North Dakota Captive Game Animal Killing Prohibited Initiative, Initiated Statutory Measure 2 (2010)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Hunting & Fishing
Wolf.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
North Dakota
LawsHistory
List of measures

The North Dakota Captive Game Animal Killing Prohibited Initiative, also known as Initiated Statutory Measure 2, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in North Dakota as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated.[1] The measure would have made it a crime if a person, other than an authorized government employee or agent, obtains payment for the killing or attempted killing of privately owned big game species or exotic mammals in or released from a man-made enclosure.[2] This would have effectively banned fenced hunting such as game preserves where people pay to shoot big-game animals.[3] The same ballot initiative was proposed in 2008, North Dakota Captive Hunting Petition, but supporters failed to collect sufficient valid signatures to place the initiative on the ballot.

Aftermath

Following the November 2, 2010 elections deer and elk ranchers proposed new regulations to the state legislature. Senate Bill 2332 was introduced in the Senate on January 25, 2011.[4] The bill can be read here.

On March 21, 2011 the House voted 59-33 against a proposed law to create regulations for deer and elk ranchers.[5]

Election results

North Dakota Constitutional Measure 2 (2010)
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No130,27256.61%
Yes 99,852 43.39%

Election results via: North Dakota Secretary of State, Official Vote of General Election, 2010

Text of measure

Ballot title

The language appeared on the ballot as:[6]

This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.

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.

Statutory changes

The measure would have enacted a new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code to read as follows:[2]

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.

Support

North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, a grassroots committee, sponsored the fenced hunting ban initiative for the second time. Roger Kaseman said that he believed that the group would be able to collect enough signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. Kaseman argued that the group collected enough signatures in 2008 but failed due to "technical errors."[7] The measure was also supported by the Humane Society of the United States.[8]

According to supporters, the objective of Measure 2 was to: "enforce the intent of Section 27 of the North Dakota Constitution; protect and promote our hunting heritage; leave our children and grand children a legacy of Fair Chase hunting; prevent the creation and expansion of commercial markets for wildlife; combat the bankrupt image the paid shooting of captive animals creates, an image that reflects on all legitimate hunters."[9]

Opposition

Opponents argued that the measure was a violation of private property rights. Some of the organizations that opposed the measure include the North Dakota Farm Bureau, Stockman's Association, Farmer's Union and the North Dakota Policy Council.

  • The NRA-ILA announced in their October 22, 2010 newsletter that they were opposed to Measure 2. The newsletter said, "initiatives pertaining to hunting laws, by their very nature, politicize the state's wildlife management policies. This is contrary to the North American Model of Wildlife Management that has made North Dakota's wildlife populations and rich ecosystems the envy of the world...This effort threatens to establish a precedent that will allow Wayne Pacelle and others to further pursue their ultimate agenda of banning all hunting. These anti-hunting radicals are learning how to circumvent the standard policy-making system that has stymied them through the years and will be emboldened to further utilize deceptive 30-second sound bites to advance their radical agenda."
  • The North Dakota Policy Council called Measure 2 an "assault on private property rights" and on "freedom." In an October 18, 2010 post, the policy council said, "There are a lot of things in our modern world that threaten hunting to some degree, but this is analogous to saying that chicken farmers threaten grouse and pheasant hunting. If anything, commercial game farms expand the opportunity for city dwellers and others..."[10]

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of North Dakota ballot measures, 2010

Support

  • The Bismark Tribune supported Measure 2. In an editorial, the board said, "North Dakotan have historically been protective of individual property rights. But when it comes to a choice between those rights and public hunting and sportsmanship, the state's residents are willing to release their tight hold on property rights. The writers of this measure have not been unreasonable. They have been careful to give existing captive hunting operations plenty of lead time if the measure passes. The Tribune endorses a "yes" vote on Measure 2, in support of fair chase."[11]

Opposition

  • Forum Communications, which publishes The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead, the Grand Forks Herald and the Jamestown Sun, ran an editorial in all three newspapers in opposition to Measure 2. "Measure 2, the so-called high-fence hunting ban, is not about hunting. Nor is it about property rights. Nor is it an invitation for the anti-hunting crowd to get a foothold in North Dakota. Nor is there evidence it’s a threat to traditional hunting in the state. Measure 2 has the potential to be a legal nightmare...Measure 2 is a flawed instrument. If North Dakotans want to control or limit high-fence operations, Measure 2 is not the way to go. Vote 'no,'" said the editorial board.[12],"[13][14][15]

Path to the ballot

See also: North Dakota signature requirements and 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs

In order to qualify for the November 2010 ballot, initiative supporters were required to collect 12,844 signatures by August 4, 2010.[3] The initiative was one of two filed on deadline day.[16][17] On September 2 Secretary of State Al Jaeger certified and verified that supporters submitted more than 12,844 valid petition signatures, thus qualifying the measure for the 2010 ballot.[18]

Similar measures

Proposed ballot measures that were not on a ballotNorth Dakota Captive Hunting Petition (2008)
ApprovedaMontana Game Farm Reform, Initiative I-143 (2000)

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Articles

External links

Additional reading

References

  1. North Dakota Secretary of State Archived Election Results, "General Election Results - 2010," accessed April 1, 2014
  2. 2.0 2.1 North Dakota Legislative Assembly, "INITIATED MEASURE DISAPPROVED CHAPTER 517 CAPTIVE GAME ANIMAL KILLING PROHIBITED," accessed April 1, 2014
  3. 3.0 3.1 Associated Press,"Initiative would ban 'fenced hunting' in ND," August 10, 2009
  4. Associated Press,"ND fenced hunting operations seek state regulation," February 3, 2011
  5. Associated Press,"N.D. House defeats fenced hunting rules," March 21, 2011
  6. [ North Dakota Secretary of State, "," accessed April 1, 2014]
  7. The Bismark Tribune,"Group seeks fence ban," August 11, 2009
  8. The Humane Society of the United States,"Ballot Initiatives," accessed October 19, 2010
  9. North Dakota Fair Chase,"Vote Yes on Measure 2," accessed October 25, 2010
  10. North Dakota Policy Council,"Measure 2’s Assault on Freedom," October 18, 2010
  11. The Bismark Tribune,"North Dakota should pass Measures 1, 2," October 10, 2010
  12. The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead,"Forum editorials: Vote ‘yes’ on Measure 1; ‘no’ on Measure 2," October 26, 2010
  13. Grand Forks Herald, "‘No’ on Measure 2," October 26, 2010
  14. Jamestown Sun, "‘Yes’ on Measure 1, ‘No’ on Measure 2," October 28, 2010
  15. Forum Communications publishes The Forum of Fargo-Moorhead, the Grand Forks Herald and the Jamestown Sun. Of editorials, the Grand Forks Herald says, "Endorsement editorials represent the views of Forum Communications, the Herald’s parent company;" the Jamestown Sun says "Major endorsement editorials represent the opinion of Forum Communications Co. management and ownership;" the Fargo-Moorhead Forum says "Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board."
  16. Associated Press,"Many ND ballot measures falling short for now," August 4, 2010
  17. Associated Press,"Summary of N.D. ballot initiatives," August 4, 2010
  18. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named KXNETSept2