By KEVIN WALKER
Michigan Correspondent

LANSING, Mich. — Legislation that’s been introduced in the State House would enshrine industry standards for livestock producers into law and cut out local authorities when it comes to farm animal care issues.

House bills 5127 and 5128 would create a state level animal advisory council that would establish standards for farm animal care and would establish the Michigan Dept. of Agriculture (MDA) as the sole animal care regulator and enforcement authority.

According to the language of HB5127 as it was introduced by the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee Rep. Mike Simpson (D-Jackson, Mich.) on June 23, “A local unit of government shall not enforce any ordinance involving animal care standards regarding livestock subject to this act. This act preempts any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revise in any manner the provisions of this act or animal care standards adopted under this section. There is a presumption that the raising, keeping, care, treatment, marketing, or sale of animals in compliance with the standards adopted under this section does not constitute cruelty to, or the inhumane treatment of, livestock.”

Animal rights and animal welfare groups are opposed to the legislation as it’s written. Linda Reider, director of animal welfare at the Michigan Humane Society, hopes that the bills can be revised.
“We can’t support it as written at this time,” Reider said. “We are concerned about the loss of local investigative powers. The laws specifically remove local investigative authority regarding livestock. We also have concerns about the makeup of the council.”

She added that the language of the bill is tricky and needs to be looked at closely.

“If animals are suffering, then they need to be looked at, locally,” she said.

Simpson denied that the bill would deprive local authorities of the power to investigate charges of animal cruelty.

“Animal cruelty standards are still in place,” Simpson said. “Animal cruelty standards are different. Animal welfare standards will not cross paths with animal cruelty.”

These laws would put livestock producers on a more solid legal footing, according to Tonia Ritter, state governmental affairs manager for the Michigan Farm Bureau.

Ritter said that, for example, if a horse rancher is accused by someone of underfeeding his horses, and an animal control officer believes this to be the case, the third party audit certifying the rancher’s compliance with state standards for animal care could give the rancher a potent defense.

“The presumption language in the bill would give (the livestock owner) something significant in a court of law,” Ritter said. Ritter said she believes the laws may help to prevent matters from going to court in the first place by helping ranchers be in compliance with industry standards and by creating a “solid line” that animal control officers and livestock owners can see.

On the other hand, Ritter stated that she doesn’t want local animal control officers to think they’ve been stripped of their power to investigate cruelty, because currently they are the only ones who can fulfill that function. If they lose that authority, then the MDA will have to come up with funding to conduct its own cruelty investigations, she said.

HB5128 would create a nine-member animal care advisory council within the MDA. Most of the council members would be from industry, with only one member from an animal welfare group. This bill looks very similar to a bill recently passed through the Ohio legislature.

That will allow voters to decide, in the form of a ballot measure, if they want to have a similar board establish animal care standards statewide. The measure there would also allow only one member of an animal welfare organization on the board. The proposed laws in Michigan would enable the council to establish standards for animal species that aren’t already spelled out in the laws. The Ohio ballot measure, on the other hand, doesn’t refer to any specific guidelines.

Industry standards
The standards that are referred to in the Michigan legislation come directly from industry: these include guidelines published by the National Pork Board, National Milk Producers Federation, United Egg Producers, National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, National Cattleman’s Beef Assoc. and the American Veal Assoc.
Farmers would have until July 1, 2020 to come into compliance with the standards.

If they were found to be in non-compliance, they would have a process they could turn to as well as a “reasonable” period of time to come into compliance.

Jill Fritz, Michigan state director of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), testified before the House agriculture committee on June 25, along with several other groups.
According to Fritz’ testimony, the bills “are little more than a handout to big agribusiness interests in the state, seeking to codify inhumane industry standards for the treatment of farm animals – standards that allow many animals to spend the majority of their lives in cages so small they can’t even turn around or extend their limbs.

I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills.”
Ritter of the farm bureau had a different perspective on the legislation:

“I want to emphasize that this approach is much more comprehensive and holistic than what you get from a group like HSUS,” Ritter said.

“HSUS is opposed because (the legislation) doesn’t do away with production practices that they oppose.”

Reider of the Michigan Humane Society said that her group isn’t affiliated with the HSUS and that she would like to find common ground with the farm bureau on these issues.

“We didn’t want to come out and oppose the bill, we wanted to come out and express our concerns,” Reider said.

There have been a couple of hearings regarding these bills in the agriculture committee so far. Currently the legislature is in recess. There are identical bills in the state Senate: these are Senate bills 654-655 and they have also been introduced.

According to Simpson, the bills are on their way to passage.
“The bills have widespread industry support,” Simpson said. “It just makes sense to establish standards for animal care.”

He said he sees no reason why the governor won’t sign the bills into law.