10/29/09 UPDATE: Please read my Issue 2 update here.
10/17/09 UPDATE: Welcome everyone who is researching the 2009 Ohio ballot issues! An educated voter is a wonderful thing.
Here is the most recent list of groups who OPPOSE Issue 2 (please note, PETA is NOT listed or involved in this issue, that’s a myth designed to scare voters):
- American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
- Capital Area Humane Society
- Center for Food Safety
- Cleveland Animal Protective League
- Clintonville Community Market
- Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions
- Columbus Top Dogs
- Cornucopia Institute
- Family Farm Defenders
- Farm Sanctuary
- Food & Water Watch
- Geauga Humane Society
- Grand Lake St. Mary’s Improvement Association
- Humane Society of the United States
- League of Humane Voters of Ohio
- League of Women Voters of Ohio
- Libertarian Party of Ohio
- Local Matters
- Mercy for Animals
- Ohio Conference on Fair Trade
- Ohio Connections to Whole Food and Nutritional Healing
- Ohio Ecological Food and Farming Association
- The Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance
- Ohio Farmers Union
- Ohio Freedom Alliance
- Ohio Sierra Club
- Organic Consumers Association
- Progress Ohio
- The Wellness Forum
- Toledo Area Humane Society
- Western Lake Erie Water Keepers Association
- Weston A. Price Foundation
- Williams County Alliance
- Wood County Citizens Opposed to Factory Farms
- Working Families Win – Ohio Chapter
Also, be sure to read the final text of Issue 2, exactly as it will appear on your ballot November 3rd.
I’ve been meaning to write about Issue 2, a sneaky little campaign (backed by factory farms and Big Ag) that would create the “Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.” Since this op-ed letter I just wrote to Outlook News pretty much summarizes where I stand, I’ll go ahead and copy it here.
For more information on this issue, please check out OhioACT.org (Ohioans Against Constitutional Takeover) and the Facebook group I’ve created: Ohioans Against Issue 2. On both sites you can download flyers, view recent news articles about the issue, and more.
To: hayes@outlookmedia.com, mdaniels@outlookmedia.com
Subject: Issue 2 endorsementDear Mr. Daniels,
I was highly disappointed to find an endorsement of Issue 2 in the latest issue of Outlook. Disappointed for many reasons.
The first reason is the obvious lack of research on the issue. Did you take your summary of the issue straight off the Farm Bureau’s website? Did you read ANY opposing arguments? Did you look at the list of groups who oppose it? This list includes the Capital Area Humane Society, Ohio League of Women Voters, Organic Consumers Association, Ohio Sierra Club, Ohio Farmers Union, Food & Water Watch… the list goes on.
Do you know how quickly the ballot measure was pushed through the Ohio legislature, passing through the House and Senate in just 6 days? Talk about suspicious. Issue 2 came about as a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of dealing with the Humane Society’s potential focus on expanding animal welfare laws in the state of Ohio. Rather than leave the decision up to voters who may decide farm animals deserve better treatment (as was recently the case in Michigan and California), the Farm Bureau decided to take matters into their own hands and shrug off the democratic process completely, saying they will regulate themselves. The fox wants to guard the henhouse, literally.
Issue 2 would amend the Ohio Constitution, an action that should NEVER be taken lightly. Creating a Livestock Care Standards Board takes away power from the voters, as all future animal-welfare decisions would be decided upon and handed down by this unelected 13-member group. Did Outlook investigate the would-be members of this board? To put it simply: they’re not looking out for animals or food safety, they’re pawns for Big Agribusiness. Not to mention the cost of creating this new board. Can Ohio really afford this right now? Expanding government always means expanding the budget.
Also worth mentioning is the effect it will have on Ohio’s small farmers, who would have even more regulation to deal with if Issue 2 passes. That does not mean safer food, historically this has resulted in increased costs for small farmers who end up going out of business, then factory farms and Big Ag gladly take over. Factory farms certainly do not provide safer food, and absolutely do not provide better care for animals.
This is not “Ohioans taking care of Ohioans” — this is Big Agribusiness taking care of themselves. I can’t believe Outlook News fell victim to the Farm Bureau’s campaign. You’ve done a disservice to your readers by taking the lazy road to arrive at your endorsement decision, and it will be Ohio’s small farms and animals that suffer.
It’s convenient that Outlook is now a monthly publication, since even if this letter made it to print, it would be too late for anyone to see. Nevertheless, I feel obligated to speak out against this ignorant endorsement.
- Mohandas Gandhi
I completely agree that the Ohio Constitution is not the place for this; our constitution will become further debased with ideas such as this and others. A constitution that strips people of their freedoms and rights is an abomination.
Adding another regulatory board increases government intervention. The more regulations, the less a small business can afford to comply. I too believe that the voters of Ohio should have the ability to vote for or against laws. Regulatory boards are not accountable to the voters; voters don’t have the opportunity to vote regulations up or down.
Consumers and voters can make decisions according to their values and beliefs if given the information. Animal advocacy groups should continue to shed light on the abusive practices and people can react accordingly.
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.
i personally financed the purchase of 100 “vote no on issue 2″ signs. i posted them in and around the columbus area, mostly near ohio state university, at street intersections, near on ramps and off ramps. so far, about 1/3 have been stolen. so much for the honesty and integrity of the issue 2 proponents. it looks like they are thieves.
by the way, check out the website http://www.ohioact.org. it has identified the top 10 contributors in support of issue 2. the top contributor is an out of state corporation, the united egg producers. so much for issue 2 being an attempt to protect us from “out of state” interests. also, all of the top ten contributors in support of issue 2 are either corporations or the farm bureau. so much for issue 2 supporting small farms and “safe, local food.”
vote no on issue 2.