Taking of property without just compensation?

[ELKCHSR]

The Government gets flak for selling land under the going price but feels very justified taking it away with writ of legislation....
I saw a ton of this in Washington going on all the time..The people still owned what they bought, but due to legislated land changes, it went from lets say.... 1-5 acre single family residences to 20 plus acre single family residences and they made the rules so invasive that one just couldn't afford to put a home on it. Example, two year minimum paper work before you could put a shovel into the ground, and you better not even cut a tree down while the permit process was going on, or they would slap a 5-10 year moritorium on your property that you couldn't do any thing except to pay taxes on it.
This is not meant as an argument, it is only showing that I see two faces to this issue, and neither one is fair to every one involved.

 

[JoseCuervo]

There are tons of businesses that become obsolete upon Government regulation. That is called "risk of doing business". I am sure there are Asbestos firms that are "victims" of Takings. Look at the risk of the Tobacco companies, as legislation "takes" revenues from them. These whiners who want to shoot penned Elk should have known the risks of the business they are in.

If the only way to maximize the value of the land is to shoot pet Elk, then they should have sold while it was legal. They were dumb, and now they whine in Court.

ElkCheese, you really are clueless, aren't you? Do you even know what Oak's topic was about??? How on Earth does that even have the slightest relation to the babble that you posted??? I thought you lived in MONTANA?

 

[pawclaws]

I don't know boys a two percent margin sounds like maybe somebody should have been doing some door knocking. Only course left is a referendum and with the numbers that close; hardly likely. Everybody gets screwed on this one.

 

[Washington Hunter]

I don't feel one ounce of sorrow for them. When you're involved in an unethical business, you should expect that it may get outlawed eventually. They were able to make money while it was still legal, and they should be grateful for that. It's amazing that they now think the state should be compensating them for their loss, but I suppose that is to be expected as they all seem to have the same welfare rancher mentality.

 

[pawclaws]

Will wonders never cease? I agree with WH's asessment of Fenced Hunting Farms.

 

[Oak]

Would you agree with that?

Elk farm owners complain of lost revenues
By Tim Leeds/Havre Daily News
May 21, 2004

During the second day of a hearing before District Judge David Rice on the impacts Initiative 143 had on elk farmers, witnesses for the state testified that the property elk farmers own still have significant value.

Bozeman certified real estate appraiser Ed Jackson said Thursday he appraised the 1,120 acres land Kim and Cindy Kafka had licensed for an elk-shooting operation as worth $336,000.

"The property is located kind of in the foothills of the Bear Paws. It's a relatively attractive area," Jackson said.

The Kafkas filed a lawsuit against the state in April 2002, claiming I-143 was unconstitutional and resulted in a taking of their property without just compensation.

I-143, which passed 51 percent to 49 percent in 2000, includes prohibiting charging a fee to shoot elk on game farms.

District Judge John Warner, now a Montana Supreme Court Justice, ruled against an injunction that would have allowed the Kafkas to operate their shooting range while the lawsuit was in court. He later ruled that the initiative was constitutional, leaving only the Kafkas' claim that their property was taken without compensation.

Rice took over the case after Warner was appointed

The Kafkas were joined as plaintiffs by Jack and Myra Bridgewater, who own a game farm and shooting operation near Townsend, and by Jim and Barb Bouma, who own a game farm near Choteau where they raise animals to sell to shooting operations.

Sportsmen for I-143 and the Montana Wildlife Federation have intervened in the suit as defendants.

The hearing this week was to determine if property was taken. The next step in the process would be to determine what value of property was taken.

At the end of the hearing, Rice gave the attorneys on both sides until June 18 to file final arguments, after which he will review the case and make his decision.

Jackson said he appraised the best use of the Kafka property, part of which is an elk farm and part of which is a shooting range, as being for agricultural or recreational use, with the possibility of building homes on both sites.

He valued the 39-acre tract the Kafkas use to raise the elk at $31,200.

Jackson's partner Dennis Hoeger, also of Bozeman, appraised the value of the Bridgewaters' farm and shooting range at $945,000, with its best use as a recreational ranch.

He appraised the value of the Bouma property at $258,000, with its best use as agricultural land with possible conversion to residential or industrial use.

Jackson and Hoeger both said they had been instructed by Montana Assistant Attorney General Chris Tweeten, who is representing the state in the case, to determine the value of the land as of Nov. 7, 2000, when I-143 was approved by the voters. They could not consider its value as a game farm, because the initiative prevents shooting operations and the sale of game farm licenses, the appraisers said.

Jack Bridgewater testified Thursday that the income from his elk farm, which he and his wife started in 1991, cannot pay the cost of raising the elk.

He said that prior to the passage of I-143, his shooting operation took in from $3,900 to $54,000 for each bull elk, averaging between $8,000 and $9,000.

He testified that he had put his farm up for sale for $4 million, and had an interested party look at it in October 2000. Once I-143 passed, that potential buyer withdrew interest, he said.

Bridgewater said he has had the land for sale for the last 3ð years at $2.1 million, with no interest shown, he said.

Bouma testified Wednesday that before I-143 passed he had sold some elk for more than $5,000 each, although he hadn't been in operation long enough to start selling significant numbers of mature animals.

Since then, he has sold some for $500, some for $650, and given some away to charitable causes, he said. "Without anybody in the business it's tough to sell them," he said.

Bridgewater said he had been selling his elk herd to reduce expenses, and sold 160 head to an operation in Colorado for about $89,000, about $556 each.

Bridgewater said he had an agreement that if the elk in Colorado are shot, he will receive some payment, although he did not specify the amount.

Tweeten asked if that meant he could still get more income from the elk.

"Hopefully," Bridgewater said. "(The buyer) is two years overdue now."

 

[Washington Hunter]

Come on Paws...what fun is it when you agree with me?

 

[Tom]

Asbestos and Tobacco companies are paying fines because they harmed people. They are loosing money because the products harmed people. These elk people didn't harm anyone, they were harmed. This example is more like what Elkchsr gave. Somebody invested in a developement for small acreage where you can sell it for more dollars per acre, then the government rezoned to 20 acre pieces and the smaller places can't be sold. The elk people were selling their elk for more money before I-143, so I think they have a stronger case than Elkchsr's example would, if they went to court.

The elk people are invoking a law like, if the government builds a highway or a power line or something through your property, they have to pay you for the land they use.

If those elk people don't get compensation for what was taken from them, I can't see why any reasonable business would want to invest in Montana much at all in the future. Its pretty clear I-143 and 51% majority of Montana voters took those people's investment and main livelihood from them without compensation.
What is the argument for the state?

 

[ELKCHSR]

Yep, my argument may not have been stated to the lofty gunners standards, but Tom did say it better.
I would suppose gunner if you had read much of any thing I have written in the last two and a half years, you would have a good understanding of my history.
I don't need to hide who I am or what I believe in. I don't hide in anonymity, I also see that personal attacks is all you have... You try to be deep, but the cloud keeps you from doing that...

 

[BuzzH]

Tom,

The states argument is that they didnt take anything away from the elkfarmers. The state didnt take their elk, their land, or even their right to raise elk. They're whiners and want something for nothing, typical.

The only thing 143 "took" was their ability to conduct canned hunts on their property. They can still sell all the elk they can raise, for as long as they want to raise elk and stay in business.

The problem is, they cant sell their elk anymore because most states understand that diseases like TB, Brucellosis, and CWD are real, and are found commonly on elk farms. Therefore, the surrounding states have banned the import of live elk into their states, and rightfully so. Which makes their elk worth a lot less, thats not the fault of 143, thats life in the world of business.

If the elkfarmers want to blame anyone for the mess they're in, they need to look in the mirror. They assumed risk, just like any other business does.

 

[pawclaws]

This industry looks like it will dry up. Wonder if an enterprising young fella might convert the farm into genuine meat production and market the meat, hide, ivory, and so forth. Heck I'll bet there might even be a lodge/hotel somewhere in the market for a full sized mount! While you guys are at it you might think about pointing this event out to what you guys call "Welfare Ranchers" or public lease holders because they might begin to see the light. Now since the ranchers can't charge for a hunt; can they offer hunts for donations? Can they sell raffle tickets and give away free hunts? Can they have a hunting contest and charge admission? Just which loop holes might there be??

 

[BuzzH]

Paws,

The loopholes have been tried and shut down by the state...at least those that you listed. You cant sell a hunt of any kind, under a raffle, donation, etc. etc. etc.

The law is really clear, it is well written and has been upheld by the Montana courts. Len Wallace tried to skirt the law with some of the things you listed, but paid the piper for it. MT judges arent sympathetic toward the elk farmers or their sleazy operations.

You are right about one thing, elk farms are drying up in MT, and that isnt a bad thing.

 

[Tom]

Buzz stated it well. I see that, they lost the shipping and selling of elk, because of the disease. Its a problem with the product they chose to deal with. That is like the tobacco and asbestos example that gunner cited. That's what they lost because of the risky business they chose to be in.

So, then, I-143 comes along, I-143 lets the risky part stay, they can still raise diseased elk that they can't sell, that's fine, says I-143. Don't leave it to your kids though, when you die, so does your business, they took that away too. By the way, the only market left, don't do that either, you can't let someone buy it and shoot it. Montana never did charge a hunting liscense fee for that, so they never considered it something to collect hunting dollars for. I-143 took that possibility away too, they can't sell an elk and let someone shoot it there. They can't ever collect any dollars from hunter/shooters to treat those diseases in the wild animals there now either.
I guess there's still a tax for owning an elk or something and that money can be used to help wild elk, but the elk aren't worth the tax probably because of the income value was taken by I-143. It seems pretty clear, I-143 is designed to ruin that business, but an end to it.
Now, people have to buy the elk, take it to their front yard, I guess, and they can shoot it there, if they don't live in the city or something. Or, they can take it to a slaughter house and pay to process it. Its good for the slaughter house business, I guess, I-143. That's the positive side.

I-143 did take away a lot of income potential for those people. Is it legal to sell someone a cow, i.e. bovine, you know a farm animal cow, not an elk cow, and let someone shoot it in Montana? I would think that might be an issue they can whine about, legally maybe.

If a cattle rancher can sell someone a cow to shoot, why are the elk singled out? They are singled out in order to stop these people from making money doing that. They are singled out in order to stop these people, the elk farmers, from passing their liscense on to their family, so they can't make money doing that. That's why the elk shooting is singled out. Its pretty clear, that is what I-143 took from these people.

I think they got something to whine about, but I'm no judge, I'm not even a voter in Montana, so its not up to me to decide anything. When will this court stuff finally be over, anybody know? I guess when the last elk farmer/ranch their shuts down. Until then, any one of them might try and sue for something, I guess.

 

[Nemont]

Elk ranching was putting a public resource at risk.
Here is quote:

Indeed, sportsman who are concerned with public perception see the practice of hunting animals in enclosures – regardless of size – as a black eye to the honest pursuit of wild game. In fact, the issue has been so hot that in some states and provinces various special interests have risen to "put an end" to the practice of shooting penned in animals.

A recent news release from the Montana Wildlife Federation tells the tale of how an issue of ethics has quickly been blown into an issue of law:
On November 7, sportsmen and sportswomen won a key victory when Montanans voted to control the reckless game farm industry and put an end to unethical "canned hunts" on game farms. The initiative passed by a 52-48 margin.

I-143 was a simple and straightforward effort to reform an industry which has, for too long, abused its relationships with traditional ranching and ethical hunting and in the process has put our wild free-ranging elk at risk. I-143 will amend state law to: 1) prohibit all new game farms in the state of Montana. 2) Existing game farms in Montana will continue to operate, but will be prohibited from charging fees for captive big game shooting operations. 3) Existing game farms will be prohibited from transferring their licenses to any other party. 4) I-143 also repeals provisions of the law concerning expansion of existing game farms.
The news release from the MWF continues by stating that:
Contrary to assertions made by game farmers in the weeks before the election, I-143 will not constitute a violation, or takings, of private property rights. Historical precedent and recent case law is clear: "No one has an absolute right to use his land in a way that may harm the public health or welfare, or that damages the quality of life of neighboring landowners, or of the community as a whole." Source

Montana has always been pro agriculture, for a state so dependent upon ag production it is really amazing that the voters did this. There were very few elk farmers in business and none of their land or means of production were taken.

We also banned cyanide heap leach mining and the mining companies are screaming about a takings issue also.

Nemont

P.S. Tom in Montana the dept. of F.W.P does not govern alternate livestock. That comes under the dept. of Livestock so no hunting fee was ever involved.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom,

While you got some points in there, I think you're really over complicating what 143 did.

If you want to look at lost revenue, the elk farmers have lost MORE revenue to the surrounding states who have passed legislation to ban importing of domestic elk. When 143 passed, the biggest money an elk rancher could make was in the sale of his breeding elk to start up other ranches, a majority of which were sold out-of-state. There were very few of the 100 or so elk farms that were shooter operations. The vast majority never had any intention of ever conducting canned hunts, nor would have ever been permitted to.

So, this whole idea of 143 taking away property value is really just about baseless, in particular its baseless on 90 of the 100 farms that never did the canned hunts.

As far as the money end of things, passing 143 has saved a lot of money for the wildlife in Montana. The hunters and fishermen of Montana were already being soaked for the entire administration cost of the game farms in Montana...to the tune of a couple million. That money should have been used for wildlife, not elkfarms.

Also, since MT has only found CWD on game farms, they dont need to be spending money studying CWD in wild herds (yet) or finding a cure for it when it doesnt exist in the wild there. That should be the responsibility of the elk farmers.

 

[pawclaws]

Sounds like 143 got hold of more than one leg of that octopus!

Well I am glad to see legislation that is being done because it is the right thing to do. Kind of refreshing.

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

I dont think you have the facts straight...the MTFWP did and still does govern elk and elkfarms. The DOL has no control.

In Montana the Dept. of Livestock did not have jurisdiction on elk farms. The permitting, compliance, etc. was all governed by the MTFWP, elk, even those behind the wire, were still technically considered wildlife and NOT livestock.

The elkfarm industry tried to strip the MTFWP of its administration and control of the industry, but thankfully, it didnt happen.

That was one of the big issues with the elk farms, the fact that sportsmen dollars were being spent on administration costs.

 

[Tom]

I'm dissappointed Montana could not make these things work, because there are some great things like that down here, they tried for a while, then the referendum shut them down to die.

Some were hurt, some were helped. Totally separating the wildlife and the livestock issues is not a good thing. They do interact and the management needs to consider both. I don't know why, if MTFWP administers the elk farms, they didn't get the fees from them to do it? That was never right, I agree with that. Animals and their diseases need to be managed both for livestock and wildlife and for their interactions.

Hey, Nemont, if your neighbors cattle break your fence and breed with your cattle, do you think he should be shut down? How smart is an approach like that? I never saw your source before, pretty interesting.

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,
Thought the DOL regulated the Alternate Livestock industry? I must have been misreading something. I stand corrected Buzz. Won't be the last time I made a mistake.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

No big deal, just clarifying.

Not many people realized that the elk farm industry was regulated by the MTFWP, even most Montanans. When they did find out, the shit hit the fan...and I think thats one big reason why 143 passed.

The DOL does regulate bison, which arent technically wildlife, but classified as livestock. I think thats where the confusion comes in...how the animal in question is classified.

Respectfully,

Buzz