trapping
kids

pcsoutdoors


Print Thread
Hop To
AVA & Farmers know animals. HSUS/PETA do not!. #897610
09/23/08 06:45 PM
09/23/08 06:45 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,777
Cape Breton Island Nova Scotia
Mira Trapper Offline OP
trapper
Mira Trapper  Offline OP
trapper

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,777
Cape Breton Island Nova Scotia
AVMA responds to 'Prop 2'

This November, California voters will decide on Proposition 2, a
ballot initiative sponsored by a coalition of animal protection groups
requiring that egg-laying hens, veal calves, and pregnant sows have
room enough to lie down, stand, turn around, and fully extend their
limbs, effective 2015. The initiative, Standards for Confining Farm
Animals, is backed by the California VMA. Some CVMA members have
formed the Association of California Veterinarians because they
disagree with their association's support for Proposition 2.

Although the AVMA applauds every effort to promote animal welfare, the
Association is concerned about possible, unintended negative
consequences to animal welfare of enacting the measure. Following is
the AVMA's response to Proposition 2.

"The American Veterinary Medical Association believes Proposition 2,
'Standards for Confining Farm Animals,' is admirable in its goal to
improve the welfare of production farm animals; however, it ignores
critical aspects of animal welfare that ultimately would threaten the
well-being of the very animals it strives to protect.

"The best housing environments take into consideration all relevant
factors, including: freedom of movement; expression of normal
behaviors; protection from disease, injury, and predators; adequate
food and water; and proper handling. Proposition 2 would clearly
provide greater freedom of movement, but would likely compromise
several of the other factors necessary to ensure the overall welfare
of the animals, especially with regard to protection from disease and
injury.

"AVMA is the premier professional organization representing
veterinarians in the United States. As such, we are not only a key
medical authority on animal health and welfare, but just as
importantly, we truly care about the animals we serve every day. It is
in that mindset that we strive for continued improvement of animal
housing systems through comprehensive, science-based evaluations with
the expert input from veterinarians and animal welfare scientists.

"We are concerned that legislating isolated, arbitrary and
emotion-based criteria to implement farm animal housing systems may
actually do more harm than good for the well-being of the animals
while compromising the sustainability of production systems that are
essential to ensure we continue to have the safest, most affordable,
and abundant food supply in the world."

The Association's positions on the housing of layer chickens, veal
calves, and pregnant sows are available on the AVMA Web site
(www.avma.org) under Animal Welfare by clicking on AVMA Animal Welfare
Policy Statements.


[Linked Image]
Mac Leod Motto
Re: AVA & Farmers know animals. HSUS/PETA do not!. [Re: Mira Trapper] #897614
09/23/08 06:46 PM
09/23/08 06:46 PM
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,777
Cape Breton Island Nova Scotia
Mira Trapper Offline OP
trapper
Mira Trapper  Offline OP
trapper

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,777
Cape Breton Island Nova Scotia
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
AVMA weighs in on California livestock housing referendum
Proposal could be harmful, AVMA says; sparks discord within CVMA
– R. Scott Nolen
October 1, 2008
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/oct08/081001a.asp

An upcoming California referendum on mandatory changes to livestock
confinement practices has the AVMA concerned the proposal could
compromise animal welfare by requiring producers to adopt systems that
don't account for all aspects of humane treatment.

Although reluctant to involve the AVMA in state politics, preferring
instead to address veterinary and animal-related issues at the
national level, Association leaders believe the referendum, sponsored
by national organizations such as the Humane Society of the United
States, warranted a response because it is part of a larger,
state-by-state campaign targeting food animal production.

The referendum, known as the Standards for Confining Farm Animals, or
Proposition 2, has roiled the nation's largest state veterinary
association. The California VMA's support for Proposition 2 caused
small numbers of CVMA members—including the chair of the CVMA
agriculture committee—and unaffiliated large animal veterinarians to
form an organization opposed to the proposal. This new group, the
Association of California Veterinarians, intends on speaking for
veterinarians on matters pertaining to California's animal agriculture
industry.

In April, a coalition of humane organizations gathered more than the
necessary 433,971 signatures to put Proposition 2 on the California
ballot this November. The measure would require that, effective 2015,
egg-laying hens, veal calves, and pregnant sows have enough room to
lie down, stand, turn around, and fully extend their limbs (see JAVMA,
May, 1, 2008, page 1279).

Referendums are a way of bringing legislation directly to the public
for a vote. Many states allow such forms of "direct democracy" as do a
number of city governments. So far, referendums on livestock housing
have been successful in at least two states. Sow gestation stalls were
banned in Florida by voters in 2002 (effective 2008); four years
later, veal calf and gestation stalls were prohibited in Arizona
(effective 2012).

Notably, California is not a major veal producer. Moreover, gestation
stalls are already being phased out by the state's largest pork
producer. The state's poultry industry would feel the effects of
Proposition 2 most, as California is home to more than 19 million
egg-laying hens and is the fifth largest egg-producing state in the
country.

After nearly yearlong deliberations over Proposition 2, the California
VMA board of governors passed a resolution supporting the proposal,
finding it consistent with the association's "Eight Principles of
Animal Care and Use," which describe veterinarians' commitment to
animals. For instance, Principle 5 states: "Animals should be provided
with water, nutrition, and an environment appropriate to their care
and use, with consideration for their safety, health, and
species-specific biological needs and behavioral natures."

The CVMA did temper its endorsement of Proposition 2 with a few
caveats. "While the CVMA supports the concept that animals should be
allowed to turn around, lie down, stand up and fully extend their
limbs when confined," the statement reads, "we also believe that
issues such as public health, biosecurity, and good farming practices
must be considered.

"The CVMA firmly believes that any modifications of the current system
should be made in consultation with California's food animal
veterinarians, the leading authorities on the health and well being of
production animals," the statement concluded.

Still, the association's endorsement of Proposition 2 "angered,
frustrated, and disappointed" some CVMA members, who say the decision
is neither science-based nor recommended by food animal veterinarians
within the CVMA nor supported by groups such as the American
Association of Avian Pathologists, explained Dr. Michael S. Karle,
chair of the CVMA agriculture committee. As a result, they have
established the Association of California Veterinarians, with Dr.
Karle as president, to express their opposition to the referendum.

The ACV promotes itself as backing science-based standards, practices,
and policies that enable state livestock and poultry producers to
provide "a wholesome, safe, nutritious, and affordable food supply."
The group's goal is to become the principal veterinary organization on
issues affecting California's animal agriculture industry. Dr. Karle
estimates the number of ACV members at around 20 and "growing every
day."

The CVMA agriculture committee recommended nonsupport of Proposition 2
while the CVMA House of Delegates voted in favor of the association,
taking a neutral position on the measure.

"It was a complete shock when the board of governors came out in
support of Prop 2," said Dr. Karle, a bovine practitioner working
primarily with dairy cattle. "We have to answer to our clients every
day on these kinds of issues, and for CVMA to take a support position
on this is basically like us abandoning our clients."

Despite the dispute, CVMA President William A. Grant believes the
association is acting in the best interests of the animals and in
accordance with its Eight Principles. "I feel good about the decision
we made, and we have until 2015 to have this implemented," Dr. Grant
said. He pointed out that advances in food animal housing are already
leading some producers to switch to more open housing systems.

"People are concerned about the slippery slope," Dr. Grant said about
fears that Proposition 2 is just the beginning of a legislative
assault on food animal production in California. "I don't see a
slippery slope at this point," he said.

A small animal practitioner, Dr. Grant regrets the discord within the
CVMA but said he respects the dissenting members' opinion. In fact,
Dr. Grant has "a lot of faith" in Dr. Karle, who he reappointed chair
of the agriculture committee when he took office. "If this is
something they want to do, that's fine," Dr. Grant said. "I do think
that anytime we fragment our members, it's a mistake. Our strength is
in our unity." The San Diego County VMA has also endorsed Proposition
2, he added.

Dr. Karle and the other CVMA members recognize there are advantages of
retaining their affiliation with the association, such as insurance
benefits, and have no plans of renouncing their memberships.

Seeing the Proposition 2 debate as a California matter, Dr. Grant
formally requested in a letter sent to the AVMA that the organization
not comment on the proposal. But in a statement issued Aug. 26, the
AVMA said it welcomed the effort to improve animal welfare but worried
Proposition 2 "ignored critical aspects of animal welfare" and, if
enacted, could threaten the well-being of the very animals it means to
protect. (Read the AVMA statement in its entirety on this page. For
more information, visit
www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/california_proposition2.asp).

"Proposition 2 would clearly provide greater freedom of movement, but
would likely compromise several of the other factors necessary to
ensure the overall welfare of the animals, especially with regard to
protection from disease and injury," the statement reads.

The AVMA Executive Board approved the comments during a special
teleconference convened Aug. 18. While reluctant to involve the
Association in state politics, AVMA leaders believed they needed to
air their concerns over parts of Proposition 2. Namely, they think the
proposal fails to account for all aspects of animal welfare, according
to Dr. Ron DeHaven, AVMA CEO and executive vice president.

Additionally, the measure's wording is vague, they say, so that when
regulations implementing the law are written, they may preclude
certain housing systems with the potential to enhance animal welfare.
"Legally, the language may be clear," Dr. DeHaven said.
"Scientifically, it is not."

"We are not taking a position on Proposition 2," Dr. DeHaven
explained. "But we are concerned that there could be unintended
consequences that will negatively impact the welfare of affected
animals. We want our members in California and the public to consider
these potential consequences when they make their decision on how to
vote."

Dr. Karle was "elated" by the AVMA's response. "I was very pleased,
and we came to the same conclusions for the same reasons," he said.

Portions of the AVMA statement agree with what the CVMA has said about
Proposition 2, according to Dr. Grant. But he does take issue with the
charge that the association is ignoring animal welfare. Moreover, the
AVMA, Dr. Grant said, is contradicting itself, considering how the
AVMA House of Delegates just recently passed a resolution calling on
the veal calf industry to adopt less-confining housing systems (see
JAVMA, Sept. 1, 2008, page 689).

Dr. Grant is confident the state veterinary association can weather
the controversy through professional unity. "My feeling ... is we're
veterinarians: we can analyze these issues and, hopefully, we can come
to terms in agreement within our organization," he said. "That's what
we have done before, and we're hoping to do again."


[Linked Image]
Mac Leod Motto
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1