Category Archives: HSUS

Not My Kind of Law

I’m starting law school at Washburn University in August and this Meatingplace blog post made me even more sure I’ve made the right decision. In the post Yvonne Vizzier Thaxton talks about animal law becoming more and more popular at U.S. law schools. However, many of these programs look into issues such as how to defend the rights of animals in the same way you would defend the rights of a human. In fact, George Washington University Law School and the Humane Society of the United States, HSUS, have a joint venture, the Animal Law Litigation Project, which is intended to “improve enforcement of animal protection laws.” However, anything with HSUS involved concerns me. It makes me think of court cases like the one a couple years ago where it was argued since a chimpanzee’s DNA is 96-98.4 per cent similar to that of humans they should be able to legally own assets.

My goal in law school is learn how to defend the rights of livestock producers to make an honest living doing what they love. No doubt, those who truly abuse animals are breaking current laws and violating their responsibility to care for animals’ well being. However, I’m confident in six years I’ve been actively engaged in the industry I’ve never met a producer who doesn’t love livestock and treat theirs with utmost care and respect. I become increasingly concerned when the government is granted increasing power to dictate what people can and cannot do with their livestock property and even go as far as using laws to determine what people can and cannot eat. I’ll talk about that more in my next post.


Leave a comment

Filed under HSUS, legislation

HSUS is anti-meat | in their own words

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) CEO Wayne Pacelle wrote a blog post recently titled “Cutting Back Means Cutting Animal Consumption.” In it he writes, “The HSUS is a big tent organization, and we support people who want to switch to more humanely raised animal products, reduce the amount of meat in their diets, or try a vegetarian lifestyle—but the reduction of meat consumption is one of the best things we can do for the planet given how unsustainable the current levels of factory farming are.”

If you ever need a place to point to prove that HSUS is really about running animal agriculture out of business and not working with local humane shelters.

Leave a comment

Filed under HSUS

The Economics of HSUS Legislation in Ohio

The Economics of Animal Welfare Regulations Proposed for Ohio

Luther Tweeten, Emeritus Chaired Professor, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) seeks to phase out battery cages for Ohio’s laying hens, gestation crates for its pregnant pigs, and crates for veal calves in favor of group housing (FarmPolicy [], May 5, 2009). As the nation’s second largest producer of eggs (27 million laying hens) and a major producer of swine and dairy cattle, Ohio agriculture has a major stake in the outcome of this HSUS effort.

HSUS is likely to put its proposal before Ohio voters next year if poultry and livestock producers don’t cooperate with HSUS to write legislation changing the way producers operate. This is no idle threat. Last year California voters approved a similar measure (Proposition 2 or Prop 2) mandating as of January 1, 2015 that it shall be a misdemeanor for any person to confine a pregnant pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a manner not allowing the animal to turn around freely, stand up, lie down, and fully extend its limbs. At least four other states have passed laws similar to California’s Proposition 2.

Is such legislation a good idea? The following discussion is especially focused on laying hens, the enterprise likely to be most affected in Ohio. The following analysis addresses animal welfare dimensions of Prop 2-type regulations before addressing the economic dimensions.

Animal Welfare

First, it is important to recognize that nearly everyone including persons associated with large confinement feeding operations supports humane treatment of animals. At issue is what constitutes humane treatment. On the one hand, large confinement cage or crate operations would seem to reduce animal welfare by inhibiting the freedom of animals for nesting, sex, and exercise (Shields and Duncan 2009, pp. 2-5). Proponents contend that Prop 2-type legislation will enhance animal welfare, provide healthier food because animals will contract fewer air-borne diseases, and will reduce soil, water, and air pollution.

On the other hand, confinement is associated with protection of animals from extreme temperatures, predators, and soil-borne diseases and parasites. Animals in confinement can be monitored closely for health. Confinement systems deliver fresh, clean eggs to consumers. Confinement operations use less land, labor, and other resources per animal unit. Opponents of Prop 2-type legislation contend that with sound management, large confinement operations have demonstrated they can produce without harm to the environment or animal welfare.

The public looks to objective scientific findings to narrow differences of opinion between supporters and opponents of Prop 2-type measures. That strategy has met with only partial success as apparent from studies measuring how specific engineering-type provisions (such as space provided per animal) affect animal welfare. In Austria for example, Zaludik et al. (2007) evaluated the usefulness of the government’s Animal Needs Index (ANI) auditing how hen welfare is affected by floor space, feeder space, and the like for organic laying hen production. No relationship was found between a good score on the ANI and hen welfare as assessed by mortality, injury, measures of abnormal behavior, and footpad and breast lesions. This and other empirical studies give conflicting results regarding the contribution of a “favorable” environment to animal welfare (Shields and Duncan 2009, pp. 12, 13). After an excellent review of existing scientific studies, Mench et al. (2009, p. 44) conclude that “…we still have little understanding of how all of the complex inputs on commercial farms (whether those are husbandry inputs or genetic inputs) interact to cause or minimize animal welfare problems.”

Economic Implications

The economic implications of Prop 2-type regulations imposed on Ohio’s agriculture are more clear than the foregoing animal welfare implications. Market forces help protect animals to the extent that abused and diseased animals reduce profits, forcing animal producers to use more humane practices. In part out of concern for animal product demand and profit, the livestock (including poultry) industry has voluntarily changed production practices. Experts on animal welfare and ethics, though noting the absence of federal regulation of animal production, cite the recent voluntary development and enforcement of animal care standards by producer groups and retailers. Animal welfare scientists (Mench et al., 2009, p.2) conclude that “These standards have resulted in some striking improvements in animal welfare…” along the entire supply chain of animals and their products.

Socially acceptable production practices for animal welfare ultimately rest on the public’s values and attitudes and not just on science. Such values range from indifferent observers to animal rightists who object to animal confinement and would end use of animals as sources of food, clothing (leather), fiber, draft-power, or companionship (pets). Even among those who make animal products a part of their diet, the range of preferred animal production practices stretches from conventional to organic, to free range. Markets can serve discriminating consumers over this broad range of preferences. The key is to label animal products by production practices. Preferred animal welfare practices may be more costly to producers, but consumers can “vote” their preferences with dollars in the market.

Click here to continue reading.

Leave a comment

Filed under HSUS, legislation

WSB-TV exposes HSUS

Last month WSB-TV did a segment exposing HSUS and how they extract money from people who think they are donating to local humane shelters but rarely contribute to these shelters. The video was taken off YouTube but is now available again through Vidoosh. Click here to see the video. I’d encourage you to forward this link on to your contacts.

1 Comment

Filed under Animal Rights Activism, Animal Welfare, HSUS, YouTube

Rush gets Rushed

Rush Limbaugh is getting rushed with emails and phone calls about his recent affiliation with the HSUS. Agriculture groups are busy calling and emailing Rush to let him know what the HSUS is really all about. This action alert from the Animal Agriculture Alliance lists ways to contact Rush over this issue. This morning I commented on a National Institute of Canine Experts (NICE) bog post, which provides information about Rush’s sponsors and suggests contacting them as well. A couple minutes later, I got a call from NICE’s Ami Moore sharing their concerns with the HSUS and commitment to making sure Rush hears from our side of this issue.

It’s important to get involved because HSUS is also busy encouraging its supporters to contact and thank Rush. So far I’ve hear Rush is unwilling to talk about the issue on air.


Filed under Animal Welfare, HSUS, Take Action

Animal Rights groups courting Miley and Rush

HSUS and PETA are courting some new high profile celebrities these days. Rush Limbaugh has recorded two audio spots for the HSUS and PETA has awarded Miley Cyrus a Compassionate Citizenship award.
I’d encourage you to write letters to celebs when you hear about them getting in with the wrong crowd. I’m hoping someone can get through calling in on Rush’s show to talk to him about the HSUS and what they’re really up to.


Filed under Animal Rights Activism, Animal Welfare, HSUS, PETA

After Effects of Prop 2

There’s been lots of talk in recent weeks about the affect HSUS’s victory with Prop. 2 in California will have on the rest of the nation. A couple days ago I blogged about how HSUS is already primed to hit Ohio w/ a similar effort.

Beef Magazine published a great article last week about how Ag Must Speak with One Voice on Animal Rights. In it, American Agri-Women (AAW) call Proposition 2 was a wakeup call to agriculture and offer suggestions about how Ag can meet the challenges animal rights groups present.

A couple weeks ago, Troy Hadrick with Advocates for Agriculture wrote a blog post titled Prop 2 fuels “freight train.” In it he quotes Chad Gregory, senior vice president of the United Egg Producers, as saying that the industrial activism movement “is coming at us like a freight train,” and will affect all sectors of the Agriculture industry.

Leave a comment

Filed under Advocacy, Animal Welfare, HSUS, Prop 2