“If you set aside your anger, angst
and prejudices, if you sit down to truly listen, we’ve proven to
ourselves that when you’re genuinely involved you can find
acceptable resolutions,” says Bill Hammerich, Chief Executive
Officer of the Colorado Livestock Association (CLA).
He’s referring to CLA’s efforts to work with rather than against
animal rights groups such as the Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS) to phase out the use of veal crates and gestation
crates in Colorado.
Picking the Fight
In this case, CLA could accept the outcome of a ballot
initiative along the same lines that HSUS intended to pursue, as
they are currently with Proposition 2 in California. Along the
way, CLA and other livestock groups knew they’d have to spend
heavily just to present their side to voters.
“Organizations in Florida and
Arizona learned how much time and money it takes to address
these ballot initiatives. We were told it would take $5-$10
million to try to even put up a reasonable fight,” says
Hammerich. Initiatives in the states he mentions were passed by
voters. A poll conducted by Colorado Farm Bureau early on
indicated that waging such a fight in Colorado would be an
up-hill undertaking.
Never mind the research
indicating sow injuries are fewer with gestation crates rather
than group pens, for instance, the public can’t be expected to
understand that or to necessarily care.
That option would also mean
having no say in the language of the proposition or how it was
presented to the public. In other words voters—both informed and
uninformed—would decide how livestock producers could conduct
their business. Livestock producers in other states are also
discovering the language of similar successful initiatives
expands regulatory authority to the public.
The alternative was unthinkable
at the time: sit down with these animal rights folks and try to
truly understand why they were pursuing the initiative, what
they really hoped to accomplish and how that might actually mesh
with the wishes of livestock producers.
The ultimate result was Senate
Bill 201, signed into law by Colorado Governor Bill Ritter last
May. Briefly, it means the use of veal crates will be phased out
within four years, and the use of veal crates will be phased out
within 10.
Hammerich credits Bernie
Rollin—noted Distinguished Professor or Philosophy at Colorado
State University, and an animal welfare advocate—with helping
them understand how the other side thinks about issues like
this.
Plus, in some ways, the effort
was as much about sharing and leveraging consensus that had
already been arrived at by some livestock producers. Consider
the use of gestation crates. “The swine industry in this state
had already resolved that it would work to phase out the use of
gestation crates,” says Hammerich. CLA represents the pork
industry, too.
Still, having livestock groups and animal rights groups
supporting the same legislation was so extraordinary that
Hammerich says one of the primary challenges early on was
convincing agriculture legislators that yes; this was in fact
what the livestock industry wanted.
Enlisting for the Whole Campaign
There were plenty of times Hammerich and other livestock
producers involved in the process questioned their decision to
engage in the process rather than simply fight. For one thing,
such a process takes time. Hammerich and CLA president, Kent
Bamford, of Haxtun, CO basically devoted all of their efforts to
the process for six months. From beginning to end, the process
was about 18 months.
It’s not like CLA didn’t have
anything else to do. Like other organizations representing
livestock producers, issues like environmental regulations,
water quality and quantity, urban encroachment and all the other
usual suspects are always front and center, too.
While spearheading livestock producers efforts for the bill
concerning gestation and veal crates, CLA was also involved in a
coalition of agriculture groups that was successful in securing
legislation that enables a pilot program to demonstrate how to
expedite the process of legally hiring seasonal immigrant labor.
Can you imagine the gnashing of
teeth along the way, especially during the last year as HSUS
released the now infamous animal abuse videos?
That’s what Hammerich believes is
perhaps even more important than arriving at a solution
acceptable to livestock producers. He explains learning how to
agree to disagree with groups like HSUS, how to continue to set
aside differences in the name of accomplishing a goal of mutual
concern, will serve CLA and the other ag-based organizations
well heading into the future.
After all, like other issues
central to livestock production, animal welfare promises to be a
growing constant. As an example, HSUS originally intended to
include battery cages for chickens in the same legislation, as
they have in ballot initiatives.
Moreover, Hammerich explains CLA
is in the initial phase of designing a program to help livestock
owners communicate to their employees what type of livestock
handling practices are not acceptable under any circumstances.
“We see a lot of opportunities to
grow in this area,” says Hammerich. “And not just in producer
programs but also in letting the public know how serious
livestock producers are about handling livestock humanely.”
In an HSUS news release following
passage of the Colorado law, Rollin explains, “This legislation
is proof that humane groups and agriculture interests can work
together to find common ground and work to toward better
treatment of farm animals.”
Hammerich points out both sides
of the debate agreed early on that if their efforts were
successful, neither would claim victory over the other. CLA and
other livestock groups wouldn’t say through advertising and
press releases, “Here’s how we beat the animal rights folks.”
HSUS and other animal rights activist groups would proclaim that
they’d brought the Colorado livestock industry to its knees.
“I have to believe that here in
Colorado, whether it’s HSUS or another issues with an
adversarial group in a non-agriculture setting, that we’ve
learned we don’t have to duke it out. We learned there are way
ways to get everyone to come to the table to work it out,” says
Hammerich. “It took having everybody involved to resolve this
issue. It takes everybody to find the solutions.”
|
