PROP 2 – Vote NO
This proposition is called the STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Beginning January 1, 2015, this measure prohibits with certain exceptions the confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Under the measure, any person who violates this law would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months.
Proponents claim that this measure would stop cruel and inhumane treatment of certain food animals by requiring that they be kept in cages large enough for them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.
Opponents claim that this measure would ban modern housing systems for egg-laying hens. In addition, they claim that implementing Prop 2 would drive California family farmers out of business or out of state where regulations are more lax, raising the cost of California eggs.
The independent Legislative Analyst states:
Compared to current practice most commonly used by California farmers in the affected industries, this measure would require more space and/or alternate methods for housing pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens. As a result, this measure would increase production costs for some of these farmers. To the extent that these higher production costs cause some farmers to exit the business, or otherwise reduce overall production and profitability, there could be reduced state and local tax revenues. The magnitude of this fiscal effect is unknown, but potentially in the range of several million dollars annually.
This is the relevant text of this proposal:
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.
——-edit 10/28/08———
Recommendation:
My recommendation is to vote NO. While I previously took no stance on this issue, upon further research and reflection, I believe this measure would be bad for our economy and unfairly burden egg producers in California. Furthermore, I find that the campaign being waged by the proponents is somewhat misleading and uses emotion rather than good science to make its point. While certainly no one thinks it’s ok to abuse animals, the claims that the treatment of hens on egg farms rises to the level of cruelty is unsupported. Furthermore, we need to be careful of transferring our sense of “comfort” onto animals. For example, if you forced a human to continue standing indefinitely, that would be abuse, but for horses, it is the norm. Therefore, it is often difficult to know the “comfort level” of the animals in question and making law based on our emotional reactions is almost never a good idea. Finally, if some one truly objects to the how egg producers treat their animals, they can choose not to buy their products and only purchase “cage free” eggs. Since it’s unclear that these animals are being mistreated, I’m recommending a no vote on this issue.
For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 2
My previous comments:
My recommendation is to vote your conscience. If you feel it is inhumane to confine food animals in such a way that they are not able to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs at all times, then you should vote yes.
If you feel that State law which currently requires that animals confined in an enclosed area be provided with an adequate exercise area, and permitted access to adequate shelter, food, and water is sufficient or that the economic hardship that might be imposed by this measure outweighs the benefits, you should vote no.
|
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think. |
by David Boaz or 
by David Bergland, both excellent books on libertarian thought.
sending...
Comment by Abe | November 3rd, 2008
Good thoughts.
I’ve done a significant amount of research on this, and based upon my research, I do believe that hens are improperly treated. I will ignore my Libertarian principles on this one and vote yes.
[Reply]
Comment by freedomminute | November 3rd, 2008
Thanks for your reply Abe. I’m not convinced that there is mistreatment and when in doubt, I vote no. If it’s really something that needs to be changed by making new laws, I think there are other avenues rather than a ballot initiative with a highly emotional campaign attached. Plus the initiative can always be brought back in another election. I’d love to know specifically what has convinced you to vote yes.
[Reply]
Comment by Abe | November 3rd, 2008
1) Similar laws have been passed in other states with little economic detriment.
2) Chickens raised for food are not stored in battery cages — therefore, I do not believe the food safety argument. There are many food safety experts that argue that battery cages negatively effect food safety.
3) The hens do not have to be free-range animals. They must only be given the rights to basic movement. Right now, hens are kept in deplorable conditions. There are many pictures and videos online (google image search / youtube) showing hens in battery cages and the conditions they live in.
I am not a vegetarian. I am not a PETA member. And I generally disagree with government intervention. However, my conscience will not let me vote NO on this one.
Laws such as this are common in many states, in much of the European Union, and supported by Democrats and Republicans. I am voting NO on all other ballot initiatives.
[Reply]