# KFYR RADIO, MEASURE No. 5 (animal cruelty) Interview



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

While I was chisel plowing the other day I had the radio on tuned to KFYR (Bismarck), where the announcer was doing a so called "panel discussion" on ND initiated measure 5 (animal cruelty). It was a snow job if I ever heard one. The announcer had only invited the Vote No folks, no one from the Vote Yes was allowed. Strike one.

These were the head honchos for "Vote No" on the radio. The top tier. One said the language was too narrow in scope. The other said the language was too general. The radio announcer agreed. WTF. :eyeroll: Strike two.

The one speaker said money for the measure is coming in from out of state. Like every political tv commercial isn't funded from out of state. Are they against that too..... no, just for this measure. Hummmm... Strike three.

Both speakers said that for years the ND farm orgs have been working on a comprehensive animal cruelty bill that would be far better than measure 5. They just haven't been able to agree on wording, so no bill passed yet. Think about that. Do some critical thinking here....... These farm orgs have been in existence well over 50 years. Animal cruelty laws have been passed by 48 other states over the last 100 years. And ND farm orgs can't come up with wording? How incompetent are they? Strike four.

And of course the farm orgs that have been punching sportsmen in the nose legislatively for ten years, are now, you guessed it, PROTECTING HUNTING!!!!!! by demanding a VOTE NO. Never mind that there is not a word about hunting or anything that would affect hunting in the measure. Talk about desperate. Strike five.

The panelists said that if passed the measure would prevent better legislation in the future. Not true. There can be any number of statutes on a subject. Strike six.

The panelists said that not enough animals are included in the language (only dogs cats and horses are) and thus more could never be added. Not true. We expand and modify statute language all the time. Look at our hunting laws, dozens come into the legislature every session. Strike seven.

Another lie told on the radio that day was that an owner couldn't put his own animal down without a veterinarian. Not true. Strike eight.

Both the panelists and the announcer somehow forgot to mention that recent polling by KVLY and WDAY show the "Vote Yes" vote in large majority over the "Vote No" position. I suppose when you're beating the drum it's hard to hear the real music.

You get the idea.

If nothing else, before you vote on #5, read the whole measure language below and make up your own mind.

*INITIATED STATUTORY MEASURE No. 5

FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE*

*IF MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED, IT IS NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING ADDED. IF MATERIAL IS OVERSTRUCK BY DASHES, THE MATERIAL IS BEING DELETED. IF MATERIAL IS NOT UNDERSCORED OR OVERSTRUCK, THE MATERIAL IS EXISTING LAW THAT IS NOT BEING CHANGED. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:*

SECTION 1. Section 36--‐21.1--‐02.1 Of The North Dakota Century Code Is Created And Enacted As follows:

36--‐21.1--‐02.1 Aggravated Animal Cruelty-Prevention Of Extreme Cruelty To Dogs, Cats, And Horses Act

1. Any Individual Who Maliciously And Intentionally burns, poisons, crushes, suffocates, impales, drowns, blinds, skins, Beats To death, Drags To death, exsanguinates, disembowels, Or Dismembers Any Living dog, cat, Or Horse Is Guilty Of A Class C felony.

2. The Prohibition In Subsection 1 Of This Section Does Not Apply to:

a. Hunting, trapping, fishing, Or Any Other Activity That Requires A License Or Permit Under Chapter 20.1--‐03;

b. The Marking Of An Animal For Identification, And Any Other Activity That Is A Usual And Customary Practice In Production Agriculture;

c. Examination, Testing, Individual Treatment, Operation, Or Euthanasia Performed By Or Under The Supervision Of A Licensed veterinarian;

d. Lawful Medical Or Scientific Research Conducted At A Public Or Private Facility Or Laboratory By Or Under The Direction Of A Qualified Researcher;

e. Any Lawful Activity Undertaken To Protect A Person's Life Or Property From A Serious Threat Caused By A Dog, Cat, Or Horse; and

f. Any Other Lawful Activity Exempt From The Definition Of "'cruelty' Or 'torture'" Contained In Section 36--‐21.1--‐01.

3. In Addition To Any Imprisonment Or fine, Or both, Ordered Pursuant To Chapter 12.1--‐32, Any Individual Who Violates Subsection 1 Of This Section Also may, At The Discretion Of The court, be:

a. Ordered To Undergo Mandatory Psychological Or Psychiatric Evaluation And Obtain Psychological counseling, Including Counseling In Responsible Pet Ownership Or Animal Cruelty prevention, For Which The Person Shall Bear Any Costs
Incurred; and
b. Ordered Not To Own Or Possess A dog, cat, Or Horse For Up To Five Years After The Date Of The Sentencing.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

forgot to add this: https://vip.sos.nd.gov/BallotMeasurePortal.aspx link to the ND SOS website for measure 5 and the others on the ballot.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have debated this some on fishingbuddy. I was going to vote no. However, there is one fellow over there constantly making a fool of himself that is voting no. That in itself is giving me pause to reconsider.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I'm not telling folks how to vote on this measure. I would hope people vote with their conscience. The thing that PO'd me was the blatant disregard for the intelligence of the radio audience by KFYR (Bismarck) radio station. KFYR allowed no call-ins. It was just a bare bones Vote No propaganda advertisement disguised as a talk show. I had higher expectations from KFYR.

Last week KFGO's (Fargo) Joel Heitkamp did a real panel discussion on measure 5 with both sides presenting their views. He didn't slant the questions, he made them both toe the mark, he gave them equal time, and he allowed call-ins to ask questions. He made sure it was well done.

And the farm orgs need to be taken to task. If they had competent policy makers and board members this legislation would have been done in a proper manner years ago. They would have preempted others from stepping in. If you can't get the oatmeal on the table, somebody else will.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Dick Monson,

So what you do not approve of is these radio stations let certain farm orgs have a run away on the radio. The propondants of measure 5 were not allowed or invited to get equal time to defend themselves??????

Where's the beef? (pun intended)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug/Fritz, it does leave some distrust. Do you want to know both sides about Libya or just Obama's? I still think I am voting no on measure #5, but not hearing anything from the other side does create some distrust for me. On another site it's mostly pro agriculture people and I have asked for opinions from fellow hunters.

Say, how much out of state money is coming in to fight measure #5? I don't mind if there is, but the agriculture interests more often say they don't want out of state money. Don't most measures on both sides often get out of state money. The only reason I can see for not liking it is if you have the legislature in your pocket, or at least think you do.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Several animal and veterinary organizations in North Dakota have banded together as the North Dakota Animal Stewards (NDAS) to fight Measure 5, a ballot initiative slated for the November elections.
> 
> The proposed ballot initiative is being pushed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which is rankling North Dakotans who believe the state's own citizens and animal experts should decide what is best for animal care in the state, and not outside special interest groups.
> 
> The NDAS is a group composed of the North Dakota Stockmen's Association, North Dakota Farm Bureau, North Dakota Farmers Union, North Dakota Lamb & Wool Producers Association, North Dakota Pork Council, North Dakota Deer Ranchers Association, Humane Society Fargo-Moorhead, North Dakota Elk Growers, the Milk Producers Association of North Dakota and other animal stakeholders.


Isn't the HSUS the same outfit that funded Dick Monson's failed High Fence measure? Of course you feel that way Dick


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

While ND could use an animal cruelty law ,this is not it. One of the biggest issues it does not address is neglect. This is an issue that is seen far more than physical abuse..... As a city employee I see this a lot. Animals left out day after day with no shelter, tired up on a short lease in an area so covered in crap that they can't move without stepping or laying in it, animals tied in a manner that they entangle themselves day after day, animals suffering from lack of food, and etc. These are things I see weekly but we have no enforcement action available. I don't see where this adresses any of those issues...... Untill they address neglect I will vote NO........... Under this law you can prosecute someone who beats his horses but can't do anything if he starves them.......... What does this law really accomplish ???????????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

dakotashooter2 that is an excellent point. I think I will vote against measure #5 myself, but the guys on another site I post to are so narrow minded they could nearly push me the other way. Not out of spite, but out of worry they wield to much power through organizations like North Dakota Farm Bureau. An example is measure #3 which would make it against the state constitution to form any new laws against modern agriculture. Or some such wording. I would not put it past a couple of them to help fund measure #5 in the hopes of enough backlash to get #3.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

dakotashooter2 said:


> While ND could use an animal cruelty law ,this is not it. One of the biggest issues it does not address is neglect. This is an issue that is seen far more than physical abuse..... As a city employee I see this a lot. Animals left out day after day with no shelter, tired up on a short lease in an area so covered in crap that they can't move without stepping or laying in it, animals tied in a manner that they entangle themselves day after day, animals suffering from lack of food, and etc. These are things I see weekly but we have no enforcement action available. I don't see where this adresses any of those issues...... Untill they address neglect I will vote NO........... Under this law you can prosecute someone who beats his horses but can't do anything if he starves them.......... What does this law really accomplish ???????????


If #5 gets voted down as a no, the legislature will say the public has spoken on the issue. End of story.

If #5 passes with a yes, certain cases of torture are outlawed with a felony penalty. Is that not an accomplishment?

Ask yourselves why this coalition of animal stewards (there is a euphemism) has not gotten proper legislation for neglect into law? They do not want it, will not support it, and have no intention of presenting it. They are sandbagging the public by saying they have a better idea that can be brought forward later.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Is this law something we really need?

ND Century code 36-21.1: http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t36c21-1.pdf

In part, if you want to read the whole thing follow the link.



> *Defintions:*
> 2. "Adequate care" means normal and prudent attention to the needs of an animal,
> including wholesome food, clean water, shelter, and health care, as necessary to
> maintain good health in a specific species of animal.
> ...


There is lots more, but I'm not going to waste bandwidth. Violation of this section is a class A Misdemeanor unless the act is a cockfight, dogfight, etc., then it is a class C Felony.

So, again, why do we need this new law? We cannot get the prosecutors to file charges under the current law, and if they do the judges tend to let them go with a slap on the wrist. What is this new law going to do to change this? What we really need is prosecutors who are willing to file charges and press for the maximum penalties in these cases.

I see this as nothing more than the HSUS trying to get their foot in the door here in ND. Once they start dictating how our laws should read we are in trouble.

Like most new laws this is a law that is not needed. What we need is the legislature to strongly insist that our prosecutors and judges enforce the laws that we have.

huntin1


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Part of the difference is that the old law maxes out as a misdemeanor penalty while the measure 5 makes torturing animals a class C felony. Much easier for prosecutors to let a misdemeanor slide than a felony. But I sure agree with huntin 1 that the current law isn't enforced either. And that is our fault as citizens.

Jamestown Sun on #5 today: http://www.jamestownsun.com/event/artic ... roup/News/


> North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring, part of a coalition of interests favoring legislative action over the initiated measure, said he wasn't surprised to learn that the poll showed likely voters favoring the measure, 55 percent to 39 percent.
> 
> "That probably sounds right," Goehring said. "It's primarily because of the way the measure is written. If you aren't knowledgeable about where it came from and how it would work, who would vote against it? You'd look like some sick individual who wanted to abuse animals."





> Goehring worked with a coalition of farm and ranch groups, veterinarians, animal shelters and others to prepare a bill increasing penalties for the worst cases of animal cruelty for submission to the 2013 Legislature.
> 
> There was an attempt during the 2011 session to pass such a law, but the effort stalled. North Dakota and South Dakota are the only states without a felony animal abuse penalty.
> 
> "There was more work that needed to be done," Goehring said. "There wasn't enough time prior to the Legislature meeting."


Gee whizz, they couldn't just copy the homework of one of the other 48 states that passed a law? How ineffective were these people? They didn't get the meal on the table and now they are ****** that someone else peeled the potatoes.

For sportsmen who are so afraid of HSUS, think about the area you hunt in ND.

Who passed the drain tile law in ND? Wasn't HSUS.
Who pushes land use policy to destroy the habiat? Wasn't HSUS.
Who always supports commercial hunting and massive land leasing for hunting? Isn't HSUS.
Who attempsts to block every public land purchase for conservation? Isn't HSUS.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

I believe Dick Monson just came out of the closet.


----------



## Rick Acker (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm very surprised Dick that you feel so strongly about this law passing...Sounds like it will, however most sportsman that I've talked to are against it.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Didn't take long at all to track down Dicks oat meal on the table story. Turns out Cynthia Feland wrote the language to the bill that nobody liked. 2011 legislative session.

No real champion
for the animals
By Cameo Skager,
CDHS Board President

http://www.cdhs.net/data/upfiles/pdf/CD ... RFinal.pdf

I initially started writing this article by
lamenting about the fact that no legislator
stepped up to sponsor a felony animal cruelty
bill during the 2011 North Dakota legislative
session. Then, on the last day to sponsor bills,
This bill is NOT the bill that CDHS helped
to formulate this past summer and fall. At that
time we were asked to participate in rewriting
the law about animal cruelty. Cynthia Feland,
then Bismarck's Assistant State's Attorney,
crafted the language, making it a class
C felony violation to be cruel to animals
(defined in several different ways).
Sitting at the table during these meetings
were representatives from CDHS, FM
Humane Society in Fargo, Farm Bureau,
Farmer's Union, North Dakota Stockmen's
Association, North Dakota Department of
Agriculture (State Veterinarian), the North
Dakota Veterinary Medical Association and
many other farm, ranch and livestock groups.
As of the last rewrite of the bill, all seemed to
be in agreement that we could move forward
with the chosen language. No one commented
that they didn't approve of the language either
verbally during the meeting, or later, to an
e-mail query.

At the beginning of the session, there was
no sponsor for the bill we had worked on. We
tried desperately to try to find a sponsor for
the bill. The few legislators that displayed any
interest at all came back to us and said they
did not agree with the felony penalty. They
thought it was too strict. Our opinion is "that
is the reason for the bill."
Now that this new bill has been sponsored,
we are getting the word that there is no
support for it from
any of the groups.
I have looked
through both
bills and though
SB2365 does
stipulate a felony
penalty, it also has
lots of extra small
changes. They
don't look like deal breakers to me, so maybe
they are just excuses for the felony penalty to
not be supported once again. No one is really
telling us why they won't support the new
bill, but we will likely hear something once
the bill gets a hearing with the Agriculture
Committee.
Even knowing that it likely won't pass,
we will move ahead with support of SB2365
because we need to continue to speak in
favor of the felony penalty. When you have
seen the great atrocities we have seen and
the awful, painful circumstances that animals
are forced into because humans choose not
to act responsibly, we could do nothing less.
There needs to be a stronger deterrent to this
behavior.
We fully understand the position of the
farm and ranch groups who wouldn't want a
rancher to get in trouble for cropping ears,
docking tails or other such standard farm
practices. That is not the intent of the bill. The
intent is to punish those who knowingly and
willfully cause pain and suffering to animals
by neglect or abuse.
North Dakota remains a holdout in
providing a needed punishment for people
who abuse animals. We are one of only four
states that does not have a felony animal
cruelty law, along with Idaho, Mississippi
and South Dakota. Studies have shown
that people who abuse animals are
more likely to abuse people, often
their families and likely spouses and
children.
So, in another example of how we
do great things for pets and people, we
must keep pressing our legislators to
step into this century and do the right
thing. We can't stop talking about this
and we can't stop asking. It's the only
way to get someone to finally listen.

Here is SB 2365

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/62-201 ... -01000.pdf

I, myself wouldn't support that bill. In order for HSUS or anyone to come onto your property they must bring along your locally elected sheriff. The word sheriff is overstruck (meaning deleted) [36-21.1-13] and then replaced with new language underlined "any law enforcement" Wait a minute. I have met some probation and parole officers who shouldn't be allowed on anyones property for any reason. They would surely esculate the situation. Sometimes these do-gooders get throttled before they can do any damage.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

So if this laws passes, I will need to call the vet to come over and put down hayburns or sick cats or a dog that got ran over? So I would have to wait and the the animals suffer while I could do the same thing? Vote no on measure 5


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I, myself wouldn't support that bill. In order for HSUS or anyone to come onto your property they must bring along your locally elected sheriff. The word sheriff is overstruck (meaning deleted) [36-21.1-13] and then replaced with new language underlined "any law enforcement" Wait a minute. I have met some probation and parole officers who shouldn't be allowed on anyones property for any reason. They would surely esculate the situation. *Sometimes these do-gooders get throttled before they can do any damage*.


I understand your concern about most of that, but the last sentence looks threatening. That's not going to influence people in the way you would like.

As for the bill HSUS proposed it doesn't sound good to me either.

Vote no on measure #3 and #5.

Number five could affect hunters and farmers in the wrong way, and number three lets them affect others in wrong ways. Vote no on both.


----------



## Steve Bakken (Oct 29, 2012)

I make no secret that I have become no fan of Measure #5. I take offense when interests from outside of ND try to write legislation or dictate issues for North Dakotans. WE should write laws to govern ND, not outside entities. I've had both sides of this issue on and have let BOTH sides present their case for many months. I have an open forum for both sides of EVERY issue and an open invitation to all parties involved. The door is open, they just have to step through. The only time we do not take calls is if there are time or technical constraints with our guests. I have the opponents of Measure #5 on Thursday and have NOT been responded to by the proponents, they have been made abundantly aware that they have had an open forum at their disposal. Feel free to call in with your concerns, but be brief due to the amount of political ads we are running...Steve Bakken.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thank you very much for that offer. I would have just been another person against measure #5. I understand completely about out of state. I have a stubborn old individual (old as me) who can't keep his nose out of North Dakota. He could almost make me vote against myself. He can't vote in North Dakota, but he is against measure #5 but angry because I am. I don't get it.

Rick, don't be to sure this will pass. I think yes votes were 65% last week, 55% this week, and that tells me they could fall below 50% come election day. I hope our legislature gets on the stick so we don't face this again.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

So you can beat your kids and get them back in 6 months, but you beat a dog and you get a felony? Makes no sense to me.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

I said,



> Sometimes these do-gooders get throttled before they can do any damage.


Plainsman said,



> I understand your concern about most of that, but the last sentence looks threatening. That's not going to influence people in the way you would like.


Threatening???????????? Our elected representatives "voted" down their bill. Throttled, get it. Try to keep up Bruce.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

OK, it was used different when I was younger. I never heard it like you used it. No problem. Here was the way I was thinking.



> throttle definition | English dictionary for learners | Reverso Collins
> 
> dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/throttle
> 
> 1 verb To throttle someone means to kill or injure them by squeezing their throat or tightening something around it and preventing them from breathing.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Once again, anything with HSUS stamp of approval is supicious at best.
http://www.agweek.com/event/image/id/16 ... hunshelle/
Remeber her??


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> . I think I will vote against measure #5 myself, but the guys on another site I post to are so narrow minded they could nearly push me the other way


Come on Plainsman, and you and Dick are not? Kettle black        :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> > . I think I will vote against measure #5 myself, but the guys on another site I post to are so narrow minded they could nearly push me the other way
> 
> 
> Come on Plainsman, and you and Dick are not? Kettle black        :beer:


No, I will vote against measure #5. When the high fence thing was going on I PMed an old fellow on here that I admire and told him I was about ready to let the animal rights people have their way with the high fence people. He wisely said no don't do that. I was so frustrated I had to blow steam with someone. Well then I think two of the guys actually did let HSUS talk them into funding advertisement. Then after being frustrated and thinking about it I was actually ticked when they really did do it. That is why I did not sponsor the second time. That and they didn't give me any input. I think if you sign on you should have some say. I didn't want it controling farmers I wanted it controling hunters.

Anyway, g/o as frustrated as some of those guys on another site make me I'm not going to surrender to HSUS and will vote no. :beer:

I will vote no in the hopes our legislature fills the gap we have now. If they don't do that the HSUS will win next time if not now. If they win now blame our legislature. If they win now I am going to be very frustrated with our legislature.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Rick Acker said:


> I'm very surprised Dick that you feel so strongly about this law passing...Sounds like it will, however most sportsman that I've talked to are against it.


I like dogs.

Some sportsmen hear HSUS and they lock up. Like if HSUS invented air, some people would quit breathing just for spite. The standard ploy to kill a proposed law is to say there is a better one in the oven. This one is too fat, too thin, too tall, too short, jjjjjjjjjjjust not quite right. Those who killed it in the last session don't give a chit about the animals affected. Least of their concern.

To get a bill passed through the legislature it has to be drafted, sponsored, and votes rounded up in committee and on the floor. If #5 goes down, it is doubtfull any bill will come forward, as the excuse will be that the people have already spoken.

If #5 opponents were honest with the public they would show you the bill language and the sponsors names right now. So where's the beef?

They have been working on this legislation for years, right?

BL3, for some reason, I can't pull your quote. No, you would not have to have a vet put your animals down. ND Animal Stewards have been spreading that one to scare people off. Same thing that you couldn't use a shock collar. If anyone believes that, they got snookered because it isn't in the measure language. Which is in the first post of this thread.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

That is how I read the bill.

What if I had say 10 hayburners and I couldn't afford to feed them properly (like about 70% of the hayburners in ND). It costs about $200 apeice to have them put down by a vet. So I decide to shoot them. That would make me a felon with this law in place right?


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Dick, Thats funny about HSUS inventing air. But they couldnt afford to as 1% of their expenditures actually goes toward helping animals while the rest goes in their pockets.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

blhunter3 said:


> That is how I read the bill.
> 
> What if I had say 10 hayburners and I couldn't afford to feed them properly (like about 70% of the hayburners in ND). It costs about $200 apeice to have them put down by a vet. So I decide to shoot them. That would make me a felon with this law in place right?


Just say you were hunting them. I am intrested in that also. On the comercials they said farming and ranching is exempted.

The way I look at it they are your property you should be able to do what ever you want with them. No matter how you slice this no animal is worth more than a person. This bill is making it just that.

If this bill passes and someone kills your cat, dog or horse can you sue them and get more than its replacement value?

Chuck Norris can hit you so hard that he can actually alter your DNA. Decades from now your descendants will occasionally clutch their heads and yell "What The Hell was That?"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Like if HSUS invented air, some people would quit breathing just for spite.


I need that little Devil icon. :rollin:

It sounds like our legislature is looking for an excuse to fail. We sure do need something. I wish this bill had not gone so far as a felony, but would have put some teeth in it. I also wish they had used language to dispel what some look at as fact and others look at as rumor.

If this fails and the legislature also fails we will see another bill or measure. It's best they get their arrogant act together and do something.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

If farming and ranching are exempt, they why are hayburners included?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> If farming and ranching are exempt, they why are hayburners included?


Because people like wild horse Annie think they are pets like dogs and cats. Wild horse Annie is perhaps dead by now because she was active back in the 1970's trying to protect wild horses. The truth is if you care for the environment, or if your a rancher you would want to reduce their numbers. If I had my way I would let Alpo use gunships to collect them for dog food.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

That is just one reason why I hate this bill. Other then the fact you can beat your kids and its not a felony but beating and animal is. Yes I think we should have a law about beating animals but not this bill.

If it were up to me we would have horse packing plants all over the USA and get rid of about 90% of the hayburners.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't like it either, but a couple of guys I debate on fishingbuddy keep arguing even after I agree with them. Another couple of days of this they will convince me they are simply hiding something and ask myself if I should vote yes. I will not at this point, but they could convince me otherwise. I was 99.9% sure of a no, but most of their arguments revert back to scare tactics. If there is good reason and people agree then why continue? No pro measure #5 person could come nearly as close to convincing me to vote yes than two or three of those anti guys.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

To me its just the wording and I would perfer the the Veternarian group(I can't think of the exact title) had input. To me this law is just a feel good law. Much like the texting and driving law. There was already a law for that called discrated driving.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Dick and anyone that is for this law. If passed, do you really believe that prosecutors and judges will charge it out as a felony? Or just plea it down to a lesser charge like they do now. The law we have addresses abuse of any animal, not just dogs, cats and horses. An A misdemeanor can get you a maximum of a $1000 fine and a year in prison. Do you believe a c felony will deter better?

I'll say it again, what we need are prosecutors and judges that will use the teeth that our current law has.

Huntin1


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

blhunter3 said:


> That is how I read the bill.
> 
> What if I had say 10 hayburners and I couldn't afford to feed them properly (like about 70% of the hayburners in ND). It costs about $200 apeice to have them put down by a vet. So I decide to shoot them. That would make me a felon with this law in place right?


No, you would be exempt. Dog cat horse. If you have to plunk them you are exempt. Just don't kill 'em with a meat hook and hang them on a fence to die.

All other livestock and "pets" are exempt. Only these three species are covered by this proposed law.

I can see where the veterinarian-euthanasia part might be a bit confusing but you or the vet is good to go. Line "c." exempts the vet from any blowback. 


> 2. The Prohibition In Subsection 1 Of This Section Does Not Apply to:
> c. Examination, Testing, Individual Treatment, Operation, Or Euthanasia Performed By Or Under The Supervision Of A Licensed veterinarian;


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Or Euthanasia Performed By Or Under The Supervision Of A Licensed veterinarian;


Hmm that doesn't sound good to me. That sounds like the vet would have to supervise me shooting Fido even if he didn't know which end of the gun to point. I don't like the words supervision of a vet.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Plainsman. You missed it.



> 2. The Prohibition In Subsection 1 Of This Section *Does Not Apply to*:
> c. Examination, Testing, Individual Treatment, Operation, Or Euthanasia Performed By Or Under The Supervision Of A Licensed veterinarian;


Line c is worded so vets can't be prosecuted for putting an animal down.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I plead oldtimers.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Dick Monson said:


> Plainsman. You missed it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So doing an exam of a hayburner that any one can do and then treating it such as shots, I could not do as a regular person? So I would need to call a vet to give a shot? Or to put down (like shooting it in the head) I would need to call the vet to do the same thing? Not OK by me.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> So doing an exam of a hayburner that any one can do and then treating it such as shots, I could not do as a regular person? So I would need to call a vet to give a shot? Or to put down (like shooting it in the head) I would need to call the vet to do the same thing? Not OK by me.


BL-3, everything you listed above, you can do under this measure, with no penalty. Plunk away.



> 2. The Prohibition In Subsection 1 Of This Section Does Not Apply to:
> c. Examination, Testing, Individual Treatment, Operation, Or Euthanasia Performed By Or Under The Supervision Of A Licensed veterinarian;


Huntin1 is certainly right that prosecutors will plead this down from a felony. It is up to us as citizens to apply the pressure.

The Fargo Forum ran an article on the spending by both sides on the issue. Lots of contributors yes and no, over a million $$ so far.

I see the ND Corn Growers contributed $30,000 for a No vote. Hummm....

We will know in a week how it shakes out.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Maybe my old brain doesn't work so good anymore. :homer:

I'm still struggling with that statement:



> 2. The Prohibition In Subsection 1 Of This Section Does Not Apply to:
> c. Examination, Testing, Individual Treatment, Operation, Or Euthanasia Performed By Or Under The Supervision Of A Licensed veterinarian;


So if euthanianasia is not performed by a licensed veterinarian or not supervised by a licensed veterinarian then it does apply?



> I see the ND Corn Growers contributed $30,000 for a No vote. Hummm....


A little arm bending there I'll bet. Sort of if you don't support us we will not support ethanol. :eyeroll:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

> 2. The Prohibition In Subsection 1 Of This Section
> Does Not Apply to:
> c. Examination, Testing, Individual Treatment,
> Operation, Or Euthanasia Performed By Or Under The
> Supervision Of A Licensed veterinarian;


The way I read this, if you put down an animal and are *not* a vet, or are being supervised by one, you have violated this section.

But I could be wrong, that has happened before................I think. 

Huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But I could be wrong, that has happened before................I think


You thought you were wrong once, but it turned out you were not right? :wink: Don't feel bad I think I had that happen twice. :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

I know a couple of clowns that are sure to quote that without the emoticon on farmerbuddy.com


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

See, I was wrong. Also written into the exemptions is this:



> f. Any Other Lawful Activity Exempt From The
> Definition Of "'cruelty' Or 'torture'" Contained In
> Section 36--‐21.1--‐01.


Putting your own animal down does not meet the definition of "cruelty" or "torture" so this exemption would apply when putting your own animal down.

Unless the prosecutor in your county is an animal rights wacko.

Huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have to check my notes, I think you have been wrong three times now since we started hunting in 1980. :rollin:


----------

