ND to decide on fair chase law

[spclPatrolGroup]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...TExNDUyWj.html

I am torn on if I will vote yes or no on this. I do not think high fence hunts are really hunting, but if they called it something else would it be ok? I dont see how its differnt than going up to a farmer buying a cow, then going out to the field to shoot it. Also who am I to say what someone can and cant do on their own land, with their own livestock. I would rather vote on a measure that outlawed calling this hunting. One side has the rocky mountian elk foundation backing it, the ohter has the siera club and NRA. Has anyone else voted on a measure like this, or would like to help sway me one way or the other?

[davlandrum]

This should get some interesting discussion.

I think most hunters know the difference between hunting and a high fence operation, not sure it matters what you call it.

My only concern with high fence operations is spreading diseases to the native population. If that can be addressed, then let 'em be. I wouldn't pay $8500 to shoot an elk (even if I had that kind of $$), but then again, I wouldn't buy a ski-boat either - to each their own as long as it is not hurting anyone else.

[FrankenMauser]

Sticky situation.

I'm generally on the NRA's side: Let the hunter decide how he/she wants to hunt (or "hunt").

However, I also back the argument of the growing number of operations, like the one noted in the article, causing the hunting culture to change into an elite, "Sport of Kings"... 'cause no one else can afford to play.

We face this problem every day, in Utah. Private ranches that used to be open to hunting are getting better at making the right friends - crooked politicians. Utah has a requirement, that the state own a certain percentage of its land. If any of this land is to be sold, more must be purchased (or traded for), some where. The problem is, that dirty back-alley deals are being made. The mega ranches are getting bigger and gaining more hunting ground, while the state is trading for land that is often completely useless.

The bigger the ranches get, the more they charge for big game tags, or "trespass" fees. The more money they make, the less likely they are to keep allowing public hunting on their land (state requirement for depredation permission and crop damage assistance). Eventually, they're making so much money, they don't even worry about allowing public hunting any more. Predation losses, and the loop holes they used to get "crop damage" funds become a drop in the bucket.

Utah's elected officials are selling out to the mega-ranches, but I still don't think I want an out-right ban.

Where do you draw the line, though? If these ranches are already persuading enough elected officials to support them, it will be nearly impossible to overcome their power after they grow bigger (if they are allowed to continue).

But... if a ban is created, it will have far-reaching effects for many types of hunting. No more hunting on islands. No more fishing in ponds, reservoirs, or terminal lakes (no outlet). No bird hunting with farm-raised birds. No more hunting of captive-bred feral hogs.
And... no more hunting of Antelope, period. (Antelope can be effectively contained in an area with just a 40" tall fence. Their legs are extremely delicate, and they go to great lengths to avoid risking injury by jumping fences.) With the American love of fences... they are unavoidable in Antelope territory (typically 48" to 60" tall, as well).

Argued properly, it could even outlaw hunting on many state lands that are "game reserves", since they are often high-fenced (to avoid poaching, and inter-breeding with inferior specimens).


...Tough subject.

[davlandrum]

One side has the rocky mountian elk foundation backing it, the ohter has the siera club and NRA.

Re-reading the article, it looks to me like they are on the same side - opposed to banning the ranches.

[hogdogs]

Ya'll do realize that many high fence "ranches" are larger than WMA's in many places... Just because it is within a fence doesn't always mean it is like shooting fish in a barrel. I know of many who have caught the proverbial skunk without ever seeing their quarry let alone getting a shot at it...

Brent

[nathaniel]

At first I thought about voting to ban them then I got to thinking, let all the rich city slickers pay to hunt in a fence and give us guys that like to hunt on our own the chance to get a real tag. They say they want to ban them because they pass on CWD, but I think its a bunch of crap just another reason to get the people that dont know any better to vote against it. My grandpa said that Montana had this same thing going on not so long ago. Id like to know what the Montana residents have to say.

[spclPatrolGroup]

Some of the towns these are located next are extremly small, they would take a big hit if these ranches went away. I think I have come to the determination that, you dont interfear wtih the way I hunt, and I wont interfear with what you do.

[lefteyedom]

Wildlife is public property. livestock is private.

The heart of the question for me boils down to who "owns" the animal.
If the landowner buys Elk, Deer, Impala raise it on their own property it is their livestock to do with as they wish. With that right of ownership comes the responsibility insure that the livestock do not intermix with native game. (How tall of a fence???)

The state as the representative of the people is charged with stewardship of the people's resources. The health and well being of wildlife is therefore responsibility of the state. Deer, Elk, Bear,Antelope, have first rights to public land. Hunters fund this protection with the license and tags fees. Yes other tax payers pitch in, but hunters are at the front of the line.

Nutshell, the State should protect the wildlife first and foremost. It may then consider the profitability of private hunting reserves.


" hijack warning"

Our problem in Wyoming is that the law here does not mandate public access to public land. Nor does it mandate access from private land to public roads.

If there is a (and there are) 250 acres of state land, legal to hunt but the land is surround by private land and there is no public road accessing it, the private land owner can legally control the public access to that land. He can charge a fee for crossing his land, he can prevent anyone accessing across his land. He could only let left handed Lithuanian female bow hunters who worship Diana access to the land.

He (I say he but there are many female land owners as well) is profiting from the state land yet pays no taxes on the land.

The same is true if that 250 acre land was private land.

Have you seen the adds in the back of magazines for 40 acre of wilderness for almost nothing? Guess what, if that tract of land in the middle of the BIG BAR What's To You Ranch's 10,000 acre spread you better have a helicopter or be willing to pay for access to your own land.

If the "Game animal" is wildlife, then it belongs to the people of the state. I have a real problem with land owners selling state property.

If the land owner wants to charge a fee for hunting the states game on his land, as in an "access fee", that is fair. It may be splitting hairs but the distinction is that he is not selling the animal. ( How much that fee should be is another question)

Charging $3000-$9000 for a bull or $300-$1500 for a cow elk (wild) killed on private property seems wrong. If the land owner bought the breeding stock and raised the animal on his private property then charging these prices would be his right.

A land owner can receive state money for damages done by wildlife, this is because he does not own the animal. If my son breaks your window I have to replace your window. If your son breaks your window I don't have to pay for the window.

Drive across Wyoming and one will see millions of acres of undeveloped land. So vast it is hard to grasp, yet when it come time to hunt or target practice gaining legal access is mind numbingly difficult.

Not the whole story but most of one side.

[davlandrum]

@hogdogs

What you say is true, Brent - but the ranch in the WSJ article says it is "no success, no fee", and admit that does not happen very often.

I may be wrong (happens all the time), but if my big $$ city dude is going into his last day of hunting without killing anything, I bet there are plenty of ways to stack that deck, not all of which would be terribly ethical in a strictly fair-chase sense.