Alter vs. Centerville
Beckett Park nearly finished
Marshall vs. Valley View
Home > Blogs > Ohio politics > Archives > 2009 > October > 27 > Entry
Farm groups square off
Farm interests on both sides of state Issue 2 claim that out-of-state interest groups are meddling in Ohio’s agriculture industry.
Issue 2 is a proposed constitutional amendment on the Nov. 3 ballot that would create a livestock care standards board to regulate farm animal housing and care in Ohio.
Farmers, environmentalists and ProgressOhio, a left-leaning political group, denounced Issue 2 as a move by out-of-state agribusiness that may end up elbowing family farmers out of business.
They pointed to campaign finance reports filed last week that show $1.2 million of nearly $4 million raised on the Yes on Issue 2 side came from outside Ohio.
Joe Logan, a family farmer and director of agricultural programs for the Ohio Environmental Council, said the standards board could be stacked in favor of big agricultural interests and write rules to favor the big guys over the family operations.
Right after the vote No on Issue 2 people finished their press conference on Tuesday, Oct. 27, representatives of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation appeared to give their side.
Beth Vanderkooi said Issue 2 was put on the ballot to head off out of state animal welfare groups that want to impose arbitrary standards on Ohio farmers. She denied claims that Issue 2 is supported mostly by large factory farm interests and noted that much of the campaign contributions have been coming from Ohio farmers.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment |
Comments
By jm
October 29, 2009 11:56 AM | Link to this
Why in the world do we need to change the state constitution on these types of issues? Seems an abuse of the system.
By Stu
October 28, 2009 4:54 PM | Link to this
Issue 2 just creates another level of state crust. It does NOT prevent the animal groups or PETA from filing lawsuits or contesting any care standards. I’d prefer the state stay out of agriculture decisions and if wrongs need righted, allow the courts to do their job. Farms make the best decisions for themselves without another “board”. My vote is always for Less Government!
By daveb
October 28, 2009 10:49 AM | Link to this
The reason you don’t see any no on 2 signs is because they have no money. Plenty of people in both the country and the cities oppose this, the pro-2 people are running a very deceptive campaign.
By Scott
October 28, 2009 10:01 AM | Link to this
Forcing people to be more “environmentally aware” through voting is irritating. I can’t wait to vote Yes on this to prevent the over-zealousness of a “green” Ohio. First no smoking, then cageless animals?? What’s next?
By Concerned
October 27, 2009 11:00 PM | Link to this
Having grown up on a farm and then moving to the city, I can relate to both sides of the Issue. However, things being what they are, I choose to vote YES on Issue 2. Large amounts of poultry not caged leads to smothered birds anytime they are spooked. Keeping them caged eliminates that and provides for more sanitary conditions where their food, water, and eggs are concerned. Brood sows will often kill their offspring when not confined. The HSUS has improperly tried to fool everyone into thinking they are the local Humane Society. They are NOT! Vote YES on 2 and preserve Ohio farms and a genuine American way of life.
By supporter
October 27, 2009 9:06 PM | Link to this
Drive around the country and see how many small farms have “Yes on 2” signs posted. They are the ones who know the facts. Please listen to them; their livelihoods are at stake here.
By irishguy
October 27, 2009 5:07 PM | Link to this
I know a stable owner and a farmer and they’re asking everyone they know to vote yes on 2. That’s good enough for me!
By flipper
October 27, 2009 4:54 PM | Link to this
Naw, the standards board wouldn’t be political and favor one group over another, would they? I’d trust that about as far as I could throw my barn.