Question on PETA

Hold on, folks. There seems to be a lot of misinformation flying around in here.

First of all, let me just say my position on PETA is that they are most all of them extremist nut jobs. I wouldn't trust them to dog sit for me, for fear they may think my dog needs liberating or something. Their stand on human breast milk in ice cream is nothing short of absurd, and is clearly an attempt at grandstanding.

While I'm sure PETA supports any and all anti factory farming bills (why wouldn't they?), it does NOT mean that PETA will have the responsibility for doing on farm inspections.

Assembly bill 594 would merely require that farm animals be given enough room to turn around and extend their limbs. I think it's pretty difficult to take a stand that animals should not be allowed even this minimal amount of humane environment.

When inspections of farms do occur, and they do of course occur now, they are conducted by either state or federal ag agents, or by humane officers, or agents of other government agencies charged with the oversight of farm regulations. Not by PETA or any other partisan group. That would be like assuming since the NRA opposes a gun ban, NRA members will be enforcing gun laws. Or something equally silly.

part of the reason I want to raise my own meat animals is so that I know they are treated humanely, and live a good life before they go to slaughter. I believe very deeply that humane, free-range conditions that match each species' natural needs as closely as I can get it equals healthier animals, and therefore healthier food. By the way, I think when most of us speak of 'free-range', we do not mean open range. Free range means animals such as cattle, pigs, chickens, etc. have enough area to move freely while grazing and foraging. We all know chickens need to go inside some sort of a shelter at night to protect them from predators. There is a pretty big difference between free range chickens that go inside a coop or shelter at night, and get to go back out the next morning, and battery cage chickens which spend their entire life in a wire-bottomed cage crammed in with other hens where none of them have space bigger than an average piece of paper, and never leave the cage until they finish their laying cycles and are culled. Oh, and these cages are hung inside barns that house not thousands, but millions of chickens. The air is unbreathable in there, and during times of power outages, birds begin dying by the thousands because the lack of ventilation quickly kills them.

I'm not pro-PETA or even an all-organic hippie kinda person. But I do know that this model is not only a disgusting way to produce food, but it is unsustainable in the long run. The end of cheap oil, energy, and grains will (hopefully) force a change in the way we raise our food.
It could actually be good for we small family farmers if food production shifts more to smaller, healthier practices.

Just my 2.5 cents.

http://www.safecaliforniafood.org/

Once they ban confinement for livestock production do you think they would stop there. All livestock production for human consumption would be next in line.

Bob

I'm always a bit concerned when PETA shows up with an agenda. A recent example was the issue of horse slaughter. Special interest groups became involved and the US has a total ban on horse slaughter and with nowhere for the surplus horses to go, the market is saturated, we're seeing an increase in neglect and abandonment issues so while the intention was probably good, it isn't working out that way at all.

That horse slaughter ban was one of the stupidest things they ever got passed. They were warned in advance by the horse people that it would result in neglected horses, but they pushed for it anyway.

__________________

and.... after watching our Gov't the last 15 (or more) years.... do you REALLY think it will stop there?

__________________

Nearly every regulation just creates another type of problem. The ban on horse slaughter is one example.
Modern poultry houses are not poorly ventilated. If the power goes out, the generator kicks on and the lights and ventilation continues.
I tend to favor free-range chickens, but in reality it doesn't play out like I'd think it should. In order to sell free-range chickens, the chickens simply need the opportunity to go outside. Commercial poultry are ready to butcher at 8 weeks old. Chicks will stay near the heat lamp and feed for the first 3 or 4 weeks. After that they still don't range far from the feed. If I open the poultry house door during the day, I can call them free-range even if they choose to stay near the feed and not forage for insects and weed seeds. Contrary to how I think the world should operate, chickens mostly stay inside by choice in these situations. Makes the argument against confinement weak.
I assumed that my horses would want to stay outside all the time in the summer and inside during the winter. When given the option, they stay outside even in the coldest weather and come inside during the summer days to get away from the flies. My point is that we really don't know what animals prefer. We assign our beliefs, humanize them. When animals are uncomfortable, they become stressed and production suffers.
I don't want to keep 10 hens in a cage among thousands of other chickens. But, I know that government regulations won't solve anything. First we require people raise chickens outside, free-range. Then when we get a case of Avian Influenza, we demand that chickens be kept inside. Where does it end?
On one hand we want regulations and inspections to insure someones version of humane treatment, while we are up in arms over a requirement to keep tack of who we buy livestock from and who we sell to. The NAIS cow's ear tag has some folks yelling Constitutional infringement?
I guess if there is regulation against big farms it is fine, but if it impacts everyone, including the small farms it is the work of an evil government? Talk about class envy!

why wouldn't PETA spend their time and money educating the public on the practices of the 'not so above board' farms allowing the American people the choice of who they will buy from. Then small farmers would be able to sell their products (oh, wait-I forgot, the government won't allow us to). Oh, well, just wishful thinking, I guess.

__________________
Whatever you do,In word or deed, Do all in the name of Jesus- Colossians 3.17

According to a portion of Wikipedia on Prop 2 (I didn't confirm the references quoted), it sounds like partisan groups CAN participate in the enforcement of this California proposition by petitioning to become humane officers:

Appointees of humane societies can enforce the law

One of the lesser known effects of Proposition 2 would be the use of law enforcement powers by organizations and groups. Under California Corporations Code Sections 10400 – 10406: “Corporations for the prevention of cruelty to… animals… may be formed under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law... by 20 or more persons, who shall be citizens and residents of this state.” [67]. Furthermore, under California Corporations Code 14502, “a humane society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, shall be eligible to apply for an appointment of any individual as a level 1 or level 2 humane officer, the duty of which shall be the enforcement of the laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals.”[68]. Corporations Code 14502(C)(3)(b): The humane society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shall recommend any appointee to the judge of the superior court in and for the county or city and county in which the humane society is incorporated... [1]a humane society can appoint any indifividual to to act as a humane officer ... "the judge shall review the matter of the appointee's qualifications and fitness to act as a humane officer and, if he or she reaffirms the appointment, shall so state on a court order confirming the appointment. The appointee shall thereupon file a certified copy of the reviewed court order in the office of the county clerk of the county or city and county and shall, at the same time, take and subscribe the oath of office prescribed for constables or other peace officers."[69]

Under California Penal Code 599a, if such an individual “believes that any provision of law relating to, or in any way affecting, dumb animals or birds is being, or is about to be violated in any particular building or place” they can compel the issuance of search warrants “directed to any sheriff, constable, police or peace officer or officer of an incorporated association qualified as provided by law, authorizing him to enter and search such building or place.” [70]

This was originally elucidated in a legal opinion that was drafted by legal analysts for Feedstuffs magazine, which is a weekly newspaper serving agribusiness decision-makers involved in the manufacture, production and distribution of products and services for livestock and poultry, [71]. Normally, investigations surrounding and arrests for alleged violations of criminal statutes are conducted by law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities. [72]

As Proposition 2 qualified for the ballot through a petition carried by animal activists led by Farm Sanctuary and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), both non-profit organizations could petition local judges for the appointment of humane officers to perform law-enforcement duties. The legal analysis by Feedstuffs suggested that any humane officer acting on the behalf of Farm Sanctuary, HSUS or other animal activist group "would be free to demand and execute warrants and make arrests" to enforce the initiative, the paper said. [73]

I think the reason these things end up out of control is because of the interpretation of one word - humane. I don't even think this group could come up with a single interpretation because we all view our livestock ddifferently.

In the case of horses, I think that they came to be viewed as pets and the interpretation of humane relating to pets would be very different from the interpretation of humane as it relates to livestock. It is considered apropriate for livestock to be humanely slaughtered for human consumption but somewhere along the way, North American stopped consuming horsemeat which changed the status of horses from livestock to pets so it was quite easy to convince lawmakers to ban slaughter. Unfortunately, in this case, well intended laws to prevent inhumane treatement of horses has created situations of cruelty that were never considered at the time. Drought conditions and economic circumstances have created uglier abuses on a greater scale than any insensitive slaughterhouse worker could ever inflicted.

I would apose anything PETA came up with on principal.

Lieing, deceitful, evil minded........................yes, animals should be treated with as much care as posible but let that hateful crew get their hooks into that kind of power they will be shuting down every small farmer they can get their hands on.

If they would spend their time on educating people on buying ethicly raised meat and dairy I would suport them all the way but they are so AGAINST education that the mind boggles and my fingers falter at the keyboard.

I gotta go have a cuppa tea to cool down

Sorry I haven't replied sooner, I don't have easy internet access.

I totally agree that the ban on horse slaughter was a very dumb, short-sighted reactionary move with very predictable consequences which we are now seeing. Hm - kinda sounds like the financial crisis we are now in, but that's way off topic!

However, I honestly don't think a bill that says each animal must be given minimal room to actually turn around is going to result in farms going out of business, or in food supply shortages, or in rogue activists with badges insisting on gaining access to every barn in the state so they can harass farmers.

Actually, like the current financial crisis, if doing things more by the laws of nature (give an animal room to turn around, don't make loans to people who can't pay them back etc.), if addressing the wrongs means that the cost of our food is brought more in line with what it actually costs to produce, then so be it. It has to happen sooner or later.

I did want to let mariaAZ know that in fact, I was an appointed California State Humane Officer for almost ten years during the nineties. I still am a humane officer in WI. There I was employed through an SPCA, here I am employeed by a municipality. There are some slight differences, but mostly things are very similar. A starving horse is a starving horse, no matter where you are.

Humane officers are no different than all the other kinds of law enforcement folks you may be more familliar with. Our training overlaps when it comes to constitutional rights of citizens, laws of arrest, court procedures, etc, but we have specialized areas of focus in our education and training (we have to have understanding of animal husbandry practices, rabies quarantines, aggression in dogs, pet shop inspections, etc.)
Just about every cop I know doesn't want to touch my kind of work with a ten foot pole because of all the specific information they *don't* have. There is a California Humane Officers Training Academy that puts us through very intense, very thorough, very professional training on all the laws and precedures pertaining to animal codes.

There are laws that govern what *any* law enforcement officer may and may not do in the line of duty. We can be personally sued if we cross a line and deny any citizen their personal liberties unnecessarily 'under color of authority'. So any humane officer that has an agenda of some presonal sort wouldnt last very long. District attorney's wouldnt take their cases, judges wouldnt sign their warrants, and their paycheck would disappear pretty fast.

As for what "humane" means, yes, everyone has their own idea. But we (humane officers) have to ignore what everyone's idea is, because the state, or local jurisdictions, set the standards in writing through laws.

For instance, where I live and work now, I constantly get complaints from peole because a neighbor "doesn't pay any attention" to their dog, which is left outside all the time, and they want me to do something about that. I tell them the law doesn't require anyone to pay any attention whatsoever to their dog, as long as they provide adequate food, water, and shelter. And adequate means just enough to keep the animal from dying, as per the local courts. Anything short of heinous conditions, I can't do anything about, except maybe try to talk to them about improvements and get the owner to voluntarily make those improvements. A lot of my job involves education.

So while everyone may have their own personal opinion of what humane is, the one opinion I have to adhere to and enforce is the courts' opinion. Not mine, not PETA's, or Farm Sanctuary.

In my opinion, I don't think this bill would create a true threat or problem as most of the folks here think it would. That's just my opinion, of course, but I do have some perspective on that. And just for perspective, I have seen bills come along that I thought were awful, stupid, and ushering in more trouble in the future, such as the Hayden Bill which dictated that shelters had to hold cats a minimum of 7 days (wow, has that ever changed the landscape), the elephant abuse law, etc.

Well. That's my 2 cents.

PETAs end goal is to stop animal use of all kinds down to pets. Any legislation that has a mark of approval from them or HSUS is suspect.

__________________
Deja Moo; The feeling I've heard this bull before.

HERE HERE Sammyd!
Good post, it says it all!


Except that they (PETA)are in bed with domestic terrorists.

__________________
He who thinks he knows, doesn't. He who knows he doesn't know, knows.~ Joseph Campbell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeMrK...AE7062ADE5A19C

What baffles me is that I've heard dairy cattle only last 2 or 3 lactations. Seems if cow welfare was so much a concern, they'd last longer. Cattle naturally live alot longer than 5 years.

Likewise, I've been around feedlots and their dead piles. Stress, pneumonia, high grain rations. My Merck Manual says some surveys show up to 40% of slaughtered cattle have liver abscesses from high carbohydrate diets burning holes in the rumen, allowing infection of the liver. Amazing that we can get away with that to make beef alittle cheaper.

It's a lot easier to over simplify and shrug off uncomfortable topics than it is to actually reason, isn't it?
Personally I think this bill deserves to go on the 'good' pile.

Sammyd basically outlined the goals of PETA;everything they do is to further their agenda.

Some of your earlier posts on this thread show that you have been misinformed or lack knowledge of the subject,such as your claim that milk in the store contained antibiotics; making claims with no factual basis is among the very tactics that PETA uses in their propoganda.

Dirtslinger
would you also support emulating the policies of the government of Nazi germany? after all they pulled that country out of a depression that was FAR WORSE than the one our country was in at the time and they virtually eliminated all real crime, so theeir policies were good and should be followed.

same concept different crowd. it is safest to discard ANY & EVERY idea put forward by anyone so evil. if it's truly a good idea someone not evil will eventually bring it forward. there are no original ideas. no matter how new or cool you think your idea is someone already had it. think about it how many different animals are used to convey people from point A to point B? at least 6, so at least 6 differrent people said, how can i get my lazy but from here to there w/o actually walking?
yeah if an evil person is putting forth a good idea it's probably a pretext to engage in evil.

Anything, ANYTHING peta touches should be avoided like the plague! No matter how right sounding and yes, it does sound right to give animals enough room to turn around but if peta are involved, give it up for thats all the bill will do.

Check them out and you will see what they really are like, animal rights have no place on their agenda. If they had their way ALL domestic animals would be gone because they cant go back to the wild. Dogs and cats "rescued" by them are mostly killed rather than rehomed and the list goes on, like the mink farm raided adn the animals let loose into the unsuspecting countryside in England where they are still causing ecological havoc.

AAAARGH, they just make my blood boil

I dont know about over there but over here - Ireland - there are already minimum standards of wellfair, space for animals and conditions of care and the like and GOVERNMENT inspectors go into farms to check compliance just like they go into resteraunts to check the conditions there and into factories to check the wellfair of the workers.

I would have expected the same for the good ol' US of A

But at the end of the day this bill those wacko's are pushing isnt about animal rights, basic or otherwise, its about POWER! and how to get more. I wouldnt touch it for all the tea in China

RATS, I just went online to see if I could find the minimum standard of care for cows and pigs and got PAGES of propaganda but no facts!

No wonder people get suckered into things like this if the information is so hard to find

Does anyone know the rules and regs to keeping pigs and cows in California?