Banning Fenced Hunting?

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Granted, it isn't as sporting.,...BUT this is private property....

LISBON, N.D. (AP) — Butch and Deb Dick’s lifelong dream was to open a big game hunting preserve and after years of preparation, they expected to welcome the first customers to their southeastern North Dakota ranch this month.

Voters will decide next month whether to shut them down.

Measure No. 2 on the Nov. 2 general election ballot seeks to abolish fenced preserves where people pay to shoot big game such as deer and elk. Supporters of the measure say the practice is unethical because the animals can’t escape. Opponents say it’s free enterprise.

There are thousands of big game breeding operations in the United States. Although it’s not clear how many offer hunting, there’s no federal law banning fenced hunting and a majority of states allow it.

“I think it comes down to property rights,” Butch Dick, 34, said quietly, gazing from a ridge that overlooks his wooded and hilly Dragon Creek Ranch in the surprisingly rugged Sheyenne River Valley 8 miles west of Lisbon. Most of eastern North Dakota is flat farmland.

About a dozen of the state’s more than 100 game preserves offer hunting for a fee. The cost of a hunt depends on the size of the animal, but some packages can run more than $10,000.

The Dicks advertise their business as a place where “myth and fantasy becomes reality.” They have plans to build a lodge for clients who for now will stay in a nearby bed and breakfast. They would like to specialize in events for disabled hunters and hold a turn-of-the-century hunt for muzzleloaders.


If the measure passes, “I guess it will be one large breeding farm,” Deb Dick, 35, said with a sigh.

The ballot measure’s promoter, Roger Kaseman of Linton, said it’s not sporting to hunt animals in areas he claims can be as small as 400 acres.

The average size of the hunting preserves is difficult to gauge. The state Board of Animal Health, the key regulator, does not separate hunting and non-hunting farms in its reporting. But owners claim the preserves are big enough to provide an authentic hunting experience, and one in the North Dakota Badlands said his property covers 2,000 acres.

Butch Dick said he had to install 4 miles of fence to enclose his hunting land.

The issue of whether to bar fenced hunting isn’t new.

A bill to outlaw fenced hunting preserves was introduced in the 2007 Legislature by a lone sponsor, state Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo. He said other lawmakers took their names off the bill because they were pressured by “outside interests” and some warned him he should be worried about his safety, although he received no direct threats.

“When it got right down to the day of introducing the bill, everybody was gone except me,” Mathern said.

The bill was trounced by a vote of 44-3.

Kaseman, 64, who chairs a group called North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, believes most citizens didn’t know about fenced hunting when the issue came up in the Legislature. He thinks they are now ready to voice their opposition.

The opposing voice, Shawn Schafer, 43, a white-tailed deer farmer near Turtle Lake and spokesman for Citizens to Protect North Dakota’s Property Rights, said he’s looking for a blowout victory to settle the debate one last time.

“I just wonder how much we’re going to win by,” Schafer said. “I want to send a big strong message that this is it, it’s over, leave us alone.”

No polls are available on the measure, but a 2007 University of North Dakota survey showed 75 percent of the 600 people polled would vote in favor of a ban. The random telephone survey of North Dakota residents over 18 had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

Most of the preserves’ customers come from other states, where there are fewer places to hunt and it’s difficult to obtain licenses for the biggest of big game. Some hunters want the trophy on the wall, but most are interested in the hunting experience, said Schafer, who hunts at fenced ranches in other states.

Kaseman questions that experience.

“The hunt is over the moment the animal is born,” he said.

Marv Hanson, a Grand Forks hunter, said most of his outdoors companions view fenced hunting as a matter of personal choice.

“It’s not something that I necessarily care to do,” Hanson said, “but I don’t have any problem with other people doing it, let’s put it that way.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nd-vote-could-ban-big-game-hunting-on-fenced-land/

[quade 4]

I think it depends on how "fair" the situation is set up.

If the fenced hunting area is a large enough area that the animals area enclosed in an area that is at least as large as their normal free range would be and stocked in roughly the same proportion as would be found in nature, then I'd have no issues with it.

If, on the other hand, the area is so small and so densely populated it's litterally shooting fish in a barrel, then I don't even see the point of it. I'd think it was pretty unsportsmanlike and douchy too.

I'm still not entirely certain I'd make it against the law, but maybe in this smaller shooting gallery type situation some sort of regulation would be appropriate just as it would be in any sort of slaughterhouse.

Quote

The average size of the hunting preserves is difficult to gauge. The state Board of Animal Health, the key regulator, does not separate hunting and non-hunting farms in its reporting. But owners claim the preserves are big enough to provide an authentic hunting experience, and one in the North Dakota Badlands said his property covers 2,000 acres.

Butch Dick said he had to install 4 miles of fence to enclose his hunting land.

Four miles of fence is only 1 square mile or 640 acres. I don't think that's anywhere nearly as large as what I would consider to be an authentic hunting experience.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skyrider 0]

Quote

If, on the other hand, the area is so small and so densely populated it's litterally shooting fish in a barrel, then I don't even see the point of it. I'd think it was pretty unsportsmanlike and douchy too.

Smallest I have ever heard of covered 16 "square" miles...

Myself, I see it as a Pussies way out, BUT, who has a rigth to tell people that they can not allow poeple to hunt on private property, for Game they raised and fed?

We gonna outlaw small ranches next? those animals get shot too!

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

If, on the other hand, the area is so small and so densely populated it's litterally shooting fish in a barrel, then I don't even see the point of it. I'd think it was pretty unsportsmanlike and douchy too.

Smallest I have ever heard of covered 16 "square" miles...

Myself, I see it as a Pussies way out, BUT, who has a rigth to tell people that they can not allow poeple to hunt on private property, for Game they raised and fed?

in most states, the game warden.

in-season and within bag limits? That's another question.

--
Rob

[rhys 0]

Quote

Smallest I have ever heard of covered 16 "square" miles...

Myself, I see it as a Pussies way out, BUT, who has a rigth to tell people that they can not allow poeple to hunt on private property, for Game they raised and fed?

We gonna outlaw small ranches next? those animals get shot too!

This is my opinion on the subject too.

My friend was thinking of developing a fenced hunting reserve. But they have 1000 acres and 500 of it is sand dunes and scrub that is no good for farming.

If this ban is for ethical reasons, then they should bann the enclosed diary farms that I saw scattered all over california.

While they irrigate the adjacent fields like they did in the stone age, the animals live in a stench pit walking in thier own faecies.

There is no need to farm like that there, there is plenty of water and plenty of land.

I'm sure the animals at the hunting reserve get a more pleasent life than the animals that supply the milk you all drink everyday.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Andrewwhyte 1]

If you are already in possession of the animal it is not hunting; it is farming. That said I see no reason why a high powered rifle cannot be used to butcher the livestock. It's basically a dude ranch.

[billvon 2,989]

>That said I see no reason why a high powered rifle cannot be used to
>butcher the livestock.

Well, if said high powered rifle is wielded by a hunter with far more money than skill, then you could see a lot of needless suffering from gutshot animals.

(However, it's still their land, and their choice as to how to use it.)

[skyrider 0]

Quote

>That said I see no reason why a high powered rifle cannot be used to
>butcher the livestock.

Well, if said high powered rifle is wielded by a hunter with far more money than skill, then you could see a lot of needless suffering from gutshot animals.

(However, it's still their land, and their choice as to how to use it.)

This may be the first time I have agreed with Billlvon..

They own the land!, We as a people raise livestock, with the intent to kill them, !...so HOW does government think they have a right to tell us how that happens? (as long as it is not torcher of course)

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

>That said I see no reason why a high powered rifle cannot be used to
>butcher the livestock.

Well, if said high powered rifle is wielded by a hunter agricultural worker with far more money than skill, then you could see a lot of needless suffering from gutshot animals.

This is also true if the workers at the slaughterhouse are poorly trained or motivated.

[billvon 2,989]

>This is also true if the workers at the slaughterhouse are poorly trained or motivated.

Agreed. That's also a bad situation.

[quade 4]

Quote

HOW does government think they have a right to tell us how that happens? (as long as it is not torcher of course)

Yeah, we should at least not burn them to death even if they are going to eventually be cooked.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billeisele 130]

another side to high fence operations is the ability to contain what is put inside the fence to prevent it from contaminating the natural species outside the fence

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Four miles of fence is only 1 square mile or 640 acres. I don't think that's anywhere nearly as large as what I would consider to be an authentic hunting experience.

well, it's 1 square mile if there are no natural barriers or preexisting fencing. As his area is described as hilly, that may not be the case.

Either way, I think that's bigger than the massive feedlot/slaughterhouse at Coalinga off I-5. If anyone wants to make this about fairness or humane killing of animals, I hope you're a gd vegan, or you're dripping with hypocrisy.

This turns into a referendum on hunting, which most people don't engage in. It wouldn't surprise me if the supporters are funded in part by those in the tourism industry around the established hunting areas.

There is one side business, should this sort of BS pass. There are places that keep animals like this to allow for "wildlife" photographers to use for their "natural" shots.

[rhys 0]

Quote

>This is also true if the workers at the slaughterhouse are poorly trained or motivated.

Agreed. That's also a bad situation.

I remember a link to the video 'earthlings' being posted on here.

the silence was astounding when footage of the slaughter houses we shown.

Cows having thier troats ripped out whle they were still concious...

watch it and see for yourself.

earthlings movie

This is how much of the meat and animal products you consume are produced.

As much as i disagree with the producers thought that everyone should be vegetarian, we could just make sure the creatures are dead and unconcious before slicing them up or skinning them.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[skipbelt 0]

chickens up until a new prototype system were electrically stunned prior to slaughter . now they get a ride to 25k , but no jump to reward their plight !
to OP , i have no strong opinion yet , but i'll stay tuned since i want to be supportive.

[tkhayes 348]

ethical or unethical does not really matter that much - I do not believe that the 'law' should pass for an 'ethical reason'

We "shoot fish in a barrel" every day, http://www.upc-online.org/slaughter/2000slaughter_stats.html

139,000,000 pigs, cattle and sheep in 2000 and none of them have a chance for escape either.

I have a bigger problem with 'trophy hunting', but as long as an animal is going to be food or other products that we use every day, I have no problem with admitting that we "KILL THEM"

And if we as human beings have an ethical concern about how they are being killed - well....... then maybe we oughta just knock that off..... but that is not going to happen is it?

[pirana 0]

Quote

Butch Dick said he had to install 4 miles of fence to enclose his hunting land.


Four miles of fence is only 1 square mile or 640 acres. I don't think that's anywhere nearly as large as what I would consider to be an authentic hunting experience.

I suppose that might be a bit small if using vehicles; but if hunting on foot, isn't a square mile big enough? Seems to me it would be a good day of hiking to completely cover a square mile - especially if it had a good amount of woods and hills.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Butch Dick

Quote

Deb Dick said with a sigh.

You sure this isn't a porno flick?

[steve1 5]

Montana has already voted against game farms. I'm all in favor of property rights, but game farms just seem wrong to me.

I grew up hunting elk in Montana. An elk was never easy to get. Sometimes it took weeks of hard work to fill your tag. Many years, I got skunked.

For a time game farms were legal in my state. There was a game farm near where I lived. Rich out-of-staters would fly in, and hang out in luxury at the lodge. Then they'd all sit down with drinks, and watch a video of various elk that could be shot on the ranch. They would pick out the one they wanted to shoot on this video.

A 350 bull might sell for over ten thousand dollars. Then the same day, they would take a short drive, walk a few hundred yards, and then shoot that same elk. It all leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This is not hunting! Voters voted "no" to game farms in my state, and that's fine with me....

[DaVinci 0]

I don't hunt.... But I don't have a problem with hunting. I do have an issue with this. It is not really hunting, more like killing.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

I don't hunt.... But I don't have a problem with hunting. I do have an issue with this. It is not really hunting, more like killing.

And what kind of meat eaters don't kill?

They are raising a product, and harvesting the product, much like a "you pick" apple farm!

and as for hunting Elk, that is easy, ride a motorcycle , they will find you....

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

And what kind of meat eaters don't kill?

If you can't see the difference between going hunting and shooting an animal that is fenced in..... Well I don't know what to tell you.

These areas pretty much guaranty that you will score an animal.

To call this "hunting" would be like buying a fish from the pet store and calling it "fishing"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

And what kind of meat eaters don't kill?

If you can't see the difference between going hunting and shooting an animal that is fenced in..... Well I don't know what to tell you.

These areas pretty much guaranty that you will score an animal.

To call this "hunting" would be like buying a fish from the pet store and calling it "fishing"

So? Now you're making a purist argument. But when you fall into that, then the black powder and bow/arrow folks are going to mock the guys with the bolt action rifles, and nevermind those with the semiautos.

Fenced within a mile isn't really the same as "fenced in" either.

[wmw999 2,439]

I see it as being akin to the "pick your own" orchards, except it's meat instead of fruit. And if the folks doing the picking call themselves hunters, they're chickenshit, but if the meat gets eaten, and the animals are shot clean and die quickly, then it's still way better than a feedlot followed by a slaughterhouse.

Maybe we should do the same thing for cattle and pigs; they might be treated better in life .

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

And what kind of meat eaters don't kill?

If you can't see the difference between going hunting and shooting an animal that is fenced in..... Well I don't know what to tell you.

These areas pretty much guaranty that you will score an animal.

To call this "hunting" would be like buying a fish from the pet store and calling it "fishing"

I fail to see any moral difference between this and raising cattle for slaughter. What they are doing is more similar to herding than hunting.

I'm not interested in that type of hunting experience and would not participate in such an endeavor, but it is not something that should be outlawed.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"