Curt Wells is a well respected outdoor author and free lance writer. He is the Equipment Editor for Bowhunter Magazine. His latest book is "The Modern Bowhunter - Geared Up!".  Curt's columns appear in Dakota Country Magazine, Bowhunter Magazine, Bowsite.com, the Wahpeton North Dakota Daily News, and other outdoor media.

The following article was published in the December 2009 issue of Dakota Country Magazine. It is  reproduced with the permission of the author and Dakota Country Magazine.

TIME TO SPEAK UP ON THE FAIR CHASE ISSUE

By Curt Wells

The outdoors is swollen with controversial subjects and it’s never difficult to find some topic that is in need of pontification. However, there is one subject on which I have not written a single word – the high fence hunting issue. It’s time.

This is a philosophical matter so I’m not going to spout statistics or data to support my position. This is about what’s right.

Let’s start by attempting to define a “high fence” enclosure. That’s a tough one. Across this planet there are high fence hunting operations ranging from as small as 10 acres in the U.S to high fence operations in South Africa that are 100,000 acres and even larger.

The obvious question is - at what size enclosure does hunting become fair chase? Does it ever? If you’re pursuing impala on a concession in Namibia that’s so large you can drive for miles and miles and never even see the fence, is that fair chase? What about white-tailed deer on 50,000 acres in Texas? Or hunting elk in a 10,000 acre high fence operation in Saskatchewan?

I bowhunted various species of plains game in both South Africa and Namibia on high-fence ranches. For the most part, all hunting in those two countries is high-fenced. The fence is intended to keep poachers out and, yes, highly valuable animals in.

I bowhunted red stag in New Zealand a couple years ago and while most of the hunting there takes place on high-fence ranches I elected to hunt outside the fenced areas. The stags weren’t as large as the supplement-fed fenced stags, but I enjoyed a fantastic hunt anyway.

I’ve also bowhunted feral hogs on a high-fence deer hunting operation in Texas. The hogs were considered varmints that needed to be controlled.

The deer were another story. I saw some very good bucks that had a high price tag (or should I say ear tag?) on their head. I was not hunting deer but there are plenty of people out there who are willing to spend thousands of dollars for a pen-raised animal without batting an eyelash.

I relate these stories in part for the purpose of full disclosure and to illustrate that I have some limited personal experience with high-fence operations. Do not…I repeat…do not take that as some sort of endorsement of the practice in North Dakota.

In my mind, high fence hunting runs parallel to the baiting issue in some ways. Baiting may work in Texas, or Saskatchewan or South Africa but it creates many problems in North Dakota. High-fence hunting may be acceptable, or at least tolerated in Texas, Saskatchewan and South Africa but for North Dakota it’s simply not a good thing.

First and foremost, why in God’s name would North Dakota want to emulate Texas, Saskatchewan or South Africa? This is North Dakota for crying out loud, not Texas.

But there’s yet another parallel between high fence hunting and baiting. Ten years ago few hunters hunted big game over bait. Most didn’t even know it was legal. I, among others, warned that baiting would grow into an unmanageable problem if it wasn’t addressed. It got away from us, as predicted, and now it’s so pervasive we’re unlikely to get rid of it.

We find ourselves in a similar situation with high fence hunting. If we don’t address this problem now it will grow like a cancer. According to an article in last month’s Dakota Country there are about 12 high-fence hunting operations in the state right now. It hasn’t grown beyond the point of no return yet, but it will if nothing is done.

Now, making someone’s business illegal through referendum or legislative action is not something to be taken lightly. However, the process will certainly be much more difficult and painful ten years ahead than it will be now.

Proponents of high fence hunting and the operators themselves will throw out the “private property” rights card. That doesn’t get it done. All of us have to live within the law and under certain parameters. Owning land doesn’t mean you can do whatever you wish on the property. I live in town but I’m sure if I decided to raise chickens in my backyard my neighbors would have something to say about my property rights. Owning more than one acre of land does not give anyone stronger property rights. Owners of large tracts of land seem to think that is so. It is not.

Montana dealt swiftly with this problem, banning high fence hunting and closing down existing operations. Their law was challenged in court several times but it held up every time. Such operations were also banned in Wyoming.

There are so many reasons why our hunting heritage in North Dakota is threatened by the proliferation of high fence hunting. There’s the disease issue, which seems to be lost on many of North Dakota’s deer hunters. They seem to think we only need worry about disease after it arrives in the state. High fence operations transport animals back and forth and although we haven’t found CWD in North Dakota yet, it has showed up in Minnesota – but only on game farms. That’s not a coincidence.

Other problems include the continued transfer of animals between operations which can spread disease, many documented escapes by captive animals into the wild, introduction of non-native genetics and the high cost of monitoring by the Game and Fish Department – a cost born by the state’s hunters and anglers. That list doesn’t even include the ethical issues of hunting down an animal that cannot escape. I’ve seen a website of one high fence hunting operation that lists photos of the bucks on their property. The bucks have names or numbers and are included in a price list based on how large their antlers are. The hunter chooses the buck he’s willing to pay for and the animal is either released in a smaller enclosure or they hunt the ranch until they find that particular buck, complete with ear tag ID.

Such a situation repulses most hunters but the reaction from the non-hunting public is even more intense. Some nonhunters can barely tolerate fair chase hunting much less high fence operations. In the end, all of hunting gets lumped together and becomes evil to those who may have otherwise tolerated the existence of fair chase hunting.

As you know there’s a movement afoot to gather signatures so this issue of high fence hunting can be put to the voters. This is the only way to go. The legislature already proved they can’t be trusted to do the right thing when they ignored the experts and the facts in the baiting debate during the last session.

So, if you’d like to help ensure high fence hunting doesn’t careen out of control into our future you can contact North Dakota Fair Chase and Roger Kaseman at 701-751-0882 or visit www.northdakotafairchase.com. Or send an email to rogerkaseman@bis.midco.net. The website has lots of information to help you in your research so you can make your own decision and decide whether to sign the petition.

We lost the baiting battle but if we don’t stop high fence hunting now there will one more cost the state’s taxpayers will have to deal with - changing the name of our state to North Texas.

Ouch! That hurt, didn’t it?