Fresh air on SB 2254

Sometimes it's hard to find articles even when linked. For educational purposes I have pasted the entire article here. It came from the Viewpoint Section of the Grand Forks Herald on 01-31-07. I know it's long but something this important requires a little time to counteract the emotional rants that have been seen everywhere else.

VIEWPOINT : High-fence hunting: Honest, ethical, fair By Oren Krapp, Published Wednesday, January 31, 2007 PINGREE, N.D. - At 9 a.m. Thursday in the Brynhild Haugland Room of the Capitol, the Senate Natural Resources Committee will be holding a hearing on Senate Bill 2254, the high-fence hunting (elk farming) bill. I urge Herald readers to attend or to contact their senators and ask them to vote “No” on SB2254. SB2254 was introduced by a Fargo senator and is being backed by those who, in the past, supported various measures that would bar nonresident hunters from visiting the state. Make no mistake: On the surface, this bill may seem to seek only to bar “high-fence” hunting by putting elk and deer ranches out of business. But the gist of it is still another attempt at keeping nonresident hunters out of North Dakota. The bill prohibits owners of nontraditional livestock operations from allowing fee shooting. Proponents say their reasoning is threefold: disease, genetics and ethics. But the first two of these arguments are easily rebutted by a few facts. -- The domestic herds of elk and deer in North Dakota are free of the main disease in question - chronic wasting disease. The present system of regulation by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department is working very well, and the North Dakota state veterinarian agrees. The threat of CWD is not irrelevant. However, CWD is just as likely to be brought into the state through the wild herds. Tight regulation and monitoring - not banning an entire industry - is the answer. -- Genetics inside the fences of game preserves are the same, if not better, than outside the fence. States may regulate and monitor the genetic purity of any nontraditional livestock. Again, tight regulation and monitoring is the answer. As for ethics (the third reason mentioned above), it's based on emotion. And proponents of this bill are no strangers to pushing their legislative agendas purely on emotion! But this time, they have taken the low road and are making a pact with a curious partner: animal rights activists. It is almost hard to tell the proponents of this bill from members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They talk about “Bambi in a barrel,” bringing up issues of animal cruelty. Is this the pot calling the kettle black? What about all the animals that are wounded by hunters in the wild (as the result of “fair chase”) and never see a clean and humane death? Have you ever encountered a wounded and limping Bambi? If you live in North Dakota, you probably have, and chances are it was the victim of a hunter's errant shot. Ban hunting? So, should we just ban hunting in North Dakota, period? After all, what is ethical? Isn't a harvested animal, whether on a preserve or in the wild, just as dead? What about all the man-made gadgets that give hunters an advantage over animals? Does an animal in the “wild” on North Dakota's flat, treeless plains (where you can see for miles) even stand a chance against the over-equipped hunters that Cabela's turns out these days? Whose ethics should we choose, yours or mine? If a hunter - whether he is a client of a hunting preserve or hunting in the wild -breaks the law, he needs to be reined in. Again, regulation and monitoring is the answer, and our Game and Fish Department is doing a very good job of this. As an owner of a bison-hunting operation, I have guided dozens and dozens of clients over the past years. The people I have met are some of the best I have met anywhere, and they certainly don't fit the profile cast on them by some proponents of this bill. They are honest, decent, hard-working and law-abiding people who are here mainly to bond with their fellow hunters, and I think that's what most people in this debate forget. The hunters who have visited my ranch typically have never visited North Dakota before, and they go away with a piece of its history, culture and flavor when they leave. And they have a great bundle of meat with them, to boot! Try telling one of my hunters, after he has stalked a bison with a long bow in minus-60 degree wind chill all day in my 1,200-acre pasture, if he feels like an unscrupulous murderer. If my guests want to come and pay to experience something besides asphalt and concrete and traffic, who should tell me I can't let them harvest the animals I have raised myself? As for the ethical issue, I cannot fathom a more humane way to harvest my bison. Make no mistake: They are produced for their meat, just like the thousands of cattle in this state. But their harvest is performed in their natural setting, and we've never wounded an animal and then left him to go off and die an agonizing death. We don't have to rile them up to get them into a chute, and we don't have to prolong their agony by hauling them in a trailer. They are treated just as humanely as I can treat them as a producer, or I wouldn't be in this business. One hundred percent of my guests are nonresident hunters. I think that is what the “beef” is about in this debate. This legislation is just another way to keep nonresidents from coming to North Dakota. The nonresident issue Let's be direct: Some people are worried that while they're here, these hunters may shoot a duck or two. It's true, they buy the appropriate licenses and, during the season, they do hunt other species. Thus, this legislation. For years, North Dakota encouraged the development of hunting lodges and bed and breakfasts as “value-added” economic development in the state. The state Extension Service held seminars on how to open businesses such as hunting lodges, and MarketPlace even held a seminar titled, “Market Buffalo Hunts on E-Bay.” They did all this and more with state funds. But now, the state is being asked to actually sponsor the destruction of businesses it advocated? Mind you, bison hunting would not be banned in this particular legislation because bison are classified as a domestic animal. But we've been through a lot of legislative issues in this state, and I have a hard time believing that the proponents of SB2254 will not find a way to work it so that any type of high-fence hunting is banned. Please contact your legislators at (888) 635-3447 and ask them to vote no on SB2254. You will be asked by the operator to state your name, address, phone number and one reason why you think it should be voted down. I've given you several. Krapp owns a bison ranch near Pingree.