# Hunt from Hell



## Dick Monson

http://www.donahue.tv/hobbies.htm

I like the pictures.


----------



## blhunter3

uke: :eyeroll: :******: :huh: :crybaby:


----------



## Plainsman

An operation totally devoid of conscience.


----------



## cwoparson

> An operation totally devoid of conscience.


Agreed. But I hope this statement by the author caught your attention.
" However, if we as hunters refuse to go to these canned hunts then the marketplace will shut them down".

If I were Chris I would contact the author of the story and get permission to post the entire story as a sticky in all forums.


----------



## Norm70

terrible uke: :******:


----------



## LT

What is really wrong is the fact that these guys were misled, and I know for a fact that this is not how all game farm owners operate. So you are going to judge the whole industry because of some bad apples.


----------



## hunter121390

:******: :eyeroll: uke:


----------



## barebackjack

For a couple of guys so "morally opposed" to what they did, they sure took advantage of it, it seems. I wonder if they ever thought of going home and sueing the pants off the outfitter for false advertising? Instead of shooting his animals. Obviously not, they bent over and said "oh well, lets go shooting". Doesnt seem like the they put up much of a fight. Id have had a level 5 core meltdown had I been in their shoes.



LT said:


> What is really wrong is the fact that these guys were misled, and I know for a fact that this is not how all game farm owners operate. So you are going to judge the whole industry because of some bad apples.


Exactly, anyone who believes this is the "norm" is misled. Take it with a grain of salt, theres bad apples in EVERY business.


----------



## blhunter3

Well it may not be false advertising because, its how you word things and how you interpert "fair chase"

I am not saying that it is right, because if I wanted to shoot penned in animals I would go to our milk barn and go shot a cow. I think that all of those "hunting" or rather shooting operations need to be shut down for good.


----------



## LT

So lets ban shooting of animals of any kind in a pen. You shoot cows in a pen; these are considered privately owned animals. If someone wants to pay for an animal and shoot it for themselves in a pen what is wrong with that. Lets take away the market for these game farms just because 
it does not fit into someone's definition of what hunting is.

But instead it will be okay for the game farmer to shoot the animal (so they say) in the pen for the person wanting the animal. What the bleep is the difference.

I think if hunters worry about their own ethics and how they conduct themselves, this will go further in the minds of the public.


----------



## LT

*blhunter3 wrote:



I am not saying that it is right, because if I wanted to shoot penned in animals I would go to our milk barn and go shot a cow. I think that all of those "hunting" or rather shooting operations need to be shut down for good.

Click to expand...

And because that animal is your property you can go out to the milk barn and shoot it and if someone wants to pay you a lot of money to shoot it they could, but the difference here is that cow does not have that kind of marketability, that byproduct. That cow is raised for its milk and meat. But now lets take your property option of the meat away and what is left, the milk. What if the public gets on their high horse and decides that they do not want you killing the holstein cow because in their eyes they are for milking only. What happens to the marketability of your cow. It is the same thing that has happened in the horse industry. Because people perceive horses as only for riding and packing, this part of the industry has been taken away.

I am very concerned about what is happening with property rights in this country. What the general public views as property usually does not include the options that go with it, and because of that options are being taken away which leaves the property without value. Yeah, these game farmers put their blood, sweat, and money into their farms with the idea that they were going to be raising these animals for people to look at. But Mr. Game Farmer you still have your animals, you still have your property!!!*


----------



## blhunter3

I guess what I was trying to say, it doesn't give the animals a fair chance to live, when your out there shooting and you can basicly pet them, its not hunting, it shooting. I see where you do not want to limit what people do on there own property, but cornering animal to shoot it to forfill someones blood lust is wrong. All I can to people who see nothing wrong in killing penned animals is FAIR CHASE!!!!!


----------



## LT

So all people hunting via Fair Chase are only after the meat and not fulfulling some blood lust; and all people hunting via game farms are only hunting for blood lust and not the meat????


----------



## blhunter3

People who shoot penned animals are pathetic people in my book, they cannot hunt, so they resort to shooting penned animals so they can have it mounted and have some made up hunting story on how they shot it, to forfull their massive ego's.


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> People who shoot penned animals are pathetic people in my book, they cannot hunt, so they resort to shooting penned animals so they can have it mounted and have some made up hunting story on how they shot it, to forfull their massive ego's.


So what? How does this effect you? Theres a million things done by a million guys every year to actual free range PUBLIC wildlife that I dont consider right, sporting, fair, ethical, or "hunting", but so what. 
If a guy wants to shoot a farm raised animal, go ahead, he can say whatever he wants, HE still knows hes a fake.
If a guy buys goose bands on ebay to "stroke his ego", HE still knows hes a fake.
If a guy shoots that big buck after hours in the headlights, but tells everybody it was on the up and up, HE still knows hes a fake.

None of this effects YOU from making your own choices.


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> I guess what I was trying to say, it doesn't give the animals a fair chance to live,


Did that beef cow that made up the last steak and burger you ate have a fair chance to live?

These animals are NO different than any other form of livestock, they are bred and raised to DIE, plain and simple.


----------



## LT

*blhunter3 wrote:




People who shoot penned animals are pathetic people in my book, they cannot hunt, so they resort to shooting penned animals so they can have it mounted and have some made up hunting story on how they shot it, to forfull their massive ego's.

Click to expand...

I think you need to go to talk to some game farmers and find out who actually visits their operations. I know of one operation that has handicapped people from those in wheelchairs all the way to the elderly, people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, dying of cancer and only have so many months to live, etc. visiting their game farm. I would estimate approximately 60 to 75% of their customers are in some way handicapped. Why take this option of hunting away from them, just because there are those people (in my opinion) with the HUGE EGOS who are trying to define what A REAL HUNT IS. *


----------



## blhunter3

Well actually since it was a dairy cow that I ate, then yes she did taste very good.

I guess that the people who want to shoot penned in animals must suck at hunting without pens. They just need to kill something so they can mount the rack, and make up a story to brag to there friends on how they "hunted" it. These people who shoot penned animals need to keep boosting there ego, and what a better way then shoot a huge penned in animal?


----------



## FlashBoomSplash

Paying money to kill any animal on private land is not fair chase whether there is a fence or not. I dont care if people do it but they should be considered shooting operations not hunting operations.

I think places with out fences are even worse. I pay tax to improve wildlife quality, I am a member of PF, DU, DW, and the NWTF i am getting tired of donating my money to these groups so some guy can buy a bunch of land pull all the wildlife on to there property with food plots. I am tired of seeing large areas of land locked up were migratory birds pass through. I just dont see the point of donating my time and hard earned money for some jerk to come in and take it from me.

The worst part about these operations is it puts a black mark next to all of us even if we dont partake. Thats why it needs to stop.


----------



## LT

The issue still remains these are privately owned, domesticated elk and deer. Why should someone's opinion of whether they like how they are killed take away their property option. If you want to talk about ethics, then how it is ethical to kill any animal. Cuz this is where it is going.


----------



## Chuck Smith

blhunter3...

I know of people who have gone to these operations and they don't make up story's. They tell me the story on just how it was. They say they shot the animal in an enclosure. Some tell the story on how they spotted it by a feeder. Not all people make up a story on how they killed it. That is one big misconception. But I am sure there are those that do make up stories. Just like others have stated. People do unethical things when hunting "fair Chase". Then tell a story of a great stalk instead of they got it off the road or etc.


----------



## R y a n

LT said:


> I think you need to go to talk to some game farmers and find out who actually visits their operations. I know of one operation that has handicapped people from those in wheelchairs all the way to the elderly, people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, dying of cancer and only have so many months to live, etc. visiting their game farm. I would estimate approximately 60 to 75% of their customers are in some way handicapped. Why take this option of hunting away from them, just because there are those people (in my opinion) with the HUGE EGOS who are trying to define what A REAL HUNT IS.


I think that in an effort to allow everyone the effort to shoot something, that we have blurred the meaning of the word "hunt"

Look up the definition of hunt in the dictionary. What does it say? Here is a link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

The point is to hunt something you should be actively setup to hunt, stalk, pursue an animal. We have given so many people the modern conveniences of making these "hunts" so damn easy, that it is taking away from the actual pursuit of the quarry.

I have a problem with this "Shooting Industrty" calling what they do hunts, but I have an even bigger problem with them holding up their Youth/Handicapped/Disabled hunts as a measuring stick to how much of a "benefit" they are to the sport of hunting. Let's face it. They are doing it for the positive PR, and to make a claim that they are providing those with access who otherwise wouldn't have it. *Bogus Bullsh!t. Period.*

If the practice didn't bring them some publicity, or provide them with an excuse to further their agendas, they simply wouldn't do it.

They aren't doing it out of "the kindness of their heart"

Nice sympathy attempt though. Take the bleeding heart story elsewhere.

My heart goes out to those folks who are unfortunately in that position. They shouldn't be held out as political pawns to further your thinly veiled agenda. Don't think the vast majority of the hunting public doesn't understand perfectly that the Canned Domestic Elk/Deer _Shooting_ Industry is only doing such hunts for the PR.

Ryan


----------



## blhunter3

Finally some people have come to my aid.


----------



## LT

*Ryan Wrote:




I have a problem with this "Shooting Industrty" calling what they do hunts, but I have an even bigger problem with them holding up their Youth/Handicapped/Disabled hunts as a measuring stick to how much of a "benefit" they are to the sport of hunting. Let's face it. They are doing it for the positive PR, and to make a claim that they are providing those with access who otherwise wouldn't have it. Bogus Bullsh!t. Period.

If the practice didn't bring them some publicity, or provide them with an excuse to further their agendas, they simply wouldn't do it.

They aren't doing it out of "the kindness of their heart"

Nice sympathy attempt though. Take the bleeding heart story elsewhere.

My heart goes out to those folks who are unfortunately in that position. They shouldn't be held out as political pawns to further your thinly veiled agenda. Don't think the vast majority of the hunting public doesn't understand perfectly that the Canned Domestic Elk/DeerShooting Industry is only doing such hunts for the PR.

Click to expand...

I was just stating who visits these game farms from the one operation that I know of. I was not trying to gain any sympathy or state a bleeding heart story.

Have you talked to any of these folks. I have a feeling they would take issue of your statement about them being political pawns in this issue. They are at the farms of their own choosing. THIS PARTICULAR GAME FARM HAS NEVER BEEN IN THE PAPER REGARDING ANY OF HIS CLIENTS WHO ARE HANDICAPPED/YOUTH/DISABLED. Not sure where he is trying to gain any PR over this.

BUT you can bet money you guys that are for this initiative are forcing the hand of these game farms to use this for their PR in their fight against this initiative. I am also sure they have the permission of their clients to be in these stories. *


----------



## MRN

blhunter3 said:


> Finally some people have come to my aid.


You don't need no aid. Just know lots of folks read, agree, but can't be bothered to post-up because there is little chance of shifting someone's opinion here, unless it's tied to money. They'll do ANYTHING for money.

But be sure to post-up funny stuff - I come here for laughs, even if most of it is the derisive mocking that I don't bother to post.

M.


----------



## blhunter3

Ok I will try to find something funny for ya. :beer:


----------



## djleye

> None of this effects YOU from making your own choices.


It certainly can affect mt choices if someone shoots a large buck after dark. He might not be there when I am hunting LEGALLY!!!! It makes a difference!!!


----------



## g/o

> have a problem with this "Shooting Industrty" calling what they do hunts, but I have an even bigger problem with them holding up their Youth/Handicapped/Disabled hunts as a measuring stick to how much of a "benefit" they are to the sport of hunting. Let's face it. They are doing it for the positive PR, and to make a claim that they are providing those with access who otherwise wouldn't have it. Bogus Bullsh!t. Period.
> 
> If the practice didn't bring them some publicity, or provide them with an excuse to further their agendas, they simply wouldn't do it.
> 
> They aren't doing it out of "the kindness of their heart"
> 
> Nice sympathy attempt though. Take the bleeding heart story elsewhere.
> 
> My heart goes out to those folks who are unfortunately in that position. They shouldn't be held out as political pawns to further your thinly veiled agenda. Don't think the vast majority of the hunting public doesn't understand perfectly that the Canned Domestic Elk/Deer Shooting Industry is only doing such hunts for the PR.


R Y A N, I really have a hard time with your comments and that is the only reason people do things is for PR. Go to the NDGF website and listen to what Randy Kreil has to say about Elk hunting in ND and the kind of shape you need to be in. Many of these kids are dying or physically impaired and could never handle the terrain in this hunt. Besides they would have a slim chance of ever drawing a license. Sure it's not the same as hunting in the Rockies or the Badlands, but they could never handle such a hunt. R Y A N who are you to tell that person because you don't feel it's ethical they can't hunt. You talk about bleeding hearts, I'm really getting tired of every time some person does something out the kindness of their heart you accuse them of doing it only for PR.


----------



## LT

*MRN wrote:




You don't need no aid. Just know lots of folks read, agree, but can't be bothered to post-up because there is little chance of shifting someone's opinion here, unless it's tied to money. They'll do ANYTHING for money.

Click to expand...

Again I ask, have you talked to any of these game farmers. The majority that I have met in North Dakota are just struggling to make a living off of their farms, trying to make a living like everyone else. They are down-to-earth, very nice people.*


----------



## barebackjack

R y a n said:


> If the practice didn't bring them some publicity, or provide them with an excuse to further their agendas, they simply wouldn't do it.


Way to stereotype them. Thats like saying all deer gun hunters are slobs who shoot out the pickup window OR saying all hunters are just after some sort of blood lust.


----------



## Dick Monson

> Again I ask, have you talked to any of these game farmers. The majority that I have met in North Dakota are just struggling to make a living off of their farms, trying to make a living like everyone else. They are down-to-earth, very nice people.


LT, those very nice people aren't the ones we meet at the signautre drives. The ones we meet swear a blue streak, swear at the people signing, try to get them to cross out their signatures, threaten to shut down hunting in North Dakota, threaten to destroy all wildlife habitat possible, on and on........you get the picture. Intimidation and generic blackmail come from those very nice people you mention.

Two things came from the panel discussion in Jamestown last week. The opposition said they would request funding for their Board of Animal Health from sources other than NDGF. Score one for the sportsmen who purchase hunting licenses! And the opposition immediately offered free "hunts" to Sporting Chance (the org. that assists last chance hunters) and Sporting Chance turned them down. That's right, rejected the offer, because they only do fair chase. :wink:


----------



## R y a n

barebackjack said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the practice didn't bring them some publicity, or provide them with an excuse to further their agendas, they simply wouldn't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Way to stereotype them. Thats like saying all deer gun hunters are slobs who shoot out the pickup window OR saying all hunters are just after some sort of blood lust.
Click to expand...

I figured between you and G/O, that I'd touch a nerve. Sure there are exceptions. There are exceptions for everything.

However let's face reality. Not everyone involved is doing so out of charity.

I have tremendous respect for the guys that do host those types of hunts, and do so with no fanfare or publicity. But I think we all know those are not the guys I"m talking about.

I'm talking about the publicity seekers who prominently advertise the name of their "operation" during the hunt, so they or their ads get plenty of face/camera time on film.

You are just choosing to express outrage at my comments because you'll do anything to discredit me. Those who know me, know exactly where I'm coming from. Those who have read my posts here know that I'm coming at this from simple logic, and I mean no malice towards someone iwth a disability.

I guess it's a sign of the times that if you can smear the message, then smear the messenger.

:eyeroll:


----------



## R y a n

Dick Monson said:


> And the opposition immediately offered free "hunts" to Sporting Chance (the org. that assists last chance hunters) and Sporting Chance turned them down. That's right, rejected the offer,* because they only do fair chase.* :wink:


Ouch.

'Nuff said.


----------



## LT

Mr. Monson,

This goes both ways. So your saying everyone supporting this initiative does not act in any way like this. I know differently. So telling people that these guys are taking animals out of the wild and killing them is ethical to get a signature on a petition. Come on now. Why do you think these guys are getting hostile with you.

I was at the Jamestown meeting as one of the 80% you talked about. I witnessed the hostility that you guys brought out in the crowd and the crowd pretty much held themselves in check, but yeah, they are just suppose to sit back and take your garbage and not respond.

When someone says that a handicapped child will have to live for all eternity with what he had done by going to a game farm for a hunt, that he is a cheater and we are teaching him to cheat, you do not think that is not going to get a reaction.

Yeah, you do not mention the fact that the Hunt of a Lifetime people were there and speaking against this initiative. HMMM, I would like to know when the Sporting Chance people were offered a hunt by these people and they turned them down, CUZ I TELL YOU WHAT THAT WAS NOT WITNESSED BY ME.


----------



## g/o

Dick, you just confirmed what people are saying about this measure. 
sporting chance does not want to go with high fence, that is their right. Hunt of a Lifetime foundation chooses to go to game farms. You feel you are right but so do your opponents. This is about ethics nothing more or less we have no health risks or disease issues, you feel you are better than everyone else I do not.

R Y A N,


> I figured between you and G/O, that I'd touch a nerve. Sure there are exceptions. There are exceptions for everything.


I agree same as game farms some are run much better than others. Because we have a couple of bad apples should we shut an industry down? It goes back to the same old thing who is better than anyone else, we can't tolerate that kind of thinking in this country.


----------



## barebackjack

R y a n said:


> I figured between you and G/O, that I'd touch a nerve. Sure there are exceptions. There are exceptions for everything.


And yet you felt the need to leave that out of your intitial comment. Would you leave things out if you were explaining this to someone neutral on the subject? Or would you try to paint the other side in a very negative light, but spewing stereotypes, and telling a half truth to get someone to side with you?


----------



## LT

I stand corrected. Hunt of a Lifetime was not there; it was Sporting Chance that was there and they spoke in support of the North Dakota Elk and Deer Growers, and I did not witness them being offered hunts and turning them down.


----------



## Dick Monson

LT, help me out here. Your memory is probably better than mine. 
Did any of our people block your booth at the Dome or the Winter Show? That's what was done to us. 
Did we say that bison were included on the measure and slaughter of elk and deer was prohibited? Because that was said and printed by your boys and handed out at the Jamestown fourm.

Did we tell people to take their signatures off your petition? Your guys did.
I'll sure agree you didn't witness Sporting Chance turn down the offer of free shoots, because you weren't there. Should I give them a call for you?

The signatures are coming in from all across the state. The people next to canned shooting don't like it any better than anyone else. That's what an election is for. I told your members to request the violation file. Do it. Then you can post it up right here. Interesting names in that file.


----------



## g/o

Dick, I see the NDWF does not list Sporting Chance yet they do hunt of a lifetime. Here are some names for you to read and notice how many hunt elk

http://www.huntofalifetime.org/bios/A/index.shtml

:eyeroll:


----------



## LT

My people. How are these my people.  I told you I am one of the 80% you talked about; I am just a person with an opinion too. I have never hunted and do not care to, but that does not make me try to shove my desire not to hunt down anybody else's throat.

Can I ask you why Bison are not included? You said that night they are considered livestock by most people, but yet when people say that domesticated elk are livestock then it is said that they should slaughter them like livestock. Well then why aren't Bison also slaughtered like livestock? Are they next on the agenda? And then what?


----------



## LT

I was there. If there was any offers of free hunts it was not witnessed by me. What I witnessed was a man for Sporting Chance supporting the Elk and Deer Growers.

Go ahead and call them but also ask him to repeat what he said to you guys.


----------



## LT

Also where does your measure actually say that Bison are not included? Are they or are they not Big Game; what are they exactly?


----------



## Plainsman

> Can I ask you why Bison are not included?


Use the search button LT. That has been explained ad nauseum. It has been asked so many times that it would appear it is only asked now to irritate people. Same for the pheasant operations.

When Dick mentioned the manners of people at the dome I think that reflected the percentage of bad apples in this barrel. If I remember the old cliché is "one bad apple can spoil the whole barrel"??? This industry time after time refuses to remove the bad apple. So does the outfitting industry, and we need only look at the large operations around Steel and Streeter. The captured killing industry should never have begun. It is the spawn of a bad apple to begin with. It sprung up not to serve all hunters, but those within our ranks of the least ethics and the most money.

There is nothing at one of these captured killing operations for handicapped that can not be done somewhere with free ranging animals. I know a fellow who has a son that has to be carried to his Polaris Ranger. He has it rigged with a racing harness to hold his son upright. He takes him everywhere. With today's technology the old tired it's for the handicapped doesn't cut it. The handicapped, the youth set aside, the free hunts to Last Chance, it's all PR. To try tell us otherwise is to insult our intelligence.

Was it Lincoln that said "you can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time"? The vast majority of people (80%+) agree that captured killing needs to go away. You can't fool them anymore. You didn't remove the bad apples, the barrel is rotting, and the piper wants his due.


----------



## blhunter3

Well said, Plainsman.


----------



## LT

So if bison are considered livestock, then why are they hunted in a high fence?

Also, I will ask then why does the initiative state big game? Also, how does fee killing not include slaughter? Just cuz you say it ain't so. I think if this was a contract my lawyer would advise me not to sign it.

Also, you talk about the behavior of the people at this show. Well what prompted some of this behavior. Could it be because people were told that these game farms capture animals in the wild and then put them in enclosures and kill them? Could it be because you were telling people that they put them in pens this big and it was showed to people using chopping movements with your hands to show a very small box?

I am being told that the vendors at the show complained to management and asked for their money back. Management then moved you to another location.

Could it be that it was because of what was being said, how you guys then went around the show with clipboards and tried to get petitions. The vendors then complained again and then you were asked to stop, so then you started yelling to people to come your way to sign your petition, and then vendors around you at your new location started complaining.

Regarding the Jamestown meeting, I took home a piece of paper that stated this:

"Neither 'property' nor the value of property is a physical thing. Property is a of set of defined options...It is that set of options which has economic value...It is the options, and not the physical things, which are the 'property'--economically as well as legally...But because the public tends to think of property as tangible, physical things, this opens the way politically for government confiscation of property by forcibly taking away options while leaving the physical objects untouched." Thomas Sowell

I will say again, I am one of the 80% of people who have no opinion regarding hunting, but I am one of the 100% for property rights.


----------



## Dick Monson

LT, You have confused the Hunt of a Lifetime Foundation with Sporting Chance. HLF was at Jamestown, Sporting Chance was the group that turned down free shoots because it violates ther fair chase ethic.

Now read the measure:



> Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited . Penalty . 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.
> 
> SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective on November 1, 2010.


Bison are not included in the definition of big game species under the century code. If your people want an inclusion of bison you will need to write your own initiated measure. Neither is custom slaughter or processing affected if you read the measure. The intentional misleading information by canned shooting operations on these two subjects demonstrates the desperation of their position.


----------



## LT

Maybe I am confusing the two organizations, but what I witnessed is a gentleman defending the elk/deer growers from one of these organizations. I did not witness anyone being offered free hunts and refusing them. If this happened, it was not very noticeable or it was behind the scenes.

North Dakota Century Code also states that farmed elk are a domesticated animal as are bison. Big game includes elk, but not "farmed elk".


----------



## mike2766

I believe it is unfair to compare ND NonTraditional Livestock Producers to operators in Manitoba or anywhere else outside of the borders of ND. North Dakota NonTraditional Livestock rules are among the most strict in the nation and far more restrictive that rules governing other forms of livestock in our state. The amazing thing is that NTL operators have supported and welcomed these rules in order to protect their industry in North Dakota. To compare ND operators to this Manitoba case or to any other unscrupulous outfit is unfair.

I have not heard of a single case in which a ND operator has advertised or otherwise promoted his operation as "fair chase". I have hear some advertise "hunts", and I believe this may be their greatest, and only sin. I believe that the Dick Monsons of the world are actually most upset about the terminology used in advertising. Semantics. If the word "shooting" were substituted for "hunting" how could one justify the condemnation of these operations any more than a cattle, hog or buffalo operation? This is livestock production and marketing, plain and simple. At best one might take these operators to task for false advertising. Again, semantics. But to suggest they be denied the right to operate in North Dakota? Who do you think you are? And where do you think you live?

I believe if one could truly analyze the real source of the dislike for high fence that Dick and his followers have it is with the guy that patronized the high fence shooting operation and then brags about his hunting skills. Shouldn't you be taking him to task instead of trying to put the livestock producer out of business?

I was at the Fargodome and stood back and watched interactions between Dick Monson and his followers as they used their propaganda to elicit signatures from the uneducated. Dick has stated that he and his have been treated badly, even cursed at by high fence operators at these booths. Well, I observed guy's at this booth that were so upset by this proposed initiative that they were very close to dragging Dick and his boys across the table by their necks. I recognized some of these guy's and they were not high fence operators. They were North Dakota landowners, farmers and cattlemen. They were people that realize the serious risks associated with this initiative. The door that will be opened will be difficult to close, and the ramifications will affect all livestock producers, property owners and hunters.

Yes, hunters. Because Dick Monson and his small group of followers believe that their way of huntng is the only way, and that all others should do it their way or should not be allowed to do it at all. High fence shooting, baiting. Whatever the issue. They will prey on people emotions and try to use their definition of "ethics" to con the public.

If this measure is successful we as hunters will be the losers. It will set the stage for others that are even more radical than the proponents of this effort. And they will be after more that high fence.


----------



## bmxfire37

yea id be pretty mad....esp sitting in the swamp that late


----------



## MRN

mike2766 said:


> I was at the Fargodome and stood back and watched interactions between Dick Monson and his followers as they used their propaganda to elicit signatures from the uneducated. Dick has stated that he and his have been treated badly, even cursed at by high fence operators at these booths. Well, I observed guy's at this booth that were so upset by this proposed initiative that they were very close to dragging Dick and his boys across the table by their necks. I recognized some of these guy's and they were not high fence operators. They were North Dakota landowners, farmers and cattlemen.


You are/were the only one with violence on your mind. You should seek professional help because both your internal representation of reality and your ability to cope are on shakey ground at best.

There were just a few psychopaths that came by. Which one were you? Come on, man up. I took some pictures of the scarey folks with my cell phone. I can see if I have you.

Everyone signed - farmers, cattlemen, landowners, hunters, guides, outfitters - everyone.

M.


----------



## Dick Monson

> Everyone signed - farmers, cattlemen, landowners, hunters, guides, outfitters - everyone.


Yep, even the elderly and disabled signed, which of course is the only reason canned shooting is offered. Funny thing about that. :wink:

The ole slippery slope. Cock fighting was banned, now we can't eat chicken. Dog fighting was banned, now we can't own dogs. Bull fighting was banned, now we can't eat beef. If you let your guard down there will thousands of laws on the books regulating what you eat, drink, wear, use, live in, drive. There are already thousands of laws regulating property use. For the good of society.


----------



## LT

[/quote]The ole slippery slope. Cock fighting was banned, now we can't eat chicken. Dog fighting was banned, now we can't own dogs. Bull fighting was banned, now we can't eat beef. If you let your guard down there will thousands of laws on the books regulating what you eat, drink, wear, use, live in, drive. There are already thousands of laws regulating property use. For the good of society.


> Whole different thing; these animals are not being used for meat and are dying a death that is not humane.


----------



## bmxfire37

esp in ohio * cough* commies*cough*


----------



## g/o

> Everyone signed - farmers, cattlemen, landowners, hunters, guides, outfitters - everyone.


Yep it should be real interesting to read the names of the people who signed the petitions. I'm a little disappointed that you are waiting until Aug but I guess that is part of the plan. I wonder how some people who signed these petitions are going to feel when their name show up in papers as being supporters? Yep should get real interesting


----------



## Plainsman

g/o said:


> Everyone signed - farmers, cattlemen, landowners, hunters, guides, outfitters - everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep it should be real interesting to read the names of the people who signed the petitions. I'm a little disappointed that you are waiting until Aug but I guess that is part of the plan. I wonder how some people who signed these petitions are going to feel when their name show up in papers as being supporters? Yep should get real interesting
Click to expand...

Your not trying to scare people out of signing are you? I hope they are like me. After reading that I would hunt someone down to sign a petition. :eyeroll:


----------



## g/o

No Plainsman I'm not trying to scare people just informing them how things work. The names on the petition are public and it's not uncommon for a group such as yours to post peoples names as being in support. When in essence all they wanted to do is give you guys the right to place this on the ballot. I'm sure you let people know that the names will be public.


----------



## antler333

SHAME SHAME SHAME. Having just reviewed this string, I am amazed at the nativity shown by supposed hunters attempting to cut the throat of a different kind of hunter (or perhaps better called a harvester). Shame on you guys. Everyone views the world differently, but you dont criminalize them cause they are different (but not that different).

All you guys KILL animals. I dont hunt, but I eat meat, and this whole bloodletting string is for the benefit of the vegies. Their goal is NO MEAT! And some of you foolish soles are pushing us that direction!

I must believe that the HSUS has one or more of the ND forum moderators or supporting members in their pocket, for no one would be so arrogant to judge another's hunting (or harvest) practice without a radical agenda or acute jealousy. Certainly hunting ranch pictures are perceived by some to be gruesome and horrific, but I suggest you visit a slaughter house and visit the kill floor. A dead animal is a dead animal and its not pretty, and how it got that way really doesn't matter that much.

However, the right to kill an animal does matter. This initiative takes away a form of killing no different than outlawing a method of actual killing (rifle, shotgun, stun gun). A true hunter or even any meat-eater could not possibly be so self righteous to side with sworn enemy like the HSUS. GROW UP and smell the blood. How it gets there really isnt the issue. The right to kill animals is. And HSUS is trying to remove that right with the help of a crew of ignorant ethicists, much like we use Judas goats. Come into my parlor said the spider to the fly..........


----------



## hunter9494

i think everyone who signs any petition is aware that their signature could be made public (in conjunction with said proposal) at some time in the future. my experience has been only those folks with strong, public opinions (willing to argue their point) sign petitions. Next..... :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

> I dont hunt


Ya, I could tell by your screen name antler333 that you perhaps were not interested in any type of hunting. :rollin:
Also antler if the ole slippery slope exists it doesn't exist because there is a measure against captive killing, it's possible existence would be caused by people who were willing to dive to the bottom of the pit for a buck (with horns or Washington's face), not the people trying to stop it. 
I think this captive killing measure is a done deal so I don't feel the need to debate. I hope no person views this as debate. The reason for some of my recent posts is simply that I'm allergic to watching bs try to run uphill.



> When in essence all they wanted to do is give you guys the right to place this on the ballot.


g/o, that's true in some cases. I sign petitions for that reason some times. I would guess if they are old enough to vote they know that their signature is public domain.


----------



## LT

*Mr. Monson wrote:




Two things came from the panel discussion in Jamestown last week. The opposition said they would request funding for their Board of Animal Health from sources other than NDGF. Score one for the sportsmen who purchase hunting licenses! And the opposition immediately offered free "hunts" to Sporting Chance (the org. that assists last chance hunters) and Sporting Chance turned them down. That's right, rejected the offer, because they only do fair chase.

Click to expand...

Mr. Monson,

Now let me refresh your memory as I got to watch the video tape of the meeting, and here is what I observed happening. The gentleman representing Hunt of Lifetime was speaking in support of high fence hunting and then he commended Mr. Jones on his work with the organization, Sporting Chance. He went on to say something to the effect that you can't deny if some of your clients had the opportunity to do a hunt with our organization (HOL) that they would not turn it down, and of course Mr. Jones disputed it. Is that what you call being offered free hunts????

I wondered why any of the elk/deer growers would offer Sporting Chance free hunts, an organization that does not even offer that kind of hunt.

*


----------



## Dick Monson

The VP of Sporting Chance said they were offered free shoots the day after the panel discussion. SC turned it down. SC only does fair chase. Much mention of how disabled and elderly patronize canned shoots. But there are many disabled and elderly who sign the petition to ban canned shoots.  Go figure.

Everybody there had their mind made up before the panel started, but the best outcome, in my opinion, was that Shawn Schafer of the Deer Growers Asc. said they would seek other funding for the Board of Animal Health, rather than have NDGF license money fund it it. Shawn mentioned that several times. We expect the deer and elk boys to follow through on the promise.

If that $200,000 is saved from the NDGF budget every two years, it is a major accomplishment for all sides. And that would not have happened without the Fair Chase petition drive.


----------



## LT

Well, I guess Dick your definition of immediately is different than mine. You made it sound like it was done at the meeting and I told you I never witnessed it, but you waited til now to tell me it happened after the meeting. Go figure.

Who is the VP. I went to their site and he/she is not listed. Wouldn't happen to be Lloyd Jones?

And I still cannot figure out why any of the elk/deer growers would even make an offer like that as they already know what the Sporting Chance organization is about.

I would also comment on the the issue regarding the funding but am not qualified to do that.

[/b]


----------



## Dick Monson

*LT said:*


> I would also comment on the the issue regarding the funding but am not qualified to do that.


No problem. The promise from Shawn to fund BOAH from other sources is on your video tape.


----------



## LT

*Monson wrote



Everybody there had their mind made up before the panel started

Click to expand...

Not everyone. A friend rode with me just to keep me company, had no opinion one way or the other, actually leaned more towards your side, but by the end of the night my friend was fighting mad.

Where were your supporters that night, where were your supporters at the legislative session. You mentioned that the elk/deer growers were only made up of 100 and that even though you represented some 10,000 at the legislative session last year the legislators did not hear you. Where were any of the 10,000 that the six of you represented? They did hear your, 3 to 44, do not pass!!

Is that why you and yours were upset with the way the meeting went that night, you guys even complained that the moderator should have kept the meeting under control. I thought the moderator did a good job and the crowd kept themselves pretty much in check.

You guys remind me of the big bully in the school yard, pick on the little guy, and then when they gang up on you, your the first to cry to the teacher.

Yeah, Dick I do have the video, which raises another question for you -- why did some of you not want the meeting video taped. What would you have to hide? By the way when is the next public forum; we will bring the camcorder!!!

You can bet I will comment on the funding issue when I have researched it a bit more. I try to be accurate in my statements and not spin it!!!

*


----------



## Dick Monson

LT, I had no objection to filming the discussion. That was why we invited the press to attend. And the Jamestown Sun did a good job of reporting the panel discussion. The whole reason for a panel discussion is to present the views of the two sides. As the article in the newspaper stated, that was accomplished.

Shawn Schafer pleged twice during the Q & A that the deer-elk boys would seek funding for BOAH from sources other than NDGF next session. This was a major coup for ND sportsmen who have in the past had their license dollars siphoned off to subsidize canned shooting. Shawn is a man of his word and he will stick to that pledge he made.... on your film. And in front of 200+ audiance members.


----------



## FreeIndeed

The Jamestown Sun did NOT do a good job reporting on the meeting. Their article was neutral, which was not even close to the tone of the meeting. Pro property rights would have accurately described the tone. The overwhelming majoritity of the people in attendance spoke out against the fair chase measure and it's supporters. Wasn't even slightly close.


----------



## prairie hunter

Elk and deer shooting in pens is absolutely pathetic.

Anyone that ever pays to hunt one of these places should be permanently banned from ever entering any game animal into the P&Y or B&C record books. They can no longer be trusted as an ethical and legit hunter.

The ban should be for life and all existing records removed whether the animal entered into the record book was taken via fair chase or penned/release.


----------



## barebackjack

prairie hunter said:


> Elk and deer shooting in pens is absolutely pathetic.
> 
> Anyone that ever pays to hunt one of these places should be permanently banned from ever entering any game animal into the P&Y or B&C record books. They can no longer be trusted as an ethical and legit hunter.
> 
> The ban should be for life and all existing records removed whether the animal entered into the record book was taken via fair chase or penned/release.


Than we need to track down EVERYBODY thats ever violated ANY game law and do the same to them. :eyeroll: Get real.


----------



## LT

I finally got around to checking on the funding issue addressed above. This is the response I received from Board of Animal Health:

The State Board of Animal Health (BoAH) is a line item in the Department of Agriculture's budget. State funding for the BoAH line item consists of two state sources-- general funds and Game and Fish funds. In addition, over half of the Board's budget comes from current federal grants for work related to purposes ranging from Homeland Security/Foreign Animal Diseases to Avian Influenza.

The amount of Game and Fish funds has varied over the years. When the BoAH was transferred to the Department of Agriculture in 1995, it was the first time the Legislature appropriated Game and Fish funds to the Board. The amount funded was $30,000 for partial funding of the Deputy State Veterinarian. This amount has increased through the years by the Legislature. For the 2005-07 biennium G&F funding was $150,000, which funded operating and salary for the Deputy Veterinarian. For the 2007-2009 biennium, G& F funds are $209,684. The increase was to help support an additional staff veterinarian (approximately one third of operating and salary).

The original intent of using Game and Fish funding was to assist with funding all non-traditional species related activities conducted by the BoAH. Some of the responsibilities were previously regulated by Game and Fish, and the money came over as part of the transfer of the regulatory duties.

Additional responsibilities were assigned to the Board by statute which include licensing, inventory reporting and inspection of all nontraditional livestock. You may want to talk to someone within Game and Fish and further discuss this issue.


----------



## prairie hunter

> Than we need to track down EVERYBODY thats ever violated ANY game law and do the same to them. Get real.


I am real. This is the Pete Rose clause in the hunting record books :lol:

P&Y and B&C are supposed to be record books for fair chase pursuit of big game.

I used to walk into a sporting good store, bar, etc... and admire the large whitetail and elk mounts. Now I walk in an am skeptical ... was this deer or elk killed in a high fence operation of TX, SK, etc... ? 

It is similar to those buying waterfowl leg bands on ebay and worse buying unreported leg bands on ebay and falsely reporting their own info. :eyeroll:

I have often disagreed with many on this site about NR hunting issues, but I am united on this one. I cannot sign the petition, but I can support this ... web site, someone taking a donation or two?


----------



## Plainsman

Prairie Hunter contact http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/index.htm

Your comparison to buying bands and displaying captive deer kills is right on. There is a more humorous way to look at it also. I'll PM you.


----------



## g/o

> I used to walk into a sporting good store, bar, etc... and admire the large whitetail and elk mounts. Now I walk in an am skeptical ... was this deer or elk killed in a high fence operation of TX, SK, etc... ?


This is one reason to support game farms, look at the deer in these places restaurant's, sporting goods stores etc. At the present time they are able to buy these from game farms, eliminate game farms and you will increase the demand for black market heads. This of course will be accomplished by poaching and theft which already is a huge problem. I have an Elk head in my lodge which was shot at a high fence, big deal.


----------



## barebackjack

prairie hunter said:


> I used to walk into a sporting good store, bar, etc... and admire the large whitetail and elk mounts. Now I walk in an am skeptical ... was this deer or elk killed in a high fence operation of TX, SK, etc... ?
> 
> It is similar to those buying waterfowl leg bands on ebay and worse buying unreported leg bands on ebay and falsely reporting their own info. :eyeroll:


It almost sounds like a bit of jealousy. Who cares if it was killed in a fence. The hunter knows it, and the animal knows it, and thats all that matters.

Do you also wonder if that mount was taken in the headlights after legal hours, or chased down with a pickup and shot out the window, or shot before/after season (which in my opinion are far worse offenses as they are done every year to OUR public animals)?

I care FAR more for the "ethical" violations done to our public herds every year. I dont care if somebody wants to shoot somebody elses private livestock for big bucks. Wether its a deer/elk/angus or whatever, the man behind the trigger knows how it was taken, and thats all that matters.
The guy buying bands on ebay KNOWS hes a fraud, and other than the fact that it may mess up research data on unreported bands, who cares? If he wants to buy a bunch of $100 neck collars to increase the size of his.....ego, let him. I know that when I get one, it will be on the up and up, and thats all that should matter.

My point is, we should be far more worried about what is done to OUR herds every year, and less worried about what is done to somebodies herd.


----------



## Plainsman

> My point is, we should be far more worried about what is done to OUR herds every year, and less worried about what is done to somebodies herd.


Everyone has different things they worry about. Why don't investigate and see if there is something you can do about those things that worry you. I would guess that there are ten different things that concern ten different hunters on these forms. The odd thing is when someone starts to do something about the one that bothers them someone gets their nose out of whack because they think we should agree with them. 
Let Prairie Hunter donate to his cause, and instead of whining do something about the things you care about. It's easy to be an armchair quarter back, but do something or get off the pot.


----------



## R y a n

prairie hunter said:


> Than we need to track down EVERYBODY thats ever violated ANY game law and do the same to them. Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> I am real. This is the Pete Rose clause in the hunting record books :lol:
> 
> P&Y and B&C are supposed to be record books for fair chase pursuit of big game.
> 
> I used to walk into a sporting good store, bar, etc... and admire the large whitetail and elk mounts. Now I walk in an am skeptical ... was this deer or elk killed in a high fence operation of TX, SK, etc... ?
> 
> It is similar to those buying waterfowl leg bands on ebay and worse buying unreported leg bands on ebay and falsely reporting their own info. :eyeroll:
> 
> I have often disagreed with many on this site about NR hunting issues, but I am united on this one. I cannot sign the petition, but I can support this ... web site, someone taking a donation or two?
Click to expand...

This is _EXACTLY_ the point I was trying to make over on the other thread.

Nicely put Prairiehunter.

My idea over there was to mandate that ALL captive livestock cervids (elk and deer) *MUST* have a permanent ear tag *AND* antler tag issued by the state for control purposes. *Those tags would be required to be attached for life, including after the animal was shot and/or mounted.* The tag would need to match a required identification tattoo on the inside or back of the ear, so that an animal can be identified, even if the the ear tag is removed. I'd also mandate a minimum $50,000 fine for removal of the tag after it has been slaughtered.

In that way you could safely walk into a sporting goods store and see which animals were taken fair chase, and which were purchased livestock heads.

Sounds like a greate idea!

I am really thinking I'll have to approach a couple of the Natural resources senators and get this bill added during the next legislature.

Ryan


----------



## g/o

Plainsman, no one is stopping or cares whether someone wants to donate to your cause or not. That is his choice like it is my choice to where I donate, which I do. I disagree with you and him on this issue, for several reasons. I have a good friend who lives in Iowa and had several record book deer heads he had shot in his business. Some people broke into his place never bothered with the money or anything else. All the took was the heads which I'm sure were sold to someone illegally. When Grizzly's or some other business wants to buy heads to put in for display they can be obtained legally from game farms.

Ryan, as much as you may think your idea is genius it's ridiculous to say the least. For one reason only, if you are to do this you would need to do it nationally not in ND. So by you making this law in ND would have no affect in other states. Sorry buddy it just is not going to work, unless you go to DC and get the boys to go along with it,fat chance


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ryan.....great idea.

This idea is regulating an industry not trying to eliminate it! But the fair chase bill is trying to eliminate the High Fenced hunting. Which then will infringe or compromise some peoples land ownership rights.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, no one is stopping or cares whether someone wants to donate to your cause or not.


I know you were not advocating that, I was talking about bareback complaining about all the other things. I don't mean to pick on him personally, a lot of people are doing that. They say things like "what about road hunters". My reaction is it bothers me too, but if it bothers you a lot do something about it.

I'll bet your friend in Iowa was ticked. A few years ago my brother-in-law took his deer in for processing. The place was broken into and they never touched the cash register. They only took ten of the nicest racks in the shop. My brother-in-laws was one of them. The best buck he ever shot and some lowlife stold it. If I had a very nice mount I would be tempted to put a chip in it.



> When Grizzly's or some other business wants to buy heads to put in for display they can be obtained legally from game farms.


They could still do that, they just could not shoot a captive animal. What would they care if they are just buying it for decoration. To me a picture would be better if a hunter didn't harvest it. When I look at one of these it makes me dream of prairie hill, patches of brush, and a single hunter stalking the animal. The idea that they shot it in a pen takes away from the majesty of the animal. It's sort of like if you are killed in war you're a hero, but if your shot by firing squad not only do you loose your life, you loose your dignity along with it. I feel the same about the hunt.


----------



## Turner

R y a n said:


> Nicely put Prairiehunter.
> 
> My idea over there was to mandate that ALL captive livestock cervids (elk and deer) *MUST* have a permanent ear tag *AND* antler tag issued by the state for control purposes. *Those tags would be required to be attached for life, including after the animal was shot and/or mounted.* The tag would need to match a required identification tattoo on the inside or back of the ear, so that an animal can be identified, even if the the ear tag is removed. I'd also mandate a minimum $50,000 fine for removal of the tag after it has been slaughtered.
> 
> In that way you could safely walk into a sporting goods store and see which animals were taken fair chase, and which were purchased livestock heads.
> 
> Sounds like a greate idea!
> 
> I am really thinking I'll have to approach a couple of the Natural resources senators and get this bill added during the next legislature.
> 
> Ryan


So you walk into an establishment and you see some mounts, some with your mandated tags and tattoos and some with out. What are you at that moment in time going to do, run out yelling they have "fake" mounts in there or shield your and your kid's eyes so they are not scared for life? How many mounts do you think are on walls that have never been shot at all, the sheds were just found and some one with more money than they know what to do with decided to pay some one to make a head mount. Should those racks on those animals be painted pink? I have no problem with tattoos in the ears or inside the lip area, that would help regulate false entries into the record books. Here in ND, have you ever wondered if that buck on the wall was chased by a group of guys in a pickup around a section line to head them off before they get away. Or was this the second buck this person shoots since the first one was never recovered even though they drew blood and the hunter decided to continue to hunt any way. When I look at a mount I have never wondered how that animal was shot or killed, I admire the animal and the taxidermist work. These animals that are not killed in a fair chase manner can not be entered into the P&Y or B & C record books. Just like the deer that are chased by a group of guys in a pickup or the second deer shot on one tag shouldn't be allowed to enter them as well.
I have asked the question about deer hunters continuing to hunt after they have already shoot a deer but couldn't find it to tag. Is this the right thing to do? You water fowl hunters always say you are supposed to count all birds, even the ones you don't find, as part of your limit. Why does this differ from deer hunting?

I could give a rats hinder how that animal got on the wall, does it really hurt you in any way shape or form?


----------



## LT

*Ryan posted in another thread:




Public nudity isn't illegal. Lewdness and laviscious behavior in public is illegal. If I walk down a public street naked, it is generally not illegal. It has to be accompanied by a disturbing behavior. Many officers wrongly arrest people not understanding the law.

The conduct has to be lewd in nature (jumping out from behind the bushes to flash a woman that results in causing her fright and alarm meets that criteria, or having public acts of sexual behavior obviously).

Most people just don't want to deal with the hassle of mis-informed law enforcement using their version of morality to make an arrest decision, and then needing the publicity and scrutiny, and having to fight it in court.

There are lots of people who get in trouble minding their own business on their property, and in some state of undress that have to deal with the silly law too...

Ya gotta love the Puritan influence that still pervades this country..

Click to expand...

You seem to think that walking down the street nude is okay because it is legal, but not shooting an animal in a high fence even though that is legal too.

I think most women and men would be disgusted with someone walking down the street naked but would have no problem seeing a mounted head from a game farm.

I am confused here; some argue that we do not want European-style hunting but they sure would like to have European-style beaches. Do you think this would eliminate girlie magazines??? You can argue that there are women proud of their bodies but for the most part I feel it is very damaging to the image it portrays to our young girls and boys.

I think we need to ban SHOOTING pictures of sexually explicit women as it degrades women AND SOMEONE IS MAKING A BUCK!!! But no here we are talking about banning SHOOTING an animal in a high fence because it and the display of that supposed disgusting mount DEGRADES hunting. 
*


----------



## prairie hunter

The woman (of legal age) signs the release and is paid for the pictures. The elk is dead.

LT: You said it so I will take your thread one step further. In the strong opinion of many on this site:

Shooting penned big game is the equivalent of paying a prostitute for sex. :sniper:


----------



## R y a n

Turner said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nicely put Prairiehunter.
> 
> My idea over there was to mandate that ALL captive livestock cervids (elk and deer) *MUST* have a permanent ear tag *AND* antler tag issued by the state for control purposes. *Those tags would be required to be attached for life, including after the animal was shot and/or mounted.* The tag would need to match a required identification tattoo on the inside or back of the ear, so that an animal can be identified, even if the the ear tag is removed. I'd also mandate a minimum $50,000 fine for removal of the tag after it has been slaughtered.
> 
> In that way you could safely walk into a sporting goods store and see which animals were taken fair chase, and which were purchased livestock heads.
> 
> Sounds like a greate idea!
> 
> I am really thinking I'll have to approach a couple of the Natural resources senators and get this bill added during the next legislature.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> 
> 
> So you walk into an establishment and you see some mounts, some with your mandated tags and tattoos and some with out. What are you at that moment in time going to do, run out yelling they have "fake" mounts in there or shield your and your kid's eyes so they are not scared for life?
Click to expand...

Baby steps Turner... baby steps.

The intent is to differentiate those that were taken fairly and honorably. Those that have tags would be the equivalent of a Scarlett Letter on their head. They were taken as livestock in a captive manner. I am trying to protect traditional fair chase hunting methods. This is a fabulous idea to achieve that thru a different means.

If the high fence advocates win based on a private property or commerce loophole, we could regulate how the animal is registered, identified, and tracked.

We as hunters need to start determining a different way we place value on our mounted animals. We need to start making sure that everyone is playing on a fair chase playing field.

I've decided to take a whole new look at much of this "issue" and start redefining it in a way that the general hunter and general public can understand. We need to make the manner of the hunt and how big the horns are matter to people.

*Once those captive livestock animals begin to have less intrinsic value, due to their captive nature and artificial status, and the general lay person scoffs at the fact that they weren't taken in a fair chase manner, their value will fall thru the floor, the high fence industry will lose most of its appeal, and therefore the big $$$ incentive will be taken out of the equation.

This idea has some real genius behind it...
*

As soon as guys who might consider purchasing a fake slaughter experience, start to think.. "wow the guys back home might scoff and ridicule me for having to purchase these fake horns, there's no way I'm going to fork over $5,000 - $25,000 just to get one on my wall."



Turner said:


> How many mounts do you think are on walls that have never been shot at all, the sheds were just found and some one with more money than they know what to do with decided to pay some one to make a head mount. Should those racks on those animals be painted pink? I have no problem with tattoos in the ears or inside the lip area, that would help regulate false entries into the record books.


I could care less about these types of situations. The proportions of these types of mounts/racks are tiny as total proportion to mounted heads. They are a statistically insignificant factor. I want to make the practice of articificial fake hunting have a shallow meaning. It would happen if you implement my idea.



Turner said:


> I could give a rats hinder how that animal got on the wall, does it really hurt you in any way shape or form?


Yes it does. And that is the rub. It hurts the fundamental integrity of my sport that there are those who will cheat to appear like they are in the same club as me. They are not. I didn't pay big $$ to gurantee my success.

It has *NOTHING* to do with jealousy. *It has to do with knowing that the animals had a fair chance, and that those who pursued them are all participating in the same fair chase manner.* I want to know that those animals on the wall were all once wild, free and majestic. I want to dream that I would have a chance at them if I simply work harder, hunt harder, and am in the right place at the right time.

I don't want the image of hunting tarnished by those who would pay big $$ to make a claim that they too had worked as hard and long as me.

It is very equivalent to the steroids scandal in baseball. Do you sit and wonder where the Home Run record books would be if it wouldn't be for steroids? Has it tarnished the image of the game? Someone or many someones cheated to get ahead. Now everyone wonders who is playing fair on an even playing field, and who has a record because they paid big $$ and were willing to take a shortcut.

Ryan


----------



## R y a n

g/o said:


> Ryan, as much as you may think your idea is genius it's ridiculous to say the least. For one reason only, if you are to do this you would need to do it nationally not in ND. So by you making this law in ND would have no affect in other states. Sorry buddy it just is not going to work, unless you go to DC and get the boys to go along with it,fat chance


It's not ridiculous at all. It is a different form of regulation and *is entirely feasible.* In fact it is much more feasible than other things stated previously here. I would guess that it probably scares the Dickens out of alot of folks here, as they realize just how feasible it is....

:lol:

Just like the Interstate Wildlife Compact, it is not hard to get an multi-state compact deal forged. It has been done before many times in various capacities, and as long as the idea is politically popular, can fly thru different legislative bodies.

Initially of course it would only be in effect in the originating state. Just like the Wildlife compact it started with a couple of states, and then slowly more and more states signed on.

Do you _really_ think this would be difficult for the different state Wildlife agencies to sign up and enact? I can remove any federal delay by just going thru the states... they are the ones allowed to set their own wildlife and livestock laws...

You are much more naieve than I thought then...

Ryan


----------



## g/o

Ryan, how many states are in the pact? Case closed, but go for it I'm sure you can find someone to take it. I'll bet you big money and give big odds it will never make it out of committee.


----------



## 4590

> Everyone has different things they worry about...The odd thing is when someone starts to do something about the one that bothers them someone gets their nose out of whack because they think we should agree with them.


Talk about a flipant comment. Bruce, so fenced hunts "bother" you, and you don't think the cervid producers who have invested thousands of $$ and hours of their time in their business are going to get their "nose out of wack" if you try to destroy their business? Talk about a callous, erogant statement.

Ryan,
So its not good enough to take away property rights, now you want to regulate retail and resturant owners as well. What country are you from. We have freedom here. People can hang what ever they want on their walls!!!!!!!! ( as long as it doen't denegrate humanity, as porn would) The only person I can emagine caring about how a trophy is killed, would be a very egotistical hunter that is afraid a farm raised trophy might out class one he shot in the wild. Most people who admire trophy mounts admire it for what it is, a work of art by a taxiderist that can be appreciated by any one who admires animals and what they can grow on their heads. I have an avid bow hunter friend that has said time and again that we have "antler worship" in this country, I guess he may be right.

Turner, you made a great point. I know of a taxidermist that buys a lot of sheds from northern Sask and mounts them. He has a great collection of huge whitetail trophy mounts using these sheds. I would guess the public display of any of these mounts would be offensive to Ryan since they might make anything he has "hunted" and shot look puny and we sure wouldn't want him to have to guess if they were wild legally hunted, wild illegally shot, sheds or farm raised.


----------



## LT

*Prairie hunter wrote:




The woman (of legal age) signs the release and is paid for the pictures. The elk is dead.

Click to expand...

So because the woman is paid for that it is okay, but it is not okay to pay for the act of killing the elk. The elk is dead whether it was hunted in a high fence or hunted in fair chase.

The effect those pictures have on society are way more PROFOUND than killing an animal in a high fence. I am talking about the emotional damage it does to our youth with so much front and center sexual explicity. You are talking about what; emotional damage (EGO) to a hunter or the fact that the elk is dead? *


----------



## R y a n

4590 said:


> Ryan,
> So its not good enough to take away property rights, now you want to regulate retail and resturant owners as well. What country are you from. We have freedom here. People can hang what ever they want on their walls!!!!!!!!


I have said nothing that would indicate I'm trying to regulate retail/restaurant operations. Nice try at smear and spin. If they wish to purchase a mount, and don't want one with a tag, they can purchase a fair chase wild one from someone. They exist. Plus, it would actually help my cause, as if it was a very strong requirement to have a non tagged one, it would put a premium on getting a wild one. Perfect.



4590 said:


> The only person I can emagine caring about how a trophy is killed, would be a very egotistical hunter that is afraid a farm raised trophy might out class one he shot in the wild. Most people who admire trophy mounts admire it for what it is, a work of art by a taxiderist that can be appreciated by any one who admires animals and what they can grow on their heads. I have an avid bow hunter friend that has said time and again that we have "antler worship" in this country, I guess he may be right.


I could personally care less if someone shoots a bigger animal than me. Good for them. I have no ego related to horn fever. Sure I appreciate them as much as anyone else. However I have no jealousy...

If you are so concerned yourself about "antler worship", then you should be in favor of my idea. It would go a long way to changing the way people look at a set of horns, and determine its intrinsic value to them.

You see... you _*need*_ people to only admire the work for the size of its horns. If people start looking at it thru a different paradigm, then the marked up value you place on horns will evaporate.

If people start caring more about how it was taken, in addition to how big its horns are.. that puts a serious dent in your norms.

I'm liking this idea more and more...



4590 said:


> Turner, you made a great point. I know of a taxidermist that buys a lot of sheds from northern Sask and mounts them. He has a great collection of huge whitetail trophy mounts using these sheds. I would guess the public display of any of these mounts would be offensive to Ryan since they might make anything he has "hunted" and shot look puny and we sure wouldn't want him to have to guess if they were wild legally hunted, wild illegally shot, sheds or farm raised.


You _*need*_ to promote that perception of me 4590... you must if you need to smear my good intent. You realize that if you can tarnish my integrity, it might minimize my message. Sad really...

It is really sad when you need to track to attack me instead of my message. The idea that I have an ego to protect wild shot animals that I have shot from those big bad artificially paid for ones... sad.

Nice spin. Pathetic though of you.... you can do better.

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman

> Quote:
> Everyone has different things they worry about...The odd thing is when someone starts to do something about the one that bothers them someone gets their nose out of whack because they think we should agree with them.
> 
> Talk about a flipant comment. Bruce, so fenced hunts "bother" you, and you don't think the cervid producers who have invested thousands of $$ and hours of their time in their business are going to get their "nose out of wack" if you try to destroy their business? Talk about a callous, erogant statement.


Were talking about two different things. I don't know if you don't understand, or your simply spinning to look for sympathy. What I mean is people crying about road hunting when we are talking about captive killing. I say I don't like captive killing and the first thing out of their mount is "what about road hunting". What about it? If you don't like it do something about it. It's as if they are the type that is always waiting for someone else to do something for them. 
Try to understand that statement really had nothing to do with captive killing. Your crying for nothing because my statement and your retort are completely unrelated. Try to get on the same page.


----------



## prairie hunter

LT: That would be your opinion :eyeroll:

Shooting penned deer and elk and putting on the wall. I guess you can put it right next to the thorough breed race horse, the angus bull, and that beautiful boar pig shot on the same hunt... 

So how do you feel about shooting old age lions and tigers dropped off from the circus into a high fence operation in Texas?

We must agree that we disagree. I am a hunter. I have had my relatives raise a steer for me. When it was time to butcher - I did not drive out and shoot it dressed in blaze orange uke: Although I guess I would have shot it if that was how we were going to get the butchering started.

Penned deer and elk are livestock. Raise them, butcher them and distribute the meat - having people pay thousands for shooting them :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

???? I would like to see how many clients of these ND operations leave with the head and ask that the meat go to someone else. ???


----------



## LT

All of this talk does not mean anything; what matters is the wording on this initiative is bad. You want fair chase, well what about fair chance. Lets make the playing field even and word the initiative correctly so people can make a decision based on the FACTS. Some are trying to put an industry out of business by using unethical means using the guise of describing what a hunt is or isn't. First they tried CWD, now its fair chase, what next. What is the agenda here?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets revisit the terminology of this initiative:

SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited (the wording of the ballot title may be changed by the Secretary of State) 
- Penalty - Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other renumeration 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.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective on November 1, 2010.

Now lets take a look again at the Century Code definititions:

"Domestic Animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison, farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.

"Big Game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats and animals.

"Species" includes any subspecies of WILDLIFE and any other group of WILDLIFE of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.

"Wildlife" means any member of the animal kingdom including any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead part or parts thereof. Wildlife DOES NOT INCLUDE domestic animals as defined by section 36-01-00.1 or birds or animals held in private ownership.

Now lets do the math:

big game + species = big game subspecies of wildlife

privately owned + big game + species = privately owned wildlife

privately owned wildlife = oxymoron

Big game does not include bison just as big game species does not include farmed elk or privately owned deer

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

This initiative if pushed forward will be doing away with something that does not exist according to the North Dakota Century Code.

Why would you want to push this initiative through with this wording, unless you felt that is the only way you could appeal to the voters. Let's level the playing field here and use the correct terminology.

All this is going to do, if this goes through, is immediately get taken to court as they cannot legally enforce it, and then who knows where the battle will go from there. It is going to cost a lot of dollars on both sides, taxpayer dollars as well, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT, CIRCUMVENT THE VOTERS TO GET THEIR WAY, GET IT INTO COURT, AND THEN FIGHT IT OUT USING THE BIG DOLLARS.

*NORTH DAKOTA SUPPORTER OF FAIR CHANCE*


----------



## prairie hunter

Other states (include MN I believe) ban penned and canned big game hunts. Use their experience to develop laws that will stand up in court.


----------



## LT

Prairie Hunter,

Name the other states. I believe Minnesota just opened up high fence hunting a year or two ago.


----------



## prairie hunter

Still illegal in MN.


----------



## Drake Jake

those guys need to be shut down for good! :******:


----------



## cwoparson

http://www.buckhavenwhitetails.com/

http://www.buckridgepreserve.com/

http://www.mccoyelkranch.com/tours.html

Aren't these places operating in Minnesota? The first link even talks about its fence.


----------



## LT

I think this one is in Minnesota too.

http://www.northcountryelk.com/trophy-elk.html


----------



## prairie hunter

Thanks. This is an issue that I am just getting into - it was illegal a few years ago. From the MN Volunteer (DNR) Magazine:

Hunting Or Shooting?
Do game preserves such as North Star offer hunting, or only shooting? Minnesota's wildlife managers, conservation leaders, and ranchers are debating that question because North Star's brand of killing big game behind fences may come to Minnesota soon. Last year the Legislature considered a bill that would have allowed up to 10 big-game preserves in the state. The Department of Natural Resources and many hunting and conservation groups opposed it. The proposal, which failed, stirred passions. In fact, many opponents were loath to call the activity it would legalize "hunting." The owner of a Canadian web site devoted to raising deer wrote, "Next to abortion, I can't think of any more emotionally charged topic than hunting farms or hunting behind wire!"

Proponents of game preserves argue that hunting on fenced areas will mean more income for landowners who currently raise elk, bison, and other large animals but who are not allowed to charge hunters to shoot them. "We feel that agriculture needs any kind of a boost it can get," said Brenda Hartkopf of the Minnesota Elk Breeders Association, one of the principal advocates of hunting behind fences. "Agriculture is really struggling. Alternative agriculture is the up-and-coming thing. We need to keep these markets open for people to succeed."

Opponents argue that "canned hunts" reduce wildlife habitat, threaten populations of wild animals, undercut Minnesota's long tradition of public hunting, and tear at the ethical fabric of the "fair chase." Said Mike LaFleur, vice president for conservation issues for the Izaak Walton League, Minnesota Division, "I think it's unsporting. I think it's unethical. And I think the commercialization of hunting is terrible."


----------



## prairie hunter

February 02, 2006
High-Fence Hunting: Indiana legislature votes to end canned hunts
Indiana House Bill 1349 would have legalized fenced hunting despite a state agency's decision last year to end the practice. But an amendment passed yesterday that reverses the bill would stop new high-fence operations from opening and allow existing preserves to operate for just seven more years-eventually ending the practice altogether in the state. What do you think about high-fence hunting? Should it be legal? Click here for the story


----------



## prairie hunter

Minnesota. Found it. Let's hope this can be reversed!!

With the establishment of two big game shooting preserves in the state during the last year,* and documentation of at least one escaped deer from a Houston County shooting preserve*, the topic of deer and elk shooting pens was also an important concern for Roundtable attendees. Ed Boggess, deputy division director for the Minnesota DNR Division of Fish and Wildlife, provided an historical perspective on the attempts to legalize shooting preserves in the state.

*Under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota DNR, it was not legal to shoot big game animals behind closed fence. However, in 2003, governance of farmed cervidae was moved to the Bureau of Animal Health and, inadvertently, a loophole occurred which allowed the killing of fenced big game. *

DNR concerns with shooting of big game behind fences include the prospect of disease outbreaks, the erosion of public support for hunting, and the accidental capture of wild animals within the enclosures.

These concerns, and the ensuing backlash from sportsmen's groups, have prompted a request by the DNR to clarify the statutory direction on this matter.

Mark Johnson, Executive Director of the Minnesota Deer Hunter Association, also spoke on the issue, expressing concern about escapes that have occurred since the opening of the Houston County preserve.

However, veterinarian Glen Ziebarth spoke in support of the shooting preserve industry, claiming that the preserves are well regulated and are no threat to hunters or the wild deer population at large.

*But CWD has, indeed, been detected in game farm animals in the state, and hunters still foot the bill for CWD testing of wild game from areas surrounding infected game farms. As long as escapes occur, the safety of the wild deer herd will be in question. *

Even as the 2007 DNR Roundtable adjourned for the year, that argument remained alive and well.


----------



## Bob Kellam

Internet search



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


----------



## cwoparson

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


Which states have a actual ban and what are the restrictions in the other states. Kind of a play on words isn't it?

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


----------



## prairie hunter

Adding Minnesota and North Dakota back to the NO list would be a good start then.

North Dakota has been known for taking the lead in political ideas (progressive) not following last behind (reactive) !!!!

GO ND GO get it done!


----------



## djleye

> rhinoceroses.


I just have to laugh when I read that, hopefully both sides can find that hunting Rhinos in North America seems REALLY strange!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## prairie hunter

Texas had a nice cottage industry of shooting "retired" circus and zoo animals. The shooters could get their trophy without the hassle of traveling to Africa.


----------



## LT

> So out of 50 states there is 40 that allow high fence hunting and 10 that do not.


Now out of the 10 that do not allow high fence hunting, which of those never allowed it to start in their state and which of those banned it after?


----------



## LT

No new facilities allowed -- 8 states.

Domestic cervids allowed -- 37 states.

No hunting ranches -- 3 states.

Domestic Cervids Prohibited: 2

http://www.thetruthaboutelk.org/page/page/4298896.htm


----------



## catfisherman2

I guess this "canned, fenced in, hunting" is always going to be an issue that can be argued about with all of those opinions...similar to gas prices I guess, that subject can always cause a stir. My thoughts on this subject are this: These animals that are shot are usually trophies. They get to be that way because of lack of hunting pressure. In the real world of hunting, if a person has a buck tag, they will shoot at antlers...any antlers. Not all of us. It comes down to the fact that most people do not shoot a trophy animal because of the lack of them or the lack of time. The US consists of 3,794,083 square miles...there are 640 acres per square mile. Lots of land to hunt...it boils down to access if you don't own that land...that is where game farms come into play. It is turning into a money thing...most hobbies are. Quite a few of us will also see the unfairness in the people that shoot trophies when we have hunting our whole life and it is never that easy...that is because of the hunting pressure. My point is this...on the ND Game and Fish website, there was an article about a farmer in ND that had a huge screenings pile that attracted a couple hundred deer...there were no fences but they had their choice of deer to harvest. Fences or not, people will always think up a way to harvest a trophy because of laziness, plain and simple.


----------



## Eric Hustad

I love to hunt and hope to continue to pass this on to my kids. When people see/hear about fenced hunting it gives us who actually "hunt" a bad name and we are already fighting an uphill battle when it comes to the anit crowd. To me selling a hunt in a pen or fence is about as low as it gets and shows what people are willing to do for a dollar. At the same time is helps the anti hunting crowd win public support. My neighbor has never gone hunting, could really care less about it, but was really offended that people actually went on hunts in a pen. I had to explain that we don't that. We walk many miles and when a deer gets up running it has a pretty good chance of getting away with the way our group shoots. Raise animals for sale etc fine. Put them in a fenced area so some rich idiot can claim a trophy on a hunt doesnt do a thing to help to the real sport. My neighbor represents the majority, those who don't hunr, and its stuff like this that helps sway the majority to be against hunting. Just my 2 cents from what I see and hear when talking to people


----------



## snow

Wow what a story  "What a lying POS" I'm not sure if you have any legal recourse on this guy and he probably know's it,but have you had a conversation with Kieth? He's just as guilty as the outfitter,making false statements and miss leading you,he should be held accountable.

I'm not sure how much of a deposite you put down,but I'd side with charles and pack it up on day one.

My.02


----------



## take'em down

That disgusts me it isn't even close to hunting feel sorry for the guy
that spent 9000 to walk to walk up to an animal and shoot it


----------



## deerslayer80

I wouldn't feel sorry for the guy, he had to make the choices to pay and pull the trigger. :******: uke:


----------



## NDTerminator

Buyer beware...

Anyone who doesn't take all the time he needs to thoroughly research any G/O and/or guided hunt stands a good chance of being took. For instance, a standard research technique is to ask for a lengthy reference list of both successful and unsuccessful clients. if the G/O won't supply it, you shine them on. Clearly, he didn't bother doing this.

He could have walked away at any time and recouped his deposit through legal means. He didn't do it.

But let's be realistic, does anyone seriously believe this guy actually thought he was going to hunt all those major trophy species in one go for 9K and it wasn't going to be a shooting preserve? Come on, it would have been as simple as an internet check or call to the G&F Dept to confirm this was not possible. This guy* DIDNT WANT *to know...

Sorry. Having been on quite a few guided hunts out of state, in Canada, and on a number of shooting preserves in my time, I'm not buying this guy's sob story for a second. I've experienced great hunts and others not so hot. Ironically, the worst experiences and most misleading bits were on "fair chase" hunts...

I don't have any sympathy for him...


----------

