Attack of the Anti-Prop 2’s!

Bills to kill farm animal protection invade three states

“This is Michigan, not California. We’re not going to allow an outside group to come into Michigan and give chickens the right to drive cars.”

- Michigan State Representative and House Agriculture Chairman Mike Simpson*

Since 2002, a total of six states have passed laws banning one or more of the main intensive confinement mechanisms factory farms use to maximize revenue (i.e., battery cages for egg-laying hens, gestation crates for pregnant pigs, and veal crates for calves). In the last year alone, four more state legislatures have introduced bills to ban all three of these industry-standard constraint systems — and they certainly won’t be the last to ponder such measures.

If you were a captain of the farm animal exploitation industry whose bottom line depended on treating cows, pigs and chickens however you damn well pleased, wouldn’t this revolting development freak you out? Well, of course, but the real question is, what would you do about it? Would you a) go about your business as usual and hope that your home state doesn’t try to restrict your legal right to abuse animals, b) proactively make operational changes that reflect current public attitudes about animal welfare, or c) go on the offensive by calling in some favors from your powerful politician friends who owe you big for those meaty campaign contributions you’ve been dishing out over the years?

You don’t need to be a whiz at multiple choice tests to know which one of these strategies corporate magnates in at least three states have collectively opted for:

- Michigan lawmakers have introduced HB 5127 and HB 5128, two bills that would create a statute to codify Big Ag’s animal welfare guidelines into law. Needless to say, their idea of “animal welfare” includes giving each egg-laying hen just 67 square inches of cage space, grinding their male chicks up alive for fertilizer as soon as they are born, and many other cruel but routine atrocities.

- Ohio legislators have already placed a “livestock standards” measure on the November 2009 ballot for voters’ consideration that would amend the State Constitution and give a council dominated by livestock industry “experts” sole authority to set “care and well-being” standards for the treatment of farm animals. Passage of this proposition would preempt lawmakers from debating animal welfare issues and be used to delude the public into believing that farm animals are not subjected to abusive practices when in fact they are.

- The Oklahoma legislature passed a law earlier this year that gives the the Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry exclusive authority to rule on animal welfare issues in the state. Essentially, this prohibits local governments from creating ordinances regarding “the care and handling of livestock” that are more restrictive than those enacted by the State Ag Department.

Why, you may wonder, can’t the government allow voters or their democratically-elected representatives decide where to draw the line on cruelty to farm animals? Because, as Michigan House Bills sponsor Representative Don Armes argues, these bills are needed to “ensure that livestock regulations are developed by experts at the state level who know what they’re doing.” And who are these quote-unquote “experts” to whom Rep. Armes so deferentially cedes all power? Why, the very same skilled professionals who made fortunes by enslaving, torturing, killing, and selling animals for profit, of course!

Despite such reassurances from trusted elected officials like Rep. Armes, the farm animal rights activists who have devoted much of their efforts in recent years to passing anti-confinement bills and initiatives have a different view of this matter. “These measures are obviously a counterattack against the success of Prop 2,” claims Paul Shapiro, Senior Director of HSUS’s Factory Farming Campaign. “The basic idea is to give the appearance of regulation, but in reality these programs won’t prohibit any of the inhumane practices that are already standard in the agriculture industry. In fact, they would actually codify the cruel status quo into law, effectively putting the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse.”

Shapiro also points out that, with the full force of the mighty agribusiness lobby behind them, industry-friendly lawmakers have been able to move these bills forward quickly in an attempt to avoid legislative and public scrutiny. In response, HSUS is actively encouraging state lawmakers in Michigan to oppose the House Bills and mobilizing their members to put pressure on elected officials by contacting their offices. A campaign to inform Ohio voters about the deceptive intentions behind the November 2009 proposition is already in the planning stages, and the organization may attempt to place its own pro-animal measure on the ballot in 2010.

The crucial question here for both sides is, are these industry-driven proposals the magic bullet agribusiness needs to stop the state-to-state spread of Prop 2-inspired bills and ballot initiatives? Similarly, will they be able to deceive people into believing that current agribusiness practices — like confining animals in cages and crates, debeaking chickens and tail-docking cows — constitute “humane” treatment of living, feeling creatures? The answers depend in large measure on the outcomes in Michigan and Ohio — but much more so, in a deeper sense, on the determination, drive and energy of farm animal rights activists.

* It is important to note that, despite Rep. Simpson’s claim, chickens cannot legally drive automobiles in California: when Prop 2 is enacted in 2015, it will simply ensure that egg-laying hens (as well as breeding sows and veal calves) have enough room to stand up, stretch their limbs, and lie down without bumping up against a wall or another animal. The fact that the Honorable Mr. Simpson (sponsor of the Michigan animal "welfare" standards bills) issued this hyperbolic statement signifies nothing more than the fact that he has been watching too many old Foster Farms commercials, and that he is a pathetic suck-up and sellout to the animal corpse-food industry.

Transcendence

The election is finally over, and...WE WON!

Tuesday, November 4th saw two major victories for animals: the passage of Proposition 2 (the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act) in California, and the election of President Barack Obama, both of which garnered a wide margin of voter support.

I sit now in my personal power spot, atop a hill in Golden Gate Park from which I try to survey on high the brand new world that formed overnight while I slept, still carrying a hangover from election celebrations—as well as the psychic battering of the last eight years. Our long national nightmare of Bush-rule is coming to a close, but we will be reeling from the repercussions for a long time to come. Thankfully, the historic landslide sweep of “transcendent” multi-racial President-elect Obama is a significant sign that the United States of America has repudiated un-Constitutional unilateral arrogance, as well as hateful prejudices, and renewed its sacred promise to freedom and liberty for all—including, in my view, our animal kin.

Proposition 2

The fact that Prop 2 passed at the same time that Obama won the Presidency seems in itself momentous, showing unparalleled growth in the public’s awareness of and concern for farm animals. California is now the first state to ban battery cages for egg-laying hens (along with gestation crates for pregnant pigs and veal crates for calves). It’s a really big deal, and is being hailed as the the most significant advance in the history of the animal protection movement, at least as far as the number of animals affected is concerned.

Today I called my friend Paul Shapiro, the Director of Factory Farm Campaigns over at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), to congratulate him on Prop 2’s passage. The initiative was co-sponsored by HSUS and Farm Sanctuary (my employer), so for us and the multitude of others who worked on the initiative, as paid staff or volunteers, this has been a day to take pride in our collective accomplishment. After more than a year and a half of work, our movement’s efforts came to sweet fruition.

Paul and I shared our mutual excitement over the win, and talked some about what it might mean not only in California, but for the nation as well. “Seeing the largest agricultural state in the country ban battery cages is a dream come true for me, and for animal activists everywhere, because it will help more animals than any other voter decision in history,” Paul told me. “There’s never been anything like this, which shows just how far the farm animal protection movement has come in just a few short years. And my greatest delight today comes from knowing that we finally won a decisive victory for chickens.”

As Paul says, egg-laying hens are arguably the most cruelly-abused and long-suffering creatures on the planet. Chickens represent about 90% of the farm animals slaughtered for food every year, so of the 10 billion or so killed in the U.S. on an annual basis, about 9 billion are chickens. Most of these are “broilers” specifically raised for meat, but this number also includes “spent” hens who spend their entire lives packed with five or six others in battery cages where there isn’t even enough room for them to lift their wings. Prop 2 will require farmers to provide the nearly 20 million egg-laying hens raised in California every year with enough space to stand up, lie down, turn around, and spread their wings: which will probably necessitate a gradual transition to cage-free husbandry methods.

Paul says he's confident that California is just the beginning, and that other states are going to follow suit in the near future. “The opposition, funded mainly by the factory farms themselves, spent $9 million trying to defeat Prop 2, which was much more than the industry has spent to fight any other reform initiative targeting farm animals. This failure is going to force the industry to face the undeniable fact that they can’t win these battles against public opinion on animal abuse—no matter how much they spend. Maybe the next time we introduce a state ballot initiative, the industry will invest their money in helping farmers transition to cage-free systems instead of wasting it on misleading and unconvincing propaganda.”

President Barack Obama!

Over the last two months, I posted blog entries examining Obama's and John McCain's records on animal and environmental issues, and concluded, based on the compiled evidence, that an Obama Administration would be the better choice on both fronts. From farm animals to endangered species, Obama is likely to take a far different and more sensitive approach to these important issues than we have seen during Bush's two terms (the second of which is still 76 days away from ending).

Obviously, animal protection is not at the top of Obama's agenda right now, as he plans his transition into the White House—nor should it be. Our country faces devastatingly serious problems at the moment, mostly centered on the failing economy and an expensive war, that need urgent attention, and Obama must prioritize some affairs of state above others in order to be an effective leader. Nevertheless, I see good things happening for animals in the next four years.

I say this because Obama is a progressive politician who is clearly committed to tackling serious environmental issues and creating a greener culture and economy. For one, we will have a leader who takes the global warming threat seriously, so we will see new policies on climate change that represent a clean break with Bush era stalling and denial. Obama also has a vision for achieving energy independence through the development of alternative fuels that will be less harmful to us and the planet than burning petroleum. Plus, he wants to foster initiatives that will bring millions of green jobs to the United States, and make us the world leader in this emerging industry.

The kind of responsible environmental stewardship Obama proposes is essential to protecting animals whose habitats have been under constant siege by blatantly destructive mining, building and farming practices for far too long. This exploitive approach is designed to generate maximum profits for giant corporations and a wealthy few at the expense of the environment and animals' lives. While this insatiably omnivorous system is likely to remain functionally intact for many years to come, at least the extreme business-first rules of the Bush years will be tempered by much-needed reforms and regulations under an Obama Administration.

Universal healthcare is another important goal that Obama will pursue as President. As a candidate, Obama made statements about the need to make fresh fruits and vegetables more easily available to children in school cafeterias, showing he is aware of the close connection between a plant-based diet and healthy living. Central to his position on healthcare is personal responsibility and preventive care, so we may see an accelerated emphasis on eating better (i.e., less meat and dairy) as his program evolves.

What we eat (especially the type of food made available to us) is closely related to the issue of farm subsidies. Historically and currently, an overwhelming amount of the agricultural subsidies handed out to farmers has been intended to effectively offset the costs of raising animals for food to keep meat, dairy and eggs artificially cheap. Government support also favors large agribusiness corporations over smaller family farms, creating an uneven playing field that has all but obliterated traditional rural culture. Obama's stated stance on subsidies is that they should go to the farmers that need them the most; specifically, independent entrepreneurs pioneering innovative ways of producing food in the most economical, ecological ways. Of course, it goes without saying that the energy conversion ratio of growing food for people is much more sustainable, in terms of the amount of resources used and pollution created, than feeding animals so we can eat their flesh; whether Obama will acknowledge and act on this principle remains to be seen.

And finally (but not incidentally), Obama quipped during his exhilarating acceptance speech that his two young daughters were smiling because now that the election is over, they can finally adopt a puppy. I'm so glad that Malia Ann and Natasha’s wish for a dog will be granted not only because they (and the rescued dog) deserve it, but also for the great example it sets for other families. Obama's mention—in the crowning speech of his political career—of a puppy for his daughters shows that he cares deeply about their happiness and respects the special emotional bonds that often develop between children and animal companions.

I have not come across any mention in my researches of whether Obama has ever had animal companions, either growing up or as an adult, but now he will be welcoming a member of another species into his family. If he has never had the opportunity to experience canine friendship, Obama will now be able to see how much joy a dog brings his girls and perhaps come to more deeply understand and appreciate the intelligence of this furry friend—and, by extension, other non-humans as a whole.

I say that because Obama just seems like the kind of guy who's open to new experiences and seeing the world from different perspectives. This is the main reason I believe our new President will be a potentially transformative ally for the animal protection movement. If we do our job right by clearly communicating our concerns and worldview in a way that interconnects animal interests with his call for change, Obama is likely to incorporate this knowledge into his vision for a renewed America and form policies that reflect this.

Am I being too idealistic here? Am I just so overwhelmed by exhausted elation, sudden relief and irrational exuberance that my perceptions are rosily distorted? Maybe, but what's the harm in that? We should all savor this moment by letting our imaginations soar to new heights while keeping our feet firmly planted in the ground of a rapidly-shifting reality. And anyway, I don't think my expectations are unrealistic. A new day is dawning, and with it the chance to see with eyes wide open what possibilities the sprawling future may hold.

Electoral Funtime! Check out these humorous video clips:

The Simpsons - Treehouse of Horror XIX: Homer's voting machine nightmare

The Colbert Report - Threatdown: Prop 2

The Daily Show - Road to the Dog House: Obama's victory promise to daughters
.