2009 House Bill 5128 (Impose farm animal care regulations )

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Jeff Mayes (D) on June 23, 2009, to create a government Animal Care Advisory Council to periodically review the farm animal care regulations that Senate Bill 655 would impose and recommend new ones.
- Referred to the House Agriculture Committee on June 23, 2009.
  - Reported in the House on August 4, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Referred to the House Agriculture Committee on October 15, 2009.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Re: 2009 House Bill 5128 (Impose farm animal care regulations ) [by md4045 on August 18, 2009]

I don't want people who object to eating meat on a committee to decide how to care for animals M P Waterord Mi

Line

2) Re: 2009 House Bill 5128 (Impose farm animal care regulations ) [by FreeSpeaker on July 6, 2009]

[quote user="ruthwatchdog"]

It is objectionable to have someone appointed to the committee who is recommended by the Michigan Humane Society. MHS has links to HSUS that are anti-agriculture, anti-livestock farming, and anti-meat.

[/quote]

I disagree.

It is valuable and important to have all viewpoints represented on commttees and commissions of this nature.

Line

3) Re: 2009 House Bill 5128 (Impose farm animal care regulations ) [by ruthwatchdog on July 4, 2009]

The bill does protect famers by stating that ALL standards must be scientifically based.

It would also be extremely objectionable to have Michigan Humane Society appointed as the "third-party auditor" to which fees would be paid by the farmers for the certification inspections. This is objectional for the above reasons of their connection to and promotion of HSUS through their numerous links on the MHS website. These fees are undetermined and are supposed to cover the cost of inspection. Exactly how much would or should that be? You can bet that if any so-called "humane society" is involved those fees will be excessive and subject to increase every year - with the intention of making livestock farming input costs higher and hopefully drive some people out of livestock farming.

It would be more reasonable to have the third-party auditor be a veterinarian who has a scientific background and is free from the bias of MHS employees and their versions of "humane animal care."

Line

View Full Conversation