What Issue 2 Really Means

Chickens react to Issue 2: "They voted for What?!" 

Ohio residents voted Tuesday on an important ballot initiative known as Issue 2. It was important, not because of what it actually accomplished, but because of what most Ohioans thought it would accomplish based on misleading ads from factory farm sponsors. Framing the measure as something that would protect animal welfare, agribusiness was able to deceive almost two-thirds of voters into voting “yes.”

Gene Baur, Farm Sanctuary’s president and co-founder, explains: “This undemocratic power grab was passed … by misleading well-meaning Ohioans to believe that a Livestock Care Standards Board would protect the animals in its care, when it was actually designed to allow cruel and inhumane practices to continue on factory farms...” And as Wayne Pacelle of HSUS points out, Issue 2 proponents spent $4 million on this slight-of-hand to make its passage possible.

Like many of our allies, we made a conscious decision to spend almost no money opposing them. Why? Because we wanted to save resources for our own ballot initiative, through which we can create more meaningful change by banning the cruel confinement of animals in cages so small they can barely move. And while Issue 2 does give more power to the industry for now, it won’t be enough to stop real reform. If the passage of Issue 2 means anything, it means that Ohioans care about how farm animals are treated. When we put out a call for serious change through the ballot, possibly as early as next year, people will side with the animals, just like they thought they were doing yesterday.

We’ll keep you posted on our progress and what you can do to help. When the time comes, we look forward to working with all of our allies (that means you!) and making a difference for farm animals state by state!

Posted by Casey Martinson

Comments

[shoutingboy.livejournal.com]

You might (I hope) be able to make Issue 2 work for you. Once the board is up and running, there'll be a lot of opportunities for campaigns like, "Ohio, when you voted for Issue 2 you thought you were voting to stop cruelty to animals. But look at what the board is permitting: ..."

Don't frame it as "you voted for something that protects factory farms" (even if that's what happened). Frame it as "factory farms are using loopholes in Issue 2 to get away with cruelty, and the board is letting them do it." Then when you put forward your own initiative, it's not "repealing" Issue 2--it's fixing it, making it do what the voters thought it would do.

[Casey]

Thanks for the comment Shoutingboy! I think that's a good suggestion, and one that we will certainly consider as we plan our messaging. Stay tuned!

[David Celebrezze]

Shouting boy makes an excellent point. In a sense, a "report card" on this board after the first few months or year can make a message that everyone understands.

I bet money that the other side will say that there is no place in our Constitution for this type of thing. A good response is that you would have worked through the legislative system, but b/c issue 2 is in the constitution, the only way to close the loop holes is through the constitution.

Additionally, I was surprised the media didn't jump all over issue 2 as being a quack job (no pun intended). It would be impactful for a tv station to actually tour a factory farm and see for themselves. Couple that with a farm here in Ohio that treats its animals well in order to demonstrate it can be done. Finally, have Ohioans speak for Ohioans. Although I hold the HSUS in high regard, I was disappointed to see them writing the opposing view point on issue 2 in the Columbus Dispatch when the Ohio Farm Bureau guy was writing the pro.

Keep up the good work Farm Sanctuary!

[Casey]

David, thanks for your comment. I agree that Ohoians who care about animals have an important role to play in fighting the abuses of animal agriculture. And national organizations including Farm Sanctuary and HSUS need to be diligent in pointing out that they speak on behalf of thousands of members who are Ohioans.

As for showcasing an Ohio farm that “treats its animals well,” we may have a difference of opinion about what that means. In Farm Sanctuary’s view, treating an animal well is not compatible with killing it for food. So-called “humane” animal agriculture is not all it is cracked up to be; see http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/humane_labeling/truth_behind_labeling.html for more on that.

But certainly, most people can agree that the confinement practices used in factory farms are unacceptable by any standard.