State Of Ohio Issue 2 (READ BEFORE VOTING)

[tagra123]

The text that will appear on the ballot:

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/2-final_language.pdf

Below are some links to information about Ohio Issue 2. In a time of high unemployment, budget deficits, and government waste we should to ask ourselves if we really need to spend more money for the interests of another lobby or interest group. This boards sole purpose appears to be to protect one government agency from another. What a waste!
The scary part is that, if passed, the constitutionally created board will be the decision makers on animal welfare and will be insulated by the Constitution to pass whatever laws they deem necessary. That's right, we give up a right and they have no accountability to us. There are ramifications to this and we should beware of handing yet more of our freedom over to the government. I may be wrong, but I believe that the Ohio Farm Bureau is wrong to support this.

Read for yourself.

---
From the Humane Society of the United States: http://www.organization.org/legislation_laws/ballot_initiatives/ohio_issue_2.html

Because it’s designed to favor large factory farms, not family farmers, Issue 2 is opposed by the Ohio Farmers Union, the Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, League of Women Voters of Ohio, the Ohio League of Humane Voters, and the Ohio Sierra Club. The editorial boards of Ohio’s major newspapers—including the Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon Journal, and Dayton Daily News—all oppose this effort to enshrine the agribusiness lobby’s favored oversight system in the state’s constitution.

Issue 2 is a classic example of bad public policy-making and should be rejected by voters.
---

From the Animal Blawg http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/ohio%E2%80%99s-issue-2/

Issue 2 is a voter referendum to create an Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. This would add a provision to the state Constitution, establishing a board, which would set standards for the care and well-being of livestock statewide.

---

Please pass this on to your friends.


Added on 10/21/09:
http://lawdork.net/2009/10/14/ohios-issue-2-subverting-democracy-with-democracy/

"...
The whole thing is a picture-perfect example of subverting the Democratic process — under the guise of democracy. The ballot language sounds like it mightn’t be that bad, informing voters that the Board would:

be comprised of thirteen Ohio residents including representatives of Ohio family farms, farming organizations, food safety experts, veterinarians, consumers, the dean of the agriculture department at an Ohio college or university and a county humane society representative.

What it doesn’t say is that 10 of the 13 board members are appointed by the governor, which means they could hold whatever view the governor desires that his or her appointees hold. The amendment says nothing about terms of the appointees and, as such, they would serve at the pleasure of the governor and could be replaced at any time. Also, technically, the governor holds 11 of the 13 spots, as the chair of the board is the director of the Agriculture Department, a gubernatorial appointment.

..."

 

[bigredfeather]

I would like to discuss the other side of this issue. I would like it to be known that I am not trying to start a heated debate on this topic. I also respect the opinions of others on this issue. I think it is important for people to hear both sides of an issue before making a decision. So I would like to share with you my opinion and knowlegde on this Issue.

A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to attend a rally for Ohio ballot Issue 2. The rally took place on a small farm in rural Darke County. There were approximately 250 people there. The attendees were comprised of mostly small family farmers all the way up to large-scale cattle, swine, and poultry producers. They started the rally with a talk from one of the area farmers who initiated, and has been heavily involved with the evolution of this legislation. That’s right, the initiation of Issue 2 was started by a farmer, not some bureaucrat in the government. He talked about how the organization has their sites on the agriculture businesses in the state of Ohio. He stated if it were up to the organization, there would be no large-scale agriculture establishments anywhere in the US. He then spoke about the potential financial impact it would have on Ohio if Issue 2 were not passed. In Darke County alone, agribusinesses generate near 300 million dollars per year in revenues. In a neighboring county to the North, the total was close to 350 million per year. That’s 650 million dollars in just two out of 88 Ohio counties. Granted all counties are not agriculturally concentrated, but you can imagine the total state wide revenues that farming generates in Ohio.

After this speaker, Ohio Senator Keith Faber spoke. He discussed the importance of getting in front of the organization. He stated Issue 2 is going to set up a Livestock Care Board that was based on science, with a panel of qualified members, whose goal is to set-up standards that would ensure that the agricultural practices of Ohio farmers would raise the bar for products generated from Ohio farms. Keith worked side by side with many farmers from our area to get this legislaltion on the ballot for this election. He stressed the timing of this bill. He said it was important for Ohio to get in front of the organization. If we can pass Issue 2, he said, it will set up a board controlled and regulated by the people that it most effects. If the organization gets control, their practices will have a detrimental impact on our farmers. If Issue 2 isn’t passed and the organization proposes their bill next year and it passes, there is still going to be a regulatory board, but this board will likely be comprised of members who are more concerned with the rights of animals than the people producing them.
The above post stated “ I may be wrong, but I believe that the Ohio Farm Bureau is wrong to support this.” The OFB has been a huge supporter, and for good reason. They represent the people who this Issue concerns most, the farmer. Again, the farmers are the ones who initiated this, so why wouldn’t the OFB support it? This bill is not an attempt to regulate in a detrimental manner. It is being proposed to ensure that a board is established that will not destroy agribusinesses in Ohio.

Your post also states “In a time of high unemployment, budget deficits, and government waste we should to ask ourselves if we really need to spend more money for the interests of another lobby or interest group.” My response is: Is this really a time when we should allow a group (organization) to come in and compromise the longevity of our farmers, who represent a large portion of Ohio’s economic revenues? The regulations that the organization would try to pass will not be the same type things the Ohio Livestock Care Board will bring fourth. There was also many other state elected officers that spoke at the rally. The main author of the bill (Gibbs) was at one time a large operation swine farmer. That ought to tell you something. The last speaker was a state representative from Indiana. He said he was attending because he fears the organization will be lurking in Indiana in coming years, and he wanted to get a first hand look at how Ohio was dealing with it, so his state would have a better understanding of how to deal with it in coming years. If Issue 2 was such a bad thing, why would a neighboring state rep want to take notes for his state?

In closing, I would like for people to do some research on this before voting. To me, the fact that this Issue was brought fourth by farmers, tells the story. They don’t like the idea of being regulated, but have realized they need to choose who is going to regulate them. If it isn’t a board of people looking out for their interests, then it’s going to be a board of people who are looking out for the livestock. Which do you think is going to have a more detrimental effect on our Ohio farmers?

And finally, again, I’m not saying other peoples opinions are wrong. I feel I have a bit of an inside look at this that many people do not have. Many times people are misinformed by the media, and generate opinions that may have been influenced by untrue facts.

Thanks for reading.

 

[halo]

Thank you for taking the time to post "the other side". Im glad you posted facts that were either purposely or inadvertantly left out of the original post.

 

[ohiofarmgirl]

thanks, bigredfeather, for your post.

nearly ALL of the farmers and vets in our area have posted vote yes on 2 signs. originally i was wondering why the heck we'd want to have this...but then i realized it was designed to keep organization from wrecking agriculture in this state. the local extension office sent out a really well thought out email about this issue. do we need more more govtment? no but we cant afford to lose agribusiness from organization's efforts.

do i like factory farms? not necessarily - which is was we raise our own food. but we cant feed our population without it. if we drive all of the food production out of the US - then what? how safe will that be? if you are at all concerned about the safety of this country you should do everything you can to keep the food production here.

do we really want the same countries that put lead in kids toys will be growing our food? i dont think so. should we all be vegetarians? dont be ridiculous.

i will never again give one dime to the humane society - they are completely misguided.

 

[Quail_Antwerp]

I know all of our local farmers and 4-H leaders are asking people to vote for issue 2.

The simpliest way it was explained to me by a local farmer is :

If Issue 2 passes, then the State of Ohio will be responsible for it's agricultural farmers/animals, etc. IF Issue 2 doesn't pass, then the Federal Government is going to try to get control of agriculture in Ohio.

So the question is, do you want to keep the decision making in our state? If so, Vote yes.

If you want the federal goverment to take control, vote no.

Ohio is a big farming community, and the decisions regarding farming need to stay within our state, and with the farmers who are humanely raising their animals.

 

[tagra123]

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far. bigredfeather has many good points and I agree with most of what is said in the 2nd post.

Here is the link to the Farm Bureau Federation so as not to be accused of being one sided: http://ofbf.org/

Not all Farm Bureau members are for this: http://ofbf.org/news-and-events/news/460/ -- The video commercial is very appealing.

First, I do not agree with the Humane Society and especially not PETA, but is fear a good reason to make government bigger? It is another in the litany of encroachments on our freedom. It bothers me that people are willing to hand over their freedom so easily for what seems to be a good cause -- preventing PETA and the Humane Society from interfering with farmers.

My point is this: I do no want some bureaucrat in Washington or Columbus to tell me what to do with my animals on my property. I do not understand why so many are willing to accept this. Is it fear?


I'm not asking anybody to vote YES or NO. I posted this so those that are not informed about the issue may be motivated to read about it before voting day.

 

[bigredfeather]

Quote:
If you don't agree with the HS, then it would be logical that you would favor a yes on Issue 2. The organization is who is opposing this issue. Either way (yes or no result) there is going to be bigger government envoked eventually.

It is another in the litany of encroachments on our freedom. It bothers me that people are willing to hand over their freedom so easily for what seems to be a good cause -- preventing PETA and the Humane Society from interfering with farmers.

I would agree it is an encroachment on our freedom. You're right, it is a good cause, so why would anybody be opposed? People are willing to hand over their freedom, but it will be handed to the people they feel will represent their best interests, not a gov agency that is looking out for animals.

My point is this: I do no want some bureaucrat in Washington or Columbus to tell me what to do with my animals on my property. I do not understand why so many are willing to accept this. Is it fear?

Nobody wants bureaucrats telling them what to do. There are agribusiness that have horrible management of their livestock, resulting in unsafe consumer goods. One responsibility of the Ohio Livestock Care Board is going to be identify and reform individuals who are not practicing proper managment of their livestock. The OLCB is designed to protect both producer and consumer. People are willing to accept this because the feel it is going to improve our everyday lives and the safety of the food we consume. If the organization passed legislation, you can bet they wouldn't be reforming these individuals, they would be shutting them down.​

 

[tagra123]

bigredfeather

I'm guessing you and I could have a good conversation together.

I'll post again in a few days, because I have just too much to do right now to keep answering posts. I have rabbits expecting today and load of other work to do.


Its not as simple as vote YES if you want safe food. Who's going to vote against that. Good argument I don't know anyone that wants unsafe food. Really you can vote NO and still want safe food.

I can vote NO and still want PETA to keep out.

If the Farm Bureau is able to organize people this quickly for an amendment, then surely they can handle mobilizing people for case by case issues that the HS and PETA bring to Ohio.

A lot of the arguments focus on California. Ohio is not California. My belief is that the issues brought forward by PETA or HS could be better handled on a case by case basis when a problem arises.

If you get a chance read the Farm Bureau's own members: http://ofbf.org/news-and-events/news/460/ -- The video commercial is very appealing.

 

[Silkiemama]

Sounds like we are being forced to choose the better of 2 evils on this issue. How did it come to this anyway? Is is because of the success of agri-business in the State of Ohio? Have they drawn too much attention to themselves, so in the eyes of those who govern, are now in need of more regulation? Is is accountability we are going for here? And for those well intentioned people of the HS, can you possibly predict how the changes you demand for animal husbandry will affect the future of food production and availability in our great Country? It seems to me that every time a law is passed in an effort to protect someone, or something, the industry involved usually moves out of country to a place of less restrictions - with the ultimate result being less work and money available for our fellow Americans; and we are forced to accept poor quality, foreign produced products which may be detrimental to our health (as in the case of lead paint on children's toys; high quantities of banned carcinogenic pesticides in produce; fillers in pet food which are toxic, causing kidney failure & death, etc... must I go on? I'm not implying we seek Anarchy, and just let everyone do what they want, free for all style, darn the consequences; but couldn't better results be achieved for everyone with education, common sense, maybe some help - versus rules and regulations, fines, and possible court costs. Sorry for the rambling, but this kind of stuff makes me angry. My concern also focuses on how this will impact those of us who raise "Backyard Chickens"?

 

[bigredfeather]

Quote:
You're absolutely right. I think good, civil discussion on any issue is time well spent. This kind of debate across the state is what is needed for Ohioians to come to a good conclusion

I'll post again in a few days, because I have just too much to do right now to keep answering posts. I have rabbits expecting today and load of other work to do.

What a coincidence, my two does are due today as well.

Its not as simple as vote YES if you want safe food. Who's going to vote against that. Good argument I don't know anyone that wants unsafe food. Really you can vote NO and still want safe food.

Agreed. Good point.

I can vote NO and still want PETA to keep out.

You may want them out, but a no vote will give the organization a chance.

If the Farm Bureau is able to organize people this quickly for an amendment, then surely they can handle mobilizing people for case by case issues that the HS and PETA bring to Ohio.

It's not going to be a case by case basis. It's going to be they come in, try to pass their agenda. If they are successful, end of story.

A lot of the arguments focus on California. Ohio is not California. My belief is that the issues brought forward by PETA or HS could be better handled on a case by case basis when a problem arises.

Your right, it isn't California, but Ohio could endure many of the same economic problems Cali has if these people can get in. Prop 2 in Cali is only one of many issues that has created such economic devistation in that state.

It has been great discussing this. I think we can agree to disagree to a certain extent.

Goodluck with your bunnies! Hopefully we will both have some new kits today.​