Ohio's governor and HSUS

KimM · #61 07/05/10, 02:59 PM

I take great offense to this completely unfounded statement as well. (let me don my hip boots a sec) It isn't about protecting animals. There are already anti-abuse laws in place for those who actually do abuse animals that aren't enforced.
The bottom line to issue 2 (of which I voted NO) is that the big G is working it's way towards total control of all food sources. Control the food and you control the people.
When will people open their eyes to what's really happening?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyra

It seems as though the only people who are worried about the new regulations are the ones that don't follow them in the first place. In my line of work, I have discovered that these types of individuals are always the worst offenders.

Lilandra · #62 07/05/10, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patt

Ethically means the pig or cow or chicken or sheep or goat or rabbit I eat got to live it's life as naturally and happily as possible. The eat what the are made to eat, they live in as much comfort as possible, they are treated like living breathing animals who have needs and feelings, not like little machines to be crammed in wire cages and force fed whatever crap is currently cheap and in vogue just so they can roll out an egg a day or a couple of gallons of milk or some piglets.

Yes I do pay more for my meat when I buy it. I buy from people I know, that I hang out with and whose farms I have visited.

Interesting turning it into a "choice" issue. I am not dictating that anyone eat less meat. They may have to rearrange their budgets and pay a little more but nobody will die of eating less meat. Heck they may even actually live longer and healthy lives!

to address the first segment in bold: Farmers who are profitable treat their animals better than most city folk treat their children. Confined animals require constant supervision - the ALWAYS have fresh food and water and a clean place to stand and lay down. If their needs are comprimised so is the quality of the product they are producing. Can you say that for city kids? They are force fed junk food and tv shows while being supervised by less than attentive baby sitters or parents - how can I say that? hmmm look at the education system.
There are good and bad people in all walks of life, and if you lump all livestock producers in with the bad, you best be loving your vegetables and synthetic vitamin pills to be able to sleep at night.

the second bold part: confined animal production is a cost effective to provide food for your community and the world. Not all confinement operations are corporate owned in fact - the California Dairy ads are a great example - most farm operations are FAMILY OWNED and operated. By family, the modern interpretation is Dad manages, the sons and daughters' families work. The whole farm is held in corporation for tax and insurance purposes.

my biggest problem is that people who think animals have "rights" and people need to understand the animals "feelings" is that they have never really walked in the shoes of a real farmer (The Fabulous Beakmans, Martha Stewart and their kind aren't farmers). No one respects livestock and the land more than a farmer trying to make a living from them.

||Downhome|| · #63 07/05/10, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patt

I guess I must have missed something in the news articles I read. What exactly was voted on and how? I read one group was trying to get something on the ballot and to circumvent that a group of Ohio officials put this through instead.

from what I gather they pushed through this board under the pretense that it would protect and keep hsus from dictating to the people of ohio.

once the act was passed and board initiated, HSUS initiated a Ballot Initiative(see here http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod...75F1EDCD05113A, )

which would of cost both sides money so instead the board that was suppose to shield the citizens of ohio from hsus and others, along with the Governor bowed to hsus instead of doing what was promised.

now hsus has say in these activitys when had it gone on the ballot they very well could of had there hats handed to them (perhaps with heads attached?)

Lilandra · #64 07/05/10, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patt

Oh please! Some things are wrong are they not? Or do you think everything is just OK? Who exactly is harmed by food costing a little more? Oh darn no more Coca Cola for you or potato chips or twinkies....gee that is so harmful.....

you must be a millionaire or something...

food is the most expensive thing in a household and the one thing you can't do without.

a lot of us here have been without a roof, electricity, running water, transportation etc. for one reason or another... but at no time have you read a post that someone didn't have the fixings for stone soup.
in lean times, its whatever can be trapped, caught or shot that makes the dinner table, in good times it something we grew in a shelter on the homestead, in great times - we pay someone to prepare our meals... in whatever time we are experiencing, at no time is the cost of food NOT a concern. My kids are FFA members and proudly wear t-shirts with sayings such as: "without a farmer, you'd be nakid and hungry"... and my fav "my pet makes me breakfast"

think about it

Patt · #65 07/05/10, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilandra

to address the first segment in bold: Farmers who are profitable treat their animals better than most city folk treat their children. Confined animals require constant supervision - the ALWAYS have fresh food and water and a clean place to stand and lay down. If their needs are comprimised so is the quality of the product they are producing. Can you say that for city kids? They are force fed junk food and tv shows while being supervised by less than attentive baby sitters or parents - how can I say that? hmmm look at the education system.
There are good and bad people in all walks of life, and if you lump all livestock producers in with the bad, you best be loving your vegetables and synthetic vitamin pills to be able to sleep at night.

the second bold part: confined animal production is a cost effective to provide food for your community and the world. Not all confinement operations are corporate owned in fact - the California Dairy ads are a great example - most farm operations are FAMILY OWNED and operated. By family, the modern interpretation is Dad manages, the sons and daughters' families work. The whole farm is held in corporation for tax and insurance purposes.

my biggest problem is that people who think animals have "rights" and people need to understand the animals "feelings" is that they have never really walked in the shoes of a real farmer (The Fabulous Beakmans, Martha Stewart and their kind aren't farmers). No one respects livestock and the land more than a farmer trying to make a living from them.

Spend much time on big animal farms? Ever been to a hog farm where they use gestation crates? I have. Ever been through a egg production house full of battery cages? I have. Both of them in Ohio when I was younger and both on fairly good sized family farms. Left a mark on me for me life.

I happen to be against this stuff and I make my living selling eggs and pork among other things. My hogs live on pasture and my chickens are free range so don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

thequeensblessing · #66 07/05/10, 03:53 PM

This is the issue as it appeared on our ballots, (embolden areas mine);

Text of Section 1:

* (A) There is hereby created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board for the purpose of establishing standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state. In carrying out its purpose, the Board shall endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally grown and raised food, and protect Ohio farms and families. The Board shall be comprised of the following thirteen members:
* (A)(1) The director of the state department that regulates agriculture who shall be the chairperson of the Board;
* (A)(2) Ten members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The ten members appointed by the Governor shall be residents of this state and shall include the following:

(a) One member representing family farms;
(b) One member who is knowledgeable about food safety in this state;
(c) Two members representing statewide organizations that represent farmers;
(d) One member who is a veterinarian who is licensed in this state;
(e) The State Veterinarian in the state department that regulates agriculture;
(f) The dean of the agriculture department of a college or university located in this state;
(g) Two members of the public representing Ohio consumers;
(h) One member representing a county humane society that is organized under state law.

* (A)(3) One member appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall be a family farmer;
* (A)(4) One member appointed by the President of the Senate who shall be a family farmer. Not more than seven members appointed to the Board at any given time shall be of the same political party.
* (B) The Board shall have authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state, subject to the authority of the General Assembly. In establishing those standards, the Board shall 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.
* (C) The state department that regulates agriculture shall have the authority to administer and enforce the standards established by the Board.
* (D) The General Assembly may enact laws that it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, to facilitate the execution of the duties of the Board and the state department that regulates agriculture under this section, and to set the terms of office of the Board members and conditions for the Board members' service on the Board.
* (E) If any part of this section is held invalid, the remainder of this section shall not be affected by that holding and shall continue in full force and effect.

There is more time/text spent on an explanation of who will serve on the board than there is in explaining what the exact role the board will have in regards animal welfare and food safety issues, and what the penalties are for non-compliance. It's like passing a constitutional amendment stating that we are setting up a board to pass and enact laws governing our morality and asking everyone to vote on it without ever specifying what laws we are voting on. It leaves the door wide open for abuse.

Here is part of what bothers me: We were told that this amendment was "Necessary" in order stop an initiative on the part of HSUS to pass similar legislation, yet in the end, it was necessary to settle the issue with "an agreement with HSUS". What's that all about??
"On June 30, the state's petition drive deadline, it was announced that Gov. Ted Strickland, the Humane Society and Ohio agricultural leaders reached an agreement. Specifically, the Humane Society agreed to drop their ballot efforts and the state agreed to a number of livestock issues and regulations. Agreed issues included phasing out gestation crates used by the pork industry over the next 15 years and regulations on dog breeding kennels, cockfighting and exotic animals.[5]
So, I thought cock fighting was illegal in Ohio anyway?? Ok, so it wasn't a felony. Why not just upgrade the existing law? Why did we need this new amendment to do that? And what about the regulations on dog breeding and exotic animals? Dog kennels aren't livestock and should be off limits in this bill, but they are a handy tool for bartering with the HSUS on an issue that Ohioans were told was on the ballot to prevent the HSUS from pushing forward it's own agenda. Why not just upgrade our existing commercial dog kennel licensing laws? Commercial dog breeding kennels are limited to 50 breeding dogs under this new legislation? That's reform? The reform is in the taxing of these entities by the state, as is covered quite clearly in the legislation on Dog Kennels. It's about money. This is, as I said, a door that's been left open to make sweeping changes in the name of "livestock", even if the industry that is controlled isn't considered true livestock.
As for the people on the board that represent the farmers who will be affected by this new legislation (that includes EVERYONE who owns livestock (and breeds dogs, obviously), where are the "little people" like us, homesteaders and true, small family farmers, represented?? Here's some stats on "our" board members:
Leon Weaver - owner and operator of Bridgewater Dairy "A family owned business, Bridgewater Dairy has grown to include two separate entities - Bridgewater Dairy LLC and Bridgewater Farming LLC. Together the operations milk 3000 Holstein Dairy Cows, and farm over 4000 acres of ground in Northwest Ohio."

Jeff Wuebker - co-owner of Wuebker Farms since 2001 The brothers have been co-owners of Wuebker Farms LLC since 2001. Grain and livestock farmers, they farm 1,300 acres in the Versailles area, including North Star, Russia, Brock and Frenchtown. They raise corn, soybeans, wheat and alfalfa, the latter to sell to local dairy farmers.
They have 1,800 sows and produce 43,000 baby pigs a year on a contract with another family farm in north central at Kenton in Hardin County in north central Ohio. And, they also feed out about 60 dairy steers a year.

Stacey Atherton - co-owner for Shipley Farms since 2009.- Shipley Farms is a private company categorized under Dairies and located in Newark, OH. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $480,000.

Jerry Lahmers, of Newcomerstown, currently owns and operates a family farm that includes a cow/calf feedlot and grain operations. (This is all I can find on him, other than all his political positions, etc.)

So, we have a feedlot owner, among other massive "family farmers" on the board, but not one homestead, small family farmer type representative. That bothers me, as I too am going to be impacted by this amendment and we were sold this bill of goods under the assumption that all small farmers in Ohio would be represented.

Patt · #67 07/05/10, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilandra

you must be a millionaire or something...

food is the most expensive thing in a household and the one thing you can't do without.

a lot of us here have been without a roof, electricity, running water, transportation etc. for one reason or another... but at no time have you read a post that someone didn't have the fixings for stone soup.
in lean times, its whatever can be trapped, caught or shot that makes the dinner table, in good times it something we grew in a shelter on the homestead, in great times - we pay someone to prepare our meals... in whatever time we are experiencing, at no time is the cost of food NOT a concern. My kids are FFA members and proudly wear t-shirts with sayings such as: "without a farmer, you'd be nakid and hungry"... and my fav "my pet makes me breakfast"

think about it

Yeah right, small farmers as a general rule ain't millionaires now are they? Neither am I.

lasergrl · #68 07/05/10, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patt

Because some people's exotic pets eat people......and some people get exotic pets and don't want them anymore so they release them in to the wild like all of those boa constrictors in the Everglades. And yes there is a difference between an animal that has been domesticated for the last 10,000 years and one whose mama and papa are roaming the wilds.

Its already been scientifically proven that the boas in the everglades are not escaped pets but cast aways from hurricanes. proven by dna. I'll give you that the parrot problem down there is man made.

And anyone that says I cant have something because its dangerous, more bulls and horses have killed people, even compared by percentage held in captivity. One person is killed by a captive tiger a year (and almost 100% of them are working with it by choice, not innocent bistandard). How many from domestic animals?
The only people with this argument have never owned an "exotic" pet. Sorry, I want an animal that loves me because it chooses too, not because I bred it to. And yes, they do choose.

Patt · #69 07/05/10, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thequeensblessing

Here is part of what bothers me: We were told that this amendment was "Necessary" in order stop an initiative on the part of HSUS to pass similar legislation, yet in the end, it was necessary to settle the issue with "an agreement with HSUS". What's that all about??
"On June 30, the state's petition drive deadline, it was announced that Gov. Ted Strickland, the Humane Society and Ohio agricultural leaders reached an agreement. Specifically, the Humane Society agreed to drop their ballot efforts and the state agreed to a number of livestock issues and regulations. Agreed issues included phasing out gestation crates used by the pork industry over the next 15 years and regulations on dog breeding kennels, cockfighting and exotic animals.[5]
Leon Weaver - owner and operator of Bridgewater Dairy "A family owned business, Bridgewater Dairy has grown to include two separate entities - Bridgewater Dairy LLC and Bridgewater Farming LLC. Together the operations milk 3000 Holstein Dairy Cows, and farm over 4000 acres of ground in Northwest Ohio."

Jeff Wuebker - co-owner of Wuebker Farms since 2001 The brothers have been co-owners of Wuebker Farms LLC since 2001. Grain and livestock farmers, they farm 1,300 acres in the Versailles area, including North Star, Russia, Brock and Frenchtown. They raise corn, soybeans, wheat and alfalfa, the latter to sell to local dairy farmers.
They have 1,800 sows and produce 43,000 baby pigs a year on a contract with another family farm in north central at Kenton in Hardin County in north central Ohio. And, they also feed out about 60 dairy steers a year.

Stacey Atherton - co-owner for Shipley Farms since 2009.- Shipley Farms is a private company categorized under Dairies and located in Newark, OH. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $480,000.

Jerry Lahmers, of Newcomerstown, currently owns and operates a family farm that includes a cow/calf feedlot and grain operations. (This is all I can find on him, other than all his political positions, etc.)

So, we have a feedlot owner, among other massive "family farmers" on the board, but not one homestead, small family farmer type representative. That bothers me, as I too am going to be impacted by this amendment and we were sold this bill of goods under the assumption that all small farmers in Ohio would be represented.

Thanks! Now I understand where I got lost!

The newer articles are all about the victory for HSUS and I was missing the part where y'all got to vote and what you actually voted for. Now it makes sense.

I would be aggravated on both counts too, that you were told you were voting for one thing and got the rug yanked out from under you and that a large chunk of Ohio farmers are not going to be represented with the board members they came up with.

I would have voted against it too. I was under the impression it was for the issues mentioned in the OP and I thought what was passed were good things. But I wouldn't have voted for that vague mess that was on the ballot. It seems to me you might have been better off with the original HSUS ballot measure.

lasergrl · #70 07/05/10, 04:17 PM

everyone is entitled to an opinion on the exotic animals issue but bottom line is, farm bureau has no jurisdiction over dog breeders and exotic animals. There are already abuse laws and standards of care by usda.
Ohio is not at threat for being populated by rogue boas, gators, and cats, so that argument is moot, at least for those species.
They always sneak in the "non dangerous animals" after the fact. Slippery slope and all.

Patt · #71 07/05/10, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lasergrl

Its already been scientifically proven that the boas in the everglades are not escaped pets but cast aways from hurricanes. proven by dna. I'll give you that the parrot problem down there is man made.

And anyone that says I cant have something because its dangerous, more bulls and horses have killed people, even compared by percentage held in captivity. One person is killed by a captive tiger a year (and almost 100% of them are working with it by choice, not innocent bistandard). How many from domestic animals?
The only people with this argument have never owned an "exotic" pet. Sorry, I want an animal that loves me because it chooses too, not because I bred it to. And yes, they do choose.

Not all of them but it looks like a good chunk were accidently released during Hurricane Andrew. Question is why were the here in the first place? As pets maybe?

http://www.natpet.org/articles/repti...n-ban-timeline

MrCalicoty · #72 07/05/10, 04:30 PM

I think I may understand Patt's perspective on this now. I just read her signature line quote: "Half of writing history is hiding the truth"

Thanks for the insight Patt.

lasergrl · #73 07/05/10, 04:35 PM

sure, but feral cats are much more devastating to the environment. God forbid you make a cat indoor only, the population would flip.

Either way, it wasnt irresponsible pet owners. Ohio private breeders are no threat to the ecosystem. Its a stretch, one used to make a ban that is not needed. We do not have a problem with wild populations boas, gators and tigers. There is no danger from someone keeping them, statistically. I would rather my neighbor had a tiger in the usda approved enclosure (requiring a top or hieght with recoil, a perimeter fence, double door) then the jersey bull my neighbor has behind two strands of barbed wire. Let the voter descide, dont just descide for us. Last two times this bill has been indroduced, it has been voted down. Why not let the people descide???

Patt · #74 07/05/10, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrCalicoty

I think I may understand Patt's perspective on this now. I just read her signature line quote: "Half of writing history is hiding the truth"

Thanks for the insight Patt.

I assume you are not a Firefly fan?

Those who write the history books slant it however they want and the truth is mostly obscured. Not a good thing and history books are not the place to go if you are looking for the truth.

Anyhoo I do owe you an apology, The Queensblessing finally got me sorted out on what you did vote for and what actually happened so now I understand your democracy post. The OP lost me entirely.

Lilandra · #75 07/05/10, 04:49 PM

at the risk of trolling/personal attack here, I'd like to respond to Pat...

I work on a "family farm" but I am not blood family -- just an unemployed neighbor being helped my a neighbor.

That said, I help with a farrow to finish operation. Without the farrowing crate the losses of piglets would bankrupt this farm. Once the pigs are weaned, the sow is returned to a larger area and the piglets get more space as well. While the sow is in the crate, she is one pampered pig - washed, fed, watered... if we didn't spend time keeping her free from sores or dirt, the piglets would get sick.
When I am done with pig chores, I help another farmer with his calves.... on top of this, I am talking with another farmer about building a chicken/turkey building, so I can be an independent producer.

Don't lecture me about farming when you have had the bad experiences and changed your ways in response. My experiences have all been good and I look forward to the day when the building goes up on my acreage and I don't have to look in the city for a job that's not farm related.

What they did in Ohio with HSUSA's input is handicap the farmer and exploited the consumer. The consumer needs to be educated on where their food comes from and the processes it takes to make it on the shelf. There are bad farmers out there, but like immigration - there are laws already on the books that are NOT being enforced. We need more resources to bring everyone up to the high standards of a good farm without lowering the good farm to lower liberal/extremist levels

Patt · #76 07/05/10, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lasergrl

sure, but feral cats are much more devastating to the environment. God forbid you make a cat indoor only, the population would flip.

Either way, it wasnt irresponsible pet owners. Ohio private breeders are no threat to the ecosystem. Its a stretch, one used to make a ban that is not needed. We do not have a problem with wild populations boas, gators and tigers. There is no danger from someone keeping them, statistically. I would rather my neighbor had a tiger in the usda approved enclosure (requiring a top or hieght with recoil, a perimeter fence, double door) then the jersey bull my neighbor has behind two strands of barbed wire. Let the voter descide, dont just descide for us. Last two times this bill has been indroduced, it has been voted down. Why not let the people descide???

I agree with you that you should have been given the chance to vote for the original ballot rather than getting this foisted on you.

If everyone kept their big cats in the approved enclosures I don't think most of us would mind at all but it doesn't always happen and seeing one lion or tiger roaming the streets or wilds is usually enough to get the public up in arms. Just another of those few bad apples ruining it for all. We have had escaped/released african lions, tigers and mountain lions here in AR just for example. You only need to see one story about one of those to make you think the average Joe should not be allowed to own one.

Patt · #77 07/05/10, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilandra

That said, I help with a farrow to finish operation. Without the farrowing crate the losses of piglets would bankrupt this farm. Once the pigs are weaned, the sow is returned to a larger area and the piglets get more space as well. While the sow is in the crate, she is one pampered pig - washed, fed, watered... if we didn't spend time keeping her free from sores or dirt, the piglets would get sick.

Pigs farrowing on pasture don't have any of those problems or losses.

I am really sorry to hear you plan to add to the misery by building yet another chicken house and I sincerely hope you will look at pastured poultry instead. You will be independent, you will actually receive a decent return on your birds and you won't be the slave of Tyson or whoever you grow for. Win win for everyone.

lasergrl · #78 07/05/10, 05:26 PM

Yes, it is the bad apples for sure. Already laws on the books and caging regs by usda. I guess to some that dont understand, it may sound scarey. We have bears and mt lions in the country. Coyotes are brazen and way more dangerous. Someones escaped pet lion is more afraid then anyone thinks. They dont see humans as food, but as friends. the Christian the lion video is not just fantasy, that is how they behave toward a loving owner. The attacks are usually zoo animals raised with no contact, someone gets careless. Accidents can happen and if you arent carefull yes you can be in real trouble. That is the chance they take, and it doesnt hurt anyone else if they get killed. Like sky diving. I would be all for testing knowledge and such to own them, but the animal rights movement just takes too much. If you give them an inch they take a mile. Where testing ect is enacted, they push for more untill banned. The best way for animal owners to stop bans is to fight tooth and nail for no regs at all. Bad as that sounds it is what works.

Patt · #79 07/05/10, 05:51 PM

My problem with exotic animals especially the bigger ones is not so much the damage they can do (although that is what gets the general public riled up) it's the stories of the idiots who buy the cute little tiger cub or alligator or whatever and keep it in their house and then it gets too big and oh no what do we do with it now. Poor animal has never had any sort of a life and now it's a "problem" and it winds up dumped or shot. The lucky ones get collected and taken to responsible wildlife groups.

Ernie · #80 07/05/10, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patt

My problem with exotic animals especially the bigger ones is not so much the damage they can do (although that is what gets the general public riled up) it's the stories of the idiots who buy the cute little tiger cub or alligator or whatever and keep it in their house and then it gets too big and oh no what do we do with it now. Poor animal has never had any sort of a life and now it's a "problem" and it winds up dumped or shot. The lucky ones get collected and taken to responsible wildlife groups.

I think people who own these exotic pets are somewhat crazy, but who am I to stop them? The same rights that enable me to raise a chicken or a sheep also protect them, and if I wish those rights to continue to cover ME then I have to support THEM in their rights as well.

As far as the wild animals getting lose and doing damage, I have far more trouble from the stray dogs of my neighbors.