# Wall Street Journal/Fair Chase Measure 2



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

National media picks it up.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1 ... DUyWj.html


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Interesting article.I guess we can put to rest the idea that the HSUS is helping fund this.

Only a couple minor gaffs by the reporter.....no quail in ND.Also out-of-staters can't hunt moose here.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Funny when a out of state org has any intrest that does not meet your criteria it is bad but when it is your liberal cause it is news worthy


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Ken,

HSUS has a link on their site right to the North Dakota Fair Chase website. They are in fact involved in this. Like it or not. Go to the state section of the HSUS site and it will bring you right there.

That is pretty much direct involvement.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TK if you and I were sponsoring a bill on gun rights and the KKK backed us on their website would that make us involved with KKK. It is so simply that I consider it intentional misleading to suggest that FC is involved with HSUS. On the other hand the FC people don't have much control on what HSUS puts on their web site. Get real.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Ok, I'll get real now. I beg to differ, they own the site, they can demand that it be removed.

Kaseman has a meeting with HSUS, An HSUS member helps collect signatures for the measure, and there is a link right to the Fair Chase site on HSUS's site.

Three, (3), III, tres, drei- times that HSUS and the ND Fair Chase group have been linked together. Just coincidence I guess. :shake:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Tk, sorry to burst your bubble, but they can ask for HSUS to remove the link which I do believe they have done, but the real only control they have is of their own website!


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

They can do something about meetings and signature collectors though can't they Ron! Too many coincidences Ron!


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

tk33 signature line:


> - Moreover, I believe that the natural resources must be used for the benefit of all our people, and not monopolized for the benefit of the few- Theodore Roosevelt


tk's logic:

from tk:


> Ken,
> HSUS has a link on their site right to the North Dakota Fair Chase website. They are in fact involved in this. Like it or not. Go to the state section of the HSUS site and it will bring you right there.
> That is pretty much direct involvement.


from Ron,


> TK if you and I were sponsoring a bill on gun rights and the KKK backed us on their website would that make us involved with KKK. It is so simply that I consider it intentional misleading to suggest that FC is involved with HSUS. On the other hand the FC people don't have much control on what HSUS puts on their web site. Get real.


from tk:


> Ok, I'll get real now. I beg to differ, they own the site, they can demand that it be removed.
> 
> Kaseman has a meeting with HSUS, An HSUS member helps collect signatures for the measure, and there is a link right to the Fair Chase site on HSUS's site.
> 
> Three, (3), III, tres, drei- times that HSUS and the ND Fair Chase group have been linked together. Just coincidence I guess. :shake:


from Ron:


> Tk, sorry to burst your bubble, but they can ask for HSUS to remove the link which I do believe they have done, but the real only control they have is of their own website!


from tk:


> They can do something about meetings and signature collectors though can't they Ron! Too many coincidences Ron!


tk333,

You are a real tool of the HF crowd. What relationship do you have with them anyway?

Jim


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

This stuck out of the Wall Street Journal arcticle,,



> Mr. Kaseman's Fair Chase group has the verbal backing of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Mule Deer Foundation and Orion the Hunter's Institute, all hunting groups. Mr. Kaseman counts about $20,000 in his group's campaign fund and has been soliciting deer hunters whose names and email addresses he got from the state Game and Fish Department.


The RMEF has since dropped out of its endorsement for Kaseman. Political correctness.
The Mule Deer Foundation is a federal creation.
Orion the Hunter's Institute is Jim Posewitz from Montana, who endorses the measure.

Sorry, but these are not hunting groups as much as they are political advocacy groups.

Many sportsman have called the G/F over the Kaseman e-mail scandal. Half are told no way do we give/sell the list of deer hunters and their e-mail addresses. The other half have been told it is the legislatures fault for not addressing the issue of privacy. Here is Kaseman in his own words telling in the Journal, where he got the e-mail addresses.

Here is Rogers latest spamm :

Fellow Hunter:

The High Fence Canned Hunt crowd argue that passing Measure 2 will give Radial Animal Rights groups a win that will lead to a ban on all hunting. How would a ban on hunting be enacted into law? Radical Animal Rights activists would have to convince the North Dakota House and Senate to pass a bill that banned hunting, and then they would have to convince the governor to sign the bill into law.

Do you think North Dakota farmers would allow a ban on hunting to open the door to uncontrolled of deer that destroyed their crops? Failing in the Legislature, Radical Animal Rights activists could circulate a petition to place a law banning hunting on the ballot for a vote.
Do you think North Dakota voters would pass the ban? Or even sign the petition? The "first step" toward a total ban on all hunting is bogus when you consider that in 2000, North Dakota voters passed an initiated measure that added Article 11, Section 27 to the state constitution. Section 27 protects hunting forever. The measure, placed on the ballot by the Legislature, passed 206,443 to 61,531. Section 27 states that, "Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good."

It is insane to argue that Measure 2 is a step toward banning all hunting when the state constitution prohibits any law that bans hunting. That fact has not stopped the High Fence Shooting Gallery Operators and their Out-of-State financiers from spreading the propaganda that Measure 2 is a step toward a total ban on all hunting.

As to the argument that Measure 2 bans a form of hunting, shooting a hand raised, hand fed deer inside an escape proof pasture isn't hunting; it's more like taking a gun to a Zoo. The hunt is over the moment the buck is born and the owner tags it with a legally required ear tag.

Out-of-State High Fence Shooting Gallery Operators are trying to buy our election. They plan to spend $170,000.00 to defeat Measure 2. If you value hunting, if you value our Hunting Heritage, donate to the Measure 2 campaign. Get a friend or two to donate. Stop the sale of our hunting heritage to Out-Of-State Interests.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE 2.
Please complete the form at the bottom and mail your donation to:

North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase
223 Ashlee Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58504

Make checks payable to North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.
If you want to pay by credit card, please call 701-751-0882 during business hours, including weekends.

*OK*

So how many send Roger your credit card over the phone?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman did you say you are not involving yourself in this measure as a sponsor partly because someone from these two groups had contact with each other. 
In a another thread DG. stated to Roger K. that he had told him that he, Roger, had contacted HSUS regarding this measure. Nowhere in that thread did Roger deny this. 
There have been emails made public from HSUS state leaders to this group, there have been comments on blog sites from regional HSUS leaders that claimed to have been in contact with "officials" from the FC group in ND. How much more do you want before common sense dictates that someone like Roger K who collected over 8000 sig. on his own would do anything to see this measure passed. 
Jim haven't you stated that you can not be held accountable for the actions of your fellow sponsors? Keep denying this and the sponsors keep refusing to answer a few simple questions and it speaks for itself.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman did you say you are not involving yourself in this measure as a sponsor partly because someone from these two groups had contact with each other.


How many times do I have to answer that. I think I told you that in a PM, and I have told you that two or three times on here. I didn't withdraw simply to pout. I withdrew because I didn't agree with that contact the first time around. Evidently they got the hint and made no contact this year. It's a moot point your trying to make. This year it has been strictly sportsmen gathering signatures as far as I know.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Karen Thunshelle and girlfriends gathered again this year. Granted not as much as last time, but they did gather more than most of the sponsors, because the majority of sponsors did not collect.

Enough signatures to get this on the ballot were collected by 5 people, of which Roger collected 8000 plus.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

jhegg said:


> tk33 signature line:
> 
> 
> > - Moreover, I believe that the natural resources must be used for the benefit of all our people, and not monopolized for the benefit of the few- Theodore Roosevelt
> ...


You are a real douchebag just because some one is aginst this and you see your little walls crumbling around you now any one who is aginst you is a tool of the hf crowd. I have talked to people from nd who are voting aginst this just because they have read these forums and dbags like jhegg are on here running off at the pie hole about how they know best and everyone should just listen to him the almighty. It is simple this is a bill that agrees with the hsus goes with there values if you cant see that you are blinded by your knowing what is best for everyone becuase you are smarter than every one else. I am now trying to figure out if this is more of a liberal or a socialist bill after the good read on fb either way i hope the voters of nd are smart enough to see what it is.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> TK if you and I were sponsoring a bill on gun rights and the KKK backed us on their website would that make us involved with KKK. It is so simply that I consider it intentional misleading to suggest that FC is involved with HSUS. On the other hand the FC people don't have much control on what HSUS puts on their web site. Get real.


Plainsman, in fact they do. Had they, NDH for FC not started a private agenda that coincides with an agenda of the nations leading anti hunting org., I highly doubt there would be mututally sought ideologies from a hunting group included on their website. And when you have former sponsors admitting to these groups having contact and it being part of the reason he is not involving himself in the measure this goaround, it speaks volumes to how far some involved in this measure will go to see it suceede.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> when you have former sponsors admitting to these groups having contact and it being part of the reason he is not involving himself in the measure this goaround, it speaks volumes


It's my words your talking about, and it speaks only what I them to say. My not being involved was in part my way of showing them I did not approve. This year they have not let it happen. Last year the contact was not a product of their effort, but in fact a member contacting them. That is easily forgivable. What is bad is you claiming you know my thoughts. It is the epitome of arrogance on your part. You know better now because I have told you so. To continue is to prey upon the stupid, in hopes they will agree with you. Please involve me no further with your less than honest efforts.

My words are what they are. Only fools and those who would mislead fools will make more of it.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Jim,

For the 10th time or so, I have NO TIES TO HF HUNTING. I don't like HF hunting anymore or less than anyone else. I know people who raise cattle and elk, they don't like this bill. If there was a scientific reason to ban HF the Ag Groups in ND would have this done already.

I have stated on here several times that regulation is a much better answer than a ban. Better containment structures, vaccinations, advertising limits like not calling it hunting, and monitoring by G&F are some examples of regulations on the HF industry. Instead, in your own know it all arrogance, you have decided to push a bill with unlimited backlash and effects on all hunters and landowners. Once again your generation, the same generation that has screwed this entire country into the ground, is pushing for more braindead laws and spending that no one has, or it least is willing to admit the price tag on.

Measure 2 walks on private property rights. Not just land but livestock and pets. You guys think you know what is best and ethical for everyone but you don't. You think that this will have no unintended consequences but you are wrong. You say you have no ties with HSUS but you are lying. You conveniently say that there is nothing you can do about HSUS but you can, at the very least you have opened a door for them here in ND. You have had HSUS members collecting signatures for you, your site is linked on theirs, maybe you have asked them to remove it maybe you haven't, it doesn't matter it is there, and your fearless leader has met with them. I don't think they are helping you, I think you guys are using them to help you get your agenda completed. Either way it is pretty obvious you guys are working together, either way it is a shameful thing.

I have no idea what tie you make with my signature line and Measure 2. HF animals are private property, they are not a natural resource. To me that just shows that your group has no idea what the difference is between private property and public property, just like your buddies at PETA and HSUS.

I agree that you cannot control what HSUS puts on their site but there are things you can do on your end. You choose not to. The Fair Chase people only denounced HSUS after the signatures were collected. How convenient since an HSUS member was one of the signature collectors.

The only TOOLS in this debate are the ones pushing for more gov't, more laws, more spending, more wedges between hunters and landowners, and calls themselves a hunting group while aligning themselves and working with HSUS. What is next, trail cams? Hound Hunting? Trapping? Lead Bullets? Where does the arrogance and ethics policing stop? Don't even try to tell me that I wrong on this because ALL of these things are happening right now in this country. All thanks to people who think they know so much more than everyone else.

Plainsman-
You are making an apples to oranges comparison. First of all, If you and I were working on gun issue, it wouldn't be to ban anything gun related. Second off, we wouldn't be enlisting the help of the Brady Campaign to further our causes.


----------



## Archimedes (Sep 17, 2010)

From reading the article the out of state deer and elk growers are going to spend $200,000 to defeat the measure. That's after spending over $80, 000 to try and obstruct the signature process so the people of our state couldn't vote on the measure. Those out of state guys that grow the mutant deer and elk don't have any "property rights" in ND. Quite a fraud they are funding to cover their agenda. The article shows the industry they are trying to expand has been growing nationally and I guess they think if ND votes for measure two that could impact them elsewhere? This doesn't have a thing to do with their property rights and everything to do with them trying to substitute "real" hunting with "fake" hunting for the benefit of their pocket book and at the expense of public hunting and taxpayers who end up spending millions, like Wisconsin did, to try and stop the disease damages to wildlife these guys cause. There might only be 12 of these operations in ND right now. But this is a growth industry and we could have dozens more in the years to come. That is a clear and present danger to public big game hunting in ND no matter how these guys try to sucker people with "property rights" in their ads&#8230;..


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Archimedes, so your personal opinion justifies what TK accurately summarized in his post? Please give examples of anyone trying to "obstruct" the signature gathering process to prevent the citizens from being able to vote on this issue. If you are truly so passionate about the voters having their voice heard, you should be equally passionate about the voter being able to cast an informed ballot as a result of the sponsors answering any and all questions regarding their measure, it's intent. implementation and consequences. But it is clear no one involved in this measure nor supporting it want that to happen. Why that is has become very clear by now.

Plainsman, I can if you wish show you where you stated you had no idea who contacted who. It appears that now suddenly your memory has cleared? I can also show you where you have stated this contact was merely a "slight mistake on Rogers part" . :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, I can if you wish show you where you stated you had no idea who contacted who. It appears that now suddenly your memory has cleared? I can also show you where you have stated this contact was merely a "slight mistake on Rogers part" .


I would not say my memory has cleared, but if I said I knew who contacted who please pm me that statement. Also, if I thought I knew at one time is that because you said you had proof. I never did get that proof gst. You told people on Fishing Buddy that you sent me proof, but you must have forgotten. I still have not received it. You know, I am starting to believe you never had it.

Yes, I know I said it was a slight mistake. It was a mistake because I knew those who knew better would still try to make a connection. Guys like you. I'm sure you know that the FC guys are not backed by HSUS or on the same page as HSUS, but that will not stop you from trying to make people who are not to bright to start thinking that.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> I'm sure you know that the FC guys are not backed by HSUS or on the same page as HSUS, but that will not stop you from trying to make people who are not to bright to start thinking that.





> Karen Thunshelle and girlfriends gathered again this year.





> If you have volunteered to gather signatures already, thank you! If not, please sign up today. Email Karen at [email protected] or call 701-839-6210.
> Just a little of your time will help give North Dakotans the chance to vote to stop canned hunting this fall.
> Sincerely,
> Wayne Pacelle
> ...


That is from Maine Hunting Today Plainsman. Not too bright huh?
Oh wait it gets better, here is Karen Thunshelle referring people to Roger Kaseman:


> From: Ron and Karen ([email protected])
> Sent: Sat 4/05/08 3:54 PM
> To: dewey curren ([email protected])
> Cc: Roger Kaseman ([email protected])
> ...


This in 2008, now this lady is out helping again in 2010. Looks like Fair Chase people use them when they need them.

To say anyone who thinks there is a correlation between the two groups isn't bright is just foolish when the proof is right there.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No wonder your an Obama boy. The proof is there that HSUS is trying to help. The proof is not there that anyone from FC contacted HSUS or asked for their help. Maybe you need to hear this a different way. Lets say you don't like group A. You start a petition to get a measure going. You are from group B, and normally group A and B never agree. Most from each group dislike each other. So you get something going and group A wants to get in on it. Your group B tells them no, but they gather signatures and put the information on their website. You ask them to remove it, but they tell you to take a hike. I suppose they want to tell their members they are doing it while you want to tell your members you are doing it. So now group C who you are forming this measure against says group A and B are in bed together. Yup, guilty until proven innocent.

Ron, I don't think they have to be directly linked to a HF operation to fight hard against this measure. They may have a boss they need to suck up to. They may have been promised access to land. They may be fighting for a number of reasons, but it isn't because they are sportsmen or value hunting more than the people on the FC. The ones that show the greatest hypocrisy are those who are against baiting, but HF is ok. They would never do it (ya you bet you Ole), but it's ok if someone else wants to. (Slippery slope, the sky is falling, slippery slope, the sky is falling, slippery slope etc).

Let me make something perfectly clear. The guys who think they value hunting more than the guys who support measure 2 need to know that not only they, but perhaps their fathers were loading their diapers when I was hunting. I have belonged to local, state, and national hunting interest organizations since 1962. I have watched hunting and hunters deteriorate for nearly 50 years. One of the most rotten apples in the barrel is high fence shooting. Anyone who makes a buck while restricting this American tradition doesn't deserve the right to be called an American Hunter.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Let me make something perfectly clear. The guys who think they value hunting more than the guys who support measure 2 need to know that not only they, but perhaps their fathers were loading their diapers when I was hunting. I have belonged to local, state, and national hunting interest organizations since 1962. I have watched hunting and hunters deteriorate for nearly 50 years. One of the most rotten apples in the barrel is high fence shooting. Anyone who makes a buck while restricting this American tradition doesn't deserve the right to be called an American Hunter.


You have been in hunting for nearly 50 years, once in the last 50 years have you asked yourself why things have changed or deteriorated?? Have you ever once stopped and asked yourself that maybe hunters pushing legislation and bans down the throats of landowners who have nothing to do with hunting is one of the causes of that deterioration??

Age/experience does not always equal intelligence. Your generation has beaten that cliche' into the ground.

You, Hegg, Ron, and whoever else can take shots and assume as much as you want about me and others that oppose this measure as much as you want, it doesn't change anything. I have nothing to gain or lose personally to this measure, I live in Fargo and work in the construction service industry, I am from the Southern Valley, I have land to hunt that is in my family, I have been clear that I don't feel that HF shooting is hunting, I do feel that some changes to the HF industry need to be made.

You guys at some point in time need to realize that this measure will have a lot of negative effects, effects on people who have no dog in this fight, effects on the non HF animal ag industry in ND, effects that could trickle down and lead to more divisions between landowners and hunters.

Just sit back and complain that every time a hunting interest comes up NDFU and NDFB oppose it. I for one can't blame them one bit.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> have you asked yourself why things have changed or deteriorated??


Yup, and it's because of guys who think like you. Guys who put the dollar before the sport. Guys who vote liberal. Guys who don't have the guts to stand up for what is right. You have such a strong chicken little complex that you are afraid that the HSUS is going to come into your home and steal your Twinkies. They may, but it will not be because of measure 2. I keep hearing, I don't consider it hunting, I would never do it, it's landowner rights, and if you can't stand up for true sportsmanship it all rings hollow. You know the old country song you have to stand for something or you will fall for anything. Some have fallen for the HSUS connection, some have fallen for the landowner right smoke and mirrors, others would spot light deer if they wouldn't get caught.

Oh, the age thing. I'm really not age prejudice it's just that a few young fellows bragged last year that the youth would elect Obama, and they did. Not all of them though so I am still not prejudice like some would deserve.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Guys who don't have the guts to stand up for what is right.quote]
> 
> Perhaps the opponenets to this measure simply have the guts to stand up to those that believe they can create law by lying to the public. Or perhaps they are simply standing up to an eliteist group of arrogant self appointed rulers of the sport of hunting that claim their ethics are superior to anyone elses. Or perhaps they are standing up for the laws that have allowed and even encouraged people to take the self initiative to go out on their own and create an opportunity for their families to make a living off the land they own. Or perhaps they just have the guts to stand for the individuals right to take what they need from the experience to call it hunting themselves rather than someone else egotistically believeing they have the right to determine that for them. Perhaps they have the guts to stand up for the principles that built this country, not some convaluted self appointed egotistical veiw that has evolved from to many arrogant people with too much timme on thier hands involving themselves in these "hunting intrest organizations" that believe they and only they know what is best for hunting on the national, state, and local level. Perhaps this is what a significant majority of the hunting community that would not sign your petition believes is "right". Perhaps this is why the measure failed to gain enough support to be placed on the ballot the first time from the hunting community. Perhaps that is why sponsors had to go to "home and garden shows" and have "contact" with HSUS members regarding collecting signatures to gather enough to have this measure placed on the ballot in it's second attempt. And perhaps this is actually being done by people with absolutely no connection to HF or any need to "suck up" to a boss or landowner. :eyeroll:
> 
> By the way as I have told you a couple of times now, I told you I had the PM you had sent me regarding your admission to there being contact between these two groups. Selective memory does not equate to truth. Perhaps if the sponsors of this measure had the "guts" to stand up and answer a handful of questions your comments would garner a little more repect, as it is they are simply ramblings of someone that does not have the "guts" to admit mistakes have been made and own up to them.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I suppose the sportsmen that proposed limits experienced the same wrath. I suppose those that wanted to outlaw the old boats with mounted 2 gauges that killed 50 ducks in one shot were told they were interfering with legal hunting ( ever hear "as long as it's legal") and peoples way of life and making a living. I would guess every law of every civilized nation had and has naysayers.



> "To escape criticism - do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." -- Elbert Hubbard
> 
> "Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you'll be criticized anyway ." -- Eleanor Roosevelt
> 
> "It is much easier to be critical that to be correct." --Benjamin Disreli


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Yup, and it's because of guys who think like you. Guys who put the dollar before the sport.


Wrong, show me where I am putting the dollar before the sport. The only possible way is to say that I am putting the farmer/rancher who has nothing to do with this bill but could be effected in real negative way by this legislation. Irritating a bunch of landowners would be great for hunting though. :down: As far as sucking up goes, whatever, stooping pretty low there, once again you don't know who I am or what I do or who my boss is.


> Guys who vote liberal.


This is as liberal as it gets. Create a law, and increase spending. Right out of the liberal playbook. I am still surprised at how many die hard republicans support this. 


> You have such a strong chicken little complex that you are afraid that the HSUS is going to come into your home and steal your Twinkies.


The only complex that is in this debate is the arrogance to assume so many things about people who oppose this, and to be so blind to see that all these things have already or are happening in places like Montana. I like how you and Ron throw your little disclaimers in ahead of the mess this could cause though. You both are already saying don't blame me if/when the backlash happens.



> some have fallen for the landowner right smoke and mirrors


I am not worried about the HF operations. I am worried about the non HF Landowners, dog owners, hound hunters (which I hope to get into someday), and the precedence this type of thing will set up. You guys have ignored that.


> it's just that a few young fellows bragged last year that the youth would elect Obama, and they did. Not all of them though so I am still not prejudice like some would deserve.


I don't recall bragging about it. I think you are thinking of someone else. Maybe I did, I don't remember. It is fun to rile up republicans, I do whenever possible so I could have. 

There is a definetely a generational gap on this. I have noticed that the people I know who are a yes vote are over 50. I don't know anyone in their 20's, 30's, or 40's voting yes on this. I know there are some who will but it seems that the hippie generation tends to support things like this a lot more than younger generations. I think there are a lot of people who are sick of laws, bans, spending, etc being imposed on all of us when there is a simpler, less intrusive option there, that being regulation.

Both of my grandfathers were heavily involved in agrictulture and both were avid sportsmen. They believe that the generation under them, you guys, are responsible for hunting changing to the negative. You have greedy landowners wanting to commercialize everything on one side and then hunting groups who want to place more and more laws on producers. I agree with that and there is a lot of merit to that statement. Shaky legislation like this that calls for bans and has what to some is a definite gray area are exactly the type of things that irritate landowners, it has the same result as commercial hunting. But once again that apparently doesn't matter to you guys. You just legislate and legislate.


> Some have fallen for the HSUS connection


There is way too many coincidences for my liking on that. I think there is a lot more to this story. I may be wrong but either way the views are aligned.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> I suppose the sportsmen that proposed limits experienced the same wrath. I suppose those that wanted to outlaw the old boats with mounted 2 gauges that killed 50 ducks in one shot were told they were interfering with legal hunting ( ever hear "as long as it's legal") and peoples way of life and making a living. I would guess every law of every civilized nation had and has naysayers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


getting pretty nostalgic here Plainsman. :rollin:

I understand that you feel in your heart that HF Shooting is wrong. I feel that endangering the livelihood of non HF producers is foolish.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> I suppose the sportsmen that proposed limits experienced the same wrath. I suppose those that wanted to outlaw the old boats with mounted 2 gauges that killed 50 ducks in one shot were told they were interfering with legal hunting ( ever hear "as long as it's legal") and peoples way of life and making a living. I would guess every law of every civilized nation had and has naysayers.
> quote]
> 
> Plainsman these limits were directly dealing with a practice involving wild speicies popultions that were being desimated by these practices. Were these ducks ever legally defined as domestic private "farmed" fowl that could be used as collateral? :wink: A "slight" diference there perhaps.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> There is a definetely a generational gap on this. I have noticed that the people I know who are a yes vote are over 50.


My theory on this is that every generation looses some morals. My parents were perhaps more tolerant of things than they should have been as compared to their parents. I know that I am more tolerant of things than my parents were. It looks like around the world society works like an upside down jack. Each notch takes us a bit deeper into the mess. If my grandfather were alive today he would be in total shock. 
When it comes to wildlife the old pioneers thought it was a never ending resource. This is perhaps one of the areas we are getting better in. In the early 1900 most were becoming aware that if we did nothing we would drive game species extinct. The idea of sport hunting rather than food on the table begin to be more popular. Now were slipping again and doing anything for a buck. 
Myself I would liked to have seen this a game and fish law that denied hunters the right to pursue animals inside a fence. Leave the landowners out of it, but put a $10,000 fine and loss of hunting for five years for shooting an animal in an escape proof enclosure. That would do away with the property rights issues, but I can just hear the HSUS and PETA bs now.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Retired Federal Agent Plainsman said,



> My theory on this is that every generation looses some morals. My parents were perhaps more tolerant of things than they should have been as compared to their parents. I know that I am more tolerant of things than my parents were. It looks like around the world society works like an upside down jack. Each notch takes us a bit deeper into the mess. If my grandfather were alive today he would be in total shock.


Yes, if your grandfather were alive today he would be in total shock at the abundant amount of animals we now enjoy. Some time ago you posted a picture of a buffalo robe that you inherited from your grandfather. Did he shoot one of the last remaining endangered buffalo before the landowners along the musselshells river in MT. took them in and protected them from your morally righteous grandfather?


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Myself I would liked to have seen this a game and fish law that denied hunters the right to pursue animals inside a fence. Leave the landowners out of it, but put a $10,000 fine and loss of hunting for five years for shooting an animal in an escape proof enclosure. That would do away with the property rights issues, but I can just hear the HSUS and PETA bs now.


But this measure doesn't state that now does it???

You are right, that would have done away with property rights issues and the like. But instead a different route/measure was written that puts this into the animal ag area and brings on a whole new set of issues. That is where I had the problem with this from the beginning.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > There is a definetely a generational gap on this. I have noticed that the people I know who are a yes vote are over 50.
> 
> 
> My theory on this is that every generation looses some morals. My parents were perhaps more tolerant of things than they should have been as compared to their parents. I know that I am more tolerant of things than my parents were. It looks like around the world society works like an upside down jack. Each notch takes us a bit deeper into the mess. If my grandfather were alive today he would be in total shock.
> ...


Plainsman, I have the same strict standards my Grandfather did in believing those creating law should be held to a standard of truth when doing so. I also have the same strict standard that he held in believing others should not determine what the hunting experience should be for others. I have the same strict beliefs he did in this countries principals when he immigrated from Norway and worked hard to establish a farm and ranch from nothing with an expectation others would not be able to regulate that away from him.

The problem with your wish is the G&F can only regulate the "harvest" of wild game,not the privately owned domestic animals here in this state, so the property rights issue would have still existed. You seem to conveniently over look what these animals are in pursuit of this measure.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You seem to conveniently over look what these animals are in pursuit of this measure.gst
> guest


Thanks for pointing that out. If this measure were to ever fail we now know that this would have to be a criminal law.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, you will have to explain that one a little more thouroughly. Given some of the claims the sponsors and supporters have made rearding this measure, (not supporting it will lead to no waterfowl hunting in ND  ) I have to admit I'm not following you on this one.  You still wouldn't be trying to insinuate these animals are something different than the privately owned domestic "farmed" elk as they are defined in the NDCC are you?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see I cut my quote short. Careless of me. Anyway:

You said. 


> The problem with your wish is the G&F can only regulate the "harvest" of wild game,not the privately owned domestic animals here in this state, so the property rights issue would have still existed. You seem to conveniently over look what these animals are in pursuit of this measure.


What I was getting at is that I was wrong a game and fish law would not suffice. We would have to make it a criminal law for a hunter to pay anyone to shoot an animal that was retained inside an escape proof enclosure. This would put no restrictions on the landowner. It would penalize the shooter.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> I see I cut my quote short. Careless of me. Anyway:
> What I was getting at is that I was wrong a game and fish law would not suffice. We would have to make it a criminal law for a hunter to pay anyone to shoot an animal that was retained inside an escape proof enclosure. This would put no restrictions on the landowner. It would penalize the shooter.


And how would the non HF operation that sells elk to people that come and "harvest" them and process them themselves then sell their animals? It seems every law you guys want to propose prevents this from happening :wink: I supose you could have the shooter sign an affidavit saying he is not a "hunter" 

Wish all you want, the measure being proposed will likely indeed affect how the owner of a domestic animal will be able to be compensated for it to a point it will put them out of business. That wether they will admit it or not is the intent of the sponsors of this measure.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> That wether they will admit it or not is the intent of the sponsors of this measure.


You know gst I wouldn't argue with you so much if I believed that for a minute. I think it's that they find shooting an animal that can't escape so disgusting they can not tolerate it. Tolerance is the big theme now days, but it isn't a virtue it's simply a lack of principles. After all if you don't stand for anything it's easy to tolerate anything.

Anyway, by now neither of us are changing any minds. I think we should go do some hunting. Were both beating a dead horse.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > That wether they will admit it or not is the intent of the sponsors of this measure.


You know gst I wouldn't argue with you so much if I believed that for a minute. I think it's that they find shooting an animal that can't escape so disgusting they can not tolerate it. Tolerance is the big theme now days, but it isn't a virtue it's simply a lack of principles. After all if you don't stand for anything it's easy to tolerate anything. 
quote]

 You know plainsman, I wouldn't argue with you so much if I believed that for a minute. I think if it was truly about their disgust of shooting an animal behind a fence that can't escape and calling it hunting if they surely would have included bufalo in this measure. After all there are more operations advertising buffalo hunts than deer in this state . But they purposely decided to excluded them, instead making the decision to determine this themselves while trying to take the very same choice away from others. I stand for EVERYONE having the right to determine what they consider hunting themselves rather than a small elitist, egotistical group doing for them and everyone else.

So if we "tolerate" a small group determining what "hunting" should be for everyone else,where will this groups decrees stop? I doubt very much it will be just at HFH.

So if we "tolerate" people making statements that are not able to be proven as factual truth while attempting to create law where will it lead?

And actually on FBO a number of people have stated they are indeed changing their minds as to how they will vote to a no vote. It seems the more people find out about this measure the less they support it. Thats happening even without the sponsors answering simple questions. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I think if it was truly about their disgust of shooting an animal behind a fence that can't escape and calling it hunting if they surely would have included bufalo in this measure. After all there are more operations advertising buffalo hunts than deer in this state .


Well gst, I can not speak for others but that is how I feel. I would have made it a law against shooters paying to shoot a captive animal. It's the hunter that disgusts me. 
Again, I can't speak for others, but this is my view of buffalo. They are so dumb in the wild that there is little difference shooting them in an enclosure. Of course that enclosure has to be of reasonable size. I'm not talking 100 acres, but at least 1000 acres. A person should not be able to shoot all the way across the enclosure and kill the buffalo. Further, unlike the deer farms the buffalo ranches are providing a biological service. The species population had declined so far that genetic diversity has suffered. The more ranches that raise buffalo the faster the species will truly recover. 
Although I would not find shooting a buffalo much sport, shooting them inside a large enclosure or outside is much the same today as it was 150 years ago. Also, the ranches of today are a benefit whereas from a bio/sociological standpoint deer ranchers are a threat to wild populations. Lets face it the people who have cheated and transferred CWD animals from one state to another did so because that single animal was so valuable. The more value the more temptation. 
Anyway gst one of your last posts shocked my old memory and I do remember some of our PM's back and fourth. I wish I had saved them, but talking about grazing and ranching in those gave me respect for you. Sorry we have beat heads so much, but this is how I think. Anyway, I have things I have to do so if I don't answer some posts it isn't because I am ignoring you.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman it really does not matter how wiley the animals is inside a fence in regards to the "ethics" of shooting an animal inside a fence and calling it hunting if you are defending fair chase from an ethical postition. Either the animal is being shot inside a fence and it is being called hunting or they are not. To claim otherwise is simply looking to justify a posistion. I actually respect your defending the FC aspect of hunting, As I have repeatedly stated I don;t believe for myself personally HF would give me what I need to take from the experience to call it hunting. But just as you feel FC is an important part of the hunting heritage, I believe the ability of the individual to choose how much or how little they need to take from the experience to call it hunting has to be their own decision to make and is just as important a part of the hunting heritage. This measure begins to take that away. Once you let a group start to determine that for others where does it start and stop???????

You never did answer the question I asked. Do you believe you , me, some "sportsman" group should have the right to tell others what they need to take from the experience to call it hunting. Who determines what groups gets to make this call? Should an Anti hunting group be involved in making this call?? What road do you believe this will end up leading down, protecting hunting??? It is a short sighted veiwpoint in my opinion if that is what you truly believe. Until hunting itself is gone, there will ALWAYS be some aspect of it some group or another will not want happening.

So who should get to make that call. I believe it is the individual. You believe it is NDH for FC. I wonder if any of the people voting on this measure believe it should be HSUS?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said

"I wonder if any of the people voting on this measure believe it should be HSUS?"

One of the reasons I hope this passes is so that HSUS has one less attack weapon in their arsenal against us "sportsman" here in ND. What I wonder is how many people on this site are actually being hoodwinked by your constant scare tacticts involving HSUS and PETA being at the center of this measure? I saw earlier you wrote that a lot of people on FB are changing their mind on this issue? I don't see that and to be frank, the majority of the people I have talked to are actually leaning towards this measure. I admit that I do try to persuade them into respecting the hunting heritage in ND and to vote YES on measure 2. Most of the time I am getting an agreement. But hey, thats fair to do right.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed, please show where I have claimed HSUS is at the center of this measure. I have not. What I have stated based of plain facts and what I was told by someone that would know was there has been contact between these two orgs during the life span of this measure. There has been evidence posted showing it was not all just one way communication. If you want to delude yourself into believeing if this measure passes HSUS will not use it to their advantage in pushing their agendas, and simply be content that an activity they oppose was banned, that is indeed your right to do so.

If so many hunters are in favor of this can you explain why the first attempt to gain enough signatures failed, and this one required the sponsors going to home and garden shows to barely get enough to place it on the ballot this time? It only requires slightly over 10% of the states hunters to gain enough signatures, that should have been a slam dunk with the support from the hunting community supporters of this measure are claiming.

If hunters are of the opinion it is a good idea to ask the nonhunting public (which remember includes the antihunting public as well) to regulate hunting issues thru the initiated measure process simply because they have a personal issue with one activity, hunting itself is in trouble.

So leadfed,when should sportsmen start addressing the other hunting activities in HSUS's "arsenal" they use against sportsmen here in ND with other initiated measures banning any thing that gives hunting a black eye?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> leadfed, please show where I have claimed HSUS is at the center of this measure. I have not."
> 
> Sorry, you are right. You have not said the "center" of this measure per say but I think it is safe to say that is one of your major selling points
> 
> ...


So, you are telling me you are not pushing your agenda on non-hunters? Because, I think if this measure fails it is strike against the hunting community and you are doing hunting in ND a diservice.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

GST said,

"So leadfed,when should sportsmen start addressing the other hunting activities in HSUS's "arsenal" they use against sportsmen here in ND with other initiated measures banning any thing that gives hunting a black eye?[/quote]

Name a few that are worse than chasing an elk into the corner of a high fence and slaughtering it and you might have something there.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Re: Fact Sheet/Fair Chase Hunting Measure # 2
by gst » Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:37 am















 ... re=related





 ... re=related

And finally




 ... re=related

So now ask yourself just where the video on the NDH for FC websites came from and how this type of graphic, emotional, rhetoric unbased in fact can be used against FC hunting just as easily. Then ask yourself how using it to advance a personal agenda is in actuality responsibly "protecting" the hunting heritage. For every person that is "offended" by Dicks picture of a dead elk by a fence, how many will be offended of a video of a wounded suffering "fair chase" hunt deer? This group NDHfor FC is doing EXACTLY what the anti hunting groups are doing to acheive their goals. Something to be proud of indeed. Why are they doing this? Because they know by playing to peoples emotions rather than providing factual answers to questions they are more likely to succeede in their agendas. And now tell me how if this is what they believe they need to do to be successful with their measure and agenda, they can deny these same tactics can then also be used by anti groups to further their agendas or possible measure.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed, one video shows an elk shot and killed cleanly in the corner of a fence by an individual.

video two shows an individual shooting at a running deer at 400 yrds, the deer is clearly hit, the "sportsman" looks for a few minutes hops in his pickup and drives off. The videographer finds the gutshot deer and videos it for two hours as it dies, then shows other unrecovered dead deer. Which do you think would cause more outrage. Remember one is done in the ethically pure FC arena. So will an effort to ban these things that clearly would give even ethical FC hunting a black eye receive your support as well?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> leadfed, one video shows an elk shot and killed cleanly in the corner of a fence by an individual.
> 
> video two shows an individual shooting at a running deer at 400 yrds, the deer is clearly hit, the "sportsman" looks for a few minutes hops in his pickup and drives off. The videographer finds the gutshot deer and videos it for two hours as it dies, then shows other unrecovered dead deer. Which do you think would cause more outrage. Remember one is done in the ethically pure FC arena.


There is no doubt in my mind that you could dig up just as many of those videos of FC hunts as you could of HF slaughters. What we are dealing with however is the principle of the so called "hunting" of an animal in an arena. Hell they might as well allow hunting day in the zoo! The way I look at it is at least those animals had a chance and I'd like to believe the majority of true sportsman in this state wouldn't take pride in a hunt like that. To answer your question though (cause I know you don't like your questions unanswered) I still think those videos of people shooting pet elk in a pen are worse.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > leadfed, one video shows an elk shot and killed cleanly in the corner of a fence by an individual.
> ...


leadfed, justify your vote however you wish, but I would bet that old steak dinner the nonhunting public the sponsors are asking to vote on this measure would not agree.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

leadfed, justify your vote however you wish, but I would bet that old steak dinner the nonhunting public the sponsors are asking to vote on this measure would not agree.[/quote]

Huh? I guess when you deal with the non-hunting public you are truly getting a right vs. wrong perspective then. Is shooting an animal in a high fence and calling it hunting right or wrong? Guess we will find out soon enough.

Anyway, good visitin with ya and if this measure takes away anything more than high fence slaughter I will have to eat my shoe and you will have that good old steak dinner.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that you could dig up just as many of those videos of FC hunts as you could of HF slaughters.
> To answer your question though (cause I know you don't like your questions unanswered) I still think those videos of people shooting pet elk in a pen are worse.


So on one hand you claim comments suggesting groups like HSUS are supporting what this group NDH for FC is doing as helping them accomplish their agenda of ending all hunting is simply scare tactics,but yet you admit they are using the very same tactics as this sportsman group is using to pass this measure of posting emotional videos and pictures of FC hunting to accomplish this same agenda of ending even FC hunting? :-?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> > There is no doubt in my mind that you could dig up just as many of those videos of FC hunts as you could of HF slaughters.
> ...


No not at all gst. That is your condescending scew of the post trying your best once again to twist things people say into something you can work with. I see you do this a lot and it is just that condescending and arrogant. But oh well that says a lot about you.

I do have one question you still have not answered by the way. Could you name ONE state that after banning HF slaughter also did not allow a person to raise an elk and sell if for meat. Now, there very well might be one as I haven't researched it yet. If there is do you think it was the direct result of the ban on high fence slaughter? If there isn't I find it extremely hard to believe that good old ND would be the first state in the union to not allow you or anyone else to raise an elk and sell it for meat. Let me know what you find?


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Leadfed,

There has only been one state that banned high fence hunting by initiated measure, that was Montana, and yes they went about ending this industry in a different manner. They banned the transfer to all licenses to any other party. So when someone dies they cannot even will their business to their family. They also banned any new licenses.

The wording of this measure is much different than Montanas, as elk were not considered domestic livestock.

Here is the wording of their measure:

Text of the proposal

The language that appeared on the ballot in Montana:

Initiative Statute

This initiative would amend state law to prohibit all new alternative livestock ranches, also known as game farms. Existing game farms would be allowed to continue operating, but would be prohibited from transferring their license to any other party. They would also be prohibited from allowing shooting of game farm animals for any type of fee. The proposal also repeals provisions of the law concerning applications for expansion of game farms. If approved by voters, the measure would take effect immediately.

This measure would eliminate $104,000 in annual costs of review of game farm applications and expansions, as well as $3,850 yearly revenues from application fees. Abolishing fee shooting may force closure of some game farms, which could result in less revenue to the state and lower overall regulation costs.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Leadfed said,



> > [Could you name ONE state that after banning HF slaughter also did not allow a person to raise an elk and sell if for meat. Now, there very well might be one as I haven't researched it yet. If there is do you think it was the direct result of the ban on high fence slaughter? If there isn't I find it extremely hard to believe that good old ND would be the first state in the union to not allow you or anyone else to raise an elk and sell it for meat. Let me know what you find?/quote]


Before I-143 in Montana there were 92 elk ranches. Today there are 12 left. No I-143 didn't address domestic elk for meat. The meat market is already very competitive. Or lack of competition forcing commodities down. The GIPSA ruling is a very heated topic right now. How would the elk growers fare? Here is Kasemans take on selling elk meat.

Clearing Some Questions on the Fair Chase Initiastive in ND

By Roger Kaseman

Chairman, Fair Chase

Over the last few months, people involved in High Fenced Canned Shooting operations have spread the falsehood that the Fair Chase Initiative will shut down farmers who raise elk and deer for meat. That simply isn't so.

People have asked why the initiative does not shut down meat operations; why Shooting Gallery Operations and not farmers who raise deer and elk for meat?

Before there was a Fair Chase committee to sponsor the initiative, I exchanged a series of emails with a Canadian government official involved in regulating livestock production, and by default, the captive deer and elk business. That exchange is the source of what follows.

The people who eventually became North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase debated the issue at length. Leaving meat farmers out of the Fair Chase was deliberate and unanimous. Why? One word: Ostrich.

I personally know an individual who paid $25,000 for a breeding pair. That breeding pair was supposed to make a huge profit. The market collapsed and he couldn't give the ostrich he raised away.

I tried ostrich half a dozen times at two different restaurants during the craze. Discount the novelty and ostrich isn't any different than chicken. Ostrich is a novelty food, not an extraordinary dining experience or a new flavor. I didn't see ostrich on the menu at either restaurant the last time I ate there. Maybe I missed it. Maybe it's seasonal. Doesn't matter, because I ate my last ostrich. I won't pay $25 for something that tastes like chicken when I can have chicken that tastes like ostrich for half the price.

Venison is a different story. Venison has a unique and excellent flavor if cooked right. Emphasize IF. Cook venison wrong, and your napkin will taste better. Beef, pork, and chicken are forgiving in the pan, oven, or on the grill. Venison is not. The average household may try venison, not cook it right, and hate it. That household will never buy venison again. That household will talk to other households about the experience and turn potential customers off.

Venison needs repeat customers at the meat counter for deer and elk farmers to survive, let alone thrive. The market for venison isn't there and there is little chance that a market will develop. There is a specialty market that caters to the high end restaurant trade in places like New York. That market is limited. North Dakota venison farmers will have to compete with venison imported from New Zealand. In order to survive, North Dakota venison farmers will have to muscle their way into a limited market dominated by producers who can deliver venison for less cost. Even if North Dakota venison farmers manage to take over the specialty market, the market is so limited it will support a limited number of producers.

Canadians tried farming deer and elk for venison and velvet antlers for sale in Asia where men use the powder as an aphrodisiac. Canadian farmers developed the deer and elk industry with the backing of the government. After they had the industry in place and producing they tried to develop a market for the meat. Venison farmers, with the help of the government, could not convince Canadians to buy their product. Deer and elk stayed on the farm, unsold, uneaten, and not making the payments at the bank. The development of Viagra dropped the value of the velvet antlers to zero. That led to a change in law that led to high fence canned shooting operations, a last ditch effort for deer and elk growers to cover operating expenses.

There is an elementary business school lesson in the Canadian experience, a lesson that applies to North Dakota venison farmers. A producer must develop a product to fill an existing market demand. In rare cases, a business can develop a product, then develop a market. Pet rocks come to mind. A producer developed a product, then developed a market for the product. However, there wasn't any sustainability to that market. It was a fad, much like ostrich was a fad. Fads fade. Adios pet rocks. Adios ostrich.

Ostrich proves the point. The first farmers in made a lot of money. When the breeding market dried up, the ostrich business quickly collapsed because there was a limited market for the meat. The ostrich industry turned out to be nothing but a modified Ponzi scheme.

The same thing is happening in the venison market. Most sales are for breeding stock to expand production base. Vension farmers sell very little venison at meat counters or to the restaurant trade. When the breeding market dries up, and it will, the market for meat will not be there to provide the cash flow needed to sustain venison farmers.

Ostrich producers tried to build their industry based on a dream, not on sound business practices. Apparently nobody bothered to research the market for ostrich meat, and the word Ostrich collided with the word bankrupt. Once the deer and elk market shifts from breeding stock to meat sales, and it will shift, venison farmers will follow the same road ostrich growers took. They will learn the hard way that the market will not sustain their operations. The collapse and extinction of the meat operations is inevitable. The law of supply and demand will put the meat growers out of business.

Ostrich showed the way.

Leadfed,

Roger Kaseman is quite a writer and thinker isn't he?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

DG

Yes, he can throw a letter together that's for sure. I don't always agree with everything he says and really even don't read very much of it to tell you the truth. However I would have to say he was SPOT on with that letter you just posted. I mean come on, who the hell is going to pay for deer or elk when they can get beef or pork for the same price? Not very many people and I think you would HAVE to agree with that, right? But that's not the point here. The point is that gst keeps "warning" all of us that if we pass this measure that we better watch out because now we wont be able to raise an elk and sell it for meat. Well I say BS. That might be how the measure is interpreted by some right now but after it went into law I have a HARD time believing it would not allow you to sell one of those corn fed elk for table fare.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

gst said:


> leadfed, one video shows an elk shot and killed cleanly in the corner of a fence by an individual.
> 
> video two shows an individual shooting at a running deer at 400 yrds, the deer is clearly hit, the "sportsman" looks for a few minutes hops in his pickup and drives off. The videographer finds the gutshot deer and videos it for two hours as it dies, then shows other unrecovered dead deer. Which do you think would cause more outrage. Remember one is done in the ethically pure FC arena. So will an effort to ban these things that clearly would give even ethical FC hunting a black eye receive your support as well?


gst,

Gutshooting a deer and leaving it is already against the law, it's called wanton waste. If you are witnessing this type of behavior you should be reporting it to the proper authorities. Pretty much everything you want to try to disgrace sportsmen with is already illegal or at the very least not condoned by true sportsmen. So its pretty hard to ban something that's already illegal.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Roger Stated in the Article:


> The people who eventually became North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase debated the issue at length. Leaving meat farmers out of the Fair Chase was deliberate and unanimous. Why? One word: Ostrich.


This one sentence says it all and makes a case for the intent of this measure -- to shut these businesses down without compensation -- a TAKINGS.

This has never been about fair chase, because if it was buffalo would have been targeted as well. It is about some who feel that these animals should not be privately owned.

Roger basically says it all right here:


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

LT said:


> Roger Stated in the Article:
> 
> 
> > The people who eventually became North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase debated the issue at length. Leaving meat farmers out of the Fair Chase was deliberate and unanimous. Why? One word: Ostrich.
> ...


Never been about fair chase huh?  Tricked me and many others then. And get off your roger fetish, who cares about him. Im pretty sure he will not have the final say on what this law would actually enforce. Like I said before if this law ends up banning anything more than high fence slaughter I will be very suprised and I think deep down you will be too. It has never been illegal in any state in the union, as far as I know because gst wont answer my question, to own an elk and sell it for meat. I can't imagine ND would be the first to shut this down.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Leadfed,

Get off my Roger fetish, who cares about him. Funny how everyone is so willing to throw him to the side after he collected 8350 signatures.

You are missing the point. The intent is to take away a main source of income, thereby hoping all facilities just go away, without having to compensate them in any way. It is a takings without compensation.

It limits how they can process their animals, it limits the way they have to sell the animal. The most humane method to slaughter these animals is right on the farm. Why should only the elk and deer farmer be limited how he sells his product to a willing buyer? Domestic animals are already shot in manmade enclosures that prevent escape. The owner of a beef cow can sell his cow to you and you can then shoot it and process it. The owner of a buffalo can sell his animal as a hunt. You pay a fee to hunt these very same animals in the wild, in conditions that I would not consider fair chase. So why target the deer/elk growers?

It has nothing to do with fair chase. It is about shutting these operations down by some who do not feel these animals should be behind a fence.

But to be honest, the way this measure is written I honestly believe that it could be enforced to mean much more than what some believe. It never says owner, it never says hunting, it does not say deer, elk, or bison, and what is any manmade enclosure?

I equate this to circulating an initiated measure that would limit the sale of alcohol by bars to anyone with a driver's license, because as you know they just might kill someone when they leave the bar and drive. Now we have not taken the owner's building away, they can still sell alcohol to someone without a license. How long do you think they will stay in business?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

LT said:


> Leadfed,
> LT said
> "Get off my Roger fetish, who cares about him. Funny how everyone is so willing to throw him to the side after he collected 8350 signatures."
> 
> ...


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> gst,
> Gutshooting a deer and leaving it is already against the law, it's called wanton waste. If you are witnessing this type of behavior you should be reporting it to the proper authorities. Pretty much everything you want to try to disgrace sportsmen with is already illegal or at the very least not condoned by true sportsmen. So its pretty hard to ban something that's already illegal.


So are you suggesting that every wounded deer that is not recovered is the result of a game violation? You need to talk with a warden. If one makes a "resonable" attempt to recover you are not in violation of any state law. Now what is "reasonable" is open to debate for sure.

What needs to be honestly considered is the links to the videos I provided showing these anti groups using situations resulting from Fair Chase hunts and emotional rhetoric are being used in the same manner the group NDH for FC is using thier videos, pictures and rhetoric. So the point that was trying to be made is that if we as hunters want to begin attacking and banning EVERYTHING that gives hunting a "black eye" to some, where will it start and more importantly where will it end if we as sportsmen segment and divide ourselves over what we may perceive as a "blackeye" when in reality these groups are working to convince the nonhunting public that many aspects of hunting and perhaps even hunting itself is the true "blackeye" that needs to be banned.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

[


leadfed said:


> LT said:
> 
> 
> > Leadfed,
> ...


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> [
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> ...


Well here's the deal gst. First to answer your two questions, I honestly have no idea and will not try to claim to know how this process works. However, they are both stereotypical questions asked by you to confuse the main point and that is the original question I asked. That question is, "is there any state in the USA that does not allow HF slaughter that will also not allow a person to sell a farmed elk or deer for meat or other part of that animal?" I don't know just like you don't know and I think that right there gives us a pretty good idea of what the answer is. So, like I said before, after all this hoopla is done and by chance this measure passes I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that the same person who sold high fence slaughters would not be allowed to sell those animals for meat or whatever other body part the buying entity wanted. Do you not agree? I mean sure it's possible but lets be logical here and understand that this has a high probablility of NOT happening the way you are suggesting it might....over and over and over again by the way. What I think is that you know this already but you also know that there are very few people who will actually do this when they can go buy a beef. Baisically I think your argument, suggesting that if this measure passes there will all of the sudden be a bunch of pen raised animals that can't be sold to anyone, carry's no merit what so ever.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed, here is a little insight into how the process works. It the people vote on a measure ansd it passes, the legislature then has to implement that into the NDCC. There are rules they have to follow. For example the NDCC states that if there are two opposing definitions in a statute, the later dated one takes precedence. If the matter ends up in court, the later dated definition takes precedence. Perhaps that is why Roger K.is so confident that there will be a state law on the books that will open the door to the Lacey Act if thei measure passes. So if this measure passes with it's definition of these animals as big game in the statute that currently defines them as privately owned domestic farmed elk, what will happen?

I will answer one question for you. As this measure is worded thereis NO exemption for "farmed" elk, and the "harvest" of them for a fee or renumeration to be excluded from this measure. So how do you or anyone else know what the "intent" of this measure is unless the sponsors were to answer questions they have not yet answered??? . As it is worded, the State AG's office believes this "intent" is to include "farmed" elk and the "harvest" of "farmed elk" in this measure andstates that receiving a fee orrenumeration forsuch would be done at the landowners own "peril". You must forgive me, but I tend to place a little more weight on the State AG's opinion than I would on someone who admitsto not knowing how the "process works".

When this ends up in court, the judge will look at the wording of the measure just as the AG's office did, and make a determination as to intent using the same legal standards they did in coming to their conclusion. He will then decide if the legislatures implementation holds true to the intent of the measue the people put in place. He will then determine wether this measure constitutes a takings. It is this reason the sponsors will not answer the questions I posed, as to do so will enable the judge to rule that indeed the intent was all along to ban what the AG's offices suggests this measure could do and that the sponsors knew this and that indeed this would constitute a takings.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> Leadfed,said
> 
> However, they are both stereotypical questions asked by you to confuse the main point and that is the original question I asked. That question is, "is there any state in the USA that does not allow HF slaughter that will also not allow a person to sell a farmed elk or deer for meat or other part of that animal?" I don't know just like you don't know and I think that right there gives us a pretty good idea of what the answer is. .


So how is asking if the wording of this measure provides an exemption for"farmed" elk to be "harvested" for a fee or renumeration meant to confuse the main point of your question? It addresses this measure that is happening here in ND that may indeed do what your question is asking.

So explain to me the logic that because you and I admitedly do not know wether there is any state where it is illegal for elk and deer to be raised for slaughter purposes you can make the assumption that there is none that do?????

Iregardless of that logical reasoning process, as I said, this measure is aimed at regulating what happenshere in ND, not any other state, so it is the wording and intent that should be made clear to ND voters thru the answering of questions by the sponsors of the measure themselves what this measure will do . They will not do so. The State AG's office however has given an opinion on what could happen because of the vague wording of this measure. And it appears to be different than what you are claiming.

So lets be logical here, If it was just you and I making two opposing suggestions as to what this measure could in fact do, one could resonably believe neither of us had suffecient basis to make the claims we were if one wanted based on their own ideologies regarding this issue. But now there has been an UNBIASED opinion given by the State AG's office to another state entity which should if looked at from a "logical" veiwpoint, be considered as a distinct possibility of what will happen if this measure is passed and created as law. After all isn't that kinda what the State AG's office does?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

Gst said
So lets be logical here, If it was just you and I making two opposing suggestions as to what this measure could in fact do, one could resonably believe neither of us had suffecient basis to make the claims we were if one wanted based on their own ideologies regarding this issue. But now there has been an UNBIASED opinion given by the State AG's office to another state entity which should if looked at from a "logical" veiwpoint, be considered as a distinct possibility of what will happen if this 
measure is passed and created as law. After all isn't that kinda what the State AG's office does?[/quote]

Haha....my god im thoroughly covinced you would try to convince a grizzly bear he is a polar bear if you had the chance. Don't ever give any one crap about not answering one of your questions again if you can't answer one of mine with a" yes" or a "no". Now once again, throwing roger, hsus, peta, state ag and everyone else out of the question; do YOU think if this law passes you will not be allowed to raise an elk or deer for meat or any other body part? If yes, you are stating ND is going to set a nation wide precident and not allow a ND resident to sell a pen raised elk. Im going out on a limb here stating that there is not a state in the union that bans this but im not too worried and ill eat crow if proven wrong. Answer it please....no" distinct possibility" bs, no roger talk, no hsus or peta talk.....a simple" yes" or" no" answer of YOUR take on this question.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Leadfed,

Even if the measure still allows an elk farmer to sell his animal to someone, the new owner will not be able to shoot it. Dick Monson was on the radio this morning and he stated exactly that. The only way to have these animals slaughtered according to him is to take it to a slaughterhouse. Why are deer and elk ranchers going to be discriminated against when this is allowed for every other domestic animal, and will this be a stepping stone to banning all on-farm slaughter in our state as this measure is going into the livestock section of state law. This did not happen in Montana, as they were not considered domestic animals, but alternative livestock.

There are not many slaughterhouses in the state that take these animals, and the new owner will not be able to move the animal as he is not permitted to move it.

What they are doing is making it so difficult to the owners of these animals to move their product by over-regulation that they will regulate them out of business without having to compensate them.

I do believe though in our state that if the owner can prove a 50% loss, there will be cause for a takings. In Montana, it was 95%, therefore those operators were basically screwed, even though Montana went so far as not allowing them to pass on their license to their heirs.

The real agenda is about some who think that these animals should not be privately owned, and there mission is to destroy this industry. That is why buffalo were not targeted. This really is not about fair chase ethics. When I asked Roger on the radio why this did not target buffalo, he said that buffalo are not free ranging therefore it did not apply, that this was about the commercialization of wildlife. When he was told that there are more buffalo hunts behind a fence in our state, he said it is just killing behind a fence!!


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

LT said:


> Leadfed,
> 
> Even if the measure still allows an elk farmer to sell his animal to someone, the new owner will not be able to shoot it. Dick Monson was on the radio this morning and he stated exactly that. The only way to have these animals slaughtered according to him is to take it to a slaughterhouse. Why are deer and elk ranchers going to be discriminated against when this is allowed for every other domestic animal, and will this be a stepping stone to banning all on-farm slaughter in our state as this measure is going into the livestock section of state law.
> 
> ...


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

LT said:


> Even if the measure still allows an elk farmer to sell his animal to someone, the new owner will not be able to shoot it.


Why not? I see nothing in this law that would not allow that?


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Dick stated on the radio this morning when asked by a guy that called in if he buys an animal from someone and as the new owner can he shoot it -- Dick told him no.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Leadfed said,



> Will this be a stepping stont to ban all on farm slaughter?!!! Oh hell ya(sarcasm), if this law passes u will no longer be able to slaughter animals on your farm......something that has been allowed since the beginning of time really. That's the logic im talking about right there gabe.


On farm slaughter of a pig, beef or chicken is already banned in Canada. A person can only purchase it if they get it from a state or federal slaughterhouse.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

DG

Keyword....CANADA. Besides that's a fairly vague description of the law, im sure there is a little more to it than that.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

LT said:


> Dick stated on the radio this morning when asked by a guy that called in if he buys an animal from someone and as the new owner can he shoot it -- Dick told him no.


So you believe everything somebody spouts off about on a radio?

Again, in law speak, not somebody said such and such, how does this measure stop the owner from killing his own animals?


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Hunt,

So are you saying Sponsor Dick Monson has Pinnochio syndrome? He also stated that this measure was so well written that it would not affect handicapped or disabled from using these facilities.

All I know is what I heard him say when asked by someone if he buys an animal from the owner and willingly pays him $5000 and then wants to shoot it himself, Dick told him no. He would have to take it to a slaughterhouse.

I believe that is how some of these operations work. They give you a bill of sale before you actually kill the animal. I don't believe that you can kill the animal for someone and sell them the meat. It would then have to be USDA inspected. This is no different with beef. You can buy an animal and kill it yourself, but the original owner cannot kill it and sell you the meat. Also if someone sold you an elk, you could not transport that animal to the slaughterhouse as you do not have a permit. It has to be transported by one permitted facility to another. So the permitted owner will have to one by one take these animals to a slaughterhouse that could be 2-1/2 to 3 hours away. Who is going to transport one animal at a time this amount of distance?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Oh my god, you have to be kidding me. GIGANTIC conspiracy theory. But that's usually what these scare tactics involve I guess.

Will this be a stepping stont to ban all on farm slaughter?!!! Oh hell ya(sarcasm), if this law passes u will no longer be able to slaughter animals on your farm......something that has been allowed since the beginning of time really. That's the logic im talking about right there gabe.[/quote]

Leadfed, there is actually a grey area in the Humane Slaughter Act that if pushed could result in what Canada has. Many in the livestock indusrty know this.

If you don't mind answering this one quesrtion what involvement do you have in the animal ag industry to base your claims of scare tactics and conspiracy theories on.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed, I did not answer your question because I did not know the answer, I supose I could just pull something out of my ***, it seems to be kinda popular with some. I'm not about to take the time to go thru all 50 states century codes to see if any have banned the sale of elk. You are more than welcome to to back up your own claims if you want to make factual staements instead of guesses.

As to your other question. YES I do believe this measure as worded will stop the ability of a producer to sell an elk to someone that kills and processes the animal themselves as is currently legal and a fairly popular way these "farmed elk" are sold. I know several people in our community that do just that at a couple of operations that are nonHF. Both Roger kaseman and Dick Monson the two leading sponsors for this measure have publically stated this will happen the state AG's office has suggested it will happen, and yet both you and Ron Gilmore seem to want to overlook this. If what you are claiming is true, then 2 sponsors have once agin publically lied regarding this measure.

So one more question, do you believe the creation of state law should be based on truth and fact, and the people advocating for the creation of state law be held to those standards?

Oh and one more, isn't it about time to tag off to Ron? :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> LT said:
> 
> 
> > Dick stated on the radio this morning when asked by a guy that called in if he buys an animal from someone and as the new owner can he shoot it -- Dick told him no.
> ...


Hunt, I believe "law speak" is the language the State AG's offices speaks in!! :wink:

So if these sponsors are spouting off something that is not true why should the citizens of ND support their attempt to create law?
Does anyone NOT believe these sponsors have talked with a lawyer before making some of these claims, or not answering certain questions????? :eyeroll:

Hunt, same question Do you believe the creation of state law should be based of factual truth, and the people advocating for these laws be held to that same standard?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,



> leadfed, I did not answer your question because I did not know the answer, I supose I could just pull something out of my a$$, it seems to be kinda popular with some. \


This tactic seems to be popular with you also.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim, examples??????


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,



> Jim, examples??????


The latest - need more?



> YES I do believe this measure as worded will stop the ability of a producer to sell an elk to someone that kills and processes the animal themselves as is currently legal and a fairly popular way these "farmed elk" are sold.


This is simply not true, regardless of what you conveniently "believe". It is only a scare tactic proposed by the high fence crowd.

Jim

btw: Ron alluded to you being on the board of directors of an organization that may have a bias in the outcome of this measure. I asked you before what that organization was, but you have so far ignored the question. Care to answer it now?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim, I do not believe the State AG's office is a part of the "high fence crowd" nor are they in the practice of using "scare tactics" . apparently you are completely dismissing the opinion the State AG's office gave theState Vet and the SBof AH.

By the way, why is it any thing posted by those opposed to your measure are "scare tactics" but yet the disingenous statements posted by sponsors are "fact sheets" ? 

As to what board I am a director on I have made it clear more than once. I happen to have had the opportunity to be elected by my peers in the cattle industry to serve on the board of the NDSA. I do not take this responsibility lightly nor does the NDSA take this measure lightly. We are not in the habit of using "scare tactics" when voicing opposition to things such as this measure, but rely on the record of the anti animal ag groups themselves and a long standing understanding of their agendas and what lengths they will go to to accomplish them when advocating our positions. Something the sponsors of this measure overlook in their quest to pass a personal agenda. The NDSA has established a level of respect in the legislative arena here in the state because of the forthright, factual information we bring to the table when the creation of law is being condsidered. It is something we believe is essential to the formation of good law. Perhaps the sponsors of this measure should follow these standards as well. :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> LT said:
> 
> 
> > Dick stated on the radio this morning when asked by a guy that called in if he buys an animal from someone and as the new owner can he shoot it -- Dick told him no.
> ...


Hunt, I believe the language of the State AG's office is that of this "law speak" you wish to hear.

Here is a portion of a response from the STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL in regards to a request from the state vets office concerning what their enforcement responsibilities would be if this measure were to pass. This was sent to the state vet, and fowarded to the board of the NDSA, as well as the State Board of Animal Health. And before anyone suggests this is not what is stated remember a call to anyone of these entities can easily verify it.

This is page two of the response from the State AG office.

quote [We also have to think about the definition of "farmed elk" in 36-25-01m which is also broad and would include, it seems, animals confined for the purpose of for-pay hunting, for it states that "farmed elk" are mammals of the elk family confined and raised for "harvest." But Measure No. 2 would now say that you can't hold elk for harvest. To ensure that there isn't a conflict in the statues, we'd have to read "harvest" as limited to harvests that don't involve fees or other remuneration.

Well, enough rambling. Bottom line, I think it premature to say that the Measure, if approved, will impose significanat work or duties on the BAH and state vet.

Oh, one more thing. This morning we talked about the terms in the Measure, that is, "privately-owned big game species" and "exotic mammals," and wondered whether since those terms are not defined in code whether the Measure would be really do anything. It will most definitely do something. It will be given effect and a landowner who thinks otherwise would do so at his peril. The Measures provisions and terms do have meaning and if they aren't defined in rule or in statutes enacted down the road, they will be difined by a court in a criminal prosecution under the Measure or, possibly, in an enforcement action by the BAH.] end quote

Sounds a little like "law speak" to me! :wink: Perhaps even unbiased "law speak" at that!


----------



## Archimedes (Sep 17, 2010)

This appears to be the same email that was posted on a non-outdoor site that has been discussing the measure. I fail to see a boogy man in what that assistant attorney general wrote when you take what he calls his "very preliminary, random thoughts" in context as opposed to cutting and pasting parts of it:

Susan and Beth,

These are some very preliminary, random thoughts----------

If Measure No. 2 becomes law, it says that it is to become a part of Chapter 36-01.

The Measure, on its face, doesn't impose any regulatory responsibilities on the BAH or the state vet. It is a statute that prohibits certain conduct and imposes on violators a criminal penalty. Enforcement action will thus be the decision of the local state's attorney. If enacted I don't think the BAH would have to take any action to gear up to enforce it. It would not, for example, have to enact rules to facilitate enforcement or administration of the statute.

That being said, since the Measure would be a statute within Chapter 36-01 the BAH could take affirmative action to get involved in the enforcement and application of the Measure. But again, I don't think it would have to do so.

36-01-06(3) states that the state vet is to execute duties authorized by the BAH "that are necessary . . . to accomplish the business of the board . . . and carry into effect the purposes of this title." Is it the business of the BAH to regulate hunting? Not so much. Even so the Measure, as codified, will be stuck into the BAH's chapter and so the BAH probably could, if it wanted, decide that some regulatory work is necessary "to carry into effect the purpose of this title."

Looking at the Measure, maybe the Board would want to define "exotic mammals" and "privately-owned big game species." Maybe not. Maybe it would want to define "man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape." Maybe it would want to set up a regulatory regime to better understand what it is to "obtain[ ] fees or other remuneration." But again maybe not.

State agencies with regulatory authority usually only set up regulatory regimes if that is proven necessary. And so my initial advice would be for the BAH to sit back and see how the Measure is complied with and how local officials address alleged violations. Maybe violations will be rare and maybe those that occur will be effectively addressed by the sheriff and state's attorney. No need for the BAH to get involved at this time.

We should, however, keep in mind that Chapter 36-01 defines NTL pretty broadly. It's "any wildlife" that is held in "confinement." An animal confined for the purpose of for-pay hunting would fall within the NTL definition. That could then trigger your duties under 36-01-12.2, which states that state vet "may seize" any NTL held in violation of "this chapter." Although the authority given is discretionary not mandatory, and so, the law wouldn't require that you seize the animals being held for the purpose that the Measure prohibits.

If an animal confined for the purpose of for-pay hunting falls within the NTL definition, that might also trigger your authority to impose a $5,000 fine under 36-01-28(2), although the way that provision is written doesn't really seem to fit the situation we're talking about. Something to keep in mind though and consider down the road.

I suppose the BAH could consider amending the statutory definition of NTL to exclude animals held for the purposes that Measure No. 2 would prohibit.

We also have to think about the definition of "farmed elk" in 36-25-01, which is also broad and would include, it seems, animals confined for the purpose of for-pay hunting, for it states that "farmed elk" are mammals of the elk family confined and raised for "harvest." But Measure No. 2 would now say that you can't hold elk for harvest. To ensure that there isn't a conflict in the statutes, we'd have to read "harvest" as limited to harvests that don't involve fees or other remuneration.

Well, enough rambling. Bottom line, I think it premature to say that the Measure, if approved, will impose significant work or duties on the BAH and state vet.

Oh, one more thing. This morning we talked about the terms in the Measure, that is, "privately-owned big game species" and "exotic mammals," and wondered whether since those terms are not defined in code whether the Measure would be really do anything. It will most definitely do something. It will be given effect and a landowner who thinks otherwise would do so at his peril. The Measures provisions and terms do have meaning and if they aren't defined in rule or in statutes enacted down the road, they will be defined by a court in a criminal prosecution under the Measure or, possibly, in an enforcement action by the BAH.

Charles


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> leadfed, I did not answer your question because I did not know the answer, I supose I could just pull something out of my a$$, it seems to be kinda popular with some. I'm not about to take the time to go thru all 50 states century codes to see if any have banned the sale of elk. You are more than welcome to to back up your own claims if you want to make factual staements instead of guesses.
> 
> Haha guess I will have to do that. While I'm at it I'll make sure the sky really is blue too and maybe might check out if snow really is white.
> 
> ...


Hahaha....isn't it about time for you to maybe haul some hay or something else productive instead of spending countless hours preaching your bs?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said
Leadfed, there is actually a grey area in the Humane Slaughter Act that if pushed could result in what Canada has. Many in the livestock indusrty know this.

That statement really makes me wonder if you have any "grey area" in your brain.

If you don't mind answering this one quesrtion what involvement do you have in the animal ag industry to base your claims of scare tactics and conspiracy theories on.[/quote]

It doesn't take owning a herd of cows to be able to decipher your words as scare tactics and conspiracy theories pal. :shake:


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> It doesn't take owning a herd of cows to be able to decipher your words as scare tactics and conspiracy theories pal.


Scare tactics and conspiracy theories have no basis and no backing. The things that gst and others have been talking about all have merit. They have happened, are happening, or are being attempted in other places. Some of them as close as Montana. Therefore they are not scare tactics and theory, they are in fact reality. The farther this Measure 2 is looked into, the more it is debated, the more the wording of this measure is being scrutinized.

Had this Measure been written in a way that specifically targeted HF Shooting you probably would not see the opposition you are seeing now. I am no lawyer but I have been involved in some litigation and mediation at work and taking some business law classes in college. It would amaze most people how one little word in a law, contract, or specification can change the whole outcome of a case or claim. I know it sure surprised me, what would seem to be the obvious decision gets thrown out the door and the whole process turns into kangaroo court over poorly written laws and rules.

HSUS has been brought up a lot here, the reason I bring them up is they want to see a lot of other things banned, it is happening right now in Montana. HSUS will never win a vote of the people here in ND, we know that, they know that. HSUS only succeeds when they can send in their attorneys to nit pick and break down legislation and regulations and get them misinterpreted by a judge that is on their side. Like Judge Malloy in MT or the 9th Circuit Federal Court(wolf hunting). HSUS members have been collecting signatures for this measure. They are involved, period. The problem is once these type of measures hit the courts, the public is out of it, it is all in the hands of the lawyers and judges. Since our legislature meets every other year it could take a while for a legislative correction to be made.

Dick Monson claims that the property rights argument is a PR spin, it maybe over blown but it is nowhere near as overblown as saying the wildlife populations will be in peril from disease. IMO not enough research into the livestock industry was done before this measure was written. Given the fact that the legislation was written by a good attorney makes it pretty obvious that the elimination of deer and elk farms is also the goal. That is just wrong, no matter how you spin it.

I see no benefit to average hunters if this current measure, as written, passes. It will irritate landowners, it will lead to more attempts at banning other hunting practices, and it seems like it could in some ways give the people who raise non traditional livestock a lot of head aches they don't need or deserve. The fact that a lot of the supporters of this measure are from Fargo and Bismarck doesn't help anything either. The term "Fargo Hunter" already gets beaten to death nowadays, this definitely won't help that 8) . It will, and has already been perceived by some as the big city sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. I agree.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Archemidese, That is indeded the Emailed opinion from the State AG's office. And it remains that this states highest legal authority outside of the courts beleives this measure as worded may indeed prevent the ability of a NON HFH operator to receive a fee or renumeration for the sale of an elk to someone who kills that elk and process it himself. Both Dick Monson and Roger Kaseman, SPONSORS have stated publically this measure will indeed do just that. And yet you and a handful of others refuse to accept that it might? :roll:

What you forgot to include when you posted this email is the reference at the end to the state constitution which prevents the legislature from ameding or overturning this measure if it passes for 7 years without a 2/3 majority vote of both houses.

So the INTENT of this measure is quite important, too bad none of the SPONSORS will come on here and debate it. :eyeroll:

leadfed, I will try to find a little time between haulingloads of hay to make sure supporters of this measure are held to a standard of factual truth :wink:

TK, well said, but it is much easier to allow supporters to cry "scare tactics" than come on these sites provide truthful factual answers to questions meant to shed a little light on this measure so voters can cast an informed ballot.. :-?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You fellows may have touched on the reason why so many oppose measure #2. They don't want to have USDA inspection, and if they take them to a slaughter house they must be inspected. If a hunter shoots it it can be full of chemicals, diseased, etc and it's no problem as long as the hunter buys it before he shoots it. I guess the high fence guy had no idea the guy was going to eat it.


----------

