With the Republican landslide in last week’s election getting most of the media attention, not much ink was devoted to analyzing the vote in Missouri on Proposition B, the so called Puppy Mill Bill backed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).
While the measure passed, how it did and where it did provide some fascinating analysis and signals that the times may be changing for radical animal groups. It also provides some clues as to why animal agriculture has been so ineffective at the ballot box and how that can be changed.

Proposition B, which would take effect in a year, will beef up Missouri’s existing laws by restricting commercial breeders to no more than 50 female dogs for breeding, increasing the size of dogs’ living spaces, and by requiring commercial breeders to have their dogs examined yearly by a veterinarian.

HSUS tried to pass this bill through the Indiana legislature two years ago, but Hoosier lawmakers wisely saw through this thinly veiled attempt to place government controls on the raising of animals and to redefine the legal definition of animal welfare. In the Hoosier State, supporters were sent home with their tales between their legs, primarily because the issue never got to the ballot box.

HSUS is a powerful and well-funded political machine. They appear to be not above misrepresenting and distorting facts, and using every cheap, shameless, emotional trick to win. In short, they are tough to beat in a ballot box fight.

Yet, the Missouri vote shows they may be losing their touch. The measure in Missouri only passed by 3 percent, a much narrower margin than HSUS has enjoyed in other states where they have put animal measures on the ballot. In addition, the only place the measure passed was in the major urban centers of the Show-Me State.
According to the website Humane Watch, only 11 counties in the state passed the measure. Unfortunately, those counties were mostly in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas where the high population meant more votes than the rest of the state.

According to the Humane Watch editors, “It was a centralized urban base, largely removed from the realities of life away from their concrete jungles that delivered a victory for HSUS.” States with large population centers, removed from animal agriculture, are on the list of states where HSUS will likely strike next.

It has been shown over and over that agriculture cannot win in a reactive situation. Our only chance is to be pro-active. If the question of animal care is on the ballot, then HSUS will likely carry the day. So keep the issue from getting to voters.

For example, in Indiana a law was quietly passed last year that established the State Board of Animal Health as the “sole” authority on setting rules on animal care. The livestock industry did an end run around Wayne Pacelle and his friends by putting into law that trained veterinarians set the standards.

Animal interests also need to strip away the image of caring compassion behind which HSUS hides. Consumers need to know that this organization does not run their local animal shelters and spends almost none of the billions of donated dollars actually taking care of animals.

Research by the Center for Food Integrity shows that most consumers do not have a lot of trust in activist groups like HSUS. Questioning their credibility before the campaign begins will help minimize their effectiveness.

Another tactic is to build relationships with other groups outside of agriculture, for example, the business and economic development folks. The primary result of these state ballot issues is to drive businesses and jobs out of a state.

When the cage referendum passed in California, the egg industry started moving across the border into neighboring states, taking their jobs with them. It is also likely that Missouri’s sizeable dog-breeding industry may begin to relocate across state lines. We need to continue to emphasize to urban dwellers the economic impact agriculture has for their states and their communities.
I am sure HSUS is already planning their next ballot campaign. Shouldn’t the folks who really understand animal care be preparing to defend it?

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Gary Truitt may write to him in care of this publication.