When an animal advocate advocates for a law related to the animal prisoners that are imprisoned in this breeding system, they perpetuate and reinforce the property status that these animals have in our society. In the population’s eyes now the problem becomes the treatment, or rather the societal view that the treatment is the problem becomes reinforced, of the exploited animals and not the exploitation of breeding and killing animals at any whim.
This is a big reason of why I don't promote laws that legitimize the very institution that allows animals to be exploited, harmed and killed.
Yes, obviously an implementation of sprinklers in every building may save some lives. On the other hand promoting such reforms will increase the overall animal exploitation and legitimizing animal exploitation. I won't legitimize animal exploitation regardless of that it has some positive (and very many negative) consequences. I am not a utilitarian and even in a 'utilitarian' perspective it wouldn't be justified since it increases the overall exploitation.
The reason why industry makes laws to protect "their property" is because that it maximizes their profit. One example:
"In its Analysis of Controlled-Atmosphere Killing vs. Electric Immobilization from an Economic Standpoint, PETA argues for the gassing, or “controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK)” of poultry, claiming that the electric stunning method of slaughter “lowers product quality and yield” because birds suffer broken bones and the process results in contamination dangerous to human health. The electric stunning method also “increases labor costs” in various ways. PETA argues that “CAK increases product quality and yield” because broken bones, bruising, and hemorrhaging are supposedly eliminated, contamination is reduced, “shelf-life of meat” is increased, and “‘more tender breast meat’” is produced. PETA also claims that “CAK lowers labor costs” by reducing the need for certain inspections, reducing accidents, and lowering employee turnover. CAK provides “other economic benefits” to the poultry industry by allowing producers to save money on energy costs, and by reducing by-product waste and the need to use water."
Animal welfare reform-advocates would say: 'Lets implement a reform that gives better condition for calves used for veal'. The consequence of this would be an increase in sales and increased exploitation of animals. One example of how industry promoted better condition for calves used for veal and how their profit and the exploitation increased: http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm
This is what occurse when you make the public more comfortable with animal exploitation.
So we have two choices:
1.Either we advocate for Animal welfare reform, which industry would introduce anyways because that it maximizes their profit, and make the public more comfortable with their exploitation beause of that we legitimize animal exploitation.
2. We promote nonviolent creative vegan education in many various forms and make vegans. This grass roots organization provides many good resources for this: http://www.facebook.com/abolitionistvegansociety
An equivalent to advocating Animal welfare reform would be to share a petition in Germany during the Nazi era, which admonisted the Nazis:
‘Can you please install sprinkler systems in the concentration camps, so that they won’t be any unnecessary fire, which will take the lives of your prisoners.’ instead of actually working towards stopping the exploitation of the the people in the concentration camps.'
It would have legitimized the exploitation of the people prisoned in the concentration camps, and wasting time that could be used to actually rescue people from getting into the concentration camps and to stop that very institution..
"If I was a factory farm animal" I would want people to fight for my right not to have been born in the first place. The only reason these animals are farmed (and I make no distinction between factory farming and any other type of farming - they're all equally abhorrent) is because consumers demand their flesh to eat. Persuading people that it's ok to eat animals reared under certain so-called *humane* conditions is never going to turn them vegan. They will continue to happily fork out a little bit more money for dead flesh that salves their consciences. Indefinitely. The only winners are the farmers who will rake in a lot more money with neglible extra outlay. I know of people who have gone from being vegetarian to eating meat again because they believe the *humane* propaganda. This is fact, not speculation.
Reduce the demand, and that will progressively reduce the numbers of animals in the system until eventually it stops."