Issue 2 foes speaking up

farmallih1466 wrote:

Abusers are 4 issue 2
How many farms have you visited really? I also said I admitted that the videos were real, but the entire industry does not need to be put into the same category as a few places that do mistreat the animals.
There are factory farms out there that do treat the animals they raise very well. On the flip side I know that there are factory farms out there that do not do things in a humane way. I am all for shutting those farms down because of that inhumane treatment. But the way people perceive those videos is that every factory farm, and small farm for that matter, mistreats their animals, and that is simply not true.
Vote YES on Issue 2.

If Issue 2 passes, there's no way any abusive operations will be shut down. You can't expect anyone to believe you feel otherwise as long as you are advocating for Issue 2.

I have videotaped at many, many farms right here in Ohio (there are plenty of them around), and from my experience, they are all the same chambers of horrors.

Stop abusing animals. Close down anyone mistreating animals and prosecute.

Pro Farming wrote:

Here is some interesting information about the HSUS found on the following:
http://www.humanewatch.org/
Despite the words “humane society” on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.
HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a “humane society” in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere...
for

No, they're not affiliated with local humane societies, but because they are a much larger organization, they had the resources to organize and establish the triage shelter at the Gonzales facility in Louisana, during Hurricane Katrina. It was chaotic with the overwhelming number of stranded and abandoned dogs (and other pets), but the HSUS was there to give medical treatment, feeding stations, collaborating with other volunteer rescue groups to relocate animals. They also provided grant money to other animal shelters (including at last one here in Columbus) to take in animals from Louisiana, to cover expenses for housing and care.

More currently, as reported on a Pro-Issue 2 blog (advocatesforag.blogspot.com/2009/11/usda-clos... ), the HSUS is given credit with going undercover and filming the beating and stun gunning of young veal calves (a few days old). The USDA shut down the facility and is using the HSUS evidence.

And, the HSUS does operate a horse sanctuary out west.

So, I don't quite buy the extremist view of the HSUS. I just know that they aren't the same stripes as PETA.

YES ON 2!!!!

yes on 2 wrote:

YES ON 2!!!!

A vote for issue two is a:
*vote for factory farming
*vote for less regulations
*vote for potentially risking our food supply
*vote for political appointees
*vote for removal of public input
*vote for diversion of funds from the general revenue fund
*vote for fox guarding the hen house

Issue 2: bad for the environment, bad for farmers, bad for Ohio-VOTE NO!

"A vote for issue two is a:
*vote for factory farming
*vote for less regulations
*vote for potentially risking our food supply
*vote for political appointees
*vote for removal of public input
*vote for diversion of funds from the general revenue fund
*vote for fox guarding the hen house

Issue 2: bad for the environment, bad for farmers, bad for Ohio-VOTE NO!"

If Issue 2 is so bad for farmers, as you say it is, the why would so many small farms and large non factory farms be in support of this issue?

Voting yes will not just be a vote for Factory farms. If this board is created then those on the board along with the ODA can create policy that will phase out those factory farms that are treating their animals inhumanely.

There is no wording that says funds are going to be diverted from anywhere.

The board would also be in charge of making more regualtion, not less regulation. If the groups that brought this issues forward, and those that support it, thought that this board would not create more regulation, then we would not be for it.

I have also read in several places, pieces both for and agaist the issue, that this baord would have public meetings where the public can put in their input.

Also voting yes on this issue would not hurth the environment. If anyone or any industry is hurting the environment, then it is the EPA's job to step in and solve that issue.

Voting yes on Issue 2 Supports all of Ohio Agriculture and is good for the state.

"If Issue 2 passes, there's no way any abusive operations will be shut down. You can't expect anyone to believe you feel otherwise as long as you are advocating for Issue 2.

I have videotaped at many, many farms right here in Ohio (there are plenty of them around), and from my experience, they are all the same chambers of horrors. "

Just curious, what is your definition of "chamber of Horrors?" I have visited many, many farms as well, as was basically raised on one. I have not seen, on any of these farms, where animals have been mistreated in any way. The animals all seemed very content and confortable. That includes small and large farms.

And yes I do believe that if created this board will be able to help more in seeking out those farms that do mistreat their animals. When they are found they will either have to change their ways or be shut down. Just because I am an advocate of issue 2 soed not mean I believe this is not true.

Vote Yes on Issue 2!

farmallih1466 wrote:

If Issue 2 is so bad for farmers, as you say it is, the why would so many small farms and large non factory farms be in support of this issue?

Because they're being told a no vote means HSUS and PETA will be able to ban meat in Ohio, which is absolutely ridiculous.

farmallih1466 wrote:

Voting yes will not just be a vote for Factory farms. If this board is created then those on the board along with the ODA can create policy that will phase out those factory farms that are treating their animals inhumanely.

Because your average local farmer is going to be one of the ones "politically appointed" to this board? NO. The people on this board will be the ones that can afford to lobby ... FACTORY FARMS.

farmallih1466 wrote:

I have also read in several places, pieces both for and agaist the issue, that this baord would have public meetings where the public can put in their input.

I have yet to read this. Even if it is true, that doesn't change the fact that this takes away the rights of all voters - including family farmers - to vote on an issue by issue basis. Agreeing to let people vent in a public forum doesn't mean squat.

These people are not ELECTED, they are appointed. Which there are no repercussions, there is no accountability. Do NOT allow 13 people to control agriculture in our state. PLEASE, PLEASE do not pass a Constitutional Amendment to TAKE AWAY VOTERS RIGHTS!!

"Because your average local farmer is going to be one of the ones "politically appointed" to this board? NO. The people on this board will be the ones that can afford to lobby ... FACTORY FARMS. "

Just because these people are appointed to the board does not for sure mean it will be someone who owns a factory farm. A local farmer could be one of the 2 farmers that could be appointed. To think that it will be just factory farmers is ridiculous.

"Because they're being told a no vote means HSUS and PETA will be able to ban meat in Ohio, which is absolutely ridiculous. "

All of the farmers I have talked to know that even if issue 2 passes then PETA or HSUS caould still try and bring about their own ballot initiatives. They also know that if we have a board in place in charge of enacting poilicy on animal care, then we would could say we do not need thier ballot initiatives because they would just become redundant.

Vote Yes on Issue 2!

farmallih1466 wrote:

"Because your average local farmer is going to be one of the ones "politically appointed" to this board? NO. The people on this board will be the ones that can afford to lobby ... FACTORY FARMS. "
Just because these people are appointed to the board does not for sure mean it will be someone who owns a factory farm. A local farmer could be one of the 2 farmers that could be appointed. To think that it will be just factory farmers is ridiculous.
"Because they're being told a no vote means HSUS and PETA will be able to ban meat in Ohio, which is absolutely ridiculous. "
All of the farmers I have talked to know that even if issue 2 passes then PETA or HSUS caould still try and bring about their own ballot initiatives. They also know that if we have a board in place in charge of enacting poilicy on animal care, then we would could say we do not need thier ballot initiatives because they would just become redundant.
Vote Yes on Issue 2!

Follow the money and how this issue came about-it will benefit Big Ag and factory farms, no doubt. Also, do you really want 10 out of 13 board members to be political appointees?

farmallih1466 wrote:

If Issue 2 is so bad for farmers, as you say it is, the why would so many small farms and large non factory farms be in support of this issue?
Voting yes will not just be a vote for Factory farms. If this board is created then those on the board along with the ODA can create policy that will phase out those factory farms that are treating their animals inhumanely.
There is no wording that says funds are going to be diverted from anywhere.
The board would also be in charge of making more regualtion, not less regulation. If the groups that brought this issues forward, and those that support it, thought that this board would not create more regulation, then we would not be for it.
I have also read in several places, pieces both for and agaist the issue, that this baord would have public meetings where the public can put in their input.
Also voting yes on this issue would not hurth the environment. If anyone or any industry is hurting the environment, then it is the EPA's job to step in and solve that issue.
Voting yes on Issue 2 Supports all of Ohio Agriculture and is good for the state.

In an ideal world I may agree with some of your points, put when you see how this issue came to be, Big Ag and factory farms are behind it.

The fact that it will take money from the general revenue fund to set this board up and run the meetings and implement any recommendation will. This is a constitutional amendment-the general assembly must comply by funding the creation of this. If you go the the SOS cite under ballot initiatives there is a fiscal analysis.

Additionally, there is no wording that says they have to have public meetings.

The board could come up with regulations that decrease environmental protection and would have the constitution to stand behind as their right to do so.

This is a wolf in sheep's clothes. vote no on 2