The truth about Prop. 204
Proposition 204 says that no one shall confine a pregnant pig or veal calf raised for meat for more than the majority of the day or where the animal cannot lie down, stretch its limbs or turn around freely. If someone is caught doing so, it is punishable by a class 1 misdemeanor. The truth of the matter is that there is no veal calf production in Arizona and only one hog farm in the state. So I must ask the opponents why they chose Arizona to attack. If this is such a huge issue, why not start with the state that has more than 16,000 hogs in gestation stalls, like North Carolina?
The opponents will tell you that they don’t want large-scale family farms moving here, but the truth is the mission of Farm Sanctuary, as quoted by its president Gene Bauston (primary backer of Prop. 204), “”What we need to do is promote a vegan lifestyle and promote an economy that does not depend on exploiting animals. … Ultimately we’re for animal rights. … By killing animals, we are killing ourselves, physically and emotionally.”” Their plan is to end all animal agriculture in the United States.
I have personally visited the hog farm in Snowflake, and the sows there are kept in clean, air-conditioned buildings. There are two veterinarians on staff 24 hours a day caring for the animals. They each have their own scientific ration of feed that is specific to the individual sow. Personally, in my mind, that is a pretty comfortable lifestyle. While I am on the issue of humane, I would like to inform the readers that the Humane Society put down 30,000 cats and dogs over a 12-month period. How humane is that? Prop. 204 is hogwash.
Patrick Bray
agriculture economics and management senior
Wildcat sports should take the high road
Just happened to notice Wednesday’s Arizona Daily Wildcat and found something unusual. It was a link from the University of Illinois saying that a star player of theirs just had a DUI charge on him. And I found it interesting because the Wildcat very rarely posts other college sports news besides what happens at the UA. Yet this article happens to slip into the Wildcat somehow. Now, I’m sure you are very upset with how the end of the 2005 season played out for the Wildcat basketball team, as are most other die-hard UA fans, but you shouldn’t report news, especially bad news like this, because the Wildcat has a grudge against the Illini. Recently, four basketball players were shot at Duquesne University, a real tragic story, yet there was no mention in the Wildcat about it. When former Arizona State University quarterback Sam Keller had to transfer, there was no mention of that in the Wildcat. I would suggest that the Wildcat not publish discriminating news against its rivals in the future, as the UA certainly would not have liked it if other colleges reported Hassan Adams’ incident earlier last season. Please make good judgment in the future and take the high road.
Thomas Schultze
chemistry senior
E-CHUG a valuable resource for students
Thanks to Ryan Johnson for his clear and insightful WildCard response in “”Playing games with drinking”” in Wednesday’s Wildcat. As he points out, E-CHUG is an innovative online program that gives personalized feedback on alcohol use. But in another sense, E-CHUG is not so different from the old blood pressure machine you may have used while waiting around at a pharmacy. No, you won’t get that unmistakable pneumatic whirr or the constricting arm cuff, but by entering your alcohol use you will receive tailored feedback on your drinking habits – all in the span of about 15 minutes.
How can you be sure your responses are private? Confidentiality is guaranteed because E-CHUG results are only generated in group form, and freshmen validate their completion of the program on a Web site that is separate from their responses, ensuring that data and names can’t be linked. In fact, E-CHUG has almost nothing to do with providing the UA with information on student alcohol use. Instead, E-CHUG allows students to find out for themselves. To check out the program for yourself, go to: http://www.arizona.edu/students/echug.php.
David Salafsky
E-CHUG coordinator
Campus Health Service
Shelton, Likins Right: ‘No’ on 107
UA administrations, past and present, have taken many progressive steps to ensure the best and brightest conduct their research, share their findings and teach the next generation here in Tucson. Those steps have included offering domestic partnership benefits to couples, without regard to orientation. These remarkable steps forward in creating a diverse and inclusive campus will be dramatically undermined if voters choose to pass Proposition 107 on Nov. 7.
I applaud President Robert Shelton and former President Peter Likins for speaking so courageously against Prop. 107. They understand the ramifications and setbacks that would come with this hate-filled and misleading proposition. Unlike what conservative extremists would like you to believe, this proposition is not about banning same-gender marriage. Same-gender marriage is already illegal in Arizona and has been upheld by Arizona courts. This proposition was simply written by ultraconservatives out of touch with Arizonans, including the Republican gubernatorial candidate, to create a wedge issue this election cycle and to discriminate against a specific group of Arizonans. I urge all Wildcats to stand up with Presidents Shelton and Likins and vote ‘no’ on 107.
David Martinez III
secondary education senior
president, UA Young Democrats
