North Dakota’s Proposed Ban On Ranch Hunting May Include Farming
Posted by Tom Remington on August 20, 2007
An initiative may appear on the ballot in November that I have been told is geared to stop the killing of penned up animals. Roger Kaseman, one of the supporters of the initiative, through comments he has left on this blog, told us that the initiative was to prevent events like Troy Lee Gentry shooting a helpless bear.
Get your facts straight before you load and lock and shoot off your mouth. Measure in no way affects raising elk or deer. Measure aims at hand raised, hand fed trophy elk and deer set up as targets behind escape proof fences for any guys with a fat wallets by 100% guaranteed success shooting preserves, aka, the killing fields. Troy Lee Gentry killing a tame bear named Cubby in a 3 acre enclosure is an example.
In my first report on the proposed initiative, I stated that from a report issued by the Bismark Tribune, opponents where saying that language in the bill would also ban farming animals such as elk and deer. Mr. Kaseman once again told us that this was not the case and provided us with this from his proposed initiative.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:
Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited – Penalty – Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act becomes effective on November 1, 2010
I contacted Mr. Shawn Schafer, a rancher who was quoted in the Bismark Tribune as saying the language would prevent him from raising elk and deer for meat. Here’s what he said in the Tribune.
Shawn Schafer, of Turtle Lake, said the measure’s language would even prohibit ranchers from raising big game to be butchered and sold for the meat. Schafer and his brother, Clark, operate the Schafer Whitetail Ranch, and Shawn Schafer is president of the North Dakota Deer Ranchers group.
Game preserves offer ranchers the opportunity to use land that is often marginal for farming or raising traditional livestock, Schafer said. The Schafer ranch raises white-tailed deer, which the Schafers sell to a private hunting preserve in Missouri. The ranch does not offer hunts on the premises.
“This really, really infringes upon the private property rights of producers, the farmers and ranchers of this state,” Schafer said. “We’re able to take that land, fence it in, and offer a service to a customer who apparently must enjoy it. Customer satisfaction will regulate this market better than anything.”
In Schafer’s reply to me, he quoted this part of the proposal.
“guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape”
Along with that he provided this explanation of how from this language he concluded that this proposal could put him out of business.
If my neighbor were wanted to buy a cull animal to butcher we would have to let it go into the wild before we could kill it, or if I haul a load to the butcher and we unload them into his man made slaughter house that he built to prevent animals from escaping, we are in violation again.
I think I would have to concur with Mr. Schafer that this language could be interpreted as he indicates.
The other thing I take issue with is Mr. Kaseman’s statement to me that this proposal is only intended to go after things like when Troy Lee Gentry was found guilty of shooting a helpless bear in a cage. While I know few people who would condone the practice that got Mr. Gentry in trouble, I see absolutely nothing in this proposal that defines anything to do with fair chase as it pertains to acts like that of Troy Lee Gentry. In other words, there are no definitions as to size of ranch, methods that can be used to harvest an animal, restrictions like cages, or tying and drugging an animal up to be killed. The language in his proposal is nothing more than a flat out ban on any kind of hunting behind any fences no matter how large or small the ranch.
This is partially what is wrong with trying to legislate fair chase. This proposal says that you can’t charge a fee to kill or attempt to kill an animal behind an enclosure designed to prevent escape. That’s a flat out ban and has nothing to do with stopping more Troy Lee Gentry killings.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Tom:
You’re right. A lot of these animal-rights fanatics draft language that is intentionally vague to get public support. It would be easy to then argue to the state’s supreme court that the language the public approved in the initiative included also the raising of deer and elk on game farms.
I’ve seen some animal cruelty laws that initially were so vague that animal-rights folks could have argued the law (if passed with the initial wording) also applied to the harvesting of animals during the hunting season.
Roger Kaseman is extremely short-sighted by pushing the N.D. initiative. The big question I have is what comes next if it passes? Kaseman needs to ask himself if it is really worth it to try to force his version of ethics on everyone else. Who will step in to force their version of ethics on him?
August 20th, 2007 at 11:24 am
I am watching acts like this one destroy the outdoor industry and why? If you don’t believe me, take a look at fishing. A harmless activity right? Well, not according to some. Within the fishing fraternity, you have groups waging wars against fellow anglers because they don’t think their form of fishing is ethical.
Fly fishermen don’t think worm fishermen are ethical. Using certain lures isn’t ethical. The use of fish and depth finders, fast boats, nets, etc. I’ve even heard someone once say that the use of hip waders gave fishermen and unfair advantage.
The North Dakota senate voted 44-3 earlier this year to shoot down a similar bill. Idaho also refused to enact an anti-elk ranching bill and a lot of it had to do with the fact that these industries are viable and a necessary component of each states’ economy. Is it necessary to destroy an entire industry because how some of the practices take place might offend someone?
I ask again, if the intent of the ballot proposal is to stop shooting bears in cages, then I suggest the proposal read as such. The language of this bill is so vague, most any far reaching scenario could be applied.
I’m for fair chase. As a matter of fact, I’m willing to bet that my personal standards of fair chase far exceed what the vast majority of hunters consider fair chase. I just don’t think it is up to me to force my hunting ethics on others.
Elk and deer in the wild are managed by fish and game. Laws they make to control public hunting deal with public safety and game management. Elk and deer bought and paid for by a rancher is private property. Two completely separate issues I believe.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:55 am