Processing...

Farm States May Copy Ohio Vote On Livestock Rules

10/28/2009 07:33AM

Average rating:  (0)

Subscribe
Friend's Email *  
Your Email
Subject * 
Message
Verify
If the number is difficult to decipher try selecting Refresh
 
Ohio voters will decide next week whether to create a board overseeing livestock care in a move that could give farmers in rural America a blueprint for battling animal rights groups intent on outlawing cramped cages for chickens and hogs.

Agriculture industry leaders pushed the issue onto the state ballot, hoping to thwart an attempt by animal rights activists who were threatening to force farmers to change how they house livestock.

Voters in California, Florida and Arizona already have approved measures that require more space for confined farm animals. Lawmakers in Colorado, Maine, Michigan and Oregon have adopted similar rules.

Supporters of the changes say animals raised for food deserve humane treatment. Opponents argue the regulations will force farmers to make costly changes that could put them out of business and drive up the price of eggs, chicken, pork and beef.

That's why Ohio's agriculture leaders decided to take a shot at creating a livestock board that would include farmers and animal care experts.

Voters in Ohio — often a crucial swing state in national elections — will decide Tuesday whether to approve Issue 2 in what could be a significant decision for farmers nationwide.

"We've tried to model this in a way that other states can look at it," said Jack Fisher, executive vice president of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. "This involves farmers, ranchers, everyone in the food chain."

Animal rights groups, led by the Humane Society of the United States, are targeting the 24 states that allow signature-driven petitions to appear on their ballots.

It's an easier process than trying to go through the legislatures. And campaigns in California and elsewhere have shown that voters respond to the Humane Society's pitch that farmers shouldn't be allowed to use such practices as housing laying hens in cages smaller than an 8-inch-by-11-inch sheet of paper.

"People have similar views about these issues everywhere," said Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States. "In California, we won in urban, suburban and rural areas."

A survey, he said, showed that there's not one state where people favor gestation crates that allow little movement for sows giving birth.

Big farm operators say animals rights groups are telling only part of the story.

"They argue on the emotional level," said Scott Stuart, president of the National Livestock Producers Association, which is based in Colorado Springs, Colo. "They don't pay attention to the science at all."

Those within the industry say they need to do a better job of explaining why confining animals makes sense. They contend that cages protect the animals from predators and each other, keep barns cleaner and make it easier to inspect and treat the animals.

Too many people think of farm animals like the family pet, said Toby Moore, a spokesman for the USA Poultry & Egg Export Council in Stone Mountain, Ga.

"They've had talking farm animals in the movies for years," he said. "People truly don't understand agriculture. They just see cages as inhumane and cruel."

Until now, farmers have been caught off guard by the push to eliminate cages and other practices.

"We're used to producing food. That's never been questioned before," said Jay Rempe, a lobbyist for the Nebraska Farm Bureau. "It's caused agriculture to reach out and think about the consumer."

The Ohio Farm Bureau has opened the Center for Food and Animal Issues to get out its message on farm animal, pet and research issues.

The organization and its backers expect to spend $3 to $5 million in support of Issue 2, a constitutional amendment that would create a 13-member Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.

Members would include Ohio's agriculture director, family farmers, veterinarians, a representative of a local humane society and consumers.

Interest in the outcome is high, especially in the Midwest.

"This is Humane Society of the United States' first venture into the heartland, the bread basket," Fisher said. "This is a new test for the industry."

Approval of Issue 2 would not prevent animal rights groups from trying to ban farm animal cages, but it would force them to gather more signatures for a spot on the ballot.

"We'll have to see how this plays out," Pacelle said. "We don't intend to relent and allow this very unfair outcome to stand."

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
5 Comments
Steve StephensonStanfield, Az - Monterey, Va.October 28, 2009 09:59
You guys have a chance to set an example for the entire livestock indrustry.
Please don't blow it!
BevHamilton, OhioOctober 28, 2009 09:57
Distrust of Big Government is understandable. But the Livestock Care Board will help guide our livesotck industry. It will respond to both best practices, politics and consumers. That is the REAL world. With all the anti meat, anti agriculture: books, movies, guest lecturers at universities, media bashing -- it will take many years for the current anti ag tide to turn. Even farmers are antagonistic. Some organic farmers believe a Prop 2 type amendment in Ohio would help them by raising conventional food prices. The organic guys do not seem to understand that conventional farmers create the niche market for the organic farmers. HSUS restrictions are negative for all of us -- in the long term. Look beyond your own pockets and see what is good for all farmers. The chick cages are going to get bigger. And the gestation stalls will probably be replaced. But it needs to be replaced by something BETTER. Not merely replaced because HSUS wants us to raise our animals like our pets. Or worse, not raise livestock all together for the vegan agenda.
Gail BeggsohioOctober 28, 2009 07:35
What's the plan if the vote goes the wrong way or 10 years from now the majority of the appointed board aren't livestock industry enthusists?
BillOKOctober 28, 2009 10:45
I agree, whats wrong with how we do it now, why do we always need another goverment program to change things.
Ed CallanNewark, OHOctober 28, 2009 09:50
I WAS a proponent of Ohio's Issue 2 until about 6 weeks ago. Several things bother me, and I now oppose issue two as it is. I raise about 50 head of beef cattle (25 head Mama cow/calf pairs).
1. It will be in our Constitution, allowing Governmentally appointed people (unanswerablly responsible to the voting public) whom, I don't know who'll they will be, I don't know what they will propose Write me a blank check.
2. If this doesn't work the way it's intended (it's government you know), how can it be changed in our constitution. A 2/3 super majority vote?
3. Paragraph 2 (taken from Issue 2 itself) says "2. Authorize this bipartisan board of thirteen members to consider factors that include, but
are not limited to, agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being, biosecurity, disease prevention, animal morbidity and mortality data, food safety practices, and the protection of local, affordable food supplies for consumers when establishing and implementing standards". "BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO...." That is amazing ... AND that's what scares me more than HSUS. Mandatory Animal ID with radio frequency ear tags and readers and computers(maybe), Voluntary Animal Control (maybe), anything else the panel comes up with (maybe).
In my discussion in the summer of 2009 with a friend (and extremely well known and respected grain and livestock farmer) in my Ohio county... He put it best "13 people on the panel... I hope there are so many on that panel they can't agree ON ANYTHING".
I have BIG reservations of Issue 2 and State Government

EDUCATION CENTER

Revalor ®

Alpharma

IVOMEC

Scour Bos ®