Public Animal Welfare Society Says Vote No On Issue 2
The Public Animal Welfare Society came out against State Issue 2 in a press release. If passed, the amendment would create a board of 13 who would oversee the agriculture business. The official wording reads it "Require the state to create the Livestock Care Standards Board to prescribe standards for animal care and well-being that endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally grown and raised food, and protect Ohio farms and families.
The groups chairperson Patti Fisher says in a press release:
I definitely want PAWS to go on record as being apposed to Issue 2. What scares me is that people will be mislead into believing that if they vote "yes", they are voting to put a stop to inhumane treatment of animals, when in fact, Issue 2 requires NO CHANGE in the way animals are treated!
It's a proposed constitutional amendment to create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. If a regulatory board is created by a constitutional amendment, Ohioans will give away their voice, their right and ability to hold this board accountable for any decisions they make, or actions they take.
Issue 2 is proposing a 13 member board, with only ONE seat to be designated for a representative from a county humane society, or ANY Ohio animal advocacy affiliation. This doesn't sound like a board that would have the animal's best interests at heart!
The full statement by the organization reads:
The Public Animal Welfare Society, (PAWS) supports the humane treatment of all animals. We support that farm animals, including those being raised for food, should have humane treatment for the duration of their lives. One of our responsibilities as a rescue group is to be an advocate and educated institution for the humane treatment of all animals. Although we do not take into our foster system animals that are raised for food consumption, we believe that all animals should be treated in a humane fashion. We also acknowledge the importance of Ohio farms, and the importance of the state agricultural industry.
PAWS opposes Issue 2 in part because it takes rights away from Ohio voters regarding their locally grown food supply and their ability to ensure humane treatment of livestock and poultry. Instead, agricultural policy decision making will be in the hands of a board made up of 13 people appointed by the governor and legislators. If the voters' power is taken away, we cannot ensure that this board will include representatives of family farmers, veterinarians, humane agencies, and experts opposed to inhumane treatment. To enshrine an industry-led board that has sweeping powers in the state constitution is a setback for the people and animals of this state.
Current conditions include holding animals in pens and cages where they cannot stand up, turn around or lie down comfortably. Laying hens, for example, are kept in cages no larger than a piece of notebook paper and live in their own body waste. If Issue 2 passes it will be harder to reform and improve the conditions and treatment of farm animals and poultry in Ohio.
Many in the advocacy community foresee passage of Issue 2 detrimental in passing good laws designed to protect not only livestock but all animals under the Ohio Department of Agriculture including exotic and companion animals.
The interests of farmers and agricultural businesses need not be in opposition to improving the conditions in which livestock and poultry live. We urge our fellow Ohioans to vote
NO ON ISSUE 2.Amy Beichler
Executive Director
Comments
good for PAWS
PAWS is right to recommend a NO vote on Issue 2. In addition to Ohio's major animal shelters being against it, so are the ASPCA and Humane Society of the US. People who oppose animal cruelty should oppose Issue 2.
More info:
http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/ballot_initiatives/ohio_issue_2.html
Vote Yes on Issue 2
If you read documentation on issue 2, you'll see that while only one seat is reserved for a local humane society, the other members have a deep interest in the welfare of animals. Other board members include: the dean of an Ohio agriculture college, 2 veterinarians, a food safety expert, 2 members of statewide farm organizations, 3 family farmers and 2 Ohio consumers. A board that diverse is much more able to set enforceable animal treatment standards for Ohio than any group from outside our state.
Issue 2 is an expansion of
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.
Post new comment