Issue 2 opponents spar in animal-rights debate | The Columbus D...

Issue 2 is simple: Do you want to give corporate farms authority to regulate their own practices?

For me the answer is no. Most of the small farmers I know work hard to properly care for their animals because every one of them is an investment that they need to get a good return on. The organic grass fed beef farmer can't afford to lose a head to a bad reaction to hormone injections. The big corporate farm factors such losses into the bottom line.

Issue 2 is a push by the greedy slobs who run places like Buckeye Egg Farm. They want to make sure that nobody shines a light on their operations and forces them to clean up their act.

LMAO @ HSUS trying to change the way Ohio does things

claw71 wrote:

Issue 2 is simple: Do you want to give corporate farms authority to regulate their own practices?
For me the answer is no. Most of the small farmers I know work hard to properly care for their animals because every one of them is an investment that they need to get a good return on. The organic grass fed beef farmer can't afford to lose a head to a bad reaction to hormone injections. The big corporate farm factors such losses into the bottom line.
Issue 2 is a push by the greedy slobs who run places like Buckeye Egg Farm. They want to make sure that nobody shines a light on their operations and forces them to clean up their act.

I couldn't agree more. I live in an area of small farming operations and observe daily the well-cared for healthy animals and poultry allowed to roam free within their pastures and yards as nature intended. The horrendous conditions and inhumane treatment of the animals in these corporate operations is appalling and I salute the humane actions of those who try to make a difference. NO is my vote.

Everyone vote no on issue 2 if you don't like to eat

The humane treatment of animals of all types should be of concern to all civilized people. However, this matter is not one that should be part of the state constitution. Let the legislature debate it and the public have some input. I feel the proposed ammendment has been rammed down the public's throat.

So wait a minute, we need to treat them like humans? So we can't eat them any more? And we have to start charging them tax's?

Looks like the government wants to grow again !

I'd like to see the new health bill in the house set strict limits on meat consumption. Meat is linked with heart disease and obesity. Now that the government is getting into the health care business, we need to put an end to all that.

Plus raising animals creates greenhouse gases like methane and CO2.

Therefore it's in the people's interest that meat consumption is strictly regulated and taxed.

There is an ad for POZI the Hippy Clown displayed to me in the body of this article. I guess that just about says it all.

They do want a VEGAN agenda. Vote YES on Issue 2 to keep your livestock raised in Ohio. We need local food. There are hunger issues in the world and HSUS wants to stop animal farming? They want to starve humans?

Ha hahaha! Raising animals creates greenhouse gases, true. So be a vegan and save them all!!! You make no sense you ignorant fool.

As I was driving around the northern rural areas of Ohio last weekend I saw many signs for Vote Yes on Issue 2. These signs were in front of what appeared to be family farms, not the large mega farms. I did not see an Vote No on Issue 2 sign until I entered a city...the metro areas.
The Ohio Farm Bureau supports this, the Enviromental wackos oppose it.... I'm voting Yes because its a way to stop the wackos.

The national level of the Humane Society is very radical, and opposing eating any animal or hunting. I don't see how they regualte an industry they really want abolished.

"These animals give their lives to satisfy us," Pacelle said. "But on today's factory farms they are treated like commodities." ...... uhhh that's because they ARE commodities

Obama wrote:

I'd like to see the new health bill in the house set strict limits on meat consumption. Meat is linked with heart disease and obesity. Now that the government is getting into the health care business, we need to put an end to all that.
Plus raising animals creates greenhouse gases like methane and CO2.
Therefore it's in the people's interest that meat consumption is strictly regulated and taxed.

Soooooooooo. Let me understand. I would have to limit MY meat consumption just because others over eat and don't exercise and have heart problems???? I eat red meat all the time and I am fit, low "bad" Cholesterol, high "good" cholesterol, do 52 push-ups in 2 min can do 57 push-ups (and I'm a woman!!! Ooooooo), low triglycerides etc.... I have one thing to say to you. GET THE HECK OUT OF MY KITCHEN, MY HOUSE AND MY RIGHTS!!

Issue 2 is NOT about animals...it's about agri-businesses trying to change OUR constitution. Over $1 million dollars from out-of-state have gone into the "Yes on 1" campaign. If you loved Buckeye Egg Farms, you should love issue 1.

I'm still confused on this issue. I don't understand how creating a board of experts to review livestock handling practices necessarily will benefit corporate farms while hurting family farms. On the other hand, I don't understand how voting against issue 2 will lead to the HSUS swooping in with overly oppressive animal treatment regulations. I really won't to hate one of the sides on this issue, but neither of them are making sense. Will someone just tell me who to logically hate?

@Jone:

While I certainly will NOT defend HSUS or PETA, no where did they ever say that they want to end livestock farms or starve humans.

And, this issue is NOT about a VEGAN agenda. Simply put, if it is, then clearly it is the farmers who support the issue and our state government that are pushing that agenda since they are the ones who have put forth the issue and are trying to institute tougher animal rights laws as a result of it passing.

Look at the campaign slogans..."Excellent livestock care" "Safe Local Food". By those statements, they are implying that right now, care and the food supply are poor and unsafe. Now I don't think either are true right now, but I am simply going with the concept that we vote to change the status quo. Vis a vis, we are voting to end bad livestock care and produce safe food.

Essentially, what they are saying is that they don't trust our state legislators to stand up to being bought off by HSUS and PETA. For, simply put, neither HSUS or PETA can change our state animal care laws without a complicit state legislature.

So, I ask everyone, why in the name of all that's good (bacon chief among them) why would we want to add another layer of government at this time that they can't afford what they already have? And more importantly, since gov't. is ALREADY supposed to be providing good livestock practices and safe food, what makes you think that they will do anything different in the future?

Tim wrote:

Everyone vote no on issue 2 if you don't like to eat

I'm voting no on 2 because I support humane farming and I don't want agribusiness flocking to Ohio so they can squeeze sustainable farms out of the market.

Woot wrote:

I'm still confused on this issue. I don't understand how creating a board of experts to review livestock handling practices necessarily will benefit corporate farms while hurting family farms. On the other hand, I don't understand how voting against issue 2 will lead to the HSUS swooping in with overly oppressive animal treatment regulations. I really won't to hate one of the sides on this issue, but neither of them are making sense. Will someone just tell me who to logically hate?

Vote no on 2 and tell the agribussinesses they can't trick us. Then vote no on the humane society's issue when they try to impose too many regulations.

It's easy.

I'm not against farming but Gestation Crates and Veal crates need to go. It's cruel to stick any animal in a cage where he can't even turn around.

I'm not for treating animals like humans but right is right and wrong is wrong