# Don't ban 'canned hunting'



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

I saw this in the Herald and thought it should be brought up in the interest of being fair and balanced.

VIEWPOINT : Don't ban 'canned hunting'
By Glenn Rost,
Published Saturday, January 06, 2007
PARK RIVER, N.D. - The ban on "canned hunting" proposed by Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, is bad legislation and should be trash canned. If one follows the logic that whatever one dislikes must be made illegal, where does one stop?

I fully agree with Bob Kellam that the "hunting" at game farms is not sportsmanlike and is killing rather than hunting ("N.D. should ban canned hunting," Page 4A, Jan. 3). I've hunted deer for decades but never would consider paying to kill a deer (or any other animal) in an enclosure. I have no respect for people who do.

However, I do not disrespect the people who own the game farms and earn a living by providing this simulated hunting experience.

The only reasonable objection Kellam presents against game farms is that they abandon the principle of "fair chase." However, is it "fair chase" to use a high-powered rifle with a scope to shoot an unsuspecting animal several hundred yards away? If one truly is concerned about giving the animal a chance, shouldn't everyone be limited to using a bow (recurve only) and arrow?

Even then, is it fair to sit quietly and hide ones self? Isn't that like shooting someone in the back? Shouldn't a true sportsman announce his presence and then proceed to try to harvest the animal? Where does one draw the line as to what is sport and what is simply killing?

When I was a child, my parents butchered hogs every fall. I remember watching my dad as he shot the hogs. They were in a small pen and had no chance to escape. It was not sport. It was killing. It also was far more humane than to allow "fair chase."

The people killing animals on game farms are not killing for meat. They are killing for pleasure. One legitimately might question the ethics of killing for pleasure, but killing for pleasure does not happen only on game farms. Many, if not most, "true" sportsman kill for pleasure. They want the trophy. Supplying food for their tables is not their motivation to hunt. Should hunting, therefore, be banned?

Of course not! Neither do I think game farms should be banned.

Game farm owners should not be considered any differently than cattle ranchers or hog, chicken or turkey producers. They are all in the business of raising animals to be killed for profit.

Members of PETA consider killing and eating any living animal as immoral. They have a right to their opinion. They do not have a right to force those of us who disagree to live by their opinion. Neither do Mathern or Kellam have that right.

Rost teaches math and social studies at Park River High School.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Believe it or not I already posted this as a counterpoint in the Ban Canned Hunting thread.



> They do not have a right to force those of us who disagree to live by their opinion. Neither do Mathern or Kellam have that right.


AND neither do the High Fence Operations. So what is the answer?

Bob


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I disagree with the fellow who thinks high fence hunters are bad, but those who provide it are ok. I think the people who shoot animals inside high fences, and those who provide the opportunity are the same. Whether your in the bank with a mask and a gun, or you drive the getaway car your still a bank robber.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Left to me I'd leave it alone. They were started as a legal entity and I don't think it's right to change the rules in the middle of the game and eliminate someones livelihood.

I personally would not do a hunt in one of these places. However, I do frequent game preserves for pheasants, usually in September and now in January and February after the season closes. My dogs don't know if they are wild or pen raised birds but they smell the same to my setter when she goes on point. I would hate to see the bird preserves go away and then someone try to get rid of field trials and hunt tests next.

As I said I would leave it alone. The reason is, much of the discussion has centered around the aspect of fair chase. If they decide to try to do away with the high fence hunting I hope they include two strong amendments to the proposal. One would be a requirement that all guns be cased and the second to make it illegal to shoot at game from a road or the right of way.

The road hunter does not respect the idea of fair chase and so I would put them in the same category as the person who pays to shoot a penned up critter. (Unless they have a handicapped permit). Shooting a deer from the road, groundballing a pheasant, or jumping out of a vehicle and shooting ducks in a ditch have nothing to do with hunting, and should be illegal no matter what they do to the game farms.

I don't know if one side is right or one is wrong, this is just my opinion.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Respectfully, I don't think the arguement of pheasant preserves is applicable. The birds would have to be in a netwire cage and then turn the dogs loose to be similar to canned shooting of big game.

Rost, as a social studies teacher, needs to study the history of hunting in this country, which he has not. Or he would be aware of the conservation movement 100 years ago. The North American Model of Wildlife Management does not include or allow private captive big game, or the thrill killing of the same. Wildlife is physical public property that should never be endangered by those seeking private profit from it.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

The pheasant preserve angle is the only reason I brought anything up about this.

Some of the high wire fence hunts are certainly not ethical, and some of them are probably more ethical than road hunting. I just don't have an opinion on them. Maybe I should?


----------



## Mose (Jan 2, 2007)

I have always wondered why people argue about fair chase and canned hunting. Whether you shoot a deer after a 10 hour stalk in the wilderness or you walk up and kill it in a pen it is still just as dead.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

The more I think about this topic, the more I relate it to ..... PROSTITUTION.

Every agruement for canned hunts can be used for leagelized prostitution.

It's my property, leave me to my business.

Handicapped people need smiles, and they just can do it with fair chase.

$$$$$$$$$$$$

Any fair chase agruement!

and ETHICS!!!

I'm sure some of these same arguemnts were used when they made prostitutions illeagel. But in the end....It disgusts most people!! Every aspect! Thats why it not leagel, and thats why we should ban canned hunts!!!!!


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Rowdie,

You can compare all you like, but there is actually no comparison. All peoples moral compass is based in their religious or lack of beliefs. Prostitution is believed to be wrong by most God fearing people because the Bible says fornication and adultery are wrong. In every "moral" discussion there must be a bottom line source of that morality. People just left to do what ever they feel or think is right or wrong, never works and in fact the Bible warns about that. I would love to hear what you base the immorality of preserve hunting on.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Bob Kellam said:


> Believe it or not I already posted this as a counterpoint in the Ban Canned Hunting thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree. Bob, no one is forcing you to hunt within a high fence operation. That is a choice you make based entirely on your own free will. Is it not?

On the other hand if this legislation passes these operations are forced to shut down against their own will.

I fail to see the connection to where the high fence operations are forcing you to do anything?

I really do not like seeing all the spin I've read on here relating to this issue. The statement that this ban is going to save our wild herds from contracting disease from captive animals is false. The statement that these high fence operations are forcing their will apon the people is false. The supporters of this bill are the ones forcing this issue and changing the status quo...

...So Don't Run Away From That! Stick To Your Guns!

This is an ethics based bill, bottom line. All the spin has done is weaken your stance because the opposition can poke holes in your reasoning IMO. A clear, strong, simple message of we need to eliminate canned hunts because it is a Moral Outrage would serve the proponents of this bill much better IMO.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

4950

I see prostitution and canned hunting as very similar.

You pay for both, and there is no fair chase. You get to pick your game out of a line-up. There is no hunt only the kill. When you're done there is no work, cleaning, butchering, ho's calling you. There is no emotional or spititual connection. No scouting, it doesn't matter what you wear, you need no skills, only cash. Pimps make all the cash. There is a victum.

You point to the bible for your moral beliefs....I point to the Native Americans, who I live and work with, and thier harmony with nature for a moral compass. I believe its is a crime against nature, its the prostitution of wildlife. So my bottom line source is my spiritual connection to the outdoors, passed on to me by father, and his before that, and my wifes Native anscestors. They didn't need to write down their harmoneous rules down on paper, they lived it, and still feel it in their hearts.

If you can't see past the profits of raising bucks to sell and shoot in high fences, then I guess we as citizens of the state of ND need to pass laws to make you.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

GF sportsman offers other side of elk farm debate

Brad Dokken Grand Forks Herald
Published Sunday, January 21, 2007
Brad Dokken is outdoors editor for the Herald. He writes and edits the outdoors and usually has a column for Sunday's outdoor section.

George Newton called the other day to take exception with the question-and-answer piece I did last week featuring Jim Posewitz, the Montana hunter ethics authority who wrote North Dakota legislators asking them to support a ban on hunting big game in preserves.

Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, introduced the legislation, SB2254, on Monday, and the Senate referred the bill to the Senate Natural Resources Committee. The bill has the potential to be one of the more heated pieces of legislation during this year's session.

Newton's call wasn't so much a butt-chewing as a request to air his side of the story, a side that supports hunting preserves, not only for pheasants and other upland birds, but for big game.

That was fair enough, I thought; especially coming from Newton. Longtime owner of the Dakota Hunting Club and Kennels in Grand Forks before selling the business last year, Newton opened the first shooting preserve in North Dakota in 1969, and he's a pioneer in North Dakota outdoors and conservation efforts.

I have a great deal of respect for him. And when he talks, I tend to listen.

Newton says it's fine for states such as Montana and Wyoming to ban high-fence hunting because the two states have an abundance of public land for hunters to access. That's not necessarily the case in North Dakota.

Newton, who moved to North Dakota from Wisconsin in 1959, says he once visited a 13,000-acre preserve in Michigan where 6,000 acres were fenced. Shooting an animal, he says, wasn't a slam dunk.

"It wasn't as easy as going to Uncle Reuben's farm and shooting a deer behind the ice house opening day of deer season," he said. "What's the ethical difference? It took longer on the high-fence operation than on my home ground."

The issue of landowner rights shouldn't be overlooked, either, Newton says.

"I think the landowner has a choice," Newton said. "Whether he wants to inoculate an animal or have someone shoot it is his choice."

Newton says he thinks Posewitz, author of such hunter ethics books as "Beyond Fair Chase" and "Inherit the Hunt," is honest and sincere in his views. That doesn't mean he agrees with them, though.

"I think he romanced it quite a bit," Newton said. "People I know like to go out and camp in the Badlands. They like being there, and that's great. Everybody doesn't have the time to do that."

Posewitz in last week's piece also cited Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote of his concerns about private game preserves for the "very rich."

Said Newton: "Teddy Roosevelt did a good job, no doubt, but he was in a position that he could go anyplace in the world and hunt if he wanted to."

Not everyone has that luxury or access, Newton says. And that's why hunting preserves have their place.

"What's never been mentioned is the amount of acreage in some of these places, and that's the key to it," he said.

"Deer (in the wild) don't go very far. You see a deer and miss, a couple days later, you're going to see him again. They have a very small range."

Newton also is a longtime member of the Grand Forks County Wildlife Federation, a group affiliated with the North Dakota Wildlife Federation. The state federation has come out in support of the proposed ban on high-fence big game hunts and other elk farming restrictions.

On the local level, Newton says, that's not necessarily the case.

"Some members don't have any concern about it one way or the other," he said of the Grand Forks County federation. "My opinion is leave the operators alone. They're not bothering anybody, and if you feel it's unethical, don't go there.

"Whatever you want to hunt, whether preserve or high fence or on your own, go do it, but don't criticize the people who find (preserves) more convenient."

So there you have it, the other side of the story, from a proponent of hunting preserves a proponent who also is a sportsman and conservationist, in the truest sense of the words.

Similar stories likely will play out over the coming weeks as legislators debate the elk-farm bill.

Stay tuned. This one's going to get interesting.

Reach Dokken at 780-1148, (800) 477-6572 ext. 148, or [email protected]">[email protected]


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> They're not bothering anybody, and if you feel it's unethical, don't go there.


Well, Holy cow,gee willickers, me-oh-my, I can't believe it.

Some common sense and it wasn't shoved down anyone's throat either.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Isn't that almost the exact argument for legalizing protistituion? The "victimless" crime?


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

I've met George a few times and he seemed like a good guy. He did his best to accomodate our gun dog's club requests and always seemed willing to help out. He donated free preserve shoots for youths each year.

HOWEVER, I disagree with him on this one. To make it sound like it's more difficult hunting a preserve than hunting wild, is far-fetched IMO and doesn't address the ethical issue. As far as using the public land argument, I don't think that's a fair justification. I'd like to know the #'s and state of residency of the people who utilize ND canned hunts...my point being if they're a NR, they could go to these other states with more public land and George's argument doesn't hold water.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

So it's okay to teach kids on "farm raised" birds but we need to prohibit "farm raised" big game?

I'm a little confused.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

JustAnotherDog said:


> So it's okay to teach kids on "farm raised" birds but we need to prohibit "farm raised" big game?
> 
> I'm a little confused.


I don't believe those farm raised birds are shot in their pen are they. I thought they were released prior to a hunt. Thus they have the ability to fly away, where as a deer or elk in a pen can only run so far until they hit the fence. Shooting an animal up against a fence must be a real challenge. uke:


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Neither one is the same as walking a section of land looking for game. Still ironic.


----------



## ADN (Sep 27, 2005)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> JustAnotherDog said:
> 
> 
> > So it's okay to teach kids on "farm raised" birds but we need to prohibit "farm raised" big game?
> ...


I haven't formed an inpu either way on this yet but what you said is an little inaccurate.

If these animals are "contained" in large areas (1 sq. mile or more), then they may indeed be difficult to hunt.

I grew up on a 640 acre dairy farm and on more than one occasion there were DOMESTICATED animals that were quite capable of avoiding humans. These were cows, much less mobile than a healthy elk. Yet they were able to evade people for a couple of days.

I do not support hunting over grain feeders or in closely confined areas. But what about expansive areas where an animal DOES have a chance to avoid people? I am not sure.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

ADN, I understand your thoughts there, however all canned shooting operations in ND are 100% guarenteed. No fair chase possible. Bucks and bulls often premeasured for scoreing. We are insulted here from national trends, but the trend of anti-hunting and anti-gun ownership is fueled by canned shooting. The antis use it against us. Idaho has nine bills on this topic in their legislature, 2 for, 7 against canned shooting. Even with the Rex Rammell debacle in Idaho they will still probably have to go to measure just like Montana did. And Montana won.


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

Dick Monson said:


> Respectfully, I don't think the arguement of pheasant preserves is applicable. The birds would have to be in a netwire cage and then turn the dogs loose to be similar to canned shooting of big game.
> 
> Rost, as a social studies teacher, needs to study the history of hunting in this country, which he has not. Or he would be aware of the conservation movement 100 years ago. The North American Model of Wildlife Management does not include or allow private captive big game, or the thrill killing of the same. Wildlife is physical public property that should never be endangered by those seeking private profit from it.


Mr. Monson, You too should study the history of hunting in this country, then you would know that "The North American Model of Wildlife Management" has nothing to do with actual wildlife management in this country. It is simply a figment of your hero Valerius Geist's imagination. We live in a capitalist nation, and he is trying to put socialist (or dare I say "communist") ideals into our game management plans. This is a scary thought to me. Our country was founded on freedoms that his "Model" destroys. To tell someone that they cannot pick a certain profession, i.e. outfitting, because it goes against this model is simply ludacris. I've heard this guy speak and he scares the living sh#t out of me to put it lightly. If this canned hunt ban falls on his (and Mr. Monsons) side of the fence we are one step closer to the disaster known as "The North American Model for Wildlife Management".


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

[url=http://www.thetruthaboutelk.org]http://www.thetruthaboutelk.org

"Our members have worked extremely hard to assure that we are raising the healthiest elk possible. Every animal is regularly tested for TB, Brucellosis, and CWD (upon slaughter). As a result of our hard work and perseverance, *there has never been a documented case of a positive CWD result in any domesticated elk herd in Idaho.*"


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

"If this canned hunt ban falls on his (and Mr. Monsons) side of the fence we are one step closer to the disaster known as "The North American Model for Wildlife Management"."

Mr. Buntrock:

I am sorry to hear that someone like you who has enjoyed so much time in our great outdoors fails to see what the model has done for you and our generation of hunters. Sad. Somebody before our time obviously did something right to give us these great opportunities we have. And now you refer to it as a disaster?

But when you are the owner of a game farm, it's pretty obvious that the basic wildlife management principles don't matter. Again, sad.


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

Frosty, You are absolutely correct, I have been blessed with the ability to hunt when I choose, and through hard work and a lot time spent building landowner relations, where I choose. What people do not realize is that this type of experience does not come free, in our fast changing world, one thing is absolutely certain, there is not enough land out there for everyone to enjoy any experience they want anytime, as Geist would have us believe we should. It would be hypocrytical of me to say that I would be in favor of this, as I do NOT want everybody having free access to the wildlife opportunities I have access to. I can guarantee that everyone else on this forum would agree with me. It is simply not possible. So naturally, as is, has been, and always will be true in our capitalist nation, those who strive hard to obtain these experiences (whether it's through monetary gain, hard work for a landowner, or grace of god) will continue to do so. Rather than believe in a socialist bigot like Mr. Geist, I will continue to do what Americans have been doing for the last two centuries to set themselves apart, and that's work hard for what I want out of life. To think that you can have everything you want out of life without that is rediculous.


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

Frosty, The fact that I own a game farm has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with "basic wildlife management principles". The animals on our farm are not wildlife, they are OUR PERSONAL PROPERTY, I realize that statement is like nails on a chalkboard to idealists such as yourself, but my family and I are free to do with our PERSONAL PROPERTY as we wish. You may find it a surprise to know that we got into the deer business not to make money, rather to learn more about the animals that we loved so much. I have learned more in the past 20 years from being around deer than would ever be possible without owning them. It turned into a business out of necessity rather than money. It's easy to see that deer can reproduce extremely fast, and the growing deer breeding market in ND provided a good outlet for breeder does and bucks. Later came the shooter market, which fueled the breeder market even more. And it became an enjoyable business that paid for a very enjoyable hobby. This current legislation will end that, by removing not only the shooter market, but also not allowing anymore breeders to set up shop in ND. This will all but eliminate our instate breeder market as well. Essentially putting us out of business as well as out of our hobby of raising and enjoying our deer. I can tell you that I would rather see someone pay to enjoy hunting a deer in a shooting preserve, than to have to go into the pen and euthanize deer because there is no outlet market. I am saddened by the fact that I will most likely not be able to see my kids raised around whitetails, and that all of the time I enjoyed watching and learning from them will have to be contributed to memory because of a stupid ethics issue.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> This current legislation will end that, by removing not only the shooter market, but also not allowing anymore breeders to set up shop in ND.


We can only hope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Cranebuster, you and I aren't reading the same bill, SB-2254.
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-200 ... DP0400.pdf

It simply bans high fence hunting, raises the fence height to 8', sets recapture at 4 days, and requires a visable ear tag. Short and sweet. 
My concern is also property rights, only mine are for the physical public property of wildlife that is owned equally by all of us.

So it becomes a moral & ethical question: Should moral convictions be sold to provide target shooting of live captive animals inside escape proof fences? The majority says no.

When you parked your business in a high risk area (public opinion) you need to expect more than a good nights sleep.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Yesterday one of the News networks did a piece on Internet shooting of animals. A person can sit at a desk in PA or NC and by simply using the key board align a scoped rifle with a live round on a target such as a deer or elk or hog etc and hit the send button and the gun discharges in another state.

This type of activity is akin to high fenced shooting facilities. For the right price I guess anything goes. States have taken action and restricted or outlawed many types of activities and even businesses. Gambling,prostitution,making of alcohol the list goes on and on. Each time such an law is passed someones livelihood is affected. That is the way things work.

Many cities have enacted smoking bans, some have even passed laws concerning the type of fats one can be served in a restaurant. So Cranebuster, the banning of canned hunting puts you in the same boat that the banning of prostitution did to the prostitute it will give you a choice. Operate illegally or find a new line of work!

This bill is one of the most important that is on the calender this year. The simple fact is once you advertise a canned shoot as a hunt, you and anyone else who pimps this type of activity puts in jeopardy my and others support from the non hunting public to continue to hunt under fair chase conditions.


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

As a land owner, the ban could be great. It could get just like the east and west coast. I can plant some good food plots, and just wait for the biggest dollar to come my way for access to my land. the food plots will keep the deer from wandering on to any public access land, and then I can stop dealing with the common man who feels he has a right to come on to my land and hunt. Man some of you people just don't get it do you. I live half way between Fargo and Grandforks. I have had people refuse to leave my land because they pay taxes and farmers owe it to tax payers to let them hunt, I have had "hunters" in my tree stands telling me to get off their land, I have had "hunters" shoot does only to walk up and say oops, I only have a doe tag, can I just leave that deer here? Some laws to bite these "hunters" in the *** hard is what we need. Let the high fence operations deal with the city boys, the slob hunters, or the guy who wants some meat for the freezer. Just look at what good bird numbers have done to access in many areas. It is getting like this with deer and other hunting. Put animals in a 3-4 quare mile area, and you will have a good hunt. That is more mass than most people hunt or have acces to. Perhaps a study of how small of a fence is a canned hunt is in order. Just a thought.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

cranebuster,

Why haven't the deer and elk ranchers in this state tried to get a slaughter house and or meat market going like the bison ranchers have? I think that you would find much more support by doing that then bringing in high priced shooters.

Most of the ranchers that I know have way more does then bucks that they need to get rid of. We all know that the shooters do not want the does. You guys could make alot more money and reduce your herds if you would get together on a meat packing operation.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

HUNTNFISHND

Good Point.

Kim (4590) correct me if I am wrong but didn't some in the ND elk industry have ties with a locker plant in ND? I thought we discussed this before. Is there a place to buy processed Elk/Deer meat in ND.

Another question comes to mind. Is Elk meat subject to inspection like other meat such as beef?

Bob


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I have several concerns when it comes to high fence hunting. The first being another step toward making hunting a "rich mans" sport. Someone mentioned that TR (because he was rich) had the ability to go any where and hunt what he wanted but that hunting preserves would allow those who are not so blessed a place to hunt. I fail to see the logic in that statement. Hunting preserves cost money. Now $100 a day to hunt a preserve may not be much to some of you but to a majority of hunters that is a fair amount of money especially if you have a couple of youngsters tagging along. Secondly it assures that parcel of hunting land being locked up to the average hunter (who can't afford it). Granted the land may still be posted if it is not a game ranch but it will likely still be open to local hunters to some extent. Even if the owner and his close friends are the only ones permitted to hunt it takes pressure off other areas.

Often (not always) farm raised game does not have that instictive edge that it's wild cousins do. Is a pheasant that is raised behind a fenced and released minutes or hours before being hunted going to have and "practical experience" in avoiding the hunter. Wild birds deal with this on a daily basis. I'm not saying preserve birds are all easy but they probably don't make for as challanging hunt as wild birds do. I know personnaly if I "limit out" every time I go hunting no matter what the game it becomes mundane I begin to lose some appreciation for the experience.

Ask yourself what makes a trophy special. For most it is probably the quality of the rack or other feature of the game. For others it may be the quality of the hunt or a combination of the both. A quality rack is special because of its uniqueness in size shape and etc. As a general rule only a certain amount of trophys are likely to occur naturally. When we start specialized breeding for trophys that uniqueness to some extent becomes lost. That 150 class buck that once was 1 in 100 is now 1 in 10 and some trophy "value" is lost because everybody and their brother has one.

I also have a problem with artificial barriers in general. Even if you hunt a 6000 acre fenced ranch some of the game is bound to take up residence on the border of that ranch and even though they could run out onto the other 5999 acres that fence may still be a unnatural restriction to a prefered route of escape.

How about the hinderance of the natural game populations? High fences not only keep game in but they keep game out. Restricting the travel feeding and breeding of natural populations especially in large ranches. What happens to the natural population if the fenced area happens to be a needed wintering or breeding ground that they can't get at?

I also support a farmers rights to do what he has to to survive.... to a point. It makes you wonder if game ranches that are being taxed as grazing land should be re-assessed based on the value of the activity because if it wasn't more valuable than tilling or grazing livestock they probably wouldn't be doing it. After all they are no longer providing a commodity but a finished product.

One thing for sure there is no easy answer.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

THU 02/01 09:00 AM Fort Lincoln Room 
SB 2254 S-NATRES Chairman: Sen. S. Lyson 
Short Title: Relating to hunting on nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities 
Comments: Relating to hunting on nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities; relating to escape and identification of farmed elk; and to provide a penalty.

Stanley W. Lyson - Chairman ....Email [email protected] 
Ben Tollefson - Vice Chairman.... Email [email protected] 
Layton W. Freborg.... 701-442-5712 
Joel C. Heitkamp ....Email [email protected] 
Jim Pomeroy.... Email [email protected] 
Constance Triplett....Email [email protected] 
Herbert Urlacher.... 701-974-3682


----------

