North Dakotans’ are up in arms over the upcoming election and more specifically the measure to ban “high-fence” hunting operations. On November 2, North Dakota residents will take to the polls to decide the matter and settle the ongoing battle over hunting ethics and property rights.
On September 2, Secretary of State Al Jaeger approved the fair chase petition for the November election. Roger Kaseman, chairman of North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, has been the driving force behind Measure 2. Kaseman and group members were able to collect the required 12,844 signatures to qualify the proposed law for the upcoming election. In all, 13,860 North Dakota residents signed the petition.
Measure 2 states that a person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape.
Supporters of Measure 2 believe that it’s unethical to kill big game animals inside an escape proof enclosure. North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase website states that, “Breeding a buck or elk for antler size and penning the animal inside an escape proof fence for a so called "hunt" is a disgrace.” The site goes on to say that penning selectively bred, hand raised deer and elk inside an escape proof fence and selling a guaranteed shot at the animal threatens our hunting heritage.
Proponents of the measure also look to the North American Model of Wildlife Management and quotes from famous conservationists such as Theodore Roosevelt, George “Bird” Grinnell, and Aldo Leopold to further support their argument. One quote from Theodore Roosevelt echoes the sentiments of all fair chase supporters who believe that “high-fence” hunting will ruin hunting: “I should much regret to see grow up in this country a system of large private game-preserves kept for the enjoyment of the very rich.”
“I don’t consider high-fence operations hunting. It gives the hunter an unfair advantage and basically gives the animal no chance of survival,” said North Dakota resident and Measure 2 supporter, Sydney Cote.
Another group, Citizens to Preserve North Dakota’s Property Rights, has sprung up in North Dakota. This group is against Measure 2 and uses the argument that property owners have the right to do as they see fit with their land. Proponents of this group firmly believe that Measure 2 infringes on a landowner’s right to use their property and make a living off their property however they see fit. According to the group’s website, Measure 2 will cost taxpayers and landowners thousands of dollars due to the measure being poorly written.
Some also believe that Measure 2 will open up North Dakota to animal rights extremists. Their website also states that, “Measure 2 is a back door for out-of-state animal rights extremists to get into North Dakota and start challenging the livestock industry, including limits on-the-farm cattle slaughters and butcher operations.” The site further explains that Measure 2 is a stepping stone to even greater restrictions on the ranching and hunting community.
Within the next couple of weeks arguments will continue to be heated until the residents of North Dakota ultimately decide whether or not to allow “high-fenced” hunting. Posted below is the exact language used in the upcoming ballot.
Initiated Statutory Measure No. 2
SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:
Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited – Penalty – Exception. A person is guilty of a class A
misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned
big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section
does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when
government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act becomes effective on November 1, 2012.
YES – Means you approve the measure as stated above.
NO – Means you reject the measure as stated above.
No comments:
Post a Comment