# Measure 2 Help for a dummy



## water_swater

Ok I consider myself a pretty avid sportsmen but didn't really place much thought into measure 2. My first thought was yes lets ban fenced hunting. I started reading and listening and started finding out most people I know are voting against it.

First reason is that it restricts property rights. We restrict property rights all the time, you can't run a prostitution ring or grow drugs on your land how is this different? Besides using land as a method of income what else makes high fence hunting a positive?

People keep looking at all these groups like PETA as the end to hunting and seem to think this initiative comes from groups like that, why?

I'm sure there are other issues but these are my main questions.


----------



## Plainsman

Water Swater,

First off this is not a landowner right. If it was a right they would not need a permit. They do need a permit because it is a privilege granted by society. If society decides it's detrimental it's gone. I see it as a black eye to real hunters and therefore detrimental to hunting.

Those who say it comes from animal rights groups are simply trying to misinform people. I only know four of five of the guys who started this initiative, and they are all avid hunters. For example Jhegg on this site is one of the most avid waterfowl hunters that I know. He has been since I met him in about 1978. The guy lived and breathed to hunt ducks, and although I have only talked to him once in the past 20 years he appears to be that same person.

I consider myself strongly conservative and a few on here keep asking me why I would be for something liberal like this. Well, being conservative doesn't mean your on the side of business every time. I think being conservative means you respect capitalism, promote it, but if it has a conflict with the constitution I go with the constitution.


----------



## Dick Monson

ws, if you love the outdoors then you live in a house you didn't build. You eat a table you didn't prepare. Two generations ago the founders of conservation did that for you. And they had to fight hard to preserve what we have now for public hunting and public wildlife.

Now it is this generations turn to do the same by voting yes on 2. A no vote kicks the door wide open for canned shooting and all the problems with it. And there are many.

Think of the groups that fly the property rights flag. What have they done to preserve public hunting? Anybody follow the legislative forum the last five sessions?

There is no more anti-hunting activity imaginable than wraping game in netwire.


----------



## LT

Here in more information to make an informed decision:

www.ndpropertyrights.com

Watch the video at the following link to see what a true experience is like at a North Dakota game farm:

http://huntersforhighfencehunting.com/


----------



## gst

water swater, one simple question, do you believe state law should be created based on factual truth?


----------



## Plainsman

Water swater, just remember when big money is involved the truth goes out the window. Today there are so many that have forgotten that hunting is a sport to be enjoyed. To many think it's only for the trophy and bragging rights. If this was not so a elk inside a fence that scores 450 would not be worth more than a bull that scores 250. I wonder how many of these "hunters" go back home and tell people they shot their animal inside an enclosure?

For years we have fought to change our image when the animal rights people call us Bambi killers. We have spent time and money to convince the general public that we are sportsmen and play by fair rules. We as hunters have supported a halt to spot lighting at night. We have on most occasions led in the fight to stop spot lighting, to implement bag limits, to implement the time of day we can shoot. We have been ahead of the general public in conservation of our natural resources. This bill is just another step in a long path that has lead to better wildlife management.

We simply must decide if we will have a future of conservation or exploitation. Although disease isn't part of the measure I think it also is real since many, perhaps most of the CWD cases have been spread through raised elk. How often have you heard we will not spill any oil, tobacco is safe, pesticides will not hurt anything, and game farms will not spread disease? The biggest lie your going to hear is that the group sponsoring it are members of HSUS. I sponsored it last year and my number one activity is shooting and hunting. I'm just afraid that if things like high fence operations continue the public will look at all of us with a jaundice eye and we will loose our most cherished outdoor activity. At my age it will make little difference, but I am not selfish and am thinking about the next generation.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Water swater, just remember when big money is involved the truth goes out the window. Today there are so many that have forgotten that hunting is a sport to be enjoyed. To many think it's only for the trophy and bragging rights. If this was not so a elk inside a fence that scores 450 would not be worth more than a bull that scores 250. I wonder how many of these "hunters" go back home and tell people they shot their animal inside an enclosure?
> .


Apparent.y my question 8 regarding this measure is truly about "bragging rights" and the bruised egos that accompany that is more of a factor in this measure than what some admit! :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> ?
> For years we have fought to change our image when the animal rights people call us Bambi killers. We have spent time and money to convince the general public that we are sportsmen and play by fair rules. We as hunters have supported a halt to spot lighting at night. We have on most occasions led in the fight to stop spot lighting, to implement bag limits, to implement the time of day we can shoot. We have been ahead of the general public in conservation of our natural resources. This bill is just another step in a long path that has lead to better wildlife management.
> .


These are privately owned domestic animals dispite what you and Gary Masching want to tell people as defined by the laws that govern us as ND citizens in the NDCC. Regulating them is not tied to "wildlife management" . So what happens in FC hunting when someone actually does shoot a "bambi " like calf in the guts as it runs across an open feild at 400 yards and does not recover it? Why is this "black eye" on hunting not being banned or even admitted to when you bring up these anti groups and what they use to veiw hunting negatively????


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> .
> We simply must decide if we will have a future of conservation or exploitation. Although disease isn't part of the measure I think it also is real since many, perhaps most of the CWD cases have been spread through raised elk. How often have you heard we will not spill any oil, tobacco is safe, pesticides will not hurt anything, and game farms will not spread disease? The biggest lie your going to hear is that the group sponsoring it are members of HSUS. I sponsored it last year and my number one activity is shooting and hunting. I'm just afraid that if things like high fence operations continue the public will look at all of us with a jaundice eye and we will loose our most cherished outdoor activity. At my age it will make little difference, but I am not selfish and am thinking about the next generation.


How is using legally defined privately owned animals as these are defined in the NDCC exploitation??????

How many cases of CWD have been found in the captive elk herd or spread to wild animals here in ND?

Do we ban drilling for oil because of the threat of a spill, or simply enforce regulations we have to prevent that?

As to this groups past involvement with HSUS why do you not tell others what you told me is part of why you are not a sponsor of this measure this time around.

I thought ND had a constitutional amendment that prevents these anti groups from using anything including opening the door thru these initiated measures or HF to ban "our most cherished outdoor activity". You can not claim HF will cause the end of hunting and then deny opening the door to these anti groups thru these initiated measures will not do the same.


----------



## water_swater

Ok I watched the movie

I can understand the guy needing to make a living.

Tell me what is ethical about shooting a penned animal?

I just about puked when I watched that video and those people thought they were hunting. "I get calls about the elevation, its only 3,000 feet, oh ok I should be able to breathe then." When did hunting become about being easy? This country is turning into the saddest country on the planet. Hunting is supposed to be hard, thats why those deer and elk survive. How can you call shooting a penned animal hunting?

How can that guy write a story about that? I drove to ND found this beautiful land with a fence around it. Woke up the nice landowner cooked me a mean breakfast. I was charged up to drive to the middle of this fenced in a area. He told me before I came I wouldn't have to walk to much so I wouldn't be too worn out. The hardest part was to stage a real hunt, shoot only selected area's so the people can't see the fence. I shot this big hand fed elk, it was so majestic and beautiful. It was guaranteed so I had to work really hard and there was lots of pressure on the shot. If it ran away it would soon hit a fence and we would be able to chase him down.

We can't let our kids think that is hunting.

That farmer tried to convince me with some BS NDSU facts about farming, we never saw his poor rundown operation and his kids in their tattered clothes heading off to school. Life must be real tough if he has time to take some old sad men out to shoot elk in a pen, I can really see where you need a guide.

This type of crap should not even be called hunting in the state of ND. It should have to be listed under a completely different category, penned shooting. The word hunting should not be able to be used on their websites, pamphlets or anything promotional.

Then if ND banned penned shooting it would not in anyway do anything to limit hunting rights. It would show that sportsmen/hunters actually do have respect for the creatures of the earth, and care that humans use fair eithical means to harvest animals.

It would still limit property rights, how can I vote against measure two? I still don't see why?


----------



## Plainsman

Water swater, you see this the same as I do. These people keep asking questions and trying to divert the real subject. I think the average person can see through the smoke they keep blowing so let them keep it up. They think the longer they talk the more they convince others, but I think the more they talk the more they convince others that measure two should pass. It's easy big money vs. sportsmanship and the future of hunting. What these guys really want is to be the only game in town. They want it set up so you don't shoot anything unless you pay them. All those gut shot animals in the wild, I wonder who is doing that and if it's accidental?


----------



## gst

water swater, I promise you my kids are growing up understanding it is up to them to take from the hunting experience what they must to relish it as much as I do. I am confident that with what they are experiencing when hunting with myself, family and friends and on their own, they will not have to participate in a HF operation to experience "hunting" . I simply want them to have the opportunity to make their own minds up based on what they have experienced rather than what some group tells them what hunting must be wether it is in regards to HF, trail cameras, hunting with dogs, baiting, dove hunting, bowhunting ect...... any of the things people other than just the antis want to have banned based of their "ethics" . Plainsman talks about smoke screens and such that the opponents claim. Where was the movementto ban hunting based on HF prior to a fella from California coming to our state. Where was the initiated measure started by anti groups to ban hunting because of HF. I can show you many initiated measures started by these groups to ban certain forms of FC hunting because of the form of FC hunting itself, yet this group claims it is HF that is pushing these antis agenda. Bull****. Dispite what plainsman and other claim, many that are opposed to HF have NO connection to it whatever,nor would ever do it themselves, they simply do not believe others should tell them what they must take from the experience to call it hunting because of the doors it will open. When this group has decided something you actually do while hunting is unethical in their eyes will you agree with them then? It maybe to late as they have found they can accomplish their agendas by involving the nonhunting public thru these measures.

Then again, is the question I asked you ealier. Do you believe law should be created based on truth. Plainsman conveniently does not answer questions when he knows the answers will not cast a favorable light on this measure, none of the sponsors do. It can not be denied that the sponsors have lied to the public regarding this measure. If you wish to support them in doing this in creating state law, that is entirely your choice. I simply will not.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Water swater, you see this the same as I do. These people keep asking questions and trying to divert the real subject. I think the average person can see through the smoke they keep blowing so let them keep it up. They think the longer they talk the more they convince others, but I think the more they talk the more they convince others that measure two should pass. It's easy big money vs. sportsmanship and the future of hunting. What these guys really want is to be the only game in town. They want it set up so you don't shoot anything unless you pay them. All those gut shot animals in the wild, I wonder who is doing that and if it's accidental?


So are you suggesting someone is purposely gutshooting animals while FC hunting to give it a blackeye????????


----------



## Plainsman

> So are you suggesting someone is purposely gutshooting animals while FC hunting to give it a blackeye????????


Nope. I just thought I would give you something to think about. I'm not going to explain it because it's more fun this way.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, I can't spend much time thinking about it because I'm waiting for you answer if raising these animals is indeed a property right or if raising cattle is a property right as well? It seems as if you do in a post you made.

[quote="Plainsman wrote:
As for property rights if we are all honest all our rights are limited. However those that require licenses or permits are more limited for very good reason.

So Plainsman, are you now saying that raising these animals even if licensed or permited and limited is still indeed a property right????

It does seem as if you have conceded in the above statement that even if something requires a permit, it can be a "property right"


----------



## Plainsman

It's a right as long as society permits it through a permit or license. This measure would eliminate that privilege. At one time there were no speed limits, them speed limits were implemented. Laws are not required until people do things that endanger others, or are so repugnant society can not tolerate it. High fence shooting galleries falls under the later.

I have a question: Are you a high fence paid lobbyist? Do you own a high fence operation? Does a good friend or neighbor own one? Are you one of the silly legislators that started this mess? Was your favorite game as a child 20 questions?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It's a right as long as society permits it through a permit or license. This measure would eliminate that privilege. At one time there were no speed limits, them speed limits were implemented. Laws are not required until people do things that endanger others, or are so repugnant society can not tolerate it. High fence shooting galleries falls under the later.
> 
> I have a question: Are you a high fence paid lobbyist? Do you own a high fence operation? Does a good friend or neighbor own one? Are you one of the silly legislators that started this mess? Was your favorite game as a child 20 questions?


Well it appears we now have a former sponsor admiting raising these animals is indeed a property right and that this measure is meant to take that property right away. It took awhile to get here, but I do have to say I respect your honest answer. Now if you would just give the same kind of honest answer about why you are not involved with this measure this time around that you gave me awhile back if you recall.

Now for your questions. No. No. A friend, not necessarily what I would classify as a "good" friend does have a HF operation. No. and kick the can. 

I do have one (not 20 ) question for you to answer. Prior to this group NDH for FC starting gathering signatures and making less than truthful statements regarding this issue to nonhunters here in ND what indication was there that society found this issue so repugnant they would not tolerate it? I do not recall any societal groups starting a petition to end it, I do not recall legislative attempts by mothers against HF to outlaw it. Can you show anywere that society here in ND were demanding this "repugnant" activity be banned prior to Mr. Kasemans return from his years spent in California to spearhead this measure?


----------



## KurtR

I know who is gut shooting them it is the guys who shoot ten times a year and only one shot is to see if they hit a pie plate other nine are to shoot one deer. i would be all for a measure to have to test with a rifle and be good at shooting before you are allowed to go run around and unethically shoot at animals. And now with all these bs ballistic turrets and reticles you are going to see more and more morons that think just because there burris or nikon has slashes to 600 yards that they are good to go. Now i am done with my little rant on who is gut shooting the most deer. But if i had to bet that guy that shot 36 in his feed lot has probally had a few run off


----------



## Hunter_58346

You people so set against this measure, spouting off here, spill your guts and let us all what your professions are. My guess is you have no clue to what is actually going on. Spoon fed maybe, but out of touch of reality!


----------



## gst

Hunter_58346 said:


> You people so set against this measure, spouting off here, spill your guts and let us all what your professions are. My guess is you have no clue to what is actually going on. Spoon fed maybe, but out of touch of reality!


farmer/rancher As a rancher one of the most serious things our industry is dealing with is groups like HSUS's agendas to end all use of animals by humans. Many in our industry have seen firsthand the affects of sitting back and letting small activist groups further their agendas . How they have evolved in doing this has become much more productive for them over the years. One of the favorite methods is to introduce an initiated measure that they can sway the public vote with thru lies and misrepresentations that is so poorly worded that they can then use activist judges to broaden the scope much further than what was initiatlly started. This measure and these sponsors fall into this small activist group catagory and their methods are quite similar.

The concerns of the animal ag industry are indeed reality. The banning of horse slaughter thru these backdoor tactics is merely one example. So hunter 58346, can you show where the reality of anyone wanting to ban this activity because they were so put off by it prior to Mr Kaseman coming "home" from spending years in California to "spoon feed" people misinformation regarding this measure?


----------



## Plainsman

I remember seeing adds against high fence hunting way back in the 1980's. To be honest those could have come from an animal rights group, or anyone else for that matter because I don't remember. Those who started these operations should have known they were taking a risk. Since I worked in wildlife and am interested in wha't happening I have watched these things. For the past ten years this has been coming more and more to the forefront.

Maybe some ranchers/farmers should have sat down with these guys when they drew up the petition. If I remember offers were made to the high fence people, but they simply thumbed their nose because they thought they had the legislature in their pocket. Many say just don't call it hunting. I think that was also brought up to the high fence crowd and they just laughed. They have had their chance to change slightly, now the big change is coming. To bad they were so arrogant.



> Now if you would just give the same kind of honest answer about why you are not involved with this measure this time around that you gave me awhile back if you recall.


You have a big mouth gst, and I will never tell you anything again. Just so people don't read to much into this I will answer it. I was ticked that Roger even talked to HSUS because I have zero respect for HSUS or PETA. I also had some better ideas, but they came to me and asked me to support it again without even a chance to read it. That I thought was disrespectful so screw them. Anyway, just because a few acted like a$$eS doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. I will still vote for it, but I will not get anymore involved with those people than I will you again. You want to talk in pm's then run your mouth about what is said. You betrayed trust and I have no reason to answer any questions for you anymore.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, I never betrayed anything. You made a point to come on here and claim there has been no connection between this group and HSUS even after telling me something much different as to why you are no longer involved with this group and this measure. I simply asked you to be as honest answering why publically as you were honest telling me why in private. Just as you claim in another thread that people opposing this measure say one thing in public and then say something else entirely different in private, it also happens with the supporters of this measure.

I have respect for honesty, very little for people who are not.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> I remember seeing adds against high fence hunting way back in the 1980's. To be honest those could have come from an animal rights group, or anyone else for that matter because I don't remember. Those who started these operations should have known they were taking a risk.


So maybe because animal rights activists also oppose agriculture as well, farmers and ranchers would be better off not taking that risk.

Plainsman Stated:


> Since I worked in wildlife and am interested in wha't happening I have watched these things. For the past ten years this has been coming more and more to the forefront.


As I stated before, the meeting with Land Tawney, Regional Director for the National Wildlife Federation in Bismarck, ND before SB 2254 talked about keeping Farm Bureau out of it, *keeping it in front of the people *, and that it raises the ire of HSUS. Then a letter to the editor from Wayne Pacelle regarding canned hunts appears shortly after this.

I can prove that this meeting happened.

Plainsman Stated:


> Maybe some ranchers/farmers should have sat down with these guys when they drew up the petition. If I remember offers were made to the high fence people, but they simply thumbed their nose because they thought they had the legislature in their pocket. Many say just don't call it hunting. I think that was also brought up to the high fence crowd and they just laughed. They have had their chance to change slightly, now the big change is coming. To bad they were so arrogant.


Plainsman, can you explain when these offers happened. Two years ago you told us on Nodak meetings took place to negogiate. Where did these meetings happen, and who were at these "supposed" meetings where these elk/deer growers thumbed their noses?

When the Fair Chase group was asked at the Jamestown Public Forum if they had sat down and met with the Elk and Deer Growers before their dirty laundry was aired in public, Roger's response: "There will be no compromise!!"


----------



## Plainsman

> Where did these meetings happen, and who were at these "supposed


I don't think they were official meetings. They were simply a group of people talking together before testifying before the legislature. At least that's how I understand it. I heard the high fence crowd was on their high horse at the legislature.

gst, I'll just end our conversation with, I have you on my list of people not to trust.

I'll also tell people that simply because I am ticked at a few on the Fair Chase Committee doesn't mean I will vote against a good measure. You guys keep trying to make Roger out as a villain, but he was simply foolish enough to talk to HSUS when contacted. Now you hold him up as if he was an HSUS member. Your looking for a boogie man and trying to use Roger as such. Also I do not sign anything that I don't get to read first. Only idiots do that. If they don't respect me enough to do that then I have no time for them. I do support ending high fence shooting. With 30 people sponsoring this bill I was never under the illusion they were all saints. As a matter of fact I trust one no further than I can throw him, but even dinks like him do some things right like this measure.

How is that for honest gst? You should get to know the one guy I don't trust. I think you would like each other.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, I'll just end our conversation with, I have you on my list of people not to trust.
> 
> . You guys keep trying to make Roger out as a villain, but he was simply foolish enough to talk to HSUS when contacted. Now you hold him up as if he was an HSUS member.
> quote]
> 
> Plainsman, I am not suggesting that Roger is a hsus member, but simply basing my veiws of who contacted who concerning this measure off what a former sponsor that should perhaps know better than anyone else the true deal told me as to why he is not involved with this groups this time around. If you choose not to trust someone you have never met simply because they asked you to be as honest publically as you were in private, that is certainly your choice.
> 
> The one fella involved in this measure you do not trust farther than you can throw him wouldn't be the fella that collected over 8000 signatures himself to get this measure on the ballot would it? If a former sponsor feels this way about this fella, why should anyone else believe he could be trusted to have told the truth to these petition signers?
Click to expand...


----------



## Plainsman

> The one fella involved in this measure you do not trust


You must be important to think that would be any of your business. I call that arrogance. My trust of this fellow has nothing to do with the measure, or anything that would affect the measure, but I knew you would grasp at that straw. It's personal gst, get it?

As far as I know Roger was contacted. I don't know about you, but I don't have much control over who calls me, or who emails me. I do however have control over how long I talk to them. To not have bad manners I'll do a lot of listening, but that doesn't mean I have to respond positively.

Most on this form who us PM's do so with the confidence that no one is going to go blow their mouth in public. Since you have no sense of that I can't talk to you in private PM's anymore. The reason I answered you here in public was because you were trying to make more of it than it really was. I can just see the imagination of people going wild over your comments. Don't tell me how you value integrity.

Water swater, glad to see your not suckering for the slick talk. Over and out.


----------



## LT

GST Stated:


> The one fella involved in this measure you do not trust farther than you can throw him wouldn't be the fella that collected over 8000 signatures himself to get this measure on the ballot would it? If a former sponsor feels this way about this fella, why should anyone else believe he could be trusted to have told the truth to these petition signers?


I guarantee you if it would not be for Roger Kaseman this measure would not be on the ballot. I guarantee you that if people actually knew what they were signing, many of the ones that signed would not have signed.

I keep finding out more and more that was told to people to get their signatures. I had some friends that signed the petition having no clue what they were signing. They actually thought someone was being allowed to put up fences and trap the wildlife within and then sell it for a hunt.

I talked to a man from Fargo who has no reason to lie who attended the Fargo sports show and was asked to sign the petition by Roger. When he wanted to get Roger off his back, he told him he was from Minnesota. Roger told the man that he could still sign and not to worry about it, they would just fudge his address. The guy actually reported it to the SOS office. Their response, "We will keep a watch on it."

I talked to another person who said they witnessed several under 18 people that were signing.

I have seen the petitions. I am amazed that signatures were allowed to go through the way they did. You can tell that other people filled in addresses for people, zip codes were left off, dates were left off, ditto marks were allowed for addresses even if there was not a legible signature, but the SOS office only found what they claim to be 250 signatures that could be thrown out. I looked them over and if rules would have been followed to the letter, over 2000 signatures could have been thrown out. Anybody can look at the petitions and verify what I am saying.

So Plainsman, I hope you will be able to sleep at night and feel good if this measure passes knowing you did not get your hands dirty in the collection of signatures. But you know I equate this to taking dirty money; you sign this knowing all the lies that were told to get these signatures and the fact it should never have made the ballot had people been told the truth about what they were signing, you are accepting dirty money in my book.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/0 ... measure-2/

http://feeds.greatplainslive.net/?p=epi ... 105010.mp3

Interesting Link: https://community.hsus.org/ct/81wigL61jmYQ/


----------



## Plainsman

> I had some friends that signed the petition having no clue what they were signing.


I would start looking for some smarter friends before it rubs off.



> Roger told the man that he could still sign and not to worry about it, they would just fudge his address.


 :bs:

I knew we would hear some wild stories before the election.



> The guy actually reported it to the SOS office.


If we only knew. I'll bet a lot of crazy things were called into the SOS office. Maybe Santa is a HSUS member and he called people telling them they would get no presents unless they voted for measure #2. Lets prosecute Santa for blackmail.  You just can't trust a pansy in a red suite. 



> I talked to another person who said they witnessed several under 18 people that were signing.


I'll bet it was one of those kids Santa got to.



> over 2000 signatures could have been thrown out


If that was true we would not be voting on it in November. The secretary of state is not about to sacrifice his integrity and the trust of the North Dakota people over this small of a thing. If you guys are going off the deep end already the next couple of weeks are going to be crazy. Oh well, I am going to vote early so I can go do some bow hunting before rifle season.



> So Plainsman, I hope you will be able to sleep at night and feel good if this measure passes knowing you did not get your hands dirty in the collection of signatures. But you know I equate this to taking dirty money; you sign this knowing all the lies that were told to get these signatures and the fact it should never have made the ballot had people been told the truth about what they were signing, you are accepting dirty money in my book.


You told me you seen the petition signatures. What page did you see my signature on? I thought you were a person who would know what they were talking about before you would run your mouth. Keep talking.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> You told me you seen the petition signatures. What page did you see my signature on? I thought you were a person who would know what they were talking about before you would run your mouth. Keep talking.


Did I say I saw your signature, but if you want I will go look through all 13,000 some sigs again. I do remember last go round seeing your signature, and the funny thing is your wife had the same handwriting.

What I said is, "You sign this" meaning if you vote for this measure knowing all the lies that were told...

https://community.hsus.org/ct/81wigL61jmYQ/


----------



## Plainsman

> you sign this knowing all the lies that were told


Hmmm I don't see any mention of "vote".



> What I said is, "You sign this" meaning if you vote


Hmmmm, hint, if you mean vote say vote. I think I got it right the first time didn't I?



> if you want I will go look through all 13,000 some sigs again.


Yes please, and then report back here.

gst


> The one fella involved in this measure you do not trust farther than you can throw him wouldn't be the fella that collected over 8000 signatures himself to get this measure on the ballot would it?


I see there was one of your "questions" that I missed. I hope that isn't a capital offense. Quick answer: I don't know the man your trying to character assassinate. (Maybe I don't know who your talking about)


----------



## LT

Plainsman,

Your typical responses of trying to spin everything. You did this two years ago.

One thing maybe you should be smarter about is who you PM. Do you remember PMing me and telling me how you were laughing at me, that you actually did know my IP addresses, my ND address and my California address? You PM'd me this after you had just stated to me on the Nodak forums that yes, you do obtain IP addresses if someone is sending out threatening PMs. Now why would you have my IP addresses when I have never sent out a threatening PM, and why did Ryan post my personal information regarding my UCSF connection. As moderators why would you PM me laughing at me about this and why would a moderator post my personal info?



> Yes LT I do want you to answer that. Do you feel Berkeley (or UCSF)gives you a feeling of moral or intellectual superiority? Just curious?
> 
> Ryan


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=52692&start=120

I will tell you that is why I never revealed who I was on this board, as it was pretty obvious this was a loaded forum. I even quit posting for quite awhile after my info was revealed.

I am not a lawyer as some thought because of my UCSF connection, I am not an operator. I am just a little medical secretary who happened to be working for UCSF when you obtained my IP address. I am the sister of Dwight Grosz. My name is Lynell Tagestad.

I have watched my brother build this business and work so very, very hard. I have seen the joy that it brings to those that get to harvest an animal, the elderly, the handicapped, the disabled, and the guy that just does not have land access. I have cried many nights for him and his family knowing that there are people that want to destroy the business that he worked so hard for, his retirement. I have tried my best to help him and have supported him.

I hope you get tremendous joy out of life plainsman and that closing my brother's business down brings you more joy.

https://community.hsus.org/ct/81wigL61jmYQ/


----------



## Plainsman

Hmmmm, now I am really confused. I thought I was giving grief to an old acquaintance I went to college with. I thought that because of the "old sly fox comment". It was something that guy always said to me. I do know his address, but I don't know anything about California. If I had know it was not the guy with the 327 Chev in a 1953 Stud from Devils Lake I wouldn't have given you any grief. However, I really don't remember, but I'll take your word for it.

Don't hold me accountable for Ryan. It's not like we often agreed. Also, he was the computer genius not me.


----------



## LT

Plainsman,

What the heck does "old sly fox" have to do with what I posted. Just more spin, but I knew I had heard this spin before.

DG Stated:


> Plainsman,
> 
> You old fox. How come you didn't touch my Jerry G. post. Thats a heck of a nose you have.


Your response:


> Sorry this is off subject. I didn't touch it because I don't know who you are talking about. The last name is familiar from college in 1967, but I doubt it's the same person. This is off subject so should be in the PM's. No one is interested in personal things. I'll PM you.


viewtopic.php?f=27&t=56734&p=455664#p455664


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> As far as I know Roger was contacted. I don't know about you, but I don't have much control over who calls me, or who emails me. I do however have control over how long I talk to them. To not have bad manners I'll do a lot of listening, but that doesn't mean I have to respond positively.
> 
> Most on this form who us PM's do so with the confidence that no one is going to go blow their mouth in public. Since you have no sense of that I can't talk to you in private PM's anymore. The reason I answered you here in public was because you were trying to make more of it than it really was. I can just see the imagination of people going wild over your comments. Don't tell me how you value integrity.


Plainsman, I trusted that what you shared with me in the very first PM you ever sent me regarding why you did not involve yourself in this measure was the truth. I have based my opinion on wether the emails and conversations people have posted showing communications taking place between HSUS and someone from this group NDH for FC are the truth, on what you shared. I beleived that a sponsor from the first go around would know better than anyone what the real deal was regarding these communications. I believed what you told me in that PM was the truth. Perhaps I need to be a little more careful in what I trust in. Now you wish me and others to believe that this contact between a group claiming to represent hunters and the HSUS was simply irrelevant regarding this measure? If you expect people to believe this contact was simply someone telling HSUS to kiss their ***, have that person that had that contact come on here and prove that.

If you wish to talk about integrity, your post in another thread where you acuse opponents of this measure of stating one thing in private then saying something completely opposite in public strikes close to home regarding your posts here..


----------



## Plainsman

Why is that spin. When I seen that post Jerry G and the comment sly fox I thought I was talking to a fellow we used to call Jigs. In another communication he asked if I had figured out who LT was yet. All those things together made me think old Jigs and LT were one in the same. 
I did go back to those posts. I didn't know anything about those things Ryan posted. I do get ip addresses if someone is threatening. Anagus said someone was threatening him in PM's and I asked him to forward it.

Do you remember this part:


> I do see people looking to cause trouble when they start asking names, and where they work. Many people on both sides of this debate have found that out the hard way. I respect your anonymity.


Did you notice the "respect your anonymity" part.

Have you noticed I apologize when I am wrong:


> LT, I had to leave for a meeting so rushed my post to you. I wanted to say you did nothing wrong, and I regret jumping down you throat on those two quotes. I couldn't find them, but a reliable source told me I had posted them in a hog farm thread or something like that.


The high fence crowd doesn't have a leg to stand on so you want to attack the messengers. Lets get back on subject. Lets forget Angus, gst, you, me, Roger, and if you wish debate the real subject. That is not spinning.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, it is you that needs to PROVE what you claim. YOU and other supporters of HF shooting keep making the claim of collusion but there is no proof that there is. The sponsors do not need to respond to your baseless claims period!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

gst, I know there was contact, but I don't know how the contact occurred. You may have noticed that I also said that I would not sign something I had not read. In other words I didn't know what was going on so I was not going to involve myself. You stated on fishingbuddy that you had sent me proof. I had not been on that site for so long that I had to get a new password and go in and correct that. You have never sent me any proof of anything. Perhaps you neglected and then forgot.

Your simply angry because I will not let you use me to dump on Roger. Roger may have made a slight mistake. I am irritated, but I'm not going to dump on a fellow who I agree with on the subject of this debate. Also, I didn't sign up as a sponsor because I didn't get to read the petition. That doesn't mean I'm going to dump on the effort because my poor little ego was bruised. Do I agree with all of the guys: nope. Do I get a little ticked at some of them: yup. Am I going to take my bat and ball and go home: nope.

I think you want to turn this discussion into Roger, or me, or anything you can other than the real subject. Divert and deflect. This has gone into so many circles I don't remember 90% of it. Lets discuss high fence if we must. Crucifying Roger isn't on the ballot this fall. Sorry, maybe next year.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> I do see people looking to cause trouble when they start asking names, and where they work. Many people on both sides of this debate have found that out the hard way. I respect your anonymity.


Here is one of my first posts on Nodak regarding who was behind this measure:


> The supporters of this initiative should be very proud; could we get a list of who they are?


Here was your response:


> The list is the first page of the petition. It has always been available. Why do you want to know? A little blackmail maybe? When I see people ask for names it is a sure sign nothing good is afoot. *Also LT, why would someone at the other end of this nation be so interested in North Dakota?*


Not sure why I was accused of possible blackmail regarding a list that is supposed to be attached to every petition. So you obviously knew at this point I also had a California IP, which was actually just a remote connection for my work.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=51137&p=404641#p404641

You did state the following on May 1, 2008:


> LT, I had to leave for a meeting so rushed my post to you. I wanted to say you did nothing wrong, and I regret jumping down you throat on those two quotes. I couldn't find them, but a reliable source told me I had posted them in a hog farm thread or something like that.


But then what everyone didn't know was what went on behind the scene -- you then PM'd me the next morning on May 2, 2008 laughing about knowing my IP addresses right after you made the above statement on the forums.


----------



## Plainsman

Maybe I was laughing because I goofed up or got the wrong information from someone else. I don't know, but what I do know is you guys are not interested in talking about the issues anymore you want me to mud wrestle with you. No thanks. This had diverted me from picking on Obama for to long. I don't think he believes in any landowner rights, and I may have to support you before this mess is all over.

Now if you will excuse me there is a hornets nest outside that I think I will go stick my finger in. I don't see the need to debate further. The petition is in, the measure is on the ballot, and I think it's a done deal. The Bismarck Tribune article hit the nail on the head.


----------



## gst

Plainsman. If you wish to get back to the debate of this measure, it's wording, it's intent and consequences answer this, do you want the non HF operators to continue to be able to sell their animals for "harvest" for a fee or renumeration?

Ron perhaps you should concern yourself with "proving" your claim you know for a fact this measure as worded will do nothing to prevent non HFH operators from receiving a fee or renumeration for the "harvest" of their "farmed elk" . Particularily given the "unbiased" opinion that was given you that states otherwise.

Perhaps sponsor Roger Kaseman can come back on here and "prove" his claim the Federal Lacey Act will prevent someone from selling someone an elk and then that person shooting the elk he now owns.

Perhaps sponsor Gary Masching can come on here and "prove" how these legally defined privately owned domestic farmed elk are actually wild animals protected under the states constitution as he infered to potential signers.

Perhaps sponsor Dick Monson can come back on here and "prove" his claim the CWD deer in SW ND was infected from a HF operation.

Perhaps sponsor Dave Brandt can come back on here and "prove" his claim there is a two year sunset clause in this measure allowing these operations to sell their animals.

Ron remember now these are not my "baseless claims" but those of the sponsors and supporters of this measure. Should they be required to at least prove their own claims???????


----------



## Ron Gilmore

No gst you and others supporters are claiming HSUS involvement with support from the FC sponsors in promoting Measure 2! Dick has posted that they are not involved with HSUS!!!!

So prove otherwise or simply shut up about it!!!!!!!!!!! Fact not fiction!


----------



## AdamFisk

I just tried some horseradish flavored cheese for the first time.....It's not as good as it sounds. 

Oh wait, wrong thread isn't it? This is the "pick on Plainsman" thread. :down: You HF people are treading awfuly close to looking and sounding as bad as the person behind Measure #2.

I can see it's going to get real interesting around here yet before election uh?

Now, back to gst's regular scheduled 8 questions. :rollin:

And I'm serious about the cheese, don't try the crap, it's not very good, even the dog spit it out. :lol:


----------



## gst

Ron . From the begining I as well as many other people have simply questioned what was discussed in these communications that have been admiting to having happened. We have seen emails and communications from HSUS's side, perhaps if the ones from NDH for FC were made public this whole issue would be cleared up and the debate could indeed get back to the wording, intent', and consequences of this measure and the claims of the sponsors. If not the wisdom of hunters doing HSUS's work for them has been questioned by many on these siters.

Adam, I personally like the cheese with bacon in it.  Just so you know I have given up on any of the sponsors actually answering most any questions on these websites as their answers would then be in black and white and they could then be held acountable for what they claim. I'm probably not going to hold my breath for them to even prove the claims they make themselves on these sites!  I guess we all simply should "take our ball and go home", (now where have I heard that before) sit back and not question anyone that is bringing forth a potential state law and let their "fact sheets" go unchallenged. :roll: It surely seems to be the sentiment and working well in Washington DC now a days ???? So I guess it is probably back to the regularly scheduled propaganda channel called the Measure 2 "fact" sheet. :wink:


----------



## AdamFisk

gst, I have absolutely no problem with people asking questions about the matter at hand. Which, your questions are all valid questions, I will give you that. I was just poking fun at your persistence and predictability. oke: 

It's the other crap I have issues with, like posting info received in PM's and all this other garbage going back 2+ years ago, which really has no bearing on the actual topic, even though you, or they may think it does....It has clearly become too personal now. You all are trying to one up each other, with whatever it takes. You guys are making "your side" look bad, and desperate.

Mr. Kaseman has shown all of us what kind of guy he really is. He didn't do "his side" much good with his presence on this board I don't think. I don't want to see you guys end up the same way, or there could be a lot of people just wishing this thing would go the hell away with both sides losing.


----------



## LT

Adam,

This is not about desperation, oneupmanship, or trying to sway anyone. There is not enough people left on this board to do much of that. Even look at the poll that Kurt put up, a whopping 35 people voting.

This is just pent up frustration with how this board was moderated and the bias over the past 2 years. When you consider 11 of the original sponsors were from this board, I guess that shouldn't surprise anyone, and when this issue initially began many of them were moderators on here.

Anyway, I know what this measure is truly about and the real agenda -- the taking of people's property without having to compensate them, the stripping of the value on their property with the hopes that all 65 businesses fold, not just the 12. The people behind this believe elk and deer should not be captive, nothing to do with ethics. This has been an orchestrated effort from day one. Of course, people have bought into the emotion as they knew they would.

In fact if you listen to Roger in this link, I even asked him why this did not include buffalo, and he goes on to state because you cannot hunt them in the wild. He states this is about the commercialization of wildlife.

http://feeds.greatplainslive.net/?p=epi ... 105010.mp3

I now feel better that I got some of the frustration off my chest. At this point I don't really care if anyone thinks I am a raving loon. At least I can sleep at night knowing that I told the truth and that I tried.

Lynell Tagestad
Hazen, ND


----------



## gst

Adam, I have no problem with a little fun being poked, and I do know what you mean regarding this thing far to often becoming personal rather than sticking to the issue itself. The problem is dispite what the sponsors want to claim that this measure is simply about ending the shooting of an animal behind a fence, it is about much more than that. It is about imposing ones choice on others while taking choices away from them, it is about one group trying to determine what others must take from an experience to call it hunting. It is about interfering with peoples livelyhoods. It is defining what is "hunting" which many think is a VERY personal choice each individual should be able to make. Maybe some people simply do not understand how important that ability is regarding hunting. It appears some people believe they have the right to determine that for others.

And if the sponsors and supporters would indeed answer questions about their measure instead of making personal claims against the people asking the questions, this BS you reference would not have to enter the discussion, and the debate would be better for it. But when people talk of honesty and intergrity, they had better make sure their actions and statements they make and do themselves wether public or private are of the standards they are demanding from others. If I PM someone on this site and say one thing in private and then publically come on this site and say the opposite, I would fully expect to be called on it.

I for one do wish the last time this was attempted and failed for a lack of signatures it would have "gone away". Especially since any formof success will likely bring another measure to ban baiting from these same people. Believe me I have much better things to do than to try and hold the sponsors or supporters of these measure accountable for their claims! :wink:

Now I am more than willing to get back to persistantly debating the actual wording, intent, implementation and consequences of this measure. So lets make an agreement to keep all the personal BS aside and focas on the measure itself so the voters that this group is asking to create law can better understand ALL aspects of what they are voting on. I believe here in ND unlike Washington DC, the voters do indeed have a right to know what it is they are voting on prior to casting their vote  So if the sponsors want to come on here and back up the claims they have made I referenced it would be a refreshing change of pace!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> Adam, I have no problem with a little fun being poked, and I do know what you mean regarding this thing far to often becoming personal rather than sticking to the issue itself. The problem is dispite what the sponsors want to claim that this measure is simply about ending the shooting of an animal behind a fence, it is about much more than that


Again gst you simply cannot help yourself in making claims that are not factual period!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This bill is only about ending the shooting of captive elk and deer and exotics in ND though operations that advertise them as hunting!!!!!!!

Piss and moan all you want about it being something else, some hidden agenda,collusion,etc... it is simply not so and to say otherwise is an outright lie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So put up or shut up on the proof and facts you have instead of floating turds down the river in hopes that someone thinks it is a fish!

LT I have been on this site a long time, not sure but the moderators of this site have allowed a pretty open and heated and at times personal debate on this issue as well as others. You and I and everyone else post at the pleasure of the site owner period. I have seen offensive and false statements,direct threats and over the top posts removed, but no censorship in regards to positions.


----------



## gst

Well that did not take long.  Ron I posted a NONBIASED opinion that originated from the State Attorney General office for the SBofAH that clearly stated that the "harvest" of any of these "farmed elk" for a fee or renumeration for any purpose, even non HFH, would fall under the wording of this measure and be prohibited. I would guess Dave Brandts 5th grade English teacher could have wrote this measure to specifically exclude these animals if the intent was not to have them included under this measure. The sponsors must be very poor at writing these measures as they have had two tries and they are both written in the exact context.

You are the one that has said you opposed the first measure because of how it was written, and yet now claim you support this measure that is written exactly the same. You claim you have made this change in your position because of what you were told, but yet you will not have the individual that provided you the information regarding this measure that allowed you to change your position come on these public sites and share with everyone else their opinion of what this measure will do from a legal sense that is different from what the states AG office believes. If you expect us to take what you are claiming as the truth, please have the SPONSOR that told you what the AG states may very well happen will not and why they can make that claim come on these two outdoor sites and publically state these facts. If they were able to change your opinion they surely should realize they should easily be able to change someone elses! :wink:

Wether you want to admit it, it is the responsibility of the sponsors of this measure to throughly and factually address and explain concerns citizens they expect to vote on this measure may have. And it is the duty of the citizens of this state to question the laws being formed to govern them if they wish to maintain control over government. There have been many other than myself that have expressed these concerns over this measure and yet for some reason you continue to focas on just my comments. Perhaps as Adam suggested it is something personal?

I have provided you an UNBIASED legally based opinion regarding the effect and possible intent of this measure, if you wish to bring forth some facts to back up your claims you have made that this measure will not affect the sales of these non HF animals regarding this measure please do. Otherwise it appears you only wish to continue to make this a personal issue rather than address the facts regarding this measure,which is a waste of everyones time. As I have "persistantly"  said if this measure is so simple and pure as you claim, what do the sponsors have to lose in answering a handful of questions?  . Although as I have said if they would only start with their own claims it would be a start! :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Put up or shut up about the HSUS issue gst!! You cannot spin away from that any longer!


----------



## jhegg

Good Luck Ron.

Jim


----------



## g/o

> Again gst you simply cannot help yourself in making claims that are not factual period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Boy if that isn't the kettle calling the pot black, the king of making false claims Ron Gilmore getting on someone's case go figure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Now that is funny G/O coming from you!


----------



## gst

Ron I will take the time to respond one last time. Awhile back a sponsor from the first measure attempt sent me a PM, in that PM he stated the reason why he was not going to be innvolved in the upcoming measure attempt. I based my opinion of the posts people put on this site chronicling the communications between this FC group and HSUS on what this sponsor told me, who better would know the real deal in regards to this ? The history of these communications between HSUS and this group was I believe HSUS regional head David Pauli that wrote on a blog that while traveling west they stopped in ND and talked with a FC official. The emails that were sent from Karen Thunshele ?sp from Minot, a HSUS leader in the area to members of this group. Perhaps someone can repost these emails and blog comments once again for you. These claims corresponded to what this former sponsor who I believed and trusted had told me. This former sponsor has now admited to making this statement in regards to why he is not involved in the measure this time, verifying what I have stated. 
Now, if you can show where I have claimed the members of this FC group are card carrying HSUS members please do. The undisputable truth is there are many people other than myself that have shared their concerns on these sites of a group of hunters conversing with the nations number one anti hunting group. And yet you only seem to focas on comments I make. It appears to be a personal thing.

I am going to close with an observation. Since being on this site for a less than 2 years I have realized you do not deal well with anyone questioning your absolute authority on many subjects. If someone does dare to post an opposing veiw or question your claims they are seldom if ever treated with courteousy or respect. From one of the very first "discussions" on this site we engaged in, if you recall, you acused me of compensating for a small penis by having to shoot large bucks  I never thought I would hear an adult making such a juvenile comment on an outdoors site. Others have been on the receiving end of similar personal, juvenile comments when they dare to question your authoritarian veiws. Once the conversation reaches this point little good comes from it. It appears we have reached that point in this conversation about this measure. So you will have to carry on this personal tirade on your own.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst one more time put up or shut up about HSUS and the FC Measure! No more inuendo, either provide the collusion proof or shut up!!!!!!!!! Simple straight forward, clear as can be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## KurtR

Or what will happen to him. Next you will be calling people out to the bike racks.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, I know there was contact, but I don't know how the contact occurred.
> Roger may have made a slight mistake..


As many others have stated, a group of hunters claiming to represent ND hunters having "contact" with the nations leading anti hunting group regarding an agenda both want moved forward is more than a "slight mistake". 

Ron I do have a question for you, how often do you have to replace your exclamation key?


----------



## Plainsman

gst I think they contacted him last year. No one has made any contact this year. You are making a lot out of nothing. Now I have a question for you. Are you being paid by the high fence group? 
You told me you would send me proof of that contact. You told people you had sent me proof. That's not true. Please send it.

I have not talked with Roger. Most of what I heard I heard from you. You had the names etc. Some lady from Minot you said, However, you never did send me proof. It's been a year, don't you think it's about time you send that to me?

I have another question. It appears LT is not who you told me they were. Last year LT was a man, this year a woman. What's the deal?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

So gst it is clear you want to continue to push a outright lie as truth!


----------



## TK33

I don't for the life of me understand how none of you guys in the 50+ crowd here cannot see the dangerous ground you are going on. Is your generation ever going to stop legislating the rest of us into the ground?? There are way too many convenient coincidences involving Roger Kaseman and HSUS for my liking. Do I have any proof, no. The agendas are too close, the tactics are too close, and the fact that HSUS is in favor of this is enough to make me want to vote no. What ever happened to the HSUS member from somewhere in ND collecting signatures for the fair chase group??

These are privately owned livestock, nothing more. To tell someone they can't do what they want with their animals is wrong, it is liberal, it is everything you republicans hate under any other circumstance. Then again telling the little man what to do is the republican way. :wink: Once again it is hard to tell the difference between liberals and repubs.

Someone mentioned that Hegg is a waterfowler, Dick has posted pics of his dogs, and I'm sure several other members of the Fair Chase group have dogs. Now what happens if some group comes along and wants to ban tail docking, or E Collars, or neutering?? It is the same thing measure 2 is doing here. You are messing with private property. Period, there is no difference.

To say that this will somehow open up more land for hunting in ND is a joke and a dream. HF operators are for profit, do you think that these guys will say ho-hum and just let the public hunt their land??? I would bet every square inch gets locked up and at the most is pay hunting. Gotta cover their losses somehow.

It is foolish and irresponsible to think that if this measure passes there will be no backlash, lawsuits, and other attempts at restricting hunting methods. It is not going to end with Measure 2, there will be more crap every year.

I too am not a fan of this being called hunting, it is not. I am opposed to commercial hunting, difference is free range game is property of the state and HF game is private property. Both could use some better management and oversight but Measure 2 goes too far.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

TK, private property does not come with absolute rights. You point to tail docking as one example, but you cannot leave that tail docked dog out unsheltered with no food or water just because it is your property. In that example the property only affects the owner. With high fenced shooting the animals caged do escape the enclosure and many are now being bred for strickly antler growth. No thought to immune systems and what can happen if that animal does get into the wild herd and now is breeding. That affects all hunters and non hunters alike.

Lets stay on the issue of tail docking,ear cropping etc... there has been and will be regardless of the outcome of this bill attempts to regulate or ban these practices. It is naive to think that this measures success or failure will have any affect upon that in the future. You should spend a year or two in WI especially around the Madison area and you would be able to understand this much better.

This bill was never offered up as a way to open more lands, not sure where you got that idea.


----------



## Archimedes

To me this issue is not too complicated. I think it's ridiculous to create mutant bucks through breeding and feeding like this one.

http://www.dabuckchannel.com/video/526/FREE-AGENT

All for the sole purpose of someone to shoot to pretend they are some sort of great hunter.

I think it is ridiculous when these mutant bucks are sold to the highest bidder for the sole purpose of these great "hunters" esteem problem

http://www.whitetailexchange.net/auction/

I think ND can do without this whole fake hunting industry. Real hunters shouldn't be surprised that we all become fodder for comics with this disgraceful industry making us all look bad too the non-hunting public

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs5TlfXy ... re=related

You want to empower animal rights groups? Then vote no on measure two


----------



## TK33

> You want to empower animal rights groups? Then vote no on measure two


I think the FC committee already empowered animal rights here in ND. Grasping at straws.


> This bill was never offered up as a way to open more lands, not sure where you got that idea


I got that idea from the advertising and promotions put on by the FC group. I have seen and heard it several times.


> there has been and will be regardless of the outcome of this bill attempts to regulate or ban these practices. It is naive to think that this measures success or failure will have any affect upon that in the future.


You aren't seeing the forest through the trees on this. If anyone here is naive it is your side of this equation, you guys after all are the ones sharing HSUS's vision. There have been attempts, yes. They haven't succeeded, if this passes the HSUS types will have a feather in their hat. I seriously think you guys are delusional. This is exactly where it starts, then it moves on to trail cams, then trapping, then archery limits, then on and on and on. Take a look at Montana, You can pretend to be enlightened and informed all you want the bottom line is it has happened before, right next door.

Oh and the other issue no one wants to talk about here is the added expense to the taxpayer. 
Still nothing on the lady from HSUS gathering signatures for Measure 2?


----------



## KurtR

Tk hits the nail on the head


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst I think they contacted him last year. No one has made any contact this year. You are making a lot out of nothing. Now I have a question for you. Are you being paid by the high fence group?
> You told me you would send me proof of that contact. You told people you had sent me proof. That's not true. Please send it.
> 
> I have not talked with Roger. Most of what I heard I heard from you. You had the names etc. Some lady from Minot you said, However, you never did send me proof. It's been a year, don't you think it's about time you send that to me?
> 
> I have another question. It appears LT is not who you told me they were. Last year LT was a man, this year a woman. What's the deal?


Plainsman I am aware and have stated this contact that has been documented and admitted to happened in the first measure attempt. I do not believe I have ever suggested these events happened this time around, people like Ron make those insinuations. If I have, please provide examples and I will set the record straight.

I have repeatedly stated outside of having a couple of friends with a HF operation I have NO connection to any HF operation NOR am I receiving a "fee or renumeration" in any form from anyone associated with HF. You guys have to get over accusing everyone that opposes this measure of having a connection to HF. :eyeroll:

My memory may not be much better than yours but I believe I told you on FBO simply that I still had the PM you sent regarding why you are not involved in this measure partly because a sponsor had contact with someone from HSUS,and if you wanted proof I could send it to you. I did not claim as you state to have the "names" of anyone. If you want I can find the correspondence if you would really like to clear both our memories.

And finally I have never had a communication with you regarding who or what LT is or was. If you have proof of this, PM or anything, you have my permission to share it to prove your allegation.

What I am "making" out of this is just what you told me that I trusted as fact, in the first measure attempt someone from NDH for FC was in contact with HSUS nothing more nothing less. The same people are likely still involved in this measure That simple fact as TK mentions is enough for many hunters to have concerns over what is driving this group NDH for FC. I am NOT suggesting NDH for FC folks are HSUS members, simply questioning the wisdom of being so wrapped up in the passage of their measure they will be in contact with HSUS the nations leading antihunnting gruop to accomplish their agendas. Nothing more, nothing less. 
Now if you want, can we get back to discussing this measure? :wink: Perhaps hear from the sponsors as to theclaims they have made1 :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

I don't have room to save PM's that far back. Also, maybe it wasn't you, but one of those against the measure said "have you guessed who LT is yet? Jiggs says hi".

I think your reading to much into Roger talking with HSUS. That was one of the reasons I didn't sign on this year, but it was a minor one. The big reason is no one talked to me for an entire year, then they come and want me to sign on. Now that really ticks me off if all that they think I am worth is a signature. All that aside I still support what they are doing.

TK33 you talking about liberal ideas and slippery slope is the joke of the century after you voted for Obama. We are still not out of that mess. Now your going to give us advise on being conservative. You need to take that one on the road.  I don't know what to say other than it's the greatest flip flop in history that I have ever witnessed.


----------



## gst

Plainsman if you are not factually positive someone states something why would you post that they did? Some would think that is trying to "twist" things abit. :wink:

As I said if you believe a sponsor of this measure that gathered 8000 plus signatures himself in order to get this measure passed having contact with an anti hunting org that wants very much to see this measure pass a "slight mistake" many other hunters in this state see it as "slightly" more. 

So that we can get back to discussing this measure, any time the sponsors from this attempt want to jump in and defend the claims they have made regarding this measure I have pointed out them making, they are more than welcome to do so. :wink:


----------



## Chuck Smith

> TK, private property does not come with absolute rights. You point to tail docking as one example, but you cannot leave that tail docked dog out unsheltered with no food or water just because it is your property.


Ron you are correct. Are these operations leaving these animals uncared for? Are these animals starving? Are these animals getting treated in a cruel way? NOPE.



> many are now being bred for strickly antler growth.


Race horses are being breed for speed, Cattle are being breed for milk, fat content, etc. Hogs are being breed for lean meat,etc. All of these animals are being breed for something. Hunting dogs are being breed to pass on the genetics people want in a hunting dog. So what is the difference? All this group is seeing is antler envy. PERIOD.



> No thought to immune systems and what can happen if that animal does get into the wild herd and now is breeding.


I don't know anything about breed of these animals. But I am sure that more thought is going into the breed and cross genetics than you or I know about. Just like I mentioned above with cattle, hogs, horses, dogs, etc.



> With high fenced shooting the animals caged do escape the enclosure


So do dogs and go bite the neighbor kid, or breed the dogs in the neighborhoods. How about the cats that escape the house and breed all over. Things escape enclosure. If you are more worried about that. Then purpose more restrictions on double fences, higher fences, fence inspections, etc.


----------



## KurtR

Plainsman said:


> TK33 you talking about liberal ideas and slippery slope is the joke of the century after you voted for Obama. We are still not out of that mess. Now your going to give us advise on being conservative. You need to take that one on the road.  I don't know what to say other than it's the greatest flip flop in history that I have ever witnessed.


I did not vote for obama is it ok for me to say this is a liberal govt regulation that the people do not need. That might be just right in front of the guys that flip flop and make it up as they go along to fit just their small minded causes.


----------



## indsport

I heard the radio commercial by the NDFU and Farm Bureau opposing Measure 2 yesterday saying it was a private property rights issue. For posters on this thread who may belong to either group, explain to me how they could (and do) oppose my private property right to sell or donate land I own to Ducks Unlimited or any other non profit group? Seems to me they are talking out of both sides of their mouth about private property rights.


----------



## TK33

The difference is that you are talking about moving land from private hands into corporate hands. It is similar to zoning laws in an urban environment. The corporate farming laws have worked here for the most part, they have protected the little guy from being run over by corporate interests. Very important right now with the oil boom and ag markets. As corrupt as a lot of political hacks are nowadays we don't need any messing with these laws.

Measure 2 on the other hand not only effects property rights but it dictates what you can do with your privately owned livestock. The property rights to me is not as much of an issue as dictating what people do with animals they buy, breed, sell, butcher, etc. That is the ugly door that this has opened, and where I have the biggest problem with this. I referenced dogs to put this into a perspective that most people can understand. People would freak out if groups started trying to pass mandates on dogs, this is no different.



> TK33 you talking about liberal ideas and slippery slope is the joke of the century after you voted for Obama. We are still not out of that mess. Now your going to give us advise on being conservative. You need to take that one on the road. I don't know what to say other than it's the greatest flip flop in history that I have ever witnessed.


I was waiting for one of you to remind me of my now regretful Obama vote. Tells you how weak this measure is when a guy who voted for Obama won't support this now doesn't it????????????? :down:

All of you guys who are old, or should I say experienced enough to know better than to think that this type of legislation will just magically end with HF bans are dreaming.


----------



## indsport

But NDFU uses the same argument against a long term easement, not transfer of ownership. To me, private property rights are private property rights. Tell me again why I couldn't donate the land to DU?


----------



## TK33

For the entire reason or thought process you would have to ask the Governor.

DU is a corporation. A pretty big one at that. The reason would be anti-corporate farming laws.


----------



## gst

Holy crap TK you compared the anti corp.law to zoning laws. If Ron and swift don't jump all over you now!


----------



## TK33

Comparing zoning laws to corporate farming laws may not be the best example but it is the same in theory. Managing land/development for common interests. DU can't purchase or own land here because of precedence, then any group would have to be allowed to own land. At least that is my guess.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

TK the Corp farming laws where put in place after the Depression, back then banks and insurance companies held a lot of land and thus laws where passed to prevent them from holding the land after foreclosure for a specific period of time. Later on in the 70's laws where passed to restrict obtaining ownership by our own G&F and USFWS,COE etc... Now the second set of actions where designed with a so called safety net in place for conservation. That safety net was sold to all as chicken and it was tofu.

When voting members on the board have pat orders to oppose any sale to a non profit or the G&F regardless of merit and the Gov follows the vote almost all the time the system is corrupt at best. In Benson Cty a few years back one of the county commissioners voted to oppose the sale of land to DU, I do believe then bought the same land for $150.00 less an acre later on.

So pardon me for seeing these groups as hypocrites! GST is part of one of these organizations board. He is a mouth piece not a individual like you and I.


----------



## DG

Ron,

There were a lot of things created durring the dirty 30's. Ducks Unlimited, the Wildlife Society and the National Wildlife Federation were created. Back when they were never seriously funded. Nowadays they are lobbying Congress for 100 million to protect animal species from becoming endangered. In 2005 Sen. Byron Dorgan was on the subcommittee that granted them 70 million. Every year the US general treasury is beggared for more.

We need some protection for the working man who is fast becoming an endangered specie. The public sector is growing faster then free enterprize.

The wildlife society and the wildlife federation both endorse the FCI. Grass roots sportsmens organizations my arse!!!!

Ronnie, what do you think of the video and all the hard work I put into the habitats and conservation with my own nickle?


----------



## gst

Ron I have made it very clear, my communications and statements on these sites are mine and mine alone.

The NDSA of which I am proud to be a member of has a very long standing well respected reputation for honestly and fairly representing the wishes of the states cattlemen and women. It is a true grassroots organization whose policies are developed by is members and receive a great deal of consideration regarding their impacts to our industry and those families involved in it. We have realized the necessity to look at all issues with an open mind regarding our policies that are reveiwed on a contiueal basis. If groups or individuals have concerns regarding our policies the NDSA has always been willing to look at these concerns and consider if there is a way to address the ideologies and concerns in question with what is best for the future of the cattle industry, and those families that make their livings from it. We will continue to do so.

In so many words, it is not our responsibility to make sure you have more ducks to shoot or more places to hunt. It is our responsibility to protect and serve the people involved in the cattle industry, as a part of the agriculture industry which is and will remain one of the largest driving factors in the continued fiscal success and growth of this state and that impacts a large percentage of people living here in this state in one manner or another.

In regards to this measure I can tell you the NDSA as well as most of the states cattlemen and women have a variety of concerns with this issue ranging from property rights in infringing on the ability of producers to continue to raise and sell their privately owned domestic animals in accordance with all existing state laws regarding the humane treatment and health regulations, the opening of the door to animals rights groups furthering their platforms here in the state, a poorly written, vaguely intended law that opens the door to activist interpretation thru the courts, as well as a departure from the use of facts and truthful statements when advocating for and creating law here in our state.


----------



## Plainsman

> Ronnie, what do you think of the video and all the hard work I put into the habitats and conservation with my own nickle?


Lets get real here. That isn't conservation, that was simply trying to make an area look like a hunting area to people who shoot inside high fence. It was no different than a wheat farmer spraying his weeds. Dwight was doing something for his business. You guys make it sound like he was doing something for wildlife (habitat and conservation). In reality he was preparing his land in the same way any farmer would spray or dig weeds. A farmer takes care of his land with his own nickle also. Hmmm let see now they also told those farmers years ago that they couldn't use DDT anymore either. They should have played the heart strings from a landowner rights angle I guess.


----------



## TK33

Ron Gilmore said:


> No gst you and others supporters are claiming HSUS involvement with support from the FC sponsors in promoting Measure 2! Dick has posted that they are not involved with HSUS!!!!
> 
> So prove otherwise or simply shut up about it!!!!!!!!!!! Fact not fiction!


Looks like that Karen lady was collecting signatures for them Ron


----------



## TK33

Ron Gilmore said:


> TK the Corp farming laws where put in place after the Depression, back then banks and insurance companies held a lot of land and thus laws where passed to prevent them from holding the land after foreclosure for a specific period of time. Later on in the 70's laws where passed to restrict obtaining ownership by our own G&F and USFWS,COE etc... Now the second set of actions where designed with a so called safety net in place for conservation. That safety net was sold to all as chicken and it was tofu.
> 
> When voting members on the board have pat orders to oppose any sale to a non profit or the G&F regardless of merit and the Gov follows the vote almost all the time the system is corrupt at best. In Benson Cty a few years back one of the county commissioners voted to oppose the sale of land to DU, I do believe then bought the same land for $150.00 less an acre later on.
> 
> So pardon me for seeing these groups as hypocrites! GST is part of one of these organizations board. He is a mouth piece not a individual like you and I.


I am aware of the history of the corporate farming laws.

I agree there is some corruption in everything involving the goverment.

I also am pretty sure that if the governor lets one non profit buy land then he would have to let all non profits buy land. Like every type of government work, there can be no discrimination.

You want DU to be able to buy land, but you don't want Ted Turner or HSUS to be able to buy up huge parcels of land. You can't have both Ron, just like with Measure 2. You guys never think of the unintended consequences. You just want what is best for your agenda without thinking about the future or the rights of others.

Also, DU doesn't have the best track record with their land purchases. When DU chooses to get rid of their land it usually goes to big donors, some of whom are corporations.


----------



## Plainsman

I watched the video and wow those elk were sure wild. What kind of call works best on them? Rattle a bucket and call sooooooeeeeeee.


----------



## gst

So plainsman, why then would sponsor Gary Masching infer to the people he was trying to gather signatures from that these were "wild game" protected for public use by a constitutional amendment? You can't have it both ways, either they are tame privately owned domestic animals legally defined in the NDCC or they are "wild game" as claimed by Gary while telling the nonhunting public at the home and garden shows why they should sign his petition. So which are they?


----------



## jhegg

Gabe,
So, to ask you your own question:
Are these wild game animals suitable to be hunted? ( as implied in the HF advertisements) or are they " domesticated animals" as you state they are and that no "hunter" in his right mind would want to shoot and call it a "hunt"?
Jim


----------



## gst

Jim I can't answer for anyone else, see I believe everyone has the right to make that determination on their own. But for me, if you recall I have said many times that HF would not give me personally what I need to take from the experience. And yet you continueally try to peg me as a supporter of HF. :eyeroll: I'mmerely an opponent of your measure for a variety of reasons.

Dick, Jim, any of you sponsors. Here is a quote from a Tribune article back in 2007 regarding your first failed attempt and a glimpse into the personal veiws of your attorney Mr. Germolus.

www.bismarcktribune.com/.../article_466 ... f4822.html -

[Roger Kaseman, of Linton, who is chairman of the initiative campaign, could not be reached immediately for comment.

Paul Germolus, a Bismarck attorney who is representing the initiative committee, said in a letter to Jaeger that the measure "is designed to end the unethical practice of shooting exotic and native game animals trapped inside fenced enclosures."

"The pursuit of captive game animals does not equate to 'hunting' in any sense of the word," Germolus' letter says. "Rather, it is the mere shooting of killing of animals that lack any means of escape. More aptly described as 'canned shooting,' the practice defies long-standing principles of fair chance and ethical hunting]

Regardless of the list of his involvement in ag and wildlife law for the AG's office, it is clear where his ideologies lie,and who better to know the ins and outs of why you guys should not answer any questions on this measure to shed a light on it's true intent or how it should be worded and where it should be put to accomplish the true intent of this measure.


----------



## DG

Retired Federal Agent Plainsman said,



> Lets get real here. That isn't conservation, that was simply trying to make an area look like a hunting area to people who shoot inside high fence. It was no different than a wheat farmer spraying his weeds. Dwight was doing something for his business. You guys make it sound like he was doing something for wildlife (habitat and conservation). In reality he was preparing his land in the same way any farmer would spray or dig weeds. A farmer takes care of his land with his own nickle also. Hmmm let see now they also told those farmers years ago that they couldn't use DDT anymore either. They should have played the heart strings from a landowner rights angle I guess.


Bruce, I planted the trees ten years before I ever heard of "Farmed Elk". The reality is that I am very conservation minded. Farmed elk are the animal that I was looking for to best use marginal land. It is hilly, clay on the high ground, sand in the middle and mud in the low areas. I rent some that is relatively level. Pure sand. There is a fence completely buried on the section line from the dirty 30's.

I do not want to farm the mailbox like your buddy Dick Monson. Dick has lifted almost $300,000 dollars off the taxpayers in the form of crop subsidies, has land in CRP and then triple dips by renting to the Game and Fish in the form of PLOTS. He gets paid to let people hunt on his land. In some peoples minds he is a good guy. Anyone can hunt his land, but what is the real cost to all taxpayers?

My domestic elk operation is standing on its own. No subsidies. Did I break rank? Did I step out of the socialist line? Do you feel that I need to be commanded back into line? Is free enterprise dead?


----------



## DG

Retired Federal Agent Plainsman said,



> I watched the video and wow those elk were sure wild. What kind of call works best on them? Rattle a bucket and call sooooooeeeeeee.


I don't want my elk cows to be too wild. Sometimes they get porcupine quills, cuts after a severe lightning storm, and a handful of other natural pitfalls that can happen. When you have livestock you are going to have deadstock. I spend a lot of time with them. They know me and my voice. When someone strange comes around they move off. They are well cared for.

So tell me something. When you were a federal agent and designed the original salamander trap, what kind of call did you use?
Was it a bucket style trap? Did you whisper sooooooeeeee? As you can tell, I'm spoofing your childishness.

Plainsman, how old are you now?


----------



## Plainsman

I think you got my point DG. I was not just being a jerk. I'll bet if you shake a pail of grain they will come. The animals are not wild enough to provide a real hunt. Or maybe I should say inside an enclosure they can not provide a real hunt. Many say don't call it hunting. I wonder over the years if you were not offered this option. My experienced guess would be you laughed them out of the room.

I am glad your elk are well cared for. I would expect no less. Ranchers care about there cattle also. They were not just money to me when we had 100 herefords on the farm. Ya, I know your not a rancher if you don't have 1000 cattle.


----------



## LT

Plainsman,

I would like to challenge you to get close to one of those "tame" animals. I am over there a lot, and there is no way I will get inside the fence with one of them.

If these hunts were not challenging, I can guarantee you these facilities would not be around too long.

And I will say it again and again and again, why do you guys care (or should I say not care) that someone who is elderly with cancer, emphysema, COPD, missing limbs, a dying child with leukemia, double lung transplant, etc. would take enjoyment in harvesting an animal in this manner! Hunting is about the experience someone takes from it. I know for a fact that Dwight's clients are 85% in this category.

Oh, I forgot you are so much more ethical than any of these people. :eyeroll:


----------



## DG

Retired Federal Agent Plainsman said,



> I am glad your elk are well cared for. I would expect no less. Ranchers care about there cattle also. They were not just money to me when we had 100 herefords on the farm. Ya, I know your not a rancher if you don't have 1000 cattle.


See, now there you go with your division again. When you were on the farm 100 head was a bunch. Try to make a living today with 100 head. Those days are gone. My dad had 480 acres and a dairy herd. He couldn't figure out why I didn't take it over. Look around, there are no dairies left.

Shouldn't be too much longer you are on nodakouthouse defending some animal rights group to ban ranchers from having 1000 head.


----------



## Plainsman

> Shouldn't be too much longer you are on nodakouthouse defending some animal rights group to ban ranchers from having 1000 head


.

I don't care if you have 5000 head. As a matter of fact I hope they find oil on your land and you become wealthy. Good for you, you have ranched and worked hard for years it would be good if you woke up tomorrow a millionaire.

I watched that video and I think I recognize you. Huntn1 and I were bow hunting out west in the 1980,s and talked with a guy who was out spraying their elk. He had 60 bull elk in a small pen and they were spraying them to keep the flies off after cutting off their antlers. The Oriental market paid a lot more for antlers in velvet so they had cut the antlers off while they were still in velvet. Unfortunately the nerves and blood supply are still plentiful while in velvet. These bull were rubbing on each other and blood from one end to the other. They had to spray them to keep the flies off until they healed.

If that was you we have met. We talked for about 1/2 hour that day.


----------



## gst

So it appears this has been a form of raising domestic livestock for 30 plus years! It also seems that allowing these animals to retain their horns and be harvested humanely might indeed be a more "ethical" option! :wink: Otherwise your point is what? Plainsman, did you ever "dehorn" one of your Herefords? Or were they "genetically modified" already to have the horns removed thru controled breeding? :wink:


----------



## LT

I think you need to rewatch the video. Dwight did not have any elk in the 80s.


----------



## gst

LT, do not let little things like facts interfer with the supporters and sponsors claims! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

Heck I don't know if it's the same guy or not. The antler ranch that we seen was just south of the road between Rhame and Marmarth. I have no idea where the guy in the video is from.

gst, the antler thing has no bearing on anything. I only remember it because Boy Scouts were collecting shed antlers at Jackson Hole about the same time. I was a scoutmaster so that was interesting to me. I simply mentioned this is where I seen elk before and thought it might be the same guy. Just guessing. You always have to make something of something when there is no underlying devious plot. You better check under your bed for monsters before you go to sleep.

You know what? You guys would actually look like fellow sportsmen if once in a while you posted in the duck hunting, walleye fishing, rifle, handgun, form or any other form. All your doing here is protecting your interests, which apparently has nothing to do with hunting. Doesn't that appear strange to anyone else?


----------



## gst

Plainsman, My bed sets directly on the floor, so no worries there. If you guys actually could post something on this issue without insinuating some wild claim such as Dick infering if waterfowlers do not support this measure they will have no place to hunt here in ND, people wouldn't read things into your posts on this topic.

Now, when did you start to be able to determine who are "sportsmen" ? I have repeatedly stated I have no connection to ANY HF, and yet you continue to claim I am "protecting my interests" . You know who I am and what I do. Once again, I have no interest in any HF operation.

I have made it clear that one of my "interests" I am protecting is the ability for an individual to determine what they must take from the experience to call it hunting rather than a group of egotistical arrogant eliteists that believe they should be the ones determininng it for them. It seems as many other "sportsmen" feel that way as well considering the small percentage that were willing to sign your petitions.

So continue to hoodwink the nonhunting public into thinking you are "sportsmen" representing the hunting community rather than an egotistical personal agenda, and this measure is about "ethics" but most in the hunting community know better. Perhaps if the sponsors of this measure would actually answer any questions it would shed a little light onto this measure. :wink: .


----------



## Plainsman

> group of egotistical arrogant eliteists


So is that what you think of the sportsmen who went to their representatives and ask that bag limits be put on game species. Is that what you think of the sportsmen that went to their state and asked that spotlighting game species be outlawed. Laws have to be put in place sometimes. I would guess the old boys with punt guns were against bag limits too. They perhaps called sportsmen egotistical arrogant elitists. They made their buck of market hunting. Today we have an emerging mentality of market hunters again.



> You know who I am and what I do.


Your right I had forgotten that. Of course anyone can be anything they want on the internet. However, I do believe you have been honest with me in your PM's. When all this smoke clears, and you as a rancher ever find yourself in a pinch with the animal rights people rest assured I will support you even though we have given each other much grief on this form. Please understand that I may need some reminding ----- again. I am sure you will keep this post as a reminder.


----------



## gst

> group of egotistical arrogant eliteists


plainsman


> So is that what you think of the sportsmen who went to their representatives and ask that bag limits be put on game species. Is that what you think of the sportsmen that went to their state and asked that spotlighting game species be outlawed. Laws have to be put in place sometimes. I would guess the old boys with punt guns were against bag limits too. They perhaps called sportsmen egotistical arrogant elitists. They made their buck of market hunting. Today we have an emerging mentality of market hunters again.
> 
> 
> 
> plainsman the difference that you do not seem to be understanding is that those things you speak of delt with wild game and were done to protect populations of wild game. This measure, no matter how hard you may wish, or how many times sponsors tell signers that these are "wild game" is aimed directly at domestic animals. They are legally defined domestic animals. If you understood that perhaps you can see where those of us in the business of raising domestic animals for a living could have an issue over several aspects of this measure.
> 
> Plainsman, please answer this one question, do you believe you or anyone else should have the right to tell someone else what they need to take from the experience to call it hunting? I'm not trying to be a smart a$$ here, I really would like to hear your answer to this question, because to me that is what this is all about and why I used the adjectives and discription I did you quoted.
Click to expand...


----------



## DG

Retired federal agent Plainsman said,



> I watched that video and I think I recognize you. Huntn1 and I were bow hunting out west in the 1980,s and talked with a guy who was out spraying their elk. He had 60 bull elk in a small pen and they were spraying them to keep the flies off after cutting off their antlers. The Oriental market paid a lot more for antlers in velvet so they had cut the antlers off while they were still in velvet. Unfortunately the nerves and blood supply are still plentiful while in velvet. These bull were rubbing on each other and blood from one end to the other. They had to spray them to keep the flies off until they healed.
> 
> If that was you we have met. We talked for about 1/2 hour that day.


This is just ridicules and shows how little you know about agriculture. Older bulls start regrowth of a new set of antlers in the spring much sooner then the younger ones. They don't all mature at the same time so they are not cut or harvested on the same day. If that rancher had 60 bulls it may take a month or more to go through them all. Some days two or three, some days none. Myself, I use a hydraulic shute. Cut them off by myself. No helpers needed. Put some horn powder on and that's it. Fly spray is optional. Some run out, some walk. They heal immediately because it calcifies.

Anyway, maybe Plainsman you missed your calling in life. Instead of a federal agent you should have been a storyteller. You can think up some doozies.

Another thing, You know I'm from Hazen, you posted it on this site more than once.

The harvest of velvet antler happens in May and June, what were you hunting?


----------



## Plainsman

> Another thing, You know I'm from Hazen, you posted it on this site more than once.
> 
> The harvest of velvet antler happens in May and June, what were you hunting?


Maybe I knew you were from Hazen at one time, but I have more things to remember than where your from.

Also, I don't remember why I was out around Rhame, but the only reason I can think of is hunting. They were not just harvesting velvet, they cut the antler off leaving about one inch above the skull plate. I only believe what that rancher told me. Back in those days archery season started in August. I have some antlers in velvet from early bow seasons.


----------



## DG

Retired federal agent Plainsman said,



> They were not just harvesting velvet, they cut the antler off leaving about one inch above the skull plate.


Wrong again. There is a peticle above the skull plate. A person wants to cut above that because if you cut into the peticle the bull won't make another antler.

Retired federal agent Plainsman said,



> I have some antlers in velvet from early bow seasons.


Wrong again. The antler must be cut off when it is making its 4th tine in May or June. After that it begins to calcify. The buyers won't buy it period. The bow season antlers you have from August wouldn't sell period.

Do you have anymore wild stories you would like to tell? Kaseman and Monson have a hard time telling the truth and now I see why you fit right in.


----------



## Plainsman

Well DG all I can tell you is the guy had these bull elk in a pen and all of them were sporting stumps where antlers had been and he was dusting them to keep flies off. If I knew who he was I would give you his name so you could go call him an idiot. What was the market like in 1982 or 83, or 84 if I could remember the year I would give you that information also. All I know is that the guy said he was going for maximum weight while still in velvet. I guess that's the way they did it 30 years ago. Remember selling antlers to the Oriental nations was a new thing back them. We always talk about thinking outside the box. Your thinking in a box constructed of contemporary harvest/sales.

Also DG, I don't think I ever post where anyone is from. When things get heated and people post personal information they are simply in the hopes others will cause them problems. I would feel terrible if some idiot shot one of your deer, or cut your fence, as I am sure you would not feel good if someone shot out my windows etc. I don't give out names, I don't give out places of employment, I don't give out addresses. Lets face it people who do are simply people who wish others misery, and bad fortune.


----------



## LeDoux79

You go a head and pass measure 2 and see how that works out for you. I am a land owner, I own many quarters of land. I paid for them. I pay the taxes and I work this land. If the good people of North Dakota feel that they want to tell me what I can and can not do on my land - a very simple thing is going to happen. I will be the only person hunting on it. Others will follow this idea and if you think it is hard to find a place to hunt, you just wait until Jo Rancher shuts down every hunting chance you could have had. The only hunting will be on public lands - have fun with that!

So think about those hunting relationships you have now and think about how they will be in the future when if Measure 2 passes.


----------



## DG

Retired federal agent Plainsman said,



> Well DG all I can tell you is the guy had these bull elk in a pen and all of them were sporting stumps where antlers had been and he was dusting them to keep flies off. If I knew who he was I would give you his name so you could go call him an idiot.


Sporting stumps where antlers had been? Does that bother you? Would you like to see it stopped? Would you partner with HSUS and PETA to stop it, including taildocking, branding, dehorning, shearing, castrating, roping, headgating of any animal in a pen?



> Also DG, I don't think I ever post where anyone is from. When things get heated and people post personal information they are simply in the hopes others will cause them problems. I would feel terrible if some idiot shot one of your deer, or cut your fence, as I am sure you would not feel good if someone shot out my windows etc. I don't give out names, I don't give out places of employment, I don't give out addresses. Lets face it people who do are simply people who wish others misery, and bad fortune.


You are not fooling anyone. Everyone knows about your anti landowner bias.


----------

