Voters will decide whether or not to amend Ohio’s Constitution for the purpose of creating a 13-member Livestock Care Standards Board that will essentially govern every aspect of Ohio’s agriculture community where livestock is concerned.
I must admit that having not been engaged actively in farming for some years, I really didn’t pay too much attention to this issue.
With so many good folks behind this ballot initiative, my position in this matter is difficult, but as always, I believe all Americans who cherish freedom need to stand in the gap whether in a big way or small way and often even at their own personal consequence.
The creation of this board would shift responsibility from individuals to government. Not only is that an eroding of our liberties but who can say government always does or knows best?
At a time when government’s size, scope and intervention in our lives should be getting smaller, this proposal moves to enlarge it.
Bigger government at any level is a tenant of socialism. This bill will give a “new” board authority along with expanded authority to the governor, the legislature and to the leader of each chamber.
With this expansion comes costs, regulations and greater intervention by government in the lives of Ohioans. Does this make sense in an era when state budget deficits already approach $1 billion?
This ballot initiative is being toted as necessary to supposedly “thwart” efforts by PETA and the National Humane Society from gaining a foothold in our state. It is widely published that passage of this amendment will in no way keep these organizations from bringing ballot measures in the future and that they intend to do so.
While these organizations are indeed bad for Ohio to say that we should give away “inches” of our freedom and liberties in order to prevent them from taking “miles” of it is a dangerous position at best.
Further, in reality, what Issue 2 would do is to give them the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent. This amendment may actually make it easier for these organizations to shape policy in Ohio — instead of having to convince a majority of Ohioans to vote for a ballot initiative they propose, they would simply have to gain the majority of an audience of 13 to shape Ohio livestock policy.
In any event, when the only reason you are voting for something is out of fear, it probably isn’t good policy to begin with. I would remind you that it is not the first time these groups have been at work.
In 1998, there was a ballot initiative to ban certain hunting in Ohio. Against seemingly impossible odds, the Division of Wildlife and others made their case to voters and those measures were soundly defeated.
What would have happened if instead we would have said “OK, you can take our right to hunt these animals in exchange for leaving us alone to hunt the rest?” The entire fundamental right of hunting and wisdom of sound wildlife management would have been laid in ruin.
That being said, I must vote NO on Issue 2.