The right to vote and express our confidential opinion on who should govern and what measures should define legislation is one of the greatest rights that legal citizens in this country get to express. Politics and media outlets have become a major source of division, and the effects are felt worldwide. Being a global powerhouse, our policies and procedures impact populations and our responsibility to uphold a powerful standard has been more and more compromised with each election. Our government has a duty to govern, but that duty extends beyond our borders. How our representatives do that should start here within our borders by listening to what the constituents across the 50 states tell our leaders to do. The democracy we feel today seems backwards—the people should be directing government, not the government directing the people.
The voting booth is a place to send a message as to what matters most to the population in this particular time. One of the best quotes I heard in this election season was to “vote with your wallet, not your emotions.” This resonated with me deeply. This campaign season was so divisive and made many people feel “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” This shouldn’t be the case. Voting one way does not make you wrong or right. It simply means you aligned with one candidate for whatever reason. As the dust is still settling as of the writing of this column, there were several places across this country that rural America and agriculture held a major place in the voting booth this past week and gained many key wins.
In the far West, a major piece of legislation was on the docket in Sonoma County, CA, where anti-agriculture groups from the Bay Area were targeting the definition of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO). While nearly 21 operations would have fallen subject to this ruling’s changing definition, this piece would have set a major precedence for other groups to run with across the country. This measure was a blatant target on farming operations in California. Local efforts—including a major push from Sonoma County Farm Bureau Executive Director Dayna Ghirardelli—to educate the voting population proved majorly successful as nearly 85% of voters disagreed with the measure.
Measures like this are going to continue to pop up in each election cycle. Take for example, the defeated Proposition 3 in Oregon this past summer that wanted to essentially ban all animal agriculture, fishing, trapping and hunting. The group behind Measure J, dubbed as the Coalition to End Factory Farming, was already planning protests for immediately after the election process. The donor pool they target will continue to foster ideas that target animal agriculture and will be seen on another ballot; it’s just a matter of time.
In Colorado, Ordinance 309 targeted Superior Farms, Inc., a slaughterhouse facility in which nearly 20% of the nation’s lamb processing takes place. The ordinance was defeated as nearly 65% of voters disagreed with the in-city ban. Animal agriculture was targeted with an additional measure: Ordinance 308, which was slightly softer in its wording, targeted the use of animal products to be manufactured, distributed, displayed or sold. This included leather, furs used in products like cowboy hats, gloves, rugs, fly fishing gear and so on. Clearly this was an ordinance that would have quickly expanded its meanings and gone after a much wider array of products and continued to target animal agriculture.
Ordinance 309 was a much bolder move by a group named Pro-Animal Future. This ordinance set out to completely disarm, dismantle and go after animal processing facilities, starting in the city of Denver. The blatant attack used fear tactics and emotionally driven messages to sway votes throughout the campaign, but fortunately, this proved to not be enough as the ordinance was beaten handily. Agriculture needs to be on the lookout for future ordinances that reach the ballot because this clearly won’t be the last of its kind in Colorado where the trend is to continue to lean further left.
Production agriculture has been the attacked party for far too long. Issues like these are going to continue to creep into the ballots. Continued efforts to educate the masses is an absolute must moving forward. Continuing to work together across trade associations to share success stories, bounce ideas and work together is going to continue to be a need agriculture figures out. From the time seeds are planted to crops being fed to animals to their harvest, these industries need to have a steady stream of information sharing in order to combat activists and harmful legislation.
Regardless of what side of the aisle you chose to be sitting in the Oval Office, agriculture needs to remain at the forefront of our minds. Like-minded priorities that promote agriculture need to be a strong commitment from the new legislation. At WLJ, we are anxious to see who the new administration will place in important seats that will impact our readership over the next four years. One thing is for sure, there’s a definite shift happening out there. — LOGAN IPSEN
