Article published October 30, 2009
Put no-kill shelter in the county
I am outraged at what is happening at the Lucas County dog warden's facility.
A few months ago I found a beautiful black lab pup roaming the street in front of my office building. Since I already have three dogs, I called the Toledo Humane Society and was told there was no room there. I was told to call the dog warden. I explained I did not want to do that as they put dogs down after so many days. The person there reassured me that they no longer euthanize the animals and that it would be OK to have them pick this pooch up and find it a new home.
It breaks my heart to know that I put this poor creature into the hands of Tom Skeldon to be put down at his whim and can only wonder and pray that this beautiful pup is in a good home.
What is happening is just another black eye for Toledo and a shining example of the nepotism that takes place. Having worked at a no-kill shelter, it is inconceivable and heart breaking that so many animals are being put down. The no-kill movement is tremendously successful and no-kill shelters are being implemented all around the world. One only need look on the Internet and connect with one of these groups to create a model that could be followed here.
We do not need to be killing homeless animals. This practice is from the Dark Ages and should be stopped immediately. We need a leader at the shelter with new energy and modern ideas. A lot of compassion and a little research and we could have a dog warden to be proud of.
Marylyn LucasNorthwood Issue 2 will only grow government
Don't be fooled by the misleading information being put forth in support of Issue 2. This legislation has no place in our state constitution, and has nothing to do with food safety.
Issue 2 will expand government at a time when we can't afford to do so. It will amend the Ohio Constitution unnecessarily, giving constitutional protection to factory farms and circumventing the democratic process that is essential to American government.
If passed, the legislation will create an "animal care standards board" to allow agri-business to write its own rules. While Issue 2 proponents claim that family farms and animal-welfare interests will be represented, nowhere does this murky piece of legislation define the term "family farm." This convenient omission belies the fact that even privately owned factory farms, with rows and rows of livestock crammed into cages that never see the light of day, could theoretically be called "family farms."
Additionally, there is no requirement that any member of the board have any specific expertise in animal welfare. It will be no surprise when this new layer of government becomes a rubber stamp for factory-farming interests, giving the advantage to mega-farms that engage in cheap, inhumane practices while punishing the already struggling family farm.
Issue 2 is not about food safety or animal welfare. In fact, it is an attempt by big agri-business to prevent those issues from being debated or decided by the citizens of Ohio. Keep these issues in the light, and in our public debate - vote no on Issue 2.
Liz Owens Boltz
Kershaw AvenueKeep government out of farming
It's puzzling to me why Ohio farmers and farming organizations would support a constitutional amendment to create a board that would tell them how to run their business.
Are they really so afraid of the vegetarian loonies of the Humane Society of the United States that they would rush to give up their liberty to conduct their own business? Are they afraid that the nonfarming residents of the state will buy into emotional distortions about the treatment of farm animals and pass laws regulating how their food is raised?
Perhaps the nonfarmers would, but they should consider how disingenuous it is to try to force someone else to make sure a farm animal is happy before they eat it.
There are already animal cruelty laws but, besides that, livestock farmers must treat their animals well in order for them to flourish and provide a profit.
People really have the ultimate power over raising farm animals. Don't eat them if you object to how they are raised, and if enough people don't eat them, they won't be.
Ohioans also should consider how much they would like the government's nose in their business before voting to put it in the farmers' business. There's plenty of government intervention to go around as it is without creating even more. Or perhaps it is simply a case of follow the money.
It's possible that Ohio farmers see this as a chance to create a government entity that will make regulations favorable to them and debilitating to the factory farms and thus gain an advantage out of the hyped up fear of the Humane Society of the United States.
In any case, creating constitutional amendments that increase government power and decrease personal liberty should be looked at with great suspicion.
Victor Price
BerkeyNobody wants a mayor who pouts
The recent debate between Oregon Mayor Marge Brown and Councilman Seferian was very informative.
Mr. Seferian started out by saying he was a "gifted speaker." Frankly, it would have been interesting to see and hear that side of him. He spent a great deal of time talking in circles and what appeared to be trying to compose his thoughts. He also spoke of his openness and his ability to get along with everyone.
After the debate, I approached Mr. Seferian and asked if he believed so much in the city of Oregon, why was it that the business he referred to frequently during the debate was still located in Toledo? His response was that it started there in 1947. A short time later he stated he couldn't afford to move the business to Oregon.
The climax to the evening occurred when, after my question to Mr. Seferian his response was, "Why doesn't the mayor own a house in Oregon?"
My answer, "Why would an older widow want to own a house at all?" I was going to mention that while Mrs. Brown does not own a home, she lives in the city. Unfortunately, I couldn't make my last statement because Mr. Seferian abruptly turned and walked away without another comment. Is this what Oregon wants?
Marie Kochczynski
OregonGambling is not government's role
I see where 2 percent of respondents in one surveyare against Issue 3, which means that 98 percent do not understand the function of a constitution or, worse, don't care.
A quick check of ourstate constitution reveals that it contains 18 major articles. These include a bill of rights,the establishment of the three branches of state government, the handling of elections, education, militia, and so on.
In a nutshell, a constitution is a broad set of principles, regulations, and rules by which we govern ourselves. No matter how attractively the casino amendment is packaged and sold, it falls welloutside the accepted role and purpose of a governing document. Vote no.
Gene Monroe
Queenswood BoulevardCasino math just does not add up
If we do the simple math of Issue 3, the state gets 33 cents for every dollar of revenue and loses 67 cents. When has that kind of math or investment logic ever made any dollars or sense? How many sporting events does a team or individual win when they give up two points for every one point they score? The casino corporations may have good intentions, but the formula for success in their business dictates that the customer gives up a lot more than they take in. The math, which is our money, just doesn't add up.
Greg Wack
Hicksville
Permanent Link
|
|
 |
|
Search
advertisement
