Can anyone weigh in on this?



I have done some looking but everything I find is way bias and reading the proposed amendment is no help.

I am going to vote yes on Issue 2 and just so everyone knows I am little (agri) business.  I think current ORC and ODA livestock regulations are satisfactory and would prefer to vote no.  HOWEVER, Issue 2 is an attempt to head off the agenda of the Humane Society of the United States.  For an example of just such an agenda, look to the Peoples Republik of California, HSUS gathered petition signatures to put the issue of livestock regulation in the hands of a few who have zero interest in the preservation of a California livestock industry.  I hopes Californians likes their veggies.  HSUS used the same method to eliminate the the hunting of cougars in California, effectively moving cougar management from the division of wildlife to the ballot box and hence the sheeple of California voted no more cougar hunting.  HSUS is my enemy.

Unrelated update:

Oy, the govenor of California today signed into law the registration of handgun ammunition including face-to-face transactions only and a thumb print, Oy.

I predict a (another) run on ammuniton that may not be limited to California (as in distributers will move inventory to California where it will disappear from dealer's shelves quickly).
Not a difficult prediction at all, Aeh?

Im voting no for two reasons. As stated above, it changes the constitution. And the second reason, the government doesnt need to regulate anything else. They regulate and ruin everything they get their hands on, the live stock industry doesnt need to be one of them. And does anyone remember that Joseph Stalin regulated livestock too?

I have talked to a few farmers in my area,they tell me it is to head off peta and there bullshit

While driving around farm country I see "Vote Yes Issue 2" signs in almost all of the farmer's yards.  One unbiased description I read stated that animal rights activists do not like it because it does not allow for more restrictive animal treatment legislation in the future.  Given that the farmers seem to for for it and PETA and those nuts are against it, I say vote YES.

This is my understanding. PETA and the HSUS are against it so they can push in more legislation later on, like they did in Cali.



I don't know, I feel damned if you do, damned if you don't



 

I read an article today on it, and saw where HSUS is against it. I also saw this; "

Be wary of Issue 2 - Here's some insight from Ohio Liberty Council:

from http://www.ohiolibertycouncil.org/newsletter/2009-10-08/

What is Issue 2 all about?
Protection from unwarranted regulation, or a political power grab?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On November 3rd, Ohio voters will be asked to approve a constitutional amendment that will put an appointed board of agribusiness leaders and government officials in charge of deciding how farm animals should be treated.

One of the arguments for Issue 2 is that it may prevent similiar legislation being passed in the state of Ohio that was passed last year by California residents.  The California proposal gives farmers until January 1, 2015, to phase out previous practices of livestock confinement to other methods deemed more humane by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Many are concerned that this is a financially devasting blow to California's already struggling farmers.


The Ohio Farm Bureau has attempted to beat HSUS to the punch by proposing Issue 2.  On June 25th the Ohio Senate voted unanimously to allow a referendum to be put on the November ballot creating a 13-member Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board as part of an amendment to the state's constitution. The board would be charged to provide oversight on how farm animals are raised. It would include "a broad base of livestock care experts including family farmers, veterinarians, a food safety expert, a representative of the local humane society members from the statewide farm organizations, the dean of the college of agriculture and members representing Ohio consumers," according to the Web site of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, which pushed the measure through - quickly.  

This would seem a positive move for Ohio farmers.... However, Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States has stated that they will continue with their plans to place a ballot initiative to stop certain farming practices on next year's ballot whether Issue 2 passes or fails. This seems odd that proponents for Issue 2 are professing that a yes vote will stop the HSUS and other animal rights groups from doing this very thing.  The Ohio Liberty Council has recently learned why Issue 2 cannot stop these special interest groups from pushing their agenda on Ohio's farmers. The State Senate passed SJR-6 (Issue 2) with specific language to grant to the board "exclusive authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock in this state". The adjective "exclusive" is necessary so that no competing authority can overrule the board's authority.

When SJR-6 went to the House it was changed. The word "exclusive" was stricken from the resolution so that it now allows for other authorities, such as other Constitutional amendments, to overrule the Standards Board. Sadly few are aware of this and believe that Issue 2 will really protect them when the reality is that it can't. The HSUS can still pass a ballot initiative that will overrule SJR-6, and they intend to do so.

What then is the purpose of this unelected Board if it no longer has "exclusive authority"? Why do we need a proposal to the Ohio Constitution instead of a resolution? What kind of regulation will this Board have over family farms who simply wish to grow food and raise livestock for their own consumption?

We hope these important questions and others will be addressed at the Town Hall. Will you join us on Oct 19th as we debate this important proposal?  Please click here to submit your questions in advance

I vote yes, and lets all see a raise of hands from those of you voting NO that are from farming communities, have worked on farms or who own farms, thats like saying lets let a bunch of left wing idiots who know nothing about farming mandate how you can farm, instead it would give those who are in the industry the ability to do business in a fair, ethical and economical manner. Thats like telling gun stores that they are going to be mandated to sell guns under the restrictions set in place by people who don't own guns.

You vote no and PETA and HSUS has their way with an already struggling industry and see where your grocery prices go. Nowhere but up.