# North Dakota Measure 2 pits hunting ethics against property



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Waterfowl hunters will do well to remember that 3, (to quote a member), outfitters control the Texas rice fields. High fence is Texas, but Texas is more than just high fence.

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... roup/News/


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Quote from the Article:


> Hustad said a majority of the sportsmen posting comments favor Measure 2, but at the same time, he concedes, there could be a downside if North Dakotans vote to ban big-game shooting preserves


Really??


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, you are actually trying to tie access for waterfowl hunting in ND to this HF measure?????????? Why not just claim the person that shot JFK practiced his shooting at a HF operation as well. :roll:

You guys will really say anything(except truthful direct answers to direct questions) to get this measure passed. :eyeroll:

I find it interesting that it appears the sponsors and supporters of this measure believe that anyone opposed to this measure for any number of reasons has no ethics. This measure is about one small group trying to impose their version of ethics onto someone else and using the nonhunting public, and even antihunting groups to accomplish it because of bruised ego over "bragging rights" and "hanging a head on the wall" as was stated by the sponsor that collected over 8000 signatures himself. Nothing more. Take the horns off these animals and suddenly their "ethics" dissapear. Their intentional seperation from including advertised fenced buffalo hunts in this measure proves that point hands down.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Dick,

the reason I got into this debate and the reason why I continue in this and oppose this is because the measure doesn't label HF Shooting directly, it seems I am not the only one, here it is right here in your article:


> The way Measure 2 is written, Schafer said, he's not sure if he can even haul deer to the locker plant in Garrison, N.D., for slaughter, as he does on occasion.
> 
> "It doesn't talk about deer or elk. It doesn't talk about high fences or ethics or anything," Schafer said. "It talks about killing, it talks about manmade enclosures, and the whole thing is really gray."
> 
> Schafer said the state Board of Animal Health already regulates the industry, along with the dozen or so licensed big game shooting preserves in the state. He said North Dakota has 17 deer farming operations, and about 80 producers raise elk.


Why is this so gray, why is not spelled out crystal clear that it goes only to HF hunting????

The people that I know in the animal ag industry, including friends of mine are asking the same questions. It seems you guys have left the door wide open for more restrictions on the non HF animal production industry. Thus putting more burden on them and dividing hunters and landowners??


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK the State AG office in a reply to the State Vet and State Board of Animal Health requests as to their enforcement duties if this measure passes stated that by the wording of this measure and where it is being put in the livestock section of the NDCC even "farmed elk" operations that have nothing to do with any HFH operations would not be able to be paid a fee or renumeration for the" harvest" of these animals without falling under the provisions of this measure and be in violation. He reiterated that indeed this measure does have "intent", and that a landowner would be selling these animals at their own "peril".

Not one sponsor has disputed this unbiased opinion from the states highest legal authority outside of the courts this measure will likely end up in.The reason why is they do not want a public record of their statements regarding this or other questions to exist to be used by the courts in considering if this is a takings or not. And yet they and their supporters continue to insisit this is a simple measure only about ethics. :roll:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

TK, I wasn't taking a shot at you, just got a kick out of your list of threes. The "Citizens to Preserve ND Property Rights" is an association of canned shooting operations. Period. What would would they call themselves, Canned Shooters Anonymous? Because they are always anonymous as you may have noticed. NOBODY has had the balls to say " I run a xxxxxxxx operation, except Willard, hats off to him. The reason they used him in the article is the size of his fenced area.

They have hired one of the biggest PR and legal teams in ND specifically to use scripted individual words, letters and statements to plant doubt in your mind. If you see the word "vague" you have seen their footprint. That is their key word. A specific linguist writes their material. They know specifically what they can and cannot do under this measure. The first thing they did was run the language by their legal team. Hell, they already know how they will attempt to circumvent the law.

Our attorney who wrote the measure, Paul Germolus, was a ND AAG for 7 years. He worked extensively in the ag law and wildlife law for the AG's office. He was the guy who slapped Mike Hatch's lawsuit back into MN. Remember that one?

There is no grey area. But they want you to think there is. Big game species is a definition of taxonomy that cannot be redefined by the legislature. Unlike advertising "farmed elk" as wildlife. Which would be a game violation. :rollin:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, then why won't any of you sponsors answer a handful of questions regarding your measure? How about just one. What do the courts here in ND consider in ruling wether a law is a takings? :wink:

" Hell, they already know how they will attempt to circumvent the law"

As do the sponsors of this measure. Your continueing refusal to answer questions shines a light on the intent of this measure.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Dick,

And you guys don't have any help from outside sources like the National Wildlife Federation or HSUS? Who paid for Mr. Germolus fees, who maintains your website? Why did the National Wildlife Federation's website called real-hunters.com go down when your site went up; you even have used pictures from that site on your website. Now you are using their video in your fact sheet.

Why did Land Tawney, Regional Director for the National Wildlife Federation, come to North Dakota before senate bill 2254 and meet with you in a meeting to discuss getting rid of high fence hunting? You were there Dick. Why did Gary Masching get excited and ask that a vote be taken to throw Dwight out of a meeting that was advertised in the Hazen paper, stating we don't know you people to Dwight and his daughter. You guys then threw him out of the meeting? Why did you do that? What did you have to hide?

Why did you guys claim at the Jamestown Public Forum that you represent tens of thousands of sportsman, that there were many sportsman groups that testified before the legislature for SB2254, but when backed in a corner you really couldn't name any?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick said,



> There is no grey area. But they want you to think there is. Big game species is a definition of taxonomy that cannot be redefined by the legislature. Unlike advertising "farmed elk" as wildlife. Which would be a game violation.


In Wyoming bison and elk are defined in their Century Code as big game species. That is a states rights issue. In ND bison and farmed elk are defined as domestic animals. This is a states rights issue. However, In the G/F section big game are defined as elk, moose, deer and antelope.

What we have is one animal with two classifications in the NDCC. But one would think that the intent was already covered in the G/F section below.

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

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

So then Dick, what is it you want? The words big game species would come over from the G/F and be injected into the livestock section. The last law in time then trumps. Would "Farmed Elk" be history? Currently I can sell a farmed elk and harvest, hunt, kill or whatever right here at the farm. On farm slaughter.

Dick, Would I be able to sell, harvest, hunt or kill a "privately owned" big game species? Through government enforcement and over regulation would you like to take my property without paying for it?


----------

