Response to PETA Article in Sacramento Bee

I am writing in response to the opinion piece that was published in your Lifestyle section on October 11, 2010. It is sad that you would publish an article by an animal rights activist that paints every farm, ranch and animal facility with one broad brush of inaccuracy and fallacy. The vast majority of farmers and ranchers treat their animals humanely and respectfully. As a rancher and an active animal welfarist, I would like to share the following thoughts.


First, this is a personal issue for family farmers and ranchers like me. We consider our animals a part of our family and often spend more time caring for our animals than we spend with our families. We make sure our animals have the highest quality food, water and veterinary care; health is paramount. We also do our best to protect our animals from disease, competition, injury and predators.

Second, the writer makes it sound as though these practices are typical. Those of us involved in farming and ranching know that is not so. Without healthy, content animals, farmers and ranchers could not stay in business. We understand the importance of animal care in assuring safe and high-quality meat, milk and eggs for our communities. Some of us personally know our consumers, others do not, but we always make it a priority to ensure that the food we are raising is the best cared for and of the highest quality.

Third, farmers and ranchers are as disgusted as anyone by the abuse alleged in this opinion piece. If people are abusing animals, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. One incident of mishandling is one too many. There must be zero tolerance for inhumane animal treatment, period.

There are a lot of dedicated people who specialize in animal care, people like veterinarians, animal scientists and experts on animal well-being. Farmers and ranchers have been actively working with them to create quality-assurance programs that set guidelines for animal handling to eliminate stress, decrease risk of injury (to both animal and human) and ensure the highest quality of animal products for American consumers.

In closing, as a family rancher, I thank you for the opportunity to respond as an individual who depends on ensuring the health and welfare of the livestock I raise to be able to continue to provide a high quality, safe, wholesome and nutritious product.

Farmers and ranchers across the United States are telling their stories through videos, blogging and photos. Consumers can connect with them to see how they care for their animals and raise the safest food possible at http://www.agchat.org http://www.knowacaliforniafarmer.com. Readers may also contact me directly at http://www.twitter.com/jefffowle

Guest Post: Undercover Agendas

Mike Haley is a fifth generation farmer in Ohio.  Together with his wife and father he manages a small herd of purebred Simmental cattle, in addition to raising corn, soybeans, and wheat.  Mike is active in social media and agriculture advocacy and can be found on twitter @farmerhaley

Tuesday night I watched a horrendous video of a farm employee blatantly and purposely beating dairy cows and calves.  It is hard to describe everything that I was feeling; I was enraged, mad, speechless, and in the end I could barely keep from crying.  That video in no way depicts the way I treat my cows, or the way in which the vast majority of farmers would treat their livestock.  I personally can guarantee that it is the worst thing I ever seen or heard of happening on a farm in Ohio, or anywhere else around the country.

The video never left my mind today as I took care of my livestock and tended to my hay.  I don’t know who the individual was that was in the video.  I don't know if he was employed by Mercy for Animals, or if he was just that sadistic.  I do know he deserves to be punished and am glad to hear that he has been charged with 12 counts of animal abuse with investigators looking into more.

With that said I would also like to share my thoughts about Mercy For Animals, their agenda, and how poorly they handled this whole situation.  First, I am appalled by the fact that they were documenting the same abuse week after week, for almost a month, before handing the evidence over to authorities.  A representative from Mercy For Animals made the excuse that they needed “enough time to document the cruelty and that it was an ongoing pattern of abuse, and that the owner had knowledge.” To me this is a weak statement.  I feel that they needed enough time to get enough video footage to further their agenda, and taking it to the authorities right away would have meant that they received less attention.

Secondly, I am appalled by not only Mercy For Animals, but statements by PETA and other animal rights groups.  These organizations stated that this is common practice on farms across the U.S. and suggested, as put in the end of the video, that we “ditch milk”.  Now, I may be a farmer, but it seems that it would be common sense to anyone that the images on this video are acts from a deranged individual and would not be commonplace on any farm.  In fact, acts like these will put a farm out of business quickly, as stressed out cows will not produce milk very well.  I am not the first to admit that there are some whacko’s that don’t take care of their animals.  There are also parents that abuse children and that don’t mean all parents are child abusers.

My third point about Mercy For Animals' handling of this case is the way they released it.  It screams of a group trying to push an agenda, not making an effort to stop the abuse on the farm.  Any investigator would know not to simultaneously release undercover footage until after investigators had a chance to gather enough evidence to convict.  As of right now the farm owner has not been charged.  Part of me wonders if he will be as investigators may not have enough evidence from one scene of video that is black and white and hard to make out.  For the record, if the farm owner was abusing his animals, I hope he gets his punishment as well.

Living and farming in Ohio, animal abuse has become a touchy subject for the past few years, mainly because groups like Mercy For Animals lobbying to pass laws that would micro-manage how we operate.  I am frustrated about how these groups are using this to further their agenda and the legislation they are trying to pass in Ohio this fall.  Their proposed legislation, as Ohio Director of Agriculture Boggs pointed out "their ballot initiative would not have prevented this action from taking place at all."  Don’t worry though; Mercy For Animals and the Humane Society of the United States are already working this video into their campaign – which also makes me curious about the motive for the undercover sting in the first place.

I encourage everyone to take the correct course of action.  First, treat your animals with respect, take care of them as if you were on a reality TV show that everyone can tune in to watch. Second, if you hear of, see, or suspect animal abuse, report it.  Third, stand behind the Ohio Livestock Care Board that was voted in last year as a way to create new standards for how livestock are treated in Ohio as well as enforcing, investigating, and creating stiffer penalties to those that do participate in these horrendous acts.  We can’t turn our back on abuse.  It's wrong, immoral, and anyone participating in it will meet their fate sooner or later (hopefully both).  Glad to get that off my chest, I feel a little better now, but I am still mad and upset.  Funny thing is I am also kind of relieved that the undercover sting happened.  Even though Mercy For Animals may have done this for the wrong reasons, personally I am glad that those cows are no longer being abused.

Animal Welfare - Part 1

Discussion on the topic of animal welfare and animal rights has again reached high intensity. Stories in the news are highlighting the efforts of various organizations ranging from violent and destructive actions taken against businesses, to protesting eateries, to writing and supporting legislation at the state and federal levels. Since the majority of our country's population is at least three generations removed from production agriculture, it is important to first understand the difference between animal welfare and animal rights and be able to recognize the motives behind organizations actions.

Animal welfare is based on the principles of caring for and utilizing animals in a humane manner. Organizations that honestly promote animal welfare are seeking to improve how animals are treated and their general well-being. An individual or organization that supports the animal welfare premise believes that humans have the right to eat and use animals. However, exercising that right encompasses the responsibility of humans to raise those animals in a humane manner and with proper care and treatment.

Those involved in production agriculture are continually modifying their operations and changing their management routine to be better stewards through university and industry specific research. Changes in management, which have been made over the past 100 years, have NOT been effectively communicated with the public and thus, have resulted in stereotype assumptions being made based on media coverage of an organizations “hot story.” Therefore, reactions and actions by the public are based on emotion and not fact.

Animal rights are based upon the philosophy that animals have rights equal to those bestowed upon humans. Organizations that follow and promote this philosophy are determined stop all use and even the ownership of animals through the passage of legislation and initiatives that will stop the raising of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, breeding, hunting and entertainment purposes. Two of the better known organizations in this category are the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). A third, and lesser realized, is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). While the HSUS may share the words “Humane” and “Society” it is NOT the same as your local city and county Humane Societies that are involved in many positive endeavors.

The HSUS was once considered an animal welfare organization that has long since shifted its policy and resources from directly serving the welfare of animals to distributing information and actively pursuing legislation against farming, fishing, hunting and animals in entertainment. President and CEO of HSUS states his organizations position fairly clearly in the two following statements.

“The HSUS works hard to enact laws that protect farm animals from the abuses they all too commonly suffer throughout their lives…. Whether through ballot initiatives, state, or federal legislation, The HSUS is a leader when it comes to making humane public policy changes.”
“Animals raised for food are not just objects or commodities—they are fellow individuals….”
It is the promotion and passage of legislation and ballot initiatives by these types of organizations that places bans and restrictions on production agriculture that is most perilous; resulting in a very real threat to food supply and safety. This has been most recently observed in Arizona, California, Colorado Florida and Oregon with additional measures pending in Ohio, Illinois, Indiana and a multitude of others.

These actions, while believed by the public to impact only a few “bad apples” and progressive in nature have and will negatively impact all of production agriculture. Passed legislation and initiatives have resulted in: an increase in predation of livestock and pets by dogs, coyotes, wolves and mountain lions; an increase in abandoned horses that become malnourished and suffer from the lack of proper health care; a negative environmental impact on wild horses due to domestic abandonment; and the likely reduction in swine, poultry and egg production in California and Arizona through the passage of Propositions 2 and 204 respectively. While portions of some legislation may be reasonable and beneficial changes, the destruction occurs in the “details” and “language” of bills that are written by individuals with little to no background in production agriculture and plenty of assumptions.

Producers must continue to implement humane strategies and modify management techniques as new scientifically supported information becomes available. They must also communicate more effectively with the public and provide a face and their positive story to the consumer.
Consumers must take the responsibility to gather their information from qualified sources and reach educated decisions based on fact, not emotion and rhetoric.

Agricultural commodities grown and produced in the United States of America are the safest in the world. Further, American producers are the most regulated and restricted stewards on the planet. Should the current trend of “anti-production agriculture” legislation continue, the United States risks becoming a net importer of agricultural commodities and importing food and fiber from countries that do operate under the same regulations and guidelines as we do here at home. Becoming dependant upon foreign nations for our food supply is an issue of National Security.

“And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” Genesis 9:1-3