Paragraph 6: "Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) will issue a statement in support of the mission and purpose of the OLCSB and will engage and work with the Board. Organizations representing Ohioans for Livestock Care and the HSUS will examine and jointly fund independent research projects and studies to identify best practices and to work for the highest farm animal care and welfare standards. If assistance of a third party is needed they will jointly agree on a representative to help in these discussions. When this work is complete, the findings will be presented to the OLCSB."
This term is a big loss compared to the ballot initiative, which doesn't say anything about HSUS supporting or working with the OLCSB. According to the OLCSB website, the purpose of the OLCSB is "establishing a uniform set of standards governing the care and well-being of livestock in Ohio that maintains food safety, encourages locally grown and raised food and protects Ohio farms and families." The standards for the well-being of livestock in Ohio have nothing to do with concerns for the animals - only farms and (presumably human) families. So as long as the food supply is safe, the OLCSB doesn't care how much the animals suffer. It doesn't make sense for HSUS to support the purpose of this organization, which has nothing to do with animal protection.
Paragraph 7: "Recommendation will be made to the OLCSB for current hog producers and to phase out the use of gestation crates by December 31, 2025. By that date time all sows must be housed using alternative systems. After December 31, 2010, any new facilities must utilize alternative sow housing (not gestation crates). It is understood that in all housing systems, sows may be housed in breeding/gestation stalls until they are confirmed pregnant."
This term is another loss compared to the ballot initiative, which would've banned gestation crates by 2016.
Paragraph 8: "Recommendation will be made to the OLCSB to adopt standards to instruct ODA to deny permits of new egg facility applicants, based on current permitting standards that call for the use of battery cages. This standard will be in effect for the life of this agreement. This provision does not preclude any Ohio farm from expanding or modifying existing permits, using current housing methods at the existing facility."
This term was HSUS's biggest concession in the compromise. The ballot initiative would've banned battery cages by 2016, but this term of the compromise will allow current facilities to continue using battery cages indefinitely. Although new facilities will be prohibited from opening, this term affects only applications dated after December 31, 2010, so at least one egg farm, which is expected to be the largest in the state with 6 million chickens, will be trying to get its paperwork together by the end of the year to be grandfathered in forever.
Paragraph 9: "HSUS will also not initiate litigation (nuisance or otherwise) to attempt to use legal process to obtain the same ends as articulated in the ballot initiative in Ohio through the life of this agreement. HSUS will not fund, advise or otherwise support other organizations to move forward in their place."
This term is, of course, missing from the ballot initiative and is a loss for the animal protection side. This means that if HSUS believes that battery cages violate Ohio's animal cruelty statute, HSUS will not be allowed to sue in order to try to ban battery cages in the courts.
Paragraph 10: "The HSUS will not submit a constitutional amendment on animal welfare in 2010 to the Ohio Secretary of State. Failure to implement the provisions related to wild and dangerous animals or the reforms recommended to the OLCSB by December 31, 2010 could void the agreement and allow the HSUS to pursue a ballot initiative whenever it chooses. However, if the terms of this agreement are met and implemented to the satisfaction of all parties, the agreement will extend to January 1, 2014. At that time the agreement shall be extended through January 1, 2017, and subsequently through January 1, 2020, if the terms continue to be met, and no party shall reasonably withhold its consent to the extensions. Any future pursuit of a ballot initiative by HSUS could nullify the limitation on gestation crate or battery cage facilities until and unless other lawful prohibitions come to exist."
This term is also missing from the ballot initiative, of course. It's not clear whether HSUS is prohibited from submitting a ballot initiative on any animal protection issue, or just ballot initiatives with a constitutional amendment. The only reason HSUS would submit a constitutional amendment would be for a farmed animal issue, so whether HSUS would be prohibited from submitting a ballot initiative on, for example, hunting, is unclear from this language.
