Issue 2: Vote no if you care about the welfare of animals

Updated 7:29 PM Saturday, October 17, 2009

States across the nation are adopting policies to reflect society’s concern about the well-being of animals and to clamp down on needless cruelty. But Ohio stands out as an exception as agricultural leaders and compliant politicians maneuver to move the state sharply backward.

Consider events next door in Michigan where Gov. Jennifer Granholm has recently signed legislation requiring a phase-out of intensive confinement practices on factory farms — a move that will, over time, allow certain farm animals enough space to turn around and engage in other basic movements and behaviors. This modest law is the result of extensive negotiations between humane and agricultural groups, and demonstrates that past antagonists can find common ground through good-faith deliberations.

A strikingly different story is unfolding in Ohio. Animal welfare laws in Ohio are among the weakest in the nation and mistreatment is rampant. But instead of trying to keep pace with other states to balance economic activity and the proper treatment of animals, Ohio’s lawmakers are working to insulate factory farms from basic reform efforts. For example, they have placed Issue 2 on the November ballot at the behest of the Ohio Farm Bureau so they can continue to confine animals in small cages and crates.

At a typical factory farm, thousands of animals are kept in cages or crates barely larger than their bodies. Many of these animals live in lifelong confinement and are denied even the opportunity to turn around or extend their limbs. Calves raised for veal are forced to endure life in a 22-inch-wide crate to prevent them from moving, so their muscles will improperly develop and the meat will be tender. Major retailers are responding to the concerns of consumers and increasingly buying meat and eggs from producers who do not confine the animals in cages throughout their entire lives.

The issue of industrial agribusiness was studied by the prestigious Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production — an independent panel that included animal scientists, veterinarians and ranchers. The commissioners unanimously concluded that battery cages for hens, gestation crates for pigs and veal crates for calves should be phased out.

In addition to promoting cruelty, factory farms generate enormous volumes of untreated animal waste that pollute the air and groundwater. The smell is so foul that neighbors fear venturing outside, and property values drop.

This situation cries out for reform. But instead, the agribusiness lobby in Ohio has designed its own favored “oversight” system. Family farmers, represented by the Ohio Farmers Union, and good government groups, such as the Ohio League of Women Voters, have joined humane societies and environmental organizations throughout the state in urging a “no” vote on Issue 2.

Issue 2 would amend the state’s constitution by creating an industry-dominated council to decide all rules related to farm-animal handling. It’s a status-quo measure masquerading as reform. No one really expects this council to make any meaningful changes. If the Ohio Farm Bureau had truly wanted reform, it would have asked the legislature to address these matters at the capitol, since agribusiness has such inordinate influence there. Instead, it wrote Issue 2 and directed the legislature to pass it to make it more difficult for any citizen reform effort of factory farms to gain any momentum. Their goal is clear: they want factory farms to operate without limits on the care of animals.

Mind you, lawmakers beholden to the Farm Bureau placed Issue 2 on the ballot with lightning speed, short-circuiting debate and serious examination. Meanwhile, modest reforms that would crack down on cockfighting and puppy mills — both major animal welfare problems in the state — have languished for years with no concerted action by lawmakers.

The Farm Bureau and most state lawmakers want to amend the Ohio Constitution to make it more difficult for voters not only to address the humane treatment of animals used in agriculture, but also to protect communities from factory farm pollution or homeowners from the foul odors of the factory farms. The voters should know better.

All of God’s creatures deserve humane treatment, including those raised for food. Vote No on Issue 2, and take the first step to address factory farming abuses in Ohio in a serious way.

Wayne Pacelle is president and chief executive officer of the Humane Society of the United States

Share this article

ADD COMMENT

Comments feed

Many people in Ohio have worked hard to make our legislators aware of HSUS, tactics used and real agenda. THAT is why their legislation hasn't gotten passed as they'd like. They were worked with once on ORC animal welfare and came back for more right after it passed from what I've read. I, for one, am very glad to see a bipartisan coming together of our elected state legislator's to keep Ohio's economy, food, animal welfare and jobs in OHIO

Amy
1:18 AM, 10/20/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Voting YES for 2 will help keep OHIO in charge of Ohio. It was instigated by the threats from HSUS, humane society of the united states. Their idea of 'humane' is vegan/vegetarian. Go check out their website for yourselves. Free 'help' converting to vegetarian, tofurkey recipe- just some of what I saw. Then go look at their other targets through legislation from pets to hunting and much more.

Amy
1:05 AM, 10/20/2009

REPORT ABUSE

What is being said in this article sounds to as if it is written by someone who is uneducated with agriculture. Being an animal science major at The Ohio State University, I study the welfare and confinement of animals. Issue 2 is to help the animals, not hurt them, or promote factory farms. Farmers will not mistreat their animal because an injured, malnourished, undeveloped, or unhappy animal will not produce. VOTE YES ON 2 read this article http://www.madisonpress.com/local.a...

OSU Ag student
12:25 AM, 10/20/2009

REPORT ABUSE

It's important not to turn Issue 2 into a meat-eater vs. vegetarian debate. There are plenty of meat-eaters who want decent animal care standards such as allowing an animal the ability to turn around. The immobility of veal calves was one of the issues that spurred the initiation of Issue 2, and I find it a very disturbing notion that farmers allowing their livestock a basic range of motion is considered an extremist/foolish/unAmerican viewpoint.

Sam Minier
12:01 AM, 10/20/2009

REPORT ABUSE

I totally agree with your article, Boots is part of the status quo that wants to KEEP their profit motivated control and ensure that NO ONE will ever improve the lives of animals, after all, that costs money and eats away profits. The so called Old-boys network is alive and thriving in this old town and I for one am sick of it. These good old boys will NEVER do one thing to improve the lives of animals, I know, I see it everyday.
I'M VOTING ABSOLUTELY NO, NO, NO, NEVER ON ISSUE 2.

john649
1:13 AM, 10/19/2009

REPORT ABUSE

There are 2 additional comments

SHOW ALL

We welcome your comments. Please remember this is a public forum and behave appropriately. Your comments must conform to our visitor's agreement.