Source: Lisa M. Keefe, MEATINGPLACE, 10/24/11


John Hansen is the president of the Nebraska Farmers Union, a 98-year-old general farm organization that supports the traditional system of independent family farm agriculture.

The NeFU also is blazing a rather non-traditional path in collaborating with the Humane Society of the United States on issues of animal handling in the state — which is, after all, home to more than a few large commercial livestock operations. The two groups last week announced that they will form what they call the Nebraska Agriculture Council of the Humane Society of the United States. This, amidst growing tension between animal ag representatives and activists as HSUS mulled a state ballot action in Nebraska after victories — and defeats — in other ag-heavy states.

Hansen will be the first to say that the NeFU’s decision has raised eyebrows across the state and the country. But he swears he was sober when he decided to approach the animal advocacy group about forming a council to discuss these issues of mutual concern.

“Hostility and polarization are not conducive to problem-solving,” he says. “If we can create a better path forward not just in our state but nationally, and create at least a better atmosphere where there can be information exchanged and differences aired, that’s probably going to be a better approach than just [knocking heads in] a bitter and divisive campaign for all the marbles.”

Hansen took some time to discuss the initiative with Meatingplace.

What is the NeFU’s position on animal handling issues?
NeFU’s policy position supports responsible animal husbandry, and we oppose animal rights. That’s a pretty mainstream position. We think you’re under obligation to take care of the animals you’re in charge of, but we do not support animal rights at all.

Where did the idea come from to collaborate with HSUS? In most other states, ag groups have opposed HSUS’s efforts, with varying degrees of success.
The passionate fringe [among activists] is disproportionately engaged in activities and in defining the public perception of HSUS. [HSUS has] a problem there and I think they know it.

We’d been watching the way things were going here in Nebraska and the ramping up of rhetoric. HSUS approached us and asked, 'Would you be willing to discuss these issues with us,’ but one of our conditions early on was that they had to give us a commitment that they wouldn’t pursue a state ballot initiative. If they weren’t willing to do that, it would be like having a conversation with someone who’s holding a gun. It changes the whole color of the conversation.

We said we think you ought to be spending at least as many resources in your organization trying to define yourselves in a positive way, telling people what you do support versus what you don’t. If you want folks to care about their livestock, you can’t impose a financial barrier on them that they can’t afford, and you can’t come out and say, 'We’re trying to put you out of business.’ You have to find a more positive way to engage with animal agriculture.

Tell me about the council that you’ve formed with HSUS. When was it created? What is its mission?
Once we’d gotten the ballot off the table, we could talk about the council. Here’s the logic and the rationale of that idea: I go to HSUS’s website and stuff I see makes me cringe. I see this preponderance of cat and dog lovers and pet owners in their organization. We joke about it in the Nebraska legislature: You can have a major piece of legislation go through the ag committee with 10 people in the room, but if you change the cat or dog licensing or grooming standards one iota you’ll get 250 people. They’re passionate.

Here’s the problem, as I see it: The cat and dog folks mean well but they want to apply pet standards to commercial livestock and therein lies the source of a lot of trouble. These policies have huge economic implications for livestock farmers, who already are trying to stay in business. When somebody from outside [the industry] imposes standards, you can do a huge amount of economic damage, I don’t care how well-meaning you are.

We [told HSUS] we would help find livestock producers who would be willing to sit on a council and look at issues and give them advice and counsel on things that affect livestock. We could also help do market development … like 'heart-healthy’ or something fairly generic but … when consumers buy it they know what they’re getting.

At any rate, through the council … those who are actually impacted by what [HSUS does] in commercial livestock have to have a way to have a voice at the table. If we do a good job of servicing concerns and issues, it might not be what they want to hear but it’s something they need to hear.

What we’re saying, and what HSUS has been saying relative to this particular effort, is that they’re looking at it as a pilot project for a different way to engage.

No less than the governor has been vocal in his opposition to HSUS, and you’ve already stirred up anger in the ag community with your announcement. How do you respond to that?
It’s not helpful when folks in the rest of the ag community are busy pounding the snot out of us. We’ve been able to park a statewide ballot issue threat and we’re trying to do something that’s limited but potentially very positive if we could help get HSUS to a more livestock-friendly or appropriate position on these issues.

[NeFU] has built more cooperatives than any other organization in the state. You have to have a civil process where you allow people with different points of view to work together toward a common goal. We have all these different agriculture producers and what we try to do is create a space so that they can come together and have honest discussions about their differences of opinions and do it in a civil way. We also try to work out policy that’s good for the community as a whole.

We did not join hands [with HSUS]; we shook hands on a specific deal. And that deal is now out in the open, so they have a fair amount of skin in the game, as we do, about whether either one of us is going to honor the terms of the deal that we struck.

We’ll see what happens here. We didn’t change anything in our policy, made no concessions to their agenda, we agreed to a process that we hope will lead to a more positive outcome. If it doesn’t work, out, it doesn’t work out, but if it does we think it can be a real positive in several ways.

For more stories, go to www.meatingplace.com.