If it receives voter approval this fall, Prop. 204, known as the Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act, would require calves raised for veal and pregnant sows be given sufficient space to turn around, lie down, and fully extend their limbs.

The proposed measure allows for exceptions such as legitimate scientific research, sows in the final seven days of pregnancy, and other reasons. If passed, it would take effect Dec. 31, 2012.

Backing the measure is Arizonans for Humane Farms, a coalition of animal welfare organizations, environmentalists, food safety organizations and concerned citizens, according to the group’s literature. The coalition wants to ban gestation crates for pigs, as well as confining in crates calves being raised for veal.

Coalition chair Cheryl Naumann stated neither of the two “radical” animal rights organizations–PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) and ALF (Animal Liberation Front)– are funding or endorsing Prop. 204.

“To the contrary,” said Naumann, “this campaign is being chaired by me, the president and CEO of the Arizona Humane Society, which is a moderate animal organization.”

Other supporters listed on the organization’s Web site include the Humane Society of Southern Arizona, the Second Chance Center for Animals, the Animal Defense League of Arizona, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Naumann, a pro‑business Republican whose family owns a cattle ranch in Texas, said Prop. 204 is an effort to end the cruel and inhumane use of gestation crates. She called the practice “the most extreme form of confinement used in large industrial factory farms.”

The coalition chairwoman stated that Arizona has more than 200 hog farmers–a number cited from the U.S. Department of Agriculture–and acknowledges that only one operation, a large company, uses the gestation crate method of housing. “All the others have figured out how to raise their animals in a humane way,” said Naumann.

She admits there is no appreciable veal industry in Arizona, but said her group wants to send a message to any veal operators who consider locating here that they will have to use a humane housing method.

Klinker maintains the proposition is unnecessary because state farmers already understand they not only have a moral obligation to take care of their production animals, but a huge economic incentives as well.

Cave Creek veterinarian Michael Kiedrowski agrees that farm producers have good financial reasons to keep their facilities clean and their animals healthy.

“Speaking from my compassionate side, I think these animals should have more space,” said Kiedrowski, who treats small companion animals, not those used in farming production. “From the business side, I say ‘no’ to the proposition,” he added. “Let’s face it, these animals are going to slaughter anyway.”

Mari Lynn Anger, a veterinarian at the Animal Hospital at Tatum Ranch, said she supports humane treatment for people and animals. “I made a decision in veterinary school not to eat veal,” she related.

The way Arizona farmers take care of and house their bred sows is supported by university studies, distinguished veterinary organizations and swine experts, according to a position paper prepared by Klinker. He wrote that to out‑of‑state activists, raising animals in any environment for food production is inhumane and nothing will change their minds.

“Their mission is to go state by state armed with ballot measures, legislation and litigation to ban common farming practices, end meat production and, ultimately, force their vegan agenda down the throats of American consumers,” he stated.

Naumann, however, said there is nothing in the proposition that says animals cannot be slaughtered for food. “McDonald’s will not be closing if this passes,” she said.

In fact, according to Naumann, the best day in the lives of these crated animals is the day they’re slaughtered.

“Why the opposition would even think to fight against the basic level of decency we’re proposing is beyond me,” she said.

Reach the reporter at barry@thedesertadvocate.com.