I also attach a sheet at the bottom with a link to the Courage Campaign who have compiled a list of 10 progressive organizations and how they are voting. Although other than on Prop 11 there are no disputes on which way to vote, some groups do not recommend on some of the propositions.
I will start with the local measures and then deal with the statewide issues.
DAVIS BALLOT MEASURES
MEASURE N: CHARTER CITY: NO. This measure would determine whether or not Davis would have a charter city enacted. In theory, I would be supportive of such a concept, but I think this charter is too broad. It would allow too much power to future city councils. I would like to see this charter get voted down and a committee formed to draft a new one that is much more specific.
MEASURE W: DJUSD PARCEL TAX: YES. For $120 per parcel voters of the city of Davis can ensure that core programs and teachers remain in tact. We are talking about elementary science, music, some HS athletic programs, as well as keeping class size down. If this does not pass, the district faces a $2.4 million deficit which means that teachers and programs get cut.
STATEWIDE BALLOT
PROP 1A: HIGH SPEED RAIL: YES. This would begin construction of a train that connects San Francisco to Los Angeles via San Jose and Fresno. This is a project I have been wanting for at least 15 years. Create a fast and convenient alternative transportation system to get people out of their cars. This is the most important project that we can fund this year.
PROP 2: STOP ANIMAL CRUELTY: YES. Goes without saying humane treatment for farm animals. We’re not talking a lot–enough space for animals to beable to move around, stand up and sit down. This seems like a no brainer to me and the arguments against about costs and competitiveness do not make a whole lot of sense.
PROP 3: CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BONDS: YES. I see no reason not to expand children’s hospital facilities around the state.
PROP 4: PARENTAL CONSENT FOR ABORTION: NO. Proponents argue that this will get teens to talk their parents about sex. I do not believe that you mandate parent-teen communications. I think it places teens at risk who fear the response of their parents more than they fear other things. It is just not a good idea. One thing I never see in these proposals is how big a problem this actually is. If it is a problem, I think there are other approaches that would be more effective and starting well before pregnancy and abortion issues arise.
PROP 5: NONVIOLENT OFFENDER REHABILITATION: YES. I am a strong proponet of alternative forms of punishment. I think we put way too much emphasis on incarceration and our prisons are being overwhelmed with non-violent sex offenders. The program has the possibility of saving the state between $1 billion and $2.5 billion per year.
PROP 6: SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT: NO. This basically does the opposite of Prop 5–it extends and expands mandatory sentencing and it also takes money from the rest of the state’s beleagured budget and puts it into more prisons and correction spending. This may be the worst initiative on the ballot in my opinion and that includes 4 and 8.
PROP 7: RENEWABLE POWER STANDARD: NO. This bill may be well intentioned putting more resources to solar and wind projects by mandating that we get 50% of our power from renwable sources by 2025. The problem is that opponents believe that the measure is poorly written and would cause more harm than good. When the opponents include Sierra Club and Conservation league, then I tend to believe that statement.
PROP 8: ELIMINATES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: NO. I believe that consenting adults should have the right to marry the person that they love regardless of gender. To me this is a no-brainer and almost every argument against it is based on fear. For those who suggest that same-sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, look at the divorce rate, it seems that marriage is under fire much more by people who do not respect marriage rather than people who desperately want to wed.
PROP 9: Victims’ Rights and Protection Act of 2008: NO. Some of these provisions are not bad including notification and participation of victims in criminal justice proceedings. However, opponents argue that these are already in law. They also believe that these provisions would end up costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions. I am not nearly as opposed to this one as the Prop 6, but it does not seem the type of reform we really need.
Prop 10: California Alternative Fuels Act: NO. This is another one of those bills that look good until you realize who is supporting it and what it would actually do. One the plus side: The funding it provides will allow the generation of electricity from renewable sources, and provide consumer rebates for the purchase or lease of “clean alternative fuel vehicles”. Th bill is sponsored by Boone Pickens, many have derided Pickens and Clean Energy Fuels for sponsoring this initiative because it may set up the company and Pickens for a financial windfall. Again, League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club support it. This would take $10 billion out of the state’s general fund over 30 years. The proposition was initiated by one person/interest group and as such lacks the vetting that would have come had it gained input from a wider variety of sources.
PROP 11: REDISTRICTING: NO. This sets up an appointed bipartisan commission to handle state redistricting. We already have a bipartisan commission that handles redistricting, it’s called the state legislature, they are elected by the voters in California. From what I have seen, voting reforms generally create more harm than good. The system we have now has been in place for over 100 years.
PROP 12: VETERANS’ HOMES BOND: YES. Basically renews a home loan program for veterans that dates back to 1922. The bond must be periodically renewed–this would be the 12th renewal. Enables veterans of current wars to get affordable loans and the bonds are repaid by the veterans themselves. Do not see a downside to this one.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Gotta disagree with Yes on Prop 2, because while frankly many feel like there is just some sort of “economic boogeyman” that conservatives bring up as a downside for passing these measures, a recent UC Davis study stated that Prop 2 would in fact eliminate the California egg industry, which currently produces 8% of the nations eggs and exports 1/2 of those to surrounding states.
We also have very high animal health and safety standards for the egg-laying hens, and which are superior to nearby states. What prop 2 would do is impose even higher standards on egg farmers, and in the process force the entire $337 million industry out of California. Because the other states this industry would move to have worse animal health standards, prop 2 would not benefit animal welfare, food safety, and it would even increase our dependence on foreign oil because of an approximately 25% increase in prices that would be directly related to out of state shipping costs. Finally, prop 2 would take jobs from the neediest people in some of California’s most economically disadvantaged counties and send them to other states– while simultaneously raising food costs. If you feel strongly on this issue, then support family farmers you know that treat their chickens in the manner you wish. For animals, for health, for oil, and for workers, California cannot afford prop 2.
Also, final note, what sort of Tax Revenue do you think we receive from a $337 million industry? I’m pretty sure that sales tax doesn’t apply, but it certainly raises several incomes and corporate profits whose disappearance would not assist our budget shortfalls.
Gotta disagree with Yes on Prop 2, because while frankly many feel like there is just some sort of “economic boogeyman” that conservatives bring up as a downside for passing these measures, a recent UC Davis study stated that Prop 2 would in fact eliminate the California egg industry, which currently produces 8% of the nations eggs and exports 1/2 of those to surrounding states.
We also have very high animal health and safety standards for the egg-laying hens, and which are superior to nearby states. What prop 2 would do is impose even higher standards on egg farmers, and in the process force the entire $337 million industry out of California. Because the other states this industry would move to have worse animal health standards, prop 2 would not benefit animal welfare, food safety, and it would even increase our dependence on foreign oil because of an approximately 25% increase in prices that would be directly related to out of state shipping costs. Finally, prop 2 would take jobs from the neediest people in some of California’s most economically disadvantaged counties and send them to other states– while simultaneously raising food costs. If you feel strongly on this issue, then support family farmers you know that treat their chickens in the manner you wish. For animals, for health, for oil, and for workers, California cannot afford prop 2.
Also, final note, what sort of Tax Revenue do you think we receive from a $337 million industry? I’m pretty sure that sales tax doesn’t apply, but it certainly raises several incomes and corporate profits whose disappearance would not assist our budget shortfalls.
Gotta disagree with Yes on Prop 2, because while frankly many feel like there is just some sort of “economic boogeyman” that conservatives bring up as a downside for passing these measures, a recent UC Davis study stated that Prop 2 would in fact eliminate the California egg industry, which currently produces 8% of the nations eggs and exports 1/2 of those to surrounding states.
We also have very high animal health and safety standards for the egg-laying hens, and which are superior to nearby states. What prop 2 would do is impose even higher standards on egg farmers, and in the process force the entire $337 million industry out of California. Because the other states this industry would move to have worse animal health standards, prop 2 would not benefit animal welfare, food safety, and it would even increase our dependence on foreign oil because of an approximately 25% increase in prices that would be directly related to out of state shipping costs. Finally, prop 2 would take jobs from the neediest people in some of California’s most economically disadvantaged counties and send them to other states– while simultaneously raising food costs. If you feel strongly on this issue, then support family farmers you know that treat their chickens in the manner you wish. For animals, for health, for oil, and for workers, California cannot afford prop 2.
Also, final note, what sort of Tax Revenue do you think we receive from a $337 million industry? I’m pretty sure that sales tax doesn’t apply, but it certainly raises several incomes and corporate profits whose disappearance would not assist our budget shortfalls.
Gotta disagree with Yes on Prop 2, because while frankly many feel like there is just some sort of “economic boogeyman” that conservatives bring up as a downside for passing these measures, a recent UC Davis study stated that Prop 2 would in fact eliminate the California egg industry, which currently produces 8% of the nations eggs and exports 1/2 of those to surrounding states.
We also have very high animal health and safety standards for the egg-laying hens, and which are superior to nearby states. What prop 2 would do is impose even higher standards on egg farmers, and in the process force the entire $337 million industry out of California. Because the other states this industry would move to have worse animal health standards, prop 2 would not benefit animal welfare, food safety, and it would even increase our dependence on foreign oil because of an approximately 25% increase in prices that would be directly related to out of state shipping costs. Finally, prop 2 would take jobs from the neediest people in some of California’s most economically disadvantaged counties and send them to other states– while simultaneously raising food costs. If you feel strongly on this issue, then support family farmers you know that treat their chickens in the manner you wish. For animals, for health, for oil, and for workers, California cannot afford prop 2.
Also, final note, what sort of Tax Revenue do you think we receive from a $337 million industry? I’m pretty sure that sales tax doesn’t apply, but it certainly raises several incomes and corporate profits whose disappearance would not assist our budget shortfalls.
No, no, no! Vote NO on any proposition that doesn’t include its own funding. Vote NO if it has big backing from corporations and special interests. Vote NO if it’s something the legislature could’ve done (why didn’t they?). You can’t tie the legislature’s hands with non-funded initiatives and then get mad at them for not passing a budget. (Well, you can, but it’s not really fair, is it?)
SO, no on all the number with the possible exception of 11. That one is actually a good fit for the initiative process, because it directly affects the legislature and they’d never pass it.
Just Say No!
No, no, no! Vote NO on any proposition that doesn’t include its own funding. Vote NO if it has big backing from corporations and special interests. Vote NO if it’s something the legislature could’ve done (why didn’t they?). You can’t tie the legislature’s hands with non-funded initiatives and then get mad at them for not passing a budget. (Well, you can, but it’s not really fair, is it?)
SO, no on all the number with the possible exception of 11. That one is actually a good fit for the initiative process, because it directly affects the legislature and they’d never pass it.
Just Say No!
No, no, no! Vote NO on any proposition that doesn’t include its own funding. Vote NO if it has big backing from corporations and special interests. Vote NO if it’s something the legislature could’ve done (why didn’t they?). You can’t tie the legislature’s hands with non-funded initiatives and then get mad at them for not passing a budget. (Well, you can, but it’s not really fair, is it?)
SO, no on all the number with the possible exception of 11. That one is actually a good fit for the initiative process, because it directly affects the legislature and they’d never pass it.
Just Say No!
No, no, no! Vote NO on any proposition that doesn’t include its own funding. Vote NO if it has big backing from corporations and special interests. Vote NO if it’s something the legislature could’ve done (why didn’t they?). You can’t tie the legislature’s hands with non-funded initiatives and then get mad at them for not passing a budget. (Well, you can, but it’s not really fair, is it?)
SO, no on all the number with the possible exception of 11. That one is actually a good fit for the initiative process, because it directly affects the legislature and they’d never pass it.
Just Say No!
Reading DPD’s arguments in favor of a NO on 8 and NO on 7, I am struck by their subjective nature. We should vote NO on 8 to reject “fear” and No on 7 because Mr. Picken’s motives can’t be trusted.
Reading DPD’s arguments in favor of a NO on 8 and NO on 7, I am struck by their subjective nature. We should vote NO on 8 to reject “fear” and No on 7 because Mr. Picken’s motives can’t be trusted.
Reading DPD’s arguments in favor of a NO on 8 and NO on 7, I am struck by their subjective nature. We should vote NO on 8 to reject “fear” and No on 7 because Mr. Picken’s motives can’t be trusted.
Reading DPD’s arguments in favor of a NO on 8 and NO on 7, I am struck by their subjective nature. We should vote NO on 8 to reject “fear” and No on 7 because Mr. Picken’s motives can’t be trusted.
I would certainly suggest you misread me on Prop 8. I said the only arguments against Gay marriage are based on fear. You either support gay marriage being legal or you don’t. I was just trying to summarize my viewpoint on the initiative itself.
I would certainly suggest you misread me on Prop 8. I said the only arguments against Gay marriage are based on fear. You either support gay marriage being legal or you don’t. I was just trying to summarize my viewpoint on the initiative itself.
I would certainly suggest you misread me on Prop 8. I said the only arguments against Gay marriage are based on fear. You either support gay marriage being legal or you don’t. I was just trying to summarize my viewpoint on the initiative itself.
I would certainly suggest you misread me on Prop 8. I said the only arguments against Gay marriage are based on fear. You either support gay marriage being legal or you don’t. I was just trying to summarize my viewpoint on the initiative itself.
I think you are confusing 7 for 10.
I think you are confusing 7 for 10.
I think you are confusing 7 for 10.
I think you are confusing 7 for 10.
“Prop 2 would in fact eliminate the California egg industry….”
I recall that there is wording in prop 2 that allows for adjustments in prop 2 rules depending on its fiscal impact on animal husbandry industries. What prop 2 does do is force these industries to produce evidence that improving the care of these animals would destroy their profitability. Similar political scare tactics were used by the insurance industry when we made rules on their corporate behavior,namely,they would pack up and leave CA. It didn’t happen.
“Prop 2 would in fact eliminate the California egg industry….”
I recall that there is wording in prop 2 that allows for adjustments in prop 2 rules depending on its fiscal impact on animal husbandry industries. What prop 2 does do is force these industries to produce evidence that improving the care of these animals would destroy their profitability. Similar political scare tactics were used by the insurance industry when we made rules on their corporate behavior,namely,they would pack up and leave CA. It didn’t happen.
“Prop 2 would in fact eliminate the California egg industry….”
I recall that there is wording in prop 2 that allows for adjustments in prop 2 rules depending on its fiscal impact on animal husbandry industries. What prop 2 does do is force these industries to produce evidence that improving the care of these animals would destroy their profitability. Similar political scare tactics were used by the insurance industry when we made rules on their corporate behavior,namely,they would pack up and leave CA. It didn’t happen.
“Prop 2 would in fact eliminate the California egg industry….”
I recall that there is wording in prop 2 that allows for adjustments in prop 2 rules depending on its fiscal impact on animal husbandry industries. What prop 2 does do is force these industries to produce evidence that improving the care of these animals would destroy their profitability. Similar political scare tactics were used by the insurance industry when we made rules on their corporate behavior,namely,they would pack up and leave CA. It didn’t happen.
“What prop 2 does do is force these industries to produce evidence that improving the care of these animals would destroy their profitability.”
Prop 2 is well-meaning, but it won’t have the effect you think. What will happen is California egg producers will relocate to Nevada and Oregon and Arizona and then ship their eggs back to California. The price for eggs will go up and chickens will be treated the same as they are now, just out of state.
The reason they will leave California, which is what the UCD study showed, is that the provisions of Prop 2 will make egg production about 50% more expensive. If an egg producer here doesn’t go out of state, he can’t compete with eggs imported from our neighboring states.
“What prop 2 does do is force these industries to produce evidence that improving the care of these animals would destroy their profitability.”
Prop 2 is well-meaning, but it won’t have the effect you think. What will happen is California egg producers will relocate to Nevada and Oregon and Arizona and then ship their eggs back to California. The price for eggs will go up and chickens will be treated the same as they are now, just out of state.
The reason they will leave California, which is what the UCD study showed, is that the provisions of Prop 2 will make egg production about 50% more expensive. If an egg producer here doesn’t go out of state, he can’t compete with eggs imported from our neighboring states.
“What prop 2 does do is force these industries to produce evidence that improving the care of these animals would destroy their profitability.”
Prop 2 is well-meaning, but it won’t have the effect you think. What will happen is California egg producers will relocate to Nevada and Oregon and Arizona and then ship their eggs back to California. The price for eggs will go up and chickens will be treated the same as they are now, just out of state.
The reason they will leave California, which is what the UCD study showed, is that the provisions of Prop 2 will make egg production about 50% more expensive. If an egg producer here doesn’t go out of state, he can’t compete with eggs imported from our neighboring states.
“What prop 2 does do is force these industries to produce evidence that improving the care of these animals would destroy their profitability.”
Prop 2 is well-meaning, but it won’t have the effect you think. What will happen is California egg producers will relocate to Nevada and Oregon and Arizona and then ship their eggs back to California. The price for eggs will go up and chickens will be treated the same as they are now, just out of state.
The reason they will leave California, which is what the UCD study showed, is that the provisions of Prop 2 will make egg production about 50% more expensive. If an egg producer here doesn’t go out of state, he can’t compete with eggs imported from our neighboring states.
I’ve seen the argument made about the increased cost, but 50% more based on space allocations alone, I must be missing something here?
I’ve seen the argument made about the increased cost, but 50% more based on space allocations alone, I must be missing something here?
I’ve seen the argument made about the increased cost, but 50% more based on space allocations alone, I must be missing something here?
I’ve seen the argument made about the increased cost, but 50% more based on space allocations alone, I must be missing something here?
“which is what the UCD study showed..”
Everyone is aware that UCD receives major financial support from corporate agribusiness interests;it is not surprising to hear about their report on this issue. There are provisions in Prop 2 for adjustments based upon fiscal impacts. As a Coop customer, Yes, the price of free-range organic eggs is significantly higher but eggs from production operations like Clover(Petaluma-based), that promotes more humane animal treatment, are offered at a price little different than those at Safeway.
“which is what the UCD study showed..”
Everyone is aware that UCD receives major financial support from corporate agribusiness interests;it is not surprising to hear about their report on this issue. There are provisions in Prop 2 for adjustments based upon fiscal impacts. As a Coop customer, Yes, the price of free-range organic eggs is significantly higher but eggs from production operations like Clover(Petaluma-based), that promotes more humane animal treatment, are offered at a price little different than those at Safeway.
“which is what the UCD study showed..”
Everyone is aware that UCD receives major financial support from corporate agribusiness interests;it is not surprising to hear about their report on this issue. There are provisions in Prop 2 for adjustments based upon fiscal impacts. As a Coop customer, Yes, the price of free-range organic eggs is significantly higher but eggs from production operations like Clover(Petaluma-based), that promotes more humane animal treatment, are offered at a price little different than those at Safeway.
“which is what the UCD study showed..”
Everyone is aware that UCD receives major financial support from corporate agribusiness interests;it is not surprising to hear about their report on this issue. There are provisions in Prop 2 for adjustments based upon fiscal impacts. As a Coop customer, Yes, the price of free-range organic eggs is significantly higher but eggs from production operations like Clover(Petaluma-based), that promotes more humane animal treatment, are offered at a price little different than those at Safeway.
David,
I wrote about Prop 2 in my August 6 column. I don’t know where Anon 10:08 gets the 50 percent number, but this is a quote from the UC Davis study (which was done by serious scientists, not industry shills):
“Our analysis indicates that the expected impact would be the almost complete elimination of egg
production in California within the six-year adjustment period. Non-cage production costs are
simply too far above the costs of the cage systems used in other states to allow California
producers to compete with imported eggs in the conventional egg market. The most likely
outcome, therefore, is the elimination of almost all of the California egg industry over a few years.”
David,
I wrote about Prop 2 in my August 6 column. I don’t know where Anon 10:08 gets the 50 percent number, but this is a quote from the UC Davis study (which was done by serious scientists, not industry shills):
“Our analysis indicates that the expected impact would be the almost complete elimination of egg
production in California within the six-year adjustment period. Non-cage production costs are
simply too far above the costs of the cage systems used in other states to allow California
producers to compete with imported eggs in the conventional egg market. The most likely
outcome, therefore, is the elimination of almost all of the California egg industry over a few years.”
David,
I wrote about Prop 2 in my August 6 column. I don’t know where Anon 10:08 gets the 50 percent number, but this is a quote from the UC Davis study (which was done by serious scientists, not industry shills):
“Our analysis indicates that the expected impact would be the almost complete elimination of egg
production in California within the six-year adjustment period. Non-cage production costs are
simply too far above the costs of the cage systems used in other states to allow California
producers to compete with imported eggs in the conventional egg market. The most likely
outcome, therefore, is the elimination of almost all of the California egg industry over a few years.”
David,
I wrote about Prop 2 in my August 6 column. I don’t know where Anon 10:08 gets the 50 percent number, but this is a quote from the UC Davis study (which was done by serious scientists, not industry shills):
“Our analysis indicates that the expected impact would be the almost complete elimination of egg
production in California within the six-year adjustment period. Non-cage production costs are
simply too far above the costs of the cage systems used in other states to allow California
producers to compete with imported eggs in the conventional egg market. The most likely
outcome, therefore, is the elimination of almost all of the California egg industry over a few years.”
My picks –
Charter City – no way, no how – gives too much power to the City Council, which does enough damage as it is
Measure W – NO – not enough accountability put in place; no promise to keep Emerson open if passed. Emerson is going to be closed anyway – mark my words.
High Speed Rail – NO – we cannot afford this right now, w the current state of our economy. Sounds nice, yes it would be lovely, but where are the dollars going to come from?
Animal Cruelty – ? I’m really conflicted on this one.
Children’s Hospital Bond – NO – Where the heck is the money going to come from for this one? Do we really want to put a lot of resources into a hospital just for children rather than for the general public? I don’t think so, esp with St Jude’s; the Shriner’s Hospital, etc.
Parental Consent – YES – To me, this is a no-brainer. Parents need to be notified if their child is pregnant and thinking about getting an abortion. Parental consent has to be given for any other kind of medical procedure. As long as parents are responsible for their kids, then they need to know as much as possibile to keep them safe. There are protections built in to this Proposition for the case of abusive parents.
Nonviolent Offender Rehab – NO – more money down the drain at first, in the hopes of saving money down the road. Hah!
Safe Nbhd Act – No – Just more money for prisons, money which we just don’t have at the moment.
Renewable Power Std – No – too costly
Same-Sex Marriage – YES – Marriage as an institution needs to be protected. Domestic unions need to give equal protection. I don’t want to become like Europe – Socialisitic, thank you very much. Our traditional institutions are being eroded from within – not a good thing. Stamping proponents of Prop 8 as fear mongers is hardly fair – it is simply a difference of opinion. Why is that not allowed DPD?
Victim’s Rights – NO – Too costly
Alternative Fuels – NO – Too costly
Redistricting – NO – We don’t need another layer of bureaucracy – and one not answerable to voters.
Veteran’s Housing Bond – YES – Vets need all the help they can get for their service to our country. They are what keep us free.
As for the nat’l candidates for president, they both stink, so I will have to hold my nose and pick the evil of two lessers.
Still haven’t decided about Senate and Assembly. My problem is I know too much about Democratic candidates, but not enough about Republicans. Very conflicted here.
My picks –
Charter City – no way, no how – gives too much power to the City Council, which does enough damage as it is
Measure W – NO – not enough accountability put in place; no promise to keep Emerson open if passed. Emerson is going to be closed anyway – mark my words.
High Speed Rail – NO – we cannot afford this right now, w the current state of our economy. Sounds nice, yes it would be lovely, but where are the dollars going to come from?
Animal Cruelty – ? I’m really conflicted on this one.
Children’s Hospital Bond – NO – Where the heck is the money going to come from for this one? Do we really want to put a lot of resources into a hospital just for children rather than for the general public? I don’t think so, esp with St Jude’s; the Shriner’s Hospital, etc.
Parental Consent – YES – To me, this is a no-brainer. Parents need to be notified if their child is pregnant and thinking about getting an abortion. Parental consent has to be given for any other kind of medical procedure. As long as parents are responsible for their kids, then they need to know as much as possibile to keep them safe. There are protections built in to this Proposition for the case of abusive parents.
Nonviolent Offender Rehab – NO – more money down the drain at first, in the hopes of saving money down the road. Hah!
Safe Nbhd Act – No – Just more money for prisons, money which we just don’t have at the moment.
Renewable Power Std – No – too costly
Same-Sex Marriage – YES – Marriage as an institution needs to be protected. Domestic unions need to give equal protection. I don’t want to become like Europe – Socialisitic, thank you very much. Our traditional institutions are being eroded from within – not a good thing. Stamping proponents of Prop 8 as fear mongers is hardly fair – it is simply a difference of opinion. Why is that not allowed DPD?
Victim’s Rights – NO – Too costly
Alternative Fuels – NO – Too costly
Redistricting – NO – We don’t need another layer of bureaucracy – and one not answerable to voters.
Veteran’s Housing Bond – YES – Vets need all the help they can get for their service to our country. They are what keep us free.
As for the nat’l candidates for president, they both stink, so I will have to hold my nose and pick the evil of two lessers.
Still haven’t decided about Senate and Assembly. My problem is I know too much about Democratic candidates, but not enough about Republicans. Very conflicted here.
My picks –
Charter City – no way, no how – gives too much power to the City Council, which does enough damage as it is
Measure W – NO – not enough accountability put in place; no promise to keep Emerson open if passed. Emerson is going to be closed anyway – mark my words.
High Speed Rail – NO – we cannot afford this right now, w the current state of our economy. Sounds nice, yes it would be lovely, but where are the dollars going to come from?
Animal Cruelty – ? I’m really conflicted on this one.
Children’s Hospital Bond – NO – Where the heck is the money going to come from for this one? Do we really want to put a lot of resources into a hospital just for children rather than for the general public? I don’t think so, esp with St Jude’s; the Shriner’s Hospital, etc.
Parental Consent – YES – To me, this is a no-brainer. Parents need to be notified if their child is pregnant and thinking about getting an abortion. Parental consent has to be given for any other kind of medical procedure. As long as parents are responsible for their kids, then they need to know as much as possibile to keep them safe. There are protections built in to this Proposition for the case of abusive parents.
Nonviolent Offender Rehab – NO – more money down the drain at first, in the hopes of saving money down the road. Hah!
Safe Nbhd Act – No – Just more money for prisons, money which we just don’t have at the moment.
Renewable Power Std – No – too costly
Same-Sex Marriage – YES – Marriage as an institution needs to be protected. Domestic unions need to give equal protection. I don’t want to become like Europe – Socialisitic, thank you very much. Our traditional institutions are being eroded from within – not a good thing. Stamping proponents of Prop 8 as fear mongers is hardly fair – it is simply a difference of opinion. Why is that not allowed DPD?
Victim’s Rights – NO – Too costly
Alternative Fuels – NO – Too costly
Redistricting – NO – We don’t need another layer of bureaucracy – and one not answerable to voters.
Veteran’s Housing Bond – YES – Vets need all the help they can get for their service to our country. They are what keep us free.
As for the nat’l candidates for president, they both stink, so I will have to hold my nose and pick the evil of two lessers.
Still haven’t decided about Senate and Assembly. My problem is I know too much about Democratic candidates, but not enough about Republicans. Very conflicted here.
My picks –
Charter City – no way, no how – gives too much power to the City Council, which does enough damage as it is
Measure W – NO – not enough accountability put in place; no promise to keep Emerson open if passed. Emerson is going to be closed anyway – mark my words.
High Speed Rail – NO – we cannot afford this right now, w the current state of our economy. Sounds nice, yes it would be lovely, but where are the dollars going to come from?
Animal Cruelty – ? I’m really conflicted on this one.
Children’s Hospital Bond – NO – Where the heck is the money going to come from for this one? Do we really want to put a lot of resources into a hospital just for children rather than for the general public? I don’t think so, esp with St Jude’s; the Shriner’s Hospital, etc.
Parental Consent – YES – To me, this is a no-brainer. Parents need to be notified if their child is pregnant and thinking about getting an abortion. Parental consent has to be given for any other kind of medical procedure. As long as parents are responsible for their kids, then they need to know as much as possibile to keep them safe. There are protections built in to this Proposition for the case of abusive parents.
Nonviolent Offender Rehab – NO – more money down the drain at first, in the hopes of saving money down the road. Hah!
Safe Nbhd Act – No – Just more money for prisons, money which we just don’t have at the moment.
Renewable Power Std – No – too costly
Same-Sex Marriage – YES – Marriage as an institution needs to be protected. Domestic unions need to give equal protection. I don’t want to become like Europe – Socialisitic, thank you very much. Our traditional institutions are being eroded from within – not a good thing. Stamping proponents of Prop 8 as fear mongers is hardly fair – it is simply a difference of opinion. Why is that not allowed DPD?
Victim’s Rights – NO – Too costly
Alternative Fuels – NO – Too costly
Redistricting – NO – We don’t need another layer of bureaucracy – and one not answerable to voters.
Veteran’s Housing Bond – YES – Vets need all the help they can get for their service to our country. They are what keep us free.
As for the nat’l candidates for president, they both stink, so I will have to hold my nose and pick the evil of two lessers.
Still haven’t decided about Senate and Assembly. My problem is I know too much about Democratic candidates, but not enough about Republicans. Very conflicted here.
“Measure W – NO – not enough accountability put in place; no promise to keep Emerson open if passed. Emerson is going to be closed anyway – mark my words.”
This is a bunch of nonsense that has been repeated ad nauseum by a small handful of people.
First, there is plenty of accountability put into place. By law, they have to lay out where that money goes–money is a public record and anyone can go in and track it.
Second, there is an elected school board in charge.
Third, there is an oversight committee appointed by the school board.
Fourth, there is a state mandate auditor who audits all books. That’s four levels of accountability.
On the issue of Emerson–first they can’t guarantee something like that. They can only guarantee that those teachers spots will remain. That’s what W locks into place–teachers for specific programs, not teachers at specific locations.
That said, the district would be much more likely to have to close Emerson if W does not pass. It’s a money thing. They can save $600K without firing teachers, they are going to look into it.
If it does pass, I don’t think they will close it, there are too many logistical problems with doing so. That’s why they took it off the table as early as they did last year.
So bottom line, vote against Measure W if you want Emerson to close. Vote for it, if you want Emerson to have a likely chance but not guaranteed chance of staying open.
“Measure W – NO – not enough accountability put in place; no promise to keep Emerson open if passed. Emerson is going to be closed anyway – mark my words.”
This is a bunch of nonsense that has been repeated ad nauseum by a small handful of people.
First, there is plenty of accountability put into place. By law, they have to lay out where that money goes–money is a public record and anyone can go in and track it.
Second, there is an elected school board in charge.
Third, there is an oversight committee appointed by the school board.
Fourth, there is a state mandate auditor who audits all books. That’s four levels of accountability.
On the issue of Emerson–first they can’t guarantee something like that. They can only guarantee that those teachers spots will remain. That’s what W locks into place–teachers for specific programs, not teachers at specific locations.
That said, the district would be much more likely to have to close Emerson if W does not pass. It’s a money thing. They can save $600K without firing teachers, they are going to look into it.
If it does pass, I don’t think they will close it, there are too many logistical problems with doing so. That’s why they took it off the table as early as they did last year.
So bottom line, vote against Measure W if you want Emerson to close. Vote for it, if you want Emerson to have a likely chance but not guaranteed chance of staying open.
“Measure W – NO – not enough accountability put in place; no promise to keep Emerson open if passed. Emerson is going to be closed anyway – mark my words.”
This is a bunch of nonsense that has been repeated ad nauseum by a small handful of people.
First, there is plenty of accountability put into place. By law, they have to lay out where that money goes–money is a public record and anyone can go in and track it.
Second, there is an elected school board in charge.
Third, there is an oversight committee appointed by the school board.
Fourth, there is a state mandate auditor who audits all books. That’s four levels of accountability.
On the issue of Emerson–first they can’t guarantee something like that. They can only guarantee that those teachers spots will remain. That’s what W locks into place–teachers for specific programs, not teachers at specific locations.
That said, the district would be much more likely to have to close Emerson if W does not pass. It’s a money thing. They can save $600K without firing teachers, they are going to look into it.
If it does pass, I don’t think they will close it, there are too many logistical problems with doing so. That’s why they took it off the table as early as they did last year.
So bottom line, vote against Measure W if you want Emerson to close. Vote for it, if you want Emerson to have a likely chance but not guaranteed chance of staying open.
“Measure W – NO – not enough accountability put in place; no promise to keep Emerson open if passed. Emerson is going to be closed anyway – mark my words.”
This is a bunch of nonsense that has been repeated ad nauseum by a small handful of people.
First, there is plenty of accountability put into place. By law, they have to lay out where that money goes–money is a public record and anyone can go in and track it.
Second, there is an elected school board in charge.
Third, there is an oversight committee appointed by the school board.
Fourth, there is a state mandate auditor who audits all books. That’s four levels of accountability.
On the issue of Emerson–first they can’t guarantee something like that. They can only guarantee that those teachers spots will remain. That’s what W locks into place–teachers for specific programs, not teachers at specific locations.
That said, the district would be much more likely to have to close Emerson if W does not pass. It’s a money thing. They can save $600K without firing teachers, they are going to look into it.
If it does pass, I don’t think they will close it, there are too many logistical problems with doing so. That’s why they took it off the table as early as they did last year.
So bottom line, vote against Measure W if you want Emerson to close. Vote for it, if you want Emerson to have a likely chance but not guaranteed chance of staying open.
“Our analysis indicates that the expected impact would be the almost complete elimination of egg
production in California within the six-year adjustment period.”
For anyone who believes that the State would NOT use the overriding fiscal impact provision in Prop 2 to prevent this overblown UCD report “sky is falling” Chicken Little(pun intended) scenerio, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy.
“Our analysis indicates that the expected impact would be the almost complete elimination of egg
production in California within the six-year adjustment period.”
For anyone who believes that the State would NOT use the overriding fiscal impact provision in Prop 2 to prevent this overblown UCD report “sky is falling” Chicken Little(pun intended) scenerio, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy.
“Our analysis indicates that the expected impact would be the almost complete elimination of egg
production in California within the six-year adjustment period.”
For anyone who believes that the State would NOT use the overriding fiscal impact provision in Prop 2 to prevent this overblown UCD report “sky is falling” Chicken Little(pun intended) scenerio, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy.
“Our analysis indicates that the expected impact would be the almost complete elimination of egg
production in California within the six-year adjustment period.”
For anyone who believes that the State would NOT use the overriding fiscal impact provision in Prop 2 to prevent this overblown UCD report “sky is falling” Chicken Little(pun intended) scenerio, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy.
“They can save $600K without firing teachers, they are going to look into it.”
They can also get the $600 K and save Emerson with a second try at a lower cost additional parcel tax coupled with another look(parent’s contributing towards free violin lessons and exotic language instruction?)at what are really core teaching programs.
“They can save $600K without firing teachers, they are going to look into it.”
They can also get the $600 K and save Emerson with a second try at a lower cost additional parcel tax coupled with another look(parent’s contributing towards free violin lessons and exotic language instruction?)at what are really core teaching programs.
“They can save $600K without firing teachers, they are going to look into it.”
They can also get the $600 K and save Emerson with a second try at a lower cost additional parcel tax coupled with another look(parent’s contributing towards free violin lessons and exotic language instruction?)at what are really core teaching programs.
“They can save $600K without firing teachers, they are going to look into it.”
They can also get the $600 K and save Emerson with a second try at a lower cost additional parcel tax coupled with another look(parent’s contributing towards free violin lessons and exotic language instruction?)at what are really core teaching programs.
“the overriding fiscal impact provision in Prop 2”
This provision does not exist in the Proposition. There is nothing at all like that in this proposed law.
If you look on Page 82 of your “Official Voter Information Guide” you can read the entire text of Proposition 2.
“the overriding fiscal impact provision in Prop 2”
This provision does not exist in the Proposition. There is nothing at all like that in this proposed law.
If you look on Page 82 of your “Official Voter Information Guide” you can read the entire text of Proposition 2.
“the overriding fiscal impact provision in Prop 2”
This provision does not exist in the Proposition. There is nothing at all like that in this proposed law.
If you look on Page 82 of your “Official Voter Information Guide” you can read the entire text of Proposition 2.
“the overriding fiscal impact provision in Prop 2”
This provision does not exist in the Proposition. There is nothing at all like that in this proposed law.
If you look on Page 82 of your “Official Voter Information Guide” you can read the entire text of Proposition 2.
In case anyone else wants to read the entirety of Prop 2 — it’s quite short — you can read the full text from the voter guide here. As you will see, Davisite is entirely mistaken when he falsely claims, “There are provisions in Prop 2 for adjustments based upon fiscal impacts.”
PROPOSITION 2
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure adds sections to the Health and Safety Code;
therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to
indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED LAW
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This act shall be known and may be cited as the Prevention of Farm Animal
Cruelty Act.
SECTION 2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this act is to prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals
in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up,
and fully extend their limbs.
SECTION 3. FARM ANIMAL CRUELTY PROVISIONS
Chapter 13.8 (commencing with Section 25990) is added to Division 20 of
the Health and Safety Code, to read:
CHAPTER 13.8. FARM ANIMAL CRUELTY
25990. PROHIBITIONS. In addition to other applicable provisions of law, a
person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the
majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from:
(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and
(b) Turning around freely.
25991. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms
have the following meanings:
(a) “Calf raised for veal” means any calf of the bovine species kept for the
purpose of producing the food product described as veal.
(b) “Covered animal” means any pig during pregnancy, calf raised for
veal, or egg-laying hen who is kept on a farm.
(c) “Egg-laying hen” means any female domesticated chicken, turkey, duck,
goose, or guinea fowl kept for the purpose of egg production.
(d) “Enclosure” means any cage, crate, or other structure (including what
is commonly described as a “gestation crate” for pigs; a “veal crate” for
calves; or a “battery cage” for egg-laying hens) used to confine a covered
animal.
(e) “Farm” means the land, building, support facilities, and other equipment
that are wholly or partially used for the commercial production of animals or
animal products used for food or fiber; and does not include live animal
markets.
(f) “Fully extending his or her limbs” means fully extending all limbs
without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the case of egg-laying
hens, fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or
other egg-laying hens.
(g) “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture,
association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or
syndicate.
(h) “Pig during pregnancy” means any pregnant pig of the porcine species
kept for the primary purpose of breeding.
(i) “Turning around freely” means turning in a complete circle without any
impediment, including a tether, and without touching the side of an
enclosure.
25992. EXCEPTIONS. This chapter shall not apply:
(a) During scientific or agricultural research.
(b) During examination, testing, individual treatment or operation for
veterinary purposes.
(c) During transportation.
(d) During rodeo exhibitions, state or county fair exhibitions, 4-H programs,
and similar exhibitions.
(e) During the slaughter of a covered animal in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 19501) of Part 3 of Division
9 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to humane methods of slaughter,
and other applicable law and regulations.
(f) To a pig during the seven-day period prior to the pig’s expected date of
giving birth.
25993. ENFORCEMENT. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this
chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be
punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by
imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days or by both
such fine and imprisonment.
25994. CONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER.
The provisions of this chapter are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other
laws protecting animal welfare, including the California Penal Code. This
chapter shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulations protecting
the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this chapter prevent a local
governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and
regulations.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this act, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this act
that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATES
The provisions of Sections 25990, 25991, 25992, 25993, and 25994 shall
become operative on January 1, 2015.
In case anyone else wants to read the entirety of Prop 2 — it’s quite short — you can read the full text from the voter guide here. As you will see, Davisite is entirely mistaken when he falsely claims, “There are provisions in Prop 2 for adjustments based upon fiscal impacts.”
PROPOSITION 2
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure adds sections to the Health and Safety Code;
therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to
indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED LAW
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This act shall be known and may be cited as the Prevention of Farm Animal
Cruelty Act.
SECTION 2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this act is to prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals
in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up,
and fully extend their limbs.
SECTION 3. FARM ANIMAL CRUELTY PROVISIONS
Chapter 13.8 (commencing with Section 25990) is added to Division 20 of
the Health and Safety Code, to read:
CHAPTER 13.8. FARM ANIMAL CRUELTY
25990. PROHIBITIONS. In addition to other applicable provisions of law, a
person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the
majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from:
(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and
(b) Turning around freely.
25991. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms
have the following meanings:
(a) “Calf raised for veal” means any calf of the bovine species kept for the
purpose of producing the food product described as veal.
(b) “Covered animal” means any pig during pregnancy, calf raised for
veal, or egg-laying hen who is kept on a farm.
(c) “Egg-laying hen” means any female domesticated chicken, turkey, duck,
goose, or guinea fowl kept for the purpose of egg production.
(d) “Enclosure” means any cage, crate, or other structure (including what
is commonly described as a “gestation crate” for pigs; a “veal crate” for
calves; or a “battery cage” for egg-laying hens) used to confine a covered
animal.
(e) “Farm” means the land, building, support facilities, and other equipment
that are wholly or partially used for the commercial production of animals or
animal products used for food or fiber; and does not include live animal
markets.
(f) “Fully extending his or her limbs” means fully extending all limbs
without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the case of egg-laying
hens, fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or
other egg-laying hens.
(g) “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture,
association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or
syndicate.
(h) “Pig during pregnancy” means any pregnant pig of the porcine species
kept for the primary purpose of breeding.
(i) “Turning around freely” means turning in a complete circle without any
impediment, including a tether, and without touching the side of an
enclosure.
25992. EXCEPTIONS. This chapter shall not apply:
(a) During scientific or agricultural research.
(b) During examination, testing, individual treatment or operation for
veterinary purposes.
(c) During transportation.
(d) During rodeo exhibitions, state or county fair exhibitions, 4-H programs,
and similar exhibitions.
(e) During the slaughter of a covered animal in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 19501) of Part 3 of Division
9 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to humane methods of slaughter,
and other applicable law and regulations.
(f) To a pig during the seven-day period prior to the pig’s expected date of
giving birth.
25993. ENFORCEMENT. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this
chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be
punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by
imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days or by both
such fine and imprisonment.
25994. CONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER.
The provisions of this chapter are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other
laws protecting animal welfare, including the California Penal Code. This
chapter shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulations protecting
the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this chapter prevent a local
governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and
regulations.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this act, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this act
that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATES
The provisions of Sections 25990, 25991, 25992, 25993, and 25994 shall
become operative on January 1, 2015.
In case anyone else wants to read the entirety of Prop 2 — it’s quite short — you can read the full text from the voter guide here. As you will see, Davisite is entirely mistaken when he falsely claims, “There are provisions in Prop 2 for adjustments based upon fiscal impacts.”
PROPOSITION 2
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure adds sections to the Health and Safety Code;
therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to
indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED LAW
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This act shall be known and may be cited as the Prevention of Farm Animal
Cruelty Act.
SECTION 2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this act is to prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals
in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up,
and fully extend their limbs.
SECTION 3. FARM ANIMAL CRUELTY PROVISIONS
Chapter 13.8 (commencing with Section 25990) is added to Division 20 of
the Health and Safety Code, to read:
CHAPTER 13.8. FARM ANIMAL CRUELTY
25990. PROHIBITIONS. In addition to other applicable provisions of law, a
person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the
majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from:
(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and
(b) Turning around freely.
25991. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms
have the following meanings:
(a) “Calf raised for veal” means any calf of the bovine species kept for the
purpose of producing the food product described as veal.
(b) “Covered animal” means any pig during pregnancy, calf raised for
veal, or egg-laying hen who is kept on a farm.
(c) “Egg-laying hen” means any female domesticated chicken, turkey, duck,
goose, or guinea fowl kept for the purpose of egg production.
(d) “Enclosure” means any cage, crate, or other structure (including what
is commonly described as a “gestation crate” for pigs; a “veal crate” for
calves; or a “battery cage” for egg-laying hens) used to confine a covered
animal.
(e) “Farm” means the land, building, support facilities, and other equipment
that are wholly or partially used for the commercial production of animals or
animal products used for food or fiber; and does not include live animal
markets.
(f) “Fully extending his or her limbs” means fully extending all limbs
without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the case of egg-laying
hens, fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or
other egg-laying hens.
(g) “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture,
association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or
syndicate.
(h) “Pig during pregnancy” means any pregnant pig of the porcine species
kept for the primary purpose of breeding.
(i) “Turning around freely” means turning in a complete circle without any
impediment, including a tether, and without touching the side of an
enclosure.
25992. EXCEPTIONS. This chapter shall not apply:
(a) During scientific or agricultural research.
(b) During examination, testing, individual treatment or operation for
veterinary purposes.
(c) During transportation.
(d) During rodeo exhibitions, state or county fair exhibitions, 4-H programs,
and similar exhibitions.
(e) During the slaughter of a covered animal in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 19501) of Part 3 of Division
9 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to humane methods of slaughter,
and other applicable law and regulations.
(f) To a pig during the seven-day period prior to the pig’s expected date of
giving birth.
25993. ENFORCEMENT. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this
chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be
punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by
imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days or by both
such fine and imprisonment.
25994. CONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER.
The provisions of this chapter are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other
laws protecting animal welfare, including the California Penal Code. This
chapter shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulations protecting
the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this chapter prevent a local
governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and
regulations.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this act, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this act
that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATES
The provisions of Sections 25990, 25991, 25992, 25993, and 25994 shall
become operative on January 1, 2015.
In case anyone else wants to read the entirety of Prop 2 — it’s quite short — you can read the full text from the voter guide here. As you will see, Davisite is entirely mistaken when he falsely claims, “There are provisions in Prop 2 for adjustments based upon fiscal impacts.”
PROPOSITION 2
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure adds sections to the Health and Safety Code;
therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to
indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED LAW
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This act shall be known and may be cited as the Prevention of Farm Animal
Cruelty Act.
SECTION 2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this act is to prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals
in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up,
and fully extend their limbs.
SECTION 3. FARM ANIMAL CRUELTY PROVISIONS
Chapter 13.8 (commencing with Section 25990) is added to Division 20 of
the Health and Safety Code, to read:
CHAPTER 13.8. FARM ANIMAL CRUELTY
25990. PROHIBITIONS. In addition to other applicable provisions of law, a
person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the
majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from:
(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and
(b) Turning around freely.
25991. DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms
have the following meanings:
(a) “Calf raised for veal” means any calf of the bovine species kept for the
purpose of producing the food product described as veal.
(b) “Covered animal” means any pig during pregnancy, calf raised for
veal, or egg-laying hen who is kept on a farm.
(c) “Egg-laying hen” means any female domesticated chicken, turkey, duck,
goose, or guinea fowl kept for the purpose of egg production.
(d) “Enclosure” means any cage, crate, or other structure (including what
is commonly described as a “gestation crate” for pigs; a “veal crate” for
calves; or a “battery cage” for egg-laying hens) used to confine a covered
animal.
(e) “Farm” means the land, building, support facilities, and other equipment
that are wholly or partially used for the commercial production of animals or
animal products used for food or fiber; and does not include live animal
markets.
(f) “Fully extending his or her limbs” means fully extending all limbs
without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the case of egg-laying
hens, fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or
other egg-laying hens.
(g) “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture,
association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or
syndicate.
(h) “Pig during pregnancy” means any pregnant pig of the porcine species
kept for the primary purpose of breeding.
(i) “Turning around freely” means turning in a complete circle without any
impediment, including a tether, and without touching the side of an
enclosure.
25992. EXCEPTIONS. This chapter shall not apply:
(a) During scientific or agricultural research.
(b) During examination, testing, individual treatment or operation for
veterinary purposes.
(c) During transportation.
(d) During rodeo exhibitions, state or county fair exhibitions, 4-H programs,
and similar exhibitions.
(e) During the slaughter of a covered animal in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 19501) of Part 3 of Division
9 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to humane methods of slaughter,
and other applicable law and regulations.
(f) To a pig during the seven-day period prior to the pig’s expected date of
giving birth.
25993. ENFORCEMENT. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this
chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be
punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by
imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days or by both
such fine and imprisonment.
25994. CONSTRUCTION OF CHAPTER.
The provisions of this chapter are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other
laws protecting animal welfare, including the California Penal Code. This
chapter shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulations protecting
the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this chapter prevent a local
governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and
regulations.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this act, or the application thereof to any person or
circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this act
that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATES
The provisions of Sections 25990, 25991, 25992, 25993, and 25994 shall
become operative on January 1, 2015.
….thanks for the full description of Prop 2. My mistake about the erroneous fiscal impact provision. Chances are that even if Prop 2 passed, it would be successfully challenged in the courts. As to the “serious” UCD scientist report, this issue is not about science but rather about profitability, perhaps the province of UCD agribusiness economy faculty but not scientists.
….thanks for the full description of Prop 2. My mistake about the erroneous fiscal impact provision. Chances are that even if Prop 2 passed, it would be successfully challenged in the courts. As to the “serious” UCD scientist report, this issue is not about science but rather about profitability, perhaps the province of UCD agribusiness economy faculty but not scientists.
….thanks for the full description of Prop 2. My mistake about the erroneous fiscal impact provision. Chances are that even if Prop 2 passed, it would be successfully challenged in the courts. As to the “serious” UCD scientist report, this issue is not about science but rather about profitability, perhaps the province of UCD agribusiness economy faculty but not scientists.
….thanks for the full description of Prop 2. My mistake about the erroneous fiscal impact provision. Chances are that even if Prop 2 passed, it would be successfully challenged in the courts. As to the “serious” UCD scientist report, this issue is not about science but rather about profitability, perhaps the province of UCD agribusiness economy faculty but not scientists.
Same-Sex Marriage – YES – Marriage as an institution needs to be protected. Domestic unions need to give equal protection. I don’t want to become like Europe – Socialisitic, thank you very much.
I don’t know what same-sex marriage has to do with socialism.
My marriage does not need “protection” from gay people who love one another. It wasn’t damaged when they were allowed to marry, nor will it be damaged to continue to allow it.
Same-Sex Marriage – YES – Marriage as an institution needs to be protected. Domestic unions need to give equal protection. I don’t want to become like Europe – Socialisitic, thank you very much.
I don’t know what same-sex marriage has to do with socialism.
My marriage does not need “protection” from gay people who love one another. It wasn’t damaged when they were allowed to marry, nor will it be damaged to continue to allow it.
Same-Sex Marriage – YES – Marriage as an institution needs to be protected. Domestic unions need to give equal protection. I don’t want to become like Europe – Socialisitic, thank you very much.
I don’t know what same-sex marriage has to do with socialism.
My marriage does not need “protection” from gay people who love one another. It wasn’t damaged when they were allowed to marry, nor will it be damaged to continue to allow it.
Same-Sex Marriage – YES – Marriage as an institution needs to be protected. Domestic unions need to give equal protection. I don’t want to become like Europe – Socialisitic, thank you very much.
I don’t know what same-sex marriage has to do with socialism.
My marriage does not need “protection” from gay people who love one another. It wasn’t damaged when they were allowed to marry, nor will it be damaged to continue to allow it.
Note the the Republican Party has posted its listing of State Ballot Measures online and they can be viewed at the following website address:
http://www.cagop.org/userfiles/file/voterguide2008/Yolo.pdf
Note the the Republican Party has posted its listing of State Ballot Measures online and they can be viewed at the following website address:
http://www.cagop.org/userfiles/file/voterguide2008/Yolo.pdf
Note the the Republican Party has posted its listing of State Ballot Measures online and they can be viewed at the following website address:
http://www.cagop.org/userfiles/file/voterguide2008/Yolo.pdf
Note the the Republican Party has posted its listing of State Ballot Measures online and they can be viewed at the following website address:
http://www.cagop.org/userfiles/file/voterguide2008/Yolo.pdf
“They can also get the $600 K and save Emerson with a second try at a lower cost additional parcel tax coupled with another look(parent’s contributing towards free violin lessons and exotic language instruction?)at what are really core teaching programs. “
My calculations suggest you could probably knock off $19 per parcel if you eliminated the music programs. Personally I think music programs are essential and that would be a horrible price to pay to knock $19 off a $120 total bill.
I think music is a core program for some students and that is what keeps them in school and doing well. And I would hate to have a school system without music classes. Just as I would hate to have a school system without PE, without art, and without a whole range of programs that we fund and that make our schools really good schools.
This essentially will fund four and a half teaching positions in music at elementary, high school, and junior high.
“They can also get the $600 K and save Emerson with a second try at a lower cost additional parcel tax coupled with another look(parent’s contributing towards free violin lessons and exotic language instruction?)at what are really core teaching programs. “
My calculations suggest you could probably knock off $19 per parcel if you eliminated the music programs. Personally I think music programs are essential and that would be a horrible price to pay to knock $19 off a $120 total bill.
I think music is a core program for some students and that is what keeps them in school and doing well. And I would hate to have a school system without music classes. Just as I would hate to have a school system without PE, without art, and without a whole range of programs that we fund and that make our schools really good schools.
This essentially will fund four and a half teaching positions in music at elementary, high school, and junior high.
“They can also get the $600 K and save Emerson with a second try at a lower cost additional parcel tax coupled with another look(parent’s contributing towards free violin lessons and exotic language instruction?)at what are really core teaching programs. “
My calculations suggest you could probably knock off $19 per parcel if you eliminated the music programs. Personally I think music programs are essential and that would be a horrible price to pay to knock $19 off a $120 total bill.
I think music is a core program for some students and that is what keeps them in school and doing well. And I would hate to have a school system without music classes. Just as I would hate to have a school system without PE, without art, and without a whole range of programs that we fund and that make our schools really good schools.
This essentially will fund four and a half teaching positions in music at elementary, high school, and junior high.
“They can also get the $600 K and save Emerson with a second try at a lower cost additional parcel tax coupled with another look(parent’s contributing towards free violin lessons and exotic language instruction?)at what are really core teaching programs. “
My calculations suggest you could probably knock off $19 per parcel if you eliminated the music programs. Personally I think music programs are essential and that would be a horrible price to pay to knock $19 off a $120 total bill.
I think music is a core program for some students and that is what keeps them in school and doing well. And I would hate to have a school system without music classes. Just as I would hate to have a school system without PE, without art, and without a whole range of programs that we fund and that make our schools really good schools.
This essentially will fund four and a half teaching positions in music at elementary, high school, and junior high.
DAVIS BALLOT MEASURES
MEASURE N: CHARTER CITY: NO.
Try again, folks.
MEASURE W: DJUSD PARCEL TAX: YES.
This time.
STATEWIDE BALLOT
PROP 1A: HIGH SPEED RAIL: NO.
The state is bankrupt and can’t afford further bonded indebtedness of this magnitude.
PROP 2: STOP ANIMAL CRUELTY: NO.
PROP 3: CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BONDS: NO.
PROP 4: PARENTAL CONSENT FOR ABORTION: NO.
Probably counterproductive.
PROP 5: NONVIOLENT OFFENDER REHABILITATION: NO. Underfunded at the county level.
PROP 6: SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT: NO.
Another straight-jacket on the state budget.
PROP 7: RENEWABLE POWER STANDARD: NO.
PROP 8: ELIMINATES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: NO.
A basic issue of civil rights.
PROP 9: Victims’ Rights and Protection Act of 2008: NO.
Not needed.
Prop 10: California Alternative Fuels Act: NO.
PROP 11: REDISTRICTING: YES. Long overdue.
PROP 12: VETERANS’ HOMES BOND: YES.
DAVIS BALLOT MEASURES
MEASURE N: CHARTER CITY: NO.
Try again, folks.
MEASURE W: DJUSD PARCEL TAX: YES.
This time.
STATEWIDE BALLOT
PROP 1A: HIGH SPEED RAIL: NO.
The state is bankrupt and can’t afford further bonded indebtedness of this magnitude.
PROP 2: STOP ANIMAL CRUELTY: NO.
PROP 3: CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BONDS: NO.
PROP 4: PARENTAL CONSENT FOR ABORTION: NO.
Probably counterproductive.
PROP 5: NONVIOLENT OFFENDER REHABILITATION: NO. Underfunded at the county level.
PROP 6: SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT: NO.
Another straight-jacket on the state budget.
PROP 7: RENEWABLE POWER STANDARD: NO.
PROP 8: ELIMINATES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: NO.
A basic issue of civil rights.
PROP 9: Victims’ Rights and Protection Act of 2008: NO.
Not needed.
Prop 10: California Alternative Fuels Act: NO.
PROP 11: REDISTRICTING: YES. Long overdue.
PROP 12: VETERANS’ HOMES BOND: YES.
DAVIS BALLOT MEASURES
MEASURE N: CHARTER CITY: NO.
Try again, folks.
MEASURE W: DJUSD PARCEL TAX: YES.
This time.
STATEWIDE BALLOT
PROP 1A: HIGH SPEED RAIL: NO.
The state is bankrupt and can’t afford further bonded indebtedness of this magnitude.
PROP 2: STOP ANIMAL CRUELTY: NO.
PROP 3: CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BONDS: NO.
PROP 4: PARENTAL CONSENT FOR ABORTION: NO.
Probably counterproductive.
PROP 5: NONVIOLENT OFFENDER REHABILITATION: NO. Underfunded at the county level.
PROP 6: SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT: NO.
Another straight-jacket on the state budget.
PROP 7: RENEWABLE POWER STANDARD: NO.
PROP 8: ELIMINATES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: NO.
A basic issue of civil rights.
PROP 9: Victims’ Rights and Protection Act of 2008: NO.
Not needed.
Prop 10: California Alternative Fuels Act: NO.
PROP 11: REDISTRICTING: YES. Long overdue.
PROP 12: VETERANS’ HOMES BOND: YES.
DAVIS BALLOT MEASURES
MEASURE N: CHARTER CITY: NO.
Try again, folks.
MEASURE W: DJUSD PARCEL TAX: YES.
This time.
STATEWIDE BALLOT
PROP 1A: HIGH SPEED RAIL: NO.
The state is bankrupt and can’t afford further bonded indebtedness of this magnitude.
PROP 2: STOP ANIMAL CRUELTY: NO.
PROP 3: CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BONDS: NO.
PROP 4: PARENTAL CONSENT FOR ABORTION: NO.
Probably counterproductive.
PROP 5: NONVIOLENT OFFENDER REHABILITATION: NO. Underfunded at the county level.
PROP 6: SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT: NO.
Another straight-jacket on the state budget.
PROP 7: RENEWABLE POWER STANDARD: NO.
PROP 8: ELIMINATES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: NO.
A basic issue of civil rights.
PROP 9: Victims’ Rights and Protection Act of 2008: NO.
Not needed.
Prop 10: California Alternative Fuels Act: NO.
PROP 11: REDISTRICTING: YES. Long overdue.
PROP 12: VETERANS’ HOMES BOND: YES.
“Chances are that even if Prop 2 passed, it would be successfully challenged in the courts.”
I have no idea what basis you have to form this legal opinion, Davisite.
However, I have a suggestion which our legislators should consider if Prop 2 passes: We could subsequently pass a law banning the importation of eggs into California which are raised in ways which do not comply with Prop 2; or we could impose a tax on imported eggs which violate the strictures of Prop 2, high enough so California egg production would be competitive.*
The upside of those measures would be that eggs in California would rise in price. However, there would no longer be an incentive to remove almost all egg production here and replace it with imports. Instead, eggs would be produced here in a humane manner, because no one could bring in cheaper eggs produced out of state in caged systems.
“As to the ‘serious’ UCD scientists’ report, this issue is not about science but rather about profitability, perhaps the province of UCD agribusiness economy faculty but not scientists.”
Perhaps?
I challenge you to prove this ridiculous charge. It strikes me as pure calumny, though lack of evidence does not seem to bother you.
It is one thing to say in a general sense that industry funding of some academic work has affected the results of that work. However, that is not your charge. You are implying, wholely without proof as far as I know, that the specific authors of this report — Daniel A. Sumner, J. Thomas Rosen-Molina, William A. Matthews, Joy A. Mench and Kurt R. Richter — have been corrupted. What evidence do you have that these five respected scientists have ever taken money from the egg industry, let alone taken money from the egg industry for this specific study?
I get the sense, unfortunately, Davisite, that you have no decency when you callously throw about these caustic remarks, as long as they support your preconceived notions.
———
* I am not sure if my idea passes U.S. Constitutional muster — Article I Section 8 reads, “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” If we banned the importation of eggs from other states which were raised inhumanely, I could see how that usurps the right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. If that is the case, Prop 2 will simply result in the destruction of California’s egg industry to no benefit of anyone.
“Chances are that even if Prop 2 passed, it would be successfully challenged in the courts.”
I have no idea what basis you have to form this legal opinion, Davisite.
However, I have a suggestion which our legislators should consider if Prop 2 passes: We could subsequently pass a law banning the importation of eggs into California which are raised in ways which do not comply with Prop 2; or we could impose a tax on imported eggs which violate the strictures of Prop 2, high enough so California egg production would be competitive.*
The upside of those measures would be that eggs in California would rise in price. However, there would no longer be an incentive to remove almost all egg production here and replace it with imports. Instead, eggs would be produced here in a humane manner, because no one could bring in cheaper eggs produced out of state in caged systems.
“As to the ‘serious’ UCD scientists’ report, this issue is not about science but rather about profitability, perhaps the province of UCD agribusiness economy faculty but not scientists.”
Perhaps?
I challenge you to prove this ridiculous charge. It strikes me as pure calumny, though lack of evidence does not seem to bother you.
It is one thing to say in a general sense that industry funding of some academic work has affected the results of that work. However, that is not your charge. You are implying, wholely without proof as far as I know, that the specific authors of this report — Daniel A. Sumner, J. Thomas Rosen-Molina, William A. Matthews, Joy A. Mench and Kurt R. Richter — have been corrupted. What evidence do you have that these five respected scientists have ever taken money from the egg industry, let alone taken money from the egg industry for this specific study?
I get the sense, unfortunately, Davisite, that you have no decency when you callously throw about these caustic remarks, as long as they support your preconceived notions.
———
* I am not sure if my idea passes U.S. Constitutional muster — Article I Section 8 reads, “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” If we banned the importation of eggs from other states which were raised inhumanely, I could see how that usurps the right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. If that is the case, Prop 2 will simply result in the destruction of California’s egg industry to no benefit of anyone.
“Chances are that even if Prop 2 passed, it would be successfully challenged in the courts.”
I have no idea what basis you have to form this legal opinion, Davisite.
However, I have a suggestion which our legislators should consider if Prop 2 passes: We could subsequently pass a law banning the importation of eggs into California which are raised in ways which do not comply with Prop 2; or we could impose a tax on imported eggs which violate the strictures of Prop 2, high enough so California egg production would be competitive.*
The upside of those measures would be that eggs in California would rise in price. However, there would no longer be an incentive to remove almost all egg production here and replace it with imports. Instead, eggs would be produced here in a humane manner, because no one could bring in cheaper eggs produced out of state in caged systems.
“As to the ‘serious’ UCD scientists’ report, this issue is not about science but rather about profitability, perhaps the province of UCD agribusiness economy faculty but not scientists.”
Perhaps?
I challenge you to prove this ridiculous charge. It strikes me as pure calumny, though lack of evidence does not seem to bother you.
It is one thing to say in a general sense that industry funding of some academic work has affected the results of that work. However, that is not your charge. You are implying, wholely without proof as far as I know, that the specific authors of this report — Daniel A. Sumner, J. Thomas Rosen-Molina, William A. Matthews, Joy A. Mench and Kurt R. Richter — have been corrupted. What evidence do you have that these five respected scientists have ever taken money from the egg industry, let alone taken money from the egg industry for this specific study?
I get the sense, unfortunately, Davisite, that you have no decency when you callously throw about these caustic remarks, as long as they support your preconceived notions.
———
* I am not sure if my idea passes U.S. Constitutional muster — Article I Section 8 reads, “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” If we banned the importation of eggs from other states which were raised inhumanely, I could see how that usurps the right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. If that is the case, Prop 2 will simply result in the destruction of California’s egg industry to no benefit of anyone.
“Chances are that even if Prop 2 passed, it would be successfully challenged in the courts.”
I have no idea what basis you have to form this legal opinion, Davisite.
However, I have a suggestion which our legislators should consider if Prop 2 passes: We could subsequently pass a law banning the importation of eggs into California which are raised in ways which do not comply with Prop 2; or we could impose a tax on imported eggs which violate the strictures of Prop 2, high enough so California egg production would be competitive.*
The upside of those measures would be that eggs in California would rise in price. However, there would no longer be an incentive to remove almost all egg production here and replace it with imports. Instead, eggs would be produced here in a humane manner, because no one could bring in cheaper eggs produced out of state in caged systems.
“As to the ‘serious’ UCD scientists’ report, this issue is not about science but rather about profitability, perhaps the province of UCD agribusiness economy faculty but not scientists.”
Perhaps?
I challenge you to prove this ridiculous charge. It strikes me as pure calumny, though lack of evidence does not seem to bother you.
It is one thing to say in a general sense that industry funding of some academic work has affected the results of that work. However, that is not your charge. You are implying, wholely without proof as far as I know, that the specific authors of this report — Daniel A. Sumner, J. Thomas Rosen-Molina, William A. Matthews, Joy A. Mench and Kurt R. Richter — have been corrupted. What evidence do you have that these five respected scientists have ever taken money from the egg industry, let alone taken money from the egg industry for this specific study?
I get the sense, unfortunately, Davisite, that you have no decency when you callously throw about these caustic remarks, as long as they support your preconceived notions.
———
* I am not sure if my idea passes U.S. Constitutional muster — Article I Section 8 reads, “Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” If we banned the importation of eggs from other states which were raised inhumanely, I could see how that usurps the right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. If that is the case, Prop 2 will simply result in the destruction of California’s egg industry to no benefit of anyone.
“Measure W – NO – not enough accountability put in place; no promise to keep Emerson open if passed. Emerson is going to be closed anyway – mark my words.”
Measure W was largely devised from the present configuration of schools. If Measure W passed and then Emerson were closed, there may well be some question as to whether the district could adequately meet certain aspects of Measure W.
But David Greenwald is right. If you want want to close Emerson, then voting no on W will probably cinch it.
“Measure W – NO – not enough accountability put in place; no promise to keep Emerson open if passed. Emerson is going to be closed anyway – mark my words.”
Measure W was largely devised from the present configuration of schools. If Measure W passed and then Emerson were closed, there may well be some question as to whether the district could adequately meet certain aspects of Measure W.
But David Greenwald is right. If you want want to close Emerson, then voting no on W will probably cinch it.
“Measure W – NO – not enough accountability put in place; no promise to keep Emerson open if passed. Emerson is going to be closed anyway – mark my words.”
Measure W was largely devised from the present configuration of schools. If Measure W passed and then Emerson were closed, there may well be some question as to whether the district could adequately meet certain aspects of Measure W.
But David Greenwald is right. If you want want to close Emerson, then voting no on W will probably cinch it.
“Measure W – NO – not enough accountability put in place; no promise to keep Emerson open if passed. Emerson is going to be closed anyway – mark my words.”
Measure W was largely devised from the present configuration of schools. If Measure W passed and then Emerson were closed, there may well be some question as to whether the district could adequately meet certain aspects of Measure W.
But David Greenwald is right. If you want want to close Emerson, then voting no on W will probably cinch it.
I am surprised to hear that the authors of this UCD report were scientists. It does not take any great depths of critical thinking to conclude that a report that makes the argument that the egg industry would leave CA because the legal demands of Prop 2 would make the industry unprofitable is not basing its conclusions on poultry science(which probably would support the conclusion that laying hens that have more space have general better health,less disease and required less antibiotic use) but rather on current egg production business models.
I am surprised to hear that the authors of this UCD report were scientists. It does not take any great depths of critical thinking to conclude that a report that makes the argument that the egg industry would leave CA because the legal demands of Prop 2 would make the industry unprofitable is not basing its conclusions on poultry science(which probably would support the conclusion that laying hens that have more space have general better health,less disease and required less antibiotic use) but rather on current egg production business models.
I am surprised to hear that the authors of this UCD report were scientists. It does not take any great depths of critical thinking to conclude that a report that makes the argument that the egg industry would leave CA because the legal demands of Prop 2 would make the industry unprofitable is not basing its conclusions on poultry science(which probably would support the conclusion that laying hens that have more space have general better health,less disease and required less antibiotic use) but rather on current egg production business models.
I am surprised to hear that the authors of this UCD report were scientists. It does not take any great depths of critical thinking to conclude that a report that makes the argument that the egg industry would leave CA because the legal demands of Prop 2 would make the industry unprofitable is not basing its conclusions on poultry science(which probably would support the conclusion that laying hens that have more space have general better health,less disease and required less antibiotic use) but rather on current egg production business models.
Too many propositions-
I am voting yes on one and will send all of the rest packing. Elections are not supposed to be legislative sessions, unless we plan to disband all of the elected folks in Sacramento.
Too many propositions-
I am voting yes on one and will send all of the rest packing. Elections are not supposed to be legislative sessions, unless we plan to disband all of the elected folks in Sacramento.
Too many propositions-
I am voting yes on one and will send all of the rest packing. Elections are not supposed to be legislative sessions, unless we plan to disband all of the elected folks in Sacramento.
Too many propositions-
I am voting yes on one and will send all of the rest packing. Elections are not supposed to be legislative sessions, unless we plan to disband all of the elected folks in Sacramento.
NO on everything. Too many BSA”s are involved in politics.
NO on everything. Too many BSA”s are involved in politics.
NO on everything. Too many BSA”s are involved in politics.
NO on everything. Too many BSA”s are involved in politics.
“I am surprised to hear that the authors of this UCD report were scientists.”
One is a graduate student, one is a post-doc, two are profs and the fifth is an “analyst.” Joy Mench is highly regarded in the animal science department. Her PhD is in Ethology and Neurobiology. This is what she says about her scholarship: “Research in my laboratory focuses on the assessment and improvement of animal welfare. I am particularly interested in developing environmental enrichment strategies for small laboratory animals (rodents, rabbits) and captive/domesticated birds. In addition, I conduct behavioral research on poultry (chickens, quail, ducks) directed toward improving aspects of their housing, handling, and management.”
“… the egg industry would leave CA because the legal demands of Prop 2 would make the industry unprofitable…”
Yes, the industry in our state could not compete. They would go broke and be forced out of business. That is not hard to understand, even for you. Given that this is what will happen, passing Prop 2 would not accomplish its intended aim: to improve the lot of egg-laying hens whose eggs we consume in California.
“… is not basing its conclusions on poultry science.”
The conclusions appear to me to be based on animal science and microeconomic scholarship. Prof. Sumner, who is a highly regarded agricultural economist, is an expert on the egg industry.
“I am surprised to hear that the authors of this UCD report were scientists.”
One is a graduate student, one is a post-doc, two are profs and the fifth is an “analyst.” Joy Mench is highly regarded in the animal science department. Her PhD is in Ethology and Neurobiology. This is what she says about her scholarship: “Research in my laboratory focuses on the assessment and improvement of animal welfare. I am particularly interested in developing environmental enrichment strategies for small laboratory animals (rodents, rabbits) and captive/domesticated birds. In addition, I conduct behavioral research on poultry (chickens, quail, ducks) directed toward improving aspects of their housing, handling, and management.”
“… the egg industry would leave CA because the legal demands of Prop 2 would make the industry unprofitable…”
Yes, the industry in our state could not compete. They would go broke and be forced out of business. That is not hard to understand, even for you. Given that this is what will happen, passing Prop 2 would not accomplish its intended aim: to improve the lot of egg-laying hens whose eggs we consume in California.
“… is not basing its conclusions on poultry science.”
The conclusions appear to me to be based on animal science and microeconomic scholarship. Prof. Sumner, who is a highly regarded agricultural economist, is an expert on the egg industry.
“I am surprised to hear that the authors of this UCD report were scientists.”
One is a graduate student, one is a post-doc, two are profs and the fifth is an “analyst.” Joy Mench is highly regarded in the animal science department. Her PhD is in Ethology and Neurobiology. This is what she says about her scholarship: “Research in my laboratory focuses on the assessment and improvement of animal welfare. I am particularly interested in developing environmental enrichment strategies for small laboratory animals (rodents, rabbits) and captive/domesticated birds. In addition, I conduct behavioral research on poultry (chickens, quail, ducks) directed toward improving aspects of their housing, handling, and management.”
“… the egg industry would leave CA because the legal demands of Prop 2 would make the industry unprofitable…”
Yes, the industry in our state could not compete. They would go broke and be forced out of business. That is not hard to understand, even for you. Given that this is what will happen, passing Prop 2 would not accomplish its intended aim: to improve the lot of egg-laying hens whose eggs we consume in California.
“… is not basing its conclusions on poultry science.”
The conclusions appear to me to be based on animal science and microeconomic scholarship. Prof. Sumner, who is a highly regarded agricultural economist, is an expert on the egg industry.
“I am surprised to hear that the authors of this UCD report were scientists.”
One is a graduate student, one is a post-doc, two are profs and the fifth is an “analyst.” Joy Mench is highly regarded in the animal science department. Her PhD is in Ethology and Neurobiology. This is what she says about her scholarship: “Research in my laboratory focuses on the assessment and improvement of animal welfare. I am particularly interested in developing environmental enrichment strategies for small laboratory animals (rodents, rabbits) and captive/domesticated birds. In addition, I conduct behavioral research on poultry (chickens, quail, ducks) directed toward improving aspects of their housing, handling, and management.”
“… the egg industry would leave CA because the legal demands of Prop 2 would make the industry unprofitable…”
Yes, the industry in our state could not compete. They would go broke and be forced out of business. That is not hard to understand, even for you. Given that this is what will happen, passing Prop 2 would not accomplish its intended aim: to improve the lot of egg-laying hens whose eggs we consume in California.
“… is not basing its conclusions on poultry science.”
The conclusions appear to me to be based on animal science and microeconomic scholarship. Prof. Sumner, who is a highly regarded agricultural economist, is an expert on the egg industry.
“One is a graduate student, one is a post-doc, two are profs and the fifth is an “analyst.”
so… a graduate student and a post-doc whose expertise is unvetted , an “analyst” and 2 professors, one whose expertise is the ECONOMICS of the egg production industry and a second professor, if Joy Mench is the 2nd professor, who studies the nervous systems of poultry as related to behavior to “improve their management”. I wonder if her contribution to the report had to do with the nature of poultry’s nervous system as it relates to having an awareness of the conditions of their confinement …on second thought, I think I WILL vote Yes on Prop 2.
“One is a graduate student, one is a post-doc, two are profs and the fifth is an “analyst.”
so… a graduate student and a post-doc whose expertise is unvetted , an “analyst” and 2 professors, one whose expertise is the ECONOMICS of the egg production industry and a second professor, if Joy Mench is the 2nd professor, who studies the nervous systems of poultry as related to behavior to “improve their management”. I wonder if her contribution to the report had to do with the nature of poultry’s nervous system as it relates to having an awareness of the conditions of their confinement …on second thought, I think I WILL vote Yes on Prop 2.
“One is a graduate student, one is a post-doc, two are profs and the fifth is an “analyst.”
so… a graduate student and a post-doc whose expertise is unvetted , an “analyst” and 2 professors, one whose expertise is the ECONOMICS of the egg production industry and a second professor, if Joy Mench is the 2nd professor, who studies the nervous systems of poultry as related to behavior to “improve their management”. I wonder if her contribution to the report had to do with the nature of poultry’s nervous system as it relates to having an awareness of the conditions of their confinement …on second thought, I think I WILL vote Yes on Prop 2.
“One is a graduate student, one is a post-doc, two are profs and the fifth is an “analyst.”
so… a graduate student and a post-doc whose expertise is unvetted , an “analyst” and 2 professors, one whose expertise is the ECONOMICS of the egg production industry and a second professor, if Joy Mench is the 2nd professor, who studies the nervous systems of poultry as related to behavior to “improve their management”. I wonder if her contribution to the report had to do with the nature of poultry’s nervous system as it relates to having an awareness of the conditions of their confinement …on second thought, I think I WILL vote Yes on Prop 2.
In regard to Prop2: why would you want to eat the meat of an animal too weak to stand who is being fed antibiotics that you’re going to consume along with the flesh? Why would you want antibiotics in your eggs? If you’ve ever tried eggs from cage-free, antibiotic free chickens, you’ll never want to go back to those flavorless, anemic looking yolks. So, if you can’t move yourself to do it for the farm animals, vote yes for the sake of your own taste buds and health. If CA voters take a stand on this issue, we will be supporting more local farmers instead of the mega-corporations.
In regard to Prop2: why would you want to eat the meat of an animal too weak to stand who is being fed antibiotics that you’re going to consume along with the flesh? Why would you want antibiotics in your eggs? If you’ve ever tried eggs from cage-free, antibiotic free chickens, you’ll never want to go back to those flavorless, anemic looking yolks. So, if you can’t move yourself to do it for the farm animals, vote yes for the sake of your own taste buds and health. If CA voters take a stand on this issue, we will be supporting more local farmers instead of the mega-corporations.
In regard to Prop2: why would you want to eat the meat of an animal too weak to stand who is being fed antibiotics that you’re going to consume along with the flesh? Why would you want antibiotics in your eggs? If you’ve ever tried eggs from cage-free, antibiotic free chickens, you’ll never want to go back to those flavorless, anemic looking yolks. So, if you can’t move yourself to do it for the farm animals, vote yes for the sake of your own taste buds and health. If CA voters take a stand on this issue, we will be supporting more local farmers instead of the mega-corporations.
In regard to Prop2: why would you want to eat the meat of an animal too weak to stand who is being fed antibiotics that you’re going to consume along with the flesh? Why would you want antibiotics in your eggs? If you’ve ever tried eggs from cage-free, antibiotic free chickens, you’ll never want to go back to those flavorless, anemic looking yolks. So, if you can’t move yourself to do it for the farm animals, vote yes for the sake of your own taste buds and health. If CA voters take a stand on this issue, we will be supporting more local farmers instead of the mega-corporations.