# Why we need a ban on "Canned Hunts."



## KEN W

http://cgi.ebay.com/Whitetail-Deer-Hunt ... dZViewItem

The word "hunt " is used 6 times in the description.

You would think they would at least not use a picture with the fence in the background. uke:


----------



## Irish Mick

Definately not hunting.

I agree with you Ken, why on earth would they show the fence if they are trying to sell this as a legitimate hunt?

I don't think Cabella's sells a woven wire camo pattern.

I heard there will be a bill to ban game farms in ND this next session, what are the chances of that being successful?


----------



## Dick Monson

> what are the chances of that being successful?


 If North Dakotans make contact to their legislators for the bill it will pass. If they sit on the bench it will fail. Period. Barnes County Wildlife Federation has visited with our legislators on this issue a month ago.


----------



## parker_lipetzky

that kind of stuff makes me sick.


----------



## 4590

All the hoop and holler about game farms and I see your web site has several links to game preserves. You say you are going to get hunting preserves shut down in ND and you cant even get it off your web site. GO FIGURE.


----------



## shae1986

If I ever pay for or even go on a hunt like that, i would hope that one of you would grab a gun and shoot me.


----------



## boondocks

Its funny they say they do not guide their hunts unless you ask them. It would be pretty hard not to find a deer in a 40 acre enclosier. I sure hope you wouldn't need a guide.

Your weapon of choice" gun or bow". I'm suprised they don't add baseball bat to the mix. At that close of range you have to give the deer a little bit of a chance.

They definately gotta start doing something about these canned hunts. You would think that as many hunters(and I don't mean can hunters) that are out there that something could be done about this BS.


----------



## Dak

Disgusting. On this page you can pick your animal...
http://www.wisconsindeerhunt.com/2006%20CROP.htm

We definitely need to keep this out of NoDak. :******:


----------



## Irish Mick

*KEEP GAME FARMS OUT?*

I think we as sportsmen already dropped the ball on that, from what I understand they're already here and in large numbers. More than 100 at last count.

It not a matter of keeping them out anymore, it's getting them to go away now that we're stuck with them.


----------



## R y a n

4590 said:


> All the hoop and holler about game farms and I see your web site has several links to game preserves. You say you are going to get hunting preserves shut down in ND and you cant even get it off your web site. GO FIGURE.


The links you are likely noticing are auto generated by Google based on keywords. We don't necessarily control the ads they randomly display.

Chris doesn't intentionally display any game farm ads that I know of.

Ryan


----------



## Norm70

From Dak's website that he refered too:



> You may hunt with a gun, bow, handgun, cross bow, black powder gun, knife, spear, hand grenade...


Hand grenade? even if it a joke you got to be frickin kidding me. 
:******:



> After you get your deer or elk, we will field dress it, carry it out of the hunting area, skin it and quarter the meat for you. We have a taxidermist and meat processor on hand if you would like to take advantage of their services for an additional fee. Click here for meat processor & taxidermist info. If you don't want the meat or can't take it with you, we have many willing takers, so the meat will not go to waste. We also have a walk-in cooler to store your meat while you are here.


Do they hold your di** while you pee too? Idiots thats all i got to say uke: [/quote]


----------



## KEN W

Hunting deer with a hand grenade 

I'd like to see someone kill one of those bucks with a knife or spear......might be an even battle.Bring on Tred Barta.

$30,000 for a B&C 220 non-typical named Canyon.That's what I want......a huge named buck from a game farm. uke:


----------



## irish

The big problem is the people willing to pay that to kill a deer .Part of the reason is the hunting shows i bet 80% of the stuff thay show are caned hunts . I used to take people out for black bear not as a guide just 
because i ejoyed hunting them had the dogs and such . But when i had a
guy call and asked me to put him on a bait and let him film bears for hunting shows and he would pay $300.00 for two days of my time ,i new that the shows would have a negitave affect . What they were going to do was edit the fake film in with the show tape ( to make it more exciting ) boy stuff like that and kids watch that burns me up .

Irish


----------



## hornhunter

*"The rich...who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own exertions, these are the real enemies of game"* Theodore Roosevelt's Principals of the Hunt

These people who participate in canned hunts are sickening to my stomach.  Both those that slaughter and those that profit from the slaughter of that wonderful animal. Why are they so disrespectful to the game that us "real sportsman" cherish?

4590, maybe you could answer that question for me. Im not trying to be a smart a$$ either. I have read some of your past posts and it appears you do participate in canned hunts. Do you think it disrespectful to the animal that is killed on your ranch?


----------



## 4590

Ryan,

My guess is that there is some financial incentive to have the google ads, albeit random, scroll accross the page. My point is you guys say hunting preserves are so "unethical" but are here because of the financial incentive to sell hunts. How about the financial incentive to maintain this web site that supports "ethical" hunting but takes the money all the same. Why don't I hear an outcry from the readership to get these ads off. Believe it or not you are actually supporting and promoting hunting preserves right here on NODAKOUTDOORS. Like I say GO FIGURE!


----------



## 4590

Hornhunter,

I is once again the inability to grasp that we are in the livestock business. It is no more disrespectful than a cattle rancher taking his steers to the slaughter house.


----------



## 4590

Irish,

I see you have also taken the moral high ground in the hunting preserve debate. Yes we provide an excellent hunting experience for our clients, BUT we definitely don't chase wildlife with dogs. Talk about inhumane, have you everbeen chased until your lungs were aching and heart pounds out of your chest. Yep that is definitely humane ethical "hunting". I am being sarcastic, but hunting with chase dogs doesn't appeal to me anymore than what we do does to you. However as long as it is legal I will not oppose your sport. However I think the public opinion you guys are always so concerned about would work strongly against what you do.


----------



## Irish Mick

When did elk and deer become livestock?

Just because the Farmer's Union or some other group of jokers found a loophole and got elk classified as livestock that still doesn't make them the same as cattle.

Since this industry is so great and wonderful I guess we should round up all the wild animals out there and put them behind a fence...that way we can make a buck off them, and test them for diseases just like farmed animals...that'll keep us safe right?

There are far more negatives aspects to this game farm industry than positives.

Finally THESE ARE NOT HUNTS! Catching a trout in a tank at the state fair doesn't make you a fisherman, and neither does shooting an elk in a cage.


----------



## rowdie

The sad thing is that these city-guys thinks its real hunting when they buy a buck at a game-farm. They actually believe they're hunting when they let deer out in a high fenced area, and wait 2 days in a heated deer stand for it to wander by. Read some of the responses to Daks web site. :eyeroll:


----------



## Trapper62

First off, why is everybody (or most) logged in as guests? I wish the site would require a poster to be logged in to post comments.

Livestock - animals raised for food or other products, or kept for use, especially farm animals such as meat and dairy cattle, pigs, and poultry.

Yes elk and deer are classified as livestock, in ND they are considered "Non-traditional" livestock. I know quite a few individuals that have "non-traditional" livestock permits and raise Elk and/or buffalo, they sell the meat - but DO NOT sell hunts and have never claimed to sell hunts.

I purchase a buffalo every year from one individual because all my family eats for red meat is buffalo and venison. I shoot the buffalo each year, do I hunt it - NO - I shoot it because I do not want to haul a buffalo in my cattle trailer and I do not want to pay a fee to have a processor put it down. We gut it on the farm, again because I don't want to pay a disposal fee, call me cheap! We skin it, wash it and split it, than let the processor take over.

My point to this post is to watch how we speak. Game farm and hunting preserve are not interchangeable terms! Both may raise some of the same animals but they have completely different reasons for raising the animal.

Irish - how does the Farmers Union play into this? I think that you are just using anything that you think relates to farming in your analogy?


----------



## rowdie

4950

What you do can not be called hunting!!!! The one think I don't like about these sites is that they do let commercialized hunting advertise.


----------



## 4590

Irish,

I wouldn't call chasing down an animal with dogs hunting!!!!!!!! I say using dogs gives the hunter way too much advantage plus it is just plane inhuman and causes much undue suffering to wildlife.


----------



## 4590

Here is another issue that needs to be considered. First of all farmed elk are domestic livestock in ND. Deer are alternative livestock. There is a difference as far as the law goes. The state of ND has had a history of offering incentives to start new ag enterprizes. Many buffalo and elk producers received grants and low interest loans to help start their operations. I know of at least one hunting preserve that received a grant. So now if the legislature outlaws game farming after the state encouraged producers to invest in these animals, can anyone expect that the producers will just go away without either reimbursement for loss of their investment or a hefty law suit. Many of these producers have invested 10's even 100's of K in their animals and facilities. Maybe you anti's on this sight should start taking donations to help pay the bill should your effort be successful.


----------



## jhegg

4590,
How nice - you get free start-up money and then sue for shut-down money. How much are you dipping in-between?
Jim


----------



## Plainsman

> When did elk and deer become livestock?


Irish, that is a very good question. Chapter 3 State Jurisdiction over Wildlife, and Chapter 4 Federal Jurisdiction over Wildlife in Wildlife Law Enforcement Third Edition discusses this issue. Ownership of wildlife for game farms is a privilege and not a right. As a privilege there need be no compensation if the privilege is removed. It's a risk they knowingly take.

I would say that it will end in the future. When greed has reduced the number of hunters this type of hunting will be the first to fall for lack of political clout. Hopefully there will be enough hunters left to protect the sport, but who knows. I don't think these people care as long as they make their buck today. Whoever allowed them to obtain wildlife to begin with made a terrible mistake, however through public pressure that can be rectified.


----------



## bioman

The biggest issue that 4590 overlooks when these "Johns" pay their fee to harvest one of his animals, is that the animals have *been raised in captivity as livestock* and they *have lost or minimized their fear of humans*. All elements of fair chase have been removed due to this very salient fact. So he and the other producers can thump their chests about a lawsuit, but they will never win over the court of opinion, and I would guess even have a harder time having a judge overlook that fact.

I, for one, would love to see this issue go to court.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

4590 said:


> Ryan,
> 
> My guess is that there is some financial incentive to have the google ads, albeit random, scroll accross the page. My point is you guys say hunting preserves are so "unethical" but are here because of the financial incentive to sell hunts. How about the financial incentive to maintain this web site that supports "ethical" hunting but takes the money all the same. Why don't I hear an outcry from the readership to get these ads off. Believe it or not you are actually supporting and promoting hunting preserves right here on NODAKOUTDOORS. Like I say GO FIGURE!


Before you rant about something you have no idea about, I think you should at least understand how Google Ads work. Every day there's new ads coming and going, I don't have the time to filter every one out.

Please show me anywhere on Nodak Outdoors where there is commercial hunting advertised otherwise. I'll save you the time, THERE ISN'T. I have turned down dozens and dozens of commercial interests wanting to advertise here.

So before you criticise, at least understand what you're criticizing. If you have anything more on it, use PM's.

And you should at least let everyone know why you're so against fenced operations since you run an elk farm yourself.


----------



## Dan Bueide

A local example of what Bman is talking about (scroll to the bottom for video): http://www.thebisonranch.com/bisonht_testim.html

4590, you're right, there is certainly no risk the animal gets stressed in this environment. Heck, the ones right next to it didn't seem bothered either.

Me wonders: does the "hunter" get the choice of a simultaneous shot from the guide, or is that just SOP?


----------



## johnsona

4590 said:


> I wouldn't call chasing down an animal with dogs hunting!!!!!!!! I say using dogs gives the hunter way too much advantage plus it is just plane inhuman and causes much undue suffering to wildlife.


Right, because it's not like the high fence around your game farm is "way too much advantage" to the clients either. I really don't have a stance on hunting with dogs, but any animal being run with dogs is still 1000 times more "hunting" than any high-fenced game farm ever will be. At least the animal has a chance to get away.

I wish the owners of these operations would stop calling it hunting. It is shooting, plain and simple. They should just say "I've got some "clients" (not hunters) coming to shoot some of my "livestock."" At least then it would separate the practice from real hunting a little more.

I'm going to use this opportunity to remind everyone to call their state legislators and representatives and let them know how you feel. The process is already in the works, and if we all do our part, we can get this stopped.


----------



## DJRooster

My brother used to be the best hunter I knew when he lived north of Bismarck. Great waterfowl and upland game hunter. He left our state and moved to Minnesota. He happen to win a "high fence hunt" of an elk in a raffle. He had his "quality hunting experience" and when I asked him how it went he said, "It was a lot of fun." To which my only reply was, "you have been living in Minnesota too long.!" May he rest in peace for the brother I used to know has certainly died! To each his own, but....


----------



## 4590

Chris,

You are correct that I don't understand how google adds work. I would like you to fill us in. I am assuming this website gets some benefit from allowing he adds access here. If not what is the purpose of their existance. I am not against hunting preserves as you indicated, I just find it ironic that they advertise on your site.


----------



## gandergrinder

> Maybe you anti's on this sight should start taking donations to help pay the bill should your effort be successful.


Maybe operations such as yours should start taking donations for the irreparable damage you cause to the image and traditions of hunting. The hunting industry as a whole is worth a heck of alot more than all the high fence operations.

But I say F-it. As long as I get mine.


----------



## smalls

I did not write the following, but I thought it was pretty good.



> Funny to follow this arguement. When MT was trying to pass legislation with regards to game farms, I attended most meetings and testified at hearings, asking the state to make these operators pay all the costs related to the risks they are shifting to the citizens of the state.
> 
> I specifically asked if the legislators would pass a law, forcing the operators to provide a bond or get insurance that would indemnify the state for any damages incurred by disease, escape, etc. I felt the state should not bear the cost of these risks, just so a few people could satisfy the market for lazy *** blowhards who want to shoot a pet.
> 
> The counter arguement provided by the industry experts was that such requirement would make their operations economically infeasible, as the insurance would be prohibitively expensive.
> 
> Why would it be so expensive? Because the best risk analysts in the world - insurance companies who make a living analyzing, covering, and transferring risk - would not be willing to assume all the risk currently borne by the state (via lack of required bonding/insurance) without compensation. For them to assume this risk, they would require premiums equal to the potential liability with consideration of the likelihood of the potential liability becoming reality.
> 
> So those who say game farming has no risk, go try get insurance to protect me and the other citizens of the state. This insurance is available, but the cost would force you to charge a price that no one would pay. A true cost of doing business that you currently are shifting to the state
> 
> Lets face it, the risks associated with game farming cannot be insured and remain profitable, so the game farmers lobby their legislators to keep regulations low and allow the state and surrounding states take on those risks. I call this business welfare.
> 
> Welfare given to the biggest pissin' and moaning group of "supposedly" anti-government folks I have ever dealt with. How ironic that these people who claim to be such self-sufficient rebels need the government to cover their parasitic ***** and protect them from the true costs of operations. These fakes don't have the 'nads to pay their own way!


----------



## Dick Monson

The original idea was to go with an initiated measure here in ND, just like Montana, only more restrictive. The feeling was that ND'ans are as thoughtfull and reasoned as the folks west of us and that a measure to ban canned shoots would pass easily as it did in Montana. And it would.

When this "high fence" bill came forward as a draft, and will probably be re-drafted more, it resembled the Montana measure. There was-is no mention of bison in any way, shape, or form.

If the opponents of a canned shoot ban don't think they can live with it, then kill the bill.

If it is to be gutted by ammendments, then kill the bill. And it will go up the flagpole as a measure-with no ammendments.


----------



## 4590

Smalls
Lets see some proof of the risk that we cause the state that might exceed any other livestock in ND. We have a disease record here in ND that is impecable. I think the author, conveniently not mentioned, is blowing smoke as I would be surprised if any insurer would touch such a policy. Reason being how would you prove liability or that disease definitely came from an escape elk or deer when the disease risk in the wild herd is an unknown. This then would lend to the reasoning that farmed elk producers should expect the same coverage of protection from the state to cover its state owned wildlife. Lets see you impose the same risk assessment on all livestock producers as they share many of the same diseases. Once again the assmption is that we pose a risk to the health of wildlife. Truth is wildlife are carrying many diseases that are detrimental to all livestock and humans. We do not expect the state to be liable for such risks. The key to successful disease management, as has been going on for decades with other livestock, is a cooperative effort on both wildlife officials and livestock producers to minimize if not eliminate disease.

Bioman,

You are showing your ignorance as well. When a "hunter" enters our preserve on foot, I will guarantee that any elk in sight will disappear over the hills or into the woods. Even on my elk ranch where animals are bucket fed every day they are very wary of strangers. However that will have nothing to do with the law suit. I am talking about a suit brought by producers who were encourage by the state to start a business then after much investment and effort have the state take it away. They will expect to be compensated. Your imagination of how elk respond to hunters on a preserve will have little impact.

Plainsman,

ND Century Code: 36-25-06
Agricultural Pursuit. Farmed elk are livestock, and the products of farmed elk are farm products for the purposes of financial transactions and colateral. The raising of farmed elk is agricultural production and an agricultural pursuit.

I would not dispute your entry that the state has the right to allow and repeal the right to own "wildlife". As you can see in ND, as I have stated many times, farmed elk are not wildlife. The Century Code also specifically exempts domestic livestock from regulation regarding "wildlife". I can not predict what a judge or court would do, but I think it is a stretch to think you will shut down the elk business in ND without a costly law suit. I think other livestock producers and hopefully most NDs will see the danger of allowing the public to out law livestock production of any kind. Who's next, buffalo, pheasants, turkeys, hogs, sheep, goats, cattle ( all once considered wild, all carry disease that threaten wildlife, and all are still wild in some settings today).

I hear the arguement that game producers are just greedy and have little concern for wildlife. The elk producers I know did not get into elk for greed. I for one have always been intrigued by the animals and truly enjoy raising them. The producers I know take great pride in the health and quality of animals they raise. Sure we all hope to make some money in the business but what producer doesn't. If you knew the truth you would know that the elk business has been very lean for a number of years and most of producers still involved do it as much for the enjoyment as they do the money. Of course calling us greedy makes us a much easier target for criticism.


----------



## taddy1340

After visiting the link for the WI canned hunt, I felt compelled to email them to let them know how I feel. It can be said I feel this way about anyone that offers similiar opportunities.



> I recently came across a link to your site. It was
> brought up in an online forum about banning "canned
> hunts." As a resident sportsman of Wisconsin, I find
> your "services" apalling! The photos of your deer
> with a fence in the background is something that can't
> be described with language I'd be proud to say in
> front of my children. Further, the following quote
> from your site can be simply described as ridiculous
> and outrageous. "You may hunt with a gun, bow,
> handgun, cross bow, black powder gun, knife, spear,
> hand grenade... "
> 
> I imagine, that like me, you were introduced to the
> great outdoors of Wisconsin through a parent or other
> family member. Do you remember the thrill of taking
> your first whitetail deer in fair chase? It's an
> incredible feeling. Now, you've decided to "sell" the
> idea of hunting to your wealthy, lazy customers. How
> dare you call them "hunters!" I take offense to that.
> Nothing you offer resembles anything close to
> hunting!
> 
> I am ashamed your kind are allowed to operate in my
> home state of Wisconsin. You are leading to the
> destruction of our state's greatest outdoor tradition.
> 
> Will this email change your mind and desire to
> operate? Of course it won't, but at least I know that
> you are aware of how I feel about your "canned hunts."
> 
> I wish a Merry Christmas to your family in hopes that
> you see wildlife is a gift from God and in no way what
> you provide as "gifts" to your clients resembles
> anything pure or innocent as Christmas is intended.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Michael J. Taddy


----------



## Plainsman

CWD didn't get to Wisconsin by a Colorado Elk running wild. Like the oil companies telling us that the chances of having a spill are extremely low, the likely hood of elk or deer producers bringing CWD into North Dakota is low, at any given time. However, in the long run if we don't shut down game farms I would say it is inevitable, just a matter of time. Next year, the year after, or ten years down the road, but it will come, and it will be brought here by an unscrupulous breeder sneaking a good buy into the state.

You may run a tight ship, but look at the guy in Idaho that just lost Elk/Red Stag cross and didn't report it. You know darn well that there is at least one guy just like him in North Dakota, and he will be the problem.

Also it is just a matter of time until game farms are closed down. It will more than likely come when a judge, in reaction to an animal rights group, or some other organizations makes the decision that wild animals are not an agricultural commodity. The large ungulates that can no longer run wild like Buffalo, and the introduced species like pheasants may escape that judicial reclassification, but deer and elk will not.

When these pet killing farms are brought before the courts, and the average sportsmen will not take steps to support it the game is over. I anxiously await that day.


----------



## taddy1340

> Even on my elk ranch where animals are bucket fed every day they are very wary of strangers.


4590,

How can you look an animal in the eye while feeding them from a bucket knowing you're selling it to be shot by a client in a fenced in hunt? Don't give me the farmer argument either. I grew up on a dairy farm raising and milking cows. If you want to make comparisons to livestock, I would in no circumstance release a dairy calf in an enclosure knowing someone would go in there to shoot it! They are there to be milked and processed for meat at a later date. There are no smoke and mirrors to represent it any other way.

Do you have a website for your business? I'd be interested to view it to see how you represent your hunts and experience?

Mike


----------



## 4590

Dick,

Great spin, you are getting good at this. Here are the facts however for Montana. First of all it didn't "pass easily". The vote was 51 to 49. It likely would not have passed had all the voters been able to get to the poles as eastern Mont had a blizzard on eletion day. Mont is not like ND where we still do have common sense people that are producer oriented. Western Mont has had a huge swing to the left(mostly because of the influx of tree huggers from Cal.) and would probably out law a lot of priveledges you enjoy here. Eastern Mont did not support the ban but I know for a fact there were precincts that did not get one voter because of the weather. However the sad fact is it did pass and the livelihood of some good hardworking people was taken away with no compensation. Mont did not offer incentives to start elk ranches either as we have had here in ND.


----------



## 4590

Taddy,

Next time you have some spare time I suggest you go to a slaughter plant and stare into the eyes of the critters as they are standing in the kill chute. Every one of them looked into the eyes of the producer, with or without a bucket, at one time or another and today is their day... welcome to the world of production agriculture.


----------



## Plainsman

That's a gruesome picture you paint 4590. I don't think you helped your cause, you just made every other meat producer look bad. You might want to rethink your argument before it not only makes game farms look bad, but other animal production also. Maybe edit some things before those tree huggers you talk about spread the word. 
Please understand I am not provoking you this is friendly advise.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Kim

You know as well as I do that the major issue is not production agriculture it is killing fenced cervids. Have any of the lawsuits against Montana been successful?

trying to justify that as production agriculture is a pretty big spin in itself.

Not many Trophy Holsteins will fetch 20 grand so the shooter can hang the head on the wall.

Bob


----------



## taddy1340

4590,

Bob made my point...that's why I said don't even try the livestock argument.

I know it's difficult for you to see it our way as you have a personal stake in the canned hunt business, but your not doing yourself of your "industry" with your argument.


----------



## taddy1340

4590,

Again, I ask you to share your website so I can view it. I believe I've located it, but would like to know for sure.

The one I found lists the 10 reasons why one should use the outfitter. #10 states: "No over zealous game wardens. You will not be stopped searched or questioned at our preserve. You will get a shipping manifest to prove ownership of your trophy." #2. "You deserve success. Do you really want to hunt for a good number of years and never take a trophy elk. The success rate for a trophy elk in the wild is approx. 4% allowing 10 days of hunting, plus travel time. 96 hunters out of a hundred will go home with nothing."

These items are imperative to maintain the integrity of the hunt and to use them as excuses for canned hunts is unbelievable.

Still waiting for you to confirm your website.

Thanks...

Mike


----------



## Dick Monson

Whoa,


> #2. "You deserve success. Do you really want to hunt for a good number of years and never take a trophy domestic livestock?


__________________________________________________________

When Indiana banned canned shoots, game ranch opperators immediately began bombarding the state legislature to strenghten the


> domestic livestock


 provisions. No kidding. Sounds familiar. Within 60 days of the ban five of these opperations filed license applications to move into Ohio. And the lawsuit threat is nothing new either.
____________________________________________________________

*Game farm ruling favors I-143* (I-143 is the MT initiated measure)
By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian

Initiative 143 did not strip Montana game farmers of their constitutional rights by outlawing the hunting of captive elk, deer and other "alternative livestock," U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon has ruled.

Indeed, game farm owners have no "absolute or unfettered right to operate an alternative livestock ranch as they see fit," Haddon said. I-143 "advances legitimate non-illusory state interests in protecting Montana wildlife."

Haddon's nine-page ruling in U.S. District Court in Great Falls is the latest - but most consequential - in a continuing series of legal decisions upholding the ballot initiative passed by Montana voters Nov. 7, 2000.

*I-143 stopped the issuance of new game farm licenses, rendered existing licenses nontransferable and made illegal the shooting of game-farm animals for a fee.* Game farmers responded with a barrage of legal challenges, saying they had been wrongly stripped of their livelihoods and their constitutional rights.

Not so, said Haddon's ruling, which upheld the initiative and dismissed a lawsuit filed in federal court by game farmers Robert Spoklie and Kim Kafka.

Both men have other, similar lawsuits pending in state courts.

"Game farmers and their lawyers have been bullying us with frivolous lawsuits for the past two years," said David Stalling, one of I-143's staunchest advocates and president of the Montana Wildlife Federation. "This ruling is a nice vindication for what we've said all along: I-143 is regulatory, not a takings."

"This ruling was the biggie," he said Tuesday.

Sarah McMillan, an attorney representing the Wildlife Federation - which intervened in the lawsuit on the state's behalf - said game farmers "simply have no valid claims."

"The decision is fairly short and sweet," she said. *"There is no fundamental right to run your business as you see fit. A game-farm license is a privilege, not a vested right. It can be taken away or modified."*
The lawsuit contained seven separate claims for relief, six of which attacked I-143 on constitutional grounds (equal protection, commerce clause, due process, fundamental rights, vested rights and taking of property). In addition, it complained that Fish, Wildlife and Parks Director Jeff Hagener's enforcement of I-143 violated limitations on police power.

*Haddon ruled in the state's favor on all seven counts.*

"Montana has long recognized the capacity of the state in its police power to regulate commercial activities," the judge wrote. "I-143 is but an example of that recognized power."

"The record supports a rational basis for passage of I-143 in furtherance of legitimate state interests," he said.

*Assistant attorney general Chris Tweeten, who represented the state in the lawsuit, said Haddon is "the third judge who has ruled on these constitutional claims - and ruled there is no constitutional defect in I-143."*

"Sooner or later, the litigation on that question needs to come to an end," he said. At least three more lawsuits challenging the initiative's constitutionality are pending in state courts.

Tweeten said he will now argue that the constitutional claims have been resolved against Spoklie and Kafka, so they are not allowed to re-litigate them in state court.

The "takings" claim - which insists the state of Montana owes game farmers money for the diminished value of their property - will still be heard on the state level, as Haddon said the federal court cannot really render its decision until a state court has ruled on the claims.

*Haddon did, however, point out that "developed law" contends that property owners be compensated only if they are deprived of "all beneficial or productive use options" by the government's actions. In this case, game-farm owners still have hundreds of other possible uses for their property.*

*They simply cannot bring clients onto the property, charge them a fee and allow them to hunt the captive animals.*

While limited on the takings issue, Haddon's decision is significant because the Montana Legislature nearly threw out I-143 during the last session because of the claims, Stalling said. *"Lots of legislators were bullied and scared by lawyers from the game-farm industry. They were told the state would have to pay millions of dollars in takings penalties."*

"This ruling ought to ease legislators' fears," he said. "This is a pretty good sign that game farmers don't have much chance of getting this overturned."

Suzanne Taylor, one of the attorneys representing game-farm owners, said no decision has been reached on whether to appeal Haddon's ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Discussions were just beginning Tuesday afternoon, she said.

Spoklie did not return a telephone message from the Missoulian asking him to comment on the decision.

Reporter Sherry Devlin can be reached at 523-5268 or at [email protected] 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://search.mt.gov/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/ ... mit=Submit


----------



## bioman

> Bioman,
> 
> You are showing your ignorance as well. When a "hunter" enters our preserve on foot, I will guarantee that any elk in sight will disappear over the hills or into the woods. Even on my elk ranch where animals are bucket fed every day they are very wary of strangers. However that will have nothing to do with the law suit. I am talking about a suit brought by producers who were encourage by the state to start a business then after much investment and effort have the state take it away. They will expect to be compensated. Your imagination of how elk respond to hunters on a preserve will have little impact.


Actually, I think it is either your vanity, ego, or your perceived imagination that these elk somehow respond differently to a person holding a bucket of feed vs. a rifle in their hand. The fact is the animals have been raised and bred in captivity and they have or will lose their fear of humans. So spin it however you want, but your "industry" (and I use that term very loosely), will never be able to hide that fact.

Also, I believe you previously have stated on this website, that the only way you can make ends meet with your operation is to sell the hunts. I don't know of any commerce clause that says you are due a profit by selling a hunt aka your business model. Also, good luck in your lawsuit, the deck is stacked against you, as evidenced by the Montana lawsuit. And with any lawsuit, case law is hard to overcome.

Your industry is a nightmare for the best public affairs consulting firm. All it takes is one commercial of the worst of the worst your industry has to offer, and there are many examples. I previously stated, even with your public affair nightmare aside, the court of public opinion is against your industry, and finding a judge that will be sympathetic to your business model will be even harder.

Good luck in the lawsuit, you are going to need it and every bit of profit you get on these hunts.


----------



## Dick Monson

> Your industry is a nightmare for the best public affairs consulting firm. All it takes is one commercial of the worst of the worst your industry has to offer, and there are many examples.


Ah, that would be the Russ Bellar trial video. 
http://www.real-hunters.com/bellar-trial-video.cfm

The deer were premeasured, drugged, and proped up with sticks before being shot. Which is why they call it bambi-in-a-barrel.


----------



## Plainsman

Excellent video's if it doesn't make you sick. I forget, what was it over 80% of sportsmen do not support canned hunts? I think it's time to step up to the plate here in North Dakota. I will be calling many of our legislators. If you wish sport hunting to continue it's time to remove this cancer. Supporting it will make the general public perceive us all as psychotic killers.


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,

I have addressed the CWD issue several times before but maybe its worth tackling again. If you research you will find that the first major spread and possibly the origination of CWD can be placed squarely on the shoulder of CO DOW. Their unwise practices of capture and release of cow elk managed to spread it accross the divide in CO and who knows how far. The initial cases found in Bear Country and SASK domestic elk can be traced back to CO DOW.

It is convenient to blame game farmers for CWD in Wis. but the evidence is definitely not conclusive. There is alot of speculation including research material that may not have been properly disposed of at a University in Wis. There is the definite possibility that it was transported via the carcass of an elk or deer brought into the state by a hunter. There is conclusive proof that this can occur. By the way the only positive case here in ND was an elk carcass brought here by a hunter from CO. I agree CWD will most likely eventually find its way to ND but the most likely means will be a wandering wild deer or a hunter kill.

Then there is the case of CWD in New Mexico. The area where it has been found is over 100 miles from any game farm and I am not aware of any game farms in N M that have had CWD. Pretty hard to blame us for that one.

So pound the CWD issue to death but the evidence will not support your case. Elk ranchers have been very involved in research and the quest for solutions to CWD since it first reared its ugly head. Here in ND the elk growers began mandatory surveillance, meaning we test every elk that is killed for any reason, 8 years ago. You can verify this with the State VEt. We now have thousands of submissions and a relative risk factor of 99.9999999999999999999999999999% chance that we are clean. You can't get to 100. When we started testing 8 yrs ago we encouraged the G/F to also start testing and their response was - too expensive. (Same G/F that has $20+ million in reserves) By the way we have paid for most of the testing ourselves. Finally a few years ago as the wild situation crept closer they began testing. We also encouraged them to put a restriction on carcass imports from other state, especially CO. No response until the elk I mentioned previouly showed up.

So go ahead make your case to the public about how concerned you and G/F are about CWD. I think the record will speak for itself who really has taken the lead in the fight against this disease.

On another topic, and I also raised this one before, where is the outcry about the elk and deer in Theodore RNP and Sully's Hill. Are you going to make the proposed legislation apply to these facilities as well. They definitely have escapes from these"pens". I know for a fact they don't have the disease monitoring the elk ranchers have. I know they harvest elk from Sully's hill each year. And I have read how willing many of you would be to draw a tag for TRNP. In fact if you draw a ND badlands tag for elk that animal likey came from TRNP. If confinement of elk is such a crime, how about you get these facilities shut down, and then come after us. I know these are federal gov. facilities but lets hear the outcry and at least be consistant.


----------



## Plainsman

> On another topic, and I also raised this one before, where is the outcry about the elk and deer in Theodore RNP and Sully's Hill.


You sure are grasping at straws. 
Do you think you can find anyone but a game producer that would compare their facilities to Roosevelt National Park? How many game farms do you know that hunt inside something close to 100 square miles? Look at it this way the home range of a white-tail deer in the center of RNP would not come close to a fence. When I go into the mountains to hunt I am on foot and can not begin to cover an area the size of RNP. How long would it take me to walk from one side of your hunting enclosure to the other? I would guess I would measure it in minutes instead of days. 
If you are familiar with RNP you are also aware that the fences do not stop elk, that they come and go as they please. Elk in the parks throughout the Rocky Mountains also come and go as they please. Like the parks in the mountains RNP is just a portion of the area within North Dakota that now has wild elk. In other words following the theories of metapopulation, RNP is simply a source habitat within the Badlands range.
Granted Sully's Hill is smaller, but they are not crowded, and when is the last time they have imported elk into the area? Further, even though small, I would guess it is much larger than the areas used for canned hunts. Much larger.


----------



## taddy1340

4590,

Again, I ask you to share your website. I would like to review. Are you avoiding this or have you missed my 2 prior requests?

Thanks...

Mike


----------



## smalls

4590 said:


> Smalls
> Lets see some proof of the risk that we cause the state that might exceed any other livestock in ND. We have a disease record here in ND that is impecable. I think the author, conveniently not mentioned, is blowing smoke as I would be surprised if any insurer would touch such a policy. Reason being how would you prove liability or that disease definitely came from an escape elk or deer when the disease risk in the wild herd is an unknown. This then would lend to the reasoning that farmed elk producers should expect the same coverage of protection from the state to cover its state owned wildlife. Lets see you impose the same risk assessment on all livestock producers as they share many of the same diseases. Once again the assmption is that we pose a risk to the health of wildlife. Truth is wildlife are carrying many diseases that are detrimental to all livestock and humans. We do not expect the state to be liable for such risks. The key to successful disease management, as has been going on for decades with other livestock, is a cooperative effort on both wildlife officials and livestock producers to minimize if not eliminate disease.


One needs only to look at the decimation of the US population of big horn sheep to demonstrate the devastating impact of uncontrolled "livestock" on public wildlife populations. Big horn sheep populations may never fully recover from diseases spread by domesticated sheep throughout the west (a problem still encountered on public and private lands).

Now, you'll be quick to point out the difference of a free ranging population of domestic sheep to your elk in an enclosure. That is only valid if private populations of domesticated deer and elk are NEVER to escape. That, we know too well, is something that no one in your industry is can guarantee. There are "elk" (that have tested positive for red deer, but I won't get into genetic purety right now) from an Idaho rancher that are likely now residing in three different states. Even in North Dakota we have had several instances where captive deer have escaped and comingled with wild populations. 4590, have you EVER had an animal unaccounted for? Have you ever found wild animals in your enclosures comingling with your domesticated, vaccinated animals?

Your ranch is like an elementary school. Where kids are shoulder to shoulder and illnesses manifest themselves like the buildings were giant petry dishes. When those kids leave the school they infect their parents, who bring that illness to work. Your haystacks are public water fountains, metaphorically speaking. So YES, your animals DO pose a risk to wildlife.


----------



## Dick Monson

And a little bit more from around the world; thanks Dak.
http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=33172


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,

let me know if I am wrong, (as if you wouldn'), but I believe the fenced game preserve area of TRnP is about 20 square miles. I also don't know the latest number but say their are 600 to 800 elk in the preserve. thats a density of 30 to 40 per square mile and greater than what we allow in our preserve. May be deer don't range that far but elk have been known to range hundreds of miles. And if a season were held in the preserve the fence would definitely be an advantage and all you guys would definitely apply for a tag. You are also right that the fences don't hold the elk. So you have concentrated elk numbers escaping with NO disease control or parasite control and contaminating the wild. Again where is the outrage.


----------



## huntin1

4590 said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> let me know if I am wrong, (as if you wouldn'), but I believe the fenced game preserve area of TRnP is about 20 square miles. I also don't know the latest number but say their are 600 to 800 elk in the preserve. thats a density of 30 to 40 per square mile and greater than what we allow in our preserve. May be deer don't range that far but elk have been known to range hundreds of miles. And if a season were held in the preserve the fence would definitely be an advantage and all you guys would definitely apply for a tag. You are also right that the fences don't hold the elk. So you have concentrated elk numbers escaping with NO disease control or parasite control and contaminating the wild. Again where is the outrage.


So, help me understand how you can compare farm raised elk that are definately concentrated in a small area with fences that contain them, in an area much smaller than TRNP, and fed by hand, often with commercial feed, with wild elk that are living off the land in a wild state, free to come and go as they choose.

I guess I just don't see the comparison. :roll:

huntin1


----------



## 4590

Smalls,

The answer is NO I have NEVER had an elk unaccounted for. If I did I would be out of compliance with the NDBOAH. I have never been out of compliance and we are required to submit an inventory annually to prove it.

I am in total agreement that ALL livestock pose a disease threat to wildlife. Keep beating that drum as I am sure all the livestock producers in ND will jump on board your cause. The truth is that livestock producers in ND in cooperation with NDBOAH have done a great job of monitoring disease and keeping it in check. But that threat will never go away as long as people like you want to get a hamburger once in a while.

Hintin1

Have you ever been to Jackson, Wy and seen the Nationa Elk Refuge herd in the winter. It is an awsome sight. I suggest you never draw a tag for that area though because those elk have been fed hay just like cattle all winter by humans and have lost all their fear so would be no challeng for you. The herd is also riddled with Brucelosis so I don't think you would want to eat one either. Of course I suppose you would still consider that a fare chase hunt so go for it.

As far as the video posted here. I am not sure what the preserve owner was trying to accomplish but I can guarantee that sort of thing has not nor ever will occur on our place. If the owner was violating regs in his state then he should face the music. HOWEVER! First of all the narrator does not give out all accurate information. But then you would expect some fluf from someone trying to sway public opinion. I think you also need to realize that the same emotional result that video tries to produce can be used against hunting in general. Right now you guys are attacking game farmers showing a man shooting a deer in a pen. I will guarantee that PETA can get the same result following around some slob deer hunters during season and filming what goes on in the field. A clip of hunters shooting off legs and wounding deer especially killing does with fawns would have the same affect on the non hunting public. How about a clip of a deer wounded by an archery hunter living for days or weeks with an arrow in it. On an elk hunt to Wy one time I was in a group of hunters when four cows came out of the woods and a war broke out. It almost litterally made me sick as I watched that gorup pound those cows until they all four tipped over. The stark reality is killing a beautiful animal will be repulsive to nealy all non hunters. You may sway the public today but I am certain you tactic will come back to bite you. I have heard all the arguements and statics about the how we are turning public opinion against hunting. Just remember ALL hunters are a minority and just like MOntana it will only take 51% to put an end to all hunting.


----------



## Bob Kellam

4590 (Kim)

Therein lies the problem, You call it hunting and try to spin it into a hunting experience, it is killing an agricultural commodity not hunting. Or is there a difference between your production agriculture and others?

Bob


----------



## rowdie

4950

In ND we have a constitutional ammendment to assure our HUNTING rights forever.

What happens in canned hunts is NOT hunting. You just don't understand.

How can hunters shooting 4 cow elk in the wild make you sick up while feeding elk out of a bucket, only later to have a guy shoot it in an enclosed high fenced in area doesn't. Maybe if those guys would have paid you $500 each it would not have made your stomach so ill.


----------



## Irish Mick

4950

Slave owners in the south were not compensated when their illicit trade was outlawed, why should you be any different.

That's what's wrong with this country, anytime something goes wrong someone files a lawsuit.

uke:


----------



## bioman

> And if a season were held in the preserve the fence would definitely be an advantage and all you guys would definitely apply for a tag.


Wow, 4590 you are really getting desparate and grasping at straws when you use the Theodore Roosevelt National Park as an example of a hypothetical fenced hunt. You, of all people, know that you CANNOT hunt on National Parks, as it would literally take an act of Congress to allow for this type of hunting. Nice try :eyeroll:



> You are also right that the fences don't hold the elk. So you have concentrated elk numbers escaping with NO disease control or parasite control and contaminating the wild. Again where is the outrage.


For those of you who don't know, an Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared for management of the elk herd. And guess what, CWD is among the primary concerns. Nice try again :eyeroll:

For those of you interested, you can read more here
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome ... ctId=10833


----------



## 4590

Bioman,

Sorry if I haven't stated my position clearly. My point is that a majority of the readership of this site would love to draw a tag for RNP where elk density is greater than our preserve, where I keep hearing how its not hunting because its too easy. You are correct it would take an act of congress but it could happen as it is allowed in other national parks like Grand Teton NP. I am totally in favor, it is a simple common sense way to manage the herd and give many more ND hunters opportunity to bag an elk. Then there is Sully's Hill that is less than 3 square miles and they feed the elk just like we do and harvest a few every year just like we do. But no one seem to care about that. Its not grasping its just the truth.

Why would I care that there is an EIS in works for the elk in TRNP. That just makes good sense and why wouldn't it include a consern for CWD. This is not CO where your DOW has managed to spread it all over the state. However it should be a concern if these elk are to be moved anywhere. This herd has not the needed testing to establish a clean health record. There is no indication that they brought the disease when they came 20 yrs ago but before they are shipped anywhere we need to know the health status of the herd. I believe the herd has had some testing for bangs and TB. I have also been told the herd has been purity tested many years ago but public requests for the results have been denied. You don't suppose this "wild" herd could have some red deer markers? It sure produces some nice bulls though.

I also just read where the state of Tennessee will be bringing in another shipment of elk from Elk Island National Park in Alberta. Now I have heard at nauseum how game ranchers are responsible for spreading parasites and disease around the country. No one can prove that but we are the easy target. Here is a shipment of elk from an enclosed park that cannot possibly have the health satus we have on most game farms, likely has had no parasite control, and yet will be shipped not to an enclosed game farm but released into the wild. But I will guarantee if CWD shows up in TN we will get the blame. Rocky Mtn. Elk Foundation is once again sponsoring the move and I would bet there will be little if any opposition on this site or any other.


----------



## Bob Kellam

*4590 wrote*



> Sorry if I haven't stated my position clearly. My point is that *a majority* of the readership of this site would love to draw a tag for RNP where elk density is greater than our preserve, where I keep hearing how its not hunting because its too easy


Really a majority?? and you get your statistics from where?



> You don't suppose this "wild" herd could have some red deer markers? It sure produces some nice bulls though.


Where would they get these Red Deer markers if they are not native to North America. HMMmmmmm lets see were there any genetic engineering experiments done by the elk farming industry to increase profits. Was there an escape from an Alternative Livestock facility or did the Bearing Sea freeze over again a allow them to migrate unbeknownst to us dumb uninformed yokels.

You keep trying to justify your high fence operation by stating facts and figures about elk issues in many States. Why are you reluctant to have your operation/industry in ND stand alone on its own merit?

Convince me that it is such a great benefit to me to have high fence killing operations in ND.

Bob


----------



## Bob Kellam

Sorry but this is perhaps the lamest argument I have ever read in support of canned hunting.

What kind of wire do you use to fence in a fish? J/K

Bob
............................................................................................................

*Editorial -- Big game farm bill should be pulled*
*The Dickinson Press*
Published Friday, December 15, 2006
Fences of various types crisscross the state's rural landscape like a giant jigsaw puzzle, serving to identify property boundaries, contain livestock and meet other needs of property owners.

Inside these fences wildlife abounds - pheasants, partridge, coyotes, fox, grouse, ducks, geese, deer, antelope, elk, moose, fish, various other birds, big horn sheep and as we've been made more aware this year, even mountain lions. Legally hunting upland game and big game and fishing in accordance with state regulations in rural areas is a longstanding tradition in this state and in many others.

In the past 10 to 15 years, more landowners in our state now charge for access to their property to hunt the wildlife that lives within their fence lines. These landowners aren't outfitters or guides, they simply own the land and are charging for access to it, which they legally have a right to do.

North Dakota Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, now comes with a bill for the upcoming legislative session to ban new big game farms in the state, particularly "elk farms." The bill also would bar someone from passing on a license to own an elk farm and would bar landowners from bringing in hunters to shoot elk or deer inside a fenced area.

Mathern's bill isn't taking into consideration the history and tradition of hunting in this state. As we stated above, residents and nonresidents, family members and friends, have long hunted inside fenced areas of landowners for upland game and big game and also have fished inside these fenced areas.

You can believe if Mathern's bill even gets a sniff of interest, elk growers will say the state then needs to create legislation for "waterfowl farms," "pheasant farms," "grouse farms," "moose farms," etc., and elk proponents would be right to say so.

This bill is simply bad legislation that throws consistency regarding game and fish management, along with landowners' rights, out the window. As a result, the bill should be pulled from consideration.


----------



## Plainsman

I agree Bob that is totally absurd. It's hard to believe there are people that cerebrally challenged, but I'm happy they are. It will make passage of the bill that much easier.

4590 please take note. I notice you point out the terrible things other people do (open fire on four cow elk making you sick) thinking that justifies what you do. All you have accomplished is to blacken your own eyes and those you hunt with. I have not heard a good argument from anyone for canned hunts. I would say it's over except for the whining.

If I was you I would sell off fast while you can. Or the old cliché get out while the getting is good. I would guess there are other states where it will still be legal so you will loose nothing but the low lives willing to pay through the nose to shoot Bambi off the bottle your holding. I'm not knocking you personally with this statement, but the people with the lack of conscience willing to do it. Of course you share a portion of the culpability.


----------



## taddy1340

Bob K,

That is a helluva an editorial :eyeroll: I didn't see an author for it so I assume it was written by the editorial staff?

I cannot believe someone would compare line fences to those used in canned hunts. They say ingnorance is bliss...

Mike Taddy


----------



## Dak

Yes it appears to be from the editorial staff.

I sent my view to newspaper.

In regards to the below editorial you printed on 15 Dec 06. You refer to the "history and tradition of hunting in this state", you are 100 percent correct...North Dakota has a long history and tradition of FAIR CHASE hunting. Killing big game animals in a high fence, livestock operation has absolutely nothing to do with this tradition. In a high fence, livestock operation, where the livestock just happen to be tame big game animals, there is no fair chase involved. There isn't a hunting license involved. You don't need one to kill livestock. There is no hunting involved. There is no chance of escape involved. There is killing involved. These operations have nothing to do with hunting. Therefore, Sen. Mathern's bill doesn't negatively impact the long "history and tradition of hunting in this state" upon which you base your argument. The bill enhances the tradition.

Lt Col (ret) Al Webster
Gladstone

Editorial -- Big game farm bill should be pulled
The Dickinson Press
Published Friday, December 15, 2006
Fences of various types crisscross the state's rural landscape like a giant jigsaw puzzle, serving to identify property boundaries, contain livestock and meet other needs of property owners.

Inside these fences wildlife abounds - pheasants, partridge, coyotes, fox, grouse, ducks, geese, deer, antelope, elk, moose, fish, various other birds, big horn sheep and as we've been made more aware this year, even mountain lions. Legally hunting upland game and big game and fishing in accordance with state regulations in rural areas is a longstanding tradition in this state and in many others.

In the past 10 to 15 years, more landowners in our state now charge for access to their property to hunt the wildlife that lives within their fence lines. These landowners aren't outfitters or guides, they simply own the land and are charging for access to it, which they legally have a right to do.

North Dakota Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, now comes with a bill for the upcoming legislative session to ban new big game farms in the state, particularly "elk farms." The bill also would bar someone from passing on a license to own an elk farm and would bar landowners from bringing in hunters to shoot elk or deer inside a fenced area.

Mathern's bill isn't taking into consideration the history and tradition of hunting in this state. As we stated above, residents and nonresidents, family members and friends, have long hunted inside fenced areas of landowners for upland game and big game and also have fished inside these fenced areas.

You can believe if Mathern's bill even gets a sniff of interest, elk growers will say the state then needs to create legislation for "waterfowl farms," "pheasant farms," "grouse farms," "moose farms," etc., and elk proponents would be right to say so.

This bill is simply bad legislation that throws consistency regarding game and fish management, along with landowners' rights, out the window. As a result, the bill should be pulled from consideration


----------



## zogman

Good Job Dak, :thumb: Let us know if they respond to you. :beer: 
Thanks for taking the time and effort to set the record straight.


----------



## Mr. Lee

4590,

The thing you have to remember is that almost every one of these guys who are oppossing you.......would participate in a canned hunt.....if their dad wanted them to.

Just look at all those who oppose guides....but would throw all their beliefs out the window if their dad wanted them to go on a guided hunt.

People are hard to figure out!


----------



## Plainsman

> The thing you have to remember is that almost every one of these guys who are oppossing you.......would participate in a canned hunt.....if their dad wanted them to.


That's a stretch from someone going with a guide because his father wants to. There might be one or two on here, but the vast majority would not go on a canned hunt. I would guess most fathers know them better, and themselves would not participate. Nice try with the spin though. I actually think you know better. So what kind of animals do you have high fence hunts for?


----------



## Bob Kellam

Dak

Thanks for stepping up to the plate, Nice work!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*And from the International front.*

...........................................................................................................

*South Africa will ban canned hunts in 2007*
By Clare Nullis
Associated Press - Dec. 14, 2006

The hunting of lions and other big cats bred in captivity purely to die at the barrel of a gun will be outlawed under legislation which enters into force next year, the South African government said.
CAPE TOWN, South Africa - The hunting of lions and other big cats bred in captivity purely to die at the barrel of a gun will be outlawed under legislation that comes into force next year, the government said Wednesday.

The Department of the Environment said the new regulations will make it illegal for anyone to kill large predators raised in an enclosed reserve to blunt their survival instincts.

It said it would also ban the shooting of lions, cheetahs and leopards in a "controlled environment," where hunters had an unfair advantage over the beasts, as well as forbidding the killing of tranquilized animals.

"The department shall never condone unacceptable hunting practices &#8230; including the so-called canned hunting," it said.

The proposed laws were drawn up following three years of consultations with hunting industry and conservation groups.

South Africa is famous as home to the Big Five - lion, leopard, rhinoceros, elephant and buffalo.

Its flagship Kruger National Park attracts hundreds of thousands of camera-toting visitors annually.

Some 9,000 privately owned game farms and other government-run reserves also offer visitors a taste of the wild.

South Africa has become a choice destination for those willing to pay a high price to take home a prized trophy.

The TRAFFIC wildlife trade monitoring network said that in 2004, 190 lions worth an estimated $3.3 million were hunted in 2004 by foreigners.

Hunting is an integral part of South African life because of its cultural traditions and importance to the economy.

Environment Minister Marthinius van Schalkwyk is an avid hunter.

But a government panel set up as part of revising the law found horrific examples of abuse, including the widespread use of predators born and bred in captivity.


----------



## KEN W

Give me a break Mr. Lee.....hunting with a G/O with my father is a one time experience with WILD ANIMALS.Hunting with a G/O isn't even in the same ballpark as a canned killing.

What you should have asked is.....would any of you shoot,I can't use the word hunt,a big game animal on a game farm,inside an enclosure with you dad?????I don't think anyone who said they would go with a G/O one time would say yes to that. :eyeroll:


----------



## BigDDL

Just my 2 cents&#8230;.

If someone wants to raise any animals whose species are native to ND-fine with me. This includes elk, deer, pheasants, etc&#8230; However I think the Legislation needs to pass a bill prohibiting any such operation in ND from using the terms "hunt, hunting, fair-chase, guide, game, wild, trophy, Boone & Crockett, Pope & Young, scoring, etc&#8230; in any of their advertising, no matter whether the ad/website is viewed in ND or anywhere else. Instead they should be required to clearly inform the viewer in a disclaimer (similar to that used by the Surgeon General on cigarettes) that this is a livestock operation, you may harvest an animal, and that all animals are raised as domestic animals and may not be considered as wild or fair chase game in any legal sense. All persons interested in harvesting one of these animals should be required to display their proficiency (to USDA officials or another such government agency) with their weapon of choice before the harvest, after all, this is livestock and the animals must be killed humanely.

Farms that raise animals other than birds, specifically farms that raise elk, deer, sheep, etc&#8230; must be double fenced. At no time ever should animals have less than one fence between them and the outside. Large blaze orange individually numbered tags should be permanently affixed to both ears of the animals and must remain there even during the harvest and may only be removed by the taxidermist, processor, etc. If animals were to escape the owner must immediately report this to Game and Fish before any recovery attempt can be made, and the fines should be substantial. The owner has the right to recover their animals within 14 days. However while doing so they cannot trespass on private property without written permission. Also during these 14 days the animals are fair game for any landowners or hunters that may come across them and the owner may not interfere or harass any persons attempting to harvest these animals. Any animals that have these ear tags are allowed to be harvested at any time of the year, regardless whether the species is in season or not. Also wanton waste laws would not apply to these animals due to fear of disease. After 14 days all claims to the animals by the owner are automatically forfeited, but they may still be held responsible for any damage/disease these animals may cause.

I could go on and on, but I think I'll stop ranting here&#8230;.


----------



## MRN

DAK,

Very nice work!!

Canned hunts, guides, and their shills are a pox on the countryside.

M.


----------



## rowdie

Mr. Lee  My dad would never have went on a canned hunt. He might have hired a guide to hunt elk in the mountains, but never paid for access or a canned hunt. You must be from a city to even think in such a manneer, or been raised around guided canned shooint farms.

BigDDL

Pheasants are not native to ND, but elk are! Raising wild animals as livestock needs to end now. Not just elk and deer, I'm for eliminating all the pheasant farms too! We need to ban all canned hunts, including small game! If they wasnt to shoot to kill, let them shoot/hunt a cow or a pidgeon.


----------



## Mr. Lee

> Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:23 am Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Give me a break Mr. Lee.....hunting with a G/O with my father is a one time experience with WILD ANIMALS.Hunting with a G/O isn't even in the same ballpark as a canned killing.
> 
> I see hardly any difference in a guided hunt and a game farm hunt.
> 
> In both cases the "hunters" are called clients. You pay money so you can kill something without doing anything yourself...except pulling the trigger.
> 
> Hardly a strech. In fact....in some cases....guided hunts are probably easier than some canned hunts.
> 
> If can throw away your beliefs for a guided hunt.....why not for a canned hunt?
> 
> They are basically the same thing. No experience or skill needed to be successful! Just pull the trigger when they tell you to.


----------



## 4590

Some of you guys keep harping on the "hunting" issue. I have addressed this rant before as well. Fact is if you start limiting the scope of what some folks call hunting you will eliminate a number of activities and management tools that people enjoy. Hunting with dogs and baiting are just a couple. Bottom line is, and last time I checked, we are still under ART. I on the Constitution of the US and freedom of speech still applies. Now if you can copywrite the word "hunting" and give it a specific meaning you may have a case so knock yourself out. Until then we will call it hunting, harvesting, shooting, killing, slaughtering or whatever we choose. I just like to call it payday.


----------



## Irish Mick

4590,



> we will call it hunting, harvesting, shooting, killing, slaughtering or whatever we choose. I just like to call it payday.


And that my man, is why you make most of the people on this site sick.

Case closed


----------



## djleye

> I just like to call it payday.


 uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke:


----------



## KEN W

djleye....from now on those aren't slaughter houses in West Fargo......they will now be called....

Hunting Houses :bs:


----------



## djleye

I'll put in for a tag!!


----------



## 4590

I knew my "payday" comment would get reasction. It just goes to show that for some of you the real issue is not "hunting ethics" as you would like us to believe. It is acutally jealousy, for if not the fact that we make a profit off our business would not be the issue, it would be the image, as I have heard so many times. I don't think anyone here would deny a rancher his income, but the "payday" comment really proves my point.

In regard to double fencing, I agree whole heartedly. I would like nothing better than to increase protection of my investment from the disease found outside the preserve. I don't think the sheep ranchers will be too enthused though. BUT until the G/F can establish that the wild deer and elk herd are TB Accredited, Bangs Free, and CWD monitored to the level we are inside the fence, the burden of expense will have to be on them.


----------



## djleye

The fact that you are bragging about selling a public trust is what makes people sick. Jealous.........I think not!!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## always_outdoors

> I don't think anyone here would deny a rancher his income,


Then ranch....prostituting the state's resources is NOT ranching.

There are hundreds of farmers/ranchers out here in ND that are making a living without having to "collect" money for birds or big game.

Although there isn't any research, it seems to me that the only ones that are guiding and outfitting are those that had plenty of money to begin with and did quite well before they decided to do some "charging for access". I have yet to see a poor g/o. Most have elaborate home(s) and plenty of toys to go with it.


----------



## rowdie

A typical rich boy city boy response. Jealously :eyeroll:

I'm sure some people are jealous of the fact that farmers and ranchers drive new pickups every year or two, and that they have first shot at access to their and most neighbors land. But if you thick we're jealous of the canned hunt industry, I'm sorry, if just plain disgusts us.

In "real" hunting, there are no guarantees! When the city-boys come out and pay big bucks, thats what they want, a guarantee. They want everthing handed to them on a silver platter.

I see this as more and more about the rich guy vs. the hard working local guys with jobs. Whats the advantage of living in SD and ND if you can't take advantage of the hunting opportunities. When the local guys are totally pushed out, and can't hand down any traditions. You'll see more and more of a divide between landowners and the townfolk.


----------



## huntin1

4590 said:


> Hintin1
> 
> Have you ever been to Jackson, Wy and seen the Nationa Elk Refuge herd in the winter. It is an awsome sight. I suggest you never draw a tag for that area though because those elk have been fed hay just like cattle all winter by humans and have lost all their fear so would be no challeng for you. The herd is also riddled with Brucelosis so I don't think you would want to eat one either. Of course I suppose you would still consider that a fare chase hunt so go for it.


4320,

No, I've never been to Jackson WY and seen the elk herd you speak of. But then we weren't talking about those elk, were we? As far as I know, those are still wild elk that are able to run if the choose to, unlike the elk on high fenced operations where they can run only a short distance before hitting a fence where they are shot by the guys who pay you for the privilage.

I would not consider a "hunt" on your "ranch" and would not consider "hunting" the Jackson WY herd either as it is not what I would consider a "fair" chase hunt. However, before you presume to know what I would do in any circumstance you should perhaps get to know me.

huntin1


----------



## Bob Kellam

*See article below*

*Kim Wrote*



> *I am confident that North Dakotans are smarter than to be duped by a faction of radicals that have taken it upon themselves to put game farmers out of business because they want to "protect wildlife" from a disease that originated in the wild and probably will be in the wild for many years*.


Can you prove that CWD originated in the wild? or was it first reported in "captive" Mule Deer?

How many of the people reading your essay know that CWD can and does sit dormant for +/-5 years before showing symptoms, and that other similar prion diseases in sheep show that they may persist in the environment for at least 16 years.

_Source: University of Wisconsin-Madison
More about CWD research at UW-Madison Scientists have confirmed that prions, the mysterious proteins thought to cause chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer, latch on tightly to certain minerals in soil and remain infectious.

The discovery that prions stay deadly despite sticking to soil comes as a surprise, because while many proteins can bind to soil, that binding usually changes their shapes and activities. _

Is it coincidence that CWD is showing up in the wild in areas where the disease has been confirmed in captive herds? or did the wild animals infect the captive animals? and can you prove it without question either way?

Much of the negative press you refer to would go away if you could prove to us that the risk to the genetics and health of the wild herds in ND were safe from contamination at our expense and for your profit. Canned hunting has also generated much of the negative press and you conveniently left that out of your essay. and CWD seems to always get thrown in. (I do not agree with throwing it in in every case because we are to the best of our current knowledge CWD free in ND).

There are far to many uncertainties associated with CWD to blindly accept the fact that our wild populations are safe.

Facts without question
1. CWD has been and continues to be found in Captive herds of cervids
2. CWD has been diagnosed in wild populations
3. CWD in wild populations is often in near proximity to infected captive herds
4. You do not know with indisputable certainty that captive herds in ND are CWD free while alive.

CWD IMO is the weak but associated link in this debate you know from our previous discussions that ethics is my issue but if you want to talk about CWD and pump a lot of sunshine you will be called upon with other facts conveniently left out of your message.

BTW the essay is well written but as you chastised the media about bias you seem to be using the same tools.

Regards

Bob



> Elk Program Still a Bright Spot in Agriculture
> Domestic Elk Industry can Survive if Negative Reports Cease
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> CANDO, N.D. - Will elk ranchers face the same demise as the emu? Well, with a willing accomplice in the media, there are many who would hope so. I am greatly disappointed with a publication like Agweek that has published numerous reports over the last several months about the problems with chronic wasting disease in deer and elk but has not made any effort to interview producers to see if there is any positive news in regard to this issue. Certainly, the disaster of depopulating elk herds in Colorado is news but how about the positive aspect that the industry now is free of the disease and should have a bright future?
> 
> My wife and I started looking for alternative ventures about six years ago to supplement our farm income. We researched several and decided that elk ranching looked like an industry with great promise. We started small and began to learn how to manage an elk heard. Today, we have about 100 head and certainly the industry has had some struggles, but we have no regrets.
> 
> Negative press
> 
> One of the most frustrating aspects of this new venture is the continual barrage of negative press. Contrary to the implication of most print media, elk are a very healthy and hearty animal with very few disease problems. Certainly, CWD is a major concern, but more damage is being done to our industry by the press than the disease itself. Often, the press that we receive is authored by someone with a bias, which results in false assumptions and inaccuracies that are reported as facts. Case in point, the Mar. 18 issue, page 27, it was reported that "CWD has infected elk ranches in North Dakota." This is absolutely incorrect.
> 
> Four years ago when the first diagnosis of CWD were reported in other states, the North Dakota Elk Growers Association, in cooperation with the North Dkaota Board of Animal Health, began a mandatory surveillance program. This required the testing of brain tissue from every elk older than 12 months of age that was killed or died for any reason. To date, we have submitted more than 500 samples of which none has been positive. This is not the first time that North Dakota has been implicated in this issue. I call that shoddy journalism. Something that serious and devastating to an agricultural industry should not be reported when the facts are readily available from the Department of Animal Health.
> 
> I could quote numerous other incidents where game farms are implicated in the spread of CWD. The fact is that every case of the disease that has occurred on a game farm can be traced back to either the Department of Wildlife research facility in Colorado or to likely contamination from the wild.
> 
> It is this type of reporting that swayed the public to pass an initiative in Montana to basically put game ranchers out of business. I am confident that North Dakotans are smarter than to be duped by a faction of radicals that have taken it upon themselves to put game farmers out of business because they want to "protect wildlife" from a disease that originated in the wild and probably will be in the wild for many years.
> 
> The domestic elk industry has endured a severe problem with CWD. With the help of an indemnity program, the disease has been cleaned out of our domestic herds. I believe elk production still is one of the bright spots in agriculture today. We can beat disease with good science and good sense; we have done it before with many other such problems. I'm not sure we can survive the media if they continue to report distortions with impunity.
> 
> Editor's Note: Wagenman is a Cando, N.D., farmer, past president of the North Dakota Elk Growers Association and current member of Elk Advisory Committee to North Dakota Board of Animal health.


----------



## Dak

Borrowed from Doug Leier's blog. I love this quote...

"In Montana we said it's a bad idea to pen up a bunch of elk, feed them oats and have fat bankers from New York City shoot them while they've got their heads in a grain bucket." Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer

:beer:


----------



## Dick Monson

The Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Resource Agencies

Resolution of the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency Directors relative to the threat of Chronic Wasting Disease to native free ranging cervids,

WHEREAS:

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is known to occur in at least 13 states and two Canadian provinces, including a recently documented case in the Northeast region,

Free-ranging cervids, particularly the white-tailed deer, are an important and valuable wildlife resource held in public trust by various state governments,

CWD is a fatal transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (disease of the central nervous system) affecting the family Cervide, for which there is no known cure,

CWD can only be tested by examining the brain or lymph node tissue of a dead animal,

CWD has a poorly understood transmission and incubation period,

CWD can be passed between captive and wild free-ranging cervids,

The possession and movement of captive cervids constitutes the most serious known threat for CWD transmission to the regions free-ranging deer resource.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Directors of the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies endorse:

1. Based on our current level of knowledge and understanding of CWD, *the elimination of captive cervid populations in the Northeast.*

2. Until that goal is achieved; and notwithstanding regulated research facilities:

A prohibition on the creation of new facilities allowed to possess captive cervids.

A prohibition on the importation and intra-state movement of captive cervids.

Implementation of mandatory state-sanctioned CWD certification of existing captive cervid populations, and,

The requirements of fencing that prevents contact between captive and free-ranging cervids.


Now there are some Natural Resource Managers with stones. Refreshing.


----------



## Dak

SWEET!!! :beer:


----------



## jhegg

*"4320"* :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

Oh man, huntin1 - that was a low blow! Are you sure you didn't mean 25-20?

btw - excellent shot! :beer:


----------



## KEN W

Here's another one....10,000 starting bid for a 200+ buck... uke:

http://cgi.ebay.com/TROPHY-MONSTER-WHIT ... dZViewItem


----------



## Dak

uke:


----------



## bioman

Mr. Wagenman's Top 10 reasons to hunt to livestock (these are direct quotes from his outfitting site)...

#10. No over zealous game wardens. You will not be stopped searched or questioned at our preserve. You will get a shipping manifest to prove ownership of your trophy.

#9. You can overcome the time constraints of short, state imposed seasons. Book your elk hunting trip early and have your pick from Oct 1 through Feb 15. We allow you to hunt with a bow or rifle, when, "Your little heart wants to!"

#8. Efficient use of time. Don't use all three weeks of vacation on one elk hunting trip. Hunt at KMO, your elk hunting outfitters, and still have time for other adventures.

#7. AVAILABILITY, How long have you tried to get an elk license in a good unit? Some of us will never get drawn. Come to KMO and get the trophy bull you deserve.

#6. No OVERCROWDING, you and your partners will be the only ones at our preserve, we do not book more than one party at a time.

#5. TROPHY BULLS, the only way you will take a small bull, is by your choice. We let you hunt. We have big bull elk.

#4. Health Concerns, our bulls are tested and retested. North Dakotas' elk are under one of the most stringent testing procedures in North America.

#3.Improve and help the wild elk herd by taking hunting pressure off of a natural resource that has been pushed to it's limit.

#2. You deserve success. Do you really want to hunt for a good number of years and never take a trophy elk. The success rate for a trophy elk in the wild is approx. 4% allowing 10 days of hunting, plus travel time. 96 hunters out of a hundred will go home with nothing.

#1. GOOD STEWARDSHIP! Make good use of your time and money. When you compare costs of hunting in the wild and at KMO. there is not much difference, we may even cost less, but we guarantee a 100% success rate. Hunting at KMO will provide you with a great hunting experience. You will not feel, " fenced in". The elk have been in the preserve long enough to know where to hide and are experts at eluding your best elk hunting tactics. WE HAVE FUN! We enjoy being out there, helping you get your TROPHY.


----------



## IdahoBison

I think that many individual's distaste for what others may or may not enjoy cloud's their judgement. We are are talking about an individual going out and harvesting an animal. These individual that you speak of call them "hunts". Most of you probally have a problem with that label. It appears the natural response to that is to shut them down. The problem with that is you will shut down every elk, deer, and buffalo ranch not just the ones that offer "hunts". Trapper62 you won't be able to go to that buffalo farm and slaughter your buffalo that your family enjoys because somebody will be worrying about you dressing up in camo and so it will be made illegal. That hard working, honest rancher that served you so well will be forced to sell all his animals to a few plants(who already own them $1000's)that buy and slaughter buffalo, elk, and deer or "hunt" ranches from out of state. If you are offended by their label of what they offer and feel they are falsely advertising then hold that individual accountable for his actions. Do not assault the honest men and women of these farms and ranches.


----------



## eyes to the skies

anyone imo who endorses supports or participates in a canned hunt is not a hunter or sportsmen!period! this crap is affecting the way our society defines a hunt and it is sickening!period! the "reasons to hunt in the ranch" listed above, prove that its not hunting. it describes what it is. go out at your leisure and pick your trophy and whack it. sick, that is not what hunting is. hunting is putting your own time and effort in gaining experience along the way that helps you become successful, and if the love for hunting keeps you going you come upon your trophy of a lifetime!! i dont understand how anyone who takes a "trophy" from a "canned hunt" can truly appreciate the animal or the "hunt"! i am not totaly against raising elk or deer as a livliehood but don't sell hunts!! :******:


----------



## Savage Rookie

I was just wondering who at SCI i could talk to about geting a scoring systems set up for herfords, cause MAN we have got some trophies!

:lol:

Paige


----------



## Plainsman

> I'm sure some people are jealous of the fact that farmers and ranchers drive new pickups every year or two,


I'll bet the farmers and ranchers like to see that statement. I have nothing to say, but for how funny it is. So is farming /ranching really tough, so tough you can't make ends meet, or is it lucrative? Maybe this sad story we have been hearing isn't true. 
Rowdie, you just made farmers and ranchers look like rich boys. A new pickup every year or two? Maybe you should reconsider how you debate. What you just said was that the farmers/ranchers who talk about how bad it is are not telling the truth. 
So now that you have a grasp of what you really said how are you going to spin it? This debate about high fence hunts is like having a duel with an unarmed man. 
Example: "I like to call it payday"


> I knew my "payday" comment would get reasction.


Sure he knew. What he realized after getting jumped on is that what he said was integrity be damned as long as I get a buck out of it. 
This is great. The more some of you argue, the more you make our point. Thanks.


----------



## Bob Kellam

GAME RANCHING: A bugle call for elk
By Susanne Nadeau
Herald Staff Writer - 12/26/2006
PARK RIVER, N.D. Wayne Laaveg lives in the house his grandparents built in 1926.

The sturdy, white, two-story farmhouse is nestled snugly under sheltering trees in the middle of Walsh County, several miles west of Park River.

"I haven't wandered too far from home," he said during a recent interview at his farm.

Like his grandfather and father before him, Laaveg makes a living on the family farm. It's what is raised there that's a little unconventional.

He grew up around cattle, but when it was his time to take over farm operations, Laaveg said he wanted to try something a little different.

"I thought elk would be kind of neat," he said.

Laaveg is one of 116 licensed elk and deer producers around the state of North Dakota, but he's concerned that hopes for his elk farm could dissipate in the coming legislative session.

A bill to restrict elk and deer producers has been drafted by Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo.

As drafted, the bill first would take away the "domestic" status farmed elk have in North Dakota, plugging them into a larger group of privately owned, cloven-hoofed ungulates called "nontraditional livestock" that includes white-tailed deer, mule deer, moose, antelope, mountain sheep, mountain goat and reindeer.

Then, the bill would eliminate any shooting of elk, deer and other nontraditional livestock behind fence lines.

After 2007, it would require that the state cease issuing new elk or deer ranching licenses. The licenses already issued would have to be renewed annually, with nontraditional livestock ranchers paying licensing fees based on the number of animals they raise. The license could never be passed on to anyone other than the original licensee.

The bill basically "takes away my right to raise these animals," Laaveg said. It's a bigger issue for him than losing the elk he's worked so hard to secure on his grandparent's farm.

Desire for more

Raising elk became a part of Laaveg's life in 1997. In the 10 years since he started his operation, it's grown to 12 head of elk and a desire for more.

For him, the choice of raising elk was multifaceted. Marketing opportunities were varied and plentiful, Laaveg said.

Elk can be raised for slaughter. Elk growers boast that the animal's meat is some of the healthiest out there, as lean as buffalo meat and tastier than wild game.

Laaveg started his operation by harvesting the elk's velvet antlers, which, once reduced to powder form and converted to pills, are believed to promote good health. When Laaveg started, a pound of velvet antlers could sell for up to $100. An average 2-year-old bull can produce 9 pounds of velvet, while a mature bull may produce 30 to 40 pounds per year.

"Every year, the antlers gain more weight," he said. "You could have an annual income off of that animal."

The demand for velvet antlers has declined, dropping the going rate per pound to less than $20, Laaveg said.

So, Laaveg sells an animal occasionally for slaughter. And, over the past few years, he's sold a couple of his animals to a private hunting reserve in nearby Edinburg, N.D., he said.

Laaveg works outside the farm at Park River Implement LLC, but the animals provide a supplemental income that he relies on.

Right now, he has several cows and bulls separated into different pens with 8-foot-tall fencing. His hope is to expand his operation to 40 or 50 head, he said.

Laaveg enjoys taking care of the animals, and nothing quite can compare to their beauty and bugling calls, he said.

Still, he added, "It's hard to get fired up about it when everyone is trying to shut you down."

Reasons for bill

Mathern said the proposed bill was brought about by the insistence of numerous hunters and hunting groups, who believe the elk farms have the potential to harbor diseases, such as chronic wasting disease, that may infect animals in the wild.

That fear is unfounded, elk growers say.

As a domestic animal under North Dakota law, farmed elk fall under heavy regulation by the North Dakota Board of Animal Health, according to Beth Carlson, deputy state veterinarian.

"As with other livestock," she wrote in a recent newspaper letter to the editor, "the board cannot require how the animals are used." So, some elk are used in hunting, or for meat, antlers or other novelty.

North Dakota law requires that any farmed elk older than a year that dies for any reason be it shot or struck by lightning be tested for chronic wasting disease. More than 4,400 farmed elk have been tested in the state since 1998, with no sign of CWD in the population.

Regular tuberculosis and brucellosis tests also are performed each year, according to Carlson.

Farmed elk also fall under strict importation requirements, and elk and farmed deer routinely are denied entry if their health status is unknown or in question, Carlson said.

Mathern said his bill would limit any genetic modification elk producers do in order to get animals with larger antlers.

Still, the biggest reason behind the proposed bill is concern about the "big game" hunting operation run on the farms, he said.

"It's putting a stop to shooting elk and deer that are fenced in and calling it a 'hunting sport,'" he said.

'Russian roulette'

Shawn McKenna, with the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, an organization for "sportsmen, sportswomen and wildlife," according to its Web site, said there are more "negatives involved with this industry than positives."

"We appreciate the situation; some landowners are out there trying to make a living off the land they are paying taxes on," McKenna said. "We have great resources here in the state. It would be a shame if those resources would be jeopardized by someone out there looking to make a buck."

Vern Kading, a Fargo hunter and sportsman who's a vocal proponent of Mathern's bill, says elk and deer farming essentially is "playing Russian roulette with our wildlife." With similar efforts being approved in Wisconsin and Montana, passing the bill would be a "logical step for North Dakota."

Kading said he's more concerned with deer than elk, because if any elk escapes from a farm, it's easier for people to notice, at least on this side of North Dakota, which has few wild elk.

"When you take the wild deer population, it's huge all over the state of North Dakota, pen-raised deer could go unnoticed," he said. "It could be devastating to the wildlife out there."

Despite the state disease testing, Kading contends that diseases are harbored in big game operations. But concern with big game outfits in North Dakota goes beyond disease control, Kading said.

"I don't think it's ethical to have an animal penned up and shoot it and claim it as a trophy," he said. "That's not sport, that's going out and shooting a duck in the pond." Deer and elk are animals "that should be running free," he said. "They need a lot of open space."

The response

But farmed elk aren't tracked and cornered to be shot in small spaces, according to Ernie Mau, the president of North Dakota Elk Grower's Association.

Mau has been in the elk business near Tolley, N.D., for nearly 20 years. The SilverWing Ranch Big Game Hunts is a business venture Mau and two of his sons have worked on together. Mau, after starting with four animals in 1988, now has more than 600 head of elk on his ranch.

"The only reason I got into them was because I liked the meat," Mau said. "It goes on from there."

The business isn't a means to jeopardize wildlife, he said. And it doesn't mean a "canned hunt in a 2-by-2 pen" either, he added.

"We can make it as easy or as hard as the people want it," Mau said.

Calling it both a hunt and a harvest, Mau said the endeavor is for people who don't have the ability to take two or three weeks to shoot an elk, and it's for people who have physical disabilities that prevent them from trekking through rough land and bushes to find an animal. Even when it's on Mau's 600 acres of hilly, wooded land, tracking an animal that's just been wounded still is difficult, he said.

But no matter what, he stressed, the animal is tracked down on his property and harvested.

"Any way you want to look at it, they are dead," he said. "Three days later, that animal is not laying in some slough someplace dying."

In raising elk, the driving force used to be the antlers, Mau said. Now, it's the hunt.

"Sure, you can try to make it on meat, but that's not where it's at with these bulls," he said.

Depending on the animal, Mau said, he can make $650 to $15,000 per hunt. That's money brought into North Dakota that ripples out from Mau's ranch and into the surrounding communities, he said.

"People come from all over the U.S. and from other countries, (such as) Norway, to harvest animals here," he said. "It's good for the community, I think. It brings people in."

If the matter comes down to an ethical one, whether it's right to shoot an animal in an enclosed area, that's a concern that can spread to any other animal producer across the state, according to Duane Bring, who runs an elk farm with his son, Richard, near Galesburg, N.D.

"What is the difference between shooting an elk on the farm and shooting a (hog) in its pen for slaughter?" Duane Bring said.

As it is, the way the bill is written, most elk farms gradually would phase out. Laaveg says that's unjust.

"I don't like the idea of someone coming in and telling me what to do with my property," he said. "It all boils down to property rights. Legally, I should be able to do what I want, as long as it's humane. I don't know how one group can impose their ethical thoughts onto others."



> I don't know how one group can impose their ethical thoughts onto others."


Maybe he should try to follow his own advise.

Bob


----------



## Plainsman

I think that landowner rights are an ideal invested in the past. The old cliché a mans home is his castle is expanded upon by many to a mans land is his kingdom. They do feel this way, and don't realize that society imposes many restrictions. As an example they can't run all over spraying DDT anymore. Many other restrictions are imposed on landowners, and all the rest of us too. 
The more radical behavior like murder and rape were first dealt with by even primitive societies. As societies advanced more laws were put in place to protect individuals for the greater good of society. Environmental laws are an example of new laws in the past few years. Today we are more sophisticated socially and scientifically and understand that what someone does hundreds of miles away may inhibit our standard of living or even our health.
I think the only reason society hasn't rebelled against game farms is because most people don't even realize they exist. In today's society they will not be able to survive when brought to light. There is no doubt in my mind that their end is coming rapidly. Many people I tell about these operations are appalled that they exist.


----------



## Dick Monson

> In raising elk, the driving force used to be the antlers, Mau said. *Now, it's the hunt*.


The non-traditional livestock growers have assured the sportsmen's organizations numberous times that canned shooting is a small part of profitable opperation. "Now, it's the hunt" seems closer to the truth. Seems like we are getting past the watery gravey and down to the meat and potatoes. Ethics, disease, genetics.


----------



## Dak

Plainsman,

I have experienced the same thing. When most folks, hunting or non-hunting, first learn of these so called hunts they can't believe they really exist.


----------



## Irish Mick

The 2007 legislative session is only days away. Will sportsmen and women stand up and speak out against this industry when the time comes?

You can bet game farmers will be up there holding there hats in their hands telling the legislators how they are out there just trying to scrape together a living and they're providing hunts to the handicapped among other garbage.

Sportsmen who oppose this need to get involved. I know I will be there, will you?


----------



## Dick Monson

> Sportsmen who oppose this need to get involved. I know I will be there, will you?


You bet. :beer:

Bob K. listed the contact info for your legislators on the Legislative Forum. Drop them a line, a call, an email, now on the issue. Introduce yourself and let them know what you are thinking. Rest assured the opposition is already rolling. Every arguement against this bill has been over ruled in Montana courts.


----------



## IdahoBison

> "Wildlife "ownership" must be held exclusively in the public domain, as a public resource, with no private-sector interference. The corollary is that wildlife must never become private property." Geist


The facts are there is private ownership of wildlife already. All cattle, chicken, and turkeys have some gentic link to wild ancestry. The 'tame' cattle we have today were bred from captured wild stock. Selective breeding and cross breeding have changed these breeds to better suit today's uses. The elk producers today work within those very same principles but in an industry that is in it's infant stage. Banning shoots or 'hunts' in North Dakota will lower the value of North Dakota stock and the same animals will be shot in neighboring states but with a relatively small portion of the proceeds going to ranchers and the surounding commmunities of North Dakota. That money will be moved out of North Dakota and into other states. This has been apparent in Montana as Bulls were shipped to Idaho and Utah for $1800 each and prior to the ban the ranch would recieve $7000 for the bull. These dudes would fly in to Montana airports, stay in Montana motels, and buy Montana merchandise. Now there is nonthing but the same bull being shot in another state because men wish to judge an animal as domestic or wild. I think the truth everything starts wild and people domesticate.


----------



## Plainsman

That may happen for a couple of years, but eventually these hunts will be banned nation wide. I think most game farming will disappear when exposed to the light of day. If it was me I would get out now while they are still worth something.


----------



## KEN W

IdahoBison said:


> "Wildlife "ownership" must be held exclusively in the public domain, as a public resource, with no private-sector interference. The corollary is that wildlife must never become private property." Geist
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are there is private ownership of wildlife already. All cattle, chicken, and turkeys have some gentic link to wild ancestry. The 'tame' cattle we have today were bred from captured wild stock. Selective breeding and cross breeding have changed these breeds to better suit today's uses. The elk producers today work within those very same principles but in an industry that is in it's infant stage. Banning shoots or 'hunts' in North Dakota will lower the value of North Dakota stock and the same animals will be shot in neighboring states but with a relatively small portion of the proceeds going to ranchers and the surounding commmunities of North Dakota. That money will be moved out of North Dakota and into other states. This has been apparent in Montana as Bulls were shipped to Idaho and Utah for $1800 each and prior to the ban the ranch would recieve $7000 for the bull. These dudes would fly in to Montana airports, stay in Montana motels, and buy Montana merchandise. Now there is nonthing but the same bull being shot in another state because men wish to judge an animal as domestic or wild. I think the truth everything starts wild and people domesticate.
Click to expand...

Sorry....but ethics trumps your economics every time.


----------



## IdahoBison

My point is that you have not gained anything. You have not prevented or changed the method of how that animal was killed. The result is economic loss to the state of North Dakota and it's communities not the end of high fence hunting. The residents and ranchers of North Dakota are the only losers in the end.


----------



## bioman

Idahobison,

Are we to infer that you are a livestock producer that allows shooting of your stock for profit???


----------



## IdahoBison

Bioman,

I don't know very many commercial livestock producers who don't. Whether it's a commercial slaughter, a custom on farm slaugher, or the slaughter of an animal in a fenced hunt these animal are generally killed with a gun. It's been the best way to do it for a long time and I don't think that is going to change soon. I have friends in North Dakota, some that raise elk, bison, and deer. There are some people in this country believe that hunting is wrong. Are we to shut down all the hunting seasons because they have that belief? I would like to believe that we can agree to disagree and non-hunters just don't participate in that industry. I don't see these "canned" hunts as any different. They are just a custom farm slaughters labeled another way. If you don't like it don't participate!


----------



## Bob Kellam

Related story.

*Disease spreads east of Sundance, to Muddy Gap*

By BRODIE FARQUHAR 
Star-Tribune correspondent Thursday, December 28, 2006

Two deer hunting areas and two elk areas have joined Wyoming's list of areas where chronic wasting disease has been detected.

*The Wyoming Game and Fish Department, after its fourth year of chronic wasting surveillance, has added deer hunt area 4 east of Sundance, deer hunt area 11 in Niobrara and Weston counties and elk hunt areas 16 and 22 in northern Carbon County -- all adjacent to areas where the disease had been previously detected.*

Chronic wasting disease is a fatal neurological disease that affects deer, elk and moose. Animals show no signs of illness throughout much of the disease's course. In terminal stages, animals typically are emaciated and display abnormal behavior. There is no confirmed link between chronic wasting and any human illness.

The spread of the disease this year has been more incremental -- not the big jump represented by discovery of the disease in three hunting areas around Thermopolis and on the Wind River Indian Reservation last year.
Game and Fish personnel collected 4,653 deer, elk and moose samples in 2006. Of those, 116 animals tested positive for chronic wasting -- 88 mule deer, 13 white-tailed deer and 15 elk.

"We're concerned that CWD continues to spread to new parts of the state, but it's not a surprise that CWD was found in these areas," said Scott Talbott, assistant wildlife division chief with Game and Fish. "It has previously been found in hunt areas adjacent to these new areas... We plan to continue monitoring the disease throughout the state in future years."

Lloyd Dorsey, a Jackson-based representative of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, expressed relief that the disease hadn't extended farther into western Wyoming, but said this was no time for Wyoming to relax.

"This is an excellent opportunity to start phasing out the elk feedgrounds, so that when chronic wasting disease does reach western Wyoming, it won't decimate those elk herds," Dorsey said.

Some conservationists worry that the feedgrounds constitute a breeding ground for disease, keeping herds continually infected with brucellosis. The arrival of a fatal disease such as chronic wasting, they say, would spell disaster for wildlife that frequent those feedgrounds.

Game and Fish officials say closing feedgrounds would result in the deaths of large numbers of elk and that the threat of chronic wasting doesn't justify such closures.

Approved this year, the Wyoming Game and Fish plan for the management of chronic wasting does not call for closure of feedgrounds, but does ban private feeding of wildlife, noting that "there is evidence that CWD is more efficiently transmitted when animals are concentrated."

The plan's response to the arrival of the disease on the feedgrounds of northwest Wyoming would be to intensively monitor the wildlife population; remove those that appear to be sick; maximize the area of feeding to reduce animal-to-animal contact; reduce the number of feeding days to disperse the elk; and take any other actions to decrease elk concentration, consistent with other necessary wildlife management needs and feedground practices.

Samples were collected this year by Game and Fish personnel at hunter check stations and meat processors throughout the state as well as road-killed animals and targeted animals showing signs of the disease. Hunters participating in the surveillance program could check the results of their sample by accessing the department's Web site, and hunters whose deer or elk tested positive were notified individually by mail.

The department also notified other state wildlife agencies by mail if hunters from their states harvested animal testing positive.

Game and Fish began testing moose for chronic wasting last year. In 2006, the department tested 36 moose -- none of which tested positive for the disease


----------



## Dick Monson

ND's proposed high fence law is almost an exact copy of Montana's intiated measure, I-143. IdahoBison, your questions and opinions have been answered by the courts in Montana:
*JUDGE TOSSES GAME FARM BAN CHALLENGE*

BY BOB ANEZ - ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER - 05/03/05

HELENA -* A voter-passed initiative imposing restrictions on game farms in Montana did not result in an illegal taking of property from owners of such farms, *a judge concluded Monday.

*The government does not have to compensate owners because the 2000 law did not actually take away their property and was part of a legitimate state effort to prevent the spread of disease from game farm animals to wildlife*, said District Judge Dorothy McCarter of Helena.

She noted that, *although game farm owners challenging the law had financial losses after it took effect, they knew their business was a highly controversial and regulated industry and that future restrictions could affect their ability to make money.*

Len Wallace, one of the game farm owners involved in the lawsuit against Initiative 143, assailed the judge's ruling by saying, ''Montana's judiciary has shown an intellect and responsibility of a drive-by shooter. ''Evil at its core is deception,'' he said. ''Montana deceived game farmers into believing they would have a business, and game farmers invested millions of dollars and years of efforts into those businesses. If theft is defined as taking property by deceptive means, that certainly defines I-143.'' Wallace, who formerly had a game farm in the Bitterroot Valley and
now lives in Idaho, said he doubts he will appeal the decision to the Montana Supreme Court because he doesn't believe the result would be different.

Bruce Buhmann, a game farm owner from Blaine County who joined in filing the suit, could not be reached for comment Monday night.

Attorney General Mike McGrath applauded the ruling as an appropriate summary of where the courts stand on whether someone's property has been taken without proper compensation, in violation of the constitution. *''Just because there was a potential detriment to the owners' interest, that was not a taking, and they're not entitled to compensation for that,''* he said. *''The opinion fairly reflects the state of existing law not only in Montana but in the United States.''*

The suit by Wallace and Buhmann was one of several challenges to I-143, which banned the shooting of captive game-farm animals for a fee, the licensing of new game farms, expansions of existing farms or the transfer of licenses.

Len and Pam Wallace and Bruce and Shirley Buhmann sued the state in June 2002, seeking more than $22 million in damages for lost profits and investments. *McCarter said the couples knew what they were getting into when they launched their farms and that such businesses ''were a matter of legislative grace and that the state could, at any time, impose new limits on their operations.''*

The fact that a regulation reduced the value of their property and prevented profitable use of the property does not mean an unconstitutional taking occurred, she said. McCarter added the owners *''should have anticipated the possibility that future regulations could impede their anticipated business profits.''*

I-143 represented a proper use of the state's police power to, in this case, protect the state's hunting heritage and stop the possible spread of a wasting disease, she said. *''The intended effect of I-143 was to reduce the number of game farms and captive game animals in Montana, thereby reducing potential contact between captive game animals and
wild game,''* McCarter wrote. *''This clearly bears a reasonable relationship to the state's interest in protecting wild game populations from the spread of diseases and from genetic pollution by game farm animals.''*


----------



## IdahoBison

It would be silly for me to think that lawmakers can't regulate these businesses out. I have no doubt that elk and deer ranchers will suffer financial hits by legislation in both Idaho and North Dakota. Idaho will probally band new elk ranchs and prohibit on ranch slaughter much like Montana has done as a response of an incident from a single ranch. However, I don't think states such as Texas who have long established game ranchs will follow suit and regulate their industries out. I do expect they will welcome the cheap disease free live stock from those states whose Hitler like intolerance destroyed their industry.


----------



## Plainsman

> they knew their business was a highly controversial and regulated industry and that future restrictions could affect their ability to make money.


This is a very important point. Not one of these high fence hunt operators is getting caught off guard, because you simply cant be that mentally inept. If there were any that foolish I do have sympathy for them, but sympathy doesn't outweigh the risk. 
Twenty years ago we all knew how controversial hunting was becoming. We should all understand now how these high fence "hunts" endanger our sport, not to mention the wild populations. You don't hear any of these guys worried about the end of hunting entirely, they are just worried about making a buck before the storm.
Anyone with any sense of social conscience knows exactly where this is going. The sooner we shed the concept that these are actually hunts the better chances we have of preserving true sport hunting. Not to overwork and old cliché, but it's a case of a bad apple spoiling the barrel. We are all repulsed by anyone who would hunt this way, but this is how a portion of the public views us, and more will view us this way in the future. If we want to hunt tomorrow we must take part in ending this travesty today.


----------



## IdahoBison

> Anyone with any sense of social conscience knows exactly where this is going.


Would someone with a socail conscience tell a rancher that he cannot kill one of his animals on the ranch to supply meat for his family? That is what you are suggesting.


----------



## huntin1

IdahoBison said:


> Anyone with any sense of social conscience knows exactly where this is going.
> 
> 
> 
> Would someone with a socail conscience tell a rancher that he cannot kill one of his animals on the ranch to supply meat for his family? That is what you are suggesting.
Click to expand...

Jeez IdahoBison, I don't see where any one is refering to this. If YOU as a rancher want to kill one of YOUR animals for food, fine. If YOU want to sell one of YOUR animals to be butchered for food, fine. Just call it what it is. And a hunt it is not.

huntin1


----------



## IdahoBison

huntin1,

That is what happened in Montana. I completely agree with you. Regulate the advertising. If it's a slaughter by the public standard then let's call it that. I'm ok with that. I just don't like the idea of a group of people not liking how another group functions and so they repress that activity to the extent that everyone is effected negatively.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Looks like Idaho is questioning the canned hunt practice as well!

..........................................................................................................

Article published Dec 30, 2006
Idaho legislators to propose flurry of elk laws
The Associated Press

JEROME, Idaho - By this time next year, Idaho's elk farms will probably look a whole lot different.

According to state Sen. Dean Cameron, R-Rupert, as many as nine bills on domestic elk farms are being prepared for the upcoming legislative session. They reflect a growing concern that the burgeoning number of domestic elk in Idaho could contaminate the gene pool of wild elk.

Elk breeders contend their industry has unfairly taken heat following the August escape of 160 elk escaped from an eastern Idaho farm.

Cameron says breeders should brace for new regulations.

"I think it's unreasonable for you to expect nothing to change," Cameron said at a meeting with the Idaho Sportsmen's Caucus Advisory Council last week.

There are about 80 domestic elk farms in Idaho. Breeders say their operations constitute a $24.5 million industry that provides meat, hunting opportunities and antlers used by some cultures in traditional medicines.

Cameron would not give details about the proposed legislation, but many hunters have called for an Idaho ban on the operations, which are illegal in Montana and Wyoming. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer has said he hopes Idaho lawmakers will ban the farms, and Gov. Jim Risch has said he supports a gradual phasing out of the operations.


----------



## IdahoBison

Yes, We had a case of one individual who was not following the regulations and the state failed to enforce it. I suspect that no new liscenses will be issued and on farm slaughter will be haulted. I know some elk ranchers from here who won't make it. They have maybe 40 acres and raise a small number of elk that goes strictly to meat. They use farm slaughter and distribute whole carcasses to their customers. They will be forced to sell out even though their practices are not the cause of the contraversy.


----------



## Dick Monson

I counted 30 wildlife organizations in the Idaho Sportsman's Caucus:
http://www.idahoscac.org/member_organizations.htm

Why doesn't North Dakota have the same organization? The exact same premise of unity was used in Montana to pass I-143, the initiated measure to ban high fence shooting. The blueprint of sucess through unity is laid out right before our eyes. Are we as ND sportsmen going to be too stupid to walk away from a united effort again?


----------



## Dak

Are you thinking of a new overarching organization or an existing organization filling this role?


----------



## Dick Monson

I do think there should be an umbrella coalition of wildlife orgs in North Dakota just like the Idaho Sportsman's Caucus, and the group in Montana and South Dakota. It is a blueprint for sucess and we need to do the same. Commercializers have depended on the lack of sportsmen unity to beat us black and blue every time.


----------



## 4590

Bob,

Thanks for posting the article on WY disease issues. It is obvious they have an ongoing problem as the disease continues to spread. The Jackson herd is a great concern and it will be a tragic day when they get CWD. Funny thing is WY can't blame game farms as they do not allow them there so who are they to blame. The other tragedy is if the game farm industry goes by the way side so will go the possibility of breeding resistant genetics that could actually save the wild herds. OF Course most on this sight don't really care about finding an answer to CWD they just want game farms to go away.

Monson, I agree there is power in numbers, but I think you guys need to realize how many in agriculture you are alienating from your cause. Between your rants about guides and outfitters and fee hunting and now game farms, which is a slap at all property rights and livestock producers, I would be surprised if you could get many to join your coalition. I have attended a number of wildlife club meeting aroung the state and your agenda doesn't play very well there.


----------



## Dick Monson

> Between your rants about guides and outfitters and fee hunting and now game farms, which is a slap at all property rights and livestock producers


 The courts in Montana already decided the property rights issue....and upheld the public property rights of state owned wildlife. I believe in my heart that if and when the public is educated on how hunting commercialization screws public property rights of wildlife the commercializers will be shown the door in North Dakota. 
You aren't a livestock producer, you have captive wildlife inside a fence. The industry hid behind the domestic livestock label to circumvent game laws and regulation. Period.
Legislating captive wildlife domestc doesn't make them so, aymore than a steak is a fish on Friday.


----------



## Bob Kellam

*4590 wrote*



> Funny thing is WY can't blame game farms as they do not allow them there so who are they to blame. The other tragedy is if the game farm industry goes by the way side so will go the possibility of breeding resistant genetics that could actually save the wild herds. OF Course most on this sight don't really care about finding an answer to CWD they just want game farms to go away.


Seems as though animals do migrate and move across borders, come on Kim you can do better than that.

Personally I don't think there is a chance in .... that genetic engineering can come up with a CWD resistant elk or deer in the near future, even if it did would it be accepted. Is there a vaccination for Mad Cow Disease? I didn't think so...... is there genetically engineered beef resistant to MCD? I didn't think so..... The public here and abroad have serious questions/concerns about genetically engineered grains much less the meat they eat. Just admit that the genetics you are trying to improve is for one thing, more money garnered for your shooter bulls.

I wouldn't expect that some of us are real popular in the circle that you run with. Last time I checked though it wasn't a popularity contest.

Bob


----------



## fishless

Dick Monson said:


> Legislating captive wildlife domestc doesn't make them so, aymore than a steak is a fish on Friday.


 BULLSEYE :beer:


----------



## 4590

Dick,

Luv how you keep throwing tid bits of false info out, and when I challenge them you just move on to something else. I hope you know that won't hold water in a real debate. Here's another example. "The industry hid behind the domestic livestock label to circumvent game laws and regulation." Name one game law or regulation we have circumvented. The real reason we made the change to domestic was to put farmed elk under the dept. of ag. where they belong. Livestock are much better managed by veterinary science than they are by wildlife biologists. Especially because many of these biololgists have their own agenda and their track record of addressing disease issues is not stellar - and that is a provable fact. I have addressed this at length but our industry in cooperation with NDBOAH addressed the CWD issue a full five years before G\F did. Meanwhile they basically sat on their hands until they were forced to address it. We have not tried to circumvent anything, only looking out for best interest of our industry. By the way the ND legislature agreed whole heartedly.

You can also quote Mont. judges all you want, but Mont. is not ND. It is unfortunate that the industry does not have the resources to fight for their rights as I "believe in my heart" they would win if it were taken to a high enough level. I also know of at least one judge in Mont that ruled in their favor. I am sure you would not agree with the decisions made by many judges these days. I also am told the judges from Mont. are quite liberal in their views which would explain their rulings. Again Mont. is not ND, and as I have stated before there are several FACTS that will make a big diference in the situations. Namely the state of Mont. did not encourage the developement of the farmed elk industry with subsidized loans and grants from a State owned bank. Mont. also did not make elk domestic livestock also sending a signal that this business would be allowed to flourish in their state.

Bob,

Cummon Bob you like to surf the net, do some more research. You should, if you don't know good and well the difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding. I agree that the former is very controversial, however the later is a part of everything on your table. You should also know that selective breeding has been very useful in developing a line of sheep that are resistant to scrappie (same family of disease as CWD, BSE) of course you knew that too right. There are scientists who are suggesting that this may be the only answer to these diseases. Research of this type is slow in coming because its not a simple as developing a serum and giving a shot to see if it defeats the disease. The long incubation period along with the years it take to discover and breed successive generations in developing and resistance just takes time.

So I can do better than what, are you suggesting that CWD wandered accross the border into WY from a game farm somewhere, WHERE. We already know where CWD most likely got to WY - from northeastern CO where the DOW Managed to spread it all over the state and also to the domestic industry. I am still waiting for someone to resond to the issue that there is, maybe already happened, a shipment of elk headed to TENN from Alberta. Where is the outcry, you keep quoting old info about CWD in game farms, I am sure to try and arouse your readership, when the fact is CWD has been virtually eliminated and is continually monitored on game farms. But you don't seem to care one bit that elk from an unmonitored herd are coming from CAnada to the US. You post articles about how the disease continues to spread accross the wild landscape and want to blame game farms but offer no objection to a movement of wild elk clear accross several state and two countries.

The comparison to MOnt. is also different in the fact that I-143 came on the heals of a positive CWD case in that state. That was over 6 years ago and the scene has changed dramatically with the disease virtually eliminate from the domestic herds. You are right that the disease can wander and it will eventually wander to ND but knocking out the game farms will not prevent it.

Proponents of I-143 also played off the paroinia of MADCOW disease going on in Europe. They suggested that CWD may infect the beef industry with BSE which we also now know is just not possible. They also started an organization with the acronym MADCOW to enhance this delusion. This was the main organization that sponsored the propaganda that went out to the media. So you say when game farming is put out under the light of day it will be voted out. I say makes no sense when you keep quoting a decision of voters that was made on the influence of lies and deception and paranoia. Dick would fit right into this group as he keeps making unsupportable statements to try and build the hype here in ND. I think it is evident where we need the light of fact and truth in this debate.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Kim

Never said it was an animal from a game farm that infected Wyoming, BUT, can you prove with absolute certainty it wasn't. Didn't think so.....

Yes I do know the difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering.

What would you call cross-breeding an animal with a different species (red deer) to get larger horns? Selective breeding? Seems to me that the offspring would be a new sub species. Sounds like genetic engineering to me.

The sheep issue that you bring up is interesting and I will have to see if I can find the site again and re-read the info. If I am not mistaken the article I read left a lot of questions unanswered.



> The long incubation period along with the years it take to discover and breed successive generations in developing and resistance just takes time.


 My point on the disease issue all along, You can not say with absolute certainty that all elk in ND are currently CWD free.

CWD is not and should not be the prime motivation for banning canned killing. I want hunting to continue in the future as free chase. That really doesn't affect you at all. You want to have hunting continue in ND by charging some sap to come and shoot a bull for a set of horns with a big payday as you put it for you. That affects all hunters because of the image portrayed to the non-hunting public. So tell me why should i have my reputation as a free chase hunter tarnished so you can have your "payday"?

Bob


----------



## MRN

4590 said:


> They suggested that CWD may infect the beef industry with BSE which we also now know is just not possible.


The biggest problem in this discussion is that the absence of evidence is too often substituted for the evidence of absence.

Contrary to what stats and evidence you's spout, we still have no idea how CWD (and the whole group transmissible spongigform encephalopathies) can and can not be transmitted. Many researchers don't even agree on the cause - prions? Please explain how a chunk of protein (a chain of amino acids) can "infect" other proteins (no DNA, no mRNA). What are the environmental interactions (copper, manganese)?? Great theory, but there still are so many unknowns it is scary. Its like the dark ages and we're using herbs and chants to cure the plague - and failing to blame the rats.

Elk appear to be the biggest potential reservoir for CWD in North America. Until NIH funding improves, I like going after the rats...

M.


----------



## dosch

Code:


[quote]Maybe you anti's on this sight should start taking donations to help pay the bill  should your effort be successful

.USDA subsidy information for Kim Harlan Wagenman
Kim Harlan Wagenman: Summary | Programs | Programs by year | Farm Location(s) |

Payment Breakdown
Subsidy Program Total Payments
1995-2005 
Total USDA - Subsidies 
$624,008 
Subtotal, Farming Subsidies 
$486,166 
Subtotal, Conservation Programs 
$25,714 
Subtotal, Disaster Payments 
$112,128

Commodity subsidy breakdown
Subsidy Program Total Payments
1995-2005 
Subtotal, Farming Subsidies 
$486,166 
Total Direct Payments 
$77,205 
Direct Payment - Barley 
$7,581 
Direct Payment - Canola 
$1,792 
Direct Payment - Corn 
$255 
Direct Payment - Oats 
$68 
Direct Payment - Soybeans 
$1,324 
Direct Payment - Sunflower 
$8,428 
Direct Payment - Wheat 
$57,757 
Total Counter Cyclical Payments 
$1,692 
Counter Cyclical Payment - Barley 
$1,606 
Counter Cyclical Payment - Corn 
$86 
Production Flexibility Contracts 
$178,069 
Production Flexibility - Barley 
$22,977 
Production Flexibility - Corn 
$740 
Production Flexibility - Wheat 
$154,352 
Mkt. Loss Asst. - Commodity Crops 
$95,027 
Market Loss Assistance - Barley 
$12,983 
Market Loss Assistance - Corn 
$605 
Market Loss Assistance - Wheat 
$81,439 
Oilseed Program 
$4,133 
Oilseed Program - Canola 
$2,487 
Oilseed Program - Sunflower 
$1,646 
Deficiency Payments 
$324 
Advance Deficiency - Barley 
$2,284 
Deficiency - Barley 
$-1,960 
Advance Deficiency - Wheat 
$11,919 
Deficiency - Wheat 
$-11,919 
Loan Deficiency Payments 
$122,139 
Loan Deficiency - Barley 
$11,822 
Loan Deficiency - Canola Oil 
$32,572 
Loan Deficiency - Oats 
$3,391 
Loan Deficiency - Soybeans 
$6,884 
Loan Deficiency - Sunflower 
$18,771 
Loan Def. Refund - Sunflower 
$-413 
Loan Deficiency - Wheat 
$43,794 
Loan Def. Refund - Wheat 
$-150 
Loan Deficiency - Dry Peas 
$5,467 
Marketing Loan Gains 
$7,578 
Market Gains Farm - Barley 
$5,933 
Market Gains Farm - Oats 
$44 
Market Gains Farm - Wheat 
$1,601

Conservation subsidy breakdown
Subsidy Program Total Payments
1995-2005 
Subtotal, Conservation Programs 
$25,714 
Conservation Reserve Program 
$14,578 
CRP - Annual Land Rental 
$13,786 
CRP - Cost Share 
$1,146 
CRP - Haying / Grazing 
$-354 
Env. Quality Incentive Program 
$9,867 
EQIP - Great Plains Conservation 
$9,867 
Agricultural Conservation Program 
$1,269 
ACP - Regular 
$1,269

Disaster subsidy breakdown
Subsidy Program Total Payments
1995-2005 
Subtotal, Disaster Payments 
$112,128 
Misc. Disaster Payments 
$112,128 
Crop Disaster - Program 
$85,584 
Quality Losses Program 
$19,779 
Disaster Reserve - Flood Compensation 
$6,765

*LOOKS LIKE WE ALREADY HAVE*


----------



## cranebuster

MRN, the quote at the beginning of your post really sums up this entire thread, no one really knows what they're talking about, especially those that are beating up poor 4590. I read the entire thing all the while wincing at the close minded, uneducated falacies that he's been dealing with for the last 4 pages. This is extremely scary to me to see how peoples emotions to allow them to become so adamantly opposed to something they know so little about. This is precisely what happened in montana, emotions were high, knowledge was low, and people reacted how they always do in times like that, which is to do something and blame something, to make them feel like they have it under control. I'm in the boat with 4590 on this one, short of personal ethics, which is not enough to put hundreds of rural farm families in North Dakota out of business, there is no justifiable reason for this bill to go through in ND. 
Bob, are you saying that you don't have a problem with putting some family farmers out of business simply to have yourself "tarnished"? I would like to see you get access to that farmers land to set up for honkers if you knew that you valued his farm, property, and family that way. If there's anything that this site stands for it's property owners rights. You guys preach up and down about good landowner relationships, and nobody knows the importanceof this as much as the waterfowler, but when you get emotions flowing, all of this seems to go by the wayside.


----------



## dosch

> I'm in the boat with 4590 on this one, short of personal ethics, which is not enough to put hundreds of rural farm families in North Dakota out of business, there is no justifiable reason for this bill to go through in ND.


Yep the poor family farmers. Elk farms and the poor family farmers what next....

Oh we better be nice our they might not let us hunt............WHO CARES


----------



## MRN

I'm with Dosch - who cares????? What else you got?

So far, its just cervids. Just consider the landscape if the same number of bovine cases had been documented in the US?

The opposition to elk is not based on emotion, but on common sense. I think the parallels with the plague are instructive. Plus, everyone knows the Monty Python skit... _ "Bong - bring out your dead." _ Until one understands the bacteria that causes the plague, the best course of action is doing away with the rats. _"No, No, not my rats - they are good rats. Look I'm not dead yet...". _

M.


----------



## 4590

Cranebuster,
Thanks for the sympathy, it does get frustrating debating people who try to make you out as stupid and uniformed and yet really haven't researched to know the facts themselves.

Dosch,

That arguement will gain you alot of allies among producers. I am not here to debate the economics of small grain farming but just so you know the cheepest food in the world comes to you at cost to somebody. If its so great get out there then start farming, they are selling out all the time, knock yourself out.

mrn,
Contrary to your uninformed diatribe, we do now know some of the avenues of transmission. Testing has also established how it is not transmitted. ACTUALLY, some extensive testing has been done with exposure of cattle to CWD infected deer and elk. The only positive response was when the brain tissue of infected cervids was injected directly into the brain of the cow. Not likely to happen in a stockmans pasture.

Elk are not the biggest potential reservoir for CWD as they have a considerable less prevalance of disease in the wild and a much smaller range than deer.

You are correct that there are many unanswered questions but one FACT is evident. We have virtually elimated the disease from the domestics and the there is seemingly no stopping it in the wild.

Bob,

From a scientific standpoint you are correct that we can't guarantee that ND is disease free. BUT with addequate testing we can get to a secure comfort level. When VEterinary science has statistically established that there is a better than 99% chance that less than 1% of the animals in any give potential disease pool are not infected, that is considered as good as it gets. You cant even get to 100% by killing and testing all the animals because of factors of human error and false neg. and Pos with any testing. In the real world we are as confident as we can possibly be that ND elk farms don't have CWD.

Cross breeding elk with red deer would not be considered genetic engineering. In the cattle industry it would be considered an out cross. The species are so similar that off spring would be indistiguishable from a pure elk. It could only be determined by dna testing. On this rare occasion I do actually agree with you that crossing elk and red deer should not be encouraged. However I also fail to see the paranoia. Red deer and elk no doubt have a common ancestry and no one has yet offered me any proof that hybrids would have a detrimental affect on wild elk genetics. What if a red deer/elk hybrid was resistant to CWD? Would that change your mind or would you prefer keeping them pure and just let the disease run rampant through the wild. Man has manipulated the animal kingdom through selective breeding for 1000's of years to better deal with his environment, ie. disease, heartiness, etc. The alternative may be to just allow this threat to continue to spread until it devestates the cervid world. Then the only disease free animals will be inside the fence. Of course you could go "after the rats" as you say but that would involve full scale depopulation of the the wild infected herds, not the game farm animals, we already been there done that.


----------



## Plainsman

> you know the cheepest food in the world comes to you at cost to somebody.


That's a crock of bull. When Leavers tried to bring milk in from Minnesota the attorney generals office was on their case. No one but retired guys like myself and farmers can go to Bismarck any time they want. That's why are legislature is controlled by agriculture, and why there are laws that prevent us from getting cheap food. It's sort of like they have a gun to our head and we have no choice.

So your comfortable with 99% chance that less than 1% of animals tested are infected. I'm not comfortable with that. If all wild game farming was ended their would be a 100 percent chance that a captive animal would not infect the wild herds.

I also disagree that crossing elk with red stag is not a problem. They may have common ancestry, but so do all people on earth and are you familiar with what European diseases did to native Americans. Rationalizing does not make it so.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Kim

I said it before and I will say it again. I commend your efforts with regard to the CWD issue. We have had many civil discussions on involved issues. The lack of actual facts handicaps both of us in this debate. You have your side of the issue and I have mine and needless to say we don't agree on much. I will guess that a cure or solution to CWD will not happen on a game farm for shooter bulls and it most likely will not happen in my life time.

(still trying to find the article on scab and scrapie)



> no one has yet offered me any proof that hybrids would have a detrimental affect on wild elk genetics.





> "The harsh winter conditions in Michigan place a premium on body size for survival. The classic North American examples are the moose and the white-tailed deer. Both species fit Bergman's rule which states that the further north an animal lives, the larger it must be. The reason is that body mass & surface area are related in such a way that relative heat loss is less in the larger animal as it has a proportionally smaller surface area. The wapiti & red deer are examples of an animal of the same species in which the red deer would have a tough time in the extremes of winter, if it had to forage in the wild as opposed to being fed on farm, because it would lose more heat. Not only would the red deer lose more heat because of its body mass/surface area ratio but it has much shorter legs than the wapiti. It would therefore have more difficulty traveling in deep snow & be less able to forage for winter food. If this sort of information were factored into the computer model it would no doubt substantially change the outcome"
> 
> Signed: Dr. J. C. Haigh BVMS, MSc, FRCVS.,
> Site 504, PO Box 1, R.R. #5
> Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
> Canada S7K 3J8
> TEL / FAX 306-373-4241


I must admit it was an interesting paper. Don't know if it is proof enough for you though

Some info I found in my saved file. It is not current to 2006 but it is relevant.as to the question of CWD in Wyoming.



> Colorado:
> -- All known cases of CWD ultimately trace back to the Foothills Research Facility in Ft. Collins, Colorado [10]
> -- eastern Larimer Coounty and S. Platte River corridor have most free-ranging CWD deer [1]
> -- 2,500 deer and elk from NE Colorado, incidence of CWD steady at 5-7% in deer, 1% in elk by IHC 1995-97.[1]
> -- 350 deer and elk from other areas in Colorado tested negative by IHC 1995-97 [1]
> -- 85 CWD-positive cervids have been identified in the endemic area of Colorado and Wyoming 1981-1997
> -- 0.4% in 487 elk tested from 1992-1996; 2.9% in 687 mule eer examined from 1983-1996.
> -- More than 400 samples from cervids outside the endemic area of Colorado and Wyoming have been negative.Ý
> 
> Wyoming: [based in part on mid 1998 brochure by Chris Madson sent 1 Feb 99,
> -- infected Fish and Game research facility in Laramie; 3 failed decontamination efforts
> -- CWD found in wild elk and deer
> -- Swapped animals with Ft. Collins facility for many years.
> -- "between 1974 and 1979, 66 mule deer and 1 black-tail were held in captive in Colorado and Wyoming research corrals, mainly as subjects in long-term studies of deer food habits and nutrition. Of these 67 long-term residents, 57 contracted the strange disease. None survived."
> -- between 1981 and 1985, 60 cases in the wild were found: 44 in mule deer, 6 in white-tailed, and 10 in elk. The first affected wild Wyoming elk was found in 1986. First clinically affected captive animal found in 1978.
> -- the 1997 Wyoming survey obtained usable samples from137 deer in hunting units 16, 59, 60, 62,63, and 64. 8 positives were found, of which 7 were from unit 64.
> -- 93 samples in 1997 from units 15, 55,57, and 73 tested negative. 15 elk samples from areas 5, 7, 12, 13, 21, 82, and 110 were also negative.
> -- of the 100 cases reported in the wild, 11 have been found in Wyoming.


Cranebuster

I respect your opinion and I see where you are coming from but answer me a question. Are landowner rights absolute? Can a landowner spray DDT anywhere he wants? Can a landowner drain his waste oil or manure waste into public waters even if they are on his land? Can a landowner bury a dead animal on his property that he thinks may have been diseased without verification? See where I am going? some laws are created for the greater good. Is the high fence killing of captive animals worth the risk to all hunters for the benefit of a few? If this is such a good thing why have so many states banned the practice. It can not all be the hysterical, emotional rantings of a few hunters. The current bill is to stop the high fence shooting operations. there are approximately 116 elk farms in ND there is no accurate count that I know of that offer shooting. The non shooting elk farms will be allowed to stay in business no new elk/deer farms may be started. so if there are a dozen elk ranchers that allow shooting (Just a guess) that can remain in business if the bill is passed with out the shooting operations, the issue seems to be the income derived from shooter bulls. I have a hard time accepting the ethics or lack thereof of the high fence shooting operations and I would hate to see it mushroom into an issue against hunting in general.

Bob


----------



## g/o

> The current bill is to stop the high fence shooting operations. there are approximately 116 elk farms in ND there is no accurate count that I know of that offer shooting. The non shooting elk farms will be allowed to stay in business no new elk/deer farms may be started. so if there are a dozen elk ranchers that allow shooting (Just a guess) that can remain in business if the bill is passed with out the shooting operations, the issue seems to be the income derived from shooter bulls. I have a hard time accepting the ethics or lack thereof of the high fence shooting operations and I would hate to see it mushroom into an issue against hunting in general.


Bob I'm confused here, all I've been reading is that the worry of CWD coming from game farms. Yet you are telling me you will allow them to stay in business? Are you worried about disease or is this simply an ethics bill?


----------



## Dick Monson

g/o, the bill parallels I-143, the sucessfull voter measure of Montana. Ethics, disease, genetic pollution. Idaho is considering at least 9 different bills on this same topic. If disease is not an issue, I wonder why US captive game products are under quarentine to the Orient? Maybe they don't understand science? Lack of education perhaps?

As these game farms are shut down in other states they move to states where canned shooting is still done. Dumping. Does ND want to be a dumper or dumpee? And now non-native big game shoots are being offered in ND.

And of course there is the documented history of ND game farm ecapes and missing animals from the inventory sheet. Very embarassing.


----------



## MRN

4590

Its the disasters caused by folks who fail to recognize what they don't know that cause the biggest problems.

Again, you are confusing lack of evidence with negative evidence. We do know CWD is tranmissible between animals. We do know that CWD is transmissible between species. The transpecies issue is important: usually we're talking DNA/RNA, but with prions all bets are off. We know it does not require animal-to-animal contact. We know that its impossible to sterilize. We know that it can have a very extended incubation period - during which PrPsc may not be expressed in detectable amounts. In the scheme of things we know next to nothing about CWD, what is being transmitted, and how it can and can not be transmitted.

Your genetics argument shows you fail to understand the broader, long-term implications. For instance, genetic testing for scrapies resistance genotype has an enormous potential problem - when you breed out the genetic diversity (e.g., all sheep have the single scrapie resistant genotype) then when the disease process changes (or a new disease process arises) then every member of the species is at even greater risk. The entire species could be wiped out.

M.


----------



## IdahoBison

What it comes down to is a lack of tolerance. I have the same concerns as everyone for diseases like CWD but I also realize that the domestic livestock industry has far more safety measures in place than the public sector does with wildlife. Brucellosis has been an issue in the west for many years. Yellowstone national park is riddled with elk and bison that are effected brucellosis infected by wild cattle that were driven from Texas many years ago. Domestic herds that are found to be infected are slaughtered and destroyed. I don't know about you guys but I'm much more compfortable with eliminating these problems such as takes place in a domestic herd infestation than the thousands of elk and buffalo that are infected in Yellowstone National Park.


----------



## Bob Kellam

> Bob I'm confused here, all I've been reading is that the worry of CWD coming from game farms. Yet you are telling me you will allow them to stay in business? Are you worried about disease or is this simply an ethics bill?


I have stated on quite a few occasions that CWD should not be the sole basis of this issue. We have not had a "Reported" case of CWD in ND game farms. The bill is more or less looking at the issues and proposing regulations. Go the the Century Code and read the section under livestock (I think) scroll down to the bottom and look at farmed elk. are there currently enough regulations and safeguards in the current law in light of the discussions on this site and others?

Bob


----------



## g/o

Bob and Dick, I have not been as fortunate as you to be able to read copies of laws in advance. From what I'm reading here bothers me. All I have seen here is the concern over disease and selective breeding or whatever you want to call it. If these are your concerns then you need to address these in your bill and go after everyone.

Two examples here, I have one neighbor who raises Elk and has for many years. I have another neighbor who only does high fence shooting,does not raise any, only puts them in when he has a shoot. Now from what your telling me you are only concerned about disease on the gentlemen who has Cervids in his high fence are for 2 months a year. You are willing to allow the one raising cervids to continue. Sorry guys I just don't get it where you are coming from. Yes Bob I agree they need laws governing this industry big time!!


----------



## Drakekiller

Example of problems with Game Farm operations Orlan and Ted Mertz SVL

paragraph from letter from G&F to AB Health

"In addition to the wild deer that have been allowed to gain entrance to the facility, on May 23,2003 aproximately 70 farmed elk were reported to have escaped the Mertz operation. After the 10 day recapture period had expired, the state Veterinarian authorized USDA Wildlife Services and the Department to seize or destroy the nine or so farmed elk that remained at large in the wild. Throughout and into the fall, Wildlife Services and our staff found and dispatched tagged elk around the region. An elk harvested by an elk hunter in November near Wahalla was even found to be tagged and tracked back to the Mertz operation."

One more

Another one of Orlan's escaped elk from May 2003 has been recovered. This bull was recovered (6/18/04) in the Northwest corner of MN near Lancaster (near the Manitoba border). MN has a resident wild elk population in this area. Also 2 elk farms are within close proximity however the producers have not seen this bull associated with their farms. There is still a cow elk with plastic tag in the area. MN DNR will be dispatching that elk as well as soon as they can locate it again. MN is concerned about the history of Orlan's elk. They will be conducting an investigation to determine level of risk. They have also seen 8 or so other elk in the area without ear tags but are unusually tame. Some have reported seeing a hole in the ear of these elk. The DNR may put one of these down to see what they are dealing with. It is obviously very important that we communicate with bordering states or provinces when we have escaped animals. Who would have thought to look for Orlan's elk in MN??? How many of Orlan's escaped elk still need to be recovered?


----------



## g/o

Drakekiller, Agreed, but tell me how is the bill the way Bob and Dick are explaining it to me going to change that? I find nothing that is going to put an end to raising Elk only shooting them. You can still have poor operators out there having Elk get loose.


----------



## cranebuster

Drakekiller, What exactly is the "problem" you are getting at with your story? It is unfortunate that these elk got out, also unfortunate that they had to be euthanized by the G&F, but you failed to indicate what the problem with these elk is? They came from a tightly controlled herd, that is monitored and tested by the NDBOAH, how is that elk any different from a wild one that wandered it's same path? Wild deer and elk constantly fight diseases, spread diseases, and die from them. Look at the EHD outbreaks in whitetails in SW ND. Those things have nearly complete dieoffs every few years out there because they get it from mule deer. Now you've done got me all worried about the herd of ten muleys i've been seeing east of bismarck, those sob's are gonna kill all my whitetails, they need to be stopped. How 'bout a bill banning any mule deer travel east of the missouri river. Sorry for ranting, but the fact of the matter is that the disease issue isn't a factor here, the problem is ethics of high fenced hunting. Whether you agree with it or do not, (it seems a resounding NO from this sight, with the exception of myself and 4590!) it needs to be dealt with as what it is. My family has raised whitetails for nearly 20 years, so this post is a little more personal to me. For those of you who said "who cares about a couple of high fenced operations put out of business"  well, this guys does. The money and time that we've put into our place since I was a little kid will all be completely wasted if this bill goes through. We don't do hunts on our place, but we do sell shooter bucks within ND, and a significant portion of our doe sales are to newly starting breeders within ND. Without these outlets, there really isn't any where to sell to. Well maybe we can just put a top on our corrals and start raising some of those stinky disease bags known as pheasants, then I can legally release them into the wild and sell them to slob hunters from out of state that want to come and shoot them and brag to there buddies back in the city about their "hunt". If you didn't catch the irony and sarcasm I was trying to portray there, It was supposed to be very heavy. BEN


----------



## 4590

Bob,

I have actually enjoyed our discussion. Your are civil and though we often disagree, you do research and bring viable arguements. Dr. Haigh offers some interesting opinion, but that is just what it is and definitely not proven with research. If his analysis were true, how about whitetail deer, caribou, and other smaller cervids that live in the far north. One would expect the body surface to mass ratio would work against them yet they thrive in the far north. This is one of my issues with people like Geist who rely on thier pedigree to give creedance to what is just their biased opinion and not based on scientific fact. I know folks here like to quote Geist as an authority but I have also mentioned some of his work that is just plain bogus. He was the one that suggested we train hunting dogs to find the bones of CWD infected deer as a solution to the problem.

If red deer genetics is an issue I think a bill that would not allow red deer or hybrids in the state may be successful. I would not oppose it though I don't believe it has merit.

I also agree wholeheatedly that property rights should be limited by the affects a property owner may inflict on others. HOWEVER, the whole point is that doesn't give a group the right to inflict restriction on the property owner based on exagerated and fabricated hype. Disease, ethics, genetics, lets see the facts, so far all I have read is opinion and what ifs.

g/o

You make a valid point, if disease is an issue, why would you propose a law that allows game farms to even exist. I also agree the industry needs regulation and the present regs are the reason we have had domestic elk in ND for over 40 yrs. Yet to day we are CWD, bangs, and TB free.

Monson,

Korea banned the importation of elk velvet when CWD was an issue in the domestic herds. Now that the problem has been cleaned up the only reason the market has not opened up is purely political. Korea has not stopped buying velvet they are just content to buy it from New Zealand where they claim to be CWD free. Of course if you don't test for the disease you don't find it and if the consumer doesn't require it why would you risk finding it. In time I believe this market will open up again just takes time to rebuild consumer confidence levels. We in ag have seen this in many commodities before. How long will it take to reestablish confidence in the spinach supply? Taco Bell?

You guys to continue to beat the Mertz escape drum. I certainly do not condone everything that was going on there. I am telling you there is no comparison in the risk level resulting from tested elk escaped from the Merts facility as there is to the threat that CWD will wonder into ND from the wild in SD. It is a mere 100 miles away now in northeastern WY.

MRN,

It would be nice if we could live in a risk free world. However there will always be challenges in agriculture and wildlife to deal with disease. To feed a growing world we address these challenges as we go the best we can. In the case of TSE's what would you suggest we do to combat these diseases that show now response to other treatment? If genetic resistance can work do we just avoid that and sit on our hands and continue to let the disease run rampant? Disease resistance has been bred into many animals and plants we utilize today and has been greatly responsible for the plentiful food supply you enjoy.


----------



## rowdie

I agree.....this issue should not be over shadowed by CWD and and the sciecne agruments. The issue should be CANNED HUNTS, and putting an end to them!

This means the raising of trophies should be banned too. I'm sick of this its my land crap. I can't run prostitution on my land, because the general public thicks its sick and disgusting. At one time it was leagal, and in Nevada, it still is. The same arguement can be used with raising trophies to shoot in high fenced areas.

Oh..cranekiller....pheasants are next!


----------



## Chuck Smith

I am one that is in favor of "High Fenced" shoots. I myself would not use one. But I beleive they are ok. I think this issue is more about ethics than anything. Like I have stated in previous posts that the elderly, handicaped, terminally ill can use these operations for a memory. Yes I know people will argue that not many of these operations are about helping the handicaped or elderly...that they are just in it for the money. But who cares. The oppurtunity is there.

These operations need to be regulated very strictly and need to be held accountable for all escapes and records. So tighter regs need to be in place. One other thing is these operations should not beable to use the words: Hunt, Fair Chase, Hunting, heritage, or anything of that nature.
They need to have the words....High Fenced or Fenced, Shooting Preserves, Pen Raised animals, etc. in the advertizing.

I know it is a fine line or grey area. But Hunting and Shooting are two different things. THis way the general public will see what they really are.

Because my one big fear is when a state bans these operations....the anti's and PETA's have won. They are one step closer to thier goals.

So I am infavor of not banning these operations. But to get tighter regs on them for animal escapes and CWD and what not. Also to control the way these operations advertise.

Chuck


----------



## rowdie

Well then they can go shoot P-dogs or other typs of shooting. Its the same thing. Thats like saying the old, fat , and ugly need opportunities so we should leagalize prostitution.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Rowdie....

Have you ever seen the face on a handicaped kid (from birth) shoot his first deer. Have you seen the smile on a handicaped kids face when he shoots a 500 lb boar. Have you seen the smile on a handicaped kids face when they catch there first trout. I could go on and on and on.

I am telling you the first thing my twin brother ever shot was a wild boar on a high fenced shoot. He shot a 500 lb boar. The owner of the shooting preserve butchered it for free and only charged us 1/4 of the price.

Some of the laws in place make in impossible for handicaped people to hunt. Many of the laws. On these Shooting preserves people get an oppurtunity to harvest game. They can use laser sights, or holo sights (many states they are illegal because they use a battery (electronic)), shoot from vehicles, use crossbows, use rifles or firearms that are prohibited with some state laws, etc. I could go on and on and on.

On shooting preserves you can use what you want.

Now the make a wish foundations and things like that you see on TV with Buckmasters.....How many of them are not on High Fenced preserves??? I am not sure if any are or not. But I know of one hunt a kid did who was terminally ill did for an elk which was on a preserve. You should have see the smile on that kids face. This preserve game him a bit of happiness before he died. HUNT DONATED BY THE FARMER.

Some of you behind your computers that have never helped out with the handicaped. Go and do it. I have helped out on many hunts with my brother and a group he belongs to. I have helped with turkey hunts (shooting preserve), Trout fishing outting (stocked fish pond), deer hunts (state parks), etc. Plus the many Hunting trips with my brother (fair chase) with me. See the joy on thier faces. To take away an oppurtunity for the to shoot or try to shoot an animal is wrong - IMO.


----------



## Drakekiller

Cranebuster
I am short on time for now, but here is my short answer to my problems with canned hunts.
#1 Ethics
#2 Spreading of diseases and gene mixing.
How do we deal with poor operators like the Mertz's? Why should our G&F depts money be used to clean up their messes? The G&F had to dispatch 32 wild WTD at the Mertz's because they did not maintain or use fence guide lines after repeated requests.

I have not read Sen Mathern's bill yet, but I think I will contact him to add a some amendments.
#1Hold operators responsible for costs of clean ups-1 million dollar liability insurance.
#2 Two violations your done.


----------



## rowdie

Chuck

Why can't you take these handicapped people on a real hunt?? They may only get a doe, or maybe they come up empty, but then at least they are really "hunting". If they just want to shoot a tame animal, give them a pig or a buffalo. Many states make special rules for the handicapped, you should check it out. I know in SD they can use cross bows t deer hunt, and shoot out of vehicals.

To me.....This arguement does not stand up as a reaon to allow them in ND. I'm sure other states will always offer them, so go there. Just like having to take them to Nevada to put an even bigger smile on his face for the first time.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Rowdie

Many handicap people can not use conventional sights. They need a laser or a halo sight. In MN it is almost impossible to get to use these sights. I have tried for years. I have been denied over and over.

You can get permits to shoot from vehicles and crossbows. But the sights. Also many handicaped people need motorized rests and other mechanical devices....again almost impossible to get these special permits.

I agree that many would rather hunt in the wild. But many can not afford the time it takes to get all of the permits and also the time it takes to scout. remember they are handicaped and have a hard time getting around. See people (including myself) take for granted that we can WALK to get the paper or WALK 100 yards to get to our hunting spot. Think about this then next time walking to your deer stand. Could I get a wheel chair in here easy?

Again I have pack, yes packed, my brother into deer stands and trout streams. But he is now 160 lbs and 6' tall. But he loves to hunt. So we only take him to where we can drive him in and wheel him a short distance (30 yards or so).

So like I have stated a shooting perserve gives people a chance. Again I am for tight regulations, banning the operations from using words like hunt, hertitage, hunting, etc. But to get rid of them you would again isolate an already isolated group of people. My brother would have never had the oppurtunity to find out if he could hunt with us in the wild if I never meet the owner of the shooting preserve.


----------



## ReKooH

I Rad In a Magazine once that a Guy Is handicapped from his head down and still deer hunts with a bow he has it mounted on his wheel chair and pulls the bow back and turns it with his head ill try to find the artical some where not sure if he has special permits or Not..

But man I wish they would let all the deer in cages go around my house thos deer look goood to bad i could shoot a deer thats fenced Some times i want to fence my area Up and put "Deer Doors" to keep my Trespassing Neibors out >_<


----------



## SLYoteBoy

> and then to top off the great hunting experience I had, searching for nearly 10 - 1/2 hours for my elk,


 from the wisconsin deer hunt page. :lol: LMFAO in 40 or 80 acres fenced if it took that long , WOW.


----------



## Bob Kellam

THU 02/01 09:00 AM Fort Lincoln Room 
SB 2254 S-NATRES Chairman: Sen. S. Lyson 
Short Title: Relating to hunting on nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities 
Comments: Relating to hunting on nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities; relating to escape and identification of farmed elk; and to provide a penalty.

Stanley W. Lyson - Chairman ....Email [email protected] 
Ben Tollefson - Vice Chairman.... Email [email protected] 
Layton W. Freborg.... 701-442-5712 
Joel C. Heitkamp ....Email [email protected] 
Jim Pomeroy.... Email [email protected] 
Constance Triplett....Email [email protected] 
Herbert Urlacher.... 701-974-3682


----------

