Opinion ID: 888159
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sportsmen's Explanation of I-143

Text: ¶ 107 It has been a lawful business or occupation in this State since 1917 to acquire, breed, own, harvest, sell, and otherwise control privately owned game animals on an alternative livestock ranch. [1] This activity has been regulated, and the regulations have become more rigorous over the years. At the same time, however, the Legislature has enacted provisions designed specifically to protect the business owners' interests  e.g., through statutory recognition of their alternative livestock as private property and their businesses as viable economic opportunities, and through the statutory guarantee that their alternative livestock ranch licenses would be renewed each year upon payment of the renewal fee and compliance with all recording and reporting requirements. See generally Kafka Dissent, ¶¶ 103-109. ¶ 108 I-143, which was passed on November 7, 2000, gutted the alternative livestock industry and rendered the regulatory scheme pointless. The Sportsmen, who were the principle forces behind the passage of I-143, sought to snuff out alternative livestock ranching without the public's having to foot the bill. To that end, they carefully crafted a citizen initiative (I-143) to prohibit remuneration for shooting alternative livestock on alternative livestock ranches, thereby forcing all businesses in the industry to operate, essentially, without any income. See Kafka Dissent, ¶¶ 114-120. As counsel for the Sportsmen explained during oral argument: There was a recognition by my clients that if they passed a statute that simply said, Every game farm is done tomorrow, that that would be a very difficult takings claim to defend against. And we didn't want to have to go down that road. And so the statute was carefully crafted to address the problem in a way that was not offensive to taking but at the same time benefitted the wildlife and the wildlife management of this State. The assertion that the Sportsmen's transparent charade is not offensive to the guarantee of just compensation for a taking or damaging of private property is preposterous. ¶ 109 In any event, the Sportsmen did not detail their intentions to the voters. Rather, according to the Sportsmen, [f]oremost among the issues presented to the voters in I-143 were concerns about disease, loss of fair chase hunting ethics and European style privatization of wildlife. In other words, the Sportsmen told the voters not that I-143 had been carefully crafted to obliterate an entire industry  an industry that had been sanctioned, encouraged, and nurtured by the State for 83 years, no less  but that I-143 was aimed at the alluring goal of protecting Montana's wildlife and hunting heritage from a variety of dangers posed by game farms. An analysis of the Initiative, however, reveals that it did not actually address any of these dangers. As a matter of fact, the Sportsmen tacitly admit that I-143 was a fraud on Montana voters. ¶ 110 For instance, regarding disease, the Sportsmen paint a grim picture. They state that [c]ontact between game farm animals and wildlife can result in disease and parasite transmission, with devastating impacts to native wildlife. They complain that [g]ame farm enclosures require only a single fence and do not prevent nose to nose contact between wild ungulates and game farm animals. Plus, [i]t is virtually impossible to keep game farm animals from coming into contact with wild animals, as escaped animals are a fact of life for game farm owners. Moreover, aside from direct contact, [s]ome diseases are transmitted by intermediate hosts, making any form of enclosure ineffective for disease prevention. ¶ 111 The Sportsmen argued these concerns to the voters. Indeed, the Sportsmen cite the 2000 Voter Information Pamphlet for the proposition that [o]ne of I-143's primary purposes was to minimize the CWD threat to Montana's wildlife. (CWD is short for chronic wasting disease.) Accordingly, given these concerns, one would expect I-143 to target the problems related to diseases, perhaps through more stringent fencing and enclosure requirements, additional testing requirements, or even an outright seizure of all alternative livestock along with a prohibition on private ownership of alternative livestock. However, I-143 did none of these things. As the Sportsmen acknowledge, [g]ame farms licensed prior to November 2000, are still legal in Montana, even after I-143, and [g]ame farm operators are free to `acquire, breed, grow, pursue, handle, sell or dispose' of game farm animals. I-143 imposed no new fencing or testing requirements. It does not prohibit people from owning alternative livestock on alternative livestock ranches, and it does not address the problem of transmission of diseases through intermediate hosts or inadequate fencing. In spite of the dire threat posed by diseases, the Sportsmen's initiative contains nothing addressing that issue. ¶ 112 As for hunting ethics, the Sportsmen state that Montana has a proud heritage of ethical hunting and the protection of wildlife, and I-143 was intended to protect the state's interest in those traditions. They assert that [i]n addition to the enormous economic benefits of traditional big game hunting, Montanans hold dear their hunting tradition as an important component of their western heritage, particularly the concept of fair chase hunting. The Sportsmen explain that they and other citizens opposed the `penned hunts' offered by many game farms because [s]hooting an animal in an enclosed facility is repugnant to these ethical hunting traditions. Again, citing the 2000 Voter Information Pamphlet, the Sportsmen state that [t]he protection of fair chase hunting, as an ethical consideration for Montanans, was an integral part of I-143's provisions to eliminate penned shoots. ¶ 113 I-143, however, contains no provisions to eliminate penned shoots. I-143 did three things: it prohibited the establishment of any new alternative livestock ranches; it revoked the right of existing alternative livestock businesses to transfer their alternative livestock ranch licenses; and it prohibited charging a fee or other remuneration for shooting alternative livestock on an alternative livestock facility. See generally Laws of Montana 2001, 2000 Ballot Issues, Initiative No. 143, §§ 1, 4, 6. But shooting an animal in an enclosed facility is still perfectly legal. Indeed, the Sportsmen concede that [g]ame farm operators are not prohibited by I-143 from shooting or otherwise `harvesting' their animals themselves. For that matter, I-143 does not prohibit the friends, relatives, and acquaintances of an alternative livestock operator from shooting alternative livestock on an alternative livestock ranch. The only activity on licensed game farms prohibited under I-143, the Sportsmen state, is that of allowing a fee-paying individual the opportunity to personally shoot a game farm animal. But anyone who is not a fee-paying individual may still participate in penned hunts and personally shoot a game farm animal notwithstanding I-143. So much for protecting Montana's proud heritage of ethical, fair-chase hunting. ¶ 114 Lastly, with respect to European-style privatization of wildlife, the Sportsmen state that [c]entral to Montana's hunting heritage is the availability of big game hunting to ordinary individuals: inexpensive licenses available to all citizens, access to big game on public and private lands ... and plentiful populations of native wildlife. According to the Sportsmen, I-143's proponents made this a central issue in their campaign to ban penned shoots (citing the 2000 Voter Information Pamphlet). Yet, as the Sportsmen are forced to concede, I-143 allow[s] the continued ownership of game farms and elk, and alternative livestock ranchers are free to `acquire, breed, grow, pursue, handle, sell or dispose' of game farm animals in Montana. Moreover, I-143 does not provide for less expensive hunting licenses or greater access to big game on public and private lands. ¶ 115 In sum, the Sportsmen's initiative purported to address disease, hunting ethics, and privatization of wildlife, but I-143 did not actually address any of these. Rather, it was carefully crafted to achieve the Sportsmen's ulterior goal of putting all alternative livestock ranches out of business. The Proponents' argument in favor of the Initiative was blatantly misleading in assuring voters that [e]xisting game farms will be allowed to continue all operations, except for canned hunts. I-143 was designed to shut down all alternative livestock ranches by forcing them to operate with no income. ¶ 116 The Sportsmen claim that I-143 merely added to the existing restrictions on the operation of alternative livestock ranches. They also assert that the Ranchers have not established that the additional restrictions are so onerous that the effect is the same as `an appropriation of property through eminent domain or physical appropriation.'  This is hypocrisy personified. I-143 did not add to existing restrictions. It devised a whole new restriction previously unheard of in the industry: no remuneration for shooting alternative livestock. The Sportsmen's contrary characterization of I-143 is absurd. It is one thing to strengthen fencing, testing, and reporting requirements through additional restrictions, as the Legislature did over the years. But it is quite another to require alternative livestock ranchers to operate with no income through the expedient of prohibiting remuneration for the key economic activity on which their businesses depended: fee shooting. The Sportsmen carefully crafted I-143 to destroy the Ranchers' businesses, and they succeeded in doing so. It is difficult to conceive of a regulation that more closely approximates an appropriation of property. ¶ 117 In conclusion, the Ranchers entered the alternative livestock industry in the 1990s. Alternative livestock ranching had been in existence for over 75 years. The 1983 Legislature had enacted explicit statutory rights to protect the interests of participants in the industry. See Kafka Dissent, ¶¶ 105-106. As late as 1999, the State characterized alternative livestock ranching as a viable economic opportunity for any private property owner as well as the traditional livestock producers who are interested in diversifying their ranch productivity. Section 87-4-431, MCA. Moreover, as the State reluctantly conceded at oral argument in Kafka, There is some evidence to suggest that it was the policy of the political branches of government to encourage people to look at game farming as an alternative to traditional agriculture  actually, to subsidize traditional agriculture so they could stay on the farms and ranches. The Sportsmen, however, objected to alternative livestock ranching. They decided to shut down the industry. They did so for the stated purpose of protecting Montana's wildlife and hunting heritage. They argued to the voters that I-143 was intended to benefit the entire Montana populace. Yet, the Sportsmen sought to place all of the economic costs associated with achieving this goal on the alternative livestock ranchers. They sought, in other words, to give the public something for nothing. ¶ 118 The Sportsmen represent the voices of thousands of Montana men and women who believe I-143 is vital to the protection of Montana's wildlife and to the tradition of fair chase hunting. According to the Sportsmen, I-143 was designed and enacted to address very serious dangers to Montana's wildlife and fair chase hunting heritage. It has been said that the guarantee that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49, 80 S.Ct. 1563, 1569, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554 (1960). On this principle alone, it seems abundantly obvious that the costs of achieving the Sportsmen's goals must be borne by the public as a whole, not disproportionately placed on the shoulders of the alternative livestock ranchers.