Opinion:
Is HSUS a threat to Missouri agriculture?
by Sami Jo Freeman, posted Dec. 3, 2009
The Humane Society of the United States filed a ballot intitative on Nov. 25 concerning puppy mills in Missouri. However, it is expected by industry leaders that HSUS will sponsor agricultural legislation in the state by at least 2011.
To understand where HSUS is headed, people in agriculture must first look at where they have been. In 2002, HSUS won its first big battle with agriculture in Florida by outlawing gestation crates for sows. Four years later, they did the same thing in Arizona and added the banning of veal crates. HSUS then found success in California with Proposition 2. The legislation just keeps adding up, and Michigan agriculture has been its latest victim.
HSUS has employed emotional and legislative tactics to find success. Some of those strategies are lobbying legislators, threatening lawsuits, pressuring agricultural groups, targeting children, using sources with scientific credentials, using social media effectively and publishing emotional undercover investigation videos.
Wayne Pacelle on Agritalk
On June 30, 2009, Mike Adams of Agritalk radio station questioned Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of HSUS since 2004. During the interview, Pacelle attempted to answer all of Adams’ questions, but still managed to dance around a few, according to David Martosko, research director for the Center for Consumer Freedom.
“Make no mistake, this guy is basically running an organization that is every bit as radical as PETA,” Martosko said. ”He’s just doing it in a starched suit.”
However, Pacelle continued to explain his philosophy about agriculture production. He said that gestation crates, veal crates and battery cages should be outlawed because they limit the natural behaviors of animals. Pacelle forgot to think about one aspect though, according to a Missouri poultry producer who also voiced his concerns on Agritalk.
“If we adapted to his practices, it would double or triple the mortality of our chickens,” the producer said. “The chickens will crowd together more densely in the non-caged system than the caged system allows, and we lose chickens from time to time when they pile up and suffocate under each other. What looks good to some people just in fact doesn’t work and is cruel and less humane for the chickens.”
Towards the end of the interview, I think Pacelle did get one thing right.
“We think farming is a noble profession and it’s important to recognize that we all need to eat,” Pacelle said. “We all need to consume food.“
Mike Adams, AgriTalk host, said there should be a commonality between HSUS and agricultural groups because we all want good care for our animals.
“There just ought to be common ground to work together,” Adams said.
Nevertheless, Pacelle continued to become defensive and make comments that offended listeners.
“I know that some of your listeners would love for us to just give our money to shelters so they could have a free running field to do whatever they want with animals in agriculture,” Pacelle said.
Yes, many producers would like HSUS to put money back into the local shelters, because their organization’s name is the Humane Society of the United States. Farmers would like for them to take their money out of the agriculture industry so that animals can get the best care from the people who care the most, producers. Someone who is not educated in or does not have a background in production agriculture should have a say in how livestock is cared for.
Current pursuits
It’s no secret that HSUS is putting big stakes in its current pursuit — Ohio. However, voters went to the polls earlier this month to put HSUS back on its heels by passing a Livestock Care Standards Board. This board will consist of agricultural leaders and local humane shelter representatives from across the state and will set stricter regulations for the production, transportation and slaughter of livestock in Ohio.
Recent developments do point to one fact: HSUS is growing stronger.
According to ActivistCash.com, HSUS had an end-of-year net worth of $111,021,299.00 in 2004. Since then, it’s been speculated that the group’s bank account has only grown larger.
Jeff Windett, executive vice president of the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association said that the HSUS budget has doubled since 2003 and their legal department has quadrupled to 50 lawyers since 2006. Very little of that money or manpower goes back to animal research or humane shelters.
“We’re not a research-oriented organization,” Pacelle said. “We don’t fund research. We don’t fund every local humane society.”
What Missouri plans to do
Missouri does not plan to sit back and wait for HSUS to make a move on this issue. State agricultural groups have come together to formally organize as the Missouri Animal Ag Coalition. Garrett Hawkins from the Missouri Farm Bureau confirmed that notion when he spoke to the University of Missouri’s Collegiate Farm Bureau chapter on Nov. 18.
The Missouri Animal Ag Coalition will focus on the creation of legislation, a strong public relations campaign, developing a network of partners, finding grassroots support and developing an effective social media presence. Ideally, it will consist of a representative from each industry; along with professionals from all of the fields involved in the future debate with HSUS.
Notable Statements
The following are all statements that hit close to home for any Missouri agriculturalist.
“Our goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture,” said John Goodwin, HSUS coordinator.
“Nothing is more important than promoting veganism,” said Paul Shapiro, HSUS factory farming campaign manager.
“Our long-term goal is to rid the world of animal agriculture and convert everyone to a plant-based diet,” said Bruce Friedrich, PETA outreach director.
Scared yet? I’m not. Missouri agriculture will face a huge battle with HSUS in the coming months. If any state can put a stop to HSUS, it’s Missouri.
{back to homepage}
