• E-Edition
• Home
• News
• Sports
• AP
• Obituaries
• Classifieds
• Jobs
• Autos
• Homes
• Garage Sales
• Coupons
• Subscribe
• Archive
• Services
• Contribute
• Blogs

Issue 2 touted as a high stakes, pre-emptive strike

E-mail Story    |    Print Story    |    Comments    |   

By JACK PALMER

palmer@crescent-news.com

Roy Norman's office in Pettisville is strewn with yard signs, stickers and materials promoting the passage of state Issue 2.

He's not running for office, but fighting for a cause. A clean office can wait until after Nov. 3.

"We don't want out-of-state activists telling Ohio farmers how to care for their animals," said Norman, organizational director of the Farm Bureau for Defiance, Henry, Williams and Fulton counties. "It would mean higher food costs for consumers and may force many of our farmers out of business."

Norman stressed that the state's livestock and poultry farmers are firmly committed to responsible care for their animals, regardless of the size of their operations.

"The issue is the same for the guy who has 1,000 head as with the guy who has 10 head. It's still how you manage and care for them."

If approved, Issue 2 would create a 13-member state livestock care standards board to ensure excellent care of farm animals. It would consist of three family farmers, two veterinarians, two representatives of farm organizations, two representatives of consumers, a food safety expert, local humane society representative, dean of an Ohio agriculture college and the director of the state department of agriculture. No more than seven could be from the same political party.

Norman and other supporters claim the constitutional amendment is necessary to prevent outside groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) from regulating the livestock industry through a constitutional amendment proposal of its own. Last year in California, voters approved a HSUS-backed proposition which allowed criminal charges against farmers for confining certain animals in a manner that prevents them from turning around, standing up or lying down.

"They started this in Florida, which doesn't have many chickens or pigs," said Norman. "They moved to California and Arizona and now they want the same thing in the Midwest. The bottom line is that they are anti-livestock and anti-meat. They don't want people to have meat, eggs and milk in their diet."

Added Norman: "We don't have an issue with the local humane societies in northwest Ohio. They do a great job working with dogs and cats."

HSUS has criticized state lawmakers for proposing a constitutional amendment instead of working in good faith to develop legislation on animal care standards. The latter approach was taken by Michigan lawmakers, which two weeks ago approved legislation requiring that egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves have enough space to engage in basic movement. Michigan farmers have three years to comply with the veal-calf restrictions and 10 years to comply with the rules for pregnant sows and egg-laying hens.

"Michigan sold out (to HSUS), simple as that," said Norman. "We don't want the same thing to happen in Ohio."

HSUS seeks bans on systems where chickens are confined for up to a year in cages about the size of a sheet of paper, pigs are penned for long periods in small "gestation cages" and calves raised for veal are kept in stalls so narrow they cannot turn around.

"While designed to give the appearance of helping farm animals, Issue 2 is little more than a power grab by Ohio's agribusiness lobby," says the HSUS website. "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."

Norman acknowledged that the Ohio General Assembly votes were taken quickly, but denies the legislation was pushed through in record time.

"It was discussed over the course of several months. There was a lot of thought that went into it. Putting it on the ballot received overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans as well as Gov. Strickland."

Issue 2 is not without in-state opponents, including the League of Women Voters of Ohio (LWV-Ohio), Ohio Farmers Union, Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance and Ohio Sierra Club.

According to its website, LMV-Ohio's opposition is based on its long-held position that the Ohio Constitution should be a clearly stated body of fundamental principles. In this case, the group believes issues of animal care do not rise to a constitutional question and instead should be legislated by the General Assembly.

Other opponents argue that the state does not need a new board, especially when so many government-funded services are being cut.

"The main opposition we heard in Columbus was on constitutional grounds," said state Rep. Bruce Goodwin, R-Defiance. "Most legislators from both parties felt a ballot issue was necessary as a pre-emptive strike to prevent out-of-state groups from coming in and telling us how to take care of farm animals."

Goodwin said he feels strongly that the livestock care standards board established by Issue 2 will ensure proper care of farm animals.

"Since agriculture is such a big part of the economy of northwest Ohio, I anticipate our area will have significant representation on that board," he said. "Certainly we have many area residents who have the necessary qualifications."

In addition to the Ohio Farm Bureau, Issue 2 is supported by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Manufacturers' Association, Ohio Grocers Association, Ohio Restaurant Association and Ohio Association of Realtors.