Vote yes on Issue 2 to continue agriculture’s tradition

Editor:

I am a local retired food animal veterinarian. I am currently a beef and grain farmer here in Tuscarawas County and I support Issue 2.

The ability of farmers to provide safe, affordable, abundant, locally grown food is in jeopardy due to challenges from extreme animal rights activists based in Washington D.C.

Hiding behind the ruse of humane animal care their real agenda is to “refine, reduce and replace” meat, milk, and eggs in our food supply.

In an effort to combat this movement, a number of grassroots agriculture organizations have joined together in support of creating a livestock care standards board. Made up of citizens from Ohio, this board will contain experts from many disciplines such as veterinarians, food safety experts, an agriculture college dean, family farmers and a representative from a local humane society.

Among other duties, they will be charged with setting standards that will assure Ohio consumers that food grown in Ohio is safe, nutritious, abundant, affordable and raised with excellent livestock care standards.

A few have opposed creation of this board based upon the false premise that it will be all powerful, even a fourth branch of government. This is a false claim.

If Issue 2 passes, the legislative process will set the rules under which the board will operate. The operation of the board will come under the same system of checks and balances that all boards of the state of Ohio follow.

Ohio consumers want the assurance provided by the establishment of this board and Ohio animal agriculture needs it to have a future.

We, in agriculture, are proud of what we do and how we do it. Help us continue that long tradition. Vote Yes on Issue 2.

Jerry Lahmers

President

Tuscarawas Farm Bureau

5 Comments

  1. Thomas says:

    My problem with this constitutional amendment is the excessive power it places in the hands of a 13 member group of non-elected bureaucrats. This constitutional amendment places in the board’s hands the power to mandate whatever they choose, and it is the Department of Ag that will implement and enforce those decisions of the board. (see the text of proposed amendment at the Ohio Secretary of State page http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/IssueProcBallotBd/BallotBoard.aspx#Issues). The text of the amendment includes “consider factors that include, but are not limited to,” which gives the board authority far beyond the scope of its intended purpose. In the text “agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being” is the part that will thwart HSUS and their cronies.

    This issue should not have been a constitutional amendment. The same objective to thwart PETA and HSUS could have been accomplished by including the key words “agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being” in section 900 of the Ohio Revised Code.

    The big question for me is, “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?

  2. I am sure as a grain farmer and President of the Tuscarwaras Farm Bureau, Jerry Lahmers would hardly be voting no on this issue but would prefer to be a loyal Farm Bureau member. It is obvious that he will never see the negatives on this issue. Neither did our esteemed legislators who it would appear work for Farm Bureau and Nationwide Insurance Company. I do hope Jerry is rewarded with a coveted seat on the Board of Farm Bureau/Nationwide and never has an industrial livestock operation move in on his property as this Farm Bureau member had. I would ask Jerry where is the moral integrity of Farm Bureau that it fails to protect all its members? Changing the constitution is not an answer changing the laws relegating those operations requiring permits to be called commercial, having no zoning abatements, and following the regulations imposed on such industrial farms would be a better answer, Jerry. If this had been done, this Farm Bureau member would then exhibit loyalty also.

  3. Amy Reynolds says:

    If you worked to thwart HSUS and PeTA you obviously did not succeed or we would not need Issue 2 to keep Ohio protected from outside animal rights interest groups to be able to provide safe affordable food to Ohio people while helping (not hurting as HSUS would) the economy, jobs and feeding people.

    Vote YES on Issue 2

  4. Amy Reynolds says:

    A personal vendetta against Farm Bureau is not reason to attempt to harm all of Ohio’s farmers, nor people that eat eggs and meat, nor people who work to earn a living. The price of food items affect ALL Ohioans

  5. Jodi says:

    I am voting YES for issue 2 and really hope the rest of Ohioans will as well. I really wish the world could better understand that not all farms are inhumane and see the benefits that come from eating LOCALLY raised livestock. This is a WAY OF LIFE for many people in Ohio as is our consumption of meat, milk, and eggs. I support Ohio agriculture and am proud to say that I will vote YES for issue 2. I encourage others to research this issue before making a decision based on the false advertising of “inhumane” treatment of animals and understand the REAL issue we are voting on this November.

Leave a Comment

Receive emails as this discussion progresses.

eNewsletter

Get our Top Stories in Your Inbox

Recent News