http://tinyurl.com/2zh7cj

High Plains/Midwest AG Journal
Animal activists take to the states
Groups unable to make much progress at the federal level
By Sara Wyant
Feb 4, 2008

Dozens of new provisions were added to both the House and Senate farm
bills this year, but noticeably absent was a new "animal welfare"
title that would have required strict new rules regarding the care and
feeding of livestock. That's not to say that so-called "animal rights"
groups aren't trying. Several bills have been introduced in Congress,
including one that would curb the use of antibiotics and another bill
requiring new standards for any meat products purchased by the federal
government.

But absent a lot of momentum on the federal stage, groups like the
Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) are increasingly turning to the
states to push new bills or adopt ballot initiatives. And more often
than not, they are succeeding. As HSUS points out on their web site:

"Between 1990 and 2006, animal advocates squared off against hunters
and other animal industries in 38 statewide ballot campaigns, winning
in 26 campaigns and marking a huge surge in the use of the process on
animal issues. To provide a contrast, in the previous 50
years--between 1940 and 1990--there were about a half dozen
animal-related initiatives, and our movement prevailed in only one
campaign--and that measure was later overturned by a subsequent ballot
measure advanced by opponents of the reform."

In the last couple of years, HSUS won big with livestock initiatives
in Florida and Arizona. Now, California, New Hampshire and Colorado
are facing some of the same. In California, for example, HSUS is
pushing for a ballot measure that prohibits the confinement of hogs,
veal calves and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them
to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their
limbs. Petitioners have until Feb. 22 to get 650,000 signatures
required to secure placement on this fall's ballot.

But already, the potential impact is influencing business decisions.
For example, Hormel Foods announced recently that their Farmer John
sow breeding facilities in California will be shut down, moving
production to existing farms in Wyoming and Arizona. High feed costs,
along with an increasingly difficult regulatory authority were cited
as reasons for the move.

In Colorado, livestock groups were put on notice by HSUS leadership
and the group's local representation that HSUS would push state
legislation similar to the ballot initiative language in California.
They were also warned that if such legislation was unsuccessful, they
could expect a statewide referendum on these issues.

Emotional appeal

"Most of these initiatives have little to do with science or fact, but
rely heavily on emotional appeal," says Steve Kopperud, an animal
industry consultant with Policy Directions in Washington, D.C.
Speaking to a group of state agricultural chairmen in St. Louis, MO.
recently, he outlined how some of the strategies are evolving at the
state level, as activists try to move around the agriculture
committees to others dealing with taxes, judiciary, and health.

The push to ban horse slaughter in the U.S. was akin to the
discovering the camel's nose was under the tent when it came to
changing livestock industry practices, says Kopperud. For example,
HSUS developed graphic videos showing horses going into a slaughter
facility and generated a huge public outcry that led to two state bans
on processing horses for meat--even though the products are only used
in zoos and for export to other countries.

"Before the horse slaughter issue surfaced, we knew we had about 90 to
100,000 animals who met their end in a humane way and maintained some
economic value for the owner," Kopperud says. "We also knew that if we
made it illegal, we'd have 90 to 100,000 horses with no place to go."
USDA recently reported that the number of horses exported to Mexico is
up 312 percent, he added.

"Most consumers don't want a personal relationship with their food.
They want farmers to say: We're doing the right thing, trust us."

"The most fundamental thing you can do is demand evidence, not
emotion," he told the state ag chairs. "And tell agriculture groups to
put up or shut up,"

Kopperud says he is seeing more and more ag leaders form coalitions to
promote and protect livestock production at the state level, but more
work is needed.

"If we spent one-tenth of what we spend on promoting our products to
promote our producers, we'd be a lot better off," he emphasized.

Editor's note: Columnist Sara Wyant is president of Agri-Pulse
Communications, Inc. and publishes a bi-weekly newsletter, Agri-Pulse,
on food and farm policy. For more information, you can e-mail her at
Agripulse@....

2/4/08
1 Star WK\3-B

Date: 1/31/08