Monday, April 21, 2008
Future of chickens placed in voters hands?
During election day in November, California voters will decide if they feel small hen cages should be "outlawed" in the state until a re-vote in 2015. http://www.poultryandeggnews.com/poultrytoday/news/20080421/220246.shtml, this website paints the picture for the views and thoughts of California voters. It is a shame the amount of "pull" the Humane Society has in the state. The opposers of the decision feels as if the decision will force the egg and poultry industry out of the state for good. The "cage free" labeled items in the grocery stores are already listed for higher prices. In addition, these hens are also more prone to diseases and are more likely to injure themselves. Thankfully, the legislator decided not to take a stab at meat produced chickens because they are in a "larger area" to roam and thus this makes it a more friendly environment. I find it scary how one organization like the Humane Society can be a deciding factor of legislation for animals. With their far fetched ads for cruelty to animals and how bad conventional farmers treat their animals is just another way they fuel the emotions of the American Society in their favor and now the issues are moving to the government for them to decide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I disagree. The amount of pull the humane society has in an election is good (agricultural importance is a growing debatable topic). There is no reason birds should be caged and it has been proven to work in Europe where cage free setups are mandatory. Birds are not necessarily more prone to injury or disease out of cages. In fact, I would say that they are more prone to ailments in cages (due to crowdedness). The industry may change due a free cage set up and prices may skyrocket. It all come down to the ethical question 'are we superior to animals?' and how should we treat them. I vote for cage free because we need to be respectful to all organisms.
I think just from the videos we saw in class last week, some Humane Society views are relevant. Though I do agree some may be exaggerated and possibly staged, they may have some valid points. As for Scott's comment on cage-free birds being healthier, I would have to agree. Being a poultry owner myself, though not having a few hundred thousand birds, I find that I have very little to no problems with illness.
Not to be a big hippie or anything, but you seem to be lumping the humane society in the same sort of category as big crazy Peta. I believe that the humane society should have a lot of legislative impact because what they are petitioning for is beneficial to the animals without taking things to extremes. They still want us to eat birds, but without all the unnecessary confinement. I agree with Scott on this one. If we are going to kill them and eat them anyway, why not let them live their short lives running around (if their legs haven’t given out under the stress of their bulk) with their comrades in a cage free environment for a few weeks? Luckily for us, this is America. We have the cash. If chicken breast costs a few bucks more a pound in exchange for upping the welfare of the birds’ life, I think I’ll survive.
Post a Comment