Ohio Issue 2: More government when less is needed
Posted by americana83 on October 8, 2009
UPDATE: Issue 2 Town Hall Forum October 19th @ OSU more info here.
The idea sounds good: set up standards for treatment of livestock. However, in practice, it is merely a hasty response in an attempt to fend of radical animal rights groups from creating harsher standards. Some of theses groups, like PeTA, will not be hindered by such actions, nor will they stop lobbying for the complete ban of animal use by humans. The amendment is as follows:
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
TO CREATE THE OHIO LIVESTOCK CARE STANDARDS BOARD TO ESTABLISH
AND IMPLEMENT STANDARDS OF CARE FOR LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY
Proposed by Joint Resolution of the General Assembly
To adopt Section 1 of Article XIV of the Constitution of the State of Ohio
This proposed amendment would:
1. Require the state to create the Livestock Care Standards Board to prescribe standards for
animal care and well-being that endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally
grown and raised food, and protect Ohio farms and families.
Do legislatures think farmers are ignorant? Farmers know that healthy animals produce better results, without having a new bureaucracy sticking its nose into their barn and consuming more tax dollars. Groups like the FFA and 4H instill good livestock practices into future farmers from youth. We’re not just talking about the “mega farms” who are already under scrutiny, but about something that will impact many smaller and family farmers. Oh, and the last thing the state of Ohio needs is more administrative costs. We are already fighting with the budget, why add more costs when we need to be trimming them?
2. Authorize this bipartisan board of thirteen members to consider factors that include, but
are not limited to, agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being,
biosecurity, disease prevention, animal morbidity and mortality data, food safety
practices, and the protection of local, affordable food supplies for consumers when
establishing and implementing standards.
Bipartisan board. Just what farmers need, politics injected into the setting up of standards that will impact them. Notice that despite the wide ranging degree of controlling factors, it isn’t limited to just that.
3. Provide 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 at an Ohio college or
university and a county humane society representative.
It doesn’t specify the breakdown of this board, and there is nothing that would provide yet another target for radical animal rights activists to either attack or infiltrate. Instead of giving in to them halfway, and creating such a government body, make the activists fight the whole battle, instead of letting well meaning people serve as a Trojan horse to get the activists to the half way point. Some of them may complain about issue 2, because it doesn’t go far enough, but its passage will make their job easier.
4. Authorize the Ohio department that regulates agriculture to administer and enforce the
standards established by the board, subject to the authority of the General Assembly.
Again, we see that politics will be injected into it. There is also nothing in this amendment that prevents new fees, licenses, or some kind of compliance audits. Such things would be costly and time consuming to family farms, who already put in full days for slim profit margins. Why add another layer of cost and inconvenience for dubious benefits?
The bottom line is Ohio farmers know how to treat their animals, and do not need more bureaucrats and red tape. Appeasement never works with groups like HSUS and PETA.
wayne wolfe said
Vote No On Issue 2. We certainly don’t need more government to pay for. Every election for the last several years, we have been accosted by the gambling lobby to allow slots and casinos to “provide money for schools”, when we know that the government will find ways to divert the funds. (THINK SOCIAL SECURITY) Just listen to the governor talk about the fix he has planned for Ohio schools. Maybe we should think of some constructive ways to cut government.
Mike Haley said
I am a full time farmer in Ohio, my wife and I also have 30 purebred Simmental beef cows that we raise for breeding stock. I am a strong supporter of Issue 2 because after working with my local humane society for the past year I have found that their is a lack of guidelines in Ohio for them to refer to when investigating animal abuse. Currently the best resource for them is to look at what is industry accepted practice, sometime this does not give them enough information to decide what is or is not abuse.
What this board will do is establish a set of guidelines using sound research for both livestock owners and animal cruelty investigators to refer to. It is a huge step for Ohio’s livestock industry to step up to the plate ask for a board that represents all parties to come up with acceptable practices that they must follow.
This is why the American Humane Association, and the local shelters in Ohio have all stepped up in support of creating a livestock care board in Ohio.
I do agree that no farmer wants any more regulations to follow, but sometimes they are needed in order to move forward.
Thanks for you time,
Mike Haley
Joe Bozzi said
Hi Mike,
A board is a good idea but why does it need to be in the constitution of the state of Ohio, this is what is a concern to most people? Why not just get representatives from producers, retailers, and non-profits together and write up a set of standards? It has been done many times before in many other industries and will almost certainly work better than this proposal. Producers and retailers can advertise as “Ohio board of livestock care approved product”.
Mike Haley said
Joe,
In order for this board to have proper credibility and authority I feel that the constitution is a proper place for it. I understand the concern about the constitution, but after listening to a couple of our state representatives they say that this is where is should be as is the Ohio board of education, BWC, Tuition trust and other boards that oversee issues in our state. several groups already have a set of standards, most producer groups have quality assurance programs that are aimed at correct livestock handling. The problem is consumers and animal rights groups feel that these programs dont hold enough credit because its like the fox guarding the henhouse. I feel that this board is a fair representation of people qualified to address potential problems that may occur, or are occurring in our state in regards to animal husbandry. Why experts? because livestock agriculture is very complex, its easy to make a decision on emotion, but that may be a decision that will cause more animal suffering than current practices.
If you are unfamiliar with the state constitution then I would ask you to read it a little bit, it operates much differently than the US constitution.
americana83 said
This bill only creates a “board” with massive oversight powers. There is nothing about this amendment that would prevent the board from enacting standards that are above and beyond reasonable.
Further, there it doesn’t give the proportionality of representation, nor does it provide any limits to this board’s abilities.
I believe I also see a lie. Adding stringent new regulations/licenses/fees (all would fall within the realm of this politically appointed board’s powers) would raise the cost of Ohio produced goods, thereby giving advantages to those states that let farmers self-regulate. Lost of sales means loss of revenue, and that means farmers look for other jobs.
Also, the signs are deceitful, implying that Ohio farm goods are unsafe without this board, and that farmers do not already practice excellent animal care.
Instead of a vaccination against HSUS, this could well be a shot in the foot of Ohio farmers.
americana83 said
Thank you for reading. The HSUS has already indicated it will push forward with its own agenda. It would be far better for the farming community to write out its own guidelines and push a bill containing specifics.
Regulations can be far more than just an annoyance, but the possibility of more license fees and audits costing valuable time (and money) could send even more farmers over the financial edge.
The way this amendment is drawn up, it is impossible to guarantee that the resulting board will not push for regulations equal to or more burdensome to farmers than the HSUS.
All it will do is let farmers draw a sigh while HSUS draws up its next plan of attack on the institution of American farming and dietary freedom.
Straight from HSUS, you can see their end goal: the abolition of animal consumption. If a vegetarian (Vegan) diet is “Humane eating,” then animal consumption, no matter how the animal is raised and killed is “inhumane” and is, at best, an intermediate step towards the abolition of animal use, whether outright, or through onerous fines, fees, licenses and legal maneuvers. Issue 2 merely moves the battle forward, granting far reaching state control over livestock.
http://www.hsus.org/farm/humaneeating/rrr.html
Thomas said
Issue 2 is an expansion of State Government that creates unchecked power and new layers of unaccountable bureaucracy over our livestock farmers.
What did it take to twist the arms of all the members of both the House and Senate to make them take such a draconian measure? If we change the Constitution every time the wind blows from the wrong direction, what value remains in it? What next? Change the US Constitution to remove free speech and religious freedom?
The text of issue 2 shows just how rushed the process was and how little thought went into doing the job right. The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board is not even an imperfect solution. It is not a solution at all. The correct solution is to add the proper language into Ohio Revised Code, a process that would require both the House and Senate to debate and agree on language and the Governor to sign the bill into law.
We are being told that this Board will protect farms from animal rights groups, but what will protect the farmers from the Board, a panel of bureaucrats without accountability?
After reading the proposed resolution, we have several questions regarding Issue 2.
Why did the Ohio Farmers Union decide to oppose issue 2 in their August meeting?
Will we need a license or permit to own and raise livestock in this state?
Will special training and classes be required to obtain the right to raise livestock?
Will someone come to our farm to ensure that we follow the guidelines set forth by this Board, without search warrants or probable cause?
Will we be criminals, and subject to fines/prison if we disagree with the standards set by the Board and fail to comply?
Will these board members be paid? If so, who decides their salary?
How will the actions of this board be funded: by taxpayers or farmers?
How will Board decrees be enforced?
How long will the terms of appointees be? Indefinite or limited?
Why is this Board given “excusive authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state” instead of the farmer?
Why are the members of this Board appointed (10 by Governor) and not voted into their position by the farmers themselves?
What appeal process will be available for those who wish to challenge the standards set by this Board? Will that appeal require a fee also?
Why only three “family farmers”? Won’t they be outnumbered by the other 10 non-farmers?
What effect will the approval of the Board have on organic and all natural farms?
Why is Farm Bureau using fear to provoke the acceptance of this amendment?
Will this Board view livestock as the private property of the farmers with Divine right to govern them as their own conscience directs? Or is livestock the property of the State?
Will this Board establish rules regarding vaccines?
Will we be required to keep updated farm records and submit them annually to this board?
Will the Amish of Ohio be exempt from any rules that contradict their religious beliefs?
Why would we want to establish a government entity to “protect us (farmers) from special interest groups” when the very way these groups achieve their goals is to lobby and control government entities?
Doesn’t this proposed amendment contradict the original FFA Creed. paragraph three, which states:
I believe in leadership from ourselves and respect from others. I believe in my own ability to work efficiently and think clearly, with such knowledge and skill as I can secure, and in the ability of organized farmers to serve our own and public interest in marketing the product of our toil. I believe we can safeguard those rights against practices and policies that are unfair.
If we have sworn the oath of the Pledge Of Allegiance, which professes “Liberty and Justice for all,” since this amendment takes the liberty to raise livestock from an individual farmer and gives it to the direct control of the State, would we be committing hypocrisy according to our spoken oath?
Are horses included under the authority of this Board? If not, shouldn’t they be protected from animal rights groups too and be subject to the standards decreed by this Board?
Is forfeiture of liberty the only way to protect livestock farms in Ohio from animal rights groups? Are there other options available?
In conclusion, we support the opposition to Issue 2 as expressed by the Ohio Farmers Union, The League of Women Voters, Ohio Food and Water Watch, The Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, and all the major newspapers in Ohio.
Jeremiah Arn said
Two important points from a farmer friend:
1) Farmers are already being accused of “abuse” when they use organic methods such as grass-feeding or eschew antibiotics for their animals. How can you leave your animals outside so many days? How can you refuse them a medication that is proven to shorten illnesses? This is very much in the same vein of the radical statists who accuse homeschoolers of abusing their children by not “scocializing” them, or treating them with non-conventional medicine, or not vaccinated to the State’s schedule. So I think it’s important to understand by giving massive power to factory farmers and their Big Pharma suppliers we are going to escalate this trend.
2) The “family farmers” to be appointed to the board (2-3, its ambiguous) will never be small farmers. Ninety-eight percent of American farms are designated as “family farms.” Family farm is not closely defined but has been stretched to include any privately held farm(s) of any size where blood relatives are owners. There are MANY factory/industrial farms that are “family farms” and only those that support the agriBUSINESS agenda will get anywhere close to that board.
Jack R. said
I do not think people will like the Humane Society of the United States rules at all. Better to have a board to bypass their goal of ending pet ownership and meat eating. People are not informed on what the difference is in animal rights and animal welfare. There is a BIG difference.
Animal rights extremists have been known to cut fenses and let animals out on family farms. People just do not understand that HSUS is not for helping any animals but putting an end to eating meat or owning any animals.
This is also protection from Wayne Pacelle and his swat team driving up with multi vans and confiscating cattle and horses or anything else they feel is abuse. Remember that abuse to them is not rational thinking but running on emotions. More science and fact is needed regarding our farm practices.
JR
americana83 said
I do not support the HSUS, or the concept of “animal rights.” The problem with this constitutional amendment is that it is a hasty attempt to ward off the HSUS out of fear.
I do not see anything in the amendment that protects farmers from anything. This board is nothing more than unelected, politically appointed bureaucrats which will likely cater to the factory farms, and pass regulations that will put the squeeze to the smaller family farms. A couple of “family farmers” -remember political appointment- would be unable to override the rest of the board.
There is absolutely nothing stopping this board from implementing regulations as onerous and undesirable as those that would be sought by the HSUS, or PETA or any other radical activist group.
Remember also, that any HSUS or PETA backed law would have to be supported by the people. It seems like some people think that HSUS or PETA can just decree law. It just isn’t so. Their bill would have to go through the political process just like anyone else’s.
Meat Wars II: Humane Society of the United States strikes back (Ohio Issue 2) « Michael Wolfe said
[...] by americana83 on March 13, 2010 Well, as we have known for a while now, the amendment to the Ohio constitution creating the “Livestock Care Standards Board” passed, due in large part to the good [...]
Susan said
I was just browsing for relevant weblog posts for my project study and I happened to stumble upon yours. Many thanks for the excellent info!
Nancy said
I believed it was going to be some boring old post, but it truly compensated for my time. I will submit a link to this page on my blog. I am certain my visitors will discover that really helpful. .. .. ..,