/p/
Toledo Talk forums search sign-up login

Issue 2

I have to admit... I am confused.

This article says the Humane Society would have some say in animal care if this is voted in: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/09/06/copy/LIVESTOCK_ISSUE.ART_ART_09-06-09_A1_UUEVV9K.html?sid=101

But, the Humane Society says vote NO: http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/ballot_initiatives/ohio_issue_2.html

The first two letters to the editor at this link aren't helping: http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091012/OPINION03/910120325

created by toledolen on Oct 12, 2009 at 12:01:04 pm
updated by toledolen on Oct 12, 2009 at 12:17:42 pm
    Comments: 12

source      versions

Comments ... #

This is despised by smaller livestock agriculturalists for being onerously expensive, while the Humane Scoiety says this is a watered-down bill with little hope of reducing animal cruelty. Sounds like your typical lobbyist-influenced (and lobbyist-purchased, to the more cynical) state legislation: screw the small business person while paying only lip-service to the problem it is supposed to fix, and all the while placating voters with feel-good television ads.

posted by historymike on Oct 12, 2009 at 12:33:07 pm     #  

I'm right there with you toledolen. Sounds like one of those deceptively written things where "no" could mean "yes" and vice versa.

My instincts tell me that it sounds like issue 2 would create another government agency. If there's one thing we DON'T need it's more government.

posted by JeepMaker on Oct 12, 2009 at 12:33:15 pm     #  

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/IssueProcBallotBd/BallotBoard.aspx#Issues

Link to the issues. Read for yourself.

posted by swantucky on Oct 12, 2009 at 12:35:40 pm     #  

Thanks Swantuckey. After reading it, I have to say my instincts were correct.
Looks to me to just be more big government. Just what we don't need another "board" made up of political cronies of whoever is in power. Of course it doesn't mention what these folks would be paid.
Being a government job, it'll probably be ridiculously overpaid, after all, they're spending OUR money, that's always seemed pretty easy for the government.

posted by JeepMaker on Oct 12, 2009 at 05:32:14 pm     #  

What of the merits of the issue? Have you considered those? Or is this just a knee jerk reaction to a so called government proposal. Should the production and management of food animals be afforded greater scrutiny and protection? If so, does this proposal adequately address those concerns? Can you answer those questions JeepMaker?

posted by holland on Oct 12, 2009 at 05:41:22 pm     #  

I fail to see what problems the agricultural industry has that would require something as serious as a constitutional amendment.
Don't we already have a state department of agriculture? If there are problems, make whoever is in charge of the state ag. dept. do their job.
If every time we have a problem, real or perceived, we make another government board or department, government will just get bigger and bigger.

posted by JeepMaker on Oct 12, 2009 at 06:02:59 pm     #  

The purpose of it is to change the Ohio Constitution so that it will never likely be undone. It sets up a board made of of Big Factory Farm's friends, and the intent is to given it a sweet humane sounding brand.

while it's real purpose is to preempt a bill by the the Humane Society of the United States , which outlaws the way they treat animals in Ohio factory farms, living in their own urine and feces and never moving out of their own footprints. Human Society of U.S. has already passed the law outside Ohio at the state level and big ag saw it coming.

This campaign of smooth talk is how they hope to get the constitutional amendment, making it sound like it will end in better treatment of animals is pure B.S. Brought to you by the monster sized animal factory farms and Ohio Ag dept., and probably with help and funding from O.S.U. and your tax dollars. They already have the board members selected, all but 2, and so far don't want to reveal who they will be, but I've heard they ruled out anyone interested in water pollution control or reasonable conditions for the animals. The closer animals are living in their own crap, the more antibiotics they give them, and the more resistant staph infections we see. Most MRSA comes from pig farms, one doctor died after treating his own third round of MRSA which he kept catching from hog factory farm workers he treated. The manure overflows the ponds in heavy rains and runs into streams, and manure phosphorus is "organic" meaning it is much more usable to the algae in Lake Erie, it's like rocket fuel for algae growth. Factory farms are completely unregulated in Ohio. Even determining where they can be sited has been taken from Ohio EPA and put in the hands of Ohio Ag department,, which will never turn down a new animal factory. I hesitate to call them farms because they have no resemblance to a farm. They are also a big source of hormones in our drinking water. Hope you'll vote no on issue 2.

posted by prime3end on Oct 12, 2009 at 06:12:12 pm     #  

I agree. No on issue 2.

posted by holland on Oct 12, 2009 at 06:13:44 pm     #  

Very well stated Prime3end! Couldn't have stated it better myself.

NO ON ISSUE 2!!!!

posted by Deho on Oct 12, 2009 at 07:29:26 pm     #  

I just read the file "2-text.pdf" from the BOE site.

Obviously the issue is a loser since it specifically mentions "the state department that regulates agriculture". Obviously, we ALREADY HAVE a state-level oversight organization, the Ohio Department of Agriculture:

http://www.agri.ohio.gov/

This depart has a budget of $49.8M/yr already:

http://www.agri.ohio.gov/divs/Admin/Docs/AnnReports/ODA_Comm_AnnRpt_2007.pdf

That's $4.34/yr for each person in Ohio, or $566K/yr for each county. Why is this budget insufficient for basic food safety?

Answer: IT ISN'T. Issue 2 is another shot at creating a larger, more pointless government for Ohio and ultimately for making us POOR.

It's a loser. It's stupid. It's a petty political statement instead of sound government. It's another tax burden on increasingly poorer Ohioans. OBVIOUSLY YOU SHOULD VOTE "NO".

posted by GuestZero on Oct 13, 2009 at 06:43:01 pm     #  

My understanding of the issue from some state rep that was on the radio a couple weeks ago is that this was a preemption by state legislators.

In California (I think) the Humane Society demanded total control over certain aspects of agriculture such as small farm animals. The state refused. So the Humane Society got enough signatures (or whatever the procedure is in that state) to get the issue on the ballot, and proceeded to run commercials with cute puppies and kittens asking people protect animals. Unsurprisingly the bill was passed without most voters having any idea what it was about.

Ohio legislators didn't want the same thing to happen here because the Humane Society was talking of doing the same thing here. So they created Issue 2 in an attempt to create a watered down version of the Humane Society proposal.

Problem is no one wants it. The agriculture industry doesn't want the added costs, consumers don't want to pay those costs that will of course be passed on to them, and the Humane Society doesn't want a watered down version when they think they can get even greater control themselves.

posted by taliesin52 on Oct 16, 2009 at 12:39:59 am     #  

Have you seen conditions animals face during their development on factory farms, before we put them in our bodies? It's the best dollar a person can spend. We don't want the fox regulating the hen house.

posted by thetoledowire_com on Oct 16, 2009 at 08:27:24 am     #  

Login or create an account to post a comment.