Dakota Rural Action has sounded the alarm on House Bill 1048, which appears to take away important due process protections that South Dakota farmers have against unwarranted search and seizure of their property by Monsanto and other litigious Big Ag giants.
Rep. Kathy Tyler (D-4/Big Stone City) reports that the state Department of Agriculture says it is listening to our concerns about House Bill 1048:
The issues are covered by criminal trespass statutes under SDCL 22-35. However, I will tell you we are internally meeting on this very issue and are considering an amendment to remove those section from consideration based on some constituent concerns. I will keep you informed.
Thank you
Courtney
Courtney L. De La Rosa
General Counsel/Director of Ag Policy
South Dakota Department of Agriculture
Joe Foss Building - 523 E. Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
(605) 773-4234
The Department of Ag is mistaken when it says our criminal trespass statutes make redundant the statutes repealed by HB 1048. SDCL 38-1-44 through 38-1-50 don't just tell Monsanto it can't trespass on your land. Those statutes make clear to farmers the rights they have in dealing with Big Ag investigators who are out to haul them into court for alleged biotech patent violations. They make clear that such investigators must obtain permission to collect samples. They allow the farmer to petition for a third party appointed by the Department of Agriculture to take any crop samples, at the patent holder's expense. They ensure that a patent holder cannot threaten a farmer with a protection order that would stop him from harvesting his crop. They authorize the Department of Agriculture to establish sampling protocols. And they ensure that the farmers promptly get to see the sample results, a vital bit of information sharing if the farmer has to defend himself from a Monsanto lawsuit.
Perhaps Ms. De La Rosa can exercise some legal legerdemain to demonstrate how our criminal trespass statutes provide any of the above protections for our farmers. But it would probably just be easier to send a memo to Senate Ag and Natural Resources to strike Sections 4 through 10 of HB 1048.
Here's a link to contract the Senate committee members:
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2013/CommitteeMembers.aspx?Committee=2
These issues are all covered by existing trespass laws, theft laws, and laws on civil court procedure - without the extra bureacracy of administrative rules and duplicative statutes.
You catch someone on your land taking some of your crop you have them charged with trespass & theft. Monsanto sues you for violating their patent, you force them to answer questions under oath how they got the sample. You require them to produce a portion of their sample for testing & you test your own sample and compare the two. It's all covered in existing other laws. But if it makes people feel better, then leave these ones on the books.
Rorschach; I would rather have the protection of your so-called duplication. If Monsanto, DuPont etal come one my land, I would have to a) catch them trespassing, b) be able to prove it, c) go to court and e)retain an attorney, the attorney I could retain is unlikely to have the experience of one of the big seed corporation's attorneys.
In short, if they decide to pick on me I probably could not afford to take the issue as far as it would have to go for resolution. The Supreme Court seems to have decided theseed companies have the right to patent life, even if their seed trespasses on my land via wind.
I am afraid this law change is made to order for the seed companies, there is little or no protection for the common farmer.
Fine, Joelie. But if they get you in their sights these extra laws won't make a difference to you. They will drag you into court & you will still have to hire a lawyer. They will get a court order to take their sample from your land without having to trespass or steal. Who do you think the SD Department of AG run by Walt Bones will side with if they are inserted in the middle of the process?
It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. The result is the same, except with these laws you have just one more reason to be disappointed with your government officials.
R, don't these extra statutes provide a little more buffer between the farmers and the courts? Don't they make clear to farmers up front their rights?
Apparently an amendment was added in the Senate to address our concerns and it was placed on the consent calendar. Thanks to you, Cory, and everyone else who got involved. Maybe the legislators will read the next bill they get!!?
Linda, you're right! Senate Ag & Nat. Resources amended HB 1048 today to strike all of the language that raised our concerns. SDCL 38-1-44 through SDCL 38-1-50 remain on the books to lay out rights for landowners not specified in our general trespass statutes.
When corporations are allowed to control universities:
http://www.sdsucollegian.com/2013/02/27/sdsu-signs-onto-supreme-court-case/