Greyhounds Win, Prop 2 Passes, and More
Published November 05, 2008 @ 07:52AM PT
Well, friends, it wasn't a dream. We said no to McCain and Palin and yes to Obama and Biden, and although animal issues did not come up much in the presidential campaign, the animals are certainly safer with the gentlemen we elected last night. What a relief.
And as you know, initiatives affecting animals and animal advocacy were on the ballots of a few states. I couldn't be more elated that Question 3 in Massachusetts passed--greyhound racing will end there by 2010! Those of you who live in Massachusetts and voted and those of you who spread the word to Massachusetts voters should be so proud today. A horribly cruel industry is on its way out, thanks to you. You have prevented the torment that would have been experienced by so many dogs who would have continued to be bred, neglected, exploited, and abused, and hundreds if not thousands of dogs currently being exploited by the racing industry in Massachusetts will now finally find relief. Expect updates here as the phaseout progresses.
And of course, Prop 2 in California passed. I am glad that it did, but I am glad that California voters did not vote against it as much as I am glad that they did vote for it. As you know by now, my fear is that because of how the proposition was promoted, many California citizens voted for it thinking it will do more than it will. I worry about a false sense of accomplishment, and I worry about complacency. I worry about people thinking that they have done all they need to do and that cruelty will now stop. I worry about people believing that as of 2015, animal products in California will be "humane" or that meat, dairy, and eggs with labels such as "free-range" and "cage-free" are cruelty-free, when they are not. Please read yesterday's post, "Beyond Prop 2: Continuing the Conversation," for thoughts on what's next.
Other ballot initiatives affecting animals included Oklahoma's Question 742 and Arizona's Proposition 105. Question 742, which sought to making hunting, fishing, and trapping a constitutional right in Oklahoma, unfortunately passed. Arizona's Prop 105, however, did not pass; it would have made passing ballot initiatives (including initiatives to protect animals) in that state extraordinarily difficult.
----
Photo: Perseus, adopted greyhound, for Obama
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
EmailRelated Posts
Author
-
Stephanie Ernst is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull. In her advocacy, she works to challenge prevailing perceptions of animals, to show the connections between animal exploitation and other injustices, to help people see that animals are more like us than different, and to encourage compassionate, nonviolent living and eating.
You know what would be great for animals, is if the Obama family made it well known that they adopted - as opposed to "purchased" - a dog to be their new companion (at the behest of PETA and supporters I might add). That would be an excellent starting-off point for a discussion about ending breeding and adopting/rescuing companion animals out of moral duty.
Posted by Alex Melonas on 11/05/2008 @ 01:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, I agree with helping animals get away from any kind of abuse, but I have to disagree about PETA. They are a horrible institution . do some reasearch about it. It is not all beautiful. go to petakillsanimals.com and watch the Penn and Teller : bullshit! episode about PETA.
Posted by ariel sergio wollinger martins on 11/05/2008 @ 08:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Calling PETA a "horrible institution" because they are not "No Kill" doesn't really follow. Their status as "no kill" is a reflection of the context in which they exist: hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of stray animals annually. Granted, when Ingrid Newkirk leaves, I believe PETA will evolve and accept their membership in the "no kill revolution." However, resting your challenge on the erroneous arguments of Penn and Teller, which were based on assumptions that aren't grounded in the actual arguments proffered by PETA, is absurd. Ethical veganism does not imply never killing animals, just as being an ethical human doesn't imply never killing humans. Further, PETA is welfarist at its core, primarily concerned with our treatment of animals on the aggregate, which may include killing sheltered animals as a means to free up resources; therefore, single instances, as "peta kills..." cites, don't make for a valid criticism. I don't agree with PETA theoretically, however, a "horrible institution" they are not. (Maybe sexist though....)
Posted by Alex Melonas on 11/06/2008 @ 08:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It should also be pointed out that the Web site mentioned here is one of many run by the industry front group Center for Consumer Freedom, not an unbiased or reliable source: http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/the_center_for_consumer_freedom_allow_me_to_introduce_you
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 11/06/2008 @ 09:06AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Obama you need two Doggis so the have someone to play with , wy the Kids are in School . if i could i would open a Shelter for unwanted Four legged .i love all Animals , the better than People ,the are your true Friend .no matter what
Posted by Trudy Harteg on 11/11/2008 @ 12:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.