Many in North Dakota's livestock industry breathed a sigh of relief last week when Southwest District Judge Rhonda Ehlis ruled that Gladstone-area rancher Gary Dassinger could keep the cattle and horses seized from him in May amid allegations he didn't properly feed and care for them.
We're pleased with Ehlis' decision, but we also believe the North Dakota Legislature should take a long look at the state's animal seizure and animal abuse laws and iron out problems that could inhibit normal practices in animal agriculture.
Whatever inevitably happens in Dassinger's criminal case will be up to judges and juries. The criminal case against Dassinger will continue. A preliminary hearing, in which a judge will determine whether there is probable cause for the charges against him, is scheduled for July 31.
Dassinger's case began, according to court testimony, with a call to law enforcement from a person who never had been on his ranch. From there, law enforcement came to Dassinger's ranch and found animals in subpar condition, some without apparent access to food or water and some with parasite problems. A veterinarian opined the animals should be seized. However, other veterinarians later called to the ranch by Dassinger did not agree, and the sheriff's department gave Dassinger an opportunity to remedy the situation.
Ehlis ruled that conditions on April 22, when the Stark County Sheriff's Department began investigating, met the standard for seizure. However, the condition of the animals and ranch had improved by May 18, the date the petition for seizure and disposition was written by the state. Ehlis pointed out the state gave Dassinger an opportunity to correct problems, which he did.
ADVERTISEMENT
That brings up the first questions that needs to be solved: At what point should animals be seized by law enforcement? Who gets to determine which animal husbandry practices are required? How many veterinarians' opinions should be used in making the determination?
After Dassinger's animals were seized, his attorney filed a restraining order to keep the county from disposing of them. Had that step not been taken, Dassinger would have had no other way to protest his property being taken from him. Some of the horses may have been put up for adoption rather than sold, meaning Dassinger would have had thousands of dollars of property taken from him and received nothing in return.
And that brings up another question: How can the state better protect the due process rights of animal owners and make the kind of hearing Dassinger received a required part of the process?
Additional questions about what constitutes animal abuse will be addressed in the criminal case, including whether animal owners can treat their own animals or are required to consult with veterinarians for every problem.
It seems clear to many watching the case that Dassinger's animals may not have received the best, or even adequate care. We know some Americans will disagree, but that doesn't mean they necessarily were abused, and it certainly doesn't mean the horses and cattle should have been seized without recourse.
What also is clear is that North Dakota's animal abuse and neglect laws and the process of animal seizure in the state need more work. Some people are worried that it would take only one anti-agriculture veterinarian and complicit law enforcement for animals to be seized and ranchers criminally charged for common practices.
The Legislature needs to make sure that doesn't happen so that the state's animal agriculture industry can continue to flourish. Special interest groups, both in and out of agriculture, will want their voices heard on any revisions of law. However, the Legislature will need to make sure the final product solves the problem rather than making more problems by trying to please everyone. The rule of law is an important part of life in this country, and in order for that to work, the law needs to be carefully written to take away as many differences of opinion and judgement as possible.
