YES on Prop. 2

That is how I intend to vote on Proposition 2 tomorrow.

I will not address the arguments against the proposition that are included in the Official Voter Information Guide. That the statement authors could not refrain from gratuitous use of CAPS should already be cause for suspicion.

And the anti-Proposition 2 advertisements are reminiscent to me of the “Jar Glove” sketch on Saturday Night Live. So I will not respond to the runaway train of paranoid thoughts.

What would Premier Putin do?
Putin likes chicks.  Don't you?
The original photo was posted by [info]drugoi.

The arguments for the “free” market, to which I am typically partial, break down when the burden of education is left to consumers. How many consumers verify the conditions of the laying hen from whose crate the egg was collected? There are many products for which we do not have the time to investigate whether or not the processing meets our own standards of ethics. Are we obliged to attend all factory farm tours throughout the State of California? Where animals are concerned, I think rather that we, as a society, should be willing to afford the cost of preventative legislation. The European Union has collectively accepted already the expense of an ethical omelette.

Furthermore, though cost should not be the principle issue where life, even animal life, is concerned, an increase in the price of 1¢ per egg is not the force to drive farmers out of business. The price of an ethically and humanely collected egg should be the minimum market price for an egg. And for a modern and civilized society, unfit long-term confinement of animals, even those who are just food to us, is unnecessary.

Not all will agree on what constitutes “humane” or “unfit” in this case. The prohibition states

“a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from:
(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and
(b) Turning around freely
.

I do not find this to be objectionable or unreasonable, and these provisions should be minimum criteria for humane and fitting accommodations. Any criticism evoked, I would expect to be voiced by animal rights advocates who argue that these, combined with all of the exceptions, constitute insufficient protection of animals.

I am most disappointed by my fellow aviculturists regarding this issue. These are people who probably prepare tastier and more nutritive meals for their birds than for their own family members. They would not bear the thought of their exotic birds housed in battery cages without a glimpse of sunlight. And yet they, who so love, birds will not endorse this out of fear that the PETA and the other animal rights fanatics will strip us of our right to keep exotic birds. This is just another runaway train of paranoia ridding the tracks of progressive thinking.

Aviculturists appreciate birds, even edible and prehistoric ones like chickens, and we should be concerned about animal welfare just as we are concerned about conservation efforts and preservation of the human-Avian interface from which we learn so much.

As an aviculturist, I intend to vote YES on Proposition 2 tomorrow.

~ by finchwench on Monday, 3 November 2008.

5 Responses to “YES on Prop. 2”

  1. I think you have explained much of how I feel on the subject very well. As an aviculturist and vigorous eater of eggs, meat and milk products……. I want the highest quality products possible. Part of that quality I am looking for is linked to the quality of life that the animal has that provided me that food product. I too have no respect and give no credence to fear and paranoia. It is a wasted energy. I refuse to fear the radical extreme animal rights fanatics at the expense of doing what I feel is right, moral and humane.

  2. John, thank you for your comment. I do not think that aviculturists should combat PETA with proportionate sensationalism and myopia, and I am glad to read that someone agrees!

  3. Your comment on the gratuitous use of CAPS made me laugh out loud, a reaction I was not expecting given the topic of the post.

    That said … I agree. Fighting sensationalist propaganda with more of the same does little more than turn everyone but the most staunch supporters off of both camps. And that’s just not productive at all.

    On another note, I’ve not read your blog before, but I do so enjoy your sense of humor. I’ll certainly be back🙂

  4. You know, after having spent half a day arguing with a subset of people who love birds more than average people, I am afraid to laugh.

    I think that the strongest argument against Prop. 2 is that it does very little to alter the unpretty business of poultry (e.g. debeaking and deprivation from natural sunlight), and we do not know if a few more cm² translates to an even marginal improvement in the quality of life of factory farm chickens.

    However, the idea of confining chickens, even if they are to be exploited for making breakfast burritos and avgolemono soup, to cages that are too small for the hen to “turn around and wave” is UNNECESSARY, in the font of the opposition.

    Anyway, thank you. I hope that you like birds!

  5. + Here is one such animal advocate who not only opposed Prop. 2 but is also critical of HSUS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s