# Vote NO on Measure #2 yard signs



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

Does anyone know where I can pick up one?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Have you tried the White tail Deer Farmers of Ohio in Orrville, OH? They donated $20,000 to try and stop this measure the last time. Or how about the North American Deer Farmers in Lake City, MN. they donated $15,000. How about Missouri Whitetail Breeders Association in Brumley, MO or the Iowa Whitetail Deer Association in Clear Lake Iowa. They donated $10,000 each. I'm sure these folks will be more than happy to help you sell out your ND hunting heritage.

Jim Heggeness


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I bet HSUS and PETA are making "Vote YES on Measure #2" yard signs too Jim.

:roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

I called hsus and asked them what it would take to get the signs made for yes vote on #2 said they are already on it and will be getting them shiped shortly. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. It must be a ???


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

KurtR,

I didn't realize you were member of HSUS. That explains a lot.

Jim


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Not a member just doing some investigating to see which groups you are useing to further your cause. Funny they told me the biggest order was going to some jim guy. What the hell? that expalins a lot. Boy it is boring in SD not having any ethics gods down here and all.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Focus Magazine: October/November 2010 - Volume 11, Issue 5

Vote "NO" on Measure Two

Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom to own property. We enjoy these freedoms as citizens of the United States of America. This country was founded on the right and freedom of personal choice. Don't let that founding principle be compromised. Vote NO on Measure 2.
Measure 2 on the general election ballot this fall would ban high fence hunting in North Dakota. The measure is aimed at those people who raise domestic deer and elk, be that for a trophy hunting experience or for harvest to provide nontraditional meat sources.

Those supporting the measure argue that the animal does not have an opportunity to escape in a high fence hunting situation, thus hunter has an unfair advantage. They believe this is not hunting and not an ethical way to pursue game.
"Whether you agree that a controlled hunt is ethical is one thing. Forcing your opinion on others is completely different," said Brian Kramer, NDFB public policy director. "The measure isn't about a type of hunting, it is about your choice. It is a matter of whether hunting in any form should be allowed.

"Right now," he continued, "you can choose to hunt traditionally or you can choose to participate in a more controlled environment. The important word in that sentence is 'choose.' You make that decision. You determine if the hunting experience meets your definition of a sporting activity."
America was founded on the premise of personal choice. It is a free country where people are given the right to choose their religion, what they want to eat or what they want kind of car they want to drive. For those who enjoy hunting, that right to choose will be infringed if this measure passes.

If this measure is defeated, people with physical challenges will be able to continue a recreational activity they currently enjoy. Many sportsmen cannot overcome the physical stress and rigors of hunting in the traditional manner. They are not physically capable of walking long distances, but through a controlled hunt they can still get the thrill of harvesting an animal.
Unfortunately, there are a number of anti-hunting and vegetarian groups that would hail this measure.
"They wish to impose their will on society. They wish to take away your choices. They wish to control how you live," Kramer said.
North Dakota Farm Bureau policy states, We support North Dakota property owner' rights to continue to control all types of hunting, including high fence hunting, on their property. Property owners or lessees shall decide who hunts their land, and if they prefer, to charge a fee to the hunter for that privilege.

"This too is about choice. It is the choice of the landowner to control and use his or her property as they see fit. It is the choice of the sportsman to pay for that opportunity or seek game elsewhere," Kramer explained.

Keep your choice by voting "no" on Measure 2. For more information, go to www.ndfb.org/measuretwo.


----------



## d2jlking (Jul 25, 2010)

I'm sure these folks will be more than happy to help you sell out your ND hunting heritage.

Jim Heggeness[/quote]

Not sure how stopping a measure to take away the rights of property owners "sells out your ND hunting heritage"?????


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Farmers Union:

Still Heck No for Measure 1 & 2

It's back. Although the structure of the Legacy Fund differs slightly from that of 2008's oil trust fund proposal, the affects would remain the same on the state's budget.

Measure 1 requires 30 percent of tax revenue generated from oil extraction and oil production to be deposited into a "legacy fund". This fund would not be spent until July 1, 2017. Just 15 percent of the principal could be spent per biennium and would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. If Measure 1 passes, the money will be unavailable to lawmakers to use at present time.

Oil taxes right now come from a five percent production tax and up to a 6.5 percent oil extraction tax. This tax money is allocated to a resource trust fund, a permanent oil and gas trust fund and an impact fund. Cities, counties and schools in oil country also receive special funding. A large share of money also goes to the state's general fund.

In a sense, Measure 1 creates a new "permanent oil tax trust fund" for taxes from oil and gas development and has been met with controversy. Some people have speculated that money should be re-invested in infrastructure needs. Revenue from oil and gas taxes is generated specifically to support public infrastructure currently being heavily used by the energy companies developing the oil fields. The rural North Dakota counties that lack the population and industrial tax base to support road and bridge improvements are without adequate infrastructure funding.

According to Kathy Jorgenson, community development coordinator in Tioga, "Our infrastructure is so stressed," she said. "It would be great to see a savings account but right now, the support needs to come back to the western counties that are producing the oil.

North Dakota Farmers Union president Robert Carlson agrees. "Measure 1 could lock up the very investment capital we need today to keep North Dakota's energy, agricultural and tourism industries on the road to prosperity," he said. "I shudder to think that if lawmakers attempt to seek a two-thirds vote to use a limited share of the principal, one or two holdouts could wield disproportionate influence on what priorities would be funded first. Also, as the "permanent" trust fund grows, oil and gas companies could make the argument the tax ought to be abolished as the state has too much money in its rainy day fund. Our elected officials should be trusted enough to manage these funds."

Measure 2 would amend the North Dakota Century Code (NDCC), providing that a person, other than an authorized government employee or agent, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains payment for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game or exotic animals in or released from a man-made enclosure. NDFU does not support Measure 2 and reserves the right for members to determine the use and future use of their land.

Measures 1 and 2 will be listed on a general election ballot on Nov. 2


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

*North Dakota Stockman
September 2010

Group seeks to ban high-fence hunting*

Members of North Dakotans for Fair Chase have gathered enough signatures for a proposed ban on big-game hunting in fenced preserves to be on the November ballot, according to Secretary of State Al Jaeger.

If adopted, the initiated measure would add a new chapter to 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code, and make it a crime to obtain payment for the killing or attempted killing of privately owned big-game species or exotic mammals within or released from a manmade enclosure.

The NDSA has opposed similar attempts to ban the practice based on it standing policy to protect private property rights.

http://www.ndstockmen.org/

North Dakota Stockmen's Association
weighs in on ballot measures

Vote NO on Measure 2
To Protect Private Property Rights


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> The NDSA has opposed similar attempts to ban the practice based on it standing policy to protect private property rights.


but think nothing of tossing landowners under the bus in regards to who can buy their land which has and will continue to have a big impact economic impact on the landowners!!!!! Go figure!!!!!


----------



## tucker (Nov 25, 2005)

is this really property rights issue?????i have a quarter of land,,can i open a whore house,,,,can i grow medical mary jane???? if i am close to another farm,,or resident can i open a hog farm,,or a cattle feeding operation,,,no i cannot i think you get the drift you cannot do any damn thing you want just because you ow n the land,,,,,,as far as in fense shooting,,,i really dont have an issue with it just dont call it hunting,,or advertise it as a great hunt,,,its an insult to those of us that really do hunt,,,,,just call it a confinement shoot or something ,,do not disguise it for something else ,,,,,i look at texas,, and look what the confinement shoots have done to their state,,do we really want that,,,


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

tucker said:


> is this really property rights issue?????i have a quarter of land,,can i open a whore house,,,,can i grow medical mary jane???? if i am close to another farm,,or resident can i open a hog farm,,or a cattle feeding operation,,,no i cannot i think you get the drift you cannot do any damn thing you want just because you ow n the land,,,,,,as far as in fense shooting,,,i really dont have an issue with it just dont call it hunting,,or advertise it as a great hunt,,,its an insult to those of us that really do hunt,,,,,just call it a confinement shoot or something ,,do not disguise it for something else ,,,,,i look at texas,, and look what the confinement shoots have done to their state,,do we really want that,,,


Take,,,,,,english,,,,,,,,,class,,,,,,,again.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gee bareback,
Don't let the issue he is making get in the way of your response.
Jim


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Funny if he was aginst you he would be illiterate. Sounds like the only problem he has is calling in fense hunting.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> If this measure is defeated, people with physical challenges will be able to continue a recreational activity they currently enjoy. Many sportsmen cannot overcome the physical stress and rigors of hunting in the traditional manner. They are not physically capable of walking long distances, but through a controlled hunt they can still get the thrill of harvesting an animal.
> Unfortunately, there are a number of anti-hunting and vegetarian groups that would hail this measure.


I have to laugh every time this play on our emotions is used. Seriously what can a fenced hunt offer to these people that a traditional hunt cannot except guaranteed success. If a hunter cannot walk 50 yards to a stand how can he do so at a game farm? What has changed. I suppose they can give him a ride to the stand..... wait...... doesn't our current law allow for permits for such people to drive off trail and shoot deer from their vehicle.......... There is NOTHING a physically challenged hunter can do on a game farm he can't do elsewhere with some assistance (thats all the game farm really offers). They also try the "for the children" tactic. Hunting is tough... taking a kid to a game farm so he can shoot a deer over a corn pile doesn't do a lot to teach them that. Instant success may help bring kids into the hunting ranks but it often sets a unreasonable standard that eventually causes them to leave again. As much as I like to see young hunters harvest game doing it the easy way is not alway benefitial. Hunting is not a video game (unless you hunt a game ranch oke: )


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Interesting, if it involves elderly, handicapped or a dying person who doesn't have time to wait for a tag, you will deny them because they have the opportunity in the wild.

According to Roger yesterday on a Fargo radio station since there are no wild buffalo to hunt in the state of North Dakota that is why this measure did not target buffalo. But yet when it was pointed out there are more buffalo hunts advertised on game preserves in this state than elk or deer, his response was, "That is not hunting; it is just killing behind a fence." So is this about ethics or not?

So you guys would like to deny handicapped, elderly, and dying people the right to hunt on a game farm, but don't want to take away your opportunity to get a buffalo behind a fence. You know you can go hunt buffalo in some states in the wild. Why don't you just go there? But because it is a limited draw you could wait a lifetime!

If this is why buffalo were not targeted, then why were exotics targeted. You know you can't get an exotic license in our state.


----------



## d2jlking (Jul 25, 2010)

Okay. I'm going to weigh in on this whole high fence issue. I currently work in South Texas, and I hunted a full deer season here last year. Texas seems to be a popular target in these "high fence" discussions.

First, as far as disease transmission: Baiting is LEGAL in texas. So are high fences. Texas is NOT overrun with CWD or any other disease that decimates deer herds.

Hunting or Shooting: I hunted on leased land 5000 acres, high fenced. I freely admit that initially i was going to say no because of the fence. I was invited to spend a weekend working at the ranch. I learned a few things. First. 5000 acres of South Texas brush country is a lot of land for a deer to escape to. Secondly. The deer were as wild as any other deer I've seen.

Access; Texas sucks for access to quality deer hunting land. Public land is next to non-existent and the land that is available is usually not quality ground.

Breeding.

Lots of Texas ranches have breeder bucks, and pay big money to breed these bucks to their herds. Deer hunting is big business here. 
Overall: I would hate to live here full-time because you basically have a choice. Pay big money to hunt quality ground, or don't hunt at all.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

LT



> So you guys would like to deny handicapped, elderly, and dying people the right to hunt on a game farm, but don't want to take away your opportunity to get a buffalo behind a fence.


So only "handicapped, elderly, and dying people" hunt (not) on game farms? Then you think we (supporters of banning high fence killing) want an "opportunity to get a buffalo behind a fence." What a farce!

Jim


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> Interesting, if it involves elderly, handicapped or a dying person who doesn't have time to wait for a tag, you will deny them because they have the opportunity in the wild.


No one is denying anyone. They are being offered equal opportunity to draw a tag that everyone else is. They are not being discriminated against. Maybe mainstream hunters are being discriminated against. If game farms can operate all year around we are being cheated because we can't afford such hunts and the state won't allow year round hunting.

I have several elderly relatives that still hunt. They don't have the physical capabilities they once had but they still "find a way" and don't expect special treatment.

You can say otherwise but with very few exceptions game farms are not about the "hunt" they are about success. Clients are paying to be successful or to get a big buck. I wonder how many clients game farms would get if they were strictly limited to does/cows only or spike deer/elk. Very few I imagine. Certainly not enough to keep them in business. Game farms basicaly devalue the sanctity of the hunt by putting a monetary value on game. Essentially it is "market hunting" and spreads that virus into mainstream hunting. "Pen raised" trophys have raised the standards for what many consider a trophy and forcing mainstream hunting to become more and more comercialized. How many game farms advertize a 10 or 20% success ratio? NONE... because if their success ratio is lower than 90 or 95% they will not stay in business. That pretty much tells you what is expected of a game farm........


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I would hate to live here full-time because you basically have a choice. Pay big money to hunt quality ground, or don't hunt at all.


Don't kid yourself that's what they want here. That is one of my biggest reasons to be for measure #2. Along with ethics of course. If your a hunter and vote against it your shooting yourself in the foot.

Someone asked if it was a landowner right. You don't need a permit or a license for a right, but you do for a privilege. Privileges can go away in the blink of an eye.



> Funny they told me the biggest order was going to some jim guy.


Apparently the guy who made this statement was willing to give up credibility.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

dakotashooter2 said:


> > If this measure is defeated, people with physical challenges will be able to continue a recreational activity they currently enjoy. Many sportsmen cannot overcome the physical stress and rigors of hunting in the traditional manner. They are not physically capable of walking long distances, but through a controlled hunt they can still get the thrill of harvesting an animal.
> > Unfortunately, there are a number of anti-hunting and vegetarian groups that would hail this measure.
> 
> 
> I have to laugh every time this play on our emotions is used. Seriously what can a fenced hunt offer to these people that a traditional hunt cannot except guaranteed success. If a hunter cannot walk 50 yards to a stand how can he do so at a game farm? What has changed. I suppose they can give him a ride to the stand..... wait...... doesn't our current law allow for permits for such people to drive off trail and shoot deer from their vehicle.......... There is NOTHING a physically challenged hunter can do on a game farm he can't do elsewhere with some assistance (thats all the game farm really offers). They also try the "for the children" tactic. Hunting is tough... taking a kid to a game farm so he can shoot a deer over a corn pile doesn't do a lot to teach them that. Instant success may help bring kids into the hunting ranks but it often sets a unreasonable standard that eventually causes them to leave again. As much as I like to see young hunters harvest game doing it the easy way is not alway benefitial. Hunting is not a video game (unless you hunt a game ranch oke: )


Do you laugh too when "emotions" are played upon by the anti-HF crowd?

They sure as heck used a lot of it!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

jhegg said:


> Gee bareback,
> Don't let the issue he is making get in the way of your response.
> Jim


Dont you worry your little heart Jimbo, I wont.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> Apparently the guy who made this statement was willing to give up credibility.


Funny how he can take shots at any one he pleases but as soon as some one gives it back it is ethics violation. Credibility is not talking out of both sides of your mouth. All you do is talk about govt crap and we need less of it but now when it is for just YOUR cause then it is the best ever. Seems like some thing the liberals would do. How does that go if a liberal does not like some thing they ban it and if a conservative does not like it they just dont do it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well Kurt being conservative doesn't mean we bow down and make business our God. We conservatives also respect the constitution. Since the constitution makes wildlife the property of the state we respect that. Also people who raise these animals need permits because it is a privilege and not a right. You present yourself as conservative and ask why I don't share your values. Your values are evidently money and business and not political conservatism. There is a big difference. What you portray is what lets liberals take pot shots at us.



> Funny how he can take shots at any one he pleases but as soon as some one gives it back it is ethics violation.


Evidently your so far off in understanding what I have said that this makes no sense. I have never said anything about the ethics of your posts. I have only referred to the ethics of high fence hunting. The only thing that may tick you off is I know Jim well enough to know he would not waste his breath on HSUS. So that means they sent him nothing which in turn would indicate you never called them either. I think this is simply a try at character assassination on your part. I'm not asking you to stop though because it showcases your side in a bad light. That's good for measure #2. Keep up the good work.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

bareback,



> by barebackjack » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:54 pm
> 
> jhegg wrote:Gee bareback,
> Don't let the issue he is making get in the way of your response.
> ...


That's quite obvious. And I have a big heart, but it's not worried.

Jim


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Here it is bluntly. I dont know the guy but by the condensending way he talks on here i dont like him. It really ****** me off that he can take his little shots and no one else is allowed to take any back. Oh and i dont have a side i just get tired of know it alls trying to tell us what is right and wrong(govt regulation like the health bill). Dont try to compare this to drugs murder and other crimes as raising an animal and shooting it behind a fence is not a crime. If you can tell me why tame elk or tame deer is held in higher regard than a cow or pig i would like that as they are all just protein.

Ok since your big on constitution and every thing if the people vote this down will that be the end or will it just keep getting rammed down peoples throats till the whiners get there way. Maybe the next time the slogan will be 3rd times the charm.

Oh ya and like my man back in purple randy moss says"straight cash homey"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It really ticks me off that he can take his little shots and no one else is allowed to take any back.


What you say is up to you. However, if you are serious about calling HSUS and they told you they sent a bunch of signs to some Jim guy be prepared to loose credibility. Maybe I should not have taken you seriously, I'm not sure now.



> Oh and i dont have a side i just get tired of know it alls trying to tell us what is right and wrong


 I understand that. I think that is why a group of hunters is trying to police ourselves before some animal rights wacko tries to tell us what to do. I think the reason most are doing it is because the high fence is held up to the public as a way of hunting and it damages our public image. 
Responding to the "no side" comment: it sure appears to me that you have a side. I do, and my side is real hunters.



> Ok since your big on constitution and every thing if the people vote this down will that be the end or will it just keep getting rammed down peoples throats


I hope it keeps going until the people are heard and not the money.



> Oh ya and like my man back in purple randy moss


I don't pay much attention to football, but I know he is a good player. What I remember most about him was the legal troubles he was always having. No matter how good they play if they are bad people I would not admire them.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> I think that is why a group of hunters is trying to police ourselves before some animal rights wacko tries to tell us what to do. I think the reason most are doing it is because the high fence is held up to the public as a way of hunting and it damages our public image.
> .


In regards to your first sentence. The simple reality here is you are not as you claim "trying to police ourselves". If that is all you were trying to do no one including myself would have a problem. You are actually trying to police others. BIG difference.

In regards to your second sentence. If this is indeed the case, and the issue is the killing of an animal inside a fence and calling it hunting, why did your group not include the operations advertising their fenced buffalo hunts in this measure? At least have the "ethics" to answer honestly and not some BS about there being no wild buffalo here in ND, as was mentioned there are no wild exotics either. Your group has stated many times it is about the "blackeye" shooting something inside a fence and calling it hunting gives hunting itself. If your group is going to pick and choose what is ethical (shooting a buffalo behind a fence and calling it hunting)and what is not (shooting an elk behind a fence and calling it hunting), why should someone else not have that same right?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> why did your group


They are not my group. I did give you my answer about buffalo the last time when I was part of the group. I think I answered that question five or six times. Why do you keep asking, do you think my ideas have changed? As to why this group has done what they have I have no idea. I have not talked to any of them.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Then why are you speaking for what this group is trying to do?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst said:


> Then why are you speaking for what this group is trying to do?


Because what I am saying was the intent last time that I was involved. It's how I still see it. If I am wrong perhaps one of them will correct me. 
You knew I was not part of this group. Remember when I said I was not, but that I would not tell you why? The first question I got was why.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, Yes I do indeed remember why you told me in a pm you were not involving yourself in this measure this time around, and believe it or not I have a degree of respect for you making that decision.



Plainsman said:


> If I am wrong perhaps one of them will correct me.
> .


This is exactly what many are simply trying to find out by asking questions. If the intent of this measure is as pure and simple as you believe, what harm can come from answering a handful of questions? In conversations we have had in the past it is easy to see you have some common sense. Your common sense should have a little voice inside you asking the same question.

Answer this one question if you would, do you believe it is wise for a citizenry to simply sit back and let laws be created without questioning the intent and consequences of the laws and those who would create them?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Answer this one question if you would, do you believe it is wise for a citizenry to simply sit back and let laws be created without questioning the intent and consequences of the laws and those who would create them?


Absolutely not. However, some of these questions have to have been asked more than a dozen times, and answered. I simply don't understand why the same questions keep getting asked. Is it simply because people have not got the answer they wanted yet? I doubt the answers will change.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Sept 19, 2010 7:52 pm

Plainsman if you would, please show where a SPONSOR has answered any one of the questions I asked.

1. Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman on this site when asked if this measure will prevent someone from selling a live animal to another individual who then shoots the animal he now owns, stated this measure will allow the Federal Lacey Act to be used to make this a possible felony with a $10,000 dollar fine. Is this true and who has your group communicated with for a sponsor to be able to factually publically make this claim?

2. Are these animals defined in the state NDCC as privately owned domestic animals that can be used as collateral?

3.Why is this being placed in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC where there is currently a definition of these animals as privately owned domestic farmed elk, when the measure lists them as big game that is regulated in Sec 27 of the NDCC. And who advised your group as to putting it here?

4. If the intent is to protect hunnting from the "black eye" shooting an animal inside a fenced enclosure and calling it hunting gives hunting itself, why were buffalo purposely excluded from the measure when there are more operations advertising "canned" "fenced" buffalo "hunts" here in the state than there are deer hunting operations?

5.If your goal is to eliminate a disease risk here in the state from these elk and deer operations, to accomplish this do you have to eliminate all of these operations that raise deer or elk for any purposes from operating here in ND and is that the goal of the group NDH for FC?

6. You claim this measure does nothing to affect ranchers raising cattle or buffalo, what about the elk rancher raising elk for slaughter rather than a HF enterprise. Will these ranchers be able to continue the practice of selling an animal to an individual for a fee or renumeration that then shoots said aninmal on the premise and takes that animal to process it themselves as is currently allowed by law??

7. Do you believe raising legaly defined privately owned domestic animals in accordance with all appropriate state regulations is a property right?

8. And one just for fun, Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman claimed on this site this measure is about "bragging rights" and "hanging a head on the wall" . Is this the official position of NDH for FC?

Plainsman once again can you show where a sponsor has answered ALL these questions. Since asking you this question one sponsor addressed a couple of these questions and dismissed the rest without answering them. So no the sponsors have not answered them a dozen times. They have notansweredsomeof them even once. As I said if the intent of this measure is as simple and pure as what some are claiming, what harm can come from answering these questions. One would think that little voice in the back of your mind must be asking the same thing.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, Yes I do indeed remember why you told me in a pm you were not involving yourself in this measure this time around


Yikes, if you understand that why do you now say:


> Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman


You may have noticed I have not been in this debate much. I don't find it worth my time to go back and look for those questions. Two things come to my mind quickly about unanswered questions. One, people are thinking before they answer because it isn't something they have previously considered, or two, they think some questions are to silly to answer. Also there are questions like "have you stopped beating your wife". If you say yes people think you have been beating your wife. If you say no people think your still beating your wife. Questions can be as misleading as answers and there is no way to gain by answering them.

When business and big money are involved things often turn nasty. The first attempt will be to smear through disinformation. I consider the attempt to link fellow hunters to HSUS disinformation. Also a last resort will be to get simply down and dirty. I normally try to avoid those things because a wise person once told me that if you get in the dirt and wrestle with a pig you both get dirty, but only the pig is happy.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Now! Now! Plainsman, there is no need to be so harsh to gst! You know that he is not capable of accepting straight answers without attempting to spin them somehow. :beer:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, I should have said "former" fellow sponsor!  My mistake and I apologize for lumping you in with Roger, given what you told me why, I can understand your decision not to become involved in this measure or sponsors this time around. I do find it odd that you are commenting in the manner you are on the link between this group and HSUS some have claimed. So do you consider telling the public these legally defined privately owned domestic animals are actually wild game that the public owns to fall under your first step of disinformation ? What about claiming the CWD deer in SW ND was infected by a HFH operation? What about the sponsors claiming they never contacted HSUS during the first measure attempt?

I can tell you not to waste your time looking for the sponsors answers to all these questions because you simply will not find them. :-?

So which of the first 7 questions would you equate to asking someone "have you stopped beating your wife"?

By the way if someone asked me that question I would simply reply with a truthful, direct answer that I have never started beating my wife so how can I stop something I have never started doing. A truthful, direct, simple answer that puts the issue to rest. Maybe the sponsors should try it.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

FYI none of us OWN land........ All we OWN is the right to rent it ( property taxes) from the government ......... oke: oke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So do you consider telling the public these legally defined privately owned domestic animals are actually wild game that the public owns to fall under your first step of disinformation ?


Following the constitution I don't think the first breeding stock were legally obtained, even if they were given to someone. It makes little difference what they are defined as since anyone can define anything the way they wish. I see these animals as wild animals picked up by landowners who obtained permits to have them. Domestic in the legal sense and domestic in the realistic biological sense in this case are far from comparable. Some animals have the innate wildness so strong within their genetic make up that after hundreds of generations they will not become domestic. Go back about 500 years and animals that were fit for domestication were already domesticated. Only when a profit was seen did people get involved raising "wild" animals.

There are individuals within society that will exploit every niche they can. This will result in the future of hunting in North Dakota diminished each year. When the outfitters have convinced every landowner to post and lease, when high fence operations have tied up every loophole they can then outfitters and high fence will be the only game in town. Only the rich will hunt and that will reduce hunter numbers by 90% within 50 years. With numbers reduced we will become easy prey to the politically active anti hunting/animal rights crowd. Continuing high fence shooting plays right into their hands. Those making a buck today however don't care about tomorrow. They have theirs and to heck with everyone else. The second victims will be the farmers who are left with no support. The problem is put something ten years into the future and the short sighted people of today will pay little attention.

I will guarantee you one thing. The outspoken against measure two have some connection to the high fence, or they are simply kissing up to gain access.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,


```
By the way if someone asked me that question I would simply reply with a truthful, direct answer that I have never started beating my wife so how can I stop something I have never started doing. A truthful, direct, simple answer that puts the issue to rest. Maybe the sponsors should try it.
```
Since you claim to be able to "reply with a truthful, direct, answer", maybe you can provide us with one here.

What do your "questions" have to do with Measure #2. I know they are intended to smoke screen and mis-inform others about the measure, but how are thet relevant to what the measure actually does - i.e. making it illegal to sell the killing of a big game animal or exotic species.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, No one can simply define anything as anything they wish in the NDCC, they are the laws of this sstate and can not simply bemade up. So are you simply "interpreting" the state century code to fit your agenda? The laws of this state say these animals are privately owned domestic animals classified as farmed elk that can be bought, sold, used as collateral like any other form of livestock. To suggest they are anything else to someone while attempting to get them to sign a petition is a lie. Unless you are now deciding which laws of the state you want to follow and which you are disregarding in order to get this measure passed. You may wish all you want, but the NDCC clearly defines these animals. So when SPONSOR Gary Masching told people these were wild game as defined in Article 11 Sec 27 was he telling the truth. Remember it was he that referenced the NDCC in his claim where these animals are defined. And they are clearly defined there as Domestic privately owned animals. So did he tell these people the truth?

The first "wild animals" were not domesticated for "profit" as you claim, but for usage by humans. Are we only limited to going back 500 years? Because if we go back a few more even the domestic cattle, horses, swine and sheep all have wild origins that canbe traced by DNA. So by your historical arguement, these animals should not be able to beused by humans as well?

As to your guarantee, I have NO involvement or connection to HF in any way, and have no need to "kiss up" to gain access.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The laws of this state say these animals are privately owned domestic animals classified as farmed elk that can be bought, sold, used as collateral like any other form of livestock.


As I understand it you need a permit to raise elk. You don't need a permit to raise cattle. You can not sell and buy as you would any other livestock.

Simply because our legislature defines them as domestic doesn't make it reality. We have a very biased legislature since many occupations don't allow people to take a few months off in the winter. That has more to do with who our legislatures are than ability.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim 
Question 1 is to clear up differing claims by sponsors. Roger Kaseman claims the Federal Lacey Act will prevent one person from selling an elk to another individual who then kills that animal. David Brandt and others claim it will not. Which one is telling the truth?

Question 2 is to clear up Sponsor Gary Maschings claim he made to potential signers that these animals are classified as "wild game" in the NDCC in article 11 Sec. 27. If they are defined as privately owned domestic animals that can be used as collateral in the NDCC as they are in Sec 36.1 he lied to these people.

Question 3 is to determine the intent of placing this measure in Sec 36 of the NDCC. I have provided an opinion from the AG's office that states having this measure in the same section may indeed possibly prevent someone not involved in a HF operations from selling an elk for "harvest" if this measure passes as worded in this section.

Question 4 is merely wondering if it has been deemed unethical by this group to shoot an "exotic mammal" which there are no seasons on here in ND behind a fence and call it hunting, why this group did not include shooting a buffalo behind a fence and calling it hunting as well if this measure is meant to protect hunting from the black eye shooting an animal inside a fence and calling it hunting gives hunting itself as the sponsors have claimed. It appears this group is picking and choosing what is ethical while taking that choice away from others.

Question 5 is meant to ask how the claims this measure will eliminate a disease risk to the wild animal popoulation as the sponsors have claimed if non HFH operations still exist.

Question 6 given the AG's opinion is self explainatory.

Question 7 is meant to see what the sponsors consider to be a property right if there is such a thing in their opinion and what they believe is not.

Question 8 was just for fun. 

If you have any more questions please feel free to ask, and I will do my best to answer them. It is really not that difficult! :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > The laws of this state say these animals are privately owned domestic animals classified as farmed elk that can be bought, sold, used as collateral like any other form of livestock.
> 
> 
> As I understand it you need a permit to raise elk. You don't need a permit to raise cattle. You can not sell and buy as you would any other livestock.
> ...


So plainsman, just because the legislature defines driving with a blood alchohol content of .8 as drunk driving your reasoning allows that doesn't make it a reality?????

It really does appear you are now picking and choosing what laws you consider valid and which ones are not to avoid answering a simple question! 

Simply because something is regulated does not mean it is not a "right". Most everyone would consider voting a "right" yet to be able to vote I must be18, not have a felony record, must have lived in a state for a given peirod of time, be a US citizen, provide a form of ID, ect.... Simply because the state has a permiting process as a part of their health regulation requirements for raising an animal does not take away the "right" to raise that animal if you are in compliance. But yet if these regulations go to far and prevent an individual from being able to continue raising the animal, then the courts will consider if it is a "takings" or not. In Mt. the Supreme Court narrowly ruled 5 to 4 their measure was not. The sponsors of this measure here in ND are making sure they do not answer any of the questions people ask so their answers are not used when the courts here in ND make the same consideration.

And actually I believe anyone can buy and own an elk without a permit as long as it stays on the permited operation. Cattle can not be sold and leave the state without a health permit and brand release. You can not bring cattle into the state from certain areas without a "permit". If you are raising cattle in a feedlot with a capacity of more than 999 head, you do in fact need a permit to raise cattle here in ND. In some instances you can not move certain cattle from one permited feedlot to another. So there is not as much of a difference as you are claiming. Do you believe the ability to raise cattle in accordance with state regulations is a property right?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

As I finished typing on the last post, I clicked thru the TV channels and came to a show called Pigman. He was in New Zealand bowhunting "wild" catle. Apparently even cattle are not domesticated. I remember reading an article by Jim Shockey about muzzleloader hunting "wild" cattle in I believe Argentina. So by Plainsmans theory are they then wild animals stole from the public?? Hmmm. Helped the neighbor gather and load some yearlings yesterday. A couple definately could have been considered "wild". Maybe this Pigman fella would pay my neighbor to come and "hunt" one of his yearlings! It looks like the fella spent 5 days and didn't get his "bull" in New Zealand. But he did shoot a "wild" pig!

Boy here I thought cattle and pigs could be classified as domestic animals, and yet people are hunting wild cattle and hogs. I sure hope Gary doesn't start telling people my cattle are "wild game" :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So by Plainsmans theory are they then wild animals stole from the public??


When reason fails you start talking childishly. Every domestic animal has a wild root with most still alive. Wild cattle do exist in some areas. As for elk, simply because you put them behind a fence and a politician says yup their domestic doesn't make them really domestic. Your simply kicking up dust in hopes people can't see the bs.

As for the comparison to blood alcohol level laws get real. The legislature passes many laws some that make sense and some that don't. That happens because to be qualified as a legislature you have to have a heart beat. It requires less experience or knowledge than a guy flipping burgers at McDonalds. If your a citizen, old enough, and the people in your district vote for you your in. To many forget they are our servants and not our masters. When they declared elk domestic they were only thinking of business and profit. Big surprise.

As for property rights if we are all honest all our rights are limited. However those that require licenses or permits are more limited for very good reason.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

So you are saying the second amendmnet is limited for good reason. Need permits for my CC and silencer.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> When reason fails you start talking childishly. Every domestic animal has a wild root with most still alive. Wild cattle do exist in some areas. As for elk, simply because you put them behind a fence and a politician says yup their domestic doesn't make them really domestic. Your simply kicking up dust in hopes people can't see the bs.
> .


So then why wouldn't you reason if every domestic animal, cattle, has a "wild root" and yet are defined as domestic, that elk with that very same "wild root" could not be defined as domestic? What has given cattle the ability to move from their wild roots to be made domestic, and elk not? If you recall we have had this discussion before, perhaps you can provide the same "hippie" links this go around you did before! 



Plainsman.
As for the comparison to blood alcohol level laws get real. The legislature passes many laws some that make sense and some that don't. That happens because to be qualified as a legislature you have to have a heart beat. It requires less experience or knowledge than a guy flipping burgers at McDonalds. If your a citizen said:


> Plainsman regardles of your contempt for the legislature the laws they create are the laws of this state as set forth in the NDCC. So if this measure passes and is placed in the NDCC should it be disregarded by others in the same manner you are disregarding the law that states these animals are privately owned domestics?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Plainsman Said:


> It requires less experience or knowledge than a guy flipping burgers at McDonalds. If your a citizen, old enough, and the people in your district vote for you your in. *To many forget they are our servants and not our masters.* When they declared elk domestic they were only thinking of business and profit. Big surprise.


And when you work for the federal government you are a servant and not a master as well. Apparently these ex and current federal wildlife biologists sponsoring and supporting this measure have all forgotten this as well. If this is about Fair Chase what does that have to do with wildlife management?????? And if this is about wildlife management what does that have to do with privately owned animals that can be used as collateral?????

And this is the real agenda of this measure, nothing to do with fair chase. It is some in the federal government who feel these animals should not be owned and have found a backdoor method to take these animals away without having to compensate any of these landowners! At least man up and be honest and admit what this is about and compensate these guys. You know their animals are for sale.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> And when you work for the federal government you are a servant and not a master as well.


Your absolutely right, and I have always felt that way. However, it doesn't require me to give up my first amendment rights, or any other constitutionally guarantees.



> Apparently these ex and current federal wildlife biologists sponsoring and supporting this measure have all forgotten this as well.


As a conservative I am skeptical of the government myself. However, only a handful of these guys are federal employees. I think only one is a current employee, but he isn't representing the government he is representing himself. I think you know that though, but are in hopes some that vote are dumb enough not to know that.



> If this is about Fair Chase what does that have to do with wildlife management??????


Nothing, but I see a wildlife management aspect and it's positive. No more $10,000 elk and the temptation to cheat and hide CWD animals will be lessened.



> And if this is about wildlife management what does that have to do with privately owned animals that can be used as collateral?????


The measure isn't about wildlife management is it? Collateral???? if your looking for collateral a bucket of dung is collateral for a guy that wants fertilizer. 


> It is some in the federal government who feel these animals should not be owned and have found a backdoor method to take these animals away without having to compensate any of these landowners!


Actually it was private citizens that belong to county wildlife clubs that ;were asked by members of those organizations to join in the fight against high fence operations. At least that's how I came about it last year. You simply try to make that connection because there are many out there including myself that don't trust government. Your looking for a boogie man to point at, but none exist.

Compensation? I think they have two years to sell their animals. AS for the government doing it well, I don't like to pay taxes anymore than you, but three sure are a lot of people that want to put their hand in the government pocket. The government doesn't own a money tree. That money comes from your fellow citizens. I don't forget that aspect of it either and all through my career I thought long and hard about spending a dollar. It wasn't my money, it was yours and other Americans, and it was my responsibility not to waste it foolishly.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe, 
Question #1:



> 1. Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman on this site when asked if this measure will prevent someone from selling a live animal to another individual who then shoots the animal he now owns, stated this measure will allow the Federal Lacey Act to be used to make this a possible felony with a $10,000 dollar fine. Is this true and who has your group communicated with for a sponsor to be able to factually publically make this claim?





> Jim
> Question 1 is to clear up differing claims by sponsors. Roger Kaseman claims the Federal Lacey Act will prevent one person from selling an elk to another individual who then kills that animal. David Brandt and others claim it will not. Which one is telling the truth?


The measure prohibits collecting a fee for the killing of big game or exotic mammals. If the person selling the animal is accepting a fee for the killing of that animal, then he/she would be in violation of the measure. I don't know how the Lacey Act would be involved.

Jim


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Plainsman Stated:


> Actually it was private citizens that belong to county wildlife clubs that ;were asked by members of those organizations to join in the fight against high fence operations.


And private citizens are involved with bringing in Dr. Valerius Geist to speak who says "These game farms all must be SHUT down." How did he plan on doing that?

And private citizens brought Land Tawney, Regional Director for the National Wildlife Federation, into a "supposed" public meeting in Bismarck before SB 2254 where they talked about how they could keep this in front of the people, how they could keep farm bureau out of this, and that this raises the ire of HSUS, and interestingly weeks later Wayne Pacelle writes a letter to the editor about canned hunts.

And private citizens are using a pictures (notice the guy with the yellow rain coat) on their Fair Chase website from the following site, a site that went down shortly after the Fair Chase website went up. They are using the same video in their fact sheet from this site which was maintained by the National Wildlife Federation: http://web.archive.org/web/200602060244 ... photos.cfm


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg said:


> Gabe,
> Question #1:
> 
> 
> ...


So Jim, are you then saying the sponsor that collected over 8000 signatures himself is lying when he claims it will prevent someone from selling an elk to someone else who then shoots it despite the wording this measure much llike Sen. Potter suggested can happen with a $10,000 fine? Either he is telling the truth and you simply do not know it or want to admit it, or he is lying. Which is it.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> As for property rights if we are all honest all our rights are limited. However those that require licenses or permits are more limited for very good reason.


So Plainsman, are you now saying that raising these animals even if licensed or permited and limited is still indeed a property right????[/quote]

Plainsman, you didn't answer this question.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,
Question #2



> 2. Are these animals defined in the state NDCC as privately owned domestic animals that can be used as collateral?





> Question 2 is to clear up Sponsor Gary Maschings claim he made to potential signers that these animals are classified as "wild game" in the NDCC in article 11 Sec. 27. If they are defined as privately owned domestic animals that can be used as collateral in the NDCC as they are in Sec 36.1 he lied to these people.


I need some clarification on this one. By "Sec", do you mean "Chapter"? Chapter 11 is "Counties" and Chapter 36 is "Livestock". In addition, what difference does it make regarding the measure whether privately owned livestock can be used as collateral?

Jim


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,
I stated:


> The measure prohibits collecting a fee for the killing of big game or exotic mammals. If the person selling the animal is accepting a fee for the killing of that animal, then he/she would be in violation of the measure.


You stated:


> So Jim, are you then saying the sponsor that collected over 8000 signatures himself is lying when he claims it will prevent someone from selling an elk to someone else who then shoots it despite the wording this measure much llike Sen. Potter suggested can happen with a $10,000 fine? Either he is telling the truth and you simply do not know it or want to admit it, or he is lying. Which is it.


Gabe - you need to work on your reading comprehension. I stated:


> I don't know how the Lacey Act would be involved.


 That means " I don't know how the Lacey Act would be involved". It does not mean Sen. Potter is lying. It does not mean Roger is lying. It simply means I don't know how the Lacey Act would be involved.

This is a classic example of how you twist what people say to serve your own interests. And then you wonder why people won't waste their time answering your "questions".

By the way, would you state again for everyone reading these posts just what your own interests in this measure are?

Thank you.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

gst said:


> jhegg said:
> 
> 
> > Gabe,
> ...


Jim No comprehension help needed, but it appears you could use a little. No one is claiming Sen. Potter is lying, he simply asked the very same question I did regarding this measure that Roger answered claiming if this measure passes the Federal Lacey Act will prevent someone from selling some else an animal who then shoots the animal he now owns. You are claiming you do not know if what your fellow sponsor stated as fact is indeed the truth? Fine, let a sponsor that does come on here and answer the question. Your fellow sponsor Dave Brandt claims the Lacey Act will not be used in the method your other fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman claims it will. One is lying, or more pollitically correct, (mistakenly telling the public something that is not factually accurate) So should the public you are asking to vote on this measure have the right to know which sponsor is telling the truth? I really do not know how much more direct and untwisted I can make it for you. 2 sponsors are claiming the opposite thing, one is wrong, one is right, which one is it?

Later when I have the time I will find one of the several posts where I have spelled out my concerns over this measure and why I am opposing it and cut and paste it for whomever you'd like.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg said:


> Gabe,
> Question #2
> 
> 
> ...


Jim my mistake. It was article 11 Sec 27 of the ND State Constitution that Gary Masching was refering to that he suggests these animals fall under that is refering to "wild game" rather than the NDCC. If these animals are the wild game that falls under this section of the State Constitution, how can they be defined as privately owned domestic animals that can be used for collateral in the NDCC? If they were indeed "wild game" this section of the constitution refers to, this measure would be unneeded as it is illegal for an individual to "own" wild game here in ND without a permit so these operations would be in violation. On the flip side if an animal can be used as collateral they then can not be considered "wild game" so would not be able to fall under this section of the constitution as Gary infers they do.


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

If anyone in the Jamestown area is looking for a Vote No yard sign, I have an extra one.


----------



## Archimedes (Sep 17, 2010)

I have noticed the High Fence "hunting" supporters never seem to discuss, and actually avoid talking about, what it is they do. I have posted some stuff about the mutant deer they breed. Others have posted things about this industry. Stuff has been posted about all the money from out of state mutant deer grower groups supporting the opponents because they want to get rid of public hunting so they have a bigger market for their "shooter" bucks. The response: Proerty rights, HSUS; property rights, HSUS; Property rights, HSUS. They even hide their activity under the fake name of a "property rights" group. If they were truthful people why wouldn't they just call their group by a name that has "high fence" "hunting" in it? It seems like they don't ever want to discuss what it is they do, and don't want the public to know more about what they do. I wonder why that is?


----------



## 58504451 (Jan 6, 2006)

Archi - Why do you guys always assume property to be real estate?? I see property as cows - livestock - domesticated elk or deer. Can I do what I want with my property???


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Archimedes, perhaps if the sponsors would actually answer some questions people other than supporters or unwitting nonhunters have asked, there would be something more to talk about. How about discussing the following 8 questions! :wink: .

1. Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman on this site when asked if this measure will prevent someone from selling a live animal to another individual who then shoots the animal he now owns, stated this measure will allow the Federal Lacey Act to be used to make this a possible felony with a $10,000 dollar fine. Is this true and who has your group communicated with for a sponsor to be able to factually publically make this claim?

2. Are these animals defined in the state NDCC as privately owned domestic animals that can be used as collateral?

3.Why is this being placed in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC where there is currently a definition of these animals as privately owned domestic farmed elk, when the measure lists them as big game that is regulated in Sec 27 of the NDCC. And who advised your group as to putting it here?

4. If the intent is to protect hunnting from the "black eye" shooting an animal inside a fenced enclosure and calling it hunting gives hunting itself, why were buffalo purposely excluded from the measure when there are more operations advertising "canned" "fenced" buffalo "hunts" here in the state than there are deer hunting operations?

5.If your goal is to eliminate a disease risk here in the state from these elk and deer operations, to accomplish this do you have to eliminate all of these operations that raise deer or elk for any purposes from operating here in ND and is that the goal of the group NDH for FC?

6. You claim this measure does nothing to affect ranchers raising cattle or buffalo, what about the elk rancher raising elk for slaughter rather than a HF enterprise. Will these ranchers be able to continue the practice of selling an animal to an individual for a fee or renumeration that then shoots said aninmal on the premise and takes that animal to process it themselves as is currently allowed by law??

7. Do you believe raising legaly defined privately owned domestic animals in accordance with all appropriate state regulations is a property right?

8. And one just for fun, Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman claimed on this site this measure is about "bragging rights" and "hanging a head on the wall" . Is this the official position of NDH for FC?


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

SiouxperDave25 said:


> If anyone in the Jamestown area is looking for a Vote No yard sign, I have an extra one.


I will take it......PM me for details...I won't be bakc in town for a week or so though.

THakns


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

Archimedes said:


> I have noticed the High Fence "hunting" supporters never seem to discuss, and actually avoid talking about, what it is they do. I have posted some stuff about the mutant deer they breed. Others have posted things about this industry. Stuff has been posted about all the money from out of state mutant deer grower groups supporting the opponents because they want to get rid of public hunting so they have a bigger market for their "shooter" bucks. The response: Proerty rights, HSUS; property rights, HSUS; Property rights, HSUS. They even hide their activity under the fake name of a "property rights" group. If they were truthful people why wouldn't they just call their group by a name that has "high fence" "hunting" in it? It seems like they don't ever want to discuss what it is they do, and don't want the public to know more about what they do. I wonder why that is?


Well dont ya know, we are all in deep with HF operations.....I mean, we must have some money ivested in it, why else would we sitck up for it, accorinding to some??????????????


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

For the record, I have ZERO, repeat ZERO personal interests in HF hunitng operations1!!!!!!!!

Vote no measure 2!!!!!!!!

We don't need a group of high and mighty telling us how we can and can't hunt!!!!!!

ND has bigger enemies than 12 HF operations.


----------



## Archimedes (Sep 17, 2010)

My point was why don't HF supporters ever talk about what they do? Breeding mutant deer for out of state rich people to shoot. Why is that so hard to say or talk about? And why do they always try to deflect from what they do with "property rights", HSUS; property rights, HSUS,....And then you guys make my point by not talking about what HF "hunting" is all about. Gst - as you well know I answered your exact questions before. My answers have not changed so you can just go back and look them up. Nobody has every answered my questions about why the public should put up with the risks to wild herds HF causes. The Fair Chase people put online where our deer and elk, public deer and elk in ND, have had to be shot on many occasions because they had contact with captive deer and elk in HF operations. The owners of the "property" that came into contact with public property didn't have to give the public and compensation for our losses. Without measure two what stops this industry from expanding in ND like the out of state guys funding the misleading ads about "our" property rights have written themselves they want it to?


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

If you want to talk compensation who gives it to the ranchers and farmers that keep the deer for the 9 months out of the year that you cant hunt them. Seems to me that you are just jealous of the rich guys who have the cash to come and shoot the big mutant bucks.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Archimedes, Are you a sponsor? If not, your answers carry no more weight than mine in regards to the sponsors intent and ideologies behind this measure.

As to your claims regarding the health risks to the wild deer, every animal ag industry has health issues some of which can affect animals outside the operations. The State puts in place regulations that will reduce the risks of this from happening. They have agencies who are charged with the enforcement of these regulations. There is always some small risk as long as animals are being raised, but the regulations in place reduce it to acceptable levels outside of the iradication of the disease itself. There is a risk of disease from Mexican roping cattel being imported, but we don;t ban rodeos because of it. Can you show an instance of any disease transfer bertween these HF operations and the wild herds here in ND ?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> The Fair Chase people put online where our deer and elk, public deer and elk in ND, have had to be shot on many occasions because they had contact with captive deer and elk in HF operations. The owners of the "property" that came into contact with public property didn't have to give the public and compensation for our losses.





> The State puts in place regulations that will reduce the risks of this from happening. They have agencies who are charged with the enforcement of these regulations.


There it is Archimedes, regulation. Some simple regulations would solve a lot of actual, factual issues with HF Shooting. I believe that if the FC people would have went the route of regulation and monitoring the support for this from the hunting and non hunting and non hunting community would be nearly 100%. I don't like HF being called hunting, I really think that it is a joke when they photo a shooter with an animal and then score it. It would be like me scoring a $25 steak from a local butcher and comparing it to a $5 round steak from Walmart.


> "property rights", HSUS; property rights, HSUS,...


That is what the issue is for non FC Hunters. The reason that I bring up HSUS is that your views are in line with theirs. I referenced tail docking and neutering. I also would like to hunt Mountain Lions with hounds, I know people who raise elk and butcher them, I know a few people who trap, etc. These are all things that are also on the HSUS agenda. Say what you want you guys are opening the door, even if it is only a crack, for more non sense like this. These things cost all taxpayers, not just hunters.

Why any Sportsmen would support a group and measure that falls in line with HSUS is beyond me. HSUS and PETA have realized that they are in the minority and that they are losing support. Their only chance at success in places like ND is through propaganda and to try to circumvent and thwart laws and measures like this. Like I said before, look at Montana.

I don't like commercial hunting, I don't think an all out ban is the answer. Just like HF more regulation is needed to insure that only well run, responsible, and ethical operations exist. Not just the make a quick buck and leave operations that we see a lot of now.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

tk you need to get out of ND a bit to grasp the depth or lack of depth you really have regarding how you see things. Unfortunately you have to much of a localized view on this. Canned shooting is banned in almost half the states for one reason or another. ND allowing it, especially under the guise of HUNTING allows for all hunting,trapping, etc... to be drug down or outlawed in the future. It protecting this diminishes our ability to protect fair chase hunting in the future. It will be a sad day.

All I can ask of you is to simply think about one thing. In all the polls done locally or nationally produce one that shows a majority support of canned shooting. Even when property rights are included they never rise above 40%! If you look at case law regarding animal treatment and humane killing of them, there is boat load of cases which have went against the owner of the property for as the courts see it even more humane practices that have been made illegal. That is it in a nut shell. While on a local basis, we have little to fear, but nationally not so and it is naive to assume otherwise.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Ron,

Why do insist on continuing to state the lie that canned shooting is banned in almost half the states. You have been corrected on FBO and now you are here passing on the same lie.



> This is absolutely false. It has not been banned in half the states for the same reasons. Many of the states that never allowed it are very small, such as Delaware, Rhode Island. There has only been one state that banned it by initiated measure, Montana. Wyoming never allowed it to start. And many of the other states just have restrictions that are restrictions on any forms of hunting. I think there are 20 states that have bans or restrictions -- 10 that have never allowed it and the others with restrictions.


Correction to Above: Should say 10 that have never allowed it or banned it and the others with restrictions.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Meet Mr. Grosz, a high fence owner:






Please link this video to your facebook pages and spread the word to vote NO on measure 2. The ND Elk Growers thank you!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Ron, much like everyone else I got friends and relatives scattered all over the country. Some in business, some in politics, some young, some old, etc. The common thing that you will find when it comes to hunting and fishing is that a lot of people are ignorant and do not have the facts. You can argue that this will help that but the risk will not outweigh the reward. Nut jobs are nut jobs and any amount of legislation will not fix that. If this passes we may see a small percentage of people thinking that all hunting was HF and now are fine with hunting but a majority of anti hunters will always be anti hunters and you cannot legislate that out of them. This will open other doors at taxpayer expense, there will be more attempts at restricting hunting practices, there will be more BS that follows.

Keep calling me naive Ron, great come back. Your credibility is taking a serious hit here 20 out of fifty is nowhere near half, propaganda, you are no different then your HF counterparts. I don't care for the politics in other states, these other states have legislated themselves into a hole. They are reaping what they have sown. Not only in the hunting/fishing areas but in all of their politics. You cannot argue for a second that states that have passed this type of legislation have not had other restrictive, anti-hunting type legislation or attempted legislation follow or precede. I listed Montana because they are right next door and the Eastern 1/2-2/3 of Montana has a lot of the same demographics that ND has. The granolas or whatever in MT have succeeded in restricting some hunting and hunting practices there, why?, because some brain dead legislation was passed that opened the door that is why.

Regulation is a much better answer than a ban. If you want to protect hunting and the future hunting aligning yourself with HSUS and PETA sure as hell isn't the answer. I could care less if HF is here or not, what I do care about is this measure and your group helping HSUS, opening doors for more hunting restrictions, pissing off landowners, restricting property rights, and getting in the way of non HF animal production.

For the record I have no desire to leave ND. I have been here all my life and I plan on dying here.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

> The granolas or whatever in MT have succeeded in restricting some hunting and hunting practices there, why?, because some brain dead legislation was passed that opened the door that is why.


Come on TK, be more specific.



> 20 out of fifty is nowhere near half


Yep, that's 5 off, if you don't consider the 10 that never allowed it. Never allowing something is also a ban. It just didn't have to be done by an initiated measure. They were smart enough not to ever allow it in the first place.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

> Bob Kellam wrote:
> Internet search
> Texas has banned hunting of bears, lions, elephants, and rhinoceroses. Canned hunting has been banned or restricted in these states, Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Wyoming never banned it because it was never allowed to get started. Minnesota had a ban at one time, it was never overturned


Cwoparson wrote:



> Which states have a actual ban and what are the restrictions in the other states. Kind of a play on words isn't it?
> 
> Now to be more accurate there is really only 7 states with realistic hunting that have a total ban not counting Maryland and Delaware. The last two states are about the size of a average county in most states and are nothing more than numbers. Of course there is Hawaii but who goes to Hawaii to hunt. So out of the 20 states you listed there is really only 10 that do not allow high fence hunting and 10 with restrictions. Restrictions or laws if you will that all states have concerning hunting whether on or off a hunting preserve. So out of 50 states there is 40 that allow high fence hunting and 10 that do not. Play on words it appears to be and misleading but somehow I get the feeling that was the intent.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=51026&p=421501#p421501

It is no longer banned in Minnesota as well.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Come on TK, be more specific.


Trail cameras banned during hunting season, attempts to ban trapping on public lands, and lead ban nearly passed. All in Montana

I also love how there is a link to the ND Fair Chase website right on HSUS's website. But then again there is no correlation between the two groups :down:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,



> Archimedes, perhaps if the sponsors would actually answer some questions people other than supporters or unwitting nonhunters have asked, there would be something more to talk about. How about discussing the following 8 questions! :wink: .





> Archimedes, Are you a sponsor? If not, your answers carry no more weight than mine in regards to the sponsors intent and ideologies behind this measure.


You will never be satisfied with any answer, no matter who gives it.

Jim


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Lt you can play on words all you want but by your own count 30 of the 50 states do not allow it, correct? Not allowing it is the same as banning it, in my world and to most people. So again using your count I can now say *more *than half have banned it!!!!


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Ron,

A total of twenty states have banned it, never allowed it, or restricted it. Ten have restrictions. So that leaves a total of ten that would have either banned it or never allowed it. And most of them being relatively small. Therefore it is allowed in 40 states.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg said:


> Gabe,
> You will never be satisfied with any answer, no matter who gives it.
> 
> Jim


Jim, we will never know because you sponsors know that to honestly and directly aswer all the questions I asked would open up the courts ability to look to these answers when they determine if this is a takings or not. 
So NO sponsor will ever answer all these questions directly plain and simple. It is a chicken **** way to skirt the law. You want to create law, but do not have enough respect for current law to accept it's principals.


----------

