http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010321/ts/mad_sheep.html
When such animals are seized/destroyed, is the owner compensated in any way? (Would that fall under the realm of insurance?) I’m curious if such seizures run afoul of Amendment V.
Now, the sheep are not being slaughtered to feed federal troops or something, so it’s not exactly for “public use.” Just public safety. And it was due process (they lost the hearing). But does any compensation exist, or are the farmers just S.O.L.?
Like you, I’m curious as to whether the USDA will compensate the shepherds; however, I don’t recall the cops offering my neighbor compensation when they shot his rabid dog.
Personally, I think my neighbor should have reimbursed the cops for the bullets and their time, since he caused the problem by not immunizing the dog.
What I can’t figure out is why there seems to be no mention of this story in any of the online editions of Vermont newspapers. It’s not like that state is swamped with events of national importance.
According to the USDA, the owners are being compensated.
It is not constitutionally necessary to compensate the owners of the sheep. The property here is being taken as an exercise of the government’s police power to protect the public safety, not under the government’s power of eminent domain.
If the fire department bulldozes your house to prevent the spread of a fire, you’re not entitled to any compensation under the 5th Amendment. (Although, like the USDA, they might be nice and write you a check anyway.) If the city bulldozes your house to build a new fire station, you have a compensable taking.
Citations looked up upon request.
I agree with MintyGreen, under Texas law. Of course, the issue can still be argued – it’s not quite as much an emergency as the burning building, at least based on TV reports.
The issue may be decided by Vermont Law. But under general (Federal) constitutional principles, I’m gonna stick with the lawyerly “maybe”. I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t a case directly on point out there – let some law student with free WESTLAW figure that one out . . .
AND . . . (this is a bit of an aside, but I hadn’t thought of it right away), I bet that the market value of infected (or possibly-infected) sheep is mighty low anyway! Certainly, it is not contended that the government infected the sheep. So even if it is a condemnation of sorts it’s more like tearing down a crack-house, i.e., limited value.
In short, if I were that guy I wouldn’t be complaining too much – if the s*** hits the fan I don’t see his neighbors doing as well as he (apparently) has.
For clarification, I was speaking strictly about the U.S. Constitution. State constitutional requirements may vary (although they would not affect the USDA because it is a federal entity), and statutes may require compensation for certain exercises of the police power.
In other words, other laws may require compensation for our unlucky Vermont shepherd, but the Fifth Amendment does not.
I don’t read the article as a “BSE seizure” at all – not even close. The article states that two better known varieties of what these sheep actually have (TSE) are scrapie (in sheep) and BSE (in cattle). Sheep do not get BSE and scrapie has been in the US since at least 1947.
There is no known way for humans to contract scrapie nor anything else from sheep infected with it.
The Authorities are being very, very cautious and the rest seems, to me, like media scare mongering by association (“mad cow disease” = not relevant, mentioned in the headline and para one of the Yahoo report, “scrapie” = relevant, mentioned in para nine of same).
From the Yahoo report:
The second disputed flock of about 140 sheep is owned by Larry and Linda Faillace of East Warren. No date has been set to take their sheep.
Linda Faillace said Wednesday she felt ``anger, frustration, disbelief’’ and accused the USDA of failing to heed science.
``That’s what makes us so angry. USDA builds up public hysteria over a species that doesn’t get the disease,’’ she said.
Bob T., many thanks for the cite. Nice to know there’s SOME justice. And as others mentiones, if the farmers are getting the fair market value for the sheep (the value of healthy sheep, that is), then they lucked out–the govt. paid them for what were unsellable sheep.
L_C–I agree. But regardless of whether these sheep spreading BSE/TSE/scrapie/whatever is a REAL concern or not, we all know that the govt. seized those sheep because they don’t want Mad Cow disease in the USA. Scare-mongering? A bit. But the alarmist article also accurately reflects the govt.'s reasons for acting.