North Dakota Fenced Hunting Ban, Measure 2 (2010)

Voting on the Treatment of Animals
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

The North Dakota Fenced Hunting Ban, Measure 2 was a statewide ballot initiative that on the November ballot in the state of North Dakota as an initiated state statute where it was defeated.

The measure would have banned fenced hunting such as game preserves where people pay to shoot big-game animals. 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.

The measure was certified for the ballot on September 2 by Secretary of State Al Jaeger after verifying that supporters submitted more than 12,844 valid petition signatures.

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. 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.

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

Measure 2 (Fenced Hunting)
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		130,272	56.6%
Yes		99,852	43.4%

Source: North Dakota Secretary of State. The results were certified by the North Dakota State Canvassing Board on November 16, 2010.

Text of measure

According to the North Dakota Secretary of State, the ballot title read:

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.

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." The measure was also supported by the Humane Society of the United States.

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."

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..."

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."

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.,",,

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. The initiative was one of two filed on deadline day. 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.

See also

Suggest a link

• North Dakota 2010 ballot measures
• 2010 ballot measures
• North Dakota signature requirements

Related measures

North Dakota Captive Hunting Petition (2008)
aMontana Game Farm Reform, Initiative I-143 (2000)

Articles

• State Legacy Fund succeeds while Hunting Ban falls in North Dakota
• North Dakota officials finalize 2010 ballot following court ruling
• Two initiatives meet North Dakota petition drive deadline

External links

• Full text of the petition
• Initiative Timeline
• Measure 2, ballot language

Additional reading

• Minot Daily News,"Measure No. 2 emotionally charged," October 23, 2010
• Associated Press,"Effect of ND ban on fenced hunting hard to measure," September 30, 2010
• The Bismark Tribune,"Voters to decide on two measures," September 12, 2010
• The Bismark Tribune,"Petitions seek to put six measures on ballot," April 1, 2010