When we were deciding what we wanted to put on the ballot in Sonoma County (Measure J), we were thinking of this point of that it would look bad if a moderate measure failed. Our reasoning for choosing a ban on all factory farms (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) was that it was such a huge ask of this agricultural community that it likely would not pass, but it wouldn’t look that bad if it failed because next time we could tone down the ask. But because initial polling showed that most people in the county would vote yes on Measure J, that’s why we proceeded with this big ask. Also, our measure DD to ban all livestock operations did pass in Berkeley. It would have affected one operation, but when we started collecting signatures, they voluntarily shut down. It was Golden Gate Fields horse race track. As for Denver, our friends who were working on the ballot measures also said it was bad for the fur ban initiative that the other, more radical one, was next to it. They are learning from their mistakes.

Yes, we did polling when we were preparing for Measure J. We paid a professional polling service (phone and texting polls) and also collected data in face-to-face interviews with voters in Sonoma County. We also used Survey Monkey to do a poll. All 3 polling methods that we used before commencing Measure J showed that more than 50% of voters in Sonoma County would vote Yes on Measure J. That’s why we decided to even proceed with Measure J.

I was working on Measure J in Sonoma County, and my friends were working on the 2 measures in Denver. One of the main obstacles we faced is with fundraising. Initial polls showed that Measure J in Sonoma County would have passed, but the opposition raised about 10 times more money than we did. We didn’t have money to send truthful literature to every household in Sonoma County, but only to some households. However, the opposition sent multiple pieces of literature filled with exaggerations and lies to scare voters so that they would believe that store shelves would become empty if they voted yes on Measure J. Opposition raised over $2 million to just defeat Measure J. They had money for TV ads, and we didn’t. They paid money to a local environmental nonprofit to publicize why locals should vote no. Our friends in Denver faced very similar challenges. However, our ballot measure to ban all livestock operations did pass in Berkeley. About 60% of people voted to shut down all livestock operations. When we started collecting signatures in Berkeley for this measure DD, then the only large livestock operation there decided to shut down. It was Golden Gate Fields horse race track. Also, even though Measure J did not pass in Sonoma County, it did generate a lot of press. Associated Press, LA Times, KQED, San Francisco Chronicle, and Washington Post covered it. If you count letters to the editor, then The Press Democrat covered Measure J around a 100 times. So there’s definitely more awareness of the issue of animal welfare now because of our efforts in Sonoma County. We can leverage our wins in Berkeley and Sonoma County for future work on ballot measures. We need funding though!

I think the following is a good point, "Where the efforts of these altruists should be directed is towards ensuring that governments behave properly. They are not thinking enough about the political structure that underlies their ability to give money away." I have been volunteering in the space of Animal Rights since 2015 and have been reading about social changes and social movements in the past few years. From the literature I read, it does seem that EA movement as a whole is not as focused on creating positive legislative change as it could be. For example, slaves/serfs were freed and women got the right to vote due to social and legislative activism that demanded these changes. It would be great to see more donors supporting more work that is of legislative nature.

In my 8 years of volunteering for several Animal Rights/ Animal Welfare groups, including The Humane League, PETA, Anonymous for the Voiceless, and Direct Action Everywhere, I have observed that most volunteers and paid staff are truth-seeking and completely truthful and transparent with the public. For example, we do discuss amongst ourselves and with the public how to have a healthy and balanced vegan diet. For example, we discuss that as vegans, we should make sure to get supplements of vitamins and minerals we need, including vitamin B12 and omega 3. Also, we sometimes discuss eating enough protein. There’s even a PETA brochure that is a vegan starter kit that shows mock meats - a brochure that we sometimes offer to those interested. Furthermore, we sometimes mention this great resource to learn more about how to optimize nutrition for a long and healthy life: https://nutritionfacts.org/ Also, I sometimes share the website of PubMed for reading of primary research on food and health.

Theory of change discussions are so important! In our non-profit, we frequently compare how our theory of change is in relation to the US Civil Rights Movement, global female suffrage movement, equal marriage movement, and other movements that were successful in achieving their goals. I think it’s important to make sure we seem to be on track to achieving our goals. One of our goals is abolishing animal agriculture world-wide. I think other orgs in the space of animal welfare/ animal rights can benefit from making sure they are on track to achieve in an effective and efficient way their goals.

It would be great to see research on potential effectiveness of ballot initiatives that would ban Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), otherwise known as animal factory farms, and initiatives that would simply limit them, such as banning construction of new ones and expansion of existing ones. These are the ballot initiatives our organization is working on.

Hi Vasco, I just read certain portions of this document that you linked. My main feedback on this document is that you or whoever is the author does not appear to think that animals who have large brains, such as pigs and cows/bulls, deserve as much compassion as humans. This is what stood out to me in reading this document.

I oppose creating “net-happy farmed animal lives” when animals will be killed by humans because when someone is created to be used their whole life and then murdered, I don’t see that as an optimally happy life. It’s like a woman giving birth to a child only to murder them at age 3. It’s better not to plan to have the child and not to conceive them in order to murder them later. If I have a child and love them my whole life, help them, and never want to use them for anything, then this is an optimally happy life. Also, I have cats and never want to use them for anything that they would not want. I only give them unconditional love and feed them a vegan diet according to information I got from a veterinarian who specializes in cat nutrition. So my cats have optimally happy lives. I believe humans should stop breeding other individuals in order to use and murder them. It’s better overall if humans focus on helping others who already share the planet with us or who will be born in the future and help them live optimally happy lives. As for farmed animals who are already born, humans should help them live out their natural lives as optimally as possible and not kill them. This would be overall best net outcome for everyone.

When hens are raised for their eggs, most of the baby roosters who are born as well in the hatcheries get brutally murdered. Animals raised on pastures for meat, are brutally murdered as well. There is no humane way to kill someone who wants to live. Thus, initiatives such as bans on animal factory farm expansion or initiatives to phase out animal factory farms completely appear to be more effective in helping animals long-term than initiatives that improve a little bit lives of a limited number of animals.