In Ohio there is a battle raging for control of agriculture. On the one hand we have the devil we hate, Big Ag, and on the other hand we have the devil we hate, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) which is anything but humane, has an agenda of turning everyone into vegans and depriving us of contact with animals.
Ah, which devil should we root for. If Big Ag wins we could lose the right to traditional pasture based farming as they set the standards. If the HSUS wins then we will definitely lose the right to raise livestock and eat meat. In my perfect world the two of them would throttle each other.
Read more about it here.
They are both evil but the lesser evil is voting for issue 2 and with ‘’big ag'’ because the HSUS is by and far the greater evil. We must never let them sink their claws in us as they will rip apart agriculture, small farmers and livestock owners. HSUS is evil incarnate. Their people are killers of innocent animals and affiliated with PETA and ALF and other killers and domestic terrorists. It is a travesty that they get to use the nonprofit status to hide their money from taxes. The IRS should nail them and the FBI too.
Comment Mark — October 28, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
From MaryZ:
Apropos your post about Ohio Issue 2, have you ever received the below statement from Tom & Diane Jones? I must say, I heartily agree with their views on this. In a similar vein, last summer, before Michigan ultimately adopted compromise legislation gradually phasing out veal crates, battery chicken cages, and farrowing crates, the MI legislature was considering something similar to Ohio’s Issue 2. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed in MI, and the gradual phase-out was adopted instead.
Under something like Issue 2, all livestock farms get registered with the state (sound familiar?) and have to be inspected to make sure they conform to the standards that will be set by the livestock board. As you noted, the “livestock board” will undoubtedly be dominated by industrial farming interests — the selfsame ones who are always arguing that pastured meats are reservoirs of “disease” and who are always claiming that their livestock factories are “biosecure.” So, whereas the HSUS initiatives target only conventional veal, egg, and swine farrowing operations, a regime such as Issue 2 instead sacrifices all livestock farms, of all types and sizes, in order to supposedly “save” a small number of factory egg, pork, and veal farms from so-called “over-regulation.” Besides the injustice and excessive regulation that Issue 2 would impose on all farms, it would not even be effective in stopping a future referendum on veal-sow-laying hen housing if HSUS still decided to pursue its own referendum in the future. Further, as we can see from compromises worked out between HSUS and the pork-egg-veal industries in such states as Michigan and Colorado, it is perfectly possible for the factory farms to make a transition to other types of housing and still maintain viable businesses. So the pork/egg/veal industries do not need to subject all livestock farms to Issue 2 in order to “save” themselves from rules that would change their types of animal housing.
Best,
Mary
Oppose Ohio Issue #2
——————
Dear Equine and Farming Friends,
It is time to tell you that Tom and I are opposed to Ohio Issue 2. We urge you to vote against it, not because we are anti-farming, but because the Ohio Farm Bureau, the Ohio Pork Producers Council, and the Ohio Livestock Commission, have unduly influenced your state legislators to put before you the prospect of an AMENDMENT to the Ohio Constitution which cannot and will not be permitted to be changed if Issue 2 passes.
Back in February when the HSUS came to Ohio, it indicated that there were a large number of factory farms here that engaged in less than humane treatment of animals. Instead of being involved in a meaningful dialogue, OFBF started lobbying your state legislators. On June 24 the Ohio House of Representatives passed legislation calling for an amendment to the Ohio Constitution. On June 25 the Ohio Senate by unanimous vote agreed. I am appalled to say that our State Senator, Tim Grendell, was influenced by Ohio Farm Bureau to vote for legislation which, if it passes as Issue 2, will take all rights away from the voters of Ohio regarding their food supply and the care and welfare of Ohio livestock and place it in the hands of 13 people appointed by Governor Strickland. This Board will have answerability to no one; there will be no oversight on their decisions and actions. If Issue 2 passes, one of the appointees is likely to be State Veterinarian, Tony Forshey, a strong proponent of National Animal Identification System, which recently was denied any further national funding as a result of legislation introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. Additionally, one of the appointees to the Board will be from a farmers’ group (AKA, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, which is strongly in the back pocket of Ohio Big Agriculture, as represented by the Ohio Pork Producers’ Council and the Ohio Livestock Coalition, and strongly pro-NAIS. Thus, in spite of the termination of NAIS funding at the federal level, NAIS could still be implemented in Ohio by a group of 13 individuals whose majority will come from the ranks of big Ag.
As a former member and trustee of the Geauga County Farm Bureau, I would have liked to tell you that OFBF’s position on Issue 2 is beneficial to small and independent farmers, but nothing could be farther from the truth. OFBF would like voters to believe that HSUS and PETA will destroy animal livestock ranches and farms in Ohio. What they won’t tell you is that instead of having a meaningful conversation with HSUS in February about confined living conditions for animals, they ran to OUR legislators and bought them off. Interestingly, Michigan has just passed legislation about farm animal welfare (as noted in Farm and Dairy, page 1A, October 8, 2009, at http://www.farmanddairy.com) with the input of the Humane Society of the United States. What are Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and CAFOs afraid of when they influence OUR legislators to change the Ohio Constitution regarding animal welfare? Had the Ohio Legislature simply passed an act regarding animal welfare, Tom and I could have backed that action. However, by stacking the cards so that the very organizations that promulgate the interests of Big Ag will now control animal health and welfare, as well as food safety and supply, Ohio Issue 2 places the foxes in charge of the henhouse.
At the heart of the matter is an attempt to fool Ohio voters into thinking that members of the appointed board will be “family farmers.” Brenda Hastings, the “farm” lady who appears in pro-Issue 2 ads appearing on television, is the co-owner of a 600-head Holstein dairy operation. Both she and her husband moved their dairy operation from California shortly after Proposition 2 passed there. The Hastings aspire to own a 1000-head herd, not your sustainable organic dairy operation. Nor do the Hastings represent the average “family farm,” consisting of a husband-wife-children operation. According to Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover (ACT) http://www.ohioact.org, one of the biggest sources of misrepresentation and dishonesty is section 3 of Issue 2, which reads:
“This proposed amendment [to Section 1 of Article XIV of the Constitution of the State of Ohio] would [P]rovide that the board shall be comprised of thirteen Ohio residents including representatives of Ohio family farms, farming organizations, food safety experts, veterinarians, consumers, the dean of the agriculture department of an Ohio college or university and a county humane society representative.”
Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover reports, “While Issue 2 requires the membership of several ‘family farmers’ on the Board, this cannot be seen as a safeguard to prevent the panel from being overtaken by corporate agribusiness and factory farming interests. While there is no legal definition for a family farmer in the U.S., the United States Department of Agriculture has stated that 98% of all factory farms, for example, are operated through what would be considered ‘family farms.’
“Ohio has a disconcerting number of factory farms–and that number could increase if an industry-led Board decides to ease regulations on animal production. According to the Ohio EPA, the state has close to 200 factory farms, including four beef operations with more than 3000 animals, 29 dairy operations with more than 1000 animals, and a staggering 98 poultry and egg-laying operations with more than 100,000 birds each, including 9 with more than a million birds.” SOURCE: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, “Map of permitted livestock facilities in Ohio,’ prepared June 13, 2008, available online at http://web.epa.state.oh.us
Please remember how your state legislators have sold you out to big agribusiness interests, especially the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. Remember to VOTE NO on OHIO ISSUE #2. While you’re aroused, please remember to turn the bums out of Ohio office as soon as possible. Don’t let your legislators give power to a cohort of 13 who will not be subject to any oversight.
DEFEAT OHIO ISSUE #2 IN NOVEMBER!!!!!
Sincerely,
Diane and Tom Jones
Windt im Wald Farm
Auburn Township, Ohio 44023
http://www.wiwfarm.com
Comment walterj — October 29, 2009 @ 8:47 am
Polk County judge orders beef rancher to register premises
By Heidi Clausen
Regional Editor
BALSAM LAKE - A Polk County judge has ruled in favor of the state of Wisconsin in the state’s second case of a farmer refusing to register a livestock premises.
Cumberland cattle rancher Patrick Monchilovich, 39, faced trial Oct. 21 in Balsam Lake for not registering his premises as required by the state’s livestock premises registration law.
It took Judge Molly GaleWyrick less than a half-hour to decide that the state of Wisconsin had met its burden of proof in the case, and she granted the motion for a directed verdict.
Assistant District Attorney Moria Ludvigson told the judge that the state was requesting Monchilovich’s compliance plus a civil forfeiture fee.
GaleWyrick ordered Monchilovich to pay $389.50 within 60 days.
About 25 farmers and others showed up in the courtroom to support Monchilovich and his wife, Melissa.
A few people snickered when GaleWyrick told Monchilovich, “You can do whatever you want to; this is a free country.”
After admonishing the crowd, she said Monchilovich’s disobedience of the law meant he would have to pay a penalty.
“They’re taking away freedoms,” Monchilovich told The Country Today after the hearing was adjourned.
He said he will consult with his wife before deciding whether to appeal the decision.
Comment Concerned Consumer — October 29, 2009 @ 11:41 am