Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Livestock care initiative passis in Ohio

Issue 2 -- the Ohio ballot initiative that called for the establishment of a board on livestock care standards -- was adopted by voters in the state yesterday, with almost two-thirds of voters approving the concept late last night. The measure establishes a 13-member Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board that will set standards for the care, treatment and welfare of livestock and poultry raised in Ohio based on ethics and science. The measure takes the form of an amendment to the Ohio State Constitution. Ohio has several similar regulatory boards established by the state's constitution. The board is intended to head off efforts by activist groups outside the state to impose their agendas on the state's livestock and poultry production, such as did the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in California last year when it successfully carried to the ballot an initiative that dictates housing standards for laying hens, swine and veal calves. Nevertheless, HSUS chief executive officer and president Wayne Pacelle clearly implied last night that the group may seek to counter the board with its own ballot initiative in Ohio elections next year in the form of a constitutional amendment that would contain Prop 2-like language. (A second constitutional amendment on the same matter would have precedent over the board.) "We haven't made a final decision," he said, "but it's very likely."...read more

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

If HSUS decided to challenge Issue 2, where do they think the votes will come from? It seems the Ohioians have spoken. When votes are counted well it is very different than having the foot soldiers (those who believe they are helping animals and who work for free - 18 to 24)calling their representatives 15 times a day under different names. The alternative will be a replay of California. We do not need another initiative guided by emotions when fact and science decdisions will be the best for Ohioians.
JD

Unknown said...

It's odd to suggest that CA wasn't based on science. Indeed, the science clearly shows that confining animals in tiny cages is detrimental to their welfare. It may be cheaper to overcrowd animals in cages that immobilize them, but that doesn't mean it's good for the animals.