Vote Yes On Prop 2

September 3, 2008

this sheep wants your attention

Californians, please vote yes on Prop 2, which would ban battery cages and gestation crates. It’s a very modest proposal that will simply outlaw some of the most cruel forms of farm animal confinement. From the initiative:

“The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to tum around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.” (Read the text of Prop 2 here >>)

If that’s not enough to convince you to vote for it, here are some more reasons:

Prop 2 is good for human animals. It will help prevent some food borne illness (since intensive animal agriculture tends to produce more unsafe meat and other animal products than less intensive animal agriculture).
Prop 2 is good for the environment and wild animals. It will prevent some forms of pollution (since intensive animal agriculture is extremely polluting).

Even if you don’t think this would be a victory for farm animals (because they’ll still become meat for human consumption) you should still vote yes. Here’s why:

Prop 2 is good for animal advocates. A yes vote indicates a public concern for animals. That will inspire more politicians and business people to consider animal rights and welfare as part of their agendas.
Prop 2 is good for farm animals. This initiative won’t be a real victory for farm animals. It’s a tiny step in a long, long road for farm animals. But it’s an improvement. It’s better to do something than nothing.
Prop 2 is good for future farm animals. A “yes on Prop 2″ vote suggests opposition to some forms of animal confinement, but not support of any specific animal use. That is, this is incremental abolition, not welfarism. It will not hinder future animal rights measures.

If you are an animal rights supporter and you don’t feel that this measure is strong enough, please still vote yes. We don’t have to claim this as an animal rights victory. Prop 2 is not truly about animal rights. But we can still vote yes on Prop 2 with a clear conscience that we’re doing the right thing for animals, for human health, and for the environment.

And while I’m on that topic, if you’re not already vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is truly the right thing for animals, for human health, and for the environment.

But stil, some people will vote no. Even people who care deeply about animals. Gary Francione wants Californians to oppose. He suggests that the initiative isn’t good for animals because it’s not enough. It’s too far in the future and it doesn’t ban all the cruel practices involved in intensive animal agriculture. More specifically, he opposes it because it doesn’t fundamentally address animal rights. What surprised me most about his opposition was this reason:

“it is important for animal advocates to send a clear message to the Humane Society of the United States”

I can’t even fathom this line of reasoning. A clear message would be, let’s see, CLEAR. A “no” vote isn’t clear, given that many voters will vote “no.” How is the HSUS supposed to differentiate between the animal exploiter’s “no” vote and the animal advocate’s “no” vote? They can’t. Perhaps if Gary said, ‘Vote no and send a letter to the HSUS explaining why you voted how you did’ then his explanation would make more sense. But he didn’t say that. He just wants you to vote ‘no.’

Francione claims, ” if passed, [the initiative] will only make the public feel better about animal exploitation and will result in increased exploitation.” I highly doubt animal product consumption will increase as a result of Prop 2. There simply isn’t any real evidence to support Francione’s claims that meat consumption will increase.

The people who will “feel better about animal exploitation” after Prop 2 passes are the same people who don’t feel bad enough now to stop. They already eat animal products and they’re not stopping any time soon.

Besides, it’s immoral to deny animals a relief in suffering in order to encourage more people to go vegan. The issues are separate. We can’t base how we treat animals on what we expect humans to do. The animals need our help NOW. And the humans are, well, unpredictable. Will they eat less or more meat, who knows? It’s not truly relevant.

And guess what? You can vote “yes” on Prop 2 and still send a letter to the HSUS telling them you’d rather they spend money on vegan education than on animal welfare measures. You can vote “yes” on Prop 2 and refrain from donating money to the HSUS. You can vote “yes” on Prop 2 and continue working towards abolition. You can vote “yes” on Prop 2 and still do vegan education.

Posted by Elaine Vigneault | Filed Under Animals, Food, Politics, vegan, vegetarian

« Guide To Analyzing PETA’s Nude Activism

Teasing Out The Truth »

Comments

4 Responses to “Vote Yes On Prop 2”

Tracy on September 4th, 2008 10:33 am
I agree with you. It’s disappointing to see the strict abolitionists telling people to vote no. If this measure fails, the animal-abuse industry will spin it as Californians (and therefore Americans) don’t care about animal issues.

(The measure also affects veal crates.)
Elaine Vigneault on September 4th, 2008 10:15 pm
I agree. It is disappointing that some abolitionists interpret any and all welfarist measure as anti-abolitionist. They’ll say, “It’s like telling men to beat women with an open fist, not a closed one.” But it’s not. It’s like telling men not to beat women with a closed fist. It’s different. There’s an important distinction between condoning animal use and condemning animal abuse.
Guy on October 14th, 2008 5:20 pm
Tracy. It’s already well known and proven (just step into to any grocery store) that Californians and Americans don’t care much about farm animals. If it doesn’t pass, we’re going to learn something we already know. Zero impact.
Elaine, picking at Francione for his omission of the letter to HSUS along with the vote really s not too compelling an agrument. I’m sure he advocates sending letters to let people know how one feels. He is very CLEAR why he recommends a NO vote, and that’s the important part, isn’t it?
And you quoted it:
“…if passed, [the initiative] will only make the public feel better about animal exploitation and will result in increased exploitation…”
There simply isn’t any real evidence to debunk Francione’s claim that meat consumption will increase. It’s any empty argument, again.
It seems to me to be completely believable that omnivores will feel much better about eating eggs, chicken and pigs if this proposition passes. I think that vegetarians will feel better about eating eggs and cheese. I think vegan education efforts will be hampered and fewer people will be swayed by the animal cruelty agrument. What animal cruelty?, they’ll think, we took care of that with Proposition 2 years ago!

I say scrap Prop 2, vote it down and we’ll have a better chance of passing an anti-factory farming proposition next year. Then the chickens won’t just be born to die, and the few that are born won’t be in cages at all.
Elaine Vigneault on October 14th, 2008 7:06 pm
Guy,
a) To be fair, when he first wrote that he didn’t suggest abstaining from voting. He edited that article since it was originally posted.

b) Francione lives on the other side of the COUNTRY. He’s not a California resident. In some ways the East Coast is very different than the West. Those differences matter. If he wants to claim that agriculture reforms will increase consumption, he needs to prove that claim AND he needs to make it specific to CA.

c) A vote against prop 2 will be interpreted virtually ALL INVOLVED as a vote against animals, against the environment, against public health, and for industrial agriculture. The nuance of Francione’s position will be LOST.

d) It’s morally reprehensible to stand in the way of incremental abolition. If you can’t vote for prop 2, you should abstain from voting on the proposition at all. A No vote will NOT create more vegans and less suffering. Take the time you would spend voting ‘no’ and dedicate it to REAL vegan outreach and animal activism.

e) If prop 2 were really going to increase consumption of animal products, why would the industry oppose it? Francione is just wrong on that count. It will not increase consumption.