AN ACT to amend and reenact section 36-25-01 of North Dakota Century Code, relating to the definition of farmed elk.
Summary
HB 1082 amends North Dakota Century Code section 36-25-01 to revise the statutory definition of “farmed elk.” The bill clarifies that farmed elk are elk-family mammals confined in a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape, and it specifies the purposes for which they may be raised or maintained, including fiber, meat, animal byproducts, breeding, exhibition, harvest, or any other purpose. It also retains the definition of “owner” as a person responsible for raising farmed elk.
The measure appears to be a technical clarification within the state’s animal health and livestock regulatory framework, rather than a substantive policy change. By updating the definition, it helps align the code with current terminology and management practices for elk operations, which may affect how the Agriculture Commissioner and the state board of animal health administer rules related to farmed elk.
The bill passed both chambers unanimously, with no recorded opposition in either the House or Senate. That voting pattern suggests broad agreement that the change was routine and noncontroversial, likely reflecting a housekeeping amendment requested by the Agriculture Commissioner.
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. Because no committee transcripts were provided and the votes were unanimous, no organized opposition or competing viewpoints are apparent. Any discussion likely centered on clarifying species definitions and ensuring the statute accurately describes farmed elk operations in North Dakota.
Impact
HB 1082 updates the definition of “farmed elk” in Chapter 36-25 of the North Dakota Century Code, which governs animal health-related definitions. The change may affect regulatory interpretation for elk producers, breeders, exhibitors, and others who keep elk in enclosed facilities, as well as the Agriculture Commissioner and state board of animal health in administering related laws and rules. It is primarily a definitional amendment and does not create a new regulatory program or penalty structure.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment around HB 1082 was strongly positive and noncontroversial. It moved through the House and Senate with unanimous votes, indicating broad legislative support and little to no opposition. The bill’s request by the Agriculture Commissioner and its technical nature suggest it was viewed as a routine statutory update rather than a contested policy issue.
Contention
No notable contention is evident in the available materials. The bill passed unanimously in both chambers, and there were no committee transcripts or recorded dissent to indicate disagreement. If any concerns existed, they were not reflected in the voting record or bill history provided.