2010 STATE OF THE INDUSTRY
The Future of Livestock?

by Sally Colby

The animal rights vs. animal welfare debate

Wesley Smith, a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at the Discovery Institute, says producers are facing off with animal rights activists who really don’t want to work with the animal industries about proper animal husbandry and proper welfare practices.

Growing awareness among consumers about how food is raised has led to exposure of isolated, but well-publicized, incidents of abuse on farms and slaughter plants. Smith says that even fixing these unfortunate and clear violations of animal welfare handling standards won’t solve the welfare versus rights debate. “You are not dealing with a traditional welfare movement, which all of us would support,” he said. “Proper and humane care of animals is a duty of humanity.” Understanding the root of the increasingly strong animal rights movement, which Smith says is the critical task for producers, helps clarify the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. “Animal rights believers accept and wholeheartedly embrace the idea that what is done to an animal is the same thing as if that same activity is done to a human being, meaning that in their view, cattle ranching is akin to human slavery and just as evil.”

Every livestock operation is subject to attack by animal rights groups. Producers should be prepared to thoroughly check the background of every potential employee and consider requiring a signed, notarized statement regarding that employee’s intentions.

Smith says that animal rights is not about treating animals more nicely, and is not about better methods of animal husbandry. “Animal rights is an ideology,” he said. “A dogma, a quasi-religion.” He adds that the animal rights argument isn’t about cages, crates or other methods of animal housing, it’s an agenda that means no domesticated animals for any purpose.

Radical groups with punch

Enter the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Most people know PETA for irrational causes and whacky stunts, while many assume that HSUS is an umbrella organization for animal shelters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Smith refers to HSUS as “a stealth animal rights organization.” “They don’t pitch the dogma like PETA does,” he said. “But, believe me, they’re chomping from the outside in. The intent is to destroy your work.”

David Martosko, director of research, Center for Consumer Freedom, and editor of www.humanewatch.org, compares HSUS and PETA. “PETA’s whole purpose in the animal rights industry, and it is an industry, is to make the HSUS look reasonable by comparison. The HSUS is the soft-spoken humane society. Who can disagree with that? PETA are the radicals who smear blood on stuff. They market their brands differently, but their goals are the same: to make animal protein more expensive to produce, more expensive to buy.” HSUS might be best-known for its television ads pleading for funds to help animals, but what many people don’t know is that only half of 1 percent of HSUS’ nearly $100 million budget goes directly to pet shelters; the rest goes back into fundraising, salaries and pensions.

Martosko says HSUS formally resolved to embrace the animal rights model at their annual convention in 1980. “They were past animal welfare,” said Martosko. “They were into animal rights. They are in the business of creating conflict between you and your consumers, and they are the leading business in that industry. Do you care about this enough to fight? Do you have farms or businesses that you want to pass down to your kids?” Martosko says there are two ways to get public opinion on your side: raise your own public profile or lower theirs. He suggests doing both at the same time. “Tell your story, raise your profile and push back to diminish theirs.”

Keeping animal rights activists at bay by incorporating legitimate welfare practices

One way producers can ensure consistent animal welfare on the farm is through programs such as The National Dairy FARM (Farmers Assuring Responsible Management) Program. Betsy Flores, director of regulatory affairs for the National Milk Producers Federation, says the program, introduced at the World Dairy Expo last year, will help farmers develop and maintain acceptable animal welfare standards. “It’s a nationwide, verifiable animal well-being program that’s going to provide consistency and uniformity about best practices in dairy animal care and quality assurance,” said Flores, noting the program is voluntary. “The purpose of the program is to bolster trust and confidence in the dairy industry and demonstrate the industry’s commitment to the highest level of animal care and quality assurance.”

Producers, veterinarians and animal scientists developed the program, which is supported by Dairy Management, Inc. The program is being promoted to consumers through social media, and talking with retailers, food processors and restaurant chains to make sure they understand that dairy farmers do a good job and care for their animals using the practices outlined in an animal care manual, available online at www.nationaldairyfarm.com . The manual includes details on best management practices for animal health, environment, facilities, animal nutrition, transportation and handling. The program includes an on-farm evaluation conducted by a second party with whom the producer is familiar, and third-party verification through a farm visit to verify the integrity of the program.

Preventing infiltration by animal rights groups

What if, despite your best efforts to maintain a clean, humane livestock operation, you discover that a video clip of your farm appears on television or YouTube? This has happened to producers across the country when animal rights groups gained entry to a farm or ranch with the intention of exposing something they believe is illegal.

“The threat is being framed, being legal but having somebody make a tape that’s edited and cut to make it looks like it’s illegal,” said John Simpson, partner at Fulbright and Jaworski L.L.P., who has experience with animal rights and welfare issues. Simpson recommends that farmers make sure their operation is in compliance with humane practices. Then, to guard against damage from infiltrators, he suggests having legal counsel create a document for potential employees to be signed under oath before a notary public. Simpson says that having such a document signed is important because anything in the document that turns out to be false will be fraud. One of the first counter measures taken by someone who has ratted out an operation is to claim first amendment rights; however, Simpson says fraud and criminal conduct are not covered by the first amendment.

Putting teeth behind your welfare policy

By signing the document, the person states they are not a member of an animal rights group, has never been a member of one, is not working for one and is not there to collect information for an animal rights group. Additional content should include wording that requires the employee to report immediately any illegal, improper or abusive action to his supervisor. “People who try to infiltrate businesses are not idiots that just show up one day and try to get a job,” said Simpson. “They’re very sophisticated and have lawyers of their own. If they get in there and make a tape that gets into the public domain, then you have the ability to go after him or her for fraud, to have him prosecuted and to get the tape back. If you put teeth in this, especially if you think you’re vulnerable anyway, you might have some ability down the road to cauterize some of these issues.” Simpson says that infiltration issues are ongoing and not likely to go away.

Improving animal agriculture’s image by helping farmers in need

Perhaps our neighbors to the North have a workable idea. Crystal Mackay, executive director of the Ontario Farm Animal Council (OFAC), says Ontario’s Animal Care Helpline was initiated in 1992 as a pilot project aimed at improving farm animal care by allowing farmers to be directly involved. This action came after a farmer could no longer care for his stock. “It was a very sad story,” said Mackay. “A farmer walked away from 1,000 pigs and let them starve. Nobody felt worse than the farm community. Neighbors knew there were stress issues, the feed company knew he had no feed and the banker knew he had no money, but nobody knew what to do.”

The Animal Help Care line serves as a confidential “farmer helping farmer” system. Farmers and the community can report situations in which farm animals might require more feed, better housing or improved care. Farmers themselves can request help in caring for livestock. Mackay says the service demonstrates that farmers want to be part of the solution when it comes to animal care.

“Confidentiality is critical,” said Mackay. “Most of the calls come from farmers, veterinarians, seed salesman, A.I. technicians, people who know farm animals.” The helpline is not for emergency or abuse situations, and there is no legal enforcement. After receiving a call, someone from the helpline calls the farmer in question to let them know someone has shown concern about the animals on that farm. Mackay emphasized that if a law has been broken, animals are being abused or dead stock is on the place, legal authorities are called and OFAC doesn’t get involved. “The person taking the call has to do a little bit of digging to make sure it’s a legitimate call, not just a neighbor dispute or a fencing issue.”

When the call comes in, details about the call, except the caller’s name, are forwarded to the appropriate organization. For example, a call about dairy cattle would be forwarded to Dairy Farmers of Ontario; a call about pigs would go to Ontario Pork. “We make about 16 to 30 farm visits a year,” said Mackay. “Our attitude is that it’s good for the animals, the farmer and the industry.”

Improving welfare at auctions and during hauling

OFAC also took action to deal with potential humane issues at sales barns, where unloading and moving livestock is often hectic. “At one of our busy sales barns, there was a problem with animals being unloaded on the wrong size ramps,” said Mackay. “We had big trucks pulling up to a little ramp and cows were jumping off and hurting themselves; little trucks showing up at big ramps and cows hurting their backs trying to get off. Part of the answer was a drive-through arrangement that’s easier on the animals, easier on the driver and alleviates time pressure.”

Another OFAC effort helps those involved in the production chain make decisions about hauling livestock. “It’s a chart on ‘Should this animal be loaded?’” said Mackay, who noted that Dr. Temple Grandin, animal behavior and welfare expert, approves of the poster that can be placed at farms and processing plants (www.ofac.org/pdf/Ontario%20Decision%20Tree%20Cattle%20Sheep%20Goats%202009.pdf).

“Animal care is a touchy subject,” said Mackay. “It’s difficult to tell someone to clean up their barn when their house is just as messy. It takes the right people who can talk to these individuals on their level in a practical, no-nonsense way. Confidentiality can’t be emphasized enough.”

So, what’s ahead for livestock producers as animal rights groups continue to spread their agenda? All producers, large and small and with different production methods, must continue to provide the highest level of care for animals, as well as maintain vigilance to avoid being targeted.

The author is a new contributor and freelance writer who farms and raises Great Pyrenees in south-central Pennsylvania. Comment or question? Visit www.farmingforumsite.com and join in the discussions.