 | ||||||||||
Humane Treatment of Farm Animals | ||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| Elections in Arizona | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Proposition 204 of 2006, or theHumane Treatment of Farm Animals Act,[1] was a law enacted by the voters ofArizona by means of theinitiative process. It requires that pigs and calves used for veal onfactory farms be given enough room to turn around and fully extend their limbs. The Act was approved in a vote held as part of the2006 Arizona state elections, held on November 7. It passed with over 62% support.[2]
The Act amended theArizona Revised Statutes by adding a new provision,Section 13-2910.07 of the Criminal Code.[3] This states that:
Proposition 204 was sponsored by Arizonans for Humane Farms,[4] a coalition ofanimal welfare organizations, including the Arizona Humane Society, theHumane Society of the United States, theFarm Sanctuary, and the Animal Defense League of Arizona. It was opposed by the Campaign for Arizona Farmers and Ranchers with funding fromagribusiness proponents such as the American Veal Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the AZ Cattle Feeders Association, AZ Pork Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, AZ Farm Bureau Federation, AZ Cattleman's Association, and the United Dairymen of Arizona.
The chairperson of the Yes on Proposition 204 campaign was Cheryl Naumann,[5] president and CEO of the Arizona Humane Society. Another spokesperson was Maricopa County SheriffJoe Arpaio, and the campaign was also endorsed by the radio celebrityPaul Harvey. More than 200,000 Arizonans signed petitions to place the measure on the ballot. More than 100 Arizona veterinarians endorsed Proposition 204. It was also endorsed by theArizona Republic[6] theArizona Daily Star,[7] theEast Valley Tribune[8] theScottsdale Tribune, theNorthwest Explorer,[9] and theTucson Weekly.[10]
The opposition to Proposition 204 argued that the primary organizers of the initiative were anti-meat groups, and that a similar measure passed in 2002 in Florida had led to the bankruptcy of a farm in that state. However, the Florida Farm Bureau explicitly denied the claim that any farms went out of business as a result of the 2002 ballot measure in that state. In an article published the week after the 2002 election, a spokesman for the Bureau stated that "It's because of low prices, not the amendment".[11] However, in an article the following month in theSt. Petersburg Times, one of the two Florida hog farmers covered under Proposition 204 stated that he had slaughtered all of his sows because of the expense of complying with it.[12]
