# Supreme Court Dumps High Fence Appeal



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

*High court ends 9-yr. Montana game farm court fight*
By EVE BYRON Independent Record | Posted: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:05 am

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear arguments involving Montana's 2000 game farm initiative, known as I-143, effectively ending all constitutional challenges to the case.
By not considering the appeal by game farm owners, the Montana Supreme Court decision stands, in which the justices decided 4-3 that the initiative did not constitute a "taking" of property and that the ranchers weren't due any compensation.
In June, several elk farmers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a "writ of certiorari" that would have brought the case before them. That request was denied in a list published on Tuesday.

I-143 has been upheld in state district courts, federal district court, the 9th Circuit of Appeals and the Montana Supreme Court.
State officials said they are pleased that the dispute has been resolved.
"This ends the saga of litigation over that initiative," Bob Lane, chief legal counsel for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks said on Thursday. "This was the last legal issue remaining."
Chris Tweeten, chief civil counsel for the Montana Department of Justice and the lead attorney for the state on the game farm cases, added that it was gratifying to have the courts vindicate the state's initiative process.
He said the three cases that remain in Montana district courts should wrap up quickly.
"The Montana Supreme Court's decision - from December of last year - should resolve the other three cases still in district court and we are taking the steps necessary to dismiss these other cases," Tweeten said.

Art Wittich, a Bozeman attorney who represented game farm owner Len Wallace, said he's disappointed with the decision to not hear the case, and that he felt they had some strong arguments to present. Wallace has since sold his ranch and moved to Idaho.
"The Montana Supreme Court had a split decision on this and it took them two years to decide it," Wittich said. "We thought there were some good constitutional questions that were raised, but obviously it didn't make the cut.
"&#8230; Suing the government is always tough, and I think we gave it a good effort, but it's over."
Kim Kafka, owner of the Diamond K Ranch in Havre and one of the plaintiffs in the case, also was unhappy with the outcome. He still feels as though he was robbed by the people who drafted the initiative and that they misled the voters.
"The people who crafted the initiative admitted to intentionally crafting it to take away people's livelihood and not pay them for it," Kafka said. "I thought honor and truth, science and the facts would prevail. Unfortunately, the people (who wrote the initiative) got me the first time, but they won't get me again."
He added that while the court's decision may wrap up this part of the issue, he's still talking with his attorney about possible other ways to address the issue of game farms. He's still in operation and sells his livestock to out-of-state entities, like restaurants or other farms.
"So I'm still in operation, but I used to be able to generate thousands of dollars for my hometown" in revenues from hunters coming to shoot elk at his ranch, Kafka said. "I'm still generating income, but it's not for my town."

The initiative, passed by 51 percent of Montana's voters in November 2000, was aimed at phasing out alternative livestock ranches - mainly, farms where elk were raised - by prohibiting all new game farms and the shooting of livestock for any type of fee. Existing game farms are allowed, but their licenses can't be transferred to anyone else.
Since the initiative, about half of Montana's 90 game farms have gone out of business.
One of the reasons for the initiative came from hunters who feared the elk raised on the farms could escape into the wild and mate with Rocky Mountain elk, producing unwanted hybrids. There also were concerns that elk in enclosed areas could be more susceptible to chronic wasting disease, and pass that to wild elk.
But Kafka said his operation, which is one of the largest in the state, was vigilant in testing the elk and fencing them.
"I put a lot of time into it," he said, noting that FWP referred to his ranch as "the ones that did it right."

Still, Craig Sharpe, executive director of the Montana Wildlife Federation, was pleased to hear of the court's decision. "We are just thrilled," Sharpe said. "The people of Montana have spoken, and the law was upheld in every case where it was challenged."

Reporter Eve Byron: 447-4076 or [email protected]

http://www.helenair.com/news/article_72 ... 002e0.html


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Hmmm...

No comments from the "cash for the hunt" crowd?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Jim,

I let Dicks post slide for awhile to see how many veiws it would generate. It has been 12 days and it is a whopping 167. Non-issue.

Sometimes in these court proceedings it is just as interesting to read the dissenting judges opinion, check it out:

Justice Nelson first focused on Sportsmen for I-143, the group behind the voter initiative, and its reasons for proposing the initiative. The dissent found that I-143's goal was "protecting Montana's wildlife and hunting heritage from a variety of dangers posed by game farms." Id. at 109 (citation omitted in original). The biggest benefit alleged by I-143's supporters was minimization of the threat of chronic wasting disease poised alternative livestock's contact with other wildlife. Id. at 111. The dissent found that

given these concerns, one would expect I-143 to target the problems related to diseases, perhaps through more stringent fencing and enclosure requirements, additional testing requirements, or even an outright seizure of all alternative livestock along with a prohibition on private ownership of alternative livestock. However, I-143 did none of these things.
Id.
The dissent found that I-143 did nothing to address the concerns related to disease transmission. Id. Initiative I-143 also did nothing to protect the proud heritage of hunting in Montana. Id. at 113. The dissent found,

[t]he only activity on licensed game farms prohibited under I-143, the Sportsmen state, is that allowing a fee-paying individual the opportunity to personally shoot a game farm animal. But anyone who is not a "fee-paying individual" may still participate in penned hunts and personally shoot a game farm animal notwithstanding I-143. 
Id.
The dissent found that I-143 did nothing to protect Montana's heritage "of ethical, fair-chase hunting." Id. Finally, the dissent found that I-143 did nothing to provide the public greater access to big game or to prevent the privatization of wildlife. Id. at 114. "I-143 does not provide for [a] less expensive hunting license or greater access to big game on public and private lands." Id.

Finally, the dissent disagreed with the majority's conclusion that I-143 simply added to the existing regulatory system on game farms. Id. at 116. The dissent found,

_t is one thing to strengthen fencing, testing, and reporting requirements through "additional restrictions," as the Legislature did over the years. But is quite another to require alternative livestock ranchers to operate with no income through the expedient of prohibiting remuneration for the key economic activity on which their businesses depended . . . .
Id.
The dissent believed that the law was crafted to destroy the game farms. Id.

Next, Justice Nelson rejected the "means-ends" analysis urged by the state of Montana. Justice Nelson state that the "means-ends" analysis under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution had been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court and should be rejected for the Montana state constitution as well. Id. at 123. Montana argued "that it cannot be required to pay compensation where the challenged regulation is a valid exercise of the police power related to a commercial activity. Id. at 125. Justice Nelson found two flaws in this argument. First, precedent cited by Montana did not require the state to pay compensation when the state was exercising its police power to prohibit a public nuisance; however, the game farms where not public nuisances and had operated under express state authority. Id. at 126. Second, other U.S. Supreme Court precedent rejected the idea that a valid use of police power never required compensation. Id. at 127. The Supreme Court had consistently found limits on uncompensable exercises of police power by the state. Id. For these reasons, the dissent rejected the "means-ends" analysis urged by the state and the idea that a valid use of the police power never requires compensation. Id. at 128.

Justice Nelson then addressed whether the game farms had a property interest protected under the state constitution. Based on precedent, the term "property" was not defined at the time the constitution was ratified but should take "its meaning from contemporary understandings." Id. at 139. The dissent did find a property interest held by the game farms. Id. at 141.

Turning to the issue of whether the Montana Constitution provided broader protection than the U.S. Constitution; Justice Nelson determined that it did afford broader protection. Justice Nelson noted that the Montana cases relied on by the majority did not stand for a rejection of the state constitution's recognition of a taking or of a damaging of property caused by a regulation. Id. at 145. Turning to the decisions of other states with similar provisions, the dissent pointed to North Dakota, Washington, and Alaska as states that offered greater regulatory takings protections under their state constitutions than the U.S. Constitution. Id. at 147. Justice Nelson rejected arguments that the "or damaged" language was limited to condemnation cases because there was no way to know the full extent of the loss caused by damage before the damages happened. Id. at 150.

Justice Nelson described a long history of Montana precedent interpreting state constitution provisions more broadly than their federal counterparts. Id. at 153. Justice Nelson also pointed to transcripts from the 1972 Constitutional Convention not appearing to limit takings protection. Id. at 154. Finally, the dissent noted a number of state constitutional provisions that offered broader protections than their federal counterparts. Id. at 155-164. With all this in mind, Justice Nelson would have found broader protection under the state constitution than the federal constitution for damages caused by a regulatory taking. Id. at 164.

Turning to the takings issue, the dissent believed that "when a business is unable to transfer its goodwill and going-concern value to another location (e.g., because the government has taken over the business, or because transfer is prohibited), then compensation is required." Id. at 166. As a result, Justice Nelson would have found a taking of equipment, inventory, fixtures, and facilities, requiring just compensation. Id. at 167. Regarding the livestock, the game farms were not deprived of all economically viable use, but lost close to 95 percent of their value. Id. Justice Nelson would have found a taking for that 95 percent of the value lost. Id. Finally, Justice Nelson explained that he was not required to articulate a general rule to determine when a taking had happened because the court's approach to regulatory takings is case-by-case evaluation. Id. at 170.

Jim,

Here is the definition of "means end" analysis.
Application of systems thinking to planning where by the overall goal is broken down into objectives which in turn are broken down into indivdual steps or actions. MEA is based on the concept that 'every attainable end is in itself a means to a more general end._


----------



## API (Jul 14, 2009)

A couple of comments...

1) In my neck of the woods, "high fence hunting" pretty much doesn't happen. The closest thing might be duck clubs, but these still depend upon bird migration.

2) Until I saw this thread, the fact that there was something submitted to the Supreme Court totally escaped my attention (and probably most others). Thus, no matter how important this case might have been, the media (and the litigators) treated it as a local issue.

3) I am not knowledgeable enough about chronic wasting disease to comment on that aspect, however to me the real issue is one of property rights. All other issues aside, this action is just more damage to the rights of land owners to manage their private property. This we don't need.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> [t]he only activity on licensed game farms prohibited under I-143, the Sportsmen state, is that allowing a fee-paying individual the opportunity to personally shoot a game farm animal. But anyone who is not a "fee-paying individual" may still participate in penned hunts and personally shoot a game farm animal notwithstanding I-143.


"penned hunt" is a contradiction of terms. An animal that is penned is not actually hunted, it is just located and shot.

As far as the rest of it goes it seems there needs to be more research done on CWD. While I am not wild about the federal gov't having too much involvement in anything all property rights have limitations. Most of the time the limitations are a good thing.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Dissent being what it is...it was the LOSING position.


----------



## API (Jul 14, 2009)

TK33 said:


> > ...While I am not wild about the federal gov't having too much involvement in anything all property rights have limitations. *Most* of the time the limitations are a good thing.


"Most" is a very large word. IMHO, seldom is there a desirable occasion for more involvement by any level of government in manipulating private property rights save limited local zoning regulation.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick I'll ask once again, NO ONE has answered this question so lets see if you can. If your groups agenda (ban) is truly about protecting the heritage of hunting because the threat to this that the publics perception of shooting pen raised animals pose as claimed, why were upland bird hunting preserves that use pen raised birds for "hunting" not included in the wording in your initiated measure????? Does your group believe upland hunting should be done under fair chase rules??? Please answer this question yourself, or have someone else from your group do so. Can you tell me that not including these bird preserve hunts in the legislation considered by the MT courts is a fair and equitable ruling of law. This example you so smugly posted here is simply another example of activist judges being used to slowly, incrementaly chip away at the things these anti groups want banned. Instead of being concerned, you are so blinded by this agenda your group has that you really can't see the big picture.

I'll say it again, take the horns off these animals and this group of "hunters" would not be whining about HF anything, and then you would be left with the anti hunting groups they have chosen to join with pushing this agenda. So who is truly protecting the "hunting heritage" here????


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dear GST,

You guys always bring up the comment "Why didn't you do this or why didn't you do that..." If you are so concerned about the "this" and "that", start your own petition.

As to your question of:


> So who is truly protecting the "hunting heritage" here????


,
it sure as hell isn't you!

Jim


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> why were upland bird hunting preserves that use pen raised birds for "hunting" not included in the wording in your initiated measure????? Does your group believe upland hunting should be done under fair chase rules??? Please answer this question yourself, or have someone else from your group do so. Can you tell me that not including these bird preserve hunts in the legislation considered by the MT courts is a fair and equitable ruling of law. This example you so smugly posted here is simply another example of activist judges being used to slowly, incrementaly chip away at the things these anti groups want banned. Instead of being concerned, you are so blinded by this agenda your group has that you really can't see the big picture.


Are you serious?? You cannot see the difference that raising pheasants that can fly and are actually used to supplement wild birds vs a penned animal that has no escape (hopefully)??!!
I am at the point in this debate where I am really sick of both sides , but certainly you can see the difference here!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I think what he means is lets say that the penned pheasants have an illness (bird Flu) and were released for hunting purposes.....isn't that the same as CWD and elk/deer. But in "high Fenced" shooting the animals should not escape unlike the release of pheasants.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

If that is what he meant, I guess that makes more sense, but not the way I understood it, that made no sense!!!!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

djleye, have you read the initiated measure? It refers to banning the "hunting" of any animal raised in an enclosure designed to prevent escape or it's release into the wild prior to being shot. The proponents of this measure continuely refer to the practice of raising animals inside an enclosure to be used during "hunting" as giving "real" hunting a black eye and comercializing hunting. If this is truly the case, why did they not include these upland game preserves in their ban????? These birds are raised in "enclosures designed to prevent escape", often times are "put to sleep" by placing their head under their wings and spun around prior to being placed for "hunters" to shoot that have paid a per bird fee. Many of these operations allow hens to be shot as well, and have no limit on the numers of birds that can be shot.Yes I am serious. And I would like to hear one of the sponsors of this measure tell us why they did not include these gamebird hunting preserves in their measure. Perhaps the sponsors of this measure have decided to pick and choose which activities constitute the types of "hunting" they deem acceptable and which ones aren't??? I guess if they determine that shooting a disoreintated, pen raised bird that has been aclimated to humans feeding them is "fair chase" hunting because they have not decided to ban it we should all accept they have decreed this as an approved form of "hunting" ??? After HF and baiting have been banned, perhaps this group will decide those fancy elavated heated stands aren't ethical hunting and are giving "real" hunting a black eye in the publics perception and should be banned, perhaps electronic calls ect... so who determines what is ethical??? Perhaps the sponsors of this measure should post it so people will actually know how it is written, and come on here and debate the merits of their positions.

Jhegg I'm not a part of any "you guys" group of people and have no connection to any HF operation. I just don't feel the need to impose my "ethics" onto every one else, so I don't have any desire to start an initiated measure that has the same goal as most antihunting groups. So I'm merely asking questions to determine the true agenda of this group. If they would come on these sites and debate their positions perhaps we all could hear directly their responses.

I'll say it yet again, take the antlers off these animals and take away the B&C or P&Y record keeping and there would be no initiated measure. If B&C had a catgory for longest pheasant tail I guarantee these upland bird game preserves would have been included in this ban. But I doubt anyone will be honest enough to admit it. Nor will the sponsors come on this site to debate it. They appear to be content posting articles about CWD and insinuating connections that have yet to be proven.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Take the antlers off these animals and there would be no HF shoots. 



> "Most" is a very large word. IMHO, seldom is there a desirable occasion for more involvement by any level of government in manipulating private property rights save limited local zoning regulation.


This is just a wee bit different than local zoning regulations.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK exactly my point. It's not about "hunting" or ethics, it's about the problem some people have with their egos and how they're connected to the size of the antlers someone has on their wall and how they got them. Go on this groups website and see how much of it is dedicated to slaming how animals are sold dependent on antler size. Luckily for the pheasant hunting operations there is no record keeping for longest tails.

djleye, We raise and release between 200 and 300 birds in conjunction with our local independent pheasant club each year. In all this club releases a few thousand birds each year in the area. I have no problem with this or these gamebird hunting preserves. Nor am I suggesting they should be banned. These birds that are pen raised are truly stupid. So if one of these pen raised released birds is standing in a ditch come Oct. and someone that is willing to groundball him at 30 yards comes along, realistically how much more of a chance does this bird have than an elk inside a fence? Does this qualify as "fair chase" in your eyes??? Please answer.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

GST



> I just don't feel the need to impose my "ethics" onto every one else, so I don't have any desire to start an initiated measure that has the same goal as most antihunting groups.


How in the hell can you say we have the same goals as most anti-hunting groups? Comments like that put all your opinions in the toilet!

Jim


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I just don't feel the need to impose my "ethics" onto every one else, so I don't have any desire to start an initiated measure that has the same goal as most antihunting groups.


Talk about a catch 22. You will not impose your ethics on HF, but you will impose your ethics on the Fair Chase people. You can't have it both ways. You either impose your ethics or you don't. I guess if you can't dazzle them with brilliance you baffle them with bs. 
It reminds me of the individual I heard say: "if there is anything I will not tolerate, it's intolerance". I sometimes wonder if people actually hear the words coming from their mouth.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

jhegg said:


> GST
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Anti-hunting groups want to ban hunting because they feel it is unethical.

The anti-high fence hunting group wants to ban HF shooting because they fell it's unethical.

Some could say there is a similarity there.....


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

A few years ago I called the Montana Wildlife Federation and asked them for their position statements and fact sheets. If their wildlife federation is anything like ours it is top heavy with federal agents and affiliates itself with left wing federal agendas. Here it is in their own words.

GAME BIRD SHOOTING PRESERVES

Challenges to Public Wildlife
The Issue
In Montana, there are over 70 game bird licensed shooting preserves. These shooting preserves are private farms that pen-rear birds and permit for either: A) commercial release of birds for paid public hunting or B) release of birds for paid private membership hunting. Of primary importance to a shooting preserve is the harvest of game birds for profit. This type of hunting can create a negative image of public hunting because it diminishes the "fair chase" opportunity.

Introduced, pen-reared game farm birds may be ring-necked pheasants, bobwhite quail, chukar partridge, Hungarian partridge, and Merriams turkey. The lack of regulations for disease testing of birds purchased, raised, or released by a shooting preserve and the genetic pollution by these birds is a threat to our wild game bird populations.

Our wild, publicly owned game birds, particularly pheasants, reside within many shooting preserves and mingle with pen-reared populations. These public birds are indiscriminately harvested without bag limits in shooting preserve farms because preserves are not subject to daily bag and possession limits. Clients on a shooting preserve can shoot as many pheasant cock and hens or other types of birds as they can afford, whether they are public wild game birds or pen-reared. The frequent "over gunnig" of public game birds inhabiting "shooting preserves" is due to the lack of regulation, enforcement, greed, and hunting within a fenced area.

A game bird shooting preserve is a farm devoted to the commercialization and privatization of wildlife which often includes the the harvest of wild public game birds. Wildlife are not simply commodities to be raised like domestic livestock but creatures that should be allowed to live and provide "fair chase" hunting opportunities in the natural landscapes of Montana.

OK you fair chasers here is how it works. At a public meeting, (June -06) called by the north dakota wildlife federation, David Brandt was talking about this very same subject concerning pheasant farms and how much more regulation is needed and a national movement is begining. Well no sh*t sherlock. Land Tawney was sitting in the room. Regional director for the national wildlife federation. He passes the agenda to the federal guys like David Brandt who then pass it to guys like Dick Monson, who then pass it along. The wildlife society and wildlife federations can't get all this done by themselves. They need grunts to do the heavy lifting, gather signatures, spread and argue their red-herring issues, etc. That's where some of you guys come in.

Of coarse they are not going to pick a fight with the bird preserves just yet. That would be a bridge to far. First they need to concentrate on taking the rights of the elk growers with no compensation, setting that precedent first, and then the rights of all.

The U.S. Constitution and the Ten Commandments say what they mean and mean what they say. "Fair Chase" is whatever, however, where-ever, whyever the TWS and NWF say it means. Scary eh? So who are these people that some of you here would like to empower?

I attended a public meeting called by the NDWF in June -06 at the elks lodge in Bismarck. There was 12 men present. They threw me out. They didn't want any witness'. They live in a democracy, majority rule or mob rule. I live in a republic.

fair chase/no traction


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

AdamFisk said:


> jhegg said:
> 
> 
> > GST
> ...


Adam, sometimes we put restrictions on ourselves. Would you consider limiting shotguns to three shots antihunting? Over the years we have imposed many self regulations. Most of the time it's ethics, some of the time it's habitat, some of the time disease, etc. The point is when sportsmen and women do it I think they see it as for the sport not anti hunting. The anti hunting angle is simply fear mongering in the hopes a few sucker for it. 
I can't stand Greenpeace, but if they fight to protect a truly endangered species I am not going to simply say hunt them to extinction simply because some group I have no respect for agrees with me.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> AdamFisk said:
> 
> 
> > jhegg said:
> ...


I understand what you are saying Bruce. Of course there are restrictions put in place that are for the better. Not everbody may see it that way, but the majority should, if it is in fact a good restriction. But in this day and age, everybody wants to restrict everything. And that is what I'm getting tired of. People want to ban baiting, people want to ban HF shooting, people want to close a bunch of roads in the grasslands, ect. There are too many people trying do what they think is right, and in turn, it is creating more BS and a more divided hunting community, not to mention landowner/hunter relations are going the opposite direction we'd like.

Just so you know where I stand, I don't agree with HF shooting. Most hunters probably feel the same way. .....I don't bait anymore either, but don't hold it against anybody that does......I guess my concern in all this is, as we try to make things better in our eyes, are we doing more good than bad, or vice versa??? Quite honestly, I fail to see the good coming from a HF ban. But I am already seeing the bad; more posted signs, landowner/hunter relations declining, ect.

I hope it is clear what I'm trying to say. I'm not good at these serious discussions, and have always stayed out of them because of that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I hope it is clear what I'm trying to say. I'm not good at these serious discussions, and have always stayed out of them because of that.


I understand you perfectly. Years ago a questionnaire was put in an outdoor magazine. It was sort of an experimental thing. They asked hunters what hunting methods they thought should be outlawed. Sad. In the end there would have been no hunting methods left. Everyone wanted to outlaw everything they didn't do themselves. It will require some common sense to do what is right. 
I have not baited for deer, but I do bait for fish, but they are not confined to a barrel. Sort that one out guys. 

On a side note: our second amendment rights are endangered the same way. More and more hunters are willing to give up firearms they don't use. I have overheard shotgun people say they think it's reasonable to get rid of rifles and handguns. Nothing to say about that other than these people are fools.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dak,

Yes, supreme court justice Nelsons dissenting opinion was the losing position. It is more fun to be on the winning side isn't it. But this is one of those where all of the people lost. Consider I-143 says that the license to have domestic elk cannot be transferred to anyone. So when an operator/landowner dies can he pass the elk and the license to his heir?
From what I'm gathering, NO.

Justice Nelson in his opinion refers to the Fifth Amendment. Some food for thought reguarding the Fifth.

Courts have emphasized that the taking of one ''strand'' or ''stick'' in the ''bundle'' of property rights does not necessarily constitute a taking as long as the property as a whole retains economic viability, 310 but some strands are more important than others. The right to exclude others from one's land is so basic to ownership that extinguishment of this right ordinarily constitutes a taking. 311 Similarly valued is the right to pass on property to one's heirs.

Not being able to leave your posessions to your heirs sounds like communisn. So, what do you think comrade Alan D.


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

I could care less if they did include upland "shooting" preserves. The people who need to pay to release birds to shoot are almost as big of a joke as the clowns who pay multiple thousands to shoot some pen raised genetic freak with antlers.

I can see where the arguement comes from how this is supporting the antis... but still, the fact these people call themselves hunters is funny.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

DG,

Speaking as someone who spent 22+ plus years in the military. I find your calling me Comrade rude, offensive and stupid. However I will and have defended your right to be an idiot.

:beer:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Not to pick on your post, but.........



USAlx50 said:


> The people who need to pay to release birds to shoot are almost as big of a joke as the clowns who pay multiple thousands to shoot some pen raised genetic freak with antlers.


The same could be said of someone who pays mega bucks for tickets to a sporting event, or concert, or someone who spends mega bucks to have eleventy billion of the latest greatest goose decoys, guns, etc etc etc.

Its their money, they earned it, they can spend it how they like. Just as the animals their shooting are privately owned bought and paid for which do NOT fall under the same guidelines as public wildlife.

The fact is, theres always going to be someone that does something different from what you do, and call it hunting.



> I can see where the arguement comes from how this is supporting the antis... but still, the fact these people call themselves hunters is funny.


Theres going to be a thousand acts committed this coming weekend by so called "hunters" that I myself do not consider "hunting". These acts will be committed on OUR animals, yours and mine. Not some ranchers livestock. I personally put ANYBODY that shoots a deer with a gun in the same boat as one that shoots one in an enclosure. I PERSONALLY do not consider either "hunting". Does that mean I want to make gun hunting deer illegal? No.

It comes down to simple fact that we just need to stop worrying about the other guy. If they want to spend $36,000 dollars to shoot a pen raised genetic freak, and call it hunting, that's their prerogative, its their money.

And I for one do not buy for one second that the general non-hunting public frowns upon "canned hunting" nearly as much as the anti HF group would have you think. Ive heard their "spin" on the subject first hand, they use the same tactics PETA uses in its anti-fur campaign, half-truths designed to strum the heart strings of the ignorant public. In fact, I believe if the so called sportsman against HF would just shut the h*ll up on the matter finally, it would largely go away as a hot button issue for the REAL hardcore antis.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

barebackjack said:


> Just as the animals their shooting are privately owned bought and paid for which do NOT fall under the same guidelines as public wildlife.


How did they come about owning what was and is public domain?



> Its their money, they earned it, they can spend it how they like.


You may have earned that money, but you can NOT do what you may wish to do with it. Buying illegal items with your money it not allowed either. Your comparison between buying hunting equipment and someone too lazy and lacking in ability to do a fair chase hunt isn't even in the same ballpark.


----------



## wurgs (Mar 3, 2008)

barebackjack said:


> I personally put ANYBODY that shoots a deer with a gun in the same boat as one that shoots one in an enclosure. I PERSONALLY do not consider either "hunting". .


Does that only pertain to deer or anything shot with a gun?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Longshot said:


> How did they come about owning what was and is public domain?


That is a moot point. Once upon a time, all cows were "wild". The fact is, the animals harvested on these facilities, in this day and age, are NOT YOURS. They are livestock. They are private property.



> You may have earned that money, but you can NOT do what you may wish to do with it. Buying illegal items with your money it not allowed either. Your comparison between buying hunting equipment and someone too lazy and lacking in ability to do a fair chase hunt isn't even in the same ballpark.


I notice you dont bring up my comparison of "someone to lazy and lacking in ability to do a fair chase hunt" and the typical deer gun hunter. That argument must have plenty of merit than?

Youve just made my point. You need to stop worrying about "them". You call them "lazy" and "lacking in ability", you use the "holier than thou" approach, your way is the only way.

Maybe their very busy? Maybe their disabled and very busy? Maybe their terminal and don't have time to wait for a hunting season to roll around? You don't know everyone that utilizes these types of facilities, yet you pass them all off as lazy and lacking in ability. There could be a 1,001 reasons why someone would choose to utilize one of these facilities, none of which could fall under "lazy" or "lacking in ability". Are some of them "lazy" or "lacking in ability"? You bet ya. Theres also PLENTY of "lazy, ability lacking" guys that partake in YOUR definition of hunting. You need to GET OFF what others do and just worry about what YOU do.

I bet you also buy the half-truths spewed by the anti "high fence" crowd. I bet you believe all these facilities are no more than 3 acres, all the animals are plucked from their wild mamma in as traumatizing a fashion as can be done kicking and screaming, and their all drugged into a stupor before their shot.

baiting
gun vs bow
decoying vs jump shooting
bow vs cross bow
compound vs traditional
guided vs freelance
big buck vs little buck (QDM)

etc etc etc etc etc etc

These arguments ALL have merit, when your arguing it based on YOUR animals, i.e. the WILD ones. The wild ones are ALL OF OURS and we all get a say. 
The animals in this situation are NOT OURS. Telling someone they cant harvest one of THEIR deer is no different than telling a cattle rancher he cant slaughter one of HIS steers.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

wurgs said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > I personally put ANYBODY that shoots a deer with a gun in the same boat as one that shoots one in an enclosure. I PERSONALLY do not consider either "hunting". .
> ...


What does it say?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot, your comments about being too lazy and lacking in ability tend to show that it really isn't about the killing of a pen raised animal and the publics perception of this, but rather a problem of how someone get something (big antlers) the "easy way. 
USAlx50, your comments about needing to pay to shoot pen raised birds and genetic freaks with antlers tend to show it isn't about the killing of a pen raised animal giving hunting a black eye in the publics perception, but rather someone paying to get what you do without paying.

Plainsman, please indicate how I'm imposing my "ethics" on the NDHforFC Group. Your comment about the questionaire on what type of hunting one approves of is exactly my point as well as how our 2nd admendment rights have as yet remained intact. The anti hunting groups want to incrementaly end all forms of hunting and if we as hunters do not standby one anothers chosen way of "hunting" wether we agree with it or not, they will achieve this goal piece by peice just as your articles poll indicated. The NRA has defended our 2nd amendment rights by not being willing to segment and devide to gain short term victories. You call people willing to segment what guns can be banned fools, but yet you apparently don't understand my point about incrementaly ending hunting in the same manner and apparently support those that will??? So where is the wisdom in a group of hunters doing this very thing?????????????They try to justify it with statements that the nonhunting public will rise up and end all hunting if someting is not done about HF but yet they won't come on these sites and debate their position. Why????? 
Hopefully you are fishing in a river with your bait so the fish have a chance to "escape" , because what is to say a landlocked lake wouldn't be considered much the same as a HF enclosure by some of these ethical police???? Or by the nonfishing public?????


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Hunters opposed to "high fence" hunting is much like Fargos own gun owning Mayor Dennis Walaker belonging to MAIG.

They only want the "illegal guns"......right?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Heres a question for anyone. Does anybody else find it strange that none of this groups sponsors are on here debating their position? Dick throws some inuendos and unproven statements out there and bails as soon as anyone calls him on them. If the position this group has is truly the high road they claim, one would think they would be more eager to defend or debate their position on these outdoor websites.

There was a comment as to the negative affects that are spinning off of these pushes to ban everything. The same people that complain about more land being posted each year, are the same ones most times supporting these agendas. Apparently some people just don't get it. I guess once these agendas are accomplished, they will just move on to push for a ban on posting private property if it holds these animals that are the "publics domain".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, please indicate how I'm imposing my "ethics" on the NDHforFC Group.


Ethics are ethics. They don't approve of high fence shooting, you don't approve of them.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

But you see I'm not trying to "ban" them with some inititated measure or legislative action, just questioning the wisdom of their actions and their true motives which could be publicly discussed in this forum if they would only participate. Big difference.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst said:


> But you see I'm not trying to "ban" them with some inititated measure or legislative action, just questioning the wisdom of their actions and their true motives which could be publicly discussed in this forum if they would only participate. Big difference.


I see, and yes it is different, I agree.

I'm always amazed by some thinking about what is and isn't ethical. I remember the baiting debate last year and some guys that thought high fence was ok thought baiting was bad. Boy, did that leave me scratching my head. Sort of like thinking the common cold was worse than cancer. It's odd the different perspectives people have. I would guess there are a lot of people connected to the high fence operations through money or friends, but tell us on here that they are not.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

barebackjack said:


> That is a moot point. Once upon a time, all cows were "wild". The fact is, the animals harvested on these facilities, in this day and age, are NOT YOURS. They are livestock. They are private property.


You really need to get a grip. Cattle were domesticated long before the US and its constitution was created. I doubt that they looked at cattle as none livestock or as wildlife. You can keep a blind I to what you think is a moot point, but it isn't.



> I notice you dont bring up my comparison of "someone to lazy and lacking in ability to do a fair chase hunt" and the typical deer gun hunter. That argument must have plenty of merit than?


I didn't bring it up because it is a ridiculous comparison.



> Maybe their very busy? Maybe their disabled and very busy? Maybe their terminal and don't have time to wait for a hunting season to roll around? You don't know everyone that utilizes these types of facilities, yet you pass them all off as lazy and lacking in ability. There could be a 1,001 reasons why someone would choose to utilize one of these facilities, none of which could fall under "lazy" or "lacking in ability". Are some of them "lazy" or "lacking in ability"? You bet ya. Theres also PLENTY of "lazy, ability lacking" guys that partake in YOUR definition of hunting. You need to GET OFF what others do and just worry about what YOU do.


Maybe their busy, what an excuse. :eyeroll: Disabled that's fine, but those I know would have nothing to do with anything but a fair chase hunt. Also, no I double there are 1001 reasons to justify it.



> I bet you also buy the half-truths spewed by the anti "high fence" crowd. I bet you believe all these facilities are no more than 3 acres, all the animals are plucked from their wild mamma in as traumatizing a fashion as can be done kicking and screaming, and their all drugged into a stupor before their shot.


No I don't believe they are all like this. Now youâ€™re just grasping at straws and making assumptions.



> baiting
> gun vs bow
> decoying vs jump shooting
> bow vs cross bow
> ...


As for these other arguments you bring up that have nothing to do with the topic, I really don't care. I don't believe them to be unethical. I believe you have stated that youâ€™re against baiting. Yet for many disabled hunters this is their best strategy to get the game to them. But I guess your ethics against this is ok to push on others? Limit the HF hunting to the disabled that want to do it along with those with terminal illness. Somewhere along the line it wasn't their wildlife to turn domestic livestock. So barebackjack where do you get your tag for cattle hunting?

Then again I'm sure there is no changing either of our views.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

I find it rather interesting that no one has talked about the so called "REAL ISSUE" in this whole thing. I have read over and over on this website that SPREAD OF DISEASE was the main reason for wanting to ban these game farms.

Obviously it has taken a back seat to the ETHICS issue. The MT SC evidentally thinks it is a non issue, or they would have shut down the existing game farms in a heart beat!! They didn't to that, so there really must be very little concern that these farms would contribute to the spread of diseases.

I am not for HF shooting, and will never pay to hunt any place, but I won't take away a viable LEGAL source of income for others just because my rack isn't as big as yours!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> gst
> Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...


I have seen the websites. I have also heard what kind of a crap show it is in Texas and other parts of the south where HF is more frequent. I don't think HF is hunting. That being said it is on private property and basically the animals are private property and are part of a private herd. More or less. If someone wants to pay to shoot them, whatever.

To me this is entirely different than commercialized hunting. Until there is some more proof of disease spreading and the like this is kind of being drug out. I don't really see this as a threat to hunting, it not on the same level as some of the outfitters that are leasing up private land that they do not own, shooting game that they do not own.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Longshot,

Your question regarding how did ranchers gain ownership of elk is a valid one.

So how did the first game farm start and who helped start them? Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. Theodore Roosevelt. This information is archived at the Historical Society in Montana. When TR was president he instructed his secretary of agriculture to explore game farming. In 1927 Courland Durand purchased 74 cow elk and calves from the U.S. Dept. of the Interior's Bureau of Biological Survey and took them to his ranch in Checkerboard MT. It is well documented that TR jr. visited the ranch on several occasions in the 1930's praising Durand for domesticating elk. It was in part by TR jr.s visits that Durand transported his animals to New York City for shows there.

The ownership of buffalo happened in this same fashion. Some of the last wild bison were found along the musselshells river in MT. The ranchers there took them in and protected them.

So how did people acquire the ownership of elk in a high fence environment? The same way people acquired the ownership of buffalo in a low fence environment.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Thanks for the information DG. I will have to look into that some more.



> longshot, your comments about being too lazy and lacking in ability tend to show that it really isn't about the killing of a pen raised animal and the publics perception of this, but rather a problem of how someone get something (big antlers) the "easy way.


No gst, that has nothing to do with it. I could care less about the antler size that someone else shoots and in fact enjoy seeing those huge racks. I will get mine some day hopefully. HF operations are not hunting at all and unfortunately it is this type of activity that the anti hunt groups use as their example of hunting.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

The problem with these issues, is most times no one wants to be honest about what is driving them. And this group North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is a perfect example. Their lack of a willingness to come on these outdoor/hunting sites with this issue, at the same time they are going to the nonhunting public thru other forms of media should make all hunters stop and ask why.

The thing about ethics is once a group of people not involved in the management of game animals are allowed to impose what they consider ethical, where does it stop. This group is all about "fair chase", but yet they pick and choose which types of "hunting" they want to include under this "fair chase" standard. Once the hunting community allows this to happen, where does it stop. As Plainsman aluded to it seems hunters are all too willing to sell each other out if they don't participate in a particular form of hunting, and justify it by claiming they are "protecting" hunting itself. Hardly a very good game plan if we are to keep these anti hunting groups from incrementaly picking away at these forms of taking animals that may not be as "popular or acceptable" as others.

Does anyone think this group NDH for FC or the anti hunting groups like HSUS or PETA will stop when they are successful with this one issue? 
For people like this that want to impose their agendas onto someone else, there is always something else. These HF operations have been here in ND for years and the nonhunting public has really cared less. No one outside of this group and groups like HSUS have even mentioned them in a negative fashion. The fact that a group of "hunters" are willing to take the same path as anti hunting groups and give them a platform to further their agendas here in ND is beyond what I believe is in the best interest of all hunting.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot, I too don't veiw these HF operations as what I consider "hunting". I've said all along, I veiw this as someone raising a form of livestock that someone is willing to pay a larger sum of money for. If I could find some putz to come and pay me 5 grand to shoot a steer in my pasture I'd let them. What is the difference, ANTLERS and the very scoring and record keeping thru the Boone and Crocket org. that these NDH for FC folks use as their bible as to why it should be banned. So rather than painting it in such a negative light and attemptig to ban it and opening the door to these anti hunting groups such as HSUS and PETA, why not "educate" the portion of the public that may have a concern rather than banning it under all these other pretenses.

But thats not the concern of this group, look at how they are going about it on their website. They claim that animals are shot in the guts or hind quarters and left to die so the "cape" isn't ruined. How long before a portion of the nonhunting public wonders if other "hunters" do this in the wild as well. There are several examples of this irresponsible rhetoric being used by this group just to accomplish their agenda and at what cost. And yet they claim to be "protectng hunting" ????


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

That is the point. These HF operations have already opened the doors to these anti hunting groups such as HSUS and PETA. I believe that most people in the larger cities that don't hunt do think this is the norm when it comes to hunting. I don't think educating them is going to do anything. I believe it to be unethicalas many do and educating them doesn't change that.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

There is a certain percentage of the public that will always veiw the taking of any animals life as unethical, and this is the group we have to stand united against to protect our sport. There is another percentage of the public that can be educated as to what takes place in various forms of hunting and why they exist that will accept that when it is presented in a factual, truthful manner, and these are the people that need to be educated to protect our sport.

Please tell me where the line starts and stops. If killing an elk inside a fence is unethical, is killing a steer inside a fence unethical as well? What makes one acceptable and one not? Simply because one is called hunting and the other is not?? If it is not called "hunting" is killing this elk inside a fence then ethical and acceptable? Once this line is crossed, where will it stop. If you don't want one to be caled hunting, fine, work to get these operations to change how they advertise, ect...... But to ban the killing of these animals inside a fence is the first step down a slippery slope that as ranchers we are constantly fighting.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I have chimmed in on this before....

But what my take on this subject is most people are not liking these opertions calling it "hunting". Because most people don't care if they shoot or harvest a steer. This is the same thing....live stock being killed.

So to draw a clear line that these operations are not hunting. One should try to ban or keep HF opertions from using words like "hunting, heritage, sporting, etc. But instead make them advertise with "penned shooting, high fenced, non wild animals, domestic elk herd, etc."

Then a line is drawn. It is not hunting....it is shooting.

Other industry's have restrictions on words they can use in advertising. So can this industry.

If others don't think that this is what it boils down too is words.....look deeper. Because if you don't care a cow, pig, chicken, elk, deer, etc are killed in pens for restaurant business. Then why should you care someone pays to go shoot one in a pen.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Longshot said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > That is a moot point. Once upon a time, all cows were "wild". The fact is, the animals harvested on these facilities, in this day and age, are NOT YOURS. They are livestock. They are private property.
> ...


Ill take this in order.

Like I said, MOOT POINT. They are in confinement, end of story. They are NOT yours, end of story. Their ancestors were wild, yes, THEY are not. If you want to write up a deer version of the emancipation proclamation, be my guess. But you cant release them as you may spread CWD, so they'll be killed or sold to another operation anyway.

It is not a ridiculous comparison. My personal ethics are that its unethical to shoot a deer with a gun. IF the HF issue is about the personal ethics of some, than these two arguments and this comparison is EXACTLY the same. One persons personal ethics over anothers. SAME THING!

Ill skip the next weak argument you've made.

Grasping at straws and making assumptions am I? I beg to differ. I have heard first hand the rhetoric spewed from the HF initiative, and this is PRECISELY the tactics many of them employ. Half-truths and over embellishments.

And please tell me where ive spoken out against baiting. I was against the anti-baiting measure and I have spoken out on this site in favor of keeping baiting legal. Its not for me personally, I don't do it myself, just like HF, but I could really give a rats behind if someone else does.

You seem hung up on the fact that their ancestors were once wild. Well than, you must also be against bison operations that sell hunts, they were once wild too. The fact that they have relatives that were wild is a moot point. There is nothing you can do about that anymore. These animals are the FARTHEST thing from wild.

I for one am much more concerned with "unethical" acts committed on wild animals that belong to YOU AND ME than to someones livestock.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

I see Dakota Country magazine did another high fence article in its Nov. issue. What's interesting is that Mike McEnroe finally stepped out in the open and spoke in the piece. Mike is a retired federal agent from the USFWS and is the lobbyist for the wildlife society. Everybody who is anybody knows the HF issue is his baby. For years Mike has been calling the plays from the sidelines but he is going to have to start quarterbacking this thing because co-chairs Kaseman and Masching have no credibility.

However on his first play he sent a mixed signal. In the article he said every two years 200,000 dollars of sportsmens money goes from the game and fish to the Board of Animal Health to regulate this industry. Not a big fat lie but one just the same. True, $200,000 goes from the g/f to the BoAH to regulate non-traditional livestock. Mike was talking about domestic elk and led unsuspecting people to believe the whole $200,000 goes to regulate deer/elk farms. So what is an NTL?

The original intent of using Game & Fish funding was to assist with funding all nontraditional species related activities conducted by the Board of Animal 
Health. Some of the responsibilities were previously regulated by the Game & Fish. When this transfer of regulatory duties from G&F to BoAH happened there was money that came with it. Over the years it incrementally crept up to about $200,000.

According to the Century Code, the categories of nontraditional livestock include:

Category 1 includes turkeys, geese, and ducks morphologically distinguishable from wild turkeys, geese, ducks, pigeons, mules, donkeys, *****, ratites, chinchilla, guinea fowl, ferrets, ranch foxes, ranch mink, peafowl, all pheasants, quail chukar, hedgehog, and degus.

Category 2 includes all nondomestic ungulates, including all deer, (cervidae) and pronghorn, nondomestic cats, waterfowl, shorebirds, upland birds not listed in category 1, crows, wolverines, otters, martens, fishers, kit or swift foxes, badgers, coyotes, mink, red and gray fox, muskrats, beavers, weasels, opposums, prairie dogs, and other ground squirrels.

Category 3 includes all wild species of family suidae except swine considered domestic in North Dakota by BoAH, big cats including mountain lion, jaguar, leopard, lion, tiger, and cheetah, bears, wolves, and wolf-hybrids, venomous reptiles, primates, nondomestic sheep and hybrids and nondomestic goats and hybrids.

Now then, Mike McEnroe knows better. There was a house bill 1210 legislative session 2009 which was worded very poorly and stated the deer/elk growers would get no state or federal funding to pay for any regulation. It failed. Mike was the only one present who supported it. And his water boy who wasn't there.

Last year in an attempt to turn public opinion against the elk growers Dick Monson, sponsor and current sponsor, desperately tried to sell the hunting public on the idea that the whole 200,000 was being used to subsidize deer/elk farms.

He said on FBO: â€œand the fact that $200,000 of sportsman license money from the NDGF budget was appropriated to subsidize the ND canned shooting industry last legislative session. If it is private property, let them pay for it privately.â€


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> So to draw a clear line that these operations are not hunting. One should try to ban or keep HF opertions from using words like "hunting, heritage, sporting, etc. But instead make them advertise with "penned shooting, high fenced, non wild animals, domestic elk herd, etc."
> 
> Then a line is drawn. It is not hunting....it is shooting.
> 
> ...


That would be far to simple and make far to much sense Chuck.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot, when you say HF operators have already opened the door to groups like HSUS, it is no different than if you say ranchers or hog operations or turkey farms or even hunters pursueing wild game have already opened the door to groups like HSUS. These orgs. have an agenda to end the use of any animals by humans regardless of the industry particularily when the animals life is ended. This measure is actively giving them a voice here in ND. So please explain to me the difference.

I guess it is easier for this group to put their agenda across in a onesided magazine article that doesn't offer anyone a way to debate this issue than it is to come on sites like this where the very hunters this group claims to be speaking for can respond themselves.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Gabe before you ask for a debate you should read the measure. "Hunting" isn't mentioned. Just so you know. :wink: 
*Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited â€" Penalty â€" Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.*

And the venerable DG comes swinging his little popsicle stick accusing Mr. McEnroe of "hiding in the shadows". This from someone who will only use his initials. Self explanatory.

You boys do a great job for us. Many thanks.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick nice to see you join the debate. My mentioning of this being called "hunting" was not about what was written in the measure ,but directed towards responding to more than one persons suggestion HF be called something other than hunting which wouldn't bother me much at all. If you are going to enter the debate, please read what is written.

I see you chose to post the measure. Thats a good first step in joining the debate!! Now if you will only answer some questions, any of the several that have been posed on this site and others. Lets start out with an easy one.

Number 1 question.If what you wrote in red is deisgned to follow your "fair chase rules" you believe real hunting is to be done under as the basis of this measure to "protect" the future of real hunting from the publics negative perception of these game farms, why were upland game preserves not included in this measure? What is done on these gamebird preserves is EXACTLY what you wrote in red. Birds are killed after obtaining fees or other renumeration from another person after being released from a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape. Apparently your group feels they are who gets to determine what is hunting "fair chase" and ethical, and the rest of us just have to go along I guess???

Number 2 question. Who determines what is an "exotic mammal"??? Pretty vaugue and inclusive wording! Some might believe the bison to be an "exotic mammal" to be included in this ban! Once again, this apparently falls under your groups all knowing determination and the rest of us just have to agree.

For some of us this debate is about getting the actual facts out there to be discussed, not just coming on these sites with inuendos, half truthes and cheap shots. So I'll just keep it to these TWO simple questions that have been asked repeatedly so you don't have too many to answer.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick,

You are wrong. The word "hunting" is mentioned. You only listed Sec. 1 Don't forget Section 2, listed in an article submitted by you in Dakota Country October 2007 edition:

If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective Nov. 1, 2010. This Fair Chase intiated measure has three main sections.

1. It prohibits canned shooting of big game species in escape proof fences for compensation.

2. It provides the same for exotic non-native mammals like Russian wild boar and foreign antelope, etc.

3. It prohibits the computer controlled remotely activated firing devices used in Texas style canned shooting. That is the personel computer canned "hunting" that has outraged the nation.

Dick, Making high fence hunting synonymous with computer hunting was very clever. Your federal handlers who wrote the measure are almost genius. Amost!!

You see, internet hunting doesn't exist, it never did. So why write a measure to ban something that doesn't exist? I wonder how many people were duped?

Last year when the HF folly was in high gear I was talking to a banker about this issue and asked where the banks are on it. Because if the property owner has his options removed on his property and their vested interest also, how would the operaters then repay the loan? He took it to the N.D. Bankers Association. Some of the members heard this measure was in part to ban internet hunting. Dick your lying propaganda was working. But not anymore.

Little popsicle stick eh??? More like tongue suppressor. Say AAHHHH

suppressor defined: to check the flow or discharge of.

fair chase/no traction


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Chuck Smith,

Your idea of not calling it hunting almost sounds reasonable. Almost, but no can do. On a Humane Society blogspot, they were talking about the moment elk deer buffalo owners fall for that one they (HSUS) will bring forth The Humane Slaughter Act. Check it out.

This is taken from an HSUS blogspot in 2007:

AN ADVOCATES HANDBOOK TO END CANNED HUNTING

Critics of this ballot measure (fair chase) raise questions of property rights. They claim that the animals are not taken from the wild, but instead raised in captivity, and are therefore not the property of the state.The animals at canned hunting areas are purchased or reared by the landowners and are raised like livestock. Since these animals are regulated like livestock, critics claim the issue of hunting is mute. They further argue that it is not within the power of the government to encroach upon the rights of the private landowners. It should be noted, however, that if the landowners want the "livestock" to be removed from the considerations of hunting, then the federal Humane Slaughter Act should apply to the taking of individual members from the canned hunting areas. Application of the Humane Slaughter Act would require the captive animals be "rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or by other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter."75 If enforced, this could effectively shut down canned hunting areas, as compliance with the Act would be virtually impossible.

Chuck Smith, Our mutual friend Dick says buffalo are not included in the measure and exotics according to him means russian boar. Check out USDA definitions.

http://origin-www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/PHV ... ndling.pdf

Exotic species
Exotic animals (voluntary inspection) are covered under 9 CFR 352.10. This section includes regulatory guidance that addresses humane handling during antemortem inspection and stunning practices to render the animals unconscious. 9 CFR Part 352.10 states that â€œHumane handling of an exotic animal during antemortem inspection shall be in accordance with the provisions contained in 9 CFR 313.2â€


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, I told a little fib, I actually have one more question for you to answer. Under this measure will the owner of the deer or elk, or what ever else you choose to include in this ban, be able to shoot the animal themselves? You took the first step in joining this debate, please continue by answering these 3 questions if you would.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

I am not exactly sure what good it would do, but I would like to hear the answers to the questions also. There are some decent points made there!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Out of 20 some sponsors, you think one would come on here to answer any of the questions posed, but apparently not.

I did notice something on the wildlife clubs thread that was some what of a surprise to me. Dick Monson posted a flyer advertising their big buck contest where they are paying cash prizes for the biggest buck, the juniors are even elgible for the top cash prize. For someone so adamantly against the commercialization of hunting I was surprised Dick would support his club doing this. I guess he reserves the right to choose his own ethics while trying to impose his onto others. I wonder how some of the gurus of "fair chase hunting" he quotes in his comments would veiw these contests with their cash prizes.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

gst said:


> Out of 20 some sponsors, you think one would come on here to answer any of the questions posed, but apparently not.
> 
> I did notice something on the wildlife clubs thread that was some what of a surprise to me. Dick Monson posted a flyer advertising their big buck contest where they are paying cash prizes for the biggest buck, the juniors are even elgible for the top cash prize. For someone so adamantly against the commercialization of hunting I was surprised Dick would support his club doing this. I guess he reserves the right to choose his own ethics while trying to impose his onto others. I wonder how some of the gurus of "fair chase hunting" he quotes in his comments would veiw these contests with their cash prizes.


Wow are you streching.How is a big deer contest like high fence shooting unless they are shot in an enclosure????Didn't know that hunting for a big deer isn't fair chase or unethical.My passing up smaller deer in order to harvest a big one on public or unfenced land isn't fair chase?????
:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

I, Jim Heggeness, am a sponsor of the initiated measure banning high fence shooting of big game animals. I am a sponsor because I think calling these operations â€œhuntingâ€


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

I have to admit No.3 had me scratching my head for a minute.



> 3. â€œWho determines what is an "exotic mammal"???â€


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ken W. No one is suggesting hunting for or shooting big deer is unethical. Dick and others have claimed HF is another way of commercializing hunting. I'm merely suggesting some may believe paying some one a cash prize for shooting an animal isn't far from it. I'm wondering what people such Aldo Leopold, Jim Posoewitz sp? and others this group has quoted under "fair chase" guidelines would think of these big buck contests????? Several hunters I know believe these big buck contests to be unethical and prostituting what the true meaning of hunting is. Should their ethics govern everyone???

jhegg, It is good too see you step up and let people know you are a sponsor. Now perhaps as such if you won't, could you have someone that actually speaks for ND Hunters for Fair Chase answer the questions for this group. 
As to #1. The last time this measure was attempted one of the people on this site that was at that time a sponsor indicated that indeed the HSUS was in contact with a sponsor of the initiated measure. Wether this will happen this time in the attempt to gain enough signatures remains to be seen. While you may not be actively engaging HSUS as of yet, you are giving a sense of legitimacy to what their platform is to end all hunting one step at a time. This measure runs parrallel to EXACTLT what the HSUS is trying to do. Your agendas on this issue are one in the same.You are INVITING nonhunters to ban an activity by using a one sided aproach and mistruthes to achieve your agenda. How does this differ from HSUS's practices?? 
#2. If the wording of this measure Dick printed in red is the crux of why what happens in these activities must be banned, you cannot exclude gamebird preserves that do EXACTLY as the measure states and think you are "protecting the heritage of hunting". Your argument that one activity is a threat and must be banned while allowing the other to continue, show either your measure is not very well thought out, or this group is simply "picking" which activities they wish to ban based of personal preference rather than concern for the future of hunting itself. I have stated I have no personal problem with either and I have no desire to push my personal hunting ethics onto others so I have no need to start my own measure.

A couple more questions for you to answer if you would,
1.Will the owner of the animal be able to continue to sell live animals? 
2. Do you believe that game bird preserves that do exactly what your measure states "is a prostitution of the very meaning of hunting as defined by fair chase rules" in regards to upland bird hunting??
3. Are Dick's insinuated "facts" presented on this site and others how your group is planning to inform the nonhunting public as to this issue???

Trying to confuse the issues???? In fact it is just the opposite. I have been calling for a representative of your group to come on these sites and start a thread dedicated to your measure to precisely discuss why you claim to be speaking for all hunters, why you think your group should be the one to dictate what ethical standards should be accepted, and how you are going about informing the nonhunting public about your measure. After quite some time at least you have admitted to being a sponsor, now if your group will only continue in this debate.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

A big buck contest or fishing tournamnet has nothing to do with HF hunting.Both are fair chase and no ethics involved.You are stretching to compare the 2.

And as I said.....I'm not opposed to HF hunting.If some yahoo with deep pockets wants to shoot pen raised livestock and pay big money to do it.Then call it hunting.....I could care less.Not my cup of tea. :eyeroll:


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

jhegg,

I'm having some trouble with that URL that you posted so I'll post what it says here:

http://www.associatedcontent.c.....tml?cat=17

North Dakota's Exotic Animal Laws
August 21, 2008 by Deborah Anderson Deborah Anderson Published Content: 1,202 Total Views: 1,133,422 Fans: 12 View Profile | Follow | Add to Favorites Single pageFont SizeRead comments (1) Share More topicsExotic Animal | Exotic Species | Exotic Birds | Chinchillas 
North Dakota's Exotic Animal Laws explain in detail what it takes to legally possess a non-traditional pet. Two laws cover this subject and animals are categorized as a from category 1 to category 5. Individuals interested in an exotic pet in this state should become familiar with these laws and how they may or may not affect their decision.

North Dakota Administrative Code Â§48-12-01-02 states what animals are in the different categories. Category 1 includes turkeys, ducks, pigeons, geese, donkeys and mules. Category 2 includes emus, ostriches, chinchillas, ferrets, guinea fowls, ranch minks, ranch fox, peafowl, quail, pheasants not included in category 3, chukar and Russian lynx. Category 3 includes, deer, elk, reindeer, fallow deer, bighorn sheep, ring-necked pheasant, sichuan pheasant, Bohemian pheasant, Canadian lynx and raptors. Category 4 includes dangerous animals such as bears, lions, wolves, wolf hybrids, tigers, cats and primates. Category 5 includes any animals not listed in the previous categories, but require a certain license with requirements of issueing such license

jhegg, Look at the date that Deborah Anderson wrote this piece August 21, 08. At the time North Dakota Administrative Code Â§48-12-01-02 already had been repealed. Repealed effective Jan.1,07.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acd ... -12-01.pdf

Jhegg, Did you look at that Animal protection Institute URL,

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/b4a2_exotic_ ... e.php?s=nd

It has the same outdated material concerning N.D. law. What you don't know is the the animal protection institute was one of 26 anti-groups that supported I-143 in Montana. jhegg, you have bedfellows at API. Here is their positions:

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/facts.php?p=457&more=1

1. Countless wild animals are displaced by urban sprawl and habitat fragmentation, which sometimes lead to conflicts between people and wildlife.

2. Real or perceived conflicts between people and wildlife, coupled with human fear, biases, or a lack of knowledge about humane approaches to solving such conflicts, results in millions of animals being needlessly killed each year.

3. Some of the ways in which wild animals are abused or exploited by humans include sport and trophy hunting, commercial and recreational fur trapping, â€œnuisanceâ€


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ken W you seem to be missing the point. No one is comparing contests to HF. It is the commercialization(involvement of money into hunting) that Dick has claimed is the problem, yet his wildlife club is paying people money if they shoot a large enough buck. I simply find that either ironic or hypocritical.

I apparently have the same attitude toward HF as yourself, not what I consider hunting but if someone else does that is their choice to make. My problem is with groups not related to the management of game animals pushing agendas and regulations based off of personal ethical choices they want to make while restricting others from having the same right. Or these groups pressuring the agencies in charge of managing game to do so based off their personal prefferences. Then when these individuals use half truthes and disingenuious statements to further their agendas, it makes it even harder not to oppose their actions.

jhegg, If your group is successful in getting enough signatures to have this on the ballot, have any of you stopped to think what HSUS will do here in the state? What will be your response when HSUS begins running ads stating HSUS and ND Hunters for Fair Chase have the same goals and are using your group in their ads??? What will be your response when HSUS twists statements and positions with ads directed toward the nonhunting public suggesting hunters themselves support their agendas??? What will be your response when HSUS sets up their booth at the state fair beside yours and claims both groups have the same agendas??? If you believe HSUS will not do thinkgs such as this to get the public to think hunters are supporting them you are mistaken so while as of now there may be no direct link to HSUS, if this moves forward I promise there will be and as a hunter, I find that very disturbing that you will overlook this simply to further a personal agenda.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

jhegg,

Being a sponser of the FC iniative is nothing to be proud of. You said:



> I, Jim Heggeness, am a sponsor of the initiated measure banning high fence shooting of big game animals. I am a sponsor because I think calling these operations â€œhuntingâ€


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Hey Dick Monson I know you out there. Remember this:



> Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:48 am Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Dick Monson, I don't know how much you paid Germolus but it was probably too much!!





> Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> DG, then you have nothing to worry about. You get what you pay for in legal work.


I was thinking about how much money you guys paid Paul Germolus when it occurred to me that the amount is not in the disclosure you guys posted to the secretary of states office.

http://web.apps.state.nd.us/sec/emspubl ... &offset2=0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2008 Year End Measure Committee
Printer Friendly Version | Download Tab-Delimited File

North Dakota Hunters For Fair Chase
Person Completing Report: Roger Kaseman 
Date Report Filed: 09/02/2009 
Total Cash On Hand at Start of Reporting Period: $0.00 
Total Cash On Hand at Close of Reporting Period: $1,360.00 
Total Contributions Greater than $100.00: $3,600.00 
Total Contributions Less than or Equal to $100.00: $50.00 
Total of All Contributions: $3,650.00 
Total Expenditures Greater than $100.00: $2,140.00 
Total Expenditures Less than or Equal to $100.00: $150.00 
Total of All Expenditures: $2,290.00

6 Expenditures found

Expenditures
Bismarck Tribune Sports Show
Address 1: PO Box 5516 
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal: Bismarck, ND 58506 
Date / Amount: 02/01/2008 $275.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fargo Sports Show (table)
Address 1: 1800 University Drive N 
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal: Fargo, ND 58102 
Date / Amount: 03/01/2008 $500.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minot KX Sports Show
Address 1: PO Box 1686 
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal: Minot, ND 58702 
Date / Amount: 03/01/2008 $275.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ND State Fair
Address 1: 2006 Burdick Expressway E 
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal: Minot, ND 58701 
Date / Amount: 07/01/2008 $440.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sheyenne Printers
Address 1: 351 Central Ave N 
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal: Valley City, ND 58072 
Date / Amount: 02/01/2008 $300.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Valley City Winter Show
Address 1: PO Box 846 
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal: Valley City, ND 58072 
Date / Amount: 03/01/2008 $350.00

Dick Monson, Where is the amount paid to the attorney, Paul Germolus, to draft the wording in this iniative?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, jhegg, I do have to give you credit for actually coming on these sites as one of the sponsors of this HSUS supported initiative. However it appears that you simply want to come on to state only what you want to have said, and not answer any questions regarding your positions or this measure. Nor does anyone seem willing to be the spokes person for the group ND Hunters for Fair Chase and explain what types of hunting they have chosen to include under their decree of what is ethical or discuss the consequences of their agendas.

It is hard to give an organization very much credibility, regardless of who they quote on their website, when they refuse to be more open and willing to communicate, especially with those they claim to represent, the ND hunter. I'd imagine there are a few like minded individuals here in the state that are more than willing to impose their personal ethics onto everyone else by USING the nonhunting public to accomplish this and opening the door to groups like HSUS to spread their anti hunting agendas as well. Hopefully the rest of the ND hunting community is a little more open minded and will look past the rhetoric and disingenuious statements used by these groups and their sponsors and realize the cost of what is being done.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

gst,



> It is hard to give an organization very much credibility, regardless of who they quote on their website, when they refuse to be more open and willing to communicate, especially with those they claim to represent, the ND hunter.


Imagine, this statement concerning credibility coming from someone who refuses to identify himself (herself???) or what their relationship to the high fence killing community is.

DG,



> Being a sponser of the FC iniative is nothing to be proud of.


Why not?



> I do not recognize fair chase nor do I recognize fair chase rules. It is not law!!!


Well now, that statement pretty much sums up what we need to know about you - doesn't it.

*To both of you. *

I am a sponsor of the initiative because I do not believe that "high fence hunting" is hunting.

I did not draft the language.

I can not speak for others, neither can you.

You both come on here questioning why didn't we do this or why didn't we do that. You know what - I don't think you give a rats a$$ as to why we did or didn't do something. You are not trying to clarify anything, you are only trying to create confusion.

Linking me or the committee to HSUS is ludicrous. That would be akin to me stating that anyone who opposes the humane treatment of farm animals is linked to HSUS.

You guys (gals???) are just here to blow smoke. But guess what. It doesn't make any difference.

When this initiated measure comes to a vote - it will be the voting public who makes the decision. That's how it should be.

Why don't you two grow up and tell us who you are and what your connection to the "high fence" industry is.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg, Not hiding behind any thing, your co sponsor dick knows very well who I am, and where I'm from. Ron Gilmore in a thread on baiting "outed" who I am and where I'm from on this site. If this is all you want to focas on you are wasting everyones time. As I have stated many times I have no connection at all to any HF operations other than having a couple of friends that have one. I have repeatedly said on this site and others that I am merely someone that doesn't believe one group of individuals such as ND Hunters for Fair Chase should be imposing their ethical choices onto everyone else. I have stated repeatedly that I as well don't consider HF to be hunting, but I am not so arrogant or egotistical as to think everyone has to do or agree with me nor do I wish to force my choices onto everyone else. I believe ethics are a choice truly only an individual can make. One person may be just fine with shooting a rooster standing in a ditch, while someone else might find that dispicable. One person may find shooting at running game 400 yards away to be acceptable, another may find it appalling. What you may deem acceptable under "fair chase" may not be to someone else. But yet you assume your choices are right for everyone. And even worse you want to involve the nonhunting public who has little to no understanding about any forms of hunting in your attempt to to push your agenda and ethics onto others. And wether you try to distance yourself or your group from HSUS, on this particular issue you have the same agenda, and wether you accept it or not this gives even just a slight bit more credibility to their long term agenda to end all forms of hunting. And if you do not think they will enter into this debate at some point and use even more mistruthes than your group to further this issue, you and your group are fools.

Your group have used the bible of "fair chase" doctrine as the basis for this measure, and the publics perception as to what happens in these "shooting preserves" and the negatives of what the commercialization of hunting does to it's future. I have asked questions directed at each of these avenues. You and dick have chosen to not answer any questions directly, so I guess we're are back to square one. As a sponsor one would think you would want someone that actually can speak on behalf of your group to enter into the debate for the sake of credibility.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

gst,



> jhegg, Not hiding behind any thing, your co sponsor dick knows very well who I am, and where I'm from. Ron Gilmore in a thread on baiting "outed" who I am and where I'm from on this site. If this is all you want to focas on you are wasting everyones time. As I have stated many times I have no connection at all to any HF operations other than having a couple of friends that have one.


Then what is the problem with telling us who you are and area where you live? Everyone here knows who I am. It looks like 3 or so here know who you are.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg, as it is really no big deal to me, and apparently it is for you I'll make the same deal I did with Ron, if you will only answer the questions I've asked of you directly, without using the excuse you can't speak for your group(you are sponsoring proposed legislation with them) I'll tell you and the world here on ND outdoors my name and where I'm from.

Having been "identified" on this site once by somone that would rather focas on who someone is rather than the actual debate on the issue, much like is apparently happening once again, and given the propensity for you and Dick not to answer questions, I hope you understand why I would like to hear your answers prior to my "growing up" and posting my name and address.

Just out of curiousity, do you think the RAP program is a credible program?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

gst,

You say it's no big deal to identify yourself, but you haven't done it. Oh well....llet me start by answering a few questions.

I only have meet 2 people in the group. I know who another two or three are. I volunteered to be a sponsor because I think it is the right action to take. Based on that, I can not speak for the group - only myself. That's just the way it is.

My goal is to eliminate big-game animal "high fence" hunting, and I use the term hunting here very sarcastically.

I don't care if someone shoots an animal in a fence. We used to do that on the farm, but we sure as hell didn't call it hunting. We also did not pay a multiple thousand dollar fee if what we shot had horns. We killed our animals the most humane way we could - usually with a 22 long rifle to the back of the head.

I have a friend from Wisconsin that comes out here every other year to shoot a buffalo for the meat. He is big into antique large bore (8 gauge) double rifles and just wants to see what his guns can do. They kill a buffalo very nicely. He knows he is not "hunting". The rancher doesn't sell a hunt, he sells a meat animal. The cost is the same whether the rancher kills it or my friend kills it. I have no problem with that.

My complaint is the marketing of a "trophy bull" that is enclosed in a fence. Trophies have a high value to a hunter and others when harvested under fair chase conditions. That value is demeaned when taken under other conditions like high fence operations. Like it or not, that is my opinion and that is why I agreed to be a sponsor of this initiative.

I don't know if I can answer any of your other questions, but if you re-post them I will try. Realize, of course, that I am speaking for myself. I can not speak for people I do not know. And yes, it would be nice to know who you are.

Jim


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Here is one we missed:

http://spotted.bismarcktribune.com:80/photos/208508/

Roger Kaseman, left, of Bismarck introduces Jim Posewitz of Helena, Montana at a news conference in the North Dakota State Capitol on 10-16 afternoon dealing with fair chase hunting in the state. Posewitz spoke against hunting game animals in fenced enclosures and had a 32 year career with the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks. Posewitz is the executive director of the Orion the Hunter's Institute that promotes hunter ethics and the conservation heritage of hunting. Presently there is a petition being circulated in the state to have an initiated measure on the 2010 general election ballot for voters to decide on the issue. Kaseman said the petitions are being signed and compared the effort to baseball. â€œItâ€™s too soon to do a count,â€


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

jhegg said:


> My goal is to eliminate big-game animal "high fence" hunting, and I use the term hunting here very sarcastically.
> 
> I don't care if someone shoots an animal in a fence. We used to do that on the farm, but we sure as hell didn't call it hunting. We also did not pay a multiple thousand dollar fee if what we shot had horns. We killed our animals the most humane way we could - usually with a 22 long rifle to the back of the head.


So you admit your only problem is with the wording? You don't care if they do it, just don't call it "hunting"?

Yet, you sponsor and stand with a group that wants to do away with the practice completely. Basically, the practice of shooting a penned up livestock animal.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg, OK I'll accept that you signed on to something and are willing to let another group speak for yourself. Hopefully you are aware of how they are going about it. My questions are directed towards what they are saying in your name as a sponsor and my name as a ND hunter which they are claiming to represent. You and dick are the only members of this group and measure willing to come on here publically. Dick can't seem to answer any direct questions so it does fall on you to represent this measure and the positions this group is pursueing in your name as a sponsor. Instead of reposting the questions I would ask you to just go back and reread this thread. They are pretty obvious.

I asked you the RAP question for a reason. Apparently because there is no requirement to identify yourself in this program in your eyes it lacks any credibility???

I do promise just for a couple of you guys on here obsessed with who people are I will let you know as soon as you answer these questions.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

gst,



> jhegg, OK I'll accept that you signed on to something and are willing to let another group speak for yourself.


I became a sponsor because I wanted to, not because I wanted someone else to speak up for me.



> I asked you the RAP question for a reason. Apparently because there is no requirement to identify yourself in this program in your eyes it lacks any credibility???


A warden or leo still needs to gather evidence in any RAP case. The judicial system, using evidence collected by the warden or leo, gives the RAP program credibility.

barebackjack,



> So you admit your only problem is with the wording? You don't care if they do it, just don't call it "hunting"?


Wrong, I do care if it is presented as a "hunt". If you wanted to sell a steer, and the person buying it wanted to shoot it - no big deal. That is obviously not a "hunt" and the cost is only for the meat and processing. When you sell a big game animal with a large set of horns and call it a "hunt" - yes, I object.



> Yet, you sponsor and stand with a group that wants to do away with the practice completely. Basically, the practice of shooting a penned up livestock animal.


Wrong again. The initiated measure does not ban the action of shooting or selling a game farm big game animal, it only bans the seller from receiving any money for that activity.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

jhegg wrote,



> When you sell a big game animal with a large set of horns and call it a "hunt" - yes, I object.


Buffalo, goats, sheep etc. have horns, but supposedly are not included in the measure. You used the word "horns". I'm not sure but you probably meant "antlers".

Not trying to make fun but here is the point. When it comes to making laws and or North Dakota Century Code changes, one cannot substitute words. Words and their meanings are defined in the Century Code.

The person or word mechanics who drafted the language in you iniative borrowed words and made up others. The measure:

Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited â€" Penalty â€" Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.

Jhegg, You have been unable to covey here what it means. To the average person on the street, here is what it means:

If you are rowing your boat down a cobblestone street and your steering wheel breaks off than how many pancakes does it take to shingle a doghouse.

jhegg, One more thing. Check out Posewitz at:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=77357


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

DG,



> Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited â€" Penalty â€" Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.
> 
> Jhegg, You have been unable to covey here what it means.


It means you can not charge someone for killing a privately owned game or exotic animal that is in or released from a man-made enclosure. It doesn't say you can't kill it, it just says you can not charge someone for killing it. Of course, if you are like the average people on your street, nobody will be able to explain it to you.



> To the average person on the street, here is what it means:
> 
> If you are rowing your boat down a cobblestone street and your steering wheel breaks off than how many pancakes does it take to shingle a doghouse.


I sure am glad I don't live on your street.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg What ever the reason you became a sponsor, this group IS publically speaking "for you". And as a sponsor of this legislation it is your responsibility to monitor what they are saying and doing on your behalf. So the fact members of this group of sponsors of this legislation are using mistruthes and disingenuous statements to the nonhunting public and are using the same techniques and agendas as groups such as HSUS does indeed fall on you as a sponsor. You don't get a pass by claiming they don't speak for you or you don't speak for them nor can you as a sponsor not answer questions directed towards this measure and expect to maintain a degree of credibility to your measure. When you sign your name as a sponsor you accept the responsibility of the consequences of the actions of everyone that is also a sponsor of this proposed legislation. So if one of your fellow sponsors contacts HSUS like happened last time this was attempted, you all bear the responsibilities of those actions. Plain and simple.

Also given your above definition of the measure, how can upland bird "hunting" preserves not be included.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

gst,



> jhegg What ever the reason you became a sponsor, this group IS publically speaking "for you".


Nope - I just agree with the initiated measure.



> And as a sponsor of this legislation it is your responsibility to monitor what they are saying and doing on your behalf.


I monitor what I say and do on my behalf - that's all I have control over.



> When you sign your name as a sponsor you accept the responsibility of the consequences of the actions of everyone that is also a sponsor of this proposed legislation. So if one of your fellow sponsors contacts HSUS like happened last time this was attempted, you all bear the responsibilities of those actions. Plain and simple.


Not so plain - not so simple. I don't ask HSUS for support on anything. If somebody else does, that's out of my control. I'm sure there are some really nasty people out there who may agree with you on any given issue. Does that mean you bear responsibility for their thoughts and actions?



> Also given your above definition of the measure, how can upland bird "hunting" preserves not be included.


Easy, upland birds are not included in the measure.

Any more questions that have nothing to do with the initiated measure? btw, I still haven't seen you identify yourself. That doesn't do much for your credibility, does it.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ok for people who think credibility is linked to a name rather than what is said or written, Gabe S. Thompson, (gst) Antler ND. Apparently now everything I say must be considered credible.

jhegg. Now that that is out of the way there is something that you seem to be overlooking. If you were merely on here saying ya I agree with what this group is doing, you could get away with claiming their positions and what they say and do are not your thoughts or intentions. But you signed on as a SPONSOR which DOES make you responsible as well as accountable for this groups actions and the consequences of them. Your group is knowingly opening the door and inviting a group, HSUS, with an anti hunting agenda into this state with this measure. They will do everything in their power to help gather the required number of signatures wether your group invites them to do so or not. They will use the media to do so. The fact that a group of hunters are doing this does give a degree of legitimacy to their true agenda of ending all hunting in the nonhunting publics eyes. The fact that either you are so blinded by this personal agenda to see this or care if it happens so long as your personal choices are forced onto others is the perfect example of why I oppose what this group is doing.

You can try to dodge your responsibility and accountability for what is being said and done by your fellow sponsors, but once you signed your name to that sheet as a sponsor of this measure, that is no longer possible. To continue to do so shows a lack of credibility or the stones to accept the responsibility that comes with signing your name to the sponsorship.

As to the gamebird question, by not including a form of hunting that is done exactly how your measure states, apparently you and your group are reserving the right to pick and choose what you think should be covered under your umbrella of fair chase hunting while legislating this ability to choose away from others. To me this is the definition of hypocracy.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Thank you Gabe.

As far as HSUS, I am not a member of that group, I did not invite them to gather signatures and I do not approve of what they stand for. That said, I can not stop them from gathering signatures if that is what they want to do.



> The fact that either you are so blinded by this personal agenda to see this or care if it happens so long as your personal choices are forced onto others is the perfect example of why I oppose what this group is doing.


I do not agree that my personal choices "are forced onto others". Jim Heggeness, by himself, can not turn this initiated measure into law. If the measure gets placed on the ballot, the voters of ND will have the opportunity to decide if they want this as a law or not.



> As to the gamebird question, by not including a form of hunting that is done exactly how your measure states, apparently you and your group are reserving the right to pick and choose what you think should be covered under your umbrella of fair chase hunting while legislating this ability to choose away from others. To me this is the definition of hypocracy.


Again, we are not legislating "ability to chose" or anything else away from anyone. ND voters will decide this issue, not you or I individually.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim Your statement: "As far as HSUS, I am not a member of that group, I did not invite them to gather signatures and I do not approve of what they stand for, That said, I can not stop them from gathering signatures if that is what they want to do."

Actually Jim yes you and your group could stop them from furthering their agenda here in ND to end all hunting by simply not having a petition to gather signaures for. While you try to distance yourself from the affects of giving a platform and opportunity and a degree of legitimacy to groups like HSUS to further their agenda here in ND, the fact is this measure does just that, and that is the consequences that I am refering to your group having to accept responsibility for. When the media ads by HSUS start appearing here in ND it will be a direct result of yours and 20 some others choice to proceed with an agenda that allowed it to happen. And apparently you don't care that these groups are being given this opportunity as long as this personal agenda is being accomplished.

You and the other sponsors made the personal choice to overlook or not include game bird preserves in this measure for what ever reason even though they do EXACTLY what this measure intends to ban. So in essence you and your group ARE trying to take away the ability of others to make these same choices and determinations of what they will participate in by banning some operations that included game raised in an enclosure while allowing others to continue in how you worded this meausre. You can't claim to be banning the hunting of game raised in an enclosure in the name of protecting hunting and not include all operations that do this in your measure and deny you are not as a group choosing to prevent someone else from having the ability of making that same choice. So why did your group exclude it from this measure??


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,

We need to sit down over a cup of coffee or a beer or something and talk about this. But, let me respond.



> Actually Jim yes you and your group could stop them from furthering their agenda here in ND to end all hunting by simply not having a petition to gather signaures for.


Hmmm...Drop our petition because because it gives HSUS a reason to advertise in ND. I don't buy that. The shoddy practices used in high fence operations give more than enough ammo to groups like HSUS. Based on that, you should welcome this initiated measure.



> You and the other sponsors made the personal choice to overlook or not include game bird preserves in this measure for what ever reason even though they do EXACTLY what this measure intends to ban. So in essence you and your group ARE trying to take away the ability of others to make these same choices and determinations of what they will participate in by banning some operations that included game raised in an enclosure while allowing others to continue in how you worded this meausre. You can't claim to be banning the hunting of game raised in an enclosure in the name of protecting hunting and not include all operations that do this in your measure and deny you are not as a group choosing to prevent someone else from having the ability of making that same choice. So why did your group exclude it from this measure??


I don't understand why you are so fixated on the game bird preserves. To make those equal to high fence operations, they would have to be totally enclosed, including an overhead net of some sort. I am not aware of any game farm preserve that has game bird shooting under those conditions.

btw, you are doing an excellent job of keeping this debate civil. I hope I can do the same.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim, these HF operations have been going on in ND for quite some time and neither the public or HSUS have gave even an incling of legislating a ban on them or on hunting itself. It was not until this group of "hunters" came along and moved their personal agenda forward that this is occuring. And in doing so youhave opened the door to groups like HSUS and others. Thats my point.

Please give specific examples of the "shoddy practices used in high fence operations" here in ND. Your measure is aimed at ending only those operations in ND so it is their track record that should be considered, not some backwoods hillbillies in whatever other state shooting some bear in a cage examples. Just because HSUS films someone rolling crippled dairy cows over with a loader in another state, should I be banned from raising cattle here in ND???

By the wording of the measure, the animal does not have to be shot inside an enclosure, but rather only "released from a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape" which is exactly what is done on these bird preserves. I continue to bring up the game bird preserves because your spokes person Mr. Kaseman is in the media claiming anything that is done as the measure is written to prevent has a negative impact on hunting itself in the eyes of the nonhunting public. It is the whole premise behind your measure. So by not including them you (and when I say you I mean your group of sponsors)are clearly either picking and choosing which activities that are using these "dispicable" methods to ban, or else it was an oversight in the wording of your measure and these upland bird preserves that raise birds in a man made enclosure to sell to hunters will be delt with at a later time. I'm wondering which it is, your groups personal choice not to include them as being "covered" under your rules of "fair chase hunting" or a back door way around haveing the owners of these bird preserves against your measure as well? I would guess their are some folks that would never shoot an elk inside a fence and will sign the petition, but would perhaps spend a weekend shooting pheasants with their buddies at one of these preserves and might not sign the petition if they were included.

I really don't see a benefit to not having civil debates, and I do give you credit for being the only sponsor out of all of them that is willing to debate this issue. So hopefully it can continue, and if there are questions asked that you personally can't answer, I would hope as a sponsor you would get the answer from your group to include in the debate.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,

You are still fixated on the game bird preserve issue. I do not think that game bird preserves are in the same league as high fence operations - I never have. If you want to lump them in there, that's your problem. You deal with it.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim, As I said before, not fixated or don't have a problem with these bird preserves. Just because you don't think they are in the "same league as HF" doesn't mean they are not doing exactly what your measure is written to prohibit. So I'm curious to the logic behind why they weren't included.If you don't want to answer why they weren't included, please get your fellow sponsor Mr. Kaseman to respond why they didn't include all hunting that includes something "released from a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape" if this is what is giving hunting a black eye. Please reread my last post and you should be able to understand why I keep asking.

I also noticed you haven't listed any of these "shoddy practices" you claim is happening in HF here in ND. I think people might be a little curious as to what you are talking about.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Fly over fence ... run into fence ... difference is simple.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dak read the measure. It is worded to ban the hunting of specific animals raised in and released from a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape, not just hunting inside the fence. It is aimed at ending pen raising animals for hunting purposes, exactly what these bird preserves do. But yet they are not included, I'm merely curious why.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Hey Dak,

How is your brother doing? I see he is not a sponser of the HF thing this go around. Did he ever get over that run in he had with an old farmer named Ervin? Now Ervin told him that there was a big buck that came in with his holsteins every evening and ate with them in the feed bunks before milking. So your brother waited in a tree for the cows to come single file through the cattle pass and into the corral. Your brother sat in that tree for three days before he figured out he had been snookered.

Old Ervin never got tired of telling that story. However thinking back on it now, your brother was trying to shoot a buck in a fence coming to bait. hhmm!!!! Dak is that ethical? And I'm not talking about the joke played by old Ervin.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,

You are fixated on the bird preserves.



> Jim, As I said before, not fixated or don't have a problem with these bird preserves. Just because you don't think they are in the "same league as HF" doesn't mean they are not doing exactly what your measure is written to prohibit.





> Dak read the measure. It is worded to ban the hunting of specific animals raised in and released from a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape, not just hunting inside the fence. It is aimed at ending pen raising animals for hunting purposes, exactly what these bird preserves do. But yet they are not included, I'm merely curious why.


The initiated measure specifies which animals it pertains to. Birds aren't included in the initiated measure so get over it.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim If I'm fixated on anything it is that apparently you sponsors of this measure want to reserve the right to pick and choose what are accepted methods of "hunting" while taking that ability away from others. You chose to ban releasing an elk from a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape to be shot because you say raising these animals to be sold then killed in the name of hunting gives hunting a black eye, yet you are chosing to allow game birds to be released from a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape to be sold then shot as "hunting". If one gives hunting such a black eye how does the other very same practice not???? If one is being banned because it does not follow your "rules of fair chase" why is the other still being allowed if not following the rules of "fair chase" are putting hunting at risk as your spokes person Mr. Kaseman is claiming.

If you can't understand why someone is asking why you are saying that the ativity of paying someone to shoot an elk that was raised in captivity is unethical and wrong so it must be banned to protect hunting, but paying someone to shoot a pheasant that was raised in captivity isn't unethical and wrong and won't be included in this ban to protect hunting, then your whole argument that these activities of "commercializing hunting" is putting hunting itself at risk in the eyes of the nonhunting public is a bunch of crap. You can't claim one action puts hunting at risk and then not accept that the other same action does as well. And to ban one while allowing the other shows this is not about "protecting" hunting, it is about a personal agenda plain and simple and the rhetoric of "protecting" hunting is nothing more than a lie being used to further a personal crusade of a group of twenty or so people.

So to make this simple for you and your group here is 2 questions to answer.
1. Should upland bird hunting follow the "rules of fair chase"
2. What are these "shoddy practices" that you claim HF operations here in ND are practicing. 
If you or some other sponsor such as Dick or your spokesperson Mr. Kaseman can't directly answer these 2 questions, your credibility as to why you are doing this will be less than what it is even now. And please don't come back here saying you can't speak for this group, you chose to be a SPONSOR step up and take the responsibility that goes with signing your name as such.


----------

