Issue 2 vote might not lasso a resolution on livestock

We do not need a Constitutional Amendment to protect factory farms from public accountability.

I'm certain we'd all like to have that privilege, but that's not the way life works.

As long as agribusiness and factory farms are so very heavily subsidized by us, and creating products for us, then they need to be accountable to us!

Vote NO on Issue 2.

There is NOTHING wrong with giving these animals the BARE MINIMUM of mercy.

It's the least we could do for them.

I don't think we need a constitutional ammendment for this. The legislature should do what we elect and pay them to do, and pass meaningful laws. I intend to vote against Issue 2
because I think it is an end run around meaningful legislation. Also, I have read the ammendment, and while it says the board has the right to set standards, there is very little
language about what the board can do if those standards are not met. This is a huge
waste of taxpaymer money, which will be of very little benefit.

Absolutely correct! A politically appointed board of 13 people with no set length or terms of service will determine legislation for an entire 93 billion dollar industry?? No option to vote them out if we feel they're doing a poor job? There's no accountability here.

NO WAY would I vote for a Constitutional Amendment that takes away my right to vote in the future. Not to mention, what a terrible precedent to set for other Ohio industries! NO ON 2!

2 SUPPORTS FACTORY FARMS wrote:

As long as agribusiness and factory farms are so very heavily subsidized by us, and creating products for us, then they need to be accountable to us!
Vote NO on Issue 2.

YES ON 2!

We do not need this in our constitution. Livestock care can be addressed elsewhere.

Vote No on 2.

This isn't about animal cruelty but safety of vested interests. I was very surprised and awakened when i got an email from the ASPCA urging defeat of this issue. If the society whose charter is exactly the prevention of animal cruelty is against the issue, it isn't about animal welfare. Vote NO.

Issue 2 isn't about HSUS or PETA, it's about giving special interests a permanent place in our state constitution. This board would be given power to make all rules regarding livestock, which nobody knows who they'll be or what they'd decide. No on 2.

The Humane Society of the United States is a left-wing radical group. They are based out of Washington D.C with NO local ties. They ruined the agribusiness in California and would love to do it here.

Wish I had a clear understanding what this is all
about but I still don't; the article does not
make it any clearer.....there is a connection between how our livestock and poultry are treated
and our own health issues and has been for a long
time but I get no understanding that this issue
actually addresses that problem. Partly blame
the Humane Society for not making the proposed
amendment clearer for the voters. I think I will
vote NO.

Vote YES on Issue 2..

Or you can bet the United States Humane Society (No affiliation to your local Humane Society) will come into Ohio and destroy many small farmers, and Agriculture all together and further impact Ohio during this economic time.. Look at what they did to California...

For those looking at this as a change to our constitution, and looking at this very one-sided nor truly understanding the issue at hand. Become a little more educated at what the United State Humane Society has done in other states and you will do everything you can to avert them from coming into Ohio and destroying Agriculture here...

They are a PETA Org. with a different name..

Yes on 2, it's what the animals want.

The problem is, many people like their pets, and don't understnad how local farms work anymore. They just know what they see in documenteries about slaughterhouses...

I'm not a farmer, but I know farmers personally. They respect their animals, and care for them - as if their livelyhood depends on it. champsummers is correct, this is plain and simple, a attempt to let the goverment create a board to regulate the local farmers, so that powerful special intrests who dislike the slaugher of animals for food, don't drive local farmers bankrupt with legislation that makes it unprofitable for them to operate.

By the way, when was the last time an industry said they would volentarally be regulated by the goverment. This honesty is refreshing, and we should pass issue 2 to keep our food save, and our local farmers in business.

Brian wrote:

The problem is, many people like their pets, and don't understnad how local farms work anymore. They just know what they see in documenteries about slaughterhouses...
I'm not a farmer, but I know farmers personally. They respect their animals, and care for them - as if their livelyhood depends on it. champsummers is correct, this is plain and simple, a attempt to let the goverment create a board to regulate the local farmers, so that powerful special intrests who dislike the slaugher of animals for food, don't drive local farmers bankrupt with legislation that makes it unprofitable for them to operate.
By the way, when was the last time an industry said they would volentarally be regulated by the goverment. This honesty is refreshing, and we should pass issue 2 to keep our food save, and our local farmers in business.

A vote for issue two would divert money away from GRF, be a board made up predominantly of political appointees, create an environment conducive to factory farming, and potentially risk our food supply. Issue 2-BAD IDEA

Brian/Dirk:

Seriously, you two need to wake the heck up and come out of your LA LA LAND.

The board created by this issue is government yet NOT government. It will be filled with political appointees which is basically just a word used to describe the payoff someone receives for giving an elected individual either money or favors. Though a part of government, the board does not answer to government, in essence it is ABOVE government.

What Issue 2 really is, is a statement that the people we elected to office to represent us CANNOT be trusted.

To those of you fearful of BIG PETA OR HSUS, I respect your concern. But they CANNOT change the law. All they can do is advocate for a position and try to buy their way in.

This board CAN change the law and they will if for no other reason then it is a board's will to enact the power it receives. In this case, by amending our Constitution, they will have unlimited and unchecked power. Who in their right mind would want to grant ANY group that position?

We have direct proof of this at the federal level right now. With no group to balance the spending, Congress and the President have sent the weakened economy into utter chaos because NO ONE knows what's coming next.

My problem is that I have heard this protects only
the big agribusinesses and not the local farmers.
The local farmers do not have a voice on this
panel and will be damaged by this amendment or so
say the opponents. I am a supporter of the
Humane Society and its efforts to stop abuse and
cruelty to animals. I am also concerned about
the antibiotics and steroids that our livestock
are given and have stopped eating beef....if I
do I go for free range beef. I haven't been
convinced that
this amendment does anything to affect these
bad practices.

Yes on 2!!! I have convinced many to vote yes on 2! Go safe, local food!!

If I understand this correctly we are going to set up another government agency to look over the humain treatment of farm animals. The reason is because the the state is scared of the National Humane society? However, in their advertising they continually said this would also help ensure that the food supply was not contaminated. Not sure I get that part. Farmers are not going to mistreat animals as it is their investment.

Vote No

I thought so many people that are for the HSUS are so against Issue number 2 being an admendment to the Ohio constitution??? But it's ok for them to come back next year and make their own admendment? Thats just crazy and scandalous. We must keep them out of our family farms and business. VOTE YES ON 2 TODAY!!!!!!!!!!

The USHS has no power (other than that of public opinion)! Raising them as a spector that must be defended against by passing Issue 2 is a red herring!
We do need to stop the proliferation of non-governmental boards and agencies that have the authority of government.
All of the arguments against this issue mentioned previously are true and valid. This is a bad amendment--that doesn't belong in the state constitution!
The same with issue 3--a bad amendment that doesn't belong in the constitution!