Protecting ALL animals – Vote NO on Measure 5

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.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Protecting ALL animals – Vote NO on Measure 5

  1. I couldn’t agree with you more, Val. Something doesn’t jive with Measure 5. Because: if Measure 5 was truly about protecting animals, why is it silent on the most common forms of abuses seen in our state? Why does it not protect dogs, cats and horses, from severe and repeated beatings. These animals must die before measure 5 kicks in. How, then, is that a benefit to those animals?

    If Measure 5 is about protecting “companion” animals, then why does it leave out geccos, hamsters, bunnies, and other pocket pets? Measure 5 requires psychological testing of people convicted but doesn’t detail who or what group would provide that testing.

    And, it is strikingly similar to language promoted by the HSUS in Arkansas years before.

    Something doesn’t jive with measure 5 and I’m voting “no.” Know who else recommends a “no” vote? The Humane Society Fargo-Moorhead, Cats Cradle animal shelter and veterinarians throughout North Dakota.

    http://www.ndanimalstewards.com

      • Any time, Val. According to the NDVMA (letter to the editor), there have only been 2 cases in the last 20 years that match the kind of heinous crimes described in Measure 5.

        Instead, I’m putting my efforts behind a legislative solution that covers ALL animals from a wide range of abuses. North Dakotans for Responsible Animal Care (an exclusively NORTH DAKOTA-based group, including pet shelters, farmers, zookkeepers, veterinarians and others) logged 100 hours hashing out legislation that protects ALL types of animals from ALL types of abuses and makes sure the penalties fit the crime while protecting those who do right by animals. You can read that language at http://www.ndanimalcare.com

        Measure 5 doesn’t jive. Vote NO.

  2. The North Dakotan’s Against Cruelty to Animals Facebook page blocked me after asking too many questions about why the HSUS in Washington DC owns the domain name for their website. I also asked why animals like sheep, cows and hamsters weren’t included on the measure. I find it funny that people are posting pictures with their animals “holding signs” saying “I’d vote yes for measure 5”. When in actuallity, if animals had the ability to vote, and make informed decisions about this measure they would all vote no to this measure. Especially the birds, snakes and donkey that I’ve seen posing next to signs, because according to this measure they are not included. People need to know that the measure will not protect animals the way they think it will. They also need to do a little reasearch on the HSUS and see that they are not animal friendly as most americans beleive.
    The person from the North Dakotans against cruelty to animals facebook page was telling me that oposers of the measure have been filling my head with progaganda and that I wanted to see animals abused. But when I was asking my questions, they were bombarding me with statements like “do you want to see puppies burned alive?” “do you want kittens to have their throats slit?” Who is doing this to puppies and kittens?!? I asked for links to news articles about these cases and they had none. Who is filling the world with propaganda now? And yes I guess she was right, my uninformed vetrinarians as well as the cattle ranchers I spoken too have been filling my head with misinformation because obviously they have not clue about animal neglect or cruelty *rolls eyes*
    I love my animals (I have dogs, cats and horses) but I think that MORE animals should be covered under this measure and that it should be worded to protect all animals. I also do not believe that horses should be classed with dogs and cats. I love my horses and they give me warm and fuzzies inside, but at the end of the day they are livestock and NOT pets!

  3. The language of the proposed law is obtuse. A private individual that opts to remove the dew claws from the puppies in a litter they own while using Silver Nitrate as a clotting/anticeptic device could possibly be charged with “Poisoning/Burning” and possibly “Dismemberment”, since they are not a licensed vet or are not under the supervision of a vet. While this is a stretch, I am sure that some from PETA or those that believe that all dogs are entitled to their dew claws would be more than happy to press charges. However, since NDCC 36-21.1 states that “h. Any activity that involves the training or teaching of animals.” is excluded from being considered as “cruetly” or “tortue” at least they can not press charges for ear pinching with a device, toe hitches, forced breaking or other accepted methods of hunting dog training such as “E” Collars

    Bottom line is it is a bad idea. I agree with you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s