The North Dakota Legislature meets every 2 years to do their mischief. January marks the beginning of the biannual rumble.

The Outdoor section of yesterday’s paper had a story about a bill that will ban all high fence hunting in the state. I’ll admit that my Sanctity of Private Property mindset is somewhat conflicted on this issue, but I will be testifying in support of the ban. Being a voracious reader of history, I am aware of the European system of game owned by the crown and only the nobility being able to hunt that game, the common man be damned. I believe the high fence hunting is a step toward that antiquated system that our ancestors left behind when they left Europe and came here to establish that country. I don’t believe that a human can attach a private property title to a wild game animal no more than one human can attach legal title to another human. There was a legal title to a slave, but it wasn’t a moral title. Rivers of blood spilled to make that point. Might as well attach a title to the air we breath.

If you oppose game ownership and high fence hunting, I want to hear why.

If you support ownership of game animals and high fence hunting, state your arguments.

If you know of any legal precedent from any court that address either side of the argument, post it here.

I will be putting together testimony in support of the bill so be warned, your ideas might make it to the Natural Resources Committee of the North Dakota Legislature.

I would suggest that you duplicate this post on the http://www.2coolfishing.com board in the hunting section. It's a very popular Texas forum with high traffic. Since high-fence hunting is a big issue in Tx, you'll get many, many opinions on the subject, some of which are very well informed, indeed.

I am all for the ban of high fence hunting. Nothing good has come out of it. CWD started on a Game Farm and spred to the wild. As for the private property comment it really does not matter. Animals esacpe all the time look at what it is costing Idaho right now to clean up that mess. Wild animals are just that wild they are not ment to be domesticated. If you want to get into the farming market that is what live stock is for.

I am against hunting in high fenced in areas, but fear it is how hunting will be done in the not to distant future. Look at all the "game leases". Back home, I hunt for almost free (expect for the license) but right across the property line is $4,000 game leases. Those guys get VERY angry that we hunt on private property near them, often complain that it isn't fair that we get to shoot "their" deer.

There is a lot of money to me made, and it will only get worse.

How many High fence ranches (Besides Bison ranchs)are there in ND like this?

There is an Elk ranch in ND I heard.

I am originally from Minot ND but left 18 years ago.

The only ones I ever heard of then were Bison ranchs.

If this is aimed at Elk ranching, would a Bison Ranch (where a high strong fence is required)be exempt??

Sounds like this could be a personal vendetta against one rancher to me.

High fence or not ,I don't think anyone should tell a property owner what he can or cannot do on his property after all he paid for it and pays tax on it. If his actions bother the neighbors that is another story.Leave the slave out of the debate, as it is totally unrelated to the topic.Regulating private property will lead to a title to the air we breath. If you are serious about this do more research. More laws are not the answer IMO. Best of luck

quote:

Originally posted by NEJack:
I am against hunting in high fenced in areas, but fear it is how hunting will be done in the not to distant future. Look at all the "game leases". Back home, I hunt for almost free (expect for the license) but right across the property line is $4,000 game leases. Those guys get VERY angry that we hunt on private property near them, often complain that it isn't fair that we get to shoot "their" deer.

There is a lot of money to me made, and it will only get worse.

Like NEJack Says it is not going to be as much about the hunt as the money in the not to distant future. There are some highfence game areas in my state but for the most part in the areas I hunt it is freerange. We see some fine deer and wildlife on our hunting areas, and still it is about being there when the animal moves through your place when you are sitting in the stand or ground blind. As the amount of hunting land decreases over the next fifty years it is going to cause a few people to try to make a profit off of the fact that they own a considerable amount of land and can afford to place a game fence around it, and then charge people fees to hunt there.

Now the question is should people who own say more than 200 arces of land be allowed, if they want, to place a game fence around there land. I think Highfence game leases where the sole intention is to make as much money as you can off of a hunter, so they can brag about how big of an animal they killed this year. This is not the direction any state should go and I am all for a ban on highfence game areas. But who is to say a person who has the means to own 200 or more acres of land can't put up a game fence for his own uses.

We are seeeing a steady fall from what our fathers before us had to deal with fifty years ago. Hunters of a certain type are a dying breed. Those that will climb up a steep vally or stalked into 50 yards so they can get a quartering shot on a nice animal. Then having pride that they had the ability to to do this and in thier mind the animal is the bonus, and the hunt itself is the reward. Hunters in our ever expanding, high-paced world want to drive to a place. Pay the money. Sit in a stand for 2 or 3 hours have a ten point, that would score 160 B&C, walk out broadside at 50 yards and bang-flop. Look at what I did!!!

Now I am not stupid to the way the world is changing. As the amount of people in our country is continuing to increase. The amount of avaliable land is decreasing we are going to have to deal with some good and bad changes in the way we hunt. I know of places where a person in the suburbs could (if it was Legal) take animals that I would be more than pround to hang on the wall, but then I would not feel that I had done anything more than killed a tame beast that has grown used to the sounds of cars, and is only trying to survive in the ever-changing world. Killing animals in high fenced enviroments is taking that animal's ability to do what that animal has done for 2000 or more years and turned it in to a high-priced braging trophy. LLB

quote:

Originally posted by Rug:
High fence or not ,I don't think anyone should tell a property owner what he can or cannot do on his property after all he paid for it and pays tax on it.

Naaah, if we prohibit whore-houses, we can prohibit put and take elk farms, since whore-houses are sort of catch-and-release hunting, so not as morally decrepit( and no trophy pictures!).

If there's going to be put and take elk farms, then there has to be extremely tight enforcement to prevent problems, and bonding to compensate the state if problems ARE caused.

I wonder what the bond to cover the risk of introducing CWD to the Yellowstone elk herd would run?

That's the real point. If people want to jeopardize the public's resources, then they have to be willing to hold the public harmless. None seem to be willing to take that responsibility. Just their "rights". JMO, Dutch.

I wouldn't be against a high fence hunting bill except it's a foot in the door for those who want to ban hunting and firearms altogether.

There is also a bit of hypocrasy in the carnivores who want to ban high fence hunting and yet are willing to eat steaks from cows killed execution style.

I have nothing against put and take shoots. Not my cup of tea, but it takes all kinds. Killing is killing.

The problem with elk and deer farms is that although they were NOT the source of CWD (that was a research lab's deer pen), they have been without a doubt the ONLY vector for the spread of CWD beyond it's native area. They have also been an important vector for TB.

Now, diseases spread, and that's life. However, until we know FOR SURE that CWD doesn't transmit to humans, draconian methods to contain it are not only morally justified, they are morally required.

As I said, if game farmers want to do what they do, they MUST be willing to accept the responsibility of the potential damage the excercise of their rights can cause. Hence my point, if you want to bond your farm, fine, have at. But not ONE farmer is willing to accept the responsibilty. All we get is "we do a good job". Fine, your are a good upstanding citizen. So what? CWD in Yellowstone because of a cervid farm transfer?

Hey, don't convince me, convince the insurance agency. JMO, Dutch.

As for the comment about giving the anti's a foot in the door this bill is nothing new. Wyoming Banned High Fence hunting over 30 years ago and the state is still going strong with hunting. There are a few Elk ranches here. I have one 30 miles from where I live and we hunt deer right next to it. Nothing like seeing an animal that should be the king of the mountain locked up in a 25 acre pen and getting drugged once a year to have it's horns either measured or cut off for sale. Just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

quote:

Originally posted by Riodot:
How many High fence ranches (Besides Bison ranchs)are there in ND like this?

There is an Elk ranch in ND I heard.

I am originally from Minot ND but left 18 years ago.

The only ones I ever heard of then were Bison ranchs.

If this is aimed at Elk ranching, would a Bison Ranch (where a high strong fence is required)be exempt??

Sounds like this could be a personal vendetta against one rancher to me.

There are 100 ranches that have deer or elk behind high fences. The state verteranarin already regulates them so the count is accurate.

I knew that the private property argument would be in the lead, or at least close to the lead on this issue. I am an adamant supporter of private property rights. I believe that private property is the foundation of all that we are as a nation. But this isn’t a private property rights issue. Private property rights are a red herring argument.

Interesting that no one argued for or against my premise that creating private title to a wild game animals is in effect a step in the direction of a European system of game management which in effect removes all game animals from the public domain and places them in private hands where only the well-heeled can afford to hunt and the common man is damned to the sidelines.

There is a ironclad law of Unintended Consequences to every action that government takes. The status quo is public ownership of wild game. A ban on game farms maintains the status quo, while creating a legal title to wild game, creates very real Unintended Consequence of the transfer of all wildlife from the public domain with ownership transferred into private hands, the very European system that the Founders of this nation abolished. Our national history on wildlife is clear, the precedent straight forward and unambiguous; wildlife has been in the public domain since the first European set foot on this continent, that in reaction to the Crown and nobility ownership of game in Europe with the common man disbarred the right to hunt.

Thanks fellows, and keep it coming. In politics, the best starting platform is knowing your opponent’s position better than your opponent knows his or her position. If I know every possible argument against the ban, I can effectively argue against my opposition with reason and logic followed by emotion, which on the political front, sells cheaper and faster than reason and logic combined. Thanks to this thread, I am starting to refine my thinking and polish my reasoned and logical arguments, and exactly which emotions to appeal to.

I do not go with the Private Property issue because it is not one in my mind. If there was a 100% guarantee that an animal could not escape then it would be no big deal. But in life there are no guarantee's. I will sum it up this way. If I lived next door to you and you had kids would you have a problem if I darted a Cape Buffalo or Coastal Brown and captured them to be my pet? I mean if I have a 8ft game fence it should not be a problem right? I bet there would be a lot of High fence supporters that would have a problem with this if it was in there back yard.

quote:

Originally posted by RogerK:
I knew that the private property argument would be in the lead, or at least close to the lead on this issue. I am an adamant supporter of private property rights. I believe that private property is the foundation of all that we are as a nation. But this isn’t a private property rights issue. Private property rights are a red herring argument.

Interesting that no one argued for or against my premise that creating private title to a wild game animals is in effect a step in the direction of a European system of game management which in effect removes all game animals from the public domain and places them in private hands where only the well-heeled can afford to hunt and the common man is damned to the sidelines.

There is a ironclad law of Unintended Consequences to every action that government takes. The status quo is public ownership of wild game. A ban on game farms maintains the status quo, while creating a legal title to wild game, creates very real Unintended Consequence of the transfer of all wildlife from the public domain with ownership transferred into private hands, the very European system that the Founders of this nation abolished. Our national history on wildlife is clear, the precedent straight forward and unambiguous; wildlife has been in the public domain since the first European set foot on this continent, that in reaction to the Crown and nobility ownership of game in Europe with the common man disbarred the right to hunt.

Thanks fellows, and keep it coming. In politics, the best starting platform is knowing your opponent’s position better than your opponent knows his or her position. If I know every possible argument against the ban, I can effectively argue against my opposition with reason and logic followed by emotion, which on the political front, sells cheaper and faster than reason and logic combined. Thanks to this thread, I am starting to refine my thinking and polish my reasoned and logical arguments, and exactly which emotions to appeal to.

The private property arguement is far from a red herring. I would agree with you if someone just went out, fenced in a herd of deer, and called them his. However, these game farms use animals bought and paid for, from other game farmers, before they fence off the property they have to do their best to run off all the native game, at least that's what I was told by a game rancher here in SD.

So in essence, it is a private property arguement.

I think your best bet if you want to testify against this bill would be to research CWD in private herds, and the escape rate of fenced animals.

wow the superheroes of logic. help ban one kind of killing because it just seems unfair to you. I mean its only rich posers or profiteers who hunt that way right? so drive them over to golf or something stomp out one kind of killing that offends you.because you know you are so right in all you do that no one will ever disagree with the kind of killing you do and want to ban it. what it must be like to be so superior and know it. keep up the good work it will all be over before you know what happend.

The kind of fence a man builds on his rural property is nobody else's damn business. If it keeps some wild animals in, it keeps ALL the rest out, except what he wants to transplant. Only if he operated a funnel system, in which he periodically funneled wildlife from others property into his ,would this conceivably be anyone else's business--and it wouldn't be the high fence, it would be the funneling of the critters.

quote:

However, these game farms use animals bought and paid for, from other game farmers, before they fence off the property they have to do their best to run off all the native game, at least that's what I was told by a game rancher here in SD.

If "game farms" and "put and take hunting" are the issue, then why not address that issue and not high fences.

Can't speak for SD, but in Texas, the overwhelming number of high fence ranches do not transport animals. More often, the purpose of the fence is just to maintain the natural level of population within the carrying capacity of the range.

Fences are a necessary but not sufficient tool for game farms. If you don't like game farms (whatever that term means to you) then fight game farms.

To outlaw high fences to prevent game farms is the same flawed logic as outlawing guns to prevent armed robbery.

RogerK- A slightly different twist to the argument: On several different large properties I am involved with we have an interesting problem. Over the years we have worked hard to optimize habitat for wildife. We have exercized restaint on harvesting only mature animals and have been as aggressive as needed with the antlerless harvest. Our problem is inmigration. We are finding that we are receiving a constant inmigration no matter what our harvest policy is. Our goal would be to keep deer and elk numbers somewhat below what we view carrying capacity should be for optimal health. I think you will find this a common point brought out by the Texans and it is a valid one. Alas, in our state we can no longer build high fences.

I've got to straddle the fence on this issue. Although I would prefer there be no high fences they just are a necessary evil.

A friend and I purchased a ranch is South Texas a couple of years ago. Everything was going fine until one of the neighbors decides to high fence his land except for 500 or so acres that happened to border us. He was going to sell that part. How sweet. Now if the wrong person bought the property and shot everything that moved we would have been set back a minimum of five years in our management goals. So we told him to go ahead and fence the whole place and he could be next to his new neighbor. Surprise, surprise, but he didn't want to do that. So although we don't care for high fences we started stringing wire. Now half our ranch is under high fence but we still have six miles of low fence with excellent management minded neighbors.

High fence is very expensive. Ours cost $18,000 per mile and ran into six figures. But when you have several million dollars invested it is a small price to pay. You need to answer the question of why people high fence? Is it because they are greedy? No not hardly. It's because their neighbors want something they didn't help produce. Or their neighbors won't control the number of animals on their land. And it is a private property rights issue. It's my land and I'll do as I please with it.

This reminds me of the fights and arguements cowboys and ranchers had when the west was being fenced in the 1870s. People couldn't understand why fence the prairies-they have always been free-roam and always should be. Look at us now. Worrying about higher fence.

I do not believe Texas (where high fenced shooting seems to be most popular) is a good model of game management for North Dakota (or any other state which still has large plots of public land) to emulate.

I recently inquired about hunting in Texas, a friend of mine has a house in the Austin area and thought I might do little hunting while visiting.

I asked many of the Texas folks how and where and when was the best way to get out and hunt on public land in Texas.

I was nearly laughed off the board.

"Public access?"
WHAT?
"If you want to hunt Texas you need to PAY."

Not all of the PAY to hunt is high fenced, many opportunities (it was explained) are just access fees. There are probably a lot of good reasons behind TEXANS choosing how TEXAS provides hunting (or high fenced shooting) opportunities. To each their own.

Whether one believes that is right or wrong, it lends creedence to the argument that high fenced shooting of animals can lead to a decrease in HUNTING opportunity for the general public.

IV

i'm for high fencing as long as the animals are bought and tagged like cattle. this would prevent trespassing and allow those of us serfs to hunt on blm/national forest land without fear of wandering onto private land. and no, it is not a step in banning the sport. remember, the democrats protect the 2nd amendment and the right to hunt

I've decided to come over to the "ban high fence hunting side." I believe the public's perception of high fence hunting, whatever the area that is fenced, is that Bambi is being shot in a cage which can only hurt us.

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:
I do not believe Texas (where high fenced shooting seems to be most popular) is a good model of game management for North Dakota (or any other state which still has large plots of public land) to emulate.

I recently inquired about hunting in Texas, a friend of mine has a house in the Austin area and thought I might do little hunting while visiting.

I asked many of the Texas folks how and where and when was the best way to get out and hunt on public land in Texas.

I was nearly laughed off the board.

"Public access?"
WHAT?
"If you want to hunt Texas you need to PAY."

Not all of the PAY to hunt is high fenced, many opportunities (it was explained) are just access fees. There are probably a lot of good reasons behind TEXANS choosing how TEXAS provides hunting (or high fenced shooting) opportunities. To each their own.

Whether one believes that is right or wrong, it lends creedence to the argument that high fenced shooting of animals can lead to a decrease in HUNTING opportunity for the general public.

IV

There is very little public land in Texas compared to Western states. There is some that is excellent but you must put in for the draws for hunts on it. The state also pays landowners for access to some property and you can buy a permit to hunt that land.

I know people who hunt National Forest land in Texas (no draw required) but it is primarily in the eastern part of the state and not near Austin. The successful ones scout the areas and get away from the crowds just like any other public land. I know someone else in the Dallas area who hunted the LBJ Grasslands for whitetail (bowhunting) this year. He was not successful but it was a low-cost hunt and he saw game, just not what he wanted.

All of this has to do with private versus public property more than the height of fences. There are public opportunities but most people pay for access to private property.

Sorry to hijack the "anti high fence" thread.

High fence hunting sort of takes most of the "sport" out of it...

Much like 'shooting fish in a barrel'.. except this time it is deer or elk....

What drives me nuts is the fact that the NO TRESSPASSING sign industry has really boomed thru the roof in the last 25 years in this country....

I live to where I can get way back into National Forests or BLM land.. still a lot of it is owned by paper companies... and it drives me and a lot of other people nuts out here, to see those areas closed off by the roads being blocked, and they actually pay people to live out in the middle of the woods in trailers to provide security at these blocked roads...

The eco terrorists come out and damage logging equipment, and the rednecks come out and pull down the gated over these roads, with a wench or a chain off the trailer hitch on their 4 wheel drives...

and when they backhoe a big hole for a gate instead, many times, 4 wheelers with just make a path thru the woods around it...

But these are up based on all the damage that is done by people....

then you get BLM and Fish & Wildlife that go out and block roads during hunting season to reduce access with the excuse of giving deer and elk "escapement routes"... that is a new term for me....but you can tell it was created by a liberal...

Hunting is getting way too much legislative attention all around the country and accomplishing nothing for we hunters...

the Latest politically correct BS that I have noticed over the last two years...

At first they made up this law, that you have to give your social security number to get a hunting tag, and that got that thru legislation by the excuse that it was for the 'politically correct ' child support enforcement racket...

Now this year, in the 2007 Oregon hunting regs that I just picked up are....

Wildlife Volators Compact!
" Hunters.. be advised that under the Interstate Wildlife Violaters Compact, you can have your Oregon hunting licenses and tags revoked or suspended if you violate the wildlife laws of other states.. this means if your licenses or tag priviledges which come under the scope of the compact, are suspended or revoked in another member state, they are subject to suspension or revocation in all member states... For more information, please visit our web site at www.dfw.state.or.us"

Sure this another bit of legislature that supposedly sounds noble... but in fact, for instance, some states like Colorado, will not sell a hunting license to someone who is in arrearages in child support... with liberal courts, being behind in child support is not a hard thing to be for the most consciencious person around.. loose a job, for a short period... and courts won't take that into consideration many times...

your income lowers, or you don't get a raise while the courts do an automatic annual economic increase, and one is behind....

so technically, someone may not even be a resident of one state that has that law, yet you can have the ability to hunt, denied because of laws in another state, via this 'Compact"....

24 states have passed it, 6 more are in the process of passing it, 2 just passed it, and 18 have voted no....

Sure it sounds like if you poach in one state, you can't hunt in another one....but the law goes much further than that....

once again, it is the liberal left, anti hunting PETA crowd that is using every little loop hole they can to stop people from hunting...

and when one figures according to US Census Bureau numbers, that out of every marriage 60% end in divorce in this country, and over 60 % of those have kids involved... not only is child support a big racket in this country with no obstacles to it... but now the lefty libs are tacking on this type of crap to handle their control and agenda even further...

So how many american men can this possibly affect??? I believe the numbers to be quite substantial....

And yes I am a divorced father, and yes, I have fought these political self righteous zealots for over 18 years now.. My children are all grown, and are getting married themselves... yet I still am battling court systems.. and every state in the country, honors the other ones, regardless of the crap that divorced fathers have to deal with in highly biased and discriminatory attitudes toward divorced fathers....

All the while, I am supposed to shut my mouth,
"Take it like a man".. let government rob our children, our rights, and every thing else they can screw out of us... and not say a thing, so I can be a good loyal American citizen....

while they create problems, that don't either exist or exist in minor detail compared to what they claim, so that they can justify bigger government, more control over the population of the country.. and more and more TAXES... because we the government are always broke....


nebraska, texas, oklahoma, arkansas, louisiana, mississippi, Illinois, north carolina, virginia, pennsylvania, new hampshire, massachusetts, connecticut, rhode island, and vermont are the states that so far have not bought into this BS... and those in the northeast actually surprise me... so if that is so, you know, that this crap is legislative 'gestapo' bullshit....