Swiss cheese, animal care and an angry burned bull

By Mychal Wilmes
wilmes@agrinews.com

Date Modified: 04/01/2010 9:15 AM

E-mail article | Print version

The Swiss — makers of great cheese and a nation of wonderful people — voted earlier this month on whether or not animals have the right to be represented in court along the lines of "If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you.''

I don't know what the Swiss think of lawyers, but they do care for their animals. Abuse convictions carry heavy fines. A Swiss farmer recently convicted of not giving eight sheep proper care was fined $8,000 U.S. dollars for the offense.

Swiss animal care laws are quite exacting. For example, a no-longer-wanted goldfish can't be flushed down the toilet. It must be knocked out, killed and properly disposed of. Sociable household animals — hamsters and the like — can't be left alone without a partner.Swiss law holds that sheep and goats must have at least a "visual contact with their fellows.''

A fisherman who struggled for an hour or more to land a big fish was charged with cruelty because the long fight to get it into the boat was by itself inhumane. The lawyer who took the case to court lost, but momentum for ensuring adequate legal representation in court reached its climax in the referendum earlier this month.

The vote — 70 percent against state-paid representation and 30 percent against — was lopsided enough. However, it gave backers hope that the might find majority support the next time the issue is on the Swiss ballot.

U.S. livestock producers take animal welfare issues seriously. They must, given that consumers are demanding a bigger role in how their meat is raised. Referendums inCalifornia,Florida and a few other states have outlawed gestation crates in hogs and set space requirements for caged chickens. Well-funded campaigns have emboldened the animal rights movement to push even harder. Farm interests have started to push back.

The approach includes proactive efforts to educate consumers that any farmer who would abuse livestock under his care would be a natural-born fool. Granted, there are fools a plenty in this world, but any farmer who would harm an animal isn't likely to enjoy long-term success.

Personal experience suggests that my barn behavior wasn't always the best. Kicking back against a kicking cow that just sent the Surge milker into the gutter was clearly an act of frustration. The only person I have ever seen who went out of his way to mistreat an animal was Martin.

Martin, a bachelor neighbor, liked to drink and stop by the barn to chat at milking time. I went about my business while he sat on a straw bale in front of the bullpen smoking a cigarette with a whiskey bottle beside him. I was on the other end of the barn when the bull let loose with a low bellow that startled the cows. The very drunk Martin and burned the bull's nose with his cigarette. I never cared much for Martin before and I cared even less after the incident.

The bull, for his part, never forgot what Martin had done. He would get agitated the minute Martin entered the barn for months afterward.

Martin would likely not have burned the bull if he hadn't been drunk. I likely wouldn't have kicked the cow back if she hadn't dumped the bucket like she had done a dozen times before.

The point — if there is one — laws requiring certain livestock husbandry practices — be they draconian like Switzerland's or less stringent like ours — cannot change human behavior. A long time ago, men where judged by their peers by how they handled their workhorses. Some ruined theirs by overworking them in the fields. Old beef men who loved their purebred breeding stock knew the buyers who were worthy of their animals and those who weren't.

"You can judge a man by how they treat their animals'' rings as true today as it did in the horse-power days.

No, it isn't likely that America ever require legal representation for animals. If I could have a do-over, I should have kicked Martin, his bottle and cigarettes out of the barn.