The Prevention Of Farm Animal Cruelty Act: Pros & Cons
The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act in California (aka Prop 2) is getting a lot of attention. Animal advocates are debating the act, taking stands on whether or not they support it. So I’ve decided to try to create a list of pros and cons. Let’s tackle the issue fair and square.
But before I get to that, please, whatever side of the issue you’re on, please, please DO SOMETHING. If you think the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act won’t help create a vegan world, please commit some time, energy, and resources to something you think will create a vegan world. Please, please, please do not use the inadequacies of current welfarist measures to justify inaction.
For example, if you decide not to donate twenty dollars to the HSUS, please donate $20 to a pro-animal organization that you truly do support. If you decide not to help gather support for the act, please spend time educating people about veganism. If you decide not to post a Humane California banner on your blog, please put a counter or another banner on your blog. Just do something.
And now, let’s consider the pros and cons of the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act in California…
PROS:
- Prohibits certain kinds of confinement of farm animals. It allows most animals to tum around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs,
- Creates legal framework for future legal action against agricultural animal exploiters,
- Creates a concrete, achievable objective for animal advocates to work towards. In order to sustain momentum in the movement, we need concrete goals and we need victories. Animal advocacy is extremely demoralizing work because there’s just so much cruelty and abuse. We need to feel effective every now and then in order to continue working,
- Inspires discussion of farm animal cruelty (and thus veganism) and raises public awareness of factory farming, farm animal sentience, human health, and environmental issues,
- Animal agribusiness/ animal exploiters oppose the act, citing economic burden. They think it will cost them money. Ultimately, this is good because anything that makes animal exploitation less profitable is incremental abolition and is a step towards a vegan world,
- The act, because it’s a ballot initiative, is democratic and reflects the concerns of the human majority,
- It doesn’t mandate euthanasia/ killing (some similar measures do mandate killing, which is anti-animal rights).
CONS:
- It’s not nearly enough. The animals’ lives won’t be greatly improved after this act passes because the act only prohibits a few types of animal cruelty,
- The allotted 7 years to comply is far too long. It won’t likely put many animal exploiters out of business. In fact, animal agribusiness might successfully overturn the law after it passes,
- It may serve as a justification for some people to continue eating animal products because they will believe the humane myth,
- It may not cost animal agribusiness much, if anything. It might actually increase consumption of animal products,
- It exempts research facilities, rodeos, fairs, and 4-H,
- It may lead to unintended consequences. For example, people may start raising chickens themselves in their backyards or people might start buying eggs from Mexico instead of paying the slightly higher prices in California or going vegan,
- Animals are still defined as property.
What are your thoughts? Will you support this act?
I’m going to vote for it. To me, the most important issue on the “pro” list is #5, and the most important on the “con” list is #3. But I value #5 on the “pro” list more, as I think #3 on the “con” list does not apply to very many people, or, rather, I think there are very few people who do not eat dead animals now who will begin eating them if the proposition is passed. And I desperately want to see factory farming become less profitable.
Also, I want to see this proposition pass because I want to believe that people care. (I guess that doesn’t have anything to do with my vote though, since I already know that I care.)
~ Recent blog post: Projective and Injective Modules at http://complexzeta.wordpress.com ~
I think it’s debatable whether or not animal agribusiness will lose money. They may not. But even if they don’t, their opposition to legislation like this proves just how evil they are. They are the killers. They are the bad guys. We’ll always have the moral high ground.
That’s an 8th PRO: It sets up pro-animal people as the good guys and animal agribusiness as the bad guys. Their mere opposition to the legislation makes the entire industry seem evil to anyone with a conscience.
Gary Francione claims there are plenty of people in that category. I’m not so sure. I think you’re correct and he’s mistaken. In my life, I’ve known people who have gone vegetarian and stayed vegetarian and I’ve known people who have gone veg and quit. The quitters usually quit because of peer pressure and lack of convenience or else because they went veg as a diet to lose weight, not out of concern for animals. All the people I know who went veg out of concern for animals stayed veg.