California Forumers - Please Vote Yes on Prop 2

[JackieB]

Hello California Forumers,

I'm creating this thread to ask you to please vote "YES" on Prop 2 this November. Prop 2 is an Act, that if passed, will prohibit cruel confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. I think we can agree that all animals deserve this much, but unfortunately they don't receive such consideration in large, factory farms.

Here is a brief, 30 second endorsement of Prop 2 from a California veterinarian. I hope you will watch it.

Warning: A few seconds of the video are graphic, but merely show the reality that is daily life for these animals currently.

YouTube - Prop 2 TV Commercial

Thank you for your consideration. Please pass the word along to your friends and colleagues if you agree that Prop 2 should pass.

[grandmadeb]

I will call my cousin tonight and ask her to make sure she votes for that proposition.

[JackieB]

Thanks, grandmadeb. I also heard that Oprah will have Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the US and representatives of California's agribusiness community on her show today (Tuesday) to debate the proposal.

[RackinRudy]

:clap: i applaud you for speaking out! i wish i lived in Cali to vote! I'd rather vote on this then who is going to be president. :doh:

Lisa

[Tiz]

Repulsive, and I didn't watch the video. I've been appalled by the way our food is raised forever.

We bought some hay from a dairy farmer a while ago. I learned, at his place, that dairy cows no longer lived in pastures, but spent their days in big sheds, with soupy poop covered concrete floors. They were filthy from laying down, and had their tails docked so they couldn't swish poop around when the milking machines were hooked up. The calves lived in little stalls, about 3 feet by 6 feet. I love milk, but couldn't drink it after that.
How about eliminating farm subsidies, and encouraging small farmers to raise animals the old fashioned way, with low interest start up loans.

[Mandzanita]

I will be voting YES!! I read about it in the voters book I got in the mail the other day. I'm glad it's on the ballet!

[WashingtonBay]

Repulsive, and I didn't watch the video. I've been appalled by the way our food is raised forever.

We bought some hay from a dairy farmer a while ago. I learned, at his place, that dairy cows no longer lived in pastures, but spent their days in big sheds, with soupy poop covered concrete floors. They were filthy from laying down, and had their tails docked so they couldn't swish poop around when the milking machines were hooked up. The calves lived in little stalls, about 3 feet by 6 feet. I love milk, but couldn't drink it after that.
How about eliminating farm subsidies, and encouraging small farmers to raise animals the old fashioned way, with low interest start up loans.

Did the farmer say why they were kept that way?

Up here, Dairies have been forced to do things similar because of environmental regulation that they can have no manure seepage into the ground, out of groundwater concerns. They have to construct these elaborate containment systems. It's driven many of them out of business, they simply can't afford to build what is required.

I guess the idyllic pastoral scene of dairy cows grazing in a field is really just hiding an environmental biohazard. :rolleyes:

The funny thing is, they can pump it all into a truck and spray it on the neighboring crop fields as fertilizer.

[JackieB]

How about eliminating farm subsidies, and encouraging small farmers to raise animals the old fashioned way, with low interest start up loans.

That's a brilliant idea, Tiz. It's a shame that you just don't see dairy farms with just 50 or 60 dairy cows anymore. It's all big agribusiness.

[WashingtonBay]

That's a brilliant idea, Tiz. It's a shame that you just don't see dairy farms with just 50 or 60 dairy cows anymore. It's all big agribusiness.

The small farms can't afford the cost of the $200,000 waste containment facilities.

[JackieB]

The small farms can't afford the cost of the $200,000 waste containment facilities.

Would a smaller farm need one?

[WashingtonBay]

They all have to do it... The cost I'm sure varies with the size of the operation... but the inspections are Dept of Ecology types, not Dept of Agriculture types, so it's bound to be full of hippy nonsense. ;)

A new state law requires that all dairy farms in the state be inspected to ensure compliance with state water-quality laws. Prior to the law, inspections occurred primarily in response to citizen complaints.

The new legislation gives dairy farmers until Dec. 31, 2003, to implement approved waste-management plans. The law establishes a technical-assistance and inspection program for all dairy farms. State agencies and the dairy industry are working with conservation districts to provide the technical information needed to develop those plans.


Highlights of the new dairy-waste management law include:


All dairy farms licensed to produce and sell milk in Washington state must register with the Department of Ecology by Sept. 1, 1998.



Dairy inspections will begin by Oct. 1, 1998, with all dairies inspected by Oct. 1, 2000.



If a farm does not develop a management plan within the next four years or implement it within the next five years, Ecology may issue penalties of up to $100 per month, to a maximum of $5,000. Monies collected from fines will fund grants to help develop farm plans.

[Tiz]

Isn't that nonsense? Of all the groups in America, I think environmentalists have done the most damage.

[WashingtonBay]

I know it's driven a lot of the smaller dairies out of business. They just couldn't afford it.

Anyway... that's what's going on in this state. CA may vary. But I do find it interesting that the competing interest groups might be sending conflicting signals. While the animal rights groups want them outside on grass, the ecology types want them on concrete with waste containment ponds.

And of course, many of those at ecology probably don't really mind running a dairy farm out of business on a whole lot of hippy grounds.


I'm sure the strip mall will be more ecofriendly than the farm was.

[cheval]

Those of you that eat veal or lamb might want to consider this especially.

I hate seeing the little calves in those tiny crates. People will argue it's a food industry.

[WashingtonBay]

I don't eat veal because of the little crates, and I've never had lamb.

Matt and Trey from South Park said it best: Go ahead, eat meat, just don't eat babies.

[cheval]

Except that you can get veal and lamb from adults!

I have no trouble eating adults - but the little guys - it's just different somehow. We were talking about this a long time back and someone asked, well how can you eat eggs then - those are baby chickens! I just said I didn't see eggs as a animal with form.

[oursarge]

We live in a farming community but it's harder and harder to make ends meet so the little farmers are folding. The ones who have stopped farming are struggling to keep their land. Many have signed gas leases, they aren't good leases but they were desperate for money to pay taxes and not have to sell their land. It's very sad.

I don't eat meat. It's really hard for me because the stable our mare is at will get calves, pigs and goats they raise to eat. I try not to even look at them, it upsets me but they look at it as a way of life, something they've always done. They are treated fine but it still upsets me. The kids show them in 4-H then some get sold to others and some go to them for food [Not the goats, they don't eat the goats but the males go to the fair and get sold]. I wanted to buy all of the males but we have such a coyote problem they'd probably die anyway.

[rocknK]

After studying up on this issue & listening to both sides I'm gonna have to vote no on this issue. Sure improvements need to be made, but this has just too many cumbersome restrictions for ranchers.

[missdixie]

I already did! I am a military wife stationed in WA so I vote California by mail :p

[JackieB]

After studying up on this issue & listening to both sides I'm gonna have to vote no on this issue. Sure improvements need to be made, but this has just too many cumbersome restrictions for ranchers.

That's a pretty tough position, rocknK. These animals deserve this much consideration from us simply because they exist. Frankly, it's shameful that we lost at least this portion of our moral compasses somewhere along the way when we decided that providing the "product" at the lowest possible cost would outweigh affording these animals basic quality of life.

Here is the entire law from the State of California's website. I hope you will read it and consider changing your position. By the way, the provisions don't take effect until January 1, 2015 so that farmers have time to make these changes.

PROPOSITION 2
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure adds sections to the Health and Safety Code;
therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to
indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED LAW
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This act shall be known and may be cited as the Prevention of Farm Animal
Cruelty Act.
SECTION 2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this act is to prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals
in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up,
and fully extend their limbs.
SECTION 3. FARM ANIMAL CRUELTY PROVISIONS
Chapter 13.8 (commencing with Section 25990) is added to Division 20 of
the Health and Safety Code, to read:
CHAPTER 13.8. FARM ANIMAL CRUELTY
25990. PROHIBITIONS. In addition to other applicable provisions of law, a
person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the
majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from:
(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and
(b) Turning around freely.
25991. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms
have the following meanings:
(a) “Calf raised for veal” means any calf of the bovine species kept for the
purpose of producing the food product described as veal.
(b) “Covered animal” means any pig during pregnancy, calf raised for
veal, or egg-laying hen who is kept on a farm.
(c) “Egg-laying hen” means any female domesticated chicken, turkey, duck,
goose, or guinea fowl kept for the purpose of egg production.
(d) “Enclosure” means any cage, crate, or other structure (including what
is commonly described as a “gestation crate” for pigs; a “veal crate” for
calves; or a “battery cage” for egg-laying hens) used to confine a covered
animal.
(e) “Farm” means the land, building, support facilities, and other equipment
that are wholly or partially used for the commercial production of animals or
animal products used for food or fiber; and does not include live animal
markets.
(f) “Fully extending his or her limbs” means fully extending all limbs
without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the case of egg-laying
hens, fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or
other egg-laying hens.
(g) “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture,
association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or
syndicate.
(h) “Pig during pregnancy” means any pregnant pig of the porcine species
kept for the primary purpose of breeding.
(i) “Turning around freely” means turning in a complete circle without any
impediment, including a tether, and without touching the side of an
enclosure.
25992. EXCEPTIONS. This chapter shall not apply:
(a) During scientific or agricultural research.
(b) During examination, testing, individual treatment or operation for
veterinary purposes.
(c) During transportation.
(d) During rodeo exhibitions, state or county fair exhibitions, 4-H programs,
and similar exhibitions.
(e) During the slaughter of a covered animal in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 19501) of Part 3 of Division
9 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to humane methods of slaughter,
and other applicable law and regulations.
(f) To a pig during the seven-day period prior to the pig’s expected date of
giving birth.
25993. ENFORCEMENT. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this
chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be
punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by
imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days or by both
such fine and imprisonment.
25994. CONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER.
The provisions of this chapter are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other
laws protecting animal welfare, including the California Penal Code. This
chapter shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulations protecting
the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this chapter prevent a local
governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and
regulations.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this act, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this act
that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATES
The provisions of Sections 25990, 25991, 25992, 25993, and 25994 shall
become operative on January 1, 2015

[rocknK]

JB, if the SF Chronicle ( the most left-wing liberal canary cage liner on the planet ) isn't in favor of it I guess I'll defer to their higher intellect. The chicken rancher I heard quoted said there wouldn't be enough room in the state for all the chickens if they had to run free. As I read this legislation it seems really onerous. I think they oughta try again with something a little more reasonable.

[JackieB]

The chicken rancher I heard quoted said there wouldn't be enough room in the state for all the chickens if they had to run free.

Well, fortunately for him if this passes, the bill doesn't say anything about any animal being allowed to run free. With chickens, for example, it just says that they much be able to spread their wings without touching another chicken.

Right now, hens in those cages are crammed in with six in a cage that's about big enough for two. So, this means that such a facility would have to be about three times its size. You've probably seen those egg farms, they are about the size of a large grocery store. California may be populous, but I've spend a lot of time in the state, and there are millions of acres of land that are as rural as anywhere in the U.S.

I do understand the economic argument. There will definitely be a cost associated with making these changes if the bill passes. But that's hardly new in the history of U.S. I'll bet you anything that if I went to a library with an archive of old newspapers, I could find articles from business owners complaining that they would be driven to ruin if they have to stop making children work 12 hours a day and allow them to attend school. And others who if a minimum wage is implemented that they'll have to lay off every one of their workers.

But as society progresses and we (hopefully) become more aware of what it means to be civilized, fair, and kind, these laws change. And we're all a bit better off for it, even the business people who initially claim to be harmed.

I hope you will reconsider your position, rocknK.

[rocknK]

Jb, what I know about chickens is that unhappy or sick hens don't produce. I guess Kalifornia hens must be healthy & happy because they lay ALOT of eggs. I know more than several folks in the agricultural community. They are true stewards of the animals who take their husbandry VERY seriously. They do their best for the critters so they can feed their families. The key to any business is efficency. I think that is best left to the folks actually running the business. When I was a kid I used to visit cousins who had chickens. They let them out during the day. Some didn't come back. They always seemed real happy to hop back in their coop. Don't know if it was for warmth or security, I guess you'd have to ask them.