Letter to the Editor
To the Editor:I must vote NO on State Issue 2.
Soon voters will decide whether or not to amend Ohio's Constitution for the purpose of creating a 13-member Livestock Care Standards Board that will essentially govern every aspect of Ohio's agriculture community where livestock is concerned. This board will be made up of the Director of Agriculture, 10 members appointed by the governor, one member appointed by the Ohio House Speaker and one member appointed by the Ohio Senate president.
I must admit that having not been engaged actively in farming for some years, I really didn't pay too much attention to this issue. It was only after the recent bombardment by coworkers and friends, who asked for advice on this issue, that I felt a responsibility to delve more deeply into the issue.
With so many good folks behind this ballot initiative, my position in this matter is difficult but, as always, I believe all Americans who cherish freedom need to stand in the gap whether in a big way or small way and often even at their own personal consequence.
First, the creation of this board would shift responsibility from individuals to government. Not only is that an eroding of our liberties but who can say government always does or knows best?
Secondly, at a time when government's size, scope and intervention in our lives should be getting smaller, this proposal moves to enlarge it. Bigger government at any level is a tenant of socialism. This bill will give a "new" board authority along with expanded authority to the governor, the legislature and to the leader of each chamber. With this expansion come costs, regulations, and greater intervention by government in the lives of Ohioans. Does this make sense in an era when state budget deficits already approach one billion dollars?
Third, it is likely that many of the members who ultimately serve on the board will have no firsthand experience with agribusiness. Does it make sense to allow a person who has no such experience to make agribusiness policy?
Lastly, this ballot initiative is being touted as necessary to supposedly "thwart" efforts by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and the National Humane Society from gaining a foothold in our great state. It is widely published that passage of this amendment will in no way keep these organizations from bringing ballot measures in the future and it is also widely published that they intend to do so. While these organizations are indeed BAD for Ohio, to say that we should give away inches of our freedom and liberties in order to prevent them from taking miles of it is a dangerous position at best. Further, in reality, what Issue 2 would do is to give them the proverbial camel's nose in the tent. This amendment may actually make it easier for these organizations to shape policy in Ohio—instead of having to convince a majority of Ohioans to vote for a ballot initiative they propose, they would simply have to gain the majority of an audience of 13 to shape Ohio livestock policy. In any event, when the only reason you are voting for something is out of fear, it probably isn't good policy to begin with.
I would remind you that it is not the first time these groups have been at work in Ohio. In 1998 there was a ballot initiative to ban certain hunting in Ohio. Against seemingly impossible odds, the Ohio Division Wildlife and others made their case to Ohio voters and those measures were soundly defeated. What would have happened if instead we would have said, "OK, you can take our right to hunt these animals in exchange for leaving us alone to hunt the rest"? The entire fundamental right of hunting and wisdom of sound wildlife management would have been laid in ruin.
That being said, I must vote NO on Issue 2 and yes for freedom and liberty.
David Nally,
Millersburg