The Rural Voice, 1989-06, Page 22No one is prepared to
hazard a guess about how
much it would cost to stop the
animal liberationists cold or
even how much market share
might be at risk if we were to
ignore them completely.
world of dog and hamess racing, and
even the entertainment industries, the
zoos and the circuses. It probably
suggests closer affiliation with those
groups.
It might note areas of influence —
the press, the government, the schools
— and outline how they might best be
utilized. For certain it recommends
that OFAC be established as a contin-
uing organization with a permanent
source of funding.
A summary of Helms' recom-
mendations lists six verbs — Monitor,
Communicate, Educate, Respond,
Co-ordinate and Co-operate — all of
which form the basis of the OFAC
campaign.
Some of the more specific sug-
gestions, however, will have to await
a larger budget than is now possible.
For the present, OFAC is not able to
include a full-time public relations
person on staff and will continue to
operate out of the Mississauga offices
of the Egg Producers Marketing
Board. Even a comprehensive study
of the attitudes and opinions of the
urban consumer, with a price tag of
between $50,000 and $100,000, will
have to be put off until more substan-
tial funding has been committed.
In the meantime, OFAC has
identified its target group. "One thing
we do have in common with the rights
groups," Ballantine explains, "is the
target audience. We're not trying to
talk to the animal rights people. We
do, but we don't expect to get any-
where. And they're not trying to talk
to us. We are both trying to talk to the
same group and that, by and large, is
the urban person."
How OFAC will reach that audi-
ence will also mirror the efforts of the
animal rights groups. Priority has
already been given to introducing
OFAC to elected government officials,
to establishing relations with other
groups that might share OFAC's in-
terests, and to making OFAC known
to the urban press.
"In Canada they've got at least two
or three years on us. Probably more
like ten," Ballantine says.
And during those years the animal
rightists have gone largely unchal-
lenged. "We have to respond to the
bias in the media," Ballantine says.
"We have to clarify things and re-
spond to misleading articles. It's a
controversial issue and the media love
controversy. But because they have
tended to hear only from the animal
rights side they regurgitate all the
animal rights accusations. Animals
are pumped with drugs, left to wallow
in their excrement. These are cliche
phrases and they're false — in most
cases out and out lies. The media
hasn'tbeen getting our side."
She gives an example of how
OFAC's existence is already having
an effect on press coverage.
In May of 1988, The Canadian
Vegans for Animal Rights placed an
advertisement in the Toronto Star.
(Vegans, strictly speaking, are people
who don't eat meat or food produced
from animals, such as cheese or eggs.
But in this 500 -member group about
half do eat some meat.) The adver-
tisement, headlined The Real Story of
"Milk -Fed" Veal, showed a calf in a
veal crate and outlined the sorry
existence of the animal. "Torn from
his mother at birth ... chained by the
neck in a tiny wooden crate ... unable
to turn around ... forced to lie in their
excrement."
The ad explained that England has
banned the veal crate. It asked for
contributions to help Canadian Vegans
get similar legislation in this country.
Because the Star was familiar
with OFAC, it was able to contact
the council office to do a story which
might give a more balanced perspec-
tive. Ballantine referred the reporter
to Victor Wagemans, an OCA exec-
utive member and an OFAC represen-
tative for the beef and veal industry
who runs a 600 -calf veal operation in
Dundas County.
Wagemans was able to offer a
rebuttal to the vegans and was quoted
in the Star as saying that the smear
campaign was "wildly distorted ... a
bunch of hooey" and that calves live
in "near human standards" of cleanli-
ness and ventilation.
Ballantine explains that OFAC
policy is to respond only in general
to criticisms of modern agriculture.
Specific issues are answered by an
individual representative of a parti-
cular industry, in this case Wagemans.
Does OFAC take any position on
the veal crate?
Ballantine responds: "OFAC does
not agree that veal crates should be
banned because they are perceived to
be cruel. OFAC's position is that
when research validates that one way
or the other we can make changes for
scientific reasons, not emotional
reasons."
For more detailed explanations
of the hows and whys of veal -crate
farming, one is referred to the beef
and veal representative. Similarly,
any questions concerning farrowing
crates are referred to the pork repre-
sentative, and questions concerning
battery cages are referred to the chick-
en and egg representative (these
practices being most evidently on the
animal rightists' hit list).
And all producer representatives
are encouraged to participate in
media skills workshops run by public
relations man Norm Helms. "They're
taught how to give an interview, how
to present themselves, how to formu-
late arguments," Ballantine -says. "Ev-
en the choice of words is important."
Words are important. For instance,
their side, the animal rights side, is
involved in a public relations cam-
paign, whereas our side is concerned
with public education.
To this end, OFAC is looking at
the Agriculture in the Classroom
opportunities and is pleased with the
cross -appointment of one of the
OFAC directors to the Agriculture in
the Classroom committee.
Once again, the animal rights
groups are after the same target
audience, and OFAC is concerned that
here too the council is playing catch-
up. The Toronto Humane Society
already has its kit in the schools.
British Columbia Humane Societies
also have a kit in the schools. And
although neither kit has been seen by
the OFAC people, they suggest it is
anti -farming and anti -animal use.
20 THE RURAL VOICE