Trent
I have to wonder who wrote that letter to you about the greed of farmers...was it Kyle? :)
Anyway, I wrote Kyle on Monday about this when I heard it on RR...While I'd like to think that young men and women who say they want to farm are willing to put in the sweat and debt to get there, I am now wondering if they will do just about anything to farm, like they claim. Or are they donning rose colored glasses thinking of farming as a romantic lifestlyle. This lasts until they see how much debt they have to go into, how much sweat they have to produce for a pittance. AND if they have to relocate, are their spouses willing to follow them?

From inside the factory, farming looks grand as they watch the local crop farmer meet his buddies at the coffee shop every other morning or drive around in brand new pick up trucks, or head to the local tractor show with his newly restored John Deere B. Or when they see how much equipment they own without seeing the payment book. Or when they look at the century old farmhouse all decorated up with a spouse inside cooking a hearty meal with a smile on her face. No, they don't see what's behind the pastoral scene: the sleepless nights, the broken fingers, the dead animals, the broken tractors, the overdue notes and the aged face that is 20 years older than it should be.


As I look at what I just wrote, I wonder to myself why every morning and every night I head out to a hot barn full of hot cows to sweat like construction worker for not enough money to pay my bills at the end of the month. Why do I do it? I think it's simply what's in you...just like Hank Vogler says, that wonderful mutant gene that we have and can't amputate. It's in your blood that no blood transfusion can take care of. Part of it is that you just have it or you don't....the other part is the support you receive from you parents and peers and then consequently from your spouse.


The sky is the limit for a man with a good mom, OR wife behind him...supporting him, respecting him and loving him.

Melissa Hart
North Adams, MI

Trent,
I just figured out how to keep Loos Tales from being blocked by our server......
Whomever it was that said you were off the mark, is in a sad state of mind. Pessimistic and a "glass that's 1/2 empty" mentality.. As someone that has been experiencing just such an opportunity (sweat equity) for well over a decade, they couldn't be further from the truth.
I and now my family are very fortunate in our partnership. As you know, we are in an area marked for development. But, we have an aging partner (81 years) that wants this farm to remain as such, just because she cherishes the rural/farm lifestyle. She turns away Realtors every couple weeks. Her property has an extremely high value, but she is from a different time period, and not greedy.
We are very lucky to have an opportunity to work our way into an "Agricultural Nestegg" while beginning from zilch, zero, nothing. All because this kind lady saw something in us she liked and knew she could count on. Integrity, character, diligence, work ethic, caretaking, compassion, kindness, stewardship, love and parenting are terms in which we inherently believe.
I am sorry that people like this miss the trees while viewing the forest......
Keep up the good work,

Chuck Miller
Columbia, MO

Trent,
I read Loos Lipps this a.m. and seen what the comment by a listener about "old guys dont care and want $ and no taxes". I assume he was a younger guy like myself. I do see his point though. Recently a dairy sold here for 15k+/ac to a "berry farm"(and ..other "cash" crops). The dairyman spent the last 6 years grooming his son-in-law to take over. Then when the boy went into the banker to start the process of purchase the banker said "...the farm sold last month were you been?". My cousin (the son-in-law) was devastated. Years of 60hr weeks and 40hr pay wasted. Hours of picking the right genetic now all slaughterd on the buy out. Now this is rare that the old fellow was sucha s.o.b. but it is his farm he built from nothing 30 years ago. He told me that he could nevr pencil the kid makig payments to him b/c of his debt load and retireing like he wanted. Your reader is right about 20% of the time I would think. The older generation worked harder and dirtier than my generation and wants the rewards for their dilligence. Who does not want full price? Few farmers would rather have big money than a strong legacy. Now if the family I wrote of would of started a buyout plan 6 years ago they all probly could of got what they wanted. $ to retire and a lift to get started. The # one reason we see dairies fail in familis around here if flat out lack of famiy communcation and planning. I know most farmers would rather see their next of kin farm but I think most think "why do I want them to go though this crap?". Most of us would rather see hay/corn fields than houses on our property's horizons.

See You
Troy Lenssen
Wa.

This is my response to the comment recently received by Trent Loos on the future of youth in agriculture:

I’m a cattle rancher studying Animal Sciences/Ag Communications at South Dakota State University. Although my parents farm isn’t large enough for me to return to, I hope to one day be able to have a farm of my own. There is simply no better way to raise a family, and providing food and fiber for the world is one of the most rewarding careers any kid could ever dream of doing.

Unfortunately, getting into farming and ranching is a greater challenge than ever before as small farms are sucked up by corporate operations making it seemingly impossible to get started in the business. Land prices have outrageously skyrocketed, operating costs have accelerated, and there are careers outside of this industry with greater earning power.

As a young person, I realize the challenges of getting into the agriculture industry; however, this is my passion. It is quite disheartening to hear from another farmer that greed outweighs the desire to help young people continue the American farming tradition. Trent Loos doesn’t need to use rose-colored glasses to recognize that there are young people out there with the desire to own a farm and there are aging farmers with the heart to create opportunities for us.

Regardless of the challenges facing young people with an interest in agriculture, we are the future of food security and we will take a role in its success. God Bless any veteran farmer willing to help.

Amanda Nolz
Mitchell, SD

I listen to your program whenever I'm planting,
spraying, or combining. I thoroughly enjoy your
segments. I must tell you I am a young farmer from
TAYLOR North Dakota. You've been interviewing and
mentioning people from Taylor this week and I find it
refreshing to hear people from this area on the radio.
I know the Larsen Bros, Orville, and Jay Elkin. I
farm next to Jay in several locations. Just wanted to
thank you for stopping by our small community. I am a
4th generation farmer and I am in my late 20's. I
farm with my dad for several reasons. 1. I've been to
many, many land sales and I just can't compete with
the out of state hunters, or guys like Jay Elkin, who
are large farmers and have the financials to pay a
premium. I have nothing against the large farmer, he
has to do what he has to do to stay alive. As Jay
said in the NBC interview, it takes a lot of acres
just to pay for the inputs. 95% of the land I farm, I
rent which leads me to my second reason. 2. Land rents
have increased dramatically over the last couple of
years, so inputs are rising every year. It is nice to
see a good strong commodity price, but this year we
are facing sever drought, again. I believe it is an
isolated area North of Taylor, which happens to be
where all my land is located. This is the 3rd year of
drought for me. Even through these drought years, I
still look forward to everyday and I can't wait to get
out of bed and go outside and breath the fresh air and
start my day in, (as you say), my little piece of
heaven!!
I must tell you, my only fear is that if rents, land
values, and other inputs keep increasing and we can't
break this drought cycle, I may be forced to move on
to something else. I have a family, so if I can't
provide, I will have to find something else to do. I
love what I do more than anything and I will continue
on as long as I can. 3. Equipment. Who can afford
to go out and buy a line of equipment necessary for
production when they rent most or all of the land??
No one. Good used equipment is hard to find, its even
harder to find the money to buy the used equipment.
New equipment is basically unreachable.
4. There is nothing better than working with your
family on the farm. Everyone works in harmony
together and that makes efficiency. Efficiency is
what makes a farm successful. If you don't have it
your not maximizing your potential. It is virtually
impossible to do it alone!! You need some help and
who better than your family.
Once again, thanks for putting Taylor on the map.
Sincerely,
Chris Bernhardt
Young Farmer from good old Taylor.

Flushing out the facts

I am quite sure that most of you will be startled at best when I start this but here goes. The Michael Vick situation stands to cause all property owners serious harm. I received an email from a friend of mine while he was riding in a cab in DC. It said, “Trent, I just heard a guy on the radio talking about the Vick dog fighting case. He said, “Explain to me why dog fighting is illegal but rodeos are okay?” In the unlikely event that you missed the story, Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick has been indicted on charges related to dog fighting. Sixty dogs remain in custody with officials. I do not support or believe we should fight dogs for sport but this incident is being used to eliminate the rights of dog owners, period. One other side note, he has been charged not convicted in the court system that is.

First off, you need to recognize that animal rights organizations could not have a better crop to harvest than the bumper crop of 2007. There are incidents aplenty that they can use for fodder for their propaganda machine and generate more cash toward their goal of the ultimate demise of animal agriculture. At the same time, the American Pet Food Manufacturers Association recently released a report indicating that Americans will once again spent a record amount on their dogs in 2007.

Americans now spend $41 billion a year on their pets--more than the gross domestic product of all but 64 countries in the world. That's double the amount shelled out on pets a decade ago, with annual spending expected to hit $52 billion in the next two years, according to Packaged Facts, a consumer research company based in Rockville, Md. That puts the yearly cost of buying, feeding, and caring for pets in excess of what Americans spend on the movies ($10.8 billion), playing video games ($11.6 billion), and listening to recorded music ($10.6 billion) combined. "People are no longer satisfied to reward their pet in pet terms," argues Bob Vetere, president of the American Pet Products Manufacturers Assn. (APPMA). "They want to reward their pet in human terms." That means hotels instead of kennels, braces to fix crooked teeth, and frilly canine ball gowns. Pet owners are becoming increasingly demanding consumers who won't put up with substandard products, unstimulating environments, or shoddy service for their animals. But the escalating volume and cost of services, especially in the realm of animal medicine, raises ethical issues about how far all this loving should go.

The demand for pet neuticals is also going through the roof. What, you might ask, are neuticals? Nueticals are artificial testicals that dog owners are putting in their neutered dogs in order to maintain the self-esteem of their dog. Not only do you pay to have the testicles removed, now people are shelling out up to $1000 per dog to replace their testosterone so they aren’t intimidated at the park by intact males!

So, with all of that taken into consideration, when someone like Vick, a very public figure, is charged with the crime of letting a dog be a dog, we should all take notice. Do you really believe that someone who pays $1000 for their dog’s self esteem would understand you taking your hunting dog out for a hunt. “He’ll be close to you when you fire the gun and oh, that must really hurt his ears. How you ever make him swim in that pond or lake to retrieve the bird you shot. To top it all off, you don’t even let him eat the bird.”

How about the cattle working dogs that are born with the natural desire and further trained to chase cows, biting them on the legs and risking a swift kick to the head. How humane can that possibly be in the eyes of these radicals? My point is that all of these actions, including dog fighting, are natural behaviors of dogs. Yet the public outcry is coming because Vick has not been treating his dog like a kid.

The Humane Society of the United States and PETA stand to make millions on this bit of free publicity. We, as dog owners, stand to lose more rights. While I don’t expect any of you to stand up for Vick or dog fighting, I suggest that we are in for a real dogfight ourselves simply to maintain the basic relationship that people have had with their pets for generations. You don’t need to be much of a hunting dog to flush out those facts, but it’s time we herd the masses toward the direction of common sense instead of letting them be led by these radical ideals.

Originally printed in Feedstuffs July 22, 2007

Fighting for what we know is right

I just spent four exciting days in San Antonio, TX at the 2007 joint meeting of four animal science societies. ASAS, ADSA, PSA and AMPA were all present and 3500 registered attendees made it great. I was fortunate to be asked to give the keynote address during the opening session and made a statement that I believe will turn out to be truer than even I realized at the time. The fact that the meetings took place at the site of the Alamo may not have been an accident.

In 1836, with Santa Anna and his Mexican army invading Texas, it was the battle at the Alamo that made all of the difference in the overall outcome of the war. Had William Barrett Travis and company not held Santa Anna off for 13 days, Sam Houston may not have gathered the forces necessary for the Texas Nationals to ultimately win the war. Today in the world of food production, the invaders are the fabricators of truth over fact and they are armed with an arsenal of emotion that is attempting to trump science. I have no doubt that it will take a strong stand by a few brave individuals who will eventually stall the invaders long enough for the rest of the scientific community to gather their facts and their motivation and eventually prevail.

So many tremendous scientific discoveries were available for inquiring minds in San Antonio but it seemed as though animal welfare held the buzz. Animal welfare is quite simple. We need to provide the animals in our care with adequate food, water and protection from predators and the environment. Anything we worry about in addition to these basic needs is satisfying the emotions of humans not food animals. With that said I felt too much of a “defending animal agriculture to the animal rights community” attitude throughout the scientific population. If the seats had been filled with animal rights zealots would the science these professionals presented have satisfied their demands? NO!

By the same token, Santa Anna was not attempting to solely take control of San Antonio and the Alamo. This was one small battle in his quest for control of the State of Texas. So goes the battle of animal welfare in regard to the animal rights community. They represent such a minute percentage of the population but the blast they make by demanding better care for animals rings like the cannons over the Alamo in 1836. However, we must not lose sight of their real mission. It is not better treatment for animals; it is the complete liberation of animals. Therefore, no amount of validated science is going to satisfy them.

It is high time someone draws a line in the sand as William B. Travis did by saying, “We will fight to the death.” I feel too many in the scientific community as well as the industry are beginning to wonder if it is really worth the fight. Let’s not forget whom we are working for here. The bottom line is research and science that benefits the American consumer. Our mission is to research and discover more efficient ways of converting natural resources into human consumable products. Land grant Universities are supposed to use taxpayer dollars to help in ensuring that our people have safe, high quality food products and sustainable natural resources.

At the same time a Live Earth concert was taking place, directly blaming animal agriculture for being the leading cause of global warming, we should at least have the scientific community within animal agriculture rallying around the notion that we don’t care how much education and extension it takes, we will explain in a consumer-friendly manner the benefits of science and technology on reducing agriculture’s impact on the environment.

To be very clear and to the point, technology such as gestation stalls, caged layers, veal stalls, free-stall barns, rBST and CAFOs are just a few of the management tools that have assisted consumers in their quest for the safest, most reasonably priced food available to any society around the world. Any wavering from anyone in the food system by suggesting that maybe we can’t explain the advantages to the activists is like Colonel Travis saying, “Okay. You have us surrounded. We will concede one wing of the Alamo.” Remember, the results of the Alamo have implications far beyond what it meant to the state of Texas to maintain their independence from Mexico. It also had national implications just as there are national food security issues that are in jeopardy if the scientific community in animal agriculture starts waving their white flag! Remember the Alamo and that should have taught us that we must always fight for what we know is right.

It's so 'deer' to my heart

By TRENT LOOS

IN the last five years, while speaking to groups of dairy and beef cattle producers, I have referenced the thousands of dollars land-grant universities spend on research to determine the cows' contribution to global warming. The best response I got was a unified snickering.

Well, today, I can find you a news story almost daily discussing how the number-one culprit of global warming is the cow. The finger-pointing certainly has accelerated since last November, when the U.N. released a report indicating that the cow now provides more greenhouse gases to our environment than fossil fuel combustion through transportation.

A news report from the Miami Herald this past week noted: "Scientists say deforestation, almost always to facilitate planting crops and raising cattle, accounts for about 20% of the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. Environmentalists are pushing to allow countries and companies to offset their emissions by paying to preserve forests elsewhere, such as in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Group of Eight nations, meeting in Germany earlier this month, pledged to help poor countries reduce deforestation to provide 'a significant and cost-effective contribution toward mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.'

"Researchers say forest is being increasingly cleared to make way for big cattle ranches and large soybean farms -- especially in Brazil, which accounts for about 60% of the forest land in Latin America and the Caribbean. The amount of forest lost each year from 2000 to 2005 averaged 11,077,734 acres, the study showed -- about the size of Maryland," the article continued.

Now, let's point out that an assumption is being made that even soybean acres are being planted in order to feed the cow and not just some in Asia.

I don't make that comment in passing. In fact, we can document that the economic growth of China and its demand for soy is contributing greatly to deforestation.

No one can argue that deforestation still occurs in places it shouldn't. I think we all understand that the forest is a vital part of proper planet health, but the real story must be evaluated.

At risk of sounding like a flag-waving patriot, let's take a closer look at what is going on here at home.

The Environmental Protection Agency released a report in April 2006 entitled "U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Sinks," which contains data through 2004. This report indicates that U.S. livestock grazing, feeding and manure management systems are superior to those elsewhere in the world.

EPA data show that production of food animals in the U.S. contributes less than 2.4% of total greenhouse gas emissions (measured in carbon dioxide equivalent). In comparison, fossil fuel combustion contributes approximately 80% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said there are 748 million acres of forest in the continental U.S.

U.S. Forest Service archives show that in 1920, there were 732 million acres of U.S. forestland. Therefore, according to 2003 figures, the U.S. has 16 million more acres of forestland than it did in 1920.

Yes, the truth of the matter is that in the U.S., where we lose nearly 2 million acres of prime farmland to concrete, condos and consumers annually (concrete manufacturers rank higher on the list of greenhouse gas contributors than livestock, by the way), we have managed the natural resources in such a manner that today, our environment is better off than it has ever been.

The problem is that elected officials will not take the time to really break down the U.N. report to uncover the truth -- the truth being that the U.S. is a shining example of how we can utilize resources without negatively affecting the planet.

A perfect example is the fact that we have the same number of beef cows now as in 1955, yet we produce twice as much human consumable beef.

You don't need to have a keen understanding of science to figure out how much better off our natural resources are, either.

Let's use a little cowboy logic: In 1930, the U.S. deer population was 300,000. This compares with recent estimates that put the deer population at around 30 million -- 100 times the 1930 number.

In comparison, the beef cattle population has remained unchanged since 1930, and there are two-thirds fewer dairy cows.

The white-tailed deer population currently far exceeds its carrying capacity, and the animal is considered a nuisance.

Could the deer population grow at that rate in an adverse environment? Absolutely not! Oh, wait. Deer also emit enteric fermentation. Improved environmental conditions in the U.S. have allowed deer to create more greenhouse gases than at any time in the history of the world. Quick, notify the U.N.

For Immediate Release
For Further Information Contact: Philip Lobo, Communications Director
Phone: (703) 562-5160
Date: 7/10/2007

More information at www.animalagalliance.com

Major Animal Rights Bill in Nation’s Capital
ARLINGTON, VA - The Animal Agriculture Alliance has learned that a major animal rights bill has been proposed in the District of Columbia. The 48-page bill (LB 89), also known as the Animal Protection Amendment Act of 2007, would:

• Change the phrase ''animal owner'' to ''animal guardian/owner'';
• Authorize non-economic damages for the owner of a pet;
• Authorize non-profit humane societies to file lawsuits against violators of the district’s animal cruelty laws; and
• Require the DC Board of Education to provide instruction on the ''humane treatment and protection of animals.''

Part of the bill would authorize non-economic damages to be awarded to the owner of a pet when the pet is killed either intentionally or by gross negligence in a veterinarian’s office. The amounts the court is allowed to award for non-economic damages are no more than $7,500 for intentional acts and $2,000 for acts of gross negligence. These non-economic damages will include recovery for the loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, love, affection, and others.

''The current system for animal liability works well because it balances the right of an animal owner to be compensated with the needs to keep animal care accessible and affordable to all,'' said Kay Johnson, Executive Vice President of the Animal Agriculture Alliance. ''We are very concerned about this legislation because it will lead to more lawsuits against veterinarians and they will have to charge more to cover the costs of the lawsuits. Those increased costs will deter people from seeking treatments directly related to the health and welfare of their animals.''

As importantly, while adding the term ''guardian'' to current law may seem benign in nature, it is a first step by animal rights activists to extend the rights afforded children and incompetent adults to animals. If owners can be legally classified as guardians, the government, or any individual, can sue over treatment of an animal.

Another section of this flawed legislation would authorize non-profit humane societies to file law suits against violators of the district’s animal cruelty laws. In these suits, plaintiffs may sue to obtain an injunction or restraining order against the accused offender. The legislation would allow an accuser to bring an injunction to halt the operations of a legitimate, law-abiding business, with no negative ramifications for the accuser if the accused is found innocent.

''The Animal Agriculture Alliance is highly concerned about this deeply flawed legislation and the long-term economic damage it could do to the nation’s capital and the businesses that serve its residents,'' said Kay Johnson, Executive Vice President of the Animal Agriculture Alliance. ''Given the broad scope and precedent setting nature of the proposal, the DC government needs to carefully review the long-term negative impacts that this legislation might inflict upon its constituents. It’s a very slippery slope.''

The Animal Agriculture Alliance, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, is a broad-based coalition of individual producers, producer organizations, suppliers, packer-processors, private industry and retailers. The Alliance's mission is to communicate the important role of animal agriculture to our nation's economy, productivity, vitality, security and that animal well-being is central to producing safe, high-quality, affordable food and other products essential to our daily lives.

Mr. Bill Gates, Chairman
Microsoft
1 Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052

Dear Mr. Gates:

The members and friends of the Alliance for the Future of Agriculture in Nebraska (A-FAN) are writing to express our deep concern regarding the relationship that has been forged between Microsoft and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) through Microsoft’s i’m Initiative and to encourage Microsoft to end this relationship.

The i’m Initiative is an admirable program providing financial support to non-profit organizations for the betterment of a number of different causes, including humanitarian efforts. Allowing the HSUS to benefit financially from this initiative runs contrary to the very foundation of this Microsoft effort. The HSUS is not the national organization for local animal shelters and it is not what it appears to be on the surface.

The HSUS is the nation’s largest animal rights activist group and carries a dangerous and radical agenda that if proliferated, will not only directly harm farm families and rural communities in our state, but families across America and food consumers everywhere. This vegan-led organization spends millions annually attacking farm and ranch families through legislative, legal and other initiatives to eliminate veterinarian approved animal husbandry practices used by farmers to raise the food that feeds Nebraskans, Americans and the rest of the world.

Less than a year ago, at the HSUS’ Taking Action for Animals conference, Wayne Pacelle, HSUS President vowed to redouble the animal rights group’s efforts against animal agriculture. Later in the year the organization’s Vice President of Farm Animal Welfare, declared that the organization’s long-term goal for the egg laying and broiler chicken industry is, “to get rid of the industry”.

The United States is blessed to have a system of food production where the average consumer spends roughly 10 percent of their disposable income on food, allowing them to enjoy a standard of living unsurpassed anywhere in the world. Nebraska is deeply rooted in agriculture and the well-being of farmers and ranchers plays a tremendous role in the well being of all Nebraskans. Nebraska farm families are extremely proud of the their ability to take care of their animals and take great pride in providing a safe and affordable food supply improving the lives and livelihoods of people everywhere. The HSUS’ actions jeopardize the security of our country’s food production system and the well being of families and consumers whom depend upon it.

We trust Microsoft would not knowingly support such a radical organization and extremist agenda. As an organization and as individuals we are asking you to please end Microsoft’s relationship with HSUS. Furthermore, we encourage you to consider replacing HSUS with another entity that would work toward ensuring a viable and affordable food supply for our country and world. There are many that exist to promote this important cause and we would be more than willing to share candidates for this effort.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and would welcome the opportunity to visit with you or a representative of the Microsoft Corporation to discuss this matter further or answer any questions that you may have. Our country was founded on agriculture and is vibrant because of it. It is important that we never forget.

Sincerely,
Trent Loos

The Growing Field of Animal Law is Attracting Activists and Pragmatists Alike
By PETER MONAGHAN Portland, Or.

In the Pacific Northwest, many young people say they want to liberate animals from human subjection, so much so that defending activists who break into research laboratories to set loose animals is now a cottage industry.

Here at Lewis & Clark College School of Law, students of "animal law" are learning another way to change social practices that involve animals. They are just as passionate as animal-liberation advocates. And they may become more influential.

Animal law is the study of all laws relating to animals, whether they enable harsh treatment of animals or encourage kind treatment. "It's a lot like where environmental law was in the 1970s," says Laura Ireland Moore, founder and executive director of the National Center for Animal Law, based at Lewis & Clark.

Students in the field study animal-related local, state, and federal legislation and case law. Topics include animal cruelty, hunting, animal fighting, and performing animals; the history of animals' legal status; the use of animals in scientific research; free-speech and religious-practice limitations on animal sacrifices; and such federal statutes as the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Slaughter of Livestock Act.

Critics of the animal-law courses say they risk taking a political stance. Indeed, the conviction that humans should treat animals better motivates almost all the students who enroll in animal-law courses, says Kimberly E. McCoy, who has just graduated from the law school at Lewis & Clark. She is the outgoing editor in chief of Animal Law Review, which in 1993 became the country's first journal devoted to the subject.

After graduating from college, Ms. McCoy had no intention of attending law school. She had worked for the cause of protecting endangered species — whales, pandas, and rare tigers. During visits to developing countries, she had seen animals living in what she describes as deplorable conditions.

An article about "compassionate eating" persuaded her to become a vegan. She started hearing more about so-called animal-rights terrorism. Then one day, law school seemed like the right outlet for her passion. "There was so much fear mongering about people using tactics outside the law," Ms. McCoy says, "I decided I wanted to fight within the legal system."

'Respect Their Interests'

Like other areas of public-interest law, animal law is attracting many women, who outnumber men by 10 to one in the burgeoning field.

Interest is growing rapidly because animal welfare "is much more part of our consciousness," says Pamela Frasch, director of the Animal Legal Defense Fund's anti-cruelty division, who teaches a course at Lewis & Clark. "So it's natural that it would become a separate area of law in law schools."

Concern about animals has increased as farming has shifted from a "part of the family" to a "factory farm" model. At the same time, the public has become more aware of the harmful effects of intensive fishing on marine mammals and reptiles, such as the catching of dolphins in tuna-fishing nets. Advances in scientific knowledge of animals — and their consciousness — have played a role, too. "When we learn that animals have emotions, and feel pain, and are intelligent, and

have social structures, we have an obligation to respect their interests," says Ms. Moore.

But it is arguments like that that prompt blunt criticism from legal educators who are skeptical of the way advocates of animal "rights" are shaping the teaching of animal law. Yes, the human use of animals is an important component of the law, and has been since ancient times, says Richard A. Epstein, a professor law at the University of Chicago. But that does not mean, he says, that "preposterous" and "overinflated" claims about animal emotions and intelligence should guide it now.

"Very few people will take the side of saying, 'Yes, animal protections are appropriate,'" he says, "but 'No, animal rights are not.' That's a very uncomfortable position to be in, because you can always be painted as an ogre."

Reasoned discussion of animal law can include such topics as the lessening need for some kinds of animal testing, and yet fall well short of what he considers to be outlandish advocacy of purported animal rights. So, he adds, one can teach animal law without taking a position on such largely emotional topics. "Animal law is a neutral topic," he says. "What I get nervous about are courses that take sides, that are the equivalent of 'human rights for victims' or 'property law for developers.'"

To hear students here at Lewis & Clark, however, idealism is not the whole story. Many are pragmatists. Danielle Thompson became a vegan at the age of 17, nine years ago, after devouring a book from the 1950s about food production that she happened on in a thrift store. "It was out of concern for animals and the horrific suffering they go through every minute of the day," she says.

"Most of the suffering is due to our eating them, and their being in factory farms."

Ms. Thompson became involved with Vegan Outreach, a national organization that advocates sparing or easing animals' lives by eating no animal products, and the Animal Defense League, another national advocacy group, while studying political science and philosophy at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, and then decided to study animal law at Lewis & Clark. "I wanted a career where I could have a reasonably good life," she says, "but also help animals."

In another expression of pragmatism, each year 40 to 60 Lewis & Clark law students work on Animal Law Review, enhancing their résumés even as they support a cause. The students edit and publish articles on standards of care at private wildlife sanctuaries and Native American tribal whaling rights, among other subjects.

Virtually all submissions advocate for animal welfare, but there are exceptions. "We take pride in being nonbiased, says Ms. McCoy, the editor. "We have published articles saying that animal experimentation is ethical and necessary."

In animal-law classes, debates involve questions about which human uses of animals are acceptable. Students generally deplore the use of animals in the testing of cosmetics and household products but are divided about their use in medical research. Attitudes toward food production often vary according to students' dietary practices.

The sparse enforcement of existing animal laws also prompts debate, students say. So do arguments about the adequacy of the laws. The Federal Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, for example, specifically exempts poultry, which composes 92 percent of animals killed for food in the United States. Is such a law just, or sufficient?

Meaningful Work?

Impassioned debates aside, not all experts are sure the field can grow fast enough to provide meaningful work for all of its graduates.

Geordie Duckler, an animal-law attorney in Portland who often helps teach the courses at Lewis & Clark, believes that animal-law students frequently graduate with what he calls "the naïve, unreasonable, and problematic goal of working to 'protect the animals.'"

"There is only so much money that can be spent on promoting fashionable cruelty legislation," he says. "If the idea is to actually make a living, most new practitioners are going to have to swallow hard and get on the unpopular side of a huge number of legal questions on custody, neglect, conveyance, and injury." That, he says, might mean representing universities using animals for research, ranchers breeding horses, or even pet marketers accused of operating "puppy mills."

Animal-law instruction, he believes, should focus on laws as they are written and enforced, not so much on moral arguments.

Ms. Moore and others in the field do not agree. They claim that, far from breeding radicals, animal law signals that more and more Americans simply care about animals. "One in 31 people in the United States is a member of the Humane Society, and that speaks volumes," says Ms. McCoy. "Most people, even if they support animal research, eat meat, or wear fur, want to be assured that those animals were treated humanely while they were alive."

As in any kind of social-welfare law, an advocacy element is perhaps inevitable. "It's hard," she says, "to separate personal from professional with something like animal law."


http://chronicle.com
Section: The Faculty
Volume 53, Issue 43, Page A6