Luvmydogs,
I'll have to disagree that Issue 2 is a terrible idea. They say there is only one person from the humane community, but there are two from the general public. And what constitutes the humane community? I believe they'll probably use someone from one of the Humane Societies. I have some good relationships with humane society people, and they hate that they are compared frequently to HSUS. They are NOT affiliated with HSUS.
Do you mean that they should have someone from HSUS on that board? I think that would be a mistake because nothing would get done. You need people who are educated, such as veterinarians who can help educate the board about animal matters properly. You need scientists who can tell you the best animal husbandry research that is ongoing. These are all thigns that the Issue 2 board has.
And most Ohio newspapers don't oppose issue 2. Most papers I've read are just publishing that HSUS has said they are going to ignore Issue 2 and push legislation anyway, despite the fact that Ohio voters have made their case. In my opinion, that's not that they are against Issue 2, they are just publishing relevant news.
Here's a quote from the Columbus Dispatch.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten.../11/06/Plaisted_ART_11-06-09_A14_1VFJ8IF.html
"State Issue 2 provided protection for Ohio's only remaining industry from zealots who would turn the pigs and chickens loose to forage for themselves and who would ban meat and dairy products from our tables. Wise move."
If anything that is the OPPOSITE of opposing Issue 2.
And for whether Issue 2 could prevent puppy mill regulation, it doesn't define dogs as livestock, it merely fails to define livestock in the regulation. See the following website:
http://www.ohio.com/news/67471017.html
"The federation believes that claims that Issue 2 covers dogs are ''pretty darn far-fetched . . . and a misinterpretation or deliberate misrepresentation'' of its intent, said Joe Cornely, a spokesman for the Columbus-based farm group.
Delcianna Winders, director of education and advocacy at the New York-based Farm Sanctuary and an opponent of Issue 2, said it is ''an unquestioned possibility'' that Ohio's dog-breeding operations could fall under the jurisdiction of the board, if approved by voters Nov. 3.
The problem is that ''livestock'' is not fully defined in Issue 2 materials, Winders said."
Heck, here is the actual language from the bill:
"
This proposed amendment would:
1. Require the state to create the Livestock Care Standards Board to prescribe standards for
animal care and well-being that endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally
grown and raised food, and protect Ohio farms and families.
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.
3. Provide 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 at an Ohio college or
university and a county humane society representative.
4. Authorize the Ohio department that regulates agriculture to administer and enforce the
standards established by the board, subject to the authority of the General Assembly."
Luvmydogs: Before you start saying that this is bad legislation, please do some research and don't rely on HSUS and PETA for your research, because they are biased. As a veterinary student, I am in support of Issue 2 because I think it will protect the future of our country and protect our food supply. If you would like to discuss this, please respond.
