I am an old North Dakota farmer, lifelong hunter and one of the 30 sponsors from around the state of the Fair Chase Hunting Measure that was reported in your paper. It would have been good reporting to print the whole measure in the article since it is only a couple of sentences long. This measure, when passed, will do only three things:

1. Eliminate canned shooting of captive big-game species inside escape-proof fences for fees.

2. Same for exotic non-native mammals, (read Russian Wild Boar, one of which was found in central North Dakota last year. He didn't parachute in here. And, really, who needs a zebra on a stick?).

3. Eliminate computer-controlled remotely fired weapons for canned shooting, (the infamous Texas-style computer shooting at game ranches).

The measure does not affect game ranching or bison in any way, nor commercial slaughter of big game species for meat and animal products, nor the sale of breeding stock, nor the sale of individual animals, nor the raising of any of them.

The thin defense about personal property rights of canned shooting operations is bogus. The Fair Chase Hunting Measure is no different than zoning regulations or construction codes that benefit us all. Your car might be personal property, but you can't drive it as fast as you want.

Ninety-five percent of Americans do not hunt, yet they often equate canned shooting with ethical hunters, and all hunters and gun owners are tarnished by this activity. Canned shooting inside escape-proof fences is an artificial experience for immediate gratification in an immoral setting in return for money.

As it is outlawed in many other states, this industry quickly moves to states where it is still legal, like North Dakota. Do we want the sludge operations outlawed in other states to move here? If you don't believe it or have never seen footage of the canned shooting industry, then do an Internet search for "Russ Beller."