How are you voting on Prop 12 (farm animals) ? (Los Angeles: houses, living)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Janellen ... I was in the Navy ... by choice ... I know that pig ...

OK, break it up, you two! WAY TMI!

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by JustMike77

I'll vote yes because farm animals are happier when you give them a little room to move around.

Don't ask me how I know this.

How do you know this, Mike?

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by sexorama

Does voting no on prop 12 cost less money than voting yes on it?

Excellent question. My personal opinion is that voting yes will cost less than no. Assuming you mean costs to California taxpayers.

The reason being, that under the current law, a lot of money is being spent on legal fees to argue the dimensions needed for a chicken to turn around. This proposition would clarify that, so there would be less legal fees arguing it.

Otherwise, just look at the voter information guide for any more specifics.

[davidt1]

Originally Posted by sexorama

Does voting no on prop 12 cost less money than voting yes on it?

I vote YES, but it will cost more. The state will have to hire expensive public employees to enforce the law. Animal farms will pass the cost to consumers.

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

How do you know this, Mike?

He asked you not to ask him. Don't you ever listen Mutt?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

He asked you not to ask him. Don't you ever listen Mutt?

I took it as a dare. When people ask to not be asked it’s usually either a cry for help ... or a dare. He WANTS to tell us.




But he wants to be asked.

Nicely.

[artillery77]

Voting no.



This proposition presupposes the right way to handle things which is the first mistake. If there's safety concerns, this is an issue for regulators, not a proposition.



The second is there's going to be no way of actively enforcing this measure with any fairness or consistency. The government now has to hire workers to go out and measure spaces where feeder pigs roam? Don't wear your good shoes.


Better to have a set of requirements in order to be a California Blue Label meat or something like that as opposed to trying to set minimums to allow for sales. Interstate commerce laws could also apply.

[evening sun]

It is confusing, Peta wants a No vote. I will read the ballot blurb when I get home & then decide.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by evening sun

It is confusing, Peta wants a No vote. I will read the ballot blurb when I get home & then decide.

PETA only wants a no vote, because they think the proposition doesn't go far enough for laying hens. That's the only part they have issue with. They think that the prop should have specified better definitions for "cage-free" spaces for hens. They say that even though chicken farmers must have cage-free spaces that allow for 1 square foot per hen, that they could just put them in crowded, dark closed sheds or barns. And, they think more should be required.

From the Sacramento Bee:

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed...219868470.html

My thinking is, this bill does help other animals, and I like the idea that we would ban imports of eggs and meat products from other states that don't comply with these standards.

So, it might not be perfect, as far as what's required for hens - but - overall, it's still much-improved conditions for all of them, in my opinion. Why not improve the conditions for calves and pigs, and even most chickens? If we want to vote again for stricter hen requirements next time, we can still do that. But, why not improve what we can with this prop now?

[likealady]

I think I read somewhere that the Humane Society supports it but PETA doesn't. I like the idea of our farm animals living happier lives prior to becoming our food so I'm voting yes.