ND's Proposal 5 (Hint: HSUS Wrote It!) - The Farmer's Daughter USA

Hint: Click on the picture to read it.

North Dakota sure has a lot going on when it comes to ballot proposals this election cycle. Remember, I wrote about Measure 3 (vote yes!) that protects farmers and ranchers ability to use modern technology and practices. It turns out that ND voters will also have to decide on Measure 5, a ballot proposal written and supported by HSUS.

Upon first reading the proposal, it doesn’t seem to be all that scary or radical:

“This measure would make it a class C felony for an individual to maliciously and intentionally harm a living dog, cat or horse and provide a court with certain sentencing options. The measure would not apply to production agriculture, or to lawful activities of hunters and trappers, licensed veterinarians, scientific researchers, or to individuals engaged in lawful defense of life or property.”

You can read the full text of Measure 5 (the actual law) here.

So, what’s the problem?

For one thing, the law is incredibly vague. It also is not a comprehensive act (it only protects dogs, cats, and horses…huh?). It also doesn’t make any sense for the state.

Here’s an example:

Suppose a horse owner has an aging, sick animal. This measure would expose that owner to legal liability if the horse were euthanized without a veterinarian present.

Now, if you’ve ever had occasion to visit or spend time in North Dakota, you’d agree with the joke about a 150-mile run to the store. Veterinarians—heck, people—tend to be few and far between in the Flickertail State (that’s its nickname; look it up) and paying for hundreds of miles of travel so the vet can spend five minutes administering an injections makes no sense. (Source: Pork Network)

The proposed law doesn’t take into consideration the realities of ND. It also doesn’t define concepts like customary agricultural practices, leaving it to the courts to figure out. Since when does a judge know what a customary practice for agriculture is? Trust me, they don’t learn that in law school. Instead, the proposal randomly picks a couple types of animals and tries to make the whole thing look fuzzy and warm.

But all that vagueness makes ND’s agriculture, hunting, and veterinarian community a little worried. The fear is that HSUS will somehow use the new law to gain a foothold in the state. Whether they later use the language of the law for litigation, or add to it with future ballot proposals, the result is not good for the industry. With HSUS’s history of multi-million dollar litigation against farmers and ranchers, it’s no wonder this isn’t a very welcome solution to the supposed animal cruelty in the state.

The leader of the opposition group, ND Animal Stewards, suggest an alternative. If passed the ballot proposal could only be amended by the state legislature with a 2/3 vote. Rather than allow such a vague and ambiguous piece of legislation to be almost amendment-proof, ask the legislature to address the issue and write a comprehensive law that would deal with the issue. And, most importantly, keep HSUS out of the process.

“We definitely want to protect the animals,” said Jason Schmidt, chairman of the N.D. Animal Stewards and a rancher near Medina, N.D “We deal with them everyday, they are our livelihood. We need the animals to be healthy and safe, we also need the people that care for those animals to be protected.”

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying.