Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Proposed ban on 'canned' hunting raises heated debate

Proposed ban on 'canned' hunting raises heated debate

TOM STROMME/Tribune Oren Krapp of Pingree testifies against SB 2254, a bill that would prohibit people from hunting game in an enclosed area, on Thursday morning in the Brynhild Haugland Room of the capitol. Krapp has a bison hunting operation near Pingree.

Feb 02, 2007 - 03:59:40 CST

Associated Press Writer

By BLAKE NICHOLSON

A proposal to ban private hunting preserves in North Dakota would infringe on private property rights and hurt tourism, opponents say.

Supporters of the idea say "canned" hunting is unethical and may contribute to the spread of animal diseases.

The debate in the North Dakota Senate's Natural Resources Committee on Thursday had people on both sides claiming that former President Theodore Roosevelt, who ranched and hunted in the North Dakota Badlands, would favor their position.

"I believe he'd turn over in his grave if he knew what was going on," said Gary Masching, a Bismarck hunter who opposes game farms.

Sen. Connie Triplett, D-Grand Forks, said if state lawmakers were to infringe on hunting rights, "I think Teddy Roosevelt would crawl out of his grave and come get us."

The proposed bill would ban fee hunting on so-called "high fence" game farms. Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor, punishable by 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

After a hearing Thursday, the Natural Resources Committee recommended that the bill be defeated. The full Senate will vote on the measure later.

"Blasting a captive (animal) inside a cage and calling it hunting is morally wrong," said Shawn McKenna, executive director of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation.

North Dakota has more than 100 registered deer and elk farms. Numerous owners testified against the bill Thursday, taking issue with their businesses being labeled "Bambi-in-a-barrel."

"No one wants to come shoot animals in a cage," said Shawn Schafer, of Turtle Lake, president of the North Dakota Deer Ranchers and a member of the state Board of Animal Health.

"No, we do not tie our deer to a tree or a fence post," said Vance Tomlinson, a deer rancher near Max.

Tomlinson said game farms particularly benefit the handicapped and elderly who otherwise would not be able to hunt. "Special interest groups are trying to make us out to be criminals," he said.

Bismarck hunter Bryan Dvirnak said the state has encouraged people to develop such tourism-based businesses. "Elk hunting is tourism," he said, while holding up a T-shirt that said "Got Elk?"

Ernie Mau, president of the North Dakota Elk Growers Association, said it would be a "slap in the face" for the state to take away a business he started nearly two decades ago.

"If you don't like 'high fence' hunting, you don't have to come or even drive by the ranch," he said.

Opponents of game farms point to a recent University of North Dakota survey that found nearly three-fourths of North Dakotans favored legislation to prohibit the shooting of big game inside a fence. They said the legislation also could help prevent the spread of disease.

Game farm owners on Thursday said the survey questions were misleading, and that there is more danger of wild animals bringing disease to their herds.

Stan Savelkoul, president of the North Dakota Buffalo Association, said he fears bison ranches will be the next target of game-farm opponents.

The bill also would raise the fencing requirement for an elk farm from 7 feet to 8 feet, set a limit of four days for a farm owner to recapture any escaped animals, and make ear tagging requirements more stringent.

Mau, who started elk ranching in 1988, took issue with the proposed fencing change.

"I don't think (elk) can jump any higher now than they could 18 years ago," he said.

McKenna said opponents of game farms are not "whacko anti-hunters," but people who care about North Dakota's hunting heritage.

"We do not believe that wildlife, privately owned or not, should be blasted to death in an enclosure by whoever can lay down the most cash," he said. "We believe that is morally and philosophically bankrupt."

Valley City hunter Dick Monson compared game farm hunting to "fighting two dogs in a barrel while charging an audience to watch."

The bill is SB2254.

News > State

Printer friendly version Proposed ban on 'canned' hunting raises heated debate

Comments

Mandan wrote on Feb 12, 2007 8:00 AM:

" to Mike R. The fact that you say the majority is against is not completely accurate. The poll that was done was biased and obviously people that really think about it this was only brought up now after some places have been around for about 20 years. People do have the freedom of choice and they have chose to find an alternative to losing their property because farming hasn't been as lucrative as it used to be with our wierd weather problems. I for one am glad that the government stepped out of this and defeated it. They have taken so many choices away from us that it is time they stepped back and realized that we don't need their ineffective laws all the time. You don't have to go to any business like this so you don't need to worry that it will be something you have to do. "

Mike R wrote on Feb 11, 2007 2:41 PM:

" Hunter X: Maybe the reason that only 3 Eastern ND senators voted for the ban is because the rest of the ND legislators don't have the guts to stand up and do what is right. Maybe those 3 are the ones who can't be bought with the big money from the operations providing these canned hunts. Interesting though that no matter where you go in ND, you will find a vast MAJORITY of the people are against this kind of "hunting", but very few of our legislators actually voted according to the wishes of the people who elected them? Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMMMMM. "

Great White Hunter wrote on Feb 9, 2007 9:52 AM:

" Allright, Now I can plan my next HUNT!LOL "

Hunter X wrote on Feb 8, 2007 10:13 AM:

" Surprise, surprise, surprise. The three that voted FOR this bill were from Fargo, Wahpeton and Valley City. "

GL wrote on Feb 8, 2007 9:57 AM:

" North Dakota LEGENDARY the place to come to if you dont want to actually work for your prize.. we will take your money and give you a deer,elk whatever you want.. in fact.. just send us the money and we will mail you the meat. save the trip and the gas. "

Mandan wrote on Feb 8, 2007 12:51 AM:

" I am amazed the legislators woke up and realized that banning this was a bad idea. Great at least one thing they voted the right way on maybe they will get on a roll. Oops that was two they defeated the seatbelt one too. Maybe they are listening after all. "

Hunter X wrote on Feb 7, 2007 10:00 PM:

" This bill was defeated today by a vote of 3-44. It looks like the E-tree didn't work to well this time. "

Mike R wrote on Feb 7, 2007 7:40 PM:

" Mouth from the South and Mandan: I am not saying that I disagree with either of you. I too feel that we have to many laws already. I was just de-bunking the old arguement - "its my land so I can do what-ever I want to on it". The government tells us everyday what we can and cannot (legally) do on our own property. This law would not be anything new in that aspect - as some people were trying to make us believe. I was also trying to point out that opposition to canned hunting is pretty much even statewide. It is not a "Fargo thing" as someone here would like us all to believe. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Feb 7, 2007 10:18 AM:

" to Mike R. and others; If we make canned hunts illegal, what do you think will happen to these elk that are being raised? They will still be 'blasted to death' (to quote from the letter) in an enclosure that is even smaller and than processed for consumption. This whole argument is merely a matter of semantics. Whether the animals are shot by a hunter or a butcher, they have still been killed and used for human consumption. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Feb 7, 2007 9:33 AM:

" to Mike R; Why do we spend so much time making things illegal? Why are members of our society so quick to make laws against something just because they don't like it? This is my point. From the sound of your posts, you take a certain amount of satisfaction in seeing all these new laws passed. Well, just for the record, I do not. I personally feel that prostitution should be legal (at least then you could tax what is already happening) and I am female. I think that abortion should be legal, but I think it is wrong to have one. I think co-habitation should be legal but I also think that is not the thing to do. So many of our laws are frivolous with no added benefit to society. Can you name me one benefit to society that this law, if passed, will have? If not, why are we so anxious to make it a law? "

Mandan wrote on Feb 7, 2007 8:13 AM:

" to Mike R it is time that the government stops trying to make all our decisions on how we run our lives. The more we allow them to ban the less choices we will have. Why is it that this year all of these stupid laws are being brought forth? Amazingly some of these businesses have been around for about 20 years but now they want to change it because a few people don't like it. There are a lot of things I don't like but I don't presume that I know best for everybody and I don't propose a bill so that they stop I just don't deal with the things I don't like that is freedom of choice. Because the legislators cannot come up with enough real issues on their own they are gladly sponsoring frivolous bills from anybody so they can say they are actually doing something. Yeah go ahead and let them continue ahead and eventually we will all have to ask permission to leave our homes. "

Mike R wrote on Feb 6, 2007 8:43 PM:

" Mandan and Mouth from the South: My point eludes you evidently. Yes I know that prostitution is illegal and canned hunts are not. If the new law passes then canned hunts will be illegal just as prostitution now is. My point is that the law does not care if it is your land or not - prostitution is illegal, plain and simple. Wo why can't we make canned hunts illegal also? You whole point is based on the fact that you should be able to do ANYTHING you want to on your land. My point is that once something is made illegal, it doesn't matter if it is on your land or not. That argument just doesn't stand up. It amazing me that some people can look at those 2 issues and say that the reason it all makes sense is because prostitution is illegal and canned hunts are not - HELLO, if the law passes, they will both be illegal. How do you seperate them then? "

To Great White Hunter wrote on Feb 6, 2007 3:44 PM:

" Again you have not disappointed us on your ridiculous comments. Wow!!!!!!!! "

FOCUS ON SERIOUS ISSUES wrote on Feb 6, 2007 11:56 AM:

" Shooting animals in ANY enclosed pen is not hunting, but it shouldn't be illegal. If someone wants to pay the money to shoot a farm raised animal, then personally I think he or she has too much money and is lazy. However, this bill is ridiculous and a waste of time, resources, and money. I think the legislators need to focus their efforts on more important issues, like public health, environmental issues and good paying jobs to keep young people in the state. If a private land owner chooses to make a living this way, and can do it, I say more power to them. "

B in M wrote on Feb 6, 2007 11:32 AM:

" GL, but they wouldn't hang a cow on their wall, brag to everyone what a great hunter they are, and try to get their picture and scores on all the hunting web sites and record books...thus the invention of the canned hunt. "

Great White hunter wrote on Feb 6, 2007 11:31 AM:

" GL, where can I sign up for the cow HUNT? Can I get a black angus tag? Hunting or killing it's the same thing, the animal dies. I think some people against this type of HUNTING are just jealous because they cannot afford them. Get a better job. Almost all the people against this type of HUNT think they are such great and ethical hunters but the truth is most of them are just another Road Hunter. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Feb 6, 2007 10:13 AM:

" to Mike R; In answer to your last question; Sometimes people don't respond because they simply get tired of trying to get through to people whose brains are sometimes located where they sit and think that they have all the answers for the ills of society. I simply believe that we have way too many laws now and that what I raise on my land, as long as it not illegal, is my business. But, that's right! you and others like you are trying to force themselves into my business and make it illegal. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Feb 6, 2007 9:52 AM:

" to Mike R; I answer my phone everytime it rings. I do not use an answering machine or any newfangled contraption to answer my phone. My computer does not tie up my phone line. AS stated before, we do not get called on any survey unless it is politically motivated and, as farmers, agriculturaly motivated. (I forgot about those, they have just become a normal part of our life) I have wondered about this for quite some time if these surveys are only answered by people that have been previously selected and are sympathetic to their cause. Or in the case of one survey I took, was so politically slanted that no matter what my answer was, was favorable to that politician. And you know as well as I do, that in any survey, the questions can be asked in such a manner as to deliberately slant the results. "

Mandan wrote on Feb 6, 2007 8:35 AM:

" to Mike R I guess you don't read everything because i did make the statement that a property owner should be able to make any legal decision for the use of their property but to continually ban things that a few people don't agree on are ridiculous. Prostitution is illegal and has been for a very long time so that is a non issue. I fully believe that if we continue on in the way we are going the government will be making us call someone before we leave our own homes. I have met many legislators and have a late relative who was one and they are no better or smarter than any other average person and that is why some of these bills actually get sponsorship so that the legislature can make it look like it is working. They are taking our choices away from us continually just because some don't like something does not mean it should be banned those people just need to stay away from what they do not like. As an adult I would like to be able to make my own informed decisions I do not need nor want the government to tell me what to do every minute of every day. "

MIke R wrote on Feb 6, 2007 6:18 AM:

" HunterX: Once again, you completely ignored the fact that opposition to canned hunts is about the same (percentage wise) in Western ND as it is in Eastern ND. Maybe the East is making more noise in the one case that you cite, but opposition is the same throughout the state. Pick any town in ND and you would get the same results. How you can turn that into an anti-eastern ND thing is beyond me. That is nothing short of ignoring the facts. Mouth from the South: I have been called for numerous surveys (most times I do not have time to answer them but they do call) when I lived in Linton, Mayville, and Napoleon. Maybe you just need to start answering your phone more often. "I agree" Still no one commenting on your comparison with the "I can do anything I want to on my land" people. The silence not only speaks loudly, but the sound of thier silence is actually deafening. "

GL wrote on Feb 5, 2007 9:27 PM:

" Maybe we could have a Cow Season for these guys that like to kill easy targets.. Ranchers could sell a cow and one of these wimps could hunt it and shoot it. That would be about as exciting as shooting a caged animal with absolutly no chance of getting away from you. "

Mandan wrote on Feb 5, 2007 7:39 PM:

" to mouth from the south I have never been polled either so maybe they just keep polling the same people over and over at least the ones that go the way they want the poll to go. "

In search of intelligent life wrote on Feb 5, 2007 6:08 PM:

" In response to Mouth from the South to my earlier commentary: While I did not specifically address my earlier comment to you, I think you know what I was referring to. I say this because of some of your previous posts. For example your December 31st post included the comment "Amazing how few posters can legitimately debate an issue without bringing in fear and scaremongering" Several people including yourself have raised questions about the poll that was conducted. I'm wondering how many people have actually read the poll. There was an article in about it in the Tribune on January 18th. This article only recieved one comment. The Bureau of Governmental Affairs at UND conducted the poll. According to their web page they have conducted hundreds of others. I did not see any poll results posted on their site however. If more information (not rants) on the poll is available beyond that which ran on the 18th I would appreciate seeing it. Mouth from the South (or anyone else reading this thread) perhaps you can help. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Feb 5, 2007 3:49 PM:

" Would sure like to know who gets to answer all these surveys? I have been a life-long resident of ND and have yet to participate in any survey about our state that wasn't Politically motivated. By that I mean from our Congressional Delegation or other politicians. And most of those were slanted. I, of course, would be against considering it hunting if the animal is tied up to a tree, but if the animal can roam over a thousand acres. No Problem with that. Also, if someone wants to come here to our farm/ranch, pay me so much money to shoot their own beef on the hoof, remove it and take care of the butchering, would have no problem with that either. But I am sure that somewhere out in our legal world, there is a law against that, and if not, after reading this post, someone will ask their legislator to sponsor one. "

The Point wrote on Feb 5, 2007 3:21 PM:

" To ***It Happens*** That is exactly my point. What is the difference between any animals, domesticated or not? People do eat dogs and cats. Maybe not from our culture, but they do. I'm not for or against these canned hunts, but when people argue that it is gov't telling us what to do on our land, I don't think that is the intent of this law. It's intended to show people that ND folks (75%) disapprove of these "hunting farms". I know elk growers and have bought meat from them. But to push that as hunting, I don't really agree and it gives hunters a bad rap to call that "hunting". "

To Mike R from Hunter X wrote on Feb 5, 2007 12:36 PM:

" The truth hurts. Just check out the North Dakota hunting message boards. It's mostly guys from the "east coast" making all of the noise. Hopefully all of their bogus bills get shot down. "

Mandan wrote on Feb 5, 2007 12:01 PM:

" to B in M I have been to a couple of these places to see how they work and I have never seen one in a 10 acre pen. And I also know that any animal you raise including cattle are somewhat more tame then ones in the wild but it doesn't change the fact that these animals are raised just like our cattle are for some type of slaughter. Also I apologize the part about letting it go that you said and my comment was not intended at you I guess I was typing to fast. I don't actually hunt at these either but I agree not to ban them either. "

B in M wrote on Feb 5, 2007 11:01 AM:

" Mandan, What the heck are you talking about? Everyone is basically hunting a fenced in hunt because of land being posted? One big difference, the fence is not 8 feet high and the animal can choose to jump the fence and run away. These 'canned hunt' animals are tame. I've fed some elk apples right out of my hand at one elk ranch here in ND. Try to do that in Colorado or even the TR park here in ND. Good Luck. You say you've yet to see a cornered animal in one of these hunts. How many of these hunts have you seen? Why would you need to corner an animal when it is in a 10 acrs pen and you can walk right up to it? Lastly, if you would have read my entire post you would have seen that I said to let it go. In other words, although I do not approve of 'canned high fence hunts' don't outlaw them. The people that can't hunt or hit a target over 50 yards away need somewhere to get their trophy. Somone also mentioned that these animals are not eligible for the record books. That is correct, but they are caught (and probably not caught) trying to do it all the time. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Feb 5, 2007 10:48 AM:

" to Double Standards; Sorry to tell you this, but I DO NOT want a ban on smoking. I do not like smoking but feel that there should be some public places open to smokers. What I do not like is; more government interference in my life and or yours. Laws are made for the benefit of the majority of society. This law does not benefit anyone let alone the majority of society. (It actually harms some people financially.) The practice of so-called 'canned hunts' is not an issue for, let me guess, at least 85% of our population. So why are we making laws to ban it when it is not a societal problem. Also, really don't know why we ban prostitution. But that is for another time and post. "

**It Happens** wrote on Feb 5, 2007 10:46 AM:

" To The point: Think about what you just said. There is a difference between domesticated and animals that god intended to roam free? God intended for ALL animals to roam free, MAN domesticated cows, pigs, chickens. God didnt give us a list of things we could and could not domesticate. If people were running around eating cats and dogs would that be ok? So if its ok to domesticate cows, pig, sheep ect for slaughter, then who says we cant add to that list? "

Mandan wrote on Feb 5, 2007 10:36 AM:

" to double standards I do not support the ban on smoking in bars because bars do not allow children and adults are supposed to be able to make their own choices. Just like here I believe the owners have a right to choose a legal way to run their property and since this ban would only hurt those in the business and not in any way help anyone who is not then it should be left up to them. "

Double Standards. wrote on Feb 5, 2007 10:27 AM:

" For all those argueing that if you don't like it it is their property then how if you do can you support a ban on smoking. It is the same difference when it comes to businesses deciding how they want to run them. So quit trying to push your views on other people in that respect also. "

Get Real. wrote on Feb 5, 2007 10:23 AM:

" What a a load of you know what to say if you don't like it don't drive by it. I bet he also supports the ban on smoking. The same can be said for that arguement that if you don't like it then don't go there. "

hypothetical wrote on Feb 5, 2007 10:19 AM:

" to TO the Point, Didn't GOD tell ADAM that he was to have control over the birds of the air & beasts of the field? So, would that not include elk & deer, as well as cows & pigs?palpl "

Mandan wrote on Feb 5, 2007 9:36 AM:

" to the Point you seemed to have missed all the ranches that are raising elk, emu's, buffalo, and other animals that are not the traditional one that are use for slaughter. If they do that what exactly is the defining moment for you between 20 or 30 being hunted on private property and a couple of hundred being brought to slaughter? They are asking for a new ban on a newer business where as prositution has been illegal for a very long time and there is no comparison to these businesses. Unless they are trying to do something already illegal on their property they should have the right to have a business that will keep their family farm in the family. If you don't like it don't go that is your choice but don't push your so called morals onto someone else. "

The Point wrote on Feb 5, 2007 8:23 AM:

" To Great White Hunter: Isn't there a line to be drawn anywhere with your support of "people doing what they want on their land"? There are some things you wouldn't support, isn't there? I mean, I read a post earlier about putting prostitution houses on private land-they make a great point. Why should the gov't tell us who we can and can't have sex with? The government draws the line and that is all this bill does. Draws a moral line regarding what is considered "hunting" and "killing". Fair chase vs. non fair chase. Many people here have seen this bill as affecting business owners. I see it as what is defined as hunting, and that there is indeed a difference between domesitcated animals used for slaughter (cows, pigs) and wild animals that God intended to roam free (deer, elk, moose, bison). My point is, the arguement "don't push your morals on me" holds more water than "don't tell me what I can and can't do on my land". Our all-knowing gov't does that all the time, and it really seems moral arguements are the only ones we have a fighting chance to defend. "

Great White hunter wrote on Feb 4, 2007 9:13 PM:

" Good North Dakota wisdom on this post. Closed minds think alike I suppose. Hunting,killing-no difference. I support people doing what they want with THIER land. If you don't like it. TOUGH!! "

Mandan wrote on Feb 4, 2007 7:03 PM:

" to GL and Great white hunter I am beginning to believe that down south they would refer to both of you as BUBBA! So I am stupid for not wanting the government to again stick their noses in where they do not belong. Sure I don't hunt like this but then again if you think about it we all kind of do. When you get your license you can only hunt in one area and in that area are many fenced pastures that you cannot hunt in so basically you are hunting in a fenced area in one way or another it is common sense but don't ever exert yourselves trying to figure it out. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Feb 4, 2007 4:10 PM:

" to in search of intelligent life; These are open discussions so that any one can post their opinion of the subject. If I believe that we do not need more laws, does that then make me a poor example of a North Dakotan? I don't think so, and your comment certainly does not make you an example of an exemplary North Dakotan. I think that this type of hunting is perfectly alright for those that wish to participate in it. If you don't want to hunt like this, you are certainly free to hunt a more open style. Government interference in this does not change the fact that we are stilling shooting an animal, whether in the open or behind a fence. Doesn't seem any different to me. I have seen some pretty poor practices in open hunting such as posting six or seven hunters around the edge of a field and than having the ones on one side drive the animals towards the hunters on the other side. That doesn't seem to sporting to me either, but it goes on all the time. With all the high-powered equipment that hunters use nowdays, I don't think that there is much "sport" left in big game hunting. "

In search of intellegent life wrote on Feb 4, 2007 2:22 PM:

" From start to finish this thread was mired in name calling and mud slinging. It clearly never emerged as a forum for thoughtful discussion. Another disappointing product reflecting poorly on North Dakotans across the board. And some believe we have the inside track on intelligence and common sense. "

To Great White Hunter wrote on Feb 4, 2007 1:14 PM:

" I can afford it!! I just choose not to hunt on these ranches. Your comment is ridiculous. NOW GET IN LINE WITH GL. "

To GL wrote on Feb 4, 2007 11:55 AM:

" I agree get rid of all the stupid people!! You should be one of the first in line. "

Mandan wrote on Feb 4, 2007 11:34 AM:

" I guess those that want to have their lives be micromanaged should just move into an institution then they can have someone tell them what to do everyday, every hour and see if that makes them happy. Enough already with the stupid bans and do something that would actually be helpful to all ND not just the outspoken ones lucky enough to convince some bored legislator to sponsor another stupid bill. "

Great white hunter wrote on Feb 4, 2007 11:32 AM:

" Your all such great hunters. There is no difference, Hunting, Killing, call it whatever you want to. Your just jealous because you people cannot afford to HUNT at these Ranches. LOL "

GL wrote on Feb 4, 2007 11:05 AM:

" I think it is ok to hang shop lifters.. "Micromanagement is needed to watch over you fools that do stupid things" CANNED CANED CAANNEED hunts are wrong no matter how you spell it. Ban them!! get rid of the stupid people while you are at it.. make stupid people illegal. I read these comments and I say to myself "Self, what is wrong with these people"? "

Mike R wrote on Feb 4, 2007 11:02 AM:

" HunterX: You obviously have some sort of serious problem with people from Fargo. The survey found that even FARMERS in RURAL WESTERN ND overwhelmingly agree that this type of "hunting" should be banned. Get over your Fargo issues already. That theory of yours has been hugely disproven. Move on already. To "I agree": I love your analogy. Right on the money. If the "I can do what-ever I want on my land" argument holds any water at all, then your point is 100 percent valid. I noticed that not one of the people who were all for "I can do what-ever I want on my land" has commented on your point at all. The silence speaks loudly - doesn't it? "

Mandan wrote on Feb 3, 2007 11:07 PM:

" to Matt S and Mouth from the south you are both right we are continually losing our freedoms by stupid laws. I am tired of the government trying to micromanage my life this is an owners right besides whether you want to hunt this way or not is up to you but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned. I honestly do not care for stupid people should we ban them next? Maybe that wouldn't be so bad then we wouldn't have all the stupid bills up at the legislature. lol "

REB wrote on Feb 3, 2007 9:42 PM:

" While actually tying an animal to a tree may be a bit unsporting,that is not the issue here.It is not up to the tyranny of the masses as to what rights a property owner has.I always hear from the socialist do gooders that they are only being more moral than a lowly peon who has no ability to think or reason and therefore needs their great wisdom on all matters great and small.You anti's are just that, anti freedom anti property rights,how about you mind your own business,if you dont like what another does avoid them,quit trying to bend everyone else to you morality,some of you claim to be hunters,but you fight against other hunters,your idea of hunting ain't nessesarily any better,lots of folks hate all hunters and farmers,anyone who deals in any way with animals,wake up ,they're coming for your ideas next,instead learn to help and work together with the land owners/farmers.if you keep pushing them then I hope they close their land to all hunting,that'll learn ya! "

bryan wrote on Feb 3, 2007 8:51 PM:

" This is not hunting, These canned hunts are for the rich who come in from out of state. I would never pay a farmer to hunt any kind of animal let alone one that is in a fence. "

Hunter X wrote on Feb 3, 2007 4:02 PM:

" It's no suprise this bill was introduce by someone from Fargo. That's where all of the whiners live. "

Mouth from the South wrote on Feb 3, 2007 3:53 PM:

" to Matt; What a great statement. Agree wholeheartedly. We have so many laws now that I cannot believe we need more. Of course, there will always be that person out there that says; 'there outa be a law against that.' Immediately we make one. Unless the general population wises up and quits trying to make everything illegal just because they are irritated about something, we will always have new laws. "

Matt S. wrote on Feb 3, 2007 1:13 PM:

" There seems to be very little important matters that need to be dealt with anymore that requires laws to be made for. So that legislatures accross the country have become nothing more than a body of interventionists on behalf of individuals or groups who have some gripe to settle. I think they could boil down the important ones to just a few and they could be done in a couple of weeks and go home. "

To Nature Calls wrote on Feb 3, 2007 7:57 AM:

" Why did you turn this into a political issue? Maybe you should have done a little research and maybe, just maybe you have found this bill SB 2254 was introduced by Sen. Mathern a Fargo Democrat. Now go take a POO & clear your head. Maybe your next comment will focus on the issue and not on some political bashing. Oh by the way leave these landowners alone and let them run there business. "

keep it up wrote on Feb 2, 2007 11:01 PM:

" Before long we won't have any choices, simple just read the law book. Simple just like we like it RIGHT Seat belts, speed limits, wear helmets when we ride a peddle bike, protect wolves High fence leave it alone let the few and the week hunt that way if they want it's there choice not yours Hilary C "

**It Happens wrote on Feb 2, 2007 10:59 PM:

" TO Nature Calls: HAHA well were all gonna be vegetarians anyways so I guess its all gonna smell like grass or rotten cabbage. Heres hopin were in the grass group. "

Nature Calls! wrote on Feb 2, 2007 9:46 PM:

" **It Happens** wrote on February 02, 2007 7:26 PM:" . . . . . If the Republicans get their way, like in all the measures so far, only those who's POO "don't stink" will not need to ask permission! "

Mandan wrote on Feb 2, 2007 9:38 PM:

" to it happens your right pretty soon you will have to check with someone before you take a poo. The government wants to micromanage our lives and there are people on here that must enjoy it so maybe they should just hire someone to tell them what to do and where to go all the time and then we won't have to listen to them wine anymore. Freedom in America is disappearing right before our eyes. "

**It Happens** wrote on Feb 2, 2007 7:26 PM:

" While I would never be caught dead using a deer/elk farm to hunt, because lets face it, it just isnt a sport in those conditions, it is as one person called it "killing". There still is nothing wrong with having them. All of you people spouting off about the rights of the animals or the farmer making money off of it need to think about just how stupid your comments are the next time you sit down to eat a hamburger, steak, omlet, chicken, sausage, lamb or any other animal flesh. This in reality is NO different then that. People come in, shoot the animal take it home and EAT it. How is that any different then a farmer taking his cow, chicken, lamb, ect.ect. to market for sale to be slaughtered and EATEN? If your going to be out here protesting the deer/elk farms then you better be doing it for the rights of every other animal out there cause in reality there is NO DIFFERENCE. Guess we better all become vegetarains huh? Get off of your high horses and let some people make an honest living. These laws are getting rediculous, No smoking, no living together, no eating animals, wear your seatbelts or else. Wonder how long it be before I have to ask permission to take a poo. "

Citizens for a FREE America wrote on Feb 2, 2007 4:52 PM:

" KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY LAND!!! "

Ban more ban's wrote on Feb 2, 2007 4:42 PM:

" It seems there are a few critics of my comments out there… I expected that! To Ban supporter… I didn’t bother defending Game Farms as a legitimate hunt because it DOESN’T NEED TO BE DEFENDED and besides I only have 350 words to work with! Secondly, this ISNT about hunting, it’s about FREEDOM, and living in America so get a grip and figure it out man! You speak of the sportsman ship of canned hunting and easy shots and that you hunt and find it easy enough to fill a tag. Well I also hunt, and I have had years that I have not filled my tag because I BOW HUNT! So don’t fly off the handle before you know the facts Jack! Like I said before this IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING, its about the basic freedoms in this country, the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness! So don’t come after me with these trivial arguments of yours, lets cut to the chase and discuss what’s really at issue here! Everyone that believes these farms have no place in society can believe that all they want, but that’s it, too bad, there’s a LOT of things that go on in this country that I’m not happy with but you don’t see me or others like myself out there attempting to ban the practice! We live in America, its pretty much the only country in the world where people ie private landowners have rights. Outside of certain illegal activities -which I addressed in my original post- these rights are not to be infringed upon by the Government or anyone else. So once again, to tasty and those like minded, if you don’t like it, at least have some respect for our CONSTITUTION and for the freedoms we ALL enjoy in this country and keep your nose out of it, its none of your business! A certain segment of our population uses that argument all the time in trying to push a certain type of marriage so here it is right back at ya… live with it!!! "

Almighty Dollar! wrote on Feb 2, 2007 4:06 PM:

" It is NOT about, land ownership, freedom of choice, morality, property rights, conscienceness, disability rights, or canned hunting. It is always about the bottom line - the almighty dollar! I love all animals - they are good to eat. "

Kramer wrote on Feb 2, 2007 3:58 PM:

" "My friend Jay Reimenshneider eats horse every day. He gets it from his butcher" "

8675309 wrote on Feb 2, 2007 3:55 PM:

" I am really not all that supportive of hunting in that type of situation but, honestly, it's not my business what other people do with THEIR land. This country is getting so rediculous sticking it's nose into everyone's business. This is the land of the free. We need to stop making laws for every little thing. I wouldn't hunt on a game farm, but I don't think there needs to be anymore laws telling people what they can and can't do, especially with their own land. "

Mandan wrote on Feb 2, 2007 3:19 PM:

" to tasty that was an interesting analogy except that nobody is going to go out to hunt a horse for meat DUH! Let's see these hunting ranches make pretty good money for a hunt but when you look at it reasonably it makes sense. If you are a hunter and go pay for a license and then you are only allowed a certain area to hunt in and that area has a lot of fenced no trespassing areas you are shortened down to a very small "fenced" area. It all comes down to doing the same thing except these ranchers are making money from people out of state. I think they actually did something prosperous for not just themselves but the area they live in especially the smaller towns when people come in from out of state they spend money. Leave this alone if you don't like it don't do it FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!!!!! "

Hunter X wrote on Feb 2, 2007 2:58 PM:

" This, as well as many other bills, is a haves (landowners) vs have-nots (urban hunters from Fargo, etc). Luckily the rural North Dakotans have enough common sense to see these bills for what they are. "

I agree wrote on Feb 2, 2007 2:24 PM:

" Hey, if the arguement is "I can do whatever I want on my land"-why can't I open a cathouse on my land? If there is no way disease can be spread from these animals who God intended to roam free, why would anyone think people will spread disease among one another from making sweet love? So what if money is exchanged, it's my land I can do what I want... People are free to make choices and I'm sick and tired of the Gov't telling me who I can and can't make sweet love to. As a matter of fact, I'm sick of all these laws. You people are crazy... "

tasty wrote on Feb 2, 2007 2:19 PM:

" I'm just curious but what would a rancher say if somebody offered him $15,000 if they could shoot one of his horses? Would the rancher agree/disagree and call it economic development/tourism/property rights or would he reach down and grab some ethics and morals and say you know what, this just isn't right regardless of how much money you offer me. You are not shooting one of my horses, period. Well you know what, I feel about elk and deer the way a rancher feels about his horses. Some things are just not meant to be prostituted. "

Mandan wrote on Feb 2, 2007 2:04 PM:

" to no name aren't we all just paying money to hunt Unless you are a poacher you have to by a license to shoot an animal. And by the way I am not a man. And to B in M I have hunted for many years and started out just going on hunts with my dad but have you really looked around lately so much land is posted that all hunts are basically posted. You are the one fenced by the boundaries of where you are to hunt. I have yet to see where someone goes on a fenced hunt force the animal into the corner. Besides not only do these hunters want a trophy they do actually want the meat also which means if you really get down to basics it is like raising a cow for slaughter. These animals are not really tame they are no more tame than you going out and feeding deer in the area you are going to hunt which is done all the time by people. This is also not interferring with what you B in M called real hunting so what exactly is your problem. If you don't want to go to these places then don't but why should the owners have to stop a business just because you don't like it. Legislators just want to manage everyone and that is more and more apparent this year. Oh yeah and by the way I already have gotten my elk, moose, and deer the old fashioned way by "paying for a license". "

hypothetical wrote on Feb 2, 2007 1:40 PM:

" wondering has it right. How many ranchers would deny somebody the opportunity to shoot a steer for $2500. Not many. Most beef raised in ND is sold to feeders, then where does it go? To the slaughterhouse of course. So why not let landowners that raise elk or deer let others willing to pay big $$$ shoot them. The animals don't count in the record books. Is it any different than a hunter leasing land putting out a deer feeder, or mineral lick and then hunting that area? But that is still called hunting. Shouldn't that also be called killing, because more than likely that hunter has a blind or stand within 100 yars of that area. Instead of arguing about this. Our legislators should be trying to find a way to get hunters the opportunity to shoot the ELK that are going to be euthanized in Theodore Roosevelt National Park . Instead of having sharpshooter's come in & slaughter them. That is what I call a canned hunt. "

Wondering wrote on Feb 2, 2007 12:41 PM:

" I am curious on what the difference is on raising cattle to slaughter for meat and raising deer for the same purpose? If there are people who enjoy deer meat over beef then why not let this be. Why can't a rancher make a living off of deer rather than cows? I myself, would never go there and pay that money but some people will so let them be. As long as they cannot use their mounts for legal scoring who cares where they get their meat from. "

Have Gun - Will Travel wrote on Feb 2, 2007 12:30 PM:

" It will basically boils down to property rights. You should be allowed to do anything (that not out of bounds of morality) on your own property. We are still free to buy and own property. What we decide to do on that land is to our discretion and not the lawmakers and hunting advocates. "

gtx440 wrote on Feb 2, 2007 12:02 PM:

" Thay say thay are there for the disabled sad to say very few if any disabled can afford it. "

Edward wrote on Feb 2, 2007 11:25 AM:

" Sport is driving down the road looking for deer in a field that is not posted. And, when one is found, getting out of the pickup and shooting it. That is sport! "

to tasty from Hunter X: wrote on Feb 2, 2007 10:47 AM:

" You're right, it's not just Fargo. I forgot to add Valley City & Jamestown. "

B in M wrote on Feb 2, 2007 10:16 AM:

" Mandan, you are wrong. These are small fenced in areas. The ones I've seen are maybe 100 acres tops. It is not hunting, it is killing. Great White Hunter (obviously you are not), you can't miss shooting a tame animal that you could walk right up to. They are sold as 100% guaranteed. I think it is wrong. Hunting is fair chase and the critter has a chance to get away. Would you call shooting a cow 'hunting'? It is the same thing! Pay big $'s shoot a tame animal and hang it on your wall and tell everyone what a great hunter you are. LOL That said, let it go. If I want to buy a cow and go shoot it, I can. It is sad to see a wild animal domesticated, but it brings in $'s to the state. Quit calling it 'hunting', that is what tick off us real hunters. Put a big red tag in its ear and paint a bulls eye on its side. Tax the heck out of them and cash in on their permit fees. "

tasty wrote on Feb 2, 2007 10:14 AM:

" Wow, some of you really struggle. It is very simple. Both rural/urban folks were asked if they approved of captive deer or elk being raised to be shot in a high fence enclosure where there was no chance for escape. 75% of ND citizens responded by saying they DID NOT APPROVE OF THIS PRACTICE. There was no difference between rural and urban so don't use the Fargo arguement. People in Bowman feel the same way as people in Fargo, it's a distasteful, disease nightmare, type of practice that needs to disappear from ND's landscape. But for now it will have to stay because of property rights and tourism. Initiated measure on the way. "

well wrote on Feb 2, 2007 10:06 AM:

" I wouldn't consider shooting an elk in a high fenced area actually hunting. but if people want to shoot an animal just because they want the meat and not for the sport, let them shoot one. what's the big deal?? "

to YY from Hunter X: wrote on Feb 2, 2007 9:56 AM:

" Great post. All we need to do is look at who sponsered the survey. The questions were phrased to get the response they wanted. "

YY wrote on Feb 2, 2007 9:47 AM:

" I am curious how the question in the UND survey was phrased. For instance, if it is phrased something like, "Would you be in favor of people being able to go out with a lawn chair provided by the business owner and given an enormously powerful rifle and taken in a golf cart to a tree where a deer ist tied with a six-inch rope and told to "fire away until you hit it"? I would wager that most people (even more than 3/4) would say they are NOT in favor of that. Conversely, if it is phrased as "Since most of North Dakota has fences are you in favor of a ban that would prohibit hunting if the space where you are happens to have a fence around it?" While of course these are facetious examples it does bring out the point that the phrasing of the question will have a lot to do with the response. I know that UND would be aware of this phenomena but I would like to see the actual phrasing of the question and how much the respondents actually know about "game farms." If that phrase conjurs images like those in the first example (which would probably be an innaccurate picture) it can skew results. "

No Name wrote on Feb 2, 2007 9:39 AM:

" I think Mandan got it right when he asked where the "sport" was in taking beef cattle to the slaughter house. There isn't any sport in that and I've never heard a rancher say that there was. Those animals are raised for beef and are killed for that purpose. Raising animals in a fenced area that people pay to shoot is called killing, not hunting. Please do not confuse the two. "

great white hunter wrote on Feb 2, 2007 9:34 AM:

" You people are just jealous that you cannot afford this type of hunt. Call it what you want, it is still hunting. Also the ranch owners own the land, they should be able to do what they want with their land. And by the way anybody can miss a shot at any time , wether it is behind a fence or not. "

Hunter X wrote on Feb 2, 2007 9:30 AM:

" This bill is nothing more than a few non-landowners from the Fargo area trying to eliminate non-residents from hunting in ND. They are trying to shove their ethics and beliefs down the throat of rural North Dakotans. If this bill passes you can count on more anti-rural ND, anti-landowner and anti-nonresident bills in the future. "

Ban Supporter wrote on Feb 2, 2007 8:32 AM:

" To-Ban more ban's. I notice that not once do you defend this industry as being a legitimate hunt. It is not hunting when you drive an animal to the corner of a section of land where two fences meet and shoot it. Your industry would like to gloss over this fact by saying "I have a 5,000 acre ranch and it is no different than any other hunt." Well it is different because no matter how much land you have, if I simply push the animal in one direction it will eventually get cornered and I will have an embarrasingly easy shot. I deer hunt every year and find regular rifle hunting easy enough as it is, never had a year when I didn't fill a tag. And I would appreciate your industry not using the "what about the elderly and disabled being able to hunt" argument. Driving a disabled person in a pickup to the corner of a fence line and letting him shoot at several trapped animals is not hunting and I don't think the disabled person would feel like he accomplished much. Ban opponents should be ashamed for trying to hide behind such groups. I think this needs a vote of the people where it will have no problem passing. "

tasty wrote on Feb 2, 2007 8:25 AM:

" Game farms and canned hunting have no place in ND. They are outlawed in many states and should be in ND. Hopefully, they will be in time. "

Edward wrote on Feb 2, 2007 8:16 AM:

" Morally bankrupt! Who are we kidding. Does the deer or elk know it is morally bankrupt? What about captured bugs that are killed for experimental purposes? Is that less bankrupt? Let 'em hunt. "

Mandan wrote on Feb 2, 2007 7:54 AM:

" I cannot believe that they are trying to ban this. They are tying the animal to something and saying shoot it they are allowing people to hunt on their land for a chance to hunt a certain animal which there are licenses you can get for the wild. If you think about it for the most part all hunting is actually fenced because you have areas you cannot hunt and no trespassing on certain peoples property so you are only allowed to hunt a certain area. There really is no truely open hunting anywhere in ND. When you recieve a deer tag it is for a certain area and that area has places you cannot hunt. These businesses are run on a large area of land. It isn't in a 5 acre area where the animal is right there and you can't miss. Just like the smoking ban in bars the legislators are trying to make these owners seem too stupid to run a profitable business they think they have to micromanage everything. Surveys are not reliable and neither are the states statistics. I know alot of hunters from out of state that love coming here for this purpose because they do not have time to be here for a whole season to hunt what they want to be able to come and actually get something for their time just like the pheasant farms for hunting all over the area. This year seems to be the year for legislative micromanagement of our lives. Besides what do these people for this ban think happens to the beef cattle raised in a fenced area and just taken to the slaughter house no real sport there either is there. I think these farmers that wanted to keep their family farm have done a great job in creating a whole new business. "

allen wrote on Feb 2, 2007 7:35 AM:

" Too bad you have apparently refused to keep up on this topic. Captive (and wild) animals HAVE been linked to outbreaks of disease. The push to ban high fence hunts doesn't come from UND. It comes from the majority of ND's fair chase hunter population. The representative population was done just like every other survey. At random using a ND phonebook. It is not immoral or unethical to for the population to tell a landowner what he/she can or cannot do with their property? In which country do you think you live? We do it all the time here in the United States! If you don't believe me go ahead and be cruel to your animals/pets (your property) or try to raise marijuana on your land, or even just have a loud party at your house and you will get a full education on this principle. "

Hunter wrote on Feb 2, 2007 7:30 AM:

" Let these people run there business for Petes Sake!!! McKenna you do not have a clue, now get out behind your desk and visit one of these game farms and see how actually large there so called cages are. You and your clones are giving the puplic wrong perception because of lack of knowledge. These animals are not caged and are well taken care of. Now quit bashing these hard working people and let them run there business which they have a ton of money invested in. Let our congressmen vocus on more important issues like covering up your deer. WHAT NEXT? "

Ban more ban's wrote on Feb 2, 2007 5:25 AM:

" There is not ONE thing wrong with “Game Farms” this is just the latest attempt of some nut job radicals to extricate yet one more entrepreneurial effort of making a living in this state. Game farms absolutely DO NOT create, and/or exacerbate disease among wild animals PERIOD! From that standpoint, there is no difference between a “Game farm” and a regular farm or ranching operation. As for those that object on a moral/ethical basis its really none of your business, just as its none of my business if I happen to believe that the gay lifestyle is immoral and unethical! What is immoral and unethical is using the law to deny a person(s) the ability to utilize private property to make a living and to basically do what they want to do on their own land based on a misguided interpretation of ethics. There are a few activities that are absolutely immoral and unethical which also happen to be illegal and should remain so. Will these new “Ethics Police” from UND attempt to redefine these matters also? I am a graduate of UND and have participated in the formulation and distribution of several survey questionnaires, I for one, question the efficacy of the survey. I would like to know how those conducting this survey determined the representative population enabling the blanket use of the term “North Dakotans”! Having said that, I’m going to go way out on the limb and say that its probably more accurate to state that more than three quarters of North Dakotans have more important things on their minds!!! Who sponsoered SB2254 anyway? "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.