PETA Employee Accused of Neglecting Animals

Attorney: PETA Worker Neglected Snakes in His Care
Attorney says PETA worker neglected job with exotic animal dealer in effort to shut it down
ARLINGTON, Texas December 29, 2009 (AP)

Attorneys for an exotic animal dealer have accused an employee of intentionally neglecting animals to further his work as an undercover investigator for an animal rights group.

Howard Goldman could have done more to provide food, water and care for the animals that he said were being mistreated, said Lance Evans, an attorney for Jasen and Vanessa Shaw, the owners of U.S. Global Exotics.

Instead, Goldman secretly took photos and made daily reports to send to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Evans said.

"He was more concerned about helping PETA achieve its goal of putting U.S. Global out of business than actually aiding any animals that he felt were in distress," Evans said. Goldman worked at the Arlington facility for seven months.

Goldman testified last week that PETA asked him to apply for a job at U.S. Global Exotics to investigate conditions. PETA paid him $135 for each day he turned in a report while working as snake caretaker. Read More

I have talked about this before. If an employer hires someone to do a job and they are busy filming instead of doing the job they were hired for, aren’t they part of the problem? These people are hired to help prevent problems. When they don’t do their job, they create problems, and then film them. Remember, this guy didn’t get paid unless he turned in a report. How long do you think PETA is going to pay out if the reports come back clean every time? If your employment depends on finding problems, you will probably make sure problems are found.

Antibiotic Article Gets Facts Wrong

Pressure rises to stop antibiotics in agriculture; animals fed 70 percent of US antibiotics

By: MARGIE MASON AND MARTHA MENDOZA Associated Press12/29/09 12:19 AM EST

FRANKENSTEIN, MO. — The mystery started the day farmer Russ Kremer got between a jealous boar and a sow in heat.

The boar gored Kremer in the knee with a razor-sharp tusk. The burly pig farmer shrugged it off, figuring: "You pour the blood out of your boot and go on."

But Kremer's red-hot leg ballooned to double its size. A strep infection spread, threatening his life and baffling doctors. Two months of multiple antibiotics did virtually nothing.

The answer was flowing in the veins of the boar. The animal had been fed low doses of penicillin, spawning a strain of strep that was resistant to other antibiotics. That drug-resistant germ passed to Kremer.

Like Kremer, more and more Americans — many of them living far from barns and pastures — are at risk from the widespread practice of feeding livestock antibiotics. These animals grow faster, but they can also develop drug-resistant infections that are passed on to people. The issue is now gaining attention because of interest from a new White House administration and a flurry of new research tying antibiotic use in animals to drug resistance in people.

Researchers say the overuse of antibiotics in humans and animals has led to a plague of drug-resistant infections that killed more than 65,000 people in the U.S. last year — more than prostate and breast cancer combined. And in a nation that used about 35 million pounds of antibiotics last year, 70 percent of the drugs — 28 million pounds — went to pigs, chickens and cows. Worldwide, it's 50 percent. Read More

Efforts to restrict the ability to use antibiotics as an animal health tool have been going on for awhile now. As with many news article lately, this one didn’t stand up to the first “fact-check” I did. According to the story, there were 65,000 deaths from drug-resistant infections. We have no idea where this number came from since the reporters didn’t tell us. They claim that’s more deaths than breast and prostate cancer combined. But one trip to the American Cancer Society website proved that wrong. So what else in this article is wrong? Was this done to make the story more dramatic? I doubt we will ever know for sure, but I continue to be amazed at the lack of integrity and professionalism of some journalists.

Along with that, to claim that it's all the fault of agriculture is insane. Any plan to regulate the use of antibiotics would need to address how humans regularly abuse the drugs.

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.

Nutrient Management

December 29, 2009
Down on the Farm, an Endless Cycle of Waste
By HENRY FOUNTAIN

GUSTINE, Tex. — Day and night, a huge contraption prowls the grounds at Frank Volleman’s dairy in Central Texas. It has a 3,000-gallon tank, a heavy-duty vacuum pump and hoses and, underneath, adjustable blades that scrape the surface as it passes along.

In function it is something like a Zamboni, but one that has crossed over to the dark side. This is no hockey rink, and it’s not loose ice being scraped up. It’s cow manure.

Lots of cow manure. A typical lactating Holstein produces about 150 pounds of waste — by weight, about two-thirds wet feces, one-third urine — each day. Mr. Volleman has 3,000 lactating Holsteins and another 1,000 that are temporarily “dry.” Do the math: his Wildcat Dairy produces about 200 million pounds of manure every year.

Proper handling of this material is one of the most important tasks faced by a dairy operator, or by a cattle feedlot owner, hog producer or other farmer with large numbers of livestock. Manure has to be handled in an environmentally acceptable way and at an acceptable cost. In most cases, that means using it, fresh or composted, as fertilizer. “It’s a great resource, if used properly,” said Saqib Mukhtar, an associate professor of biological and agricultural engineering at Texas A & M University and an expert on what is politely called manure management. Read More

Most people don’t realize how much effort is put in to correctly handling the valuable nutrients that are obtained from livestock. It seems many get the impression that farmers and ranchers haphazardly handle the manure. The fact of the matter is that the system’s being used have been designed by engineers and approved by various government agencies. Along with that, the operators have every incentive to make sure everything is being done right. If you haven’t been around a nutrient handling system, I would encourage you to do so. It really helps you understand the full relationship of plants, livestock and food.

Trial Lawyers Join Forces to Sue Farmers in Indiana

December 26, 2009
Lawyers targeting pig, dairy farms
Attorneys seek justice for neighbors allegedly injured by large operations
By Seth Slabaugh
Muncie Star Press

WINCHESTER, Ind. -- Neighbors who are fed up living next door to factory farms have found three high-powered trial lawyers who vow to make Randolph County "ground zero" in a legal food fight over how Indiana produces pork and milk.

Highly aggressive flies, harmful odors, stacks of dead animals and mismanagement of millions of gallons of manure are among the complaints of neighbors suing pork and dairy producers.
The trial lawyers are bringing multiple lawsuits challenging Indiana's industrial or factory model of producing milk and pork in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) promoted by Gov. Mitch Daniels' agriculture department.

It's a system that produces odors so intense that neighbors are suffering skin irritations, nausea, headaches, breathing difficulties, tightness of the chest, sinus infection, stress, burning eyes, noses and throats and other ailments, the lawsuits allege.

"There is a lot of discontent," said Indianapolis attorney Rich Hailey, a former president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, now known as the American Association for Justice (AAJ). "We anticipate the potential filing of a dozen more cases in a short period of time."

Read More

It’s too bad there won’t be anyone to sue when the grocery store shelves are empty or we become dependent on another country for our food supply. Suing family farmers because of smells that come from the production of food animals will be the first step to that happening. These are the same people that are also pushing to regulate crop farmers from ever having dust blow off their fields. Growing food isn’t an easy job. Getting sued for doing it will only lead to fewer families on the land.

Farming Detroit

Investors see farms as way to grow Detroit
Acres of vacant land are eyed for urban agriculture under an ambitious plan that aims to turn the struggling Rust Belt city into a green mecca.
By P.J. Huffstutter
December 27, 2009

Reporting from Detroit - On the city's east side, where auto workers once assembled cars by the millions, nature is taking back the land.

Cottonwood trees grow through the collapsed roofs of homes stripped clean for scrap metal. Wild grasses carpet the rusty shells of empty factories, now home to pheasants and wild turkeys.

This green veil is proof of how far this city has fallen from its industrial heyday and, to a small group of investors, a clear sign. Detroit, they say, needs to get back to what it was before Henry Ford moved to town: farmland.

"There's so much land available and it's begging to be used," said Michael Score, president of the Hantz Farms, which is buying up abandoned sections of the city's 139-square-mile landscape and plans to transform them into a large-scale commercial farm enterprise.

"Farming is how Detroit started," Score said, "and farming is how Detroit can be saved."

Read More

One thing that is absolutely right about this idea is that the origin of wealth is the land. So if you want to rebuild wealth, using the land is the best way to do it. Even though it’s sound in principle, there are a lot of hurdles to jump over in order for this to be successful. If their goal is for this land to provide locally grown food, then their biggest challenge will be producing and selling it at a price that is affordable for an economically challenged area.

Feral Horses Damaging Rangelands

December 26, 2009
Ranchers, activists at odds over mustang roundup
By Frank X. Mullen Jr.
fmullen@rgj.com
RGJ.com


Bob Depauli, whose family has been ranching in Nevada for four generations, remembers a wild horse he saw in the Nevada desert one drought-parched year in the late 1970s.

“The herds were really poor that year, starved,” he said. “I saw (a mustang carcass) whose two hind legs had quit working and it had use of only its forelegs. It had walked in circles and dug a hole in the ground with its hindquarters.”

It dug its own grave.

Depauli runs cattle on federal allotments, including one about 30 miles north of Gerlach in the area where the federal government plans to start Monday rounding up 2,500 wild horses of the more than 3,000 in the area.

The government says the roundup is necessary to check overpopulation. Opponents say the land mangers exaggerate the number of mustangs and the damage they do to the range and that gathering horses using helicopters traumatizes, injures or kills the animals.

About 32,000 wild horses are in government holding pens waiting for adoptions that, for most, will never come. Range managers plan to remove another 10,000 from ranges in Nevada and elsewhere in the West next year.

The government, Depauli and others see the wild horse gathers as necessary to ensure the health of the rangeland, water supplies and native species. Opponents say the horses are a symbol of America and are being swept aside for the benefit of cattlemen like Depauli.

“I’m basing my position on years of experience,” said Depauli, who runs about 300 head a year.

“I’m in business to stay in business, not to overgraze. I move my cattle around. Horses stay in the same areas 24, seven, 365 days a year. Right now, we’ve got four to five times the number of wild horses that the land can support. Cattle are manageable. We need to manage the horses, too.

“Overpopulation of horses impacts everything: cows, wildlife, the horses themselves, everything. If this continues, we’ll all be in a mess.” Read More

The destruction being caused by the overpopulation of feral horses is significant to say the least. It’s interesting that they debate turns basically turns into those who are stewards of the rangeland versus those who want an unchecked population of horses. When activists do simple comparisons of the numbers of cattle versus horses and use that as their reasoning to stop the roundups, they show their ignorance of the issue. There is so much more to the issue. Ranchers spend a lifetime caring for the land, it’s unfortunate that more people don’t care as much.

More Repercussions From OSU President's Decision

Lawmaker and veterinarian blasts Oklahoma State for study cancellation
Dec 21, 2009 DVM NEWSMAGAZINE

Oklahoma City, Okla. -- Oklahoma State Representative, veterinarian and farmer Phil Richardson is not keeping quiet about Oklahoma State University's recent cancellation of an anthrax study that would have required testing and euthanasia on primates.

"I bleed Orange as much as anyone, but I am deeply concerned by the actions of Oklahoma State University officials, which appear designed to cater to animal-rights fanatics instead of providing sound education in agricultural sciences," Richardson says in a Dec. 17 statement on his Web site. Richardson earned his DVM from Oklahoma State in 1967 and is a member of the Oklahoma Cattlemen's Association, the Oklahoma Pork Council, the Oklahoma Veterinary Medical Association and the Oklahoma State Alumni Board.

The college embarked on a plan to establish itself as a leader in infectious disease research in the 1990s by developing laboratories and other research facilities with the full knowledge of university administrators, Richardson contends. Yet, the recent cancellation of a study on anthrax that would have required the euthanasia of primates involved in the research undermines that plan, he says.

"The decision is consistent with several made in the past year to curry favor with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the wife of the university's major donor, an avowed animal-rights activist," Richardson says. "The HSUS spends millions of dollars on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers, eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research and eliminate hunting. It is impossible to follow all the tentacles of the organization, but its underlying goal is to destroy animal agriculture."

Richardson's accusations follow Oklahoma State president’s controversial decision to terminate a federally funded research project that would have studied the effects of anthrax on live baboons at the school's Center for Veterinary Health Sciences. Read More

The story about the Oklahoma State President nixing an approved animal research project because of pressure from billionaire donor Madeline Pickens and animal rights activists isn’t silently fading away. Not only is this giving a black eye to the university, the knowledge lost by killing this project is unnecessarily putting human lives at risk. The lack of leadership being shown by OSU President Burns Hargis is embarrassing for a land grant university of this caliber.

Something Dies For A Vegan Meal Too

Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too
By NATALIE ANGIER
Published: December 21, 2009

I stopped eating pork about eight years ago, after a scientist happened to mention that the animal whose teeth most closely resemble our own is the pig. Unable to shake the image of a perky little pig flashing me a brilliant George Clooney smile, I decided it was easier to forgo the Christmas ham. A couple of years later, I gave up on all mammalian meat, period. I still eat fish and poultry, however and pour eggnog in my coffee. My dietary decisions are arbitrary and inconsistent, and when friends ask why I’m willing to try the duck but not the lamb, I don’t have a good answer. Food choices are often like that: difficult to articulate yet strongly held. And lately, debates over food choices have flared with particular vehemence.


In his new book, “Eating Animals,” the novelist Jonathan Safran Foer describes his gradual transformation from omnivorous, oblivious slacker who “waffled among any number of diets” to “committed vegetarian.” Last month, Gary Steiner, a philosopher at Bucknell University, argued on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times that people should strive to be “strict ethical vegans” like himself, avoiding all products derived from animals, including wool and silk. Killing animals for human food and finery is nothing less than “outright murder,” he said, Isaac Bashevis Singer’s “eternal Treblinka.”

But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way. The more that scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and vegans can conveniently graze. It’s time for a green revolution, a reseeding of our stubborn animal minds.

“Plants are not static or silly,” said Monika Hilker of the Institute of Biology at the Free University of Berlin. “They respond to tactile cues, they recognize different wavelengths of light, they listen to chemical signals, they can even talk” through chemical signals. Touch, sight, hearing, speech. “These are sensory modalities and abilities we normally think of as only being in animals,” Dr. Hilker said. Read More

When vegetarians or vegans try telling you that nothing had to die for their meal, you might mention that everything they will ever eat was once alive and then died. It drives them nuts when you do it, but that’s usually the case when logic is applied against an emotional argument. More than likely, they will use the tired argument that plants don’t have a central nervous system. It might not be like ours, but they can and do respond to stimuli. I have been accused of speciesism because I choose to eat meat, but a vegan diet isn’t any different. ~Troy

Thinking Outside the Ag Promotion Box

Here's a plan to promote agriculture
Dec 21, 2009 3:41 PM, By Roy Roberson, Farm Press Editorial Staff

A few weeks back I had an opportunity to visit the farm home of Chris and Lori Stancill. Chris is a fourth generation North Carolina farmer, who along with his brother, farms 4,000-5,000 acres of grain crops, peanuts, and cotton.

Chris and Lori have two sons, John 17 and Ben 20. Both are local race car legends, with hundreds of trophies and ribbons to prove it. Ben is the race car equivalent of the pitcher in the old Robert Redford baseball movie, The Natural.

When he was seven years old, Ben’s grandfather — Lori’s father — introduced him to go-kart racing. Since that first race he has dominated the sport at every level, except for NASCAR. He currently drives in the NASCAR truck series and has driven in Nationwide events.

Blonde-haired, blue-eyed, soft-spoken, and articulate, Ben Stancill doesn’t aspire to be the next NASCAR superstar, though he has the talent to be. He wants to be a successful NASCAR driver who competes for the cup championship for the next 20 years or so and use the vast audience of racing to promote agriculture.

Ben Stancill isn’t just a clean cut, nice looking, articulate country boy who grew up on a farm. He drives the tractors, sprays the crops, harvests the crops — even has his own 200 acres of peanuts. Ben Stancill is a farmer. Read More

When it comes to ideas for promoting and educating about agriculture, we need to be looking at all different kinds. We want consumers to see ag messages in places they wouldn’t expect. But, in order to make any campaign truly successful, it needs to be backed up with the efforts of real farmers and ranchers making themselves available to the consumer as a resource. When that happens, we start developing the relationships that will keep farmers and ranchers as a very trusted group of people. ~Troy

Displacing Ag Land

Agriculture chief disputes USDA climate bill study
By Jerry Hagstrom
CongressDaily December 18, 2009

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Friday took issue with a report his own agency has issued on the impact of the House-passed climate change bill, which concluded there will be a large-scale conversion of cropland to forestland.

The study, authored by USDA Chief Economist Joe Glauber, said the bill would help the agriculture sector overall. But it also said if the price of carbon allowances increases to $70 per ton of carbon dioxide by 2050, almost 60 million more acres of land would be converted to forest, 35 million acres of which would come from cropland.

That would be a 14 percent decline in cropland from the current level and take away 24 million acres from pasture -- an almost 9 percent decline.

The analysis was based on the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model by researchers at Texas A&M University, which EPA has used to study climate legislation.

Glauber's testimony on the study before a House Agriculture subcommittee Dec. 6 had led some farm leaders and Republicans to warn such a shift would lead to much higher food production and consumer food costs. Vilsack echoed those concerns Friday, saying that the scenario would be "disruptive to agriculture in some regions of the country."

But Vilsack added that he took away from his talks with Glauber that the economist does not believe the increased forest forecast is "necessarily an accurate depiction of the impacts of climate legislation."

Vilsack said the model could be updated and noted that Glauber testified that careful design of an offsets program could avoid "unintended consequences." Link

When we are at a time when we need to be doubling food production, our society can’t afford to have government policies that will reduce available farm land. This will make it more difficult to keep affordable food available to families. Along with that, it will make it more difficult for farming families to stay in business. Land availability is an issue already in most areas. Remember, all of this is supposed to solve a problem that might not even exist. Is it worth more hungry people?

Defending and Promoting Agriculture

Capture the hearts and minds of consumers
High Plains Journal

Trade, antibiotics, food safety and the estate tax were some of the issues that Forrest Roberts, chief executive officer of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) touched on during his address at the Kansas Livestock Association (KLA) Convention, Dec. 3 to 4 in Wichita, Kan. Of all the issues he discussed, Roberts said the one with the most energy is animal welfare.

"It does not take a rocket scientist to see what has happened in our industry, starting all the way back with the book "Omnivores Dilemma" to the recent film "Food, Inc." and articles in Time magazine and the New York Times, to understand how much pressure our industry is under when you think about animal welfare," Roberts said.

Roberts said this is about capturing the hearts and minds of the consumer. It is about defending, sustaining, and advancing modern beef production.

Pack of wolves

Dr. Dan Thomson, K-State Beef Cattle Institute, compared the attack on the beef industry like "a pack of wolves attacking a moose." As soon as the industry turns to face one activist group, another one attacks from the other side.

"They keep attacking and their goal is to kill the moose," Thomson said. "Their goal is to abolish animal agriculture." Click here to read the rest of the article, which includes a short section about Jody Donahue's social media efforts and other info from the KLA convention.

There is no doubt that farmers and ranchers are under attack in this country, and we tend to focus on those problems quite a bit. However, there are still many reasons that we should be optimistic. While the radical try making farmers and ranchers out to be evil, greedy, animal abusing people, it’s not working very well. Farmers and ranchers are still considered to be very trustworthy people. We need to build on that trusting relationship by talking to consumers face to face and introducing ourselves. We don’t have a lot of money to fight back but we have great people with great stories. That’s something money can’t buy.

Showing Their Committment

December 17, 2009
GUEST COMMENTAY: Rosendale Dairy: It’s a commitment
By Jim Ostrom

When Rosendale Dairy’s three partners — John Vosters, Todd Willer and I — were boys on Wisconsin dairy farms, we imagined little beyond waking early, milking, feeding and caring for cows.

When my grandfather was 19, there were 140,000 Wisconsin dairy farms. Now there are 14,000.

The 20-to-50 cow farms of the past several generations disappeared as many children of dairy farms followed other careers. The 1.9 million dairy cows that at one time supplied milk in Wisconsin now number about 1.2 million.

But we remain committed to the dairy industry and to producing wholesome food for our nation. We are also committed to the environment and to our Wisconsin roots. We are committed to doing what is right — and taking pride in it.

Complete and detailed project plans were submitted and county and state statutory approvals were obtained. The dairy has received more than 30 permits and approvals and invested millions of dollars to ensure the health and comfort of its herd, using technology and personal herd management practices maximizing the well-being of the cows and the environment.

Two people who spoke against the modification at the DNR hearing called the morning after and asked for a dairy tour before heading home to Illinois. After the tour, one told operations manager Bill Eberle, “Someone asked me if there are any good CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations). Now I can tell them there is one.”

The other visitor e-mailed Eberlee after getting home to Illinois, writing, “Thanks for guiding (us) through Rosendale Dairy yesterday. You clearly are professional in what you do, and in the operations of the farm. While it’s difficult to see small family farms being replaced by CAFOs, clearly you run your operation efficiently, and successfully.” Read More

This article mirrors my experiences. When given the chance to really show and tell about how our farms and ranches operate, people become very comfortable with the great job we do in raising food in this country. It seems easy for consumers to hate the farm down the road that they think is doing bad things, even though they don’t know who lives there or what exactly they do. Taking the initiative to introduce yourself and build a relationship with consumers is absolutely what we need to be doing in agriculture.

Lesson Learned In Ohio

Ohio leader describes how to beat HSUS at ballot
Sharp says Ohio Farm Bureau took a proactive approach
By MITCH LIESCapital Press

HOOD RIVER, Ore. -- Ohio farmers were "put in a box," according to an Ohio Farm Bureau executive, after the Humane Society of the U.S. called for the state's farmers to change animal housing practices.

Adam Sharp, senior regulatory affairs director for the Ohio Farm Bureau, said HSUS wasn't prepared for what happened next.

"They are not used to being on the defensive and being uncomfortable in their position," Sharp said.

Rather than wait for HSUS to follow through on a threat to ban gestation stalls, veal stalls and chicken cages, Ohio farmers earlier this year launched a campaign that has gained national attention.

In November, when 64 percent of the state's voters agreed to form a livestock board to regulate animal agriculture practices in Ohio, the state's agriculture scored a victory that could serve as a template for other states to follow.

Sharp said farmers decided to be proactive in an attempt to fend off the restrictions. The farmers crafted a ballot measure that formed a livestock board to establish standards governing animal agriculture. Read More

There certainly has been a lot of interest in Ohio’s successful efforts to pass Issue 2, which will allow their own citizens to determine the best practices for raising livestock. There are certainly a lot of lessons to be learned from this experience. Hopefully they can be used in the future. The members of this board will undoubtedly focus on what’s best for the livestock. Unfortunately, that’s not what happens when HSUS pushes through legislation.

HSUS, PETA Attack Food Donation Program

Animal groups' criticism bounces off hunters who feed hungry
By Courtland Milloy
Wednesday, December 16, 2009

During a recent deer hunt in Southern Maryland, Blaise Higgs killed a doe and then took it to a butcher shop for dressing. After setting aside several pounds of venison for his family, he donated the rest to an organization that helps feed the hungry.

"A lot of people are having a difficult time putting food on the table, so if you can help them, why not?" said Higgs, 38, a resident of Mechanicsville and a hunter since he was 6.

In the long-running dispute with animal rights advocates over the ethics of deer hunting, Higgs and other sportsmen have found what they believe to be the moral high ground: stocking food banks and soup kitchens with their kills.

One day last week, about 50 people dined on venison chili at the Loaves & Fishes Soup Kitchen, which operates out of St. Paul's United Methodist Church in Leonardtown.

"We call it 'Bambi chili,' " said Shirley Morton, a volunteer cook.

Higgs's bounty was distributed through Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry, a national outreach ministry headquartered in Williamsport, Md. Steve White, a coordinator for the group, said participants in Maryland provided enough food for 497,800 meals between June 2008 and this past July.

Animal rights activists are not impressed.

"I find it offensive that people would try to justify immoral behavior by claiming that something good comes out of it," said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "They can't defend ruthlessly blowing away animals for fun, so they come up with these ancillary benefits."

The controversy over deer hunting has heated up in the Washington area in recent months, with several jurisdictions approving deer hunts in public parks as a way to control the herds.

But groups including PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have expressed strong opposition to the hunts, calling them cruel to animals and dangerous for human beings.

Read More

How sad is it that PETA and the Humane Society of the United States, who have combined resources in the neighborhood of one-quarter of a billion dollars, would rather complain about deer hunting than help out hungry families. While farmers, ranchers and hunters work to help feed the families in their communities, PETA and HSUS work to stop their efforts. Why Bruce Friedrich and Wayne Pacelle would let their organizations actively work towards causing more people to go hungry is beyond me.

Animal Terrorists Destroy Property in Mexico

Mexico links animal activists to car burnings
The Associated Press

MEXICO CITY —
Investigators have found evidence linking an animal rights group to homemade bombs that burned seven vehicles in Mexico City, a prosecutor said Wednesday.

The symbol of a local version of the Animal Liberation Front was found painted near the attacks in a residential neighborhood on the city's south side, assistant city prosecutor Luis Genaro Vasquez told the Televisa news network. An anarchist symbol was also found.

The assailants apparently tossed bottles filled with flammable liquids at cars and trucks.

Jerry Vlasak, a press officer for the U.S.-based North American Animal Liberation Press Office, said his organization receives anonymous news statements from the Mexican group but does not know who its members are because they operate secretly.

He said he had not received any statement about the car burnings, but added it would be typical of the Mexican's group actions.

"They are not vandals. They're not doing this for personal gain. They do this because they love animals," Vlasak said. Read More

They are destroying private property and endangering the lives of people because they love animals? So are the animals in Mexico now better off because they burned these cars? This is another example of how radical Jerry Vlasak and his band of terrorists are. They actively promote the use of civil disobedience and violence against other human beings. Even if someone dies as a result of their actions, they see it as justified. Anyone that would endorse this type of activity is no friend of animals or people.