Massachusetts considers farm animal rights’ bill

Animal rights activists are focusing on the Massachusetts State House this week and legislation that would “toughen laws aimed at protecting farm animals.”

The bill, Massachusetts’ H458, is known as the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. It targets production facilities involving stalls for veal calves and gestation sows as well as housing for egg-laying hens.  If passed it would require farmers in the state to provide space for veal calves, gestation sows and hens to lie down, stand up and turn around, reports Boston.com.

While Massachusetts is far from a significant pork production state, it follows the overall pattern of animal rights’ groups getting bills passed at the state level in order to further chip away at various animal agriculture production practices. Among the other states where this has occurred are Florida, California, Arizona and Oregon.  

“Massachusetts’ H458 seeks to eliminate common management practices used in pork and egg production,” notes Sarah Hubbart, communications director for the Animal Agriculture Alliance. “Veal producers, the bill’s third target, have already pledged to phase out the use of individual stalls by 2017, so that point is moot.”

Animal housing is just one component of animal well-being, a farm’s individual management abilities play a significant role, and research has shown that management can accommodate animals’ needs regardless of the housing system.

“Today’s farms allow farmers and ranchers to protect their animals from harsh weather conditions, predators, and disease while closely monitoring animal health and nutrition,” Hubbart says. “Rather than acknowledge these advancements, activist groups label these operations as ‘factory farms’ in order to urge an emotional response from voters who are often generations removed from the farm.”

Similar legislative measures that have passed have proven too costly for some producers, forcing them out of business.

“Costly measures such as California’s Prop 2 and now Massachusetts’ ‘Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act’ do little to protect family farms as activists claim. It also eliminates consumers’ ability to choose the products that are right for them,” Hubbart points out. “Make no mistake, animal rights organizations will not be satisfied until animal agriculture is eliminated in entirety. Pushing for ‘cage-free’ practices is simply their first step. These activist groups seek to pass burdensome measures at the state level until they can introduce broad-sweeping legislation at the federal level. It is something that farmers and ranchers must be aware of.”

Hubbart challenges agriculture in general and farmers, ranchers and agriculture organizations in particular to take note of these legislative developments. “Use this opportunity to proactively communicate the importance of the industry throughout their communities,” she adds.

You can read the Boston.com article here.

 

Comments (4)

Leave a comment 

It is unfortunate that the morals and ethics of American agriculture do not understand or care about the five freedoms of the Animal Welfare Institute; freedom from malnutrition, freedom from physical discomfort, freedom from pain, freedom from fear and freedom to express normal behavior. Aristotle said that animals should be raised to express their "characteristic form of life". That is calves running free in the pastures, pigs making nests in the dirt or straw and chickens outside scratching in the dirt. Progressive consumers want their products to come from those sources. No farmer or rancher has ever lost his market and had to leave the farm by being too good to his stock. We have a moral obligation to the animals we pen up and bring into this world. Treat them with respect. Follow the Golden Rule.

jmcv02

Report Abuse

manhattan, ks.  |  May, 04, 2011 at 01:11 PM

Natural behaviors like a sow eating or crushing piglets, coyotes tearing apart a newborn calf before it can stand, chickens pecking at animal feces in the yard? Youre right no farmer or rancher has ever lost his market by being too good to his stock, hence were still in business!

Ron, I am guessing that you are NOT a farmer. While every facet of life has those individuals that reflect poorly on the group as a whole, the majority of farmers are in business to provide clean, healthy, nutritious food. If the husbandry practices are not good for the animals, the results will prove unprofitable. A miserable, diseased, or unhealthy animal will not be productive. While I admit there is always room for improvement, I feel that the American farmers as a whole do a fantastic job feeding the world. I myself am a farmer. We raise corn, beans, beef, and hogs. Scientific studies are done all the time to evaluate and reevaluate farming ideologies and practices. You must remember that the animals are raised for our benefit, they are not here to live as humans. The animal rights factions go too far. The U.S. Humane Society would ban all hunting and fishing if they could. So many people believe that when they donate to USHS, they are helping the stray dogs and cats at the local shelter. What they don't understand is that very little goes towards that end and the $ goes toward legislation efforts designed to take away options from the American people. If you truly want to help animals, encourage the USHS to put their money towards habitat for the animals. Bad farmers will go out of business sooner than later. The farmers who take care of their animals will persevere.

Ron

Report Abuse

Wyoming  |  May, 06, 2011 at 05:37 PM

jmcv02 - The American farmer can protect his stock without the inhumane equipment. I am all for thoughful animal husbandry.
Tracy - I have been involved in farming and ranching for over 40 years in four states, raising cattle, pigs, chickens, sheep, etc. Our disagreement is best illustrated by your comment that the animals are here for OUR benefit. Correct from a financial point of view, but a farmer/rancher is still responsible for their care. I have found over these 40 years the most money is made from the best, humane treatment.