I would never understand why anyone would vote no on prop 2. I have been taught to treat others the way I would want to be treated. I believe this compassionate philosophy should be extended to animals as well,for they have the capacity to experience pain, lonliness, and hoplessness. why would anyone who is decent and good not desire compassionate treatment to all including animals.

Posted by: michael sheehy | October 31, 2008 12:44 PM

When I think of the year two thousand and fifteen, I think of how long they have to wait!! This is reality for animals killed for food!! So they can spread a wing or two, yes prop 2 will make sure of that BUT first consider what's on your plate and put the animals killed for food where they should be non-existent!!

Posted by: Carla | October 31, 2008 12:56 PM

Yes on Prop 2! I have hope that California will pass this important measure!

Posted by: Curtis | October 31, 2008 01:16 PM

Exactly. It's the Golden Rule, and it applies to all living beings. It doesn't mean just humans. I wish I lived in California so I could vote yes for this. I wouldn't care about taxes that it causes because this is one step towards freedom for all animals.

Posted by: 4 the Animals | October 31, 2008 01:33 PM

I live in New Jersey but if I had the opportunity I would vote NO for Prop 2 because it makes people feel "OK" about killing animals and eating them. If Prop 2 is voted in, people will feel like the animals are having a fine life until they are killed, which is far from the truth. I love PETA and as an organization they do a lot, but giving people the satisfaction of feeling better about killing animals is wrong. Drinking their milk, eating their eggs, eating them-- it's all wrong. Vegan Education is the only way we will make a difference for the animals.

Posted by: Brielle Barr | October 31, 2008 01:38 PM

I hope this proposition passes but too bad it won't take effect for 7 more years. Millions more animals will still suffer until this takes place. Why will it take so long?

Posted by: Rex's mom | October 31, 2008 02:46 PM

hell I would vote yes if I lived min california, that means no more battery eggs and I could have farm freash ones, I feel the egg industry would double its produce and have healthy happy chickens willing to lay eggs for them, all they want is to walk around and streach their wings a bit. This would enable them to live longer.

also good news for the pigs and calves, these animals need some breatheing room and it minmizes disease and produce healthier meat.

Posted by: joshdavis271 | October 31, 2008 06:14 PM

I live in SoCal and definitely voted Yes on 2. In fact I have seen much suppport for this prop and I feel good that it will pass. As I've told everyone around me, this is a no brainer and can't comprehend why anyone would be against it except the factory farmers. People who are against Prop 2 represents the worst of humanity.

Posted by: mlo | October 31, 2008 08:13 PM

Vote No on Prop 2? When the average person who orders breakfast in Calif does not even consider the source of the food on their plate I think it will be totally amazing that Prop 2 passes. Going from clueless to vegan is a process that takes some people a lifetime. The most significant issue is that these companies will no longer be free to do what ever they want...they will begin to have rules set by the voters that limit their bottom line. If you could see the huge concentrated feeding operations in California and feel the burn of ammonia from decomposing animal waste in your nose each morning that permeates the entire San Joaquin valley for literally hundreds of square miles you would know that ANY improvement to this situation will be welcome by both the animals and the laborers that work and live in these farm communities. Prop 2 is going to be a great improvement! Support it 110%!!!

Posted by: joanna | November 1, 2008 12:52 PM

why will it take till 2015 to take effect and who decided that??--it is TOO LONG to wait for this!!!--animals need freedom from pain and cruelty NOW!

Posted by: mary | November 1, 2008 01:29 PM

Brielle, I see what you are saying. HOWEVER, prop 2 will only EASE the suffering. It won't end it. People still need to be educated and the pictures of what these animals endure even with room to spread their wings and limbs will need to continue to be shown as it will continue to have an effect. There are people, my landlord is one, who are going to vote NO on prop 2. The republican party recommends voting NO on prop 2. What gets me is that the republican party includes MOST of the religious "Pro Lifers" if that is true, they are certainly some of the biggest hypocrites on the planet! Sanctity of life my a**!

Posted by: Jill | November 1, 2008 02:35 PM

Rex's mom:

I too am really hoping Prop 2 will pass. The reason it will take another 7 years to be in full effect is so that agribusinesses will have time to implement the more humane policies. Prop 2 will give farming companies a generous amount of time to adapt to the new law so that they are not overwhelmed.

Prop 2 will help farm animals while being compassionate towards the farming industry.

Posted by: Ben Bradford | November 2, 2008 11:45 AM

Fingers crossed! I can see no risen why some one would vote no. After all they are only giving this animals a little more comfort.

Posted by: Crystal | November 2, 2008 02:35 PM

It's so sad that people eat animals...Why? I just don't understand.

Posted by: Bre K | November 2, 2008 02:59 PM

Brielle, what does it feel like having a frontal Lobotomy such as yourself! Stay in Jersey! We do not want your kind in Calif! How many Factory Farms have you walked through you moron! How many Sows have you bent down and hugged until you had to be pulled away, you worthless piece of excrement! How many baby calves have you tried to hold on to as they slip away from your hold you worthless piece of human garbage! Have you ever put your index finger through a factory cage and rub the delicate neck of a suffering hen! I am a Vegan! Do you have any idea how many sows have screamed as my husband is dragging me off because they want to come also! You moron, this is not about you, this is about the animals! You worthless piece of mental garbage! PETA went through the same thing when people chastised them because they supported Florida and Colorado who would faze the crates out in 2010! Intelligence says, we must take baby steps before we have a world full of vegans! Anyone that would vote no on Prop 2 has a black and very dead soul!!! That's you!
Abolish Animal Slavery!

Posted by: Judith FFFA | November 2, 2008 04:35 PM

Judith,
Not only is your post childish, it makes no sense. Brielle wants everyone to be vegan, not for animals to suffer. But making large companies make the slightest improvement eases the pressure on their back, therefore, helping their bottom line.
Also, calling people names like really makes you come off as ignorant, lacking of compassion, and uneducated. But hey, I guess that is the only way you know how to express yourself.

Posted by: Brian Kravette | November 3, 2008 10:43 AM

Judith,

You may be vegan but you are a very hateful person, calling me names instead of having a real discussion. How are you ever going to change the world being so filled with hate and anger? I am vegan, and I know exactly what the animals go through-- living hell. That's why I don't think Prop 2 is the answer to this hell for them. They deserve better than slightly larger cages-- If you want an end to animal slavery, then offering them slightly larger cages is not the answer. We don't want to continue the belief that animals are living in complete harmony with humans. We want vegan education to make people FEEL BAD when they go to the store and buy their gallon of milk, or carton of eggs and know that just because they voted YES on Prop 2, doesn't mean these animals are living in peace. As for the name calling and your behavior, I can tell you there are many Vegans like me who believe making bigger cages isn't enough. What about waiting until 2011? That's not enough-- We need something to happen NOW, not compromise with these evil corporations. I don't appreciate your name-calling rather than hearing my perspective. I hope you are able to find the peace and compassion in your heart to deal with people and get your message across more effectively. Without being able to do that, you will never change people's minds who continue to eat meat. We must all show compassion to humans and animals alike.

Posted by: Brielle Barr | November 3, 2008 10:59 AM

Of course people would vote no on this issue. They do not wanna spend the extra money to give these animals room to roam. The more room they give a pig, the less room they have to keep all of them under one roof. Then they have to get more space to house more pigs. Same with the hens. This is the real world.

Of course I am with you on this issue. I saw on episode of Oprah that dealt with this exact issue and some owners of companies were trying to justify it all. I disagreed with them whole heartedly. The sows were 6 ft long and had a 7 foot (length) cage. The hens couldn't even move because they were so close to one another. It was horrible. But, some people who left comments on here say they don't get why anyone would vote NO on prop 2? Because they don't wanna lose money and have to spend extra money. This is the real world. Let's be realistic. Owners of such companies will say it has to be this way in order to make products available to the public at a cheaper cost.

Posted by: bbr | November 3, 2008 11:10 AM

On Tuesday as well we in Massachusetts have a chance to ban greyhound racing, would love if PETA could spread the word on Question 3!

Posted by: Maya, CVT | November 3, 2008 11:50 AM

Judith seems to have some sort of emotional issue that causes her to fly off the handle and freak out over anyone expressing a view not 100% the same as her own. It's the kind of crass behavior and lack of thinking that we often accuse the factory farm companies of doing--they put their fingers in their ears and don't listen. It doesn't help, and it is ignorant and low.

I can understand the view that giving people an "out" doesn't really help anything in the long run. People may think "they have more room so it's all taken care of now and nothing more need be done." But at the same time, do you want to deny some immediate (or at least immediate as of the time the measure takes affect in a few years) relief?

Posted by: Abby | November 3, 2008 01:29 PM

Im from Canada so I can't really help on this one :o(
But when will we know the result ?!?!??!?!

Posted by: Amanda | November 3, 2008 01:55 PM

Judith raised several valid points, ones that ought not be ignored by anyone with a bare semblance of intelligence and compassion. i agree with most of what she said, we should do everything in our power to stop factory farming.

"I would never understand why anyone would vote no on prop 2."

i agree totally. i hope this initiative passes as it is a step in the right direction.

Posted by: vegancoin | November 3, 2008 05:27 PM

How do I get my state to do that?

Posted by: Joe Axt | November 4, 2008 09:43 AM

So, Brielle, you would vote no because the passing of Prop 2 would make vegan activism more challenging? It is frightening that, given the choice, many animal liberationists would prefer that millions of animals continue to suffer just as they are because they're afraid of a little hard work. The animals deserve better, from the people who exploit them and the people who would end that exploitation. Shame on you.

Posted by: Elphaba | November 4, 2008 10:00 AM

Even though Judith is a hardliner - and we need hardliners - i'm always with her because she REALLY WANTS ANIMAL SUFFERING TO STOP!!!

Posted by: Gentleman | November 4, 2008 10:54 AM

I think it is a great START to ending the animal cruelty that goes on in factory farms. I do however think that a lot more needs to be done to insure these animals live a happy wonderful life and do not have a painful or drawn out execution. I ate meat for 18 years of my life. Now I am proud to say that I am a vegetarian and the only eggs I eat are from a family farm down the road where the chickens are free to roam. I think if more people too small steps like this the overall revolution will happen a lot quicker.

Posted by: kendall | November 4, 2008 01:59 PM

Phasing in the provisions of Prop 2 can only be done over time. Equipment purchased by farmers to cage/pen animals is replaced gradually and as the cages and pens etc are replaced the new facilites will be built. You cannot expect (in the real world) a farmer to replace all their equipment over night when they have no economical way to pay for it.

There is still a huge need for consummer education so that retailers will be motivated to purchase from Prop 2 compliant farms ahead of schedule.

The public debate to pass Prop 2 is a big step forward in opening up discussion about the treatment of farm animals.

Posted by: joanna | November 4, 2008 05:18 PM

I realize that my post will not likely be published, as I am offering an opposing viewpoint to the ones on this board, but I figured it was worth a shot.

Seriously, have any of you actually spent any time with farm animals or researched their state of living at all? I am not talking about the extreme, rare cases that PETA and other "animal rights" organizations showcase. I mean go and visit the average farmer who has a sow farm?

I am a "country girl" who has spent hundreds - literally - of hours visiting different farrowing facilities, not only in our country, but internationally as well. Trust me, most animals are living a very humane life. Despite popular belief, us ranchers and farmers are not cruel, ignorant creatures - we understand the need for animal welfare, and we practice it - not only so we can abide by the law, but because we all have a sense of decency and compassion.

I am not sure if Prop 2 has passed, but I would urge a "NO!" vote to everyone. Passing this legislation is another step towards the complete ruination of American agriculture as we know it. If this passes, it will add incalcuable costs to the American farmer's already alarmingly-high bill. These costs will be passed on to the consumers, and though this probably doesn't effect the vegans/vegetarians as yourselves, this will: If our prices are not competitive enough, we will face an even greater influx of foreign animal products, where I PROMISE you the conditions aren't regulated near as closely as they are here. America has the most efficient and safest food supply in the world. But in order to keep it economical, we cannot strap agriculturalists with unneccessary and ridiculous measures, otherwise our consumers will buy international products - which will definetely be counterproductive to your movement.

If anyone wants to debate my viewpoint, please feel free to email me. My email address is: ranchergirl0305@yahoo.com Please include something in the subject line that notifies me that your message isn't Spam.

Thank you all and have a wonderful day!

Posted by: Erin | November 5, 2008 01:16 AM

WHOOOO!! YES on Prop 2 won!! =D

Posted by: Pia | November 5, 2008 02:44 AM

Erin, The 'average' farmer is a corporation in California. Corporations invented the current trend of huge concentrated feeding operations. These facilites are known to negatively affect farm animal health as well as human health. I have confidence that farm productivity and humane treatment can coexist. While a farmer may have to reduce the number of animals in their facility to meet space requirements, they will also have lower mortality and disease due to the better conditions. Studies have shown for sows that when allowed to turn around they have more piglets per litter and less illness. This offsets any increase in accidental death of piglets associated with the sows. European farmers do not find any statistical evidence that mother pigs kill more of their babies accidentially when they can turn around. However, US farm corporations continue to claim that sows will squish their babies if they can turn around. I would not be at all surprised if the companies that make millions of dollars selling sow crates to farmers used this idea to motivate old fashioned small farmers to convert to the crate rearing method so they could sell lots of metal crates. I think sows have always killed afew of their babies. This is probably why they have large litters. Allowing calves, pigs and chickens some room to move is not going to be the ruination of all the farms in America. The changes required by Prop 2 are very modest in terms of increased area per animal and are phased in over time. I do not think you have really tried to imagine the discomfort of standing in a wire bottom cage for an entire year with no room to move and no natural environmental stimuation. That is mental and physical torture for a chicken. I am not one to say that chickens are equal to humans, but they are living and feeling creatures. They do suffer from our mistreatment. I think the voters of California have just shown clearly that if they are provided the opportunity to make a choice they will choose humanely raised food.

Posted by: joanna | November 5, 2008 02:21 PM

OK so Prop 2 passed. Congratulations to the animals-- but I just don't think we have enough information out there to get people to realize it's not GOOD ENOUGH. That is my biggest concern in the posts above. All the people who voted for Prop 2 and are not animal rights advocates now think the dirty work is over, and that's a major problem for the animals. It's OUR responsibility to make sure they realize it's not.

I just spent my weekend standing in front of a KFC protesting, with a sign "STOP FACTORY FARMING" To Judith and others-- I'm not sure why some of you are assuming I don't have compassion for these animals. I am a huge animal rights advocate and all of my views are aligned with PETA, except for this one issue on Prop 2. I am a strict vegan, and I have NEVER eaten meat in my entire life.

I know that the animals are suffering-- I just think that PROP 2 is not enough. I don't agree with waiting until 2010 just to get a slighter larger cage. The argument of "a little is better than nothing" to me, is just the same as one of the other posts claiming animals are treated nicely so what's wrong with farming them? Well, they die-- that's what's wrong with it!

I would sooner agree with PETA's proposal a few months ago of a TAX on MEAT. Meat is killing America with obese and heart disease, like cigarettes, like alcohol does harmful things. Taxing meat will make people use less of it, and realize it's wrong-- it's an unnecessary luxury just like fur and leather, and wool.

Posted by: Brielle | November 7, 2008 02:12 PM

Brielle,
There's a big difference between not thinking Prop 2 is good enough (as most of the posters here do) and wanting to vote against it out of spite--that's just backwards and hurtful.

Posted by: Elphaba | November 8, 2008 04:00 AM

Brielle,
I think your word of caution was warranted. We don't want agribusiness so efficient and misleadingly "humane" that it becomes more deeply entrenched and widespread, causing more animal use. Frightening!
The problem is, we could hold out for a better deal that never comes, while the animals continue to languish without relief. The atrocities Peta documents are often quickly forgotten when the next sensational story hits the headlines. And the sense of entitlement most humans have to use animals is deep and pervasive.
There seems to be some momentum now. Like you said, we must continue our fight for abolition.
I may be out of line, but I think it was the heat of the moment that caused the angry outburst. It must have been a crushing blow to Judith for you to oppose Prop 2 when she's fought so tirelessly and passionately for its passing. And I think we're all glad she never gave up.

Posted by: lynda downie | November 9, 2008 10:38 PM

I'm actually surprised to see that my post caused such a stir in the vegan world. I personally know other vegans who were against Prop 2, like me, because they thought it would make people feel more OK about what animals go through. Reality is that I have many friends (and unfortunately family members) (and even know vegetarians!) who think that cows, chickens, sheep etc. live a fruitful and happy life until they meet their demise. I'm happy that the animals will get slightly bigger cages in 2012, but I absolutely think this is NO TIME to celebrate. Unfortunately there are only baby step wins for the animals. All I am saying is that it's our responsibility to inform people that the animals are nowhere near being treated well. The animals won't be fine until humans realize it's not our place to "own" them at all. It breaks my heart. And for those who say I'm not doing the "hard work" -- I beg to differ. I agree with Ingrid that one of the best things you can do for the cause is to educate people. Our government is not going to do a thing until enough people demand it to do so. -- This doesn't mean bigger cages; it means no cages!

Posted by: Brielle Barr | November 25, 2008 03:11 PM