DICKINSON North Dakota's misdemeanor penalties for extreme animal cruelty aren't in step with the stiffer penalties that most state residents support, say animal welfare advocates.
The lack of felony penalties in North Dakota law was a factor in the state's 48th place ranking in an animal welfare report of the Humane Society of the United States, said JoDee Foss, spokeswoman for the Pet Project Humane Society, an animal rescue society in Dickinson.
"It's of great concern," Foss said. "There needs to be some felony charges or something to hold people accountable."
Karen Thunselle of Minot, who follows animal welfare issues, said the North Dakota Legislature has shied away twice from tougher laws.
"It's disappointing to say the least," she said, adding that most North Dakotans would support felony penalties against egregious acts of animal cruelty that amount to torture. "It's not over-zealous by any means. I think most of the things about animal welfare are pretty common sense around here."
Severe animal cruelty is a Class A misdemeanor in North Dakota, punishable with up to a year in jail and/or $2,000 fine. The City of Minot classifies animal cruelty as a Class B misdemeanor, although animal control officer Dick Schnell said the city often will prosecute egregious cases under state law.
Minot native Rep. Corey Mock, R-Grand Forks, co-sponsored a bill last session that would have made subsequent offenses felonies. Because legislators wanted more time to digest that and various other changes in the bill, Mock had the bill amended to study and recommend updates to the state's animal welfare laws. The bill passed the Senate 47-0 but failed in the House 36-56. Mock said legislators were concerned for the livestock industry, although the amended bill was supported by a diverse coalition of farm groups, veterinarians and county officials.
"There's a common interest across the state to address those laws. I think it's the right thing to do," Mock said.
Mock noted that North Dakota recently took a step in the right direction by making it a Class C felony for anyone who willfully injures or kills a service animal or law enforcement support animal. A Class C felony is punishable with up to five years in prison and/or a $5,000 fine. The state also made it a Class A misdemeanor to harass, taunt or interfere with the handling of a support animal.
"It's unfortunate that some North Dakota lawmakers insist that the penalty for frequently abusing, torturing or killing pets is the same as interfering with a service animal," Mock said. "Amending our animal cruelty laws is not only the right thing to do, it's essential for our protection against serial offenders of the law. It would also protect against anti-ranching interest groups by clearly defining animal cruelty and protecting commonly accepted agricultural practices."
State veterinarian Susan Keller has testified in support of felony penalties for egregious acts of animal cruelty, but she also sees how opening the law for one change can lead to discussion about more changes. Those whole-sale changes need to be well studied with input from various interests, she said.
Sen. Jim Dotzenrod, D-Wyndmere, who sponsored last session's animal welfare bill, said he believes North Dakota eventually will have a felony law for animal cruelty but it will take the involvement of the North Dakota Stockmen's Association. He expects to visit with the organization, of which he is a member, to see how to best create change.
"They seem to understand that there is a problem. They are not opposing this. But they haven't been willing to take the lead," he said "There isn't any organization that's putting any time into this to get things ready for the next session."
The humane society report showed North Dakota as one of only three states without felony penalties for egregious acts of animal cruelty. Licensing and inspection of dog breeding facilities and bans on possession of certain exotic animals also were common in other states but absent in North Dakota. North Dakota regulates but doesn't ban exotic animal ownership.
North Dakota received a score of 13 out of 66 possible points in the humane society ranking. California ranked the highest with 46 points.
Keller said the poor ranking is frustrating because the state has been proactive in using its animal welfare laws to protect animals and to educate and correct people who error unintentionally or because they lack adequate resources.
"That's the most important thing is those outcomes. You are trying to prevent this suffering by animals," she said.
Robert Timian, chief enforcement officer with the North Dakota Game & Fish, said many of the issues on which the humane society scored the state poorly reflect a difference in viewpoint between the society and most North Dakotans. North Dakota lost a point for allowing hunting of contained animals, a practice that voters upheld in 2010 by a 57-43 margin.
The point system included items such as possession and sale of shark fins, banned only in Washington, Oregon, California and Hawaii. North Dakota also lost points for not prohibiting hunting of bears, although the state has no open season on bears. A new law banning hunting remotely via the Internet took effect too late to be acknowledged in the report.
North Dakota fared well in the report on laws against dog and bird fighting, requiring spaying and neutering of adopted pets and creation of pet trusts.