Dear Colleagues:

I am getting a large number of inquiries about whether animal advocates in California should vote for Proposition 2 given that it is already on the ballot.

On balance, it is my view that animal advocates should vote against Proposition 2 (or at least abstain from voting on it at all). I base my view on three reasons:

First, Proposition 2 will do nothing to reduce animal suffering in the short term. Proposition 2 will not even come into effect, if at all, until 2015. Proposition 2 has numerous exceptions and qualifications and even if it does come into effect at some point in the distant future, and even if it is enforced, it will result in no meaningful reduction in animal suffering.

Second, Proposition 2, if passed, will only make the public feel better about animal exploitation and will result in increased exploitation. Animals will continue to be tortured; the only difference will be that the torture will carry the stamp of approval from the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and the other animal welfare corporations that are promoting Proposition 2. It is telling that approximately 100 farming organizations are supporting Proposition 2. Why do you think that is? The answer is plain. These producers believe that Proposition 2 will help their “bottom line.” And it will.

Third, it is important for animal advocates to send a clear message to the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and other groups to stop promoting measures like Proposition 2. If HSUS is really concerned about animal suffering, then it should perhaps spend a chunk of its $223 million in assets and $124 million in revenues on vegan education. Veganism reduces the demand for animal products and helps to shift social attitudes away from the notion that it is morally acceptable to use animals as long as we do so “humanely.” That view results in nothing but continued and increased animal use. It is time that advocates just said “no” to it.

It is time to demand more from the organizations that purport to represent the ideals of animal advocates than cheap campaigns that produce headlines and swollen coffers, but do nothing to provide meaningful protection for animal interests and do not in any way undermine the property status of animals. Creative, nonviolent vegan education is the best way to reduce animal suffering and death in the short term and in the long term. Increased veganism is the only means to achieve the abolition of animal exploitation. Efforts like Proposition 2, which make the consumption of animals more acceptable, will only reinforce speciesism and the notion that it is morally acceptable to consume nonhumans as long as we do so “humanely.”

The decision about how to vote on Proposition 2 is not one that requires that advocates choose between more animal suffering or less. It is a choice between continuing to promote the “happy meat” movement that is taking things in the wrong direction or getting down to serious animal advocacy that will really make a difference.

Animals advocates should not vote for Proposition 2.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

About.com has published a pro/con on California’s Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, known as “Proposition 2.”

I oppose Proposition 2. The Humane Society of the United States is its primary supporter and the About.com piece defending Proposition 2 is written by Paul Shapiro, Senior Director, HSUS Factory Farming Campaign. The essays are brief in that we were limited to 500 words each.

As those of you who listened to the interview I did on Go Vegan Radio (July 26) know, I suggested to host Bob Linden that he invite HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle to debate the HSUS campaign in favor of Proposition 2 and other welfarist campaigns promoted by HSUS. Bob has informed me that he invited Wayne but that Wayne declined. I am sorry about that as I think that such exchanges are an excellent way for animal advocates to learn about these issues.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

In light of the significant response to the debate on eating meat and animal products, Opposing Views decided to have another debate on animal ethics and focused on the institution of “pets.”

I am arguing against the perpetuation of “pet” ownership; the Humane Society of the United States is arguing in favor of it.

I hope that you will stop by, read the entries, and offer your comments.

I am delighted that Opposing Views is taking an interest in animal ethics.

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione

Animal welfare advocates are terribly excited over a recent decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court. According to a press release from The Humane Society of the United States and Farm Sanctuary, two of the petitioners in the case:

The New Jersey Supreme Court today struck down the New Jersey Department of Agriculture’s regulations exempting all routine husbandry practices as “humane” and ordered the agency to readdress many of the state-mandated standards for the treatment of farm animals.

In this monumental case, the Court ruled that factory farming practices cannot be considered humane simply because they are widely used, setting a legal precedent for further actions to end the most egregious abuses on factory farms throughout the U.S. The Court also rejected the practice of tail-docking cattle, and the manner in which the NJDA had provided for farm animals to be mutilated without anesthesia.

“This is a major victory for farm animals in New Jersey, and will pave the way for better protections of farm animals nationwide,” said Gene Baur, president and co-founder of Farm Sanctuary. “Setting a legal precedent in a unanimous vote that clarifies that commonly used practices cannot be considered humane simply because they are widely used will build on our momentum in challenging the cruel status quo on factory farms.”

In addition to striking down the agency’s sweeping exemption for “routine husbandry practices,” the Court further held that tail docking could not be considered humane, and the manner in which mutilations without anesthesia including castration, de-beaking and de-toeing could not be considered humane without some specific requirements to prevent pain and suffering. The Court made clear that the decision to permit these practices as long as they are done by a “knowledgeable person” and in a way to “minimize pain” could not “pass muster.”

“This decision will protect thousands of animals in New Jersey, and also calls into question some of the worst factory farm abuses practiced throughout the country,” said Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president of animal protection litigation for The Humane Society of the United States. “All animals deserve humane treatment, including animals raised for food.”

Unfortunately, this excitement is not warranted. When one reads the actual opinion, one gets a very different picture.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dear Colleagues:

The Italian and Polish versions of the pamphlet are now available. They are provided in U.S. Letter and A4 formats.

You can download the Italian version here: Letter | A4

You can download the Polish version here: Letter | A4

Thanks to Marina Berati for the Italian translation and to Krzysztof Forkasiewicz for the Polish translation.

And still more languages coming soon!

Gary L. Francione
© 2008 Gary L. Francione