# Why did SB 2254 fail?



## Irish Mick (May 15, 2006)

This question has been nagging at me since yesterday afternoon when the Senate voted 3-44 to not pass the bill that would have prohibited the shooting of privately owned captive deer and elk inside fences in ND.

It would also have required elk owners to recapture their escaped animals in 4 days instead of 10.

Required elk to have a visible ear tags.

And it would have raised the height of the fences from 7 feet to 8 feet.

I am curious, why did Senate Bill 2254 fail?

Not enough hunter support?

Bad bill?

Uninformed legislators?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

It's going to depend on who you ask of course. It is was possibly the collision of passive support and orgainized opposition. In most of these high profile bills commercials have the motivation of money to unite them (good reason for action) versus esthetics of public trust. The legislature also does not view wildlife as physical public property. Sportsmen do not react to commercialization unless it affects their specific activity.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Sportsmen do not react to commercialization unless it affects their specific activity.


Unfortunately the public will only need to see a couple of video clips of Bambi in a Bucket shootings to think all hunters are like this. It will affect all hunters, and in the not to distant future. You can count on groups like PETA to try put us all in this shabby light.
It is like a wildlife or archery, or any other kind of club. If you have 100 members there will be six or seven doing all the work. We all need to get off our duff while we still have the freedom to hunt. 
The bill didn't pass because our legislature doesn't represent us as they should, the represent money. The other problem is the most represented demographic in the legislature is farmers. They look at it as landowner rights (which I think is wrong) and will never support anything that even looks like it might restrict landowners or farming. 
This happens often and the solution is a state wide referendum. I would say you can expect to vote on this in the next state wide election. We have a very agriculture biased legislature. You would think it was the only business in North Dakota. This isn't an anti landowner, or anti farmer bill, but the opposition has painted it as such just to activate that bias in the legislature.


----------



## Irish Mick (May 15, 2006)

I feel SB 2254 didn't pass because sportsmen didn't stand up and voice their opinions.

I've followed the threads on this site and I've seen how many people say "I'd never hunt at one of those places," well where were all of those people during the hearing?

I agree Plainsman, the anti's are going to throw this issue in our faces and make us all look like [email protected]

Plainsman I also agree that this legislature is way too much in favor of agriculture. Yes, it is an important part of our economy, but it's not the only part.

This state is nationally known for its great hunting, do we really want to be known as a state that you can come to and shoot animals inside fenced enclosures?

As for an initiated measure, I think it is a good idea but it will be very difficult to accomplish without participation from hunters. And so far they've shown they're not willing to stand up for what is right.


----------



## Goon (Apr 3, 2005)

Its was a stupid law, first deer, then what next pheasants?
If you really want change get the outfitters to start paying for liscensing the ones that are tying up all of the land.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

If they would have added another dozen or so amendments to the original form, it would have passed with ease.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Landowner rights
Lobbying power


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Do you really want to understand why things are happening this way?

The "truth" will never be known, but like in most things, the theory with the best explanitory power is usually the one that people tend to adopt. For this reason people tend to use these theories use to organize what they observe in the world around them. Gravity is such a theory.

If you want to understand the underpinings of debates here, and the lack of action in the legislature, you will do no better than to understand Kohlberg's theories of moral development. (Just google Kohlberg and read). In a nutshell, just as people learn complex thought (e.g., addition, multiplication, matrix algebra, calculus), they also develop in the moral development. Folks start with obedience based on punishment (e.g., a child or a dog) and progress towards a universal principled conscience. Kohlberg suggested 6 stages - there could be more or fewer, its could be a continuum - but the interesting part is to understand the reasoning and rationality found along his scale. Moreover, where people are on these stages affects what they do (e.g., how they vote).

For simplicity: the folks looking forward to preserving the resource for future generations are operating at a post-conventional state. The folks opposing these measure - because if its not illegal (and you can make a buck) then it must be fine - are operating at a conventional or even pre-conventional stage. The problem (and Kolhberg's hope) was that most adults should operate at a post-conventional level. Perhaps this was true when our founding fathers debated things. The reality is that most adults operate at a conventional level, and the legislature represents the general population. Further, these "conventional" folks can't even attempt to understand the rationale offered by "post-conventional" thinking (just like most folks who barely understand linear algebra then don't understand a second derivative, or a multi-dimensional space). Perhaps it is that the legislature has to operate at the lowest common denominator.

You can form your own opinion about which levels are "better". My point is that such a theory helps you understand and organize the various positions in debates that address ethical issues, such as what should and shouldn't be allowed. Folks often talk about the country being in a downward slide, but they have trouble verbalizing what they mean - perhaps this makes it clearer.

Now, armed with basic understanding of the theory, look at the various justifications offered in support of, and against, various proposals. It is very easy to sort them into the various categories. Do that, and you have finished the first assignment in Ethical Development 101.

I should be charging tuition...

M.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

MRN,

After listening to the hearings this morning via internet on the baiting
bill I do agree with you. These people are probably 10 years behind in time. 8)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ten years behind????

In a parallel genetic/moral evolutionary sense our legislature is still hanging by their a$$ in a tree.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Ten years behind????
> 
> In a parallel genetic/moral evolutionary sense our legislature is still hanging by their a$$ in a tree.


Now that's funny!!

Dosch,

If you listened to the reasoning folks offer you noticed that its not a matter of factually correct or incorrect, its really what level of justification they offer. Unfortunately, with many folks its personal gain (e.g., $$$) that wins the day. One might hope a state legislature would be beyond that. Imagine if our founding fathers were not...

M.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

MRN,
You should be charging tuition. That model has helped me understand why discussing issues with some people is hopeless.

Post-conventional is about 25% of the population if I remember right. Which illustrates the dangers of democracy.

I was reading Milton Freedman this weekend. He observed that being in the majority doesn't necessarily make you right but it does make you more comfortable.

Gerald Ford said that often making the right decision in politics is self defeating.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

It failed miserably because of the PETA-like, emotion based, vicious methods that were employed to support the bill, and attack those who opposed it.

I read that one elk rancher was essentially run out of a legislative meeting when he spoke in opposition of this bill.

The editorial that was in the GF Herald and the posts that were put up here speak for themselves. I got so sick of the negativity and lack of tolerance and reasonable debate that I quit checking in for a couple weeks. Instead, I emailed legislators.

Have to particularly commend the gent, without naming names, who wrote the GF editorial. Bore an uncanny resemblance to a PETA rant, and I wasn't the only one who noticed. I'm guessing, based on a few informal inquiries I made, that you did your cause more harm than good with that one.

It was particularly impressive when compared to the low key, reasonable, fact based rebutal by the folks who own the Cedar Ridge Ranch that the Herald printed a few days later.

Our legislators aren't going to screw with landowner rights and a means to make a living in ND based on negative rhetoric....


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I got the impression that the game farms in ND were presented more as a breeding type operation (for sale elsewhere) than a shooting preserve and that the legislators didn't feel it warranted such regulation at this time.
That could be true but still does not make it right.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

dakotashooter2,

If you had been at the committee hearing you would know that the hunting preserve industry was presented just as it is. Porponents of the bill tried to paint us just as they do on this site. I was there and by far the majority of the discussion centered around hunting preserves. That is what the bill addressed and the committee kept the discussion on topic. Try and spin it any way you want, but bottom line, the bill got no traction.


----------

