Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    �Well i am a woman, and an ecologist, and an environmentalist,
    and an animal lover, and I have very strong reasons why that
    bill should be defeated. I have� spoken out against it in
    Small Animals and Soapbox....��so I� wil�l enter �}Kmy reason��s
    later tonite ��on a less noisey line.
    
    Bonnie

This topic has been discussed at length in SAFRON::VEGETARIANISM.

By the way, I just read about the military training dolphins to kill enemy
divers and to search for mines.


				Mark

       This amendment has also had considerable discussion in
       DELNI::EQUITATION. Most of us want to see the treatment of veal
       calves changed but I got the impression this law would hurt a lot
       of small farmers and backyard horse owners without appreciably
       solving the veal problem. I'm not a vegitarian but the thought of
       veal makes me ill because of what they do to get it. liesl

    Well, it's not really a question of how I *will* vote, but how
    I *have* voted (I'm going on a week's vacation starting later
    today, so I had to fill out an absentee ballot). I voted "No".
    
    From what I've read about the question, there doesn't seem to
    me to be enough information on whether these regulations are
    really needed. It seems to reduce to a matter of faith as to
    which side you are willing to believe about how animals are
    treated.
    
    It also seems a bit too vague to me, and I see potential for
    lots of abuse. It isn't at all difficult to imagine that land
    developers see this as a means to drive small farms out of
    business so that they can buy up the land for condos. While
    Littleton (where I live) isn't exactly Farmtown, USA, it does
    have a significant number of small farms that could get hurt.
    
    I would support, however, the formation of a purely investigatory
    agency to research the question and see if regulations on the
    treatment of animals *are* needed.
    
    --- jerry

    at present, there is only one veal farm in Mass...and maybe none
    as its already closing a deal with a developer.  Veal will just be
    imported from outside the state.....making tough regulations on
    Mass farmers will do nothing to change the way the veal, or whatever,
    is grown that you eat.

    if the law were to regulate the way the food is grown that Mass.
    consumers eat, then the farmers might now be so opposed to it.....

    although it would be impossible to enforce.  It would just put the
    supermarkets out of business....everyone would buy their meat, milk,
    etc. in New Hampshire.

    imagine if the government had passed the 'clean air' bill so it only
    affected US auto makers....but imported cars were not at all required
    to meet any standards?  If you could buy a cheaper car with much better
    performance an no pollution controls from Japan (lets say), would you
    reject it because you feel that strongly about clean air?  or 'made
    in USA'?

    Everyone seems to be saying 'vote no'....but all the polls are saying
    it will pass easily....????  who are all these people who favor it?
    bob

I too plan to vote "No." I haven't seen any poll figures; but
if they do indicate a "yes" majority, I suspect it's because
the proposal has a nice-sounding official name and it's gotten
very little publicity and discussion.

I'm against any needless cruelty to animals. I've been avoiding
veal for some time now as a matter of personal choice, because
of what I've heard about the treatment of the calves. (I am
not a vegetarian.)

However, I also do not slam on the brakes and swerve if an animal
darts in front of my car -- the son of an aquaintance was killed
when he swerved to avoid a dog. I think the recent "rescue" of the
trapped whales was a stupid waste -- every day millions of animals
die from a harsh "Mother Nature" (are we going to try to rescue all
of these?), and every day millions of people go homeless and hungry 
(the $millions could have been better spent helping these).  I don't 
favor gratuitous cruelty and wretched conditions with animals used for 
experiments; however, my daughter, like most teenage girls, tries on 
various kinds of make-up, and if I had to choose between 100 rabbits 
going blind and my daughter going blind, my daughter (or anyone else's 
daughter) is far more valuable.

In summary, I don't plan to jump on any "animal rights" bandwagon
because I suspect that most of the avid supporters have their
priorities misplaced.

    the Russians must be quite puzzled at our efforts.  It was nice of
    them to come and help.....I'm sure they loved showing off a technology
    they have that is far superior to ours.  But a couple weeks before,
    a Russian fishing boat killed about 200 of the same whales.....for
    cheap meat for the Russian mink farms!

    Sure is glad we saved two.....too bad we didn't spend that money on
    US meat for the minks!
    bob

    
    There was a good point made with the rescue... We underlined our
    concern with the whaling still being done by Iceland, Norway,
    South Africa, Japan, and the Soviets, and shamed them with our 
    willingness to intervene. 
    
    BTW - The Soviets have considerably more need for icebreakers than
    we do.
    
    I would vote no... I don't think either researchers nor farmers
    impose cruelty on their animals purposfully. I do not think highly
    of eating veal, however but that is a personsal choice which I don't
    believe ought to be imposed on everyone. Government should not be
    seen as an all-wize, benevolent despot.

    
    
    You don't think researchers impose cruelty deliberately?  Let
    me tell you, the LD50 test isn't administered accidentally!
    Saying you'd rather see 100 rabbits go blind than your daughter
    is really not the issue.  That's like saying I'd rather slaughter
    100 minks so my son won't go cold.  The use of cosmetics is pure
    vanity. There ARE companies that offer safe cosmetics without
    torturing and killing thousands of animals in the process.  Veal
    could be raised in a humane manner.  But it isn't cost-effective.
    
    A hundred years ago animals were treated brutally.  Forunately,
    the A.S.P.C.A. stepped in and demanded that the government take
    action to protect those that man was abusing.  
    
    Find out the facts before you make a statement.
    
    
    Deborah
    
    

    What this (and lots of other topics) has to do with "women's issues",
    I'll never know...
    
    I sincerely doubt that the rescue had anything whatsoever to do with
    "shaming" nations like Norway, the U.S.S.R., Iceland, or Japan.  And
    I'll bet that this endeavor did absolutely nothing to slow down the
    whaling performed by these countries.  If we (i.e. the U.S. government)
    were actually serious about getting these countries to abide by the
    whaling treaties we would have taken the economic steps against
    them that organizations such as Greenpeace have been long advocating.
    
    Personally, I think it was a waste and blown out of proportion.  Like
    so many media events are.

    I suspect 100 years ago, most farmers treated their animals with
    great kindness.  Unfortunately, life was quite brutal then....
    before antibiotics or virtually any of the drugs we know of
    today...as well as any idea about 'asceptic' techniques.  Also
    little was known about feed requirements (including vitamins and
    minerals), water (via plumbing) was scarce, parasite cycles were not
    understood, etc.

    The atrocities I think of 100 years ago deal with how horses were
    treated, as there were a great many of them for basic transportation.
    I'ld be interested in hearing more about the start of the ASPCA.

    when I read about the ways diseases were treated 100 years ago,
    in animals and humans alike, it is shocking.  but I certainly don't
    think it was inhumane or brutal.
    bob

    
    	  Much of the ranting and raving that has gone on with
    	regard to this bill surrounds the issue of veal production.
    	In fact, there is no one product that can be called veal.
    	Despite the horror stories you hear, most veal does NOT
    	come from calves bound in tiny cages and fed anemic diets
    	of milk only.  In fact, the term veal can be applied to 
    	just about any cut of meat the butcher deems as tender 
    	enough and of the right texture.
    
    	   So before you start raising red flags for the poor
    	helpless veal calf, realize that they constitute less
    	than 10% of the product we see as veal in the butcher
    	shops.
    
    	   Animals have no rights that man does not freely give 
    	them.  We are not only the dominant species of this planet,
    	we are by far the most predominant.  We are raping the
    	planet for our own purposes, and the animals are forced
    	to fall under our service in some way, or be swept aside
    	in our conquest of the planet.
    
    	   As long as our numbers remain as great as they are
    	today (or greater), we will scarcely be able to afford
    	animals any more rights than we have given them today.
    	They have the right to serve us (as livestock, pets,
    	game, or some other useful role in our grand scheme),
    	or evade us.  The latter course frequently results in
    	the demise of the species as we move ever further, turning
    	wilderness into metroplex.
    
    	   Any gestures we make toward granting animals rights
    	above and beyond those described above are meaningless
    	and insignificant unless public attitude about animals
    	can be modified to the very core of our beings.  We 
    	have separated ourselves from the animals, placed our
    	needs above theirs.  In the name of progress we have
    	turned rain forests into concrete jungles, all without
    	a care for the residents of the rain forest.
    
    	   This cannot continue if there is to be any real meaning
    	to the term 'animal rights'.  We must acknowledge that
    	we share this planet with other intelligences who need
    	space to live and food to eat.  We must stop being
    	judgemental, deciding which creatures should live and
    	which should be driven to extinction.  We must declare
    	our animal heritage and release the animals from their
    	endenture to our service.
    
    	   Of course, this is highly improbable.  We have a
    	multi-million year history of domninance over nature,
    	and it is bred deeply into our natures.  It is harder
    	to step down from the pedestal once one has grown
    	accustomed to the view from the top.  How long we stay
    	on top is largely a question of our ability to alter
    	our mindsets, so there is still hope, though it may depend
    	on catastrophe as a catalyst.
    
    	- Greg

I'm going to stay out of the discussion of cosmetics, mink coats and the like,
because that's a real hot button for me.  But I just wanted to express my
surprise that someone had said that Question 3 is leading with "Yes" votes.
I had heard that ALL of the ballot questions are expected to go down in defeat.

				Mark

    Two other conferences where a dicussion of proposition #3 has occurred
    are words::small animals (note 50) and canine::canine (note 1768).
    I have set the previous notes in this string that refer to the
    vegtarianism and equitation conferences so that the reader can add
    them to their note book by hitting the 7 key on the key pad. This
    will let you add words::small animals similarly. 
    
    I would strongly urge that people read the discussions on this topic
    in the other notes files before deciding how to vote on proposition
    3 in Mass.
    
    Bonnie
    
    p.s. in re .11 Jim Mackin, this conference is for the discussion
    of 'topics of interest to women' which to my mind is a topic that
    women are interested in...not 'women's issues' which could have
    a more narrow definition.

    I plan to vote "yes".  I do believe there is needless cruelty to
    animals excused by appeal to "economics" or "the family farm" because
    I've personally seen examples of pointless cruelty excused in the name
    of "science" in university labs.
    
    Deb Wolbach is correct in saying that there are alternatives to the
    Draize test that blinds rabbits; any animal-rights publication (e.g.,
    The Animals' Agenda) gives examples.
    
    						=maggie 

RE: .17

This petition initiative does not address laboratory testing of animals.

How can someone equate farmers with laboratory scientists?

Farmers are in touch with their animals.  They have to be, or they'd be out of
business in no time.

Scientists have been trained to be "objective" and to desensitise themselves.
Not all of them do, and they do it to different degrees, but the goals that
drive the research are often exploratory and new, and don't necessarily have
any precedent with clear guidelines.

The farmer has centuries of models to look at.  If practices hadn't been
developed that are for the good of the animal, there wouldn't be such a thing
as animal husbandry today.


				Mark

    I agree there are practices that can be labeled as cruel, excused
    by appeal to 'economics'.  The term needless also is based on
    this same econimics.

    This bill does nothing to change the economics, so will do nothing
    to change the 'cruelty'.  You are correct that we could always treat
    animals better than we do.....at the consumer's expense.

    The worst cruelty excused by economics is against people....I for one
    would rather see this energy spent there.
    bob

    
    Maggie,
    
    This bill has no effect on testing cosmetics or any use of animal
    laboratory experiments. I would support a well defined bill that
    worked to regulate laboratory animal/testing conditions. This
    bill does not address those issues.
    
    Please believe me when I say as an ex-small family farmer this
    bill is indeed quite harmful to the family farm as well as being
    very poorly written.
    
    Some examples:
    
    as the bill is written the commission that is set up to monitor
    humane treatment will be 80% the recommendation of one organization
    - the humane society that sponsored the bill which is to recommend
    nominees to the governor. There would be no representatives from
    the farming or veterinary community.
    
    the bill as written would exempt the commission from the Mass open
    meeting law. This law requires that all committees from legislative
    down to the local school committee be open to the public and that
    their meetings be a matter of public record. (With some exceptions
    such as discussion of hiring matters). I see no need for the
    commission to be exempt from this law.
    
    the bill as written imposes a tax of up to .10 per citizen of
    Mass but doesn not indicate if that money is to come out of the
    existing budget of the Mass Legislative committee on Agriculture
    and Resources or if it is to be a de novo tax. Further the bill
    is so worded that the tax would not be under the control
    of the Mass Budget committee as all other revenues are.
   
    The bill essentially creates a group 80% of which come from one
    unique constituancy, which is not accountable by the Mass open
    meeting law, and which has its own independant budget. I have
    a problem with giving any group no matter how well intentioned
    that much power.
    
    Since this was an initiative petition the legislature could not
    amend the bill to correct the flaws. So the Mass Senate voted
    against it unanimously and the house voted something on the order
    of 340 to 5 (I don't have my Voters Information Publication at work).
    
    Further major humane/animal rights organizations in Mass are opposed
    to the bill. Such organizations inclue the MSPCA, the Mass Veterinary
    Association, the Mass Humane Society (the state organization, to
    distinguish from local supporting groups) and the Mass Audobon Society.
    (source the Mass Voters Information Publication.)
    
    The two examples of mistreatment of animals mentioned in the bill
    (veal crating and chick disposal) do not occur in Mass. 
    
    Some of the things that are mandated by the bill (climate controled
    housing, anthesthesia for such things as tail docking and horn
    debudding) are actually counter to the welfare of the animals.
    For further information on this one please see the small_animals
    conference.
    
    The group CEASE that sponsored this bill admitted during testimony
    before the Mass legislature that the bill was not based on actual
    problems shown to be occuring in Mass but actually on situations
    in Europe. There is an existing Mass Veterinary board which
    already deals with animal abuse in Mass.
    
    
    My personal feeling is that to vote for this bill because it is
    heralded as a 'pro animal bill' is very short sighted. 
    
    I would vote for a humane treatment bill that addressed problems
    that are present in Mass and a which was written to eliminate the
    legislative flaws mentioned above.
    
    Bonnie

    OK, I've been in California for the past week. I know of the
    unfortunate results in the Presidential campaign, but what
    happened with this (and the other three questions)?
    
    --- jerry

    They were all defeated by fairly wide margins.

    re .22:                                         
    
    > ... fairly wide margins.
    
    As I recall, Question 2 (repeal of the "prevailing wage" law) was 
    defeated by only a 2% margin (49% yes - 51% no). 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /