Saturday, January 27, 2007

Is it ever as it appears to be? ? ? ?

Senate Bill 2254 2007 ND Legislative Session

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to hunting on nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities; facilities; to amend and reenact sections 36-25-05 and 36-25-08 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to escape and identification of farmed elk; and to provide a penalty.

The second part of the bill doesn't seem to bother those people affected the most unless I've just not heard about it. (to amend and reenact sections 36-25-05 and 36-25-08 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to escape and identification of farmed elk; and to provide a penalty.)

The main part of the bill is the most controversial:


BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1.
A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is
created and enacted as follows:
Nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities - Fee shooting prohibited -
Penalty. After the effective date of this Act, the shooting of nontraditional livestock or farmed elk for a fee or other remuneration on a licensed nontraditional livestock or farmed elk facility is prohibited. A person who willfully violates this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

The bill is known as the "ban canned hunting" bill or the "high fence shooting" because those supporting it are insinuating to people that all animals shot at the deer/elk ranches are tied to a post and someone walks up, shoots them and then claims they spent many days in the woods hunting. The high fence part is mostly from the requirement that deer/elk ranchers must have a minimum heighth to their fences

Lets take a look at this bill,

First thing is what is "nontraditional livestock" in North Dakota Century Code?

It is defined in Title 36 Chapter 36-01: State Board of Animal Health

TITLE 36
LIVESTOCK
CHAPTER 36-01
STATE BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH
36-01-00.1. Definitions. In this chapter unless the context or subject matter otherwise
requires:
1. "Board" means the state board of animal health.
2. "Commissioner" means the agriculture commissioner.
3. "Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.
4. "Nontraditional livestock" means any wildlife held in a cage, fence, enclosure, or other manmade means of confinement that limits its movement within definite boundaries or an animal that is physically altered to limit movement and facilitate capture.
My interpretation of this says all pheasants, chukars, pigeons, ducks, deer, but not including elk are "non-typical livestock."

I was able to find the license requirements for non-traditional livestock:
36-01-08.1. Nontraditional livestock license - Fee. The board of animal health may
require a license for nontraditional livestock maintained within this state. The annual fee for a license for a bird species required to be licensed is seven dollars. The maximum amount of annual fees for bird species licenses to be paid by a person holding more than one bird species license is forty dollars. The annual fee for a license for any other species required to be licensed is fifteen dollars. The maximum amount of annual fees for nonbird species licenses to be paid by a person holding more than one nonbird species license is one hundred dollars.
As you can see by the second and third sentence:
The annual fee for a license for a bird species required to be licensed is seven dollars.
The maximum amount of annual fees for bird species licenses to be paid by a person holding more than one bird species license is forty dollars.
Now lets go back to the wording of the bill:

After the effective date of this Act, the shooting of nontraditional livestock or farmed elk for a fee or other remuneration on a licensed nontraditional livestock or farmed elk facility is prohibited.
So basically all bird preserves will be banned if there is any birds released to be shot. Of course if they wish to do it for free, that is okay.
....for a fee or other remuneration.....
The part of the bill relating to bird preserves has not been publicized and most suporters have neglected to mention it. Why? They know there are a lot more people that participate in bird preserve shooting than participate in big game shooting. It's the old "divide & conquer."

I hear people say on various web boards that they don't care because only the rich folks participate in the big game shooting. When told this affects the bird preserves some will say they don't care because they don't do that either.

I'll bet PETA is laughing.

First they came for the Socialists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

-
And we haven't even started in on the pro's & con's of this bill other than what the proponenets have not told everyone.
-
-
-

7 comments:

Eric J. Burton said...

This is a horrible bill.
If I want to spend thousands of dollars to shoot a elk I have that right.

Whats the chances of this passing.
Who is my representative. This is stupid?

C. Y. said...

Go here:

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/
60-2007/dist-legis.html

click on the map and send them an email

Eric J. Burton said...

Thanks Man I am going to send an email and tell them how unhappy I am.

Eric J. Burton said...

Got an email back from Lois Delmore and she says she is against it. I wrote the other two and are waiting for their answer back.

Eric J. Burton said...

Thank you for your email. I will be watching for this bill to come to
the floor.


Senator JoNell A. Bakke

C. Y. said...

I have a couple of responses as I emailed the whole natural resources committee as well - more than once.
Most responses sound like they came from politicians. :-)

One response about HB1039 big game baiting said they think the bill is forcing regulations on the G&F - but I think the G&F is behind this bill.
They are afraid of the repurcussions if they start regulating baiting and want it to look like the legislature is forcing them.

Eric J. Burton said...

Actually the only person not to respond to my email was the repulican in my district. I think the State Government is way too involved in the hunting issues at the game and fish. I am sick and tired of hearing people say there should be a law.