|
Q: Why is the AVMA commenting on Proposition 2?
A: The AVMA addresses veterinary professional and animal-related issues on the national level. Proposition 2 is a state-level proposal and the American Veterinary Medical Association thereby recognizes the purview and appropriateness of the California Veterinary Medical Association as primary responder. The existence of similar related legislative and citizens' initiative events around the country, however, suggests that this is a national initiative that is being pursued state-by-state. The AVMA thereby feels it is within its purview to provide that perspective. The AVMA's comments are not meant to detract from the "on-site" knowledge of the California VMA in knowing what approach to this and other state-level issues is likely to be most effective at ensuring the welfare of animals in California. We fully respect and appreciate the position of the California VMA on Proposition 2.
Q: Why is the AVMA getting involved in the politics of California?
A: The AVMA's focus is not the political or legal aspects of Proposition 2, rather it is the scientific analysis of what Proposition 2 may do to support or detract from animal welfare.
Q: What's good about Proposition 2 in terms of animal welfare?
A: The AVMA believes addressing the behavioral needs of animals is important to their overall welfare. Proposition 2 is admirable in its efforts to address those needs.
Q: Why is Proposition 2 problematic when it comes to animal welfare?
A: Two reasons:
- It fails to take into account all aspects of animal welfare, and
- The language of Proposition 2 is unclear. Depending on how it is interpreted when regulations are written, it may not allow some housing systems with the potential to improve animal welfare to be implemented.
An assessment of the ability of various animal care systems to protect welfare must take into consideration all relevant factors, including whether animals are free to move; whether the system allows them to engage in normal behaviors; whether they are protected from disease, injury, and predators; whether food and water are available in the appropriate amounts and type, and are of high quality; and whether the animals are handled properly. Proposition 2 helps address some of the animals' behavioral needs; unfortunately, it doesn't adequately consider the animals' other needs.
Maintaining good welfare with animal housing systems usually involves trade-offs. For example, housing systems that allow hens to perform a greater variety of normal behaviors (e.g., nest building), may, in fact, result in more challenges for disease and injury control. Conversely, improving disease and injury control by more intensively confining animals can limit the animals' ability to engage in normal behaviors. All aspects of animal care and housing systems must be assessed simultaneously to avoid unintended negative consequences resulting from changes to part of the system. It is important to avoid trading one set of animal welfare challenges for another.
Furthermore, Proposition 2 indicates that covered animals must be able to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely. Fully extending the animal's limbs is defined as fully extending all limbs without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the case of egg-laying hens, fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens. Unfortunately, the language of the initiative is not clear as to how much space is actually required for a housing system to comply with Proposition 2. Will the space provided be considered adequate if an individual animal is able to extend its limbs/wings without touching the sides of the enclosure or another animal while other animals in the enclosure are huddled together, or must all animals in the enclosure be able to extend their limbs/wings simultaneously without touching the sides of the enclosure or another animal? Furthermore, since the language requires that animals be able to turn around freely, what effect does the presence or absence of movement (i.e., turning) have on the calculation of the space requirement?
Legally the language may be clear; scientifically, it is not. Because this is not clear, it is difficult to determine what type of housing systems may or may not be permitted should Proposition 2 pass.
It is possible that some housing systems that seek a more equitable compromise between meeting behavioral and other needs, and thereby have the potential to improve overall welfare, may not be allowed under the space criteria set by Proposition 2.
Q: But shouldn't we be looking for ways to improve animal welfare? Isn't Proposition 2 a good first step?
A: The AVMA believes all animal housing systems should be continually studied and assessed for opportunities for improvement. However, we need to be sure that any changes recommended don't have unintended consequences. Comprehensive, science-based evaluations that will actually result in welfare improvements are those that incorporate expert input from veterinarians and animal welfare scientists.
Q: What are some other possible consequences of Proposition 2?
A: Although the welfare of animals affected by Proposition 2 is the AVMA's primary concern, the AVMA is also concerned about the effect of Proposition 2 on the sustainability of production systems that are essential to ensure we continue to have the safest, most affordable, and abundant food supply in the world.
Q: If Proposition 2 does pass, what does AVMA recommend as future steps?
A: Should Proposition 2 pass, we encourage those who would develop implementing regulations to consult with veterinary and animal science experts in the field of animal welfare to ensure that the resulting recommendations appropriately consider the impact of those systems on all aspects of animal welfare.
 Top
|
= AVMA/SAVMA Members Only
