# Public Forum on High Fence Hunting



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

WHAT: The Jamestown Chapter of the United Sportsmen of North Dakota is sponsoring a Public Forum on High Fence Hunting (Fair Chase Hunting).

Petition sponsors of the initiated measure to ban "High Fence Hunting" who will present their position are Roger Kaseman-Chairperson for the Fair Chase Initiated Measure, Richard Monson-Secretary for the Fair Chase Initiate Measure, and Lloyd Jones-Project leader for the Audubon National Wildlife Reserve Complex.

Shawn Schafer-President of the North Dakota Deer Ranchers, Wayne Laaveg-President of the North Dakota Elk Growers, and Gene Guthmiller-member of the North Dakota Elk Growers, who are not in support of the initiated measure will present their position.

WHEN: 7:00 P.M. Thursday, March 6th, 2008

WHERE: The Knights of Columbus Hall, Jamestown, N.D.

CONTACT: 
Merle Weatherly Chapter President (701) 252-2585
Rod Roaldson Program and Publicity Chairperson (701) 252-5267


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Dick-

please give us some feedback after the presentation/discussion.

thanks, hunter


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

ND Fair Chase Hunters are at booth #162, at the Dome the 29th, 1st and 2cd. Stop by, introduce yourself, and sign the petition. Bring lots of people!


----------



## 2labs (Jul 3, 2002)

Booth is on the concorse by the fishing station bring your friends!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dick, I worked the sport show in Jamestown this past Friday afternoon. It was slow on a work day, still I had 95 percent of the people who passed our booth sign the petition. Most couldn't get a pen in their hand fast enough. Only a couple people didn't sign and they said they didn't hunt so didn't care what happened. One wanted to wait until the Thursday evening public form.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

:beer: See you on the 6th Plainsman. There is an interesting story about the booth getting moved to the concourse at the Dome. Great turnout. Help comes from the strangest places. Should have had the camera. 

To the nodakers that signed up at the Dome, many thanks! It was great to finally meet you fellows in person.

Best true story I heard there: A wife is upstairs in her house when she hears a loud bang. She stumbles downstairs to find her kitchen full of smoke. Her husband is standing there in full camo with his smoking muzzel loader. She asks, what the hell happened? He said I shot a buck. She says, right through the window pane? He said, well, it's muzzel loader season.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

High-fence hunting forum draws many
Toni Pirkl The Jamestown Sun
Published Friday, March 07, 2008
High-fence hunting of elk and deer is coming under fire with a proposed initiated measure that would end the practice in North Dakota.

The Jamestown chapter of United Sportsmen sponsored a public forum Thursday night to give both sides of the issue an opportunity to present their case.

"There's a lot of confusion on this issue," said Jim Weight, a member of the local chapter and state chairman. "We don't have a side. We just wanted everyone to come and listen."

The Fair Chase Initiated Measure would ban fee hunting of elk and deer raised on ranches. The measure does not affect bison or pheasant hunting. The supporters are collecting signatures to get it on the November ballot.

"We want to know what we're voting on this fall," said Merle Weatherly, president of the local chapter of United Sportsmen, who emceed the forum.

Elk and deer ranchers told the more than 200 area residents at the forum this measure violates property rights. Wayne Laaveg, president of the North Dakota Elk Growers and Shawn Schafer, president of the North Dakota Deer Ranchers, spoke of protecting property rights for all landowners. If the measure passed, Schafer wondered how soon bison and pheasant would be added to the list of banned animals.

"Our property rights are in extreme jeopardy," Schafer said. "This measure could trigger the loss of more of our rights."

Roger Kaseman, who is chairman of the Fair Chase Initiative, said, "Using property rights to justify canned hunting is a hoax."

The ranchers argued there are stiff regulations for those who raise big game and have hunting operations. The animals are not captured wildlife. They're purchased and raised as livestock. They are also overseen by the state Board of Animal Health. The acreage the deer and elk are hunted on can run from 600 to 2,000 acres.

"They're shooting livestock, not game," said Kaseman, who is a hunter. "High fence is not fair chase."

Kaseman, Dick Monson, secretary for the initiated measure, and Lloyd Jones, project leader for the Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex, all spoke of the lack of ethics in this type of hunting.

"A guaranteed hunt is as unethical as you get," Kaseman said.

Schafer reminded the audience that North Dakotans are very lucky to have the open space to hunt wildlife. Preserve hunting is much more common in highly populated states as open land disappears.

Jones said about 80 percent of the voters in the country are neutral when it comes to hunting. Those voters will base their opinion on what they see and hear about hunting.

"Ethical behavior is what will determine their support," Jones said. "Do we believe fenced shooting is something they'll support? They will decide the future of hunting, not us."

Monson said he wanted to preserve public hunting and see the end of canned shooting operations.

"We're the stewards of wildlife," he said. "This is commercializing wildlife hunting."

Laaveg said preserve hunting is not for everyone. He, like the others, hunts in the wild. However, he said, there are a number of options from which to choose in the state.

"Hunters can choose how they wish to hunt here," he said. "The heritage of hunting is alive and well in North Dakota. We protect the resources we harvest."


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> "They're shooting livestock, not game," said Kaseman,


By God Roger got it right for once!!! It's livestock not game!!!



> If the measure passed, Schafer wondered how soon bison and pheasant would be added to the list of banned animals.


Next on the agenda for these boys is baiting, then comes the pheasant farms


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Monson said he wanted to preserve public hunting and see the end of canned shooting operations.
> 
> "We're the stewards of wildlife," he said. "This is commercializing wildlife hunting."


Hey Dick, maybe you and Roger should get together and decide once and for all if these animals are Wildlife as you say,or livestock as Roger says :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

g/o said:


> > Monson said he wanted to preserve public hunting and see the end of canned shooting operations.
> >
> > "We're the stewards of wildlife," he said. "This is commercializing wildlife hunting."
> 
> ...


I think we've discussed this so many times G/O. If it is livestock as you claim, then all those people involved in those operations should sell the "livestock" at the same rate, and not have a sliding scale depending on how big the antlers are.

Why isn't that the case? Why the difference in cost?

I would have no problem with them calling it livestock, as long as that is how they advertised the "activity". "Come shoot my tame big anterled elk"

or

I'm fine with it if they charge a set price for the animal on a per pound limit. You can shoot any livestock on the ranch and pay $50/lb for bulls, and $35/lb for cows. Sell it like livestock by the pound.

Sound fair? I mean after all they are only selling it for the meat as domestic livestock right?

Lol, in reality all they want is to have their cake and eat it too.... on the one hand they claim it is "livestock", but to the buying public they are selling "trophy hunts"

You don't hunt livestock.

Which way is it?

Hmm...?

That's what I thought.

.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

R y a n said:


> g/o said:
> 
> 
> > > Monson said he wanted to preserve public hunting and see the end of canned shooting operations.
> ...


Why the difference in cost? Well, why the difference in cost between a bred heifer, or a bull, or a open heifer or cow, or a steer? Why the cost difference in a registered pure angus bull vs. a mixed bull? Not all livestock is sold on a flat scale. Performance also sells, and demands premium prices.

Beef cows are raised for meat, elk are raised for antlers and meat, so it just makes sense that a bigger bull would demand a bigger price. Just as a well performing beef animal demands a higher price.

So your aknowledging its NOT a ethics issue, its an advertising issue. So if they advertised it as a "trophy elk shoot" you would have no problems?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

barebackjack said:


> Why the difference in cost? Well, why the difference in cost between a bred heifer, or a bull, or a open heifer or cow, or a steer? Why the cost difference in a registered pure angus bull vs. a mixed bull?
> 
> Beef cows are raised for meat, elk are raised for antlers and meat, so it just makes sense that a bigger bull would demand a bigger price. Just as a well performing beef animal demands a higher price.
> 
> So your aknowledging its NOT a ethics issue, its an advertising issue. So if they advertised it as a "trophy elk shoot" you would have no problems?


It's _*completely*_ about ethics.

The ethics of those trying to pass off a slaughter activity as hunting. Spoiling the very foundation of traditional hunting that has existed in this continent for hundreds of years.

Commercial scabs are trying to take a long standing tradition and make a profit off of it, by using semi-tame farm stock and passing it off as traditional hunting, advertising it as such, and then trying to cover up or muddy up the issue by using a whole myriad of excuses, throwing the sh!t up against the wall and trying to make anything stick in an effort to justify how they have bastardized a cultural pasttime for their own financial gains.

As has been shown by the huge interest by sportsmen showing up to sign up on the petition, this is only a matter of time before it is gone.

And no... this is not a slippery slope towards other hunting activities.

That is just an additional scare tactic that Shawn Shafer and others are trying to use for political gain, and it is pure hogwash.

Everyone can see the issue for exactly what it is.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

barebackjack said:


> Why the difference in cost? Well, why the difference in cost between a bred heifer, or a bull, or a open heifer or cow, or a steer? Why the cost difference in a registered pure angus bull vs. a mixed bull? Not all livestock is sold on a flat scale. Performance also sells, and demands premium prices.
> 
> Beef cows are raised for meat, elk are raised for antlers and meat, so it just makes sense that a bigger bull would demand a bigger price. Just as a well performing beef animal demands a higher price.


Ohh .. and to answer your question... is there a difference in the cost of beef at the store per pound? Only by the different amounts of fat in it..e.g.. how lean it is..

If you are selling dead livestock meat, the price is constant without regard to bull, cow, heifer. At that point noone cares.

If you want to trade/sell live animals back and forth, (bred heifer, prize bull) etc, the different prices have to do with the animal being worth more as a live commodity, not as a dead animal.

You are twisting the different things to try and muddy the understanding.

A dead cow is a dead cow. that beef fetches the same price unless some fool in new york is willing to pay more for a Hereford vs Angus.

Make sure you are advertising that you are killing ranch elk for slaughter. If you'd agree that a mandate declaring that those words be used in advertising the "hunts", I'm fine with you conducting slaughter business.

Just to be clear (above).. If you say:

*"Come harvest a domestic elk for slaughter. You may shoot it if you wish, but our livestock is sold based on a combination of weight and antler size. Prices may vary. Success Guranteed to slaughter elk of your choice."*

Mandate that _*all*_ advertising say the above, and that the words "hunt, wild, and ranch" be left out of any ads.

Sound like a deal? How many people on the other side would agree to that? Why not?

Ryan


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> If you are selling dead livestock meat, the price is constant without regard to bull, cow, heifer. At that point noone cares.


That is not correct. Sex, breed or breed type, color, muscle thickness, horn status, frame score, fill, body condition, age, and health all play a part of the price of beef whether on the hoof or on the plate. Place a Kobe Ribeye next to a Angus Ribeye, both with the same texture and marbling and see what the price difference is. You'll pay 5 times the amount for the Kobe beef.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

cwoparson said:


> > If you are selling dead livestock meat, the price is constant without regard to bull, cow, heifer. At that point noone cares.
> 
> 
> That is not correct. Sex, breed or breed type, color, muscle thickness, horn status, frame score, fill, body condition, age, and health all play a part of the price of beef whether on the hoof or on the plate. Place a Kobe Ribeye next to a Angus Ribeye, both with the same texture and marbling and see what the price difference is. You'll pay 5 times the amount for the Kobe beef.


Fair enough. I agree cwoparson. All I'm suggesting is that if they want to claim this is a domestic slaughter operation, to stay consistent with their measuring stick (like the beef industry), and price the livestock accordingly, and then market the livestock with proper labels and descriptions.

I think they got the intent of my point, even though I did err with this.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Also, these operations are not selling dead livestock. They are selling live livestock, its up to the buyer to kill it.

cwoparson, well said, you beat me to it.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

barebackjack said:


> Also, these operations are not selling dead livestock. They are selling live livestock, its up to the buyer to kill it.
> 
> cwoparson, well said, you beat me to it.


I see you won't touch my other thoughts.

Care to comment?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I see you won't touch my other thoughts.
> 
> Care to comment?


 Yep :lol:



> And no... this is not a slippery slope towards other hunting activities.
> 
> That is just an additional scare tactic that Shawn Shafer and others are trying to use for political gain, and it is pure hogwash.


Scare tactic I don't think so, but you decide. When the bill was introduced into the legislature it included all non traditional licenses. Now R Y A N, do you think for one minute if people like myself would not have caught this and squeaked the wording would have been changed? If this bill would have passed and became law they would have laughed all the way to the bank. Now R Y A N you say they are not after pheasant farms? Read what the The North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society feels towards shooting preserves. Read also how the humane society feels about shooting preserves and tell me the pheasant boys are not next. Both these groups endorse the high fence initiative. Many of the sponsors are member of the NDCWS so we should not be worried ? R Y A N do you know easy it is after something like this becomes law to add on pheasants? Like I say you decide and I will also I care not to trust these guys.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

R y a n said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > Also, these operations are not selling dead livestock. They are selling live livestock, its up to the buyer to kill it.
> ...


What other thoughts? Your argument was based on the price differentiation and marketing, I think we covered that.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

I did not know some people have a monopoly on the word hunt. Now I have to take my kids on an Easter egg harvest. When Monson, Kaseman and Jones are done with this issue (if ever) they need to get involved at their local vet clinic. People are bringing their pets in and having them "put to sleep". No, these 3 need to get in peoples faces and keep them honest. Keep it real. Pets are being killed. The vet is killing it. Anyways I don't care. What concerns me is this war of words. Someone is killing freedom. I like canned hunts tomatoes!!!!


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

??????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

When you can't win a debate muddy the water.

I don't care about the price difference of Angus Vs. Hereford, or bull vs. cow, or how much beef vs. pork. If you brought that up in court the opposing attorney would say objection your honor, irrelevant, and he would be right. Shooting deer and elk in a pen has to go. Muddy the water all you want to, I have my crosshairs on pen shooting, and I think the public is going to drop the hammer on it. If you can't understand how it is unethical then your blinded by money, or you have some other motive.

Also, I don't have my crosshairs on pheasant. Anyone who tells you I do is not telling you the truth so don't believe anything else they say either. In my case these people who tell you what I want are not honest with you. They simply are trying to scare you. I know what I want, they don't, but they tell you what I want. How arrogant is that?

G/O what in the world makes you think you even have a hint of what I want? The truth is you don't have a clue. You don't know me, we have never talked about it, your just making things up as you go.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> G/O what in the world makes you think you even have a hint of what I want? The truth is you don't have a clue. You don't know me, we have never talked about it, your just making things up as you go.


Plainsman, where did I say I know what you want Plainsman?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Also, I don't have my crosshairs on pheasant. Anyone who tells you I do is not telling you the truth so don't believe anything else they say either. In my case these people who tell you what I want are not honest with you. They simply are trying to scare you. I know what I want, they don't, but they tell you what I want. How arrogant is that?


You may not, but the company your keeping on this crusade wants to get rid of far more. The way I see it, all who oppose this, are in bed with the enemy right now, treading a slippery slope.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> If you can't understand how it is unethical then your blinded by money, or you have some other motive.


Yep, I'm blinded by another motive. It's the motive of common sense. It's the motive that no one has the right to shove their personal ethics down the throats of others. Why is it your last resort each and every time is to accuse others of having a hidden motive? I've heard you say you often go to bible study. What is your hidden motive for doing that? Think long and hard on that one. Talk about mudding the water. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

G/O



> Next on the agenda for these boys is baiting, then comes the pheasant farms


Not on my agenda.



> If this bill would have passed and became law they would have laughed all the way to the bank. Now R Y A N you say they are not after pheasant farms? Read what the The North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society feels towards shooting preserves. Read also how the humane society feels about shooting preserves and tell me the pheasant boys are not next. Both these groups endorse the high fence initiative. Many of the sponsors are member of the NDCWS so we should not be worried ?


The Humane society and the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society are not even close to the same type of organizations. Do you belong to either? Have any members told you what they want? What do you think NDCWS is? They are not running on emotion like the Humane Society of the United States, they are motivated by sound scientific data. Did you know that?

Speak for yourself g/o, but please don't speak for me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I've heard you say you often go to bible study. What is your hidden motive for doing that?


So I don't have to put up with you after I'm dead. :rollin: I hope you can take a joke.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

barebackjack said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I don't have my crosshairs on pheasant. Anyone who tells you I do is not telling you the truth so don't believe anything else they say either. In my case these people who tell you what I want are not honest with you. They simply are trying to scare you. I know what I want, they don't, but they tell you what I want. How arrogant is that?
> ...


The company I keep???? What are you implying? Keeping company with to me implies that it is a two way street. I have never talked with a Humane Society of the United States representative, or even a member. I have never emailed them, or had any contact. As a hunter I find the implication offensive. Do you have empirical information to support that, or is it just more bs piled on bs? Just more hysterical slippery slope they want the pheasants I would guess. No, the sky isn't falling.

This subject isn't worth debating anymore. It's going to happen. Running around with silly the sky is falling scare tactics simply makes hunters look paranoid. We hunters are not paranoid, but like all other groups we have a few chicken littles.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...


Im not implying anything, im saying that there are people on YOUR SIDE of this argument who arent going to stop at "high fence" hunting, and you are aiding them. No implication, im flat out saying it. And I dont care if you have/havent had direct contact with them, you are on THEIR SIDE.
Do YOU have any empirical information to support otherwise? No you dont. Can YOU support your theory that it will end with "high fences"? No you cant.

Your right, the subject isnt worth debating. You may/may not abolish "high fences", and if you do, you will open the doors for people who DO want to go further. Its to bad you refuse to even consider this very distinct possibility.

You call me/us paranoid, I call you shortsighted.

The sky isnt falling........yet.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

although you may be correct, that they will may want to stop more pay to hunt ops, but high fence is different from bird operations. high fence allows the animals to be run ragged inside a confined area, bird ops is cover that holds birds, but does not restrict their escape to adjacent non hunting grounds. that type of ops has been around for a longggg time now, big game high fence ops are fewer in nature and attract a lot more negative press. just my opinion about the perception of the two ops......


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Speak for yourself g/o, but please don't speak for me.


Huh?????????? Plainsman, Again I've never spoke for you and have no idea what you are talking about. No I'm not a member of the Humane Society or the NDCWS. I do know that both are opposed to game farms and shooting preserves. In a post by Dick Monson the NDCWS defines shooting preserves and game farms. They oppose them and so does the HSUS, and both endorse the fair chase initiative. Plainsman "IF" you are a member of either organization I have no idea. All I know you by is Plainsman and have no idea what your name is.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Do YOU have any empirical information to support otherwise?


No, I don't need any information to prove otherwise, this is the United States where everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The ball is in your court , not mine, maybe you can come up with my name on a list of PETA members?

I'm not currently debating, I am enjoying pointing out what I think is intentional misleading by the opposition. Have you ever had someone you have never agreed with agree with something you were doing or said? Of course you have, I doubt there is anyone over five years old who hasn't had that happen. When that happens would you do the wrong thing just so you were in disagreement with the person you normally disagree with? I would hope not.

The above is why I think the opposition is disingenuous with everyone. They should understand that, yet bareback you insist on trying to link us with animal rights. Why is that? What I am doing now is not debating, I am perfectly satisfied where this measure is currently headed. All I am doing is pointing out the efforts some use to mislead. What I can't figure out is why.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> The above is why I think the opposition is disingenuous with everyone. They should understand that, yet bareback you insist on trying to link us with animal rights. Why is that?


Gee that's odd. The opposition thinks the same thing about your side. You should understand that. As for the animal rights group. If they support you and are in favor of your petition, you are linked whether you like it or not.

Yes Plainsman I can take a joke and just so you know I never had any intentions of meeting you after you are dead. But if it is any comfort to you I'll look down every once in awhile to see how you are doing.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, I like you am just pointing out the way I see things. You said baiting or pheasant farms are not on your agenda. Thank You, I wish I could say the same for the rest of the sponsors of this measure. You see Dick is already going after baiting



> The BCWF meeting this Wed. is open to the public. NDGF will have a presentation on baiting of big game and the consequences. 7pm, VC VFW.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> you are linked whether you like it or not


About as much as you and Hillary. I would guess if you matched notes with her that among those volumes of pages you would find one thing you agreed on. That should put it in perspective.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> Plainsman, I like you am just pointing out the way I see things. You said baiting or pheasant farms are not on your agenda. Thank You, I wish I could say the same for the rest of the sponsors of this measure. You see Dick is already going after baiting
> 
> 
> 
> > The BCWF meeting this Wed. is open to the public. NDGF will have a presentation on baiting of big game and the consequences. 7pm, VC VFW.


Thanks g/o. Here is how I look at the baiting issue. When a guy backs up with a truck and dumps 100 bushel of corn he is attracting to many deer and is creating a disease transfer problem. That, and anything over five gallons and your not trying to attract deer, your trying to lure them away from someone else. If some landowner wants to dump a five gallon bucket for his kid to hunt over I have no problem with it. I don't see a couple of gallons of corn much different than using doe in heat scent. I think it would be a good idea to limit the amount of bait used.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Plainsman this isn't mean as a argument but go back and read what you just wrote. You just said "If some landowner wants to dump a five gallon bucket for his kid to hunt over I have no problem with it". "I think it would be a good idea to limit the amount of bait used". Now by your ethics a little bit of baiting is alright. That's like saying she was only a little bit pregnant. Whether it is 5 gallons or 500 gallons, baiting is baiting. Either you are for it or against it. This goes to the heart of this entire discussion. Ethics cannot be regulated. Once you start there is no end in sight.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good morning cwoparson, and thanks for the serious question. I didn't see it as argumentative, but a chance for me to explain my perspective. I hope you will see my following comments in that light also, and not just an argument.

I look at dumping corn from two perspectives. Sometimes it's baiting, and sometimes people see it as supplemental feeding. In either case I don't like large piles of corn, because it attracts large numbers of deer. Large numbers of deer have a much larger chance of disease transfer. The second factor in the large bait piles are the people who's intention isn't so much to lure in five or six deer, or to feed animals during winter, but to lure as many deer as possible from anyone else and expect to be paid to hunt those animals.

The second perspective is that of a lone hunter who is simply trying to lure in a half dozen deer in the hopes of shooting one for himself or a family member.

The first perspective is disease and further commercialization (personal hogging) of a public resource. The second is a widely accepted but increasingly controversial hunting practice. I only offered up the five gallon idea as an idea for people to perhaps use as a compromise. If the disease issue is resolved ( I don't know if limiting bait would do it) then it is little different than using doe in heat scent. After all both are lures, with one offering food the other breeding. Yes, I have used Tinks #69 and Golden Estrus.

Currently my mind is open on baiting. I will watch what people have to say about it. Emotion on this issue will not be what makes up my mind. What will make up my mind is good solid data that hasn't been manipulated by a statistician with an agenda.

I notice some on here don't like baiting but think captive shooting is ok. I notice some on here don't like magnification in scopes (for muzzleloaders)but think captive shooting is ok. I notice some on here say they would never consider doing it (why) but think captive shooting is ok. We all have different perspectives and reasons for it. Those perspectives are formed by our life experiences. I dedicated 35 years of my life to working with wildlife. I owed hard work to the American taxpayer, not a few unscrupulous people that want to commercialize a public resource. In today's world if you run a grocery store or work as a carpenter the government tells you that your employees get paid overtime. The thousands of hours I worked in my career without overtime I didn't do for the wildlife exploiters, I did it for the resource and my fellow hunters which includes any man, woman, or youngster that walks afield with gun or bow. I hope the exploiters become extinct and our great great grandchildren can still carry firearms and pursue game for many years to come.

From my perspective the wildlife exploiters are much more dangerous than the anti hunters, or the anti firearms people. They will reduce the sport to the rich only and when numbers are low enough the groups against hunting will end it. Politicians see numbers of voters even before money. I am afraid our sport is destined to end and all we can do is postpone the end as long as possible.

I should add something that will perhaps surprise some people. Those who have sleeping facilities on their land and charge for it are entitled to that as much as a motel or hotel. Those that provide guide service are needed by some people. I have no problem with people who offer shelter or services.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Plainsman,

You forgot one. Many people consider hunting a foot on several hundred, rugged, very wooded, fenced acres with out baiting, more sporting than plopping a deer at 800 yards.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Plainsman,

Just had one other question for you. By the way I for one do hope to see you on the "other side". One day all this bantering will seem pretty trivial. Sure hope you have your reservation made, but also hope and pray neither you or I draw a tag for that season anytime soon.

Someone mentioned you attend Bible studies. I realize many people have used the Bible to justify many things. However I believe it is the final authority on all issues that involve ethics and morals. You have indicated you have well defined ethics in regard to this issue of fenced hunting. Just curious if you can back that with anything scriptural.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Just curious if you can back that with anything scriptural.


 Not at all. I base it on simply an innate sense of fair play (chase) with the animals we pursue. After all it isn't like the pioneer days when we hunted out of necessity rather than sport. Today we tell the general public that we are sport hunters. What sport would it be to play basketball against a team guaranteed to loose?



> By the way I for one do hope to see you on the "other side". One day all this bantering will seem pretty trivial. Sure hope you have your reservation made, but also hope and pray neither you or I draw a tag for that season anytime soon.


My reservations are made. The price for my ticket was paid in full 2008 years ago. Also, thank you for the kind words. I hope to see you there also, and I pray you find a silver lining in this cloud you think you are facing now. Best of wishes, and I mean that sincerely. Don't worry about drawing that tag 4590, death does not extinguish the light, it simply puts out the lamp because the dawn has arrived.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> What sport would it be to play basketball against a team guaranteed to loose?


I dont know, ask the teams in the NBA what its like to play against the Timberwolves.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

cwoparson said:


> If they support you and are in favor of your petition, you are linked whether you like it or not.


PRECISELY!

My foots getting sore kicking this dead dog.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> > you are linked whether you like it or not
> 
> 
> About as much as you and Hillary. I would guess if you matched notes with her that among those volumes of pages you would find one thing you agreed on. That should put it in perspective.


Bareback, let me know if you need any help interpreting that.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > > you are linked whether you like it or not
> ...


My god, talk about splitting hairs.

I also dont see him refusing to admit it. Is that it, do you refuse to "admit" to it, or do you really not see it?

Another difference is, your side is PUBLICLY sided (wether they admit it or not) with anti hunting organizations.

You state the following towards your opinion on baiting:



Plainsman said:


> Emotion on this issue will not be what makes up my mind. What will make up my mind is good solid data that hasn't been manipulated by a statistician with an agenda.


So why does emotion decide your opinion on "high fences"? And dont say you have put your emotions aside, because your sides entire agrument is geared towards pulling at the heart strings on John Q public. When John Q comes up to you at a sports show, at your booth, and asks questions, what is your tactic? You refer to these animals as wildlife, and im sure you elude to the fact that ALL of these operations are small enough to spit across. You "spin" it, and tell half truths to get the person to side with you, and you do this by using EMOTION.



Plainsman said:


> I dedicated 35 years of my life to working with wildlife. I owed hard work to the American taxpayer, not a few unscrupulous people that want to commercialize a public resource. In today's world if you run a grocery store or work as a carpenter the government tells you that your employees get paid overtime. The thousands of hours I worked in my career without overtime I didn't do for the wildlife exploiters, I did it for the resource and my fellow hunters which includes any man, woman, or youngster that walks afield with gun or bow.


What does this have to do with the topic, there is no relevant information towards the topic of high fence hunting here, but it carries alot of emotional weight. (FYI-Im not knocking what you have done or accomplished here, I believe its admirable.) But, at the same time, it is irrelevant information towards the given topic.

Im sure yourself, and others sided with you on this topic leave out facts such as that some of these operations are quite large, that not all are "spitting distance" sized. Im also sure you leave out the fact that these animals are NOT wildlife, that some of them are artificially inseminated, that all of them are born and raised in confinement, inoculated and protected against disease, have never seen the outside of the fence, and are in reality, no different than a beef cow, hog, chicken, or any other traditional domesticated animal. You exploit the fact that there are slip-shod operations out there (like ANY business), that have small enclosures, sick animals, bad fences, but you conveniently leave out the information about all the respectably run operations, you know, the ones with large enclosures, healthy animals, and well kept fences and facilities.

You say time and time again about the other side "muddying the water", "spinning" the information, and such. When in reality your side does EXACTLY the same thing, and does it much more publicly. The anti high fence movement is nothing but a conglomeration of half truths.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hey bareback don't tell me you are just an interested party in this debate. For a guy who has so many ethics in blackpowder hunting why are they lacking when it comes to captive shooting. Oh, ya, private property. That's a tired old story to hide behind.

News flash, I can use one measure for one hunting controversy and another measure for a different controversy. Talented little fellow ain't I? 



> The thousands of hours I worked in my career without overtime I didn't do for the wildlife exploiters, I did it for the resource and my fellow hunters which includes any man, woman, or youngster that walks afield with gun or bow.





> What does this have to do with the topic, there is no relevant information towards the topic of high fence hunting here, but it carries alot of emotional weight.


I didn't know I had to explain everything for you. You see when all taxpayers pay someone it isn't right that only a few reap the benefit. No emotion, I just don't like the theft of a public resource or a public funded effort going to a few who don't deserve anymore than john q public.



> The anti high fence movement is nothing but a conglomeration of half truths.


Ya, were all bad guys. That's highly intellectual debate. I give up.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Hey bareback don't tell me you are just an interested party in this debate. For a guy who has so many ethics in blackpowder hunting why are they lacking when it comes to captive shooting. Oh, ya, private property. That's a tired old story to hide behind.
> 
> News flash, I can use one measure for one hunting controversy and another measure for a different controversy. Talented little fellow ain't I?
> 
> ...


First off, there is an element of PERSONAL PROPERTY rights involved, these are NOT public animals were talking about, their someones PERSONAL property, bought and paid for. And as long as their dispatched with humanely, what does it matter if its in a chute, or a pasture? How is that a "tired old story"? Its a key component. The fact remains, they are NOT managed by our public game and fish, and they are NOT PUBLIC! You and I do not have equal opportunity at these animals as they are NOT a public resource.

How are high fences a theft of a public resource? After all, these are NOT wild animals. These operations arent going into the wild and taking animals out of it and putting them in a pasture, their buying them from other ranches or raising them themselves. How is that a theft of a public resource? Do these ranches get subsidies? I dont know, im sure they can and do. But EVERY farmer/rancher out there can get subsidies. CRP, perfect example. Gov't pays the farmer tax payer dollars to take land out of production, and the farmer can post the land keeping John Q public OFF THE LAND. How is that any different? Its not.

And finally, I never said you were a bad guy, or that your side is "bad guys", where did you get that idea? There you go spinning it again. What I DID say was that your sides public arguments are a collection of half truths.

And for the record, I am just an interested party. I really dont care if these operations go or not as I have nothing vested in them other than my time on here. I do sympathise with the operators that may get shut down though and possibly be placed under financial burden. 
What I am afraid of is if they do go, it will only fuel the fire of those that want to take far more.
You believe letting them remain in operation will hurt us, I believe that siding with those that want to shut them down will hurt us in the long run.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> How are high fences a theft of a public resource?


 Ah, I see where I didn't explain myself well there. I was talking about the pay hunting more than the high fence operations. They are to different animals aren't they? I agree that the high fence thing is much different. I was thinking in terms of those who bait with whole pickup loads of corn so the deer from all around are now only drawn to them, but more importantly drawn from others. This I consider exploiting the resource at the expense of everyone else. Often it is done more to exploit fellow hunters than the resource.

I would like to see hunters per capita in a state like North Dakota as compared to Texas where a lot of pay hunting exists. I worry about numbers dropping to low, and our sport becoming easy prey for the anti hunters.



> And finally, I never said you were a bad guy, or that your side is "bad guys", where did you get that idea? There you go spinning it again. What I DID say was that your sides public arguments are a collection of half truths.


I consider people who operate on half truths people who intentionally mislead. There is little difference between half truth and no truth. Half truth no truth the intent is still deception. Anyone doing that is as bad as people with no truth in them. That's why in my view they would be bad people. If you think I operate on half truth I would be no better than an outright liar.

On some of this I perhaps failed to be clear (like the public property) but I assure you I don't use half truth. There is no need. The public in great majority is against high fence shooting.

At the booths we have been operating, people heard from other people and then searched us out to sign our petitions.

There is no need to be misleading what so ever.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> The public in great majority is against high fence shooting.
> 
> At the booths we have been operating, people heard from other people and then searched us out to sign our petitions.


And why is that? Its not through hearing the complete story. I know first hand the rhetoric used to sway peoples opinion by advocates of abolishment, ive heard it with my own ears. The pictures that are out there, (one of which was posted on this site), the enclosure size argument (insinuating that their ALL small dinky little pens), the reference to these animals as wildlife (like they were plucked out of the wild off their mommas teet). If I knew nothing of the subject, I would probably take it hook line and sinker as well, and I would tell my buddies. But it wouldnt be because I heard the whole story. It would be because my emotions were played upon.



> There is no need to be misleading what so ever


So why the misleading public arguments by members of your side of this topic? And dont say these arent used, I have personaly seen and heard these reasons and tactics used.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Plainsman, I've always understood your position on high fence hunting and have never doubted your distaste for that type of hunting. I also find somne forms of hunting distasteful to my way of thinking but understand there are those that do not. I've never understood killing a animal just for their rack, horns or skin. To me it makes no sense to kill a majestic animal like a Bighorn sheep, Elephant and many other animals just as a trophy. But many others including some of my relatives live for that type of hunting. Ditto for hunting over bait. I don't like it, don't practice it but others find it alright so who am I to condemn them. I've never hunted deer just for their rack size. If I were lucky and took a buck with a huge rack that was fine and maybe icing on the cake but I was always just as happy to get a big fat doe for the freezer. I could go on and on about certain hunting practices that I disagree with but the point is those are my ethics and that doesn't give me the right to insist others live by them.

I don't know when hunting became to be called a sport. It has never been a true sport to me. I grew up when hunting put food on the table. Today when I hunt, I still hunt to put food in the freezer with few exceptions. Coyotes I hunt not for their fur but to keep their populations down so the rabbit and quail population stays up. I guess when I occasionally do prairie dog shoots that could be called a sport but for the most part I do the shoots to keep my shooting abilities up and to eradicate disease ridden vermin. So is hunting a true sport for me? Guess it could be as I do get pleasure from hunting but I get just as much pleasure in working up a accurate load for a rifle that others claimed could not be done.

As for high fence hunting, I saw the video in another forum of a lion being shot and charging the shooter. That video disgusted me to no end. I was actually cheering for the lion to make contact with the shooters. But, I don't look at that as high fence hunting but more like pen hunting and I believe there is a very big difference. To me that kind of operation should be shut down and banned but when we're talking about several hundred acres with a fence around the property that serves the purpose to keep private owned animals in and public owned animals out then I believe we're talking two different issues.

As I have said many times before, my issue is not with what you believe is unethical but the method being used to push those ethics onto others. The anti hunters don't gave a damn about yours or my ethics. They have their own issues and agenda. They will ride your wagon as long as it servers their purpose but as soon as they get the chance they will steal the wheels from your wagon, put it on theirs and tell everyone it is the same wagon. Those same people of the public you are counting on to pass this initiative will see it as the same and have no qualms about voting for the anti hunters fake wagon. I really believe that will come to be the case and then we all will begin to loose this thing we call a sport.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Well said cwoparson.


----------

