Friday, October 29, 2010

The purposed measure reads:

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.

Published October 26, 2010 The section on measure two is presented here.
Forum editorials: Vote ‘yes’ on Measure 1; ‘no’ on Measure 2

‘No’ on 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. Despite claims the language is iron-clad, the measure is ambiguous enough to have lawyers salivating over the prospect of going to court should the measure pass. That potential should send proponents of the measure back to the drawing board.
High-fence, or canned, “hunting” is not hunting in the tradition North Dakotans cherish. Shooting animals raised on game farms in fenced enclosures – no matter how large the enclosure – is akin to plinking fish in a shallow stock pond. It’s an insult to North Dakota’s hunting tradition. “Hunters” who brag about a trophy elk or deer bagged inside the fence are worthy of scorn. They are shooters, not hunters.
That being said, 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.”

I could not find but I hope there was or will be an analysis explaining why they think its an ambiguous. Here is what I think might be ambiguous.

“...if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing...”

Killing: Did not the U.S. Supreme Court rule that using the term 'killing' is vague. No specifics about how the killing is to be done.

Direction of payment: The person receiving the fund may or may not be the person performing the killing. In terms of harvesting crops, it would be illegal to pay someone to combine your crops. This would be illegal to hire someone to kill your animals. (but what about the exemptions?) The exemptions are for government employees and agencies not private individuals, not even butchers. Nothing says the recipient of the money is the owner of the animal.

Allowing other options: If you simply allow the sale of the animal DEAD or ALIVE then the fee is for only the sale of the animal. But you could take the animal out dead or alive. Still the question becomes at what point am a paying someone to kill the animal?

“...confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape...”

Always confined: I am going to always have the animal confined. But I could not even release it in order to have another person I pay kill the animal. I have to buy the animal and once I am legal owner of the animal I could kill it myself.

Confined HOW?: I could have it In a barn or a trailer and would prevent killing in these places.


This does not include definitions.

exotic mammals
big game species (we might assume we know the meaning but would farmed elk be included or is it another category all together?)

A Missing Word
Hunting is not even mentioned let alone defined.

No comments: