Coloradans are discussing various issues pertaining to animal welfare. Voters face the statewide ballot proposal to ban hunting of mountain lions (as well as lynx and bobcats). Denver voters face proposals to ban slaughterhouses and the sale of fur. Starting in January, businesses have to comply with a cage-free egg law passed in 2020. So how should we think about animal welfare?
Conservatives, who tend to be more tied to farming, ranching, and hunting, tend to regard animal-welfare proposals with skepticism if not derision. What do those dumb city-slickers who buy their mystery meat prepackaged from a market refrigerator while pushing their poodles around in strollers know about animal welfare?
Of course conservatives do care a lot about animal welfare, they just tend to be skeptical of new regulations of agriculture. Here is a simple test: What would you think of a hunter who intentionally gut-shot a deer, or who blew out a deer’s pelvis, just to watch the animal suffer? You’d think that’s a horrible person, right? What would you think about someone who tortured a stray dog to death? Same conclusion.
Going to extremes
So pretty much everyone, conservative or progressive, urban or rural, actually does care about animal welfare. Pretty much everyone favors some animal welfare laws, such as those prohibiting the torture of domestic cats and dogs. How should we think about animal welfare more generally and about what laws are appropriate?
Some people take animal welfare very seriously. Michael Huemer, author of Progressive Myths, hardly unthinkingly swallows leftist schemes. Yet Huemer argues that “factory farming” causes “extreme pain and suffering” to animals, so he advocates “ethical vegetarianism.” He’s okay with eating clams and lab-grown meat, because that doesn’t involve animals feeling pain, but he’s against the use of “factory farming” to produce meat, dairy, and other animal products. He is less worried about “certified humane” products. He’s mainly concerned with personal choices; I don’t know what legal reforms he might favor.
Even if you don’t think Huemer’s far-reaching conclusions are warranted, I’d bet that you’d support some sorts of legal protections of animals, even in an agricultural context. The 1966 federal Animal Welfare Act covers animals used for research purposes and the like. Colorado’s Animal Protection Act bans cruelty toward animals generally. Some people might argue about certain details of these laws, about state versus federal jurisdiction, or about appropriate enforcement. But most people are repulsed by egregious abuse of animals and see at least some role for government in stopping it.
Let’s turn to some of the specific proposals before voters, starting with the proposed ban on cat hunting.
Ballot measures a step too far
According to Mark Udall, cat hunting usually involves “packs of dogs . . . set loose to chase, fight and eventually tree a cat.” And fur trapping, Udall says, typically involves bludgeoning or choking a bobcat to death. Such treatment of animals certainly sounds horrific to me. But, even if you agree with me about that, it seems that Prop. 127, the proposed ban on cat hunting, goes too far.
If the problem is particularly cruel forms of cat hunting, then why ban cat hunting completely? Unless you want to say that hunting of all animals should be banned, definitely an outlier position, there’s no justification for banning only hunting of big cats. Of course, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife considers healthy population sizes when issuing licenses for various game animals.
Denver’s Measure 309 would ban the Superior Farms lamb processing plant and all future slaughterhouses within the city. Some people allege inhumane treatment of animals at the plant in question. Axios reports, “An animal rights group [Animal Activist Legal Defense] released a video on Wednesday it says shows animal abuse at Superior Farms in Denver and incidents that some legal experts argue violate animal cruelty and humane slaughter laws.”
The related video is rough. The initial description reads, “Lambs raise their heads and thrash while hanging, partially eviscerated, on the slaughter line.” If those lambs were still conscious (I don’t know), that such treatment definitely is horrific. (It’s gruesome regardless, but no one argues that slaughtering animals is a pleasant task.)
But here’s the thing: If the slaughterhouse in question was violating existing legal standards for animal treatment, then isn’t the answer to better-enforce those standards? It seems pretty clear that the ballot measure in question is part of a much broader publicity campaign against the slaughter of animals more generally. The language of the measure even mentions the need to “address the climate crisis”—as if banning a single slaughterhouse in Denver would have any appreciable effect on global CO2 levels.
Denver Measure 308 would ban fur products in the city. Kyle Harris’s article for Denverite indicates the measure’s far-reaching scope: “If this measure passes, stores and individuals could not distribute, sell or display most new fur products in the city. The measure would also ban the manufacturing of fur products. Companies would not be allowed to raise or slaughter animals for their fur in Denver. And people could not order or sell fur products from their homes.” That sounds pretty Big Brotherish.
Again it is obvious that the measure is about using Denver to wage a much broader publicity campaign. “Fur farms,” the language of the measure notes, are “vectors for dangerous zoonotic diseases.” Obviously banning fur in Denver will not impact that broader problem. The measure also says, “Animals that are slaughtered for their fur endure tremendous suffering.” If that’s true, wouldn’t the answer be to better-regulate the production of fur at the state or federal level, not ban the sale of fur in Denver?
The measure also is discriminatory all over the place. It exempts “traditional tribal, cultural, or spiritual” uses of fur by members of Native American tribes. It allows sale of used fur products. It allows furs “preserved through taxidermy.” And it even discriminates against certain animals, defining “fur product” as not including “cowhide with the hair attached” or “lambskin or sheepskin with the fleece attached.”
Getting past the nonsense
What about cage-free eggs? I don’t have a problem with cage-free eggs in principle; whenever feasible I go the extra step and buy “certified humane” eggs. But the restrictions do come at a cost. In a recent radio interview with Ross Kaminsky, Bill Scebbi, director of Colorado Egg Producers, said, “The cost of producing eggs in a cage free environment is anywhere from seventeen to twenty percent more than the conventionally caged egg.” I guess if some people cannot afford as many eggs the attitude is, “Let them eat tofu.” Maybe that’s a justifiable position, but let’s not pretend there aren’t tradeoffs.
Animals cannot vote or speak for themselves. Most people agree that we should seriously consider the welfare of animals. But what obligations we owe to animals, and what laws we should pass to help protect them, are not easy topics. I urge conservatives not to reflexively dismiss as leftist nonsense any proposal to improve the lives of animals. And I urge animal welfare activists to straightforwardly state their goals and to carefully tailor policy proposals to achieve those goals. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to ponder what I should eat as a late-night snack.
Ari Armstrong writes regularly for Complete Colorado and is the author of books about Ayn Rand, Harry Potter, and classical liberalism. He can be reached at ari at ariarmstrong dot com.