On June 30, 2010, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland; Jack Fisher, Executive Vice President of the Ohio Farm Bureau; and Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of The Humane Society of the US announced a compromise and HSUS's abandonment of a ballot initiative on animal agriculture reforms that would've appeared on the November, 2010 ballot in Ohio. Let's look at the 10 paragraphs of the compromise agreement and analyze what was gained and lost compared to the proposed ballot initiative.


The The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board was created by a ballot initiative in 2009 which put the OLCSB into the Ohio state constitution, so that there could be no other state laws or regulations set for the care of farmed animals, short of another constitutional amendment. The proposed 2010 ballot initiative would have been a constitutional amendment requiring certain reforms for farmed animals.

Some of the terms of the compromise are phrased in terms of "recommendations" to the OLCSB, and the OLCSB is free to disregard the recommendations. If that should happen, HSUS will be free to pursue another ballot initiative, as explained in paragraph 10 of the compromise.

It should be noted that while this compromise was entered into by HSUS, dozens of different groups and individuals comprise Ohioans for Humane Farms, the group behind the intiative. The compromise does not bind any of the other organizations or activists, although HSUS was the main force behind the initiative.

Paragraph 1: "Recommendations will be made to The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board (OLCSB) to take action on issues related to downer cattle and humane euthanasia using language consistent with the proposed ballot initiative."

This paragraph on downer cattle and humane euthanasia will provide the same protections as the ballot initiative, which requires using methods of euthanasia deemed acceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association, and prohibits strangulation of cows and pigs. It should be noted that the US Department of Agriculture already prohibits the slaughter of downed cattle, but a state ban is useful in case the federal ban is ever overturned.
Paragraph 2: "The Ohio Department of Agriculture and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources will coordinate and take action on wild and dangerous animals including the prohibition of the sale and/or possession of big cats, bears, primates, large constricting and venomous snakes and alligators and crocodiles. Existing owners will be grandfathered in, but they could not breed or obtain new animals."

The ballot initiative is silent on this issue, so this ban on exotic pets is a gain compared to the ballot initiative. The legislature could ignore this recommendation, but if that should happen, HSUS would be free to pursue a ballot initiative as provided in paragraph 10 of the agreement.

Paragraph 3: "Recommendations will be made to the legislature to support and pass SB 95 largely in the current form, which regulates dog breeding kennels."

The main purpose of SB 95 is to regulate puppy mills. This is another term that is missing from the ballot initiative, so it's another pure gain, although it does not prohibit puppy mills. Although the compromise is not binding on the legislature, the bill is likely to pass because of the governor's support of the compromise. But unlike the provision on exotic pets, if the legislatore fails to pass this bill, there's nothing HSUS can do.

Paragraph 4: "Recommendations will be made to the legislature to support and pass HB 108, which will increase penalties on individuals who engage in cockfighting."

This is yet another term that is not in the ballot initiative. Cockfighting is already illegal in Ohio, but increasing penalties may act as a further incentive to stop the practice. Again, the legislature is not bound by this agrement, since it has the governor's support, the bill is likely to pass. But unlike the provision on exotic pets, if the legislatore fails to pass this bill, there's nothing HSUS can do.

Paragraph 5: "Recommendations will be made to the OLCSB to adopt the American Veal Association 2007 agreement to transition to group housing for veal calves by 2017."

The AVA has voluntarily decided to phase out veal crates by 2017, but this is a voluntary measure. The AVA could change its mind, so making it mandatory is an improvement over the AVA measure. However, compared to the ballot initiative, this term of the compromise is a loss. If passed in November of 2010, the ballot initiative would've banned veal crates a year earlier.