This coming Wednesday, February 17th at 9:30 AM in Room 313 of the Ohio State House there will be a 4th hearing for HR 414, the implementing legislation of the Livestock Care Standards Board.  The topic of this hearing is “Issue 2 Implementation Language”.

Two weeks ago, the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee heard statements from proponents and opponents.  We were present at the hearing along with dozens and dozens of other concerned individuals.  There were several concerned farmers present that testified in opposition to various aspects of the proposed legislation and yet not a single farmer was there to support this bill. Gongwer News Service summarized the hearing with the following article.

Volume #79, Report #22 –Wednesday, February 3, 2010 ISSUE 2 LEGISLATION SPURS FAMILY FARMS VERSUS AGRIBUSINESS DEBATE IN HOUSE PANEL

Members of a House panel overseeing a bill designed to implement Issue 2 found themselves in the midst of a legislative food fight Wednesday as opponents lined up to criticize language outlining the operations of the new Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. Contention between family and specialty farmers and agribusiness operations played out in the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee as numerous witnesses expressed a variety of concerns about potential impacts of fees and the board’s regulations impact on their farms. Proponents have said the measure would ensure a safe, local food supply and equal treatment by the board for both large-scale and smaller farm operations. The administration has argued that a proposed fee increase on animal feed was necessary for quick implementation of the livestock standards program. Testifying as an interested party, Carol Goland, executive director of the Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association, expressed concern that the board might set standards that are at odds with the extensive federal regulations that govern organic farms. She asked members to add an exemption for organic farms from the board’s animal care standards because the rigorous National Organic Program regulations already address livestock care conditions and health care. “Maybe the board will determine that prior to sale, all livestock must be de-wormed with a parasiticide. That would be a violation of the organic standards, which allows the use of synthetic parasiticides only in health care emergencies, and even then there is only one such parasiticide approved for use in organic production,” she said. “Perhaps the board will determine that for their own welfare, birds should be de-toed. This is expressly prohibited by the National Organic Program standards,” she said. “Organic producers need protection from the very real possibility that Ohio will enact standards that conflict with the National Organic Program standards.” Ms. Goland also asked for an exemption from additional fees related to the board, explaining organic farmers already bear higher costs due to increased environmental and animal care standards. “These good stewards should not be subject to a duplicatory regulatory program and additional fees for the enforcement of livestock care standards, which do not and should not apply to them.” The witness also expressed concern that any livestock standards board inspectors investigating complaints will be unfamiliar with organic livestock practices and noted animal welfare complaints are already investigated by a certifying agency. Rep. Carlton Weddington (D-Columbus) asked if having a representative of organic farmers on the board would address her concerns. Ms. Goland said it could help slightly, but would still prefer an exemption. Rep. James Zehringer (R-Ft. Recovery) said he believed the board should have a member with expertise with organic production and that animal care standards should not exceed federal regulations. However, it should be the board’s decision as to whether or not organic farmer should be exempt from their jurisdiction, he added. Ms. Goland said her concern was over whether the board’s regulations would conflict with federal standards, not exceed them. Joe Logan of the Ohio Environmental Council, expressed similar concerns about the language’s impact on organic farms, and said the bill fails to ensure compliance with any of the board’s livestock care standards. In response to a question from Rep. Weddington, Ms. Goland said there were about 1,000 certified organic farm operations in Ohio. Mr. Logan said many other farmers follow organic practices, but don’t complete the certification process due to costs. A. David Hutchins, owner of Mill Creek Farms in Mansfield, expressed concern about the proposed fee increase on animal feed, saying it would compound financial problems for independent farms, many of which are already going out of business. “We were told there would be no fee increase,” he said about the Issue 2 campaign. The proposed fee increase is an unfair burden on family farms because large-scale operations usually produce their own animal feed and “therefore they won’t pay this tax.” Further, the ambiguous language could exempt large corporate livestock operations from the board’s regulations because they generally sell their product out of state to large retail chains. John Sproat, of the League of Humane Voters, criticized the legislation’s complaint-driven inspection regimen and said mandatory inspections were the only way to ensure a safe food supply. Animal abuse in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) may never be discovered since the only way problems would be reported is through self-reporting or whistle-blower complaints from employees, he said. “It’s a loose system, it can’t be enforced that way. You don’t know if the animals are getting excellent care.” Rep. Zehringer said the measure wouldn’t interfere with existing Department of Agriculture inspections of CAFOs. Mr. Sproat said ODA inspections don’t focus on animal care standards, adding, “Excellence in animal care. That’s what I want to see and that’s what the voters voted for.” Bob Baker, senior manager, farm animal welfare, for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said his group is supportive of standards that assure humane treatment for farm animals. Among other things, he said the bill should include standards regarding food, water, care, safe and healthy environments and veterinary care. He said the bill should also address the treatment of animals that are enduring pain and suffering. Gary Cox, a Columbus attorney, also focused on Issue 2, which he said was a “bill of goods.” He said the plan didn’t assure that Ohioans would have safe and local food, arguing that large-scale providers regularly send their animals out of state for processing. He said lawmakers should be clear about their intent with the bill to help courts with future interpretations. He also urged members to specifically exclude dogs and cats as livestock and said exemptions should be included for organic farmers. Mr. Cox also called on the members to specifically make the board subject to sunshine, public records and Chapter 119 proceedings, and impose a “duty” on the director of agriculture to inspect operations. Rep. Zehringer said many small farm operation incorporate due to tax benefits, adding “We all love to see the image of the family farm the way it was in the 40s and 50s, but its just not that way any more.” William Donaldson of Killbuck raised concerns that the board could open farms to unreasonable searches by government officials. He said that authority appears to circumvent citizens’ ability to operate in private. He also said he suspects the Humane Society of the United States would support the bill, suggesting that it lets the organization enforce its agenda at the expense of farmers. Trevor Stover, a Lexington cattle producer, raised concerns about the scope of Issue 2, saying Ohio voters were “ambushed” by a “campaign of fear and deception.” Mr. Stover said backers of the effort convinced Ohioans that the issue was meant to protect family farmers, but said he opposed the plan. He also raised concerns that the board’s financial burden is placed heavily on livestock producers.

Rep. Zehringer said he wishes the state didn’t have to take such actions, but said it is necessary because “out of state activist groups” are trying to get involved in the operations of Ohio farms.

• The draft version includes definitions (130.03) which details that all horses, regardless of the purpose for which the equine are raised, are considered livestock. In other words, every horse in our state will be under the board’s authority — along with all hogs, cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, alpacas, and llamas that are raised for human food products or for fiber.
• This board will be funded by tax money, no surprise there.  What is a surprise is the once estimated cost to run the board of $170,000 has now grown to a minimum of $500,000 annually (923.46).

If you or any farmers you know would like to testify in opposition to this bill, please contact us.  You will need to have your testimony written in advance and provided to office of Margaret Ann Ruhl (Representative for District 90, and on the committee hearing the testimony), or any of the other Agriculture and Natural Resources committee members (below).  If you cannot testify in person, and you oppose the content of this bill, it’s imperative that you at least call the offices of the committee members and let them know that you oppose further taxes to pay for this board.

OLC Editor’s Note: As a follow up to our last article on the new taxes being proposed to fund the new Livestock Care Standards board, Clint Ziegler has found some additional details being proposed in the implementing legislation that are likewise troubling.  We must hold this board and our legislators accountable on this issue and we must learn from our own mistakes in granting so much power to a new level of bureaucracy.  As George Washington said: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

As Issue 2 was being discussed prior to the November election, many questions were raised as to how this board would function, how it would be funded, and who would fall under its authority.  We are now beginning to get the answers to those questions through the draft version of legislation to implement the constitutional amendment (Revised Code Chapter 130.01 Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board).

The draft version includes definitions (130.03) which details that all horses, regardless of the purpose for which the equine are raised, are considered livestock.  In other words, every horse in our state will be under the board’s authority — along with all hogs, cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, alpacas, and llamas that are raised for human food products or for fiber.  The list of animals may expand by the decision of the director.  Only animals that are confined in research and medical facilities are excluded from the standards established by this board (130.04 (1)).

This board will be funded by tax money, no surprise there.  What is a surprise is the once estimated cost to run the board of $170,000 has now grown to a minimum of $500,000 annually (923.46).  Why the high cost?  The board’s director has the authority to hire employees (130.05; 130.08) who will receive salaries and benefits.  According to the current draft, the funds will be gathered through a commercial feed tax (923.44) called an “inspection fee”.   Thirty cents per ton for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010; thirty five cents per ton for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011; and forty cents per ton for all fiscal years ending after June 30, 2012, with a fifty dollar minimum payment.  This means more paperwork for feed distributors and added cost to those who purchase feed.  And let’s not forget the increased costs to consumers since farmers will have to pass their costs on to the consumer.

What has not been decided yet is how livestock operations (including all horses’ owners) would be regulated and inspected.  Will livestock owners be required to submit records to the board annually?  Will there be unannounced farm inspections to insure that the standards set by the board are being obeyed?  What will be the fines or prison terms for failure to comply with the laws established by the board?  We may soon know all the answers to these questions, but I’m afraid we will not like the answers.  Ohioans are now on the road of state controlled livestock production; farming in our state will never again be the same.

AGRICULTURE GROUPS CONSIDER ANIMAL FEED FEE INCREASE TO FUND NEW LIVESTOCK BOARD

The major agriculture groups that banded together to help pass Issue 2 last fall are now hashing out details of how the newly created Livestock Care Standards Board will operate – and how the agency will be funded.

A draft version of legislation to implement the constitutional amendment would provide $500,000 a year to the new board through a fee hike on commercial livestock feed. The current $0.25 per ton rate would increase to $0.40 per ton over three years.

OLC Editor’s Note:

The Ohio Office of Budget and Management and Ohio Farm Bureau estimated $100,000 to $176,703 and now here we are at $500,000/year.  Watch Keith Stimpert of Ohio Farm Bureau tell us that all of this will be open to public debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzdUugnf4lQ

Senate President Bill Harris (R-Ashland) has identified Issue 2 implementing legislation as a priority for the chamber in the New Year.

OLC Editor’s Note:

Priority is code word for “emergency”.

Keith Stimpert, Ohio Farm Bureau’s senior vice president of public policy, said he hopes the legislature takes up the proposal soon to show voters that farmers are serious about addressing the animal care issue. OFB was a primary supporter of the Issue 2 campaign.

“We want to show the voters of Ohio that this was truly a sincere effort,” he said.

Issue 2 opponents, including the Humane Society of the United States, have said the ballot issue was designed to preempt their effort to impose tougher livestock care regulations. HSUS is considering a separate constitutional amendment campaign this year.

OLC Editor’s Note:

HSUS President, Wayne Pacelle, has stated in his online blog that they “need to launch a ballot initiative” in 2010.

Mr. Stimpert said he has not yet heard of any serious objections to the fee increase proposal from the state’s major agriculture groups.

“I think its got some merit from the standpoint that its an existing activity and we understand that we are going to have to find some dollars to put forth a quality program,” he said.

OLC Editor’s Note:

What was that you said about public debate again?

Another funding option that was considered involved the creation of a new assessment to fund board activities, according to a source involved in the discussions.

One major issue that remains the subject of negotiations is how livestock operations would be regulated and inspected, Mr. Stimpert said.

“The options are: is it completely complaint-driven, is it ongoing and existing inspections, or would there even be a voluntary program where people step forward to do extra stuff in a certification program?” he said. “I think those kinds of things have to be determined yet.”

Contention between small family-owned farmers and large agribusiness operators, which came into play during the Issue 2 campaign, could also color debate over the implementing language. However, Mr. Stimpert was confident that the measure could strike an appropriate balance.

“We want to make sure that there’s no major burden on the smaller farms, yet we also have to acknowledge that we have to achieve a standard of care for all livestock in Ohio,” he said. “I think we can define a protocol here through the work of the board that assures care for the animal, but balances large and small farms.”

In addition to adopting standards of livestock care, the board would also have the authority to establish civil fines for violators, according to the draft legislation.

Mr. Stimpert said the Farm Bureau has been getting requests for assistance from other state organizations that are seeking to address similar animal care issues. “I think we can be a leader here and I think we can assure the consumer that a standard of care exists here in Ohio and that producers are aggressively pursuing that level.”

If you, like me, have been searching for information about the newly established Livestock Care Standards Board you may be in for a wait.  In a recent interview with Robert Boggs, the Chairman of this board (and currently the only member), he stated that the implementing legislation would hopefully begin before the first of the year.  A legislative insider responded with doubts that much would happen soon, since the governor and lawmakers are trying to fill the large hole in the current state budget.

Many questions are still unanswered as to how this board will operate, who will serve, how long their terms will be, the limits of the board’s authority (the article mentioned that horses and fish may be included), what constitutes a “family farm”, and how the board will implement food safety regulations.

After the members are appointed and the implementing legislation is decreed, the board will begin public hearings.  Boggs mentioned that there would be lots of hearings (possibly 6 months worth) to decide the necessary standards to be approved by the board.

The insider stated that most likely these hearings won’t begin until March or April.

Those who have livestock must be active in these hearings to ensure that their right to own and raise livestock is not diminished in any way.  Certainly the HSUS will have representatives at each hearing, as well as the large corporate farms. The small farmer’s voice must be present to keep Amish, organic, and other small farm operations from being stepped on.  We need freedom loving volunteers to speak before this board to ensure that any standards that they impose will be fair and Constitutional.

For now we patiently wait, and care for our livestock just as we have for the past many years, without someone from the state holding our hand, and commanding our livestock care practices.

(A full text transcript of the town hall forum is also available.)

Question 1: Will Issue 2 stop HSUS?

Question 2: Do we expect the standard of living for animals to change over time?

Question 3: Why an amendment to the Ohio Constitution?

Question 4: Won’t this board be subject to special interests?

Question 5: What makes you think we need something like this?

Question 6: Could Issue 2 violate individual rights?

Question 7: Will my children be as free under Issue 2?

Question 8: Why can’t we get rid of property tax?

Question 9: Is your aim to preempt the Ohio Administrative Procedure Act?

Question 10: If you want to protect choice, why combat issue 2?

Question 11: Can your 20 acre farm feed the world?

Question 12: What effect will this issue have on those that raise their own food?

Question 13: Is Issue 2 an intrusion on private property?

Question 14: Why let HSUS set the rules instead of a board?

Question 15: Why should farmers trust this board to represent them?

Question 16: Doesn’t Issue 2 establish what it’s trying to prevent?

Question 17: What is this going to cost?

Question 18: If we vote no, what else can we do?

Question 19: Are we looking to ever ban industrial farming practices?

Question 20: What might the consequences be to farmers that cannot comply?

Question 21: How much will this increase the price of food?

Question 22: Was a farmer’s freedom act considered instead?

Question 23: Is livestock private property?

Question 24: Is the impact on small farms up in the air?

Question 25: Do you want to prevent me from having a future in Ohio agriculture?

Question 26: A regulatory board to save us from regulation?

Question 27: Do you foresee this board circumventing the legislative system?

Statement: “… we do listen to the public … you’ll have your opportunity to voice your opinion — just like you have in the healthcare issue from the federal government”  Click to watch.

Opening Statements:

Natalie Kee, Ohio ACT Coalition (Opposes)

Dr. Leah Dorman, Ohio Farm Bureau (Supports)

Tim Wightman, Dairy Farmer (Opposes)

Keith Stimpert, Ohio Farm Bureau (Supports)

Margaret Anne Ruhl, Ohio District 90 Representative (Supports)

Maurice Thompson, Attorney at Law (Neutral)

Audio: Town Hall audio now available.  Click to listen.

Newspaper: Columbus Dispatch Article, October 20, 2009,  ”Sides clash over livestock rules” – View PDF or Online version

Listen to the audio and compare it to the Dispatch article.  Were more than a few important details left out?  We think so.

Video:

Courtesy of KRose Video, Click here for a Higher resolution video of the Forum

Natalie Kee – Ohio ACT Coalition
Dr. Leah Dorman – Director of Food Programs, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
Tim Wightman – Dairy Farmer
Keith Stimpert - Sr. Vice President of Public Policy, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
Margaret Anne Ruhl – Ohio District 90 Representative, Sponsor HJR-2
Maurice Thompson – Attorney at Law

The event lasted 2 hours, with approximately  1hr 30 minutes of Town Hall questions from attendees.

Watch The Ohio Liberty Council website in the next few days for the full video of the event.  KRose Video captured the entire event, as did The Holmes County Liberty Coalition.

Special thanks to our panel for taking the time to participate in the Town Hall.

On the ballot this November is Issue 2 which would amend the Ohio constitution to create a livestock board appointed by the governor that would set standards for livestock care in Ohio. Some believe this is a way to protect Ohio farmers from out of state special interest groups, while others believe this board is a state power grab that could restrict the rights of Ohio farmers.

The Ohio Liberty Council believes it is important for voters to be as informed as possible about ballot issues before voting to amend the Ohio Constitution. Working with the Ohio Freedom Alliance, The Central Ohio 912 Project, and OSU Young Americans for Liberty, we will be co-sponsoring a town hall forum at the main campus of The Ohio State University on Oct 19 at 8pm.  Click to RSVP.

There will be representatives to discuss all sides of Issue 2, including Maurice Thompson, an expert on Constitutional Law, Roger Wise, president of the Ohio Farmers Union, Tim Wightman, president of Farm to Consumer Foundation, Keith Stimpert of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, and one of our state representatives who is a co-sponsor of issue 2.  We’d like to note that an invitation was extended to Robert Boggs, the Director of Agriculture for the State of Ohio who declined.  As additional representatives are confirmed we will update this post.

If you have a question about issue 2 and you are planning to attend the Issue 2 Town Hall Forum, you can submit your question at the bottom of this posting.

Spread the word and help inform Ohio voters about this important issue!

RSVP here

Details
October 19, 8pm
Ohio State University Independence Hall
Building 338
1923 Neil Ave Mall
Columbus, OH 43210

Flier with parking information

Resources
Amendment Text
Ohio Liberty Council Email Bulletin
Postings in Support of Issue 2: Ohio Farm Bureau, Ballot Argument in Favor
Postings in Opposition of Issue 2: Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover, Ballot Argument Against

Audio: Issue 2 Impacts on Farmer’s Rights, 10/9/2009, Clint Zeigler of Ohio Freedom Alliance and Warren Edstrom of Knox County 912 Project

Submit a Question about Issue 2

Question submission is now closed.  Thank you for your interest in the Issue 2 Town Hall Forum.