Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 11 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Issue 2 isn’t right solution
Published Saturday, October 31, 2009
State ballot Issue 2 is the wrong solution for a legitimate problem.
The initiative that would create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, an agriculture supervisory board, would address some significant challenges facing the state, potentially strengthening the economy and helping farmers.
So what’s the problem? It is the way it seeks to accomplish these goals.
Issue 2 would amend Ohio's Constitution, something that should never be taken lightly because it becomes very rigid and cannot easily be modified.
Constitutional amendments are used far too often and unnecessarily. The governor and the legislature could easily have accomplished the same goals as Issue 2 with far more explanation and guidelines.
Part of the problem with Issue 2 is that it leaves too many items left to be determined including how much this would cost, what the clear hierarchy of power is and how the public would have a voice.
A key concern we have with this amendment is that it would give this board, some of whom would be political appointees, nearly unchecked power and no real accountability to the public or even the Legislature.
Plus, the reality is that much of the motivation for this amendment comes as a pre-emptive move against animal rights groups that include the Humane Society of the United States who have said they plan to legislate against farming practices they feel are cruel.
We don’t think amending the constitution out of fear for what may come is the right approach.
So, while Issue 2 would address some legitimate agricultural problems in Ohio, these challenges should be tackled the old fashioned way — through the leaders elected to lead.
We urge Ohio voters to wait for a better solution by voting "no" on Issue 2.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My understanding is that Ohio farmers would prefer to have an Ohio board governing them rather than out of state interests poking in their nose. The state legislators would at least be bribed (sorry, take contributions) by in state lobbies instead of out of state lobbies.
The Humane Society is all well and good, but I don't see how driving costs up to make sure chickens are comfortable before slaughter makes sense.
vote yes on issue 2!
Posted by bleedingheart (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The way I see issue 2 is not a humane way of treating animals so much as a safe food supply issue. Cramming animals in cramped dirty spaces increases the risk of disease. I would much rather buy a cow butchered in the backyard from my neighbor as I would from a mega-grocery-tire change-everything store. I could get into the stuff about how stressful animals have increased hormones, yada, yada, yada, but the bottom line is the quality of our food supply.
I don't believe that Issue 2 will improve our food supply and changing the Ohio Constitution is a big step.
Posted by Hacksaw (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We must take into account the comfort of chickens and other live stock.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on November 1, 2009 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cashmere, you seem to be saying that it's OK to torture animals if you're going to slaughter them eventually anyway. Wrong.
Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think torture is a too strong of an accusation, don't you think?
Besides, the Democrats love this,like Strickland, and you love Demos, Keta, so what's the problem?
Posted by truthseeker (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't seen the details of issue 2, but all the farmers in
my area are for it . It seems the ones who have managed to keep us a supply of fresh meat and vegatables to eat for our whole lives should know if this issue is important to them. I think we should vote the same as the farmers who have fed us since before we had teeth.
Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
exactly - farmers are for this. There's regulation, and then there is regulation. Agriculture is the top business in the state of Ohio, and should be protected as other businesses fall apart. If it takes amending the Ohio Constitution, so be it.
Posted by score21 (anonymous) on November 2, 2009 at 10:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with keta!
Posted by lbeiser (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is the new bad four letter word f-a-r-m? It amazes me how people who have never raised livestock for a living are experts. It also is amazing how everyone now thinks all farmers are cruel to their animals. Do all people with children abuse them too because I've seen photos and films of child abuse so all parents must do that too. The Organic farmers and HSUS have alot in common. They deceive. Organic farmers have a board that consists of "organic" interests. Hmmmm. And the NOP List of Allowed and Disallowed Substances include ethelyn which is "allowed for postharvest rippening of fruit". Also allowed is "ivermectin" when "organic system does not prevent investation. Then theres "oxytocin" which may be used when animal does not let down milk. These are all synthetic chemicals. Wake up. Read the list yourself. Organic farmers want to control the market and put industrial farmers who provide cheaper food out of business. I voted YES on Issue 2. And I will continue to fight these groups. OUr animals sleep, eat and breath better than most children in the world. Animals are less productive, grow slower and get less money per lb. if they are abused. How hard is that to figure out?
Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you havn't voted yet,read Bill Pratt's opinion first.
And comment from ibeiser.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on November 3, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Cashmere, be more specific than "farmers are for this". Big corporate farms are certainly for it, and out-of-state corporations are spending a fortune to get us to vote for it - small farmers sure aren't springing for all the TV advertisements and signs plastered everywhere. Think of that, all those out-of-state corporate dollars spent to convince us to amend our constitution . I hope they've wasted their money.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)