Would you vote “NO” to a proposition that would eliminate bad conditions for dozens of hens squeezed together in feces-caked cages? How about for unwanted chickens dying in piles of bird corpses?

My guess is your vote would be “YES” — to that proposition and probably also to the idea of never eating eggs again after that image (my apologies for that). California did vote yes in 2008, to the celebration of PETA fanatics and casual animal lovers alike. Even the Los Angeles Times posted a story with a rather loaded lead — “Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Tuesday signed legislation into law requiring that eggs sold in California come from hens that are not crammed into cages.”

Good treatment of animals isn’t typically something people vote “against.” But groups that advocate for animals may support policies that have unintended implications that people wouldn’t expect. California’s controversial Proposition 2, which passed in 2008, requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be able to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely in confinement (with certain exceptions). A “YES” vote would indicate the prohibition of these practices starting in 2015 and instate the possibility of fines and jail time for offenders.

It sounds simple enough, right? Letting the farm animals frolic in happiness up until landing themselves on a dinner plate on your table? But animal experts believe that changing the caging rules isn’t as simple as it might seem. Not to mention that with a substantial increase in egg production costs, Americans might just not turn to California for their poultry needs anymore. Instead, they may very well look to Mexico, ironically, where animal cruelty laws are virtually nonexistent, and caging laws are much worse. A University of California, Davis, study indeed suggested that the state’s over-$300-million egg industry may very well move out of the state.

Today, there are still a few years left before we’ll know whether Proposition 2 has the apocalyptic consequences that some have warned about. But I had to wonder: Will similar chicken laws be nesting in Illinois, too?

Now, I’m by no means a chicken expert, but I was lucky to find one just as I started to fear I’d never want another McNugget again. Dr. Janeen Salak-Johnson, an animal sciences associate professor at the University, has completed research on sow housing and took a special interest in Proposition 2 out of concern that animal welfare groups pushing similar laws didn’t know much about their agricultural implications. She said groups like The Humane Society of the United States have equated battery cages (which proposed state legislations have tried to eliminate) to animal cruelty.

The problem, she believes, is that researchers haven’t been able to find an adequate substitute yet. As it stands now, if chickens are not in controlled cages with hygienic methods of extracting eggs, those eggs can lie in places they can easily contract salmonella (I’ll let you connect the dots there).

Johnson said though groups have tried, they’ve been unsuccessful in passing any kinds of legislation in Illinois and other highly agricultural states. She believes the referendums, until researchers have optimized better housing options for animals bred for consumption, have “no rhyme or reason whatsoever besides trying to get people to stop eating meat and chicken.”

I consulted another expert (alright, she’s not an expert yet, but she is veterinary school-bound and my animal-obsessed roommate) who pointed out that there is a huge difference between “animal rights” advocates, who believe animals should be treated as persons and not be used as food, clothing or for research, and “animal welfare” supporters, who want to promote the well-being of animals, even if it those animals are raised for consumption or other purposes. It’s hard to understand all of these complications when the ballot slapped in front of you asks you if you want to stop poor conditions for animals. Of course every person with good intentions would want to do that. But it’s hard to consider all sides of the issue when it’s framed that way.

Now, I’m no animal hater, but I am definitely a frequent exerciser of my right to eat meat. It’s hard to remember that there can be harsh consequences for issues like these when you’re staring at an ad about tiny, fuzzy birds. But you can’t forget that, just like any other interest groups, some animal advocacy organizations have their paws dirty in politics.

_Megan is a senior in Media._