Two states in this immediate vicinity, Wyoming and Montana, have recently addressed game farming and shooting captive wildlife. One, Wyoming, had the foresight, wisdom and the courage to do an objective analysis before game farming became generally established. Among their recommendations were the following:

1. The application under review be denied.
2. "There is no way to guarantee that animals do not carry diseases…(which) could be devastating if introduced into currently disease free herds"
3. "Competition with native wildlife would be likely … when exotics escape."
4. "… hybridization could introduce deleterious traits …."
5. "Fences … would hinder movements of free-ranging wildlife …"
6. "… importation of the animals … poses a real risk to … native wildlife populations..."
7. "Approval (of the application) would not be in the best interest of the people of Wyoming or the wildlife resource."
8. "Information … clearly shows that private ownership of wildlife and game farming are not in the best interest of Wyoming's wildlife or her people."

In Montana, the process was not as measured. The state drifted into the game farming business with politicians in collaboration with the industry. The hunters, after a series of legislative frustrations, took the issue directly to the people with a ballot issue. The initiative banned captive shooting along with a few other restrictions designed to discourage game farming. The hunters prevailed. The litigation that washes in the wake of such a victory is now addressing everything from basic constitutional arguments to schemes designed to circumvent the people's will.

The court decisions are encouraging and reveal a judicial consistency with the 19th Century decisions that launched fish and wildlife conservation in North America. In a case brought before a U. S. District Court questioning the constitutionality of the Montana initiative, the court ruled:

"Montana has a legitimate interest in protecting its hunting heritage."

"…Montana does have a legitimate interest in banning fee killing of game farm animals, and application of a rational basis test indicates that the ban is rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

"Banning fee killing is rationally related to promoting fair chase hunting."

"While the effect resumption of fee killing in itself would have on the risk of disease and hybridization is negligible, the effect that resumption of fee killing (would have) on Montana's hunting heritage and fair chase hunting ethic is substantial."

"The state has a legitimate interest in promoting fair chase hunting ethics and Montana's hunting heritage and legacy when mandated by popular vote or otherwise."

What the Montana experience reveals is that the values held by the people are intact. The judicial principles also appear to be consistent and intact across 159 years. The federal court in Montana recognized that hunting has a soul. There then remain two questions in desperate need of resolution.

• Are the professions that were created to administer the public trust in the people's fish and wildlife able to address the need for control and reform? The answer to that question resides here - in this room.
• Can the political entities, now responding to the concentrated influence of an active, commercially driven minority, be influenced to act in the broad public interest? The answer to that question also resides here, and we must elect to make and keep a promise to posterity.

References Cited:

- Lanka, Guenzel, Fralick and Thiele. Analysis and Recommendations on the Applications by Mr. John T. Dorrance III to import and Possess Native and Exotic Species.  Game Division, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 1990 (140 pp. plus appendix
- Kafka et.al. v Hagener et.al CV 01-32-GF-DWM.