2006 Ballot Proposition Guide |
PROPOSITION 204
OFFICIAL TITLE
AN INITIATIVE MEASURE
PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO TITLE 13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA
REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING SECTION 13-2910.07; RELATING
TO CRUEL AND INHUMANE CONFINEMENT OF ANIMALS.
TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona:
Sec. 1. Title
This measure shall be known as the Humane Treatment of
Farm Animals Act.
Sec. 2. Title 13, Chapter 29 is amended by adding a new
section 13-2910.07 as follows: 13-2910.07.
CRUEL AND INHUMANE CONFINEMENT OF A PIG DURING PREGNANCY
OR OF A CALF RAISED FOR VEAL
A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF TITLE 3 OR
TITLE 13, A PERSON SHALL NOT TETHER OR CONFINE ANY PIG
DURING PREGNANCY OR ANY CALF RAISED FOR VEAL, ON A FARM,
FOR ALL OR THE MAJORITY OF ANY DAY, IN A MANNER THAT
PREVENTS SUCH ANIMAL FROM:
1. LYING DOWN AND FULLY EXTENDING HIS OR HER LIMBS; OR
2. TURNING AROUND FREELY.
B. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO:
1. PIGS OR CALVES DURING TRANSPORTATION.
2. PIGS OR CALVES IN RODEO EXHIBITIONS, STATE OR COUNTY
FAIR EXHIBITIONS, OR OTHER SIMILAR EXHIBITIONS.
3. THE KILLING OF PIGS OR CALVES ACCORDING TO THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 13, TITLE 3 AND OTHER APPLICABLE
LAW AND REGULATIONS.
4. PIGS OR CALVES INVOLVED IN LAWFUL SCIENTIFIC OR
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.
5. PIGS OR CALVES WHILE UNDERGOING AN EXAMINATION, TEST,
TREATMENT OR OPERATION FOR VETERINARY PURPOSES.
6. A PIG DURING THE SEVEN DAY PERIOD PRIOR TO THE PIG'S
EXPECTED DATE OF GIVING BIRTH.
C. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTIONS IS GUILTY OF A
CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.
D. THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS SHALL GOVERN THIS SECTION:
1. "CALF" MEANS A CALF OF THE BOVINE SPECIES.
2. "CALF RAISED FOR VEAL" MEANS A CALF RAISED WITH THE
INTENT OF SELLING, MARKETING OR DISTRIBUTING THE MEAT,
ORGANS OR ANY PART OF SUCH CALF AS A FOOD PRODUCT
DESCRIBED AS "VEAL."
3. "FARM" MEANS THE LAND, BUILDING, SUPPORT FACILITIES,
AND OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT IS WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY USED FOR
THE PRODUCTION OF ANIMALS FOR FOOD OR FIBER.
4. "PIG" MEANS ANY ANIMAL OF THE PORCINE SPECIES.
5. "TURNING AROUND FREELY" MEANS HAVING THE ABILITY TO
TURN AROUND IN A COMPLETE CIRCLE WITHOUT ANY IMPEDIMENT,
INCLUDING A TETHER, OR, IN THE CASE OF AN ENCLOSURE
(INCLUDING WHAT IS COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS A "GESTATION
CRATE" FOR PIGS AND A "VEAL CRATE" FOR CALVES) WITHOUT
TOUCHING ANY SIDE OF THE ENCLOSURE.
Sec. 3. Effective Date
This initiative measure shall take effect December 31,
2012.
Sec. 4. Severability
Each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
other portion of this initiative measure as adopted
shall be deemed to be a separate, distinct and
independent provision. If any portion thereof is held
invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by any court
of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect
the validity or constitutionality of any other portion
of this initiative measure, which can be given effect
without the invalid provision. To this end, the
provisions of this initiative measure are declared to be
severable.
Sec. 5. No Mandatory Expenditures
Nothing in this initiative measure proposes a mandatory
expenditure of state revenues for any purpose,
establishes a fund for any specific purpose, or
allocates funding for any specific purpose.
Sec. 6. Conditional Funding Source
Subject to Section 7 of this initiative measure, Title
13, Chapter 29 is amended by adding a new section
13-2910.08 as follows:
13-2910.08. THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF FARM ANIMALS FUND
THE "HUMANE TREATMENT OF FARM ANIMALS FUND" IS HEREBY
ESTABLISHED TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
UNDER THE CONDITIONS AND FOR THE PURPOSES PROVIDED BY
THIS SECTION. UPON RECEIPT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL
DEPOSIT IN THE FUND ANY MONIES RECEIVED FOR THE STATE AS
A RESULT OF ENFORCEMENT OF THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF FARM
ANIMALS ACT AND ANY MONIES RECEIVED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AS A MONEY DONATION TO THE FUND FROM ANY PUBLIC
OR PRIVATE GROUP, SOCIETY, ASSOCIATION OR INDIVIDUAL.
THE MONIES IN THE FUND SHALL BE USED ONLY FOR MANDATORY
EXPENDITURES, IF ANY, REQUIRED BY THE HUMANE TREATMENT
OF FARM ANIMALS ACT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE FUND.
MONIES IN THE FUND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO LEGISLATIVE
APPROPRIATION. THE FUND IS EXEMPT FROM STATUTORY
PROVISIONS RELATING TO LAPSING OF APPROPRIATIONS AND
SHALL NOT REVERT TO THE GENERAL FUND.
Sec. 7. Conditional Enactment
Section 13-2910.08 does not become effective unless a
court of competent jurisdiction holds that section
13-2910.07 proposes a mandatory expenditure of state
revenues for any purpose, establishes a fund for any
specific purpose, or allocates funding for any specific
purpose.
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Beginning January 1, 2013, Proposition 204 would amend
the Arizona criminal code to make it a class 1
misdemeanor to tether or confine a pig during pregnancy
or a calf raised for veal on a farm for all or the
majority of a day in a manner that prevents the animal
from lying down and fully extending its limbs or turning
around freely. The law would not apply to:
1. Pigs or calves during transportation.
2. Pigs or calves in rodeo exhibitions, state or county
fair exhibitions or other similar exhibitions.
3. The lawful slaughter of pigs or calves.
4. Pigs or calves involved in lawful scientific or
agricultural research.
5. Pigs or calves while undergoing an examination, test,
treatment or operation for veterinary purposes.
6. A pig during the seven day period before the pig's
expected date of giving birth.
Proposition 204 would tentatively establish an
enforcement and administration fund consisting of fines,
penalties and other monies generated by the enforcement
of this proposition and donations made to the fund. This
fund would only be fully implemented if a court
ultimately determined that creation of this fund is
required by a separate state law dealing with the
funding of programs created by a vote of the people.
Fiscal Impact Statement
State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the
fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. State and
local governments may receive additional revenues in the
form of fines and penalty assessments from violators of
provisions of Proposition 204. The language of the
proposition states that the measure does not impose
mandatory expenditure of state revenues for any purpose.
If, however, a court rules that the proposition results
in mandatory expenditure of state revenue, a Humane
Treatment of Farm Animals Fund is established and funded
through enforcement related revenue and donations. The
total amount of fines will depend on the level of
compliance, which is difficult to predict in advance.
ARGUMENTS "FOR" PROPOSITION 204
VOTE "YES" ON PROPOSITION 204
END THE INHUMANE TREATMENT OF FARM ANIMALS
Arizonans for Humane Farms is a coalition of animal
welfare organizations, veterinarians, and
conservationists.
The Problem:
In Arizona, 20,000+ breeding pigs are housed in 2' x
7' metal "gestation crates." Sows are kept immobile
for most of their lives and suffer from muscle
atrophy, pressure sores, joint maladies, and immense
frustration.
Family farming operations are threatened, and often
put out of business, by these hog factories which
refuse to treat animals humanely.
Disease and ground water contamination can result from
the massive waste produced in these operations.
The Solution:
This initiative ONLY requires a larger PEN SIZE or
access to pasture, allowing pigs during pregnancy and
calves raised for veal to turn around and fully
stretch their limbs.
Family farms do not use gestation and veal crates -
they are therefore PROTECTED.
Crates are still allowed after pregnancy to protect
the sow from crushing her offspring, and during
medical procedures or transport.
Rodeos, 4-H and county fairs are exempt from these
provisions.
There is no cost to taxpayers.
Only one large hog factory farm, an out-of-state
Delaware Limited Liability Company, accounts for
almost all of the factory-farmed pigs in Arizona -
Arizona does not yet have a meaningful veal industry -
however, vote "YES" to discourage large factory farms
from coming into our state.
Any producer, even the Delaware-based corporation,
will have 6 years - until 2013 - to phase in more
humane housing methods under the provisions of the
Humane Farming Act.
This initiative has nothing to do with your choice to
eat meat - it simply establishes a standard that
animals raised for food are humanely treated.
A "YES" vote will result in more humane care for
factory-farmed animals.
Cheryl Naumann, Chairwoman, Arizonans for Humane Farms, Phoenix
Paid for by "Arizonans for Humane Farms"
Being a veterinarian and having family involved with
pork production, I would like to share my perspective on
the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act. I have seen
the two-foot-wide crates that 450-pound sows are forced
to spend pregnancy after pregnancy in. Hormel may trot
out their well-paid industry vets to try to convince you
that never being able to turn around and lie down with
limbs extended is no hardship. They may even try to tell
you these pigs are comfortable, but the truth is they
are frustrated and scared. Their muscles are weak from
inactivity making them prone to injury. Their joints are
stiff from lack of use. Behavioral changes such as
increased aggression are associated with this
confinement. These animals are anguished from never
being able to act on a single natural impulse
I would like to make this prediction: Because conditions
at Arizona's Hormel factory farm are so horrendous, they
will never allow reporters inside. Hormel's PR firm will
try to convince you that they care about animals, they
care about farmers, and they care about you, and they'll
spend a lot of money doing so, but they'll never show
how they are treating animals.
98% of the pigs in Arizona are inside of Hormel's plant.
You'll hear about small farmers, but to Hormel they are
just competition. Every time Hormel cuts another corner,
Arizona farmers have to follow suit or go out of
business. I have seen this happen with my relatives and
it is happening to farmers here in Arizona. This measure
will mean that animals have a basic minimum of room and
that the playing field has been leveled for real farmers
and corporate agri-business. A vote for this measure
will be a vote for both animals and family farms.
Janet M. Forrer, DVM, Tucson
We, the undersigned members of Arizona's veterinary
community, endorse the Humane Treatment of Farms Animals
Act and urge you to vote "yes" on this important
measure. Room for veal calves and pregnant sows to turn
around, lie down, and extend their limbs is a modest and
reasonable proposal. Farm animals deserve at least this
minimum standard of care.
Amy Afek, DVM, Phoenix
Warren H. Ahnell, DVM, Tucson
Lynda Beaver, DVM, Gilbert
Nancy Beeuna, DVM, Tucson
Christina L. Bejarano, DVM, Tucson
Kellee J. Blackwell, DVM, Glendale
Bert Blumenfeld, DVM, Tucson
James Boulay, DVM, MS, DACVS, Tucson
John S. Brett, DVM, Tucson
Holly S. Burgess, DVM, Tucson
Fred Bush, DVM, Flagstaff
Corissa Canny, DVM, Tucson
Pam Clark, DVM, Tucson
Bernard N. Cohen, DVM, Tucson
Edward Cohen, DVM, Phoenix
Walter Cole, DVM, Tucson
Kelly Collins, DVM, Scottsdale
Heather E. Connally, DVM, Tucson
Kayomee Daroowalla, DVM, Tucson
Ruth Ann DeCou, DVM, Flagstaff
Todd Driggers, DVM, Gilbert
Randall J. Eberhard, DVM, Tucson
S. Evans-Linsell, DVM, Tucson
Christine A. Farrar, DVM, Mesa
Janice L. Flack, DVM, Scottsdale
T.D. Flack, DVM, Scottsdale
Jim Flegenheimer, DVM, Chandler
Lori A. Forgues, DVM, Tucson
Janet M. Forrer, DVM, Tucson
Desiree Garthe, DVM, Phoenix
Anthony J. Gilchrist, DVM, Scottsdale
Barbe Glenn, DVM, Tucson
Barbara R. Gores, DVM, DACVS, Tucson
Christina Guerrero, DVM, Fountain Hills
Ken Halbach, DVM, Tucson
Steven Hall, DVM, Scottsdale
Mark S. Halver, DVM, Phoenix
Kenneth Harding, DVM, Cave Creek
Havah Haskell, DVM, Tucson
Douglas W. Hauser, DVM, Sun City
Danielle Hettler, DVM, BS, Payson
Suzanne M. Higgins, DVM, Phoenix
Andrea Hilden, DVM, Tucson
Lynne Hoban, DVM, Fountain Hills
Bruce P. Hull, DVM, Phoenix
Duane Hunt, DVM, Mesa
Pollyann P. Johnson, DVM, Sun City
Sharmie Johnson, DVM, Peoria
Harold M. Klein, DVM, Tempe
Jill C. Lang, DVM, Phoenix
Tanya Lopez, DVM, Scottsdale
Linda J. Lueth, DVM, Tucson
Rodolfo Manriquez, CVT, Phoenix
Jennifer Marshall, DVM, Surprise
Michael E. Matz, DVM, Tucson
Melissa McGinnis, DVM, Tempe
Margo McKinney, DVM, Tucson
Karen McWhirter, DVM, Tucson
Laura L. Millikan, DVM, Yuma
Marilyn W. Millman, DVM, Scottsdale
Richard W. Morehouse, DVM, Tucson
Kristen L. Nelson, DVM, Scottsdale
Benjamin Nigg, DVM, Peoria
Gene T. Nightengale, DVM, Tucson
Melanie Olson, DVM, Tucson
Caroline Oreel, DVM, Sedona
Heather Oyan, DVM, Glendale
Judith A. Parker, DVM, Tucson
Robin Paterson, DVM, Kingman
Beryl Patterson, CVT, Litchfield Park
Mary L. Pencin, DVM, Willcox
Sally Rademaker, DVM, Tucson
Jessica Reed, DVM, Glendale
Tom Remmler, DVM, Sedona
Elizabeth Reno, DVM, Tucson
Celeste Roy, DVM, Tucson
J.R. Sampson, DVM, Phoenix
Kathryn Schulze, DVM, Tucson
Brian Sessink, DVM, Mesa
Paul Silvagni, DVM, Flagstaff
Leigh Ann Stastny, DVM, Glendale
Richard Stolper, DVM, Scottsdale
Carin Sunderman, DVM, Phoenix
Jennifer Tave, DVM, Phoenix
Rachel Temkin, DVM, Tucson
Tara Lyn A. Temple, DVM, Scottsdale
Gregg A. Townsley, DVM, Scottsdale
Bob Vasilopulos, DVM, DACVS, Tucson
Bonnie L. Walker, DVM, Cave Creek
William F. Wallace, DVM, Tucson
Charlotte Lee Watson, DVM, Gilbert
Elizabeth Weintraub, VMD, Tucson
Linda Rae Westbrook, DVM, Flagstaff
Teri D. Wiblin, DVM, Phoenix
Tayna Wyman, DVM, Phoenix
Paid for by "Janet M. Forrer"
ARIZONA HUMANE SOCIETY ASKS YOU TO VOTE "YES" ON
PROPOSITION 204
Arizona Humane Society, the state's largest nonprofit
animal welfare organization, is asking you to help
alleviate animal suffering by voting "YES" on
Proposition 204, the "Humane Treatment of Farm Animals
Act."
Since 1957, we have served Arizona residents through our
programs including adoptions, spaying and neutering,
humane education, disaster response, animal rescue and
cruelty investigation services. We are concerned about
alleviating the suffering of ALL animals, regardless of
their species. We believe that in a civilized society,
even animals raised for food should receive the most
basic types of humane care.
Currently, in our state, over 20,000 breeding pigs are
kept in horrendous conditions by large, corporate
"factory farms" - during the entirety of their short
lives, they are forced to lie in their own filth and are
kept in pens so small that they can never turn around or
fully extend their limbs.
Although there is no significant veal industry in
Arizona yet, we must deter profit-motivated operators
from moving into our state. Veal calves are kept in
narrow pens, typically tethered at the neck, and are
never allowed outside. When taken to slaughter at 16
weeks of age, most must be dragged because their muscles
are so weak they are unable to stand.
Our state has a rich tradition of family farming, where
animals are not treated this way - family farms are
protected by this proposition.
We are proud of our citizens, who year after year have
made their voice heard at the polls - unnecessary animal
suffering will not be tolerated in Arizona! Voting "YES"
will not cost Arizona taxpayers a dime!
As voters, you have the power to address the horrors of
factory farming by your "YES" vote on Proposition 204 -
thank you.
Cheryl Naumann, President and CEO, Arizona Humane Society, Phoenix
Ann Harwood, Esq., Chairman of the Board, Arizona Humane Society, Phoenix
Paid for by "Arizona Humane Society"
SHERIFF JOE URGES YES ON THE HUMANE FARMING PROPOSITION
As Sheriff of Maricopa County, I fight crime and do my
best to make our communities in Arizona safe.
But there's another aspect of my work that you may know
less about.
I have a heart for animals, and I despise cruelty in any
form. I have fought for stronger laws to crack down on
animal cruelty. The serious abuse of animals is a felony
in Arizona. And when our deputies find people breaking
laws against animal cruelty, there is always room for
them in my jails.
All animals deserve to be treated with respect, and
that's why I am supporting the Humane Treatment of Farm
Animals Act on the state-wide ballot this November.
I am a meat eater, and I enjoy a good steak as much as
the next guy. But I believe that even animals raised for
food deserve a decent life and a merciful death.
It's wrong to put a pig or a veal calf in a crate so
small that the animal cannot even turn around. And they
are in these crates almost all the time. When I think of
their misery, it just makes me sick.
It's one thing for a criminal to be housed in
confinement. They deserve to be incarcerated. But the
animals didn't do anything wrong, yet they get a life
sentence of harsh and constant confinement.
So I say, we have to raise animals for food, but we have
to do it the honorable way. Let's not allow people to
treat them in a way that causes them to suffer. Join me
in voting YES on The Humane Farming Proposition.
Joseph M. Arpaio, Sheriff, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, Phoenix
Paid for by "Arizona Humane Society"
VOTE YES ON 204
IT IS TIME TO STOP KILLING ANIMALS!
IT IS TIME TO STOP KILLING ANIMALS FOR MEAT!
IT IS TIME TO STOP KILLING AND HUNTING ANIMALS!
IT IS TIME TO STOP FAMERS AND RANHERS FROM KILLING THESE
ANIMALS FOR MEAT.
THEIR SLAUGHTERING OF ANIMALS IS CAUSING SUFFERING.
THEIR PRODUCTION OF MEAT AND MEAT PRODUCTS IS A CRUEL
AND BARBARIC PROCESS.
IT IS TIME TO STOP KILLING ANIMALS FOR MEAT. IT IS TIME
TO STOP KILLING ANIMALS PERIOD! LET'S STOP THIS MADNESS
OF KILLING OR HUNTING ANIMALS - PROP 204 IS A GOOD PLACE
TO START!
Jackie Winsor, Phoenix
Please vote yes on Proposition 204.
There are serious negative environmental impacts from
large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
where thousands of animals are confined in one facility.
These facilities are not only inhumane, but they also
produce enormous amounts of animal waste. This waste can
leak into our rivers and streams contaminating our
drinking water and spreading disease. According to the
Environmental Protection Agency, hog, chicken and cattle
waste has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states
and contaminated groundwater in 17 states.
Factory farms negatively affect air quality as well.
They are the largest source of toxic ammonia air
pollution in the U.S., plus the air around factory farms
is contaminated with suspended dust particles. These
particles can trigger asthma attacks and cause other
respiratory problems.
Proposition 204 deals with one aspect of factory farms
by ensuring that the animals have more space to turn
around and that they are not tethered in a manner that
restricts their ability to move around.
Currently, Arizona has relatively few of these
operations. We should keep it that way. Proposition 204
moves Arizona another step in the right direction.
Please support Proposition 204.
Ken Langton, Chair, Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter, Tucson
Don Steuter, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter, Phoenix
Paid for by "Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter"
I strongly support Proposition 204 Here's why.
I was raised on our family farm in North Dakota that has
been in my family since 1896. My father was a
traditional farmer who practiced responsible sustainable
farming practices and took pride in being a steward of
the land.
In 2003 we learned that a huge hog operation was being
planned a little over a mile from our family farm. Due
to the size of this operation we had concerns on how
this operation could impact our community; what we found
was very disturbing. These operations can have
devastating effects on the soil, water quality, and
surrounding community. Studies show that living by one
of these operations creates health risks and decreases
property value. These farms operate under unrestricted
agricultural laws when in fact they're industrial. The
particular operation by our farm was permitted for
20,900 hogs that would "turn over" 3 times a year. Their
terminology is "growing" pigs rather than "raising"
them. The term used for factory farms is CAFOs, Confined
Animal Feeding Operations, and the "confined" aspect of
this industry is what Arizonans for Humane Farms takes
issue with.
You don't have to be an "animal rights radical" to have
concerns about factory farming, especially when you see
hogs packed into metal crates so small they can't turn
around. They're fed "specialized diets" with growth
hormones and antibiotics. Antibiotics --to help avoid
disease among so many animals in confined spaces, and
growth hormones because the faster they grow, the faster
they can be "turned around". Unfortunately, the term
"turned around" only applies to marketing and not to
humane treatment.
Arizonans should support family farmers and ranchers and
vote yes on the Humane Farming Initiative.
Candace Jackson, Born and Raised in North Dakota (not grown), Mesa
Paid for by "Arizonans for Humane Farms"
PEOPLE OF FAITH SUPPORT HUMANE TREATMENT OF ALL GOD'S
CREATURES
As pastor of the Corpus Christi Parish, I'm heartened by
the presence of the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act
on the ballot, and I encourage voters to support this
important initiative.
One of our greatest duties is to be good stewards of the
Lord's creation, including the animals with whom we
share this planet. Unfortunately, on today's factory
farms, good stewardship is sorely absent. Mother pigs
are confined in crates too narrow for them to turn
around, while calves raised for veal are chained by the
neck inside similarly restrictive crates, barely able to
move for months on end. These animals are abused in ways
that would shock and caring person of faith.
God created these animals with the need to move about.
When it comes to their intensive confinement inside tiny
crates, little could be a greater perversion of God's
will.
Pope Benedict XVI put it best when discussing factory
farming, asserting that "this degrading of living
creatures to a commodity seems to me in fact to
contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes
across in the Bible."
While God has given us dominion, that is not a license
for ruthless domination of animals, especially those we
raise for food. We take so much from these creatures;
offering a small amount of common decency in return is
truly the very least we owe them.
Catholics, and all people of faith, should support
offering the mere ability to turn around and extend all
limbs to pigs and calves. Abusing these animals in the
ways we commonly do on factory farms is sinful, and we
can take a modest step toward reducing our abuse of
power over them by voting YES on the Humane Treatment of
Farm Animals Act.
Father Albert Francis Hoorman, Pastor of Corpus Christi Catholic Church, Phoenix
Paid for by "Karen Michael"
The Animal Defense League of Arizona urges you to vote
yes on Proposition 204.
Farm animals have the least legal protection of all
animals in our state. They deserve the modest protection
that would be given, if voters approve the Humane
Farming Initiative.
Here is what Proposition 204 does
Applies only to pregnant pigs and calves raised for
veal
Requires that these animals be given enough room to
lie down, turn around and fully extend their limbs
Gives farms plenty of time--until 2013-- to comply
with the new law
Allows rodeos, county fairs, 4-H and similar events to
go on as usual
Preserves family farms
To clear up misconceptions, Proposition 204
Does NOT restrict the sale or consumption of meat
Does NOT change how animals are transported
Does NOT ban research on animals
Does NOT cost taxpayers any money
Does NOT change the methods of slaughter of animals
for food
Industrialized, factory farms owned by huge agricultural
companies are sweeping across the country and coming to
Arizona. They use cruel and inhumane methods to confine
livestock. They treat pregnant pigs and calves raised
for veal like inanimate production units, rather than
thinking, feeling animals. They place them in enclosures
so small that they can't move, lie down, turn around or
even fully extend their limbs. Sows are kept constantly
pregnant, and held in these tiny crates 24 hours a day
seven days a week, for almost their entire lives. It is
a horrible existence, and it is happening here in
Arizona.
To stop cruel and inhumane treatment of farm animals,
Vote YES on Proposition 204.
Stephanie Nichols-Young, President, Phoenix
Karen Michael, Secretary, Peoria
Paid for by "Animal Defense League of AZ"
On today's industrialized farms, many pigs are confined
in "gestation crates" just two feet wide and calves are
tethered in "veal crates" where they can barely move, a
source of pain and suffering.
Voting yes on the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act
upholds the traditional standards of farming by
providing these animals with the most basic humane
consideration. The proposal simply requires that calves
and pigs be given adequate space to turn around and
stretch their limbs.
While protecting animals from cruel and relentless
confinement, this measure will also help protect the
environment from the massive runoff of waste from
confined animal feeding operations. And it will help
protect family farms and rural communities from the
harms of industrialized animal agriculture.
Having cared for farm animals for the past twenty years
and holding a masters degree in agricultural economics
from Cornell University, I have great respect for family
farmers and the values they live by. At their best, they
live by the values of personal responsibility,
integrity, and compassion.
We oppose factory farming because it is a betrayal of
traditional farming values. It puts efficiency above
everything, forgetting the duty to treat animals
decently. I agree with the Iowa hog farmer who said of
factory farmers, "They treat the animal like a machine.
But it's not a machine. It's an animal, and it needs
care."
Farmers have raised pigs and calves for ages without
confining them in narrow crates and treating them as
unfeeling units of production. These devices are an
insult to honorable farming traditions, and the law
should set a higher standard. With the Humane Treatment
of Farm Animals Act, Arizona voters have a chance to
relieve many animals of needless misery, and to show
that cruelty to animals is not an Arizona value.
Gene Bauston, President, Watkins Glen
Holly McNulty, Secretary/Treasurer, Watkins Glen
Paid for by "Farm Sanctuary, Inc."
Adapted from Arizona Republic column, February 2006:
". . . Pork producers figured out some years ago that if
they packed the maximum number of pigs into the minimum
space, if they pinned the creatures down into
fit-to-size iron crates and turned the 'farm' into a
sunless hell of metal and concrete, it made everything
so much more efficient. . . . As for veal, it is by
definition the product of a sick, anemic, deliberately
malnourished calf, a newborn dragged away from his
mother in the first hours of life. . . .
"Over the years, one miserly deprivation led to another,
ever harsher methods were applied to force costs lower
and lower, and so on until the animals ceased to be
understood as living creatures at all. . . .
'Cost-saver' in industrial livestock agriculture usually
means 'moral shortcut.' For all of its "science-based"
pretensions, factory farming is really just an
elaborate, endless series of evasions from the most
elementary duties of honest animal husbandry. . . .To
the factory farmer, in contrast to the traditional
farmer with his sense of honor and obligation, the
animals are 'production units,' and accorded all the
sympathy that term suggests. . . .
". . . In the quiet of the voting booth, ask yourself
why any creature of God, however humble, should be made
to endure the dark, lonely, tortured existence of the
factory farm. The answer will send an unequivocal
message, to factory farmers here and to all concerned,
that unbridled arrogance, bad faith, and rank cruelty
are not Arizona values."
(Matthew Scully worked for Arizona governors Mecham,
Mofford, and Symington. A former special assistant and
speechwriter for President Bush, he is author of
Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals,
and the Call to Mercy.)
Matthew Scully, Los Angeles
Paid for by "Arizona Humane Society"
As a conservative, fifth-generation Arizonan and mother
of four children, I support the Humane Treatment of Farm
Animals Act.
I believe we owe a duty of stewardship to the farm
animals we raise for food. We fail in that duty when we
allow those animals--be they pigs or calves--to be
confined day after day in cramped spaces too small for
them to even turn around or lie down and extend their
legs. The Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act is a
measured and reasonable provision that allows Arizona's
industrial farm operations several years to adjust their
confinement practices. This measure will have no effect
on Arizona's traditional farmers or traditional farming
practices and will be of no cost to the taxpayers.
As Arizonans, we should honor our conservative heritage
and live up to our stewardship.
I urge you to vote YES on the Humane Treatment of Farm
Animals Act.
Julie Dana Young, Phoenix
RE: Argugment FOR Humane Farming ballot proposition
The voters of Arizona now are presented with the
grandest opportunity to share in helping animals who are
defenseless against acts of cruelty imposed on them. The
general public through information and education have
come to realize the intense cruelty suffered by pregnant
sows and veal calves in that they cannot move their
bodies including their limbs while crammed into crates.
These acts of cruelty are happening on industralized
animal production facilities commonly known as "factory
farms".
Arizona has a high volume factory farm which utlilizes
about 20,000 sow gestation crates. The sows up to the
time of birthing cannot move within these crates. The
Humane Farming initiative will permit by act of law the
sows to at least be able to stand up, extend their
limbs, and turn around. This act will also apply to
confined veal calves. The owners of these production
facilites, large agri corporations, have until the end
of 2012 to comply with the requirements of the law. Thus
the costs to expand the crate sizes over a period of 6
years will be very minimal.
The issue of cruelty to animals as addressed in this
initiative is a moral one. We the voters of Arizona must
take the high road through our hearts to diminish the
inhumane treatment of veal calves and pregnant sows. We
are their only voices.
Arizonans have already shared their humane hearts in
that over 1000 volunteer signature gatherers and 218,000
signers paved the way to place the Humane Farming
initiative on the November 2006 ballot. They are all to
be congratulat and so shall Arizona voters who will make
our State a shining example of treating all animals with
humane respect.
Jim Shea, Phoenix
I support Proposition 204, the Humane Farming
Initiative, and I grew up on a small farm (which my
family still owns) where I participated in the raising
and slaughter of pigs and cows for years.
When this initiative was first proposed, the large
factory farm lobby started a campaign of name-calling
and scare-tactics, claiming that those who supported the
Humane Farming Initiative were "radicals" with an
"anti-meat" agenda. This is not the case.
The initiative language simply seeks to prevent a pig or
calf from being confined so tightly that it cannot lie
down or turn around for the majority of a day. This is
not a radical or anti-meat concept. At no time were any
of the animals on our family farm ever constrained to
the point that they could not lie down or turn around
for an entire day. I cannot think of a legitimate reason
to treat a farm animal so poorly and neither can the
large factory farm lobby - - which is why they have
decided to launch a campaign against the Initiative's
supporters while ignoring the Initiative's true purpose.
Please do not be fooled by the political tactics of big
business and vote YES on Proposition 204, the Humane
Farming Initiative. We CAN farm animals humanely.
Sherry R. Scott, Scottsdale
The Second Chance Center for Animals in Flagstaff
encourages Arizona voters to vote "YES" on Proposition
204, "Arizonans for Humane Farms."
As the largest animal welfare organization in the
Northern Arizona region, we have had the pleasure of
seeing the care and concern that residents of our
community, and the other rural communities in our area,
have for animals. Many farming and ranching operations
dot the countryside of Northern Arizona - cattle and
other livestock can be seen grazing over thousands of
acres along interstate highways and country roadsides.
This is farming and ranching as it was meant to be, as
many of us experienced as children, and how some in the
"industrial farming" world would have us believe is
still the norm. Sadly, these pastoral scenes are
becoming a "vanishing resource" and are coming under
greater threat of large-scale factory farms who have
little regard for animals as anything more than
"production units" designed to put money into corporate
pockets.
Our organization was founded out of a deep sense of
obligation to alleviate the suffering of animals in the
northern Arizona community. As a compassionate people,
we as citizens of Arizona must speak out against the
horrible suffering endured by animals raised in
industrialized factory farms. This proposition does not
prohibit animal slaughter or restrict the consumption of
meat products, as opponents would like to have you
think. It is about one thing only - pen size. Who would
seek to deny an animal the simple freedoms of laying
down, stretching out, and turning around? We must demand
basic decency and the reduction of unnecessary suffering
from all animals in our great state.
Please join the Second Chance Center for Animals, and
our rural neighbors, in voting "YES" for Proposition
204, and setting the standard for humane care for all
animals.
Robert W. Koons, President, Board of Directors, Second Chance Center for Animals, Flagstaff
Richard F. Wilson, Treasurer, Board of Directors and Founder, Second Chance Center for Animals, Flagstaff
Paid for by "Second Chance Center for Animals"
As scientists, we are concerned about the serious danger
that factory farming presents to public health.
Over half of U.S. farm animals are now concentrated on 5
percent of livestock farms. As these concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) grow, so do health concerns.
CAFOs generate an estimated 2 trillion pounds of animal
manure yearly. Stored in open air lagoons, manure wastes
generate organic dust, molds, toxic bacteria, and
volatile gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide.
Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control, the
University of Iowa and Iowa State all agree that CAFO
emissions may in fact constitute a hazard to public and
worker health, finding increased incidents of headaches,
brain damage, gastrointestinal illnesses and even
life-threatening pulmonary edema.
Moreover, children who attend school near large-scale
livestock farms may be at higher risk for asthma,
according to a study in the Journal of the American
College of Chest Physicians (June 2006).
To sustain animals in the crowded and unnatural
conditions of industrial farming, antibiotics and
related drugs are used in massive quantities. This
produces antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can render
drugs ineffective in protecting and saving human lives.
Children especially are at high risk of infections with
drug-resistant organisms linked directly to the
agricultural use of antimicrobials. According to a
peer-reviewed study by researchers at Johns Hopkins
University, inhaling air from industrial hog farms can
serve as another pathway for antibiotic-resistant
bacteria. Hundreds of organizations, including the
American Medical Association, oppose the routine use of
antibiotics as feed additives.
The American Public Health Association has issued a call
for local, state, and federal officials to enact a
moratorium on any new factory farms because of their
devastating effects on human health and the environment.
Your YES vote on the Humane Farm Act is a crucial step
in the right direction.
Cynthia J. Jacquemart, MD, Pediatrics, Phoenix
Heather Lane, CPNP, Pediatrics, Glendale
Jeffrey L. Maxcy, MD, Pediatrics, Glendale
Mary J. McGee, MD, Pediatrics, Waddell
Nolawi M. Mengesha, Internal Medicine, Phoenix
Cecil F. Michael, Jr., MD, Pediatrics, Peoria
Sangeeta N. Ojha, MD, Pediatrics, Phoenix
Krystal Palmer, Pediatrics, Peoria
Robin Silver, MD, Emergency Medicine, Phoenix
Carrie L. Walters, Neurosurgery, Phoenix
Deborah Wilson, MD, Gynecology, Advanced Laparoscopic Surgery, Paradise Valley
Paid for by " The Law Office of Stephanie Nichols-Young"
The Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act is a chance for
Arizonans of every background - from conservative
Republican to liberal Democrat - to join in agreement
that abusing helpless animals is wrong.
Consider what some noted conservatives have recently had
to say about factory farming.
Veteran conservative columnist George F. Will wrote of
the "intrinsic evil" of cruelty to animals, citing the
"pain-inflicting confinements and mutilations" of
factory farming that make it a "serious issue of public
policy."
Conservative Fred Barnes, a Fox commentator, observed in
The Wall Street Journal: "On the old family farms, pigs
and cattle and chickens were raised for food, but they
were free for a time. . . They had a life. On industrial
farms they don't."
Conservative author Andrew Ferguson wrote in Bloomberg
News about the attitude that views farm animals as "mere
production units." Gestation crates that prevent pigs
from even turning around are, he observed, "just one of
the cruel innovations the modern industrial farm depends
upon."
Conservative Jeffrey Hart of National Review defined
factory farming as "the horrific treatment of millions
of farm animals." And Father Richard John Neuhaus of
National Review wrote of "the horrors perpetuated
against pigs on industrial farms." The facts of
industrial farming, said Father Neuhaus, constitute "a
prima facie case that such methods entail cruelty to
animals that warrants public and governmental
attention."
Charles Colson, the Christian author, urged his fellow
conservatives to find out "the cattle of the earth are
treated on factory farms," because "we have a duty to
prevent the needless torment of animals."
On Election Day, that's what the Humane Treatment of
Farm Animals really comes down to - our duty to prevent
cruelty and needless animal suffering. And Arizonans can
affirm that simple moral principle with a resounding
"Yes" for humane farms.
The Honorable Kathleen Dunbar, Former Arizona State Representative, Legislative District 13, Tucson
The Honorable Barbara Leff, Arizona State Senator, Legislative District 11, Paradise Valley
The Honorable Carolyn S. Allen, Arizona State Senator, Legislative District 8, Scottsdale
The Honorable Toni Hellon, Arizona State Senator, Legislative District 13, Tucson
Paid for by "Arizona Humane Society"
The Humane Society of Southern Arizona, an organization
dedicated to rescuing, protecting and saving the lives
of animals for over sixty years, strongly endorses a
"yes" vote on Proposition 204, "Arizonans for Humane
Farms." This ballot initiative will outlaw the cruel and
intensive confinement of pregnant pigs and veal calves
on factory farms.
For decades, Arizona's farmers raised animals in a
humane manner - allowing them to go outdoors and engage
in other natural behaviors. Today, many family farmers
have been displaced by corporate farming interests that
show little concern for basic animal husbandry
standards. Instead, they raise animals in intensive
confinement - in conditions so severe that the animals
cannot even turn around in their cages or crates. The
extreme overcrowded conditions cause suffering for the
animals while polluting the air, contaminating
groundwater and threatening human health. This
proposition will restore Arizona's tradition of humane
farming and protect animals, the environment and human
health.
This proposition simply states that calves raised for
veal and pregnant pigs should not be confined in a
manner that prevents them from lying down and fully
extending their limbs, or from being able to turn around
freely. It would continue to allow the use of pig
farrowing crates, which are commonly used during the
time of birthing when the young pigs are most at risk
from injury. It would, however, eliminate a cruel
practice that has no place in this state.
This is not a radical proposition; even those animals
raised for slaughter deserve to be treated decently and
humanely. This proposition is about setting clear and
ethical standards of animal husbandry within our state,
and defining the limits of acceptable treatment to
animals raised for food. It bars the worst cruelties of
factory farming, and puts the law on the side of
compassion.
Susan Wilson, President/CEO, Humane Society of Southern Arizona, Tucson
M. Jo Smith, Chair Board of Directors, Humane Society of Southern Arizona, Tucson
Paid for by "The Humane Society of Southern Arizona, Inc."
As a fourth generation rancher, I urge you to support
the Humane Farming Initiative.
Several large housed hog factories were planned and
developed near my family's ranch in northeastern
Colorado. As I saw what was involved by the sheer number
of hogs and volume of waste, I became very concerned
about the Ogallala Aquifer which is the sole source of
water for our community and other impact to our way of
life. I soon realized that these operations would do
more to destroy and devastate rural communities and our
way of life than enhance it.
I helped build support for a grassroots citizens'
initiative in the state of Colorado in 1998. We placed
an initiative on the ballot that voters approved by 63%
to regulate big hog factories. Amendment 14 set-out
protections for air standards and water regulations on
the waste from large commercial hog operations, in an
attempt to keep these industrialized facilities from
adversely affecting Colorado's valuable water, air, and
land.
This fight is being waged all over the country on many
fronts, pitting small ranchers and farmers and their
rural lifestyle against the industrial animal factories,
many of which are owned by large, out of state
corporations. They tend to divide the communities they
locate in and tear the social fabric often beyond
repair.
I live near these sites and have first-hand experience
on how small, rural communities are affected.
Industrialized animal factories also use what I believe
to be cruel animal husbandry practices which most
traditional family farmers and ranchers do not condone.
That's why I support the efforts of Arizonans for Humane
Farms.
Don't be fooled, in my opinion and experience, Big
Agribusiness does not represent the position of family
ranchers and farmers.
Sue Jarrett, Wray
Paid for by Karen Michael
Dear fellow Arizonans,
I'm an Arizona resident and I grew up on a small family
farm, so I understand what family farming is all about.
I'm also aware of what's happened to small family
farmers and the environment in our neighbor state of
Utah since a mega-factory pork operation opened up in
the mid-1990s. I strongly encourage my fellow Arizonans
to vote YES on the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act.
In Utah, when a mega-factory pork producer opened up
just over a decade ago, it severely harmed the local
farming families. The number of small pig farmers in the
state has dwindled since the opening of this factory
farm, but the number of pigs raised in the state has
skyrocketed. In just a three-year period, the number of
Utah pig farms fell from 800 to 500, while pork
production increased nearly seven-fold: from 44,000 to
295,000 pigs. In addition, the Utah operation had
several large "spills" of contaminated waste, resulting
in fines and severely harming the environment.
Don't be fooled by the opposition to this initiative.
The Humane Farming Act IS about protecting small family
farms and the environment. We shouldn't allow Arizona to
become like Utah. A YES vote is the right thing for
Arizona and it's of no cost to the taxpayer. For the
sake of our state's small family farmers and our
environment, please VOTE YES on The Humane Treatment of
Farm Animals Act.
Kelly Cooney, Queen Creek
The twentieth century has witnessed the rise of
industrialized, confinement animal agriculture, a
different approach from the traditional animal husbandry
eloquently described in the 23rd Psalm, which approach
created a fair, symbiotic, mutually beneficial and
ancient contract between humans and animals.
In my opinion, as author of books on farm animal welfare
and teacher of animal science, veterinary, and
philosophy classes, sow stalls represent confinement
practices at their worst. Given the natural behavior of
sows, involving extensive foraging on soft loam and
building nests on hillsides for excreta to run off, and
their high intelligence, confining them in small
enclosure typically measuring 2' X 7' by 3', called
gestation crates, for most of their productive lives is
morally unacceptable. No sows can turn around in these
crates, and many cannot stand up or scratch; some cannot
lie down with their body fully extended. Behavioral
anomalies, signs of unmitigated stress, and "production
disease" problems arise; not a major problem in
extensive situations.
The industrialization of swine production has caused
other societal problems. These include the loss of small
producers (Between 1974 and 1996 numbers of producers
declined from 750,000 to 157,000). Between 1994 and
1996, one out of every four hog producers left the
business. This in turn led to loss and devitalization of
rural communities based in hog production. In addition,
"pig-smart" workers have been replaced by unskilled,
minimum-wage labor in many industrial operations. The
concentration of hogs in large numbers in confinement
operations leads to air and water pollution, problems of
waste disposal, odor problems, decline in property
values, problems of sustainability and issues of worker
health, as well as problems of "political health", with
large operations exerting unhealthy influence on the
political process. We must recall Jefferson's dictum
that small, independent farmers are the backbone of
democracy.
Bernard Rollin, Fort Collins
Paid for by "Arizona Humane Society"
As the nation's largest animal welfare group with more
than 9.5 million supporters--including 188,000 who live
in Arizona, 1 in every 27 state residents--The Humane
Society of the United States urges a "Yes" vote on the
Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act.
All animals deserve humane treatment, including those
animals raised for food. Farm animals should not be
subjected to cruel and intensive confinement that
prevents even the most basic movement. Unrelieved
confinement causes their muscles to weaken, joints to
stiffen, bones to become brittle and break, and causes
the animals undue stress and immense frustration.
Leading farm animal welfare scientists oppose these
cruel crates. Farm animal expert Dr. Temple Grandin
states, "Gestation crates for pigs are a real
problem...Basically, you're asking a sow to live in an
airline seat...I think it's something that needs to be
phased out."
This measure protects traditional farms and their
ethic of common sense animal husbandry. Family farmers
have a proud tradition of ensuring that their animals
have decent lives. Arizona's pig farms never resembled
industrial hog factories, where the animals live their
entire lives in crates and never feel the sun or the
soil.
Just as animals deserve a merciful death, they deserve
a merciful life. There is a law requiring humane
slaughter of farm animals, but no laws to require
humane treatment while they are being reared.
This measure will prevent massive new corporate hog
farms from taking root in Arizona. In Utah, a
corporate farm, housing nearly 1 million pigs, set up
operation in the Utah desert, with detrimental effects
on animals, groundwater, and local communities.
Giving animals enough space to turn around and fully
extend their limbs is just common sense and common
decency.
Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, Bethesda
David Wiebers, M.D., Chair, Board of Directors, Rochester
Paid for by "The Humane Society of the United States"
I have devoted my life to studying animals in the wild,
and now I am attempting to use my experience and
understanding of animals to advocate for their
well-being. I am proud to join my friends at the Arizona
Humane Society and the Humane Society of the United
States in supporting the Humane Treatment of Farm
Animals Act.
All animals deserve humane treatment, including those
raised for food. On factory farms, animals are treated
as mere machines. Two of the most notorious factory
farming practices are the confinement of pigs and calves
in restrictive crates, which this measure seeks to
change:
Pigs are highly intelligent--as intelligent as dogs.
Yet sows kept for breeding on factory farms are
confined in tiny individual crates so narrow they
cannot even turn around. Deprived of nearly all
opportunity to express their natural behavior, they
bite at anything they can reach. Then they give up,
become listless, and behave as though they are in
mourning - with head lowered and eyes glazed.
Most calves raised for veal are chained by the neck
inside of similarly restrictive crates. They cannot
lie in comfort. They cannot even turn around. At the
end, after four months of suffering, they are dragged
from their prisons, their legs so weak that they can
barely walk.
Not only is this mistreatment of animals unconscionable
and inhumane, the future of small family farmers hangs
in the balance as more and more traditional farmers give
up, unable to compete with the corporate factory farms
whose sole aim is to make as much profit per animal as
possible.
Anyone concerned about the humane treatment of animals
or the viability of small family farms should vote yes
on Measure 204, and approve the Humane Treatment of Farm
Animals Act.
Jane Goodall, PhD, DBE, Founder, Arlington
William Johnston, President, Arlington
Paid for by "The Jane Goodall Institute"
Arguments "AGAINST" Proposition 204
VOTE NO on the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act.
While the Act on the surface is benign, it represents
the beginning of a campaign by Animal Rights - Animal
Worshipers to force us to become vegetarians.
New Zealand has banned cooking live lobsters in
boiling water alleging that it is painful for the
lobsters. A restaurant in Italy was fined for
displaying live lobsters on ice alleging that it was
painful. In Norway they tried to have the Government
ban the use of worms as fish bait on the grounds that
it was painful for the worms. Invertebrates such as
lobsters and worms can not feel pain.
In the U.K they are trying to have angling (sports
fishing) banned on the grounds that the fish feel pain
when caught on a fishhook. There is no evidence that
fish consciously feel pain.
They are trying to have the Kosher slaughter of cows
banned in the United States. It is banned in Germany,
Norway, Switzerland, and New Zealand. One of the first
actions Nazi Germany took against the Jews was to ban
the Kosher slaughter of animals.
Extremist Animal Rights - Animal Worshippers have
burned down animal slaughter plants.
They have demanded that the University of Arizona shut
down its Animal Sciences Program. (Arizona Daily
Wildcat, April 22, 2003: p. 1)
They are opposed to the mutilation of cockroaches
(Science, May 19, 2006: p. 979)
Stop this Nonsense Now. Vote No on the Humane Treatment
of Farm Animals Act.
Alfred Levinson, Tucson
VOTE NO on Prop 204
It's a sad day when out-of-state , anti-meat ,
anti-science based interest groups can come to Arizona
from back East to push their cruel and inhumane agenda
on Arizona's farm families.
They paid petition signature gatherers to spread
false-hoods and distort modern, humane and science-based
agricultural practices.
The U.S. is already becoming a net importer of
agriculture this year.
Vote 'NO' and let the liberal Farm Sanctuary and the
other outside backers know that their agenda won't fly
in Arizona!
Chris Udall, Executive Director
Agri-Business Council of Arizona, Inc.
N.W. "Bill" Plummer, Secretary
Agri-Business Council of Arizona, Inc.
Chris Udall, Executive Director, Agri-Business Council of Arizona, Inc., Mesa
N.W. "Bill" Plummer, Secretary, Agri- Business Council of Arizona, Inc., Scottsdale
Paid for by "Agri-Buisness Council of Arizona,
Inc."
As a small family producer of pork products and a third
generation born and raised Arizonan, I am very concerned
of an initiative that will be presented to the Arizona
voters by out of state special interest groups in an
attempt to place unnecessary regulations on Arizona's
pork producers.
Arizona pork producers follow industry guidelines, which
are tested, researched, and approved by the American
Veterinary Medical Association. A stress free
environment is critical to all pork production
operations as well as fresh water and nutritious feed.
Our herd is fed a fresh ration that is ground on site
from corn, soybean, minerals and vitamins. No hormones,
old or spoiled products are ever added to our feed.
Arizona pork producers work many long hours from the
break of day, feeding and caring for the herd to all
hours of the night as sows farrow bringing the next
generation into the world. These tasks are necessary to
bring the pork product to harvest in State and Federally
inspected processing plants.
Many Arizona jobs are dependant on the production of
pork in Arizona. Placing impractical restrictions will
effect the production and inevitability put the family
farm out of business. This will in turn have the
"trickle down" effect with loss of jobs in many other
supporting industries that employ Arizona citizens.
Arizona we must vote NO !
Vicki Trump, Arizona Berkshires, Buckeye
As a small producer of pork products, we ask that the
Arizona voters are informed of an initiative that will
be presented by out of state special interest groups
like HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) Farm
Sanctuary, PETA, and others as an attempt to place
regulations on Arizona's pork producers.
As an Arizona pork producer for 35 years, we use
industry accepted methods in our swine production.
Agriculture is an important part of Arizona history as
well as its future and feeding Arizonan's is the goal of
the pork producer. An environment with the least amount
of stress to ensure top quality product for the consumer
is imperative to a successful harvest.
Many jobs in Arizona are dependent on Agriculture;
initiatives like Proposition 204 will put many Arizona
jobs in jeopardy including the occupation of the small
pig farmer. We will Vote NO on this Proposition.
Pam Fiakas, PamLann Farms, Litchfield Park
Lanny Fahs, PamLann Farms, Litchfield Park
I am a contributor to the Arizona Humane Society and I
do not support this initiative.
We all have a moral obligation to respect and treat
animals humanely. That is why we have laws dealing with
cruelty. Farmers and Ranchers go beyond their moral
obligation and care for their animals because of the
products they produce. Animals that are treated poorly
do not produce as well as the animals that are cared for
using today's modern, safe, and sanitary practices.
Today's food products from these animals are safe,
wholesome and affordable.
I hope voters see this initiative for what it is. It was
brought to Arizona by two out-of-state animal rights
groups with their pro-vegetarian, and anti-meat agendas.
Farmers and ranchers take very good care of their
animals as though their family's livelihood depends on
it. To say otherwise is HOGWASH.
Please vote NO.
Cecil H. Miller, Jr., Litchfield Park
Out-of State Anti-Farm Groups Target Arizona Farmers and
Ranchers.
I am a teacher, counselor and a small family farmer.
These out-of-state animal rights groups, Farm Sanctuary
and Humane Society of the U.S. shut down two family farm
operations in Florida with this same initiative. Now
they are here in Arizona with their anti-farm agenda.
I know Arizona farmers large and small treat their
animals humanely. I have Christian values that include
respecting and caring for God's creations.
Farmers have an additional reason to give proper care
and attention to farm animals. Animals that are not
treated with proper care do not produce the food
products we enjoy at our dinner table.
I hope voters will join me and vote NO on Proposition
204.
Sherry Saylor, Buckeye
PETA and PETA Wannabes Do Not Speak for Arizona.
PETA activists are responsible for burning down
buildings, vandalizing businesses and harassing citizens
with their pro-vegan, anti-meat, anti-fur, anti-research
and anti-farm agenda. Their New York and Washington D.C.
based kissing cousins, Farm Sanctuary and Humane Society
of the U.S. are telling Arizona voters that Arizona
farmers treat their pigs and veal calves inhumanely.
First, we do not raise veal in Arizona so that is their
first lie to voters.
Second, our one large hog operation that these radicals
have targeted, has a clean bill of health from our own
Environmental Department. So, that is lie number two
when they say we are polluting the air and water.
Third, this modern livestock facility provides a safe
and sanitary environment that reduces stress on the
animals. Their statements that pigs are being treated
cruelly and are under stress, is lie number three. The
American Veterinarian Medical Association says these
modern facilities cause no more stress on the animal
than do other types of pens.
Fourth, the hogs can lie down and stretch their legs.
Their lie number four says they cannot.
Their fifth lie is that they are protecting the small
farmer. These radical groups successfully ran this same
initiative in Florida and the result was that the two
small family operations that were in Florida are no
longer raising hogs.
Their arguments in Arizona are HOGWASH. If some of them
hold water in other states, they should take the
initiative there. Arizona farmers and ranchers should
not be saddled with criminal offenses for a problem that
does not exist here.
Vote NO on Proposition 204.
Elizabeth Foster, Gilbert
Proposition 204 is HOGWASH!
The Humane Society of the United States and Farm
Sanctuary, the out-of-state backers of this initiative,
have an extremist agenda of eliminating livestock
agriculture and meat consumption in this country. They
are not friends of farmers. They are not friends of
consumers. Their agenda for you is anti-choice. Their
agenda for Arizona farmers is anti-meat and
anti-science.
Modern agriculture is humane and science based - just
ask the American Veterinarian Medical Association. These
out-of-state radicals challenge the morality and ethics
of farmers at the same time saying they are defending
the family farm. This same initiative by these same
groups put Florida family hog farmers out of business in
2002. Now they have come to Arizona.
They are defenders only of their extremist agenda, and
we hope Arizona voters see through the "hogwash" they
serve up - let's label their message "return to sender".
Vote NO on 204. It is HOGWASH!
Kevin G. Rogers, President, Arizona Farm Bureau, Mesa
James W. Klinker, Chief Administrative Officer, Arizona Farm Bureau, Mesa
Paid for by "Arizona Farm Bureau"
Vote NO on Proposition 204
As a practicing Veterinarian and life long caretaker of
animals - I ask you to join me in voting NO on
Proposition 204. It does not provide for a single
measure that will actually improve the care or lives of
hogs and calves. It ignores decades of animal husbandry
and animal science practices which have proven to
increase the care and health of these animals.
Most of the animals I see everyday in my veterinary
practice are better cared for when they are confined in
ways to reduce the stress and competition created by
grouping animals of different sizes and ages. Today's
modern producer understands the needs and provides the
expertise - gained by the experience of watching their
animals each and everyday - necessary for their comfort,
care and performance.
As a professional veterinarian, I have taken and uphold
my medical oath to care for the animals I treat and
diagnose. Arizona's livestock producing families follow
a strong ethical and economical model when taking care
of their animals.
These are practices - which out-of-state animal rights
groups neither care to learn or take the time to
understand - that make each day with nutritious feed and
professional care the best they can get. Not once have
any of these out-of-state groups asked me for my
professional expertise about improving animal care.
Please join this veterinarian in voting NO on
Proposition 204.
Jerry Biwer, DVM, Casa Grande
Out-of-state animal rights groups are coming to Arizona
in an effort to give our livestock producers a black
eye. Don't fall for their tactics and let's send them
back East by voting NO on Proposition 204.
The Flake family has been raising livestock in Arizona
longer than animal rights organizations like PETA and
Farm Sanctuary have been in business. We know livestock
care - we know animal husbandry - and we know it is
impossible to make a profit running our businesses if we
do not provide the proper care for the animals we
produce.
Arizona's livestock producing families have strong
ethical, regulatory and economic incentives in place to
ensure the proper treatment of the animals under their
care and Proposition 204 does not provide a single
measure to improve the care of livestock.
I have been in the Legislature for a long time and
neither PETA nor the Farm Sanctuary has ever come to see
me about livestock care. Not once have they ever asked
to visit my ranch or understand what it takes to produce
food for families. Proposition 204 and its heavy handed
regulatory process will ultimately lead to moving pork
production to other places like Mexico and South
America. Now I have nothing against those places - but I
like the food we produce in the United States just fine.
Join me in keeping our jobs and food production in
Arizona. Vote NO on Proposition 204.
Senator Jake Flake, Arizona State Senate, Snowflake
The Arizona Cattle Growers Association strongly opposes
Proposition 204. Arizona's ranch families continue to
practice and support all of those who participate in new
and scientifically proven animal husbandry. It is our
duty and responsibility to treat our animals with care
in order to produce beef as safely as possible to ensure
a healthy product for consumers. The association has
developed Beef Quality Assurance Guidelines to help
ranch families ensure a quality product for all to
enjoy.
Proposition 204 goes beyond expanding the stalls of sows
and calves; the out-of-state animal rights groups who
brought it to our state have a hidden agenda to end all
animal agriculture. Producing livestock is more than a
job here in Arizona, for many of us it is family
tradition to put food on the table of Arizona's
families. Do not allow these out-of-state animal rights
groups to end these family traditions for those who have
worked so hard to keep it alive.
Vote no on Prop. 204.
Bill Brake, President, Arizona Cattle Growers Association, Scottsdale
Tom Chilton, Vice President, Arizona Cattle Growers Association, Tucson
Paid for by "Arizona Cattle Growers Association"
Arizona's Livestock Producers Care for Their Animals!
Please join Arizona's livestock producing families in
voting NO on Proposition 204. It is a false choice! It
is a measure brought to Arizona by out-of-state animal
rights groups that disagree with animal agriculture.
Arizona's livestock producing families provide the best
of care for their animals. All of our animals receive
professional veterinary care. Each and every day we
provide them with nutritious feed, vitamins and water -
while they provide us with our livelihoods. We never
have had a PETA person assist us in feeding these
animals when it was 110 degrees outside. We have never
found them assisting us when we were knee deep in mud
fixing one of the water lines to quench our animals
thirst.
Animal husbandry is what we know, what we practice and
what we employ when producing food for Arizona's dinner
tables. We follow nature's law - we take care of our
animals and our animals take care of us.
When we have challenged these groups to join us in
providing additional resources for animal health
research, animal welfare studies and expanded education
efforts - they have been silent. When we explained that
the criminal code and jails do nothing for educating or
improving animal husbandry - we were ignored. When we
have asked them to assist us in overcoming the
challenges of producing highly nutritious meals for
Arizona's nearly 7 million consumers - they were out
protesting. They have not helped.
We join Arizona's voters in seeking to improve animal
care - however, Proposition 204 will hurt - not help us
in achieving that goal.
Vote NO on 204.
Scott Shill, President, Arizona Cattle Feeders' Association, Welton
Jerry Kennedy, Board Member, Arizona Cattle Feeders' Association, Casa Grande
Paid for by "Arizona Cattle Feeders' Association"
ARGUMENT AGAINST PROP 204
Proposition 204 is an attack on Arizona's Farm and Ranch
families. Out-of-state animal rights groups want you to
cast a vote against our farm and ranch families. Don't
be fooled!
Proposition 204 is about a choice --- You can vote for
Arizona's Farm and Ranch Families.....or you can vote
for out-of-state animal rights groups.
Vote NO on Proposition 204.
William L. Sawyer, Maricopa
ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 204
Radical out-of-state animal rights groups are coming to
our great state with yet another anti-farm and anti-meat
agenda. Proposition 204 will increase the cost of
producing meat in our state by ignoring historically
recognized farm animal welfare practices.
Proposition 204 will drive the production of pork to
other states and even other countries like Mexico. The
Farm Sanctuary ran a similar proposition in Florida
which caused the only two family pork farms in Florida
to shut down - we don't want this to happen in Arizona.
Proposition 204 is about eliminating our choices as
consumers. Don't let the Farm Sanctuary take away your
choice as a consumer.
Vote NO on Proposition 204.
Norman J. Hinz, Jr., Maricopa
Say NO to the Out-of-State Animal Rights Agenda
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry urges
Arizonans to vote NO on Proposition 204 because it is
unnecessary and its passage will spur other campaigns
that threaten one industry after another and the jobs
they provide.
Proposition 204 is a government infringement on the
rights of Arizona farmers to conduct their operations
according to customary industry standards.
Agriculture has long been a foundation of the Arizona
economy, and remains so today. This measure singles out
hog and veal farming, but could well be extended to
other agricultural operations if it passes. Ironically,
Arizona has only one hog operation in the state and no
veal industry. This begs the question of why they are
seeking to put this new law on the books.
The Arizona Republic reported on July 10th ("Initiatives
Attracting Big Money -
Out-Of-State Donations at Issue") that out-of-state
animal rights groups have, to that date, funneled
$325,000 into this initiative. Their time and money
would have been better spent focusing their efforts on
market reforms that rely on free consumer choice rather
than government coercion. This same group backed a
similar ballot measure in Florida using government
coercion which has bankrupted that state's only two hog
farms
Arizona voters must stay firm in rejecting the use of
our initiative process to target unreasonably specific
industries and businesses. That is why the Arizona
Chamber of Commerce and Industry urges Arizonans to vote
NO on Proposition 204.
Steve Twist, Chairman of Board of Directors, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Scottsdale
James J. Apperson, President & CEO, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Scottsdale
Paid for by "Arizona Chamber of Commerce"
Prop 204 is HOGWASH!
Arizona's farmers and ranchers strongly oppose
Proposition 204 and ask Arizona voters to do the same.
The initiative is created and funded by out-of-state
animal rights organizations as a part of their national
political agenda to end meat production in the United
States.
Prop 204 sets groundbreaking criminal penalties for farm
practices that are veterinarian approved and have been
in place for generations.
Indeed, should 204 be approved, farmers and ranchers in
Arizona could go to jail and pay thousands of dollars in
fines.
Prop 204 would pile unnecessary regulations on Arizona
farmers and ranchers with no positive result for farm
animals. These regulations will lead to higher costs and
even more pressure to relocate the raising of animals
for food to other states, maybe even other countries.
We don't want to see the U.S. dependent on foreign food
like we are dependent on foreign oil.
This proposition is a ridiculous over-reaching political
effort by out-of-state extremists.
1. Extreme animal rights agenda.
2. Higher costs for food.
3. Farm operations leaving Arizona.
Proposition 204 is hogwash.
Jim Klinker, Chairman, Campaign for Arizona Farmers and Ranchers
Robert Schuler, Treasurer, Campaign for Arizona Farmers and Ranchers
Jim Klinker, Chairman, Campaign for Arizona Farmers and Ranchers, Mesa
Robert Schuler, Treasurer, Campaign for Arizona Farmers and Ranchers, Scottsdale
Paid for by "Campaign for Arizona Farmers and Ranchers"
New Criminal Penalties for Farmers and Ranchers?
Prop 204 would create a new law in Arizona's 'CRIMINAL
CODE' that could put farmers and ranchers in prison for
6 months and fine them $20,000 -- All for raising farm
animals as they have for generations.
Why on earth is anyone proposing to turn our farmers and
ranchers into criminals?
Vote 'NO' on Prop 204.
Alice Lara, Phoenix
Alice Lara, Phoenix
Hamburger meat from Mexico?
The Prop 204/Hogwash initiative will cause our food to
come from foreign countries.
And, those countries don't necessarily have the same
health and safety regulations as the United States.
We can't continue to run farmers and ranchers out of
business and expect our food production to stay in
America.
Prop 204? I'm voting 'NO' on Nov. 7!
Faith Willman, Phoenix
Faith Willman, Phoenix
Veterinarians Oppose Prop 204
As professional veterinarians doing business here in
Arizona, we all stand in opposition to this ballot
measure. It is misguided, unnecessary and not based on
sound science or research.
We urge you to vote 'NO'.
Kathryn J. Beers, DVM, Chandler
Alan B. Herring, DVM, Chandler
Stephen A. Smalley, VMD, Chandler
Bruce Ericsson, DVM, Chandler
Marjorie LiNard, DVM, Chandler
Neil B. Holmes, DVM, Buckeye
Niles R. Jennett, Chandler,
Tucson Veterinarian Urges 'NO' on 204
Professionals involved in swine health and production
continually evaluate methods of housing and caring for
pigs.
Animals that are comfortable and well cared for are more
productive.
Good animal care practices are generally appreciated by
consumer groups.
A study based on sound scientific investigation was
conducted by the American Veterinary Medical Association
and resulted in a position statement which concludes
that individual husbandry is more important than housing
method and indicates that open housing and gestation
stalls can be equally acceptable if properly used.
Sound governance would benefit from regulations based on
sound science and professional experience rather than
political agendas
that use innuendo and attempt to falsely influence those
who have no swine care experience.
Uninformed interference with sound management practices
will ultimately result in less available and more
expensive food products.
VOTE NO.
Bob Glock, Veterinarian, Tucson
Bob Glock, Veterinarian, Tucson
Veterinarian Says Vote 'NO'
This is a cynical attempt by those outside Arizona to
denigrate the good work of Arizona farmers and ranchers
who raise animals humanely for the production of food.
I am a veterinarian, with a Masters degree in swine
production and medicine, and manager of a hog farm in
northeastern Arizona. I and more than 100 highly trained
employees have dedicated ourselves to raising animals
humanely. For us, the humane treatment of animals is
fundamental to our livelihoods.
We provide our animals nutritious diets of corn,
soybeans and vitamins, as well as access to fresh water
at all times. We keep them in barns that are specially
designed to allow sunlight and fresh air in, while
protecting them from extreme heat and cold, snow and
rain. We also take steps to protect them from illness
and injuries, and we provide prompt medical attention
when needed. Consistent with sound scientific data and
many years of real world experience, our practices and
policies promote the welfare of our animals.
As a veterinarian, I took an oath to protect animal
health and relieve animal suffering, which I don't take
lightly. As a farm manager, I have a duty to raise
animals effectively - and humanely - in order to be
successful in the marketplace. These are
responsibilities that do not conflict. Indeed, they go
hand in hand.
I urge Arizonans to VOTE 'NO'.
Don Davidson, Veterinarian, Pinetop
Don Davidson, Veterinarian, Pinetop
Arizona Veterinarian Opposes Initiative
As a veterinarian, I have sworn to protect animal health
and relieve animal suffering. Every day, my work is
focused on providing effective - and humane - care to
the animals in my charge.
As an Arizona hog producer, who also holds a Masters
degree in swine production and medicine, I understand
and accept my responsibility to promote the welfare of
animals raised for the production of food. They have
free access to fresh water and receive nutritious diets
of corn, soybeans and vitamins designed by expert
nutritionists. The animals are kept in specially
designed barns that protect them from extreme heat and
cold, snow and rain, while allowing sunlight and fresh
air in. They are protected from illness and injuries
that often occur among herds and receive prompt medical
attention when needed. Employees who provide hands-on,
day-to-day care are highly trained and certified under
scientifically based programs developed by leading
experts.
I grew up on a farm and, like many other veterinarians,
developed a deep respect for livestock early in life.
That respect for animal welfare provided the motivation
for a career in veterinary medicine.
At the same time, I have an obligation to consumers to
produce safe, high quality pork.
Those of us who raise pigs in Arizona are living proof
that it is indeed possible to meet the expectations of
the marketplace and society's demand for the humane
treatment of farm animals.
I urge Arizonans to VOTE NO.
Mike Terrill, Veterinarian, Pinetop
Mike Terrill, Veterinarian, Pinetop
The success of Arizona livestock producers is dependent
upon their ability to produce healthy animals. For
generations, farmers and ranchers have prided themselves
on providing their animals effective - and humane -
care, the result of which is safe, high quality products
for consumers.
Arizona hog farmers house their animals in specially
designed barns that protect them from extreme
temperatures, rain, and snow. Curtain-sided barns allow
natural light and fresh air in while also protecting
animals from harmful UV rays. The animals are fed
nutritious diets of corn, soybeans and vitamins designed
by expert nutritionists.
Breeding sows, the female animals that produce the pigs
which are sold at market, are kept in group pens and
individual stalls, both commonly used and humane methods
of housing. Animals kept in stalls during gestation are
able to move forward and back, lie down comfortably and
fully extend their limbs.
Approved by leading veterinary groups, including the
American Veterinary Medical Association and the American
Association of Swine Veterinarians, stalls reduce
competition for food and minimize aggression that often
occur in groups. Stalls also enable caregivers to
effectively monitor the medical conditions of animals
and provide individualized care efficiently, minimizing
occurrences of disease among sows.
More important than housing, however, is the
stockmanship of caregivers. Veterinarians, who have
sworn to protect animal health and relieve suffering,
oversee the care of our animals. Day-to-day care is
delivered by highly trained farm employees who receive
ongoing education under science-based initiatives
designed to promote animal welfare. By providing the
tools and expertise to their employees and applying the
learnings gained over decades of real life experience,
Arizona hog farmers demonstrate their commitment to
raising animals humanely and producing safe, nutritious
pork products for consumers.
We urge a no vote.
Michael D. Terrill, D.V.M, President, Arizona Pork Council, Pinetop
Tom Miller, Executive Director, Arizona Pork Council, Casa Grande
Paid for by "Arizona Pork Council"
The United Dairymen of Arizona is a milk marketing
cooperative whose members produce approximately 85% of
the milk in the state of Arizona. Our organization
represents small, medium and large dairies, all of which
are family run businesses. Many of them represent
generations of dairy farmers. We are opposed to this
initiative for three reasons. First, we know that in
order to thrive, livestock operations (whether they are
dairy, beef cattle, poultry or swine) must treat their
animals humanely. If we don't we can't stay in business.
The measure is fundamentally unnecessary. Second, we
resent the fact that organizations and individuals with
no commitment to Arizona, who have no experience of
animal husbandry, and who have nothing to lose in this
fight, have stepped in to manipulate the voters of
Arizona. Finally, the initiative is NOT about stall
size. It's about radical vegans who want to impose their
values and beliefs on the rest of the country, one state
at a time. This is a tofu-wolf in sheep's clothing, and
we urge Arizona voters to vote no on this measure.
Jim Boyle, President, United Dairymen of Arizona, Mesa
Keith Murfield, CEO, United Dairymen of Arizona, Chandler
Paid for by "United Dairymen of Arizona"
Beware of the Con
Arizonans should not confuse our local Humane Societies
with the Humane Society of the U.S. The HSUS is not
affiliated with, nor is it a parent organization for
local humane societies, animal shelters or animal care
and control agencies. Despite the dogs and cats pictured
in its fundraising materials, it doesn't take in stray,
neglected or abused pets, nor does it run spay/neuter
programs. The HSUS does not operate or have direct
control over any animal shelter. It has taken advantage
of the common image of animal protection agencies
dedicated to animal welfare to become the wealthiest
animal rights organization on earth. With an operating
budget of $95 million in 2005, the HSUS could build and
operate an animal shelter facility in every state in the
country.
HSUS is related to other animal rights groups in a way
similar to a mugger is related to a con man. Both will
rob you: they use different tactics, have different
timetables, but the result is still the same. The con
man may even criticize the mugger for using
confrontational tactics and giving all thieves a bad
name, but your money is still gone. HSUS preys on the
emotional connection that many of us have for animals,
and transforms compassionate contributions into campaign
after campaign to impose their values (vegan diet, no
pets, no animal research, etc.) on all of us.
HSUS is currently under investigation in Louisiana for
its activities related to fundraising for Katrina pet
rescue efforts. It spent roughly $6 million of the $29
million it raised to assist in that effort. Wonder where
the other $23 million went... maybe to help underwrite
voter manipulation efforts like the one we're
experiencing here in Arizona.
Vote no on 204.
Frances Lechner, Phoenix
As a fourth generation dairy farmer in Arizona, I am
outraged that this initiative has attempted to dupe
Arizona voters into thinking the goal is to help
animals. This campaign is a slap in the face to Arizona
farmers and ranchers who have always treated our
livestock humanely. To say this is a measure to help
family farms is a joke. Just ask the two family-owned
pork farms in Florida who were forced to shut down after
this same kind of campaign won in 2002. Don't believe
their ads; they are just part of a long, well-funded
campaign by people who want to dictate our animal
raising ethics.
Henry Kibler, Jr., Casa Grande
Voters should not be confused by the apparently tame
language of this initiative. This is part of a long,
expensive, state-by-state process to eliminate the
livestock industry. As a long time dairy farmer, I am
one of John "J.P." Goodwin's targets. Goodwin,
originally from Tennessee, founded the Coalition Against
Fur Trade, and was a spokesman for the Animal Liberation
Front. "J.P." dropped out of high school to participate
in animal rights protests, has been arrested multiple
times for criminal acts and was found guilty of
vandalizing fur stores. Now on staff at HSUS, J.P. has a
huge budget to pursue his goal: "The abolition of all
animal agriculture." This is the same philosophy of Dan
Mathews, a vice president at PETA: "We're at war, and
we'll do what we need to win. If we got rid of the slave
trade, we can get rid of the beef industry." If you eat
meat or eggs, if you like ice cream, or cheese on your
pizza, if pork sausage is a breakfast treat for you, or
if you think others have the right to make these food
choices even if they're not your preference, then vote
NO on this initiative.
Dennis Dugan, Casa Grande
Voters should be asking WHO is behind this campaign,
because it will tell them lots more about WHAT this is
all about. The two large, deep-pocket organizations
behind this campaign share the same philosophy and goals
as radical groups like Animal Liberation Front and PETA.
Bruce Freidrich, President and Co-founder of PETA says
it nicely: "I think it would be great if all of the
fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories
and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow. I think
it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and
toss them through windows. If we really believe that
animals do have the same right to be free from pain and
suffering at our hands, then of course we're going to
be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing
windows. For the record, I don't do this stuff, but I do
advocate it." Or how about fellow co-founder, Ingrid
Newkirk: "Animal liberationists do not separate out the
human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying
that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is
a dog is a boy. They're all mammals." She adds that
"Even if animal research produced a cure for AIDS, we'd
be against it." And Gary Yourofsky, a national lecturer:
"What we must do is start viewing every cow, pig,
chicken, monkey, rabbit, mouse and pigeon as our family
members." And from HSUS, the folks who helped to fund
this campaign, Michael Fox a senior scholar says "The
life of an ant and that of my child should be granted
equal consideration." Is this who we want dictating how
food is produced in this country? Not on my watch,
thanks. Vote NO on this initiative.
Hector Stechnij, Owner, Mesa
I think people should be highly suspect of deep pocketed
out-of-state organizations
with hidden agendas, who play on the good people of
Arizona's emotions in relation to animals. Apparently
they know more about animal husbandry in agriculture
operations then all the professionals in the business. I
guess we should no longer use or trust years of
University research or veterinary experience. We can
just let the out-of-state organizations do our thinking
for us.
Mike Billotte, Tempe
I am going to vote NO on the Prop 204/Hogwash
proposition. My husband and I are former pork producers
in Arizona. He spent many years in the national
leadership of the pork industry. As a result we have
known pork producers in most every state. The nations
pork producers are very conscious of their animal's
welfare and producing a quality product for consumption
by consumers. Arizona pork producers are no different.
The out of state activist's who are behind this
proposition are all part of the animal rights, anti meat
movement that includes HSUS, PETA, Farm Sanctuary and
Animal Liberation Front plus others. All nice sounding
names but all have the agenda to stop meat animal
production and force us to a vegan diet.
The production methods used in Arizona have been in
place for over 10 years and have been tested and
researched. They are pork industry and American
Veterinary Medical Association approved. There has never
been one complaint here until these out of state
activists came to Arizona after they were successful
with a similar campaign of lies in Florida and put
family farmers out of business there. They have come to
Arizona to do the same thing.
I urge you to just think for a minute and ask yourself
would a farmer raise livestock and intentionally put
them in a stressful environment? Absolutely not!! This
would cause the animals to be non-productive and he
would have a losing business.
Don't let these outsiders spread their lies and disrupt
good honest agriculture business' and put good hard
working families out of work. Vote NO on the HOGWASH
initiative.
Jana Miller, Casa Grande
I will vote NO on the Hogwash initiative.
I raise pigs in the Wickenburg area and have for many
years. The thought that out of state groups, Humane
Society of the United States and Farm Sanctuary, both
animal rights activists can come into our state with the
agenda of disrupting animal agriculture in Arizona
really irritates me. They did almost the exact thing in
Florida and put family farmers out of business. Any
person raising livestock does so humanely. Anything less
would be raising animals under stress and therefore not
being productive. Arizona farmers are no different. They
follow procedures and use equipment that has been
researched and tested for years and is approved by the
industry experts and the veterinary associations.
This proposition is Hogwash so please vote NO!
!
Elijah Hopkins, Hopkins Ranches, Wickenburg
Paid for by "Hopkins Ranches"
The Hogwash Proposition will get my NO vote. I have been
involved in agriculture for 37 years. I have raised pigs
and other livestock and have known many people who also
raised livestock. I have not known one of these people
who would subject their animals to any inhuman or stress
conditions. To do this would make absolutely no sense
because the farm would be non-productive. Modern
livestock production techniques have been tested for
many years by research specialists and have their
approval as well as veterinary associations. For the
sponsors of this proposition to say otherwise tells me
they know nothing about livestock production, have a
hidden agenda or both. We don't need out of state
activists telling our farmers how to run their business.
HSUS, PETA, ALF and Farm Sanctuary and others are groups
that go around the country financing initiatives like
this. Records show most of the financing for this
campaign is coming in from these types of groups. I
don't like the fact they can come in here and try to
disrupt agriculture operations that have been in
business and operating according to industry standards
for well over ten years.
This is HOGWASH and I will vote 'NO'.
Leroy Unrast, Willcox
Vote 'NO' on Prop 204
I have been a pork producer in Arizona since I was a
child. This totals to more than 44 years. I am on the
Board of Directors of the Arizona Pork Council.
Producers in this state use only humane methods to raise
their animals. To do otherwise, as is being alleged in
this proposition would be going against all business
sense for running a efficient operation. Livestock
producers do not use inhumane methods. If a person just
stops and thinks about it, even some on not acquainted
with farming would conclude it would make no sense to
put you animals under stress.
I know the people involved with the one Arizona
operation targeted by this proposition and they run a
farm that houses well cared for animals that are fed a
nutritious diet of corn, soybeans and vitamins, under
the care of trained personal and staff veterinarians.
The facilities are kept very clean. They are stewards of
the land and environment as well.
The movement for this proposition began when the likes
of out of state animal activists groups like PETA, Farm
Sanctuary, Animal Liberation Front came to Arizona and
duped people here to sponsor their anti-meat,
anti-farming agenda.
We don't need out of state groups influencing how our
farmers run their business.
Vote NO on the HOGWASH proposition.
Larry Beck, Cochise
Vote No on Prop 204
I will vote NO on the Hogwash initiative. This measure
is the result of out of state groups, Humane Society of
the United States and Farm Sanctuary, both animal rights
activists with the agenda of disrupting animal
agriculture in Arizona. They spread their lies in
Florida and the result was family farmers being put out
of business.
Any person raising livestock does so humanely. Anything
less would be raising animals under stress and not being
productive. Arizona farmers are no different. They
follow procedures and use equipment that has been
researched and tested many times and is approved by the
industry experts and the veterinary associations.
We do not need extremist's organizations such as PETA,
Animal Liberation Front, Farm Sanctuary and others
coming to Arizona spreading lies and trying to put
Arizona's livestock industry out of business.
Vote NO on the HOGWASH initiative.
Shea Nieto, Casa Grande
The Hogwash/204 proposition gets my NO vote.
I am not a farmer but I have watched as groups like
Humane Society of the United States, PETA, Farm
Sanctuary and other animal rights goof balls try to make
us believe animals are like humans. They show up in
states and try to scream their message of lies and lead
us to a vegetarian diet.
Now they are here in Arizona trying to make us believe
farmers who are raising livestock are treating their
animals inhumanely. That is HOGWASH. I have known
farmers and to think they would treat animals cruelly
that they are raising to support their families is
totally ridiculous.
I say to these activists groups, "Go home and leave us
alone. Go peddle your lies somewhere else". That is why
I am voting NO to their HOGWASH.
Jerry Seppanen, Scottsdale
Farmers Oppose Prop 204
As employees of an Arizona livestock farm, we know
first-hand the high level of humane care provided to
pigs raised in our state.
Our animals are kept in special barns that protect them
from very high and very low temperatures. The design of
the barns also protects them from injuries and the
competition for food that happens among pigs kept in
herds. When illnesses occur, we treat our animals
quickly under the close supervision of the farm's
veterinarians. The animals are also fed nutritious diets
of soybeans, corn and vitamins and have access to fresh
water whenever they want it.
The farm's managers provide regular training and
education to those of us who care for the animals day to
day and ensure that we have the tools to do our jobs
effectively.
We're proud of what we do to raise livestock in Arizona
humanely and help to provide consumers the safe, healthy
pork products they expect to find on grocery store
shelves.
Please VOTE NO on Prop 204.
Gordon B. Lawler, Lakeside Susan Howard, Snowflake
Janet Magill, Snowflake Jim Mortensen, Snowflake
Jerry McGraw, Snowflake Cody Maennche, Taylor
William Tate, Snowflake Robert Alter, Snowflake
Doug Johnson, Snowflake Guillermo Anchondo, Snowflake
Delbert Begay, Indian Wells Donald Winder, Snowflake
Needless Regulation
Do we really need a new law to tell Arizona farmers and
ranchers how to take care of their animals?
Proposition 204 is ridiculous.
Trevor Hardy, Mesa
VOTE NO ON PROP 204
Don't let out-of-state animal rights activists dictate
to Arizonans what Arizona law should be.
We in Arizona have a long and proud history of doing
things our own way.
That's why we have grown and prospered.
That's why new Arizonans arrive everyday.
People come to Arizona to enjoy the Arizona way of
living.
Don't let activists who have decided not to live here
tell us how to live our lives.
Robert Shuler, Scottsdale
Robert Shuler, Scottsdale
Arizona Agriculture Is United Against Prop 204
All of Arizona agriculture stands united against the
out-of-state animal rights groups. Their emotional
arguments are based on junk science and most have never
set foot on a farm or ranch, let alone in Arizona.
Farming and ranching is serious business. Food, climate,
temperature, veterinary care, water, health, safety,
bio-security. Nothing is left to chance. Everything is
calculated and accounted for or else the farm or ranch
can't operate.
Farmers and ranchers take extremely seriously the trust
and confidence that consumers have placed in us to
provide them with safe, healthy and affordable food.
We hope you won't let the animal rights activists fool
you.
Vote 'NO' on Prop 204.
Clint Hickman, President, Arizona Poultry Federation
Jennifer Hickman, Secretary, Arizona Poultry Federation
Clint Hickman, President, Arizona Poultry Federation, Goodyear
Jennifer Hickman, Secretary, Arizona Poultry Federation, Goodyear
Snowflake Businesses Say Vote 'NO' on Prop. 204
Farming and ranching are a way of life in Arizona and in
northeastern Arizona we are privileged to have
responsible livestock producers as friends and
neighbors.
Our livestock producers are conscientious citizens,
valued employers and responsible stewards of their
animals. They are respected throughout the local
business community for their commitment to their
employees and their families, business partners and
others whose livelihoods are tied to animal agriculture.
Our local pork producer has taken considerable steps
over the years to promote the welfare of its animals,
which is critical to its business success. Their farm
provides employees the tools and training to effectively
care for their animals under the close supervision of
veterinarians. It utilizes the best science available
and decades of experience to raise pigs humanely. The
result is safe, high quality and affordable pork for
consumers.
We have seen firsthand what a responsible and respected
livestock producer brings to a community like ours.
That's why we're urging Arizonans to stand up for our
farmers and ranchers, not outside interests who merely
want to use our great state as a stepping stone to
achieving their anti-farming agenda.
Vote NO on 204.
Greg Hudson, Executive Director Snowflake Taylor Chamber of Commerce, Snowflake
Keith Baldwin, Treasurer, Snowflake Taylor Chamber of Commerce, Taylor
Paid for by "Snowflake/Taylor Chamber of Commerce"
Livestock production is integral to the way of life for
many residents of northern Arizona communities. For
generations, families have raised animals for the
production of food and the livelihoods of many others
have been dependent on animal agriculture.
For those of us in Snowflake, Arizona, hog production,
in particular, plays an important and positive role in
our community. Our pork producer is a valued employer,
productive business partner and respected civic member.
It is a responsible steward of the environment and a
trusted caretaker of its animals.
Those who work in hog production in Snowflake understand
and accept their responsibilities as livestock
producers. They combine a keen understanding of animal
science with decades of real life experience to promote
the welfare of their animals, treating them with great
care and respect throughout their lives. Ultimately, the
care they provide their animals results in the
production of safe, wholesome pork products for
consumers.
We take pride in the way our friends and neighbors raise
pigs in Snowflake and it is our hope that Arizonans
across the state will likewise stand up for Arizona's
farmers and ranchers in November.
Mayor Kelly S. Willis, For the Snowflake Town Council, Snowflake
GET REAL
I cannot believe we're wasting space on the ballot with
a ridiculous question like Prop 204.
Little by little we're allowing the crazy minority to
push their extreme agenda on the rest of us. I for one
am tired of it.
The out-of-state animal rights zealots who fund this
effort don't speak for me or for any other Arizonan with
an ounce of sense.
All it takes is one visit to any fringe animal rights
organization website to see these people have a national
political agenda to end the raising of pigs, cows,
chickens and fish for food.
And to think they have the gall to push their real
agenda under the guise of wanting better treatment of
pigs.
Get real!
A NO vote on 204 will show the rest of the nation that
Arizonans can still tell the difference between a pig
and a poke.
Lisa Barnes, Mesa
BALLOT FORMAT
PROPOSED AMENDMENT BY INITIATIVE PETITION
OFFICIAL TITLE
AN INITIATIVE MEASURE
PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO TITLE 13, CHAPTER 29,
ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING SECTION
13-2910.07; RELATING TO CRUEL AND INHUMANE
CONFINEMENT OF ANIMALS.
DESCRIPTIVE TITLE
PROHIBITS CONFINING PREGNANT PIG OR CALF RAISED
FOR VEAL FOR ALL OR MAJORITY OF A DAY IN A MANNER
THAT PREVENTS LYING DOWN AND FULLY EXTENDING LIMBS
OR TURNING AROUND; PROVIDES EXCEPTIONS, INCLUDING
TRANSPORTATION, RODEOS/FAIRS, LAWFUL SLAUGHTER AND
RESEARCH, VETERINARY PURPOSES; ESTABLISHES
MISDEMEANOR PENALTIES AND FUNDING FROM FINES.
A "yes" vote shall have the effect of establishing
misdemeanor fines and penalties for tethering or
confining a pregnant pig or a calf raised for veal
for all or a majority of the day in a manner that
prevents the animal from lying down and fully
extending its limbs or turning around freely but
excepts transportation of the animal, rodeo and
fair exhibitions, lawful slaughters, research,
veterinary purposes and the seven day period
before a pig's expected date of giving birth. YES
A "no" vote shall have the effect of not changing
the existing laws regarding the manner in which
pigs and calves are raised. NO
The Ballot Format displayed in HTML reflects only the text of the Ballot Proposition and does not reflect how it will appear on the General Election Ballot.
Spelling, grammar, and punctuation were reproduced as submitted in the "for" and "against" arguments. This text only version of the proposition guide may not include striking, underlining, emphasis and bolding of words in the proposition language, or in "for" or "against" arguments.
Next Proposition
Back to Table of Contents