[Damfino]

A couple of animal rights activists from Boulder recently submitted a ballot initiative to the Secretary of State's office, and unfortunately the title board gave it the go-ahead to start collecting signatures. Colorado makes it very easy to get stuff on the ballot which is good because the people's voices should be heard, but it's also bad because so many voters are uninformed and the bulk of the population lives in Denver and the surrounding cities. Our state has swung very blue in the last 2-3 decades as more and more Californians have moved out here. They had to flee their own state after they ruined it and now they want to ruin ours too I guess. Sometimes they pass things that don't affect them at all but affect the entire rest of the state that doesn't live in the concrete jungle (like reintroducing wolves, for example).

Anyway, the initiative has until August 2022 to collect around 125,000 signatures, which they will no doubt get, so we'll probably be faced with this outrageous proposal on our ballot in November next year. It basically makes it possible for someone to face sexual assault charges on an animal for things like artificial insemination, rectal exams, etc. It also bans slaughter until animals have lived 25% of their natural lifespan. I won't rattle on about it since you can read it for yourselves here:

https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2021-2022/16OriginalFinal.pdf

There's a very good article about it in the Colorado Sun which you can read here:

Remember the MeatOut Day controversy? That's nothing compared to a proposed ballot initiative.

The proposed ballot measure would make ranchers wait to slaughter animals until they are older, which ranchers say would devastate Colorado’s agriculture economy.

coloradosun.com

People from Colorado, this is a heads-up! We need to be ready to stand together to defeat this kind of rubbish that has nothing to do with animal welfare and everything to do with criminalizing animal agriculture. Fortunately since it is coming to the ballot box and not from the legislature we do have the ability to defeat it in the voting booth rather than fighting it in court.

 

[happybleats]

I heard about that. People are so messed up in their head!! Most definitely need to fight it. Ugh. Can you imagine the financial down fall for farmers having to hold onto food animals for 25% if their life span? So dumb!

 

[Kenny Battistelli]

I'm not a farmer, but as a fellow goat owner, I feel for you. How can you be prosecuted for rectal exams? That doesn't even make sense.

 

[jschies]

Wow.... So would you be able to even take an animal's temperature??

 

[CountyLineAcres]

Wow.... So would you be able to even take an animal's temperature??

You still can. In subsection 5, you’re allow to dispense care to an animal in the interest of improving their health. Taking their temperature would fall under the “accepted” category.

It is still ridiculous nonetheless.

 

[ksalvagno]

What rubbish. People are stupid.

 

[JML Farms]

Hope it gets defeated.

 

[raffelsol]

It will be a huge hurdle to overcome in Colorado. The majority of the population lives in the front range area and are not in touch with agricultural roots and how the food gets to their table. The initiative plays on strong emotions of 'sexual abuse'.

 

[alwaystj9]

Yes, they will jump on anyone who opposes this by crying about sexual abuse of animals. This would be really bad for Colorado.

 

[Damfino]

Taking a temperature would fall under "for the health of the animal." Where it gets fuzzy is when you factor in reproductive care. Artificial insemination, rectal pregnancy checks, etc. are not done "for the animals health" per se. You get an activist judge hearing a case and it could be very bad for livestock producers and veterinarians.

The cattlemen's associations are all majorly ticked right now and since beef is one of the largest industries in Colorado I can imagine there's going to be a LOT of pushback. They have a ton of money and they're going to be spending a lot of it on PR in the coming year. They'll probably get a lot of national backing from various agricultural associations all over the country as well. No other ranching state wants stuff like this coming to them next. I hear Oregon is considering a similar proposal.

The city folks on the front range may lean left, but not quite as much as a lot of people think, and the majority of them eat meat. There are also a lot of environmentalists who don't like this proposal because it will force Colorado to import more beef, which is less sustainable than anything home-grown. Even many vegetarians see the sense in keeping production local because they know Coloradans won't stop eating meat. They'll buy it from out of state. That doesn't help the animals or the environment and the resulting price increase would be especially hard on poor people. The agricultural industry has a lot of cards to play and I hope they play them very strategically so this thing doesn't just get defeated but buried with no hope of resurrection.

 

[AlabamaGirl]

The only thing I'm ok with is the 25% rule and the beastilaity (hopefully it's illegal)

 

[toth boer goats]

 

[luvmyherd]

Oh Boy! I cannot post everything I am thinking as I will get flagged for being political. But this is not a new problem. City people have been moving to the mountains and country and passing ill-considered laws since the automobile replaced horses.

I have chastised my husband over and over for doing simple (to us) things in the open because of how they could look if recorded on someone's phone and posted on social media.

I wish there was some way to educate them.

 

[tiffin]

Our world has gone insane! Agree with the comment about so many leaving California to ruin other states I know there are lots of good people in California but also alot of nut jobs that don't understand WHY they had to leave.

 

[MellonFriend]

Here's what I don't understand: What makes them think that the quality of their lives is enhanced by living longer? Why is that the determining factor that means that the animals were happy? If they are destined to be butchered what difference to them does it make if they lived longer? I think if we are putting human emotions on all this than I'd actually feel the opposite.

 

[AlabamaGirl]

Here's what I don't understand: What makes them think that the quality of their lives is enhanced by living longer? Why is that the determining factor that means that the animals were happy? If they are destined to be butchered what difference to them does it make if they lived longer? I think if we are putting human emotions on all this than I'd actually feel the opposite.

Personally, I feel that it isn't right to eat a 6 week old lamb or a day old chick. They are destined to be eaten, but only having 42 days in this world is a bit mean to me.

However, I do agree with you--the treatment of the animal should matter more and it should ultimately be left to the farmer to decide when the animal will be butchered.

 

[MellonFriend]

Personally, I feel that it isn't right to eat a 6 week old lamb or a day old chick. They are destined to be eaten, but only having 42 days in this world is a bit mean to me.

Okay, I should have been more specific. I totally agree that I don't feel comfortable eating an animal that young, but ask the animal and it wouldn't make a difference.

 

[Damfino]

Here's what I don't understand: What makes them think that the quality of their lives is enhanced by living longer? Why is that the determining factor that means that the animals were happy? If they are destined to be butchered what difference to them does it make if they lived longer? I think if we are putting human emotions on all this than I'd actually feel the opposite.

Yeah, I know! 25% is a totally arbitrary human-created number that has nothing whatever to do with an animal's quality of life! The animal has no idea whether its life is 5%, 10%, 25%, 50% or 85% used up no matter how old it is. Animals have no concept of their own lifespan or mortality other than their universal instinct for self-preservation. They don't sit around contemplating the number of their days or what it will be like to get old. One of the sponsors of this ballot measure stated that he thinks animals that are eaten should be die "naturally and humanely" before being harvested. Sorry, but the words "natural" and "humane" don't belong in the same sentence. A natural death is nearly always inhumane. Nature is cruel. Humans are capable of alleviating that cruelty by providing a quick death. The trade-off is that many animals will not attain a full lifespan and most food animals won't even reach maturity. On the other hand, many others will live much longer than they otherwise would in nature. I guarantee that if food animals are forced to be kept for 25% of their potential lifespan, animal cruelty and neglect cases will go UP. This is not a win. Living longer is not a benefit if the quality of life is poor.

 

[MellonFriend]

I guarantee that if food animals are forced to be kept for 25% of their potential lifespan, animal cruelty and neglect cases will go UP.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[happybleats]

Here!! here Damfino! ! We raise our own meat. Our motto is happy life..one bad day. It's not the length of life but quality of life. Just because destined for the plate doesn't mean they shouldn't be well cared for and treated humanly until that day. Keeping them longer will more than likely end in cruelty and neglect. Not to mention send farmers to the poor house. Geeze next they will make it illegal to eat eggs...I mean poor birds didn't have a chance at life!