North Dakota defeats Measure 5

 Resize text         Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

No on 5 North Dakota farmers and ranchers won a battle against anti-animal agriculture groups when ballot initiative Measure 5 was defeated in Tuesday’s elections.

The Missouri Cattlemen’s Association (MCA), which previously fought a similar battle against Proposition B in Missouri with groups such as Missouri Farmers Care, released a statement about the victory.

"We commend the voters of North Dakota for pushing back on the animal rights extremist group HSUS," said Missouri Cattlemen's Association MCA Executive Vice President Mike Deering.

"MCA was honored to assist our counter part in North Dakota, the North Dakota Animal Stewards and Missouri Farmer's Care, in educating people about this extremist group, who is determined to put farmers and ranchers out of business."

The press release goes on to say after the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) moved into the state of North Dakota with a radical agenda, the state's agriculture, sportsmen and animal owner's grouped together to successfully defeat Measure 5.

Those who worked together in opposition of Measure 5 formed the North Dakota Animal Stewards. They worked to educate those across their state on the truth of the issue, said MCA.

Measure 5 would make it a class “C” felony for cruelty to dogs, cats and horses. On the North Dakota Animal Stewards website, Jason Schmidt, North Dakota Stockmen's Association president and a fourth-generation Medina, N.D., farmer and rancher, says "It is poorly worded by design to give animal rights groups like the HSUS a foothold in North Dakota to make more sweeping changes later, like they've done in places like Missouri, California and other states."

Deering said North Dakota's victory sends a clear message to activists that voters are not as easy to manipulate as they think.

Read a previous article in Bovine Veterinarian about Measure 5 and the North Dakota Animal Stewards’ fight against it leading up to Tuesday’s elections.



Comments (6) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Terry Ward    
Pa.  |  November, 07, 2012 at 08:32 AM

Further endearing you folks to the rest of us.

Chris    
Grand Forks  |  November, 07, 2012 at 01:42 PM

Now those same animal stewards who so oppossed this measure need to step up to the plate and back up their promises to draft something more comprehensive. I believe that's the way they put it. We'll have to wait and see.

Sheila    
November, 07, 2012 at 05:00 PM

How sad for dogs, cats and horses in ND. Here is what the measure would have done: Make it a class C felony for an individual to maliciously and intentionally burn, poison, crush, suffocate, impale, drown, blind, skin, beat to death, drag to death, exsanguinate, disembowel, or dismember any 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 people who voted NO should be ashamed of yourselves.

jo    
fargo  |  November, 07, 2012 at 06:39 PM

HOW ILL INFORMED THE FARMERS AND RANCHERS OF N. DAK. WHY ARE THEY THREATENED BY MEASURE FIVE. AND WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE HUMANE SOCIETY STANDING BEFORE THE CAMERAS ON LOCAL TV SPEAKING AGAINST MEASURE FIVE. IN THE EVENINGS SHE IS AN ANGEL READER AT $80.00 AN HOUR. i THINK SHE SHOULD STICK TO THAT WHEN SHE HAS NO EMPATHY FOR ANIMALS. LETS SEE THE NO VOTERS COME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN. I BELIEVE THEIR OBJECTIONS WERE A COVER AS THESE FARMERS DON'T WANT ANY LAWS AS TO HOW TO TREAT ANIMALS .

Annon    
November, 10, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Is this a pyrrhic victory for the livestock industry, winning this battle but ultimately loosing the war? Candace Croney on Politics and Policies of Animal Welfare http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FrTVkPXgSs&feature=relmfu After listening to her, I fear so.

Kirk    
Kansas  |  November, 16, 2012 at 06:41 PM

Anything HSUS touches is poison. I would not trust these people to care for my plants, let alone my pets. Anyone who has experience with HSUS knows they are anti-pet ownership, anti-agriculture. They pose as some relation to your local humane society, but they are as related to your humane shelter as Fred Phelps is to the Baptist Church. Giving themselves a name to deceive people should be the first clue that people should beware. No sane person wants to torture pets. No sane person supports the HSUS either, unless they are duped.