what next? Do they want to make it so we can't have a hamburger? What is the difference between hunting at a game ranch and sending a cow to the butcher?

T.R.

So what you're telling me is that if I bought some land in Colorado, I would not be able to hunt on my own property? Please help me to understand this, 'cause as of right now I'm just seeing this bill as an invasive steaming pile of mooseshit.

Sorry guys, hate to lose cyber friendships, but I hate high fence, no matter the size of the enclosure. hATE IT.

I think the law is too vaguely worded as it stands. In my view it treads too heavily on High Fence farms. If people want to buy animals, raise a bunch of domesticated corn fed deer, and then charge a pile of money to shoot their livestock, it's OK with me, so long as they are not (through fences or posting their land) restricting access to wild animals.

If on the other hand the law aims to prevent private land owners from posting their own land, thereby restricting public access to publically owned wild animals, and hunting on it, I think it is a good law.

High fence is one thing, Tommy. But what if said property is not fenced? I mean hey, If I happen to open my front door one morning and Mr. Elk is standing there, I'd have half a mind to grab my knife & fork and chase him down...

"Intentionally....." suggests otherwise. Talk is cheap, spell it out or stay home you senseless law(?)makers.

Almost got me Ox. Better luck next time!LOL

Don't know what to tell you, Yoop. The animals on that land don't belong to the landowner. If you bought land and someone else owned the minerals, they could legally ignore your "no trespassing" sign and dig an open pit mine right up to your front porch.

I'm not advocating anything that extreme. But there's genuine laws that can be used to deal with Yahoo hunters. If not, there has to be a reasonable compromise that will compensate the rest of the public when private landowners try to (in my view) "steal public game."

So if someone wants to post their land I think that's OK, but no one should be allowed to hunt on posted land, not even the landowner.

Alternatively, if they want to hunt on it (or lease it) but want to exclude the public from accessing publically owned animals, maybe some sort of fee would be appropriate.

I'll say it again. I have a nice big 8 pt I got on public land with a muzzleloader. No bait - no guide - no fence.
That is a trophy.
Nothing any bigger I could buy behind a fence would even come close, and while I ain't rich, I could afford to do it, and I would not; even if F&S offered it to make me look bad - I would decline.

A trip to Alaska to hunt free -range deer - now that I would certainly do.

The mineral rights argument was bad Mike. Up here, we've never had a case go to court where the mineral people had to pay the surface owner for destroying the surface rights. When that issue comes up, the mining companies have very large checkbook!

Anyway, land is owned up here for two primary reasons timber and hunting. Some timberland, while owned by logging companies, is leased and posted. Most is open to public hunting. A lot of land up here is owned by hunters. I think annual taxes on a forty probably average around $150 per year. While this may be offset by periodic timber sales, it would preclude you and I from buying since the only return would be monetary. I think the net effect to local governments would be devastating because land zoned for Rural Recreation would be almost worthless.
YooperJack

Here is the summary of the bill from the state legislature website:

Prohibits a person from offering another person the opportunity to
hunt, wound, or take any mammal that is intentionally confined, tied,
staked, caged, or otherwise restrained from engaging in normal
movement. Allows exceptions for slaughtering a mammal for purposes
of meat, leather, or fur production or humanely euthanizing a mammal for
health, safety, or scientific purposes.

I agree in principle to what it says. I hate high fence shooting (hunting tame animals that have no chance to escape is not hunting). If you want to shoot your meat instead of sending it to the slaughter house to have its throat slashed, that is your choice. But calling it hunting and selling it as hunting is only adding fuel to the anti’s fire. I guarantee when they make a move to ban hunting, and I have no doubt they will someday, they will most likely use footage of someone “hunting” a tame animal in an enclosure and try to brand the actions of these shooters as hunting. And personally I can’t see how any ethical hunter could stand to go on one of these shoots.

In 2003 another Colorado legislator introduced a bill aimed solely at game farm shooting. It was a better written bill and was drafted by hunters. I was the Executive Director of the state’s largest and oldest sportsmen’s organization at the time and I helped to write the bill. It died in committee. I can’t speak to this bill however and I don’t know if it was written by sportsmen. I doubt it though, since the 2003 author is now a senior member of the Senate and she has yet to sponsor this bill. So my guess is that it will die, and as written I would encourage it to be heavily edited and approved by sportsmen and sportsmen organizations or I would want it to die in committee.

A little history for those not living in the west. Montana banned game farms years ago because of their propensity to help spread disease. As an example, in some cases the early spread of CWD outside of my home state of Colorado can be traced back to some game farm animals being transported to other states. The ethics of this shooting also played a role in getting this ban passed. Boone and Crocket and Pope and Young will not score high fence animals because they are not free ranging animals and there is no fair chase. Only SCI will score these animals, so when you see a score from SCI and not paired with B&C or P&Y, you know it was most likely a high fence animal.

I think you will continue to see Colorado attempting to mimic the Montana law until it passes. And the ONLY way it will pass is with ethical sportsmen being the driving force.

Sorry for the long post, and I know I will get responses from many of you :)

Mike Diehl:
I believe that the underlying philosophy behind our current game laws is that game is public ownership. As such, the state has the right to restrict seasons, bag limits, etc. No where are there any private property restrictions in the fish and game laws.

We did acquire many laws, not in the Constitution, about public access to fish and game. Maybe those rights were so obvious to the Founding Fathers that they didn't think to address them.
In any event, I believe that the National Forests were acquired for this use. Also BLM land and Stateand County Forests.

Also, in Michigan, we have a Commercial Forest Law, which allows landowners to get a tax break for 1)Managing their forests; and 2) Opening these lands for public hunting and fishing. Wisconsin has a similar law, as I believe Minnesota. These laws have allowed a lot of people to hunt and fish that could never own their own place.

I believe that there is a problem in the West with access to the BLM and USFS Lands. Ranches control the access and therefore the game. That's an issue that should be addressed by someone in power.
YooperJack

I stand by my claim and pov. When public access to public animals is restricted, people who restrict said access should compensate the public.