I voted Yes on 2 (absentee) just because I had no idea what it was for, and there was one line about encouraging local food sources, which seemed alright.  I think the majority of people going into vote will see this and have no clue what to think.

yeah, it's always a good idea to vote on things that you don't know anything about.

 

I think if people didn't vote on issues or candidates when they were woefully uninformed we'd all be better off.

.... Not a single anti-2 sign to be seen, and I added nearly 600 miles on my vehicle.

That's because the Farm Bureau has million dollar budget and the Humane Society has about nothing. 

 

It was insidious for the Farm Bureau to rush this constitutional change throught the statehouse on short notice.  It gave the opponents no time to prepare.  I like Kingfish's take up thread that this is just a way to bog down reform in a bureaucratic quagmire.

Yes, its a good way to keep the fanatical PETA people out of the hair of the Ohio farmer!

It's a great move by the Farm Bureau to put this on the ballot.  If it passes then they'll have control over the regulations.  If it fails that is fine too because it then means that anything PETA or the Humane Society put on the ballot will probably be defeated as well.  It just comes down to the fact that I don't want a bunch of vegans telling our farmers how to raise their livestock.  You don't want a banker writing FAA regulations do you?

Do you want to eat an animal that had to suffer to make its way to your dinner plate?

If it passes, may all swine waste lakes be built near you.

Happy chickens lay better eggs, happy cows give more and better milk.  As one farmer said the other day, "We have to take care of our livestock, or we don't make any money."

I'm divided on this issue, and may refrain from voting on that issue.

 

That said, I was in rural areas for much of the past week on vacation, and I saw a LOT of "Yes on 2" signs and billboards. It is vastly pro-2 in the rural areas. Not a single anti-2 sign to be seen, and I added nearly 600 miles on my vehicle.

 

My girlfriend lives in Bellevue, south of Sandusky, in a heavy soybean farming country and they are terrified of Issue 2 being voted down, citing that family farms will be surely run out of business.  Very afraid that the business will be hijacked just like what happened in California.  I'm still undecided, but I don't want to leave these farmers out to dry.  I'll probably vote YES.

 

The bottom line is if you want what's best for the farmers, and the farmers are all voting YES, then vote YES.  It's like the communitive property.

Do you want to eat an animal that had to suffer to make its way to your dinner plate?

 

Depends how much it costs!  :wink:

An excellent run-down of all of the issues during this election:

Your choice, Your vote

 

Be informed, be educated, vote for what you believe in.

 

The bottom line is if you want what's best for the farmers, and the farmers are all voting YES, then vote YES.  It's like the communitive property.

 

Not necessarily. This is being pushed by the commodity organizations that purport to represent farmers, but really represent agribusiness -- and what's in the interest of the agribusiness processors is lower prices paid to farmers.

It seems to come down to two alternatives, both of which include some form of regulation intensification:

 

Voting YES would allow state farmers, mostly led by agribusiness, to set standards for animal treatment for Ohio farms. Voting YES would lead to lighter standards, and less regulation of factory farms.

 

Voting NO would allow national organizations, in part led by those pushing for more humane treatment in factory farms, to establish the standards. Voting NO would probably lead to stricter standards, and more regulation of agribusiness factory farms.

 

I'm torn, but I'll probably vote NO.

I don't want outside interests, especially those of the animal rights nature, to take over Ohio's agricultural industry like they did in California.  I am voting YES, as many times as possible.

Boreal, please leave out the snips against other forumers... they will be deleted. Thanks.

It will prevent the following, as I don't want the Humane Society deciding agricultural issues:

 

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1372116.html

 

Voters approve bonds, farm animal restrictions

 

Advocates said the initiative, including the Humane Society of the United States, would prevent cruelty to animals and improve food safety because hens would be healthier. Industry groups charged that the initiative would increase the cost of eggs and drive some farmers out of business. They also suggested it would put consumers at risk as stores import more eggs produced under lax regulations out-of-state.

 

 

Love the scare tactics..."if we don't do this, then the Humane Society is going to come in and make us give pedicures to all the chickens"

 

I wouldn't be too worried about those groups being able to come to Ohio and pass that sort of legislation...either through the legislature or through referendum.  PETA and those groups don't exactly have the pull here that they do in California.

"PETA and those groups don't exactly have the pull here that they do in California."

 

And a YES vote will guarantee they never do.

"PETA and those groups don't exactly have the pull here that they do in California."

 

And a YES vote will guarantee they never do.

 

How so?

And so the delicate task of weighing the merits of an issue gives way to the snapping jaws of partisanship.

A "Yes" vote only guarantees more factory farm influence and power. I find it quite disturbing at how many who cannot see through the B.S. in this "Vote Yes" campaign. In the long run, it will hurt more...those it suggests it is trying to protect. The chamber driven folks who brought this to you did so with giving you the impression that it is all about helping "poor farmer brown and his family"...when in reality, "poor farmer brown" includes big time operations with absolutely no scruples... and these industries go through great pains in trying to hide a lot from the public about health/safety/cruelty issues, etc. If this food industry was more transparent, it would cure a of of the ignorance that abounds about how food is produced, where it comes from, and so on. People are so disconnected from this aspect of food and that is why they're fooled easily. When the Farm Bureau back something up, I throw a red flag immediately. They're not always on the side of who we are conditioned to think they are. Here is a group who's head once argued that pesticides have contributed to a healthier diet. And before anyone knocks PETA... I would suggest you educate yourselves in learning about all they really do..all the good. I am very thankful for such a watchdog group. Don't be an idiot and smear them because you hear one incident or two where the media tries to make them look bad.

"And before anyone knocks PETA... I would suggest you educate yourselves in learning about all they really do..all the good. "

 

EC will be performing all week at the FunnyBone!

"And before anyone knocks PETA... I would suggest you educate yourselves in learning about all they really do..all the good. "

 

EC will be performing all week at the FunnyBone!

 

stop that! Mice are people too!!

I will be voting NO on Issue 2.  This is a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.  It's the current inhumane practices that made me boycott meat in the first place.  I would no sooner buy meat or eggs from factory farms, than I would knowingly buy a shirt made my child laborers.  How you spend your dollars, tells you what you value.

The chamber driven folks who brought this to you did so with giving you the impression that it is all about helping "poor farmer brown and his family"...when in reality, "poor farmer brown" includes big time operations with absolutely no scruples... and these industries go through great pains in trying to hide a lot from the public about health/safety/cruelty issues, etc. If this food industry was more transparent, it would cure a of of the ignorance that abounds about how food is produced, where it comes from, and so on. People are so disconnected from this aspect of food and that is why they're fooled easily.

 

Does the public really need to know exactly how their food is produced.  There are things in life that are ugly and people simply don't need to be bothered with.  If anything people are disconnected from the ugly parts of life so when they come face to face with one of them they can't take it.

 

When the Farm Bureau back something up, I throw a red flag immediately. They're not always on the side of who we are conditioned to think they are. Here is a group who's head once argued that pesticides have contributed to a healthier diet. And before anyone knocks PETA... I would suggest you educate yourselves in learning about all they really do..all the good. I am very thankful for such a watchdog group. Don't be an idiot and smear them because you hear one incident or two where the media tries to make them look bad. 

 

I smell a touch of hypocrisy in that last statement. 

 

From what I understand PETA isn't the issue here... it's the humane society of the united states (different than the humane society that shelters animals).  Apparently this is a group that pushes a vegetarian/vegan agenda.  Not a group that should have any say in our cattle, pork, and poultry industry.  In any case I voted no on this issue and I will vote no on any other issue that creates unnecessary regulatory groups.

No, the Humane Society of the United States is not pushing a vegetarian/vegan agenda. Further, HSUS is not affiliated in any meaningful way with PETA.

 

http://www.hsus.org/about_us/faqs/

http://www.cpif.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=601&Itemid=89

 

Animal Welfare: Why All The Fuss Over Issue 2?

 

Why is Issue 2 on the ballot? Out-of-state animal rights activist groups such as HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) have brought ballot initiatives to states such as Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and California to radically change how livestock and poultry are housed. In general, they are opposed to the confinement housing systems used for poultry, swine, and veal calves. The ballot issues in these states passed in favor of the animal rights groups and now livestock producers in the states are faced with significant changes in their production systems. Ballot initiatives are not the only method in which livestock producers have been impacted. Michigan legislators are in the process of banning many currently accepted housing systems for poultry, swine, and veal through legislation.

 

The ultimate issue here is a philosophical difference between very diverse groups. Supporters of groups such as HSUS and PETA believe in animal rights. Supporters of Issue 2 believe in animal welfare. Please note the difference between the two phrases: animal rights vs. animal welfare. Any farmer knows that for an animal to be healthy and productive, they must utilize science-based, factual information that will insure the general welfare of the animal. Anything that jeopardizes the welfare of the animal will reflect negatively in the end product for the consumer.

 

 

An animal's welfare is predicated on an animal's right to humane living conditions. Remember your happy livestock quote from a page ago?

That's the thing, animals don't have rights, and a chicken living only in a cage, doesn't know the difference.  I do remember my quote, they wouldn't produce as well if they were suffering.  Farmers aren't stupid, they aren't going to hurt their livelyhood.

 

 

 

Its strange that this "issue" is actually a proposed amendment to the constitution and it has had practically NO media coverage!! I think a constitutional amendment is serious.

 

I absolutely do not like that a group of how many 12-13 people are going to have absolute control over something that affects the whole state. 3 of them are going to be assigned by the governor, okay, that's as good as 1 vote there. Isn't anyone concerned with the partisanship here?

 

Also, who are these local farmers? I grew up in the countryside and it is now all houses. Where are these so-called local farmers?

 

To me, it sounds like a corporate board getting into our constitution.

I don't want outside interests, especially those of the animal rights nature, to take over Ohio's agricultural industry like they did in California.  I am voting YES, as many times as possible.

 

If the elected representatives or the public vote for humane standards, it is called DEMOCRACY, not a take over.

 

Would you rather that this state be run by edict by the King? 

they aren't going to hurt their livelyhood.

 

 

Livelihood*

 

 

I don't want outside interests, especially those of the animal rights nature, to take over Ohio's agricultural industry like they did in California.  I am voting YES, as many times as possible.

 

If the elected representatives or the public vote for humane standards, it is called DEMOCRACY, not a take over.

 

Would you rather that this state be run by edict by the King? 

 

I don't like it when we try to micromanage industries through constitutional amendments.  We have a department of agriculture that regulates livestock care along with a number of other things.  We do not need to set up a special regulatory group to deal specifically with livestock care standards.  It's just ridiculous.

 

We live in a representative democracy.  We set up systems that regulate industries, corporations, individuals, etc...  It bothers me when specific regulations are proposed and brought to a vote when the vast majority of the people voting know little to nothing about livestock care!  We have a group that handles this and that's how it should remain.  If you feel there's a problem with livestock care in this state then write your representative and put some pressure on the department of agriculture to improve the system.  Working people up who know nothing about the issue is not an appropriate way to facilitate change IMO.

Wait: isn't Issue 2 exactly a constitutional amendment to micromanage an industry? Is it better or worse than animal welfare groups attempting to affect legislation?

 

The spoiler here for me, frankly, is the constitutional amendment jazz. Leave that document alone, man. It's a framework for citizens to affect change. Hardwiring the industry issue of the election cycle into it seems like bad politics all around.

 

 

 

 

If you see the board proposed by the state of Ohio to be an added layer of bureaucracy that we don't need - fine. But don't be swayed by the campaign of fear being waged by the opponents. They are a small group of people backed by radical left wing groups out of Washington DC using misrepresentation and fear to promote their agenda. Their tactics are no different than local groups like COAST & the Cincinnati NAACP.

Opponents of Issue 2 claim it is a power grab by "Big Agri-Business".

The constitutional amendment creates a FDA type board whose powers are limited by the legislature to oversee farm animal welfare.

The Board consists of these entities:

 

(Create a link to the list that you copied/pasted from. The excessive length makes it a pain to scroll through. Thanks! --Sherman)

Seriously, if anyone ever wants my vote for something, don't ask me to amend the constitution for things that should be done via legislature.

...But don't be swayed by the campaign of fear being waged by the opponents. They are a small group of people backed by radical left wing groups out of Washington DC using misrepresentation and fear to promote their agenda. Their tactics are no different than local groups like COAST & the Cincinnati NAACP...

 

Fear tactics much?

If you see the board proposed by the state of Ohio to be an added layer of bureaucracy that we don't need - fine. But don't be swayed by the campaign of fear being waged by the opponents. They are a small group of people backed by radical left wing groups out of Washington DC using misrepresentation and fear to promote their agenda. Their tactics are no different than local groups like COAST & the Cincinnati NAACP.

 

 

You wanna talk about fear? Issue 2 is a proposed constitutional amendment borne entirely out of fear. It would not be on the ballot if not for fear of a threatened HSUS ballot initiative. Issue 2 was rushed into place solely in reaction to fear of the HSUS agenda (an agenda I mostly disagree with). The fear of HSUS is the constant theme Issue 2 proponents bombard the public with.

 

The opposition to Issue 2, like the support, comes from farmers and farm groups. But the opponents tend to be smaller and more locally oriented farms. Ohio Farmers Union, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, and small businesses associated with local and specialty food products. Their opposition is focused on whether this should be a constitutional issue, and they make their case for a legislative solution by noting that the legislative action to put Issue 2 on the ballot at the behest of Ohio agribusiness was achieved in almost unprecedented speed.

Issue 2 (Livestock) = Yes

I think there were a LOT of people that didn't really understand this issue.

^Agreed.  A win for corporate farmers. 

A win for all farmers.

A friend of mine who is a strong animal rights activist posted on her Facebook to support Issue 2. I sent her some Humane Society links and she was pretty upset. Apparently she had gotten some information from PETA that said to support 2. Strange.

 

Very interesting how this was marketed to the electorate. Maybe not complete misinformation, but packaged very well to appear pro-animal rights.

A win for all farmers.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Many of the groups that supported Issue 2 -- the commodity-industry organizations -- actually view free-range livestock production as a threat. This is because the livestock organizations are intricately linked with the corn and soybean organizations that produce livestock feed. Their mutual interest then -- the survival of the status quo they have so much stake in -- is challenged by farmers who raise dairy cows on pasture, by farmers who raise free-range poultry, by farmers who raise hogs the old-fashioned way. They are actually scared that, in the free market, a still-small but growing number of consumers are choosing free range. I know this from first-hand experience with the leaders of many of these groups.

 

That does not mean that the Livestock Care Board will be stacked against the small and free-range guys. The Strickland administration and the current Department of Agriculture leadership are clearly trying to ensure a level playing field, as evidenced by membership on current state boards and by the policies the administration advocates. I don't necessarily believe Issue 2 will be bad for some farmers. But let's take a look in a year or two.

I am sure that issue 2 will be bad for the farm animals and neighbors of the manure-lagoons, though.

 

There still needs to be "enabling legislation" written based on this constitutional amendment.  We have everything to gain by dragging this story into the cleansing beams of sunlight.  The HSUS could use this opportunity to milk the issue for publicity.

How much more bureaucracy can we vote into place?  Between this and Cuyahoga County Issue 6 I am sure it will cost us taxpayers millions.

^Oh, but it scared away those scary animal rights people for a while. That makes it totally worth it.