# ND High fence measure fails to make it to ballot



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

*Captive hunting ban fails to get on N.D. ballot*
Janell Cole , Grand Forks Herald
Published Tuesday, August 12, 2008

BISMARCK - There won't be a hunting measure on the November ballot in North Dakota.

Sponsors and opponents alike predicted the issue will be revived for a future election.

"There's no way we're going to let this slide," said the sponsors' chairman, Roger Kaseman, Linton, N.D.

Secretary of State Al Jaeger said Monday that he had to disqualify 164 signatures on the petitions that had been turned in last Tuesday because they were on incomplete petitions. That dropped the total signatures down to 12,751.

Sponsors needed 12,844.

Missing papers

Jaeger explained that each petition, while being circulated for signatures, needs several top pages containing the measure's complete ballot language, a brief description of what the measure would do and a list of everyone on the sponsoring committee. He said seven petitions were missing the list of sponsors.

"Somebody (collecting signatures) must have thought they didn't need it," he said.

The sponsoring group, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, will wait until after the Nov. 4 election and then regroup and try again, Kaseman said, even though any future effort would not be slated for another election until 2010.

The sponsors oppose the hunting of game animals enclosed in a fence, which they often refer to as "canned hunting," and their measure would have banned the practice.

Opponents of the measure, under the name Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights, defend their industry and refer to the practice as high-fence hunting.

Co-chairman Wayne Laaveg, Park River, N.D., who raises elk, said high-fence hunting is not the shooting of caged animals, as measure backers imply. The game animals are on acreage large enough to escape hunters.

Laaveg also said his group is willing to propose changes in the practice to satisfy the objections of the hunters' group.

"We're willing to compromise, but the other side said they absolutely weren't willing to compromise," he said.

Kaseman and Laaveg each accused the other group of spreading false information, and Kaseman said his group will pursue civil legal action against the property rights group for false advertising.

"They've been running ads against us, and the ads are outright deceptive and false," Kaseman said.

Countered Laaveg, "Roger Kaseman brought up a lot of misinformation that, to me, they're outright lies, to get people to sign."

Jaeger is still reviewing three other initiative petitions on income taxes, smoking and workers compensation.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This is on the Hot Page forum,where it probably should be.


----------



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

Moved over to Hot Topics...


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

> Co-chairman Wayne Laaveg, Park River, N.D., who raises elk, said high-fence hunting is not the shooting of caged animals, as measure backers imply. The game animals are on acreage large enough to escape hunters.


And the moronic statement of the week goes to... :eyeroll:


----------



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

dblkluk said:


> > Co-chairman Wayne Laaveg, Park River, N.D., who raises elk, said high-fence hunting is not the shooting of caged animals, as measure backers imply. The game animals are on acreage large enough to escape hunters.
> 
> 
> And the moronic statement of the week goes to... :eyeroll:


Ohh c'mon ! I'm sure they have documented dozens of cases where the animals have escaped. Right? :lol:

Every year I'm sure there are examples of animals that "escaped" hunters and are roaming wild and free across the native ND prairie. They've gone on to reproduce and start wild herds allllll over the countryside.

Or so you would be led to believe.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is an example:

I have had a friend who picked out a bull to shoot. Then he had to take a different bull because they could not get the bull he wanted into range or a clear clean shot on it. This was in a 1000 acre shooting pen. My friend was also in a wheel chair. He was supposed to go hunting for elk in New Mexico but got into a car accident so his family paid for this outting.

So instead of the word escape is should be evaded the hunters.

See how one word makes such a huge difference.......Like I have said about this whole measure......change the way they can advertise!!!


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> Co-chairman Wayne Laaveg, Park River, N.D., who raises elk, said high-fence hunting is not the shooting of caged animals, as measure backers imply. The game animals are on acreage large enough to escape hunters.


Curious... as my plat book only shows Wayne to own about ten acres. Though, what is likely a relative does have a couple hundred acres adjacent to him. Being somewhat familiar with that terrain I'm not sure an elk could evade a hunter indefinately on that particular parcel even if it had high fences which it doesn't appear to have .

When you consider many areas of the country where an elks range may cover 10s of miles of terrain even a 1,000 acre pen isn't very big. I've hunted deer that cover more area than that.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Since game evasion seems to be ethically important to those who oppose fenced game ranches, I'm sure they would enthusiastically support a ballot measure along the following lines:

Given that the skill of hunting is a learned skill, and that experienced hunters become better at taking game. It is only ethical that the people of north dakota recognize this fact by restricting a hunters ability to take game according to their past history of taking game. A state committee should be established that determines the legal means for taking game for each hunter based on their years in the field and their past success. For example, a waterfowl hunters ability to use such unethical devices as blinds, calls and decoys will be restricted based on that hunters past success. Another example, would be the restriction of the use of dogs in all upland game hunting. Any reasonably ethical hunter would realize that after some number of years using dogs you have now reached the point of having an unfair advantage over upland game birds and should now be restricted to hunting without the unethical use of dogs.

Now of course, I think such a measure would be ridiculous, but then again, I personally have a very high bar to cross before deciding to impose my ethics on others.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I personally have a very high bar to cross before deciding to impose my ethics on others.


If everyone felt that way we would be a nation without laws. Personally I like living in a country that we don't live in caves and worry about the neighbor clubbing us for some glass beads he is jealous of.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> > I personally have a very high bar to cross before deciding to impose my ethics on others.
> 
> 
> If everyone felt that way we would be a nation without laws. Personally I like living in a country that we don't live in caves and worry about the neighbor clubbing us for some glass beads he is jealous of.


So you think shooting an animal in a pen is morally the same as personal crimes against people. PETA thinks so too.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Walker don't stretch what someone says into something ridiculous hoping stupid people will read it and make the assumption. I made no distinction with animal or people. My point was if you don't have the guts to stand for something there would be no laws. 
Nice try on the animal rights part though. A divide and conquer tactic that seldom works when pointed out. You see walker I am as much a hunter as you, and have been since about 1954. So to make people think I am an animal rights type ---- don't give up your credability so easy, some day you may actually need it.  and I mean that as friendly advise, not a smart jerk.

For now it isn't worth arguing about. It should take us a couple months to begin the new process.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Don't let him fool ya!

Plainsman has a PETA flag next to his Nazi flag hanging in his garage!:wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dang I have been outed.


----------



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

MSG Rude said:


> Don't let him fool ya!
> 
> Plainsman has a PETA flag next to his Nazi flag hanging in his garage!:wink:


Even that one isn't as bad as his Democratic Party flag hanging next to a signed picture from Barack Obama!

8)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

R y a n said:


> MSG Rude said:
> 
> 
> > Don't let him fool ya!
> ...


Ouch! Lets see PETA, Obama ---- PETA, Obama

On another thread I have been waiting, and waiting, and no one will pick up on it. I said:


> Oh, I don't know, I wouldn't have to have Obama bin Laden start hacking my head off to know I wouldn't like it.


I was sure someone would correct me and say it is Osama, not Obama. Not all of my misspelled words are accidents. I wanted to say:

O*b*ama, O*s*ama, I just barely missed it. The only difference is a little *bs*


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> > MSG Rude said:
> ...


I saw it but I thot it was just a Fruedian mistake.

I love the response though!


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> Walker don't stretch what someone says into something ridiculous hoping stupid people will read it and make the assumption. I made no distinction with animal or people.


I stretched nothing. You are the one who compared what I said with human crime.



Plainsman said:


> My point was if you don't have the guts to stand for something there would be no laws.


If you don't have the guts to stand for something you will have no rights. I place a very high value on rights. As I have said before, obviously, laws must exist, but we all need to be very careful when passing them.



Plainsman said:


> don't give up your credability so easy, some day you may actually need it. and I mean that as friendly advise, not a smart jerk.


Don't worry; My credibility is in good hands.



Plainsman said:


> For now it isn't worth arguing about. It should take us a couple months to begin the new process.


I have no doubt, and nothing said or not said in here would have changed that fact.


----------

