Discussion in 'Goat Frenzy' started by ohiogoatgirl, Mar 4, 2011.

  1. ohiogoatgirl

    ohiogoatgirl New Member

    Jan 31, 2010
  2. klingshirnm

    klingshirnm New Member

    Mar 3, 2011
    I believe most of those people are reading too deep into it. I could be wrong, but the mud part is, I believe, just the fact that they just want to say thyat you can't have your goats in a pasture and have deep mud that isn't passable. They need to be able to access shelter and food and water and not get stuck on one side of the pasture and can't get to the other. Now onto the milking, I take that as milk that is being sold in any manner. I know it is illegal to sell raw milk in Ohio, but that just covers the people who try and sell for pet-use only. This is only my take on this, and I know some feel governments are trying to take freedoms away, but I sometimes find myself looking at both sides.

  3. jodief100

    jodief100 New Member

    Jan 15, 2011
    When I vote, I choose to vote for someone who wishes to REPRESENT me, not take care of me. Until more people do the same thing, we will continually be stuck with these ridiculous, overreaching, insane legislation passed by ignorant fools who know NOTHING about livestock ( or firearms, or business, or medicine, or etc…. Take your pick) and feel they need to protect us from ourselves.

    Even those of us who do not live in Ohio need to stand up against this restrictive mandate. If it passes in Ohio then it will be precedence everywhere!
    Make your voice heard, stand up and shout “I do not need YOU to protect me from myself” If the government can decide they can protect us from ourselves, who is going to protect us from the government?
  4. Goat Crazy

    Goat Crazy New Member

    Feb 8, 2010
    NE Ohio
    At the bottom of the page, with all the rules, its say's
    If selling milk, the responsible party’s dairy goat herd health must be in compliance with Chapter 901:11-2-09 of the Administrative Code."
    So that means only people selling milk have to meet these standereds, right?
  5. lissablack

    lissablack New Member

    Nov 30, 2009
    Yes it is about selling milk. Most states have pretty rigorous rules about it, and it is largely because of pressure from the big dairies, who have a very powerful lobby. However, if you lived in a place where you couldn't produce your own food, wouldn't you want the government to at least try to ensure that you could assume the food you buy is safe to eat?

    I love being able to produce some of my own food, but I lived in cities most of my life, and people there don't have the options we do. We are really lucky, and that doesn't mean we should be able to sell whatever we want with no oversight to people who have no control over their food supply.

    In NM the rules for raw milk are so rigid it might as well be illegal under all circumstances. You can't sell it for pet consumption either. I guess some people do goat shares and think that is legal, I don't know. I don't know what the rules are here for selling pasteurized milk.

  6. StaceyRosado

    StaceyRosado Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Oct 4, 2007
    Jan I think you make a good point there. :thumb:
  7. jodief100

    jodief100 New Member

    Jan 15, 2011
    There is a requrement that "if milking" the milking parlor must conform to certain standards. I looked them up, it is essentially the standards a Class A dairy needs to conform to. That statement has no clause about selling the milk. It says if milking- period. Not milikng for resale, not milking for consumptiom. Just milking. The intention may be for selling milk but that si not how it is written.

    As far as reading too much into it, the letter of the law will be enforeced, not it's intention. So you had better make sure it is WRITTEN properly to begin with. This one is full of inexact statements and vauge requirements that can and will be interpereted to suit whatever someone wishes it be.

    Thsi particualr law is not supposed to be about food saftey, it is supposed to be about animal welfare and it accomplishes neither. All it does is add burdonsome regulation on an industry already with tight profit margins.
  8. Goat Crazy

    Goat Crazy New Member

    Feb 8, 2010
    NE Ohio
    Oops, I just re-read it. I was reading it wrong :oops:
    When is this suppose to be passed and taken in to effect?
  9. WarPony

    WarPony New Member

    Jan 31, 2010
    This is a good point, but I don't think the two things are mutually exclusive.

    I think the government can regulate what is available to people who can't grow their own without completely outlawing small local producers. The big companies that market to large retailers in urban settings would still have the same inspections and guidelines, based on amount of production and distance to markets. Small local producers would be required to sell from their home or within a 100 mile radius, remain under a certain amount of production, and have everything clearly labeled with warning labels that it wasn't pasteurized or was manufactured in a home dairy/kitchen. Then let the consumer choose for themselves.

    If everything is clearly marked and the consumer is making the choice for themselves i don't see where it is Uncle Sam's business if I buy something produced by my neighbor if I know the risks and still want to buy from them. It directly feeds my local economy, it benefits my neighbor and myself, it isn't putting anyone else at risk because my neighbor isn't selling things to someone in the city 500 miles away who can't see where the stuff came from.

    This kind of legislation effectively prevents small local producers from marketing their product while enabling the big producers to force consumers to buy their product no matter where they live. I'm watching my small farming community die around me as more of this legislation gets passed. It breaks my heart. We have what amounts to a black market bartering system going on around here these days, lol. It's ludicrous the hoops people jump through to get their illegal milk.

    On the FDA's own web site they stated in an informational page about raw milk that 800 people had become sick drinking raw milk since 1998. Accord to the CDC's web site (table 2 listed all the standard pathogens that cause food poisoning):

    "Overall, the pathogens listed in Table 2 cause an estimated 181,177 hospitalizations each year, of which 60,854 are attributable to foodborne transmission (Table 3)."

    That is annually... and 800 illnesses total were cause by raw milk in 13 years according to FDA, which would average out to what, around 65 a year? But the CDC says 60,854 illness in total were caused by food borne illness each year!

    I really don't see where the danger here is serious enough to warrant this kind of legislative effort unless they have some other motive for wanting to drive small producers out of business. If it IS major enough to warrant this kind of legislation than there are a LOT of other things that are making a lot more people sick that they need to focus on as well!