Ohioans

[mduncn52]

I could use some input about this Livestock Welfare Act we are going to vote on next month. Good idea or bad? I know that generally the govm't can't do anything right and I imagine that the only beneficiaries of this legislation will be feedlots and large agri-biz. I'm sure sooner or later that the little guy will get hammered by this. They will appoint a varied board to oversee the legislation but nowhere in the textare there any limitations or real mission for them to achieve. Perhaps I'm being too cynical, perhaps not. What do You think??
Mark

[Danaus29]

Mom firmly believes it is an introduction to the start of NAIS. We have laws on the books NOW which provide for the welfare of companion animals and livestock. Tractor Supply is totally supporting this bill because they think it will keep the Humane Society from outlawing any animal use. I don't get their reasoning.

IMO, anything govt is doing now is not for our benefit. Who benefits? No one. The big losers? The little guy. I am voting NO.

[edcopp]

Looks to me like an excuse for government intervention without reason, at any time. I really don't need somebody to stop by my farm at any time, unannounced, to inform me that my chickens water is dirty.

This leaves too many doors open to the way that our government is running things right now (right into the ground). The whole thing does not pass the "smell test" as far as I am concerned.

Now at this time I am only leaning, and have not made my mind up completely. I will gather more information.

This issue #2 is being advertised on a billboard on the state hiway near me. Looks like a lot of money being spent to me. The billboard below it says "jesus loves you" this is the filler that the billboard company uses when they can not sell that space. Who knows about that?

I consider any advice that comes from TSP to be suspect, as well as somewhere between useless and worthless. Oh well that's just me.

[haypoint]

In California they passed a similar bill. It outlaws the use of farrowing crates for sows, no more caged chickens and calves raised for veal can't be kept in boxes.

It is a "feel good" bill, pushed by the Humane Society.

More baby pigs will be squished by momma, eggs will go up in price and veal calves will be on a rope tether. But we'll all feel better about it.

But the important thing is that it will impact the big farms most, down with the factory farms, let's turn our farms over to PETA.

Michigan may soon go this way, too. More jobs lost as the big egg producing companies move to states that allow them to keep the cost of producing eggs low.

[brosil]

To me, it looks like one of those good ideas with the potential to go very, very wrong. If they weren't politically appointed, I'd feel better about it. My gut says no and I think I'll go with that.

[cur huntin' kid]

I am not from Ohio so I don't really know much about the bill. I do go to school in OH. I go to Ohio State Agricultural Technical Institute and EVERYONE here has signs saying vote yes for issue 2. I would assume a bunch of full time farmers would know what they are talking about. Like I said I personally dont know what the bill is but I am not voting so I didn't take the time to find out.

[Scott SW Ohio]

Issue 2 is a defensive move by Ohio livestock interests to head off a California-style animal welfare initiative in the future. Its aim is to preserve the status quo in livestock management practices by vesting responsibility for state animal production practices in people who have an interest in resisting change, except for one token board member from an animal welfare rights organization who would be routinely outvoted by the others.

If you are against government intrusion in farming in Ohio, I think you would vote FOR Issue 2. Advertising for the issue obscures this, I think to get votes from people who think they are voting for humane animal practices, so it's no wonder people are having a hard time figuring out which way to go with this.

[timfromohio]

I'm not a farmer but do buy directly from a couple of small family farms so I did look up Issue 2 and found the following:

http://oeffa.org/alerts.php

http://ohiofarmer.com/story.aspx?s=32054&c=9

Seems like the bill is sponsored by big agri-business and is not in the best interests of small, independent farms. I say the less government intrusion the better. Let the farmers run things the way they want and let free-market take care of influencing the rest. If I don't like the way a particular farmer treats his animals, I won't buy from him.

[Mrs. Homesteader]

I AM against government intrusion and that is why we are voting NO.

http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/20...sue-2-arsenal/

[Mike in Ohio]

Mark,

A lot of FUD being flung on this and it shows in some of the comments here.

Scott SW Ohio called it right when he said it is a defensive move.

Basically, Humane Society of the United States has gotten laws like the California one passed in 12 states. HSUS is NOT related to your local Humane Society. They do have an agenda to reduce/eliminate people eating animals. They do have a war chest of 130 Million dollars for this effort.

Last year they came to Ohio and told the Ohio Farm Bureau that they were going to pass this legislation through a ballot initiative and OFB could ge on board or be steam rollered (the last part was implied). OFB and other agricultural interests got together with legislators and came up with what is known as Issue 2 as a defensive measure.

I don't view this as something only to benefit "large livestock interests". If one looks at California, the law there covers everyone from large producers to someone who has a backyard flock. The intent (and I emphasize intent) of Issue 2 is to avoid that. I'm a Farm Bureau member and all the members I know in Carroll County (As well as surrounding counties) would be considered small farmers. I don't know a single one who is not in favor of Issue 2.

Now some like myself may be hesitent in their support. The main reason is that it embeds this in the Ohio Constitution. If it weren't for the fact that a failure of Issue 2 would see an HSUS sponsored initiative on the next ballot I would probably vote against Issue 2 for that reason alone.

In terms of how big a problem animal abuse is, I don't think any new legislation is needed. There are always problems big and small but they are outliers for the msot part. On the big side you have folks like Buckeye Egg.... but they ended up getting their licenses revoked so in that respect the system worked. At the small end you have folks that neglect their animals (for whatever reason) and we hear about the local Humane Society taking action.

So, I'll hold my nose but I will vote for Issue 2 knowing what the alternative coming down the pike would be.

Mike

[timfromohio]

Mike - I based my opinion on what I read on the sites I posted, but again, I'm not a farmer.

I suppose the underlying problem with Issue 2 may not be the intent of the issue claims as much as the inability to make any changes should it pass due to the way the law would be written into the state constitution.

[fols]

I agree with Mike. I'll be voting yes just because it is a defensive move against something worse to come next year.
I don't have hogs, layers or veal calves, but believe the farmers who do know how to treat their livestock best for the purpose it is being raised for. This bill supports that.

Diane

[timfromohio]

I'm not trying to be argumentative and maybe I just don't understand the objective of this bill (I've only read sections of it which were posted on other web sites), but why vote yes for something just to head off something worse that might happen? If I were a farmer I'd want to be left alone and not told what to do at all - they already have enough regulations and hassal. I'd say "no" leave me alone as far as Issue 2 goes, and next year my answer would be the same to any follow-up legislation.

[randy11acres]

We are not going to be left alone by HSUS which is why I will vote for the Livestock Welfare act.

[Danaus29]

But what is there to keep the HSUS from putting something on the ballot or paying off the board members?

[scott]

i'm really up in the air on this one... i see both sides..

[mduncn52]

Wow! This thing is very frightening. And confusing. I've been to OEFFA seminars and will be using them when we finally move to our property in S. Ohio to set up an organic homestead. They are 100% opposed. However the move to stop HSUS is valid. My fear still is that there is nothing in the language of the bill that spells out anything specific. Create an appointed board, give them non-accountable power and no outline and let them run. Frightening. I really appreciate all the input, but must admit I'm still unsure....

[Lazy J]

Every Ohioan that wants to continue to raise livestock as they deem fit needs to vote YES on 2. Someone needs to take a stand against the Animal Rights Zealots!

Jim

[mduncn52]

Well, thank you all for your input. Unfortunately the HT crash was a bit untimely but a lot of thought was presented on both sides. Of course the voters passed the bill. I'm still not sure it is a good thing.......but.....The article in the paper indicated that the HSUS was furious and vowed to come back soon with a fight. Teeing off HSUS must mean we did the right thing.

[Danaus29]

I think the HSUS is just putting on a front. There is not one thing in this bill to prevent them from buying off the board membersI still think it was a bad move and unfortunately we will now have to face the consequenses. Just a back door for NAIS, IMO.