Oct. 21, 2014   54°F   School Closings
Listen Live WCPN / WCLV
ideastream
Mission 4
Values 1
Values 2
Values 3
Vision 3
Vision 4
Vision 5
Values 4
Values 5
Values 6
Vision 1
Vision 2

Choose a station:

90.3 WCPN
WCLV 104.9
WVIZ/PBS

Choose a station:

90.3 WCPN
WCLV 104.9
WVIZ/PBS
Pledge your support to 90.3 WCPN ideastream now!
The Sound of Ideas

A Forum on Ohio Issue 2

Posted Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Share on Facebook Share Share on Twitter Tweet

Chances are, you have heard very little about Ohio Issue 2, the proposed constitutional amendment that would create an oversight board for the livestock industry. It's coming from an unlikely place--members of the livestock industry itself. Advocates appear to be trying to pre-emptively self-regulate the industry before anything like California's Proposition 2--The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act--can be introduced in the Buckeye State. Tuesday morning at 9, we'll find out why farmers are seeking more government oversight, and why the Humane Society of the United States opposes them.

Tags

Economy, Government/Politics, Health, Other, Ethics/Religion

Guests

Jack Fisher, executive vice president, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
Paul Shapiro, director of the factory farming campaign, Humane Society of the United States
Mike Gerber, president, Gerber Poultry
Candace Croney, Assoc. Prof of animal behavior and bioethics, Ohio State University

Leave a Comment

Please follow our community discussion rules when composing your comments.

John Hopwood 12:25 AM 10/6/09

To alter the constitution would put the state on a new path in which it rewrites the fundamental basis of its government. The integrity of the constitution should not be jeopardized by special interest groups.

Alan 9:12 AM 10/6/09

I am concerned that out-of-state activists are telling Ohioans how to run their businesses.  Ohio has lost lots of jobs and lots of industry already.
And I believe Ohio’s farmers do care for their animals. Mr. Fisher, can you tell us the impact agriculture has on Ohio’s economy?

Lynn Rodemann 9:15 AM 10/6/09

this issue helps only agro buisnesses… and sends the small farms and local food movement threrw the ringer.

Wendy Hess 9:21 AM 10/6/09

Although I am a lifelong liberal, I neither support nor trust Humane Society of the United States. The have transformed over the past several decades from a humane group into a vastly wealthy and powerful political organization that sucks money away from well-meaning donors who are under the impression that their donations are going to help local animal shelters. They run no shelters, instead spending most of their money on administration and political campaigns.

Jason 9:48 AM 10/6/09

Who, when will remove or add people to the board?  If the board enacts something radical, who can trump it?

Michele 9:53 AM 10/6/09

Sounds to me like this is a pretty bold move. I do not want the Ohio Constitution changed for this issue.  It is almost impossible to change the constitution back if this isn’t as portrayed “in the best interest of consumers”.

Cathryn Kapp 9:53 AM 10/6/09

I haven’t spent time thinking about Issue 2. Thank you for this program. More importantly, I appreciate your penetrating, persistent questions to those that repeatedly answer with programmed or sound-bite answers. Through your efforts on difficult issues, listeners can deduct enough to know that the positions take on either side may not be truly intelligent. it helps us make an informed vote. You’re very good. Thanks.

Don E. Hoffman 10:01 AM 10/6/09

Why does a yes vote on Issue 2 ensure the status quo?  Won’t the experts look at every detail to decide the best practices to raise animals?

Jenna 10:06 AM 10/6/09

By placing the Board in the Ohio Constitution, Issue 2 gives Ohio voters the chance to make a strong statement in support of Ohio’s livestock farmers and in support of responsible food production. Safe and affordable food is something that affects all ohioans on a daily basis nad is important enough to be in the constitution is not just a special interest group. Several other boards -including the state board of education, the Ohio tutition trust fund and the Ohio ballot board - that are equally important to the state of Ohio also are housed in the Constitution.

Steve from Elyria 10:10 AM 10/6/09

Hi. I’m Steve from Elyria and from what I gathered from my brief exchange is that the proposed oversight board would strip the Ohio Legislature of its ability to act as the defacto oversight agency that represents the people of Ohio and gives that responsibility to a group of 13 individuals that have no accountability to the citizens of Ohio. Based on this observation, I have decided that I do not want another government agency in this state that cannot be held accountable to the wishes of its residents throught their vote. Issue 2 has received a resounding NO from this voter.

Judi Chamberlain 11:40 AM 10/6/09

For Dan: I really felt your frustration in getting to the bottom of Issue 2 this morning. I also felt like both sides were trying to snooker the voters. I voted by mail and voted against Issue 2 because I don’t trust big agri-business to do anything but try to increase their profits. The guy who was supporting Issue 2 kept saying that this amendment to the Ohio constitution would assure that animals can move their limbs freely. Huh? By this same authority, couldn’t they restrict animal movement even more than they do now?

Len 12:44 PM 10/6/09

I’m not bothered by help from out-of-state groups like the HSUS. They help local folks opposed to industry-driven regulation like Issue 2 organize and they provide needed resources. You can bet the agri-business in and out of this state are pouring money into promoting Issue 2, so those opposed need all they help they can get.

Becky 1:39 PM 10/6/09

I want the state of Ohio to stand up against outside forces telling us what to do.  Don’t trust HSUS.  They have nothing to do with your local humane societies.  Less than 4% of there money goes to local humane societies.  They raised over $37 million post Katrina to aid in rescuing animals from the flood but only $7 million was used for that purpose.  The state of Louisiana looked into it.  The state dropped the investigation when the HSUS promised to build a $600,000 shelter in LA. 

Another thing to look at is the fact that people don’t and won’t pay lots of money or more money for their food.  The average American eats 200lbs of meat a year.  You can’t eat that much meat and raise it on a pasture somewhere.  There just isn’t enough land to do so.  We all need to wake up. 

Don’t listen to HSUS.  They are the ones that are creating the problem.

julia 2:55 PM 10/6/09

I would like to respond to a couple of comments made here.

1st - yes, there will be experts looking at the issues surrounding animal welfare. The board decisions will be based on sound science and researched based information. That is a real positive, unbiased researched based information from sources such as Land Grant Universities and Australia’s Animal Welfare Science Centre, a joint organization with Australia’s University of Melbourne, Monash University and the Victorian State Department of Primary Industries. The Centre is internationally recognized as a leading research and educational facility of animal welfare topics.

2nd - 1 in 7 jobs is related to agriculture in Ohio. Each year, livestock and poultry farms generate more than $229 million in tax revenue. Overall Ohio agriculture is a $7 billion industry. Any loss of animal agriculture in the state would be a detriment to Ohio’s economy.

3rd - the amount of money that agriculture supporters have available to them is far less than that of HSUS.

Brenda Hastings 4:05 PM 10/6/09

Thank you for featuring Issue 2 on your program today. My husband and I are dairy farmers in Geauga County and supporters of Issue 2. As producers, we would rather have a board of Ohio experts set policy for animal agriculture. We believe this Board will consider all aspects of an issue - the impact on animals, producers, consumers, the economy, etc. Policy decisions will be based on public input, proven science and best management practices.

The Livestock Care Standards Board will have the best interest of Ohio agriculture (animals & people) and consumers in mind. Special interest groups, such as the Humane Society of the U.S., are motivated by promoting their agenda of a vegetarian/vegan society.

Why would I want a group whose goal is eliminating animal agriculture to dictate how agriculture is regulated in Ohio or anywhere else in the nation?

The goal of HSUS is to eliminate animal protein from people’s diet, therefore eliminating choice for Ohio consumers.

A Yes vote on Issue 2 is a win for Ohio consumers and agriculture.

Brenda Hastings

Dairy Producer

Geauga County

Catherine 4:09 PM 10/6/09

I think the reason undecided listeners didn’t call to participate in today’s forum is because so few people even know about Issue 2.  As I’m sure you know, the OH Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF) is a PAC, http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/committees/ohio-farm-bureau-federation-inc-agriculture-for-good-government-pac-ofbf-aggpac.asp?cycle=08, which together with help from other food animal industry advocates, such as the Center for Consumer Freedom* (CCF) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom) almost undoubtedly pressured Ohio State Reps & Senators to quickly pass Sen. Joint Resolution 6 (SJR 6), authorizing Issue 2 to be placed on the Nov 3 ballot

Thank you for providing media coverage on Issue 2, though, which—as a founding member of a new PAC, the League of Humane Voters Ohio Chapter, http://www.lohv-ohio.org/—I oppose.  (Please check our web site and blog in a few days, after we can get info posted as to why we oppose Issue 2) Unfortunately, I think your effort to provide unbiased info to Ohioans about Issue 2, as well as the efforts of the editorial boards of the Plain Dealer, Columbus Dispatch, etc., are reaching Ohio voters too close to the election for the majority of them to hear about it, much less adequately understand how creation of the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board (OLCSB) will affect them.  In my opinion, though, that’s one of the main reasons the OFBF, CCF, etc. pressured the General Assembly to do three things—introduce legislation that will be costly to undue, hastily pass the joint bills authorizing Issue 2, and do it so close to the election that there’s no time for the majority of average Ohioans to gain any real understanding about what they’re voting on

Catherine Davis

(Former Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy certified Scioto County, OH Humane Agent and former Athens County OH Humane Society Board member)

Bay Village, OH

* As you probably know, the Ohio Cattlemen’s Assn is backing Issue 2.  So note on their web page, http://www.ohiocattle.org/roundup.aspx, where it documents advice sought from CCF speaker, David Martosko; and then ask yourself if you don’t agree that the two consumer advocates appointed to the OLCSB probably will be more concerned with restaurant profits, than food safety and environmental pollution hazards involved with mega farming

Paul Wilde 4:11 PM 10/6/09

I heard part of your show today on issue #2. It seems to me that we the people of Ohio wil not wake up until, eggs are $5 a dozen, meat is $30 a lb. Look around your area and see if you think the average farmer can afford to raise livestock any other way, than the way they already do. They try to raise safe affordable products for the consumer. Some of the states that have passed stricter rules are now looking back to see where they went wrong. As said on your show, some farmers have and will go out of business. Importing products from other countries is not in our best interest. I would rather have someone from Ohio coming on my farm and advising me how to raise my livestock, than some outsider who has never been on a working farm.

Thanks, Paul Wilde Trumbull County

Bob Pettit 7:37 PM 10/6/09

Let’s keep the control in our hands, and not let the Humane Society threaten us next year with another Prop 2 (Like in California.) Hey, we will have Ohioans on the board, accountable to use by nearness to us. Something so sacred as the safe production of our food, something which Ohio farmers already know just a little bit about.  Is that worth adding to the Ohio constitution? Do you eat everyday? 

Vote Yes on 2

ST 10:04 PM 10/6/09

I am so tired of the phony argument that the people who oppose Issue 2 are “outsiders.” I’m an Ohioan and I’m voting NO on Issue 2.  The proponents of Issue 2 want to create a constitutionally mandated committee of so called “experts” to decide basic issues such as what minimum standards of decency should be used with animals, the environment and consumers.  There is already a legislative process that authorizes Ohioans to have input into through their state represenatives.  The proponents of Issue Two (i.e., big agribusiness) would like to take that process away just like they tried to take away the right to free speech in 1996 when they got a law passed making it illegal to disparage agricultural products.  The record shows they want to be exempt from environmental laws (e.g., CERCLA and RCRA).  Its good enough for other industries in the United States of America, but not them.  Let them get away with how they’re treating factory farm animals and humans are next.

Vickie 12:00 PM 10/7/09

It was obvious that Jack Fisher had canned answers and did not answer the questions put forward.  Using the state constitution to enshrine a livestock board is just plain wrong.  This should be handled through the legislative process.  Hopefully voters will see thru the deceptive propaganda and reject this power grab by large agribusiness groups.

Buckeye1066 2:22 PM 10/7/09

This discussion panel needed to be more balanced still, if we are to truly discuss the implications of factory farms. This is a Livestock Care Board designed with animal care and public safety, supposedly, in mind. While it doesn’t surprise me Prof OSUAG Croney exceeded her area of expertise and alluded to potential economic issues this may cause in her position, she was supposed to be covering animal behavior, not economics. If she is so intelligent and intent on trespassing outside her scope, why did she fail to allude to any of to the public health issues we are suffering from here in Ohio such as MRSA and water pollution from industrial farm practices and the lack of regulation of the smaller farms who skirt the large permitting compliance requirements through crafty support by the ODA in manipulating the corporate structure these family farms (father,son, uncle, brother etc) Jack Fisher described. I’d also like to see the ONLY person on there not in AGs pocket get at least as much latitude in response and discussion as all the other guest speakers. I have a suggestion for your next board: How about members from the mounting grass roots coalition www.OhioAct.org and how about Public Food Safety- Perhaps Alvin D. Jackson, MD, the director of the Ohio Dept of Health? I’m getting really fed up with the lack of balance of this issue when we have the FARM BUREAU Polluting the media with a 7 million dollar propaganda campaign downplaying the implications of this monstrosity they are proposing to amend our state constitution.

Buckeye1066 11:57 AM 10/8/09

This discussion panel needed to be more balanced still, if we are to truly discuss the implications of this Livestock Care Board designed with animal care and public safety in mind. While it doesn’t surprise me Prof OSUAG Croney exceeded her area of expertise alluding to potential economic issues this may cause in her position, she was supposed to be covering animal behavior, not economics. If she is so intent on trespassing outside her scope, why did she fail to allude to any of to the public health issues we are suffering from here in Ohio such as MRSA and water pollution from industrial farm practices and the lack of regulation of the so called smaller farms who skirt the large permitting compliance requirements through crafty support by the ODA in manipulating the corporate structure these family farms (father, son, uncle, brother etc) Jack Fisher described to still be considered “small” farms. I’d also like to see the ONLY person on there not in AGs pocket get at least as much latitude in response and discussion as all the other guest speakers. I have a suggestion for your next board: How about members from the mounting grass roots coalition www.OhioAct.org and how about Public Food Safety- Perhaps Alvin D. Jackson, MD, the director of the Ohio Dept of Health? I’m getting really fed up with the lack of balance of this issue when we have the FARM BUREAU polluting the terrain with a 7 million dollar propaganda campaign downplaying the implications of this monstrosity they are proposing to amend our state constitution.

Buckeye1066 12:46 PM 10/8/09

Fact checking on Fishers comments:
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7048928/Oregon-legislature-first-to-ban.html

Excerpt:

“(HSUS) saw Oregon as a state where they could probably get this pushed through,” said Glenn Goschie, president of the Oregon Pork Producers Assn. “I think the people behind it are using it as a stepping stone in order to go to other states and propose the same legislation.”

Goschie, a 130-sow farrow-to-finish operator, said producers testified at a committee hearing on the measure to make sure lawmakers understood the difference between gestation and farrowing stalls.

“We told them the legislation was probably a waste of their time,” said Goschie. “As far as we know, there are no gestation stalls being used in Oregon.”

Diane Jones 7:49 AM 10/9/09

Dear Equine and Organic Farming Friends,
It is time to tell you that Tom and I are opposed to Ohio Issue 2. We urge you to vote against it, not because we are anti-farming, but because the Ohio Farm Bureau, the Ohio Pork Producers Council, and the Ohio Livestock Commission, have unduly influenced your state legislators to put before you the prospect of an AMENDMENT to the Ohio Constitution which cannot and will not be permitted to be changed if Issue 2 passes. 

Back in February when the HSUS came to Ohio, it indicated that there were a large number of factory farms here that engaged in less than humane treatment of animals.  Instead of being involved in a meaningful dialogue, OFBF started lobbying your state legislators. On June 24 the Ohio House of Representatives passed legislation calling for an amendment to the Ohio Constitution.  On June 25 the Ohio Senate by unanimous vote agreed.  I am appalled to say that our State Senator, Tim Grendell, was influenced by Ohio Farm Bureau to vote for legislation which, if it passes as Issue 2, will take all rights away from the voters of Ohio regarding their food supply and the care and welfare of Ohio livestock and place it in the hands of 13 people appointed by Governor Strickland. This Board will have answerability to no one; there will be no oversight on their decisions and actions.  If Issue 2 passes, one of the appointees is likely to be State Veterinarian, Tony Forshey, a strong proponent of National Animal Identification System, which recently was denied any further national funding as a result of legislation introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut.  Additionally, one of the appointees to the Board will be from a farmers’ group (AKA, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, which is strongly in the back pocket of Ohio Big Agriculture, as represented by the Ohio Pork Producers’ Council and the Ohio Livestock Coalition, and strongly pro-NAIS.  Thus, in spite of the termination of NAIS funding at the federal level, NAIS could still be implemented in Ohio by a group of 13 individuals whose majority will come from the ranks of big Ag.

As a former member and trustee of the Geauga County Farm Bureau, I would have liked to tell you that OFBF’s position on Issue 2 is beneficial to small and independent farmers, but nothing could be farther from the truth.  OFBF would like voters to believe that HSUS and PETA will destroy animal livestock ranches and farms in Ohio. What they won’t tell you is that instead of having a meaningful conversation with HSUS in February about confined living conditions for animals, they ran to OUR legislators and bought them off.  Interestingly, Michigan has just passed legislation about farm animal welfare (as noted in Farm and Dairy, page 1A, October 8, 2009, at www.farmanddairy.com) with the input of the Humane Society of the United States. What are Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and CAFOs afraid of when they influence OUR legislators to change the Ohio Constitution regarding animal welfare?  Had the Ohio Legislature simply passed an act regarding animal welfare, Tom and I could have backed that action. However, by stacking the cards so that the very organizations that promulgate the interests of Big Ag will now control animal health and welfare, as well as food safety and supply, Ohio Issue 2 places the foxes in charge of the henhouse.

At the heart of the matter is an attempt to fool Ohio voters into thinking that members of the appointed board will be “family farmers.” Brenda Hastings, the “farm” lady who appears in pro-Issue 2 ads appearing on television, is the co-owner of a 600-head Holstein dairy operation. Both she and her husband moved their dairy operation from California shortly after Proposition 2 passed there. The Hastings aspire to own a 1000-head herd, not your sustainable organic dairy operation. Nor do the Hastings represent the average “family farm,” consisting of a husband-wife-children operation.  According to Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover (ACT) http://www.ohioact.org, one of the biggest sources of misrepresentation and dishonesty is section 3 of Issue 2, which reads:

“This proposed amendment [to Section 1 of Article XIV of the Constitution of the State of Ohio] would [P]rovide that the board shall 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 of an Ohio college or university and a county humane society representative.”

Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover reports,
“While Issue 2 requires the membership of several ‘family farmers’ on the Board, this cannot be seen as a safeguard to prevent the panel from being overtaken by corporate agribusiness and factory farming interests. While there is no legal definition for a family farmer in the U.S., the United States Department of Agriculture has stated that 98% of all factory farms, for example, are operated through what would be considered ‘family farms.’

“Ohio has a disconcerting number of factory farms--and that number could increase if an industry-led Board decides to ease regulations on animal production.  According to the Ohio EPA, the state has close to 200 factory farms, including four beef operations with more than 3000 animals, 29 dairy operations with more than 1000 animals, and a staggering 98 poultry and egg-laying operations with more than 100,000 birds each, including 9 with more than a million birds.” SOURCE:  Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, “Map of permitted livestock facilities in Ohio,’ prepared June 13, 2008, available online at http://web.epa.state.oh.us

Please remember how your state legislators have sold you out to big agribusiness interests, especially the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. Remember to VOTE NO on OHIO ISSUE #2. While you’re aroused, please remember to turn the bums out of Ohio office as soon as possible. Don’t let your legislators give power to a cohort of 13 who will not be subject to any oversight.

DEFEAT OHIO ISSUE #2 IN NOVEMBER!!!!!
Sincerely,
Diane and Tom Jones
Windt im Wald Farm
Auburn Township, Ohio 44023
www.wiwfarm.com

Thomas Jones 9:23 AM 10/11/09

Dear Equine and Organic Farming Friends,
It is time to tell you that Tom and I are opposed to Ohio Issue 2. We urge you to vote against it, not because we are anti-farming, but because the Ohio Farm Bureau, the Ohio Pork Producers Council, and the Ohio Livestock Commission, have unduly influenced your state legislators to put before you the prospect of an AMENDMENT to the Ohio Constitution which cannot and will not be permitted to be changed if Issue 2 passes. 

Back in February when the HSUS came to Ohio, it indicated that there were a large number of factory farms here that engaged in less than humane treatment of animals.  Instead of being involved in a meaningful dialogue, OFBF started lobbying your state legislators. On June 24 the Ohio House of Representatives passed legislation calling for an amendment to the Ohio Constitution.  On June 25 the Ohio Senate by unanimous vote agreed.  I am appalled to say that our State Senator, Tim Grendell, was influenced by Ohio Farm Bureau to vote for legislation which, if it passes as Issue 2, will take all rights away from the voters of Ohio regarding their food supply and the care and welfare of Ohio livestock and place it in the hands of 13 people appointed by Governor Strickland. This Board will have answerability to no one; there will be no oversight on their decisions and actions.  If Issue 2 passes, one of the appointees is likely to be State Veterinarian, Tony Forshey, a strong proponent of National Animal Identification System, which recently was denied any further national funding as a result of legislation introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut.  Additionally, one of the appointees to the Board will be from a farmers’ group (AKA, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, which is strongly in the back pocket of Ohio Big Agriculture, as represented by the Ohio Pork Producers’ Council and the Ohio Livestock Coalition, and strongly pro-NAIS.  Thus, in spite of the termination of NAIS funding at the federal level, NAIS could still be implemented in Ohio by a group of 13 individuals whose majority will come from the ranks of big Ag.

As a former member and trustee of the Geauga County Farm Bureau, I would have liked to tell you that OFBF’s position on Issue 2 is beneficial to small and independent farmers, but nothing could be farther from the truth.  OFBF would like voters to believe that HSUS and PETA will destroy animal livestock ranches and farms in Ohio. What they won’t tell you is that instead of having a meaningful conversation with HSUS in February about confined living conditions for animals, they ran to OUR legislators and bought them off.  Interestingly, Michigan has just passed legislation about farm animal welfare (as noted in Farm and Dairy, page 1A, October 8, 2009, at www.farmanddairy.com) with the input of the Humane Society of the United States. What are Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and CAFOs afraid of when they influence OUR legislators to change the Ohio Constitution regarding animal welfare?  Had the Ohio Legislature simply passed an act regarding animal welfare, Tom and I could have backed that action. However, by stacking the cards so that the very organizations that promulgate the interests of Big Ag will now control animal health and welfare, as well as food safety and supply, Ohio Issue 2 places the foxes in charge of the henhouse.

At the heart of the matter is an attempt to fool Ohio voters into thinking that members of the appointed board will be “family farmers.” Brenda Hastings, the “farm” lady who appears in pro-Issue 2 ads appearing on television, is the co-owner of a 600-head Holstein dairy operation. Both she and her husband moved their dairy operation from California shortly after Proposition 2 passed there. The Hastings aspire to own a 1000-head herd, not your sustainable organic dairy operation. Nor do the Hastings represent the average “family farm,” consisting of a husband-wife-children operation.  According to Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover (ACT) http://www.ohioact.org, one of the biggest sources of misrepresentation and dishonesty is section 3 of Issue 2, which reads:

“This proposed amendment [to Section 1 of Article XIV of the Constitution of the State of Ohio] would [P]rovide that the board shall 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 of an Ohio college or university and a county humane society representative.”

Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover reports,
“While Issue 2 requires the membership of several ‘family farmers’ on the Board, this cannot be seen as a safeguard to prevent the panel from being overtaken by corporate agribusiness and factory farming interests. While there is no legal definition for a family farmer in the U.S., the United States Department of Agriculture has stated that 98% of all factory farms, for example, are operated through what would be considered ‘family farms.’

“Ohio has a disconcerting number of factory farms--and that number could increase if an industry-led Board decides to ease regulations on animal production.  According to the Ohio EPA, the state has close to 200 factory farms, including four beef operations with more than 3000 animals, 29 dairy operations with more than 1000 animals, and a staggering 98 poultry and egg-laying operations with more than 100,000 birds each, including 9 with more than a million birds.” SOURCE:  Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, “Map of permitted livestock facilities in Ohio,’ prepared June 13, 2008, available online at http://web.epa.state.oh.us

Please remember how your state legislators have sold you out to big agribusiness interests, especially the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. Remember to VOTE NO on OHIO ISSUE #2. While you’re aroused, please remember to turn the bums out of Ohio office as soon as possible. Don’t let your legislators give power to a cohort of 13 who will not be subject to any oversight.

DEFEAT OHIO ISSUE #2 IN NOVEMBER!!!!!

Richard Stewart 10:15 AM 10/11/09

As a small scale, full-time farmer we will be voting against Issue 2.  We are an Ohio Century Farm and single family owned since 1855.  We are one of the few remaining farms, 300 acres in size, in Hamilton County, just outside of Cincinnati.

My problem with Issue 2 is that they are telling two stories to different types of people...urban and rural.  On one hand they tell the city folk that they will continue to receive SAFE and CHEAP food.  On the other hand they are tell the rural farmers that they are protecting a way of life.

None of this is true.  The ONLY thing this Amendment Guarantees is the creation of the board with fairly broad powers.

With nothing else to go on, we can only follow the money.  MILLIONS have been spent promoting and planning a very tight and well organized campaign, claiming it to be grass roots.

I’ll fight this issue just as much as an issue trying o control how we free range our chickens or board our horses.

Ann Boeke 12:48 PM 10/12/09

I am a small farmer and Ohioan, and I am voting AGAINST Issue 2. This is an agribusiness initiative.

LB 5:41 PM 10/13/09

I hope the issue does not pass so HSUS and PETA can put their regulations on the ballot and put all farmers out of business.  I’m just worried that if we have severe drought and no vegetables to eat, what will we eat?  We can’t eat meat so what will we do? And would if my kid still wants to eat meat?  What will I feed my kid?

Richard Teeple 10:52 AM 10/15/09

Ohio’s factory farms support Issue 2.
These are corporate farms, not family farms.
These same factory/corporate farms have a poor track record in terms of animal treatment and enviromental stewardship in all states.
A vote for Issue 2 is a vote for the status quo.

Lynette Beiser 7:06 PM 10/17/09

There appears to be a real “stink” surrounding Issue 2 and it’s coming from the media.  Bias by omission is how many laws, bills, and even congressmen are elected and passed.  It is a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.  In a nutshell, it’s when the media becomes an advocate for one side of an issue and omits some or all of the opponents.
H$u$ is the largest and richest animal rights organization on the planet.  They spend large sums of money on media ad buys which are deceptive and emotional while asking for endless fundraising requests to “end the suffering.” This exploits the fact that the majority of voters are not farmers and clueless as to what it takes to keep farm animals safe, healthy and comfortable.  This is what H$U$ is counting on. 
While H$U$ brags about their “successes” in ending farm animal cruelty by banning farrowing pens for hogs and battery cages for hens, they forget to tell you the whole story.  According to UC Davis study on Prop 2 in California, “"To comply with the new (Prop 2) regulations, California producers would need to invest about $500 million in new or retrofitted housing systems.” Prop. 2 in California didn’t suddenly provide the consumers with a freedom of choice of cage or cage-free eggs, it just wiped out an industry.  The damage this caused to California’s economy is irrevocable. 
The loss of jobs which significantly impacted their economy could have been prevented if all the facts were made available to the voters.  FACT:  When chickens get spooked, they pile up on each other in a frantic heap.  The chickens in the lower levels end up getting crushed causing broken bones.  This results in higher mortality rates than caged hens.  The cages kept the hens safe from weather, prediators, Avian Bird Flu while ensuring the eggs were salmonella free. 
In Florida, where H$U$ expedited the passing of the amendment to the Florida constitution which banned the use of farrowing pens, the hog farmers were not even given the chance to explain why the pens are used.  H$U$ didn’t want the voters to know FACT:  That farrowing pens are used by farmers to prevent the sow from rolling over and crushing her piglets.  It also prevents her or other sows from eating their young which is a common characteristic amongst sows.  How painful and cruel for the piglets is that?
H$U$ and PETA are attacking the American Farmer nationwide.  They have close ties with Animal Liberation Front (ALF). ALF and ELF (Earth Liberation Front) are known for the threats, intimidation, bombs and arson that led them to the top of the Domestic Terriorist Watch List.  HSUS manager John ("J.P.") Goodwin is a former ALF member who advocates arson and violence in advancing the AR agenda. J.P.’s mission in life, along with domestic terrorism, arson and destruction? : “My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.” In March 1997 arson at a farmer’s feed co-op in Utah caused almost $1 million in damage and could easily have killed a family sleeping on the premises, Goodwin told the Deseret News, “We’re ecstatic.”
Issue 2 is about more than creating an Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.  It is an issue of FREEDOM.  By Voting Yes on Issue 2 you are securing and protecting your long term right to choose a nutritional lifestyle that you want via the state constitution.  Be it vegetarian or meat, you, the consumer should have the freedom of choice, NOT out-of-state anti-animal use organizations.

LadyWantsLiberty 2:19 AM 10/19/09

Please Vote NO on Issue 2
Keep Liberty to Farm without government control!
Monday October 19th at 8pm Independence Hall (building 338) at OSU Campus there will be an Issue 2 Town Hall Forum. Can’t come...watch it on Youtube we will try to make it available asap.

Why Issue 2 Can’t Stop the HSUS

Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) has stated that they will continue with their plans to place a ballot initiative to stop certain farming practices on the November 2010 ballot whether Issue 2 passes or fails. This seems odd that proponents for Issue 2 are professing that a yes vote will stop the HSUS and other animal rights groups from doing this very thing. Why don’t we see the HSUS, with its boastful 100 million dollar bank account and 400,000 Ohio supporters, trying to stop passage of Issue 2?

Issue 2 cannot stop these special interest groups from pushing their agenda on Ohio’s farmers. The State Senate passed SJR6 (Issue 2 on 6-25-09, by vote of 32-0) with specific language to “Grant exclusive authority to the Board to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock in this state”. The adjective “exclusive” is necessary so that no competing authority can overrule the board’s authority.

When SJR6 went to the House Committee it was changed. The word “exclusive” was stricken from the resolution and then passed 83-16 (7-13-09), the Senate then approved the word change 31-1 (7-13-09)
(compare at http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bill_keyword.cfm keyword: livestock care) so that it now allows for other authorities, such as other Constitutional amendments, or Federal laws to overrule the Standards Board. Sadly few are aware of this and believe that Issue 2 will really protect them when the reality is that it can’t. The HSUS can easily pass a ballot initiative that will overrule SJR6, and they intend to do so.
Constitutions are written to ensure the limits of government powers, to protect the common people from the loss of liberty and rights. Issue 2 will do the just the opposite. It will take the right to make management decisions away from the farmer. A “Farmer’s Bill Of Rights” would actually protect farmers from both special interest groups and government entities without the forfeit of personal liberty.

Industry standards should not be controlled by govt. force, but rather by the consumer with their wallets, they may buy from those who produce the product they desire. The producer seeks to please the buyer in both the product and management practices. That’s how a free market should work, without a third party setting the standards. Issue 2 is bad for both the livestock farmers and consumers.

Beth 10:55 AM 10/19/09

I am opposed to factory farming and the way our food is regarded from birth to slaughter.  I am all for the local farms and for raising and growing food the traditional way. The thought of ammending the constitution for this issue 2 proposal is simply disguisting.  I encourage you to review the contents within the following link - if you decide to vote for issue 2, congratulate yourself when what you view in these links increase to become far more worse than what you witnessed in the links today:Copy this into your url:
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/issues.asp

A Abraham 8:01 AM 10/20/09

Like most of the posters here, I am not a farmer.  I have noted on my long, predominantly rural daily commute, however, that the roadside is festoon with signs supporting Issue 2.  The many small farmers, whose land I travel along, all seem to be in agreement that Issue 2 will be good for them and for Ohio.  I really didn’t give the matter a second thought until I noticed an odd juxtaposition on the outskirts of one of the towns I travel through, Yellow Springs.  To date, the only “No on 2” sign I have seen anywhere along my travels was in Yellow Springs, a town with a reputation which, for good or ill, is well-deserved.  But not 100 yards beyond this lonely sign, I saw posted outside of a veterinarian’s office the same ubiquitous “Yes On 2” sign that the farmers all display.  My interest was piqued, and led me to numerous sites where the matter is being discussed, including this one.

From my investigation, I think it fairly safe to conclude that the rhetoric employed by the “No on 2” side speaks volumes to their biases and intentions.  They have attempted to transform the neologism “agribusiness” into an epithet worthy of contempt, but what farm isn’t an “agricultural business?” The small farmers I see supporting Issue 2 probably realize the potential restrictions that would be placed on them by the legislative activities of organizations such as HSUS and PETA would jeopardize there businesses and livelihoods.  Since larger businesses tend to be able to absorb the costs of increased regulation, while small businesses frequently cannot, I believe their concerns warranted.

Some seem to think that support for Issue 2 comes from those uninterested in animal welfare.  Well, the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association is one of the many organizations which support its passage. 

That this bulwark against increased regulation comes at the price of the expansion of government authority is unusual, but certainly not paradoxical.  I am sympathetic to the sincerely made argument against implementation of this protection to Ohio farmers via constitutional amendment.  Constitutional amendments are a grave matter, not to be taken lightly.  But I strongly suspect many who make this argument do so with a heavy dose of mendacity.  In my opinion, those who employ the word “agribusiness” as an invective, those who seem to reflexively oppose any action which creates or retains jobs and grows commerce, are largely cut of the same authoritarian cloth that are all too happy to see government grow when it suits their agenda.

In this case, however, government will grow by only thirteen people.  And they will have a simple mandate which can be written on half a sheet of paper.  Hopefully, these thirteen will have the will to resist the lobbying efforts from all side, such as HSUS, PETA, and “agribusiness” (in other words, farmers), and do what is right for Ohio farmers, Ohio business, and all the people of Ohio.

I will be voting with the farmers who are my neighbors.  I will be voting with the vets who care for my pets.  I will vote yes on 2.

LadyWantsLiberty 12:12 AM 10/22/09

For those who were unable to attend the Issue 2 Town Hall Forum at The Ohio State University, Independence Hall on October, 19th.
I’d like to share the video of that forum.

http://www.blip.tv/file/2746626/ (you may have to copy and paste to your web browser)
About Issue 2:
On the ballot this November is Issue 2 which would create an amendment to the Ohio constitutionto create a livestock board appointed by the governor that would set standards for livestock care in Ohio. Some believe this is a way to protect Ohio farmers from out of state special interest groups like the Humane Society of the United States, while others believe this board is a state power grab that could restrict the rights of Ohio farmers.

IF nothing else please listen to the Constitutional Lawyer Maurice Thompson who asks questions in his 3 minute introduction and then during the forum gives some interesting comments.

It was confirmed by the Issue 2 supporters on the forum panel that this board will not have the power to stop special interest groups like HSUS, and it is possible that an HSUS supporter could end up on the board itself.

RSS RSS Podcast Podcast

Live Video Stream

Watch the Sound of Ideas live

Watch the Sound of Ideas during the broadcast - view now! Live video stream available during normal broadcast, Mon-Fri, 9-10 AM (EST).

About

Every weekday at 9:00 AM (EST), The Sound of Ideas reports the news, explains the news, and sometimes makes news. The Cleveland Press Club awarded it “Best Radio Show” in Ohio and thousands daily find it to be an indispensable source of information about what’s most important to Northeast Ohioans.

Interact with The Sound of Ideas

During the show: 216-578-0903 or 866-578-0903
Last Word line: 216-916-6397 or email
Show ideas & comments? Contact Executive Editor, David Molpus.

Twitter: @soundofideas

Facebook

Recently Featured all entries

Air Dates

90.3 WCPN
Weekdays 9:00 AM

The Ohio Channel
Weekdays 9:00 AM

Funding for Ideas & The Sound of Ideas

Funding for Ideas/Sound of Ideas comes from The George Gund Foundation, The Cleveland Foundation, Eaton Corporation Charitable Fund, the George W. Codrington Charitable Foundation, The Robert O. and Annamae Orr Family Foundation, and the Nord Family Foundation.