Response from Edie

I checked OFBF repeatedly through the night and finally received response for my comments yesterday. For those of you who don't know, the link below is the petition being circulated by the HSUS. Please view the response and my discussion.

Edie Olson:
Thank you for your response Benjamin. I can definitely see where you are coming from and it makes sense.

https://hsus.salsalabs.com/o/17002/images/OH%202010%20language.pdf

I can see how your statement applies to #1. Ok, you want some evidence/scientific reasoning that those accommodations so-to-speak would benefit the animal. I can see that. ... See More

#2 and #3, do you really need scientific evidence to be in favor of those? One deals with not being able to hang or strangulate an animal in order to kill it. Surely farmers have some better options already available. #3 disallows downed animals for transport or human consumption. I'm in favor of that one definitely!! It's hard for me to imagine that someone wouldn't be and would need more proof for that one.

Are these truly such renegade proposals? Would there be anything wrong with farmers addressing these specific proposals and why they don't support them and/or why they feel they do not follow a rational approach as well as what more science-base they would need in order to support such proposals? I would be interested in knowing their view. For example, I definitely don't want animals being hung/strangulated in order to kill them but I would have to know what farmers are facing in regards to this. If there is an issue, I don't know what it is but would like to know.

To be fair, there are quite a few organizations that back this initiative although I am unsure if you consider them all to be "biased" or they carry a negative connotation such as HSUS seems to for a lot of people here. I am unfamiliar with HSUS and horse slaughter. I will look into it. Again, thank you for discussing this topic with me.


Me:
Edie. I appreciate your respect for my discussion.

I believe you fail to recognize that the #2 and #3 on your link are not the big ticket items to this petition. From my personal experience with the livestock industry, it is my understanding that we do not consume downer cattle anyway, nor is strangulation and acceptable means of euthanasia. Instead, this euthanasia clause is meant to gain emotional subscribers based on footage shot from a facility in Ohio which is old news now.

Your comment about #1 needing rational and scientific justification duplicates my feelings on the issue. Until this research finds suitable answers (and research in this area is very difficult, but currently ongoing) I would prefer that legislation not be forced upon a committee before we have truthful verdicts on how we can best improve animal well-being. Additionally, this wording provides no clear understanding of what is actually being required. Without defined goals on how animal welfare will be improved, it is obvious that this is idealistic and emotionally written merely to gain a momentum vote which then proceeds to leave animal considerations by the wayside after the vote is passed and HSUS and their kind proceed to the next state. No true improvements can be made in animal well-being by an out-of-state activist group who has no apparent legitimate interest in animal well-being or the state in which they are campaigning. I see that there need to be improvements in animal well-being, but I would rather that these come with deliberate actions within the State of Ohio by those appointed with authority due to their experience to make these decisions.