Thoughts on Issue 2?

[silva]

I just started looking into the Issue 2 that will be on Nov. 2 ballot. The HSUS, League of women voters, and other groups I respect call for ''no'' vote. Apparently it would involve creating an Ohio board of directors which would create livestock regulations. It would actually change the Oh constition so other humane farming methods could not be voted on, such as Cali's freedom of movement (?) for farm animals. They say it would be like the fox guarding the henhouse.
Does anyone know more? I see there are ads supporting Issue 2 on this site. I have learned to question the ads here, as they don't seem to be regulated by veggie board.

[SeanMichael]

I will be voting "No" on issue 2. As you mentioned, some very respected groups oppose this issue. The Humane Society says this:

"While designed to give the appearance of helping farm animals, Issue 2 is little more than a power grab by Ohio’s agribusiness lobby. The industry-dominated “animal care” council proposed by Issue 2 is really intended to thwart meaningful improvements in how the millions of farm animals in Ohio are treated on large factory farms.

Because it’s designed to favor large factory farms, not family farmers, Issue 2 is opposed by the Ohio Farmers Union, the Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, League of Women Voters of Ohio, the Ohio League of Humane Voters, and the Ohio Sierra Club. The editorial boards of Ohio’s major newspapers—including the Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon Journal, and Dayton Daily News—all oppose this effort to enshrine the agribusiness lobby’s favored oversight system in the state’s constitution."

[FitChick99]

I'm voting no.

[peace]

I've been seeing a lot of yard signs in rural Ohio for Issue 2. The HSUS pegs it as a power grab by factory farm interests, and I believe them.

The Big Ag groups are all pushing for Issue 2 so "what happened in California won't happen in Ohio." (Google it and see.) Apparently Ohio is a major veal producing state, so it would make sense they'd want to shield this controversial industry.

Let's get the word out among humane folk--at first glance, this appears to be a positive measure--I thought so before learning otherwise.

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

[Skylark]

It passed by a wide margin. :down: Ugh, just ugh ugh ugh. I'm taking the long way to work today so I don't have to drive past the veal farm near me.

[peace]

The Humane Society of the United States also vowed a future Ohio ballot issue after it was struck a blow by the passage of Issue 2, which creates a new board to oversee livestock care.

The issue was approved by 64 percent of voters, with 91 percent of precincts reporting.

The issue was intended to thwart efforts by animal right groups to outlaw holding sows, hens and veal calves in cramped cages or crates.

Michael Markarian, the Humane Society's chief operating officer, said the group will return to Ohio with a future ballot measure that protects animals.

"By packaging Issue 2 as a pro-animal and pro-food safety measure, the factory farming interests really did everything they could to ensure its passage," he said. "We never really viewed it as a poisonous measure but we viewed it as an empty one, because it doesn't achieve any reforms for animal welfare."

Large farm operators mounted a $4 million campaign to pass the issue, which was backed by Gov. Ted Strickland, while environmental, animal rights and other activists fought it mostly through the press and the Internet.


At least it apparently doesn't outlaw the ballot measure process, which some other states have actually done in the past---mainly to thwart animal protection issues.

[SeanMichael]

At least it apparently doesn't outlaw the ballot measure process

I hope it doesn't, I had thought that it did. I still can't believe this passed, though. It was those damn commercials saying "Help the animals, help the farmers, we love your family, la la la". So misleading. I don't understand how commercials like that are even legal. Every time an election approaches, there are always a million commercials that tell outright lies. It really shouldn't be allowed. I guess whoever has the most money can just pay for all the ridiculous commercials they want. Great.

[peace]

Yeah, I think that was the problem. I don't think the measure passed because the people of Ohio wanted to make sure veal crates would be enshrined in the state constitution. I think it was because misleading ads convinced people that it actually was an animal welfare measure.

I thought it was a positive thing before looking up the issue on the HSUS website.

[Dutchabbey]

Yeah, I think that was the problem. I don't think the measure passed because the people of Ohio wanted to make sure veal crates would be enshrined in the state constitution. I think it was because misleading ads convinced people that it actually was an animal welfare measure.

I thought it was a positive thing before looking up the issue on the HSUS website.

Not only were the ads misleading but even the synopsis of the measure printed on the actual ballots would lead someone not familiar with the entire law to think it was beneficial to animals. I really don't understand how they got away with this.

[peace]

Unfortunately OH seems to have a legacy of misleading political ads. Remember the infamous dove hunting ballot measure of the late 90's? The hunters' side painted the airwaves with ads that never once mentioned doves. Instead, viewers were told that passage of the ballot issue would result in the closure of farms, bans on meat-eating, and children dying of horrible diseases because medical research would be curtailed.

The anti-dove-hunting side didn't even have a chance.