# Measure 2 online poll



## gunattic (Jan 9, 2005)

Just thought I'd throw up a poll.. yeah, I'd like to throw up on this subject.. but.. this might be fun. If we can keep it that way.
Easy on the remarks.. maybe just vote and if you must, go easy on the remarks. I set the option to change your vote in the future if you'd like.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

dragoncreekranch,

Your site:



> ~ Whitetail Hunt Pricing ~
> Class Price
> Up to 129 $1,200
> 130-139 $2,000
> ...


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


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Don't like it don't watch........can't play with the big cats stay out of the sand box! I bow hunt with a long bow only and love the challenge, I don't take shots that I don't think will kill quickly. Do I suggest how you should bow hunt?? Then give up the charade on the whole high fence deal. 75% of the signatures you got were unaware that were any businesses in the state that offered these shooting opportunities.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There has to be a reason emotions are so hot. Most if they stop to think about it know the sponsors are fellow sportsmen. Most know none are members of HSUS. Most know that they got burned last year so didn't talk to HSUS this year. If HSUS advertises to increase farm subsidies should we be against farmers? I sure would like to know the real story behind the opposition.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, would the HSUS ad using psuedo hunters to gain a degree of legitimacy with nonhunters regarding their true agenda be running here today if it were not for these "sportsmen" and this measure you defend?


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

High Fenced animals are already regulated by North Dakota Department of Agriculture. If they need to be regulated, submit a request to them and they will take it under advisory. This whole measure isn't about shooting wild animals it's about raising and harvesting Non-traditional Livestock here in ND. All of these Non-Traditional Livestock places have to have High Fences to keep their herd in and WILD animals out. Each place and each animal within the enclosure is test for diseases and conditions within the fence. They all have clean bills of health, Board of animal Health has the papers on these animals to prove it.

The Non-Traditional Livestock within these fences are bought from a repeatable broker and have been raised within a fence their entire life, in fact for many generations behind them. They are basically a domestic animal. They are feed and watered like cattle, every single day.

The language in this measure sucks, it makes it sound like the animals are kept in pens that are 20'x 20', live there the entire live and are shot there. Bull, they have in most cases large expanses to roam around in.

As far as the commercials with the sudo-hunters, they don't depict hunters, they depict desk jockeys with their own intent to do harm to all Non-Traditional Livestock in ND. Once they get their meat hooks into the Non-traditional, it's only a small hop skip and a jump away from taking away some more of our freedoms. If this measure goes through I think that Hunters for Fair chase should go and buy all of these non-traditional livestock in ND from the owners and give them a very large stippen of cash for taking away their livelihood and business. then slaughter the animals and give them to hunters for the hungry, but you wouldn't want all that diseased meat to go to a good cause. Of course you probably wouldn't be able to slaughter them either because then you'd be just as horrible as everyone else.

HSUS is exactly like PETA, they aren't out to save little puppies and kitties, they're out to stop any act against animals. If you're going to donate money to help puppies and kitties, go to a local Vet Clinic or the local Humane Society, one that has no affiliation to HSUS.

That's just my 2 cents worth. maybe 3 cents this time.

xdeano


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst said:


> Plainsman, would the HSUS ad using psuedo hunters to gain a degree of legitimacy with nonhunters regarding their true agenda be running here today if it were not for these "sportsmen" and this measure you defend?


gst, I didn't know any of the people in that add so I can't say what they are. I'll bet you don't know any more than I do about them. That is the way you guys have been operating all along in opposing this measure. You say many things that you have no idea of. Me, I have no idea about those guys, but unlike you I admit it.

If anyone reading these posts has an identification on any of these people I would be interested to know about them.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

xdeano... you said it perfectly!

It is worth repeating...:



> High Fenced animals are already regulated by North Dakota Department of Agriculture. If they need to be regulated, submit a request to them and they will take it under advisory. This whole measure isn't about shooting wild animals it's about raising and harvesting Non-traditional Livestock here in ND. All of these Non-Traditional Livestock places have to have High Fences to keep their herd in and WILD animals out. Each place and each animal within the enclosure is test for diseases and conditions within the fence. They all have clean bills of health, Board of animal Health has the papers on these animals to prove it.
> 
> The Non-Traditional Livestock within these fences are bought from a repeatable broker and have been raised within a fence their entire life, in fact for many generations behind them. They are basically a domestic animal. They are feed and watered like cattle, every single day.
> 
> ...


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

x 3



Chuck Smith said:


> xdeano... you said it perfectly!
> 
> It is worth repeating...:
> 
> ...


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

I equate killing semi-domestic high fenced wildlife with using a prostitute.

OK,,,that's a stretch but I'll still vote no.


----------



## eliptiabeht (Nov 5, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman, would the HSUS ad using psuedo hunters to gain a degree of legitimacy with nonhunters regarding their true agenda be running here today if it were not for these "sportsmen" and this measure you defend?
> ...


I think the real question he asked that I don't see where you answered plainsman is: Would the HSUS ad regarding their true agenda be running here today if it were not for these "sportsmen" and this measure you defend?

You chose to change it to a debate of fake hunters or hunters with an agenda......either way they are being employed by HSUS.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

eliptiabeht, I sure would like to know a lot more about that add. I would like to know a lot more about a lot of things. For example I thought sportsmen would always be honest with one another, but there sure is a push to make a connection between the sponsors of measure 2 and HSUS. I know some of the guys and know they dislike HSUS and PETA as much as any of the people on this thread. There are a lot of simply made up accusations going on. I sure would like to know why.

You know I was hunting when many on here were in diapers. I worked for wildlife for 36 years, and I have always thought I owed more to the American hunters than the general public. In the studies I have done for wildlife law enforcement I found that throughout the history of American wildlife management it was nearly always the hunters who asked for changes. It's sad that on this occasion so many hunters will not step up to the plate as their fathers would have. This is a wildlife/hunting issue as clear as crystal no matter how some try wrap it in property rights.

I'll tell you what check and see where any of the strong opponents have contributed to anything else in this site. Deer hunting, rifle, reloading, waterfowl, nothing for some of these guys. When this is over do you think we will ever hear from them again? Only if there are grazing issues, or farm support price issues. Their lack of participation in other forms tells me they don't give a rats behind about us hunters.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

HSUS run spots on KFGO asking people to donate land to them to prevent people from hunting it for a number of years now. Now I guess KFGO is in bed with HSUS because they took the money from them to run the spot. That answers your question gst, like it or not! I have seen TV commercials run on our local stations promoting the same thing.


----------



## eliptiabeht (Nov 5, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> eliptiabeht, I sure would like to know a lot more about that add. I would like to know a lot more about a lot of things. For example I thought sportsmen would always be honest with one another, but there sure is a push to make a connection between the sponsors of measure 2 and HSUS. I know some of the guys and know they dislike HSUS and PETA as much as any of the people on this thread. There are a lot of simply made up accusations going on. I sure would like to know why.
> 
> You know I was hunting when many on here were in diapers. I worked for wildlife for 36 years, and I have always thought I owed more to the American hunters than the general public. In the studies I have done for wildlife law enforcement I found that throughout the history of American wildlife management it was nearly always the hunters who asked for changes. It's sad that on this occasion so many hunters will not step up to the plate as their fathers would have. This is a wildlife/hunting issue as clear as crystal no matter how some try wrap it in property rights.
> 
> I'll tell you what check and see where any of the strong opponents have contributed to anything else in this site. Deer hunting, rifle, reloading, waterfowl, nothing for some of these guys. When this is over do you think we will ever hear from them again? Only if there are grazing issues, or farm support price issues. Their lack of participation in other forms tells me they don't give a rats behind about us hunters.


If someone would have came up to my dad or my grandfather in his day and said, I don't like the way your killing your farm raised animal the guy would have got a punch in the face.

If someone then said, Your neighbor is killing his farm raised animal and calling it a hunt, my father or grandfather would have said, well that guys a dumb a$$ and went back to work. He would'nt have felt the need to stop everything he was doing to drive down the road and say hey, you're not hunting knock it off!!

The problem now is people have too much time on their hands and feel they must save the world with everything they do. With or without high fence operations the world will go on and some group will choose another battle, period.

HSUS, PETA, and this self important group need that punch in the face right now and I hope to hell they get it at the voting booth!!


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

A canned "hunt" is one thing,,,, baiting free roaming deer is another.
I won't vote for Measure 2, but I am curious on how the "strong opponents" of 2 feel about baiting.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> You know I was hunting when many on here were in diapers. I worked for wildlife for 36 years, and I have always thought I owed more to the American hunters than the general public. In the studies I have done for wildlife law enforcement I found that throughout the history of American wildlife management it was nearly always the hunters who asked for changes. It's sad that on this occasion so many hunters will not step up to the plate as their fathers would have. *This is a wildlife/hunting issue as clear as crystal no matter how some try wrap it in property rights.*
> 
> I'll tell you what check and see where any of the strong opponents have contributed to anything else in this site. Deer hunting, rifle, reloading, waterfowl, nothing for some of these guys. When this is over do you think we will ever hear from them again? Only if there are grazing issues, or farm support price issues. Their lack of participation in other forms tells me they don't give a rats behind about us hunters.


It is a property rights issue...the FC group is trying to tell someone what they can do legally (shooting not mistreatment) to there livestock. PROPERTY RIGHTS.

How is it a hunting issue if people for FC don't think this is hunting?

I remember when I first chimmed in on this issue I stated that HSUS or PETA will jump on the band wagon and run with it. Well here we are and what is happening? Now I am not saying the people for this bill are in bed with PETA or HSUS. But yet they are not out there denying or putting down the ads that they are running. I remember i said it is a slippery slope....well here is HSUS using hunters to forward their agenda. Hmmmm..... Is this snow storm making the hillside SLIPPERY!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> putting down the ads that they are running.


Why would the FC people put down the add when they agree with it? If HSUS said Chuck Smith has a right to shoot Canada geese would you put down that add? I can't believe the lack of logic people are displaying. Is it emotion rather than logical thought? Sure I would have guessed that HSUS and groups like it would jump on it. They may try make their members think they deserve some credit, but they don't. The only reason they may get some credit is that some hunters are opposing it. Chuck, you may be playing right into their hands more so than the FC committee.

Do you want to know what bothers me nearly as much as the poor ethics of shooting an animal in a pen? The fact that these guys would like to be the only game in town. You know how I have voiced a pro second amendment position. Back in 1968 I was shocked that a local sport shop was celebrating the then new firearms control act. I remember being able to buy a 6.5X55 Swedish for $19 in Shotgun News. The sport shop was happy about that gun control bill because it meant people would now have to buy from them. They would also have to pay five times as much. High fence operations and outfitters would like that same advantage, and that is where hunting in all states is headed. Texas is simply ahead of most of them, but it will come here to North Dakota also. Kids born today in North Dakota may never be able to afford to hunt unless they own their own land or are rich. That's a sad thought.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, I could give two ****s wether or not these people are real hunters or someone that is willing to accept money from or donate their time to the nations leading and most effective anti hunting/anti animal ag org in this country. The fact remains becasue of a handful of arrogant, egotistical eliteists that believe their veiws of what constitutes hunting should be forced onto others and their master plan of using the nonhunting public to do so (NDH for FC) has allowed HSUS a platform here in this state. One would think that after all those years hunting while we were still in diapers one would know better than giving any group like HSUS a reason to voice their agendas here in ND.

ron swift jim, dave, plainsman who ever the hell else spouted off about HSUS becoming directly involved in this measure as being nothing more than "scare tacics" what else that you have dismissed as "scare tactics" are going to come to light as actualities with this measure. Perhaps non HF operations being prohibited from selling their animals? Remember Rons persistant claims this will not prevent the sale of non HF animals for harvest to individuals that kill the animal and process it themselves and that claims it would were "scare tactics".That dispite the State AG's office opinion saying otherwise. Perhaps HSUS using this as a spring board to further their ultimate agenda of ending all hunting by finding members that will use the initiated measure process to ban say trapping.

The FACT remains HSUS is running ads here in ND because of this measure and the people that sponsored it and supported it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The fact remains becasue of a handful of arrogant, egotistical eliteists that believe their veiws of what constitutes hunting


That's what the market hunters thought when this nation changed from meat on the table mentality to sport hunting. Do you think those guys were bad too?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > putting down the ads that they are running.


Why would the FC people put down the add when they agree with it? If HSUS said Chuck Smith has a right to shoot Canada geese would you put down that add?

Possibly because they are hunters and understand the real agenda of HSUS to end ALL hunting???!!! :-? Christ almighty. 
Plainsman that is the stupidist piece of "logic" I have ever heard. I'm starting to wonder if you even know anything about HSUS. And to justify, defend, excuse their involvement in this measure shows just how far these supporters and sponsors will go to get this personal agenda passed. :eyeroll:

The saddest thought yet is that those same kids you mention may not be able to hunt wether they own land or not or or are rich or not simply because a few arrogant eliteist opened the door to an anti hunting org that will have banned hunting or at the very least some of the more " questionably ethical forms" they target thru the use of the nonhunting public to do so.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > The fact remains becasue of a handful of arrogant, egotistical eliteists that believe their veiws of what constitutes hunting
> 
> 
> That's what the market hunters thought when this nation changed from meat on the table mentality to sport hunting. Do you think those guys were bad too?


Plainsman, where those "market hunters" killing privately owned domestic "farmed" animals???? There in lies the difference you will not accept.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

Nothing from the outfitters and high fence operators about baiting?
BL,,,if a buck can be made by baiting a buck,,,they'd do it in a minute.
Having said that, Measure 2 is still a property rights issue in my opinion.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

Of course the FC people would not say....we hate this ad or anything to the likes. But they could come out and say they don't approve this ad. That way HSUS would be on its own. But yet people all along say they have no connection with HSUS...then this comes along....hmmmmm. Coincidence?

Do you see how this is a property rights issue yet? The property is not the land but the live stock! Do you see how it is infringing on who they can sell it too, how it can be harvested or used, etc. Do you see that issue? Do you see how this could hurt the livestock industry? I guess not.

Yet you claim it is a hunting issue when in fact you say HF is not hunting....then how is it a hunting issue?

You claim it is a wildlife issue....yet these animals are livestock and are classified as livestock and he never seen the outside of a pen.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Plainsman, where those "market hunters" killing privately owned domestic "farmed" animals???? There in lies the difference you will not accept.


BINGO.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

GST

Like I've said before, if this measure passes HSUS is only going to hurt themselves by taking one of their primary weapons of attack off the table. That is, a weapon used against the "sportsman" anyway.....but you seem to be a huge pro "sportsman" spokesman lately so maybe you should reconsider your vote?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

leadfed you right, but for some reason many don't want to see it. We will not change the minds of those we debate here, but we may change a few of the many who read this but don't become involved. I hope they understand the truth, that groups like FC are much like the sportsman of the early 1920's who seen the need for wildlife conservation. I hope they understand that their efforts are genuine and will remove a publicly objectionable thorn from our image. I'm not discouraged because I think reasonable people understand that.
You do notice there is one undecided. I hope they understand that it's just history being played out again. Sportsmen/conservationists vs the modern market hunters. The HSUS thing is just throwing mud and hoping it will stick.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> leadfed you right, but for some reason many don't want to see it. We will not change the minds of those we debate here, but we may change a few of the many who read this but don't become involved. I hope they understand the truth, that groups like FC are much like the sportsman of the early 1920's who seen the need for wildlife conservation. I hope they understand that their efforts are genuine and will remove a publicly objectionable thorn from our image. I'm not discouraged because I think reasonable people understand that.
> You do notice there is one undecided. I hope they understand that it's just history being played out again. Sportsmen/conservationists vs the modern market hunters. The HSUS thing is just throwing mud and hoping it will stick.


Except measure 2 has NOTHING to do with wildlife conservation. These are NOT wildlife!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> GST
> 
> Like I've said before, if this measure passes HSUS is only going to hurt themselves by taking one of their primary weapons of attack off the table. That is, a weapon used against the "sportsman" anyway.....but you seem to be a huge pro "sportsman" spokesman lately so maybe you should reconsider your vote?


Are you so naive that you believe this "taking away of primary weapons of attack" as you claim HF is, is going to stop HSUS from pursueing their agenda? The sponsors themselves stated prior to them telling people these operations existed most had no clue they did. Without this group NDH for FC starting this measure and opening the door for HSUS to come into this state, it could hardly be considered a "primary weapon" any more than HSUS's long standing continueing attacks on various forms of FC hunting such as bowhunting. Perhaps we should just ban mourning dove hunting or trapping to take away a "primary weapon of attack" as well. What you seem to either not comprehend or more likely will not admit to in an attempt to justify your popsition is that the only way HSUS knows they can accomplish their goal of banning all hunting is to do so INCREMENTALY. This is merely one step in a long journey that the gropup NDH for FC has made a little easier for them.


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

spentwings said:


> I equate killing semi-domestic high fenced wildlife with using a prostitute.
> 
> OK,,,that's a stretch but I'll still vote no.


I'm not for prostitution being illegal either :beer: :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Are you so naive that you believe this "taking away of primary weapons of attack" as you claim HF is, is going to stop HSUS from pursueing their agenda?


No, I don't think they will leave us alone, but let me ask people this. If this measure had never come up do you really believe they would have left us alone then? They are always going to be after us and we will have to fight them to keep our rights. It's just that without high fences for them to point at we will have a better chance. 
Most people in North Dakota support hunting, while 70/30 do not like high fence operations. That should tell us if we will be better off with or without high fence operations when groups like PETA attack us. Why run a race with a ball and chain around our neck?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

by Plainsman 


> Most people in North Dakota support hunting, while 70/30 do not like high fence operations. That should tell us if we will be better off with or without high fence operations when groups like PETA attack us. Why run a race with a ball and chain around our neck?


Because to the HF boys, anything to make a buck is "ethical" in their mind.

Who cares that anti-hunting organizations use HF operations as ammunition to eliminate hunting. (Hint: the fair chase group does). I guess the HF crowd thinks if they try to tie the fair chase people to the anti-hunting crowd, then their involvement in providing ammo to the anti-hunting organizations will be overlooked. I wonder why the HF crowd has never addressed their activities being used by anti-hunting organizations? Wait, I know why. They can't defend it so they try to shift the blame to the fair chase group.

Boy, aren't those boys a class act. (Hint for those who get sucked into the HF logic - that last comment was sarcastic!)

Jim


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Boy am I glad I registered as a Democrat! They let me vote NO nine times today!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Im kind of curious as to what alias's the HF sponsors have to use when they're out and about asking for hunting permission from ND farmers/ranchers?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

I use this:

"Hi! I'm Jim Heggeness and I live in Fargo. If that parcel of land is yours, I would like to hunt on it. Do you allow other people to hunt on your land?"

I either get a yes or a no, and I can accept either answer.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > Are you so naive that you believe this "taking away of primary weapons of attack" as you claim HF is, is going to stop HSUS from pursueing their agenda?
> 
> 
> No, I don't think they will leave us alone, but let me ask people this. If this measure had never come up do you really believe they would have left us alone then? They are always going to be after us and we will have to fight them to keep our rights. It's just that without high fences for them to point at we will have a better chance.
> Most people in North Dakota support hunting, while 70/30 do not like high fence operations. That should tell us if we will be better off with or without high fence operations when groups like PETA attack us. Why run a race with a ball and chain around our neck?


So given that logic, should a gropup of hunters start an initiated measure to ban trapping so that we stand a little better chance when HSUS continues their agenda to ban hunting". Perhaps we should just ban bowhunting and that will insure we have a bettger chance when HSUS continues off this opening of the door to their agendas by the group NDH for FC.

Perhaps the NRA should give in an allow AR 15's to be banned, most of the public does not like these "black" "assault" weapons. They are being used as the "primary weapon of attack" in the push to ban private gun ownership. I have never once "assaulted" anyone with an AR 15, but have "hunted" quite a few coyotes with one. Or perhaps hand guns, another popular "primary weapon of attack" You know the good old "saturday night special". So how long do you believe our right to keep and bear arms would last if the NRA started giving in to the anti gun folks? How long would people continue to support them if they ran agendas parrallel to the anti gun groups. How many donations would they receive to continue if they had agendas that the anti gun groups ran ads supporting?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg said:


> I use this:
> 
> "Hi! I'm Jim Heggeness and I live in Fargo. If that parcel of land is yours, I would like to hunt on it. Do you allow other people to hunt on your land?"
> 
> I either get a yes or a no, and I can accept either answer.


Jim I can see where you probably wouldn't want to go with " Hi I'm Jim Heggness, I was a sponsor of meaasure 2 that infringes on private property rights and forces my ethical beliefs onto others and condoned my fellow sponsors lying to acheive their personal agenda which opened the door to HSUS running ads here in our state. Can I hunt your land?" :wink:


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

GST said
So given that logic, should a gropup of hunters start an initiated measure to ban trapping so that we stand a little better chance when HSUS continues their agenda to ban hunting". Perhaps we should just ban bowhunting and that will insure we have a bettger chance when HSUS continues off this opening of the door to their agendas by the group NDH for FC.

Perhaps the NRA should give in an allow AR 15's to be banned, most of the public does not like these "black" "assault" weapons. They are being used as the "primary weapon of attack" in the push to ban private gun ownership. I have never once "assaulted" anyone with an AR 15, but have "hunted" quite a few coyotes with one. Or perhaps hand guns, another popular "primary weapon of attack" You know the good old "saturday night special". So how long do you believe our right to keep and bear arms would last if the NRA started giving in to the anti gun folks? How long would people continue to support them if they ran agendas parrallel to the anti gun groups. How many donations would they receive to continue if they had agendas that the anti gun groups ran ads supporting?[/quote]

Leadfed said
LOL...are you seriously comparing trapping and bowhunting to high fence slaughter now? Yep, I think so. How many signatures do you think you would get if you tried to start an initiative to ban trapping or bowhunting in ND GST? The rest of your "stuff" on this post has been hashed out many times around the country before and look how far that has gone here in ND....I'm sure you know that though being the big "pro-sportsman" you are. You're scrambling now.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

leadfed said:


> Leadfed said
> LOL...are you seriously comparing trapping and bowhunting to high fence slaughter now? Yep, I think so.* How many signatures do you think you would get if you tried to start an initiative to ban trapping or bowhunting in ND GST? * The rest of your "stuff" on this post has been hashed out many times around the country before and look how far that has gone here in ND....I'm sure you know that though being the big "pro-sportsman" you are. You're scrambling now.


It can be done. In fact, the last big push to ban fur farming and trapping/snaring the late 80's even INCLUDED certain groups of un-informed, ignorant, "sportsmen" and "hunters".......much like NDHFC.

State Trapping Bans (straight of the HSUS website)

Washington (2000 ballot initiative)-Citizens voted in favor (55%) of banning the use of leghold traps, other body-gripping traps, and snares for recreation and commerce in fur. In May 2003, the governor vetoed a rollback of the ban.

California (1998 ballot initiative)-Voters supported (57%) Proposition 4, which banned the use of leghold traps, other body-gripping traps, and snares for recreation and commerce in fur.

Massachusetts (1996 ballot initiative)-Voters passed (64%) The Wildlife Protection Act, banning the use of leghold traps, other body-gripping traps, and snares for capturing fur-bearing animals.

Colorado (1992 ballot initiative)-Citizens voted in favor (52%) of a constitutional amendment banning the use of leghold, other body-griping traps and snares.

Arizona (1992 ballot initiative)-Voters (58%) enacted a ban on the use of leghold traps, other body-gripping traps, and snares on public land-which makes up 80% of the state.

New Jersey (1986 legislation)-The New Jersey legislature banned both possession and use of leghold traps, making it the most restrictive of the leghold trap bans.

Rhode Island (1977 legislation)-Rhode Island legislators banned the use of the leghold trap to capture any animal.

Florida (1974 regulation)-The Florida Fish and Game Commission enacted a regulation prohibiting the use of any steel or leghold trap where wildlife might be found.

It should be noted that Arizona, Washington, Colorado, and Massachusetts all had very strong trapper associations and they STILL lost. And they lost by letting those that have NO IDEA on the subject decide it for them.

Never say never.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Leadfed address the comparison to NRA and what would happen if they had "protected" the "heritage" of gun ownership here in the US in the manner this group is trying to "protect" the hunting heritage here in ND.

If you do not believe HSUS will continue to push their agendas and have not gained an opening thru the ability to have a platform to advertise on here in ND because of these sponsors and this measure you are a fool. I can not say it any plainer.


----------



## border bum (Oct 28, 2010)

Even if the weather next Tuesday is as bad as it was today, we will make it to the polls to vote NO on Measure #2. We are asking every North Dakotan to vote NO on Measure #2.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

by gst:



> If you do not believe HSUS will continue to push their agendas and have not gained an opening thru the ability to have a platform to advertise on here in ND because of these sponsors and this measure you are a fool. I can not say it any plainer.


Gabe,
If you think HSUS would not continue to push their agenda if the HF initiative didn't come up, then you are the fool! I can not say that any plainer!

Jim


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

barebackjack said:


> Im kind of curious as to what alias's the HF sponsors have to use when they're out and about asking for hunting permission from ND farmers/ranchers?


I'm not sponsor, but I have access to about 50,000 acres. About 10,0000 in the Devils Lake area. I figure that's about enough so I have not looked for more for years. Devils Lake is near my home area so be careful not to try make browny points by badmouthing me up there. It may backfire.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> Leadfed address the comparison to NRA and what would happen if they had "protected" the "heritage" of gun ownership here in the US in the manner this group is trying to "protect" the hunting heritage here in ND.
> 
> If you do not believe HSUS will continue to push their agendas and have not gained an opening thru the ability to have a platform to advertise on here in ND because of these sponsors and this measure you are a fool. I can not say it any plainer.


Leadfed said,

And if you don't think HSUS wasn't already here and they will always be here, you my friend are the fool. What you forget is that in the end it is us, the people of ND who make the final decision in these matters....no HSUS, Peta or any other wackos. So, you put it all out there, like we are doing here, and let the ball roll I guess. Sometimes we all forget what the bottom line is, do you agree with high fence slaughter or do you oppose it.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE 2.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim That is my point HSUS will NEVER stop trying to further their agenda to end all huntiing. And you guys gave them a platform to take it a step farther here in ND. Thanks for your arrogant I could care less as long as I get my way attitude that allowed it.

leadfed, I thought the bottom line was protecting the hunting heritage here in ND? Allowing the nations leading anti hunting org a platform to run their ads here in the state just to accomplish a personal agenda is a foolish, irresponsible, selfish way of doing that in many hunters opinion.


----------



## gunattic (Jan 9, 2005)

Well, this has been interesting.. the posts have gotten a bit like all the other posts on the subject, but, that's the way it goes I guess. Still to early to tell the outcome of the poll.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

gunattic said:


> Well, this has been interesting.. the posts have gotten a bit like all the other posts on the subject, but, that's the way it goes I guess. Still to early to tell the outcome of the poll.


Apparently your not affiliated with CNN.

If they were conducting the poll theyd have it written up and be dancing in the streets already! :lol:


----------



## lake 17 (Sep 25, 2004)

I've already mailed in my NO vote !!


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> Jim That is my point HSUS will NEVER stop trying to further their agenda to end all huntiing. And you guys gave them a platform to take it a step farther here in ND. Thanks for your arrogant I could care less as long as I get my way attitude that allowed it.
> 
> leadfed, I thought the bottom line was protecting the hunting heritage here in ND? Allowing the nations leading anti hunting org a platform to run their ads here in the state just to accomplish a personal agenda is a foolish, irresponsible, selfish way of doing that in many hunters opinion.


Leadfed said,

GST, this is NOT a personal agenda. This is about wifes, husbands, relatives but most importantly niece's, nephews, kids and grandkids, and I might have missed a few. See where I am coming from? That is what protecting a heritage is all about. I can't imagine a ND where my grandkids are not able to hunt like I did because everywhere they looked they saw a high fence and if they got a deer or not depended on how deep their pockets were.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Not a personal agenda,???? you had better talk with Kaseman before you make that claim. And working hand in hand with the nations leading ant hunting group does what??????? You truely can not see the forrest for the trees. Answer how the NRA would have protected our "heritage" to keep and bear arms if they had done what this group of "hunters" has done here in ND.

leadfed, are you a sponsor of this measure?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> And working hand in hand with the nations leading ant hunting group does what??????? You truely can not see the forrest for the trees. Answer how the NRA would have protected our "heritage" to keep and bear arms if they had done what this group of "hunters" has done here in ND.


Leadfed said,

You are the one who has an absolute facination with HSUS....once again you are giving them way too much attention. I agree if if I was in the same position as you scrambling for things to use as scare tactics, I would use HSUS also. However, I would do this with the knowledge that most of what I was saying was complete BS to further my agenda.

The NRA question...well, we are talking about the second amendment to the United States constitution here vs. shooting an elk in a high fence. Hardly apples to apples there gst. And you can bet your *** or old fashioned steak dinner that if the founders of the constitution thought people would be stupid enough to pay to shoot animals in a high fence that would have been addressed also :wink:


----------



## 58504451 (Jan 6, 2006)

Leadfed,

Wake up man! You're worried about your grandkids hunting in ND and you support a bill that a group of so called " hunters " is promoting to push their "ethics" on you?? HSUS is their media financer and you worry about the future of hunting? Pass a bill every 5 years like this one and in 50 years they won't have to worry about hunting! You'll be glad to have that private property owner by then - hope it's not too late. Guess I don't have to mention how I voted.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

58504451 said:


> Leadfed,
> 
> Wake up man! You're worried about your grandkids hunting in ND and you support a bill that a group of so called " hunters " is promoting to push their "ethics" on you?? HSUS is their media financer and you worry about the future of hunting? Pass a bill every 5 years like this one and in 50 years they won't have to worry about hunting! You'll be glad to have that private property owner by then - hope it's not too late. Guess I don't have to mention how I voted.


Leadfed said,

Well if a "true" anti-hunting bill is passed in the next 5 years I'll eat crow and buy you one of those good old fashion steak dinners gst and I like. Maybe one of the few things we could agree on is what a good steak taste's like. :wink:


----------



## 58504451 (Jan 6, 2006)

What are you talking about - this bill would outlaw high fence hunting. Maybe not your and my type of hunting but by the sponsors own admission it's called hunting in the bill. Still believe nobody will propose an anti-hunting bill? You yourself are promoting one!


----------



## dragoncreekranch (Oct 26, 2010)

My husband and I presently own a high-fenced hunting preserve that we are VERY proud of. First off I would like to make sure that people who ARE bashing high-fenced preserves ACTUALLY have their facts straight. Our property that is presently fenced, used to be a favorite for people to come and hunt. We had COUNTLESS people coming to ask to hunt on our property because of its size AND terrain, which is perfect for whitetails.

I understand that high-fenced hunting is NOT for everyone and you are ALL entitled to your opinion. HOWEVER, to truly be able to debate this type of argument you have to know ALL the facts so as if not to appear ignorant on the issue! There is a lot more to it than JUST hunting an animal behind a fence! There is the fact that MANY of the preserves out there SPECIALIZE in hunting with the handicapped and the disabled veterans. Dragon Creek presently works with the organization Hunts for Heroes and MOST of us donate hunts to wonderful organizations like these so that wounded vets and handicapped individuals ALSO have a FAIR chance at hunting! The painful truth of it is, is that if we DON'T allow paying clients to come in and pay for a hunt then we would NEVER be able to donate the hunts that are needed to help the wounded vets, elderly hunters, and many others have the SAME opportunity to bag a beautiful animal as any of the rest of us. That is the FAIR part to these hunting preserves that no one talks about.

What about the SAFETY of hunting behind a fence? We are ALL talking about how hunting numbers have declined over the years and how important it is to get our kids involved in hunting. If you go to http://all-creatures.org/cash/taah-sh-20060302.html you can see for yourself ALL of the hunting accidents that have occurred over the years to JUST children! Not to mention the shooting accidents to people that are not even hunting, but on their own private property or people driving on the highway. I personally know of a girl that was shot, NOT KILLED thank GOD, but shot while driving with her parents, sitting in the backseat of their car driving to go see a movie. She was NOT hunting, she was not walking along WITH a hunter, she was in her parents car on the way to the movies and was shot by a hunters stray bullet. This hunter was NOT in a high fenced enclosure but out on his own private property hunting. He was not to blame and it was a horrible ACCIDENT but it happened all the same and happens more and more EVERY year. THIS is why we choose to start a high-fenced preserve. Go to 
http://animalrights.about.com/b/2008/11 ... cident.htm and see ANOTHER tragic ACCIDENT for yourself. These things happen too often these days and high-fenced hunting is ONE way to hunt safely! EVERY hunt is guided by a PROFESSIONAL guide and the gun is NEVER to be shot WITHOUT the guides OK!

The next and last issue that I will bring up is the fact that shutting down high-fenced hunting is IMPEDING on a person's PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS! If you tell us that we have to shut down ALL high-fenced hunting, then you are basically telling me what I can do on MY private property. The fact is, is if you can tell ME what I can do on MY property, then someone else can tell ANY OF YOU what you can do to and on YOUR property! Last time I checked the was the United States of America and I BELIEVE that is still a free country...is it NOT? You may not agree with high-fenced hunting and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. No one is FORCING you to hunt or even LIKE high-fenced hunting, but there is a MUCH larger problem than what is going on here! Just because you don't agree with high-fenced hunting, does that give you ANY right to take it away from people who want a safe hunt, wounded vets that can't get out and hunt like YOU do, or disabled people with the same problem? Does it give you the RIGHT to take away MY choice to start a business on my OWN personal private property just because we don't agree on the ways that we hunt? I don't think that it does! My husband and I have a beautiful piece of property that we will do ANYTHING (legally) necessary to keep! This was OUR decision that we made! It is not ILLEGAL, at least not yet! It is NOT inhumane to these animals, at least not HERE! We are able to help out wounded vets that have given EVERYTHING to our country so that we can REMAIN a FREE country! So that if WE choose to hunt this way, then we have EVERY right to do just that! Do you REALLY want to shut down OUR rights as Americans and tell those wounded vets that will come to hunt on our property one day that they CANNOT? After everything THEY gave up to keep us FREE to make our own decisions! Do you REALLY want to tell them that they can't hunt here because you don't LIKE high-fenced hunting? I hope and pray that you don't! I personally LOVE my country and am proud to call myself an AMERICAN! I am also thankful to ALL of the soldiers out there that have given their lives, their legs, their arms or hands so that we can still hunt WHERE WE CHOOSE! Even if that is NOT behind a fence. I won't even ATTEMPT to shut FAIR hunting down for you because as an American, that is your choice! So PLEASE don't shut my HIGH-FENCED HUNTING preserve down for me and the wonderful people who come to hunt with us on our property! GOD BLESS AMERICA!


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

dragoncreekranch said:


> My husband and I presently own a high-fenced hunting preserve that we are VERY proud of. First off I would like to make sure that people who ARE bashing high-fenced preserves ACTUALLY have their facts straight. Our property that is presently fenced, used to be a favorite for people to come and hunt. We had COUNTLESS people coming to ask to hunt on our property because of its size AND terrain, which is perfect for whitetails.
> 
> Leadfed said,
> Think of all that good whitetail production land you took out of service for those locals that don't have the $$$$ to pay for a deer.
> ...


Leadfed said,

This is why high fence slaughter should never have been allowed in the first place. So people couldn't get the taste of the almighty dollar pimping out animals that were meant to be wild and hunted in the wild.

Sorry, not indended to offend just simply my point of view. I grew up in a family that in no way could have afforded to buy a tag other than what the state charged and there are a lot of other families that are probably in the same situation I was once in.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

leadfed said:


> Sorry, not indended to offend just simply my point of view. I grew up in a family that in no way could have afforded to buy a tag other than what the state charged and there are a lot of other families that are probably in the same situation I was once in.


So because your family couldn't afford a spendier tag, no family should be allowed the choice to purchase spendier tags?

I suppose some of us shouldn't be driving new vehicles because not everyone can afford one?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

barebackjack said:


> So because your family couldn't afford a spendier tag, no family should be allowed the choice to purchase spendier tags?
> 
> I suppose some of us shouldn't be driving new vehicles because not everyone can afford one?


No but if high fence slaughter gets out of control like it did in texas, all hunters are in trouble.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

From a neutral (?) point of view, this debate so far has has been pretty pathetic.
Property rights is the only argument needed against measure 2,,,,, as long as HF isn't a breeding ground for CWD.
And to be transparent , unlike Plainsman, I don't have access to one let alone 50,000 acres of private land.


----------



## DakotaYota (Dec 6, 2008)

Here is my question....wouldnt this measure bring to end the raising of nontraditional wildlife all together? Would this include animals like buffalo and exotic sheep? I love the burgers I order from the buffalo farm. And I have a good friend who raises four horned sheep....just what all species fall under this measure?

Either way....Im voting no because even though high fence hunting isnt for me....I dont want to ever be told what to do with my property. I think the government has plenty of control already over my life. I dont deploy every year just to come home to more regualtions and government control. If I wanted that I would fight for Korea. Just my opinion.

:beer:


----------



## gunattic (Jan 9, 2005)

Do you think this is an indication of how things will go tomorrow?


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

gunattic said:


> Do you think this is an indication of how things will go tomorrow?


I sure hope so!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> by DakotaYota » Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:17 am
> 
> Here is my question....wouldnt this measure bring to end the raising of nontraditional wildlife all together? Would this include animals like buffalo and exotic sheep? I love the burgers I order from the buffalo farm. And I have a good friend who raises four horned sheep....just what all species fall under this measure?


Measure 2 has no effect on those animals; only selling the act of the kill of big game species (deer, elk, moose, prong horn, and big horn sheep) and exotics (foreign, non-native). Your buddy is good to go.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

And again exactly why would it not include buffalo, as there are more advertised buffalo hunts behind a fence in North Dakota.

Possibly some insight into the real agenda. I do not believe this has ever been about fair chase, as if it were buffalo would have been included. Dr. Valerius Geist has been brought in to speak several times at Wildlife Society meetings. When asked what should be done with game farms he stated at one of those meetings, "THEY MUST ALL BE SHUT DOWN!"

These negative attack ads have continued in Dakota Country Magazine and right here on Nodak Outdoors. Several of the sponsors and supporters of the measure are federal wildlife biologists, many coming from the USGS Northern Prairie Research Center in Jamestown.

http://ndland.org/presreport/pres1004.htm

Selected Articles from the LAND Newsletter
President's Report - Truth in Advertising and Government
By Don Berge, LAND President

Professor Chris Borrick of Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA, stated in his research that "the whole goal of a negative ad is to plant a seed of doubt."

In the June, 2004 issue of North Dakota Outdoors magazine, an article entitled, "A conversation with Valerius Giest" fits the definition of a negative ad. The ND Game and Fish Department (NDG&F) published the article with a disclaimer relinquishing any responsibility concerning the opinions stated in the article. If the NDG&F was actually looking out for the interests of North Dakotans, don't you think it would be willing to publish a rebuttal by the game producers? Apparently not. The elk and deer producers have been repeatedly rebuffed and put off. This type of treatment by a government agency is despicable and should not be tolerated.

The ND game producers use the utmost care for their animals and produce the safest product. Testing for chronic wasting disease (CWD), for example, is routinely administered, and they're proud of their herds. The standards followed by the producers are exemplary wildlife management. Ask anyone if the NDG&F has good management of the deer population. Mother Nature will undoubtedly have to intervene to correct the mistakes of the NDG&F.

Private enterprise is what made this country great and strong. Allowing individuals the opportunity to take risks and grow is an economic engine that must not be maligned by innuendo. These producers are economic development in the purest form. The NDG&F knows government can't compete, so they resort to these tactics.

NDG&F Commissioner Hildebrand's arrogance on this issue should not be tolerated. Any replacement would show respect for the office and the public for which he serves. The time has come to review the finances of this organization. Legislative review for all wildlife programs must be put in place. Accountability is a two-way street.

Let's not allow the use of negative ads (articles) to become a common practice in North Dakota.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick Monson said:


> > by DakotaYota » Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:17 am
> >
> > Here is my question....wouldnt this measure bring to end the raising of nontraditional wildlife all together? Would this include animals like buffalo and exotic sheep? I love the burgers I order from the buffalo farm. And I have a good friend who raises four horned sheep....just what all species fall under this measure?
> 
> ...


Dick are 4horned sheep "native" or an "exotic mammal" as covered by your measure. Haven't seen many running around in the wild! But then again that was the "excuse" the sponsors gave for not including the advertised "huunts" of a fenced in buffalo in their "ethics" measure so who knows what these sponsors believe and what this law will do any more. But then again perhaps that was the reason none of these sponsors would answer any questions on their measure as well. Relax people I'm sure the courts will sort it all out. :roll: Perhaps with a little guidance from HSUS's lawyers down the road. Wait that is probably just "scare tactics" like the sponsors and supporters of this measure claimed the call that HSUS would come into our state with their millions of dollars advertising their support for this measure was. :eyeroll:

Tell the sponsors of this measure you do not think jumping in bed with HSUS is the best way to "protect" hunting VOTE NO ON MEASURE 2.


----------

