We must be proactive with support for Issue 2



There continues to be a belief with some livestock farmers in Ohio that no one can or will regulate animal care in the state.

California farmers probably had the same opinion several years ago. Now today they are facing the complete elimination of certain types of livestock production.

The reality is that there will be animal care standards in Ohio set by either fellow Ohioans or outside extremists.

State Issue 2 gives Ohioans the opportunity to create a board that will protect food choices for our consumers and bring a reasonable approach to animal care. If the Livestock Care Standards Board is created, most livestock farmers will see few changes on their farms.

Our neighbors and friends who are members of commodity groups and state organizations are not the opponents. The out-of-state activist groups who will force livestock productions out of our state are quite willing to “close the door” on our family farms.

Ohio voters will back Issue 2 if we can show them why it is right not only for agriculture, but for the food consumers of Ohio. For once in our lives we must be pro-active.

Spread the word!! Vote YES on State Issue 2!!

Jim Rowe

Strasburg, Ohio

Get our Top Stories in Your Inbox

Next step: Check your inbox to confirm your subscription.


  1. Jim it would be nice if what you think is true. Farm Bureau sadly has gone down the road of promoting industrial farms not the small and medium sized farms that create no problems. I wonder how you would like your home, health and the peaceful enjoyment of it destroyed and sadly, due to in my opinion, the protection of Farm Bureau be able to do nothing about it! I have no problem with folks knowing the farm is there and then deciding they do not like the odor or noise, getting no help. I do have problems with industrial farms moving in on the folks already there and purposely positioning their confinement operation where it would create the greatest damage and having no conscience in doing that. You are supporting the wrong folks, in my opinion. Wake up to what Farm Bureua has become! Not the farm bureau of my parents, only interested in the bottom line, in my opinion, and doing whatever it can to protect that interest. Note the ERAC commission, made up entirely of FB members. When the case of Buckeye Egg was won through the Supreme Court, Mr. Dailey stated he would close this major nuisance. Did that happen? No. Farm Bureau fo;ed a plea many months after the deadline and it was revved up again under a new name Ohio Fresh Eggs. These are the folks that you are backing and that is sad to say the least!

  2. This Constitutional Amendment is in response to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) desire to put an initiative on the Ohio ballot that would stop certain farming practices in Ohio, as happened in California. I am already hearing that issue 2 won’t stop HSUS from putting a ballot initiative on next year’s ballot. http://www.ohiofreedom.com/?p=327

    The new Board proposed in issued 2 will be made up of 13 members appointed by the Governor and legistaure, the people will not elect these Board members. I question why would we want to establish a government entity to protect us from special interest groups when the very way these groups achieve their goals is to lobby and control government entities?

    Why is fear being used to provoke acceptance of the ammendment?
    Ohio has Excellent Safe Local Food now, why does the campaign slogan imply this issue must pass for us to achieve this?

    I do not support the HSUS as I believe they have changed from an animal welfare group to an animal rights group with an agenda that I am concered will take away many of our individual rights and liberties. It is oppresive to think that the mere intimidation of HSUS will cause many to actually seek Bigger Government with Less Individual Freedom. This amendment could create a permanent place for special interests in our Constitution.

    Is handing over our Liberty and trust to the State the only way to protect Ohio from animal rights groups?

  3. Jim,

    Excellent article. Mary is totally getting away from the issue. In Tuscarawas County there are over 1100 farmer members and not one is a CAFO. Farm Bureau is a voice for all farm size agriculture. Obviously Mary has her own personal agenda. Get back to the facts. Issue 2 will help save all agriculture and the consumers right to choose. Local, affordable, safe food while caring for their animals.

  4. Although Farm Bureau is a supporter of Issue 2, it is sad that a dislike of Farm Bureau will keep some people from voting for Issue 2. Voting down Issue 2 because you dislike Farm Bureau will not keep out-of-state animal rights groups from controlling your farming operation.

  5. In Ohio if someone does not like how farm animals are treated they have a right to buy their own, a right to buy ‘free range’ eggs, a right to choose a vegan lifestyle. Obviously many don’t object or the eggs would not sell in grocery stores, to restuarants, to bakeries, etc. Why do some people think they have the right to dictate the ownership and use of animals to others? HSUS thinks they have this right and I sincerely hope Issue 2 passes by a large margin to show animal rights activists and HSUS that Ohioans do believe in freedom- not just their own but others’ freedom to choose and own also.

  6. Amy,

    That sort of argument was probably voiced by slave owners in the 1800’s: “If you don’t like how I treat my slave, then buy cotton from someone else or grow your own cotton!”

    Hopefully by now, everyone realizes that we were right to outlaw slavery. Unfortunately, there are probably some that would actually disagree.


  7. Tod- This seems to be taking a PeTA stance with the analogy. I have no problem with vegans but do not recall anytime in US history that slaves were a food item, were an animal as opposed to human and no, animals will never be human. Many eat meat themselves in the natural world. For any vegan study you want to cite about humans do not need meat I could probably reply with 2 more showing humans to be omnivorous. Humans are of the animal kingdom and animals are not human- two facts you can’t change. So many of the vegan prophets call it evolving but self extinction by human hatred just can’t really be healthy now can it? If your analogy is correct then we shouldn’t OWN dogs either?

  8. I’m not sure why you might think I’m a vegan. I’m a hunter, have raised -not as my occupation- dairy goats, meat rabbits, a lamb, ducks, etc. and have done my own butchering, so you are barking up the wrong tree there.

    I do, however, believe it is our duty to care for the animals in a way that maintains their health and well-being. It surely does seem to me that, for example, the chickens in the video I posted earlier this evening were not being kept to those standards and I would hope that as a society we would have a better sense of stewardship. The same goes for many dogs kept in puppy mills.

  9. As a society we have been affording animals more care and protection than our own children. If I were to propose an initiative that makes dog parks a health and safety risk, impose insurance requirements, restrain to one dog at a time, complete vet records on file, would you object on personal experience?
    If you hunt can you gaurantee a clean shot and instant kill every time?
    How can anyone honestly say it is their business how others conduct their business when they don’t own the animals in question and basic laws are already in place? HSUS does it constantly and those that partake of the kool aid seem to follow suit. Your comments are typical animal rights rhetoric so I took it as such.

  10. “As a society we have been affording animals more care and protection than our own children.”

    I disagree with that. As a basis for my disagreement over what could arguably be an apples and oranges comparison, I’ll offer the following two statistics:

    Every year in the US, approximately 1.6 million abortions are performed.

    Every year in the US, approximately 3-4 million cats and dogs are euthanized in shelters.

    I’m not trying to equate people with animals even though many -misguided in my opinion- people today would claim that fetuses are not people. (yeah, that’s right, I’m pro-life too) If you have a better way of objectively supporting your claim, I’m all ears.


    “If I were to propose an initiative that makes dog parks a health and safety risk, impose insurance requirements, restrain to one dog at a time, complete vet records on file, would you object on personal experience?”

    As a private dog park owner (I suspect you knew that as you typed that question, since on some of my posts I included a link to my web page) I would say that walking down the street is a risk in itself. The question is not about risk but about proper management. As a responsible dog park manager, I meet with each dog that enters my park and ascertain whether the dog is friendly – both to people and other dogs. Most dogs that have been brought to the park have passed scrutiny with flying colors, but there are some that I have had to deny entry to. I’m glad to report that (*knock on wood*) to date there has not been a single dog fight. Oh, and of course I maintain insurance, verify that the dog is current on not only vaccinations but also license.

    “If you hunt can you gaurantee a clean shot and instant kill every time?”

    Being human, I can not. But I can, and do, take every precaution to ensure a successful kill. I’ve never hit an animal (squirrel or rabbit) that didn’t drop on the spot. I didn’t take up hunting until rather late in life, so I have never suffered from impatience during hunting that I probably would have had when I was younger.

    How can anyone honestly say it is their business how others conduct their business when they don’t own the animals in question and basic laws are already in place?

    I need to research this tidbit I found in the ORC and find out if it says what it sounds like it says: 1717.13 Any person may protect animal.
    When, in order to protect any animal from neglect, it is necessary to take possession of it, any person may do so. When an animal is impounded or confined, and continues without necessary food, water, or proper attention for more than fifteen successive hours, any person may, as often as is necessary, enter any place in which the animal is impounded or confined and supply it with necessary food, water, and attention, so long as it remains there, or, if necessary, or convenient, he may remove such animal; and he shall not be liable to an action for such entry. In all cases the owner or custodian of such animal, if known to such person, immediately shall be notified by him of such action. If the owner or custodian is unknown to such person, and cannot with reasonable effort be ascertained by him, such animal shall be considered an estray and dealt with as such.

    The necessary expenses for food and attention given to an animal under this section may be collected from the owner of such animal, and the animal shall not be exempt from levy and sale upon execution issued upon a judgment for such expenses.

    Effective Date: 10-01-1953

    As near as I can tell, the first US animal cruelty law was enacted in 1873.

    The HSUS, I just read, was founded in only 1954.

    So, it looks like your objection to anyone’s ability to interfere with you abusing an animal predates the HSUS by quite some time. Better get used to it.

  11. 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?

    VOTE NO on ISSUE 2

    Fight organized crime, Don’t re-elect anyone!

  12. Tod- sorry for losing this page for a bit but ummm, I DON’T ABUSE ANIMALS and I also don’t fall for HSUS propoganda- I’ve checked it out for myself. If the part of ORC you refer to does what you think why would we need more? Why would HSUS ask for more? Check out all the info for yourself. I AM FOR TREATING ANIMALS HUMANELY but do not consider HSUS’s defintion of humane correct. I’ve also read about the part of ORC that some peopel “worked with” concerning animal welfare. It was no sooner through and they were back for more.
    I checked out HSUS- humane society of the united states- for myself. They are not our local humane societies (but a good play on the word!). The tactics they used in California were despicable, read about them for yourself:


    Check out their website and see waht their definition of ‘humane’ eating is- vegan/vegetarian. I saw free help for conveting to a vegetarian diet, a tofurkey recipe. They have no stake in Ohio, our animals, people, economy or jobs. The tactics used in California (there’s more unethical incidences) are not what we need in Ohio from a national lobbying group.

    I think it was 2004 we passed a ballot to amend the constitution concerning marriage. How “constitutional” is being used as an arguement doesn’t add up.

    I’m voting YES on Issue 2 because I checked it out for myself. Hope others do too

  13. VOTE NO ON ISSUE 2- whethr you are vegetarian or not, any good person can agree that animals deserve to be treated as humanely as possible, even when they are raised for food. They deserve the basics- to stand, to turn around, warmth, not to suffer, not to be ignored when they are sick or injured. Issue 2 protects large factory farms and allows them to cut corners. We need REAL regulations, not 13 people holding the ultimate power.


  14. Amy- The Humane Society’s “propoganda?” That is just funny. They are a non-profit organization that saves millions of animals every year. I wonder what good you do for the world?


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.