I didn't want to further hi-jack the trhead about the Idiot throwing chickens so I started a new one to encourage Californians on this board to vote NO on Proposition 2 this November.
The proposition proposes standards for the confinement of livestock including chickens, hogs, and calves and would make the use of battery cages, veal stalls, and gestation/lactation crated for sows illegal. Researchers at UC-Davis feel that passing the Proposition would eliminate egg production from California's Agriculture and force the citizens of California to rely on imports, both domestic and foreign, for their egg needs.
The following statement by the AVMA falls inline with my thoughts on the Proposition:
"Proposition 2 may have negative impacts on animals, consumers and the industry if it's passed," explains Dr. David McCrystle, AVMA Executive Board chair. "We fully agree that more attention needs to be paid to the behavioral and social needs of food animals, and Proposition 2 is laudable in that it attempts to address these needs, but the standards in this ballot initiative fall short in improving animal welfare because they fail to adequately consider other factors. Animal welfare is a complex issue and demands that decisions be based on science, tempered with compassion, and take into account all aspects of welfare. Changing housing standards without consideration of how this may affect other aspects of animal welfare, such as protection from disease and injury, will not be in the animals' or society's best interest."
So Californian's VOTE NO on Proposition 2 this November.
Jim
The proposition proposes standards for the confinement of livestock including chickens, hogs, and calves and would make the use of battery cages, veal stalls, and gestation/lactation crated for sows illegal. Researchers at UC-Davis feel that passing the Proposition would eliminate egg production from California's Agriculture and force the citizens of California to rely on imports, both domestic and foreign, for their egg needs.
The following statement by the AVMA falls inline with my thoughts on the Proposition:
"Proposition 2 may have negative impacts on animals, consumers and the industry if it's passed," explains Dr. David McCrystle, AVMA Executive Board chair. "We fully agree that more attention needs to be paid to the behavioral and social needs of food animals, and Proposition 2 is laudable in that it attempts to address these needs, but the standards in this ballot initiative fall short in improving animal welfare because they fail to adequately consider other factors. Animal welfare is a complex issue and demands that decisions be based on science, tempered with compassion, and take into account all aspects of welfare. Changing housing standards without consideration of how this may affect other aspects of animal welfare, such as protection from disease and injury, will not be in the animals' or society's best interest."
So Californian's VOTE NO on Proposition 2 this November.
Jim
