Question on PETA

Here is the text for Proposition 2: http://www.safecaliforniafood.org/si...2007-08-09.pdf

The definition of "fully extending limbs" is a huge problem; does this mean that on "average" a bird must be able to stretch or does it mean that at no time can a bird touch another bird. We all know that animals don't maintain "personal space" so a litteral interpretation of this is impossible.

Jim

GBov, here is a link to the entire wording of the cruelty to animals statute in CA. Mainly, 597(b) is the one you want. There is *no* specific law pertaining just to farm animals, whether pigs, cows, whatever. At least there wasn't when I worked there, and a quick check doesn't show anything different that I could see. As you can see, or if you can imagine, these requirements are pretty narrow and a lot of suffering can go on legally. I could tell you stories all week.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/597.html

I didn't realize you were in Ireland. Actually, this bill is one that would bring things (at least in California) a little bit closer to the standards in Europe, as I understand them. Because, honestly, we don't have the same minimun standards of welfare over here that you do over there. Americans seem to think it infringes too much on our personal liberties to have to provide minimal humane conditions to the animals we own. As you can see here! In fact, California has a pretty decent set of laws, for the most part, for humane officers to work with. The regs are abysmally worse in many places.

Jim, I understand your concerns. Sometimes when laws get written, they do need clarification so those of us on the ground trying to interpret them can be doing so uniformly and with a clear understanding. Maybe this is one of those times, but typically those things get worked out over time. As a humane officer, my way of reading it would be that each animal must have the space to stretch their limbs, at any given time. So, that would mean, say, in a cage of hens, there must be enough free space in one cage for one hen to stretch her wings at any given time. So that would be, maybe, what, about a foot or so, give or take, of free space available for a cage of leghorns, for instance. It would mean a veal crate is at least wide enough, and the chain long enough, that the calf can turn around and lay down. Many veal calves cannot physically walk onto the truck after spending their entire lives in the crates. Their legs don't even work.

As for the argument that nothing PETA backs should be passed.... that is pretty extreme, if you think it through.

Are you saying that if a group of independant, rational, non-PETA people wrote up a law that says it's illegal to intentionally maim or cruelly beat an animal, and then PETA wrote up an opinion that said they supported the law, too..... you would oppose that law? Because you see that the end of your position means that you would oppose any and all new bills or legislation pertaining to the better treatment of animals, since I'm guessing PETA would likely back any laws that address animal welfare.

I agree that they are extremists, and someone else here pointed out that they back/are associated with domestic terrorists. We've had mink releases in my state, and in my community, resulting in senseless animal suffering and deaths. Many of them were simply run over by cars. Totally stupid.

Boy do I agree with that, anybody in there right mind think that this something that peta should be doing is off the wall in that kind of thinking for sure.
And peta is off the wall on most everything they do NOBODY should be in favor of petas doing anything of the sorts like this~!!!!!!

__________________
Oh my, dishes yet to wash and dry

See My Pictures at
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/0903/arabianknight/

Nobody should be in support of such in insane thing as this is, and by peta at that~!!!! what a bunch of hogwash that is from THAT group..

__________________
Oh my, dishes yet to wash and dry

See My Pictures at
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/0903/arabianknight/

If a farm has cows only lasting 2-3 lactations, they have problems they are not taking care of.

I can not comment on feedlots as I do not service them.

Your manual is correct about livers and carbs, but in my view of farms, I have not seen any holes burned into the stomach chambers at all.

Welshmom, I would have to say that I find any special interest group that wants meat & dairy products removed from the North American diet to be suspect when the become involved in the law making process because they really don't seem as interested in stopping at the level of humane treatment. It seems more like one step toward creating a system so complex and so rife with regulations that meat & dairy products will be impossible to produce. I'd find them a whole lot more credible if they had lobbied for better regulations within the horse slaughter industry or they were busy adopting the surplus horses at the moment but none of that happened. All I see is a special interest group that is quite satisfied in acheiving their goal but awful quiet now that things have reached a critical level. They lack interest in lobbying to ease the suffering of thousands of horses that are starving to death at the moment - they simply met the criteria of their agenda - no horse slaughter and they seem quite elated that horses are being abandoned all across the US. They see it as a victory, the pretty horses are now free of opressive masters - unfortunately, they're also starving to death and substantially more will simply freeze to death this winter.

I guess, in response to your question, no, I have no respect for any great idea PETA comes up with because they hand pick their information and share with the public only the most sensational situations.

I'm also of the opinion that any organization who's interested in the 'humane treatment of animals' might choose a spokesperson who isn't pumped up with collagen and sylicone (both having been tested on lab animals in the past to ensure their safety for human use) and has an IQ larger than her bra size, might lend them a bit more credibility.

Pitty I cant type and cheer at the same time but you have said a keyboard full there

Over here (Ireland) the minimum requirements law for domestic animals came into being without any fringe terrorist animal "rights" sicko's being involved, just ordinary people wanting quality meat and dairy. The law is also on a multy year plan to allow small farmers to catch up so they dont go broke trying to get up to code but can upgrade over 3 to 10 years instead of being slapped huge fines for non complyance the instant the changes became law but I recon that might just be a problem with the peta backed law, no time allowed for people to come up to code so they can be shut down asap and the animals "removed" from the food chain.

A minimum requirements law is a good one, dont get me wrong, its just that if that sick bunch are involved it will wind up doing more damage to, than good for, the animals.

And worst of all, they can jump on their high horse - no wait! thats animal exploitation! - their soap box and say "How can you NOT be in favor of animals having decient living conditions?" when they are perfectly happy to have animals starving to death rather than under human domination

Take it from someone who was there.

You will be hard pressed to find any of the old timers longing for the" good ol days" of animal production.

The way to stop any type of business practice is to stop buying the product. That is the marketplace at work. If you don't like confined pork houses, only buy pork from local farmers who treat their animals humanely. Same goes for the other food that is confinement raised. My wife and I raise cattle and pastured poultry. Believe me, we are not PETA advocates in the least, yet we are animal lovers, always have been, always will be....which makes us PERFECT for raising livestock. Because we will take good care of them, treat them with respect, love and attention, and make sure their lives are ended in a humane and non-painful manner.

This isn't a PETA issue, this is a market issue. Let the market determine if those mega farms should stay in business.

Sustainable farmers are the original enviromentalists, the original animal welfare advocates and we feed a few million humans a year while we are at it.
<off soapbox. lol>

__________________
Hillbilly and Proud of It!

I agree with Razorback.

However...the vast majority of Americans really don't know how their food is raised. They don't know where it comes from. They sometimes don't even know what kind of animal their food came from. So unless there are some huge changes in the education of the masses here (which I'm guessing would be fought by the factory farm corporations), the market for corporate food will continue. It's not what I would consider a level playing field.