Vote YES on Prop 2 Prevention of Farm Cruelty Act (endorsed by the CA Dem Party and both Sens)

[Bigleaf]

http://humanecalifornia.org/

Californians for Humane Farms is the proud sponsor of the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, an initiative that will appear on California's November 2008 ballot. It is cruel and inhumane to confine animals in cages so small they can’t turn around or stretch their limbs. All animals deserve humane treatment, including those raised for food. Vote YES on Prop #2 to protect animals from unacceptable abuse.

Prevents cruelty to animals.
It’s simply wrong to confine veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens in tiny cages barely larger than their bodies. Calves are tethered by the neck and can barely move, pigs in severe confinement bite the metal bars of their crates, and hens get trapped and even impaled in their wire cages. We wouldn’t force our pets to live in filthy, cramped cages for their whole lives, and we shouldn’t force farm animals to endure such misery. All animals, including those raised for food, deserve humane treatment

PLEASE VOTE YES ON PROP 2!!!!


My wife has been working hard to help get this passed and I am very proud of her.

[roody]

1. Absolutely!

[Tumbulu]

2. Yes, please do!

It is criminal the way these so called "farmers" treat these animals.

They will make the claim that the vets are against prop 2, but they are not. Just the ones in the industry pockets are.

Please give my thanks to your wife for working on the bill. My only wish is that we could keep the products from animals so mistreated from entering our state for consumption.

[Kajsa]

3. Absolutely!

:kick:

[Oerdin]

4. I'll be voting no.

With food prices at or near record levels and with incomes for 80% of Americans falling the last thing poor people in California need are still higher food prices. With lots of low income and elderly people forced to skip meals because they simply can't afford to eat three times a day it would be irresponsible to raise food prices just so yuppies can feel better about themselves. Get off your high horses about chickens and start caring about the 6-12 million people in our state on the poverty line.

Once there is a chicken in every pot then we can start talking about improving the welfare of chickens but until that happens the welfare of actual people must come first.

[Bigleaf]

5. You lost me when you started with the yuppie high horse bullshit. You know fuck all about me or

others who support this proposition. We are a diverse group of people. I like to think I/we could care about BOTH humane treatment of animals and poverty issues. How fucking novel a concept. With respect to the proposition, the cost of a dozen eggs will go up by pennies. The egg farms will not close up shop. This thing is going nationwide. Mark it down. By the way, I commend you on being a voice for those who live in poverty. I truly do.

[Oerdin]

6. You are wrong.

It will not cost pennies per egg. The California Department of Agriculture estimates that prop 2 would increase the costs of egg production by 76 percent under the measure. You're going to raise food prices on a staple food by 76% and that means lots more people won't be able to afford to eat. Further more California produced eggs will not be profitable so most will go out of business and we'll no longer be able to buy them or as many of them. Also it will take away much of our choice in locally grown or produced eggs because California doesn't live in a vacuum and other states & Mexico will still offer cheaper eggs. Making the local eggs cost 76% mnore then their competitors will put most egg farms out of business. We'll have to ship in eggs from other states or Mexico which means they'll be older, less fresh, use more fossil fuels to be transported, and will have a higher risk of going bad.

It's also telling the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has come out against Prop 2 because they say it will be more difficult to keep eggs seporate from bird feces thus increasing the risk of salmonella. Under the current system there have been no salmonella infected eggs from California in over a decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_2

Lastly you say we can feed people and drive up food prices but with our massive state budget deficit and the national economy heading into recession that isn't very likely. Big tax increases are needed just to balance the existing budget much less add expensive new programs. After every Californian has access to three healthy meals per day I'd be willing to talk about increasing costs to make birds happy but raising prices first and then hoping someone later funds food programs is ass backwards. Feed everyone first then we can talk about making birds happy.

[roody]

8. How about the calves? Will the price of your veal rise?

[Bigleaf]

22. The price increase on a dozen eggs equals less than a penny per egg according to the UC Davis Study.

We're not talking about free range chickens here. We're talking about letting the chicken spread it's wings and turn around.

See Page 4 -

http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/Avian/WelfareIssueslayingHens.pdf

[Xithras]

29. That study is very incomplete.

It looked only at the ongoing costs of egg production with additional space per bird, and did not address conversion costs. I live in farm country, and this has been the subject of a bit of discussion. Here's the problem:

In order to comply with the proposition, egg farms will have to completely rip out their existing cage systems and install newer, larger cages. Those cages are installed indoors, and those buildings are already filled to capacity with the current cages. To maintain the same number of laying hens, the farms will need to rebuild those structures to add additional square footage (almost doubling space requirements for the same hen count). The mechanical egg handling systems beneath the cages will need to be completely rebuilt to account for the new cage spacings, and then the cages themselves will need to be installed into the new buildings. Those buildings will also require expensive new HVAC systems since most eggs in California are generated in the Central Valley, which gets very hot in the summer.

Many farmers are already saying that if the measure passes, the simplest solution will simply be to level their current facilities and start over with new ones. The farmers aren't going to eat those costs, but will instead pass them on directly to consumers. Some farmers are predicting price spikes of $1-$2 a dozen until the debt is paid off, and some commentators have mentioned that the farmers will be reluctant to roll back those prices once consumers have become "acclimated" to those prices.

Of course, that's countered by a fear of out of state competition. Nearly all eggs sold in California are created here. That could change if there's a $1-$2 price difference between "California" eggs and imported eggs. If this does pass, it will HAVE to go national just to keep our farmers from going bankrupt.

There's another big problem here too. Lots of people like to attack the "corporate farmers", but a large portion of the eggs produced in California are generated in smaller, family run facilities. Those farms don't have the cash on hand to rebuild, and will instead need loans to cover the cost of that retooling. In case you haven't been watching the news, loans are NOT an easy thing to get right now. There's fear in the farming community that many smaller farmers will simply get out of the egg market, and convert their land and buildings to some other use. If credit isn't available, there's no way they can affort to upgrade.

That's the primary reason why I'm voting against it. The proposition has good intentions, but it should include a bond component for low interest loans to help the smaller farmers change their facilities out. If you listen to the farmers, that's really all they want. Most don't have ANY problem giving the hens more room to move, but they can't afford to do so. Give them a mechanism to expand their facilities without forcing them to jack up prices, and they'll be all for it.

[flvegan]

34. You're right.

Fuck the animals. Fuck animal cruelty. Fuck humane treatment.

Cuz gawd fucking forbid it costs 5 more cents to get eggs. Best we just bow down to Big Ag.

Fucking shameful. Watching folks pitch such a major bitch around here about gas going up a buck, then pissing themselves over a few cents to make sure animals weren't abused.

Fuck off. Vote against it. They're JUST MERE animals.

[Tumbulu]

37. the USDA farm bill that already passed has funding for farmers who need to finance

new construction projects. At low or no interest depending on their income. No bonds are required, the farm bill passed a few months ago.

These farmers can get loans especially if the banks are not lending. In fact USDA low and no interest loans require regular bank loans to be unavailable. You have to prove that banks would not lend and then they (the USDA) lends.

So this is also a false argument.

Doesn't it make you sick knowing that these animals cannot get up or sit down or turn around or spread out their limbs their whole miserable lives? This is all this bill calls for, that the animal has enough room to get up and down and turn around. We are not talking acres, we are talking less than a foot.

For shame Xithras, what is the matter with you, really? Do you enjoy the idea of an animal suffering?

And shame on the industry vets and the CDC run by Bushites as well.

Oregon and Arizona already passed similar legislation; they have not lost their industries.

[roody]

7. Have you thought about living your life in a cage

in which you cannot turn around. How would you like that?

[roody]

9. The meat and eggs of an animal in distress is not healthy.

[Oerdin]

10. Maybe.

But they're healthier then having millions of people not eat at all which is happening right now. Food prices are at record highs and old folks with nothing but social security are the hardest hit. I bet they'd like the option of buying chicken or eggs from a factory farm a whole lot better then just not eating at all.

You raise the price of food and a lot of people will have to skip more meals. That's just an unavoidable fact. If you want to buy free range chickens and eggs then feel free to do so but don't try to take the food out of poor people's mouths.

[roody]

11. I don't eat chicken or other animals. I eat a dozen eggs

2 or 3 months. A price change won't affect me. It will take no food from my mouth, and I could soon be a retiree on a low fixed income.

[Tumbulu]

12. Nobody has the right to demand food be cheap by torture

Hunger must be addressed by society, not by individual animals suffering in cramped cages

The things you cite in your posts are pure propaganda from the agribusiness industry. I read it all in my latest Ag Alert (the newspaper of the far wrong wing farm bureau). I am an organic farmer and years ago these same clowns claimed organics had no place in our farming world because "who would feed the homeless?"

Well, deal with real estate predators and uncontrolled rents and low wages and insufficient SS benefits directly. But don't you DARE claim that you or anyone has the right to torture animals so that someone, however needy can get food cheaply.

And the food is not really cheap, it is polluted with deadly microorganisms (salmonella anyone?) and the areas around these torture chambers have to clean up their waste at taxpayers expense.

Torture is an outrage to all life and it should never ever be legal. Arizona has already passed the same chicken anti-cage law, and their egg industry is still functioning. In fact if we don't outlaw it here we will be undermining their advances towards civil behavior. Other states have passed the veal calves law and still others the pig law.

[Oerdin]

13. I'll dare to continue posting facts.

Even if you don't like them. The fact is this won't save a single chicken just move all the business out of state and drive up costs. There is no upside. I will use my vote to keep food cheap and local so people eat better.

As for your knee jerk that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is just a shill for agro-business... Do you honestly believe that nonsense?

[Tumbulu]

24. I said nothing about the CDC- stick to my post

Your rudeness goes hand in hand with advocating animal torture. It all goes together, the ends justify the means.

[flvegan]

35. Fact is: you are wrong.

Keep food "cheap" and promote animal cruelty. The end of battery confinement saves more animals than people you will ever meet.

[cabluedem]

17. So its "OK" to torture animals as long as "food prices are high"? Puffffff!

I have seen these poor suffering creatures myself, BTW.

[cabluedem]

19. Exactly. But the "food manufacturers" who put animals at extreme duress don't care a bit.

[Oerdin]

14. Is UC Davis also just evil propogandists?

" Estimated fiscal impact

As released by Secretary of State, Debra Bowen’s office, on July 22, the fiscal impact is:

* Potential unknown decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses, possibly in the range of several million dollars annually.
* Potential minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue.

However, according to a May 2008 study by Promar International and commissioned by opponents to Prop. 2, 95% of the California egg industry and accompanying economic output would be lost by 2015. The total economic output of the industry is $648 million and 3,561 jobs. The study also stated that egg production costs would increase by 76%. <3>

Additionally, in July 2008 the University of California, Davis conducted a study through their University of California Agricultural Issues Center (AIC). The study concluded that "the best evidence from a variety of sources suggests that (non-organic) non-cage systems incur costs of production that are at least 20 percent higher than the common cage housing systems". This is due to higher feed costs, higher hen laying mortality, higher direct housing costs, and higher labor costs. The study also estimated that the entire California egg industry would relocate to other states during the 5-year adjustment period, and that the implication of this would be that consumer costs would increase by at least 25%. <4> "

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_2_(2008)


I say we keep agriculture local and we keep food prices low for people who are struggling to eat.

[Oerdin]

15. People who oppose prop 2.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union says they oppose proposition 2 as it would destroy jobs in rural areas which already have high unemployment rates.

UNITE HERE and UFCW join other leading labor, business and retailer groups who have already opposed Prop. 2, including: California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union, California Grocers Association and California Small Business Association.

“UNITE HERE and UFCW have stepped up to protect California workers and consumers by opposing Prop. 2, the UN-SAFE food initiative,” said Julie Buckner, campaign spokeswoman. “Prop. 2 is a risky and costly measure that jeopardizes food safety and public health. California working families can’t afford Prop. 2 especially at a time when Californians are struggling with rising unemployment rates, a deepening mortgage crisis, and sky-rocketing food and gas prices.”

California State Firefighters' Association Opposes Prop. 2 - the firefighters say Prop 2 would destroy businesses who's tax revenues go to pay for public health and safety measures such as fire departments in rural areas.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) says:
"SCHAUMBURG, Ill. — The largest and most respected veterinary association in the United States is cautioning that the California ballot initiative, Proposition 2, while admirable in its attempt to address the behavioral needs of animals, contains livestock confinement standards that may hurt the animals they are intended to help."

Neighborhood Market Association Formally Voices Opposition to Proposition 2: Leading Independent Business Organizations and Retailers Agree, Prop. 2 is Anti-Consumer, UN-SAFE Food Initiative

Major Latino Organizations Oppose Proposition 2: National Latino Congreso Votes Unanimously to Oppose Prop. 2 Citing Concerns for California Consumers, Working Families; Joins Mexican American Political Association

California Teamsters Union Opposes Prop. 2: Labor Group Representing 250,000 California Working Families Opposes the Anti-Consumer, UN-SAFE Food Initiative

Leading Veterinary and Avian Animal Welfare Organizations Announce Their Opposition to Proposition 2: Poultry Science Association and Other Avian Groups Vote to Oppose Prop. 2 for Reasons of Animal Welfare and Food Safety

[Bigleaf]

23. Proponents of Prop 2:

The Humane Society of the US
California Veterinary Medical Assn
Center for Food Safety
Union of Concerned Scientists
Sierra Club-California
Consumer Federation of America
California Democratic Party
California Council of Churches IMPACT

Nearly 700 California veterinarians and more than 150 California veterinary medical students, the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, the San Diego County Veterinary Medical Association, and nearly 90 veterinary hospitals and clinics.

More than 100 California farmers, including Bill Niman, Prather Ranch, Dobson Dairy Ranch, Eatwell Farms, Flores Ranch, Lunny Ranch, and US Farms, Inc.

Nearly 130 organizations, including two dozen California humane societies and SPCAs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and beyond; the State Humane Association of California; and leading national organizations like Farm Sanctuary, the ASPCA, the National Federation of Humane Societies, and Best Friends Animal Society

More than 70 organizations across the country that are working to address the public health, environmental, social justice and animal welfare impacts of factory farming, including United Farm Workers, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Family Farm Defenders, Compassion in World Farming, the Cesar Chavez Foundation, California Young Democrats, Defenders of Wildlife, Greenpeace USA, and the Organic Consumers Association

US Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein; State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell; State Treasurer Bill Lockyer; US Representatives Howard Berman (Van Nuys), John Campbell (Orange County), Lois Capps (Santa Barbara), Bob Filner (San Diego), Elton Gallegly (Ventura), Barbara Lee (East Bay), George Miller (Martinez), Brad Sherman (San Fernando Valley), and Maxine Waters (Los Angeles); Mayors Antonio Villaraigosa (Los Angeles), Gavin Newsom (San Francisco), Heather Fargo (Sacramento), Marty Blum (Santa Barbara), Beth Krom (Irvine), Pat Eklund (Novato), and Craig Litwin (Sebastapol); state Senators Dean Florez (Bakersfield/Fresno), Sheila Kuehl (Los Angeles), Christine Kehoe (San Diego), Carole Migden (San Francisco), and Darrell Steinberg (Sacramento); Assembly Speaker pro Tem Sally Lieber (Mountain View); and Assembly members Jim Beall (San Jose), Joe Coto (San Jose), Mike Davis (Los Angeles), Mark DeSaulnier (Martinez), Merv Dymally (Los Angeles), Loni Hancock (Albany), Paul Krekorian (Glendale), Mark Leno (San Francisco), Lloyd Levine (Van Nuys), Gene Mullin (San Mateo), and Jose Solorio (Anaheim); former Mayor Richard Riordan (Los Angeles), and others. The city councils of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Davis, Fairfax, Carson, Rancho Palos Verdes, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, West Hollywood, and Berkeley.

San Diego Union-Tribune, Oakland Tribune, Santa Barbara News Press, Sacramento News & Review, Columnist Gary Bogue, Columnist Tom Hennessey, Columnist Nicholas Kristof, Syndicated pet-care columnist Gina Spadafori

Nearly 60 California medical professionals including author John McDougall, MD, and general practitioners, cardiologists, pediatricians, chiropractors, dentists, optometrists, registered nurses and more.

National and state leaders from across the religious spectrum, including: the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, The Right Reverend Marc Handley Andrus, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California, The Right Reverend Joseph Jon Bruno, D.D., Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, Bishop Mary Ann Swenson, California-Pacific Conference, United Methodist Church, The Right Reverend James R. Mathes, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego, Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Seminary, Dr. Jack Hayford, President of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel/Chancellor of The King's Seminary, and more than 90 leaders of individual California congregations

Nearly 100 well-known experts, authors, actors, actresses, chefs, and others, including Dr. Jane Goodall, Michael Pollan, Ed Begley, Jr., Bill McKibben, Eric Schlosser, Ellen DeGeneres, Daryl Hannah, Alicia Silverstone, Ed Asner, and more

[Tumbulu]

25. If an industry has built itself upon the idea that animals are simple unfeeling machines

then it can go nowhere but down the drain.

It takes non industry people to come in and say "ENOUGH". And that is what is happening.

The real vets vs the ag industry vets. The real farmers (small local ones that produce free range eggs) vs agribusiness that happens to be located in San Diego County.

I am one of them. I have said enough to agribusiness all my working life and have paid heavy prices. Any group advocating tiny cages for animals clearly has lost touch with any regard for the animals involved and only are aware of the industries and the people who work in them. If you do not know that the agribusiness vets and others within industry who advocated and advised the industry to stick the hens in these tiny cages in the first place will not defend their advice tooth and claw, then I will be the one to tell you. These guys told the business folks to make money this way. It may indeed be the most efficient way to turn grain into eggs. The fact that animals have any feeling clearly did not enter into the equation. These people believe that animals have no feelings. Have you read Temple Grandin's book "Animals in Translation"? In it is the history of this in the Animal Husbandry curriculum still used at most universities.

I care about people too, but allowing torture to continue so that the industry does not have to change is the same short sighted reasoning that has brought the problem to a head.

The bill allows time for these industries to change. They can change (as they are in other states) or move onto other ways to make money.

[Oerdin]

16. I like local farm goods.

Here where I live in San Diego County egg farmers are the third biggest agricultural product in the county and just about all the farmers say they'll be out of business if prop 2 passes which means no more fresh local eggs in our markets and a lot less locally raised chickens as well. Instead it will all end up coming from out of state or from Mexico where health and animal welfare laws are more laxed then here in California. Prop 2 won't help a single bird but it will destroy an industry and family farms which are decades old. The extremists pushing this really should be ashamed.

A great article from the San Diego North County Times: http://www.northcountytimes.com/articles/2008/08/05/business/z27e52f5a4af6151e8825749c00576923.txt

A video where you can actually see the birds and here what the farmer has to say: http://videos.nctimes.com/p/video?id=2053216

[cabluedem]

18. Gotta love that "extremist" moniker. Who did you say you worked for , BTW?

[Oerdin]

20. I call it how I see it.

The people pushing this are mostly animal liberation wackos who believe all animals should be set free and there should be an end to animals in agriculture not to mention that everyone should become vegetarian. That's pretty damn extremist from any reasonable point of view.

As for what I do for a living, I am a geologist and I work mainly in the environmental clean up and enforcement field so please spare me the cries that I must be a secret agent if I actually support poor people actually being able to buy enough food to eat. I've been a poster here for years and if you'd like you can do a google search for my posts by typing "site:www.democraticunderground.com oerdin".

[roody]

21. In your next life, you may be an animal in a tiny cage.

But you will be making "cheap" food.

[Tumbulu]

27. I am not an animal liberation whacko and your rudeness again belongs to the wrong wing.

I am a farmer in northern California. I produce wheat, hay, and wool. My neighbor produces free range hogs, pasture raised eggs and vegetables all organically. They employ 65 workers- all of whom are provided with health and dental insurance.

The farm next down the road employs 85 workers who get health insurance as well. They produce veggies, fruits, grain, eggs, chicken, and lamb all organically and humanely.

The conventional farmers in our area are mostly out of business or going organic. The ranchers have all gone to grass fed local direct sales.

Agribusiness made lots of promises to small farmers that they cannot keep and this animal torturing is simply one of them. The animal products industries must change now. Torturing animals to make money in no longer acceptable. I do not believe the propaganda from the industry at all. They will be fighting hard to convince people that their cruel ways are not cruel and that they are justified. And after that, that everyone will lose their jobs.

This is exactly what they used to say about organic farming.

They are wrong.

Torture is torture.

[Tumbulu]

36. Edit:"And I'm proud to be an animal loving whacko from california" (to the tune of Okie from ...

I love animals. I love many people. I am sorry, I am not spiritually advanced enough to love W or the rest of that gang of thuds and I don't love anyone who hurts animals on purpose. And I especially hate people who call themselves professionals claiming that cruelty to animals is an acceptable way to produce food cheaply. These are the people who led this industry astray and are trying to justify their bad decisions by fighting reason at all costs.

Prop 2 is a chance for ordinary people who KNOW that animals have feelings to stand up for them a little bit. They will not be let out to pastures- as I would like to see all farm animals have access to real space and growing grass. But at least they will not be confined as brutally. By all means, please do not fall for this mantra from agribusiness pitting poor people against poor animals.

[Oerdin]

30. Watch the video

If you watch the video you'll see the conditions which the chickens are kept in and it's not that bad. They can stand up and turn around just fine. The big problem with the bill is that it dramatically increases the amount of space each chicken in the cage gets so that a farmer must reduce the number of chickens he owns or he must dramatically expand in order to maintain production and that will raise costs.

Further more we don't exist in a vacuum and the lion's share of the market will end up going to foreign or out of state egg producers. This means chickens will be no better off but the economy of California's rural areas will take a hit. Instead of being an egg and chicken exporter California will become a net importer. Sure, a handful of place will be able to move up market and survive but most farms won't. Make no mistake about it the UC Davis report is correct and this will destroy virtually all of a $350 million industry and make rural areas that much poorer.

[Tumbulu]

32. I watched the video

and you cannot smell the stench on camera. I have had chickens for 12 years , my neighbors have over 1000 chickens. I know a few things about chickens and I can tell you the ones in the video are young, but not healthy. Did you see them all panting and acting all desperate? These battery hens live about 1 year and then they are killed. And you must realize that this high of a concentration of any animal requires constant antibiotic feed, which is probably the main reason the Union of Concerned Scientists has come out against all CAFO's including the small cages for chickens. It is an outrage to risk the few viable antibiotics used as medicine so that animal product producers can make more money by converting less feed into product (meat, eggs, milk, etc). Let alone the torture part.

As I said in my above post of course the vets who advised the industry to go this way will defend their advice tooth and nail. They are graduates of the same school of thought as those brilliant animal science guys who advised feeding rendered animal parts and manure to cows to up the protein cheaply. Protein is protein and all that sort of oversimplification.

These are engineers who have no feelings for anything other than money and efficiency. Calories in and calories out, period. I have met them and had to work around them my whole life. They continue to view everything in the way you post.

It is always some outrage against an animal or nature so that some pathetic chemical age industry can survive.

The industry will not collapse, it will be forced to change. Not enough by all means, but it will be a little bit better for the birds.

[Silver Gaia]

38. Tumbulu, thank you for your posts.

I was already voting yes on Prop 2, but was happy to read your reasoned and caring arguments in its favor. Great job!

[Tumbulu]

40. Thank you for the positive words (nt)

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Auggie]

26. 2 has my vote.

And please extend my special thanks to Mrs. Bigleaf.

[ailsagirl]

28. Absolutely will do-- thanks for the heads-up

[chatnoir]

31. 2 has my vote and everyone I know - vote no to torture!

[mitchtv]

39. I'll be voting yes

thanks

[CADEMOCRAT7]

41. This morning's NYTimes asking to pass Prop 2

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/opinion/09thu3.html?th&emc=th

[Tumbulu]

42. Thanks for posting the editorial

it was so well written.

[CADEMOCRAT7]

45. You are welcome. I too thought it was well written. n/t

[Frances]

43. So, it's a Yes on 1a, Yes on 2, and No on 8 for me per DU posts

Any other suggestions for the other Props?

[CADEMOCRAT7]

44. CA voters can someone start a thread with the Props

Prop 1 yes
Prop 2 YES
Prop 3 need info
Prop 4 NO
Prop 5 need info
Prop 6 no
Prop 7 need info
Prop 8 NO
Prop 9 no
Prop 10 need info
Prop 11 need info
Prop 12 need info

[Oerdin]

49. The response.

I thought this response to that opinion piece was very well thought out.

"To the Editor:

The American Veterinary Medical Association urges California voters to think twice before voting on Proposition 2. Just because something sounds good on the surface does not necessarily make it a wise decision.

While well intended, Proposition 2 is primarily based on emotion and not on a thorough scientific evaluation of all factors that contribute to animal well-being.

For example, while Proposition 2 would provide greater freedom of movement, it would very likely compromise other factors necessary to ensure the overall welfare of the animals, especially with regard to protection from disease and injury.

To protect the welfare of the animals as well as the safety of America’s food supply, the A.V.M.A. calls for a thorough review of housing alternatives and the limitations that might be imposed by Proposition 2.

Unless experts in veterinary medicine and animal behavior are involved in the implementation, we fear Proposition 2 could ultimately harm the very animals it strives to help.

Ron DeHaven
Chief Executive
American Veterinary Medical Association
Schaumburg, Ill., Oct. 9, 2008"

[april]

46. Yes !

[ailsagirl]

47. Already voted-- yes on 2!!

[Oerdin]

48. Newspapers.

It's telling that just about every major newspaper in the state has urged readers to vote no including both the LA Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.

[Sirveri]

50. I'm voting no.

I'm sorry, as much as I like animals, at a time of rising costs across the board on energy, housing, medical, AND food. The last thing we need is a potential hit to the agri business. Ask again when unemployment isn't at 7-10% and things are a bit more stable. Also, they're food animals, they aren't my pet, and they aren't fellow human beings. I do not put livestock at the same level as other animals or people. Just like I don't put a fetus at the same level as a living breathing person. And I'm not trying to thread jack this, so please realise that was simply a comparison and not meant to start a roe v wade fight. These aren't pets, they're biological cogs in an industrial machine. And my vote is for those who are having a hard enough time providing food for their family without having to worry about an increase in food prices.

[Tumbulu]

51. So, unregulated capitalism is your thing?

You actually believe that because they are not someone's pets that it does not matter that they suffer dreadfully and require massive doses of antibiotics to simply live one year? And vast amounts of animal wastes should be cleaned up at taxpayers expense? The profits of agribusiness are sacrosanct to you because you think farm animals have as much feeling as a fetus? I am flummoxed by your reasoning. Do you advocate torturing fetuses so agribusiness can make a profit? I am mystified.

My goodness, minimal standards are critical for all industries. If you care about people surviving these tough times ahead, then work on increasing the funding for the food stamp program, or encourage people to keep chickens as pets instead of dogs and cats. Get a grip.

[Sirveri]

52. No I do not believe in unregulated capitalism.

> You actually believe that because they are not someone's pets that it does not matter that they suffer dreadfully
> and require massive doses of antibiotics to simply live one year?
<snip>

Yes it doesn't matter. THEY ARE FOOD.

We KILL them and EAT them. Sorry it sucks so bad to be livestock.

I believe in regulating capitalism when it is clearly working against the public interests (outsourcing, e-voting, the media, the prison industrial complex, the military industrial complex, the oil industry, offshore tax shelters, CEO pay, etc...). Last I checked, chickens and cows couldn't vote, didn't pay taxes, and weren't considered the public or human.

Either way it doesn't really matter, the projections show this vote to be passing by a margin of 70-10. That and I think both sides are blowing their arguements way out of proportion. But I'll still err on what I consider common sense. Don't risk increasing food prices during bad economic times, if times were good I'd be voting yes, but they're not.

[Ignis]

53. The callousness in this thread is amazing.

Since when do progressives post BigAgra industry talking points?

What's next, Exxon/Mobil's top 10 reasons NOT to buy a hybrid? :eyes:

---

Thanks very much for this thread, BigLeaf.