Radical environmentalism threatens Fresno area agriculture, shut down water supply
November 16, 6:33 AM Fresno Public Policy Examiner Jeff Crow
California's agriculture industry is facing a potential meltdown due to radicalized environmentalists who have made it clear a three inch fish is to take precedent over people.
What the environmentalists (especially the "whackos" in the movement) are doing could actually end up backfiring in their faces. It's estimated that over 24 Million California residents in 3 major areas (Silicon Valley, Central Valley/Fresno and Los Angeles) will be "shut off" from our state's water system and on top of that, we're only getting 10% of the water allotment for Agriculture, which means were going to export far less food to other states and countries, which will then cost jobs at Supermarkets, Trucking and other ancillary businesses that rely upon this water and Fresno/Clovis CA's Ag goods which rely upon this water.
But hey, what does millions of job losses factor on the overall health of the economy. This point was brought up to some extent in a recent interview I did with the Former Mayor/Current City Councilman of the City of Clovis, CA.
Accorrding to to him, its the base industry for Fresno/Clovis and that "we need to think of the dollars and cents that are in this situation" while Mario Santoyo of the California Latino Water Coalition, who I talked to also, said "if California's agricultural breadbasket in the Central Valley continues to abide by a Federal Judge's ruling, it will only be a matter of time before the price of ag goods will skyrocket, we'll probably have to further import and thus enrich a Communist China which has taken entire sectors of the US economy or the nation will become such a starving country that we will literally be storming the White House and forcing the Washington DC politicians to vastly reform the ESA, or Endangered Species Act." Read More
It really does boil down to priorities in dealing with our water supply. Is a tiny fish more important than the families that live in those communities? Well to some animal rights activists, I’m sure the answer is yes. However, the fact of the matter is that our food supply and the families that grow it and eat it should carry some weight in these discussions. Food does not magically appear. It takes water to make it happen.
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
More CA Water Wars
Sierra Club Wages Water War With Growers Over Run of Carmel River
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A long-running feud between growers and environmentalists in California is now centered at the base of the lush Santa Lucia Mountains, where the Carmel River winds through the Monterey Peninsula. Growers want water to alleviate the harsh days of drought and environmentalists are fighting to protect the flow needed by steelhead trout, whose numbers are dropping sharply.
In a federal lawsuit, the Sierra Club and the Carmel River Steelhead Association claim the California American Water Company's unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River is responsible for the steelhead's decline. The groups say that despite their fish-rescue efforts, they cannot "prevent the death of an unknown but presumably large number of juvenile steelhead that perish as flows decline."
Growers say that environmentalists are naïve to blame them for the decreased fish populations.
"Certain environmental groups argue that certain fish species are endangered and that requires a change in the water policy in our state. Their solution is to flush more water out to the ocean and all will be good," says Joel Nelson, president of California Citrus Mutual, a growers' association.
But restricted water flow leads to crop shortages, higher produce prices, fallow land and unemployment, said Nelson, who has been in the agriculture industry for 25 years.
"But most parties are unwilling from the environmental community to connect the dots. I have my biases, but we've always been able to work issues out before, until now. You can't stop watering certain parts of the state and expect the state to survive," he said. Read More
Arguments over water are nothing new. However, the arguments today normally pit farmers and their ability to grow food for people to eat against environmentalists that seem to value things other than people or food production. It’s important to remember that no one in agriculture is advocating letting any type of species go extinct. Obviously that’s not a good option. But neither is forcing farmers from their land and causing food shortages. People need to understand that we have a very limited supply of food on this planet. When land is taken out of production it can’t be replaced somewhere else. The world just has to get by with less available land. There is plenty of water on this planet, we just need to do a better job storing it and prioritizing how it’s used.
By MARIA DINZEO
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - A long-running feud between growers and environmentalists in California is now centered at the base of the lush Santa Lucia Mountains, where the Carmel River winds through the Monterey Peninsula. Growers want water to alleviate the harsh days of drought and environmentalists are fighting to protect the flow needed by steelhead trout, whose numbers are dropping sharply.
In a federal lawsuit, the Sierra Club and the Carmel River Steelhead Association claim the California American Water Company's unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River is responsible for the steelhead's decline. The groups say that despite their fish-rescue efforts, they cannot "prevent the death of an unknown but presumably large number of juvenile steelhead that perish as flows decline."
Growers say that environmentalists are naïve to blame them for the decreased fish populations.
"Certain environmental groups argue that certain fish species are endangered and that requires a change in the water policy in our state. Their solution is to flush more water out to the ocean and all will be good," says Joel Nelson, president of California Citrus Mutual, a growers' association.
But restricted water flow leads to crop shortages, higher produce prices, fallow land and unemployment, said Nelson, who has been in the agriculture industry for 25 years.
"But most parties are unwilling from the environmental community to connect the dots. I have my biases, but we've always been able to work issues out before, until now. You can't stop watering certain parts of the state and expect the state to survive," he said. Read More
Arguments over water are nothing new. However, the arguments today normally pit farmers and their ability to grow food for people to eat against environmentalists that seem to value things other than people or food production. It’s important to remember that no one in agriculture is advocating letting any type of species go extinct. Obviously that’s not a good option. But neither is forcing farmers from their land and causing food shortages. People need to understand that we have a very limited supply of food on this planet. When land is taken out of production it can’t be replaced somewhere else. The world just has to get by with less available land. There is plenty of water on this planet, we just need to do a better job storing it and prioritizing how it’s used.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Pricing Electricity Out of Reach
Renewable power will cost consumers more
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 13, 2009
California's push for renewable power could prove costly to consumers.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to get one-third of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2020 could cost $115 billion in new infrastructure, according to a report released Friday by the California Public Utilities Commission. Last year, a similar report from the commission estimated the cost at $60 billion.
That money would come from Californians' utility bills.
By 2020, the state's average price for electricity could rise as much as 28 percent above today's levels, based on current dollars. However, the report says most of that increase will happen even if the state abandons its drive to build more wind farms and solar power plants. Without adding any renewable power, prices would rise 17 percent.
That alarms consumer advocates, who have long complained about California's high electricity prices.
"The notion of California struggling under (28) percent higher prices - it's a sobering picture for the California economy," said Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network, a watchdog group.
"This would be a bargain," said Carl Zichella, regional director for the Sierra Club. "Early actions are by far the most cost-effective, and they have the biggest bang for the buck in fighting climate change." Read More
Again, we see the Sierra Club put hard working families at the bottom of their list of things they are concerned about. Advocating for higher prices for electricity is an elitist view point, especially when so many families are struggling to pay their bills already. I doubt the Sierra Club has ever looked into how this would affect young families since that isn’t their concern. A reasonable balance needs to be struck in situations like this.
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 13, 2009
California's push for renewable power could prove costly to consumers.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to get one-third of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2020 could cost $115 billion in new infrastructure, according to a report released Friday by the California Public Utilities Commission. Last year, a similar report from the commission estimated the cost at $60 billion.
That money would come from Californians' utility bills.
By 2020, the state's average price for electricity could rise as much as 28 percent above today's levels, based on current dollars. However, the report says most of that increase will happen even if the state abandons its drive to build more wind farms and solar power plants. Without adding any renewable power, prices would rise 17 percent.
That alarms consumer advocates, who have long complained about California's high electricity prices.
"The notion of California struggling under (28) percent higher prices - it's a sobering picture for the California economy," said Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network, a watchdog group.
"This would be a bargain," said Carl Zichella, regional director for the Sierra Club. "Early actions are by far the most cost-effective, and they have the biggest bang for the buck in fighting climate change." Read More
Again, we see the Sierra Club put hard working families at the bottom of their list of things they are concerned about. Advocating for higher prices for electricity is an elitist view point, especially when so many families are struggling to pay their bills already. I doubt the Sierra Club has ever looked into how this would affect young families since that isn’t their concern. A reasonable balance needs to be struck in situations like this.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
CA's Antibiotic Limiting Bill
Antibiotics bill takes the next step
By Dairy Herd staff Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Legislation that would limit the use of antibiotics by licensed veterinarians to prevent and control disease in animal agriculture was approved last week in California by the Senate Appropriations Committee and now goes to the Senate floor for consideration.
Bill SB416, amended earlier this month by the Senate Education Committee, would require school districts to make every effort to purchase poultry and meat products that have not been treated with non-therapeutic antibiotics.
Any school district that purchases poultry or meat products from treated animals (or doesn’t know the status of the products) would be required to report annually to the Superintendent of Public Instruction the reasons those products were purchased. The bill would require the Superintendent to compile those reports and report to Legislature starting Jan. 1, 2012.
The original bill prohibited schools from serving poultry or meat products from animals that had been treated with antibiotics at any time during the life of the animal.
In addition, this bill would prohibit a person from using antibiotics for non-therapeutic use in any animal raised for the production of any human food product as of Jan. 1, 2015.
State Senator Dean Florez, chairman of the Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture, introduced this legislation.
Western United Dairymen opposes the bill, along with the Alliance of Western Milk Producers, California Dairies Inc., California Farm Bureau Federation, California Poultry Federation, California School Nutrition Association, and the California Teamsters.
Read the entire bill SB416. Article Link
I would argue that the levels of antibiotics used in animal feed currently are therapeutic. After all, the levels used are helping prevent the possibility of an animal catching a disease. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that a ban on the current practice of using feed-based antibiotics will actually increase the usage. In addition to this, the cost for these meat products will also increase. The only message that can be heard from legislation like this is that the state of California no longer welcomes animal agriculture because sound science doesn’t agree. Judging by the state of their budget, increasing costs based on emotional thinking is the last thing they need.
By Dairy Herd staff Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Legislation that would limit the use of antibiotics by licensed veterinarians to prevent and control disease in animal agriculture was approved last week in California by the Senate Appropriations Committee and now goes to the Senate floor for consideration.
Bill SB416, amended earlier this month by the Senate Education Committee, would require school districts to make every effort to purchase poultry and meat products that have not been treated with non-therapeutic antibiotics.
Any school district that purchases poultry or meat products from treated animals (or doesn’t know the status of the products) would be required to report annually to the Superintendent of Public Instruction the reasons those products were purchased. The bill would require the Superintendent to compile those reports and report to Legislature starting Jan. 1, 2012.
The original bill prohibited schools from serving poultry or meat products from animals that had been treated with antibiotics at any time during the life of the animal.
In addition, this bill would prohibit a person from using antibiotics for non-therapeutic use in any animal raised for the production of any human food product as of Jan. 1, 2015.
State Senator Dean Florez, chairman of the Senate Committee on Food and Agriculture, introduced this legislation.
Western United Dairymen opposes the bill, along with the Alliance of Western Milk Producers, California Dairies Inc., California Farm Bureau Federation, California Poultry Federation, California School Nutrition Association, and the California Teamsters.
Read the entire bill SB416. Article Link
I would argue that the levels of antibiotics used in animal feed currently are therapeutic. After all, the levels used are helping prevent the possibility of an animal catching a disease. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that a ban on the current practice of using feed-based antibiotics will actually increase the usage. In addition to this, the cost for these meat products will also increase. The only message that can be heard from legislation like this is that the state of California no longer welcomes animal agriculture because sound science doesn’t agree. Judging by the state of their budget, increasing costs based on emotional thinking is the last thing they need.
Monday, April 6, 2009
CA Drought
Drought threatens Calif. agriculture business
Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:48 PM
By Nannette Miranda
SACRAMENTO, CA (KGO) -- Three years of drought are also threatening to destroy California farmers, and the state's multi-billion dollar agriculture industry.
The news of the smaller snowpack doesn't improve the dry situation in the usually fertile Central Valley. That means farmers can't expect to see more water for their crops.
Making the problem worse is a still in-tact court order to reduce pumping in the delta to save endangered fish.
"On the high side, they're getting a 20 percent delivery. Only 20 percent of the water they would normally count on is going to be delivered. And they can't make a crop with that amount of water," said Timothy Quinn from the Association of California Water Agencies.
It's heartbreaking to see the area that supplies 40% of the nation's food supply vanishing, with farmers refusing to plant or just ripping up their crops. Read More
In visiting with several friends from CA over the last couple of months, they have all told me that California doesn’t have a water problem, they have a water storage problem. California is our biggest agricultural state. When food producing areas get hit with some sort of disaster I don’t think most people give it a second thought. Our food has to come from somewhere, it doesn’t just magically appear.
Thursday, April 02, 2009 6:48 PM
By Nannette Miranda
SACRAMENTO, CA (KGO) -- Three years of drought are also threatening to destroy California farmers, and the state's multi-billion dollar agriculture industry.
The news of the smaller snowpack doesn't improve the dry situation in the usually fertile Central Valley. That means farmers can't expect to see more water for their crops.
Making the problem worse is a still in-tact court order to reduce pumping in the delta to save endangered fish.
"On the high side, they're getting a 20 percent delivery. Only 20 percent of the water they would normally count on is going to be delivered. And they can't make a crop with that amount of water," said Timothy Quinn from the Association of California Water Agencies.
It's heartbreaking to see the area that supplies 40% of the nation's food supply vanishing, with farmers refusing to plant or just ripping up their crops. Read More
In visiting with several friends from CA over the last couple of months, they have all told me that California doesn’t have a water problem, they have a water storage problem. California is our biggest agricultural state. When food producing areas get hit with some sort of disaster I don’t think most people give it a second thought. Our food has to come from somewhere, it doesn’t just magically appear.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
CA's Animal Rights Push
California bill could test boundaries of animal rights
By ERIC BAILEYLOS ANGELES TIMES
March 9, 2009, 7:53AM
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. — Errant motorists beware: Puppy hit-and-run could soon be a crime.
Pushing animal rights in a whole new direction, a state lawmaker has proposed slapping California motorists with a fine and possible jail time if they flee the scene after hitting a jaywalking dog, cat or any other pet or farm animal.
The measure by Democrat Mike Eng would require that drivers attempt to provide medical aid to an injured animal and notify the owner or animal-control authorities.
It’s one of a herd of bills introduced in the Legislature this year that could test the boundaries of what constitutes humane treatment of animals in California.
In the aftermath of a big victory for Proposition 2, the November ballot measure that made groundbreaking changes in the confinement of farm animals, state lawmakers from both parties are pushing changes affecting Fido, felines and even flocks of geese. Read More
California animal rights activists, feeling very proud of their passage of Prop 2, are pushing for new and stricter animal rights legislation. It’s interesting that they want to put the responsibility on the driver, if they hit an animal, rather than the owner of the animal that allowed them to be in that situation. And are they going to specify what animals you have to stop for? What happens if you hit a mouse or a frog, maybe a bird? No one wants to see an animal hit by a vehicle, but common sense needs to be involved in writing some of these laws.
By ERIC BAILEYLOS ANGELES TIMES
March 9, 2009, 7:53AM
SACRAMENTO, CALIF. — Errant motorists beware: Puppy hit-and-run could soon be a crime.
Pushing animal rights in a whole new direction, a state lawmaker has proposed slapping California motorists with a fine and possible jail time if they flee the scene after hitting a jaywalking dog, cat or any other pet or farm animal.
The measure by Democrat Mike Eng would require that drivers attempt to provide medical aid to an injured animal and notify the owner or animal-control authorities.
It’s one of a herd of bills introduced in the Legislature this year that could test the boundaries of what constitutes humane treatment of animals in California.
In the aftermath of a big victory for Proposition 2, the November ballot measure that made groundbreaking changes in the confinement of farm animals, state lawmakers from both parties are pushing changes affecting Fido, felines and even flocks of geese. Read More
California animal rights activists, feeling very proud of their passage of Prop 2, are pushing for new and stricter animal rights legislation. It’s interesting that they want to put the responsibility on the driver, if they hit an animal, rather than the owner of the animal that allowed them to be in that situation. And are they going to specify what animals you have to stop for? What happens if you hit a mouse or a frog, maybe a bird? No one wants to see an animal hit by a vehicle, but common sense needs to be involved in writing some of these laws.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Banning Antibiotic Use in CA
Animal Health: Bill Would Restrict Antibiotic Use
A powerful state legislator in California has introduced legislation to restrict the use of antibiotics in raising livestock. As introduced, SB 416 would:
Prohibit, commencing Jan. 1, 2012, a school or school district from serving poultry and meat products treated with antibiotics to pupils.
Prohibit, commencing Jan. 1, 2015, a person from using antibiotics for non-therapeutic and prophylactic use in any animal raised for the production of any human food product.
Require state and local governments, when purchasing meat supplies, to prefer meat supplies produced without the use of medically important antibiotics as feed additives.
The legislator, Senate Majority Leader and Chair of the Food and Agriculture Committee Dean Florez, made news recently for introducing a measure that would ban tail-docking. He has often been a thorn in the side of production agriculture.
“We’re curious to see where Florez is going with this legislation. The majority of what he’s proposing is unconstitutional,” says Michael Marsh, chief executive officer for Western United Dairymen. Marsh said that a school in Berkeley, Calif., tried to offer only organic food to students, but the program failed because students could not afford to purchase the food.
An informational hearing to address this bill will take place on March 17.
To see a copy of the bill, click here.
Link to Article
There seems to be a theme today of throwing science under the bus. So any animal that even one time in its life receives antibiotics will not be allowed into the school lunch program. This will drastically increase the expense for providing meals to children. It also encourages producers to use “hope” as a treatment for a sick animal rather than antibiotics. Obviously, there hasn’t been a lot of thought put into this bill and hopefully common sense will prevail. It’s interesting that these types of people want to give rights to animals, and at the same time, they are trying to limit producer’s options for keeping them healthy.
A powerful state legislator in California has introduced legislation to restrict the use of antibiotics in raising livestock. As introduced, SB 416 would:
Prohibit, commencing Jan. 1, 2012, a school or school district from serving poultry and meat products treated with antibiotics to pupils.
Prohibit, commencing Jan. 1, 2015, a person from using antibiotics for non-therapeutic and prophylactic use in any animal raised for the production of any human food product.
Require state and local governments, when purchasing meat supplies, to prefer meat supplies produced without the use of medically important antibiotics as feed additives.
The legislator, Senate Majority Leader and Chair of the Food and Agriculture Committee Dean Florez, made news recently for introducing a measure that would ban tail-docking. He has often been a thorn in the side of production agriculture.
“We’re curious to see where Florez is going with this legislation. The majority of what he’s proposing is unconstitutional,” says Michael Marsh, chief executive officer for Western United Dairymen. Marsh said that a school in Berkeley, Calif., tried to offer only organic food to students, but the program failed because students could not afford to purchase the food.
An informational hearing to address this bill will take place on March 17.
To see a copy of the bill, click here.
Link to Article
There seems to be a theme today of throwing science under the bus. So any animal that even one time in its life receives antibiotics will not be allowed into the school lunch program. This will drastically increase the expense for providing meals to children. It also encourages producers to use “hope” as a treatment for a sick animal rather than antibiotics. Obviously, there hasn’t been a lot of thought put into this bill and hopefully common sense will prevail. It’s interesting that these types of people want to give rights to animals, and at the same time, they are trying to limit producer’s options for keeping them healthy.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Food Producers First To Be Eyed
Budget-cutters eye measure that protects ag industry
Enterprise-Record
updated 6:56 p.m. MT, Sun., Dec. 28, 2008
California's ongoing budget battle could put both the agricultural industry and Butte County's coffers in the cross-hairs.
The actual target of the possible budget attack is a program referred to as the "Williamson Act."
Passed on the state level in 1965 and adopted by Butte County in 1968, the act is designed to encourage agricultural activities throughout California by offering farmers and ranchers property tax cuts.
In order to qualify for the tax break, growers and ranchers must sign a 10-year contract that guarantees the land will remain in agricultural production. Unless something happens, the contract is automatically renewed.
In essence, the Williamson Act does for the agricultural industry what the homeowners' property tax exemption does for households.
However, with the Legislature and the governor are scrambling to find ways to close a budget deficit that has grown to $42 billion, the Williamson Act subventions are on the block. Read More
Whether it’s on the county, state or federal level, it seems that when money gets tight, politicians start looking for a place to steal money from. Normally, money devoted to agriculture gets the first look. It’s partly because agriculture is a victim of it’s own success. In spite of government interference, the American Farmer and Rancher continues to feed this growing world and very few people can appreciate that fact.
Enterprise-Record
updated 6:56 p.m. MT, Sun., Dec. 28, 2008
California's ongoing budget battle could put both the agricultural industry and Butte County's coffers in the cross-hairs.
The actual target of the possible budget attack is a program referred to as the "Williamson Act."
Passed on the state level in 1965 and adopted by Butte County in 1968, the act is designed to encourage agricultural activities throughout California by offering farmers and ranchers property tax cuts.
In order to qualify for the tax break, growers and ranchers must sign a 10-year contract that guarantees the land will remain in agricultural production. Unless something happens, the contract is automatically renewed.
In essence, the Williamson Act does for the agricultural industry what the homeowners' property tax exemption does for households.
However, with the Legislature and the governor are scrambling to find ways to close a budget deficit that has grown to $42 billion, the Williamson Act subventions are on the block. Read More
Whether it’s on the county, state or federal level, it seems that when money gets tight, politicians start looking for a place to steal money from. Normally, money devoted to agriculture gets the first look. It’s partly because agriculture is a victim of it’s own success. In spite of government interference, the American Farmer and Rancher continues to feed this growing world and very few people can appreciate that fact.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Managing Water Resources
Water allocation puts many in bind as drought worsens
By Michael Gardnerand Mike Lee
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERS
August 4, 2008
In the Imperial Valley, wheat farmers such as Mark Osterkamp greatly increased the acreage they planted – and their water use – with an eye toward reaping big profits this year.
Three hundred miles north, in the heart of California, nearly 50,000 acres of San Joaquin Valley cotton fields were left unplanted or abandoned by growers faced with severe water shortages, such as Fred Starrh.
As in real estate, it's all about location. Growers close to major rivers, such as the Colorado, Feather and Sacramento, routinely weather California's periodic dry spells thanks to priority water rights and, in some cases, a bountiful underground supply.
Others, dependent on California's convoluted system of irrigating its $31 billion-a-year agriculture industry through a network of state and federal water projects, find themselves far down the priority list when supplies run short.
Urban leaders in particular cast jealous eyes at farmers' water allotments, eager to secure more supplies for homes and businesses, especially during droughts.
“(Agriculture's) consumption of a very valuable resource seems out of size with its contribution to the state,” said Marney Cox, chief economist for the San Diego Association of Governments. Read More
One statement that should concern everyone who reads this is the one by Marney Cox who doesn’t believe that agriculture contributes enough to the state to deserve the water they use. It’s my guess that she probably eats on a daily basis, yet doesn’t think that agriculture contributes to anything. What good will the increased developments be if the people that live there have nothing to eat?
By Michael Gardnerand Mike Lee
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERS
August 4, 2008
In the Imperial Valley, wheat farmers such as Mark Osterkamp greatly increased the acreage they planted – and their water use – with an eye toward reaping big profits this year.
Three hundred miles north, in the heart of California, nearly 50,000 acres of San Joaquin Valley cotton fields were left unplanted or abandoned by growers faced with severe water shortages, such as Fred Starrh.
As in real estate, it's all about location. Growers close to major rivers, such as the Colorado, Feather and Sacramento, routinely weather California's periodic dry spells thanks to priority water rights and, in some cases, a bountiful underground supply.
Others, dependent on California's convoluted system of irrigating its $31 billion-a-year agriculture industry through a network of state and federal water projects, find themselves far down the priority list when supplies run short.
Urban leaders in particular cast jealous eyes at farmers' water allotments, eager to secure more supplies for homes and businesses, especially during droughts.
“(Agriculture's) consumption of a very valuable resource seems out of size with its contribution to the state,” said Marney Cox, chief economist for the San Diego Association of Governments. Read More
One statement that should concern everyone who reads this is the one by Marney Cox who doesn’t believe that agriculture contributes enough to the state to deserve the water they use. It’s my guess that she probably eats on a daily basis, yet doesn’t think that agriculture contributes to anything. What good will the increased developments be if the people that live there have nothing to eat?
Friday, May 23, 2008
Global Warming Advocates Cooling Off
Our View: State's fever on global warming may be cooling
Comments 0 Recommend 0
May 22, 2008 12:00:00 AM
The state's costly, grandiose scheme to combat global warming is finding resistance from many of the same folks who approved it two years ago. Meanwhile, legislative opposition also is growing to the plan to create a global warming state think tank financed by a utility users' surcharge.
It appears that paying for saving mankind from a projected 1- or 2-degree increase in temperature over the next century already is proving too costly in today's limited dollars. Read More
More and more people are starting to see the global warming scam for what it really is. The idea of forcing consumers to pay for a $600 million think tank that will talk about theory and multi-decade forecasts is a waste. Man has never been able to control the weather and never will. As I have said many times before, the only thing constant about the weather is that it is always changing. We are merely along for the ride.
Comments 0 Recommend 0
May 22, 2008 12:00:00 AM
The state's costly, grandiose scheme to combat global warming is finding resistance from many of the same folks who approved it two years ago. Meanwhile, legislative opposition also is growing to the plan to create a global warming state think tank financed by a utility users' surcharge.
It appears that paying for saving mankind from a projected 1- or 2-degree increase in temperature over the next century already is proving too costly in today's limited dollars. Read More
More and more people are starting to see the global warming scam for what it really is. The idea of forcing consumers to pay for a $600 million think tank that will talk about theory and multi-decade forecasts is a waste. Man has never been able to control the weather and never will. As I have said many times before, the only thing constant about the weather is that it is always changing. We are merely along for the ride.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The California Initiative
Moral issues surround animal welfare
By Erin Digitale
Article Launched: 04/28/2008 10:32:30 PM PDT
Tender veal cutlets. Sizzling pork chops. Savory omelets.
For a growing number of Californians, these meals are sparking a moral conundrum: Should they worry about how animals lived before their products hit the plate?
California voters will answer that question in November with a new animal welfare ballot initiative. If passed, the measure would require farmers to provide enough space for breeding sows, veal calves and laying hens to turn around and stretch their limbs.
The growing attention to the welfare of food animals is ``a huge change,'' said Joy Mench, a University of California, Davis, professor who studies the well-being of chickens. ``When I started doing this in 1982, there was close to zero public awareness about this issue.''
The nation's largest pork and veal producers are voluntarily phasing out tiny crates used to house veal calves and gestating sows. So the measure's main consequence would focus on California's 19 million egg-laying hens, most of which are housed in battery cages, crowded wire boxes used in conventional egg farming. Read More
There is going to be a lot of debate going on in California over the initiative on the ballot that will take hens out of cages. Opponents of the initiative make some very good arguments for the use of cages for the hens in this article. I am going to continue bringing you these articles so that everyone gets the sense of what the arguments and sentiments are in California. All of us need to be prepared to help stop this movement.
By Erin Digitale
Article Launched: 04/28/2008 10:32:30 PM PDT
Tender veal cutlets. Sizzling pork chops. Savory omelets.
For a growing number of Californians, these meals are sparking a moral conundrum: Should they worry about how animals lived before their products hit the plate?
California voters will answer that question in November with a new animal welfare ballot initiative. If passed, the measure would require farmers to provide enough space for breeding sows, veal calves and laying hens to turn around and stretch their limbs.
The growing attention to the welfare of food animals is ``a huge change,'' said Joy Mench, a University of California, Davis, professor who studies the well-being of chickens. ``When I started doing this in 1982, there was close to zero public awareness about this issue.''
The nation's largest pork and veal producers are voluntarily phasing out tiny crates used to house veal calves and gestating sows. So the measure's main consequence would focus on California's 19 million egg-laying hens, most of which are housed in battery cages, crowded wire boxes used in conventional egg farming. Read More
There is going to be a lot of debate going on in California over the initiative on the ballot that will take hens out of cages. Opponents of the initiative make some very good arguments for the use of cages for the hens in this article. I am going to continue bringing you these articles so that everyone gets the sense of what the arguments and sentiments are in California. All of us need to be prepared to help stop this movement.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Farm Sanctuary Attacks CA Ag
Farm animal confinement battle heats up
ORLAND
April 24, 2008 8:49am
One of the groups supporting a November ballot measure that would change how some farmers raise their chickens, pigs and veal calves is ratcheting up the campaign with a video tour of the state.
Farm Sanctuary of Orland has equipped a truck with 80-inch video screens on three sides to show its undercover video investigations of what it considers abuse of farm animals to groups around California.
The tour is to raise public awareness “about the cruelties inherent on factory farms and to encourage people to take action to end farm animal abuse,” it says.
“When cruel and egregious practices are exposed to public scrutiny people respond fervently to the call for compassion,” says Julie Janovsky, Farm Sanctuary’s director of campaigns. “When people see a pig confined in a gestation crate, neurotically biting at the bars, unable to turn around, or take more than a step, it has a profound visceral effect on those viewing the cruelty. They know it’s inherently wrong and they want it to stop.” Read More
The first of many attacks against agriculture in CA have begun in an effort to pass the initiative that will ban cages. While there will be no increase in the welfare of farm animals from its passage, proponents of the initiative know that this will get them closer to their ultimate goal of eliminating animal agriculture completely.
ORLAND
April 24, 2008 8:49am
One of the groups supporting a November ballot measure that would change how some farmers raise their chickens, pigs and veal calves is ratcheting up the campaign with a video tour of the state.
Farm Sanctuary of Orland has equipped a truck with 80-inch video screens on three sides to show its undercover video investigations of what it considers abuse of farm animals to groups around California.
The tour is to raise public awareness “about the cruelties inherent on factory farms and to encourage people to take action to end farm animal abuse,” it says.
“When cruel and egregious practices are exposed to public scrutiny people respond fervently to the call for compassion,” says Julie Janovsky, Farm Sanctuary’s director of campaigns. “When people see a pig confined in a gestation crate, neurotically biting at the bars, unable to turn around, or take more than a step, it has a profound visceral effect on those viewing the cruelty. They know it’s inherently wrong and they want it to stop.” Read More
The first of many attacks against agriculture in CA have begun in an effort to pass the initiative that will ban cages. While there will be no increase in the welfare of farm animals from its passage, proponents of the initiative know that this will get them closer to their ultimate goal of eliminating animal agriculture completely.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Religion and Animal Rights
Activists for animals are finding a receptive audience in the faith community, including on the religious right.
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
She spent years as an outspoken antiabortion activist, and that cause remains dear to her. But these days, Karen Swallow Prior has a new passion: animal welfare.
She wasn't sure, at first, that advocating for God's four-legged creatures would go over well on the campus of Liberty University, a fundamentalist Baptist institution founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Among the Liberty faculty -- and conservative evangelicals in general -- the animal-rights movement is often disdained as a secular, liberal cause.
But activists have been working with increasing intensity to shed that image. They're lecturing in Quaker meetinghouses and Episcopal churches, setting up websites that post Scripture alongside recipes for vegan soup -- and using biblical language to promote political initiatives, such as laws mandating bigger cages for pregnant pigs. Read More
More religions are starting to take a more vocal stand in the animal rights debate. While you would expect that most religions would be concerned about the welfare of animals, giving them rights is a whole different ball of wax. The initiative in California is going to have several religious groups weighing in with their opinions.
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
She spent years as an outspoken antiabortion activist, and that cause remains dear to her. But these days, Karen Swallow Prior has a new passion: animal welfare.
She wasn't sure, at first, that advocating for God's four-legged creatures would go over well on the campus of Liberty University, a fundamentalist Baptist institution founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Among the Liberty faculty -- and conservative evangelicals in general -- the animal-rights movement is often disdained as a secular, liberal cause.
But activists have been working with increasing intensity to shed that image. They're lecturing in Quaker meetinghouses and Episcopal churches, setting up websites that post Scripture alongside recipes for vegan soup -- and using biblical language to promote political initiatives, such as laws mandating bigger cages for pregnant pigs. Read More
More religions are starting to take a more vocal stand in the animal rights debate. While you would expect that most religions would be concerned about the welfare of animals, giving them rights is a whole different ball of wax. The initiative in California is going to have several religious groups weighing in with their opinions.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
CA Woman Wants to Take Farmer's Choice Away
Pacific Grove woman fights for humane treatment of animals
By KEVIN HOWE Herald Staff Writer
Her family has ranched in the Sacramento Valley since the 1850s when they fed the Gold Rush miners with their beef cattle and crops.
"Family farming," she said, "has been part of my upbringing."
So it's no surprise Zamzow takes an unsentimental, but hard-line stance for the humane treatment of farm animals.
She and other volunteers completed a campaign this year to gather nearly 800,000 signatures on petitions to place the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Zamzow was singled out by Erin Williams, spokeswoman for the Humane Society of the United States' factory farming campaign for her work in gathering hundreds of signatures for the ballot initiative, making her one of the top campaigners in Monterey County. Read More
The California initiative is about choice, not science or animal welfare. HSUS and people like Zamzow want to take away producers options for raising animals, which in turn could force many to quit raising animals altogether. Research has shown no benefit to the animal’s welfare by not using these techniques, so all this will accomplish is to take away the individual freedoms of producers.
By KEVIN HOWE Herald Staff Writer
Her family has ranched in the Sacramento Valley since the 1850s when they fed the Gold Rush miners with their beef cattle and crops.
"Family farming," she said, "has been part of my upbringing."
So it's no surprise Zamzow takes an unsentimental, but hard-line stance for the humane treatment of farm animals.
She and other volunteers completed a campaign this year to gather nearly 800,000 signatures on petitions to place the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act on the Nov. 4 ballot.
Zamzow was singled out by Erin Williams, spokeswoman for the Humane Society of the United States' factory farming campaign for her work in gathering hundreds of signatures for the ballot initiative, making her one of the top campaigners in Monterey County. Read More
The California initiative is about choice, not science or animal welfare. HSUS and people like Zamzow want to take away producers options for raising animals, which in turn could force many to quit raising animals altogether. Research has shown no benefit to the animal’s welfare by not using these techniques, so all this will accomplish is to take away the individual freedoms of producers.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Cost of the Beef Recall
Footing the bill for the beef
FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 2008
Someone has to pay for the largest beef recall in U.S. history. The federal government wants a California slaughterhouse to do so and has billed it $67 million for expenses related to the recall of 143 million pounds of beef in February. Read More
The cost of this recall continues to mount for Westland/Hallmark. It will be difficult for them to be able to pay the entire tab, and I agree that the government will end up paying some of the costs.
FRIDAY, APRIL 11, 2008
Someone has to pay for the largest beef recall in U.S. history. The federal government wants a California slaughterhouse to do so and has billed it $67 million for expenses related to the recall of 143 million pounds of beef in February. Read More
The cost of this recall continues to mount for Westland/Hallmark. It will be difficult for them to be able to pay the entire tab, and I agree that the government will end up paying some of the costs.
Animal rights fight to ballot
Animal rights fight to ballot
Egg-laying hens, pregnant pigs and calves raised for veal could not be confined in restrictive enclosures in California that did not allow them to extend their wings or limbs, under an initiative that qualified Wednesday for the Nov. 4 ballot.
Sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States, the Treatment of Farm Animals statute is likely to generate spirited debate between animal rights activists and farmers who contend it would raise prices for consumers. Read More
The California bill to eliminate confining farm animals has made it onto the November ballot. Millions and millions will be spent on this ballot measure. Thousands of jobs and reduced welfare for farm animals will result with the passage of this law.
Egg-laying hens, pregnant pigs and calves raised for veal could not be confined in restrictive enclosures in California that did not allow them to extend their wings or limbs, under an initiative that qualified Wednesday for the Nov. 4 ballot.
Sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States, the Treatment of Farm Animals statute is likely to generate spirited debate between animal rights activists and farmers who contend it would raise prices for consumers. Read More
The California bill to eliminate confining farm animals has made it onto the November ballot. Millions and millions will be spent on this ballot measure. Thousands of jobs and reduced welfare for farm animals will result with the passage of this law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)