Language On N. Dakota Hunting Ban Initiative Troubling
August 27, 2007
A group calling themselves the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase are in the process of attempting to get a citizen’s initiative on this November’s ballot that they say is aimed to stop hunting behind fences. There has already been ample debate about the intent of the bill as sponsors are saying their intent is to stop the shooting of caged or drugged animals, yet their proposed bill will eliminate all hunting behind all fences.
There has also been discussion about how this proposed initiative would effect the elk and deer ranching industry in North Dakota. While sponsors claim the bill is not intended to do that, the wording of the proposal is being seen by some in the legal profession as a back door attempt to also shut down the domestic ranching of elk, deer and other exotics. If not a blatant attempt, it could very well happen anyway.
Here is the text of the 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 sent a copy of the text to my legal resource to get an opinion on the bill’s text. This is the response I got.
This language includes ANY big game or exotic species which is privately owned so yes, if an elk/deer rancher calls a butcher to kill one of their animals and pays the butcher for doing so, it would be against the law. It exempts a government trapper or Wildlife Services from killing such an animal inside a pen. It would even be unlawful for a vet to put down such an animal if it was severely injured. Animals can only be killed by government employees/agents for specific reasons: to reduce the population, control/prevent diseases or another action authorized by law.
I’m sure that this is not the first nor the last legal opinion that will be expressed during this debate. There are distinctly at least two separate issues at play here and the citizens of North Dakota need to know exactly what it is that they may be asked to sign a petition for or vote on. At this point in time, it is far from clear as to what the actual intent of the proposed bill is regardless of what the sponsors are saying.
For the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase to publicly promote their initiative as strictly and anti-hunting bill would be inaccurate. The last thing the state of North Dakota needs to do is pass a bill that is so unclear in its wording, thousands, perhaps millions of dollars will be spent battling it out in court.
Tom Remington
Most Commented Posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
big game is defined in the North Dakota Century Code for the state of North Dakota. big game is inclusive/exclusive
Tom:
Great work as usual. Here are some other angles the antis could argue the proposed initiative includes. As the bill is now written, a vet would not be allowed to euthanize private deer, elk, buffalo, or (drum roll please) a zoo animal. Zoo animals could also be considered “exotic mammals.”
The North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase will say their proposed initiative does not include what I mentioned above. But once approved and made state law, they will lose the ability to interpret the measure. HSUS or Peta would certainly take the measure to the state’s supreme court to argue the law includes what I mentioned.
wrong erik. buffalo are not defined as big game in North Dakota.
Elk are considered big game by the ND Century Code but this is what makes FARMED ELK not part of big game species: According to ND Century Code “Species” is defined as a subspecies of wildlife, and “wildlife” excludes any domestic animals as defined by section 36-01-00.1 or birds or animals held in private ownership. “Domestic animals” include dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison, farmed elk, llama, alpaca or swine. So just as bison are not big game, farmed elk and privately owned deer are NOT big game species. But if this gets into court, you can bet they will bend straight lines to include whatever they want, even BISON, and the SLAUGHTER of these animals, as this is about shutting game farms down.
Whatever “this is about,” it will infringe upon people’s rights, and that is unamerican.
Erin,
You are right. It will definitely infringe on property rights. What galls me is that on their site they state that this does not affect bison. So if you go by the Century Code definition to exlude bison, you cannot include farmed elk/privately owned deer by the Century Code definition either. Then they go on to tell us that it does not affect the slaughter of these animals. How does any man-made enclosure to prevent escape only include a high fence? What about a squeeze shoot or a slaughterhouse? They also say that this measure will eliminate internet hunting of animals on game farms, the infamous Texas-style computer shooting at game RANCHES. This does not even exist. This statement alone makes me question anything else they say!!