Return to TFB Main Page
Return to Current Edition
Texas Agriculture Archive

September 20, 2002

I'm chapped with
PETA's brand stance

By Mike Barnett
Editor

I was really chapped when I looked at the front page of the Sept. 9 Dallas Morning News and read, once again, that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is attacking animal agriculture.

Now the animal activist organization is an expert on cattle branding. Says PETA's Bruce Friedrich: "Hot iron branding constitutes animal abuse." He predicted the practice "will be gone in probably five years."

That makes me madder than a 10-year-old South Texas mama cow going to town for the first (and last) time.

The obvious question for anyone to ask, and especially a reporter, is where is PETA's credibility? These are the same people that incurred the wrath of Mothers Against Drunk Driving for advocating that college students drink beer instead of milk. This is an organization that tells you and I that Jesus was a vegetarian. If it was up to PETA, there would be no hunting and fishing and everyone would happily sit down every meal to no meat and a plate full of veggies.

PETA is very well an expert in gaining media attention through its publicity stunts and cam-paigns...but, then, consider the obvious: What does it say about the credibility of those in the news business who use PETA as a source? Why aren't PETA's motives questioned?

The trouble with our mass media culture is people read newspapers like the Dallas Morning News, and tend to believe what they read. And those that produce the news know controversy is much better read than common sense.

PETA is an expert at taking an industry-wide practice like branding and using it to turn public opinion, which in turn drives restaurant managers, grocery executives and even veterinarians to advocate changes in businesses they know little about.

Burger King, for example, last year sent a letter to suppliers urging them to find pain-free branding alternatives. Applebees did the same, going so far as to urge vendors to not accept products from suppliers that practice branding.

It's no surprise to Texas cattle producers that these groups and businesses continue social engineering efforts by meddling in their business. It's happened before and there's probably no end in sight.

The trouble is, branding is not done for the fun of it. Branding's conducted for a very simple, economic reason: bad guys steal. And the guys in black hats rustled livestock and equipment last year to the tune of $5 million alone in Texas and Oklahoma, according to the Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association.

Today's cattleman is struggling to survive, and livestock identification to prove ownership is a necessary part of doing business. Get rid of the bad guys, and cattlemen will stop branding.

They're not doing it for the fun of it. It's time consuming, hard work, and most don't want to inflict any pain on their animal, even the temporary pain caused by a hot iron brand. And even though there are some hot iron alternatives, experts say they don't work in the long run.

For example, ear tags can be used to identify animals, but can be torn off easily. Microchips have been touted for cattle identification, but it's all too easy for a thief to cut them out. Freeze branding has been promoted, but a freeze brand is easily altered and besides, they don't work well on light-colored hides.

If the motive for PETA is to relieve animal pain, let them invest money they use to attack animal agriculture to instead fund research alternatives that are acceptable to them and economical for cattlemen.

A new way to brand that costs less, causes no stress to the animal and works, will, I guarantee, be readily adopted.

That solution, I guess, would be too practical for an organization who's ultimate goal is not animal welfare, but to turn you, me and the whole world into vegetarians.

And so, the battle continues...