California's Proposition 2

[IDK]

So, I asked Crimson King if it was okay to make a thread about california's prop 2. I'm doing a speech on it in my english 9 honors class so I'm really curious and excited to see what you guys have to say about it. Some of you may not know exactly what this is, so I'll clarify. (It passed by the way) A vote yes on proposition 2 would mean that animals like caged hens who lay eggs will be given sufficient space to turn around, lie down, and fully spread their wings. Currently, I have heard only a bit of both sides, but I currently support a yes vote. The side for the animals would obviously be a yes vote. Their main argument is that they have rights, and what if you were in their position... etc... The common argument for the opposition is that with increased cage sizes, there can only be two reactions.
1)farmers spend money to buy more land
2)they decrease the number of hens they have, in turn reducing the number of eggs we get. With this will come the inability for farmers to compete with foreign imported eggs from countries such as mexico. We can't restrict what they do with their animals, so we are getting eggs from the same source, and possibly worse. This is the strongest argument I have heard for this side.

Please discuss.

 

[M.K]

If I lived in California, I would vote "Yes" to this.
It just seems....too ethical for the silly little burdens that it might cause the farmers. The chickens produce more eggs in ideal conditions any how, so I have no problem with this proposition.

 

[cmpr94x]

@ IDK. From this, I gather that you are saying that these animals originally were simply cooped up in a cage with no room for basic movement? I have been thinking and here it is. These egg-laying hens barely moving at all during the day. This allows for extremely limited excercise to occur, causing the hen to grow weak. This might cause the chicken to make very weak eggs that are damaged easily. This means there are less eggs that can be sold. If the chicken has space to do some movement, it has participating in physical activity. The hen will have energy to make strong eggs that will not crack as easily.

^This is just a rant on something I was thinking about once I saw this.

I, for one, believe that chickens have feelings too. etc etc. And that they shouldn't be forced into closed spaces for our gain. etc etc

 

[Mewter]

This is a tough choice. On one side, you have ethics, and on the other, profit.
Would I rather see hens being happier or farmers with more money in their pockets?
Do happier chickens lay better/more eggs? If so, happier chickens is a win/win situation. If not, then is the money lost really worth it?
Could someone please link me to a credible source on chicken happiness? It's a bit late, and for now, I'm undecided on this.(If they do lay better eggs, I vote yes. If they don't, then I'm still undecided),

 

[M.K]

This is a tough choice. On one side, you have ethics, and on the other, profit.
Would I rather see hens being happier or farmers with more money in their pockets?
Do happier chickens lay better/more eggs? If so, happier chickens is a win/win situation. If not, then is the money lost really worth it?
Could someone please link me to a credible source on chicken happiness? It's a bit late, and for now, I'm undecided on this.(If they do lay better eggs, I vote yes. If they don't, then I'm still undecided),

http://www.wordridden.com/post/45

That's the only credible one I could find >_<
But I'm pretty sure of the fact that Happy chickens lay more eggs.

 

[manhunter098]

I would vote no, simply because farmers wouldnt be putting their chickens into conditions where they are less productive unless their overall total productivity would increase. They are looking for the most profit and if keeping chickens in cages with almost no room means the most profit then I support them in their decision.

 

[Waluigi911]

Y'know, with the whole campaign for getting out and getting active being good for your health, you'd think everyone would realize that anything getting cramped up can't be good. I'm personally probably buying the eggs that come from these close-quartered chickens, but that's because I buy the cheapest stuff. If even the cheapest stuff was free-range, it'd be better... unless we had to pay more.... which brings to mind another aspect.

With all the economic concern and whatnot, it's important that everybody have the most avaiable, cheapest alternatives that they can get. If everything was free-range, basically we'd lose our cheap eggs, and all the extra dollars add up over time. Esentially, it has the potential to hurt California's economy if the cheap eggs are no longer available. This is just my thinking pattern, but correct me if I'm wrong somewhere.

 

[IDK]

I understand what you are saying manhunter, but that IS what farmers did to their chickens. A yes vote stopped that. I will clarify that I side with the animals at the moment, I am just trying to put both sides of the argument out there. The economy is already terrible as we all know. Do we really need the loss of the ability to compete with mexican farmers? Yes, happy chickens produce more eggs, but not enough to make up for how much more space the farmers will require, in turn having less chickens. I want stronger eggs, too, but it's for sure that they will not come from Mexico. What farmers do there is even worse.

And yes, walu, that is also a valid point for a no vote.

 

[Mewter]

Y'know, with the whole campaign for getting out and getting active being good for your health, you'd think everyone would realize that anything getting cramped up can't be good. I'm personally probably buying the eggs that come from these close-quartered chickens, but that's because I buy the cheapest stuff. If even the cheapest stuff was free-range, it'd be better... unless we had to pay more.... which brings to mind another aspect.

With all the economic concern and whatnot, it's important that everybody have the most avaiable, cheapest alternatives that they can get. If everything was free-range, basically we'd lose our cheap eggs, and all the extra dollars add up over time. Esentially, it has the potential to hurt California's economy if the cheap eggs are no longer available. This is just my thinking pattern, but correct me if I'm wrong somewhere.

The only thing I've learned so far is that "free-range" chickens aren't all they're cracked up to be(no pun intended).
The farmers who let them "out" do so for a short amount of time, and they probably aren't happier than normal chickens.
I might be wrong, but that's the impression that I'm getting from all these web sites that I'm visiting. All of them either steer clear of the point, or are based solely on opinion. And about that article Meta-Kirby linked me to, I already saw that, and it didn't help much.
Like both of you(the above two)said, can this be anything BUT bad for our economy? Right now, we need to focus solely on getting back in shape. I feel bad for the chickens and all, but without a strong economy, there won't be any (edit: real nice) place for chickens, either.

 

[IDK]

Mewter, that's exactly the reason this argument is so debatable. It's economy vs. ethics. Do you care more about the economy, or the chickens, and why? That is what I would like to hear. Are there really any other ways to look at the situation?

 

[Mewter]

Mewter, that's exactly the reason this argument is so debatable. It's economy vs. ethics. Do you care more about the economy, or the chickens, and why? That is what I would like to hear. Are there really any other ways to look at the situation?

You got your point across well. I would rather the economy got along better, and I've made up my mind, so I guess that's a "no" vote for me.
It's too bad that you can't have both at the same time, though. When you really look at it though, would you like chickens to be happy, or would you like to make the world an easier place to live? I'd sacrifice a few moments of happiness from chickens to give to an even larger crowd of people for an even longer time. Would this help the economy? This is actually one of the questions I asked when I first saw this thread.
I guess in summary, I would vote No, because there just isn't enough "profit" for either side in the long run. There's no economic reason for this, and plus the space and money needed for keeping the chickens i even larger cages.... not worth it. For all we know, the farms would go out of business and the chickens wouldn't have much of a future either way.
That's not to say I don't feel sorry for the chickens, though.

 

[IDK]

i don't know if you guys will be able to read this because i needed a password to get in, but if you want to look up more on this just go here http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/start.do?prodId=OVRC&userGroupName=lodihigh and click animal research.

 

[zrky]

to the OP, really the hens all ready have enough space, but it's those people that think 3 square ft. of space isn't enough for one chicken. If you want your eggs to come from a place that gives each chicken 5 square ft of space, then go ahead and spend more money, because these farms are in existence right now. The people that export into the US don't really bother with this, because as long as the chickens aren't given to much to eat or given growth hormones, they know that the chicken will be fine and lay a perfectly healthy egg.

If they want the chickens to have enough space to spread their wings, then they should sew all those pet stores that clip the wings on parrots so that they can't fly.

 

[IDK]

zrky, i'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. They wouldnt make a proposition if the hens didnt have enough space already. Obviously you don't care for the animals or sympathize with them. they did NOT have 3 sq feet, and they didnt have enough room to even lay down or turn around. It is just like with humans. If a mother is kept in a space where she is confined from movement, do you really expect her baby to be healthy? Do you expect her baby to be able to compete with other babies when it comes to applying for colleges? Your statements are backed up with nothing, and just to let you know, "sew" is spelled "sue"

 

[zrky]

I just looked up some pictures on the types of caging that this proposition is concerned with, and WTF is wrong with those farmers. I do sympathize with the hens, but maybe I had only been exposed to the caging that isn't being criticized. From all my previous experience with these things it was always silly reasons, but wow, these chickens are in a bad place.
So I change my mind on the 3ft, 5ft thing, but I would have voted yes anyway.

 

[RDK]

The quality of the products aside, keeping any animal in such horrid conditions should be regarded as animal cruelty and stopped immediately.

 

[IDK]

Just to clarify again, a yes vote means the cage sizes are increased, which is the side I am on. And yes RDK whose name is suspiciously similar to mine, it was stopped. Prop 2 was passed. It seemed people were still a little unclear about this.

 

[zrky]

so they agreed to increase the size of the cages?

 

[IDK]

i already told zrky on a profile visitor message, but so everyone knows, yes, the cage sizes have been increased. So, just clearing it with all of you, is it okay if i use your points in my speech for english?

edit: and here's this. some images of cramped animals that proposition 2 has stopped.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=proposition+2+cage+sizes&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

 

[Mewter]

i already told zrky on a profile visitor message, but so everyone knows, yes, the cage sizes have been increased. So, just clearing it with all of you, is it okay if i use your points in my speech for english?

edit: and here's this. some images of cramped animals that proposition 2 has stopped.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=proposition+2+cage+sizes&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

http://greendeen.blogspot.com/2008/11/proposition-2-protects-animal-rights.html

Now THIS is what I was searching for! According to this, there are benefits on both sides to happier and more free chickens! Not only are we happy, but they are, too. Win/win situation.
I vote yes.

 

[IDK]

So, in the end, the logical conclusion is a yes vote. I have come to this decision because the arguments I made and have heard for the opposition were all trumped by that article above.

http://greendeen.blogspot.com/2008/1...al-rights.html

Humans benefit along with animals* because we get better eggs, and will not be passed on diseases like salmonella. In those states that have not yet had a bill like this, you should work on getting it, but in the mean time, try to buy cage-free eggs... unless you care nothing about animals or getting salmonella.

note*: humans ARE animals, it was just my way of describing it.

Oh, and:

The quality of the products aside, keeping any animal in such horrid conditions should be regarded as animal cruelty and stopped immediately.

I just found this. The bill itself regards it as animal cruelty.
http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/11/06/californias-prop-2-for-farm-animals-passes-by-a-landslide/

Over 63 percent of California voters favored the “Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act,”

 

[manhunter098]

Humans benefit along with animals* because we get better eggs, and will not be passed on diseases like salmonella. In those states that have not yet had a bill like this, you should work on getting it, but in the mean time, try to buy cage-free eggs... unless you care nothing about animals or getting salmonella.

So why not regulate the industry the proper way by making sure that they meet certain health standards for humans. I mean if you have kooped up chickens that ARENT producing bad eggs and generating filth and disease there is no reason for humans to benefit from giving those chickens room.

Instead of going after this as an animal cruelty issue it would make much more economic sense to go after it as a health issue entirely.

 

[IDK]

The animal cruelty issue IS the health issue. They have been given salmonella and skin diseases from the food, water, and cages they have been given. The wires of the cages cut them, and they are not treated, nor given the nutrients to have their bodies treat it themselves, and the consumer is passed on the result. The farmers were lazy, and the problem has been solved. Oh, and "kooped" is cooped. Thats why they're chicken coops.
Humans are not what everything revolves around. Animals have rights, LEGAL rights, too. It was resolved that it doesn't hurt the economy, but benefit it... if you had read the article I posted. This means that either you didn't read the article, or you actually WANT animals in bad situations, even if there is no positive effect on humans. I do not believe you are that selfish and stupid, so I suggest you read the article.

 

[manhunter098]

I read Mewter's link, I didnt want to be bothered with the password link you posted on the first page though, I did look at it to see what it asked me to provide though. Either way it doesnt help the economy because the economy thrives on options. And by attacking it from the health issue standpoint rather than the cage size standpoint it leaves farmers with more choices on how to raise their chickens. Like treating them better and making sure that conditions are sanitary even if they are still in smaller cages, or just going the other route to making the cages bigger. Or maybe lining the cages with rubber so the chickens dont cut themselves.

And of course animals have rights, we gave them rights just like we give ourselves rights. Nothing has any rights without the say so of an authority able to uphold those rights though. So, chickens in California didnt have the rights to larger cages until we gave them those rights and in other states chickens have not yet gained that right. To say if they should have it or not though, thats an issue for us to decide, not something that they deserve inherently, unless of course we decide that chickens do have inherent rights.

 

[IDK]

Lining the cages with rubber would cost more than increased cage sizes. The reason it is a health issue is because being in such small cages reduces their ability to be healthy, and produce health eggs. Just because the economy thrives on options doesn't mean that it doesn't help the economy in this case. People will refrain from buying cage-grown eggs, and will resort to buying them from Mexico, which is bad for everyone except Mexicans. It hurts our farmers, our chickens, our health, our ethics, and our economy. We can treat the chickens better by increasing the sizes of our cages. Making the cages bigger is not "the other route" it is the route taken by a yes vote.

No, they did not yet have the right to larger cages, but if you can understand this, they had the right to have the right to larger cages. We have already decided that animals have inherent rights. They are living beings, and have minds and feelings, and they deserve to be treated as such. They can think and feel just like you. What was happening in California, and is still happening in many other states, is animal abuse, and is not legal. It is not for us to decide we will not follow the law. If you wish to change the law, and remove a law that protects animals as living beings, be my guest. However you will never accomplish this and only roughly 37% of California will agree with you. That 37% of California is made up of... not very smart people.

 

[manhunter098]

Lining the cages with rubber would cost more than increased cage sizes. The reason it is a health issue is because being in such small cages reduces their ability to be healthy, and produce health eggs. Just because the economy thrives on options doesn't mean that it doesn't help the economy in this case. People will refrain from buying cage-grown eggs, and will resort to buying them from Mexico, which is bad for everyone except Mexicans. It hurts our farmers, our chickens, our health, our ethics, and our economy. We can treat the chickens better by increasing the sizes of our cages. Making the cages bigger is not "the other route" it is the route taken by a yes vote.

No, they did not yet have the right to larger cages, but if you can understand this, they had the right to have the right to larger cages. We have already decided that animals have inherent rights. They are living beings, and have minds and feelings, and they deserve to be treated as such. They can think and feel just like you. What was happening in California, and is still happening in many other states, is animal abuse, and is not legal. It is not for us to decide we will not follow the law. If you wish to change the law, and remove a law that protects animals as living beings, be my guest. However you will never accomplish this and only roughly 37% of California will agree with you. That 37% of California is made up of... not very smart people.

Why is a vote needed then if its already illegal? Clearly what was happening didnt fall under animal cruelty or the government was doing a very poor job enforcing its laws. I still dont see why having the options there is worse. In fact the competition from Mexico would be good reason to continue to allow chickens to be kept in smaller cages. You also have yet to prove that its better economically to reduce the number of options farmers have for raising their chickens by imposing limitations that do not directly benefit humans. I can accept an ethics argument as reason for it passing, but my point still stands that its simply a poor economic choice to go about this issue from a standpoint of ethics.

 

[Deleted member]

The best argument I've heard on the ethics behind eating animals is really simple.

Did the animal live a good life? If so, we fed it, and they in turn shall feed us. If it didn't, then it wasn't an ethical slaughter.

This applies to this situation. Yes, the chickens should have more space, for they should live a good life if they are to serve us in anyway.

 

[Surri-Sama]

I would Vote yes simply for the fact that any thing we depend on for sustenance should be content in life.

But what makes a happy hen?

How do you even tell if a hen is happy?

DO hens lay more eggs/ better eggs if they are happy? (even though a few sites have been posted saying they do i cant help but feel there might be something else to this "happy hen" theory")

 

[Mewter]

I read Mewter's link, I didnt want to be bothered with the password link you posted on the first page though, I did look at it to see what it asked me to provide though. Either way it doesnt help the economy because the economy thrives on options. And by attacking it from the health issue standpoint rather than the cage size standpoint it leaves farmers with more choices on how to raise their chickens. Like treating them better and making sure that conditions are sanitary even if they are still in smaller cages, or just going the other route to making the cages bigger. Or maybe lining the cages with rubber so the chickens dont cut themselves.

And of course animals have rights, we gave them rights just like we give ourselves rights. Nothing has any rights without the say so of an authority able to uphold those rights though. So, chickens in California didnt have the rights to larger cages until we gave them those rights and in other states chickens have not yet gained that right. To say if they should have it or not though, thats an issue for us to decide, not something that they deserve inherently, unless of course we decide that chickens do have inherent rights.

The salmonella was the thing I was referring to when I posted.
The first paragraph can be explained quite quickly. This isn't about about purely sanitation, but about cage sizes to help sanitation. Bigger cages means cramped chickens which mean no exercise/ and or stretching plus food and water which make the chickens miserable and unclean. This is the ethical standpoint. The economic standpoint is.... tons of chickens end up getting sick and affecting us humans. Although I believe the chickens could get better feed...
Humans are animals, too. We're just smarter.

So why not regulate the industry the proper way by making sure that they meet certain health standards for humans. I mean if you have kooped up chickens that ARENT producing bad eggs and generating filth and disease there is no reason for humans to benefit from giving those chickens room.

http://blog.nutritiondata.com/ndblog/2008/02/organic-free-ra.html
Plus, your argument isn't valid. The chickens ARE generating filth, disease, and the occasional bad egg. Giving them more room will lead to more exercise, healthier immune system, and less disease/viruses. This in turn helps humans, and we get a satisfaction on both sides. Now, salmonella may not be too dangerous for humans, but it can be a nuisance(especially for babies and older senior citizens.)


http://www.napavalleyregister.com/a...inion/editorial/doc48ed86d126b08693951827.txt

.
From link:" You can't have it both ways here: either consumers want cheap meat, or they are willing to pay a higher price to support anti-cruelty measures. I happen to think you're right about consumers paying a higher price for guilt-free foods. So it stands to reason that if California meats are "cruelty free," they would command a higher price at the market, thus encouraging farmers to stay in California."

The people in California who pay for the "free-range" eggs will keep paying, and introducing more spending to the economy. If they don't want eggs, then they'll buy something else.

 

[IDK]

hey guys, just to let you know, I gave my Proposition 2 Speech in English today. I talked for 5:08 and got some major claps at the end. Thanks for all of your input.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

If chickens laid better eggs in bigger cages, farmers would already do it to increase the quality of their product. If it has no effect, we can assume that it doesn't affect the health of the chicken. Capitalism solves for this dilemma, all we get is another stupid law to bog down efficiency and limit our freedom by passing it. You're also raising the price of all egg and chicken-based products, which won't help the poor. I value human life over chicken life.

I believe something intangible separates humans from other animals. To ask "how would you feel?" is irrelevant because if I were a **** chicken, I wouldn't be feeling a whole lot, or at least not the same as I do now. It figures that Cali would pass this >_>.

EDIT: looks as though I'm a bit late =o.

 

[IDK]

I'm sorry if this is rude, but basically you're saying you don't care about the animals. You only want more money, correct? If that's your opinion, I won't even bother trying to persuade you. Your first sentence wasn't intelligible. What do you mean exactly? If you mean that if everything we say is true, the farmers would have already been doing it, you are incorrect. Our world is not perfect, and we needed a proposition to get us that little bit closer. Try google image searching proposition 2 cage sizes. Also, it doesn't seem as though you read all the above arguments. Please do so.

 

[SMBEffect]

If chickens laid better eggs in bigger cages, farmers would already do it to increase the quality of their product. If it has no effect, we can assume that it doesn't affect the health of the chicken. Capitalism solves for this dilemma, all we get is another stupid law to bog down efficiency and limit our freedom by passing it. You're also raising the price of all egg and chicken-based products, which won't help the poor. I value human life over chicken life.

I believe something intangible separates humans from other animals. To ask "how would you feel?" is irrelevant because if I were a **** chicken, I wouldn't be feeling a whole lot, or at least not the same as I do now. It figures that Cali would pass this >_>.

EDIT: looks as though I'm a bit late =o.

That's the reason why people pass laws. If the quality of their products and the lives of their chickens were up to par, no one would question it. Personally, I can't make myself hear someone say "I believe that I am dominant over animals, so I value my life more than their lives". And yes, implying that you value human life over a chickens does imply that you value human life over an animals. Honestly, and I know you mentioned this, but I'd find it horrible to imagine being a Chicken and not being given the right to move around a little bit more because some people will lose a little money in the process. It's like saying you'd rather die if you were a chicken so you can keep prices low. If the poor can't afford these products, their not going to have a much easier time with it after a little price increase.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

Ummm... yeah. I value human life over animal life. Everyone should. We eat cows! All the time! Doesn't that mean we value our own lives more than the cows? This law will make chicken-based products more expensive, making it even more difficult for our poor to survive.

 

[RDK]

Ummm... yeah. I value human life over animal life. Everyone should. We eat cows! All the time! Doesn't that mean we value our own lives more than the cows? This law will make chicken-based products more expensive, making it even more difficult for our poor to survive.

Humans are animals.

 

[arrowhead]

haha i can't believe i missed that the other time >_>

i'd rather kill a random person than my dog

 

[SuperBowser]

Animals feel pain too, you know.


There's a difference between killing an animal to live and torturing an animal for the entirety of its existence in order to save 20 cents on an end product.

It's kind of sad you don't see the difference.

 

[Zero Beat]

Wow, George Carlin nailed it when he said that the notion of life being sacred was more of a selective thing.

LOL'z@ RDK.

 

[RDK]

haha i can't believe i missed that the other time >_>

i'd rather kill a random person than my dog

LOL that basically sums up my philosophy about life.

Wow, George Carlin nailed it when he said that the notion of life being sacred was more of a selective thing.

LOL'z@ RDK.

It was a sad day for humanity when George Carlin died.

 

[x After Dawn x]

Honestly, I don't think we'd see any clear results for some time even if the proposition was passed. Farmers would logically continue to avoid the proposition for some time to cut down on costs before they would get caught by the authorities. I think I would vote for this proposition to be in effect, but it'd be much more effective if there was some kind of practice or strict consequence put in effect if the law was broken.