Proposition 2

A general assumption that I take to each ballot is that the prevailing logic for any proposition is to start with a NO vote. After all we pay 120 Californians to work on important issues and we should only use this process when they have failed us. For me Prop 2 is an easy NO vote.

Proposition 2 is a measure sponsored by the Human Society and the California Veterinary Medical Association to require that certain farm animals be confined only in pens or holding areas where they can fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up and turn around. Existing state law defines cruelty to animals and this would change that definition. Most of the changes would take place beginning in 2015.

The eminences who wrote the for and against arguments all seem pretty well qualified. For the Pro side there are WAYNE PACELLE, President The Humane Society of the United States (I tend to think the Humane Society has gone off the deep end on these issues), DR. KATE HURLEY, D.V.M., M.P.V.M., Clinical Professor, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis and ANDREW KIMBRELL, Executive Director, Center for Food Safety. For the Con side there are DR. CRAIG REED, DVM, Former Deputy Administrator Food Safety and Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), DR. TIM E. CARPENTER, Ph.D., Professor of Epidemiology Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis and DR. PATRICIA BLANCHARD, DVM, PhD., Branch Chief University of California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System.

The pro side present several arguments - it supposedly will reduce cruelty to animals,protect health and safety(that makes an assumption that the existing penning standards do not do that) and will help family farmers (I think that argument is an absurd one). The con side says Prop 2 will potentially increase the incidence of Avian flu and will harm consumers. (Which is also a potentially a silly argument).

I am not at all concerned by protecting family farms. If they are economic and productive they will survive without assistance and if they are not they should fail. The argument against relating to consumers, aside from the public health issue (which may be credible), is probably based on price changes which might be real or not. The arguments on this proposition are contained in the following link.

My no vote is based on one premise.. This is what we hire the legislature is hired to do. The pro side does not make a credible case that this issue cannot be addressed in the dynamics of the legislative process where the technical arguments can be separated from the baloney.