Category Archives: Politics and more

How to dismantle progress – a step-by-step guide

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, I wrote a post that was a reaction to weeks, if not months, of stress and miscommunication. Yet, the message that I shared seemed to hit home to so many, all across the country. So I decided to adjust my post, and re-post it, making it more universal.

Here are my simple lessons on how to dismantle progress, wherever it may be:

To dismantle progress, simply plant ideas, rumors and falsehoods. All you need to do is plant the idea, you do not need to give any proof. Human nature will take over from there, and no one will be able to rise above it. Mud will be slung, the issue will be forgotten and compromise will become impossible.

To dismantle progress, simply pit one method of doing something against another. Organic vs. conventional, gay vs. straight, pro-life vs. pro-choice. It doesn’t matter how you break it down, just make sure they feel it’s us vs. them. Competitive natures will take over from there, and no one will be able to rise above it. Personal attacks will ensue, the issue will be forgotten and compromise will become impossible.

To dismantle progress, simply make a few well-placed phone calls. Insinuate that leadership is sleeping with the enemy. Who is the enemy? Doesn’t matter. Let them make up those decisions on their own. Vengeful natures will take over from there, and no one will be able to rise above it. Membership outcry will ensue, the issue will be forgotten and compromise will become impossible.

To dismantle progress, simply make the issue about the procedure, not the outcome. Focus on who will do what, not how it will affect the people or things its meant to protect. Make them so wrapped up on who’s right and who’s wrong, that no one even remembers what the original intent may have been. Self-righteous natures will take over from there, and no one will be able to rise above it. Verbal attacks will take place, the issue will be forgotten and compromise will become impossible.

To dismantle progress, simply make it personal. Forget the organization or company behind the name, call people out, pit family against family, friends against friends and neighbors against neighbors. Muddy the line of right and wrong, proper decorum and tact. Throw a few barbs in, just to stir things up. Unforgiving natures will take over from there, and no one will be able to rise above it. Anger and hurt feelings will continually surface, the issue will be forgotten and compromise will become impossible.

Well, that about wraps it up. But I’ll warn you, the above steps are EXTREMELY effective and should not be used lightly.

Pick one or two, maybe three. Start the ball rolling and watch the walls start to crumble.

Oh, and when in doubt, throw the phrase, “It’s just politics,” in the mix. Apparently that’s the miracle cure that excuses all previous behavior.

How to dismantle agriculture – a step-by-step guide

Posted on by
11

For those new to our little family here, I live in North Dakota. We have a legislative session every two years. Unfortunately, this is one of them.

The last few weeks has been extremely taxing. Laws that are extremely polarizing are being passed and our quiet little corner of paradise is getting more attention, and not for the right reasons.

Regardless of my opinion, there are a few lessons learned here that could greatly benefit other organizations, so let me give you a few of my take-away lessons:

To dismantle agriculture, simply plant ideas, rumors and falsehoods. All you need to do is plant the idea, you do not need to give any proof. Human nature will take over from there, and no one will be able to rise above it. Mud will be slung, the issue will be forgotten and compromise will become impossible.

To dismantle agriculture, simply pit one occupation against another. Farmers vs. ranchers, organic vs. conventional, no-till vs. full-tillage, cows vs. sheep, soybeans vs. corn. It doesn’t matter how you break it down, just make sure they feel it’s us vs. them. Competitive natures will take over from there, and no one will be able to rise above it. Personal attacks will ensue, the issue will be forgotten and compromise will become impossible.

To dismantle agriculture, simply make a few well-placed phone calls. Insinuate that leadership is sleeping with the enemy. Who is the enemy? Doesn’t matter, let them make up those decisions on their own. Vengeful natures will take over from there, and no one will be able to rise above it. Membership outcry will ensue, the issue will be forgotten and compromise will become impossible.

To dismantle agriculture, simply make the issue about the procedure, not the outcome. Focus on who will do what, not how it will affect the people or things its meant to protect. Make them so wrapped up on who’s right and who’s wrong, that no one even remembers what the original intent may have been. Self-righteous natures will take over from there, and no one will be able to rise above it. Verbal attacks will take place, the issue will be forgotten and compromise will become impossible.

To dismantle agriculture, simply make it personal. Forget the organization behind the name, call people out, pit friends against friends and neighbors against neighbors. Muddy the line of right and wrong, proper decorum and tact. Throw a few barbs in, just to stir things up. Unforgiving natures will take over from there, and no one will be able to rise above it. Anger and hurt feelings will continually surface, the issue will be forgotten and compromise will become impossible.

Well, that about wraps it up. But I’ll warn you, the above steps are EXTREMELY effective and should not be used lightly.

Pick one or two, maybe three. Start the ball rolling and watch the walls start to crumble.

Oh, and when in doubt, throw the phrase, “It’s just politics,” in the mix. Apparently that’s the miracle cure that excuses all previous behavior.

Disclaimer: The above work is a piece of fiction. It really wouldn’t be that easy, because agriculturalists are smarter than that. Any similarity to actual events is purely coincidental…and sad.

Proposed school snack guidelines – make your voice heard

Posted on by
1

As many of you are aware, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 has been met with resistance, by not only parents and students, but by elected officials as well.

Recently, Congressional delegates from many states (including North Dakota and South Dakota) have introduced legislation that would eliminate the caps on grains and lean-meat protein sources that are currently limited in the new guidelines.

Although these are great steps in making the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act a better tool to tackle issues with school lunch, I personally feel that focusing on just those two limitations is not enough to make a change in the program. Calorie caps cannot be mandated on a national level. There are too many variables that can be better addressed locally.

These boys come in all shapes and sizes, and there appetites and nutritional requirements do, too!

These boys come in all shapes and sizes, and there appetites and nutritional requirements do, too!

And isn’t that what we strive for? Local control over local issues?

So, if the federal mandates on school lunch are not satisfactory, what do they tackle next? School snacks. That’s right, we now have proposed guidelines that address items that are sold in school, including fundraisers and items sold during the school day (including seconds, or ala carte items).

Here are some of the changes that are proposed:

-  Limiting the amount and use of accompaniments used with food, such as cream cheese, salad dressing and butter. They also propose that accompaniments be pre-portioned and included in the “nutrient profile” when served. For example, if a bagel were served they would possibly include a pre-determined amount of cream cheese, and those calories would be included in the calorie limit, whether or not the student would want to use cream cheese.

- Limiting the calories allowed for snacks. The proposed limits are 200 calories for snack items, 350 calories for entrée items. Remember when the solution to hungry athletes was to allow them to purchase seconds if they needed more food to get through the day? Well, now those seconds will be limited as well.

- School fundraisers would be encouraged to not involve food items. Those items that do not fall into the proposed guidelines would be limited. Although, there is some confusion in this section of the proposal, since the guidelines would not apply to non-school hours.

- All schools could sell plain water, plain low-fat milk, plain or flavored fat-free milk and milk alternatives and 100% fruit or vegetable juice, but elementary school could only sell up to 8-ounce portions, while middle schools and high schools could sell up to 12 ounce portions. Ironically, you could not sell a regular cola, but a diet cola would be OK.

The list continues on, and gets even more complicated. But the beauty of it all, is that this is just a proposal. It is open for public comment until April 9, so let’s be sure that our voices are heard, loud and clear, before the final recommendations are set.

Our kids are depending on us to make the right decisions, and we cannot rely on anyone else to make them for us.

Need more information? There will be a public webinar on Thursday, March 28 from 10 to 11:30 a.m. EST.

The power of knowledge

Posted on by
1

I was fortunate enough to be recently featured in several pieces written by a wonderful woman (Aimee Whetstine) and featured, along with several other amazing women, on her blog everday epistle. The topic? Women and guns.

It’s been an amazing experience, having the opportunity to not only have my voice heard on such an amazing platform, but the chance to hear the thoughts and opinions of so many others – especially on a topic that women usually get a back seat on.

I thought it would be a good idea for me to explain my reason for not only owning a gun, but for using it as well.

I use my gun, approximately once a year, but the fact that I KNOW how to use it is what gives me peace.

I use my gun, approximately once a year, but the fact that I KNOW how to use it is what gives me peace.

I commented on Aimee’s BlogHer post that it is NOT the gun itself that gives me a feeling of empowerment. It is the fact that I know how to use the gun, and use it properly, that leaves me feeling more protected and enabled.

Sleeping with a gun under my pillow would do nothing to alleviate my fears of not being protected, if I did not know what to do with it. Likewise, if I were to carry a taser in my purse, yet know nothing about how it works.

The power from a weapon doesn’t just come from the weapon itself…it comes from the peace of mind and knowledge that you gain from owning it. The same is true that the danger of a weapon does not come from the weapon itself…it comes from the person wielding it, their intentions and their ability to use it.

Recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a ban on assault rifles. Although I do not own a single assault rifle, I can’t help but feel a little dismayed and saddened by the votes cast. Eliminating weapons will not magically fix the problem, because the problem does not relate to the weapon used.

As long as we keep throwing bandaids at the true problem, the bandaids will continue to fall off.

The Second Amendment promises the right to bear arms. It says nothing about picking and choosing weapons only deemed “safe” by some outside source. And it also gives you the right to have bare arms…meaning that if you have no desire to own a gun, or to learn how to use one, that is your right as well.

Perhaps we need to start remembering that we need to respect others’ rights…as well as our own.

What size of brush are you painting with?

Posted on by
10

I was watching George paint the other day. It was entertaining, to say the least. He would take his paint brush, and dip it into all the colors, then get mad when the picture didn’t turn out like he had imagined.

And he expected me to fix it.

This little artist gets frustrated when his "masterpieces" don't turn out as he had planned. Sometimes instead of being a beautiful piece of work, it's just a mess.

This little artist gets frustrated when his “masterpieces” don’t turn out as he had planned. Sometimes instead of being a beautiful piece of work, it’s just a mess.

He couldn’t understand that the problem had nothing to do with the paper, or the colors, or me, but with the brush he was using and how he was using it. And it reminded me of a conversation that occurred online just a few days ago.

Someone had asked for anyone that calves this time of year to explain why they were doing it, or what benefit they perceived that they received from calving during winter months. I simply replied that with our operation and our location, calving now was what made sense for us. It’s easier for us to deal with snow and ice, rather than mud and muck.

It's not always fun making sure the cattle stay protected in the winter, but the snow and ice are easier to deal with than...

It’s not always fun making sure the cattle stay protected in the winter, but the snow and ice are easier to deal with than…

...the mud and muck of spring.

…the mud and muck of spring.

The responses that were received from people who also raise cattle was surprising, to say the least. One claimed that “winter calvers” are not profitable. Another claimed that some people were too willing to work too hard to make less money.

At first I was somewhat offended. And then I found a little humor in the situation. But it wasn’t until watching my son getting frustrated with his paintbrush, that I realized the lesson that could be learned from it all.

The humor? Well, if winter calving operations aren’t profitable…then there’s a check or two that I’d like to cancel. Mainly to the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, Boss Man will be relieved to hear that our days of paying taxes are over, now that we’re a non-profit livestock operation. Whew! What a relief that is! (Yes, my dear reader, that is sarcasm. At its finest.)

The lesson? When you’re working to make a better picture, using a broad brush will get you nowhere. Neither will dipping your brush in all the colors, expecting for everything to work out.

The same is true in agriculture…or any industry, actually. What makes our way of life great is the reds, the blues, the greens and yellows. All the different colors, all the different sizes, shapes and methods of operating. Together, agriculture makes a wonderful picture. But if you try to shoehorn us all into what you perceive to be the “only way” to farm or ranch? Well, you end up with a big old ugly mess.

We all have the same end result in mind. A great, abundant, affordable food supply for anyone looking for it. And the beauty is, in the great country we live in, the choices are there for you to make. You can decide the types of food you want, the way you want it raised and the price you want to pay for it…there’s always a decision, even if it’s take it or leave it.

Making sure that our calves are healthy and happy...that's our main objective, same as most anyone raising livestock.

Making sure that our calves are healthy and happy…that’s our main objective, same as most anyone raising livestock.

And we have choices, too. We decide our methods and what works for our operation – whether it’s calving now or in the fall, using no-till or conventional methods, growing organic crops or using biotechnology. It’s one of the main principles our country is built on.

I was upset by the insinuation that our operation was sub-par because of the decisions we made, but after the lesson my son taught me, I’ve taken something valuable away from what could have been a disappointing situation.

And that was my choice, too.

Private school or a glass of milk?

Posted on by
11

Some days I hate Facebook. I would be living in my own little world, not involved in much of anything, taking it easy, enjoying life…if not for Facebook. (Well, at least I feel like I would.)

What has me in such a tizzy tonight? I came across a news article that someone shared, and it made me mad. Really mad.

To sum it up, the House Education Committee passed a bill out of committee with a Do Not Pass recommendation. Here is how HB 1421 reads:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. APPROPRIATION. There is appropriated out of any moneys in the general fund in the state treasury, not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $1,239,300, or so much of the sum as may be necessary, to the superintendent of public instruction for the purpose of reimbursing school districts for one snack beverage of either milk or juice each day for students qualifying for the free or reduced school lunch program, for the biennium beginning July 1,
2013, and ending June 30, 2015.

The purpose of the bill? To simply provide a snack beverage (milk or juice) for those kids that cannot afford it.

Now, I’m not upset just because of the mean-spiritedness of voting against this type of legislation. I understand that some people firmly believe that government has no place in humanitarian efforts, and that civilization and communities should be able to take care of their own. And if any one of the representatives that voted against this bill would have stated that specifically as their case, I would be a little more lenient in my disgust.

The 10-3 Do Not Pass vote came down to party lines. And the possible loser in the end? Children who cannot afford an afternoon snack.

Do you want to know what really set me off? Three of the representatives that voted against providing milk to underprivileged children have sponsored a bill that will provide state funding (approx. $10,500 per student, at a total of $32 million per biennium) to those students who choose to attend private school. (HB 1466)

Let me clarify. We cannot provide milk to children who can’t afford it, but we will give assistance to families that choose to use private education.

Does this make sense to anyone?

The only logical explanation I can come up with is the party line vote for the school milk issue. It cannot be a concern on funding, or else three members of the House of Representatives just publicly became the biggest hypocrites I’ve seen this year (although, to be fair, it’s only February, so I’m sure I’ll see more).

Last week at meetings I attended, I heard the phrase “It’s politics” thrown around a lot. And I do understand…to a point. But I think it’s about time we expect a little better from those that are elected to represent us, especially at the state level.

Things to remember at the next election.

Update: I just watched the live video feed from the North Dakota House of Representatives. The bill was voted down, by a very large margin. As soon as I have more details, I’ll pass them on. Thank you, to all who have shared this post.

What makes a constitutional amendment?

Posted on by
14

As I’ve made perfectly clear in the past, I am in favor of Measure 3, the North Dakota Constitutional amendment that would protect farming and ranching and modern practices employed by farmers and ranchers.

I want to address one of the concerns that is being brought up by the only vocal agricultural group in opposition to this measure…the North Dakota Farmer’s Union.

First of all, as a member of Farmer’s Union (I’m a member of Farm Bureau as well), let me tell you that I’m extremely disappointed and concerned regarding the stance they have on this measure. It’s becoming more of a school-ground bullying match than fact-sharing, and it’s not what being in agriculture is all about.

Enough about that, let’s get to the issue. Opponents of the measure keep declaring that the constitutional amendment is too vague. Practices aren’t specified and there are no restrictions for negligence.

Why did I highlight constitutional amendment? Because that’s what this is…a change to our state constitution, that would protect the heritage that makes North Dakota the great state that it is, that provides food, fiber and fuel for the world.

The amendment needs to be broad enough to stand the test of time, allowing society to advance and our state constitution to stay current, even when we can’t imagine what the next century may bring.

Let’s take a look at another constitutional amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Wait a minute…how could that amendment have been passed? It doesn’t state that you can’t use weapons negligently. It doesn’t state that you are limited to muskets and cannons only. So, surely, it must have been voted down and didn’t stand the test of time, right?

How about another one:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Geez, that one didn’t pass either, did it? I mean, it doesn’t specifically state that I can’t call someone a few choice words in a newspaper ad that runs across the country. Oh, wait…but I can’t, can I? Not without the other person having legal recourse.

No, constitutional amendments are NOT about specifying exactly what it is you can or cannot do, it’s about upholding the wishes of the people of the state, for generations to come. It allows flexibility for growth and changes that are made by society, yet it protects the basic rights that we should be entitled to…and that includes our agricultural heritage.

With these rights come expectations, regulations and limitations, it does not, nor will it ever, trample on the rights and freedoms of others. It allows for the legal protection of our way of life and direction for those that are making the laws that will govern our future societies.

Please, do not tell me that Measure 3 is too vague in its wording, and needs to have specifics put in place.

Although, all I can do is ask, because there’s already an amendment that allows you that right.

Yes on North Dakota Measure 3

Posted on by
5

Did you know that America’s farmers and ranchers produce 16 percent of the total world food production on just 10 percent of the world’s land?

Agriculture and related industries provide jobs for more than 21 million Americans. That’s 15 percent of the total U.S. workforce.

In 1940, each U.S. farmer annually fed approximately 19 people in the U.S. and abroad. In 1960, each farmer feed about 46 people. In 1980, 115. In 2000, 139. Today, each U.S. farmer feeds approximately 154 people here and abroad. And they are doing it with fewer inputs, and on fewer acres.

Farming and agriculture is the backbone of our country, but more importantly, it’s the number one industry in North Dakota. Long after the oil boom has come and gone, farming will still be growing our economy and providing for our state and our country.

 

Waiting his turn…his dad is in the tractor, his grandpa is in the combine. Is his future in jeopardy?

 

Measure 3 is a constitutional amendment that will ensure that out-of-state interests and activist groups will not be able to pass ballot initiatives that would jeopardize our heritage of agriculture. This measure would protect the way of life that has made North Dakota a great state and a great place to raise a family.

But there are misconceptions about what this measure is about, and we’d like to clear those up. This measure is NOT about farming systems, it doesn’t pit organic versus conventional or large versus small. This measure would ensure that if you wanted to use GPS and auto steer in your tractor, that would be allowed. You would be allowed to raise livestock of your choosing without worrying that some out-of-state feel-good group is going to tell you that your buildings or fences are abusive to the animal. You would also be allowed to make your own individual seed and chemincal choices on your farm, including heirlooms, biotechnology, organic or conventional. A law could not be passed determining what is right for all farms in North Dakota, those decisions would be left to each farm to make.

The measure is NOT about removing local control. It would not limit local zoning ordinances, nor would it remove the power from local and state governments for regulations.

Measure 3 IS about allowing farmer’s markets and other niche consumer activities to continue to grow and prosper, it’s about giving people choices and protecting our past, present and future. The constitutional amendment is intentionally broad enough to stand the test of time, yet focused enough to protect what North Dakota holds dear.

For those that would question whether regulations would still be allowed, we give you an example of another constitutional right. We have the right to bear arms, but with that right also comes limitations, responsibilities and regulations. The same is true for agriculture.

We just want the right to farm, without risk of having someone else from out of state taking that right away.

Our kids aren’t as fat as you think

Posted on by
4

Whoa. That’s quite the title for a blog post, isn’t it? Here are some other versions I tossed around, “How to make research fit your agenda,” “Misleading the public: Our way or the highway,” “It’s only a few percentage points…who’s gonna notice?”

So, what’s my point? I’ve been reading and researching the 81 pages of the new school lunch guidelines. I’ve read the comments left, I’ve read the “White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity” report. I’ve started to have dreams regarding statistics…and I hated statistics in college. Hated.

What did I learn? I learned that although the powers that be keep using the number “1 in 3″ as the percentage of obese kids in our country, well, that number isn’t right. In fact, we’re off by quite a ways. How far? Try about 14%, give or take.

Everywhere you look, you’ll read the statistic that 1 in 3 children are obese. In my mind, that means roughly 33.33%. Again, I wasn’t a math major, so if I’m wrong, please correct me. (And no, I don’t mean just take it out a few more decimal places. ;) ) What if I tell you that the number is actually closer to 19%? Would that matter?

Well, that’s the truth.

This is percentage of high school students obese, according to the CDC.

Here, read the CDC’s stats directly from their page: “The percentage of children aged  6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 7% in 1980 to nearly 20% in 2008. Similarly, the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese increased from 5% to 18% over the same period.” (The number in the White House report bounces between 17% and 19.6%, depending on which graph you want to look at.)

So how can they get away with it? Simple. It’s a matter of word choice. In the above report, the next line reads, “In 2008, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese.” It goes on to explain that “overweight” is defined as having excess body weight for a particular height from fat, muscle, bone, water, or a combination of these factors. Obese is defined as having excess body fat.

So, when someone is making a statement, or a report, or a news conference, it’s just more newsworthy if you drop the “overweight” part off and leave it as “obese.” But the two terms are not interchangeable. There are so many factors that can weigh in on a child’s weight, not just activity level and diet. What about injuries? What about stress? What about extending health issues?

What causes an overweight child? Here are a few examples: Imagine a high school student, very active, with an injury that requires months of rehab. They continue to eat as they’re used to, but realize they need to make some diet adjustments once they start noticing a few pounds being added on. The pounds drop again once activity is resumed.

Or what about a teenage girl, just transitioning into her cycle. Weight fluctuates greatly, revolved around hormones and other things that occur as the body makes great changes. Same is true for boys as they hit puberty.

No, an overweight child is nothing to scoff at, but it’s also not something to legislate for…it’s a natural occurrence in the life cycle.

But obesity, well, obesity is a little different. And although we do need to take steps to make improvements, the majority of the differences need to be made at home. And that’s not a place where legislation reaches…at least, not yet.

By law, we are not required to buy fruit. By law, we are not prohibited from purchasing soda. By law, we are not limited to the number of times pizza can be served as a meal.

As parents, we need to make the right decisions for our children, that includes after the bell rings.

If we truly want to drop the obesity rate in our children, we can’t expect cuts to the school lunch program to be the smoking gun. School lunch was never the root of the problem.

But we also can’t go around making changes, touting stats and bending the information to fit our goals. Some may not take the time to read the fine print, but when you get caught using misleading numbers, I start to question the rest of your agenda as well.

I applaud the new fruits and increased use of vegetables in our school lunches, I love the new recipes and new twists on the old-standby’s. Yet calorie caps and protein limits will not succeed to achieve a goal that’s been misquoted in the first place.

Can we work together to make real change?

Protecting ALL animals – Vote NO on Measure 5

Posted on by
10

North Dakota is an agricultural state. No matter what happens in the west with the oil boom, agriculture will still be here for generations to come…if we protect our heritage.

There is a measure that will show up on the November ballot that can put all of that at risk, and it’s up to us, the citizens of our great state, to stand up and let others know that we fully support and wish to protect our legacy.

What am I talking about? Measure 5 is a poorly worded, narrow-focused measure that has been crafted by an out-of-state animal-rights group that has a history of coming in with big guns, lots of money and slick ads, changing state laws and then pushing anti-farming, anti-hunting and pro-vegan agendas. All while making you feel warm and fuzzy that you’re helping little kitties and doggies.

Do you know how much of the Humane Society of the United States’ budget goes to truly help hands-on pet shelters? Less than 1 percent of the multi-millions that are in their budget. The rest is spent on pensions, lobbying and suing others to make them follow their guidelines.

We cannot let a group such as this in the door.

Let’s take a closer look at the measure, not just the people behind it.

To start with, the measure only addresses horses, cats and dogs. Why would that be? Well, it seems pretty plain to me that they’re aiming at easy targets for an emotional argument. It’s a great marketing ploy. If you were to set my dog on fire, you better believe that I want you to see jail time. In fact, jail is probably the safest place for you, because if I have an opportunity to inflict harm on you, well, I may face a little jail time myself.

Hurt one of these little guys maliciously, and you better hope you’re in jail, where I can’t get a hold of you. Yet, she’s not included in the measure.

But the same is true for my cows. And they wouldn’t be protected under the measure.

Another problem I have with the measure is the scope of “crimes” that it addresses. Here it is directly from the measure: “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.”

I agree that all of those things are cruel, malicious and worthy of jail time (or worse), yet those things rarely happen in our state. In fact, when you search for crimes like these in reports, you have a hard time finding any at all.

Yet, the most common types of cruelty are not addressed. Things such as starvation and animal hoarding, which cause much more distress and harm to the animals, aren’t even mentioned. Why? Perhaps because a law such as this would seem to be a no-brainer, but once we let HSUS in the door, we’re open to litigation, interpretation by the courts and forced to defend those things that should be seen as protected rights.

I’m not asking people to just vote “No” and call it a day. There is a group of people that have worked hard to come up with an alternative that could be passed legislatively, making it easier to adjust as concerns come up and easier to amend when times change.

Let’s send the message that we don’t need out-of-state interests coming in to our state and telling us what to do and how to treat our animals. The scare tactics they use to push these measures is almost laughable, if it weren’t happening right here.

Defeating this measure is not going to be easy. When their advertising revolves around cute cats and puppies and ignores the issues surrounding the measure, it’s pretty plain to see what we’re up against.

We love our cats…and our dogs…and our cows. But Measure 5 is not the right answer, for any of them! Vote NO!

I love my dogs, I love our cats…but I also love our cows. Voting “No” is not a vote against our pets, it’s a vote for common sense and a vote for the future of agriculture.

Do you have questions? Would like more information on the history of HSUS and their involvement in other states? Stay tuned. I’ll answer anything you care to ask (or find the answers if I don‘t know), and I’ll be showing you the track record this group has in other states.

But I’ll warn you, it’s not pretty.