"I do not hunt for the joy of killing but for the joy of living, and the inexpressible pleasure of mingling my life however briefly, with that of a wild creature that I respect, admire and value."

John Madson-Out Home

The Fargo Forum, 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.

Grand Forks Herald Opinion, Sunday, April 27, 2008

Used By Permission

OUR OPINION: N.D. game farm plan strengthens our ethical code

Tom Dennis Grand Forks Herald

There is hunting and there is killing. The difference is why North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase ought to get its initiative on the November ballot and then why the measure ought to pass.

The initiative would “prohibit shooting captive deer, elk and exotic mammals behind escape-proof fences,” the group’s Web site reports.

“We support hunting without reservation,” the Web site continues. “We base our support on sound science and ethical behavior applied in the interest of wild game. Shooting tame deer, elk and exotic mammals inside escape-proof fences is unethical and a poor example for our children and grandchildren.”

Thanks in part to Teddy Roosevelt, America has a unique relationship with “shooting sports” and wildlife that has served hunters, nonhunters, conservationists and everyone else for 100 years. It’s based in part on the distinction between hunting and killing — hunting being defined by the rules of “fair chase,” and killing being for-pleasure practices that can and do violate those rules.

So: Cockfights are illegal. Pheasant hunting is not. Dogfights are felony offenses, while veterinarians and animal shelters legally and humanely euthanize dogs every day.

Deer hunting is legal; but even Texas — where game farms are common — has banned “computer assisted remote hunting,” the practice where someone uses a computer to remotely aim and fire at a live animal.

Hunters for Fair Chase believes a majority of North Dakotans feels the same the same way about game farms here. The “fair chase” tradition is part the state’s DNA, so much so that many hunters themselves feel repulsed when animals aren’t given a sporting chance.

But game farm animals are privately owned; they’re livestock, owners will counter. If that’s the case, though, then the animals should be slaughtered in the manner of livestock. Cattle owners don’t sell the privilege of shooting cows.

By the way, Montana voters debated and passed a similar initiative in 2000. Afterward, game-farm owners challenged the constitutionality of the initiative on property-rights grounds. They lost. Voters were within their rights to impose the ban, the courts concluded (up to and including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals).

Property rights don’t override the voters’ own right to reasonably regulate property use.

All this being said, the case for the initiative isn’t open-and-shut. Honest and moral people own, operate and enjoy game farms. In fact, some number of owners got into the business with the encouragement of and even financial support from the state. Should the state consider reimbursing the owners for their losses if the initiative should pass? If the group hasn’t done so already, Hunters for Fair Chase should figure out if the answer could be “yes.”

Society evolves, and what was acceptable in one decade becomes unacceptable in the next. The initiative would have a better chance of passing if voters knew the game-farm owners wouldn’t be unfairly hurt.

Besides hunting vs. killing, another distinction applies in this argument: public vs. private. Like our national parks, wildlife are a public resource that Americans own in common. This common ownership, one of Teddy Roosevelt’s great conservation achievements, has helped species recover from the brink of extinction and let wildlife stay “wild” while still being enjoyed and appreciated by humans.

Passing the Hunters for Fair Chase initiative would preserve and strengthen this legacy. Jim Posewitz, executive director of a conservation and hunting-ethics group called Orion, The Hunter’s Institute, said it best:

“Game farming commercializes the last remnants of the great wild commons. It seeks to privatize what was held in trust by all of us, it domesticates the wildness we sought to preserve. .?.. The things we value die inside the woven wire of game farms.”

For these reasons, North Dakota should sign the Hunters for Fair Chase petitions and approve the measure once it’s on the ballot.

Fargo Forum

‘Canned hunting’ debate is just getting started

August 14, 2008

The failure of a hunting measure to get on the November North Dakota ballot was more about a failure of organization than interest in the issue. The measure sought to ban so-called “high-fence hunting,” also known as “canned hunting” in the state. Some critics of the hunting-for-fee practice liken it to shooting fish in a barrel.

But whatever one’s feelings about shooting or hunting game in fenced tracts of land, the emotions swirling around the issue guarantee it will be back, either in the 2009 Legislature or on a ballot in 2010. The opposing sides have traded charges and countercharges about everything from the definition of high-fence hunting to the alleged involvement of animal rights groups. Attempts at compromise failed, with each side accusing the other of not wanting to compromise.

Nonetheless, the debate is legitimate. Those who favor “fair chase” hunting contend high-fence hunting violates North Dakota’s hunting ethic and traditions. Operators of enclosed tract operations insist it’s a matter of property rights, and they contend tracts are large enough so animals can escape hunters.

The debate will go on and likely heat up.

Disclaimer

Home 

Fair Chase Defined

The North American Model of Wildlife Management

The Property Rights Smokescreen

Endorsements

Editorials in Support of Fair Chase

The Wildlife Society On Hunting

The Wildlife Society On High Fences