Basically Prop 2 is common sense. It is just plain mean and hatefully to confine animals in dank dark prisons the size of their body.
VOTE YES ON PROP 2.

hey lizzy, how are things over at center for consumer freedom?

The HSUS was able to pass a law in Florida banning the use of gestation crates and look where Florida is now. It wasn’t possible for some farmers to keep their farms going and now they’re looking at a taxpayer bailout. How many people who are outraged at the AMVA’s stance are willing to pay much more for the meats and products that come from this and support the farmers who could be forced to comply?

No one wants to see any animal suffer, but this is not a nation of vegeteraians. Are the folks who are so beside themselves with anger over the AMVA’s position all going to be willing to pay double for the products that come from California if this is passed? Are they going to be willing to seek them out? Or will they clap and pat themselves on the back because California passed a humane law and still purchase cheaper meats from other states which will put California farmers in the same position as Florida?

It’s an uncomfortable place to be and I can see both points of view, but what really needs to be looked at is what’s behind this. Is this being pushed through by PeTA and HSUS at the backdoor? If so then it needs to be squashed in its tracks. Those organizations do no good for anyone, human or animal. Are the products being produced dangerous to humans? What are the real pros and cons? The AMVA’s position and the Prop 2 position, which is really better for all involved? Whenever I hear of something like this, it automatically makes me suspicious because of the animal rights agenda that wants to abolish all meat, all dairy, all pets, all zoos, supports BSL and MSN, wants all research halted even if it saves lives and thinks no human should ever, for any reason, touch or have any contact with an animal. Even though Ingrid from PeTA uses insulin. They are hypoctical at best and dangerous at worst.

Personally, I buy all my meat and dairy from farmer’s markets where I’m familiar with the way the animals are raised, how they’re fed, etc. I feed my dogs raw, though I am a vegetarian, and it’s very important for me to know the meat they’re consuming is safe for them. I can’t stand the idea of any animal being made to suffer, but I also know that it’s not nearly this easy to fix. This is what the animal rights groups want. They want to pass legislation that drives farmers out of business. If this happens state by state then soon meat will be too expensive for anyone to raise and we won’t have a choice. I’ve made my choice to be a vegetarian, but I do not think the entire country should be forced into a vegan existence just to satisfy the maniacal ravings of a fringe minority.

So before we all jump on the wagon and condemn the AMVA, why don’t look at what we’re saying. If you eat meat, then how humane are your actions, really? I’m willing to accpet that some animals will suffer for me to feed my dogs. If you wear leather, wear wool, eat pork, beef, dairy . . . are you willing to go out of your way to purchase products made only from animals who are treated humanely? And pay much higher prices? And how is killing ever humane? For any reason? I certainly don’t have all the answers, but before we all start waving the animal rights flags, we should at least look into these things and make decisions based on what we need and are comfortable with in our own lives and then we can go from there. Unless, of course, we’re all ready to become a nation of petless vegans.

I easily came to the conclusion that the proposition’s benefits to animal welfare are decisive.

Nonetheless, your thoughts and comments are welcome and appreciated.

I also have serious doubts about Prop 2. Unfortunately, I do not live in CA or I’d vote on it. Now, before getting your pants in a wad, I strongly encourage you to go to http://www.abolitionistapproach.com for some very clear reasoning on this subject. I have nothing to do with the web site, other than I read it. The latest blog post of Prof Gary Francione lays out very clearly why he, I and everyone who believes that animals should not just have larger cages, but that they should NOT BE in cages in the first place – including the laughable farce that is “humanely raised” meat – think that laws like Prop 2 is not the answer.

Go there and read it and think about why supporting this might just not be a good idea. The AVMA does sound like it is a mouthpiece for the industry. I however, certainly am not.

At issue is the incompleteness of Prop 2. It isn’t the revolutionary bit of legislation we all wish it were. Sure, it sounds great on the surface. Who wants animals confined in cramped quarters?

Problem is, it really doesn’t do much to solve the problems many producers will run into if they don’t also act carefully to limit aggressive interactions between animals housed in larger pens, if they don’t actually provide MUCH larger spaces so animals won’t hurt themselves.

Prop 2 doesn’t address these unintended consequences. And I don’t trust factory farm producers to spend the MUCH higher dollars on doing the right thing for the animals.

While I have misgivings about Prop 2 (along the lines of the AVMA’s), 2015 is still a long time away. I’m in support of Prop 2 in the hopes that it will give rise to further industry changes as this legislation’s limitations become more well understood.

As Director of the AVMA’s Animal Welfare Division, it seems appropriate to clarify what appears to be a misperception about the AVMA’s position on Proposition 2. If you read the statement from the AVMA it says (in part): “The American Veterinary Medical Association believes Proposition 2, ‘Standards for Confining Farm Animals,’ is admirable in its goal to improve the welfare of production farm animals; however, it ignores critical aspects of animal welfare that ultimately would threaten the well-being of the very animals it strives to protect….Proposition 2 would clearly provide greater freedom of movement, but would likely compromise several of the other factors necessary to ensure the overall welfare of the animals, especially with regard to protection from disease and injury.”

Maintaining good welfare within housing systems involves trade-offs. For example, housing systems that allow hens to perform more natural behaviors (e.g., nest building for laying hens) often present more challenges for disease and injury control. Conversely, improving disease and injury control by more intensively confining hens can limit the hens’ freedom of movement and ability to engage in normal behaviors.

On its Website, the AVMA has posted a chart (see: http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/cage_noncage_systems.asp) showing the welfare advantages and disadvantages of various housing systems for laying hens. The list of welfare indicators in the chart isn’t exhaustive. The chart simply makes the point that ensuring good welfare in housing systems is not as simple as providing more space.

The comparison presented in the chart is consistent with the results of another comprehensive analysis of the scientific literature completed a few years ago by a group of well-respected animal welfare scientists who looked at how and what additional space provided welfare benefits for laying hens. They found the “benefits” curve was actually bell-shaped. In other words, increasing space from A to B accrued welfare benefits; however, once you got beyond a certain space allocation (i.e., increased space from B to C), other factors kicked in and providing additional space negatively, rather than positively, impacted the birds.

The AVMA acknowledges and agrees that the behavioral needs Proposition 2 attempts to address are important, but we also recognize that other needs of animals must be considered in parallel. To protect animal welfare you need to establish guidelines for housing animals that take ALL factors into account. Unfortunately, Proposition 2 doesn’t do that. In addition, depending on how its language is ultimately interpreted, Proposition 2 could potentially prohibit the adoption of housing systems that might represent the best presently available solution to fulfilling a range of criteria for good animal welfare. For example, it is not clear whether use of enriched cages would be permissible under Proposition 2—such systems are showing promise both in research and in practical application.

To address another issue raised by posts in this blog, try as some might to call attention to the perceived conflict between the AVMA and the CVMA, the statements by both are actually closely aligned. Both the AVMA and the CVMA have emphasized the importance of evaluating all relevant factors affecting the welfare of animals potentially affected by Proposition 2. And, both underscore the need for the involvement of qualified veterinarians when developing standards of care for animals. Where we differ is that the AVMA chose not to recommend endorsement of Proposition 2 because of concerns that it doesn’t fully address all aspects of animal welfare. However, AVMA also chose not to oppose Proposition 2. Instead, we are advising our members to evaluate proposals like Proposition 2 carefully and not be swayed by the thirty-second sound bite—no matter how logical it sounds or where it might come from.

Finally, the AVMA is in no one’s “pocket” when it comes to decision-making. We look carefully at the science, as well as its practical application, and let the chips fall where they may. In this case, the chips fell in a question mark regarding Proposition 2.

I appreciate your consideration of my comments,

Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM, MACVSc (Animal Welfare)
Director, Animal Welfare Division
American Veterinary Medical Association