PROP 2 - STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
This is one of the propositions that can't really be boiled down to budget issues or idiocy. The text of the law names the act the "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act", not sure why there is a discrepancy there. The act pretty much says that hens, pigs and calfs for veal have to be able to be able to turn around without touching the edges of their pen or another animal and stops the practice of tethering.
The proposition plays to the emotions and makes you think "ah poor animals". I'm no member of PETA, but it is hard to justify bad living conditions for farmed animals. What I'm not a fan of is telling farmers how they have to conduct business. I bet the vast majority of farmers try to provide the best living conditions they can, there will always be those few that ruin it for the rest. I'm not sure what kind of humane treatment laws are on the books right now (I'm assuming there are already numerous), but I'd rather take a different approach to regulating things further.
Vote with your wallet. Don't want eggs from cooped up hens? Buy free range. Don't think it is right to keep calves tethered and confined for veal? Don't buy any. I'd be more open to legislation that requires the living conditions of the animal to be printed on the packaging of food. That would give the consumer more information to make a decision when purchasing food.
I'm going to vote NO because I'm not convinced that current laws aren't doing enough to treat animals humanely and keep our food sources safe from disease. You could go either way on this way, but I just see it doing more harm to farmers and their industry than actually improving conditions for animals.
I love it. Give consumers the info, and let them vote with their wallet. That’s how it seems to be working with everything that is “organic.” If companies feel they can make a profit by providing that product, then they will.