California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 2, which will require that egg-laying hens, calves raised for veal, and pregnant pigs be given enough room to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely. Get the background on this groundbreaking ballot initiative.
Poultry in Motion
California OKs measure requiring more humane treatment of farm animals 7
-
Posted 12:44 AM on 5 Nov 2008
-
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 9:08 pm
04 Nov 2008
Unfortunately, on another important issue of extending justice, the muddled politics of California is painfully disappointing:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008 ...
Permalink
Meredith Niles Posted 4:21 am
05 Nov 2008
Permalink
Pathos Posted 4:35 pm
05 Nov 2008
So, anyone know how you go about sticking an initiative on a ballot in any state other than California?
Canis, you must be ecstatic; you've been dwelling on this particular issue--and, in fact, one of those specific animals--in your signature for years. :)
On a more serious subject, sorry to hear about yet another three states enshrining bigotry on their lawbooks--and I know California in particular comes as a crushing blow. But for what it's worth, this does not represent a surge in homophobia; it's a reaction to the increasing openness and tolerance in our society. History has shown it's the nature of our species to evolve from narrow-minded to open-minded, from selfish and cruel to compassionate. Things will get better. <hugs>
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:42 am
06 Nov 2008
But my mood is hardly ecstatic. For one thing, animal-rights/animal-welfare/animal-protection promoters were not on the same page, regarding Prop 2; not all supported it, with those who did not support it saying that it does not go far enough, and that those who did support it are fools, or feeble, or traitors.
It is always dismaying when activists indignantly denounce their allies for being insufficiently pure or committed. E.g., in a recent newsletter, the Humane Farming Association has denounced Farm Sanctuary for approving a certain government action which HFA finds fault with. Since I like FS very much, but also admire the more Western work of HFA, it is not at all edifying for me to observe one attacking the other.
The excellent Karen Dawn, in her wonderful recent book "Thanking the Monkey," seems to feel about this sort of thing much as I do, and appeals to all activists to put aside their bitter intramural vituperations.
Another worry that we may have regarding the victory of Prop 2 is that many Californians may exaggerate its positive effects. It is true that the close confinement of animals in cages is a serious animal-welfare issue; and the elimination of those cages is a meaningful victory. But it is only one of a number of such issues. And consumers of California-raised meat and eggs would be wrong to conclude, simply, that those products will henceforth be "cruelty-free," and will be coming from "happy animals."
More generally, California's method (unique in the US, so far as I know) of allowing its legal code to be altered by means of propositions to be voted on in election booths in November, is an experiment in direct democracy that cannot be said to be altogether satisfactory. The victory of Proposition 8, which apparently legitimizes the tyranny of the majority over a disliked minority, is an excellent example of how "the will of the people" has nothing to do with the working of justice.
A sad detail in the otherwise gloriously happy victory of Barack Obama is that increased turn-out of black and Latino voters in California, who went to the polls to vote for Obama, may have assured the terrificly unhappy victory of Proposition 8. Whether it is true or not, as is widely believed, that African-Americans and Latinos are the most homophobic racial/ethnic groups in the US, it has certainly been reported that African-American and Latino pastors are claiming that their congregations put Proposition 8 over the top.
Permalink
kmp Posted 4:03 am
06 Nov 2008
On Prop 8, I too, was very saddened by the news, and in fact, somewhat baffled. How do lawmakers deal with issues like this? Thousands of gay and lesbian couples were legally married as of Nov. 3rd; marriage being the institution that it is, affects health insurance, beneficiary status, taxes, community property laws, and your very name. How can this suddenly be reversed by a vote on a ballot, especially when the Supreme Court has already ruled the measure unconstitutional. I'm not sure how this even got on the ballot in the first place.
That said, as I pointed out to another friend yesterday, at the very least we can take (small, very small) solace in the fact that the numbers are heading in the right direction. Eight years ago when this measure was on the CA ballot 61% of voters voted for the ban. In this week's election, it passed by a slim margin of 52%. One can only hope that the reason the far right is fighting so hard make gay marriage illegal is that they can feel the ground falling away from under them.
In other bizarre news, Ralph Nader cautioned Barack Obama against becoming an "Uncle Tom" on the very day of Obama's historic election. It was on FOX news, and even the FOX news anchor felt Nader had gone too far! The man has really gone 'round the twist.
Permalink
Boyscientist Posted 5:17 am
07 Nov 2008
I hope it is good what everyone is doing for food animals. I grew up on a farm and have seen both good and bad practices. Some of these same good people thought they were doing good things for wild horses and for tame ones when they banned the export of horses for human consumption. Hundreds even thousands of horses starve to death here in the USA RIGHT NOW because you can't get rid of them. Auctions have closed, haulers out of business, you can't give them away, you can't plug them in the head a .22 and bury them on your own property (unless you have a backhoe).
I can't even eat them though I prefer beef and salmon. Every horse ever born in the world becomes unserviceable for anything more than an expensive ($1500 per year) lawn decoration long before it dies a natural death. Who is to pay for their life-time upkeep (or disposal) when a lawyer with 30 racehorses goes bankrupt and flees to Bermuda or Granny out on the farm passes away with a herd of ten. We've seen both with dead starved horses laying among the living.
And this was before the ban when it was possible to sell them for meat like a cow or pig. Please pardon my off topic screed. I have, and live with horses and take care of them like children. It pains me greatly to see the animals suffer so much because of misguided people who think they are helping animals.
I'm not saying this new ban is bad, maybe it's good, I may be jaded by recent history. The only change presently is that Californians will have a choice of two kinds of eggs at two different price ranges, unless they plan to ban import of eggs not produced by their preferred methods.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:11 pm
08 Nov 2008
It is sad, that the "ownership" of horses should become such a burden, on account of laws intended to promote the humane treatment of those horses. Plainly, the legal situation still requires much adjustment.
With regard to ethics, though, we should all begin to grow past the concept of "ownership" of animals. "Guardianship" expresses the nature of our relationship with them somewhat better. Animals are our vulnerable captives, subjects, slaves, victims; when we correctly understand ourselves to be their guardians, we will ackowledge that we have a responsibility to do what we can to maintain their safety, health, and well-being.
Permalink