Running the small producer out of business

The big “evil” corporate farms, or “factory farms”, as so many love to call them, just got another boost up the ladder with McDonalds recent announcement to end the purchase of pork from producers using gestation crates.

So for everyone chasing the all-natural, free range, antibiotic free, hormone free meat, you can point the finger at groups like HSUS when it becomes a little harder to find. The small to medium size pork producer doesn’t have the overhead to make the expensive changes necessary to revamp their entire system.

I recently read an great article, written by a pork producer. He pointed out that there are times in the business, that it just ain’t pretty! “With livestock, you get dead stock.” It’s just part of life.

The author pointed out that he wasn’t going to blow smoke up anyone’s ass, that in between scratching his pigs behind the ears, he was also carrying buckets of still born baby pigs out. Life and death happens on the farm and ranch.

But life on the small farm and ranch is getting pushed out – but not by the big corporate farms, as some would like to believe. There is a market for home grown, small family farm products. It’s out there. The problem is that anti-ag groups are successfully pushing their agendas, putting the small and even medium farmer out of business, because of the regulations and costs.  

Le Mars, Iowa pork producer and current president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association, Bill Tentinger, says it all comes at a cost.  And it will eventually be the consumer’s cost.
 “We’re just going to see some producers who are going to say, ‘you know, I’ve had enough—and I’m not going down that road’,” Tentinger says. “We’re going to see larger units. That’s where the sows—the farrowing business–is going to go,” Tentinger says, “because the smaller producer is just probably not—if he needs to make that switch, he’s not going to do it.”
Because he can’t afford it!
There seems to be this huge misunderstanding between ranchers/farmers and the general public.
I was up in the mountains a few summers ago, the Salida area, and had an interesting conversation with a young man working at a gas station about “the greedy ranchers selling all the land for money.” He didn’t seem to have any concept on the costs of running a ranch, and trying to survive in the business. All he cared about was the fact that the land was being developed and the “greedy ranchers” were running off with their hordes of money.
The anti-ag groups of the world are on task, making sure the small and medium producers are put out of business….which is what they really want.
 “My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.”— HSUS grassroots coordinator John “J.P.” Goodwin
Back on the pig note – in a couple of months, Jadi will have two new pigs at our place, for her 4H project. She typically tries to get barrow – male fixed pigs, instead of gilts – female brats. The females are typically pushy and mean, and in the years she’s had one of each, it has not been unusual to go out and find one or both bloody and beat up from fighting. That’s what happens when pigs are housed together. They fight…and they bleed…and they make a horrible noise, sometimes just when you touch them. But does that make Jadi and I animal abusers?

Ag wars in Park County

I’ve had the pleasure of working in the cattle industry off and on for several years. I have been shocked more than once by anti-ag groups, and their tactics to put producers out of business, but every now and then, I am shocked by the tactics imposed on an individual in the industry, by the industry.

My introduction to Dr. Amy Mason, a veterinarian from Guffy, CO. came after I ran a press release from the Colo. Dept. of Ag (CDA), reporting that Mr. Vern Wagner was found guilty of animal cruelty. Mr. Wagner was the first to call me, a bit miffed, and rightfully so, that I hadn’t investigated it more before printing.

Mr. Wagner is a third generation rancher. After he shared this with me, I had to wonder if someone abusing their animals could stay in business that long. Common sense tells me probably not!

But the release came from CDA. It had to be good. It’s our elected, paid, government, in agriculture. They’re on ag’s side…right?  As I learn more and more about this case, I’m not so sure.

Dr. Amy met me, loaded with pictures, videos and information, that clearly sheds reasonable doubt on Mr. Wagner’s case. Actually – it was pretty black and white after hearing and seeing the details. Something went terribly wrong in Park County.

The photos, taken at several different times over the past 2 years, don’t show starving, neglected cattle. Well, at least not most of them. There are a series of pictures of overcrowded pens of cows and calves, calves that look unhealthy or ill lying in manure, scours, heavily molded hay, empty water troughs, 4 wheelers running cows, and a bull tangled in twine around his neck and legs. There are also videos of some of the above, including a video of a calf trying to get water out of the trough and another licking drops of water from a dripping water spicket, with several cows crowded around, and another of a calf appearing to have respiratory problems. And cows that looked as if they may have aborted calves, with blood and afterbirth hanging from them. Obviously, all could be considered potentially damaging in an animal cruelty case.

But, here’s the kicker, these pictures were taken after Mr. Wagner’s cattle were confiscated, by CDA. He actually had a restraining order on him, and was court ordered to stay away from them. Several of the calves died, while under CDA’s care, and Mr. Wagner had to pay the rendering fee.

So, as I’m listening to Dr. Amy, and earlier to Mr. Wagner, and others familiar with the case, the “why” question is haunting me, and I just can’t get my head wrapped around it. It seems as if it’s ag fighting ag.  

But there’s more to the story. It’s like a present-day, good old black and white western, where everyone is fighting over the land. Several years ago, Mr. Wagner started a grazing association. Within that association, there are thousands of acres, and he has the leases. The property owners get the benefit of paying ag property taxes. I’m betting the county doesn’t like that much – just a hunch. And then there are his state leases. Mr. Wagner isn’t a small time, 40-acre, hobby cattle man. There appears to be several parties that will benefit from his loss. A quick side note on this, apparently a BLM representative testified on Mr. Wagner’s behalf, saying he was a good land tenant and did not over graze. Hmmm…but yet his cattle were deemed malnourished and starved by CDA.

But there’s more…things that bring up the “why” again. Mr. Wagner’s cattle were confiscated in two different runs. In the first, the cattle were taken and the court order was for the sale of 379 animals. Two weeks after they took the animals that Mr. Wagner had allegedly abused, they ran them through the sale barn. The starving, malnourished cattle had a remarkable comeback in two short weeks. They sold the 379 court ordered, plus a few more that magically appeared (450 total – despite a court order of 379), for top dollar, with a clean bill of health.  

The money was put into an escrow. For the next 18 months, Dr. Amy documented and took pictures of Mr. Wagner’s remaining cattle. All of his financial assets were gone. He used his social security checks to take care of his cattle. During those 18 months, according to Dr. Amy, he lost one cow. After another hearing, the courts ordered the seizure of the rest of his cattle, despite the photos and videos, and testimony from a vet that actually body scored the cattle using 3 different state body score systems and deemed them healthy. The cattle sold, and were the top sellers at the auction.

Other photos Dr. Amy shared with me, included some taken in April before the first group were taken. Several of the cows had big healthy calves at their sides. There was also a photo of a pile of hay that she said the county had taken to the starving cattle. There were no cattle in sight eating it. They were grazing the pastures. There were also a few pictures of heifers that looked thin. They showed signs of a long winter. My assumption that maybe Dr. Amy only took pictures of the “fat” animals was wrong. She took pictures of groups of cattle. She also took pictures of neighbor cattle – some of which looked much much thinner!

So – my why question is still unanswered. In the meantime, Mr. Wagner is cattleless, and preparing for an April hearing. If he loses, he will spend time in prison. While I’m no vet, and no expert, I believe that would be a huge injustice!

And on another note – if he is convicted, I think there are a lot of ranchers out there that better be concerned. It appears that the “animal cruelty law” has some hidden twists. And look out for Dr. Amy – you all may think she’s just a poodle vet…but she’s not!

HSUS undercover videos illegal

I remember when I was going through my ugly divorce with my kids' dad, and I would tape some of our conversations, only to be told they couldn't be used in court, and that it might even be illegal. I'm reminded of this again today, as HSUS releases yet another "undercover" video that, this time, is making false accusations, as has the potential to cause major damage to these producers.

HSUS has a history of sending one of their activists in to companies, to get these undercover videos. While I don't by any means condone animal abuse, ever, I also don't condone these activists methods.

I have to question the tactics of HSUS, when they send someone in under false pretenses (isn't illegal to lie on an application), who is supposedly witnessing this abuse, and does nothing about it when they see it, and then they wait, sometimes months, before reporting it.

Why would the "employee" not be held responsible for watching, and not reporting it immediately? Are they exempt, because they lied on their resume?

In addition, there is the issue of defining abuse - just like with children. There is clear cut abuse, that no one can deny - the calves in Texas, the cows in California - but then there are practices that some may consider abusive - like branding, or lifting a pigs tail or pulling their ear to get them moving, or prodding a steer forward.

So when HSUS, or other groups like them, go in and make these videos, they are playing a role that is subject to opinion, as opposed to laws that are already in place. They make accusations, and send out releases and videos, and the company is condemned in the public eye, and often costs millions of dollars.

Several states have introduced legislation that would, in different ways, make it illegal for these "covert  operations" to continue.

Disappointingly, Florida just shot theirs down this week.

An Iowa bill currently on the table would make it illegal to take a job or gain access to an animal facility under false pretenses.

In addition, the bill, known as the “ag gag bill,” if passed would become the nation’s toughest legislation against animal rights activists who use what they call "covert operations" to take videos and photos of alleged animal cruelty.

Other states with similar pending legislation include Indiana, Nebraska, New York and Minnesota.

Iowa’s bill passed the House last year, but stalled in the Senate after the attorney general’s office pointed out potential legal challenges the bill would create. Based on freedom of speech, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that films exposing animal cruelty are legal.

Iowa’s Senate rewrote the bill in late 2011, eliminating the false pretenses language that prohibited animal activists from lying to employers. The rewritten language makes it a crime to enter or remain at an agricultural operation or to have a recording device without express permission from the owner.

According to HSUS, the Florida bill brought up discussion of first amendment rights, food safety, animal welfare and workers’ rights. But what about employer rights?

Sen. Tyson Larson filed the Nebraska bill. It would require people who suspect animal abuse or neglect to report their suspicion to authorities within 12 hours, instead of the current two-day window allowed in Nebraska. They also would have to surrender all video, photo and audio evidence immediately to investigators, instead of using them to promote their cause.

The videos released on the swine farms, according to veterinarians, do not show abuse, but rather normal injuries and sores association with animal behavior. My daughter's 4-H pigs typically look like they have been abused, when in fact, sometimes they git into fights - and even draw blood. I know, it's one of the crazy animal behaviors - that sets us apart from the animal world...right?

In 2007, an HSUS activist worked in the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company for approximately six weeks, obtaining video that, four months later, would run rampant through media outlets and create the largest meat recall in history.

According to testimony from HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle, “HSUS conducted a thorough investigation that took several months, with our investigator undercover at the plant for six weeks during October and November 2007, and then the investigation continuing after he left the site as we analyzed documents and compiled further evidence. These are long-term investigations, and we don’t parachute in and know everything there is to know in a single day. If we are going to accuse a company of wrongdoing, with broader implications for the public, we want to make sure we collect as much evidence to support our claims as possible, and we want to be sure to present a fair and accurate picture of what went on at the plant.”

While animal activists are typically the ones with the hidden cameras, the media also has a track record of sending in their own undercover spies.

In 1994, CBS was in court in South Dakota on charges that a video the network filmed secretly inside a meatpacking plant in Rapid City was illegal. The packing plant tried to stop the video from being aired, but an emergency order by a Supreme Court justice allowed it to run.

Circuit Judge Jeff W. Davis barred the network from using the footage during a “48 Hours” segment, titled “Bum Steer.” Concluding that the First Amendment did not apply because the network obtained the videotape through “calculated misdeeds,” Davis ruled that Federal Beef would suffer “irreparable harm” if the tape were broadcast. In an appeal hours before “Bum Steer” was to go on the air, CBS got permission from a Supreme Court judge to use the disputed videotape.

Current state photo shooting, audio recording and video tapping laws vary.

Something is wrong with this world when a crime is committed, and is not reported for days, or even months. And when we can't recognize the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. The first, until my dog can speak English, is not even possible.