Look at that tie. It’s either made of silk, or from some chemical derived from petroleum. If it’s made of silk, it’s based on “cruel” exploitation of the cute little silk worms violating their “rights.” But if it’s made from some petroleum derivative that’s alright, no matter how many animals die slow, painful deaths from oil spills, no matter how much natural animal habitat is destroyed by air pollution or global warming. All that’s o.k. because it’s not based on “cruel” treatment of any individual animals.

I’m a lawyer who has worked with my hands, maintaining public parklands, and I say animal “rights” is nothing more than “pernicious nonsense.” You farmers don’t need to pay attention to phonies like Pacelle. Instead you should form alliances with other interest groups, involved in medical research, product testing, environmentalism, wildlife management, hunting, fishing and trapping, etc., to provide a unified front against the animal rights zanies.

If PETA starts a protest in a nearby city against women buying fur coats, get out there in counter protest, riding on your tractors in overalls to support the furriers. Take the steam out of PETA’s dishonest publicity stunts and get your message across that humans necessarily depend on a wide variety of animal products, including both yours and the furriers.

Go direct to the consumer. Right past HSUS.

Go beyond just talking about the products we produce (advertising). Talk about the producer and the process. Take a small percentage of your marketing/advertising dollars and explain and show how it’s done. We need cowboys and farmers for the future and many will come out of the cities seeking an “exotic” and unique lifestyle.

Just because we’re AGAINST animal cruelty doesn’t mean we have to be FOR H$U$.

And we can be solidly AGAINST H$U$ and 100% FOR animal welfare.

There are plenty of great groups and vets out there to work with.

His response, “like any kind of sophisticated political operation, you use the best research tools to drive your message.” Then added, “in terms of our policy formulations, I can’t think of a time where we did research.”

He admits to two very important things here. First that the HSUS is a political operation contrary to trying to reference themselves as an animal welfare organization. Secondly that HSUS policy is purely based on public sentiment and polling. The ladder suggests that HSUS is fueled by the emotional exploitation of the American public for the political and financial gain of the organization.

Folks, I honestly believe that he’s not out to get us (animal ag). Stick with me now, I think that he is marketing a social reform product and animal ag is collateral damage. It’s about the money folks, time and time again, he mentions that they are just out to correct the “worst of offenses”, egregious acts that “mainstream America” agrees with. A powerful business model, that he has masterfully manipulated. HSUS raises money and they do it by marketing this social reform product. He focuses on the public, where we tend to focus on ourselves. In short, if Pacelle was passionate about something like public transportation, let say, he would use the same tactics and methods to achieve his social reform goal and he’d be battling the auto industry rather than animal ag.

HSUS may not use scientific data to develop policy but their social science is winning the battle, even if it is under the guise that it is legitimate animal food science. Are my comments legitimate? If so, what does this teach us?

He never answered the question ask of him. He just talked. He has no knowledge of farming or of the care needed for the animals. HSUS would like for all animals to cease to exist as we know them today. Their motto has been “one generation and out”.

It does not appear that Pacelle gave any reason for why he should dictate changes in farming, it seems like he is putting himself on the same plain as weather and the environment. Weather and the environment change what farmers do, so farmers should change because HSUS says so.

I didn’t hear any mention that the release of the Hallmark tapes happened just a few weeks before the deadline for signatures to get Prop 2 on the ballot in California. http://tinyurl.com/dffsaa

What if, instead, we tell our story of the passions our producers have for animals…that is not directed at HSUS. Let’s prove there is sound science that shows it’s okay that animals raised for meat can be safely accomplished in many ways–from confinements to pasture. Marketing will give consumers a choice. And neither choice is better or worse than another.

Getting in a pissing match directly with HSUS only helps promote them as being a legitimate voice in animal behavior.

Just my two cents worth.

Kurt Lawton

He states that we have always debated issues in our country and that’s how our democracy works…… This is true, however, you, Mr. Pacelle, do not have the right to IMPOSE YOUR BELIEFS OF A VEGAN
LIFESTYLE ON ME, OR ANYONE ELSE!! This is what you are doing and this is not the American way. You desire to take away my choice to eat meat, eggs and drink milk – this is YOUR GOAL. You do not have that right sir…………….