Untitled 1

The Fargo Forum Editorial, Sunday, November 19, 2006
Used By Permission

Abolish game farm ‘hunting’

It was disturbing to be reminded what is meant by the mealy-mouthed euphemism “game farm.” It often means confining wild animals inside pens and allowing people to pay for the privilege of shooting them.

The troubling existence of game farms recently reappeared in the news with a report that Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, plans to offer a bill in the 2007 North Dakota Legislature prohibiting landowners from allowing people to shoot elk and deer inside a fenced area.

The senator asks a very good question, properly framed as one of ethics: “Is this right, basically, to put animals in a fence and shoot them and call it a sport?”

Whatever happens on a “game farm,” it is not a sport and it is not hunting. About 100 of these operations are licensed in North Dakota, many of which raise animals essentially as livestock. Some, however, charge customers for the “hunts” they allow to take place inside high fences erected to trap elk or deer when pursued by some stalker with a rifle.

Lamely, game farm defenders try to suggest that sequestering a deer or elk in a fenced acreage evokes the chase of a bona fide hunt in the wild. A buck bagged in that manner is target practice, not a trophy. This unsavory pursuit does not deserve to be called hunting, an honorable sport when practiced ethically and legally. Regulated hunting in the wild preserves a valuable tradition and serves an important role in controlling game populations. We have no quarrel whatsoever with genuine hunters, nor do we have a problem with fee hunting on farm or range land, but that is different than hunting on a game farm.

For those who aren’t persuaded by ethical arguments, consider the threat to public health, another concern motivating Mathern's bill. Confining large numbers of elk and deer increases the potential for breeding problems and disease outbreaks, particularly so-called chronic wasting disease.

North Dakota’s veterinarian, when asked by a reporter whether game farms present a disease problem, said, “Generally speaking, no.” She went on to say the state Board of Animal Health has “taken a hard line” in regulating the industry. Not hard enough, in our view.

We’re puzzled that animal health regulators are willing to take the risk of a disease outbreak posed by herds of confined elk and deer – imagine what would happen if chronic wasting disease from a game farm spread to wild herds. Hunters would be outraged. North Dakota should follow the lead of states that have outlawed private game farms, including neighboring Montana and Wyoming. Idaho reportedly is expected to consider a ban.

To justify their tawdry shooting parlors, game farm owners try to wrap themselves with rhetoric about free enterprise and property rights. As we’ve pointed out in the debate over restaurant smoking bans, government has a legitimate right to restrict activities, or impose land use restrictions, for practices that pose health risks. Let’s put a stop to allowing “hunting” of deer or elk on game farms.