still don't understand how you came to your conclusion... but carry on with what you are more clear on.

You are too committed to your point of view. Nothing I can say will change your mind. This one I'm clear on, Prop 8 I'm not so clear.

The worrying thing about free range eggs (at least in the uk) is that it can mean simply having slightly bigger cage and for the animals to still stay inside for virtually all of its life, and still be labelled as free-range.

i'm with bob. after briefly (i stress briefly) glancing at both sides of the issue, i will be voting "no" . if you want to support the free range chickens, you buy free range chickens products. We're going to get our non-loosely contained range chicken products from somewhere (because it's cheaper)... we might as well keep the revenue in california and keep local businesses/corporations competitive.

i could see why a small local free range chicken producer would not want it to pass... it would ruin their business plan

i do think that arguement is xenophobic, but that is because the No camp wants as many arguing points as possible. the bottom line is: the no camp is worried more eggs will come from outside of California because they will not be able to be stay competitive... and that will be more revenue lost for the state (which i assume is why Governor Schwarenegger is opposed). i do not see this proposition as a gateway to universal loosely contained animals.



from what i read (i could be wrong).. we still have a choice, but it won't be eggs from California

hardly seems like "free range".

fixed!

as i understand it, proposition 2 is not about free-range. the point of it is to require california livestock farmers of certain animals and animal products to provide a minimum amount of space per animal, by the year 2015.

this minimum amount of space must allow the animal to turn completely around, and stretch its limbs all the way out. farmers would have several years to make this change, allowing them time to address the cost.

the idea that this proposition would put california farmers out of business in favor of cheaper, 'dirty' foreign eggs does not add up to me. we arent talking about giving each veal calf an entire backyard, after all. more like moving a puppy from a shoe box to a properly sized carry-crate.

well if you only watched TV commercials then you would think that its only about eggs

Gas isnt renewable. Once its gone its gone, unless it comes from a tip.

I dont understand how someone could vote no, and against something that is designed to alleviate another creatures suffering. For whatever reason.
I am sure it is plain scaremongering that these business' are par taking in.
But to say that I will buy someones product because it is local even though their business practices are inhuman is ludicrous and is a big reason to why this world cannot move forward.

It's about animal cruelty, not free range eggs.

The argument that we should continue to allow people to treat an animal like a machine to keep prices low has nothing to do with the problem or the solution. Because cruelty maximizes production, makes it no less cruel and intolerable.

well, i will look into it more

i hesitant to add more restrictions to california businesses than they already have. last thing i want to see is another big business move its operations elsewhere because it's no longer worth it

This is the only part of this bill that makes me think twice. But the thing that I hate about this argument is that people make a bigger deal about the suffering of animals then the suffering of people. How about alleviating the suffering of people addicted to drugs, babies born addicted to crack, those that are HIV positive, starving people in Africa, etc. Take that $3/dozen extra that you're going to pay for eggs and instead send it to Africa to feed somebody or to build a well. How about we fix our schools first? How about we fund research into alternative energies so we wouldn't fund the same people who are trying to kill us? How about we get help to those addicted to drugs? How about keeping kids out of gangs? We can find $65k a year to send someone to prison but can't even get him the $30k a year to send him to the best colleges? Damn, we're a twisted society.

Now I broke one of my personal rules - got into talking about politics on a site were people spend hundreds of dollars on a piece of plastic.

You haven't heard my kick ass people suffering argument.

Listen, if you care about suffering you end it where you find. This is a good place to put a stop to some,or at least to take a stand against it. You won't lose all your egg jobs to Mexico.

just hundreds?

Well, many hundreds.....

I think I italicized the wrong word: "Just hundreds?"

Yes lets pay for a utopian class society built on the backs of the suffering lower class of beings....Wait we allready do that.

Not fixing one problem because we cant or wont fix another problem is definately twisted.

Really though....why don't you tell us what you're doing to make a difference.

Bob I am not taking the piss I just feel that anything that can be done to ease suffering is a chance to move forward.

I'm with you. I hate that people and animals suffer all over this world. I wish if people ate meat, they could go out and kill the animal, butcher it, and then eat it. How many people do you think would still eat meat? I will reconsider my position if you or someone else can support your argument that animals are suffering?

Thank you Bob. I am glad this was kept civil. But damn am I now going to have to read proposition 2? Im not from California. Or did you mean in general?.. In relation to supporting an argument that animals are suffering.

Just a quick point on the difference between human suffering and animal suffering: people can do things for themselves to change their situation, animals cannot. So it is up to people to make changes for the animals to reduce their suffering.
This is a reason why I find animal abuse more reprehensible in many ways than human-on-human violence - people have a better chance of defending themselves, and can at least understand what is happening and why. Animals don't have the ability to defend themselves, and can't understand why they're getting a fire cracker shoved up their ass.

I am agree with Bob. The way to effect real change is to educate people and hope they make better choices. I am certain our huge supermarkets will just import food from outside of California so they hit a certain price point.

I am voting yes on 2 but I do it knowing it will cause food prices to go up, more money to leave our state, more energy to be used to get food to market. I think these things are certain. It is not certain this bill will actually help any animals since the deadline is 6 years from now.

My hope is voting yes will make some people consider the issue of animal welfare for the 1st time, for some farmers to adapt their business to a new marketplace, and for other states to follow our lead. The only way this bill can make a difference is for it to inspire other states to pass similar bills, for consumers to accept higher prices for "happy meat", and for farmers to understand they can still profit in this environment.

If you vote yes on Prop 2 I think you have to reject all food that does not comply to its standards. This means no fast food, no chain food, no big box store food, ect. The worst thing you can do is vote yes on prop 2 on Tuesday and eat at McDonalds on Wed or have Costco bacon on Saturday. If you vote for it you have to live it or you are just fucking farmers to make yourself feel a little better on election day.

I agree with you Pogue, but I would still hold that "good" farmers don't torture their livestock. The better farm product comes from better treated livestock. The better the treatment, the better the product.

The only thing you get from these cruel measures is higher yield and less over head. Both of these should be irrelevant when the subject at hand is humane treatment. You do this to a dog or cat you would be punished under the law. You do it to farm animals and you get a pass because they are viewed as a commodity. This proposition seems to right this error.