(court affirms trial court decision denying plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment takings claim involving enactment and enforcement of Initiative 143; plaintiffs own and operate alternative livestock game farms at which persons pay large sums of money to shoot captive animals within the confines of a game farm; Initiative 143 barred the fee-based shooting of game animals or alternative livestock; no taking under Penn Central analysis because Initiative did not eliminate all uses of alternative livestock as plaintiffs could still harvest animals for meat or antlers, or sell them in out-of-state markets where fee shooting still legal).