![](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.denverpost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/502.0.1647611658-TDP-L-CORONAVIRUS-AAO-_7AO8486xxx.jpg\")
<\/p>\nColorado ranchers and farmers are fighting against a 2022 proposed ballot measure that they say is yet another attack on the state\u2019s $47 billion agriculture industry.<\/p>\n
Initiative 16, a section of which is referred to as \u201cWilbur\u2019s Law,\u201d adds livestock and fish to the state\u2019s animal cruelty law and redefines what constitutes a \u201csexual act with an animal,\u201d including practices often used in breeding and animal husbandry. It also requires that slaughtering of livestock only occur if an animal has lived a quarter of its natural lifespan — estimated at 20 years for a cow, for example — which would vastly change current practices, considering cattle are often butchered well before they turn 3.<\/p>\n
The website for the ballot initiative, called Protect Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation, or PAUSE, says it will extend animal welfare rights to all farm animals and that there is \u201cno rational reason to exempt farmed animals from basic abuse laws that currently exist to protect our pets.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cAfter seeing with our own eyes, thousands of chickens on a Colorado organic free range farm left without food and severely abused, we knew there was a discrepancy between the public image and the reality of some farms,\u201d the PAUSE website said.<\/p>\n
The two designated representatives of the initiative, Alexander Sage of Broomfield and Brent Johannes of Boulder, did not return The Post\u2019s multiple requests for comment. They would have to gather 124,632 valid voter signatures to get it on the November 2022 ballot.<\/p>\n
A coalition of livestock and farming groups called Coloradans for Animal Care opposes the possible ballot measure and challenged the decisions of the state\u2019s Title Board with the state Supreme Court on Wednesday. The coalition believes the title includes \u201cpolitical catchphrases\u201d meant to sway voters. Its members also argue that the proposal deals with at least two subjects when ballot measures can only have one, and that the Title Board\u2019s rules are misleading.<\/p>\n
Carlyle Currier, a rancher from Molina and president of the Colorado Farm Bureau, said it simply on the coalition\u2019s website: It\u2019s the \u201cmost radical and extreme ballot initiative Colorado has ever seen.\u201d Already, Logan County commissioners signed a resolution opposing the initiative, according to the Sterling-Journal Advocate.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Colorado Livestock Association CEO Bill Hammerich said not only would it hurt the state\u2019s agriculture industry, it\u2019d affect meat and meat product exports, which make up nearly 14% of Colorado\u2019s exports.<\/p>\n
\u201cTalk about devastation,\u201d Hammerich said. \u201cOur rural communities would be totally devastated by this.\u201d He added that the Front Range communities would also feel the effects in the long run, because they wouldn’t be able to get local meat.<\/p>\n
Specialty producer Jennifer Melichar, who owns Boulder Beef and ranches in La Salle and Longmont, said the slaughtering age restriction is particularly harmful. It\u2019s not financially feasible to feed cows for that long, said Melichar, who generally processes her animals at 18 months.<\/p>\n
Not to mention, she added, if ranchers wait that long to process meat, it\u2019ll be tough and flavorless, and consumers would see more fat in the meat. Melichar castrates the steers on her ranch at birth to keep the meat tender, which she said would also be prohibited.<\/p>\n
Worker safety is another concern, said northeastern Colorado dairy farmer Mary Kraft. Her farmhands artificially inseminate cows — which would be against the law if the ballot measure passes. Doing so eliminates the need for herd bulls, which are notoriously dangerous, she said, and keeps the cows producing milk.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think we have an agenda now in the state of people who want a more, to their word, utopian society, and they forget that our state works because we take advantage of all of the different terrains that we have and all of the different regions that we have,\u201d she said. Kraft added that those in metropolitan areas may not think the initiative is a big deal, but it will greatly affect agriculture, which she calls the \u201cbedrock\u201d of economic viability in rural Colorado.<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/www.denverpost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/TDP-L-CORONAVIRUS-AAO-_7AO8300xxx.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
The Colorado Veterinary Medical Association is also against the measure, writing that it would have \u201csignificant, extremely negative impacts on Colorado\u2019s animals, their owners and the veterinary profession.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cEvery veterinarian takes an oath to protect animal health and welfare, prevent and relieve animal suffering, promote public health, and advance medical knowledge,\u201d it said. \u201cInitiative 16 threatens all of those commitments.\u201d<\/p>\n
The group worries that veterinarians will face animal cruelty charges for performing routine procedures like spaying and neutering if the measure is passed as written. PAUSE supporters do not believe this is the case, according to the FAQ on their website.<\/p>\n
Among the actions in the ballot measure that would be outlawed are \u201cany intrusion or penetration, however slight, with an object or part of a person\u2019s body\u201d into an animal.<\/p>\n
The president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Ingrid Newkirk, said in a statement that her organization is reviewing the bill, but it\u2019s \u201call in favor of pointing out the sexual abuse of farmed animals, including cows who are violated during artificial insemination \u2026 piglets who are castrated while fully conscious and without pain relief; and many more.\u201d<\/p>\n
The initiative states that it wouldn\u2019t prevent someone from \u201cdispensing care to an animal in the interest of improving that animal\u2019s health,\u201d but opponents say there\u2019s a clear misunderstanding of agricultural practices and caring for livestock.<\/p>\n
Republican Rep. Perry Will of New Castle, west of Glenwood Springs, worries that it will pass because the large population centers are not in rural areas and may not understand the true effects of the proposal.<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.denverpost.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/TDP-L-CORONAVIRUS-AAO-_7AO8619xxx.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
The agricultural industry as a whole has felt under attack for the past couple of years, the rancher\/lawmaker said, from the reintroduction of wolves to this proposal. Most recently, people in the industry fought back against Gov. Jared Polis\u2019 \u201cMeatOut\u201d day, which they countered with \u201cMeat In\u201d day.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s basically a showstopper for the ranching industry and in general the agriculture industry in my district,\u201d Will said of Initiative 16.<\/p>\n
Polis and Attorney General Phil Weiser, both Democrats, have said they oppose the measure, with Weiser saying on Twitter that it isn\u2019t based in science and would raise food prices (which already are at their highest since June 2014, according to the UN).<\/p>\n
In a statement to The Denver Post, Polis\u2019 spokesperson Shelby Wieman wrote that he \u201cstands in solidarity with Colorado farmers and ranchers in opposition to the PAUSE ballot initiative because it would hurt Colorado and destroy jobs.\u201d<\/p>\n