By MEGGIE. I. FOSTER
Assistant Editor

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The voice of the small farm community was strong and deliberate during a recent House Agriculture Committee hearing for legislation that would implement the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, a bill drafted to support Ohio’s Issue 2 campaign.

Opponents of House Bill 414 from the livestock industry, religious community, environmentalists and animal welfare advocates showed up to provide nearly two hours of testimony at the Ohio Statehouse on Feb. 3.

Top areas of discontent included financial support of the board, which is estimated to receive $500,000 per year from the Commercial Feed and Seed fund; the director of agriculture’s ability to enter a farm premise at any time without the need of permission or a warrant; and unnecessary costs to organic producers. The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation reacted to the negative testimony by questioning how can the Board be criticized before it’s even created.
However, Dave Hutchins, of Millcreek Angus Farm in West Mansfield pointed out that during a forum he attended last fall he was assured the cost for the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board would be $173,000. Now, under HB 414, the Board is expected to receive $500,000 per year, that will originate from an additional fee of 15 cents per ton of bulk feed.

“I take issue with the fact that large farms won’t incur this tax burden because they mix feed on premise, so this tax wouldn’t apply to them,” said Hutchins. “Nothing here says they have to pay. This will place an additional burden on many small livestock producers.”

Hutchins contends that since the general public voted in favor of Issue 2, that the general public should foot the bill to operate it. Hutchins, alongside many cattle and livestock producers also took issue with the lack of concern for the right to private property.
More specifically under Section 904.5, where it is stated that, “the director or the director’s authorized representative acting on behalf of the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, upon proper identification and upon stating the purpose and necessity of an inspection may enter at reasonable times upon any public or private property … to determine compliance with this chapter …”
Bill Donaldson, a private citizen and dairy goat producer, said “the lack of a requirement for a warrant is a clear violation of the (U.S.) Constitution for the right of person to be secure in their home ... I think that this bill needs to be restructured in accordance with our Constitution.”

Donaldson was also concerned that by drafting this legislation, Ohio citizens may indeed be empowering the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), as opposed to protecting livestock farmers, as originally intended.

“This isn’t going to stop HSUS from coming into Ohio,” he added. “In fact, I have a pretty good feeling that HSUS is doing a happy dance and would be glad to see this legislation pass as is. In effect, through the passage of minimum standards, this Board would enforce the very agenda of HSUS.”

Trevor Stover, a cattlemen from Lexington, Ohio agrees that HSUS may be encouraged by HB 414, as opposed to being stopped from imposing on Ohio’s farmers. Stover contended that the “original point of persuasion that the Ohio Farm Bureau presented to Ohio citizens was the possibility of HSUS future involvement in our state’s agricultural practices. If the public were to vote ‘no,’ HSUS would then come in and try to dictate our future livestock husbandry methods. Thus, changing future farming and animal care practices and ending agriculture as we know it. Or so they said.”

Stover takes concerns with not only the financial burden placed on livestock producers, but the idea of “someone infringing upon our daily activities of caring for our animals. This is not my idea of progress. It seems my freedom as an independent cattle producer is being eroded away and now I am being asked to bank roll this erosion.”

Stover and cattle producer Larry McQueen from Mt. Gilead questioned how this legislation would support the claim of safe, local food as guaranteed through the Issue 2 campaign last fall.
“We were told that Issue 2 would secure a safe, local food supply,” added McQueen. “My cattle have to be shipped out of state because of a lack of processing facilities here in Ohio … I feel this additional fee would be a hard take for an economically depressed livestock industry at this time.”

McQueen asked the House Ag Commit-tee whether the new rules will “improve our operation or will it be a financial burden that will cause many of us to exit livestock production here in Ohio.
“I feel as though the public was ambushed by an ad campaign of fear and deception by the ones who are supposedly looking out for agriculture’s best interests. I challenge each and every one of you here today to name the supermarket and/or restaurant … that claims to serve beef, pork and chicken solely from Ohio. The fact is, you cannot get a truckload of cattle harvested in Ohio.”
Another group who took issue with HB 414 was the organic industry in Ohio, particularly organic livestock producers.

Joe Logan, director of agricultural programs for the Ohio Environmental Council, stated that the bill will add unnecessary costs to organic farmers.

“Even though the organic farmers are held to the highest of animal care standards and have annual compliance inspections, overseen and certified by the USDA, House Bill 414 does not exempt them from the program as a whole or from the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Feed Inspection Fee increase,” he said. “Therefore, organic producers will be subject to a needlessly redundant compliance system for the enforcement of livestock care standards.”

In closing, Logan asked the Ohio’s organic producers be exempt from regulations under the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.
Also, Gary Cox, an attorney for the Ohio Ecological Society for Food and Family (OEFFA) and director of OEFFA Carol Bolen agreed that organic producers either need proper representation on the Board or should be exempt from the program.

“We worry that this program may conflict with national organic standards that all of our producers are required to follow,” said Bolen. “We ask that certified organic producers be exempt from HB 414. There is no seat reserved for an organic operator on the Board. A typical veterinarian doesn’t stay up with organic regulations, and we’re also concerned with the expertise of the inspectors on this Board.”

According to the legislation introduced by Reps. Linda Bolon (D-Columbiana) and Allan R. Sayre (D-Dover), the final Board of 13 must be selected within 48 days of the passage of the bill.
House Ag Committee chairman Rep. John Domenick (D-Smithfield) reminded those testifying that the House will consider how to implement the new Board and with what funds, not necessarily the actual standards of enforcement, that responsibility would fall onto the Board itself and the acting state director of agriculture.

“We’re taking all of this testimony into consideration, we appreciate all of these comments,” said Domenick. “Several good points are being brought up.”