Articles in this document:

· Animal Rights' Gives Lobbying as Much Attention as Animal Care

· Court orders scrutiny of livestock

Animal Rights' Gives Lobbying as Much Attention as Animal Care

By Marlys Miller (Thursday, July 31, 2008)

Pork Magazine

The pictures, videos and stories of abuse kept emotions high at the fourth annual Taking Action for Animals Conference, organized by the Humane Society of the United States. California Proposition 2, which would impact veal, pork and egg producers in California lead the list of legislative and legal maneuvers intended to attack animal agriculture. Other priority items include several bills proposed to be sent up to Capitol Hill as well.

Attendance at the conference, held July 19-21, increased to about 800. Event sponsors included the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Born Free USA, Humane Society Legislative Fund, United Poultry Concerns and the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

Wayne Pacelle, HSUS president told attendees: "We have arrived! We are in the mainstream!" However, later in that same speech he said, "We have to refine our message to be mainstream." He has doubts that his organization's vegetarian and vegan messages, and agenda, will not be accepted by the majority of Americans.

Though the meeting offered animal rights focused workshops, there were equally as many presented that addressed how to effectively lobby, present campaigns to the public and tactics for litigating issues.

This meeting continues to reflect a major change in the animal-rights movement. The audience increasingly reflects a professional demeanor, and were dressed in business casual attire. It is clear that HSUS has found, and continues to cultivate, a segment of activists that are educated, organized professionals (predominantly women) capable of making calculated moves to further the organization's influence.

porkmag.com

Court orders scrutiny of livestock

By TOM BALDWIN • Gannett State Bureau • July 31, 2008

Courier Post Online - New Jersey

TRENTON — The state Supreme Court Wednesday ordered a closer examination of how New Jersey farmers treat livestock, a decision animal-rights advocates hailed as nationally ground-breaking that drew mixed reactions locally.

"We see this as a huge victory. No courts have ever really addressed farm-animal welfare issues," said Tricia Barry, spokeswoman for the group Farm Sanctuary, a national advocate for livestock.

The court, in a unanimous decision, turned away a broad attack on the state's rules on the care of farm animals, but it did direct the state Department of Agriculture to harvest data from area veterinary schools and retool procedures.

"In the court's words, the regulations as a whole are consistent with the meaning of the word "humane,'" said state Agriculture Department spokesman Jeff Beach.

Richard Nieuwenhuis, president of the New Jersey Farm Bureau, said, "I would characterize my reaction as being disappointed. The Agriculture Department and state veterinarians who drew up these standards are the people that deal with animals every day all day."

The case arose from a suit against the state by a coalition of animal-rights activists, saying New Jersey's reliance on traditional husbandry had piglets being castrated without pain-killers, beaks being clipped from chickens, toenails snipped from turkeys and calves and pigs confined to cramped boxes that inhibit movement.

Farmers cut beaks and toes to keep fowl from fighting in crowded housing. Confining calves is the way veal is produced and the way pork can be tenderized. Castration helps control reproduction.

The court's decision did not ban any procedure or care.

"Most state animal-cruelty laws have an exemption in their cruelty code for farm animals. . . . We have been trying to get a court to admit that for many many years," said Barry.

She said, for example, confining a dog or pony the way calves are confined to produce veal would be a violation of cruelty laws, as would be crowding cats the way fowl is farmed.

"The dispute has nothing to do with anyone's love for animals, or with the way in which any of us treats our pets; rather, it requires a balancing of the interests of people and organizations who would zealously safeguard the well-being of all animals, including those born and bred for eventual slaughter, with the equally significant interests of those who make their living in animal husbandry and who contribute, through their effort, to our food supply," wrote Associate Justice Helen Hoens in the opinion.

"Because we find in those regulations both unworkable standards and an unacceptable delegation of authority to an ill-defined category of presumed experts, we conclude that the (Agriculture) Department failed, in part, to carry out its mandate. We therefore conclude that some, but not all, of the regulations are invalid," Hoens wrote in the opinion.

"We are very happy about it, particularly because it is a unanimous decision. That is so rare," said Katherine Meyer, lawyer for the petitioner.

Lawyer Lisa White, advocating for Monmouth and Cumberland counties' branches of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or SPCA, said, "It is a terrific decision. It is a victory for farm animals."

courierpostonline.com