CA's Prop 2 - Animal Confinement
Posted by humboldt_honey on Oct 16, 2008 · Member since Feb 2007 · 12529 posts
I have the opportunity to influence my coworker's and his wife's vote on Prop 2. He's voting for McCain and for the same sex marriage ban, but he's undecided about Prop 2 (which would require that farm animals be able to stand up, turn around, and spread their limbs/wings). He said that he's willing to be influenced. We share a workspace and he said it'd be okay if I hung picture of animals in factory conditions and brought in articles (shorter articles). He'd bring the articles home to his wife to read.
What are great websites with pictures? He's not going to watch Meet Your Meat or read John Robbins. I'm looking to influence him in "soundbites."
I can't help you, but this is the only proposition I am voting YES on.
pics: http://www.yesonprop2.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=78
basically, if he wants to discuss it make sure he knows it isn't banning sales of meat or anything like that he is just ensuring a BIT better living conditions for animals (this is the way many of the opponents don't want people to think--the vegan opponents... they suck, though-- because they don't want people to feel ok eating meat, but the way i see it it is a victory for animals, it gets people thinking about the issue, etc.) and that he should take responsibility in ensuring that he does not torture and then kill another being for his own want.
i am sure you have already said this kind of stuff, though, i mean, how much is there to think about.. it seems weird that you would be undecided on this issue.
I don't understand- what would be his reasoning NOT to vote yes?
He's afraid that it will be the last straw for ranchers and they'll move out of California. It's a big business here so that'd be a lot money leaving the state. I don't think it'll be that costly.
requiring more space for the animals is going to cut in to small farmers' profit a lot, probably putting many of them out of business (or driving them out of the state). It will raise prices on meat, and when those farmers go out of business, people will just import meat from places with less restrictions. If the whole country did this, then I would guess that most the meat in the US would come from places where animals live in much worse conditions because it would be much cheaper.
Even if I agree with you guys, I figure someone should show the other side of the coin.
The analysis for the prop said that it would cost millions of dollars to implement. If something would cost tens of millions it would specify, so from that I take it that it will cost less than $10 million to implement across a multi-billion dollar industry.
I did hear that out of state ranchers were supporting the bill because it would create an advantage for them if California ranchers had extra requirements. I do wonder if it started by out-of-state ranches who want to stick it to Foster Farms. Isn't that how casinos do it? If they don't want competition from across the boarder of another state they get the citizens in the other state riled up about all of the problems with casinos?
I still support it. I don't think the cost to implement it will cause them to move. I think industries are clever at finding ways to just barely comply with regulations, but still comply nonetheless.
A similar proposition passed two years ago in Arizona: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_204
I haven't heard of any farms/ranches shutting down or losing profits, though it's still so new. Also, AZ doesn't have near the amount of animal farming as California, but we're just as close to Mexico and the egg dude on the Oprah show said Prop 2 would make it so more stuff came from Mexico. Don't think that's been the case there, yet.
I don't buy the economic argument. First of all, if a family has been farming animals for hundreds of years, then at one point, they knew how to treat their animals humanely and not confine them to small pens/cages. I know that competition has increased, but if everyone has to follow the same mandates, then I don't see the problem. Especially because there is an increasing market for humanely raised animal products. If they are determined to continue with such an occupation, then they'll have to change their ways. I have a hard time buying the argument that family farms with 700+ animals (the ones that are being confined) are going to become poverty-stricken if they have to give their animals an extra foot or two of space. Similar to McCain's stupid anti-Obama tax plan with small businesses--if small business owners make more than $250,000, they are well-off. Period. And they have the means to adjust to new rules.
Some people also make their livings off of puppy mills, and if anti-puppy mill legislation passed anywhere, then those people would lose their livelihood. People shouldn't profit from cruelty, and I think most people (if they were informed) would consider factory farming cruel. Somehow people think it would be OK to put puppy mill folks out of business but not farmers who have their animals in similar (if not worse) conditions. I personally think that's bullsh*t. Sorry.
Thanks. I'll use the Arizona example with him. He's completely shut off from emotional response. To him everything evolves around logic 'n such.
In addition to making humane practices mandatory nationwide, the government should restrict and/or heavily tax imported meat.
Of course, by humane we're still talking about relatively humane. Being able to turn around in your small cage/pen doesn't really make life that much better.
I'm going to reply to this post from someone later this evening, but I pass it on here for you collective groan/giggle.
I am a little skeptical of the accusations that chickens are being grossly mistreated. Seems to me that the chicken farmer (rancher ?) has a vested interest in keeping his chickens as happy and as comfortable as possible. If the chicken is happy and comfortable, it produces more eggs or grows faster. If it is uncomfortable or otherwise unhappy, you'd think that they wouldn't be as productive.
What may appear to humans to be uncomfortable or unpleasant may actually be fine with the chickens. Seems to me that this is feel good legislation that may be unnecessary or unproductive.
I'm going to reply to this post from someone later this evening, but I pass it on here for you collective groan/giggle.
I am a little skeptical of the accusations that chickens are being grossly mistreated. Seems to me that the chicken farmer (rancher ?) has a vested interest in keeping his chickens as happy and as comfortable as possible. If the chicken is happy and comfortable, it produces more eggs or grows faster. If it is uncomfortable or otherwise unhappy, you'd think that they wouldn't be as productive.
What may appear to humans to be uncomfortable or unpleasant may actually be fine with the chickens. Seems to me that this is feel good legislation that may be unnecessary or unproductive.
*headdesk*
I'm going to reply to this post from someone later this evening, but I pass it on here for you collective groan/giggle.
I am a little skeptical of the accusations that chickens are being grossly mistreated. Seems to me that the chicken farmer (rancher ?) has a vested interest in keeping his chickens as happy and as comfortable as possible. If the chicken is happy and comfortable, it produces more eggs or grows faster. If it is uncomfortable or otherwise unhappy, you'd think that they wouldn't be as productive.
What may appear to humans to be uncomfortable or unpleasant may actually be fine with the chickens. Seems to me that this is feel good legislation that may be unnecessary or unproductive.
:-D
Oh, so the chickens lay eggs and grow faster because they're happy. BRILLIANT! Maybe all of the steroid drugs and hormones they are pumping into them are actually prozac!?! Silly me to think a chicken would actually NOT want to be debeaked!
This person has obviously never seen a photo or read anything factual and informative about what goes on in factory farms. The notion of a happy chicken would only come from the farmer himself who wants you to have that warm and fuzzy feeling about buying/eating his products.
The Edgy Veggies cartoon in the new Veg News is about the happy misconception. Their logo for "Laughing Cow Hamburgers" is pretty funny.
i just texted my california friends to encourage them to vote yes on prop 2. i promised them baked goods the next time i see them in order to buy their vote..
Just got from voting a huge YES on 2 8)
I hear that 2 is a slam dunk. I post on a board that brutally debates politics and there were only a few posts mocking the treatment of farm animals.
This is totally passing. HELL MOTHERFUCKING YES!
it looks like a proposal banning dog racing in massachusetts has passed, too! awesome!!!
:)>>> ::puppy:
All of the election result sites have timed out, but I found a statement from Farm Sanctuary about 2 passing. Does anyone have the numbers/percents?
62% YES, 38% NO.
Pages