# another admirable guide high fence operator



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9857832

uke:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

And the "Hits" just keep on come'n.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Say it aint so, I can't believe it. Birds of a feather boys, birds of a feather. 
You know what I can't believe? That there are guys who want to outlaw baiting, but are willing to accept high fence operations. Where is the reason in that? I don't bait, but I would be more proud of a trophy shot over a pound of corn than one shot in a fence.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

These new dance sessions are really getting confusing. Ron Gilmore says it is all about disease control and has nothing to do with ethics. Now you say it is about the size of the bait pile and greed which is a ethics issue. I don't recall seeing anyone on here say they were for high fence hunting but were against bait piles. Maybe I missed that. I do recall those that said it would be just a matter of time before someone would go after other methods of hunting such as bait piles. No question about it, this guy was a scoundrel and should have been busted. Probable should be in jail but lumping everyone together is simply not right. Most everyone has a different reason for supporting or not supporting a hunting method.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson, I thought it fit as the guy also had a high fence operation. I threw in the baiting for perspective on things, that being a person against baiting, but supporting high fence. To me it appears to be screwed up priorities. I think hunters should stick together, but one group is hunters and the other group is not. 
Sorry, I may be leading this off subject.
Ya, the guy should never hunt again. I don't like to see his wife or family suffer for his stupidity. I don't know what the best way would be to punish this guy, so I am happy to leave that up to the courts.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

This article almost has nothing to do with high fenced operations. Other than this guy stole elk from the wild and sold them to a high fence operator. Which in most states (that I know of) is illegal. He never owned or operated a high fence operation. Trying to persuade a vote. 
:eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck wrote:


> He never owned or operated a high fence operation. Trying to persuade a vote.





> Shooting animals in closed game parks, such as the 40-acre ranch *Darner operated in New Mexico *until several years ago, is simply a good assurance of a trophy without all the fuss. Some game-ranch owners, outfitters and hunters have been known to up the odds by doping animals with testosterone or growth hormone so they grow bigger racks.


Ah Chuck, you almost convinced me I read that wrong. I just about apologized without going back and looking. I think your the one stepped in pooh Chuck. Trying to persuade a vote?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman....and everyone... I was mistaken. Sorry for the error. Sometime the mind skips things.....just been one of those days.

But....



> Shooting animals in closed game parks, such as the 40-acre ranch Darner operated in New Mexico until several years ago, is simply a good assurance of a trophy without all the fuss. Some game-ranch owners, outfitters and hunters have been known to up the odds by doping animals with testosterone or growth hormone so they grow bigger racks


What did he do wrong with this operation. The doping they are talking about is giving the animal testosterone to grow bigger racks. Just like farmers or ranchers give pigs, chickens, turkeys and cattle hormones, high protein feed, etc to gain weight for slaughter.

This guy did some horrible things....but is the media making this worse with the above quote.

The only thing he did wrong in-terms related to high fence operations is take game from the wild and sell them to another operation. That is a crime.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

please pass the cool aid...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman....and everyone... I was mistaken. Sorry for the error. Sometime the mind skips things.....just been one of those days.


Unfortunately I completely understand.  Sorry to say it happens more and more often the older I get. In that light I am sure I will goof in the future so please extend me the same courtesy if you don't mind. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This guy did some horrible things....but is the media making this worse with the above quote.


I think the media is holding it up as a black eye just like I said they would in other threads. Unfortunately non hunters will not make the distinction between this hunter, high fence, and hunters in general. It adds to the ever increasing jaundiced eye towards hunting.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Unfortunately non hunters will not make the distinction between this hunter, high fence, and hunters in general.


That's our fault and we're not helping one bit by creating a division amongst ourselves. Remember the united we stand, divided we fall? That also was pointed out by others in other threads.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

http://animalliberationfront.com/Practi ... unting.htm

I read the article and then the opinion posts at the bottom. It is very disturbing to see all those people who oppose hunting. One of them posted this link. The danger is real. People who don't hunt will determine the future of hunting.

Plainsman, Someday all those people are going to unite. Majority rule or mob rule. Ballot Box Biology. Do you have a plan how your going to rally pig farmers sidewalk outdoorsmen high fencers low fencers and city slickers to your cause?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> That's our fault and we're not helping one bit by creating a division amongst ourselves.


Now there is the division in our thinking. They are not hunters, therefore they are not one of us. They hide among our ranks for support nothing else. We owe them nothing, and certainly not our loyalty. They want everyone to think they are one of us, but they are not. I agree that hunters need to stick together, but we need to pick this ticks from our hide that carries the virus of disgust. Not only for public opinion, but for self acceptance.

What I mean by self acceptance for example: There are guys that can play poker with aces hidden up their sleeve and it doesn't bother their conscience in the least, and there are people who can hunt high fences with no remorse. I am neither, and it would destroy my self acceptance if I was either. I am proud of America's hunters, and proud to be one, and I don't like something that drags down their integrity. I support this measure because of my love of hunting and my respect for hunters.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman
A few years ago I saw Dr. Valerius Geist tell 200 people that the humane society isn't such a bad organization, they are just a little misunderstood. They are not against the taking of wildlife for meat but are against trophy hunting. Look again under the Darner article at what the posters are saying. meat vs. trophy.

Geist goes to the outdoor writers association meetings and outlines the message and the reporters take notes. The people read this stuff and their thoughts are then wrapped around the axle.

Geists new message is wolves bears and cougars are killing people because they are not afraid of humans because of too much human presence in their territory. The answer is, campers, backpackers, hikers, mountain bikers and everybody should be excluded from wilderness areas.

Plainsman, I know you are going to fu fu what I'm saying. Let's put it in a time capsule. I'll bet Field and Stream or some others mag comes out with articles calling on restrictions to hiking in our national parks. Especially if there is a mauling or killing.

There are more and more writers being trained to write in the fashion the Darner article was written. Newspeak twistspeak doublespeak designed to lead the reader to a predetermined outcome. Do you have a plan?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Plainsman posted the following.


> Unfortunately non hunters will not make the distinction between this hunter, high fence, and hunters in general.


I then posted this.


> That's our fault and we're not helping one bit by creating a division amongst ourselves. Remember the united we stand, divided we fall? That also was pointed out by others in other threads.


Plainsman then posted.


> Now there is the division in our thinking. They are not hunters, therefore they are not one of us. They hide among our ranks for support nothing else. We owe them nothing, and certainly not our loyalty. They want everyone to think they are one of us, but they are not. I agree that hunters need to stick together, but we need to pick this ticks from our hide that carries the virus of disgust. Not only for public opinion, but for self acceptance.


I read your last post and ask myself several times what the hell is he talking about. It made absolutely no sense. Then I went back and re-read what I had commented on. Here is what I thought I read. "Unfortunately non hunters will make the distinction between hunter, high fence, and hunters in general". Why I skipped or blocked out the words "not" and "this" I don't know. Old age I guess or maybe just trying to think of two things at once. In light of what was actually said my comment was completely off target. I'll try to read a little slower next time. :lol: Maybe a day out on the pontoon will clear my mind up a little.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The answer is, campers, backpackers, hikers, mountain bikers and everybody should be excluded from wilderness areas.


I think the answer is start hunting them. The ones that are not afraid will be the first to go. This is as nature intended, weeding out the sick or the stupid.



> Do you have a plan?


Yup, I have a plan. Dam the torpedoes and do what is right come hell or high water. Supporting high fence hunting because your afraid doesn't make sense. I do share your concerns.

I have heard accounts of old Europe where wolves would follow a sleigh load of people at night. Often someone got thrown overboard to save everyone else. We are headed down one of those trails and the wolves (animal rights wackoo's) are on our trail. We have a sack load of something that doesn't smell good that we can throw out before we need to throw any real hunters off the sleigh. Once that is gone the bond is much stronger among the remaining real hunters.



> Old age I guess or maybe just trying to think of two things at once.


Been there done that.  I hope you have a good day on the pontoon.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman

I have to tell you, your analogy about the sleigh load of people made me laugh out loud. That was good. But I must disagree. I belong to the NRA. It is like asking me/us which gun we want to give up first. I'm also a strong Constitutionalist. Which right I would like to give up first?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I belong to the NRA also, and am glad to hear you belong. In giving up the high fence operation I would not be giving up anything related to hunting or the second amendment. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and high fence is pretend hunting for those who can't do it or are to lazy to do it. Call it *&^%$)) or something, but don't call it hunting. Don't relate it to me in any way as I am ashamed of any association. I hang my head in embarrassment when people bring it up, and I am embarrassed for those who lack the capability to be embarrassed for themselves.

You see I don't consider it hunting, so I don't consider sportsmen giving up anything. I see it as a rotten apple in the barrel and it is wearing off on all of us. Better to get rid of it before the owner tosses the whole barrel.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

'Morning Plainsman!
The problem with your desire to eliminate high fence operations has nothing whatever to do with morals or values. The problem lies with the perception of the non/anti-hunting public. To them, any type of game harvest is hunting. By extension, eliminating high fence operations to satisfy your moral concerns does nothing to alleviate the threat the anti's bring to sport hunting. Hoping to educate the anti's to the supposed difference is an exercise in futility. They have set their hats, and no one is going to convince them they are mistaken. 
Even though I harbor bad feelings about some, if not all, high fence operations, I see us caught in a situation where we must stick together for the good of all, or die alone.

Burl


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have no hope of convincing the anti hunters. I just hope they can't convince the general public that people who hunt in high fences are representative of all hunters. Keeping them is like trying to keep a cancer because it is part of your body. On the other hand they are not hunters and not part of the hunting body or community. Including them as one of us only hastens our demise.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Plainsman, shouldn't we then spend most of the time and energy trying to educate the general public, rather than cutting off our nose to spite our face? Shutting down the high fences won't improve the image of your so called "real hunters and sportsmen" in the eyes of the GP. If the initiative was to do public announcements about the differences between hunting and high fence harvesting instead of just trying to kill peoples livelyhood I would gladly join you, and donate to the cause. I don't see this as a moral or value issue either just as Burly1 stated. I don't try to pass myself off as better than others just because of what I believe.

In most of your posts, Plainsman, you come off as a person I would be proud to know and you seem to be the kind of person who would be a great mentor for any one. After reading this post though I am having second thoughts about that.


> I hang my head in embarrassment when people bring it up, and I am embarrassed for those who lack the capability to be embarrassed for themselves.


 You must have to use some powerful optics to see us lowly lifeforms from your high pedistal.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> rather than cutting off our nose to spite our face?


There is the problem. How are we going to educate the general public when your statement indicates you think they are one of us.

I notice your a proponent of baiting. Have you noticed that I said it's nuts to think it's ok for high fence hunts and then go after baiting. From what I can gather if things went in elections like they do on here we may be stuck with high fences, but you will not be baiting. People have lost their perspective on what is a fair hunt.



> You must have to use some powerful optics to see us lowly lifeforms from your high pedistal.


You don't have to be on a pedestal, you just have to recognize a travesty when you see it. Also, a good old gun toting red blooded American hunter doesn't have to be on a pedestal to look down on something that is not fair chase. He stands flat on the ground and proud of his sport. I am truly sorry if it offends you to look up to see that.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Every time a group of hunters bring up the issue of the fair chase initiative I just hang my head in shame. When they point out how these chest thumping purists are standing at the pulpit preaching their personal morals upon others while at the same time accepting donations and help from such anti hunting groups such as HSUS it makes me want to throw up. Most real hunters will point out also that this group is no different than the tree huggers that want all forests put off limits to the public or the Al Gores that insist we lower our carbon foot print by turning off the air conditioners and turning down the heat while they themselves pick and choose what is the proper way to hunt. These are not real hunters but lazy assed target shooters that fire at game animals from ridiculous ranges (we must stop long range shooting), sit in heated shacks (we must get rid of those stands) elevated on stilts over fields of food planted (we must get rid of those food plots) to trick the animal into range. They put out cameras (we must get rid of those cameras) to take pictures of the game so they won't have to walk far into the woods and burn off some of that bloated body fat most carry around, all the while moaning about others that do not choose their method of hunting. Once they shoot some dumb animal that was simply eating its lunch, they park their lazy *** on a $6,000 ATV (ATV's must be banned) and drive out, load the poor animal on the back and haul it off to a butcher to process so they won't have to get their hands dirty. Wake up people, these are not real hunters. Their just fat *** lazy slops that give the real hunting community a black eye and insist that you change to their way of hunting.

Piss you off? Sure it does. Reverse the two sides and that is exactly how you guys appear to other hunters when you spout this same garbage towards those that hunt at game ranches, hunting preserves, or high fence operations, which ever you choose to call them for what ever reason. This is the same distasteful bs that is seen throughout these entire discussions. You may get your initiative on the ballot and it may even pass the voters, but if you think for one minute you are education the public then you head is buried where the sun doesn't shine. This will pass through the minds of the general public only twice. Once when they have some yoyo telling them lies with a petition and pen in hand and once when they read it on the ballot. Other than that it will never enter their minds again. But don't fret, voters will get other chances when they get to make that all important decision on bait piles, food plots, elevated stands, in-line muzzle loaders, compound bows, ATVs, semi autos, game calls, and..well gee.. just plain hunting in general.

Oh, I forgot to add, this may be one of those awful scare tactics so think at your own risk.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I sure hope they don't read your list and use it as a plan.



> Oh, I forgot to add, this may be one of those awful scare tactics so think at your own risk.


I agree. Well, accept that part about "may be", it is blatantly is.


----------



## bluebird (Feb 28, 2008)

Living in CO i see stories all the time about people who brake the laws every year. Never shoot a big game animal out of a car because the oddas are it is a fake bull or buck and the DOW is sitting and waiting. Out in Eastern CO I even hunted snows one day with this guy who lived out by the border and found out he ended up having the DOW pull a sting operation on him he was taking people out at night and spot lighting deer and shooting huge bucks. The CO DOW had a couple guys from the New Mexico DOW come in and pay for the hunt shhot the bucks with out tags and at night and also to find out he was growing a bunch a Pot in his basement that he offered the two DOW officers. I never hunted with him but that one time but it was crazy to find out what happened.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> He stands flat on the ground and proud of his sport.


Over and over I have said that is where you are cross-threaded, you really really need to learn to distinguish between sport hunting and conservation. Conservation GOOD ....sport hunting BAD.. very simple!! Now do it!! How long will it take for many of you to see this? Your cutting your own nuts off!! :-?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

buckseye said:


> > He stands flat on the ground and proud of his sport.
> 
> 
> Over and over I have said that is where you are cross-threaded, you really really need to learn to distinguish between sport hunting and conservation. Conservation GOOD ....sport hunting BAD.. very simple!! Now do it!! How long will it take for many of you to see this? Your cutting your own nuts off!! :-?


Jessy is that you? :rollin:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

haha whose Jessy?

Actually it's a huge pet peeve of mine that many of you converse in terms that are definitly fodder for anti-hunters.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> haha whose Jessy?


Jackson.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

buckseye said:


> haha whose Jessy?
> 
> Actually it's a huge pet peeve of mine that many of you converse in terms that are definitly fodder for anti-hunters.


Ya, I wish cwoparson wouldn't do that.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Da-um i was hopin it was jessy james... I have never listened to more than 10 words in a row out of the mouth of that idiot jackson.. what a user and a looser!! :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ya, I got you. To bring you up to speed Jessie Jackson didn't know his mic was still on and he made the comment he would like to cut Obama's family jewels off. Not in such kind words though.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> There is the problem. How are we going to educate the general public when your statement indicates you think they are one of us.


That makes no sense!!!! The GP doesn't get educated because I will not put some one down for harvesting behind a fence???

It doesn't matter to the GP if they are or are not your definition of hunters. They will bunch us all together no matter what you or I think because they ARE uninformed. Education of the uninformed masses will be beneficial because they will have the info to make an informed decision on who is or isn't a hunter and what is and isn't hunting. I am trying to see the point of your statement, but am not getting it.



> From what I can gather if things went in elections like they do on here we may be stuck with high fences, but you will not be baiting.


As long as the baiting issue stays just about disease control and not about non-baiters being better than baiters and if G&F can provide evidence that ND will suffer from baiting, I will gladly give up my few handfuls of corn by my bow stand.



> I am truly sorry if it offends you to look up to see that.


Again you imply that even if I don't "support" high fences, but will not ruin another's livelyhood, I am looking up to you. That sure sounds like you think you are BETTER than those of us who don't agree with you.

Telling us we are not real hunters or sportsmen because we do not believe as you do sure sounds like you place yourself HIGHER than we are.

I admire you for your conviction even though I feel it is misplaced. I look up to no man, unless you are taller than I, but I will always look you straight in the eye and tell you what I think.

If you and I don't agree you think I am inferior. I don't quite see it that way.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> They will bunch us all together no matter what you or I think because they ARE uninformed.


I have been trying to drive that point home for a long time.



> As long as the baiting issue stays just about disease control and not about non-baiters being better than baiters and if G&F can provide evidence that ND will suffer from baiting, I will gladly give up my few handfuls of corn by my bow stand.


Good, and I will join the crowd to stop it if they show me the data that supports their hypothesis. Hypothesis alone are sort of like rear ends we all have them. If they prove that high fence operations have a negative impact on hunting perception will you vote for the initiative? If they prove that high fence operations have a high risk factor for disease will you still support them?



> I am looking up to you.


I would have no idea if your looking up or down. I simply apologized if you had to look up.



> Telling us we are not real hunters or sportsmen because we do not believe as you do sure sounds like you place yourself HIGHER than we are.


Your smarter than that, don't spin this. I'm telling you that I consider anyone who does not use a high fence operation a sportsman. I don't consider those who use one a sportsman or even a hunter.



> If you and I don't agree you think I am inferior. I don't quite see it that way.


I don't see it that way either, your just reading something between the lines that isn't there. Have you noticed my posts of displeasure when someone puts someone else down because of their job? Have you noticed my posts where someone puts someone else down because of their education? Have you noticed my pet peeve is people who consider themselves intellectually elite? Put it all together before you judge what you think I think.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Ya, I got you. To bring you up to speed Jessie Jackson didn't know his mic was still on and he made the comment he would like to cut Obama's family jewels off. Not in such kind words though


Oh yeah that's right i forgot that all ready :lol:

But still try to get over the sport talk when it comes to killing animals, keep the sport stuff on the trap range please. :wink:

A little hint have you ever watched goose, deer, predator etc.. hunting and killing in the Olympics?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Good, and I will join the crowd to stop it if they show me the data that supports their hypothesis.


.
And your data that supports the hypothesis that fenced hunting is bad for hunting and hunters is??



> "If they prove that high fence operations have a negative impact on hunting perception will you vote for the initiative?"


No, for one thing that can never be proven as it is nothing more than a personal moral issue which none of us have the right to force upon others.



> "If they prove that high fence operations have a high risk factor for disease will you still support them?"


Yes of course, if it is proven the risk factor is equal or higher than what it is in the wild herds outside the fence. But that has never been proven has it?



> "Telling us we are not real hunters or sportsmen because we do not believe as you do sure sounds like you place yourself HIGHER than we are."
> "Your smarter than that, don't spin this. I'm telling you that I consider anyone who does not use a high fence operation a sportsman. I don't consider those who use one a sportsman or even a hunter."


Thats not spinning anything. That is exactly what your are saying but refuse to admit. When you do that, you are the one trying to spin. Never used one but should I ever use a high fence operation that does not make me any less a sportsman or hunter than you ever were, are, or could be.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Never used one but should I ever use a high fence operation that does not make me any less a sportsman or hunter than you ever were, are, or could be.


I disagree, but will leave it at that.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

cwoparson said:


> > Never used one but should I ever use a high fence operation that does not make me any less a sportsman or hunter than you ever were, are, or could be.


I do not believe those using high fence outfits to be hunters! And yes I would think you to be less of a sportsman if you did. It is not hunting no matter how you try to spin it. Why don't you just give me your tags I will fill them for you. Maybe you would prefer I tie up a few deer in my backyard for you. Not much difference. Then again maybe it's that they can't hunt and need someone to make them feel they are doing so.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

With examples like the one shown at the beginning of the thread, high fence hunting will kill itself in the public eye. Let's just hope it doesn't take fair chase hunting with it when it does.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Quote:
> "If they prove that high fence operations have a high risk factor for disease will you still support them?"
> 
> *Yes of course*, if it is proven the risk factor is equal or higher than what it is in the wild herds outside the fence. But that has never been proven has it?


Just as I thought.  You need one more day on the pontoon.   You know, I don't know how much we really disagree, because I know some people do not understand what I am saying. I think I know what your saying here, but you started off confusing.

If you look at a map of CWD in North America every hot spot is around a captive herd. I don't know if these captive herds are high fence shooting galleries or not. Maybe someone who knows can chime in.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Why don't you just give me your tags I will fill them for you.


Oh I see. If someone gives you their tags you have no problem breaking the law and shooting more than your allowed quota. Now that's real sportsman like isn't it. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. It carries no more weight than mine or the next guy.



> Let's just hope it doesn't take fair chase hunting with it when it does.


Don't worry, the fair chase group is already doing a excellent job of that.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> If they prove that high fence operations have a negative impact on hunting perception will you vote for the initiative?


IF they can prove that, and only that, no I will not support it. Because then when they prove bowhunting, duck hunting, varmint hunting......ect, has a negative impact on hunting perception in the eye of the uninformed GP I would have to stop doing all those things to stay consistant.



> If they prove that high fence operations have a high risk factor for disease will you still support them?


I don't support them now, and you know it. I just refuse to be part of shutting them down just because of "moral superiority". And yes, if they prove the disease part I would definately sign paper to get tougher regulations in place, or if that proves impossible, shut them down.



> Your smarter than that, don't spin this. I'm telling you that I consider anyone who does not use a high fence operation a sportsman. I don't consider those who use one a sportsman or even a hunter.


Well, I am not all that smart, (there is no spin because I have no agenda) but I do believe there is a post on this site in which you stated those that support, or in my case do not oppose high fence you consider to be less of a hunter or sportsman.



> Have you noticed my posts of displeasure when someone puts someone else down because of their job? Have you noticed my posts where someone puts someone else down because of their education? Have you noticed my pet peeve is people who consider themselves intellectually elite?


Yes, I have and that is why I enjoy reading your posts, but just read what you write and you will see that you seem to consider yourself morally or ethically better than those that disagree with you on this matter. Doesn't that fit in the same category as the intellectual elitists?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

cwoparson said:


> Oh I see. If someone gives you their tags you have no problem breaking the law and shooting more than your allowed quota. Now that's real sportsman like isn't it. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. It carries no more weight than mine or the next guy.


Nice try cw, you know better than that. If you can't hunt leave the tags to me, no need taking someone's tag that can hunt from the lottery. Anyone with half a brain can see past your spin.

As to my opinion, you are absolutely correct and that is what it is no more no less. I'm sure I will not change your mind and you mine.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's all a matter of perspective. I don't think I am better than any other hunter, but I don't think those that shoot animals inside fences are hunters, or as good as true hunters. I consider both you and I hunters.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> If you look at a map of CWD in North America every hot spot is around a captive herd.


Now isn't that odd. Maybe even something Rod Sterling could picture in the twilight zone. Every hot spot is *around* a captive herd. Now why isn't the captive herds near these supposedly hot spots infected, especially since they are checked on a strict schedule? Think about it. You're grasping at straws now.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

No I don't know better than that because I can only go by what someone writes. Lets get one thing straight, and I have explained this many times before but I'll do it again. I don't use or like high fence operations. I don't even like some of the methods so called fair chase hunters employ. I will never say I will never use one of these facilities because that is a dumb thing to say about anything. But, what I despise even more than high fence hunting is the method chosen by the fair chase promoters. They have opened Pandora's box and in the end I'm convinced that all hunters will suffer even more than the anti fence hunters feel they suffer now. Mark my word, if this succeeds you will have a flood of anti hunters in ND trying to shut down all hunting methods through the use of the ballot measures and this in turn will spill over into other states. Only thing that will be accomplished is to divide the hunters, open the door to anti hunters and alienate the land owners against hunters. Plainsman labels this a scare tactic. I call it reality.

BTW, no lottery where I live. Tags are bought over the counter. Anyone with a quarter of a brain would realize some states have better systems than others.. Terse is a two way street.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson said:


> > If you look at a map of CWD in North America every hot spot is around a captive herd.
> 
> 
> Now isn't that odd. Maybe even something Rod Sterling could picture in the twilight zone. Every hot spot is *around* a captive herd. Now why isn't the captive herds near these supposedly hot spots infected, especially since they are checked on a strict schedule? Think about it. You're grasping at straws now.


Actually I should have said that in many places where CWD is prevalent in wild herds the epicenter has captive herds. I hope one of the biologists reading this can supply us with that map.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> I consider both you and I hunters.


I goofed it wasn't hunter, it was sportmen.

On Dec. 17 at 7:07p.m you wrote and I quote "we are either sportsmen or we are not. We either oppose or condone high fence hunting."

Since I do not oppose it, I and those like me are not sportsmen according to this post.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

cw didn't Montana pass a simular law not long ago? Has that state been flooded with anti hunter agenda. Haven't heard so. I believe you to be wrong again.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Then you simply haven't been listening very well. The high fence initiative ban in Montana was passed in 2000. Immediately it was challenged in court. Dismissed in 2003 by a judge and then immediately as noted in the Montana Hunting and Fishing Journal "Several anti-hunter and anti-game animal bills were introduced in the 2003 session. Hunters spent a tremendous amount of time and energy defeating these bills". Nope, I don't think I have it wrong. Get ready it will be coming to your neighborhood soon. Hope you enjoy your tax dollars being spent in court instead of on game management.

Now here is the kicker. Montana has a new crises on their hands. To many elk and not enough hunters. What happened? Well the rich simply bought land and made it their private preserves since they no longer had the game farms to go to and a lot of land owners just flat out posted their land. "That creates refuges for elk during the hunting season, but when the bullets stop flying they can then move to neighboring cropland" declared Alan Charles, landowner-sportsman relations coordinator for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Lots of elk now but no way to get to them. Russ Miller, who manages the 15 ranches in seven states owned by the Turner Enterprises stated "Landowners often are accused of trying to privatize wildlife, which are a public resource, Miller said. But the opposite trend occurs when people push for access to private land."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

laite319 said:


> > I consider both you and I hunters.
> 
> 
> I goofed it wasn't hunter, it was sportmen.
> ...


Looks like what I am saying is you have to stand for what you believe. It also looks like I am challenging you to have the nerve to support your convictions. Many are trying to get out of it by saying it's a landowners right. I think you are either committed to keeping hunting a sport, or your not. I don't see a fence to ride in this debate. The old "I wouldn't do it, but I support it" just tries to ride the fence that isn't there. Notice I am putting the burden on myself also with the word "we".

When asked to help I guess I just looked in the mirror and asked myself if I was a person of my convictions or not. No foolin, that's about the way it happened. I had to think about it for some time.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> It also looks like I am challenging you to have the nerve to support your convictions.


That is exactly what I am doing. I am convinced by all the posts I have read, and I actually went back and re-read most of it tonight just to keep things straight in my head, this is a "I am better than you because..." issue. Your side might look down on my side for supporting, or not opposing a practice you think is morally reprehensible, but I think it is morally wrong to support an issue that will negatively affect many people based on nothing more than emotions and opinions. Until there is proof of the disease issue, or some thing else comes up I will stand strong and not be swayed by the opinions.

The black eye to the hunters and sportsmen thing I understand, but that can be helped, not fixed, but helped with education. PA's, ads in mags and papers, lectures and the like. If half the energy that has been wasted by both sides debating the issue were put into educating the masses instead of trying to kill a practice I think we would be much better off.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> That is exactly what I am doing.


That I can respect as long as your doing it out of conscience and without money concerns. I think you and I debating this is just beating our heads against the wall. You think I am making the wrong decision and I think your making the wrong decision. Time for us to go to the rifle form and talk shooting. That may be the case for most of us because evidently our minds are made up.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> Time for us to go to the rifle form and talk shooting.


Sounds good to me, only problem is my custom stock for my 7mm isn't done yet, and my DPMS LR-260 is still out an "unknown" amount of time, so I don't have much going on in shooting!!! :******:


----------



## catfisherman2 (Apr 17, 2008)

That was a very good article...that just shows what happens when hunting is linked with money to hunt.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

OK .. If I want to eat an Elk steak but don't want the whole Elk where would I buy just a steak? That's why we need pen raised Elk, simply to eat not hunt.

Same goes for a nice Venison roast, I just want to eat the roast I don't want to hunt and butcher stuff. Mind you this is a what if, I do my own killing and butchering so far.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

buckseye 
Unfortunately or local butcher shop closed, but you could buy bison or elk in there anytime just like pork or beef. I don't know if anyone is still doing that in Jamestown.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

So where do they get the Elk steak? Certainly they are not selling wild elk are they?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

buckseye said:


> So where do they get the Elk steak? Certainly they are not selling wild elk are they?


Nope, they are getting it from farmers. Remember the measure that was attempted would not have stopped farmers from raising elk.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I see, so whats the problem with fenced in Elk. 8)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Currently I don't have a problem with fenced in elk. If disease becomes an issue then I would say ban it. However, unless disease becomes a problem it's little different than angus. My only issue is the shooting inside enclosures that the animal has no chance of escape. If they do have a chance of escape, then I have a disease issue. They are not supposed to be able to get out. 
They can raise all the elk they want.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

It's sort of like I don't have any problems unless some one else gives me their problems. Nice!! :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

buckseye said:


> It's sort of like I don't have any problems unless some one else gives me their problems. Nice!! :beer:


I don't understand. I said I have no problem with raising elk unless there arises a disease problem. then I will have a problem with it. You wouldn't want your neighbor to keep cattle with mad cow next to your operation would you?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Well it's not within my freedom to tell my neighbor what to do with his life or belongings. In the good ol days you would get your nose bent when it went where it wasn't invited.

So whats all the hoopla about then? I don't understand. To much holier than thou baloney tied to this for me to understand.

I don't like Atty's complicating things so ordinary folks don't understand, we all have things we don't agree with.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> we all have things we don't agree with.


True, but when a large percentage of society find something repugnant laws usually follow. I would guess that's how ever law we have came about. For example when some of the game laws went into affect the guys that run the 4 gauge punt guns perhaps said that people were sticking their nose in their business.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> True, but when a large percentage of society find something repugnant laws usually follow.


This does not make the law right. The majority can still impose tyranny.



Plainsman said:


> I would guess that's how ever law we have came about. For example when some of the game laws went into affect the guys that run the 4 gauge punt guns perhaps said that people were sticking their nose in their business.


Restricting market hunting did not restrict the use of private property. Ethical impositions on game ranches forces others to use their personal property they way someone else wants them to. Very different.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Restricting market hunting did not restrict the use of private property.


Try shooting ducks on private property with a 4 gauge punt gun and see what happens.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I think he means owning the elk.. your example was using wild ducks. Beer and elk steak for all!!!


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> > Restricting market hunting did not restrict the use of private property.
> 
> 
> Try shooting ducks on private property with a 4 gauge punt gun and see what happens.


Buckseye is right. Game laws protect a shared resource owned by all the citizens even if the game travels across private property.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

walker said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > > Restricting market hunting did not restrict the use of private property.
> ...


I agree with that, but I have to confess I'm getting lost on this thread. I can't make sense of what people are trying to say. I'm not saying you guys can't get your point across, I am fully aware it might be me. Whichever, I'm getting mixed up.

Later.


----------

