|
|
|
|
|
|
| Letter writer: 5 reasons to vote ‘No’ on Ohio’s Issue 2 |
|
|
|
Dear Editor,
For those who are not familiar with Issue 2, it is a proposed constitutional amendment that would form the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.
The purpose of this board would be to “establishing standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state. In carrying out its purpose, the Board shall endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally grown and raised food, and protect Ohio farms and families.” (From the proposed amendment Article XIV; Section 1)
I do not disagree with the ideal behind this amendment, but I do disagree with this particular political maneuver. I have five reason why I feel you should vote “No” for Issue 2.
1. There is no guaranteed seat for a production livestock producer. The Board will consist of 13 members: 3 family farmers, 2 veterinarians, 1 food safety expert, 1 representative of a local humane society, 2 members from statewide farm organizations, the dean of an Ohio agriculture college and 2 members representing Ohio consumers.
It does not specify that they be livestock family farmers, nor does it specify that the veterinarians be production livestock veterinarians.
The intentions of the current governor may be to appoint production livestock farmers, but will a governor 10, 20 or 50 years from now do the same?
2. It gives the government more unchecked power.
The idea of our founding fathers was that we were to be a people of laws made by representatives of the people, not a people of regulators deciding how we should be governed. Giving this power to a small group of people could allow for regulations that may not meet the standards of the people.
If the board sways too far one way or the other, we could end up with a livestock system that totally disregards animal welfare, or if the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) could grab control, they could ban animal agriculture and the sale of animal products in Ohio.
Also the “annual operating expenses for the Board are estimated at $176,703 for the first year and then $162,280 for each subsequent year.”
According to a fiscal analysis done by the Office of Budget and Management, which will add to more deficit spending by the state.
My biggest concern is that this could become more bad PR for animal agriculture and give PETA and HSUS more ammunition.
3. This will not stop a ballot initiative like California’s Proposition 2, which banned farrowing crates and layer cages in California. I do agree with those supporting Issue 2, in that by proposing a constitutional amendment instead of adding a law to the Ohio Revised Code, it would slow the efforts of PETA and HSUS from getting a ballot initiative.
An individual representing a group for Issue 2 said that “they would have to collect more signature to propose an amendment to the constitution, than to propose a law, therefore slowing there efforts.”
The fact is they will still run an amendment to the constitution that will try to repeal this one and insert their own version of animal care. PETA and HSUS would have to get signatures of 10 percent of the electors on a petition to present an amendment to the electors (2.01a, The Initiative from The Ohio Constitution) There is nothing stopping PETA or HSUS from running another ballot issue after Issue 2 passes. They could still run a restrictive ballot issue like the one in California.
4. This will not educate people about production livestock agriculture in Ohio. The fact is whether we pass this or not we will still have to face the problem of educating the people of Ohio on the facts of production animal agriculture.
The truth is we will always be one election day away from losing animal agriculture in Ohio, until we embrace the need to educate the people of the facts and benefits of animal agriculture. If Issue 2 does pass as a way to delay the efforts of PETA and HSUS, we still must act immediately to increase the knowledge of consumers about animal agriculture production.
We must inform the public that PETA’s and HSUS’s goal is not better animal care, it is to bankrupt animal agriculture and abolish the harvesting of animals for meat. The following is a statement from PETA’s website, “PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment.” We will not save animal agriculture with ballot initiatives, it will be saved by the decisions of consumers.
5. Regardless of the outcome, Ohio farmers will continue to devote themselves to proper Animal Care that will lead to abundant, safe and efficient production of animal products to feed the world.
To see the official wording of the amendment, the ballot wording, and the official arguments for and against, the website is www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/IssueProcBallotBd/BallotBoard.aspx
To learn more about animal agriculture and the benefits of animal products in your diet log on to www.facesofag.com
Thank you,
Brandon Lawwill
Bethel, Ohio |
| 10/28/2009 |
|
|
