# Editorial reply: the truth about animal activists



## 4020man (Jun 21, 2008)

I wrote this letter in response to an article in the local ag paper in response to an interview with the leader of the Humane Society. It has been a few weeks since I sent it in so I am thinking it may not get published. There are several things that can not go unsaid so rather than let this letter go to waste, I'm going to post it here. Also for those that live in Illinois and Ohio, the animal activists are trying to push Proposition 2 style legislation in those 2 states. I hate to get involved in politics, but if you live in those states I would recommend calling senators voicing opposition to the bills. (SB 1337 in Illinois) Anyway, here's the letter:

To the editor,

I am writing in response to the article that was published on the front page of the B section of the February 13th issue of the Agrinews. I am deeply troubled that an agricultural newspaper would publish an interview with an organization whose intent is the end of domestic animal agriculture. While the leader of the Humane Society, Wayne Pacelle, does offer some good talking points, such as cracking down on animal fighting and puppy mills, others such as the passing of Proposition 2 in California, which bans the use of gestation crates for sows, veal crates, and says that the poultry industry has to enlarge the cages that the chickens live in, may be called a "victory" for the HSUS, but in reality, all the passing of Proposition 2 will accomplish is to drive those industries either to another state, or to Mexico.

Another issue that is considered a "victory" in the eyes of the HSUS is the banning of horse slaughter in The Unites States. In reality, however, this is a defeat for not only the horse industry, but for the livestock industry as a whole as this ban opens the door for bans on the slaughter of animals for food in this country. All of the horses slaughtered in this country were for export, the meat never made it into the food chain in this country. The ban will also place a huge burden on all taxpaying Americans to take care of the horses that have been abandoned and will be abandoned by their owners because they cannot afford to care for them. Horse slaughter is necessary for breeders and horse owners who do no want or unable to keep old horses, horses without owners, or aggressive horses.

Another unfortunate aspect of the HSUS is that they play on the emotions and ignorance of the consumers with emotional based rhetoric. Pacelle also talks about "factory farms" and genetic issues of animals along with the faults. What Pacelle does not realize is that those faults can be and are bred out.

This is a direct quote from Wayne Pacelle, "So I think our concerns is broadly put, is that the animals are treated like commodities or thing or objects other than living, breathing, feeling creatures, and some of the aspects of agriculture have become needlessly harsh and abusive."
This quote is perfect example of ignorance on the part of the consumer as well as emotional based rhetoric. Any animal has to be in comfortable surroundings and has to be kept comfortable to produce anything. If the animals were not taken care of, livestock producers would not be able to stay in business because the expenses would overrun the income. Unfortunately the HSUS just exploits the few bad examples of animal husbandry, making the many producers who take care of their livestock look bad.

Also remember, ballot initiatives aimed at livestock producers that are sponsored by HSUS not only affect, the livestock producers, but also the consumers. When a ballot gets passed such as Proposition 2 in California, the sections of the livestock industry that that ballot effects will either move to another state, making the food more expensive because it has to be brought in. Or the industry will leave the country. This is especially troubling as more of our food supply would have to be imported from other countries making our food supply less safe as well as more expensive and a threat to our national security.

In conclusion, what farmers and livestock producers need to do is band together and educate the public about the issue of animal welfare, answering emotion-based rhetoric with facts. We need to make sure the animal activists do not get the upper hand and play a part in the destruction of animal agriculture. The stakes have never been higher than they are now. We need to turn into activists ourselves for the good of the farming community and the country to educate consumers before it's too late to do anything. We need to work on public relations to get our voices out to the consumers, who, in the end, are the holding the future of American agriculture in their hands.

Sincerely,
Jeff D in Northern Illinois


----------



## CherryBlosson (Mar 27, 2009)

I know what you mean,. There has to be a balance as the Extremes even for the so called forces of good can turn to be malicious and without good intent. I read the whole letter and it gave me a good insight into another way of looking at things. Thanks for uploading it and sharing it with us.


----------

