# Fair Chase



## RogerK

Secretary of State approved the Fair Chase Measure today.

13,860 people signed the petition.

13,860 peopla can't be wrong.

Measure 2.

How sweet it is!

Dwight, how do you like me now?

Roger Kaseman


----------



## Dak

Sweet!


----------



## FowlBoysInc

Nice comment Roger,you sure are one class act.!!!! uke:


----------



## KurtR

Just like any other liberal dont like some thing lets ban it and try and f'up hunting and the outdoors in the long run.


----------



## KEN W

KurtR said:


> Just like any other liberal dont like some thing lets ban it and try and f'up hunting and the outdoors in the long run.


Weak argument......I really could care less if some yahoo wants to pay 1,000's of dollars to shoot a domesticated animal.But Canned Shooting has no more to do with hunting than shooting someone's cow in a pasture.So lets not call it hunting.

Is there really anyone who thinks banning this practice will affect the future of hunting?????? :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## LT

Ken,

Let me ask you this. Because you think that it MAY affect the future of hunting in North Dakota, do you think that it is your right to take someone's legal business away from them without compensating them? Is this the way we want government to work? Do we want initiative processes used in this manner, especially when it becomes a personal vendetta!


----------



## Ref

Ken can speak for himself, but I will weigh in on this topic.

I will say from the top that I agree with the Fair Chase Measure. However, Roger's comment to Dwight at the top of this page is not needed. Roger, this is not the place to air your personal conflicts with people from the opposite side of the Fair Chase Measure. It would be nice if you deleted that line from your post because it only fuels the fire and makes it harder to have an objective approach to an answer.

The iniative process is doing exactly as it was intended to do. The people of ND will now decide if high fence, canned shooting should be allowed in the state.

One more thing.....I have followed the threads and comments about this issue for a long time. It ALWAYS get personal, and gets off topic. I will not be caught in this web.


----------



## AdamFisk

Ref said:


> It would be nice if you deleted that line from your post because it only fuels the fire and makes it harder to have an objective approach to an answer..


I would imagine a few of the sponsors probably agree with you on that, at least 1 or 2 of them that hang around here anyways, I don't know......Either way, deleting the comment now won't do any good, as it's already posted on Fishing Buddy and posted in another thread on this site.

It just reinforces the fact that this has been turned into a "personal vendetta", and comments such as the one above may cause a person to reconsider whether or not this Roger Kaseman guy is the best guy to have creating laws for ND.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Weak argument......I really could care less if some yahoo wants to pay 1,000's of dollars to shoot a domesticated animal.But Canned Shooting has no more to do with hunting than shooting someone's cow in a pasture.So lets not call it hunting.
> 
> Is there really anyone who thinks banning this practice will affect the future of hunting??????


Ken....and others. If you could care less if someone will pay the $$$ then why ban the business? If you are worried about people calling it "hunting" then make restrictions on advertising. Other business and industries have to adhere to strict advertising laws....why not this one?

Then if you think that banning this practice has no affect on hunting.....then why ban it?


----------



## blhunter3

Because penned in shooting is what the anti's have started focusing in their attacks towards it.

There have been other states who banned it and nothing bad has happened to them, has it?


----------



## LT

Blhunter,

Most states that have bans or restrictions have made those BEFORE game farms were established and promoted by the state. Montana is the only one as far as I know that used an initiated process to get rid of high fence hunting and the transfer of their business to another party, even willing it to their children, without any form of compensation to the businesses.

Now, from what I am hearing, their are attempts in Montana to use the initiated process to ban other forms of hunting. Initiated measures are loved by the antis as their means to step by step take away forms of hunting.

Do we really want to use the initiated measure to take away businesses without compensation? Do we really want to use initiated measures to take away forms of hunting or to take away forms of agriculture?

I believe we will have Mr. Kaseman to thank for creating the "mold" in how to go about using the initiated measure to accomplish just that. When one person can collect approximately 8500 signatures by themselves, I have to wonder where we are headed with the creation of laws!


----------



## AdamFisk

I believe Montanan's just endured a hell of a fight to keep their right to trap on public grounds, via initiated measure.

Here is the anti's website.
http://www.mttrapfree.org/

Kinda shares a similar tone to another website, doesn't it?????


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Because penned in shooting is what the anti's have started focusing in their attacks towards it.
> 
> There have been other states who banned it and nothing bad has happened to them, has it?


So making it illegal to advertise penned shooting or high fence operators from using the word "hunting" will make it so anti's can't call it "hunting". So hunting will not have anything to worry about. When an anti starts to spout off about High fence operations calling it hunting...anyone can just point to it and say....it is not hunting show me where in the advertising it is hunting? Agruement is over! It is like if I said that brown soda in a glass is pepsi....you tell me it is coke. I have an a leg to stand on. But if you have an open can of coke sitting right there. I really don't have a leg to stand on in the arguement. The old saying if it walks like and duck, quack likes a duck.....must be a duck. If you call it penned shooting, they advertise it as shooting, all it is is shooting.


----------



## People

I bet less than 100 citizens in ND that actualy hunt in ND. Most just sit there untill something comes past them they can shoot or they walk up to something they can shoot. In any case either way is not really hunting.


----------



## blhunter3

I fully understand what your saying about my arguement, but both sides of this arguement have good and bad points, so much so that I believe that neither side is right and neither side is wrong.

The hunter in me wants this passed because shooting an animal in a pen isn't hunting, its stricly shooting. If you want meat go to a store.

The future land in me doesn't want this passed because I dislike the fact someone is controlling what you are doing on your land.

If all they did was change the advertising to "penned in hunts", I would approve of that, but I think its way to late to meet somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> I fully understand what your saying about my arguement, but both sides of this arguement have good and bad points, so much so that I believe that neither side is right and neither side is wrong.
> 
> The hunter in me wants this passed because shooting an animal in a pen isn't hunting, its stricly shooting. If you want meat go to a store.
> 
> The future land in me doesn't want this passed because I dislike the fact someone is controlling what you are doing on your land.
> 
> If all they did was change the advertising to "penned in hunts", I would approve of that, but I think its way to late to meet somewhere in the middle.


Good post... and that is where lies the problem. To let you know it is alot easier to change advertising than it is to ban an industry.

This ban will also hurt or get rid of elk farming.....unless the law is written different than what I have seen. Because what I have read is that this "ban" will make it unlawful to kill animals in an enclosure if it is done by someone other than the owner. Or you can't sell the animal to be shot by someone else in an enclosure.....So now the owner of Elk farms will now have to become butchers. Because they cant sell the elk to a butcher or processer who will kill them in an enclosure (kill Chute). Or the animals will have to be killed then shipped to processing. Which will cost more $$$.


----------



## blhunter3

Just a question, how many elk farmers are there in the state? And does anyone know if they rely solely on elk for their income or is it just part?


----------



## Chuck Smith

I don't know how accurate this is....but this site lists 98 of them.

http://www.ndaglinks.com/elkranch.htm

There could be more or less. I have no clue. But I am sure others can shed a light on this.


----------



## blhunter3

Alot more then I would have guessed, but now to find out if elk are their primary income.


----------



## Hunter_58346

The list hasnt been updated in awhile, the Wageman operation hasnt existed for at least 5 yerars!


----------



## FowlBoysInc

I would have to guess that the majority of these farms on the list raise elk,but have nothing to do with the HF part of this industry.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Gabe or Dwight....please chime in with how many people raise elk, buffalo, deer in the state of ND.


----------



## gst

Chuck I really don't know the answer to that, but I do believe there aremore people raising elk that are not involved in the HF deal than are. But remember selling "hunts" for buffalo within a fence are not included in this measure as apparently shooting a buffalo behind a fence and calling it and advertising it as hunting is not an ethical concern to these protectors of hunnting! :roll:

Bl, One thing to consider is the fact this law (claiming these animals are "big game")will be included in Sec 36 of the NDCC. This Section currently defines these animals as "domestic animals and farmed elk" there will have to be a reclassificaion of these animals if this measure is to be effective. If these animals are reclassified as "big game" if this measure passes they will then fall under the juristiction of the Federal Lacey Act which prohibits the sale of big game animals in accordance with state law. This state law is written to specifically make it illegal for an individual to receive a fee or renumeration for the killing of a "big game animal" raised or released from a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape (no mention of hunting) which the Federal Lacey Act will include the sale of these now classified "big game animals" even for butcher purposes. Roger Kaseman even hinted to this in the HF Frey thread himself. Now that it is on the ballot perhaps someone will come forth with a little honesty about why this is included in the agriculture Sec. of the NDCC rather than the G&F Sec. that regulates "big game". :wink: Yeah right


----------



## DG

There are exactly 64 elk growers, 15 deer growers and 10 who raise both. Some are quite small and only have a few animals. Each and everyone of them perform some sort of cull, harvest or sale of excess animals for meat, food and/or fiber. Anyone can go to their local area farmer and pick out a nice healthy animal. Some people perfer to go this route instead of buying over the counter from a slaughterhouse.

In Canada this option has been taken from the people. They cannot do an on farm slaughter. No sheep no pigs no beef. It is banned. The law says the animal "must" go through an approved kill facility.

This measure should not be planted into the Livestock section of the NDCC. It could prove to be a virus someday down the road.


----------



## AdamFisk

So help me understand what you're saying gst. If this measure passes the livestock will be re named to "big game", therfore, renaming all elk raised in a pasture, be it for canned shooting or meat? Furthermore, once they are all renamed to "big game", the Lacey Act will prohibit an elk farmer from legalling selling a cow elk to somebody for butcher????

So more than the 12 HF operations in the state will be affected by this? You can basically add the approx 100 families on the above list to people affected by this initiative, is that correct?


----------



## zogman

Time out Please

Now that the issue will be on the ballot you are not going to change the minds of most whether for or against.

Please leave it go till after the vote then the winning team (not the correct words) can come back and go

Nana nana boo boo oke: :bop: and start this up all over again uke:


----------



## AdamFisk

zogman said:


> Time out Please
> 
> Now that the issue will be on the ballot you are not going to change the minds of most whether for or against.
> 
> Please leave it go till after the vote then the winning team (not the correct words) can come back and go
> 
> Nana nana boo boo oke: :bop: and start this up all over again uke:


Lots of time to educate people on what all is going to be affected by this, and what potentially could be affected by this. I don't know about you, but I'd like to be informed as possible. Often times though, that requires wading through a heap of BS, especailly regarding this topic.


----------



## AdamFisk

DG said:


> This measure should not be planted into the Livestock section of the NDCC. It could prove to be a virus someday down the road.


Would you mind elaborating on this? I'm sorry, I'm no rancher and don't pay much attention to the livestock industry.


----------



## KEN W

Where did I say I was in favor of banning canned hunting????I said I didn't care,but don't call it something it isn't. We don't call shooting a cow out in the pasture hunting.....same thing.


----------



## TK33

The problem Adam is precedence. This could open some real ugly doors for PETA and HSUS type nut jobs in this country that want to impose their tree hugging no brains no headaches will on all of us. Lawsuits, injunctions, and any other assortment of BS could realistically become possible with the passage. Hello 9th circuit federal court.

The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. The fact that there is at the very least a correlation between Kaseman and the groups that are public enemy #1 to the state of ND, not just hunters, is just pathetic.

With all due respect Zogman, this issue should not go away, it should be out in the public until election day. There are a lot of questions and issues that need to be addressed so people can see for themselves what this issue is about and who is involved.

I don't like canned shooting either but I would rather see some advertising regulations and specs than an all out ban.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

tk with all due respect you and others that say this seem to think that they will only attempt such actions if this passes! That is a load of BS! PETA,HSUS and groups like them go after anything they feel they can, be it bear hunting in MA or cougar hunting in CA or KFC for that matter. Banning of canned shooting operations actually will reduce the risk of HSUS or PETA getting a foothold in ND to affect our hunting and fishing heritage. It is closed minded thinking and not paying attention to the reality that the non hunting public which will decide on any vote anywhere whom they will back. If hunters side with canned shooting it give the impression that we endorse this type of activity to the non hunting voters. Look at the most recent polls done by Sports Afield, when fair chase hunting is given as an option it garners 70+ % of support from non hunting. It almost takes a 180 degree turn in support when canned shooting is presented.


----------



## TK33

Actually Ron I realize that these groups are already doing this!

Reread what I said about precedence! I know that you are familiar with this! This group could very easily, all be it unintentionally screw farmers, ranchers, hobby farmers, 4H, and the like!

I have relatives in other parts of the country, I am well aware of the non hunting public thinks!

I know a guy that has a hobby farm and raises a few elk among other things! He is very concerned about this measure!

Introducing legislation without adressing unintended consequences is close minded if you ask me!

Now I am going bowhunting for the first time before someone tries to ban that too!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

tk, the pro canned shooters are intentionally trying to raise unfounded concerns in an attempt to confuse people like those you mentioned. Simply as it is written does not affect the raising of elk, the selling for slaughter of elk,horns,hide nor anything to do with raising them as a domestic livestock such as an Angus cow or a horse for that matter. It does however stop the practice of selling canned shooting of such animals as hunting!!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing more! GST and others keep bringing up bison but as I have been told, bison are not classified as a big game animal and as such will not be subject to this. Right or wrong it was the path they chose to take in drafting this.

I have been a supporter of banning canned hunting, but the last time this was attempted I chose not to support the drive after reading and understanding that the bill as written would have affected those hobby operations as well as those who have established outside markets for elk and deer meat. The drafters took great care in making sure the wording and intent did not do that this time around.

As far as precedence, our state already has precedence in regards to hunting when we overwhelmingly passed the state constitutional right to hunt and fish! We heard the same BS then from opponents that by passing it, it would open us up to lawsuits and such from PETA and HSUS etc... again closed minded thinking!

The proponents of canned shooting only have the scare tactics of trying to convince Ag producers that somehow this bill has hidden roadblocks in it that will threaten livestock producers and the like. It will not and in fact will provide a added layer of protection in reducing the risk of a disease spreading animal from being imported regardless of the laws already on the books.


----------



## LT

Wording of the measure last go round can be found here: http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/electio ... 272007.pdf

Wording of the measure this time can be found here: http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/electio ... 090821.pdf

Wording of the measure for both: The measure says "A person (doesn't say owner) is guilty... if the person (doesn't say owner) obtains fees from another person (doesn't say hunter of course, could be the owner or other buyer) for the killing (does not say hunting) of privately owned big game species (doesn't say farmed elk or deer) or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape ( a kill chute or slaughter house would certainly qualify).


----------



## Ron Gilmore

lt again this is exactly what I just said to TK as to attempts to make claims not in play! The Leg will be charged with writing the language and rules for this measure if it passes. Your claim is not accurate.


----------



## gst

Adam, In the HF Frey thread I asked Roger Kaseman himself how this measure would prevent someone from selling a live elk to someone, getting a bill of sale for a live animal and then that person killing the elk he now owns. Roger Kaseman himself was the one that claimed the Federal Lacey Act would prevent that( he refers to the Lacey Act on page 7 of that thread). The Federal Lacey Act can be used if a state law is applicable. The Federal Lacey Act prohibits the sale of "big game animals". This measure does not mention hunting but rather is worded so that anyone receiving a fee or renumeration for the killing of a "big game animal" animal in or released from a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape is in violation of this measure. So if I go to a person that raises elk and buy an elk to slaughter am I in violation of that?

If these animals are indeed "big game" as the sponsors are claiming, why is this measure regulating what is basically the slaughter of them included in the animal ag sector of the NDCC Section 36 rather than the G&F section that regulates "big game"????

The answer is that if it was not included in this Section 36, (animal ag) the definition and classification of these animals could remain the same (domestic animals" and "farmed elk") in this Section and the Federal Lacey Act would not be applicable because of this classification and definition. If the Federal Lacey Act does not aply, the individual would be ableto sell these animals to another personto kill. As it is included in a Section that already has a contradicting definition of these animals, the legislature will have to address this as there can not remain opposing definitions in the NDCC. So If the Federal Lacey Act prohibits the sale of "big game animals" and "domestic animals" and "farmed elk" are reclassified as "big game animals " as intended by this measure, how can anyone sell any elk here in ND?????????

Dispite these animals are clearly and legally defined and classified as privately owned "domestic animals" and "farmed elk" (livestock) in the NDCC, Gary Masching, a sponsor, admits to having told potential signers of the petition these are "wild game animals" that fall under the coverage of Art. 1, Sec 27 which defines "public game animals in the Dakota Country article.

Regardless of what Ron claims his lack of involvement in the animal ag industry apparently prevents him from understanding some of the issues this measure has the potential to cause within the animal ag industry regarding on farm slaughter because of another Federal Act titled the Humane Slaughter Act TK is spot on in his comments regarding precedence. The anti animal ag groups have learned they can be much more successful in accomplishing their agendas by geting their foot in the doot and then using one judge that may have the same ideologies as them to further their agendas. There are many examples of thisthruout this country.

Besides, although Ron refuses to answer these questions
1. should ND law be based on factual truth?
2 should the sponsors of any measure be held to a standard of truth?

I believe the answers are yes. And the sponsors of this measure have strayed far from these simple standards.


----------



## LT

*Ron Stated:*


> I have been a supporter of banning canned hunting, but the last time this was attempted I chose not to support the drive after reading and understanding that the bill as written would have affected those hobby operations as well as those who have established outside markets for elk and deer meat. *The drafters took great care in making sure the wording and intent did not do that this time around.*


If the wording is exactly the same on the old measure and the new, please explain your above statement?


----------



## gst

Ron read Roger Kasemans comments regarding the Federal Lacey Act in the thread he started. Regardless how the state legislature writes this statue if it successfully passes. If these animals are classified as "big game" the Federal Lacey Act will trump state law and the sale of these newly calssified "big game animals" will be in violation of the Federal Lacey Act. That is a "claim in play" the sponsor of this measure Roger Kaseman made himself.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst again BS!!!!!You know full well that this measure will not affect on farm slaughter of traditional livestock nor even elk or deer if it is being sold as meat and not as a hunt. So cry,wave the BS flag all you want, but it simply is not accurate to make the claims you are. If they are valid then site the source of opinion because the petition was drafted to avoid just exactly what you have tried to claim. The previous bill was not worded correctly and as a result even people like myself would not have voted for it had it made the ballot.


----------



## LT

*Ron Stated:*


> The previous bill was not worded correctly and as a result even people like myself would not have voted for it had it made the ballot.


Please explain what was not worded correctly in the original measure. If you look at the links I posted the wording is the same.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

LT as stated before the Leg will be charged with setting the rules. The wording as it is written from my understanding is done so to allow the Leg to enact rules and regulations they will be charged with by state law to deal with. The previous bill as it was written is not the exact language in its entirety. Some areas and passages very well may be. But your claim is without merit.

GST this issue has been dealt with by the courts concerning elk, deer etc. and you know full well it has. You are simply trying to make claims that are not founded nor accurate. 
You are spouting a talking point without merit designed to confuse and scare people into thinking this bill is more than it is and does more than it will.


----------



## gst

Ron Read Rogers statement on page 7 of the other thread defining the Lacey Act and tell us how this measure as worded with these animals being classified in this potential state law as "big game" and someone receiving a "fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal in or released from a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape" will not allow the Federal Lacey Act to be interpreted when I pay someone a "fee or "renumeration" for an elk I slaughter/kill for meat without forcing that person to take this animal to a Federally inspected slaughter plant rather than simply killing it a pen and butchering it myself if they are even allowed to sell (receive a fee or renumeration) an animal intended to be killed that was raised in a man made enclosure???

Now with your limited understanding of the Federal Humane Slaughter Act, tell me why this is not a concern to many ofthe states animal ag enterprises that sell animals to be butchered thru the local non federally inspected butcher plant directly off the farm or ranch. Remember now these HF operations are defined by state law as an animal agriculture enterprise regardless of what you may think. And if this measure can stop the on farm slaughter of these agricuture animals, why is it not plausible the on farm slaughter of another agriculture animal may not be stopped as well if a precedence is set? At the very least it will give the anti animal ag groups an in to attempt it. `Are you familiar with the horse slaughter industry in this country????? Regardless of what the legislature may write, this law will likely end up in court with a judicial ruling interpreting it.

When you are done there, please explain why this measue is placed in the animal ag secion of the NDCC when it is "big game " that is being regulated in it?????

Then explain why Gary Masching would claim these animals are wild game protected under article 11 section 27 of the NDCC, when they are seperately clearly defined as domestic animals in section 36 of the NDCC?

If you can not directly answer these questions perhaps you have nothing more to add to the debate as you said on another site! :wink:


----------



## LT

Okay Ron,

Are you saying we the people will be voting on something that we do not see in its entirety? What am I missing here?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

GST again you face the same issues regardless of whether this bill is passed or not, so you can twist, whine and blow all you want!

LT you also are trying to spin this and it will not fly! Voters will be voting on the intent of the legislation, which is to ban canned shooting arenas. The Leg as per our state Constitution will set and make the rules with the intent of the law to enact it. Each and every law passed via the ballot box and petition drive is dealt with in the same manner. The entirety as you say is never known and cannot be. However the full intent of the law is without doubt. Which is to ban HF shooting operations!!!!!


----------



## gst

Ron,
1. Will the Federal Lacey Act be apart of this or not?
2.Will I be able to sell a live animal(elk) to an individual that then kills that animal he now owns himself?


----------



## LT

Okay Ron, one more time:

*Ron Stated: *


> I have been a supporter of banning canned hunting, but the last time this was attempted I chose not to support the drive after reading and understanding that the bill as written would have affected those hobby operations as well as those who have established outside markets for elk and deer meat. The drafters took great care in making sure the wording and intent did not do that this time around.


Then you stated this:


> The previous bill was not worded correctly and as a result even people like myself would not have voted for it had it made the ballot.


I then told you that the wording of the measure is exactly the same as the previous measure, the wording that we see on the petition in these links:

Old Measure: http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/electio ... 272007.pdf

Current Measure: http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/electio ... 090821.pdf

You then responded:


> LT as stated before the Leg will be charged with setting the rules. The wording as it is written from my understanding is done so to allow the Leg to enact rules and regulations they will be charged with by state law to deal with. The previous bill as it was written is not the exact language in its entirety. Some areas and passages very well may be. But your claim is without merit.


Now you state:


> LT you also are trying to spin this and it will not fly! Voters will be voting on the intent of the legislation, which is to ban canned shooting arenas. The Leg as per our state Constitution will set and make the rules with the intent of the law to enact it. Each and every law passed via the ballot box and petition drive is dealt with in the same manner. *The entirety as you say is never known and cannot be. However the full intent of the law is without doubt.* Which is to ban HF shooting operations!!!!!


So if the previous bill was not worded correctly as you say and you say you did not support it, how would most other voters know not to support it if as you say the entirety is never known? So if the entirey is never known, how would you have you known last time not to support this measure. So are you telling us that you have known both times what the entirety of the bill is, what rules and what the intent is going to be?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

LT, No! I am not trying to confuse anyone. The way the measure language was drafted last time it would have prevented even the owner of an animal from killing the animal and only would have allowed for it to be killed in a butcher shop. The language for that area was changed and now reflects clearly that selling of an animal as a hunt is illegal. The area you are focusing on has no impact upon this nor did it last time around. Like gst, it is simply a smoke and mirror attempt to claims something is something it is not!

Some people see bogey men behind every door, others play upon that and tell them the bogey man is there. You are trying to do that with your patented talking points just as gst is doing!


----------



## TK33

Ron,

I am not easily swayed one way or another. I don't rely solely on any info from chat sites. I have asked the few people I know in the livestock industry and I asked some other people when I was working out West. Talking to these people and reading up on this is where I form my opinions.

I completely agree with others that this measure is poorly worded and leaves way too many loopholes. Either it is intentional or irresponsible, unintended consequences either way.

Something that could have as many broad and deep consequences as this measure should be written a lot more directly and leave as little room for error as possible. This doesn't appear to do that.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Actually TK it is written very directly and it is as I have said regarding the stuff gst posted tonight, talking about the Lacey Act, Federal Humane Slaughter Act, for example. Those who oppose this are trying to say that it opens doors regarding this. It does nothing of the sort. Nor did the law in MT, nor has it in other states. When you look at this bill and the one in MT, it is almost identical.

The reason they are even talking about the FHS act is that the operators in MT tried to use a loophole to continue to operate and it was shut down. They tried to say they where selling animals for slaughter and then allowing the buyer to kill it. Well that works fine if they are not doing it as a hunt!

I am sure that your contacts have concerns, but those concerns are coming because of the intentional misdirects by people like gst! Two of the elk ranchers I have spoken with have none of the concerns that you are worried about. They have a concern that they may lose some sales because one does sell some of his animals to one of the operations in ND, but that is it. This measure passing will have no affect upon them. I fail to see how a bill directed toward elk or deer, will affect a rancher or farmer in regards to his cattle herd.

Just think back to the Smoking measure passed to the Leg in 08! Opponents claimed it was poorly worded, did not give enough direction etc..... The Leg tried hard to continue to use the funds as they did prior, but the simple intent of the law prevailed. This is not a bogey man bill with loop holes or lack of clarity.

I do respect you for speaking up and voicing a concern, but like you I also have done my reading,checking and asking questions of those who know and do not have a dog in the fight. They tell me that none of the concerns GST raises apply to this measure. They speak of great concerns about the Slaughter act and what it may mean to many producers of livestock. But this measure triggers nothing,adds nothing !


----------



## LT

*Ron Stated:*


> LT, No! I am not trying to confuse anyone. The way the measure language was drafted last time it would have prevented even the owner of an animal from killing the animal and only would have allowed for it to be killed in a butcher shop. The language for that area was changed and now reflects clearly that selling of an animal as a hunt is illegal.


Ron, here is the wording of the measure as it was on the previous measure:

_Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited - Penalty - Exception: "A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law. _

Here is the wording of the measure as it is on the current measure:

_Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited - Penalty - Exception: "A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law. _

Show me exactly where the wording has been changed and show me where it states that selling it as a hunt is illegal?


----------



## TK33

I am no lawyer by any means but I have been involved in a few civil suits at work and what I have learned is that I there is any loop hole, grey area, or gap in the reg/law someone will try to manipulate it.

I simply cannot support something that has so many voids. As L T and gst have pointed out.


----------



## Hunter_58346

One funny thing about this, I have hunted all over North Dakota. I have NEVER encountered a "High Fenced Operation" in all my travels. If it bothers you so much that some call it a "hunt" then you need to direct your energy elsewhere. Get a life, move on. If you want to do some good, help a childrens hospital, help a war vet, throwing money at the HSUS is a big waste. Check to see how much their execs are paid and tell me you are helping a cause. I personally don't have a desire to shoot a penned animal but could care less if the next guy does it. What gives anyone the right to force their morals on to somebody else?


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> LT, No! I am not trying to confuse anyone. The way the measure language was drafted last time it would have prevented even the owner of an animal from killing the animal and only would have allowed for it to be killed in a butcher shop. The language for that area was changed and now reflects clearly that selling of an animal as a hunt is illegal. The area you are focusing on has no impact upon this nor did it last time around. Like gst, it is simply a smoke and mirror attempt to claims something is something it is not!
> 
> Some people see bogey men behind every door, others play upon that and tell them the bogey man is there. You are trying to do that with your patented talking points just as gst is doing!


Ron please show in the wording of this measure where it "'reflects clearly the selling of an animal as a hunt is illegal"



Ron Gilmore said:


> Actually TK it is written very directly and it is as I have said regarding the stuff gst posted tonight, talking about the Lacey Act, Federal Humane Slaughter Act, for example. Those who oppose this are trying to say that it opens doors regarding this. It does nothing of the sort. Nor did the law in MT, nor has it in other states. When you look at this bill and the one in MT, it is almost identical. !


?????????

Ron It was Roger Kaseman that is claiming the Federal Lacey Act will be used in his HF Frey thread.


gst said:


> Ron,
> 1. Will the Federal Lacey Act be apart of this or not?
> 2.Will I be able to sell a live animal(elk) to an individual that then kills that animal he now owns himself?


Please answer these questions.


----------



## gst

I would guess most with a degree of common sense realize this will end up in the courts regardless of how the legislature writes this statute. It then falls to the judicial ruling of one individual to interpret what the intent based of the wording of this measure the "people" voted on. He can either go with what the legislature writes or interpret it very differently. No one, not even Ron Gilmore can say what that will be. Those of us involoved DIRECTLY in animal ag have seen the results of these poorly written laws and the use of judges with ideologies that are being implemented to further the agendas of these anti animal use/hunting groups. It is called proactively protecting the animal ag industry(which is what the NDCC CLEARLY defines the domestic elk and deer operations to be) that drives some of us to oppose laws and ideologies such as are involved in this measure. As stated many times before, I have NO connection to ANY of these operations, but am actively involved in the ranching industry and the groups that represent and protect it.

Who on here outside of Ron actually believes that when this ends up in front of a Federal judge that a well paid lawyer (who has the finances and are looking to take over the legal battle to interpret these measures ????) will not use the Federal Lacey Act in his arguements that this measure as written and voted on by the people does indeed prevent the sale of any "big game animal" that is killed by ANY method. So Ron, once again please point out where in this measure it "reflects clearly the selling of an animal as a hunt is illegal" The fact is it simply does not. There is no refernceto a "hunt" in this measure nor to any intent of limiting it to a hunt. READ THE MEASURE!

You do not have a fox guard the hen house, why would one listen to the reassurances of someone so hateful of the 
"horn pimps"as Ron Gilmore/hardwaterman refers to them on FBO in regards to what this measure will or won't do. :wink:


----------



## barebackjack

Ron Gilmore said:


> tk, the pro canned shooters are intentionally trying to raise unfounded concerns in an attempt to confuse people like those you mentioned.


Kind of like what the anti "canned shooters" did to get the initiative on the ballot? Right?

Ron, I used to think your were pretty level headed, but your off the reservation on this one.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Just curious from reading all this and for the guys against the measure I have a question. If the vote was taken today do you think it would pass or not?


----------



## gst

Eric, I honestly do not know. I would like to think that common sense would tell most people that these animals are not wild big game animals in the public trust, but ratherthe privately owned domestic farmed elk that the Ag Section of the NDCC has defined them as for several years. Despite what Gary Masching admited to telling the public inthe Dakota Country article while gathering signatures. But common sense seems to be in short supply any more! :wink:

Here is a couple questions for you, people like Ron refuse to answer it, but hopefully someone has the backbone to as it really is a simple couple questions that I believe most NDans would believe are important.

Should ND law be based of factual truth? 
and should sponsors of these initiated measures be held to a standard of truth when advocating for their measures?


----------



## Eric Hustad

I have been trying to follow all this as there is so much back and forth. The measure is for banning high fenced hunts correct? What else is in there that people need to know the truth about or the facts as you say? Just asking and not looking to jump on anyone or start something. Just trying to get a better understanding from the against side on the issue.


----------



## KEN W

GST......The objection is that this is considered hunting.It isn't as you admit....."these animals are not wild big game animals in the public trust, but ratherthe privately owned domestic farmed elk."Yet It is called canned hunts or high fenced hunts.It isn't.

If this passes,you can still sell your animals can't you???If you can convince some idiot to pay you $5,000 to shoot one,more power to you.Just quit advertising and calling it a hunt.Raise and sell them as you say they are.....domesticated privately owned animals.


----------



## jhegg

Gabe,

A few questions for you...

Should your posts be based on fact or fiction?

Should your posts "be held to a standard of truth" when advocating against the high fence measure?

What is your real connection to the high fence killing operations?

Three simple questions. Can you answer them honestly?

ps: I don't think so!

Jim


----------



## LT

Supporters of this measure: Let me ask you a question? Do we want to start defining "fair chase" with laws? Fair chase is not a law.

Here is the definition of hunting according to the North Dakota Century Code section 20.1:

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t201c01.pdf

*"Hunt" or "hunting" means shooting, shooting at, pursuing, taking, attempting to take, or killing any game animals and game birds; searching for or attempting to locate or flush any game animals and game birds; luring, calling, or attempting to attract game animals and game birds; hiding for the purpose of taking or attempting to take game animals and game birds; and walking, crawling, or advancing toward wildlife while possessing implements or equipment useful in the taking of game animals or game birds. The term does not include possessing or using photographic equipment.*

Using this definition hunting of privately owned game animals on preserves can certainly be called hunting. There is an initiative in Montana to stop trapping on public land. Their argument is also because it is not fair chase.

Just because these privately owned *GAME* animals have been put into the livestock section of the century code does not mean they should not be hunted on preserves. These privately owned game animals have options that come with them. One of those options is that they are an animal that is hunted/killed already for a *fee *in the wild. Yes a cow is not hunted because that has never been an option of a cow, but I guess you certainly could hunt your cow if you wanted to because it is an option to dispose of your cow how you see fit, it is an option to dispose of your buffalo how you see fit and hunt it. So why are we going to take the option away from the owner of a game animal to dispose of it how he sees fit, why are we going to tell him he has to sell his animal for meat prices? So are we going to start telling the local angus cattleman that he has to sell his top breeder bull for meat prices?


----------



## jhegg

LT,



> So are we going to start telling the local angus cattleman that he has to sell his top breeder bull for meat prices?


No! But let us tell the local elk "cattleman" that he can only sell his top breeder bull for "breeder" prices - not an inflated "trophy" price that pimps off the "hunting heritage" associated with the "trophy" status. Without a "hunting heritage" value, your "trophy" elk or deer would be worthless.

Jim


----------



## DG

jhegg wrote,



> Gabe,
> 
> A few questions for you...
> 
> Should your posts be based on fact or fiction?
> 
> Should your posts "be held to a standard of truth" when advocating against the high fence measure?
> 
> What is your real connection to the high fence killing operations?
> 
> Three simple questions. Can you answer them honestly?
> 
> ps: I don't think so!


Jim, As truthfully and honestly as you can, please tell everyone here why you and Roger were booted out of Commercial Building Two at the ND State Fair this year.


----------



## jhegg

Dwight,

I would be more than happy to answer that question.

We were located next to a building provider site. They were taking orders for commercial buildings that provided work to 30 or so crews. Do you blame them for complaining about the the "high fence supporters" who came by, stood in front of their booth, and started arguing with us?

Finally, the sh!t hit the fan. After dropping several "f-bombs", one of the salesmen "offered" to take me outside and settle the issue in a manly fashion. I called him an "a$$hole". One person standing by our booth was offended by the remarks made by the "commercial building" person and went to file a complaint.

Shortly thereafter, we were visited by a representative of the "state fair" who suggested that we move to prevent the confrontational issues. We agreed and moved. Any more questions?

Jim


----------



## TK33

So Hegg, Kaseman, Dick, or whoever else did you deny and give back HSUS funding or are you using HSUS dollars to help fund your initiative? 


> Using this definition hunting of privately owned game animals on preserves can certainly be called hunting. There is an initiative in Montana to stop trapping on public land. Their argument is also because it is not fair chase.


This is where I have a problem with this. You can talk all you want about protecting the heritage and things like that but the fact of the matter is it is a bill that is inline with what the anti's want to do. Not to mention that HSUS is linked directly to the Fair Chase group.


> ust curious from reading all this and for the guys against the measure I have a question. If the vote was taken today do you think it would pass or not?


Hard to say, I don't think it will be a landslide either way. If Ag Groups or other connected and well funded speak out against the measure it could get shot down. I think that the Ag community could and should sway the vote since it directly effects them, no matter what anyone says.

A lot of liberal types will vote in favor of this and a lot of them generally don't vote in the mid terms.

Like everything else it will end up in court anyway and will probably be a while before it takes effect.


----------



## jhegg

TK33,
I am really interested in what your connection is to the high fence operations. Would you care to respond to that?

To answer your question, we have no connection to HSUS or any other anti-hunting organization. That is a only a smoke screen put out by your "high fence" supporters to cloud the issue.

Jim


----------



## jhegg

Hi Ron,
Thanks for some fresh air in this matter.
Jim


----------



## KurtR

So if this fails will the few people who know best for everyone give up there peta push or will they keep going. All this is doing is dividing land owners and sportsman and hunters in general and that is not what we need. A united front would be best for all but there are a few who think they are above other people and know better. Any measure that a anti group can support will be one i would never go for. Sleeping with the devil can get you in some tricky places


----------



## jhegg

KurtR,

I suppose. according to you, that we should stop trying to enforce any laws because that will put the issues in front of the people and encourage them to break those laws. Hey - get a life!

Jim


----------



## gst

jhegg said:


> Gabe,
> A few questions for you...
> Should your posts be based on fact or fiction?
> Should your posts "be held to a standard of truth" when advocating against the high fence measure?
> What is your real connection to the high fence killing operations?
> Three simple questions. Can you answer them honestly?
> ps: I don't think so!
> Jim


1. YES, If they have not been please point out specfically the entire post that is not ture.
2. YES If I have not please point out specifically in complete context what is untruthful.
3. As I have said repeatedly EVERY time you have asked this question, outside of a couple of friends that are involved I have NO connection to ANY HF operation. I do not receive one dime of monetary value from ANY HF connection.

Jim, It is not that difficult. Sooooooooo. 
Your fellow sponsor Gary Masching admitted to telling people while gathering signatures these animals that are clearly defined as privately owned domestic animals in the NDCC under Sec 36.1 that these same animals are wild game that fall under the NDCC art.11 Sec. 27. IS THIS A TRUTHFUL STATEMENT?

Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman stated on page 7 of the HF Frey thread that it will be the Federal Lacey Act that prevents someone from selling a LIVE animal to someone that then kills their privately owned live animal. IS THIS A FACTUAL STATEMENT?

Your fellow sponsor Dick Monson claimed the CWD deer in SW ND was infected from a HF operation. IS THIS A FACTUAL STATEMENT?

Your felow sponsors claim this will not prevent someone from selling an elk for butchering. As this measure is worded with not referencing the act of "canned hunting" as what is being made illegal, but rather only vaguely refering to receiving a "fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal" Why is there not a risk of a group pushing for and a judge interpreting and ruling or even using the measure itself under the Federal Lacey Act, making the act of receiving a fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal for butchering illegal? Before you answer, familiarize yourself with the Lacey Act if you have not already.

Why did you as sponsors put this measure regulating what you claim are big game animals in the animal agriculture Sec of the NDCC rather than the G&F Sec that regulates the states big game animals?

Please answer directly each of these questions.


----------



## gst

jhegg said:


> LT,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are we going to start telling the local angus cattleman that he has to sell his top breeder bull for meat prices?
> 
> 
> 
> No! But let us tell the local elk "cattleman" that he can only sell his top breeder bull for "breeder" prices - not an inflated "trophy" price that pimps off the "hunting heritage" associated with the "trophy" status. Without a "hunting heritage" value, your "trophy" elk or deer would be worthless.
> 
> Jim
Click to expand...

Jim, why are you associating a "trophy status" with the "hunting heritage" ????????

Isn't the hunting experience suppose to be more than just about a"trophy"????????

So Jim,from this statement it appears that it just possibly is about the horns as that is what most will associate with your "trophy" comments.

Ron Gilmore constantly refers to HF operations as "horn pimps" on FBO.

Roger Kaseman stated this is about "hanging a head on thewall" and "bragging rights"

What a basis to create state law off of. Jealousy and bruised egos. I've said all along, take away the horns and there would be no measure. If it was only cow elk and does being shot no one outside of HSUS or PETA would give a rip.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Jim, I read on the other Fair Chase thread that somebody's wife got into it with the supporters of the ban at the fair. Was this part of the same incident as talked about above??


----------



## jhegg

Eric,
As I understand that incident, it occurred during the previous attempt to put this measure on the ballot. However, the "high fence" tactics still remain in place.
Jim


----------



## gst

Jim If you are going to answer one question, please address them all. :wink:


----------



## Eric Hustad

So in both events high fence supporters came up to the booth and started arguing etc? It's surprising that if they are trying to win support for their cause that they would start something at your booth as that really looks bad for people following this who are still on the fence. Just a thought as I was reading everything and trying to catch up on the issue.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, horn pimps is a good description of these operations because it is horns they are pushing. You claim that people would not be upset if they where selling does and cows but you are wrong! People are upset that canned shooting is promoted and advertised as HUNTING dragging actual hunters down in the process to a level viewed by the non hunting public as unfavorable.

Most would not take a $200.00 hooker home and claim she was your fiancé, hunters do not want to be associated with those would.

But again we digress, the issue still remains that people see canned shooting as wrong. Now they will have the chance to vote on whether they want to end this practice or not. Simple as that.

They would not be advertising it as hunting this would most likely never came to the point it is!


----------



## DG

Eric Hustad wrote,



> Jim, I read on the other Fair Chase thread that somebody's wife got into it with the supporters of the ban at the fair. Was this part of the same incident as talked about above??


Eric that would be my wife. Roger and Gary Masching were working the booth in 2008 at the state fair. Roger had a piece of cardboard with some pictures of himself and others on it. Pictures of deer, pheasants and geese taken. They are "real" hunters you know. However, if someone would not sign because they weren't buying what Roger was selling then he would lift up the cardboard and show them downloaded information from the internet. Websites from various ranches. One was mine. Roger is good at taking things out of context, defaming and name calling. "Pasture Killers." "They are stealing these elk from the wild."

I did not want an undocumented confrontation. I got the fair board president and two sheriffs. I asked Roger to stop using my material in a defamitory way or he could hand it over to me. Roger told us that he knows his rights. The internet is federal and out of the jurisdiction of the sheriffs.

I'm quoting Roger now:

"If you want me to stop using your material than you will have to sue me and Dwight I do want you to sue me."

At that, the fair board president turned and walked away. I was talking to Gary Masching telling him that he cannot be telling people that we steal these elk from the wild. He said, "well then where do you get them?" I was kind of floored. I said, "you are the one co-chairing this and you don't know?"

While I was talking to Gary my wife got into it with Roger. She called him a liar. Lots of people have, the difference is, she has got what it takes to say it to his face. Roger took great offense to that. The sheriffs said Roger is right this is a civil matter. Not their jurisdiction.

Roger then went to the Minot paper and told them that my wife had to be escorted away by the sheriffs department, that he has to put up with this harassment everyday by elk growers and on top of all this he has had two death threats.... Huh?

OK Eric, this year at the fair I worked the booth two days and I didn't go close to Roger. I instructed others to stay away from him. Because he will just go tell the papers how he is the victim in all this.

The elk and deer growers didn't harass, didn't sabotage, didn't go close to Roger. There are no high fence tactics!!! Roger and jhegg got booted out of commercial building 2 because the vendors around them mutinied. Why didn't this event make the paper?????????


----------



## barebackjack

jhegg said:


> TK33,
> I am really interested in what your connection is to the high fence operations. Would you care to respond to that?
> 
> To answer your question, we have no connection to HSUS or any other anti-hunting organization. That is a only a smoke screen put out by your "high fence" supporters to cloud the issue.
> 
> Jim


Why is it you believe everyone that disagrees with you is somehow connected to "HF" operations???

I suppose you'll want to know my "connection" next? :roll:


----------



## barebackjack

jhegg said:


> KurtR,
> 
> Hey - get a life!
> 
> Jim


Practice what you preach!


----------



## AdamFisk

All these questions being asked, I might as well throw another one in there. 

You guys that support this initiative always talk about how this HF shooting gives hunting and hunters a black eye. They make us look bad to the non hunting public apparently. My question is, how do you really know that is the case? I'm sure you guys have managed to find some idiot out there who, once you informed them of this practice, thought all hunting was done in a fence and we are all cruel animals. Them aren't the examples I'm looking for.

I'm a fair chase hunter, always have been, and always will be. I spend quite a bit of time around other hunters, and non hunters as well. Never once in my life have I heard anybody think less of me, or huting in general because of these HF operations.

Please, share some of your experiences with us, where people held a grudge against us fair chase hunters because of these operations.

My opinion is, they don't give us that much of a black eye, at least in ND. I certainly don't see much (none) for advertising by these operations.

Thanks


----------



## barebackjack

AdamFisk said:


> All these questions being asked, I might as well throw another one in there.
> 
> You guys that support this initiative always talk about how this HF shooting gives hunting and hunters a black eye. They make us look bad to the non hunting public apparently. My question is, how do you really know that is the case? I'm sure you guys have managed to find some idiot out there who, once you informed them of this practice, thought all hunting was done in a fence and we are all cruel animals. Them aren't the examples I'm looking for.
> 
> I'm a fair chase hunter, always have been, and always will be. I spend quite a bit of time around other hunters, and non hunters as well. Never once in my life have I heard anybody think less of me, or huting in general because of these HF operations.
> 
> Please, share some of your experiences with us, where people held a grudge against us fair chase hunters because of these operations.
> 
> My opinion is, they don't give us that much of a black eye, at least in ND. I certainly don't see much (none) for advertising by these operations.
> 
> Thanks


How dare you disagree!! What is your connection to HF???!!!


----------



## Eric Hustad

DG thanks for the explanation and I can understand how things can escalate when people are passionate on an issue. I have a couple other questions that may sound stupid but I have never been on a ranch that does this. How big is the area people have access to when they come there? Is there CRP being used for cover/food or food plots etc? Thanks for answering questions on this.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Adam on a national level, Sports Afield in 08 did a poll regarding hunting and hunting practices. While fair chase hunting was given a 70+% support by all overall non hunters and hunters. Canned shooting was given almost an equal thumbs down. In ND a poll was done regarding HF shooting and it came back with almost mirror results of the national polls. polls done previously by SA and other organizations show similar results.


----------



## AdamFisk

Ron Gilmore said:


> Adam on a national level, Sports Afield in 08 did a poll regarding hunting and hunting practices. While fair chase hunting was given a 70+% support by all overall non hunters and hunters. Canned shooting was given almost an equal thumbs down. In ND a poll was done regarding HF shooting and it came back with almost mirror results of the national polls. polls done previously by SA and other organizations show similar results.


Honestly, I'm happy that 70% of the people polled dislike canned shooting, I don't like it either, and would give it a thumbs down in a poll, depending on the actual question. But I'm still confused as to how/where/why some people would hold the far majority of hunters (fair chase ones) responsible for the few who choose to shoot a penned animal. I still fail to see how these operations give us a black eye. Do you guys think that the non hunting public who disapprove of canned shooting are a threat to fair chase hunting somehow? You guys think that first number, (where ONLY 70% of the nation approves of fair chase hunting) will increase if we rid the nation of canned shooting operations? You guys get what i'm saying here? Hard to explain some crap on the damn computer, and I hope it makes sense.


----------



## barebackjack

Ron Gilmore said:


> In ND a poll was done regarding HF shooting and it came back with almost mirror results of the national polls. polls done previously by SA and other organizations show similar results.


I remember these polls.

Full of loaded questions!


----------



## Plainsman

> Do you guys think that the non hunting public who disapprove of canned shooting are a threat to fair chase hunting somehow?


I think what people are getting at is that there is a percentage of people who think that all hunting is like high fence shooting. Of that 70% that approve the majority are not familiar with high fence shooting. Then there are those who know not all hunting is like high fence shooting, but they want everyone to think it is. If they make everyone aware of high fence shooting, but fail to separate fair chase from high fence that 70% could drop to 60% or less. We go down every year. There is no good reason to accelerate that down hill slide from 70%.


----------



## KurtR

jhegg said:


> KurtR,
> 
> I suppose. according to you, that we should stop trying to enforce any laws because that will put the issues in front of the people and encourage them to break those laws. Hey - get a life!
> 
> Jim


Ok dishrag i never said anything about not enforcing any laws and never said anything about breaking laws so quit making crap up in your friken head. Hey thanks for helping me get a life and texting all my friends in ND and getting the word that your group is a bunch of D-bags and now i have a bunch of people that will go vote that usally do not. And you know how news travels amongst the younger people via twitter and facebook. Hows that for a life. know it all ethics god.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Whoa slow down as I don't want to see the thread locked as there are some good questions being addressed etc. Let's keep it civil as I know emotions can run high but this doesn't help either side.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Kurt what part of the state do u live in? Just curious not looking to jump on you.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Adam you ask fair questions, and one really has to remember that hunting is a foreign concept to many people. Given the current shows on the outdoor channel, the push of trophy hunting, poaching cases that involved large antlered animals, i think we are fortunate to have that high of support. I look around the country and read changes that have taken place regarding what was once an accepted legal practice that is now illegal, because it lacked a distinct level of fair chase.

One has to only look back in our own history in ND regarding what was once accepted and legal regarding pheasants for example. Carrying a loaded weapon, shooting out a window or the back of a truck was legal. Today we would not look at those actions as ethical nor fair chase. Had practices like that continued do you think we would hold the support level that we do?

Hunters as a whole are a small portion of the population and will grow smaller as opportunity drops and costs increase. Few inner city kids from somewhere like Chicago or even Mpls will ever be given a chance to hunt, let alone understand why. They will grow into adults who will vote. They will have grown up watching Disney talking animals where we are always painted as taking someones mother or father or sibling!

So to put it in plain words. A body can survive with the loss of a hand,leg,etc.. but not the heart! Canned shooting is like a cancer along with other forms of commercialization of hunting. We can treat it and try and survive or simply pretend it does not exist, until it no longer can be treated.


----------



## LT

Ron could you answer my question that I asked previously: Show me exactly where the wording has been changed and show me where it states that selling it as a hunt is illegal?



> Ron Stated:
> 
> LT, No! I am not trying to confuse anyone. The way the measure language was drafted last time it would have prevented even the owner of an animal from killing the animal and only would have allowed for it to be killed in a butcher shop. The language for that area was changed and now reflects clearly that selling of an animal as a hunt is illegal.


Ron, here is the wording of the measure as it was on the previous measure:

Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited - Penalty - Exception: "A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.

Here is the wording of the measure as it is on the current measure:

Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited - Penalty - Exception: "A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.


----------



## LT

Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, stated:

*""We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States&#8230; We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." - Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990. *

http://www.maineguides.org/referendum/a ... otes.shtml

They will go after one form of hunting until they have managed to end it in a state and then start on another form. In Montana they are now focusing on trapping on public lands. Once they can get rid of many of these forms in all states, they will turn their focus on so-called fair chase hunting, and the propaganda machine will start showing pictures of animals being shot, wounded and left to die, etc. They will use every tactic even if it means blatantly lying. How do you think the general public will feel about "fair chase" hunting then?

This is probably the main reason the general public has a very negative perception of hunting on game preserves. It is presented by the Humane Society as an animal shot in a cage, thus the term "canned hunting."

And now you have Mr. Kaseman and company in our very own state using the same tactics to turn the general public against game preserves. These farms have been here for years and years and most people did not even know they existed. Mr. Kaseman admitted last go round the difficulty he encountered with people signing was that they did not realize there were game farms and that he had to "educate them."


----------



## TK33

Jim,

I have no connection to HF hunting. I am from Richland County and now live in Fargo. If you would read back on this thread you will see for yourself that I am not a fan of canned shooting. I explained it all pretty clearly earlier. I do know a guy in NW Cass County that raises/raised elk, he sells the meat to butchers. No canned hunting.

I agree 100% with Kurt, you guys are not helping hunters any. You are putting a lot of people's interests on the line with your crusade. You are walking down a slippery legal slope, no matter what Roger or others say, while you are trying to ban something that bothers you are kidding yourself if you think that there will not be other unintended consequences. The measure is not very well written and I too am curious as to why this under the Ag laws and not G&F. I know that you and Ron are aware of how these groups operate, they mince words, manipulate data, etc in an effort to impose their will. That is why I referenced the 9th Circuit Court earlier. We all know their track record.

According to the HSUS's president you had some sort of an involvement with HSUS in 2008, whether direct or indirect, the degree may be exaggerated but it is not smoke and mirrors as you say. The fact that these pricks are taking any interest in our state at all bothers me, that lies on your group. 


> They would not be advertising it as hunting this would most likely never came to the point it is!


aaahhh, advertising. Here we are again, this would have been a much better measure and I would support this any day. This is a reasonable method to combat the thing that you guys hate. Easily passed, not much in the way after passage, EFFECTS NO ONE ELSE BUT THE HF INDUSTRY, and (in my opinion) would make a significant change in how fair chase vs canned shooting is viewed.

I also think LT makes a good point, first it is canned shooting, then trapping, then mojo mallards, then e-callers, then this then that until the anti's achieve their goals, you guys are giving them a good start.


----------



## KEN W

Eric Hustad said:


> Kurt what part of the state do u live in? Just curious not looking to jump on you.


Ah.....I don't believe Kurt lives in ND.

Kurt.....interesting that you should have such strong opinions even though you don't live here. :eyeroll:


----------



## KurtR

i live in mobridge,sd but as this will have effects on hunters as a whole i see no need to give any thing to the antis. It will not affect me in the short term but dont like the precident it sets. Just as i dont like the trail camera thing in MT. I agree with others when it has been said if it is advertised that you shoot in a fence and it not a hunt i would go for how it is advertised. Also if there was science like disease control involved i could buy that. And dont point out the few bad eggs in whole buisness as you can do that in any thing. The part that really gets me is the ethics that is being pushed on some people. Just like i dont like people pass shooting geese because there are more wounded and not recovered but that is not to say i think it should be banned. My ethics are differnent than other peoples but as long as they are legal it is a personal decision. I would rather the hunting comunity polices it self and not get govt and anti groups any leverage to use aginst as in the long run. Just like when the baiting issure will come to a head in ND. Not legal for me to bait here but you guys have that privlage and hope that it is not just one more thing taken from the people who put more into the wildlife than any one else does. After talking to a few of the younger ladys i know that did sign that petition they feel as they were tricked because of what they were told. No one told them about the kid who is not physically capable of going on a free range hunt or other situations that HF hunting is used in a nice way. They thought it was a cruelty to animals and there were no regulations on these operations after reading on this web site and a little research feel they made a mistake but will make up for it at the polls. Might not make one bit of difference but this will probally be close and every vote will count. In a nutshell i will never give any ground to the anti group as they will take this as a victory if this passes even if this is not allinged directly with them or not.


----------



## Plainsman

> but as long as they are legal it is a personal decision





> I would rather the hunting comunity polices it self and not get govt and anti groups any leverage


I think the disagreement your having Kurt is perspective. You see at one time everything was legal. Then civilization stuck it's nose into our affairs. Some good things came about to start with and a few bad, today, well, look at Washington and you decide. Anyway, my point is "as long as it's legal" is sort of saying nothing can be changed. You see the whole idea is to make it illegal. If that was not possible civilization would stagnate and not be able to respond to new conditions. Grog and brothers in the stone age could not make laws related to computers. Nor could they comprehend laws required for "recreational" hunting.

I would agree with you that the hunting communities should police themselves. It was hunters who asked for a stop to market hunting. It was hunters who asked for a stop to spot lighting. It was hunters who asked for a start to bag limits. It was hunters who defined fair chase and how animals had to be taken to qualify as trophies. I know a few people on the fair chase (three or four) and they are hunters. Today the playing field is somewhat blurry. I agree we should not give the anti-hunters and inch. However, why should we police ourselves. 1 For the benefit of game species? 2 For the benefit of anti-hunters? 3 For the benefit of fellow hunters? I would go with one and three, but not two. So the truth you must seek is this: is this anti-hunters or hunters self policing?


----------



## magnum3.5

One question still needs to be answered! How can any one person or state tell a landowner that he can't raise a deer, elk, or exotic animal on THEIR land and not charge someone to harvest it? I wouldn't pay to "so called hunt it" but who is anybody to tell a landowner he can't sell it or charge for it. Private inter prize runs right down to farmers and ranchers. As far as ethics it's unethical in the church for a man and woman to have certain types of relations without being married too, I am sure ALL of the sponsors have followed that!

Ethics is a pretty broad argument it can go millions of different ways everyone has a different view. A landowner should always have the final say what is done on THEIR land.

Magnum 3.5


----------



## gst

Magnum, that is were the Federal Lacey Act comes into play. If this measure was not written into Sec 36 of the NDCC which regilates these animals being raised as domestic livestock/farmed elk, this measure would be unenforcable because of what you state and the fact they are CLEARLY defined as private property and domestic animals in the NDCC. By putting it in this argicultural animal section rather than the G&F Sec. that regulates "big game" as they want them defined in this measure, the sponsors know the long standing definitions of domestic animals and farmed elk in Sec 36, will have to be addressed. They just don't have the stones to come on here and admit it, because if they do it is admitting they know these animals are private property and domestic animals under state law Sec 36.1 of the NDCC rather than the "wild game" protected under Article 11 Sec. 27 thay have admitted to telling the public they are. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. If I am wrong, why aren't the sponsors pointing that out??????

And once these animals in the Agriculture section of the NDCC are redefined as big game, the Federal Lacey Act will prevent anyone from "receiving a fee or reinbursement for the killing of a big game animal in or released from a man made enclosure" as this is how the applicable state law will read. NO limit in the wording of this measure to just "canned hunting operations".



Eric Hustad said:


> Whoa slow down as I don't want to see the thread locked as there are some good questions being addressed etc. Let's keep it civil as I know emotions can run high but this doesn't help either side.


Eric, aside from DG explaining the circumstances behind the incident with his wife, what questions are being addressed? jhegg and the sponsors have been asked numerous questions as have supporters like Ron, legitimate questions concerning a potential new state law, and not one has been answered. Why??? I simply believe it is the sponsors who accept the responsibility by signing on that should answer questions regarding the law they are proposing. I don't think that is out of line or too much to ask.

Answering these questions would seem much more professional than the childish personal comments that started this thread.

The sponsors have to realize it is not just the citizens that signed their petition that have a right to have their questions answered, but when you have to answer them with factual truth rather than made up emotional rhetoric, it appears to be a little more difficult! :wink:


----------



## barebackjack

KEN W said:


> Eric Hustad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kurt what part of the state do u live in? Just curious not looking to jump on you.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.....I don't believe Kurt lives in ND.
> 
> Kurt.....interesting that you should have such strong opinions even though you don't live here. :eyeroll:
Click to expand...

So Kurt isn't supposed to, or isn't allowed to have an opinion on a matter that could very well have ramifications and set a precedent for other states to follow?

Come on Ken. Thats pretty weak. :eyeroll:

I may not be a resident of MT, but I sure as heck voiced my opinions and concerns on the liberal yuppie mentality there that got trail cameras banned, and I sure as heck voiced my opinion several times on the latest attempt to ban trapping on all public lands in MT.


----------



## barebackjack

gst said:


> Answering these questions would seem much more professional than the childish personal comments that started this thread.


But that would eliminate the backbone of the anti-HF movement!


----------



## gst

Plainsman, 
Do you believe state law should be based on factual truth?
Do you believe the sponsors of any measure should be held to a standard of factual truth when advocating for their measure?


----------



## DG

Eric said,



> DG thanks for the explanation and I can understand how things can escalate when people are passionate on an issue. I have a couple other questions that may sound stupid but I have never been on a ranch that does this. How big is the area people have access to when they come there? Is there CRP being used for cover/food or food plots etc? Thanks for answering questions on this.


The size of the area is a double edged sword. The fair chase group thinks it should be thousands of acres rough as all get. If an animal out there dies of natural causes how long does it take to find it? It is mandatory that a brain stem sample be submitted for every animal to test for CWD. In hot weather the carcass can decompose in a hurry. When this happens the rancher is allowed a variance. A veternarian is called to look at the overall condition of the animal. CWD has obvious clinical signs.

I purchased some land with CRP on it. I didn't fence, graze or hay anything until the contract was up. I'm in the process of converting it back to crops. It is going to take a few years to get it producing again. The small grains are producing about half compared to land I have next door. The plan is to plant row crops and turn the elk in and let them harvest it. It will save a lot of fuel. Conserve!

Plainsman wrote,



> I think what people are getting at is that there is a percentage of people who think that all hunting is like high fence shooting. Of that 70% that approve the majority are not familiar with high fence shooting. Then there are those who know not all hunting is like high fence shooting, but they want everyone to think it is. If they make everyone aware of high fence shooting, but fail to separate fair chase from high fence that 70% could drop to 60% or less. We go down every year. There is no good reason to accelerate that down hill slide from 70%.


Plainsman, As a retired federal employee retread, what can you tell us about the loaded survey? There was a meeting back in June of 2006 in Bismarck. The attendees:

No.1 Geg Meyer of Mule Deer Foundation. 
No.2 Greg Hagar Cass County Wildlife Federation. 
No.3 Bill Helphrey Bowhunters Assoc. (Government & Conservation) 
No.4 Sandy Barnes Sportsmans Alliance Sponser of HFI 2008
No.5 Mike Donahue lobbyist for NDWF 
No.6 Bob Kellam He said he was there to represent the ND Outdoor Heritage Coalition. It's a creation of Dick Monson and company. A shell organization.
No.7 Shawn Mckenna Executive Director of NDWF. After Sen. Bill 2254 {Feb.1-07} he disappeared. 
No.8 Mark Reisner United Sportsman Sponser Mark wanted United Sportsman to support Sen. 2254 they voted unanamouslly no. He again wanted them to support the HFI. They told him hell no. In a huff he quit or resigned. 
No.9 Land Tawney Regional Director for National Wildlife Federation. (Federally Funded)
No.10 Gary Maching RMEF co-chairman and sponser of HFI 2008 and 2010
No.11 David Brandt Sponser Federal biologist USGS. President of Stutsman county wildlife federation. 2008 president of the NDWF sponser of the HFI 2008 and 2010
No.12 Dick Monson Sponser Barnes County Wildlife Federation sponser of the HFI 2008 and 2010

Plainsman, In this boiler room these fellas were writing the questions for the survey. To give it legitamacey they hired UND to ask the questions. It cost $4000. They were arguing about who is going to pony up their share. Bill Helphrey made it sound like the bowhunters had contributed their share. I think the members of the bowhunters may want to audit this mans activities. Shawn Mckenna later put it out to the press that sportsmans groups don't have a lot of money.

They sent the loaded questions to Shawn Schafer, president of the deer association asking for his input. Shawn returned it saying do it over. In their press release to the public about the results of the survey they reported that a deer grower had helped write the questions for the survey. How disingenius is that?

Plainsman, Several of the sponsers are federal employees with the wildlife society and wildlife federation acting the part of concerned sportsmans groups. Surveys and polls are usually squewed in favor of those who are paying for the survey aren't they?

BTW, ten minutes into that public meeting I was thrown out. They didn't want any witnesses.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

DG getting tossed from the meeting was not because they did not want a witness now was it? Nothing to do with your behavior!

GST so tell me with the Fed Humane Slaughter Act would it not put canned shooting operations out of business regardless based on your very own statement that they are domestic livestock?

You keep asking for things to be based on fact, but DG refused to state how big an area that is being used to kill the animals in. So one could assume that they are in a one acre enclosure with a few trees or nothing at all if I want to overreach and spin things like you do!

So to be very blunt, to the average Joe on the street or most people that hunt, what section or why it was chosen to be put under really makes no difference. It does to you because it makes it harder to go after in court when this passes and so you want to try and get Jim or others to make statements that you can try and twist.

It is why I stated before the Lacey Act has been litigated before, precedence is set on where it applies and does not. Same thing regarding the FHS act. This will be dealt with one way or another for all livestock and if you want elk and deer as domestic it means they will shut down shooting operations under the rules of Humane slaughter which does not see shooting of an animal at a distance humane when the animal could be put in a squeeze and shot behind the ear.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Fine GST instead of saying questions addressed I should have said in-between personal attacks there are both sides pointing out reasons for and against the issue, better?? :-?

Kurt, when I was kid, say 12 or so, we used to go to Mobridge in the late 80's to fish and I still remember great fishing and low water and stumps which scared the sh%t out of me. It's a beautiful area and I want to get back there to fish with my kids eventually. Anyway back to the topic this issue will pass or fail by the vote from the larger cities. Heck Fargo/West Fargo/Grand Forks make up about a third of the states pop. When I look at my own neighborhood in West Fargo I have a ag biologist next door who doesn't hunt. A micosoft employee who doesnt hunt, an engineer who hunts deer at the family farm only, a Tharaldson guy who grew up on a farm and doesnt hunt anymore. A bobcat guy who likes to hunt when he has time.

My point here is that in ND the majority of the people don't hunt but a lot come from some type of ag/small town where hunting is a big part of life. The interesting thing will be how they view the measure personally. People coming from a farm, will they see this as an infringment on a farmer/ranchers' rights, or will they think that this type of "hunting" isn't right based on how they perceive fair chase? My feeling is a lot more will go with latter when you consider all those who have never hunted and have a vision in their head about an animal being shot in a pen. Again just what I think when you think about the average person who doesn't hunt looking at this on the ballot.

DG thanks for the answer on CRP and food plots etc. Still how big is the average hunting area for most of these operations and what type of cover/terrain do people encounter when they come out there to hunt?


----------



## LT

Ron, Could you answer my previous question: Show me exactly where the wording has been changed and show me where it states that selling it as a hunt is illegal?

Ron, Are you now saying that on-farm slaughter of domestic animals is illegal?


----------



## KEN W

barebackjack said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Hustad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kurt what part of the state do u live in? Just curious not looking to jump on you.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.....I don't believe Kurt lives in ND.
> 
> Kurt.....interesting that you should have such strong opinions even though you don't live here. :eyeroll:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Kurt isn't supposed to, or isn't allowed to have an opinion on a matter that could very well have ramifications and set a precedent for other states to follow?
> 
> Come on Ken. Thats pretty weak. :eyeroll:
> 
> I may not be a resident of MT, but I sure as heck voiced my opinions and concerns on the liberal yuppie mentality there that got trail cameras banned, and I sure as heck voiced my opinion several times on the latest attempt to ban trapping on all public lands in MT.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he shoudn't have an opinion.I said it is interesting that he has a very strong opinion for someone who doesn't live here.He is trying very hard to influence what ND laws should be isn't he?????That's just my opinion and isn't weak at all.Just ask anyone from ND about outside influences when it comes to making state laws.

And by the way.....I've stated all along that I am not opposed to someone going out to an elk or deer pen and paying the owner to shoot a domesticated animal.Same as me going out to my farmer friend and shooting one of his steers and hauling into the butcher shop.....just don't call or advertise it as hunting.


----------



## LT

*Ken Stated:*


> Just ask anyone from ND about outside influences when it comes to making state laws.


Time is Running Out!
Please Help Ban Canned Hunts in North Dakota

Dear Friend,

North Dakota voters have the opportunity to stop the trophy shooting of captive animals trapped behind fences -- an inhumane and unsportsmanlike practice opposed by hunters and non-hunters alike -- but only with your help. These "canned hunting" operations offer wealthy customers the opportunity to kill tame, captive animals for guaranteed trophies. Get involved today in stopping this unethical practice.

Both hunters and non-hunters condemn canned hunting, but it has not yet been outlawed in North Dakota. Be part of the team that puts this critical issue on the November statewide ballot! The campaign must collect 12,844 valid signatures by the end of July, and we need your help.

If you have volunteered to gather signatures already, thank you! If not, please sign up today. Email Karen at [email protected] or call 701-839-6210.

Just a little of your time will help give North Dakotans the chance to vote to stop canned hunting this fall.

Sincerely,

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States


----------



## KurtR

Eric very few stumps left this year and bring the kids because they will have no time to be bored in the boat fishing is great. Amazing how fast my 5 year old has learned what the it means when the clickers go on the lead core. He runs all 6 roads in the boat all i get to do is net 

This will have not short term affect on me but worry about my son and his kids in the long run. i worked up there for the last 5 years before this one and lived in fargo a year before that so got to know quite a few people and alot of them dont hunt and will decide which way this vote goes. Did not really discuss this at all with any of them till i was told to get a life. I think if it was advertised as a pen shoot or HF was in the advertising that would be some thing acceptable even though i would bet there is some rough country in these operations. I dont want to give anything to the antis and put little to no credence into surveys done by outdoor life or any of the like out doors rags. They are just advertising pimps who will put who ever paying the most in there. Look at guns and ammo a tc(tac rifle) with the sweet counter sniper glass on top on the cover. They just want money and know little or nothing about the real world of the outdoors anymore.


----------



## KEN W

LT.....doesn't change anything I said.The HSUS is an outside influence.The opponents of canned hunts keep saying they don't want the HSUS behind them either.So you are helping me make my point.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

LT when is this letter written and have the sponsors of this taken any money or direct support on this issue from HSUS?

Now in regards to your question on the wording. I had to dig into another computer to find the info I was looking for. Hence, my statement that the wording had changed was incorrect. My mistake and I own up to that being wrong.

Now what I said is that if elk are classified as non traditional domestics then the FHS act will make canned shooting illegal. Not on farm slaughter which is far different because of the guidelines of accepted practice of humane kill. Tell us LT,gst what are the recommended methods of kill from the FHS act? gst has brought it up it should be interesting to see how a canned shooting of domestic elk meets those guidelines and you still call it hunting? :rollin:


----------



## LT

*Ron Stated:*


> I have been a supporter of banning canned hunting, but the last time this was attempted I chose not to support the drive after reading and understanding that the bill as written would have affected those hobby operations as well as those who have established outside markets for elk and deer meat. The drafters took great care in making sure the wording and intent did not do that this time around.


So Ron if the wording has not changed, where did the drafters take great care, and do you still support this measure?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

yes, because as you know it will not as written shut down the farming of elk industry as I thought last time, which is what I had issues with. So I have addressed your questions now address mine!


----------



## LT

*Ron Stated:*


> yes, because as you know it will not as written shut down the farming of elk industry as I thought last time,


The measure says "A person (doesn't say owner, could be the butcher) is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person (doesn't say owner) obtains fees from another person (doesn't say hunter of course, could be the owner or other buyer) for the killing (does not say hunting) of privately owned big game species (doesn't say farmed elk or deer) or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape ( a kill chute or slaughter house would certainly qualify).

Ron, I don't know any such thing when I try to interpret what the wording says.


----------



## LT

*Ron Stated:*


> Now what I said is that if elk are classified as non traditional domestics then the FHS act will make canned shooting illegal. Not on farm slaughter which is far different because of the guidelines of accepted practice of humane kill. Tell us LT,gst what are the recommended methods of kill from the FHS act? gst has brought it up it should be interesting to see how a canned shooting of domestic elk meets those guidelines and you still call it hunting?


So would that mean that hunting of buffalo would be illegal?


----------



## LT

*Ron Stated:*


> LT when is this letter written and have the sponsors of this taken any money or direct support on this issue from HSUS?


Ron this letter was written last go round. We have emails from K. Thunshelle with correspondence from Roger, and Roger has admitted to meeting with David Pauli, Regional Director for HSUS. I don't believe we would have ever known that anyone met with David Pauli, if Mr. Pauli wouldn't have blogged about it. If Roger did indeed meet with HSUS to tell them that he did not want their support, where was the newspaper coverage of that?

Just because there has not been any activity from the main office this go round, does not mean they have not been involved. There was enough involvement last go round to indicate there was indirect involvement with money. Taking money directly would have been a death kiss, as they would have had to report it.

With the lying that I have personally witnessed from this group, (Mr. Mashing told me at the state fair that these animals are stolen), I don't believe that we will ever know if any money was taken from the HSUS!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Post up your understanding of the kill methods accepted by the FHS act, LT and stop dancing! I will give you my opinion on your last question after that!

You are quick to ask other questions but not anwser them as you so vibrantly express that others need to do!


----------



## TK33

> People coming from a farm, will they see this as an infringment on a farmer/ranchers' rights, or will they think that this type of "hunting" isn't right based on how they perceive fair chase? My feeling is a lot more will go with latter when you consider all those who have never hunted and have a vision in their head about an animal being shot in a pen. Again just what I think when you think about the average person who doesn't hunt looking at this on the ballot.


I disagree. Every farmer that I know and talk to has no interest in HF but I guarantee you they see this as intrusion into landowner rights. Most of the ag people I know and am related to are in the valley, generally (key word generally) landowners in the valley are not as sensitive to landowner's rights as their colleagues in the central and western parts of the state. I am guessing a lot of landowners will see this as an intrusion. Cattlemen have enough crap to worry about, the last thing they need is a group that claims to be a hunting group bringing HSUS into our state. Just like DU, people want what they want and don't care about the consequences. Once again the problem is that the consequences here could be broad, not to mention the fact that this legislation is being brought on by people from Bismarck, Fargo, and hunting groups isn't going to help anything either.



> The opponents of canned hunts keep saying they don't want the HSUS behind them either.So you are helping me make my point.


But they still are working in perfect harmony with their goals. They may claim not to want them but they sure are getting help from them, both in leg work and apparently financing. Once again the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. 


> So to be very blunt, to the average Joe on the street or most people that hunt, what section or why it was chosen to be put under really makes no difference. It does to you because it makes it harder to go after in court when this passes and so you want to try and get Jim or others to make statements that you can try and twist.


Wrong and Right. I am not twisting anything. As far as court battles go it will be interesting given ND's pro Ag and pro business laws.

It doesn't matter to the average joe hunter, it does matter to the rancher or hobby farmer who wants to raise certain types of stock. Once again, poorly worded and no explanation which furthers my point that no one on the ethics gestapo is thinking of the unintended consequences.


----------



## TK33

I also find it interesting that so many people with so called conservative values like freedom, rights, less gov't intrusion, pro business, and anti-marxist type laws are in favor of this.


----------



## LT

It is my understanding that the Humane Slaughter Act is in regards to slaughter houses:



> The law that is currently enforced by the USDA is the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1978. The 1978 Act made mandatory the humane slaughter and handling of livestock in connection with slaughter of all food animals slaughtered in USDA inspected plants. This includes cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, goats, swine, and other livestock.


http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/LSIT_HumaneHandling.pdf

So if as you say these animals are classified as domestic and the Humane Slaughter Act will shut down the hunting of them, why do we need the the Fair Chase initiative? These animals are already classified as domestic as are buffalo.


----------



## gst

Ron to answer your question( I try to do that when asked one) Those of us involved directly in the animal ag industry (unlike yourself) realize there is a very grey area in the Humane Slaughter Act when it comes to on farm slaughter of any domestically raised animal. It has been discussed by those involved in protecting the future of animal ag and there are valid concerns that the Act itself is open to interpretation that may indeed end the on farm slaughter of ALL animals. There are several smart people in the livestock industry that understand these things, that have suggested it would come down to how one judge interprets the Act. That is one of the reasons many are questioning what consequences may arise from having this measure included in the livestock sec of the states Century Code. So answer the question why is this being placed in the animal agriculture section of the NDCC that regulates livestock rather than the G&F section that regulates big game if indeed these animals are "big game" ????? SOMEONE has to know the answer to this?????

You can not argue that judicial rulings have been used by groups to further agendas far outside of what the original intent of the law was created for. That happens with well written laws. When you have a measure either as mistakenly or intentionally poorly written as this measure it does indeed open the door for other consequences to happen. If you were not so blinded by your anger at the "horn pimps" you would realize this. But that is the problem with the sponsors of this measure they do not care of the consequences of this measure as long as their personal agenda is acheived. Ron can you tell us if there is any individuals actively invoplved in animal ag that are sponsors of this measure? Perhaps you should let people who are actually directly involved in animal ag voice the concerns our industry has with this measure rather than claiming to speak for an industry you have no direct involvement in.

Ron, so why is it that you had concerns that the first measure would end the raising of all elk in how it was written, but this one that is written exactly the same suddenly does not?


----------



## TK33

I meant to ask the same question gst did.

If this is such well written legislation why are there no ranchers on the sponsor list. If disease is such an issue and there will be no adverse consequences one would think the ag community would be on board.


----------



## DG

Eric Hustad wrote,



> DG thanks for the answer on CRP and food plots etc. Still how big is the average hunting area for most of these operations and what type of cover/terrain do people encounter when they come out there to hunt?


Most are six hundred plus acres. Tim and Sally Dvirnak in Killdeer is 500. It starts at the top of the Killdeer Mountains and breaks off to the northwest. In December of 2009 I was there on a hunt for a young man with cancer. We got a glimpse of the two big ones just one time in two days. We got a smaller one on day two at 300 yards across a canyon through a small window in the trees. I reported this to Bill Mitzel at Dakota Country and he stopped me and asked twice. You only got a glimpse once in two Days? .....Yep.

TK33 wrote,



> If this is such well written legislation why are there no ranchers on the sponsor list. If disease is such an issue and there will be no adverse consequences one would think the ag community would be on board.


To my knowledge there is only one farmer who is a sponser of the HFI. Dick Monson. Not sure but I don't think he is in animal ag.
Dick Monson doesn't hang out much with ag groups. He prefers the federal biologists at the Northern Plains Wildlife Research or USGS in Jamestown. The North Dakota Wildlife federation and wildlife society is top heavy with these fedgov employees.

What is "conservation biology?" What does Dick Monson believe in?

Here is a recent answer to a post by Dick:

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=84079



> HI guys
> How are you?
> 
> just i want to understand Does ethics matter in conservation i mean here conservation biology?
> 
> thx


Here is Dicks answer:



> Oh Boy!!!!!!!! Sam, conservation IS ethics in action.


I have asked this question on fishingbuddy and I will ask it here. What is militant conservation biology?


----------



## DG

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/col ... 002e0.html

Measure is a Trojan Horse 
Story 
Discussion 
By SHAWN SCHAFER | Posted: Sunday, September 5, 2010 2:00 am | (0) Comments

Font Size: 
Default font size 
Larger font size 
Facts are stubborn things and the fact is that Measure 2 or the captive-hunting initiative is the single greatest threat to property rights in North Dakota today.

If passed, Measure 2 would have far reaching consequences that will extend well beyond shutting down game farms. It would open the door to efforts that would seek to ban trapping, bow hunting and even some types of bird hunting. But beyond just limiting our cherished hunting freedoms, Measure 2 shreds the rights of landowners and has the potential to devastate our state's livestock industry. If that's not enough, Measure 2 is a trial lawyer's dream: it would roll out the welcome mat to out-of-state animal rights groups as they tie up North Dakota in legal knots, litigating case after case in pursuit of imposing their radical agenda upon our state. And if there is one thing we know about animal rights groups, it is that they are never content until they impose their world-view on everyone. Because of this, Measure 2 opens the door to laws that will limit on-the farm slaughter, cripple our state's private meat industry and eliminate diversified livestock operations such as bison and elk farms.

Of course, proponents say that their goal is to simply shut down game farms. To our opponents, we say our farms provide a legal service for countless outdoor enthusiasts. These farms serve a growing demand that pumps hundreds of thousands of dollars into our state's rural economy and farm families have been able to supplement their incomes by operating game farms. And contrary to what the other side may tell you, game farms are not a new phenomenon -- they've been operating in our state for decades as allowed under state law and supervised by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the state Department of Agriculture.

The typical private North Dakota game farm averages between 600 and 1,200 acres. That said, our animals roam freely within the ranch. They are raised in a safe environment that is in accordance with state law. The North Dakota State Board of Animal Health closely -- and sensibly -- regulates the industry, regularly inspecting the farms to ensure animal safety. And while game farms comply with state law they must also comply with the laws of a free market that demand that those who use these ranches are provided a challenging and enjoyable experience. Because of this, ranch operators must offer good terrain, a challenging layout and a balanced animal population. Those who use game farms are provided a quality experience but they are not guaranteed to harvest an animal. In fact, many leave empty handed.

Game farms do not just serve those from urban areas who don't normally have access to hunting land. They also provide opportunities for youth hunters who are just beginning to hunt and opportunities for the elderly and the physically challenged -- including disabled veterans -- that they would not be able to otherwise enjoy.

Measure 2 is a Trojan Horse. It is poorly written and leaves much room for interpretation. Some who are supportive of Measure 2 view it as a stepping-stone to placing more restrictions on hunting and ranching. How do we know this? Because we have seen it in other states where similar laws have been passed. The only certainty with Measure 2 is that it will open the door to more laws that will take away the citizen's freedom to choose where they hunt, the landowner's right to decide how they use their land and the rancher's right to decide what livestock to raise.

Measure 2 may sound good to some, but it is far from good policy. It would create a law in search of a problem that does not exist. It would empower out-of-state animal rights extremists. And it would detrimentally affect our state's way of life.

Protect your property rights. Vote no on Measure 2.

(Shawn Schafer is co-chair of Citizens to Preserve ND Property Rights and president of the North Dakota Deer Ranchers Association.)

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/col ... mode=story

Captive hunting is sham hunting
Story 
Discussion 
By ROGER KASEMAN | Posted: Sunday, September 5, 2010 2:00 am | (1) Comments

Font Size: 
Default font size 
Larger font size 
Many North Dakotans are unaware of the commercial shooting operations across the state, operations that pen deer and elk inside escape-proof pastures for the sole purpose of offering the animals up as targets to rich out-of-state shooters who engage in what can only be called a sham hunt. The out-of-state shooter picks the size of the animal off the Internet before traveling to the operator's pasture where the client shoots the animal. The fee paid is based on antler size. No hunting is involved since the animal is fenced in. These operations are nothing more that shooting galleries with live targets.

North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is a grassroots organization of hunters dedicated to preserving our hunting heritage, a heritage based on the fair chase of free-ranging deer and elk. We oppose the corrupt image of hunting that the atrocious practice of shooting deer and elk inside escape-proof fences presents to the public.

In the wild, we spot, stalk and, with a little luck, take a deer that we are obligated by law to tag.

By law, the shooting gallery operator is obligated to tag his target animals with an ear tag at birth. The hunt is over before the baby deer or elk gets to his feet for the first time.

The practice of shooting deer and elk fenced inside a pasture creates a bankrupt image of hunting and hunters. That image is why members of the Fair Chase committee spent the last year collected signatures for an initiated measure that will outlaw the practice of penning deer and elk and offering them up as targets to rich out of state clients. If we do not end this practice, the high fence or game farm industry will grow into a monster that will bring shame on the citizens of this state. The North Dakota high-fence shooting industry is in its infancy. A look at states with long experience with these operations shows us what we can expect if we do not end this practice.

Artificial insemination. Already happening. At least one North Dakota operator advertises trophy quality bucks, the product of artificial insemination.

Whitetail Deer registry, up and running. The North American Deer Registry records pedigrees used to track antler producing genetics so shooting gallery operators can breed for antler size so they can charge a higher fee for their targets.

Cloning. Texas A & M University has cloned more than 300 whitetail bucks. Cloning allows a client can shoot the same buck several times.

Embryo transplants are coming, not to improve a food product, but to manipulate genetics for larger antlers.

Crossbreeding for larger antlers.

Inbreeding for the same purpose.

Shooting gallery operators manipulate genetics for profit the way a corrupt Wall Street banker manipulates investments; anything goes.

North Dakota high fence, shooting-gallery operators peddle the myth that they offer "wild" deer and elk for their clients' shooting pleasure inside pastures enclosed with an escape proof fence. They claim they do fair chase "hunts" inside their fence. Look at their websites. Read their advertising. They offer a 100 percent guarantee of success. The moment you see a 100 percent guarantee of success on any sort of hunt, you know it's a scam. The fence is the scam.

High-fence operators can't offer fair chase hunts. If the high-fence operator did offer a fair chase hunt, he could not offer a 100 percent guarantee of success. The animal might get way. The high-fence operator would have to deliver on his 100 percent guarantee; no trophy deer, no pay. Zero income will not impress the banker that holds the mortgage on the buck.

The 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal said, "The virtue of hunting is not in possessing game, but in pursing it."

Pascal sums up the difference between a shooting-gallery or high-fence operation and the legitimate fair chase hunting of free ranging deer supported by North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase. The moment you fence a deer or elk behind wire and start to feed it, the animal loses its fear of man and stops being wild. It is the wild in wildlife outside the fence we are trying to protect with an initiated measure.

(Roger Kaseman of Bismarck is the chairman of the sponsoring committee which put Measure 2 or the captive-hunting initiative on the ballot. He is also chairman of North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.)


----------



## gst

TK33 said:


> I meant to ask the same question gst did.
> 
> If this is such well written legislation why are there no ranchers on the sponsor list. If disease is such an issue and there will be no adverse consequences one would think the ag community would be on board.


TK the simple fact is the over whelming majority of those involved in the livestock industry look at this far differently than what Ron and others want to make it seem. This is a property rights issue, the wording of the NDCC makes it one. The state legislature quite a while ago, clearly defined these animals as domestic animals and private property as spelled out in the NDCC if one cares to look. The appropriate agencies are regulating this industry from a health and humane treatment standard to a degree far more stringent than most states and as a result the disease risk that is being bantered about is no more than any other animal ag industry deals with. The sponsors and supporters of this measure overlook these facts, and have even admitted to lying about them in pursuit of their agenda.

Most ranchers thru out the state know someone that is raising elk or deer, many times they are their neighbors. While most would not consider what takes place on them as hunting, the overwhelming majority see them for what they are, a segment of the animal ag industry. And most ranchers are well aware of the agendas of the anti orgs and how they are successfully acheiving them bit by bit and look at what is taking place here with this group and this measure and see significant similarities.

Regardless of what the sponsors and supporters of this measure want the public to believe, the FACT remains these operations are an animal agriculture enterprise that is CLEARLY defined as such by the NDCC. These sponsors want to end the raising of all "big game" for any purposes, that is why this measure is worded the way it is and is included in the animal agriculture section of the states century code. If I am wrong on that why have the sponsors not came on here to factually explain why it is being put in this section. They refuse to answer these questions because they do not want the factual truth made public until the deed is done. Plain and simple.

So is it just the supporters of their measure that they will answer questions for or do the opponents of this measure have the right to have factual, truthful answers given to their questions as well. Common sense tells one that if the sponsors are not willing to answer these questions, there is a good reason why.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

You explain why they put where they did because they are currently under that section of the century code, to do otherwise would not have been applicible and you know this to be true. So as you say they are domestic animals, why is it that the G&F are involved when they escape? When my neighbors cows get out back home they do not call the G&F!


----------



## gst

Ron it is not me that has determined they are domestic animals, it is the state itself in the NDCC. So explain to me how there will be a distinction made between the "domestic animals" that are raised as "farmed elk" as to which ones will fall under the parameters of this measure that makes it illegal to receive a fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal when there is no mention of limiting it to "canned shooting" operations???? You ether do not understand the application of the Federal Lacey Act as well as Roger 'Kaseman does or you do and you are choosing to not portray it accurately. Nor do you apparently understand how these anti hunting gropups are eagerly awaiting an opportunity to use the courts to make a ruling that favors their agendas, or you do and simply are willing to overlook it in your hate for the "horn pimps" as ypou refer to these operations :roll:

So what exactly has changed your opinion over these two measures that are worded exactly the same??????

And while you are at it explain how tthe public being told these animals are "wild game" protected under the public domain Art.11 Sec.27 as Gary Masching admits telling people is not a lie when they are specifiaclly defined as domestic animals in the very same NDCC.


----------



## Plainsman

> they are specifiaclly defined as domestic animals in the very same NDCC.


I have a question. What's the chance the NDCC is in conflict with the United States constitution and the federal laws made within it's restrictions.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, I am assuming it is the definition of these animals as domestic animals and farmed elk in the NDCC that you are refering to? If not please correct me. I am no Constitutional scholar, but would assume if this long held state classification and definition in regards to these operations is in violation of the Federal constitution or law, there would have been no need to start an initiated measure to ban them when a simple lawsuit allowing for a judicial ruling would have accomplished this group NDH for FC as well as HSUS's agenda.

So can you answer the questions I asked you? 
Should the creation of state law be based on factual truth?
Should the sponsors of any measure be held to a standard of factual truth when advocating for their measure?


----------



## Plainsman

Well, I'm not going to get deep into the debates this year. I am uneasy when anyone asks simple questions like you have since I worry it will be misconstrued some way. You see I find it hard to trust those who would shoot an animal in a pen or those who would support them. Sorry, I don't mean to be offensive just honest. 
I will risk it though. My answers would be yes and yes.


----------



## People

Plainsman you do not trust me?

OK I had to put in a BS post. I think I am up to 20 of them so far.


----------



## gst

plainsman thanks for directly answering those 2 questions, you are one of the few that have. I to believe the answers to be yes as well. Not trying to misconstrue anything, just setting the record straight. Now if you would answer this question. Gary Masching admits in a Dakota Country article that potential signers of their petition (the public) were told these animals are actually "wild game" that fall under the public domain that Art. 11 Sec. 27 protects their right of opportunity too. Given the Fact the the NDCC CLEARLY defines these animals as privately owned domestic animals in Sec. 36.1 of the NDCC was this a dishonest statement by a sponsor of this measure. He admittedly states when told this people went out and got others to sign the petition as well, so how many signatures were gathered based of this far from factual statement?


----------



## Eric Hustad

Ok Gst I have a dumb question. What is the difference if the animals being shot are wild or domesticated? In your opinion you think people would change their mind if the animals were domesticated? I am assuming that they would change their mind if they thought these weren't wild animals belonging to public? Ok more than one dumb question but am trying understand the thinking on both sides.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Eric... Domesticated is like shooting a cow. Wild is like going out and shooting a wild elk. One is raised in a pen its whole life. The other is not. HUGE difference....even in the non hunting public.

Then your second question......domesticated elk are property owned by the rancher/farmer. Wild elk are owned by the public. Again huge difference.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Yeah I know the meaning of domesticated but was wondering what the difference was for people to change their minds on signing the petition.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

In ND you cannot own a live elk unless you have a permit from the state to do so. So the only way to take possession of an elk is when it is dead or is shipped out of state or to a meat packing plant or to another person holding a permit.

So the reason for the term FEE Killing is to close this loop hole. It still allows for anyone to buy elk from a farmer but the elk needs to be killed by someone other than the buyer.

All of this side BS is entertaining and allows for some lively talking points but that is all they are. The voters are being asked this fall if shooting of a penned animal as hunting is right or wrong. All the other stuff is simply fluff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Put me down as two Yes votes to your question gst!


----------



## Eric Hustad

So if shooting a domestic Elk is like shooting a cow and you ask the average person to not sign the petition banning this wouldn't you rather have them thinking they are wild?


----------



## LT

Ron, A permit is not needed for ownership of the live animal. A facility must be permitted and when an animal is moved live it must be taken to another permitted facility. But if someone buys an animal at a permitted facility and never moves it from that facility live, no permit is needed.

So Ron,

1. You told us the first go round that you did not support the measure because the way it was worded it would have shut down these facilities. (Nodak September 3, 2010)

2. Then when it was pointed out to you that the wording was exactly the same, you denied it. (Nodak, September 3, 2010)

3. Then finally when the wording was actually put side by side, you stated you had to dig back into your old computer to determine that you were actually wrong, that the wording had not changed. (Nodak, September 6, 2010)

4. Then when you were asked if you now supported this measure, you stated yes. When asked why you would if the wording had not changed, you stated that you again made a mistake and you were wrong, that it would not shut down all farms as you thought. (Nodak, September 6, 2010)

5. You then stated that if we wanted the animals to be classified as domestic that it would shut down the hunting of them because of the Humane Slaughter Act. When it was pointed out to you that the Humane Slaughter Act was for slaughter houses, you disappeared. (Nodak, September 6, 2010)

6. Now you reappear with this permit business, stating a permit is needed to own a live elk. You also stated: "So the reason for the term FEE Killing is to close this loop hole. *It still allows for anyone to buy elk from a farmer* :homer: but the elk needs to be killed by someone other than the buyer." (Nodak & FB, September 8, 2010)

So exactly what loop hole does "fee" killing close?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

LT you are mincing words and you know it! I said that if they are domestic animals then they would be treated as others under the FHS act. If on farm slaughter is held to the same standard then canned shooting would be shut down. Simple as that.

In regards to ownership of elk via permit, you cannot own a live elk without having that permit first correct? In other words I cannot buy a live elk and obtain ownership without having a permit to house live elk if I read and understood the law correctly. So in other words I cannot buy a live elk without a permit. Thus I am paying to kill the animal then I can obtain ownership of the carcass. This law will not stop me or anyone else from buying the antlers from an elk if the animal is not killed by me on the premises.

So again, it still boils down to the voters deciding if canned shooting is right or wrong nothing more.


----------



## Plainsman

Ron said:


> In ND you cannot own a live elk unless you have a permit from the state to do so. So the only way to take possession of an elk is when it is dead


LT disagrees and says: 


> But if someone buys an animal at a permitted facility and never moves it from that facility live, no permit is needed.


 :homer: I was confused enough before I read that.


----------



## DG

> Ron said:
> In ND you cannot own a live elk unless you have a permit from the state to do so. So the only way to take possession of an elk is when it is dead
> 
> LT disagrees and says:
> But if someone buys an animal at a permitted facility and never moves it from that facility live, no permit is needed.


The permit is for the premise or farm. Ten very different and unrelated people can own farmed elk, mix them together and keep them at one location. Only one permit is needed.

Ron, you are painting yourself into the corner again.

Plainsman said,



> You see I find it hard to trust those who would shoot an animal in a pen or those who would support them. Sorry, I don't mean to be offensive just honest.


Coming from you that is a hoot. "I'm from the federal government and I'm here to help."


----------



## magnum3.5

Will someone again please tell me again who we are to tell someone or all landowners what they can do with their land and or livestock? In all reality it's none of our business what they do! It's their land, their livestock, being a Elk ranch, Bison ranch, Deer Ranch, or Pheasant farm. 
Who are we to tell them what they can do with their land. They are the ones paying for it. Let them decide how to make the living off of it. No Rights anymore for anybody is the way I see it, can't hunt this, can't have this gun I could go on and on. Everybody whines about access and such all of this exposure makes it tougher and tougher. If you don't want to shoot a pen raised animal don't. I won't either, but if someone does and a North Dakota Farmer and rancher wants to let them so be it. It's really none of our business.

We have no right to tell a farmer or rancher what they can do with their land. It is theirs. They bought it, pay taxes on it. Stay within the regulations on it. Who are we to say what they can do with it!

Magnum


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> LT you are mincing words and you know it! I said that if they are domestic animals then they would be treated as others under the FHS act. If on farm slaughter is held to the same standard then canned shooting would be shut down. Simple as that.
> 
> In regards to ownership of elk via permit, you cannot own a live elk without having that permit first correct? In other words I cannot buy a live elk and obtain ownership without having a permit to house live elk if I read and understood the law correctly. So in other words I cannot buy a live elk without a permit. Thus I am paying to kill the animal then I can obtain ownership of the carcass. This law will not stop me or anyone else from buying the antlers from an elk if the animal is not killed by me on the premises.
> 
> So again, it still boils down to the voters deciding if canned shooting is right or wrong nothing more.


Ron, once again you are not correct. The Federal Humane Slaughter Act specifically only lists cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, and swine as what falls under their regulatory control . Farmed elk are not listed. So the Federal Humane Slaughter Act does not apply as you suggest. Without them being redefined as big game rather than domestic animals neither the FHSA or the Lacey Act would apply. However if they are redefined in Sec. 36 of the NDCC as big game, the FHSA would still not apply, but the Lacey Act does. THAT IS WHY THE MEASURE IS INCLUDED IN THE ANIMAL AGRICULTURE SECTION OF THE NDCC. Perhaps you should reresearch your understanding of the differences between the first meaure you opposed and this second measure you claim you support! 

Pretty soon you should be running out of paint ! :wink: Or at least corners!


----------



## gst

Eric Hustad said:


> Ok Gst I have a dumb question. What is the difference if the animals being shot are wild or domesticated? In your opinion you think people would change their mind if the animals were domesticated? I am assuming that they would change their mind if they thought these weren't wild animals belonging to public? Ok more than one dumb question but am trying understand the thinking on both sides.


Eric, if the animals kept in captivity are indeed "wild game" as article 11 Sec 27 deals with it would be illegal for an individual to keep them in captivity much less "sell" them or a "hunt" for them. And one could understand where the public would have a great deal of concern if this was indeed the case. But if that same public is told these animals are clearly defined as privately owned domestic animals in the NDCC much the same as cattle or sheep ect..., it is entirely a different matter. These animals would then have been portrayed as the privately owned livestock they legally are defined as rather than the "wild game" they admittedly were misrepresented as by the sponsors.

The simple fact is you would have had a certain percentage that simply does not care wether these aninmals are captive or wild, they simply do not want any animal killed. But by Gary Maschings own admission in the Dakota Country article, when these people were told these animals were wild game, they went out and got more people to come back and sign the petition. So it would appear this "disingenuous statement" was used to garner more signatures. How many???? Who knows. Would they have signed the petition if the truth had been told? It is too late now, it is on the ballot. 
Funny how that worked out.


----------



## DG

Plainsman said,



> I have a question. What's the chance the NDCC is in conflict with the United States constitution and the federal laws made within it's restrictions.


What is the chance certain federal employees could have quietly taken their concerns to the elk and deer growers and the legislators? Or would you rather have all the noise?

The federal sponsers of the measure:

No.1 David Alan Brandt, federal biologist, northern plains wildlife research center or USGS in Jamestown. President of the Stutsman County wildlife federation and ND wildlife federation. Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society. Moderator on nodakoutddors

No.2 Lloyd A.Jones, director at Audubon for the USFWS. Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society.

No.3 Keith Trego, ND Natural Resources Trust. . Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society.

No.4 Erik Fritzell, Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society.

No.5 H. Thomas Sklebar, federal biologist, northern plains wildlife research center or USGS in Jamestown, director for the ND wildlife federation, Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society.

No.6 Jim Heggeness, former employee at northern plains wildlife research center or USGS in Jamestown.

No.7 Bruce Hanson, former federal biologist at northern plains wildlife research center or USGS in Jamestown, Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society. Moderator on nodakoutddors

Plainsman, Only 25 sponsers are needed on a petition. Couple more of these federal concerned sportsmen and you crew could be at 50 percent. I have a question. Where is the science?

Magnum said,



> Will someone again please tell me again who we are to tell someone or all landowners what they can do with their land and or livestock? In all reality it's none of our business what they do! It's their land, their livestock, being a Elk ranch, Bison ranch, Deer Ranch, or Pheasant farm.
> Who are we to tell them what they can do with their land. They are the ones paying for it. Let them decide how to make the living off of it. No Rights anymore for anybody is the way I see it, can't hunt this, can't have this gun I could go on and on. Everybody whines about access and such all of this exposure makes it tougher and tougher. If you don't want to shoot a pen raised animal don't. I won't either, but if someone does and a North Dakota Farmer and rancher wants to let them so be it. It's really none of our business.
> 
> We have no right to tell a farmer or rancher what they can do with their land. It is theirs. They bought it, pay taxes on it. Stay within the regulations on it. Who are we to say what they can do with it!


Baiting, cattle burping and farting methane, flintlocks, high fence, foodplots, global warming, clean air, clean water and just about every other politcal debate we are having, increasingly define the two world views between states rights and federal encroachment.

Those who don't believe governmental control and regulation are the answer to every problem should be in crisis mode. We simply do not know how to deal with the situation effectively. We can't identify who is pulling the levers and why.

Propondents of statism-the concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government-not only understand this but are actively creating crisis in order to advance their agenda.

The fair chase issue is about the "delivery" coming from these federal biologists, ecologists and wildlife managers. A "crisis", a fear and smear campaign against the elk and deer growers.

Using the fair chase committee as a front and using the press they realize that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Social change is always about pressure. Newsworthy or colorfull demonstrations in the streets are the tested, tried and true method to grow the number of uninterested voters. Trial by media. Roger Kasemans angle on all this is to subject elk and deer ranchers to public hatred and contempt.

How does everyone feel about "fair chase" defined in federal law? Where another layer of government is created. Bureaucrats, elected by no one, decide the rules.

High Fence hunting isn't the "crisis" that a hand full of people are trying to make it out to be.

I have asked on nodak and FBO, "what is militant conservation biology?"

Excerpt from Range Magazine 
By Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.

Conservation Biology

In 1980 the IUCN (in collaboration with UNEP, UNESCO, FAO and the World Wildlife Fund) released the first World Conservation Strategy calling for "a new ethic, embracing plants and animals as well as people." From this evolved the holistic science of conservation biology.

Conservation biology centers on the largely unproven assumption that "nature knows best." Consequently, all human use and activity should follow "natural" patterns within ecosystems. Ecosystems, however, don't naturally coincide with the political boundaries of man. Any single ecosystem may cross several national, state, and local political boundaries. To be effective, therefore, environmental law must be superior to property rights and political jurisdictions.

This largely unproven science was introduced to U.S. colleges by Rockefeller-aligned foundations. They provided endowed chairs and grants to natural resource colleges. As students began to graduate with conservation degrees in the late 1970s, federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others - all members of the IUCN - changed the qualifications for employment as field managers to include those holding conservation degrees.

Following the first World Conservation Strategy in 1980, Dr. Michael Soule was tapped to create a professional society and a scientific journal that centered on the new science of conservation biology. The journal's first issue outlined the purpose of conservation biology.

"The society is a response&#8230;to the biological diversity crisis that will a reach a crescendo in the first half of the 21st century. We assume implicitly that&#8230;the worst biological disaster in the last 65 million years can be averted&#8230;We assume implicitly that environmental wounds inflicted by ignorant humans and destructive technologies can be treated by wiser humans and by wholesome technologies."

In the first chapter of the textbook of "Conservation Biology," Soule further explains the initial strategy of conservation biologists:

"In many situations conservation biology is a crisis discipline. In crisis disciplines, in contrast to 'normal' science, it is sometimes imperative to make an important tactical decision before one is confident in the sufficiency of data&#8230;Warfare is the epitome of a crisis discipline. On a battlefield, if you observe a group of armed men stealthily approaching your lines, you are justified in taking precautions, which may include firing on the men."

This almost unbelievable arrogance and militancy formed the fundamental understanding of right and wrong for these early conservation biologists. Many graduates holding to these radical ideas were hired by our federal and state agencies. It shouldn't be surprising that these government employees holding such extremist views are quite hostile to any people using government lands for any purpose. Many of these conservation graduates hold senior management positions today.

Tragically, the change that occurred within our natural resource colleges and government agencies did not come bout from a healthy debate based on solid scientific evidence. Instead it came from an unethical, or perhaps even illegal, collaboration between federal, NGO, and U.N. change agents to advance their agenda. Not only were affected landowners and resource users not included in this process, they were not allowed to even be aware of it. In a very real sense, early conservation biologists declared war on traditional science and resource management without bothering to inform their alleged enemy - the general public, specifically landowners - that they were at war.

Certainly, not all federal resource managers or even many of those graduated with a conservation degree ascribe to the militant approach taken by Soule. Nonetheless, various degrees of this mindset have permeated our federal agencies at every level. For instance, a March 30, 1994, United States Bureau of Land Management internal working document on ecosystem management brazenly states: "All ecosystems management activities should consider human beings as a biological resource."

The reduction of humanity to the level of a biological resource has had an enormous impact on the internal culture of these agencies. Many employees no longer view themselves as servants of the people and stewards of the resource, but as righteous protectors of nature from humans. Nature's welfare becomes more important than human welfare. This explains why these agency employees can often enforce regulations that harm or even destroy the lives of property owners and resource users. They honestly believe they have a moral responsibility to protect nature from man's perceived damaging activities, no matter what the cost.

Certainly conservation biology has matured since Michael Soule penned his uncompromising words in the 1980s. Credible scientists, without personal agendas, use methodology derived from conservation biology to investigate natural relationships. Nonetheless, conservation biology is a young science that has been politically forced to become the flagship science used in resource-management decisions. There was, and still is, little justification in the adoption of conservation biology as the foundation for federal policy. Every American should know that the United States is implementing international policy, which has caused not only great but also unnecessary harm to American citizens.


----------



## LightningRenegade

I Googled a bit and found this:

How Fair Chase Hunting Works

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outd ... /printable

The ethical approach also states that a hunter may not take an animal if:

# The hunter herded or spotted the animal from air and then quickly landed to pursue.
# It was herded or chased by a motorized vehicle.
# Electronic communication devices are being used.
# It is confined by artificial barriers or transplanted for commercial shooting.
# It is trapped or drugged.
# It's swimming, trapped in snow or helpless in any nature.
# The hunter is using another hunter's license.
# Laws or regulations are being broken.

Just like the others here, I can't consider killing an animal that is trapped, drugged, confined..hunting.


----------



## Plainsman

> The federal sponsers of the measure:





> No.7 Bruce Hanson, former federal biologist at northern plains wildlife research center or USGS in Jamestown, Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society. Moderator on nodakoutddors


DG you are a careless or untruthful man. I am not a sponsor of this bill. I'm sure you know better. It makes one wonder about all your other information.

As to landowner rights that I keep hearing about. Ask yourself this question: does raising elk require a permit. You don't need a permit to speak freely, it is guaranteed by the constitution. You don't need a permit to vote it is a guaranteed right. You do need a permit or license to drive because it is a privilege and not a right. The state may take it at any time with proper reasons. Likewise raising elk requires a permit because it is not a right it is a privilege. You may purchase a car, but not be able to drive it. You may purchase elk, but society will decide what you can do with them.


----------



## KurtR

Do you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Seems to me that is a right but the govt makes it up as they go just like the people behind this bill.


----------



## Longshot

Dang KurtR, I didn't know there was a Constitutional right to own elk. Please fill me in. If not your comparison holds no water.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> DG you are a careless or untruthful man. I am not a sponsor of this bill. I'm sure you know better. It makes one wonder about all your other information.
> 
> As to landowner rights that I keep hearing about. Ask yourself this question: does raising elk require a permit. You don't need a permit to speak freely, it is guaranteed by the constitution. You don't need a permit to vote it is a guaranteed right. You do need a permit or license to drive because it is a privilege and not a right. The state may take it at any time with proper reasons. Likewise raising elk requires a permit because it is not a right it is a privilege. You may purchase a car, but not be able to drive it. You may purchase elk, but society will decide what you can do with them.
Click to expand...

Plainsman, These rights you mention as guaranteed are not unfettered. There are requirements that one must follow to maintain those rights, requirements set forth by the legislative section of govt. You have to be 18 to vote, you have to be a citizen of this country, you can not be a felon, you have to vote in the state you are a resident of, ect.... You can not yell fire in a crowded building, you can not slander someone, you can not lie under oath ect...... There are restrictions that if you follow indeed give you the "right" to do the things you mention. Just as the constitution allows the "right" for private enterprise to function if it follows rules set forth. Tell us how these operations are not following the rules set forth by the legislative branch of govt in this state and therefore have forefetted their right to exist?

You answered 2 questions, but then stopped when asked wether one of your former fellow sponsors had lied to the public or not in gathering signatures as he admitted to in an article written in Dakota Country, Why?

As to the truthful requirement, were you a sponsor in the first attempt to gather signatures, and as a sponsor in this first attempt, can you shed any light on the claims someone from this measure contacted someone from HSUS. Remember, respect is based on truth.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Ok Gst I see where your coming from on the wild animal not being kept to be shot. I was wondering why you wouldn't want people to think that they are wild, but the illegal part clears it up as I was thinking there would be more support if people thought the animals had a chance to escape.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, These rights you mention as guaranteed are not unfettered.


That's right, and privileges are even more tenuous.

I received a PM about DG's post and who are sponsors. It appears DG that you are wrong on many of them. I'm not going to throw names around like you are, but if your going to talk about it please research and find who the federal employees are if you feel that is pertinent. I think they are involved because they understand wildlife and the constitution not because of who they work for. Also, your wrong on the offices people currently hold. As a matter of fact you were about 50/50 correct/incorrect. Not very accurate. It accomplishes nothing slandering people who are not involved.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Just like the others here, I can't consider killing an animal that is trapped, drugged, confined..hunting.


They why not just put restrictions on how they can advertise? Why shut down a lively hood and a living for people?

Then on the permit thing....

You can purchase an elk and house it at a facility that is permitted. Just like a person in the city can buy and own a horse and have it housed at a farm.

People heed my words on this....if this measure passes and goes into law you will be opening the door to many things. I hate to be doom and gloom. But this legislation will open the doors for HSUS or PETA lawyers to find loop holes, piggy back legislation, etc to push their agenda. If you don't think so....open your eyes! This bill will put restrictions on farming of domesticated animals and they way they are handled and slaughtered. What won't make them move in on the cattle industry? Hog industry? Sheep? etc. This bill will also open the doors for more things on the basis of "ethics". If that is what this bill is being pushed as an "ethics" bill. You could see the use of trail cams gone, use of electronic calls (predator hunting) gone, trapping...gone, etc. Think how legislation opens or breeds new legislation. Think of all the weapons bills and how more and more weapons bills keep getting introduced. Once one legislation passes they will keep pushing for more and more.


----------



## LT

Plainsman,

I think your definition of slander must be different than mine.

All the men listed have either been sponsors of this measure in the past, currently, or both times as anyone can view on line for themselves.

Past Measure: http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/electio ... 272007.pdf

Current Measure: http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/electio ... 090821.pdf

Maybe positions or jobs are not current, but they did hold those positions or jobs at one time.

Now here is my definition of slander:

1. Telling people that someone's legal property that they bought and paid for is "stolen." Using Article 11, Section 27 of the North Dakota constitution to gather signatures for this measure as confirmed in Dakota Country.

2. Telling people that canned hunt facilities brought in feral pigs to this state as Kaseman stated as fact in Dakota Country. Mr. Phil Mastrangelo, State Director, USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services, in charge of removal of these pigs has stated the following: "No agencies were able to determine the origin of the feral swine in the badlands or the Turtle Mountains."

3. And then telling people that hundreds of thousands of sportsman's dollars were used as Mr. Kaseman said in Dakota Country. Mr. Phil Mastrangelo's statement regarding the dollars used: "The feral swine removal project in the badlands utilized a combination of funds from the USDA/Wildlife Services, USDA/Forest Service, and the ND Game & Fish Dept. In the Turtle Mountains, funds were used by USDA/Wildlife Services and ND Game & Fish Dept. The funds utilized by the USDA agencies were not sportsman's dollars. You will need to check with the ND Game & Fish Dept. for the amount of sportsman's dollars that were used for both projects."


----------



## Plainsman

> All the men listed have either been sponsors of this measure in the past, currently, or both times


They were listed as sponsors LT, you know that isn't right so don't make excuses. They were not listed as past sponsors. Incorrect is incorrect.



> Telling people that someone's legal property that they bought and paid for is "stolen."


That's all semantics, and we would have to go all the way back to original game laws. I certainly am not going to spend that much time. All those things you listed in actuality have no bearing. They simply attack people and do not address the issues. 
People who raise elk need a permit period. You can purchase a car, but you blow .10 alcohol and you loose your license. You screw up on your elk farm and you will also loose your permit. It makes no difference how much you paid for your elk. They may be your property, but because of regulations they are not your exclusive of those regulations.

You guys are delving into the foolish again simply to blow smoke up our backside.


----------



## LT

It said measure, didn't say current meaure, and the measure is worded the same. I am not seeing the slander, unless you are saying to be connected with this measure is slander.

Semantics as you say.



> All those things you listed in actuality have no bearing. They simply attack people and do not address the issues.


So are you saying that it is not necessary to tell the truth when creating law?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, you must really be dizzy, with all the spin. Currently the FHS act only covers animals you listed in how they are treated and killed at federally inspected operations. If the act is amended and now includes on farm slaughter you can believe that any animal raised for a profit or slaughter will be included especially ones that are classified as domestic livestock. You seem to want it both ways in that this measure somehow will trigger issues with this, but then claim they will not be affected. Your room is not covered in polka dots, they simply are pictures and light switches on the wall and your head is spinning so fast that they appear to be polka dots!

LT, I am not painting myself into a corner, I stated that if I read the law correctly that a permit is need prior to taking ownership. But if you are correct, then the Leg will deal with this issue just as MT did which stopped the canned shooting operations who attempted to circumvent the law.

I find it really funny though in regards to the people who are whining about property rights! I wonder why we never heard from them when some widow or retiring landowner wants to sell their land to a conservation organization that will still be paying taxes on the land. Seems that they have selective choice of which property rights are worth whining about!

L.A.N.D,Farmers Union,Stockmans Assn,Farm Bureau etc.... all as a principal oppose these sales, and now some of those same organizations are whining about property rights? If the good of the whole is more important than the few, then canned shooting operations which are the few, should shut up and go home!

So once again the issue boils down to the voters chosing if this is right or wrong!


----------



## Chuck Smith

> So once again the issue boils down to the voters chosing if this is right or wrong!


Ken I am assuming you mean if it is right or wrong to kill an animal in a pen or enclosure? Correct? Plus the charging a fee for the animal or purchasing the animal and then killing it? Correct??

Take away what the animal is....just call it an animal.

So what you are saying is wrong is selling an animal? Then the animal is killed inside of a pen or enclosure is wrong? Correct?

Please answer me if this is what is wrong and needs to be put to a vote?


----------



## KEN W

Chuck Smith said:


> So once again the issue boils down to the voters chosing if this is right or wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> Ken I am assuming you mean if it is right or wrong to kill an animal in a pen or enclosure? Correct? Plus the charging a fee for the animal or purchasing the animal and then killing it? Correct??
> 
> Take away what the animal is....just call it an animal.
> 
> So what you are saying is wrong is selling an animal? Then the animal is killed inside of a pen or enclosure is wrong? Correct?
> 
> Please answer me if this is what is wrong and needs to be put to a vote?
Click to expand...

 Chuck..... :huh:


----------



## DG

Plainsman said,



> DG you are a careless or untruthful man. I am not a sponsor of this bill. I'm sure you know better. It makes one wonder about all your other information.


You were a sponser of fair chase one in 2008. The wording of fair chase two in 2010 is exactly the same as fair chase one. Have you changed your position? Doubt it.

You were a federal biologist. Tell me, were you a militant federal conservation biologist? Are you one today?

Plainsman said,



> I received a PM about DG's post and who are sponsors. It appears DG that you are wrong on many of them. I'm not going to throw names around like you are, but if your going to talk about it please research and find who the federal employees are if you feel that is pertinent. I think they are involved because they understand wildlife and the constitution not because of who they work for. Also, your wrong on the offices people currently hold. As a matter of fact you were about 50/50 correct/incorrect. Not very accurate. It accomplishes nothing slandering people who are not involved.


Plainsman, So tell me something, how do the federal handlers get Kaseman to do their bidding?


----------



## KurtR

Longshot said:


> Dang KurtR, I didn't know there was a Constitutional right to own elk. Please fill me in. If not your comparison holds no water.


This is just more regulation(conceal carry permits was example) that we dont need from the govt and opening door for the the antis. Find it funny how many people claim to be conservatives but then when some thing fits there little bit of ethics they jump on board of letting in more govt regulation. This is a husu or peta bill not directley linked but if you think they will not claim victory on there web sites if this passes you are mistaken. Funny how they just sit back and let us hunters take care of our self. Pretty sad they dont even have to do any work to get their agenda passed. Baiting is next, then trail cameras, and down the slippery slope we go


----------



## Plainsman

> Find it funny how many people claim to be conservatives but then when some thing fits there little bit of ethics they jump on board


I find if sad that people who claim to be conservative don't respect the intent of the framers of our constitution and this nation. Perhaps it's your point of view that gives liberals the idea that a conservative will do anything for money.

Here is the point I think would describe the measure. I don't think it's a sport to shoot a domestic animal if you want to call elk that. It's not a sport to shoot a cow, dog, horse etc. That and I don't think elk even after 1000 years will be truly domesticated. Calling them domesticated does not make them truly domesticated. For you conservative guys like me, if Obama proclaimed a crocodile to be domesticated would you believe him?

Why don't people start debating the real issues. Since there is a requited permit an elk owner is not guaranteed the right to do anything he wants with these animals. This is not a landowner rights issue. When someone doesn't get their way and it's linked to agriculture in any way you can bet they will start to cry landowner rights. You don't need a permit to grow corn, you do need a permit to drain wetlands or raise elk.

The real issue is this: is shooting elk restricted by fences ethical. Last year one person said laws should not be based on ethics or morals. I suggest that person educate themselves because in America our laws all or nearly all are based on ethics and morals. Simply doing the right thing is based on morals. Politicians when enacting new laws debate continuously what the right thing to do is. Likewise now the voter will decide what the right thing to do is.



> So are you saying that it is not necessary to tell the truth when creating law?


If you could actually get that from anything I wrote, especially after reading the answer I gave gst, then your not going to grasp anything I say.

The reason I am not a sponsor this year is no ones business. I know that will drive you crazy with curiosity. Anymore goofy questions and I'm going to think it will be a short trip for some of you. I may or may not answer questions depending on if I take them serious or not.


----------



## TK33

> I find if sad that people who claim to be conservative don't respect the intent of the framers of our constitution and this nation. Perhaps it's your point of view that gives liberals the idea that a conservative will do anything for money


Plainsman, come on.

this is as liberal as it gets, this has the support of HSUS, as liberal of an organization as it gets.

This is exactly what these liberal groups want, more legislation and more bans. As myself and others have said repeatedly here, this will just open the door for more legislation, measures, and lawsuits. You can bet your bottom dollar on that. This is dividing sportsmen, will divide sportsmen and landowners, and lead to more animosity. There is nothing good about this bill.

This is not as black and white as you and Ron think it is. If it were there would not be as much controversy and you would not have the ag groups already speaking out against it.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> gst, you must really be dizzy, with all the spin. Currently the FHS act only covers animals you listed in how they are treated and killed at federally inspected operations. If the act is amended and now includes on farm slaughter you can believe that any animal raised for a profit or slaughter will be included especially ones that are classified as domestic livestock.
> !


So you are now admitting that elk are not covered under the FHSA as you claimed they were earlier?

And there in lies the concerns many have with this measure! You are starting to see the light!!!!! :wink:


----------



## DG

Plainsman said,



> Why don't people start debating the real issues.


And Plainsman said,



> The real issue is this: is shooting elk restricted by fences ethical.


I have to admit you are good at this. "They who define the issues control the debate." You know that.
What is obvious is your attempt at getting people focused back on the elk and deer growers.

Let's talk about why you are not a sponser this time. You admitted somewhere that there was in fact people on the fair chase committee durring fair chase one partnering with members of the Humane Society. What did you know and when did you know it?

On fair chase two you have a sponser who could be an animal rights activist. Her name is Janine Jacob. She works with Gary Masching.

http://www.nd.gov/docr/parole/offices/bismarckdist.html

Parole and Probation: Bismarck District Office
103 South 3rd St. Suite 5
Bismarck, ND 58501
Phone: 701-328-9700
Fax: 701-328-9705

Name Office Phone Cell Phone 
Miller, LuAnn K. (701) 328-9701 
Bachmeier, Sharon E. (701) 328-9704 
Blotsky, Penny K. (701) 328-9711 / Drug Court Officer 701/391-7092 
Carkuff, James W. (701) 328-9729 701/400-2676 
Eckert, Michael L. (701) 328-9708 701/220-5654 
Hagen, Kevin W. (701) 328-9712 701/220-1571 
Johnson, Duane M. (701) 328-9728 701/400-6649 
Masching, Gary O. (701) 328-9710 701/527-1512 
Jacob, Janine (701) 328-9707 701/391-8475 
Ferderer, Darin M. (701) 328-9709 701/527-2940 
Schuchard, Rick A. (701) 328-9703 701/391-8472 
Soupir, Tony M. (701) 328-9713 / S.O. Specialist 701/391-3259 
Weigel, Brian L. (701) 328-9706 / S.O. Specialist 701/527-2128 
Schlinger, Corey P. (701) 328-9818 701/220-1998 
Anderson, Adam C. (701) 328-9726 701/220-3533

Plainsman, look at this,

http://www.featherlitend.com/events/

Circle Diamond Ranch Supply Aids Pets Displaced by Hurricanes

Circle Diamond Ranch Supply has donated the use of a trailer to transport pets displaced by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Some of the animals wil be brought back to be sheltered in North Dakota.

Sue Buchholz, CDHS shelter director, and volunteer, Janine Jacob, are going to Alabama to help with rescue and care of the displaced pets.

Anyone who wishes to make a donation to help with the trip can send a donation to:
Central Dakota Humane Society CDHS.NET
2090 37th Street
Mandan, ND 58554

Plainsman, Ok you are thinking big deal. She likes dogs and cats. However, she wasn't the only one to travel to hurricane Katrina.

This is from the Washington DC based HSUS website:

http://www.animalsheltering.org/resourc ... ppers.html

Karen Thunshell of Minot was also there. You don't suppose Karen Thunshell and Janine Jacob know each other?

Karen and her girlfriends collected 2000 signatures durring fair chase one. They again collected for fair chase two. Karen is into the horse slaughter ban. It is a scary experiance for the horse to be hauled to a slaughter house, mixed with other aggressive horses and confined in the buildings at the slaughter house. On the flip side Karen says hunters need to hunt fair chase. The farmed elk should be taken to a slaughter house. She doesn't care that it is a contradiction. The end justifies the means.

Stop the human expliotation of all animals. There is something in this measure for many radicals.

The fair chase committee is a coalition of elitist fair chasers, animal rights advocates and fedgov employees.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Tk, they are speaking out against this, but also spoke out against someone looking to sell their land to whomever they chose! See the irony of this and why your claims are inaccurate. Now I see a lot of good coming of this, maybe it will create some hard feelings for a time, but I am old enough and was active in the farming trade when Swampbuster went into affect. Lots of hard feelings ill will from that as well and to be honest only those who where draining onto others property held onto those ill will feelings. I do believe that most livestock operators are concerned because of the false claims that HSUS is involved with this. Heard today that the HSUS sent a congratulation notice to the Fair Chase group and they where told by the Fair Chase Not only NO! But Hell No! in support from this group and to stay the hell out of this state. Cannot be much clearer than that, no matter what gst or anyone who oppose this say.

Now gst, here it is one more time! You where the person who was ranting about the FHS act and the fact that this bill has implications that will involve it. I know what the Act stated, knew very well that it currently does not cover non traditional livestock. I simply wanted to see what and where you where going with it. And to be honest you went right where I thought you would. So here it is, and I will state it one more time if on farm slaughter is brought into the FHS act rules of humane killing elk,deer, or any other animal raised as a for profit entity will be included.

Now one more time, why is this property right more deserving than the right to sell your property to whomever you want? You talk about taking without compensation all you need to do is look at the people up in the north east corner who wanted to sell land for above market value and where blocked by people like you from doing so. You best not live in a glass house and toss stones about property rights!


----------



## KurtR

Not disagreeing it is not a sport to shoot a elk in a fence. So have how it is advertised changed. Why is a elk held in higher regard than a cow? What about bison why are they not on the list as they were wild not that long ago and there are still wild herds out there? Dead is dead reguardless if it is shot or its throat is slit in the slaughter house. I am glad that i am not the only one that sees this in conection with the liberal organizations like peta and hsus. The suporters are fighting the antis fight for them and are to blinded by there i know best attitude.


----------



## Old Hunter

I was listening to the radio while working yesterday and heard a proponent of highfence killing refer to it as hunting. This person also refered to their clients as hunters. He used these terms throughout the interview. You will never get these people to change their terminology.


----------



## KEN W

Old Hunter said:


> I was listening to the radio while working yesterday and heard a proponent of highfence killing refer to it as hunting. This person also refered to their clients as hunters. He used these terms throughout the interview. You will never get these people to change their terminology.


Interesting.....if these people continue to call it hunting,then it is about ethics.Every "Game Farm" I found on the internet calls it hunting.Offering 3 days or more "hunts."The word hunting is all over their websites.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, come on.
> 
> this is as liberal as it gets, this has the support of HSUS, as liberal of an organization as it gets.


I don't see this issue having any political connection what so ever. Your simply trying to suck me in by appealing to my conservative values. Fair chase is an issue of sportsmanship while HSUS is simply emotional insanity. It also skirts the issue.



> Plainsman, Ok you are thinking big deal. She likes dogs and cats.


DG I will admit that is what I was thinking. This all appears off subject again, but I will answer some of your questions.



> Let's talk about why you are not a sponser this time.


  I stated I was not going to do that.



> You admitted somewhere that there was in fact people on the fair chase committee durring fair chase one partnering with members of the Humane Society. What did you know and when did you know it?


I heard some rumors (person not people) about midway through the process. I took them serious about a month after the petition didn't make it. I take it serious now, but am still unsure of the extent and how serious I should take it. 
Here is what I think about the HSUS involvement. I wish they would stay away. I understand that when you do the right thing sometimes you will attract people you don't want to attract. I understand that you can't get two people together and agree on everything. The members of HSUS I would guess are variable ranging from nearly normal to emotionally insane. I don't agree with them and have no desire to ever talk with one.

OK I'n getting a hint that I am to long winded I can't see where I am typing and the page is jumping up and down. In ending I'll leave it to the individual. Is it sporting? I get a kick out of the guys that are so against baiting, but think high fence shooting is ok. Something is wrong with that type of thinking.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> New postby KEN W » Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:02 pm
> 
> Chuck Smith wrote:
> 
> So once again the issue boils down to the voters chosing if this is right or wrong!
> 
> Ken I am assuming you mean if it is right or wrong to kill an animal in a pen or enclosure? Correct? Plus the charging a fee for the animal or purchasing the animal and then killing it? Correct??
> 
> Take away what the animal is....just call it an animal.
> 
> So what you are saying is wrong is selling an animal? Then the animal is killed inside of a pen or enclosure is wrong? Correct?
> 
> Please answer me if this is what is wrong and needs to be put to a vote?
> 
> Chuck..... :huh:


Ken.... What needs to be put to a vote..... The act of killing an animal inside a pen? Correct? Is that was this issue boils down to? This is what you and others see as so wrong....THE KILLING OF AN ANIMAL IN AN ESCAPE PROOF ENCLOSURE? Yes or No?

I am trying to strip it down in its most basic form. No name calling no he said she said.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> *The real issue is this: is shooting elk restricted by fences ethical.* Last year one person said laws should not be based on ethics or morals. I suggest that person educate themselves because in America our laws all or nearly all are based on ethics and morals. Simply doing the right thing is based on morals. Politicians when enacting new laws debate continuously what the right thing to do is. Likewise now the voter will decide what the right thing to do is.


Plainsman.... Like others have stated. Is it ethical to kill a cow, sheep, pig, etc in an enclosure?

I totally see people saying it is not "sporting" and I agree. Just like I agree it is not hunting. Yet do I find it unethical...NOPE. As long as it is killed fast and humanely. People don't find shooting deer at long ranges "sporting" or ethical. Some don't find it sporting to use bait, trail cams, planting food plots, using mineral sites, using tree stands, etc. Look at Tred Barta. All spot and stalk is want he found sporting. Different strokes for different folks.



> I was listening to the radio while working yesterday and heard a proponent of highfence killing refer to it as hunting. This person also refered to their clients as hunters. He used these terms throughout the interview. You will never get these people to change their terminology.





> Interesting.....if these people continue to call it hunting,then it is about ethics.Every "Game Farm" I found on the internet calls it hunting.Offering 3 days or more "hunts."The word hunting is all over their websites.


Now if you changed the laws saying that they can't advertise this way...they can't call it hunting. They can't have it on websites. They can't call their clients hunters. It would all be in violation of the law. If you want to separate High Fence Shooting with Free Range Hunting from the public eye... All you have to do is have advertising laws put in place...PERIOD. And yes it is that simple. It also won't open the door to piggy back legislation, more legislation that will twist this bill to fit a certain groups agenda....and this goes both ways. Because I gaurntee this law if gets passed will have loop holes both sides (Peta HSUS and High Fence Operators)...will exploit and use. Most laws in the first draft are not picture perfect and are amended many times over.


----------



## Longshot

> Because I gaurntee this law if gets passed will have loop holes both sides (Peta HSUS and High Fence Operators)...will exploit and use. Most laws in the first draft are not picture perfect and are amended many times over.


Since the passage in MT, what other laws have been passed since then in MT that pertain to this? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. If there were anti-hunting laws passed in MT since the HF passage I think we would have heard more about it.


----------



## AdamFisk

Didn't pass, but came close!!!!!



AdamFisk said:


> I believe Montanan's just endured a hell of a fight to keep their right to trap on public grounds, via initiated measure.
> 
> Here is the anti's website.
> http://www.mttrapfree.org/
> 
> Kinda shares a similar tone to another website, doesn't it?????


----------



## Chuck Smith

How about the Trail cam law? I don't know that is why I am asking it in a question form.


----------



## AdamFisk

I believe the G&F enacted that law. To my knowledge, no initiated measure took place for that.

Here's the "why":
http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=3322



> Montana's Game Camera Ban
> By Darren Warner Published: 6/8/2010
> 
> Montana hunters were surprised to open up the 2010 Hunting Regulations for Deer, Elk and Antelope and find a regulation that bans the use of game cameras during hunting season.
> 
> Perhaps more surprising is that the regulation isn't new-though the buzz it's creating on the Internet suggests a whole lot of hunters weren't aware of it.
> 
> "We've had a law in place for 12 years that prohibits the use of scouting cameras during hunting season," said Mike Korn, assistant chief of law enforcement for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP). "You can't use a camera as an aid to hunting, and scouting is part of hunting."
> 
> The Internet chatter centers around these questions: Montana FWP imposed this rule based on their view of hunting ethics-but even if game cameras do raise ethical questions, should they be debated by hunters around a campfire-or decided for us by a government agency? Should it really be a crime for a hunter on his own land to use a camera to help him select a spot to hunt?
> 
> The Law
> In 1999, the Montana Legislature passed Bill 215, creating a new law addressing the use of game cameras for hunting purposes. Montana Code Annotated § 87-3-134 reads:
> 
> It is unlawful for a person, while hunting, to possess any electronic motion-tracking device or mechanism, as defined by Commission rule, that is designed to track the motion of a game animal and relay information on the animal's movement to a hunter.
> 
> After passage of the law, the FWP Commission developed a regulation to carry out the law and specify which devices are prohibited. Originally the list was a long one, including remote operational cameras, seismic devices, electronic trip wires, laser devices used to activate tracking devices, thermal imaging devices and satellite ratio-telemetry tracking devices. (The law excludes radio-tracking collars attached to hunting dogs.)
> 
> In 2010 the commission simplified the regulation to help hunters better understand it:
> 
> It is illegal for a person to possess or use in the field any electronic or camera device whose purpose is to scout the location of game animals or relay the information on a game animal's location or movement during any Commission adopted hunting season.
> 
> The regulation has raised more questions than it's answered.
> 
> "I've been asked if it's against the law for a guy to have a scouting camera sitting on the seat next to him in a vehicle," said Korn. "We're going to look at each situation on its own merits and go from there."
> 
> Or what about a whitetail deer hunter who puts out a camera during antelope season-is that prohibited? According to FWP Communications Chief Ron Aasheim, the answer is no-probably.
> 
> "It's a complicated process to determine when the regulation's been violated," noted Aasheim.
> 
> The Law's Intent
> Montana FWP officials believe the regulation is necessary to maintain ethical hunting practices in the Big Sky State.
> 
> "In the 1990s we began to have concerns that technology was taking the ethics out of hunting and damaging the spirit of fair chase," explained Korn.
> 
> Some believe the regulation penalizes hunters with limited time and resources.
> 
> "People are very busy, and many don't have a month to scout game before hunting season, said Bushnell trail camera manager Darin Stephens. "Cameras just help them to spend the time they do have more efficiently."
> 
> Game-camera manufacturers haven't voiced any opposition to the ban, but they wonder if the regulation goes too far.
> 
> "I can understand outlawing cameras that provide a live feed of images to a cell phone or other portable device, but most hunters don't use cameras that way," added Stephens. "They have to walk up to a camera, retrieve the memory card, and then wait to check the images until they get back home or back to the lodge."
> 
> Stephens also points out that scouting cameras can actually aid law enforcement in catching poachers, thereby promoting ethical hunting practices. They also can be used to prevent other illegal activities and bring violators to justice.
> 
> "A few years ago, I had a ladder stand stolen off of my hunting property," recalled Indiana whitetail hunter Glen Ransbottom. "My trail camera took a picture of the two guys walking away with the stand, and the picture was a key piece of evidence used to convict the guys."
> 
> Others question the law's legitimacy.
> 
> "I think it's a bogus law," said Rich Birdsell, co-owner of Northern Rockies Outfitters. "Cameras just allow you to see what animals you have in your area, just like using a good pair of binoculars to view game from far away."
> 
> Trail Camera Benefits
> There are many other uses for trail cameras not addressed by the regulation:
> 
> - Catching trespassers and reducing trespassing crimes, thereby protecting landowners' rights.
> 
> - Helping farmers hunt predators like coyotes and mountain lions that are killing livestock.
> 
> - Aiding biologists in carrying out important scientific research. For example, many state biologists work with landowners who use trail cameras in an effort to get more accurate population figures for their management plans. "We've provided cameras to Ducks Unlimited to help them monitor predator activity and determine what's causing declines in duck numbers in North and South Dakota," explained Stephens.
> 
> - Increasing enjoyment of wildlife. Many like to view pictures of animals that we aren't hunting but that live in the area. My family and I love to watch the progress beavers are making on building a dam on our hunting property.
> 
> The sticky point in all of this is: How does law enforcement decide who's illegally using cameras for hunting and who's using them for other purposes? Neither the law nor the 2010 regulation offer any guidance, leaving it up to the discretion of game wardens to make this important decision based on their own subjective reasoning.
> 
> "There's no one answer, and every case has its own twists and turns," Korn said.
> 
> Ethics
> The Montana Legislature, FWP and FWP Commission all believe that trail cameras give hunters an unfair advantage and therefore constitute an unethical hunting practice.
> 
> "Those are values that our commission chose to address," said Aasheim. "We have a lot of people who believe that when you use cameras to know where the animals are, that it's not hunting-it's a blood sport."
> 
> Some don't believe trail cameras create unethical hunting opportunities.
> 
> "Trail cameras don't give you an unfair advantage," said Montanan Eric Albus, owner of Milk River Outfitters. "They just give you more hours in the day to scout."
> 
> Perhaps most disturbing of all is that Montana officials have accepted the responsibility of deciding which hunting practices are ethical and which aren't. Korn went so far as to say, "Most of our regulations deal with maintaining the ethical hunting of game."
> 
> Obvious criminal activity aside-and despite the fact that Montana accepted public comment on the law before it went into effect-many hunters still question whether state wildlife agencies should be judging what's ethical, especially to the extent of cameras that most states find perfectly acceptable. Instead of managing wildlife, Montana officials are micro-managing hunter behavior.
> 
> The impact of technology on hunting has led to many debates in the past. How many people considered the first repeating rifles to be "unethical" after years of percussions and flintlocks? Or range-finders, or compound bows, or dozens of other advances in equipment? But is it the responsibility of state wildlife agencies to give the nod to some hunting practices, and ban others?
> 
> "It bothers me we have more regulations and rules impacting our freedom as hunters," said Albus.
> 
> Amen.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Adam....

But was that because of the "ethics" being pushed because of the High Fence Shooting law? Would this become an "ethical" issue the G&F would not have addressed if this other bill was not pushed? Who knows.


----------



## AdamFisk

Chuck Smith said:


> Adam....
> 
> But was that because of the "ethics" being pushed because of the High Fence Shooting law? Would this become an "ethical" issue the G&F would not have addressed if this other bill was not pushed? Who knows.


The trail cam law has been a law since 1999. They were not allowed to be used during any open big game season I don't believe, but could be in the off season. Apparently not too many people were aware this law even existed, so the G&F made changes to the law this year, probably made it known to the public a little better this go around, and **** hit the fan.

From the stuff I've read, regarding MT trail cam laws, the G&F were/are playing the ethics police on this one.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Adam are you saying the entity charged with enforcement of game laws for a state should simply ignore a law they do not like or maybe disagree with? My bet is that this issue arose out of jealousy because someone shot a trophy animal and someone had that animal on one of their trail cams and accused them of trespass. I have heard of and witnessed this here in ND where in Sept a buck is using area X but leaves and is killed off that property legally only to have that trophy be tainted with false claims and accusations!

Hmmm!!!!! By the way still no response regarding the property rights issue!


----------



## AdamFisk

Ron Gilmore said:


> Adam are you saying the entity charged with enforcement of game laws for a state should simply ignore a law they do not like or maybe disagree with? !


Ron, I am not saying that at all. Where did you get that out of what I posted?

I was simply posting some info for Chuck, since he was asking about the trail cam ban.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> From the stuff I've read, regarding MT trail cam laws, the G&F were/are playing the ethics police on this one.


Going back and reading on this issue earlier, I came to the conclusion that hunters not the G&F where the ones who pushed this in 1999. At the time trail cams and such where relative new. So as I said the law has been in place and maybe the fact that use has risen they felt it was time for a re-education of the hunting public. That is far differnt than your last comment!


----------



## KurtR

Is it true that the RMEF pulled out of endorsing the hf ban? Heard a rumor but would like to know from the horses mouth.


----------



## DG

KurtR said,

[quoteIs it true that the RMEF pulled out of endorsing the hf ban? Heard a rumor but would like to know from the horses mouth.][/quote]

Ron Gilmore is a brother to Rod Gilmore. I believe Ronnie knows the answer. However, for some unknown reason, it looks like you will have to get it from his brother.

Rod Gilmore
Lobbyist for Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Inc.
Contact Info:
1313 16TH ST SE
Mandan, ND
58554-4890
phone: 701-663-0207
rmef.org
email: [email protected]


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Hmmm!!!!! By the way still no response regarding the property rights issue!


I have yet gotten a response on my questions from you or others?

HMMMMM.....

Here they are again:



> Ken.... What needs to be put to a vote..... The act of killing an animal inside a pen? Correct? Is that was this issue boils down to? This is what you and others see as so wrong....THE KILLING OF AN ANIMAL IN AN ESCAPE PROOF ENCLOSURE? Yes or No?


----------



## Ref

Chuck,

I'll bite on your question.

For me, your are right....but I'll add a little to your question.

It is the shooting of an animal in an escape-proof enclosure for a fee.....the animal that is shot is normally seen by all of mankind as a WILD, FREE-ROAMING animal that is usually killed in a fair chase manner.

The way I worded it, that would exclude cattle etc.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ref...thanks

So it is totally fine to take the elk to a butcher shop and killing it in an escape proof pen? How is one pen ok and another not? How is it ok for a butcher to buy the animal for a fee, kill it in a kill chute ok and someone else purchasing an animal and killing the animal in a pen not ok?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Chuck, it is very simple. The act of killing an animal for the purpose of butchering is a common and accepted practice. Be it a chicken,cow,elk,bison or goat etc..... Sometimes the animals are killed at the farm and taken to a plant for processing,or some may elect to do all the processing themselves. Cattle as an example only are sold to market and many times are taken directly to a slaughterhouse. None of this is ever called, advertised or presented to the public as a form of hunting. You want to split hairs but as has been said before. These issue you raise will be dealt with by the Leg when they have to draft rules to implement the intent of the law. So all of this BS you are trying to make as a point of how can is and will be covered then. It is a nonsense attempt to twist things since the measure if passed is now law, but not in a complete form.

A good example is the tobacco money measure that passed. What was on the ballot is less than what is now in the NDCC! Hope this now clears up any questions for you. As state before the people are being asked simply if this is a right or wrong issue, like it or not!


----------



## Ref

Chuck,

To me, it is a HUGE difference. I am guessing that a large majority of the people in favor of the high fence ban agree with what I stated in my previous post.....the shooting of an animal that is normally seen as a WILD, free-roaming animal inside an escape proof enclose. The HF operators try to make it look like the elk is a free roaming animal, but it's not.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ron...

Right now can a farmer sell a pig, cow, chicken, etc to a private individual and these people slaughter it for there own use? Can the farmer right now call the price for said animal....market, above market, below market? Please answer....and you will see where I am going to this....I am trying to answer your "property rights" thing.

Ref...

I understand what you are saying that you don't like to see what you envision as a WILD animal killed inside a pen. What I am getting at is how can one person do it and another not? Slaughter house vs private individual?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> A good example is the tobacco money measure that passed. What was on the ballot is less than what is now in the NDCC!


What is this example? Please elaborate?


----------



## Ref

Chuck,

The public also must think there is HUGE difference between the slaughter house and an enclosed shooting pen. That's why there are over 13,000 signatures gathered against the shooting pen.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ref....is it the size of the pen? Or is it because people are calling it HUNTING?

Ref....do you care if a farmer sold a cow, pig, chicken, etc. and a persons goes to the farm and shoots it?

Because I think the main reason is people call it hunting and the rest of it is a smoke screen is what is bothering people. Then they throw ethics into it. When in fact if you don't care about one getting shot in an enclosed escape proof enclosure how can you care about another. Kill chute vs Kill pen. Both things are happening in an enclosed pen and both animals have been sold to a private individual.

Now since Ron either is ignoring my question of has not been back on the site to answer it I will just go ahead.

How this is a property rights issues is that this law or petition will limit who or whom these elk farmers can sell their property. YES the elk in their privately owned property. Now with this law the only person who they can sell these animals too is a butcher shop or slaughter house. Now how will it impact the cattle industry or other ag food industries....... This will could mean a farmer can't sell a hog to a neighbor, person in town, etc and let them butcher it themselves. You don't think Peta or other orginizations won't go after it. They will just point to this current law and say....WHY. The elk are just like cattle, pigs, etc. They should only be sold to butcher shops....then the slope becomes slippery.

So the demographic in which one person can't bring a product to market is limited. It is like if you wanted to sell your house, decoys, etc. you can only sell it to one demographic. It is a form of discrimination that is not outlined in any of the discrimination acts or laws in the books but it limits sales.

That is also a reason why I want to know about the tabacco issues......because one thing that is a huge difference is tabacco can only be sold to a persons who is 18 + years old....also tobacco has proven health issues. Elk meat does not.


----------



## Ref

Chuck,

It's not only that they call it hunting....they portray it as hunting....if it looks like a duck........

Changing what they call it doesn't change my mind that it needs to go.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ref...

That is fine. So why not just take away the way these places can advertise? Make it illegal that they can do this....call it hunting, etc. Why infringe on Property Rights.

But now look at this bill or purposed bill. It says that elk ranchers can sell the elk but only to butcher shops? Now does this bill infringe on Property Rights? The property is the elk. Now do you see the door it opens to PETA and other organizations..... You limit the sale or who a rancher can sell something too. Now what would stop them from turning it onto the cattle industry, hog industry, etc. Because if this purposed law gets enacted it will be simple for them to do this. All they have to do is go in front of a judge and say..... Domestic Elk or Farmed elk can only be sold this way.....what is the difference with cattle, hogs, etc. Do you see this the problem? If you don't think a lawyer for PETA or any other organization won't see this then you are blind.


----------



## Ref

Chuck,

There are all kinds of "controls" on what farmers & ranchers can do with their crops, livestock etc. Ranchers & farmers are working through these things and continue to do a super job of feeding not only our country, but the world. Call me blind if you want to, but I don't see this as opening a slippery slope.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ranchers and farmers can still sell their goods and commodities to the public. The only ones that have controls are products designated as unsafe or unhealthy or illegal...ie tabacco, tainted milk, tainted beef, etc.

Now this law will make it illegal for a rancher to sell its perfectly fine product/commodity to the public. This will open the doors....just wait and watch.

If you don't think people will try to enforce things like I have talked about....I read in my local paper a few months ago how someone wanted a law enforced saying the only way to buy organic foods was at an organic market. They are even trying to take it to the state. Now if this person got their way it would get rid of all corner sweet corn stands, tomato stands, etc. Do you think they would get their way if a law already was on books that limited sales or who you could sell a different crop too?

Now there are ADVERTISING laws on book that say how you can label crops...ie organic. Or how you can label beef, milk, etc....organic. So why can't there be laws on the books that limit what is called "hunting"....hmmmm. An easy option that does not take the lively hoods away from anyone or does not infringe on property rights or does not open the door to any anti-groups.


----------



## Ref

Chuck,

I've followed this thread from the beginning. None of the arguments or questions from the high fence operators side has changed my mind. I appreciate your heart-felt position on this issue and the "clean" discussions on you posts, but it's time for me to go to the sidelines for this discussion.


----------



## Longshot

> Now do you see the door it opens to PETA and other organizations.....


Chuck, I ask again where the MT bill that passed has caused this and other legislation regaurding the cattle industry in MT. I still have not heard any of this in MT that so many are claiming will happen.


----------



## LT

In North Dakota farmed elk are considered domestic livestock. In Montana, I do not believe they were ever classified as domestic. Just as we do not classify buffalo as big game in our state, but I believe some states still do.


----------



## barebackjack

Longshot said:


> Now do you see the door it opens to PETA and other organizations.....
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck, I ask again where the MT bill that passed has caused this and other legislation regaurding the cattle industry in MT. I still have not heard any of this in MT that so many are claiming will happen.
Click to expand...

Just because they haven't tried to go further yet, doesn't mean they will not, and it doesn't mean they wont use it (HF banning) as a feather in their hat.

To say they (the true anti's) wont is like saying Obama is a friend to the gun owner.

Those of you that dont see this, dont see it because you dont want to.


----------



## KurtR

So did the RMEF pull out of backing this measure or what is the deal with that. just would like to hear the truth from one of the guys in the know.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

chuck, you again try and imply that something is in play that is not and your question has been answered many times, but you want your answer and so anything else is simply not going to satisfy you so in essence you can ask the same thing in a different way, but it remains the same. The things you are asking will all be dealt with when the Leg sits down and writes the law to implement this. 
This bill does not put the selling of a hog or pig or even an elk to a neighbor. The only thing that will change is that now the elk for example will have to be killed by the owner or permit holder for the penned elk. So if I want a farm raised elk, I can still get it even after this bill passes. Is that clear enough?

You can dance and parade the PETA BS all you want, but anyone who knows anything will tell you that they are active now and this measure whether it passes or not will not change their plans nor cause them to pause and say hey we lost. To think so is either head in the sand thinking or more likely intended to try and scare people into thinking this opens doors for them in ND!

NEWS FLASH! This does not change the Constitution of the state opening a door previously shut. The measure method of change has been and more than likely always will be part of the landscape. Same as the court systems etc... so I will repeat once again, THIS OPENS NO NEW DOORS nor MAKES ANY CLAIMS OF SLIPPERY SLOPE valid!

So I wonder when gst is going to address the property rights issue question and as to why they oppose one but support others?


----------



## gst

Ron we have had the property rights issue discussion before so all I am going to say is the land sale issue has a process which is gone thru to determine the impact of these sales, some that are seen as being possibly detrimental are not allowed as is deemed legal under the laws of this state, others that are possibly not detrimental are allowed to go thru. You have to realize it is not the "right" to sell your property that is being prohibited, but rather WHO you may sell the property to andfor what purpose. Much like other forms of restrictions placed on property usage affect who may buy said property. It is a system that seems to work well for our state, but yet simply because 100% of these sales are not allowed, people like yourself and others are not happy. In regards to what one can do with an animal they own as long as it is done in accordance with laws regarding the humane treatment and handling, heath statues, it has been a long held standard that these DOMESTIC animals fall under the property catagory of which it is your "right" to use. In the case of these "farmed domestic elk" it is clearly spelled out in the NDCC as to the fact they indeed are "property" that may be used as collateral, sold ect....

Now wether you agree with it or nor, there is an answer to your property rights question. 
Now if you truly believe the sponsors of this measure do not have an intent other than what you claim, why did you not address espringers post on FBO that is of the opinion they may indeed?


----------



## gst

Now this is going to take a bit ron so please stay with me here. 
Ron please explain this quote by the sponsor Roger Kaseman when asked how this measure as it is written will prevent one individual from selling a live elk to another individual receining a bill of sale for said live animal who then kills the elk he now owns in a pasture on a farm.

Roger K quote:
"The legislative attempt to legitimize High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations was a slight of hand magic trick to get around 350 years of legislative and legal precedent that placed wildlife in the public trust and charged government with management of that wildlife. Proof of the slight of hand is right here on this post. The Fair Chase Initiative isn't law and some of you are scheming to get around the law using a bill of sale. I have an answer for that: The Lacey Act.

Section 3372 of the Lacey act makes it unlawful for any person, "to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law; or to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law&#8230;"

The Fair Chase Initiative will be a law and regulation of this state. Federal fine for breaking the law: $10,000.00.

It's a blast watching amateurs interpret law. Like watching a falling down drink try to ride a unicycle." end quote:


----------



## gst

Ron while you are at it please explain how this statement by another sponsor is true. From a Bill Mitzel Dakota Country article.

quote:"The reaction from the people was very positive," said Gary Masching, a member of the committee gathering signatures. "People were thanking us for doing this. When we showed them Article 11, Section 27 of the North Dakota Constitution they would look at that and bring more people over to sign. I would say it was running 75-80 percent of people wanted to sign this and get rid of it."

While the game farms have promoted the initiated measure is a violation of their property rights, Article 11, Section 27 proclaims the right of the public to preserve and manage wild game for the public good. end quote:

It clearly states in section 36.1 of the NDCC (remember now, that is the same section this new measure is going to be included now) that these animals are not the "wild game" that they are portrayed as in this statement by Gary Masching.

Stay with me here ron.


----------



## gst

This was a link provided on FBO that outlines the rules to the process you mention the legislature must follow when it deals with these statues. From Ladds link: 
1-02-07. Particular controls general.

Whenever a general provision in a statute is in conflict with a special provision in the same or in another statute, the two must be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both provisions, but if the conflict between the two provisions is irreconcilable the special provision must prevail and must be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is enacted later and it is themanifest legislative intent that such general provision shall prevail.

1-02-08. Conflicting provisions found in the same statute.

Except as otherwise provided in section 1-02-07, whenever, in the same statute, several clauses are irreconcilable,the clause last in order of date or position shall prevail.

Espringers or ladd, does this mean that if there are conflicting definitions in the same staute the latter by date takes precedent?

Or in other words if this measure is put in Sec 36.1 defining these animals as domestic animals and farmed elk has a irreconsilable conflicting definition of them as big game included at a later date, the definition last in order of date, "big game" shall prevail ?
end quote:

The way the rules state, if there are conflicting definitions in a statue they must be construed so that the intent is the same. If this is impossible, then the later definition takes precedence. There CAN NOT be two opposing definitions of the same animals in one section of the NDCC so as the rules state if this measure passes the legislature MUST use the last definition which will be big game to define all the animals in this statue. There will no longer be "domestic or farmed" elk, only "big game" . Below is ladds answer to this question. Stay with me here.


----------



## gst

by Ladd on 09/09/2010 10:17 PM | Reply #222 | "Quote" | "Quick Reply" | 
I am not sure the whole pecking order of things the courts look at, but all things being equal a later in time law would have more weight in interpretation than an older statute if there is a conflict in need of resolve. end quote:

So now Ron, even after the legislature, if they do agree to reverse the statue they created listing these animals as domestic or even if this does become "irreconsilable" and the legislature follows the rules they must in dealing with this measure andthese animals are redefined as "big game" what is the end result???? 
Do you believe this will indeed end up in the courts? Would you like to lay a bet on that? Once it is in the courts, the later definition in a conflicting statue becomes the law of the land. These animals are then redefined in Section 36.1 as "Big Game" rather than as domestic animals. Big Game can not be used as collateral nor be legally sold under the Federal Lacey Act if there is a state law preventing it, which is exactly what SPONSOR Roger Kaseman said will be used to block the sale and killing of that animal for a fee.

Stay with me here.


----------



## gst

espringers statement from FBO quote:
the quote u cited is kaseman's not gst's. ask him where he got his law degree. but, he doesn't need one b/c i can guarantee you that kaseman and his cronies had at least a few attorneys involved in drafting this measure. i can also guarantee you that the plan is to use the lacey act to enforce this law if anyone tries to find a loophole like goosefisher was talking about earlier. gst's concerns are legitimate b/c once this measure is passed and the contradicting definitions are cleared up and they decide to involve the lacey act in the enforcement of this measure to stop any loopholes like selling the animal first and letting the buyer kill it after he has a bill of sale, the ability to even raise these animals for slaughter could potentially be up for debate. might be kind of a hard concept to wrap your head around... but, it is a very legitimate concern. end quote:

This is espringers response when somone questioned wether Kasemans reply was a legitimate one or not. 
Ron, what would you say if someone directly in volved in the legal profession (unlike yourself) made the above statement? Why did you not address espringers comments on this issue.
This comment by espringers seems very close to the question Chuck Smith posed on here.

Now stay with me here.


----------



## gst

If what is being claimed on here is untrue or unfactual in what the motivation for these sponsors is and what the consequences of this measure will be,why have the sponsors not came onhere and cleared the air? After all it was SPONSOR Roger Kaseman that started this thread in the first place.

espringers statement from FBO. 
quote: i've got conflicting info on whether or not some of these guys are going to be more vocal about their motivation and why they support this measure. on one hand, i was told that once the signatures were gathered, we would see some honest debate about why these places need to be shut down. on the other hand, someone else told me that he wouldn't be having that discussion and hopefully neither would anyone else b/c they have been told that verbalizing their "intent" could bring trouble when this gets litigated if said verbalization could be used to show the true intent was to shut down the raising of elk and deer altogether. imho, unless you are listed as a supporter/signature gatherer on the petition, no harm could come from discussing this honestly. in fact, it might help them gain some support from some fence sitters cause they might see that this isn't really about pushing ethical beliefs on others for them. but, then again, the idea of taking something w/o compensation wouldn't sit well with a lot of people either. i guess a guy will just have to wait and see how vocal they become or if they just sit back and watch this all unfold. end quote:

Stick with me here ron.


----------



## gst

So if the only intent is as you claim to make the "hunting" of big game within a fenced enclosure illegal, please explain why the sponsors will not come on either this site or FBO to discuss their measure that is set to become state law????? Remember, it was Kaseman that started this thread with such a mature yet factual comment! :roll:

Now Ron please answer two questions I will ask directly of you. 
1. Should the creation of state law be based on factual truth?
2. Should the sponsors of an initiated measure be held to a standard of truth when advocating for their measure?

As espringers reiterates, I'm pretty sure the sponsors of this measure have contacted someone in the legal profession(perhaps even someone with the same zealous ideological veiws) that has advised them from a legal standpoint how best to proceede to get the intent of their agenda passed. Perhaps when "lawyers" become involved in the creation of law, this standard of factual truth becomes impossible to fullfill when everyone is more concerned with covering their *** rather than the actual consequences of the law they create. That is why we as citizens that will be governed by these laws have the responsibility to question the intent, process, as well as the consequences and have the right to have a factual honest answer given. In the legislative process if this is not done the result can and should be accountability at the ballot box. With these initiated measures where does the accountability lie when factual truth is not presented to the public to make an informed decision??????

So ron please explain why you opposed the first measure but support this one that is worded exactly the same? If you know something that has changed in what the intent and consequences of this bill would be, perhaps you owe it to the citizens of ND to tell what that is?


----------



## KurtR

*ATTENTION*

Ron Gilmore you seem to be one of the guys in the know. DId the RMEF pull out there support of this bill or is that just a rumor. I have asked this 3 times now and seems that it is getting skipped, dodged or is true and the sponsors of this bill just dont want to tell the truth about what happened.


----------



## Plainsman

KurtR said:


> *ATTENTION*
> 
> Ron Gilmore you seem to be one of the guys in the know. DId the RMEF pull out there support of this bill or is that just a rumor. I have asked this 3 times now and seems that it is getting skipped, dodged or is true and the sponsors of this bill just dont want to tell the truth about what happened.


Kurt, somewhere up above someone said Ron and Rod were related. If that is true, and I don't know if it is, then perhaps Ron simply is being polite and not sticking his nose in his relatives business. If RNEF wants you to know they will tell you. Ask them. If you have asked three times and don't have an answer there is a reason. It would be a very simple task to find out on your own.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, I answered this before, look back!!!!!!!!!! But you and yours are to be held to the same position then. The posting of old emails and stuff from HSUS is bogus attempts, the other BS that you distort etc.... I suggest if you see those tactics as valid, then Mertz and his bull elk shot outside his operation should be a bill board poster for the FC group!!!

Now one more time gst! Please tell us why you selectively chose which property rights to support and why your group throws others under the bus along with the property owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kurt, I stated a long time ago that I do not speak for my brother, no more than I would want my brother speaking for me! Hence I will not make any comment other than giving my opinion on matters such as what you ask.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> The things you are asking will all be dealt with when the Leg sits down and writes the law to implement this.
> This bill does not put the selling of a hog or pig or even an elk to a neighbor. The only thing that will change is that now the elk for example will have to be killed by the owner or permit holder for the penned elk. So if I want a farm raised elk, I can still get it even after this bill passes. Is that clear enough?


Ron,

Please tell how you can still get a farm raised elk with out taking it to a meat processor? Or making these operations become meat processors?


----------



## gst

Ron there have been any number of discussions regarding the process the state has created to regulate the sale and USAGE of lands to differing entities. So I will not side track the discussion of this particular potential state law into that arguement (note the usage of the word arguement rather than debate which requires questions to actually be answwered) once again. You can merely go to older threads if you have forgotten our discusssions. I do challenge you to show where any of the ag orgs you mention state they believe property rights are absolute.

Now if you would ron please answer the questions I posed in my last series of posts. If you do not it only leaves one to believe that you realize that to answer them will not support the flip flop position you have taken on this measure that you now believe is necessary and although worded the very same will have differing consequences in dealing with these "horn pimps" as you liked to call them on FBO than the first attempt which has been irrefuteably linked to involvement by the HSUS (even you have admitted to this on FBO). :wink:

As I have steadfastly stated from the very begining, take away the horns and the egos and jealousy and this would NEVER be an issue. Ethics??????? My ***, otherwise why were advertised fenced enclosure buffalo "HUNTS" purposely excluded????? :roll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

So to use GST TACTIC, you admit then that some property rights are OK to take away and others are not!! Got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hypocrisy at it's finest!!!!!

Chuck to be as polite as I can, you either are not literate or intentionally trying to avoid acknowledgment of an answer!

If this law passes I can still go to any elk farm and buy an on the farm killed carcass.This has been gone over and you can go back and read the posts that deal with this. The permit holder will have to kill the animal or something to that affect. The exact rules will be set by the Leg when they deal with the implementation. No Boogey Man in disguise.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> If this law passes I can still go to any elk farm and buy an on the farm killed carcass.This has been gone over and you can go back and read the posts that deal with this. The permit holder will have to kill the animal or something to that affect. The exact rules will be set by the Leg when they deal with the implementation. No Boogey Man in disguise.


Sorry Ron. I did not get this from the over load of info plus all the he said she said bs on this thread.

So only the farmer can kill the animal. Now if this motion becomes law. THis will open the door to only the Farmer can kill its animals or a licensed processor. So in essence any lib animal organization (I am not saying any is involved in this measure) can piggy back this legislation and say all "farm Raised" animals can only be killed by the permit holder or farmer or meat processor. Do you see a problem with this? I do.

A farmer wants to sell a beef cow to someone. The farmer does not like killing his own herd but does not mind if someone else does it (ie meat processor). So now a person can buy a beef cow. Put it out it down for the farmer and take the meat. I have bought hogs from farmers and they don't like to do the act of killing so I do it. This would could become against the law if someone wanted to piggy back this motion. See the issue. I am more worried about piggy back legislation than anything.

Ron you also keep stating let the Leg decide and make the laws..... Are you sure you want this? All it takes is some very Liberal people on that board to draw up the law the way they see fit. Leaving loopholes and an open door for more legislation. Or even on the reverse side.... People who will leave loopholes open for the operators.

Ron do you see how this is infringing on Property Rights as the property is the elk not the land.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Chuck, there is nothing now that stops groups from trying to get what you suggest passed as law. NOTHING! NADDA! ZIP!!!!!!!

The wording of the measure directs it to specific species, no cows,sheep,chickens etc...

Do I like the idea of the Leg crafting the rules of implementation? That is the way it works for all measures that are passed by ballot. What is the benefit of this! Well one is that it prevents the piggy back affect you are concerned with as a definition can be adopted to make sure this does not take place. We see this happen all the time even with bills passed through the Leg. After a law is passed someone sees a potential conflict and it gets fixed. So no I really do not see this as an issue especially in this state. It has not happened in other states either! Again the playing upon fear of the Boogey Man being involved or opening a door. Most people have the common sense to know that with ballot measure rights, almost anything can be brought forward for a vote. But the ballot box is the check, just like the SC is a check for Congress,Pres with his veto power a check for Congress and our ability to amend the Constitution a check on power.

The more and more you peel away the layers you find that this ballot measure is as I have said all along, a choice by the voters to decide if this practice is right or wrong.

I have also addressed the issue of property rights before. All of us as property owners face restrictions on use etc. but as a property owner myself I am well aware that property rights are not absolute. If they where then we would not have weed boards, restrictions on drainage, or requirements to protect waterways from feed lots. In regards to animals and property rights, now we have mandates by law to provide food and shelter for animals, not sure if you remember the farm/ranch down by Edgeley that had horses removed because of the poor care they where being given. The laws used to remove those animals where all crafted by moral and ethical concerns.

i would suggest reading the NDCC regarding ballot measures, and what roll the Leg plays. I think it will ease a good deal of your anxiety.


----------



## KurtR

Plainsman said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> 
> *ATTENTION*
> 
> Ron Gilmore you seem to be one of the guys in the know. DId the RMEF pull out there support of this bill or is that just a rumor. I have asked this 3 times now and seems that it is getting skipped, dodged or is true and the sponsors of this bill just dont want to tell the truth about what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Kurt, somewhere up above someone said Ron and Rod were related. If that is true, and I don't know if it is, then perhaps Ron simply is being polite and not sticking his nose in his relatives business. If RNEF wants you to know they will tell you. Ask them. If you have asked three times and don't have an answer there is a reason. It would be a very simple task to find out on your own.
Click to expand...

Not asking anyone to speak for anyone else it is just a simple yes or no question. All i wanted to know if it was true dont need the back ground or the why. Just simple yes or no, but i guess i just went and found out why and pretty interesting how they supported MT ban but not the one here now.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> So to use GST TACTIC, you admit then that some property rights are OK to take away and others are not!! Got it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Hypocrisy at it's finest!!!!!
> 
> Chuck to be as polite as I can, you either are not literate or intentionally trying to avoid acknowledgment of an answer!
> 
> If this law passes I can still go to any elk farm and buy an on the farm killed carcass.This has been gone over and you can go back and read the posts that deal with this. The permit holder will have to kill the animal or something to that affect. The exact rules will be set by the Leg when they deal with the implementation. No Boogey Man in disguise.


Okay Ron hypocrisy at it's finest would be if myself or any ag group has stated property rights are absolute then took a position that they were not. No one has made that statement and you damn well know it. You simply want to rqambl;e on about things that are sarting to make you look a fool. Once again I ask the question what would you expect or want an ag group to advocate for?????????????? What do your wildlife groups advocate for??????

You will have to forgive some of us if we do not simply take your word for what you claim will happen with this measure. Please show where you have got your information as to what will happen if this measure does indeed pass that you want us to simply buy into. I gave you a portion of the rules you mention the legislature must follow and asked you very direct questions as to these rules and yet you refuse to answer and keep harping on this land sales issue rather than adressing questions regarding this HF issue. Why is that ? Perhaps we should just sit back and let the SPONSORS come on here and clear the air!  Oh wait one did and claimed the Federal Lacey Act will be used to enforce this state law, so now who should we believe, a sponsor that will no longer come on here to defend a statement that might paint him in a corner or the supporter that is trying to direct the attention away from the statement the sponsor made? Hmmmmm :wink:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Tit in a wringer there gst! You know dang well that your groups who oppose this on the basis of property rights are hypocrites if they do not support the right to sell land to whomever the owner wants. The issue regarding Roger is for Roger to explain not me! I see no place where the Lacey act comes into play. You however do speak for a group but are trying to hide behind a screen name.

I will post this here as I did on FB, I am in favor of the Corp Farming law, I am not in favor of those who sit on the advisory board being predisposed to vote NO on every sale!!!!!!!!!!!

You brought up property rights, I simply pointed out the double standard that you apply.


----------



## KurtR

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/020316-5.htm

Sure hope that guy that is looking for America finds it.


----------



## Longshot

Not to take things off the subject, but this guy needs to rethink this quote.



> We have arrived at the conclusion that since we can reach a 50.1 to 49.9 victory via the vote we may have the moral authority to do whatever to whomever we please. In short, America has gone from a democracy tempered by the rule of law and the rights of men to a majority rule dictatorship.


We do not live in a democracy, but are a republic. Democracy is the rule of the majority and what our founding fathers wanted to avoid, which is mob rule. His use of a "majority rule dictatorship" statement proves he should stick with Canadian politics.

It's irritating that a few politicians in the past, with no right to do so, wrongly made a public trust part of private property. Now we are stuck deciding between a disgusting practice and politicians, which are difficult to trust, to write new law.


----------



## gst

Ron of course the ag groups here in the state will oppose this from a property righs position because it is the use of a privately owned property that has no significant negative affects on the whole of society here in the state. You claim it will be the demiseof hunting as we know it and that is reason enough to ban it, where is your factual proof of that? It takes more than an opinion to begin to over ride property rights.

In the case of the land sales, it was the state legislature that represents ALL NDans that has made the decision that they would indeed have negative consequences if allowed to happen without some sort of regulatory measures. There is a process that works, allows some disallows others and yet you seem to have a problem with this when it disallows those that you personally wish to have approved. There is a term for that.

If you wish to continue this DEBATE answer the questions asked of you, otherwise it appears you are willing to be used as a tool by these sponsors to distract the dialogue from what needs to be discussed in the regards to creating state law and the questiions that SHOULD be answered directly by the sponsors rather than supporters like yourself.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, as you said, the Leg made up the rules, now the voters will get to decide on the measure bypassing the Leg and delegating them if it passes to implementation. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. Plain and simple! You can ask the same question 20 different ways but the answer remains the same. So as it is now gst, it seems on one hand you want to hide behind the law, and use it as a reason why your groups act as they do, but want to prevent others from forming laws to act in a manner they see fit by claiming it is all a property rights issue. Does not cut it and will not!

Up or down the voters will decide if this is right or wrong!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

OK, gst canned shooting is unethical,immorally being paraded around as actual hunting. Puts the entire state at risk of disease threat from unsavory operations that will allow greed to ignore current law. Polls show that it also give fair chase hunting a black eye based on the most recent SA survey.

The measure will not affect elk farms in being able to market their animals for sale,nor will it shut them down.HSUS is not a sponsor or supporting this with financial help. I do not speak for Roger, nor RMEF,or the committee. I speak for myself. I do not see this opening doors with a boogey man behind it like you have tried to claim. I do acknowledge that it will affect some property rights, but as stated before, property rights are not absolute. I am a supporter of the Corp Farming law, but not happy with the advisory board being predisposed to say NO to every sale.(Side note gst, show us the last time your group or FB or FU voted to approve any land sale!)

There it is in a nut shell. So keep spinning away gst, the more you spin the easier it gets to debunk your scare tactics!


----------



## Chuck Smith

> OK, gst canned shooting is unethical,immorally being paraded around as actual hunting.


Please define actual hunting? Because if you asked 100 people you would get 100 different answers. Look up past posts about the advancement or stages a hunter goes through. Is it the act of the kill or the experience? Is it spending time with family and friends or the actual act of killing an animal?

In my eye actual hunting is to use your bare hands anything else is not actual hunting. It is unethical to shoot an animal with a gun, bow or any other man made weapon. Sounds outrageous to say that correct? But yet that is what you are doing is defining what is a personal matter. It is like defining love? It is different for everyone.

****disclaimer***** I don't personally believe that is the only way to hunt.


----------



## gst

Ron As I said you will have to forgive me for not simply accepting you personal statementsas to what this measure willor will not do,how itwill or willnot be implemented or the consequences of a legal challenge or judicial ruling. You may have a high enough opinion of your self proclaimed knowledge but many others do not. So show why you opposed the very same worded measure once and yet do not any longer or what you are bringing to the table does little to provide factual input into this debate. :wink:

I thought you said this measure will not allow someone raising elk to allow someone to pay them for an animal and then come in and shoot it and butcher it themselves (which is quite common) but rather they will be forced to take this elk to a butcher shop instead.



Ron Gilmore said:


> The measure will not affect elk farms in being able to market their animals for sale,nor will it shut them down.sponsor or
> 
> There it is in a nut shell. So keep spinning away gst, the more you spin the easier it gets to debunk your scare tactics!


So ron which is it will they be affected in how they market their animals or won't they?


----------



## Plainsman

> Ron As I said you will have to forgive me for not simply accepting you personal statements


I think that goes for everyone. We all have opinions, and I don't think any are going to change.

Last year gst you told me you didn't have a dog in this fight. Your sure putting a lot of effort into this. You might have noticed that I'm not.

Say, you fellows have brought up landowner rights a lot. I remember when the legislature said the Fish and Wildlife could not purchase wetlands without county commissioner approval. Oh, and the governors approval. I remember one of the first cases at Rugby. A ladies husband died and she had no sons to take over the farm. The county commissioners declined her sale to the Fish and Wildlife Service. If memory serves me right one of those county commissioners picked up that land much cheaper than the offer she had from the Fish and Wildlife Service. I find that very confusing. Farmers talk about their rights, yet deny a fellow farmer the freedom to sell to whoever they want. Land out of production lowers the surplus and brings up commodities prices doesn't it? I would be interested to know why landowners want their rights, but want to deny other rights of fellow landowners? However, I would like to see that on a different thread so this doesn't get sidetracked.


----------



## g/o

So Plainsman you would have no problem then if a person wanted to sell their land to Cabela's or Ted Turner?


----------



## Plainsman

g/o said:


> So Plainsman you would have no problem then if a person wanted to sell their land to Cabela's or Ted Turner?


I sure would have a problem. I would not like it at all. However, if old, rich, Teddy wants to pay you $200 more per acre than anyone else for your land I would be cheating you to stop it. Please don't try compare high fence. They can keep their high fence, their animals, etc, just don't let someone call themselves a hunter and shoot them confined. I would rather have seen this a hunting law than a producer law. Make it a $25,000 fine for a hunter shooting a confined animal. If some rich guy thinks $25,000 is peanuts then make it a behind the bars judgement also.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Please don't try compare high fence. They can keep their high fence, their animals, etc, just don't let someone call themselves a hunter and shoot them confined.


1. You don't like people calling themselves hunters. Poachers call themselves hunters? But yet to the hunting community they are not hunters they are POACHERS. So again this is all about advertisement. Or play on words. So an advertising law would be better implemented than a ban...Correct?

2. You don't like animals getting shot in confinements? Correct? But yet you see no flaw in shooting an animal in a kill chute. Both are confinements and escape proof. Correct? The only difference is size.

I have stated before if people want this ban because of disease issues, treatment of animals issues, safety issues. I would say ok. But when people start to say ethics and morals. That is where I draw the line. Ethics and Morals are person beliefs and philosophy's. Please don't bring up murder or other illegal activities. Those activities hurt other humans emotionally and physically. Just like drugs, etc. This activity is not harming nobody. People will claim the black eye to hunters.....hunters give themselves black eyes.....poachers, trespassers, people hauling around dead animals on hoods and on top of vehicles for all to see on display, etc. These high fence operations don't give "free range" hunting a black eye because it is behind a fence. All any "free range" hunter would have to say is.....those animals are behind a fence and are private property of the rancher. CASE CLOSED. Just like when a paper puts an article about a poacher in it. They call the poacher a hunter. When in fact he is not he is a poacher....again case closed.

Because when you start to define what "actual hunting is" as Ron stated. You are trying to tell someone what they need to experience out of an activity. When everyone experiences something different. I would like to see the people for this measure go up to a handicap kid who only can use these facilities and tell him he is unethical or immoral. Go tell the cancer patient that goes on a "dream hunt" tell them they are unethical or immoral. Tell that 80 year old grandparent taking his grandson to one of these facilities because he can't get around like he used too but wanted to experience a simulated hunt with his grandson immoral or unethical.



> I would rather have seen this a hunting law than a producer law. Make it a $25,000 fine for a hunter shooting a confined animal.


The only flaw in this is that you would see people pushing to have every butcher shop get fined for killing an animal that is confined. All the argument would be....why are domesticated elk different than a domestic beef cow, pig, etc.


----------



## gst

plainsman, I don't recall haveing ever said I don't have a "dog in this fight". I have repeatedly stated I have no connection to HF which is slightly different.

How ever as a hunter I do have a "dog in this fight". I have repeatedly stated I believe that when egotistical eliteist ideologies and groups start to dictate what other individuals must take from an experience to be able to call it hunting, that in itself takes more from the individual choice hunting has always been and the hunting heritge itself that depends on the individuals ability to continue to make those personal choices than HF ever will. Particularily when the laws being pushed have NO connection to game management.

As a citizen of this state, I have a "dog in this fight" as I have also repeatedly stated I strongly believe the laws that govern the people should be based on factual truth, rather than emotional rhetoric and disingenuous statements. Given your admission you believe this as well, I'm assumimg you have decided to overlook this standard in regards to this particular measure given the comments your former fellow sponsors have now admitted to making while gathering signatures.

As an animal ag producer, I have a "dog in this fight" when a small group of ideological people try to end what is clearly defined by long held state law as an animal ag enterprise. Groups such as HSUS have been trying to do this for decades, now we have a group of hunters NDH for FC taking a page from their playbook in how they are trying to do the same thing.

As a citizen of the US, I 'have a dog in this fight" as private property rights are a cornerstone of what our founding fathers built this country on. While not absolute, the founders of this country realized that it should be a substantial effect upon society before these guaranteed property rights should be innfrinnged upon. This issue does not meet that standard in my opinion and that of many others.

As to the "debate" over the process by which the state has determined land sales to non profit orgs must be handled, there have been a couple of threads dedicated to this already, and given the tendencies of some in opposition of this process to not answer questions when asked, I really have no desire to engage in another "debate"/arguement regarding this issue.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

As a citizen of the US, I 'have a dog in this fight" as private property rights are a cornerstone of what our founding fathers built this country on. While not absolute, the founders of this country realized that it should be a substantial effect upon society before these guaranteed property rights should be innfrinnged upon. This issue does not meet that standard in my opinion and that of many othersBut a more substantial restriction of whom you can sell your land to and for how much does? Gotta love the hypocrisy again and again and again!!!!!!!!!!! I guess I will have to start asking landowners if shooting an elk behind a fence and calling it hunting should have more support than what price they can sell their land for!


----------



## Plainsman

> As a citizen of this state, I have a "dog in this fight" as I have also repeatedly stated I strongly believe the laws that govern the people should be based on factual truth, rather than emotional rhetoric and disingenuous statements. Given your admission you believe this as well, I'm assumimg you have decided to overlook this standard in regards to this particular measure given the comments your former fellow sponsors have now admitted to making while gathering signatures.


Yes I believe that laws should be based on factual truth. I will vote according to that factual truth and what someone said or didn't say while collecting signatures has no bearing on what I will do at the voting booth. I have seen no proof anyone said anything other than fact. If they did I look at it this way: when our founding fathers signed the declaration of independence would you have passed on it if you were there because George Washington really didn't chop down the cherry tree? Your grasping at straws. As the vote grows closer I hope you hold the high fence operations to the same standard of truth. What are you going to do if one of them lies?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Gotta love the hypocrisy again and again and again!!!!!!!!!!!


You find it unethical and immoral to shoot an animal behind a fence. yet you don't think it is unethical or immoral if an animal is killed in a chute at a butcher shop! Both are escape proof enclosures. Both animals are private domesticated property sold and killed. How is one ethical and one is not when you boil it down.... its the same thing....an animal getting killed in an escape proof enclosure.

Then I know your reaction....it will be one person is calling it hunting....WHICH again brings me back to my point about advertising laws.


----------



## g/o

> But a more substantial restriction of whom you can sell your land to and for how much does? Gotta love the hypocrisy again and again and again!!!!!!!!!!! I guess I will have to start asking landowners if shooting an elk behind a fence and calling it hunting should have more support than what price they can sell their land for!


Ron, The point I was trying to make to you and Plainsman is the law works both ways, if you want people to be able to sell to the wildlife people the you should also be in favor of letting us sell to all out of state corporation's.

As far as someone shooting an elk or deer or buffalo behind a fence I could care less, that's between the buyer and seller. Where are all the complaints of the people who took part in hunts at these places and didn't know what they were getting into?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

G/O as I have aged and the world changed in regards to Ag I am not so sure that our current system is the correct one. I like the idea that for example Monsanto or any large Corp cannot come in and buy land then sublet it back to a local operation. It has in the past worked in allowing new farmers a chance to stay in farming. However,when I look at the land sold back home, most is being purchased by non farming people. One attorney from CA has a buyer agent locally he uses in acquiring land across ND especially in the central part. Thus the loophole that the current law provides. These outside buyers have had added significant value to many whom are retiring or divesting a farm. So by limiting Corp from buying land you limit income potential for those who own the land significantly. Back when most land was sold locally this law did work as intended. But this as Plainsman said is for another thread!

I am torn on this, but again my point was and remains the same that the farm and ranch organizations should not be waving the property rights claim on this for 12 operations considering the economic impact the restriction of land sales have. That is all. Nothing more G/O!


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> [Yes I believe that laws should be based on factual truth. I will vote according to that factual truth and what someone said or didn't say while collecting signatures has no bearing on what I will do at the voting booth. I have seen no proof anyone said anything other than fact. If they did I look at it this way: when our founding fathers signed the declaration of independence would you have passed on it if you were there because George Washington really didn't chop down the cherry tree? Your grasping at straws. As the vote grows closer I hope you hold the high fence operations to the same standard of truth. What are you going to do if one of them lies?


So you are saying that when Gary Masching admitted in Dakota Country to telling people these animals that are clearly defined as privately owned domestic animals in the NDCC sec36.1 are not that but rather "wild game" that is the peoples and protected under article 11 sec 27 was that the truth? Gary admits that when told this people went out and got others to sign the petition. This claim was used to gather signatures? How many? we will never know.

What about when sponsor Jim Hegness told people the on farm slaughter of these animals was illegal? Although after being confronted with it, he appologized on FBO for making the statement, how many people signed because of this claim? We will never know.

So even though you claim law should be based on factual truth and sponsors should be held to a standard of factual truth when advocating for their measure, you now claim that the end apparently justifies the means and quantify when it is acceptable. :roll: .

I hold both sides to the same standards. Apparently unlike yourself.


----------



## Plainsman

> So even though you claim law should be based on factual truth and sponsors should be held to a standard of factual truth when advocating for their measure, you now claim that the end apparently justifies the means and quantify when it is acceptable. .
> 
> I hold both sides to the same standards. Apparently unlike yourself.


If that's what you got out of what I wrote you need a comprehension class.



> Yes I believe that laws should be based on factual truth.





> I have seen no proof anyone said anything other than fact.


 I repeat, I have seen no proof, only your words.



> If they did I look at it this way: when our founding fathers signed the declaration of independence would you have passed on it if you were there because George Washington really didn't chop down the cherry tree?


Let me explain that last quote for you. If someone tells me that 2+2 equals 5 that doesn't make it so. My answer to the question will still be 4. So if someone said something wrong, I am still on track to vote for the measure. You sir have twisted my words. If your going to try assassinate my character by twisting words how am I to believe what your telling me about others?


----------



## zogman

gst you keep talking about lies.............

You and your group have the biggest lie going by refererring to caged shooting of elk and deer as HUNTING.

Tell the truth.........It is NOT hunting


----------



## Chuck Smith

> gst you keep talking about lies.............
> 
> You and your group have the biggest lie going by refererring to caged shooting of elk and deer as HUNTING.
> 
> Tell the truth.........It is NOT hunting


To you it is not hunting. To someone else it might be? To me I don't see it as hunting but to someone else it might be. But yet again this is all about word. not ethics. it is about people calling it HUNTING. just like the above quote. So an advertising law would be much better than a ban. But I guess this is just falling on deaf ears.


----------



## Old Hunter

Chuck We hear you. You are just like the old phonograph record stuck in the same groove. Will you spearhead the effort to change the advertizing laws so it wont be called hunting? Nonresidents have never hesitated in attempting to influence the laws concerning North Dakotas outdoors, just as you are doing right now. If this measure goes down are you going to step up to the plate and take the forefront in changing the laws?


----------



## gst

zogman said:


> gst you keep talking about lies.............
> 
> You and your group have the biggest lie going by refererring to caged shooting of elk and deer as HUNTING.
> 
> Tell the truth.........It is NOT hunting


If you will notice I have REPEATEDLY stated HFH would not give me what I need to take from the experience to call it hunting. But that is soley my decision to make in regards to myself. Where have I stated it is hunting?


----------



## gst

Plainsman, they are not my words but those of the sponsors. Gary Masching admits to telling potential signers this lie in Dakota Country magazine, which was printed at the start of this thread. Go back read the article and tell us wether you believe this statement is the truth or not.

I have no comprehension trouble as once again in the above statement you have made it perfectly clear that as you claim 
Quote:" So if someone has said something wrong, I am still on track to vote for the measure" :end quote

My "comprehension" of this statement is that even if someone supporting this measure lies(or more politically correct, "says something wrong") you will still vote for this measure. So what happened to your belief law should be created based on factual truth??????


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Chuck We hear you. You are just like the old phonograph record stuck in the same groove. Will you spearhead the effort to change the advertizing laws so it wont be called hunting? Nonresidents have never hesitated in attempting to influence the laws concerning North Dakotas outdoors, just as you are doing right now. If this measure goes down are you going to step up to the plate and take the forefront in changing the laws?


You don't need to do a measure to change advertising laws. Your elected officials can do that or your department of commerece. It does not take much influence to change these laws.


----------



## Longshot

> You don't need to do a measure to change advertising laws. Your elected officials can do that or your department of commerece. *It does not take much influence to change these laws*.


I hope you were kidding with that statement Chuck, because the truth if far from it. That or your experience has been much different than other people.

The HF operators will not stop calling it hunting, they have shown it. With statements like,


> To you it is not hunting. To someone else it might be?


 and others, that shows they never intend to change the way they advertise. Go to any of their sites and see for yourself how they market it.

These big game species were never intended (or legally) to be privately owned and no politician had the right to allow it. Buy back the herds and they can go back to cattle. No need to write a new law regarding hunting.


----------



## DG

Lonshot wrote,



> These big game species were never intended (or legally) to be privately owned and no politician had the right to allow it. Buy back the herds and they can go back to cattle. No need to write a new law regarding hunting.


Longshot, The politicians didn't make it a right. I have told you before that Curtland Durand purchased 74 elk cows and calves from the US Biological Survey back in 1927. He paid $20 a piece for them. Twenty bucks doesn't sound like much but consider a one ounce 1927 twenty dollar gold piece is worth about $1200 today. The fedgov also sold buffalo back in 1927 and still does sell surplus buffalo today. (from public to private) The Giant Canada Goose was thought to be extinct. In the 1960's the USFWS found them on game farms. They purchased them from the owners and slowly released them into the wild. The landowners worked together with the USFWS posting their land and taking care of the first releases to ensure their survival. Everyone accepts these animals as privately owned except a handful of people.

Longshot, So now your solution to all this is simply buy back the herds and they can go back to cattle. Some of the material Dick Monson posted in his fact sheet against the elk and deer ranchers is borrowed from the National Wildlife Federation. Just a few years ago the National Wildlife Federation publically stated that cattle do not belong in much of the interior west. We shouldn't raise elk. We shouldn't raise deer. We shouldn't raise cattle. The only thing the National Wildlife Federation and its affiliate raise are activists.


----------



## Longshot

I didn't say anything about not raising cattle so don't try to imply I did. Another one of your poor tactics. For some reason you don't get it. Wildlife was not to be transferred into private ownership no matter how you try to spin it. It makes no difference when and who.

As to the Giant Canadian Goose you are stretching the truth again.



> By the early 20th century, over-hunting and loss of habitat in the late 1800s and early 1900s had resulted in a serious decline in the numbers of this bird in its native range. The Giant Canada Goose subspecies was believed to be extinct in the 1950s until, in 1962, a small flock was discovered wintering in Rochester, Minnesota, by Harold Hanson of the Illinois Natural History Survey. With improved game laws and habitat recreation and preservation programs, their populations have recovered in most of their range, although some local populations, especially of the subspecies occidentalis, may still be declining.


Here is the full story. There is no mention of a private ownership or game farms. Please show me proof of your claims. If you want more information you can read the link below that takes you to the 1963 report.

http://www.fws.gov/news/historic/1963/19630401.pdf


----------



## DG

Longshot wrote,



> There is no mention of a private ownership or game farms. Please show me proof of your claims. If you want more information you can read the link below that takes you to the 1963 report.


This is a quote from Bill Antonides written in Dakota Country Magazine August 2010.

Goose down for pillows has become considerably easier in the last few years, thanks to the work of biologists, sportsmen and landowners over half a century ago. Giant Canada geese, once abundant residents of the Great Plains, were thought to have become extinct. In the early 1960's, state and federal game and fish agencies realized remnant populations of giant Canada geese still existed in captive flocks in the lower 48 states. Several programs around the country were initiated to augment reproduction of the birds and reintroduce them into the wild.

Longshot, Bill Antonides is a retired game warden from SD who writes for Dakota Country.

For some reason you don't get it. If you longshot, purchase with cash, a car a cow a house a parrot or a parcel of land do you or do you not own it.

Here is a list of privately owned non-traditional animals:

According to the Century Code, the categories of nontraditional livestock include:

Category 1 includes turkeys, geese, and ducks morphologically distinguishable from wild turkeys, geese, ducks, pigeons, mules, donkeys, *****, ratites, chinchilla, guinea fowl, ferrets, ranch foxes, ranch mink, peafowl, all pheasants, quail chukar, hedgehog, and degus.

Category 2 includes all nondomestic ungulates, including all deer, (cervidae) and pronghorn, nondomestic cats, waterfowl, shorebirds, upland birds not listed in category 1, crows, wolverines, otters, martens, fishers, kit or swift foxes, badgers, coyotes, mink, red and gray fox, muskrats, beavers, weasels, opposums, prairie dogs, and other ground squirrels.

Category 3 includes all wild species of family suidae except swine considered domestic in North Dakota by BoAH, big cats including mountain lion, jaguar, leopard, lion, tiger, and cheetah, bears, wolves, and wolf-hybrids, venomous reptiles, primates, nondomestic sheep and hybrids and nondomestic goats and hybrids.


----------



## Longshot

> For some reason you don't get it. If you longshot, purchase with cash, a car a cow a house a parrot or a parcel of land do you or do you not own it.


Paying for something is not the sole factor to ownership. All those things you list above are legal to purchase. Wildlife was never intended to be legally purchased. Tell me how if you can buy something illegally obtained that even though you bought it with cash you can still own it. I know what the NDCC states at this time. This does not mean that it was never intended to be so and I believe shouldn't. I know what you are saying and I do get it, buy unfortunately you don't. Somewhere in the past someone purchased wildlife that wasn't legally for sale and never should have been.

I will stick to my opinion as you will yours I am sure.


----------



## DG

Longshot said,



> All those things you list above are legal to purchase. Wildlife was never intended to be legally purchased.


You have your work cut out for you then.

According to the Century Code, the categories of nontraditional livestock include:

Category 1 includes turkeys, geese, and ducks morphologically distinguishable from wild turkeys, geese, ducks, pigeons, mules, donkeys, a$$es, ratites, chinchilla, guinea fowl, ferrets, ranch foxes, ranch mink, peafowl, all pheasants, quail chukar, hedgehog, and degus.

Category 2 includes all nondomestic ungulates, including all deer, (cervidae) and pronghorn, nondomestic cats, waterfowl, shorebirds, upland birds not listed in category 1, crows, wolverines, otters, martens, fishers, kit or swift foxes, badgers, coyotes, mink, red and gray fox, muskrats, beavers, weasels, opposums, prairie dogs, and other ground squirrels.

Category 3 includes all wild species of family suidae except swine considered domestic in North Dakota by BoAH, big cats including mountain lion, jaguar, leopard, lion, tiger, and cheetah, bears, wolves, and wolf-hybrids, venomous reptiles, primates, nondomestic sheep and hybrids and nondomestic goats and hybrids.

Longshot, You need to go to the legislature and tell them that ranch mink, pheasants, otters, ground squirrels, leopards, snakes, certain goats and whatever should be illegal to own. The fair chase initiative doesn't address any of this.

The Humane Society of the United States doesn't think people should raise fox, mink, coyote, muskrat or beaver for fur either. So PETA types sprayed paint on peoples fur coats to send an ugly message.

Farmed elk and deer are raised for food and fiber. Kasemans message is ugly too.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> *Farmed elk and deer are raised for food and fiber*


They will still be when this passes this fall. What you will not be able to do is advertise and sell the killing of these animals as hunting! Simple as that!


----------



## gst

Ron, explain why when asked how this measure will prevent one individual from selling a live animal to another individual who then kills the elk he now owns, SPONSOR Roger Kaseman claimed the Lacey act will prevent this thru a $10,000 fine and possible felony conviction. If you need me to, I can cut and paste his reply for you! :wink: Either you or Kaseman are not being upfront with the citizens of ND.


----------

