I am voting no on Issue Two

15
3

Editor:

Issue Two is the attempt by the Ohio Farm Bureau to negate the efforts of HSUS on behalf of the animals being raised on the industrial livestock farms in Ohio.

Being a neighbor of one of Park Farms’ grow out sites and also being a Farm Bureau member, and having called the plight of our family to their attention for almost 20 years, I can assure you Farm Bureau cares nothing about anything except the bottom line.

I made the suggestion many years ago they should create a two tier system of animal industry, those requiring permits to have no zoning abatements.

This would have protected our home of 32 years and protected our personal property rights, which Farm Bureau contends they do for their members.

Did they? No, they protected the industrial farm which is the only one in Marlboro not named for the street on which it is located, Ravenna Avenue, but is named for the street on which it was permitted for a mile to the west, No. Preston Road.

If it had been left where it was permitted, it would have had very little impact on this Farm Bureau member’s home on Ravenna Avenue.

We moved to Ohio from Wisconsin, a state that is truly a farming state, but also has the two tier system of animal industry, commercial versus family farms.

In Wisconsin, Park Farms would have fallen into the commercial category, the owner does not reside on the property, and the very volume of the business denotes it is just that, a commercial business.

One would have to question why Farm Bureau refuses to address this issue until its feet are put to the fire.

I have continually asked why all the politicians go along with Farm Bureau. Could it be the donations from Nationwide Insurance Company?

Perhaps Farm Bureau could be encouraged to have separate boards. One for their insurance business, Nationwide, and the other for Farm Bureau, perhaps in this way they could put the farmer back into farming.

I am voting no on Issue Two and encouraging others to join me!

Mary G. Gibson

Louisville, Ohio

STAY INFORMED. SIGN UP!

Up-to-date agriculture news in your inbox!

15 COMMENTS

  1. Issue 2 is designed to allow Ohio farmers and consumers to craft a policy for livestock care.

    The animal-rights industry is pushing back against Issue 2. Out-of-state opponents like the DC-based Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) would expand regulations to force livestock farmers out of business as one way to push more people toward vegetarianism.

    The strategy has precedent. The HSUS-backed passage of Proposition 2 in California last year required egg farmers to provide more room for egg-laying hens, despite the fact that mandating such a major overhaul of farming facilities would bankrupt small farms. What Proposition 2 really accomplished was forcing California farms to move out of state (and, in some cases, to Mexico) or risk going under.

    HSUS has openly gloated about its success with Proposition 2 and clearly plans to continue strong-arming farmers. At the group’s “Taking Action for Animals” conference in July, HSUS “Outreach Director” Josh Balk spoke about their end goal:

    “It is needed for farm animals that we get people to eat more vegetarian meals … We just have to reduce the number of animals that are raised for food. And we can do so by encouraging people to eat more vegetarian meals.”

    VOTE YES On ISSUE 2!

  2. I believe you do not understand what a no vote means. HSUS is a bigger threat than any imagined problems you may have with FB.

  3. I’m am so offended by these phony arguments that Issue Two is opposed by out-of-staters. I’m an Ohioan and a citizen of the United States of America and I’m voting NO on Issue 2 because we don’t need a constitutionally mandated committee of so-called “experts” that will end up being hand-picked by big agri-business. We already have a legislative process and rule making that ordinary Ohioans can participate in and are certainly qualified to participate in to encourage their state reprensentatives to establish basic minimum standards for animals, the environment and consumers. Yeah — the big agribusiness proponents of Issue 2 are supposed to be on the side of the “family farmer” and “little guy.” That’s a bunch of BS. While they patent life forms (e.g., seeds and cloned sheep) and create terminator seeds, sue the small farmer for using their patented life forms and pass laws resricting your freedom of speech (e.g., disparagment of agriculature laws) they’ll be telling how much you should listen to them just like they corral the farm animals in their factory farms to slaughter while focusing on the big bucks.

  4. I am sorry that you feel this way about animal agriculture in Ohio. Large livestock farms that require permits, must meet a rigorous set of requirements before being able to operate in our great state.
    The agriculture community in Ohio has joined forces to save farming in Ohio. The out of state activist groups have an agenda to force us to be vegan. This is unhealthy for our children and our families as protein is an important part of our diet.
    I want to know where my food is produced and that it is safe for my family and friends to eat.
    A vote YES on Issue 2 will allow me to continue to farm and produce a safe, local food supply. Issue 2 establishes the Ohio Livestock Care Board, which is comprised of 13 appointed members representing Ohio consumers,local humane societies, food experts, family farmers, agricultural organizations, an Ohio college of agriculture, Veterinarians, and the department of agriculture. This board of Ohioans will look at our livestock care practices and make recommendations based on science. This board is a win win for agricultue and the people of Ohio we must take a stand against agenda based,activist groups who want to take your food choices away from you and put thousands of family farmers out of business. Please vote YES on Issue 2.

  5. I am a victim of the lack of regulations enforcement that ruined my health and life when one of Park Farms growout sites moved in on this farm bureau member’s home of 32 years. Farm Bureau was well aware of the circumstances we were living with but preferred to protect this industrial farm. (t was purposely placed 500 feet west of our home when the permits were given for North Preston Road. Why then was it placed on Ravenna Ave. and why did Farm Bureau choose to look the other way on this issue. Perhaps now with the HSUS involved in this issue there will be a more level playing field and their own members will no longer be victims to the greed of the livestock industry!

    Trish you are out of touch, just look at my home and the impact the No. Preston site of Park Farms has had on it and tell me this was fair! Yes there are regulations but the powerful can avoid enforcing them that is why this industrial farm is located on Ravenna Ave. and not where the permits were given for Preston Rd. a mile to the west.The original site had a woods under the control of the division of wildlife which Park dismantled. My realtor had someone scheduled to view this home but the stench pouring across the street cancelled this. This has been going on for over 20 years, I wonder if you would like this for your lifetime investment? There was no enforcement of the laws and that is the problem, Farm Bureau went out on the limb to protect this industrial poultry grower. I have asked everyone I know to vote No. and asked Farm Bureau to do as other states have done enact a two tier system of animal industry which would prevent what happened at my home.

  6. I hear quite a bit about the Farm Bureau supporting Issue 2, but very little about the coalition of groups that oppose it: Ohio ACT.

    Ohio ACT is a coalition of a number of organizations, including:

    Ohio Farmers Union
    Ohio Ecological Food and Farming Association
    Ohio Sierra Club
    Local Matters
    Food & Water Watch
    Organic Consumers Association
    Cornucopia Institute
    Center for Food Safety
    Ohio Conference on Fair Trade
    Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance
    Family Farm Defenders
    Wood County Citizens Opposed to Factory Farms
    Western Lake Erie Water Keepers Association
    Grand Lake St. Mary’s Improvement Association
    Clintonville Community Market
    Williams County Alliance
    Working Families Win- Ohio Chapter
    Mercy for Animals
    The Wellness Forum
    Weston A. Price Foundation

    More about Ohio ACT here: http://www.ohioact.org/

    As a side note, at least one of my farming neighbors is a member of one of the above groups, the Ohio Ecological Food and Farming Association. I’ll have to see what his view on the topic is….

    Tod

  7. Ok I want to let you guys know what exactly is going on here. I am an asst, officer at a local FFA and we are supporting the bill. I was very confused whether it should be passed or not. I am not very good with computers so i had my uncle do some research and here the HSUS (Humane Society of The United states) Say to vote NO! So that means we want to vote yes, here is the article from their site to clear up any doubts

    http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/ballot_initiatives/ohio_issue_2.html

    VOTE YES ON ISSUE 2

  8. I also will not be voting for issue 2. I do not believe the board should be hand picked by the businesses it is set up to monitor.
    I am a small farmer who is ready to stand up to the wealthy commercial farmers and their supporters who couldn’t care less about providing wholesome food to the consumer.
    Small farmers need to boycott any business or politician that tries to bully us into this mentality of “bigger the better”
    I also do not want any of my tax dollars subsidizing big business operations that are destroying our families and our way of life!

  9. My family has had generations of small farmers who were forced out of the business by corporate farms which dictated market conditions. I am very concerned that so many small farmers are being co-opted by the very corporations which have created the mess we are in now. They have somehow convinced these farmers that Issue 2 will somehow protect them from the big ,bad animal rights advocates.The truth is Issue 2 is a power grab by corporate interests and our state representatives have bypassed the whole legislative process by attempting to force this legislation thru.There are many other means to protect the interests of small farmers without resorting to such a totalitarian approach.

  10. Dear Aurora, I want to tell you that if you vote no on issue 2. People like PETA, And the HSUS will be controlling how you run your farm. But if you vote yes it will be the Ohio Farm Bereau , and the Humane society of ohio. I think that you should do some more research on this topic. Its Either Farm Bereau or HSUS, you decide.

    Sincerely,
    Brian Kolm

  11. I am also voting NO on Issue 2, small family farms may be doing the right thing now, but the commercial farms have only one thing in mind, $$$!Issue 2 puts them in the drivers seat despite the feel good commercials. Do you think the family farmers have the money to spend on all the commercials and front yard signs? Think about where the financing is coming from, and more importantly…WHY?

  12. VOTE NO on ISSUE 2

    I am not a fan of either HSUS or PETA. I believe we as a country would be better with out the animal rights people mucking up the water. That said I would support the premise of Issue 2 if it were introduced as a bill to amend Ohio Revised Code. However, I cannot support the effort to change the constitution. This is not a constitutional issue.

    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.

    VOTE NO on ISSUE 2

LEAVE A REPLY

We are glad you have chosen to leave a comment. Please keep in mind that comments are moderated according to our comment policy.

Receive emails as this discussion progresses.