Oregon bill seeks to criminalize breeding/raising livestock for meat

[JacinLarkwell]

Even the one that had mentioned waiting until 1/4 of the natural lifespan was completed before butcher is ridiculous. They had like 6 years for rabbits, 6 for turkeys, 10 for chickens and 20 for a cow. There were more but I can't remember all of them. Sure, I've eaten rabbits that were over 18 months, but I'm not gonna raise my roosters for almost 3 years before butcher constantly

 

[Ducklingguy]

Yet another example of Romans 1:25 coming out:

[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Scripture plainly states pork is not clean, and I personally don’t believe it is. I don’t eat it, and I feel better not eating it.
Jesus ate fish.

I’m not exactly speaking from a political viewpoint either, but a spiritual one.

I don’t believe we are supposed to eat pork. I KNOW ham and bacon can be hard to break, but it can be done. Substitute it with turkey bacon, which I think is cleaner for our temples and souls.

Pigs are tortured in these slaughter houses from what I’ve seen, and it’s truly heartbreaking. As human beings, we could do without pork. It’s not a “have to” or a nutritional source for our bodies.
Lol, I’m not trying to sound like a pushover or judgmental, but that’s my opinion in the subject of, at least, pork.

Ducklingguy

 

[turkey girl 0964]

The body cannot live on bread alone. Matthew 4:4 We are living in a very broken world.

 

[RoostersAreAwesome]

And forcing roosters to share a run with a roughly equal number of hens is likely to going to result in a lot of roosters fighting each other, and a lot of stress on the hens being constantly pursued by a whole bunch of roosters jostling for position in the pecking order.

I’d assume that, in this scenario, the roosters would be put in a separate coop and run from the hens.

 

[Vickischics]

I was shocked when I heard about this. I'm wondering how well-known this is among people who actually raise livestock, whether for meat or eggs or whatever. Anyone from Oregon familiar with it? I'm not a resident but I'm very worried about the kind of precedent it might set if it passes and other states follow suit. Colorado is already proposing a similar, though slightly less draconian, iniative.

Check out this link for the details: https://www.farmprogress.com/livestock/oregon-initiative-would-ban-animal-slaughter-breeding

In a nutshell, it would reclassify livestock slaughter as "aggravated abuse," and artificial insemination and castration would both be considered "sexual assault." I realize the latter doesn't really apply to chicken breeding, but banning the slaughter of livestock on its own could have a devastating impact on backyard chicken owners.

Even if you just keep some pullets as pets and never butcher them, consider this: in order to buy pullets, hens, or sex-linked female chicks, someone somewhere needs to be culling the males. This would be banned under the proposed law, which states that livestock can only be slaughtered, either for meat or otherwise, after they've died of natural causes. Meaning that, at least in Oregon, no one would be allowed to hatch chicken eggs unless they are prepared to care for or rehome the roosters for their entire natural lifespan (anyone know the average natural lifespan of a domesticated chicken? I've seen a wide range of estimates). This would probably put any Oregon-based hatcheries out of business or force them to leave the state, but it would also criminalize most backyard breeding, since not many owners of small flocks have the means to care for roosters long-term.

First of all, many towns have local ordinances against raising roosters. People living in these towns may still be able to breed and hatch their own chicks, as long as they cull the males before they reach adulthood, but of course the new law would make this illegal.

Even if your town does allow roosters, assuming approximately half of all hatched eggs turn out to be males, the only way to raise an entire brood together into adulthood with male-to-female ratios of 1:1, or even more (if you're expecting to sell some of the females), is to have a very large area to ensure the roosters have enough space that they won't be constantly fighting each other. This usually requires either free-ranging on a large enough area of land that the chickens aren't wandering into your neighbor's property, or a very large fenced-in pasture. Few people have those kinds of resources, and those that do are not likely to want to set them aside for a bunch of roosters that have to be fed and cared for for years before they can be used for meat, and that's assuming they die a natural death that doesn't render the meat unfit for human consumption, as is likely if they die from either illness or attack by a predator.

Even if you have the space to free-range, many areas have such high predator pressure that you can't free-range birds without attracting predators that will gradually decimate your flock and potentially put your other livestock at risk. And forcing roosters to share a run with a roughly equal number of hens is likely to going to result in a lot of roosters fighting each other, and a lot of stress on the hens being constantly pursued by a whole bunch of roosters jostling for position in the pecking order.

None of these scenarios seems particularly humane to the animals, despite claims from the bill's advocates that this is all for the sake of animal welfare. And while re-homing a rooster may seem like an ethical alternative to raising them in large numbers in enclosed spaces, anyone who's ever tried to rehome a rooster knows how hard it is to find people willing to take even one off your hands, let alone pay you for it. You can sometimes find someone with a backyard flock who needs a rooster, but there just isn't enough demand for roosters to match the supply generated from even a small breeding operation, unless you allow them to be sold for meat. And if this bill passes, then much of that existing demand will fall off as backyard breeders realize they can no longer hatch their own eggs, removing much of the incentive for keeping a rooster in the first place.

What do you think? Are there further implications to this bill that I haven't mentioned? Does anyone disagree with me and think this could be a good thing for backyard chicken owners, or that I'm misinterpreting the bill's meaning? What do you think are the odds that this will pass into law? I'm especially interested to hear what Oregonians think of this. Were you aware of the initiative? Are you worried it will pass? And finally, if anyone wants to wade into it, what does this say about the government's position on individuals' right to pursue self-sufficiency, or at least local food economies and infrastructure, and independence from centralized, industrialized food production? Is this an attack on homesteaders and others who are trying to opt-out of industrial agriculture to force people to switch to lab-grown meat or stop eating meat altogether? Or is it a crackdown on inhumane industrial farming practices, and backyard flocks are simply the unintended collateral damage caught in the crossfire?

edit: Originally I said that the bill required animals to be raised for 1/4th of their natural lifespan, but upon reviewing the link above I realized that this standard actually comes from a similar bill proposed in Colorado. The Oregon bill specifically states that animals must die of natural causes before they can be used for meat. I've corrected the text above to reflect that.

It is on my opinion and based on the information you provided, You have an IDIOT for a Governor.
Vote it OUT!!!

 

[Tilhana]

I would not panic yet, were I you.

My point is that its not a bill.

If and when they get enough signatures to potentially put it on the ballot, THAT is when you get concerned. Its also the first time you can do anything about it.

Insane, part of the fringe, amendments are filed every single year. Proportionality dictates that you can't get upset over them, and must be dismissive, because so few of them will ever collect enough signatures, much less make the ballot. Otherwise, your time is spent tilting at potential windmills while far more solid ones are being erected in the normal course.

...and HERE is the referenced CO proposal - note the somewhat easier to read draft mark-up.

It appears to be at a similar point in the process, and required similarly little to be presented to the CO Sec of State.

There are not enough similarities in the Bills, in my view, to suggest coordinated action on the part of the Petitioners. This is merely like minded idiots pursuing similar goals.

Very informative - I suspected that the italics/brackets was indicating deletions but it took me a few confused minutes comparing it to the article I originally linked to to figure it out. Good to hear clarification with someone who has experience reading and writing legalese.

I take your point that it's so early in the process as not to indicate any likelihood of getting on the ballot or being necessarily representative of any decent-sized voting block. I guess I also was mistaken when I referred to it as a "bill" - that was the language used when the link was shared with me and I didn't make the distinction between a bill and a ballot measure, so thank you for pointing that out.

I'm not an Oregon resident, so I wouldn't say I'm panicking. I'm more concerned about the possible trend this might indicate. I'm not sure I'd agree that the measure in Colorado is different enough to seem completely unrelated. Granted, I don't see all the rejected ballot measures presented across the country every year; it may be that groups like PETA are putting forward initiatives like these every year, in which case I would agree it's just a coincidence.

But as I said earlier, this does seem to line up with rheotric I've been hearing from other sources - including parties with deep pockets and a lot of influence - about needing to wean people off of real meat and get them used to the idea of being vegetarians, or switching to lab-grown meat, or farming insects for meat instead of mammals and birds. So I wonder if these initiatives are, if not necessarily coordinated or sponsored by big influential people, at least put forward by people who are perhaps emboldened by that kind of talk into thinking that they are on the cutting edge of future mainstream policy shifts. Hopefully the majority of citizens will balk such radical measures.

But I live in a pretty hardcore blue state myself, and the echo chamber here is so deafening you'd never know that 40% of the state votes conservative because they're all too intimidated to voice their opinions in public. And what would have once been the fringes of political voices have become so magnified that it's hard to tell where the middle is anymore, or tell the difference between a vocal majority and a shrill minority with a megaphone.

 

[Tilhana]

Very true, the objective is to ban meat without coming out and saying it. Of course, it just gets my mental wheels churning ...

... what would people say when the can't buy dog food/cat food anymore?
... if you built a feeder-trigger activated chicken guillotine, would that count as dying of natural causes?
... what about all of the wildlife killed protecting crops?

And of course ....
... what's worse, that people have the free time on there hands to put together such initiatives, or that they actually find enough other people around to get as far as they do?

Excellent points! There's nothing about banning pets, but most dog and cat food is made from the same livestock animals, except that ironically, to keep prices down that meat is usually coming from the worst CAFO operations rather than there being organic, pasture-raised, or locally-sourced options which would tend towards more human treatment of animals.

Yes, I suspect the goal is to ban meat without actually banning it. Just make it so difficult to produce that it becomes radically expensive and people are forced to cut back. Eventually the industry will shrink as producers realize the number of people who can afford to buy their product is too small to make economies of scale work, and they'll shut down operations.

 

[Tilhana]

That of course is the point. Look at the post here with people talking about texture differences in free-range 16-week old birds. Can you imagine the consumer complaints eating six-year-old Birds?

Actually, I'm not certain the USDA allows processing for human consumption of animals that died of natural causes. I know they can't process downed cattle. Chickens may or may not be different.

Yes, and in addition to the consumer complaints, imagine how much more expensive it would be to produce animals for meat if you had to raise them for years longer than you currently do before butchering them. Most meat chickens are butchered at 8 weeks; the CO bill defines a chicken's lifespan as 8 years. That's an astronomical difference in food costs, and a reduction in turnover rate that would require orders of magnitude more land and a drastic increase in meat prices to make it even worthwhile.

And then when you do get a carcass, you have to tell inspectors that this chicken died of a mysterious illness, or was attacked by a fox that cannot be confirmed to have been rabies free. Is there any way to recover that meat? Would you need to test all the carcasses for pathogens? And with the number of zoonotic diseases out there, would anyone feel safe eating a chicken that died of an illness that wasn't detected in the meat, but that's assuming it's not a new disease that we haven't yet learned how to test for? The whole idea is pretty ludicrous.

 

[Tilhana]

I remember on that NY bill our local paper here upstate had a article to oppose it. Most small dairies here use tie stalls, and it would also ban all the local county and state fairs, FFA kids from showing their livestock if they used the tie method or stanchion. They would have to each animal been in large pens.
The NYC representative I guess thought FREE stalls for farms are better for the cows. I guess they knew nothing about dairy farming. While I'm not against the huge factory farms, most of them are super clean and air conditioned in summer, cows are well taken care of, but..
Cows are creatures of habit, their stall is theirs. Go to it every milking and at night without being directed (you will have some confusion for a little bit during rotation of milkers or introducing new cows). They don't have to compete for a spot to lay down or clean dry bedding like a 'free stall', free stall is a big open barn where they just meander around, and also occasionally step on each others teats which requires a vet visit.
The stanchioned/tie stall cows go to THIER stall when they come to the barn, willingly three times a day, twice for milking one time in the morning and one time in the afternoon, all on their own(same time every day and they don't abide by daylight saving time clock change Lol!) and the final time to go night night.
What I mean by saying they go to the the barn, to their tie stall/stanchion it's because they are coming in from OUTSIDE where they have been ranging the fields most of the day eating fresh grass. 'Free stall' cows don't get to go outside and range and eat fresh grass. Free stall cows spend almost all day inside 'free stall barn' part of the day inside milking parlor.

Yes, I feel like the people who write these bills/ballot initiatives have no idea how farms work. I dont' get why someone would be opposed to a stanchion? I am opposed to most factory farming methods; my standards for meat and dairy production are pretty high, and I pay a premium for the absolute best I can get access to. But a stanchion is not some kind of torture device. It's just a narrow stall that keeps the cow from getting distracted and walking off or stepping in/knocking over the milking bucket. Plus, as Temple Grandin discovered, cows are generally comforted by a bit of pressure; it calms them down. An area that's filled with other cows but not open enough to allow each one plenty of space is actually more conducive to spreading panic when any one cow gets spooked; they are more likely to engage in herd behavior like stampeding when someone senses a threat.

But some of these animal rights activists, who have never even been on a farm, just anthropomorphize and imagine that all livestock animals are miserable and tortured. I wonder if they imagine these animals are the equivalent of human slaves, which is actually a rational conclusion if you're assuming they feel what people would feel in the same situation. But I let my chickens out to free range for a couple hours daily, and not a single one has ever made a bid for freedom. Like most livestock, they are creatures of habit, and as long as they are fed and given access to space, socialization, and a chance to act out their natural instincts, they tend to be pretty content. I don't think they're having existential crises or yearning for freedom or feeling humiliated and debased by their captivity.

 

[Tilhana]

I find vegetarianism unhealthy. Your body is NOT going to feel and look its best just eating fruits and vegetables. AND if you think it’s going to make you live longer, it won’t. I’m not trying to be an a**, but it’s true. Absolutely is.

All this said, I don’t eat pork because I like pigs as pets only. I also don’t eat it for spiritual reasons. Actually, pork is very unclean for the soul and temple. If you’re any of the three Abrahamic religions, it is forbidden and a sin to eat pork (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, or Christian). I do eat beef and chicken. Fish is my choice though, if I have some available in the freezer.

The bottomline is, the body needs some kind of meat! Idk if Oregon is proposing this for propaganda—or perhaps some story on news for revenue and likes??? I’ve read about so many ridiculous laws and so forth, I honest gave up on our laughable politics these days!

I would like to see pig slaughtering stop, but that said, the body CANNOT live healthy without some meat and iron!

Ducklingguy

I don't eat pork either, although I can't say I have any real rational reason not to. I just feel like it's gross. I'm not a follower of any of the Abrahamic religions but somehow the consensus among them suggests maybe they're on to something. Pig meat looks too much like human meat, and I've seen what pigs eat and I just don't want to be on the back end of that particular carbon cycle. I mean I have nothing against them as pets, if that's your thing. I might actually keep some someday when I get my own land, as they can be quite useful in tearing up forest underbrush and eradicating things like poison ivy and kudzu. But I'd never eat them. To each their own, though. I'm not morally opposed to it. But I do feel like a minority in this country where people seem to have a love affair with bacon.

I think vegetarianism certainly presents some dietary challenges. I was one for many years, and I ate healthier than most, and I never had any major issues, but I was also young enough to be able to get away with it. People who are vegan or vegetarian in their 20s and have no problems might think this proves that their diet is healthy, but keep that same diet into your 40s and 50s and you may start to have serious health issues.

My best defense for vegetarianism is that most of Hindu south India has been doing it for thousands of years, and they seem to manage without any systemic health issues that don't also exist in the north, where the majority of people are Muslims and do eat meat. But they also do a lot of dairy and lentils and perhaps have other alternative sources for nutrients to make up for not having meat.

But I also think there are differences from person to person. I've known people who tried to be vegetarian, did it healthfully, and just felt horrible and had no energy and had to give up. Others can maintain that same diet for decades without having any issues. There are definitely differences from person to person, and there may well be a genetic component, which might also account for the Indian population.

I recently went back to eating meat myself, after 23 years without it, because my research suggested I might be missing out on health benefits, and because, unlike when I was a kid and went vegetarian, I have meat options that don't involve factory farming. Also my understanding of animals and what constitutes a good, happy life for them has evolved a lot since I was a kid.