How my mules inspired me

I spend a great deal of time focusing on the special interest groups that are attempting to chase food production from U.S. soil. We all know who most of those groups are and that they have large budgets to implement their plans. However, I believe the true challenge we face in agriculture is ourselves. The oldest war strategy known to man is Divide and Conquer. Special interest groups are undoubtedly marveling as we continue to fragment our industry into smaller and smaller factions.

I typically stay away from issues that could contribute to the division, but no more. You’ll probably even find my source of inspiration to be somewhat humorous. We usually have about seven horses at the house including saddle horses and young horses that I am starting to ride. Earlier this summer I brought home two donkeys and, without giving it a thought, I simply put my two jacks right in with my horses. Unfortunately, the horses had different ideas.

Upon sight of these long eared critters, all seven horses, as if in choreographed unison, cleared a five-foot panel and bolted to freedom. Two of them didn’t slow down until they were a quarter of a mile down the road. Two months passed and I still couldn’t get them in the same pen. They would tolerate fence line contact but they simply would not be together. All that changed when I brought home two black mules.

When I got home it dawned on me that I might need a third pen. I decided instead to introduce the mules to the horses. They all acted like they were old buddies. One day the mules were exploring and accidentally got in with the donkeys. I had no idea what to expect but the mules seemed to get along with the donkeys just as well. Obviously the next step would be to open all the gates and see what would happen.

If I hadn’t witnessed it myself, I probably wouldn’t believe it. The donkeys and the horses taunted each other and the mules ran in between trying to break it up. The mules actually acted as negotiators for the common good. Today I am happy to report that all of my equine are in one pen and get along fabulously. In the interest of attempting the repair the damage that has been done in the beef industry, I am taking it upon myself to be the mule.

We are constantly struggling with the fact that we in agriculture have such a small number of people that it is tough to get our message out. In the same breath we attempt to dismantle one segment of the industry into even smaller factions. Would you be surprised to learn that the issues we, as an industry, are divided on such as the border closing, country of origin labeling and the check-off are always on the agenda at the animal rights meetings I have attended? These people recognize that the easiest way to destroy American agriculture is to let us do it ourselves.

The irony of the current situation is that we, in the beef industry, have accused the animal rights groups of using emotion instead of logic and facts. If you honestly evaluate what is creating the division that exists in today’s beef industry, it is emotions and not facts.

As the self-appointed industry mule, I feel compelled to share one more thing. I have witnessed two national groups who use issues like COOL as divisionary tactic rather than really debating the merits or downfalls of the labeling. How many times when COOL comes up will the justification be anti-R-Calf or anti-NCBA reasoning? I don’t really care about the groups that represent the individuals involved in food production. I care about the families and the people who are involved. I care that each one of those families is doing everything possible to ensure a better opportunity for our kids in the greatest endeavor man has ever been a part of - FEEDING THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD.

There is one statistic that seems to say it all. USDA reports indicate that 800,000 individuals own cattle. The two organizations that claim to represent cattle owners report memberships between 40,000 and 50,000. Where is everybody else? The worst thing that can happen is that the majority of the beef producers will sit around drinking coffee in town, complaining about what this group or that group is doing or not doing, and they won’t show up at the proper venue to voice their concerns where they can have an impact on the future of the industry. The only path that I see to regain unity in the beef industry is for all beef producers to join both organizations. That way we may have an impact on what is left for the next generation.

In conclusion, this may be far from original and old and cliché but undoubtedly it is still appropriate: United we stand or divided we shall fall.

Dear Trent,

I have just returned from on a 5 day vacation in some of the most beautiful lake and farmland in the USA, Pierz, Minnesota. As I drove around checking out the scenery I noticed something peculiar. The land was green, rich and beautiful. The rolling hills were surrounded by swamps and lakes and dominated the countryside. Tree's and wildlife flourished due to excellent farming practices. It was calm, quiet, and serene. However, this land was galacial and boulders that virtually blanketed the land had to be cleared. It was amazing!

However, while the land was breath taking, the conditions of many ( too many) of the barns and farm houses were in desperate need of repair. Paint was pealing, wood was rotting, gutters ( if they had them) were falling off. This was a common theme in the area. It occured to me that these farmers and dairymen understood that their life was connected to the cow, the corn and the land and it's ability to produce. They cared more about the land than their possessions. That made me feel good. I felt that somewhere in the world there was someone looking out for me.

Then questions ran through my mind as I drove...

If they were'nt looking out for others, why would they grow more than they need to sustain themselves?
Why try to make the extra buck when you forced to undersell in the first place?
If they are growing and selling this much food, how come they can't fix the farm? That bothered me.
Why do they do it?

I think it's because they care enough to take on the responsibility to feed everyone they can with the land they own. They receive little in return. However, they continue. I believe that makes farming the one of the most honorable professions in America. It ranks up there with protecting our nation from tyranny. The farmer rarely receives a word of thanks.

I just want to say to the farmer, rancher, cattlemen, dairymen etc, "Thank you for keeping me and my family fed and for the many hard hours of labor you put into providing food for my table."

In Pierz, a story was told of a single father who was trying to hold onto a farm. He was struggling with finances due to his wifes illness. Also because of that his farm fell into dis-repair because his children want nothing to do with farming. You hear about that all to often. However, you don't hear about the one young man who volenteered to help. The young man has a family of his own but cared enough to step up and try to help this man save his farm. It's a noble and honorable act rarely seen anymore. My hat is off to him.


Robert W Fasl

Single father of 2, head chef of the household, a man who likes to eat!

See the trees through the smoke

I was recently asked if I had read Robert F. Kennedy’s Crimes Against Nature because I was included in Kennedy’s ramblings. While I wouldn’t give him the satisfaction of another sale, I did check it out from the library. Chapter 5 is called Science Fiction and that would have been an appropriate title for the entire diatribe.

I first heard Kennedy speak in December 2001 at St. Olaf College in MN. I could not believe anyone could spread such outlandish lies about my industry and not be held accountable. The statement that sticks with me from that day will always be my rationale for associating faces with the production of food. Kennedy told 600 people that those working on livestock farms today were “losing humanity”.

Following his presentation, I informed him that if continued to lie about my industry, I would be there to hold him accountable. In Clear Lake, IA on April 5 2002, I recorded him saying that what was happening on farms was a greater threat to democracy than Osama Bin Laden. For the next eights weeks, every time he spoke I was in the front row.

By the third week he started introducing me as his shadow. He would add, “Trent wears a black hat because he represents the evils of modern agriculture”. The one thing that troubled him most about my efforts was that he could not determine who had hired me. He could not believe that a single person would go to such lengths just because of their passion for an industry. Unlike him, I was not paid one dime. I simply took it upon myself to make a difference.

Ironically, during this same time period, I was in a legal battle for having hauled one cow from the state of South Dakota to Nebraska without proper brand inspection two years earlier. During the second week of the shadowing, an AP writer with ties to the Kennedy crusade released a story that suggested I was a cattle rustler. That has been Kennedy’s only argument in his attempt to smear my reputation, despite the fact that it was a paperwork violation regarding one cow.

Crimes against nature is Kennedy’s attempt to prove that George W. Bush is the worst environmental president in history. I have not finished reading this collection of lies yet but there is no doubt that what troubles Bobby most about Bush is his determined effort to rid our country of frivolous lawsuits, of which Bobby could be the king. One of Bobby’s worst days may have been Feb 18, 2005 when President Bush signed the House bill curtailing class-action lawsuits. Businesses and livestock producers finally saw a glimmer of hope against being inundated by frivolous lawsuits.

A Florida judge threw one of Kennedy’s lawsuits out of court in 2002 calling it frivolous and ordering him to pay legal fees for the defendant. Inspired by big tobacco settlements, Bobby thought he could make derogatory statements about pig farmers and pocket a similar windfall. He makes statements like the following, “hog barons build football-sized warehouses and cram genetically engineered hogs into tiny cages where they endure short, miserable lives deprived of sunlight, exercise, straw bedding, and interaction from other animals. Concentrated waste from these facilities is saturated with dozens of toxic chemicals and antibiotics, which are fed to pigs to stimulate growth and keep them from dying from stress”.

Kennedy used the same tactics on fishermen before he decided to fight hog farmers. He promoted filing lawsuits to “benefit the small fishermen” of Hudson Bay. While in New York, I spent one afternoon visiting with fishermen. It became dangerous to mention Kennedy’s name because the typical response was “ that --- of a ----- put more fisherman out of business than prices ever did”.

Kennedy’s book implies that power plants are contaminating the environment with excess mercury. Imagine my surprise when an EPA official reported only 3% of mercury comes from power plants. The two primary sources of mercury in the environment are volcanoes and forest fires - the very forest fires fueled by the environmental policies of people like Kennedy.

In the book, page 71, Kennedy wrote, “The National Pork Producers Council and an industry goon named Trent Loos launched a smear campaign against me.” My dictionary says a goon is “a simpleton hired to eliminate opponents.” All livestock producers should understand from this statement that Bobby is afraid to deal with anyone who really knows the industry. I have experienced every level of pork production giving birthing assistance to the two sows in my 4-H project to marketing 2 million market hogs a year for producers in an alliance. I guess you can call me a simpleton too because I believe you should either tell the truth about American Agriculture or be held you accountable, even if you are President of the “Lucky Sperm Club”.

Trent Loos is a 6^th generation United States farmer, host of daily radio show Loos Tales and founder of Faces of Agriculture, non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com or email Trent at trent@loostales.com.

For Immediate Release December 16, 2004
For more information contact
Amy Winters, President
Capitol Strategies, LLC
(608) 235-8443

Madison and Dane County Phosphorus Bans Spur Lawsuit
Group says bans ignore science and the law

Madison….Local retailers and trade associations filed a lawsuit in federal court yesterday against the City of Madison and Dane County seeking to overturn ordinances passed earlier this year that ban the display, sale or use of most lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus.

The group representing local hardware stores and lawn care businesses, farm supply retailers, and the specialty fertilizer industry said the bans, which are scheduled to take effect next month, put area retailers at an unfair disadvantage, are illegal and will do little to clean up area lakes.

Ann Smith, an attorney with Michael Best and Friedrich LLP, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the group, said that the ordinances are preempted by state and federal laws, and violate several provisions of the State and U.S. Constitutions, including the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment free speech guarantee. “These ordinances deliberately ignore constitutional law and state and federal law,” said Smith. “We are confident the Court will agree.”

Ed Knapton, owner of America’s Best Flowers Garden Center in Cottage Grove said the ordinances makes him and other retailers the fertilizer police because they are required to find out where people live, how they plan to use the fertilizer or make them show test results to prove they need it. “Our competitors across the county line don’t have this burden or restriction,” said Knapton adding that he is also unable to display legal products in his store.

According to Amy Winters, President of Capitol Strategies, LLC a government relations firm representing the chemical and specialty fertilizer industry, “state and federal laws prohibit local regulation of weed and feed products in order to avoid confusing, conflicting and unnecessary rules for those who manufacture, sell and use those products. The burden that these ordinances place on local retailers, lawn care providers and homeowners is unacceptable.”

In addition to violating state and federal laws, the group also asserts that the ordinances ignore science. “Fertilized turf is actually better at stopping phosphorus runoff than grass without fertilizer,” Winters said referring to Research at the UW Turfgrass Research Center that shows healthy, dense grass fertilized with phosphorus limits runoff to almost nothing. “The issue is about sound policy and utilizing sound science to achieve it; the Madison and Dane County ordinances do neither and add further insult by blatantly violating state and federal laws.”

Below is a letter to the editor written on behalf of NCA by President Preston Wright in response to the wild horse supporters, who oppose sale authority given to the BLM in the 2005 Omnibus Bill.

Letter to the Editor:

Wild horses are in conflict with healthy rangelands, rather than with ranchers and their livestock. In this time when current range management theory dictates that public land ranchers need to have some grazing system, some method for rotating the areas his or her livestock use in order to provide periods of rest for the range, it is simply no longer acceptable that large herds of horses graze the same range all year, every year.

No one is proposing that all the wild horses be removed from the ranges; the sale of older horses is simply the most practical way to allow for the reduction of horse numbers to levels which approach a balance with the health of their ranges. The numbers of livestock are controlled by permits and seasons of use. Numbers of wildlife are controlled by hunting quotas and predators and migration. Wild horse numbers are set by the Wild Horse and Burro Act and the regulations which implement it. Wild horse numbers are uncontrolled when the BLM’s hands, as they are now, are tied by legal appeals and budgetary limits; wild horse numbers are controlled in that case only by drought and starvation, and that method is particularly cruel to both the ravaged country and the ravenous creature.

That ranchers have complained about unrestricted wild horse for decades is undeniable. That the BLM has been granted the authority to sell older horses outright, after nearly forty years of the Wild Horse and Burro Act, is a testament to the fact that many proponents of wild horses have seen the reality of excess wild horses and have quietly stepped aside. It’s not that the ranchers have finally won. It simply that the same range science which has greatly restricted the way livestock are grazed in the West has finally come to face the reality of uncontrolled grazing by the people’s horses in Nevada.

In the unending effort to balance natural resource access and management conflicts upon the West’s rangelands, nearly every group has been willing to come to the table and put their “money where their mouth is”. Ranchers, sportsmen, and environmental groups, all have accepted the need for, and have made, mitigating contributions. The wild horse advocates howling now have never done anything but ask for more, probably because it has all been free—they’ve not even had to stand the emotional price of seeing animals mummified alive due to starvation and drought.

Limited sale authority of excess wild horses will give the BLM the tool for which they have always expressed a need, in order to return the wild horse herds to levels which will allow for a balance between healthy native plant communities and forage and water in amounts proper for a horse.

Preston Wright, Deeth, NV.

Hi Trent,

I think people need to read their Bibles like they were meant to be read. Literally, completely and in context.

Romans 14:20, is not the profound eco-ecumenical doctrine. If these people would read the entire portion of Paul's letter to the, then, new church in Rome, they would realize that Paul was teaching the Jewish converts not to condemn the gentile converts for not following the Mosaic law (circumcision, kosher meat, worshipping on Saturday), and teaching the gentile converts not to condemn the Jewish converts for not eating unclean meat, etc.etc. (Romans 14:17,20)

The point Paul was trying to express was that God loved them so much, (not that any of us have ever deserved it), He, in our form, became the only acceptable restitution for our disobedience. He taught that we should reciprocate God's compassion to all of mankind instead of bickering over petty details. Go figure...

My advice to these people is to get right with Jehovah and stop taking scripture out of context to promote ignorant, selfish agendas. I resent people misrepresenting my faith, as much we resent vego-yuppies slandering our agricultural livelihood.

They would do good to pay special attention to 14:4, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth..."

Now, in my brief existence, I have only met two people that disrespect and neglect the land and critters. Two out of hundreds. It's a dirty shame that people like those two give us such a bad wrap. I hope they get it together, because there is so much good they could accomplish.

As for me, I'm just gonna take care of what God has given me, and do what He says.
("Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Romans 12:17,18)

I don't want to sound too sanctimonious, because I'm just as human as anybody else. I just know that God loved me enough to die for me, and while I'm not in any way perfect, He unquestionably is.

Thanks Trent, for representing us earthy folks accurately.

Sincerely,
Jared Lloyd
Livestock Producer
Molina, Colorado

Mr. Loos,

Looks like Scully is on the right track, but doesn't have his facts straight either, much like your misinformation on BSE from the 22 November BSE refresher.

Some relevant correlations from your commentary : The Devil'sWork? {Your commentary}{Recently, I was on a panel discussing the future of food production in theUnited States. One of the other panel members was a representative of theUnited Methodist Church, of which I happen to be a member, and she said,"Modern agriculture is the devil's work." }

I could see how Scully could come to that conclusion: "Do not tear down thework of God for the sake of food" (Romans 14:20).

{"News reports following each new "mad-cow" scare - of calves fed a swill of blood and excrement, of downed animals unable even to walk to their death -give the merest glimpse of all the moral shortcuts and man-made miseries of the factory farm. Moral concern has surrendered entirely to economic calculation, leaving no limit to the hurt and privation that "growers" arewilling to inflict upon animals to keep costs down and profits up." }

Maybe a bit of additional color for his readers, but true none the less.

Humane and sustainable production systems do not require confinement livestock, pharmaceuticals, or chemicals to be profitable. Propagandists do however require support from the companies who produce these toxins to continue the dissemination of a doctrine for corporate agriculture.

{I believe God gave humans the intelligence to improve our lives.} You are entitled to your beliefs, but this is hypocritical as the churches for it is the arrogance of humans who think they can consume and control nature through chemistry that bring on the diseases.

{Now that you have the facts, how does it set with you that a portion of the money you put in the collection plate on Sunday is working against you on anational level?}

Facts?: defined as something objectively verified. I am struggling to identify just which points you are referring to as facts. Propaganda is propaganda regardless of the source.

Livestock producer and farmer,

Rick Hopkins Missouri

Humane USA Presidential
2004

Candidate Questionnaire
Candidate: JOHN KERRY
Staff Contact: LUIS NAVARRO
Phone: (202) 548-6800 E-mail: lnavarro@johnkerry.com

The President of the United States has a major impact on public policies that affect the
lives of animals. The Animal Welfare Act, Humane Slaughter Act, Horse Protection Act,
and a long list of other federal laws need proper enforcement if their original purposes are
to be fulfilled. The president also shapes how Congress views new legislative proposals
to protect animals from cruelty and abuse. For more information on animal protection
issues, check our web site at Humaneusa.org (Humane USA). National animal protection
organizations can also provide information at: HSUS.org (Humane Society of the United
States), Fund.org, (Fund for Animals), farmsanctuary.org (Farm Sanctuary), ASPCA.org
(American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), ddal.org (Doris Day
Animal League), and AHA.org (American Humane Association).

General Questions:

What actions have you taken affecting the welfare of animals in the past? Please
include actions taken at the local, state, or federal levels.

In 1995, I lead a successful effort to halt taxpayer subsidies for the mink industry. I have
fought for and secured an increase in funding for existing animal protection laws,
including the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Slaughter Act in recent years. I
spearheaded efforts to address the plight of seven captive polar bears, owned by the
Suarez Brothers Circus, which travels throughout Central America. I have cosponsored
almost every piece of animal protection legislation - including measures to combat
cockfighting, bear baiting, canned hunts, puppy mills, the bear parts trade, the exotic pet
trade, steel-jawed leghold traps, and the abuse of "downed" livestock.
There is an important bond between humans and animals. How should that bond
impact federal policy?

I think that federal policy is important to protect animals, both wild and domestic, such as
restricting the use of steel-jawed leghold traps and shutting down puppy mills.
Are there any programs or issues of importance to you that you would take the
initiative on after you are elected?

As President, I would continue my efforts to strengthen enforcement of the Animal
Welfare Act and the Humane Slaughter Act. The United States Department of
Agriculture is charged with enforcing the Acts; however, they simply do not have the
resources to adequately get the job done. I find it disturbing that there are only about 100
inspectors nationwide to enforce the Animal Welfare Act - - overseeing not only zoos and
circuses, but puppy mills, laboratories, and animals transported by commercial airlines.
More resources are desperately needed and under a Kerry Administration, dedicating the
necessary resources would be a priority.

Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally?

I have always had pets in my life and there are a few that I remember very fondly.
When I was serving on a swiftboat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called
VC. We all took care of him, and he stayed with us and loved riding on the swiftboat
deck. I think he provided all of us with a link to home and a few moments of peace and
tranquility during a dangerous time. One day as our swiftboat was heading up a river, a
mine exploded hard under our boat. After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was
MIA. Several minutes of frantic search followed after which we thought we'd lost him.
We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog. It turns out
VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed confused, but unhurt, on the
deck of another boat in our patrol.

I also fondly remember a parakeet in college, Dodi Faustus. Dodi was a smart bird who
learned a few words of French and Italian, but not smart enough to avoid having to be
rescued from a tree once. My daughters and I had a Golden Retriever named Winston.
Today, Teresa and I have a German Shepherd named Cym and a yellow parakeet.
Executive Actions

As president, would you take any of the following executive actions?

• Halt the use of cruel and indiscriminate steel-jawed leghold traps for commerce or
recreation on national wildlife refuges? _X_ yes ____ no

• Make enforcement of the federal law (Section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act)
against animal fighting a priority within the USDA? _X_ yes ___ no

• Provide adequate funding for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act, Horse
Protection Act, and Humane Slaughter Act? _X_ yes ___ no

• Establish a national Humane Farming Commission to examine animal welfare
issues in American agriculture? _X_ yes ____ no

• Take strong stands against commercial whaling at the International Whaling
Commission meeting, including a ban on Makah whaling? ___ yes _X_ no

NOTE: I have consistently opposed commercial whaling. At the same time the
U.S. commitment to Native Americans must be honored. I strongly prefer that
there be no lethal takes of whales occur, but I also support Native American treaty
rights. I will be following the current litigation regarding the Makah case closely.
• Support the long-standing U.S. position at the Convention on the International
Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) again the
international trade in ivory? _X_ yes ____ no

Federal Legislation

The following issues are being debated in Congress. We’d like to know your stance on
these important animal protection issues.

CRUELTY

Puppy Mills. While millions of healthy and adoptable animals are euthanized for lack of
enough suitable homes, the commercial dog breeding industry continues to produce
millions of dogs in substandard environments, on operations commonly referred to as
"puppy mills," for the pet trade. Legislation in Congress would create a "3 strikes and
you're out" policy to shut down chronic violators of the Animal Welfare Act and to
establish new rules to stop overbreeding of dogs and the breeding of the animals before
they can safely breed.

WILL YOU SUPPORT ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS
CHRONIC ANIMAL WELFARE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH PUPPY
MILLS? _X_ yes ___ no

Animal fighting. Dogfighting and cockfighting are massive underground industries, with
millions of dogs and birds bred for fighting and placed in pits to fight to the death. While
the Congress banned any interstate transport or imports or exports of animals for fights,
penalties remain weak and insufficient to deter animal fighting enthusiasts.

WILL YOU SUPPORT ADOPTION OF FELONY-LEVEL PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL ANIMAL FIGHTING LAW? _X_ yes ___ no

Laboratory Animals. Of all of the animals used in research, 95% of them are mice, rats,
and birds. Though they feel pain just as other warm-blooded animals do, these animals
are not covered by the humane care standards established under the Animal Welfare Act.
WILL YOU SUPPORT THE INCLUSION OF BIRDS, RATS, AND MICE IN
ANIMAL WELFARE ACT ENFORCEMENT? _X_ yes ___ no

WILDLIFE

Canned Hunts. During the last 25 years, a practice known as "canned hunting" has
become increasingly common. Proprietors of canned hunts offer trophy hunters the
opportunity the opportunity to shoot exotic mammals in fenced areas. Typically, the
hunts are guaranteed, and the hunter does not pay if he does not shoot the animals.
WILL YOU SUPPORT ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT
CANNED HUNTS? _X_ yes ___ no

Exotic Animals. There are millions of animals – from Gambian rats to giant lizards –
that are caught in the wild for the purpose of selling them into the commercial pet trade.
Mortality rates are typically very high for animals subjected to traumatic capture,
transported long distances often in entirely deficient housing, and afforded inadequate
food and veterinary care throughout the process. Once here in the United States, these
exotic animals can pass on diseases to native wildlife and to people. Only domestic
animals, such as cats, dogs, and horses, make suitable pets.

WILL YOU SUPPORT ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION TO HALT THE
TRADE IN WILD ANIMALS FOR THE PET TRADE? _X_ yes ___ no

Animal Damage Control. Wildlife Services (WS), a U.S. Department of Agriculture
program previously known as Animal Damage Control, spends more than $10 million
annually to kill predators as a de facto subsidy for ranchers and other resource users in
the West. WS hunters and trappers kill more than 100,000 coyotes, black bears, mountain
lions, and foxes each year with steel traps, poisons, and firearms. This program wastes
tax dollars and exacts an enormous toll on wildlife.

WILL YOU SUPPORT STIPULATING THAT NO TAXPAYER FUNDS BE USED
TO KILL WILDLIFE, OFTEN ON PUBLIC LANDS, FOR THE BENEFIT OF
PRIVATE RANCHERS? _X_ yes ___ no

Bear Baiting. Setting out food to lure bears to a site so that hunters can easily shoot the
animals while they are feeding is an unsporting and inhumane practice. And setting out
bait piles – consisting of jelly doughnuts, rotting fruits and vegetables, and animal
carcasses -- habituates bears to human food sources, causing the bears to lose their
wariness of people and to foster dangerous encounters between the animals and people.
WILL YOU SUPPORT LEGISLATION IN CONGRESS TO HALT ANY HUMAN
FEEDING OF BEARS ON FEDERAL LANDS? _X_ yes ___ no

Marine Mammals. The Marine Mammal Protection Act protects seals, whales, dolphins,
polar bears and other marine mammals from commercial or recreational exploitation.
WILL YOU OPPOSE EFFORTS TO AMEND THE MARINE MAMMAL
PROTECTION ACT TO ALLOW TROPHY HUNTING OF POLAR BEARS OR
LIBERALIZE THE RULES REGARDING THE TAKING OF OTHER MARINE
MAMMALS? _X_ yes ___ no

FARM ANIMALS

Forced Molting. The practice of starving egg-laying hens as a routine husbandry practice
in order to shock their systems into another egg laying cycle is called "forced molting."
This inhumane practice substantially increases the risk of salmonella infection in hens,
and this poses a risk for consumers who purchase salmonella-infected eggs. McDonald’s
and other fast-food giants no longer purchase eggs from producers who force-molt their
hens.

WILL YOU SUPPORT EFFORTS TO PROHIBIT FEDERAL FUNDS FROM
BEING USED IN THE NATIONAL SCHOOL BREAKFAST AND LUNCH
PROGRAMS FOR THE PURCHASE OF EGGS PRODUCED AT FACILITIES
THAT "FORCE MOLT?" _X_ yes ___ no

Antibiotic Overuse. Large commercial agribusiness operations administer massive
amounts of antibiotics at sub-therapeutic levels to farm animals so the animals can be
raised in large numbers and in close confinement. The administering of antibiotics in feed
and water when animals are not sick promotes the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria,
and over time is rendering antibiotics less effective in combating serious health problems
in people and animals.

DO YOU SUPPORT ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION TO
CURB THE OVERUSE OF ANTIBIOTICS ON INDUSTRIAL FARMS? _X_ yes
___ no

Please return your completed questionnaire to: Humane USA, P.O. Box 19224,
Washington, D. C. 20036, or humaneusa@humaneusa.org

Searching for a “cause”

Returning from the Animal Rights 2003 Conference in Washington DC, I now have a much better understanding of the people involved in this movement. The majority are good people who are “looking for a cause.” They love the idea of “nature” but they don’t understand it and they have no concept of the role that humans play in the balance of nature. The rest are business-minded leaders that are making big money and creating a tremendous following but, in my opinion, are hypocrites.

Karen Davis, founder of United Poultry Concerns was the most prevalent speaker on the program, addressing the group twelve times during the 5-day conference. Her mission is absolute animal liberation and she has a tremendous love for chickens. Her love for these birds is so intense that, in reference to the terrible loss of life in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Davis said, “the deaths of thousands of people” actually “reduced the amount of pain and suffering in the world since they wouldn’t be around to eat more chicken.”

Davis believes that science is just an “economic formula to shut her up” and not animal husbandry. She suggests that animals can’t speak so we have to speak for them. I disagree strongly on this issue. Animals will definitely let you know if they are stressed or uncomfortable. Their performance suffers and the quality of the food produced is compromised. Ultimately that is where the dialogue ends because those in “the movement” believe that animals are our friends and relatives, not our food. This movement is not about providing a better environment or implementing better animal husbandry techniques, it is about abolishing animal agriculture.

During her presentation emphasizing compassion and caring, someone’s cell phone rang and she snapped at the person to “turn that thing off.” Later in the day, a young lady was present with her disabled son in a wheel chair and he would occasionally make involuntary vocalizations. Davis rudely told the mother to remove that kid from the room. What level of hypocrisy allows you to preach about advocating for animals when you have zero compassion for human beings?

Davis has a history of violent outbursts. She assaulted a friend of mine for photographing one of her demonstrations. He filed charges against her but was forced to drop them when she recruited four animal rights activists to lie under oath and say that he swung at her first. What a tremendous role model Davis is. Fortunately, she represents the exception rather than the norm in this movement.

I don’t want to generalize every animal rights activist in the same manner that they pigeon-hole us as “factory farmers.” The leaders of the animal rights movement tend to take the mistakes made on one operation and lead people to believe that all farmers are guilty of these intentional cruelties and environmentally detrimental management practices. Unlike the radical leaders of this event, most of the “twenty-something” females in attendance just need to feel like they are doing something to make the world a better place.

I believe my presence and dialogue with many of them can open the door to future discussions and the opportunity to present some realities about food production. Attending an event like this causes both sides of the movement to associate a face with their perceived “nemesis” and realize that the “other side” is made up of people too. Since most of the people involved in the movement just want something to live for, they are acting based on what they hear and read about the most and our side of the “story” is NOT being made readily available to them. If they read about land stewardship awards and family farm success stories as often as they read about lagoon spills and overcrowding, they would at least be open to the suggestion that not all of the apples in the barrel are bad. If we don’t tell our own story, the only reading material they will have to base their decision on will come from those who want to abolish animal agriculture and that is not a chance we want to take.

Trent Loos is a 6th generation United States farmer, host of daily radio show Loos Tales and founder of Faces of Agriculture, non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com or email Trent at trent@loostales.com.

Wild Loos Chase 

Today's agriculture in yesterday's rural U.S.

By Jeff Caldwell written for the High Plains Journal

Crop and livestock has long been a staple in the lore of the rural U.S., especially in the Midwest and High Plains.

But, times have changed, and so have the means of crop and livestock producers for getting their job done: Putting food on the plates of millions of Americans. At the same time, many urbanites remain steeped in the action of escaping the city in favor of finding a quieter existence in the countryside. Nothing in a city, however, can prepare urban sprawlers for some of the byproducts of today's food production.

Today's large tractors and field equipment are capable of kicking up a cloud of dust in the field. Today's livestock operations, whether open-air or enclosed, are capable of emitting an odor, and with just the right wind gust, that odor can carry itself directly into the path of your nostrils.
And now, long gone, it seems, are the days of passive acceptance of this dust and odor. In last week's Journal, you read a story about a family hog operation that has been targeted by activist groups because of its size and the alleged negative effects it has on the environment. Regardless to what extent the owners and operators of this farm go to meet and exceed the requirements set forth by law protecting air and groundwater, they still come under fire for the way they operate, even as the food they produce does not come close to meeting the needs of the American consumer.

There's a small sign along I-70, between Manhattan and Topeka, Kan., sponsored by the Kansas Agri-Women and Kansas Farm Bureau, stating that every U.S. farmer produces enough food for 128 consumers. Even in the last decade, the number of those fed by each farmer has climbed. Every time I drive by this sign (this time of year to watch the sometimes frustrating K-State Wildcats football team), I'm reminded of the importance of our industry.

Yet, to many, a disconnect exists today, one that prompts stern speech and action against the very men and women who work each day to produce our nation's food and fiber.

We no longer live in a world where we can subsist without large-scale crop and livestock operations. With fewer producers, skyrocketing urban populations and the corresponding demand for food this continues to create, it is no longer possible for the few remaining farmers and ranchers in this country to provide food for everyone's table by producing at the level of their parents and grandparents. As a result, large operations have become a necessity. The more people who move to areas where subsistence comes from the shelves of a grocery store, the fewer there are producing that subsistence. How else can they make a living themselves without shortening margins and producing on a larger scale in concert with their natural environment?

The next time you see a newspaper ad or hear a radio spot from an environmental group purporting to be in favor of "family farms" and against "corporate farms," think first about the demographic changes that have forced large livestock operations and farms into being. Our society's growth has forced farmers and ranchers to produce more efficiently. In most cases, the primary way to accomplish this efficiency is growth. It's a business decision. Perhaps if more Americans, like a century ago, lived on the farm and raised a handful of hogs and chickens each themselves, we could subsist without large operations. But, as the growing housing subdivisions on the edges of every city across the Midwest and High Plains indicate, farmers and ranchers already have their hands full.

And, the next time you happen to drive by a large feedlot, hog farm or packing plant, don't curse the odor. Instead, thank your lucky stars the men and women who keep those operations open are making it possible for you to have that paunch above your belt.

Jeff Caldwell can be reached by phone at 515-280-5405, or by e-mail at jcaldwell@mchsi.com.Date: 10/5/04