Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > July > 08 > Entry
Editorial: Animal lovers, farmers found a compromise
Deciding how to treat farm animals at the ballot box would have been like making sausage. You probably wouldn’t want to see it.
Now you won’t have to watch, what with the Ohio Farm Bureau and the Humane Society of the United States deciding that neither of them really wanted to pay for, or to fight, this fight.
The Humane Society was threatening to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot this fall that would have regulated egg, pig and veal farms. Specifically, the amendment would have started restricting the tight cages that certain farm animals can be kept in. National and even international movements are building for more humane treatment of animals on the grounds that living things should not be abused and that “factory farm” practices are unhealthy for humans.
At literally almost the last hour before a filing deadline, the farm bureau, several associations representing farm commodity groups and the Humane Society worked out a compromise. The Humane Society wouldn’t file its petitions to go to the ballot, while the farming interests effectively would phase out certain practices:
• New egg farms can’t use the small “battery cages” where hens are packed so tightly that they can’t extend their wings. (Existing farms may replace their cages with similar ones.)
• New hog farms can’t use “gestation stalls” for pregnant sows after 2010, and the stalls will be phased out in 2025. (The stalls last at least 15 years.)
• By 2017, the state has to have standards for “group housing” (rather than small individual crates) for veal calves.
The Farm Bureau says that one in seven Ohio jobs is tied to agriculture, which is why agri-business and farmers were terrified of this measure being decided by people who have never set foot on a farm. They — probably rightly — believed that if voters saw commercials showing the crates and pens animals are kept in, farm advocates would have a hard time defeating restrictions.
At the same time, though, the Humane Society wasn’t sure it could prevail. It needed 400,000-plus signatures to get its proposal on the ballot; it had 500,000-plus, but because many signers just think they’re registered to vote (or say they are, even though they’re really not), the organization might have been short the necessary valid signatures.
By choosing not to file the petitions now, the Humane Society can hang on to the petitions it has already collected and, down the road, the names will still be valid and can be supplemented with more. If the organization had filed its petitions and had come up short, it would have to start all over again if it decided to bring the issue up again in a different election year.
In short, the Humane Society has something of an insurance policy if the terms of this agreement aren’t followed.
The Farm Bureau was anticipating having to spend $10 million to defeat the proposed constitutional amendment. Even with emotion on its side, the Humane Society would have had to spend time and money to counteract the other side’s arguments.
When the campaign was all done, we might have been more knowledgeable about farm animals and food production, but a lot of resources would have been wasted.
Agri-business is big business in Ohio. It is unquestionably influential in state policy making, sometimes to the detriment of small farmers and consumers. In pushing Ohio to be more cognizant of animal rights, the Humane Society also pushed the state to be more protective of food safety, public health and the environment. Many of the policies that are most abusive of animals are also detrimental to people, the air and water.
If the Humane Society is excessively focused on animal welfare, the farming industry can be too fixated on efficiency and production. Consumers are increasingly becoming conscious of that tug of war, and they’re favoring more checks on farms, especially the big corporate ones.
Ohio is better off for the Humane Society insisting on new, stiffer farm rules.
Permalink | Comments (13) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Ohio government, Ohio politics, Rural Communities
Comments
By Mike R
July 8, 2010 5:00 PM | Link to this
Ellen, If you want to become “more knowledgeable about farm animals and food production” get off your butt and go visit a farmer or food processor! Seriously, you don’t have to wait for a talking-point fax or email to come across from the Human Society to educate yourself on the issue. Go get it straight from the “horses mouth” instead of taking the word of some stoned freak walking around bare-foot with no sense to get out of the rain in downtown Yellow Springs!
By Mike R
July 8, 2010 6:04 PM | Link to this
Maybe somebody who’s well versed in election law or a lawyer can answer my question(s). Ellen mentioned the Humane Society can hang on to the names signed to the petition. How long are these valid? Isn’t there a statute of limitation to a petition signature? Ohio has a net-out migration, is the signature still valid if the person has subsequently moved to another state? Just curious…
By Pit Bull Farm
July 8, 2010 7:19 PM | Link to this
I own a Pit Bull farm. I have no problem with the way my animals are treated while on the farm. When they’re released into the general populace, Ellen & Martin are wonderful defenders of animal rights when my Pits maul/kill humans. They’ve sworn an allegiance to help fund my new pro Pit Bull organization called PETH>>>Pits Eating Tasty Humans. Wanna join? It’s endorsed by the DDN!!!
By Sandi
July 8, 2010 8:06 PM | Link to this
People should absolutely know what has taken place with the life that becomes their meal. Some will care, and some are too selfish to. If we don’t speak for those who can’t, animal or not, we are no better than those who care only of themselves.
By Jason
July 8, 2010 9:25 PM | Link to this
Mike - I have tried many times to visit a large corporate farm in Ohio and everytime I approach one, the refuse to let me see.
By amanda
July 8, 2010 9:27 PM | Link to this
To Mike R. - The signitures never expire, however once sumbitted they go through an process to authenticate them so if people have moved out of state those will be invalid
By Rodney Cow
July 9, 2010 8:50 AM | Link to this
Can’t we all just get along?
By Mike R
July 9, 2010 11:25 AM | Link to this
Thx, Amanda. Jason, most people don’t like some stranger showing up at the door unannounced and asking to be shown around. If they suspect you of “gotcha journalism” then you wont be invited in either. However, if you are truly sincere in learning about farm production and science call in advance, set up an appointment through the Farm Bureau, or work with a local OSU Extension Agent, they all will gladly help.
By David Esrati
July 11, 2010 6:29 AM | Link to this
What about the “will of the people” on this issue? What gives the Humane Society the right to ignore the 500,000 people who wanted to vote on this issue, right or wrong. Our ballot access process is highly flawed in this State, but usually it’s boards of elections playing junior graphologists to disqualify signatures and subvert the will of the people.
By Mike R
July 12, 2010 3:43 PM | Link to this
David, in case you missed it, we did vote on it last year! Over 3 MILLION people voted on Issue 2 in Ohio’s fall election. The amendment created a Livestock Care Standards Board for the purpose of establishing standards governing the care of livestock and poultry.
By joe2
July 12, 2010 10:35 PM | Link to this
I do not understand why we need all these farms mistreating animals. They also pollute our air and water. Why don’t we outlaw all farms and have everyone get their meat and milk from the local grocery stores
By joe2
July 12, 2010 10:36 PM | Link to this
I do not understand why we need all these farms mistreating animals. They also pollute our air and water. Why don’t we outlaw all farms and have everyone get their meat and milk from the local grocery stores
By joe2
July 12, 2010 10:37 PM | Link to this
I do not understand why we need all these farms mistreating animals. They also pollute our air and water. Why don’t we outlaw all farms and have everyone get their meat and milk from the local grocery stores