decry the populist tactics. "The Humane Society is dividing people and making our jobs a lot harder," says Tim Gibbons, communications director for the Missouri Rural Crisis Center. "They're causing the industry to say, 'You're either for us, or you're for the Humane Society.' And that's not the truth."

Seems to me this guy is saying that HSUS is at fault because it causes "big ag" to say "You're either for us or you're for the Humane Society," and to retaliate against those small producers they think are "for the Humane Society." Why is it the HSUS who is to blame if big ag says something "that's not the truth" and punishes the small producer for any perceived wimpy support for humane treatment? Why doesn't big ag bear the responsibility for what it says and does?

 

Your guy then goes on to say,

"You don't have to be either/or," Gibbons insists. "There is another position out there, and that's having independent family farmers raising livestock ethically on open, competitive markets. It's good for a state, and for farmers, and our national security, and for a whole multitude of reasons it's good for the economy."

Sounds good to me. From what I can see, this is a result HSUS would like, and big ag would not.

 

Yes, some practices should change; however, there is a practical side to changing current meat production practices that is being ignored during the emotional campaign for change.

 

How do you think change is going to be brought about in those practices that you say should change? Will big ag make these changes on their own? Will lawmakers make these changes if there's a powerful agricultural lobby supporting the status quo and no organized advocacy for change? Or do you just think it's really not such a big deal if those practices don't change, as long as we shake our heads dolefully and say they should change?

 

As for the campaign for change being "emotional," it seems to me that "HSUS is out to destroy the agricultural way of life!" is no less emotional than "Animals are suffering on factory farms!"

 

I don't think the idyllic view of cows/ pigs, sheep, and goats grazing freely on pastures is possible with the current amount of pasture land in the USA; the general public either needs to compromise on this idyllic vision or be willing to provide more land.

 

Or eat less meat. (That is, if you're right that the amount of pasture land currently in use would not, if used efficiently, be able to produce the amount of meat currently consumed.) Which does not necessarily spell trouble for the humane producer, if the humane consumer is willing to pay more for humanely produced meat. But if enough people shift away from eating meat because they are unable to get humanely produced meat, and they lose their taste for feeding off the misery of animals, that does spell trouble for producers using the feedlot/confinement systems that currently produce the overwhelming majority of our meat (lamb excluded).

 

Or I guess you could try to keep consumers in ignorance of how most meat is produced. Use the "Look over there!" technique, curse the HSUS, say they're bad guys who want to take all our pets away, claim you don't know whether that video really was taken in your chicken house, claim saboteurs did it, etc. I think it's probably too late for that, but it might work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that we are running into with our calf project, weighing the cost to save the calves against what the eventual return is estimated to be at slaughter time, each one that we lose increases the the end expense of the others, each one that we treat with expensive meds and treatments increases the end expense that much more. Way back I had a vet tell me to be careful when working with the "Save them at all Cost" mentalities, he said that some are meant to die. He was also one to destroy an animal in the fast and least expensive way possible, the idea was that once they were dead they were dead and don't know the difference anyway (blunt force trauma or bullet to the head). You could spend huge amounts trying to save an animal that is ill due to stress or maybe a weak immune system just to have it die the next time it is stressed when you have even more money into it. It's gotten to the point where if you want to survive in the business of agriculture you have to be very aware of your expenses and know just how much you can put into each animal before losing the farm. . . .

 

So is it morally right to not treat some due to the expense of the treatment compared to margin of profit at the end.

 

I certainly see no ethical problem with taking your bottom line into account when deciding against further treatment for a sickly young animal, so long as the method you use to put them down is fast and relatively painless. It seems right to me, and I've never heard of HSUS or any similar organization arguing that you have to go all out to save weak young farm animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

claim you don't know whether that video really was taken in your chicken house, claim saboteurs did it, etc.

 

 

You never know, there's hundreds of units around here, many are built by the same builders using the same interior housing units, the feeders are the same, the water drops are the same. The spacing of the aisle is the same, some may use different manufacturers but it's very difficult to tell one from another. Unless you know the little tiny differences you wouldn't know if you were in a unit up near MN or one down by MO.

 

As far as the sabateurs deal, you just don't know, what will people do to get their moment of fame?

 

Not many people are aware of it, but this past winter there was an activist running around the country side blowing holes into the propane tanks at hog confinements with a high powered rifle. Talk about potentially risking the lives of a lot of livestock let alone the financial loss. I'm not talking about household size tanks, these are huge tanks that hold a semi-transport worth of propane. What would that person do if he was given the opportunity to try to film and expose mistreatment at a hog unit, would he quietly wait for something "bad" to happen or would he enlist a buddy that is a bit disgruntled to help him create it. Obviously some are willing to risk the welfare of the animals to try to make their feelings known.

 

 

so long as the method you use to put them down is fast and relatively painless

 

In your mind, what is considered a fast and relatively painless method?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...