Ranchers trump politicians, activists when it comes to cattle

 Resize text        

If history is any indicator, then we can be sure of one thing — when the government gets too involved, the problem usually gets worse. Flip through pages of history and you’ll see examples of this time and time again.

Common sense tells us that we should learn from our mistakes, but unfortunately, that’s not always the case in Washington, D.C.

Case in point — Sen. Dianne Feinstein from California and Rep. Kurt Schrader from Oregon recently introduced legislation that would federally dictate how eggs can be produced. S. 3239 and H.R. 3798, the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012, would codify an agreement between the United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) calling for federally mandated production practices in the poultry business.

This is a slippery slope for all livestock producers, and a road better left untraveled.

Here’s why. America’s farmers and ranchers are experts when it comes to taking care of their animals. Government bureaucrats are not. Neither are sneaky executives at HSUS. Many of them have never spent significant time on a working cattle ranch.

Ranchers are experts on animal care because it’s our obligation. It’s the right thing to do and we know quality beef begins with quality care. This is why we work tirelessly to keep our livestock healthy, safe and secure. We take this commitment so seriously that we personally invest millions of our own dollars into programs like the Beef Quality Assurance program and the Cattle Industry’s Guidelines for the Care and Handling of Cattle. These programs and guidelines are designed by true experts including ranchers, veterinarians, animal scientists and animal care specialists with only the best interest of cattle in mind.

Let’s dig deeper and look at the lobbyist group behind this legislation — HSUS. It’s no secret this group wants to eliminate all animal food production.  A staffer at HSUS  has gone as far to state that his “goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.”

HSUS can’t make consumers stop eating beef, but they can raise millions of dollars under false pretenses and turn around and use that money to buy votes in Congress that hamstring the livestock industry. They do this with the hope that it will eventually become too burdensome and expensive for family ranches to stay in operation.

The intention behind S.  and H.R. 3798 is not to better protect livestock. If it were, the government would heed the advice of the World Organization of Animal Health when it acknowledged that mandated animal production practices are not in the best interest of promoting true animal welfare. They would work alongside ranchers rather than weigh them down with costly and unnecessary regulations. 

Passing this legislation as a stand-alone bill isn’t the only option HSUS is seeking. There has been talk about including this as an amendment to the 2012 Farm Bill, or other ag-related bills that come through the House or Senate. They will do whatever it takes to see this legislation become law.

 Unfounded and irresponsible lawmaking like this could eventually disable ranchers like me from providing families, both at home and abroad, with a safe, abundant and healthy food supply. We simply cannot afford for that to happen.

This is why it is so important for ranchers to band together through TSCRA. Together through a strong membership, we can help elect officials who understand and respect the beef industry and stop HSUS and other anti-agriculture groups from chipping away at the livestock industry one senseless regulation at a time.

Source: Joe Parker, Jr.

Joe Parker Jr. is a third generation rancher from Clay County, Texas. He is president of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association. He is also chairman of the board and president of the First National Bank of Byers. 


Prev 1 2 Next All



Comments (12) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Jaime    
USA  |  June, 14, 2012 at 03:21 PM

Activist groups have no greater legitimate interest in other peoples' private property in eggs than do I except I buy eggs to eat and vegans do not. Creating, whether by force or by volition, communal interests in other people's eggs is a big mistake. There are too many common characteristics between the animal liberation movement and communism to ignore. Chapter Two of the Communist Manifesto is a good place to start to refresh one's memory of what Karl Marx promised for us.

CareRuth Thiebaud    
June, 15, 2012 at 07:16 AM

It is time that we had a revolution against these people we elect . Never in my life time have I ever seen so many activist trying to shut American down on every front. It is time to fight back. Who are they to tell us how to take care of egg production? Who are they to cut off water so farmers can't water their crops? Who are they to try to stop cattlemen from doing their job? I am sick and tired of them all. I think all those people who are part of these organizations are the '60's bunch who wanted everything free and not work. The group who lived on dope, drugs and alcohol. I will be praying for Mr Parker and this organization . Remember the Alamo!!! We have got to start standing our ground and fight for our freedoms. God bless America!!

George hood    
Texas  |  June, 15, 2012 at 08:48 AM

I think you are right

doug williams    
usa  |  June, 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM

He who controls the spice.. controls the universe".. think of the "spice" as FOOD this is NOT about animals....

maggie b    
Olive Branch, MS  |  June, 15, 2012 at 01:12 PM

Remember those politicians that serve the animal rights agenda at election time - send them home.

Laurella D    
Florida  |  June, 15, 2012 at 02:30 PM

Remember, the animal rights organizations have spent some 30 years propagandizing the general public about all sorts of animal issues...that is part of our problem. Ordinary city folks have NO CLUE about animal husbandry and management. So, whatever they are told by the HSUS...they believe. That is part of our problem...aside from the money and lobbying done by HSUS.

Rex    
nebraska  |  June, 16, 2012 at 07:36 AM

A handfull of groups like HSUS, PETA, Defenders of Wildlife, Earth Justice annually raise about 1000x times as much as all the food animal checkoffs.

Jasper    
Kansas  |  June, 16, 2012 at 09:39 AM

All well and good but you overlook the fact these anti-agriculture activist groups have infiltrated our industry. R-CALF is sold out to Food & Water Watch and the network of anti-food, anti-agriculture extremists. The skunk is in the henhouse, make no mistake.

Nate Savio    
Alexandria, VA  |  June, 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM

If this law is (and I'm quoting this article), "an agreement between the United Egg Producers and the HSUS," wasn't the agricultural industry involved in its creation, and won't agricultural interests be represented in it?

I'm not pro-HSUS(I just can't see myself as ever giving up meat, especially if someone else tries to force me) but everyone has an agenda, including the agricultural industry: it's just up to voters to decide whose agenda more closely aligns with their own beliefs.

Also, this article is largely short on facts: what is the actual content of the legislation, and how does it hurt agricultural production? I'm willing to believe that it does, but I need actual evidence and fact based arguments.

bill    
June, 22, 2012 at 06:06 PM

HSUS PETA Madeline Pickens RT Finch John Holland all domestic terrorist.....period!

Billee HACKETT    
wYO  |  June, 23, 2012 at 12:07 PM

wE OUGHT TO MESS IN ALL THE JOBS you should be working in, but evidently you all don't work or you wouldn't have time to tell us what to do and how to do it. HSUS and all others like that go home and do something to help our economy , get out of our hair.

maxine    
SD  |  July, 03, 2012 at 04:38 PM

For Nate Savio and others: two glaring problems with this legislation are clear, and the overriding one is that it was instigated by HSUS, leader of a consortium of groups determined to end food animal production.

First, current animal husbandry practices were designed by experts, including Animal Scientists, for optimum production and health of the animals (or birds in this case).
Farmers understand that uncomfortable animals do not produce well, so there is something in if for the farmers, too.

To give up systems that farmers have invested large amounts of money in and go to other costly systems which are not reliably better for the animals is going to force some out of business and force food costs up because the animals are going to suffer more than previously. You might want to study animal natural behaviors when they are NOT restrained or controlled a bit. Some of it is NOT pretty!

I'm a cattle rancher and I do NOT believe it is good for my business, or the animals, OR the consumer to have activist groups like HSUS and their ilk setting policy for how to raise animals. Such groups do not have the expertise in animal care that our colleges and university professors and other food animal health professionals DO have!

Nor do I believe such changes should be made based on emotion rather than science.


Feedback Form
Leads to Insight