# Landowners, hunters lock horns on high fence hunting



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

From the GF Herald...www.grandforksherald.com

I think it's good the discussion is ongoing and Sen Mathern plans to bring a bill to ban them.

Landowners, hunters lock horns on high fence hunting
By Dave Kolpack, Associated Press
Published Wednesday, November 15, 2006

FARGO - More than a month before North Dakota's Legislature starts, landowners and hunters already are locking horns over a proposal to ban private hunting preserves, known as high fence game farms.

Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, said he plans to bring a bill to the 2007 session that would prohibit landowners from bringing in hunters to shoot elk and deer inside a fenced area.

"I can see that this is going be really controversial," Mathern said. "I had no idea it was that big of a business activity."

More than 100 deer and elk farms are registered in North Dakota, state veterinarian Susan Keller said.

Mathern said the potential for breeding problems and disease were among the factors that led him to introduce the bill. The most important question is an ethical one, he said.

"Is this right, basically, to put animals in a fence and shoot them and call it a sport?" Mathern asked.

Sally Dvirnak, who runs an elk hunting ranch with her husband near Killdeer, N.D., said she believes Mathern's proposal violates property rights and free enterprise.

"We're just people trying to stay on the family farm," Dvirnak said. "What frustrates me the most is that you have people who don't like it and don't agree with it who feel they have the right to dictate what someone else can and can't do. That's not America."

Shawn McKenna, executive director of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, said game farms ignore the principle of fair chase.

"It ain't hunting," McKenna said. "It's going out there and shooting something in a pen, basically."

Dvirnak and Shawn Schafer, who runs a white-tailed deer ranch near Turtle Lake, N.D., said most hunters would not pay to shoot animals in a pen. Customers want an authentic hunting experience, which they said is provided by most of the game farms in North Dakota.

"We're not taking animals and putting them in a hay yard type pen. We're talking about a number of acres," Dvirnak said.

"People are looking for a quality hunt and a safe place to hunt," Schafer said. "Customer satisfaction will regulate the people who have animals in a corral."

McKenna said size doesn't matter.

"How much acreage is enough?" he asked. "Ultimately, you're chasing them into a 7- or 8-foot fence. Where's the sport in that?"

Brian Kramer, a spokesman for the North Dakota Farm Bureau, said his group is taking a wait-and-see approach on Mathern's bill.

"This issue has come up before, and it seems to me the sentiment was along the lines of these are privately owned animals," Kramer said. "It's no different than if you buy a cow from me. You want to shoot it rather than having me take it into the butcher plant."

Mathern said the 17-page bill draft is complicated by regulations dealing with livestock, farming and animal inspections. Also, some owners sell the meat on their own rather than allow hunting.

"It's important that all these issues be aired," Mathern said.

Asked if the game farms have presented disease problems, Keller said, "Generally speaking, no." She said the state Board of Animal Health has "taken a hard line" on regulating the industry.

"I think we have a very good system," Keller said. "I can't speak for other states."

Private game farms have been banned in several states, including Montana and Wyoming. Terry Steinwand, director of the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, said a similar proposal is expected in Idaho.

Steinwand said his department has not taken an official position on the issue.

"There's certainly a segment of people out there who don't like game fence or high fence hunting," Steinwand said. "But they wouldn't be here if there wasn't some sort of demand."


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

We as sportsmen are obviously not working with our legislators.

I don't support high fence hunting, but why are we singling this issue out and not concentrating on the bigger picture....access and pressure. IHMO high fence hunting is a sub part of the access issue and should fit under that umbrella. It is like we are dumping all our apples into this issue now and getting away from keeping our course.

Our focus should be access and pressure of hunting in ND and how we can reverse the adaptation of waterfowl leaving our state so early along with reviewing regulations of g/o's (which would include high fence hunting), and access to land (whether through an enhanced PLOTS program or through private land).


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Why? 
C:\Documents and Settings\Owner\My Documents\Headwaters News Daily news and comment for the Rocky Mountain West.htm

The single biggest segment of hunters in ND are deer hunters hands down. If they lose, we all lose. If problems develope from this industry all of us will pay through the nose. The funding to correct the problem or contain it will not come from the caged hunt owners-game ranches. That money will be *our* license money, siphoned off from NDGF. A pile of money that would have gone to other programs. Antis nation wide use this "industry" to paint all sportsmen with the same brush. Google Russ Bellar. There's a sweetheart. Who feeds the animals into Bellar type opperations? As this industry is outlawed in other states the the investors move where it's still legal. When the opperations become disease ridden they walk away. Hey, I'm broke, it's not my problem. And the rest of us pay again.

The eminent natural resource manger and author, Jim Posewitz:


> Tolerance of the lowest ethical standards, for the sake of unity, demeans us all.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I say get rid of every game farm out there. It is prostitution of our natural resources. If the game is owned by the state how did these people get breading stock to begin with? Through some corrupt politicians or by other illegal means I would think. Native wildlife is endangered by many who are irresponsible, and violate health standards.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

I have not read the bill so I have no idea what is in it. I am looking forward on its contents. I am troubled by a few things.



> More than 100 deer and elk farms are registered in North Dakota, state veterinarian Susan Keller said.


I want people to be aware that these are people who raise Elk and Deer not the number of high fence hunting operations. The game and fish can give you those numbers. I know many people who raise Elk for meat I also know people who offer high fence hunting and do not raise them.



> Mathern said the potential for breeding problems and disease were among the factors that led him to introduce the bill. The most important question is an ethical one, he said.
> 
> "Is this right, basically, to put animals in a fence and shoot them and call it a sport?" Mathern asked.


Here is the main problem I have with this bill. "If" the problem is concern of possible spread of CWD then we will have to eliminate all farms. "if " Senator Matherns concern is the spread of disease, and we close everyone down. Who is going to pick up the tab? Or are we going to tell the people we put out of business tough luck ?

If this is only for a matter of ethics then I say Good Luck. I personally would never hunt one in this way. First I could not afford it, but that is my choice. To legislate ethics is going to be a real challenge for Sen Mathern, I wish him luck. I personally see this bill going nowhere


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Legislating ethics in this area has no place?

Could you defend the internet point (roll your mouse) and shoot (left click) style of hunting on the basis of "what about the poor sap we just put out of business"?

We hunt at the liesure of the vast majority of those that don't. I wish those who produced "hunting" shows, "hunting contests" and yes the high fence shooting gallaries (and those who use them) would remember that. Thousands of affected Australians didn't think it could happen either...

If a big game "outing" is structured for a 99% probablility that it will be over sometime between breakfast and lunch and the target-on-legs has a name, it ain't hunting and it reflects poorly on us by those who really don't differentiate between what we know as hunting and what some call hunting.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Here is a sample of some of the articles that pertain to Cabbed Hunts.

Game Farming - Still Playing With Fire 
Editor's Note: This article provides an update of legal challenges to the Montana game farm reform ballot initiative I-143 before the Montana Supreme Court and an in-part consolidation of two articles written by Bill Schneider writing for New West (www.newwest.net) a regional online magazine. 
Montana Supreme Court Hears Legal Challenges to Montana's I-143 
On November 7, 2000, the voters of Montana approved the Sportsmen's/Citizen Initiative I-143 that put in place new state regulations governing the licensure of game farms and prohibits the shooting of big game animals, held captive within the confines of fenced game farms, for a fee.
Within months of the passage of I-143, game farm operators began challenging the new laws by suing the State of Montana and Fish, Wildlife and Parks; eleven (11) cases to-date. Montana Wildlife Federation has intervened in each of the cases to defend the initiative, the will of the people (voters), and the interests of ethical, conservation minded hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, and in the interest of healthy, wild, free-ranging public wildlife.
The State, FWP and sportsmen have been successful in each and every case that has had a judicial ruling. Rulings on the lawsuits have upheld the constitutionality of I-143 and the regulations. Some rulings, as an example, have stated that I-143: "&#8230;advances legitimate non-illusory state interest in protecting Montana wildlife", "It is rational to claim that fee killing would have negative effects on Montana's fair chase hunting ethic", and "Montana does have a legitimate interest in banning fee killing (canned hunts) of game farm animals&#8230;"
On Sept 13, with MWF members, hunters and anglers and game farm operators in the audience, the Montana Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the last of two separate legal challenges of I-143. The two hearings were conducted because district court rulings for the two cases first heard in 2004, dismissed appellants' claims in their entirety and the game farm operators appealed the ruling to the Montana Supreme Court.
The claim the court is considering in both cases is tied to liability, did I-143 cause an uncompensated regulatory "takings" of Plaintiffs' property which precluded them from realizing a reasonable return on their investment, primarily from the prohibition of shooting animals, so called "canned hunts", for a fee. Lower courts previously determined that the business of game farming had already been negatively affected by factors other than I-143, the growing concerns about chronic wasting disease and the transmission from game farm animals to wild animals, the failed market for antlers' used as an aphrodisiac, and the dwindling market for game farm animal meat were all reducing the profitability of game farming. Further, the courts said that lost profits, absent any physical property restriction or taking - "provides a slender reed upon which to rest a takings claim&#8230;"
Regardless of the claims in the oral arguments by attorneys representing the game farmers that after I-143 there is no economic benefit of owning game farm animals and the license to do business has no value, the State and MWF attorneys argued that game farms are free to conduct sales of either products, body parts including meat, antlers, hides etc, or the entire animal for out of state shooting or breeding operations. Several operators have, in fact, sold their elk to out of state operations. And, the properties still have value; one of the game farms has sold a portion of their land for $4.8 million.
The game farm operators are asking that the public pay them back for their losses due to the prohibition of shooting penned animals for a fee, "costs should be borne by Montanans&#8230;" they said. Both of the cases have been taken under advisement by the Supreme Court and it is difficult to determine when they may make a ruling, it could be as early as this winter or as late as next spring. Will We Learn Our Lesson Before It Is Too Late? Is It Already Too Late? The news bugling out of eastern Idaho last week should scare the stuffing out of every elk hunter and wildlife biologist in the New West. A large herd of domesticated, genetically engineered elk-or at least we hope they were elk-escaped from a game farm and are now mingling (aka breeding) with wild elk, and probably not only in Idaho, but also in Montana and Wyoming. We don't know if they're carrying chronic wasting disease (CWD), but we know they're carrying some bad genes, so there goes the gene pool in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 
All this happened because we don't have the good sense to do what needs to be done to prevent a disaster that we've been able to see coming for decades. Will we learn our lesson before it's too late, if it's not already too late? Or should we prepare to spend our Octobers and Novembers of the future indoors reading about how elk hunting used to be?
As many as 160 elk broke through a fence in mid-August on the 200-acre Chief Joseph Elk Genetic Improvement and Canned Hunt Farm-self proclaimed as "Idaho's Finest Sportsman's Retreat"-near Rexburg, Idaho, on the fringe of the Targhee National Forest and 10 miles from Yellowstone National Park. The jail break was not immediately reported as required.
"This is the train wreck we've seen coming for a long time," Steve Huffaker, director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, exclaimed in an August 30 AP story, as he announced the escape.
I checked the canned hunt operation's website and see that the hunts go for $5,995 for "any trophy elk." The three-day guided hunts include a guide, packer and guarantee, and you pay extra for the meat Hunt the West's finest private elk herds, the website proclaims. Dr. Rex Rammell, "a devout big game sportsman and veterinarian specializing in wildlife management," has used "trophy genetics" to grow some of North America's largest trophy bull elk. Yikes!
Even though Wyoming has a similar time bomb ready to go off in the form of 22 elk feedgrounds, the Cowboy State had the good foresight to ban game farms 31 years ago. Montana tried to get its legislature to do this, but failed, so in year 2000, hunters in the Big Sky State took the initiative from the politicians and passed a ballot measure (I-143) that disallows shooting captive, game farm wildlife for a fee, prevents the expansion or transfer of existing game farm licenses, and bans the creation of new operations. 
I'm sure hunters and wildlife biologists in Idaho would like to be like Montana or Wyoming in this case, but so far politics has prevented meaningful reform-although last year, at least, the Idaho legislators refused to expand the state law to allow moose farming and canned moose hunts. 
Unlike Montana and Wyoming, Idaho has a powerful lobby called the Idaho Elk Breeder's Association. (They really should consider changing the name, don't you think?) But even the elk breeders' own association doesn't approve of what was going on at Rammell's game farm, nor is Rammell a member of the association. And no wonder! This situation could-and should-lead to a prohibition of elk farming and canned hunts in the Gem State.
Fears are rampant that the escaped animals did indeed carry CWD and perhaps other diseases such as brucellosis and are currently infecting the wild elk population in the local area. And the "local area" includes Yellowstone Park.
Also rampant are fears that the elk weren't purebred elk, but instead red deer or elk/red deer hybrids. Rammell did tell the Idaho Statesmen that elk hunters shouldn't fret because the escaped elk were "genetically superior." Now, there's a statement that should give elk hunters and wildlife agency directors severe heartburn.
At the very least "genetically superior" means, the elk were selectively bred to produce oversized (aka unnatural) antlers. Now, in the midst of the September rut, those domestic, genetically superior bulls are out there breeding with wild, genetically normal cows. One major problem is, of course, telling the difference between a wild elk and a genetically superior elk. Idaho law requires that elk breeders put blaze orange ear tags on their animals specifically with this problem in mind, but Rammell has refused to comply. Those orange ear tags probably made it difficult for him to convince customers to fork over $5,995 for the privilege of shooting an animal that might resemble an ear-tagged Hereford or Angus bull, which is not far from the truth, of course.
Instead he puts small brown tags that are virtually impossible to see. Allowing such blatant and illegal misbehavior should send a few heads rolling in the state Department of Agriculture, the agency responsible for enforcing the law.
It gets worse. In 2002, Rammell successfully lobbied the Idaho Legislature to forgive most of the more than $750,000 he owed to the state for failing to apply blaze-orange ear tags to identify the animals as domestic. You'd think such forgiveness would, at the very least, carry a requirement that he comply with the law in the future, but four years later, he is still ignoring the legal mandate. But alas, amid this doom and gloom, there is also good news. This embarrassing situation should be enough to convince Idaho elk hunters and wildlife agencies to go to the legislature for meaningful reform. And this reform should kick into motion a process resulting in the gradual elimination of game farming and canned hunt operations. If the legislature wimps out, I only hope hunters will use the initiative process to put it on the ballot and pass it as Montana did.
Idaho Hunters Going for Ban on Canned Hunts, Limits on Game Farms
In the contentious aftermath of the escape of up to 160 domestic elk from a 200-acre game farm near the west edge of Yellowstone National Park, hunters in the Gem State have decided this is the time to go for a ban on these "shooter bull operations."
In a NewWest interview, Mark Bell, President of the Idaho Sportsman's Caucus, said his coalition would be "relentless" in pursuing an end to what he calls "high-fence shooting" of elk. "It's not hunting, so I won't call it hunting."
"We believe the facts indicate that the escaped animals were not properly tagged, were not monitored, and, once escaped, were not reported as required," Bell explained. "The implications of such escapes include not only passing diseases to wild populations, but polluting the genetic makeup of elk herds in Idaho, as well as in Montana and Wyoming, and in this instance, the famous Yellowstone herd. Such effects could be disastrous for those herds." 
Bell said his coalition of 26 sportsman's groups, including national groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Safari Club International is already drafting a bill for the upcoming Idaho legislature. "If we can't get the legislature to pass it," Bell said, "we will go for a ballot initiative."
The coalition's website (www.idahoscac.org) lists the member organizations and claims to represent 18,384 Idaho sportsmen and women.
That is the same scenario played out in Montana. After several failed attempts to get a meaningful bill through the Montana legislature, hunters put the issue on the ballot and passed it with the leadership of the Montana Wildlife Federation. The 2000 law, which is still being debated in the courts, placed an outright ban on shooting of captive (game farm) wildlife, disallows the expansion of game farms or the transfer of the license from the current owners.
Bell said his group is studying the Montana approach, but he does not know if that's the route Idaho will take. Idaho hunters could also go for an outright ban as Wyoming did in 1975.
Oregon and Washington also have bans on game farming in place.
"I wish we would have been more proactive," he admitted. "Now, we're in a crisis mode. All of a sudden the barn is on fire and we don't know if the fire truck is coming."
"Idaho's wildlife and hunting heritage are too great a resource to all of Idaho to allow them to be placed at such grave risk by the actions of just a few merely for personal gain," Bell concluded.

Montana gov to Idaho: Ban game farms
By CHRISTOPHER SMITH
Associated Press writer
BOISE, Idaho -- Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer has joined Wyoming's chief executive in calling on Idaho lawmakers to ban wild game farms and private hunting reserves to protect the health of Yellowstone's wild elk herds.

"In Montana, we said it's a bad idea to pen up a bunch of elk, feed them oats and have fat bankers from New York City shoot them while they've got their heads in a grain bucket," Schweitzer said Wednesday during an interview in the Boise offices of The Associated Press.

In Idaho to campaign for Democrats running for governor and Congress, Schweitzer said he wholeheartedly agreed with Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal's Oct. 5 letter to Idaho Gov. Jim Risch asking him to urge lawmakers to outlaw domestic elk breeding.

"You can quote the Montana governor as saying, 'Dang tootin',"' Schweitzer said. "For people who don't know, that means the affirmative."
Risch signed an executive order Sept. 7 ordering the "immediate destruction" of an estimated 160 domesticated elk that escaped in August from the Chief Joseph private hunting reserve operated by veterinarian Rex Rammell near Ashton, not far from the Wyoming border and Yellowstone National Park. The park covers portions of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.

While special hunts by state agents and the public had killed 33 of the escaped elk as of Wednesday, Idaho Fish and Game biologists believe the domesticated animals already have crossbred with wild herds.

Elk farming and "shooter bull" hunting operations are banned in Wyoming and Montana. Schweitzer said Idaho should follow suit to protect the three states' shared resource of Yellowstone's wild elk herds.

"You've got a bad actor who's not very good at fixing a fence, your state agencies fined him $750,000, and the folks supposed to represent the people of Idaho, your Legislature, said 'Oh, let's let him off the hook,"' said Schweitzer, referring to a 2002 vote by Idaho lawmakers to forgive fines against Rammell imposed by the Idaho Department of Agriculture for numerous violations. "Now, you've got a problem, but it's our problem too because the Yellowstone Basin is interconnected."

Leaders of Idaho's elk farming and hunting reserve industry are challenging the claims by Schweitzer and Freudenthal that banning domestic elk pens would protect the health of wild herds.

"It concerns me these governors come out and say this when they have so much disease in their own wild herds," said Kent Bagley, a board member of the Idaho Elk Breeders Association who operates the Teton Mountain Ranch elk farm in Victor, near Yellowstone National Park. "Look how many counties in Wyoming have found chronic wasting disease in their wild elk, and yet they have no game farms. It's flawed logic."

Chronic wasting disease has been detected in elk in southeastern Wyoming, and authorities believe it is spreading in that state's wildlife population. Some herds of wild elk in Montana have tested positive for brucellosis, a disease that can cause elk -- and domestic cows -- to abort.

Brucellosis also has been found in wild elk in eastern Idaho, but there has not been a case of chronic wasting disease among wild deer or elk in Idaho, according to the state Department of Fish and Game.

Bagley said elk breeders plan to lobby Idaho legislators in the 2007 session to reject efforts to outlaw their game farms and private hunting parks. Risch supports a ban, but his term expires before the Legislature convenes in January. The two major party candidates running for Idaho governor, Republican Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter and Democrat Jerry Brady, have said they would sign legislation prohibiting the domestic elk businesses in Idaho.

"It's going to be a constant battle," said Bagley. "We are under pretty strict regulation now and are just trying to maintain our lifestyle."

Freudenthal to Idaho: Ban game farms
By WHITNEY ROYSTER
Star-Tribune environmental reporter
JACKSON -- In the wake of domestic elk escaping from an Idaho game farm, Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal is asking the neighboring state to ban game farms and to help enact a communication system among the two states and Montana.

In a letter dated Thursday, Freudenthal thanked Idaho Gov. Jim Risch for the actions he took calling for a hunt on the escaped elk, and for the state notifying Wyoming.

Freudenthal said Wyoming banned game ranching 30 years ago "because of the obvious risks to wildlife and, further, to avoid situations like the one at Conant Creek from happening."

"We still firmly believe the ramifications of such operations to legitimate hunting recreation, and disease transmission -- including brucellosis -- to wildlife and domestic livestock, is not in the public interest," the Democrat wrote. "I'm hopeful that as a result of this regrettable development, that Idaho will consider implementing similar restrictive measures against game ranching and related high fence shooting operations."
Freudenthal also suggested developing a protocol to notify each state when "actions or events in our respective jurisdictions -- from whatever source -- pose a threat to wildlife or domestic livestock in an adjoining state." The concern about domestic elk is that they could transmit disease to wild elk and harm their genetics.

In a statement released by Risch's office, the Republican governor said he would "take the lead" in developing a notification plan. Risch did not address Freudenthal's request to ban game farms, instead saying only, "Governor Freudenthal has expressed to me his concern about the impact escaped domestic elk could have on wild elk herds. Both Wyoming and Montana have taken action to prevent a similar situation that occurred at this private facility in Idaho by banning canned hunts and in Montana, they strictly regulate the operations of elk farming."

The Idaho governor previously said he favors a ban on shooter bull operations, where game farm operators charge thousands of dollars for individuals to shoot big game animals within fenced enclosures. Risch is also reported to favor licensing game farms and not allowing additional game farm operations in Idaho.

Although Freudenthal began his letter -- and Risch titled his news release -- with a reference to a game farm elk being reportedly killed by a Wyoming hunter, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department Friday said no game farm elk have been killed or seen in Wyoming. A news report last week out of Boise referenced Jim Unsworth, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game's wildlife bureau chief, saying one of the game farm elk was believed killed in Wyoming.

Eric Keszler, spokesman for Wyoming Game and Fish, said the agency had an elk last week with an ear tag, and officials were suspicious the animal could have been from the game farm. Since, it has been confirmed the animal was a wild elk, its ear tag from a feedground. He said no game farm elk have been killed or seen in Wyoming.

Earlier this summer, elk from a game farm escaped on a ranch near Ashton, Idaho, not far from the Wyoming border. In his letter, Freudenthal said the news of the escape "initially sent shivers down the spines of our wildlife managers," and the prognosis now is "anything but bright."

"What's more, our public is not very understanding of how this escape could have gone undetected for so long, and the circumstances that allowed the owner to continue to operate this facility given his history of non-compliance with governing statutes and regulations."

Environmental reporter Whitney Royster can be reached at (307) 734-0260 or at [email protected].

From the Magazine | Nature 
Hunting Made Easy
Shooting captive animals to mount their heads on a wall is a booming sport. Should Congress step in?By JEFFREY KLUGER

Posted Thursday, Jan. 9, 2003
The exotic corsican ram trotting about the 100-yard-long pen in central Pennsylvania paid little mind to the men approaching across the field. People were always walking in and out of the pen, as often as not with food for the flock. So the ram didn't resist when the men drove all the animals toward one end of the enclosure. It was only when the first arrow--fired from just yards away--struck it in the haunch that it realized something was up. The ram hobbled off and was struck by a second arrow, then a third. It stood for a moment staring beyond the fence line and then settled onto its haunches, bleeding. A gunshot to the abdomen finished it off--preserving its head as a trophy. 
It has never been easy being an animal at the business end of a hunt, but these days it's hard being the hunter too. Dwindling ranges and herds make the ancient business of stalking prey an increasingly difficult proposition. The answer for many Americans is to shift their shooting grounds from the wild to one of the country's growing number of hunting preserves.

By almost any measure, hunting preserves are enjoying a boom. Up to 2,000 may exist in the U.S., with 500 in Texas alone. Many advertise on the Internet and in hunting magazines, and all offer the same thing: the chance to bag a trophy, with none of the uncertainty of hunting in the wild. "No kill, no pay" is the promise many make. 
Of course, making good on that guarantee requires bending the prey-and-predator rules. Animals at some preserves are so accustomed to humans that they wander into range at the sound of a rattling feed bucket. Elsewhere they're confined to small patches of woods where they can't elude hunters for long. At others they may never even make it out of their cages before being shot. 
Most troubling, it's not just prolific-as-rabbits deer and other common prey that are being killed in such canned hunts, as they're sometimes called; it's rarer creatures too. All manner of exotics--including the Arabian oryx, the Nubian ibex, yaks, impalas and even the odd rhino, zebra or tiger--are being conscripted into the canned-hunt game and offered to sportsmen for "trophy fees" of up to $20,000. 
Not surprisingly, these hunts have their critics. A handful of states ban or restrict the practice, and a pair of bills are pending in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives to prohibit the interstate sale of exotic animals for hunts. Supporters of the hunts object, arguing that exotics are bred in sufficient numbers to support the industry and that many surplus zoo animals could not survive in the wild anyway. Even to some outdoorsmen, however, canned hunts are beginning to look like no hunt at all. "I started hunting when I was 7 and didn't kill my first deer until I was 16," says Perry Arnold, 52, of Lake City, Fla. "What they got going on now, that ain't hunting. That's a slaughter." 
A slaughter is precisely the way canned-hunt foes frame the practice, and the killing of the Corsican ram is not the only horror they point to. The Humane Society of the United States tells stories of its own: the declawed black leopard that was released from a crate, chased by dogs and shot as it hid under a truck; the domesticated tiger that lounged under a tree and watched a hunter approach, only to be shot as it sat. "Canned hunts are an embarrassment," says California Representative Sam Farr, sponsor of the House bill. 
What makes the problem hard to police is the sheer number of exotic animals for sale. There are about 2,500 licensed animal exhibitors in the U.S., and only 200 of them belong to the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, which condemns the sale of exotics to hunting ranches. Even unaffiliated zoos might be reluctant to wade into the canned-hunt market, but many do so unknowingly, selling overflow animals--often products of too successful captive-breeding programs--to middlemen, who pass them into less legitimate hands. The crowding that can result on the ranches leads to animals' being killed not just by hunters but also by diseases that occur in dense populations. 
If zoos have trouble keeping track of exotic animals, Washington doesn't even try. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can intervene only if animals are federally protected or if the hunt violates a state law and interstate commerce is involved. Since many cases don't meet those criteria, the animals are essentially orphaned by the feds. 
Still, not all hunts on preserves provoke an outcry. Many ranch owners keep exotic animals out of their collections or conduct hunts on grounds that give prey a sporting chance. The Selah Ranch in Austin, Texas, is a 5,500-acre spread covered by Spanish dagger and prickly pear, often with no sign of the elusive animals that live there. "There are a lot of exotic animals on this place that die of old age," says Mike Gardner, owner of San Miguel Hunting Ranches, which runs Selah. 
Here too, however, the odds can be stacked in the hunters' favor. Deer are often lured to feeding stations, where they are serenely unaware of the men in the stilt-mounted tin shack 75 yards away. Such lying in wait--or "shooting over bait"--is legal in Texas and defended by hunters. "It promotes a clean kill," says Gardner. Other sportsmen are troubled by the practice. Stan Rauch of the Montana Bowhunters Association believes that fed animals are tame animals and should thus be off limits. "Animals become habituated to people when they depend on us for food," he says.

Even preserves with no baited killings and lots of room to roam may be less of a square deal than they seem. "If a ranch advertises itself as having 3,500 acres, you need to know if that space is open or broken down into pens and whether there's protective cover or the ground is clear," says Richard Farinato, director of the Humane Society's captive-wildlife protection program. 
Concerns such as these are prompting governments to act. More states are being pressed to ban or restrict hunting in enclosures. The House bill, which parallels one introduced in the Senate by Delaware's Joseph Biden, would not drop the hammer on the hunts but would give Washington a way to control the animal traffic. 
But the new laws could come at a price. In Texas alone, the hunt industry brings in $1 billion a year; a crackdown could hurt both good ranches and bad. "Cattle prices have stayed the same for 40 years," says Gardner. "To hold on to acreage, you've got to have other sources of income." Safari Club International is worried that since hunting areas are so different, it may be impossible to pass a law that covers them all. "There's no standard to say what is and what isn't fair," says club spokesman Jim Brown. "You know it when you see it." 
But there may be a deeper standard than that. If the hunting impulse is as old as humanity, so is the sense of what it truly means to chase and bag an animal. Nature may have intended humans to hunt, but whether it meant to toss ranches, pens and feeding stations into the mix is a question hunters must ask themselves. With reporting by With Reporting by Melissa August/Washington, Mike Billips/Austin and Broward Liston/Lake City


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

I would support legislation to eliminate the high fenced shoots.

I do not support eliminating the raising of alternative livestock for butchering or resale. If you do where do we stop? Deer? Elk? Bison? Miniature Cattle or Horses? Why should I tell someone that they cannot raise sheep?

Quite frankly I would like to see the "Big Buck Contests" that so many wildlife clubs put on done away with too. All they seem to do is encourage bad behavior.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

> Quite frankly I would like to see the "Big Buck Contests" that so many wildlife clubs put on done away with too. All they seem to do is encourage bad behavior.


*AMEN* You are 100% correct................. :sniper:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dan, The point I was making and will try again is, "if" the problem with Elk and Deer farms is the disease factor then they are what we should go after. "If" the main concern here is CWD, and yes I will disagree with you. I think if we are to put the people who raise Elk and Deer out of buisness and make them destroy the herds they have we owe them something. "IF" we are going to allow people to raise Elk and Deer for meat but not shooting they this is only an ethics issue.


----------



## brianb (Dec 27, 2005)

If it is an ethical issue, where does this leave pheasant preserves? Does the fact that the birds aren't fenced in make it acceptable?

Personally, I don't like the idea of high fences but I've got to respect a person's freedoms. It's their land, their livestock, they should be able to do with as they please as long as the slaughter is done humanely.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I do not support eliminating the raising of alternative livestock for butchering or resale. If you do where do we stop? Deer? Elk? Bison? Miniature Cattle or Horses? Why should I tell someone that they cannot raise sheep?


Look at it this way. It is societies responsibility to set those limits. Do you think they should be able to raise Whooping cranes, Peregrin falkons, etc. Wildlife belongs to the state, and there was no right to these animals to begin with. Society controls many things, and this is no different. The only argument as you say is where do you draw the line. That is the debate. 
Personally I would shut down every game farm. There is no room for wild bison to roam the countryside so I would make an exception there. I would also allow raising of exotic species like pheasants. 
I think this is a disease problem, and ethical problem, and a danger of messing up the genetics of wild animals through escapes. People who think the genetic of wild animals are unthreatened are like the oil companies that guarantee us they will not have oil spills, but they continue to have one after another. They know better, they just count on us being stupid enough to believe them.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> They know better, they just count on us being stupid enough to believe them.


 :beer: Absolutely. We know that selective breeding and artifical insemination are used to modify the animals. And we know they escape. We know animals have died that are unaccounted for. We know the "industry" does not provide the funding to police it's self. We know this "industry" does not pay for the clean-up of escapes or clean up and containment of disease outbreaks into the wild herd. All in North Dakota.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Why is it the "hunters" vs "landowners"? Who said that? The ND farm Bureau has been the only ones that I can recall that has started that BS.
Remember, ND law restricts nearly every business in the state as far as what they can and can't do with their property that they own. The ND Farm bureau (Eric Assmanstead) has stated that it the hunters that are trying to tell the farmers what they can do with their land. Are Kolpack and Assmanstead related?


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

Canned hunts and game farms do nothing for our sport but make us look like a bunch bloodthirsty kill freaks. I say do away with all of it. Its to bad that the people that participate in this crap are even considered hunters. What a disgrace to the peolpe that actually are. :******:

The people that do support this crap, the sport of hunting doesn't need. They ain't true hunters anyway. They'er COWARDS.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Efforts to slow chronic wasting disease fail 
By Todd Richmond 
Associated Press - Nov. 17, 2006

MADISON, Wis. - The state's multimillion-dollar efforts to slow chronic wasting disease in its deer herd aren't working, a state audit released Thursday says.

The Legislative Audit Bureau's report found that the Department of Natural Resources had spent nearly $27 million battling the disease since it surfaced in Wisconsin in 2002.

The agency has been working to thin the deer herd in areas where the disease has been found by lengthening hunting seasons, requiring hunters to shoot a doe before a buck, banning feeding deer in 26 counties and offering rewards and cheap permits for hunters, as well as using sharpshooters to kill more deer.

Despite those measures, the audit found the estimated number of deer in chronic wasting disease zones has increased from 26 deer per square mile in 2002 to 38 in 2005.

"Compared to other states in which CWD has been identified, Wisconsin has taken an aggressive approach to addressing the disease," the audit said. "That approach also has been more costly, but it has not been effective to date."

Chronic wasting disease produces microscopic holes in animals' brain tissue, causing weight loss, tremors, strange behavior and, eventually, death.

The disease, which has been found in deer in 14 states, is in the same family of fatal brain illnesses as mad cow disease and its human equivalent. There is no evidence, however, that people have ever caught chronic wasting disease from infected deer or elk.

In a letter to state auditor Janice Mueller responding to the report, DNR Secretary Scott Hassett conceded CWD can't be eradicated in the near future.

"Wisconsin received a lot of advice, but no one handed us a road map," Hassett wrote. He said the agency would consult the public for suggestions


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Hey Dick,

Good see you are taking the high ground again on this issue. Same old arguments. While you are whipping everyone into a feeding frenzy how about backing up your remarks with some facts. How about name one "disease outbreak into the wild herd" here in ND that is attributable to game farms. How about proving that selective breeding and AI are detrimental to the genetic base. The only people I would consider "stupid" are those that swallow all this paranoia with out researching the positive contribuitions game farms have made to both wild and domestic herds. But then we've been over all that before and I am not going to waste my FACTS on those who have there minds made up.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> waste my FACTS


Odd, I haven't seen any of those facts of yours. Many well known scientists (forget the guys name in Canada) have published about this very subject, but sixth grade educated game farmers continue to challenge them. That's absurd. Just ignore the science right? After all they talk about the world isn't flat so how can we trust them? 4590 I challenge your knowledge of wildlife management and what is beneficial for wild populations. State your credentials to make the statement that game farms benefit the species please.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

4590

Welcome to the discussion. I wish you would post up all of the counterpoints as to why canned hunts benefit us all.

Plainsman
Just to let you know that 4590 is in the alternative livestock business and he is involved in the shooter bull business and canned hunts. We have had a number of interesting discussions on this topic.

He is correct that we have never had a "reported" case of disease in the ND game farm industry.

Bob


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

> How about name one "disease outbreak into the wild herd" here in ND that is attributable to game farms.


That would be a pretty tough question when you have operations like the Mertz where 37 elk have been unaccounted for over the last 5 years. Or the game farm operation in the Walhalla area where 5 dead elk carcasses were found burned in a pit. Or Lansbergerers fenced deer escaped into a high deer density area. But when CWD is detected in ND's wild deer herd, I suppose game farms wouldn't have anything to do with that, right?

As you can see from my examples (and there are plenty more) listed above, this is a tightly regulated industry. LoL.

These are the reasons why this industry needs to go away. We don't need to name a "disease outbreak into the wild herd" attributable to game farms. Why take the risk as we have seen in other states?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

4590 wrote:


> the positive contribuitions game farms have made to both wild and domestic herds


And those would be?


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> the positive contribuitions game farms have made to both wild and domestic herds. But then we've been over all that before and I am not going to waste my FACTS on those who have there minds made up.


Please enlighten us all. I would love to know what they (you) have contributed!!!!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The thrill kill industry makes the same mistake as the outfitters by accecpting the lowest common denomenator of activity from their members. This group is incapabale of self regulation and thus the need for legislative changes to protect the public trust. Their inability to accecpt scientific evidence in exchange for personal gain at public expense exposes their position. When the best minds in natural resource management call for elimination of thrill killing and severe restriction of big game farms it is time to act. This next legislative session is that time.


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

One point one question. These fenced hunts in my opinion shouldn't be called "hunts" but rather kills for the incapable and money for the immoral. Second is it true taxpayer money has gone to clean up problems from these operations?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Second is it true taxpayer money has gone to clean up problems from these operations?


 Your license money from the NDGF budget was spent numberous times, not the game farm opperators money. They should be bonded for these actions.


----------

