Loading Up Calves, Dishing About Ohio’s Issue 2

Amanda Nolz October 28th, 2009

It’s a busy day at our operation today. Later this afternoon, we will be loading up our sale cattle to market in town. For the better part of the last two weeks, we have been sifting through the calves to select our replacement heifers and the bulls we will market later this year through private treaty sales. We have a strong group of uniform calves this year, so it was really difficult to make additions to the cull list, but we eventually came to an agreement on which calves to keep and which to sell. You know, when things get busy at the operation, it can be difficult to focus on the larger issues at hand such as the upcoming election in Ohio where Issue 2 will be voted on. Issue 2 will establish the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, an effort that would show voters how much food producers care about their animals while helping to eliminate a destructive and aggressive assault from the Humane Society of the United States to Ohio communities in the future. So, I want to know why agriculture is all of a sudden divided on Issue 2?

In recent articles I have ran across online, I have found a strong support from the agriculture community to vote “yes” for Issue 2 in Ohio and establish similar programs in other states to help avoid the havoc HSUS causes when THEY put something on the ballot for voters to decide upon. Interestingly, I have also read articles in agriculture publications that are totally against this idea because they fear the power of members on this board. However, I have a hard time with that argument. How does a “no” vote translate to our voters? What does that tell them about farmers and their priorities for best animal care? How much ammunition does a “no” vote give the HSUS when they decide to take action? HSUS wants a “no” vote on Issue 2, and I’m curious to know your opinion on this, as well. Differing opinions are more than welcome here, and I would love to hear both sides to the argument. So, what’s your beef with Issue 2? If you support it, why are you in favor of Issue 2? This is an important conversation.

If you haven’t read up on Issue 2, you can refer back to my blog entry about it on September 28, 2009. It explains what the board would do, and provides links to an informational website. Well, I’m headed out to the ranch now, but I will be checking and approving comments all day as they come in. I’m looking forward to a dynamic conversation. Thanks for your participation!

BEEF Daily Quick Fact: Beef producers are very committed to the health and well-being of their animals. Providing a healthy environment with ample food, water and veterinary care creates an ideal environment for cattle to grow. Proper animal care is also simply good business. Animals exposed to stress produce lower quality meat, so proper cattle care also means more valuable animals. (Source: Beef From Pasture to Plate)

Email This Post

11 Comments to “Loading Up Calves, Dishing About Ohio’s Issue 2”

Melissa Laurent Says:

October 28th, 2009 at 9:55 am

Forwarding to our many friends and family in Ohio.
Ginny Wright Says:

October 28th, 2009 at 10:27 am

Think this is the logic of “don’t tell me how to run my operation” at its worst. These are the same folks who blame every problem they have on someone else. They also can’t come to grips with the fact that agriculture, regardless of what segment is involved, is an ever-changing industry. If the majority of a group is saying ‘up’ it never seems to fail that a reporter will stick a mic in front of the one person saying ‘down’! Can’t argue that boards have the potential to be a problem but realistically wouldn’t we all rather have someone who is actually involved in ag helping guide what happens rather than hand it over to a group who’d be delighted to see every farmer and rancher disappear tomorrow? All the rest of us can do is keep our fingers crossed for the folks in Ohio on election day.
Matt Aultman Says:

October 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am

I’m from western Ohio where livestock agriculture is the life blood of the county. It brings in almost $400 million to the economy of the county. The sticking point to why there are opponants to the Issue 2 is the fact of that some disagree that it needs to be an ammendment to our state cnstitution to create this oversight board. The remainder of the opponants to this issue are the people that don’t truely understand the logistics of modern production agriculture and have the picture of Grandpa’s farm inmbeded in their mind set of chickens running free and pigs in mud behind the barn. Financially this is no long sound. For example there is a reason we do not have candles to light our homes and have evolved to electricity to illuminate lights. Issue 2 makes sense on so many levels, but whenever you have an issue, ammendment, or activity you will have differing opinions on how something should be done. Personally I hope this issue passes. Coming from production agriculture it will be devistating not this year to the local economy, but agriculture works on a differnet calander than most. I see in 5 years if the HSUS pushes their issue most livestock producers in our area will leave for states that appreciate their business and cheap food prices.

In closing please review your Issue 2 decision before saddleing your children to the long term results.
Marcus Kephart Says:

October 28th, 2009 at 11:30 am

Adding yet ANOTHER Govt. Agency? Who is going to pay for that? Giving someone the authority to say, ” I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help you” , will open the opportunity to ABUSE that authority, once they get their foot in the door. I say no to Issue 2 .
Benita Wells Says:

October 28th, 2009 at 12:07 pm

I believe the problem with Issue 2 is the distrust most people in agriculture have with the overall government. As Mr Kephart says…ANOTHER Gov’t Agency for our tax dollars to fund and who will be objective enough and not “owned” by some company lobbyist to serve on that board. But on the other hand…something has to stop the relentless assults of HSUS. We are truley in a pickle arent we? I would like for the people of this country to wake up and stop these groups that are in essence terrorist groups. Why have we allowed these people so much power? It has gotten out of hand and our government isnt the source we need to fall upon to get back on track. Im not sure there is a state in this nation that you could move to get away from this problem and continue to be a livestock producer.

Unfortunately, HSUS seems to find fodder to fuel their fire sometimes right in our own backyards. We as producers have to see to it that there is nothing out there for them to find and blast all over their web site. And that means to do all we can to treat our animals properly and report those that do not. The “good ole boy” down the road that is “a little rough on his animals” should no longer be in business. Can we police our own or have we got to rely on another government agency to do it for us?

The answer surely isnt an easy one. Search your hearts and minds Ohio residents, because this vote has lasting effects for our future generations all over this country.
Steven Cash Says:

October 28th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

I really think the Agriculture leaders of Ohio and the Nation need to be speaking louder to the farmers of this country and explaining the power and goals of HSUS and unite the Ag industry in their fight against HSUS. Whether it is in your state constitution or not if it is passed it will be a strong step in closing the door on HSUS. If you say no and your in Agriculture, God help you. As I say Agriculture, I mean all of Ag where even if you only raise corn and soybeans you need the Livestock industry to not only buy your products but to support you when times are bad. You may have issues with the Government but I bet you don’t return your tax refunds, your support payments, I bet you won’t return your social security checks either. Just learn about those Government officials before they are elected and do your best to weed out those that are not able to honestly serve the people. That’s the group of honest, trained, skilled, educated individuals we need deciding the fate of Animal Agriculture not the HSUS.
Warren Symens Says:

October 28th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

This appears to be a sound idea in that it creates a board to ensure that the people of Ohio are informed and educated on food production issues, and that Ohio food producers are following the guidelines that are set forth. This will only work if the right people are on the board, obviously, just like any other phase of government, schools, or coop boards. As far as government telling us all what to do and how to do it, get over yourselves. This isn’t the early 20th century anymore. We can’t all just do our thing and expect to get paid for it. If we don’t stand together, we will fall apart. Let’s take a proactive stand and make sure we work with the government so it works FOR us, and stop the nay sayers from animal rights groups from having a voice.
Ed Callan Says:

October 28th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

Amanda may remember me as an adamant proponent to Ohio Issue 2. I’ll have to eat crow on this one.
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 written. I raise about 50 head of beef cattle (25 head Mama cow/calf pairs) in Central Ohio.

1. It will be in our Constitution, allowing Governmentally appointed people (unanswerably responsible to the voting public) whom, I don’t know who’ll they will be and I don’t know what they will propose. Write me a blank check will you.

2. If this doesn’t work the way it’s intended (it’s government you know), how can it be changed in Ohio’s 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 this summer 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”.
We all want to treat our livestock humanely. No question there.
I have BIG reservations of Issue 2 and State or Federal Government
Ed Callan
Ron Huey Says:

October 29th, 2009 at 11:06 pm

Don’t let an nongovernmental animal radical operation elevated to power out of nowhere destroy Ohio farming. Look into what is being done in Maine. A covert beta test is being run with state cooperation putting HSUS over training and monitoring of employees on Radlo Farm egg facility. What rational farmer would ever want a body with the agenda of wiping out pets and farm animals left in control and supervision of initially our commercial facilities and finally down to each and every smallest farm–running all straight into the ground of bankruptcy? Keep in mind Prop 2 being passed in California will leave poultry farmers no longer able to operate in California by 2015 by no more than the law forbidding the banking of poultry crates. Loose hens–cannabalize. Sows without gestation crates crush their young. Veal calves are sucking machines sucking endlessly on ears, genitals, and far worse on cut and tied cords. They are impossible to keep clean when thrown together in large multicalf containment. Remember the next similar law passed there forbade Californians to import eggs from adjacent states which was done deliberately to force California in the future to import eggs of questionable safety from abroad. Educate friends and family who are city folk and know no better than to spew HSUS propaganda in rehearsed repetitive chorus like so many croaking frogs. They don’t read studies showing that dogs when gonad gutted too young fail to develop properly, live shorter lives, and have endocrine and other body systems improperly developed. Spend some time doing serious research and you’ll find HSUS involved up to its “wipe out all domestic animals in the US” agenda being used to move US meat beginning with poultry production to Pacific Rim Nations. Remember NAFTA that our tax bucks were dedicated to fund sending our best jobs abroad leaving us broke? HSUS is a far more serious NAFTA II than the first. It’s a federally and state facilitated group out to wipe out all pets from guppies up and to move our animal production abroad. If you want to maintain job security, food security, health security, and national security–denounce HSUS for being out to destroy all those. Look at our ongoing FDA recalls since animal testing for safety was all but stopped. This is no anti animal cruelty group nearly as much as it’s an enormous politically facilitated means to permanently destroy US domestic animal production and in the process our farmers. Think seriously about our next need for a billion eggs with which to produce a vaccine such as the vaccine for H1N1 influenza. Do we really want those monopolized by Pacific Rim Nations and particularly China with its most favored nation trade status?
Amanda Nolz Says:

October 30th, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Obviously, Ohio’s Issue 2 is a hot topic for many. I look forward to the election results and future discussions on this topic. Thanks for weighing in!
Mike Haley Says:

November 2nd, 2009 at 12:55 pm

First I want to say this is a great post!

I am a full time farmer in Ohio, my wife and I also have 30 purebred Simmental beef cows that we raise for breeding stock. I am a strong supporter of Issue 2 because after working with my local humane society for the past year I have found that their is a lack of guidelines in Ohio for them to refer to when investigating animal abuse. Currently the best resource for them is to look at what is industry accepted practice, sometime this does not give them enough information to decide what is or is not abuse.

What this board will do is establish a set of guidelines using sound research for both livestock owners and animal cruelty investigators to refer to. It is a huge step for Ohio’s livestock industry to step up to the plate ask for a board that represents all parties to come up with acceptable practices that they must follow.

This is why the American Humane Association, and the local shelters that have delt with livestock cruelty investigations in Ohio have all stepped up in support of creating a livestock care board in Ohio.

The opposition has tried to create a small farmer vs. large farmer debate, when this is simply not so. Issue 2 is about looking at fact based reasearch, to often we let emotion get in the way and end up with legislation that may end up causing animals to live in less humane conditions than they did before.

I do agree that no farmer wants any more regulations to follow, but sometimes they are needed in order to move forward.

Thanks again for this post,

Mike Haley