PDA

View Full Version : Farmers push back against animal welfare laws



Common
12-04-2016, 08:50 AM
The article is longer if you are inclined to read it.

I am admittedly a wuss when it comes to animals and a Phony. I say that because I hate to see any animal harmed but I eat them, thats the phony.

This is a very hard subject for me to deal with, because I agree with the laws at least giving them room to spread wings and turn around but I still know what the end result is.


All hogs in Massachusetts will be able to stretch their legs and turn around in their crates and all hens will be able to spread their wings under a law passed in November by voters in the state.Laws like this one, which strictly regulate how farm animals are confined, are becoming more common across the U.S., as large-scale farming replaces family farms and consumers learn more about what happens behind barn doors. Massachusetts is the 12th state to ban the use of some livestock- and poultry-raising cages or crates, such as gestation crates for sows, veal crates for calves or battery cages for chickens, which critics say abusively restrict the animals’ movement.

The restrictive laws have taken hold so far in states that have relatively small agriculture industries for animals and animal products and fewer large-scale farming operations. But producers in big farming states see the writing on the wall. Backed by state farm bureaus, large-scale industrial farmers are pushing for changes that would make it harder for states to further regulate the way they do business.

North Dakota and Missouri adopted amendments in the last few years that enshrined into their constitutions the right of farmers and ranchers to use current practices and technology. Legislatures in many states, including Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska and West Virginia, considered proposed amendments this year. And Oklahoma voters rejected a similar amendment sent to them by the Legislature in November.

Farmers acknowledge that some people who do not spend much time on farms may object to some of their practices. But they say that they do not abuse animals and that their practices are the most efficient and safest way to keep up with demand for food. And, they say, complying with restrictions on raising poultry and livestock like those approved in Massachusetts are costly for them and for consumers.

They point to an 18 percent increase in the price of eggs — about 49 cents a dozen — in California last year that was attributed to a law that created strict space requirements for hens. The law applies not just to producers in the state but to producers in other states that sell eggs there.

“Our nation’s ability to protect its food supply can be threatened by unnecessary regulations driven by activist agendas, often by people who’ve never set foot on farmland or have no idea what it takes to produce a crop,” said Paul Schlegel, director of environment and energy policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/farmers-push-back-against-animal-welfare-laws/article_be4d2a86-a516-587a-a27e-ec7c6e0e4fc7.html

Peter1469
12-04-2016, 08:53 AM
I already pay more to buy organic. Particularly eggs and dairy.

Captain Obvious
12-04-2016, 08:53 AM
Farmers and coal miners need someone in their corner. And cops.

They didn't get it from establishment dems.

Common
12-04-2016, 08:55 AM
I already pay more to buy organic. Particularly eggs and dairy.
Ive been buying organic eggs and pork, but Ive had problems with organic chicken not tasting good or the texture not being right. Have you experienced that pete ?

One thing more eating organic raised meat, still has the same result

Peter1469
12-04-2016, 09:06 AM
I like the taste of organic chicken.

I see much more of a difference in the beef. For non-organic, ribeye is my favorite. With organic, it is sirloin or NY Strip.

True, the animal dies at the end, but they live better under the organic farming. And the product that you are eating is better for you.



Ive been buying organic eggs and pork, but Ive had problems with organic chicken not tasting good or the texture not being right. Have you experienced that pete ?

One thing more eating organic raised meat, still has the same result

Common
12-04-2016, 09:10 AM
I like the taste of organic chicken.

I see much more of a difference in the beef. For non-organic, ribeye is my favorite. With organic, it is sirloin or NY Strip.

True, the animal dies at the end, but they live better under the organic farming. And the product that you are eating is better for you.
I dont know weve tried organic chicken like 6 times, different stores, and brands. Dont taste right and the texture is strange, like the legs are stringy.

I guess Im missing the antibiotics and arsenic and horseshit they feed them or something

Peter1469
12-04-2016, 09:11 AM
Organic chicken is more muscle. The conventional farmed chicken is a lot of fat and poorly formed muscle.
I dont know weve tried organic chicken like 6 times, different stores, and brands. Dont taste right and the texture is strange, like the legs are stringy.

I guess Im missing the antibiotics and arsenic and horseshit they feed them or something

resister
12-04-2016, 10:11 AM
I prefer wild pork.I shot a 160 poundish sow hog with my 1858 new model army cap n ball recently

donttread
12-04-2016, 10:12 AM
The article is longer if you are inclined to read it.

I am admittedly a wuss when it comes to animals and a Phony. I say that because I hate to see any animal harmed but I eat them, thats the phony.

This is a very hard subject for me to deal with, because I agree with the laws at least giving them room to spread wings and turn around but I still know what the end result is.


All hogs in Massachusetts will be able to stretch their legs and turn around in their crates and all hens will be able to spread their wings under a law passed in November by voters in the state.Laws like this one, which strictly regulate how farm animals are confined, are becoming more common across the U.S., as large-scale farming replaces family farms and consumers learn more about what happens behind barn doors. Massachusetts is the 12th state to ban the use of some livestock- and poultry-raising cages or crates, such as gestation crates for sows, veal crates for calves or battery cages for chickens, which critics say abusively restrict the animals’ movement.

The restrictive laws have taken hold so far in states that have relatively small agriculture industries for animals and animal products and fewer large-scale farming operations. But producers in big farming states see the writing on the wall. Backed by state farm bureaus, large-scale industrial farmers are pushing for changes that would make it harder for states to further regulate the way they do business.

North Dakota and Missouri adopted amendments in the last few years that enshrined into their constitutions the right of farmers and ranchers to use current practices and technology. Legislatures in many states, including Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska and West Virginia, considered proposed amendments this year. And Oklahoma voters rejected a similar amendment sent to them by the Legislature in November.

Farmers acknowledge that some people who do not spend much time on farms may object to some of their practices. But they say that they do not abuse animals and that their practices are the most efficient and safest way to keep up with demand for food. And, they say, complying with restrictions on raising poultry and livestock like those approved in Massachusetts are costly for them and for consumers.

They point to an 18 percent increase in the price of eggs — about 49 cents a dozen — in California last year that was attributed to a law that created strict space requirements for hens. The law applies not just to producers in the state but to producers in other states that sell eggs there.

“Our nation’s ability to protect its food supply can be threatened by unnecessary regulations driven by activist agendas, often by people who’ve never set foot on farmland or have no idea what it takes to produce a crop,” said Paul Schlegel, director of environment and energy policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

http://lacrossetribune.com/news/farmers-push-back-against-animal-welfare-laws/article_be4d2a86-a516-587a-a27e-ec7c6e0e4fc7.html


Those laws are not restrictive. They simply impose common decency on the megafarms and their agents. Any independent farm worth it's salt gives it's animals that much room and more.
Your situation is not "phony". It's called the cycle of life, all our teeth ain't made to eat plants. But you can respect what you eat as odd as that may sound to some who are diconnected from that cycle.

resister
12-04-2016, 10:15 AM
Gotta love the anti hunters in the meat section

FindersKeepers
12-04-2016, 10:40 AM
Being "mostly" vegan, I often think that if someone wants to eat meat, they should kill it and dress it out themselves.

I understand the draw to eat meat - especially bacon:toothy4: - but I predict that in a couple hundred years very few people will still be eating it. Voluntarily. I just think we as people are moving in that direction. I don't fault anyone who has to hunt to eat -- hunted animals actually have better lives than animals raised in tight quarters.

The truth is -- the animals DO suffer, even if they're allowed to graze on open pastures. And, animals DO have feelings. That's just a fact. I have a lot of farmers around here that don't take good care of their livestock. I see it year after year and it doesn't change. If you've ever seen livestock loaded for market -- you'll see the fear they experience.

To each their own -- but every year that passes, I get further and further away from meat. And, I'm a shitty meat cook, so, there's that, too.

People really don't think about where meat comes from. Ask a kid and he'll tell you, "the grocery store." We're so removed from the slaughtering process. Meat-packing plants typically have high turnover rates because the workers get to where they just can't take it anymore.

And, people don't need meat to be healthy. Or, to be strong. I make a lot of seitan, which is also called "wheat meat." It takes some practice to get it perfect, but it's 76% protein and has about 4 carbs per serving. It's expensive to buy in the stores, but I make it and it's better that way, anyway. Unless you have celiac disease, you can eat it, too.

I grew up in big hunting country -- NW Colorado -- but over the years I've changed. We don't let hunters on our land -- unless they've already shot a deer and are tracking it. We have stands and licks set up to keep the wildlife safely here -- so they don't get shot elsewhere.

If I need to shoot an animal that's suffering -- I will, but I won't ask one to give up its life so I can eat it -- especially because I can be healthier not eating it. LOL But, to each his/her own. I know many live to eat meat and I don't begrudge them that.

resister
12-04-2016, 10:49 AM
I have never shot deer.I don't care for the taste.We have a big feral hog problem here.It is truly a public service to cull the heard.The last one I shot, the bullet passed through both lungs.It ran 15 feet,keeled over and squeeled twice and was stone dead.About as painless as it gets.You should never wound game,aside from the cruelty,it taints the meat.I only own one gun and it is a pistol, so that's what I hunt with.This means I wont shoot unless I can get within 80 ft or less.Not hard to do in thick woods

Standing Wolf
12-04-2016, 12:12 PM
If you don't think confining an intelligent animal like a hog in a crate too small for it to turn around or stretch its legs, for the entirety of its life, is inhumane, immoral and cruel, imagine yourself being kept in those conditions for a week. We as a society and as individuals can eat meat without having to torture other beings in order to do so. It really isn't any more complicated than that. It's not a Liberal vs. Conservative thing, either. You don't have to be Liberal to understand that torture for profit is wrong.

resister
12-04-2016, 12:33 PM
If you don't think confining an intelligent animal like a hog in a crate too small for it to turn around or stretch its legs, for the entirety of its life, is inhumane, immoral and cruel, imagine yourself being kept in those conditions for a week. We as a society and as individuals can eat meat without having to torture other beings in order to do so. It really isn't any more complicated than that. It's not a Liberal vs. Conservative thing, either. You don't have to be Liberal to understand that torture for profit is wrong.
I can sorta relate,when I was 18 ,they kept me in confinement for 90 days.Of course the cell was a little biger

FindersKeepers
12-04-2016, 02:11 PM
I have never shot deer.I don't care for the taste.We have a big feral hog problem here.It is truly a public service to cull the heard.The last one I shot, the bullet passed through both lungs.It ran 15 feet,keeled over and squeeled twice and was stone dead.About as painless as it gets.You should never wound game,aside from the cruelty,it taints the meat.I only own one gun and it is a pistol, so that's what I hunt with.This means I wont shoot unless I can get within 80 ft or less.Not hard to do in thick woods

There are (sadly) times when an animal population reaches a number where it causes problems -- as you say with the feral hog issue. But, like you, I opposed cruelty to animals. Sometimes, the deer population in Colorado would reach such a number that many would die of winter kill because they would be unable to find food. So, yeah, I understand that.

donttread
12-04-2016, 02:42 PM
If you don't think confining an intelligent animal like a hog in a crate too small for it to turn around or stretch its legs, for the entirety of its life, is inhumane, immoral and cruel, imagine yourself being kept in those conditions for a week. We as a society and as individuals can eat meat without having to torture other beings in order to do so. It really isn't any more complicated than that. It's not a Liberal vs. Conservative thing, either. You don't have to be Liberal to understand that torture for profit is wrong.


Agreed, except I think the "beings" part is a little strong. There ain't much light in bossy's eyes.

MisterVeritis
12-04-2016, 02:46 PM
Agreed, except I think the "beings" part is a little strong. There ain't much light in bossy's eyes.
How many have you spent time with?

Standing Wolf
12-04-2016, 05:19 PM
Agreed, except I think the "beings" part is a little strong. There ain't much light in bossy's eyes.

An animal knows when it is in pain and wants the pain to stop. It knows what pleasure and contentment are, and seeks those things out. In that, they are no different from us. We emphasize and exaggerate the aspects of our thinking that make us different from all other species of animal in order to make it easier for us to kill and eat them at will - just as the religionist uses the concept of a human soul to do much the same.

resister
12-05-2016, 09:35 AM
There are (sadly) times when an animal population reaches a number where it causes problems -- as you say with the feral hog issue. But, like you, I opposed cruelty to animals. Sometimes, the deer population in Colorado would reach such a number that many would die of winter kill because they would be unable to find food. So, yeah, I understand that.
Plus i'm poor and they are tasty, a win win:grin: