As a veterinarian, I consider my role to be that of an advocate for all animals. As such, I was very disappointed by the article “Opposition groups say Proposition 2 is something to cluck about” (July 31).
Proposition 2 is a very modest initiative to improve the welfare of those animals most of us would rather not think about—animals used for food. What most of us do not realize is that the animals whose welfare would be affected by Proposition 2 presently live in conditions of extreme confinement that would be considered animal cruelty for dogs or cats.
Simply stated, Proposition 2 would require that pigs in gestation crates, calves in veal crates, and egg-laying hens in battery cages be housed in ways that allow them to “fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around.” That’s it. It does not do away with cages or modern housing systems, but simply ensures adequate space for the animals living in these systems. Considering that pigs and calves presently cannot even turn around in their tiny crates, while egg-laying chickens live packed into spaces smaller than a sheet of paper, this is an important welfare measure for these animals.
I am confident that our state’s egg industry can adapt to the changes this legislation will bring, such as by serving the growing demand for cage-free and free-range eggs. I am also certain that the good people of the Central Coast will extend their compassion for their animal companions to include these other animals equally deserving of our compassion and concern.
This article appears in Aug 7-14, 2008.