“prohibits the confinement of certain farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.”

Specifically, three confinement methods – veal crates, battery cages, and sow gestation crates – will come under review, and in the case of battery cages, will be eliminated. I view this result with both a sense of profound internal relief and trepidation.

On my relief. “Building momentum” towards abolishing certain practices, to borrow from Wayne Pacelle, seems a plausible result given California’s media market and the proposition’s overwhelming support:

“The historic victory for farm animals builds on momentum established in other US states. Colorado and Arizona are phasing out the use of gestation crates and veal crates, and the states of Florida and Oregon have similar measures phasing out gestation crates. Throughout North America, producers are changing the way they house and care for animals in response to this momentum. Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pig producer, and Maple Leaf, the largest pig producer in Canada, are phasing-out gestation crates. The American Veal Association voted to urge the entire US veal industry to phase out veal crates.

“By adopting these measures, the United States is moving in the same direction as Europe. The entire European Union is phasing out barren battery cages by 2012 and gestation crates by 2013, and has already banned veal crates. Several European countries already have enacted protections for farm animals that exceed the European Union’s measures.” (source)

And more importantly, I think, as a matter of fact, phasing-out veal crates, for example, does go a significant way towards reducing actual suffering. Those who would challenge this with, “It’s still a violation of rights,” are highly suspect, and I believe allow the abstract to consume the real. Many of us who believe in the philosophy of animal rights often accept our position as moral persons and argue accordingly. “We all have the right to…” becomes our mantra; however, it is from this position that allows us to forget about the 10 individual chickens who are forced to live in a single, barren, wire cage. While we discuss abolition, incremental moves to take those chickens out of the cage and put them on an open floor are derided. I believe this kind of reasoning is derived from our position as non-nonhuman animals. If considered impartially, it seems unreasonable to argue that I, if in the position of a veal cow, wouldn’t want to be removed from the crate and allowed to turn around because this would imply the assumption that it is okay to kill me unnecessarily if I’m only treated properly. I think PETA’s argument that “Animals are not ours to…” sufficiently addresses the ethical need to abolish the animals-as-property paradigm. Welfare legislation, then, framed as such, deals with the here and now of suffering and some of it should be lauded.

On my trepidation (perhaps getting at the reasoning that confuses me). On the premise that every creature’s interest’s ought to be considered morally relevant because of their sentience, the only ethical end is abolition. Incrementalism, then, is instrumentally valuable for the reasons cited above. However, as the argument proffered by abolitionists go, incremental measures to reduce suffering in the present (or near present) may actual prevent this end from being realized.

One such reason, the most plausible I believe, is that when these singular examples – the one’s we generally find the most horrendous – are illuminated, challenged and abolished, the ethical nature of the matter, primarily, nonhuman animals are not things and ought to be considered full members of the moral community, which practically results in veganism, begins to get confused. Our moral responsibility may seem to be absolved once the torture of baby cows in veal crates is gotten rid of and PETA proclaims a “victory.” The end, then, is transformed from veganism to a “happy meat” revolution.

And so it goes, billions of nonhuman animals are still forced to suffer wholly unnecessarily, while the most prevalent reason to go vegan (e.g., the scene of male cows thrashing about as they are castrated without anesthesia) becomes very well hidden. It’s a fiction, of course; the suffering persists; it’s still systematic. However, the industry is now given a label, “Humane Certified,” and the system, and the monster paradigm that justifies it, becomes even more calcified than before.

I don’t know how to resolve this conflict. Welfarism turns on an empirical matter: Do these measures actually reduce suffering? I believe the answer is yes, generally speaking. However, to qualify this “yes,” I must say from reading accounts of “free range” methods, and my knowledge about what happens to the “excess” – baby boy chickens, for example -, these “improvements,” as measured by real suffering, come in degrees not kind. And then there is the problem articulated above.

As such, measuring Proposition 2 becomes a sort of qualified happiness. To the end of abolition, I’m concerned. Saving 20 million creatures from experiencing the most horrendous suffering, I’m forced by conscience to celebrate.

Will be crossposted @ That Vegan Girl

“it’s frightening that people show more compassion for tomorrow’s dinner than for the chef,”

I wanted to scream. Because “in the oppression olympics, non-human animals win, paws down.”

It’s a shame Prop 8 wasn’t defeated, but that’s got NOTHING to do with the measly little bit of extra room some animals will get in 2015 in their factory farm cages before they’re cruelly slaughtered and eaten by people who have the option to choose otherwise and whose only valid reason for eating animals is that animal flesh tastes good to some people.

Prop 2 is a step in the right direction, but it’s only an inch. We’ve got MILES more to go. Prop 2 isn’t some great gesture of compassion; it’s an extremely modest animal welfare reform. All it does is let animals turn around in their tiny cages. It’s PATHETIC that the majority of humans aren’t willing to do more for animals.

Does anyone really want to pretend that Californians who voted for Prop 2 and Prop 8 “care more” about animals than people? Is the newly granted privilege of some animals to stand up in their cages truly a sign that people have more compassion for animals than people? Is the right to marry the person you love even close to as basic a right as the right to not live in one’s own filth and the excrement of one’s neighbors? Really?

GET REAL.

And by the way, this group of people who voted for Prop 2 and Prop 8 are a small segment of the population. The majority of animal people lean to the left, not the right. If you want to see real progressive change in the US, it behooves you to alienate and make enemies with animal people. As another pro-animal, progressive writer, Seema Rupani, wrote:

“The movement against Prop 8 is a powerful, unstoppable force. Hundreds of thousands of people have been out in the streets these last few days, myself included. But negative references to Prop 2′s victory are diverting attention away from the issue at hand, and are not going to help us overturn Prop 8. We’re all in this fight for justice together, let’s do it right.”

We’re often on the same team. There’s no reason to attack animal advocates when trying to gain rights for the LGBTQ community. Attack the root source of the problem: anti-gay people, not pro-animal people. Stop attacking vegans and other animal people.

GET HONEST.

Get real. Get honest. Get vegan.

Live your values. Stop eating animals. It’s not kind, it’s not fair, it’s not right.

“Cows do not belong in cages. Chickens do not belong in cages. Pigs do not belong in cages.”

Regardless of your politics, this video is SUPER cute!

URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxU_zW_3vkA

“Once a month or so, we would slaughter the geese. When I was 10 years old, my job was to lock the geese in the barn and then rush and grab one. Then I would take it out and hold it by its wings on the chopping block while my Dad or someone else swung the ax.

“The 150 geese knew that something dreadful was happening and would cower in a far corner of the barn, and run away in terror as I approached. Then I would grab one and carry it away as it screeched and struggled in my arms.

“Very often, one goose would bravely step away from the panicked flock and walk tremulously toward me. It would be the mate of the one I had caught, male or female, and it would step right up to me, protesting pitifully. It would be frightened out of its wits, but still determined to stand with and comfort its lover.” (source)

Kristof’s story made me teary-eyed. It made me think of how much my dog might protest if someone came and took me away. It made me think of how much I would protest if someone came and took my husband away.

I can’t help but hope others were affected. I KNOW the empathy for animals that I feel is not isolated. There are others like me. Some are omnivores and some are vegans. And we call all do something to help animals. We can all recognize that animals are not commodities, they are living, sentient beings.

They protest every day. Sometimes they even escape. See:

We can protest with them.

Even if the Oprah show wasn’t nearly as pro-vegan as I would have liked, I am certain the show awakened the compassion for animals within at least SOME people. In fact, on Oprah’s messageboard some viewers are saying they’re considering vegetarianism.

Furthermore, WE are agents for change. WE can respond to Oprah’s show however we want. WE can choose to whine about how it wasn’t enough or WE can respond by finishing the job. WE can see this as a closed door or WE can see this as an open window.

“Lisa Ling Reports: How We Treat the Animals We Eat (PG)
Have you ever wondered what “cage-free” or “range-free” really means? Lisa Ling gets a rare look inside some of America’s farms. Where does our food come from?”

“Coming up on Tuesday, October 14, big news! Oprah is covering ‘How We Treat the Animals We Eat.’ Go to http://www.oprah.com/index . On the screen on the rights side of your screen, click on ‘Tue’ to see the promo video. You’ll see footage of horrendous battery cages and sow gestation crates, and hear HSUS’s Wayne Pacelle saying ‘The issue is the decency toward the animals.’ He is no doubt talking about California’s Proposition 2, which would ban some of the most heinous caging.”

Here’s the direct link >>

And here’s the preview video:

Let’s tell our omni friends and family to watch. Exposure to the truth about animal agriculture DOES convert people veganism. The reason factory farms and slaughterhouses don’t have windows or give tours to the public is because of this fact – if they exposed the truth of their operations, they’d lose business. If Oprah’s show features just a few graphic images, the show will likely make at least a few new vegans. It’s guaranteed.

Let me give you an example: I saw the HBO special about PETA president Ingrid Newkirk, “I Am An Animal.” I watched it with an omnivore. Neither of us were all that impressed by the documentary. In my eyes, Ingrid doesn’t come off as an especially likable person, though I do strongly identify with her. And the way it was edited, how the short film tried to cover so much, it just seemed all over the place, unfocused, and disconnected. To me, it left a negative impression of PETA. And the omni I watched the show with shared my impression. And when the graphic videos of animal torture came on, she just sat in her usual defiance of reality, claiming “Those videos aren’t real. They don’t really torture animals like that.”

Exasperated, I basically gave up on her. I drop pro-vegan messages into conversations here and there. And I make sure to expose her to tasty vegan food, but she’s still living in a delusion that she *needs* meat to survive and she still clings to her delusion that Kosher slaughter is humane. However, she HAS reduced her meat consumption. And she’s open to sharing vegan meals with me. So, all those little things add up. Even if she’s not ready to completely convert to vegetarianism or veganism, she’s recognized that she doesn’t need to eat as many animals as she once did. And in that way, she – and I – are saving lives.

At first, I thought graphic videos weren’t compelling because they didn’t compel her to change her diet. Graphic videos are so disturbing to me and ton most compassionate people, sometimes it’s hard to see the value in them. But then I met a vegan who converted OVERNIGHT. She watched “I Am An Animal” and stopped eating animals the same day. She spent an entire day watching graphic videos and she converted to veganism immediately. The videos did it. The videos. It wasn’t a kind, compelling vegan. It wasn’t a tasty vegan meal. It wasn’t a health crisis. For her, it was THE videos. For others, the videos change minds, too.

We know these images work. They work on us. We become teary-eyed or angry when we see animals being tortured. We know it’s wrong. And we also know that we’re not so dissimilar to omnivores. Many of us vegans were once omnivores. We know they have the seeds of compassion, too. And we can’t give up on them. We have to keep trying to get them to see. We have to keep trying to expose them to the truth, the wholly unnecessary cruelty inherent in animal agriculture. Even if they don’t ‘get it’ the first time, we have to keep showing them the truth. We have to keep showing these videos.

Prop. 2 would prohibit the confinement of egg-laying hens, pregnant pigs or veal calves in cages that prevent them from standing up, lying down or turning around freely. [...]

In a lawsuit filed Aug. 13, sponsors of Prop. 2 said the American Egg Board voted to spend $3 million against the ballot measure at a November meeting in Napa. The board is a government-supervised group of 18 egg producers that uses fees from the industry to research and promote egg products.

[...] documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act confirmed the egg board’s plans. Government records also showed that Agriculture Secretary Ed Schaefer had approved the spending and endorsed the advertising, the plaintiffs said.

Two ads touted the virtues of locally produced eggs and said buying them saves transportation costs and fuel. The ads don’t mention Prop. 2, but the announcer is a No on 2 spokesman who is also featured in privately funded campaign commercials declaring that the ballot measure would force Californians to buy more eggs from out of state

Source: SFGate
As one of the commenters wrote:

It really is appalling that the very agency that is supposed to monitor the humane treatment of farm animals has gone to bed with the farmers who commit the abuses.