# ND Hunters for Fair Chase Petition



## RogerK

North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase had a table at the Bismarck Tribune Sport Show January 25 through the 27th for the purpose of collecting signatures on a petition to do away with high fence killing operations. The response by the public was overwhelmingly in favor of what we are doing. I was at the table for the entire 3 day event taking less than 5 minutes away from the table for 1 john run and a water break for the entire 3 days. Friday, no break, Saturday, one break, Sunday, no break. I didn't even break to eat.

The show was open to the public a total of 22 hours, or 1320 minutes. I personally filled 20 petitions during the time for a total of 760 signatures. That's 1 signature every 1.7 to 1.8 minutes. We collected a total of 1100 signatures on our way to 12,844.

If you want to help save public hunting, contact me and I'll put you in touch with a petition circulator so you can sign on to put this issue to a vote of the people. If Bismarck is any indication of the support for this initiative, we will win big and put these operations out of business before they kill public hunting for all of us.

Roger Kaseman, Chair, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.

E-Mail: [email protected]
701-254-4875


----------



## Dak

Excellent work Roger!!


----------



## hunter9494

Roger-

you should be extremely proud of your efforts. please advise if a signature from a NR will help.

even if it will not, congrats on your great effort and passion to stop this senselessness.


----------



## Plainsman

That's very good news. Wonderful Job Roger. I think your work at the sport show will be reflected at the voting booth come election.


----------



## huntin1

I signed it at the ND Hunter Safety Instructors conference in Bismarck on the 19th, had to wait in line.

Good job!!

huntin1


----------



## RogerK

hunter9494 said:


> Roger-
> 
> you should be extremely proud of your efforts. please advise if a signature from a NR will help.
> 
> even if it will not, congrats on your great effort and passion to stop this senselessness.


Thanks for the moral support, but this a legal fight and as such open only to North Dakota residents 18 and over.

Roger Kaseman


----------



## 4590

I doubt anyone is surprised to see that kind of response to the iniative. Its not hard to get folks to sign a petition when a person is spoon fed the rhetoric to support one side of an issue. (especially when signing presents no risk to them personally). I know of one person who visited the booth and asked some objective questions and said the response was without substance.

Its ironic that in the legislative natural resource committee, where objective reps were presented with both sides of the issue, they could not get one vote.

The tragedy of all this, is if the Fair Chase group gets their signatures, it will cost the hard working honest game ranchers of the state big bucks, no pun, to properly inform the voters so they get a fair vote. Not to mention the court battles that will follow if it passes. Thats why this type of law making is not fair or wise.


----------



## RogerK

4590 said:


> I doubt anyone is surprised to see that kind of response to the iniative. Its not hard to get folks to sign a petition when a person is spoon fed the rhetoric to support one side of an issue. (especially when signing presents no risk to them personally). I know of one person who visited the booth and asked some objective questions and said the response was without substance.
> 
> Its ironic that in the legislative natural resource committee, where objective reps were presented with both sides of the issue, they could not get one vote.
> 
> The tragedy of all this, is if the Fair Chase group gets their signatures, it will cost the hard working honest game ranchers of the state big bucks, no pun, to properly inform the voters so they get a fair vote. Not to mention the court battles that will follow if it passes. Thats why this type of law making is not fair or wise.


Since I was there 100% of the time, Chances are that the one person that asked you "objective questions" asked them of me. One person asked objective questions? What were these objective questions?

Some people put deer and elk inside escape proof enclosures, bring people in to shoot them and call it hunting. We want to outlaw the practice. Nothing objective about that. My mind is made up.


----------



## 4590

Roger,

I am sure told everyone that we have had cervid farms in ND for 40 yrs and today have no CWD, no TB, no Bangs or other disease problems.

I am sure you told them hunting preserves provide a living for many honest hardworking producers of deer, elk, bison, pheasants, etc, and this measure could lead to putting them out of business. In fact that is the goal!

I am sure you told them that after 40 years of farmed cervids we have seen no evidence of genetic polution and very few escape issues.

I am sure you told them preserve hunting is no different than selling any form of livestock production to a willing buyer and that bison producers do the exact same thing we are against, but we don't have a problem with them.

I am sure you told them you have actually been to a ND hunting preserve and observed the operation.

I am sure you told them the state of ND actually gave incentives to many game farm producers to help jump start their business, and now YOU want to put them out of business just because you don't like how they sell their livestock.

RIGHT???? Probably not!!!

My point is this whole deal is a travisty to some good hard working ND people and to with no risk to you, you are going to cost them a lot of $$$ just to get the electorate informed. You couldn't convince one member of the natural resource committee when they were informed.


----------



## RogerK

I was one of those young human exports that left the state for greener pastures. I held a job that doesn't exist in this state. I retired at age 48 and moved back to North Dakota to hunt and fish. Until the ban bill hit the legislature last session, I didn't know that high fence operations existed in the state.

I testified in favor of Senator Mathern's bill banning high fence operations on my own volition because the practice outrages me.

A short time before I left California, state and federal authorities busted an operation that took lions and other big cats from Zoos promising Zoo officials that they would care for the old cats until they died, a sort of Old Age home for retired Zoo cats. The sleaze-balls brought in "hunters" to shoot the cats, literally helpless inside a cage.

The media associated the low life idiots killing the cats with hunters and hunting. To learn that similar operations exist here in North Dakota with antlers as the primary target, shamed me. I thought North Dakota's had higher ethical standards than that. Apparently some don't.

I won't argue your point on hardworking North Dakotans, but the honest part, you shoot that argument down yourself.

Is it honest to bring in people to kill something that looks like a deer or elk, smells like a deer or elk, walks like a deer or elk, sounds like a deer or elk, but is in reality, "no different than selling any form of livestock production to a willing buyer," and is in fact, classified as livestock by the state.

No, I haven't been to a game preserve of any kind. Haven't been to a cathouse either. Both sell something, but it isn't the real thing. Not even close.

Disease? Wait. It's a matter of time. Plot CWD on a map of the United States and Canada. High Fence operations first, CDW shortly thereafter.

A word of a warning; no matter what your political orientation, Left, Right or Center, Conservative or Liberal, you don't want to argue to the voters of this state that "&#8230; the state of ND actually gave incentives to many game farm producers to help jump start their business &#8230;"

Subsidies and grants to start operations like this, AKA, tax dollars. Not a winning argument.

And yes, so there is no doubt or even equivocation, I want to shut these operations down. California did it. Idaho is working on it. Montana did it. So have twenty other states. Courts have consistently upheld the laws. The real travesty will be to hunting, not to a few people who decided that a quick dollar is more important than ethics when it come to hunting.

As far as convincing any legislators to our point of view last session, the legislators failed to do some basic math. You in the High Fence lobby have the money and the lobbyists, but you are the voting minority. The hunting associated sporting associations that testified in favor of the bill have the votes when and where it's going to count. I spoke to several legislatures since the vote. Several approached me and told me of the pressure they received; threats to throw money at their opponent in the next election. That will tactic will fail in November.


----------



## g/o

> As far as convincing any legislators to our point of view last session, the legislators failed to do some basic math. You in the High Fence lobby have the money and the lobbyists, but you are the voting minority. The hunting associated sporting associations that testified in favor of the bill have the votes when and where it's going to count. I spoke to several legislatures since the vote. Several approached me and told me of the pressure they received; threats to throw money at their opponent in the next election. That will tactic will fail in November.


Roger, This is the biggest lie you have told so far, none of what is true. The fact is that there were 7 member who all voted against your bill. Not one of these Senator's ever feel threatened. I personally asked each one question before the hearing. What is the difference between shooting a buffalo vs an elk. They all said one thing, attend the hearing because they want to know also. Now as far as lobbyist's go, the wildlife orgs. far out number the ones we have. All I know is you must really be in trouble to resort to distorting the facts to try and get people to sign.

By the way wouldn't you say the state of Texas is king when it comes to high fence shooting? How many cases of CWD have been reported ????


----------



## Dick Monson

g/o, you owe Roger Kaseman an apology for calling him a liar. Nowhere did he say the legislators he mentioned were the from the SNRC.


----------



## g/o

When pigs fly :lol: :lol: :lol:

I see you made no mention to the number of lobbyists comment either :roll:

Dick, Roger is spinning nothing more or less, just like the shooting of the cats in cages, where is the proof? does it exist?


----------



## Dak

It is always interesting to watch the ultimate spin master at work...


----------



## Savage260

You folks trying to shoot this "canned hunting" down have way too much time on your hands. You have not provided, at least in any thing I have read on these posts, any facts that suggest these operations should be banned. It is all "*I feel, I think*" but no substance. Why don't you focus your efforts on an issue that really relates to hunting, or poaching, or some such.



> A short time before I left California


That about says it all!!!


----------



## cwoparson

> Until the ban bill hit the legislature last session, I didn't know that high fence operations existed in the state.


Apparently they didn't have much of a impact on your hunting. Probable fair to say they had no impact since you didn't even know they were around. Sounds to me you just like the color of the wagon and don't care if it rolls or not.


----------



## hunter9494

laite 319:

if you don't think the PETA folks (and all the other antis) aren't on to this high fence enclosed hunting conducted by "sportsmen".....you are sadly mistaken. it's an image that hunters should be scared to death of and most find it impossible to defend.

any good hunter can make the case for "fair chase" hunting. but most true hunters get sick to their stomach when they learn/see a high fenced operation. i see these places in Texas all the time, it is an embarrassment to all who live here or at least it should be. but first you would have to have a conscience to understand what it truly represents.

after that technique you get to watch a "Texas fair chase", when the deer walks up to the feeder (he has been using for months) and the hunter in his stand shoots him from about 25 yards away. it doesn't always happen this way down here, but too often to suit me. most states would consider this "baiting", but not here.

yep, Texas, it IS like a whole 'nother country! it just doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## Savage260

> but most true hunters get sick to their stomach when they learn/see a high fenced operation


again, not a true fact, just opinion. If you folks didn't realize this before, here is a news flash; PETA will still hate hunting no matter how "ethical" you try to make it.



> you get to watch a "Texas fair chase", when the deer walks up to the feeder (he has been using for months) and the hunter in his stand shoots him from about 25 yards away.


The exact same thing happens every time I shoot a deer walking down a trail it has been using for months to eat in a field which it has been eating in or a slough it has been drinking out of.

Hunting isn't fair. It isn't supposed to be. We are supposed to win, the odds are stacked in our favor.

If you want to be fair, and sportsman like, dump the sentlok camo, get rid of the 400+ yard capable rifle/scope combo, and walk right up to the deer in the wild. Introduce yourself, shake it's "hand" and say "Hi, I am going to kill you now." Then you will be fair and sportsman like.


----------



## Plainsman

> the odds are stacked in our favor.


All the old hunters from outdoor magazines would disagree with that statement. I think it was Fred Bear that said "the odds are stacked in favor of the deer because we are part time hunters and they are full time deer".


----------



## Savage260

> All the old hunters from outdoor magazines would disagree with that statement. I think it was Fred Bear that said "the odds are stacked in favor of the deer because we are part time hunters and they are full time deer".


Plainsman, coming from you, yes, this is very believable. But when most people go hunting, they have a stand or blind, they have camo, scentlok, cover scents, attracting scents, not to mention the 400+yd capable rifle/scope combos, and baitpiles. Or even the people who just push deer and shoot them. The odds are stacked in our favor. I am not a very experienced hunter, I don't use top dollar any thing, but when 7 deer walk past my bow stand in a 3 hour period, I would have to say the odds are in my favor.


----------



## Plainsman

Laite319, thank you for truly considering my thoughts.

Ya, I hunt both extremes. Bow hunting and muzzleloader I don't use cover scent, attractant scent, bait, I stopped using tree stands because I have pre-diabetic neuropathy and I can't feel my feet. This screws up my balance, and I would just as soon not fall out of a tree.

When rifle season starts I go long range with the rifle and scope and the 400 yards you talked of would be a gimme. The crazy thing is I have a harder time setting up a 600+ yard shot than a close one. I have shot smaller bucks at 800 yards when larger ones were standing at 200. This year I think it will be 44mag lever action. I have to do something to keep it interesting.

I wish the public image of hunters was the way you and I hunt Laite319. PETA would have a much tougher time convincing people that hunting should not exist.


----------



## djleye

> PETA will still hate hunting no matter how "ethical" you try to make it.


I don't know that anyone is trying to convince PETA of anything. I would think that the ones that need convincing are the non hunting general public, the ones that are on the fence about hunting. The ones that don't understand that not everyone shoots an animal inside a fence. PETA will never be convinced of anything, too many nut jobs!!! :wink:


----------



## g/o

djleye, I see the humane society has joined up with you way to go!!!!! Whose next PETA? I also see the humane society is after pheasant hunting, will you guys be joining them on that next also???

http://www.hsus.org/hunt/campaigns/


----------



## angus 1

I think Roger K was right on when he said put these operations out of business. That's all this amounts to is hunters jealous of a landowner making a dollar by letting someone shoot livestock. This law is a bad deal for the landowner. Just as plainsman said in another topic on gun control , First they started with Saturday Night specials , then semi auto's and then ect ect......... This is the same thing. Peta is letting the hunters do the dirty work on this one . What's next Roger?? Chicken , Turkey and hog farms and then my cattle farm. THAT IS THEIR GOAL and I cant believe you are laying down a nice path for them to follow. They have already, through pressure in Washington shut down the horse slaughtering business and they are proud of it. I would never go to a game farm . It just doesn't set right with me. But I don't have any real harsh feelings for those who do . Why doesn't everyone just mind their own business, but no a landowner making a dollar just seems to piss off a lot of hunters, since your tax dollars subsidised him in the first place.


----------



## Plainsman

g/o said:


> djleye, I see the humane society has joined up with you way to go!!!!! Whose next PETA? I also see the humane society is after pheasant hunting, will you guys be joining them on that next also???
> 
> http://www.hsus.org/hunt/campaigns/


You know better than that g/o, you just hope that someone reading this is stupid enough to believe it. Do you have something of substance?

djleye was correct in his assessment of the situation. We will never convince PETA to leave us alone. It is the person who can't decide that we must convince we are as hunters ethical in our sport. For every wacked out PETAfile out there we have 100 fence riders. I am willing to also bet that for every pro canned shooting supporter there is 100 of these fence riders that will vote for the Fair Chase initiative.

People who are against spotlighting deer but support canned shooting are a prime example of hypocricy. I would like to know how many canned shooting supporters are related to, or have as a neighbor, or have as a friend a canned shooting operator. I understand the loyalty you may feel. I feel loyalty to the sport and to the sportsmen and women who walk the open fields of North Dakota. I hope they pass by my grave with firearms or bow in hand 500 years from now.


----------



## g/o

Here you go Plainsman from the hsus website, looks to me you're in bed with them.



> North Dakota: Prohibit Canned Hunting
> A group called North Dakota Fair Chase is working to gather 20,000 signatures to place a measure on the 2008 ballot that will enact a law to prohibit shooting captive deer, elk and other exotic mammals behind escape proof fences.
> 
> Canned hunts involve the shooting of animals in a fenced enclosure for a fee. Canned hunt operators breed big game animals and exotic animals, hand rear the animals so they have no fear of people, and release them into a fenced enclosure to be shot and killed. "Fair chase"-a concept central to the philosophy of many in the hunting community-doesn't exist in canned hunts.
> 
> Visit www.northdakotafairchase.com to learn more about the initiative and how you can get involved.
> 
> If you live in any of these states, please make sure you are registered to vote (PDF) in the 2008 elections. Your vote is a voice for the animals, so please let them be heard


 :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

I suppose I could come up with a bunch of old tired cliché's that explain the situation. You know, sort of like "even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn". Meaning as stupid as these people are if they come up with 10,000 ideas there might be one good one. It's sort of like Nostradamus, everyone is a amazed at his predictions, but don't realize that he made thousands of them. If you made 25,000 predictions today, do you think some might be right 200 years from now?

Your idea that we are in bed with the Humane Society of the United States is ludicrous. I hope intelligent people can see through the smoke your blowing. Well, actually it only takes semi-intelligent to see that so I shouldn't be overly concerned. Your quote is of some help if looked at correctly. It showcases the disingenuous of the opposition. Most of us on this site have built a reputation as fellow hunters and sportsmen. I don't think any intelligent people are going to believe that we are PETA people or active members of the Humane Society of the United States, or any other anti hunting group. I will direct people to look at my posts for the past years before this initiative came up.

You're a drowned man grasping at straws g/o and I don't like to see that --------- well maybe just a little bit.  Sorry.

It's kind of odd. Your so wrong on your last post that I see this as our turning point to get this measure through. One thing when debating, don't get to ridiculous you loose credibility. Thanks.

My feelings about groups like this supporting me. Educate them if you can. If you can't Kiss them today, crush them tomorrow. I owe them no loyalty, my loyalty is to fellow hunters, always.


----------



## angus 1

I'd have to agree with g/o . You guys are part of the animal rights groups and they know it and yet you can't see it. and once again I think it is another attack on the private landowner.. Why don't we ( landowners and hunters) come to an agreement. You can have no fenced hunting if I can have a posted ND. ?? Deal. Each side would be giving in a little wouldn't they , sounds good to me. Lets work together and both sides win.


----------



## Plainsman

Since the conservation ethics begin hunters have controlled themselves well. We have gone to the Fish and Wildlife Service and state game and fish agencies. We have asked to stop spotlighting deer, we have asked to put daily limits on fish species, we have asked to stop baiting waterfowl, long ago we asked to stop market hunting. Now a new form of market hunting has emerged. It's called canned hunts. It has nothing to do with landowner rights, it is hunters controlling hunting ethics. How about we make it illegal for a hunter to pay any person to shoot an animal or for access? It will have the same affect.

If fair chase is in bed with animal rights then canned hunts must be in bed with unfair chase right? Do you ever drink a beer? Oh, my gosh you must be against mothers against drunk drivers right? Do you ever go to church? My gosh you must be in bed with the Jim Jones cool-aid drinkers. That's where the phrase came about, and people haven't stopped drinking the cool-aid for 20 years.

Each of us have many ideas. Our ideas will undoubtedly cross with others who we disagree with 99 percent of the time. As much as I dislike Hillary and Obama I would guess they have ideas that I would agree with. Does that mean I support them? That's a silly question isn't it?????????? Why would I support someone who I disagree with on nearly everything I can think of. Nearly everything. Nearly.

You guys have to get real.


----------



## angus 1

So what other ethical things are you guys involved in? Or do you spend all your time picking on landowners.?


----------



## Plainsman

angus 1 said:


> So what other ethical things are you guys involved in? Or do you spend all your time picking on landowners.? I hate to tell you but this will not help the access problem .It will only make it worse.


Will access get better if we hunters have no ethics? As far as other ethics, I currently don't belong to the Wildlife Federation, and I have a conflict with the meetings of United Sportsmen so I am not familiar with what they might be working on. I think the last thing they supported was a limit on the perch at Devils Lake, and limits on crappie here at Jamestown. I personally witnessed five gallon buckets of crappies dumped by the stop sign on highway 281. Eat them or let them go, but don't turn them into litter. Does that sound like a PETA supporter? It surely isn't picking on landowners.

Why is one ethical principle good while another is picking on landowners. Is it because money is more important than ethics? I think that was the principle of the first market hunters. Is prohibiting the growing of marijuana picking on landowners??????


----------



## Savage260

> I wish the public image of hunters was the way you and I hunt Laite319. PETA would have a much tougher time convincing people that hunting should not exist.


Plainsman, I know from reading your posts you are much to intelligent to believe PETA will ever quit. You can't tell a radical thinker any thing to change their mind. Be it Peta, muslim extremists, or just the guy who will only buy a chevy. I say pick the battles that really matter, and focus all your energy on that. This issue won't make a bit of difference for the cause of hunters, but it will cause honest people(yes I am sure there have to be some of the ranchers, most I would bet, that are honest, EVEN THOUGH I DO NOT KNOW ANY GAME FARMER, AND AM NOT RELATED TO ANY PERSON WHO IS A GAME FARMER) to lose their livelyhood. (By the way, I know kind of how you feel, my father had diabetes and fell from his treestand, it was the last time he ever went hunting)

Yes, djleye, it seems people are trying to convince peta.


> if you don't think the PETA folks (and all the other antis) aren't on to this high fence enclosed hunting conducted by "sportsmen".....you are sadly mistaken


 I know it won't work, you know it won't work, but it seems people are trying.

g/o, man, I hope you are not one of the head people trying to defeat this measure. I AM NOT A FENCE RIDER, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THIS MEASURE. I do not believe this has any damaging effects on the hunting I love. But, g/o, name calling, and putting out the insane posts you have been writing makes you look as bad or worse than the peta crazys. If there are fence riders out there, and I am sure there are, you are only working for the measure by saying stupid things and name calling, it will put people, who could be convinced to join either side, off.

angus1, what purpose would this serve?


> Why don't we ( landowners and hunters) come to an agreement. You can have no fenced hunting if I can have a posted ND. ??


 A lot of hunters are not for this measure, and fenced hunting or no fenced hunting doesn't make a bit of difference to me. You can post your land right now. I don't understand what point you are trying to make with this. Posted land isn't the problem, it is when the person who posts the land wants me to pay to hunt an animal they don't own. I have no problem walking up to your door and asking permission to hunt, in fact I think that is what every one should do. A farmer keeping track of who is on the land is one thing, making a person pay for access is just greed.


----------



## angus 1

Will access get better if we hunters have no ethics? SO your saying it is actually you hunters that are unethical? and not the landowner? another thing which arguement are you guys sticking with . Diseases or ethics? These animals are raised in the fence they know no different just as livestock. I personally wouldn't pay to go shoot a cow for the freezer but if someone wanted to pay me for a cow come and shoot it themselves , hey have at it I don't really care. What is going to happen to the animals at these unethical game ranches if you get your way. ? Then I suppose you will say they are to domesticated to return to the wild so we must kill them? which would be a form of admitting this is really not a big deal but just trying to shut down a landower from making $$. To all landowners believe me this is just the beginning . In the future these hypocrites and there kids will be there to help shut down the rest of the livestock industry. Remember this when they come and ask for a place to hunt.


----------



## Ithaca1

I for one would not participate in a high fenced hunt but I do not think a bunch hippocrites should dictate what a landowner can do with his own livestock and land.

I talked to the guys at the Sports Show said there were all right with people owning elk and deer just opposed of selling a hunt for them. All this comes down to is an ethics battle. So why are these same guys not trying ban big buck contests and coyote hunting contests? Both of these contest contain a large amount of cheating(poaching) or unethical manner of taking deer or other game. How about outlaw hunts that points are given for a specific game animal killed?

The battle these folks should be fighting is outfits like the Cannonball Company and Little Missouri Outfitters who don't own a stitch land going around leasing every acre that has wildlife on it.

I have no problems with someone guiding on their own land or selling their own animals to shoot.

If a bill like this passes you are going to see some nasty lockdowns in western ND. Ranchers don't like their landowner rights infringed upon.


----------



## Plainsman

> Will access get better if we hunters have no ethics? SO your saying it is actually you hunters that are unethical? and not the landowner?


Not at all, I didn't even mention landowners. What I was talking about was the blackmail statement :



> I hate to tell you but this will not help the access problem .It will only make it worse.


You say if we hunters are more ethical it will make things worse. I said (tongue in cheek) will access get better if we hunters have no ethics? Following the reason that if we are ethical access will be worse. It only follows then that if we are unethical access might get better. Maybe your right, it we have very poor ethics and are willing to pay to shoot an animal in a fence we will have no access problem at all. No thanks I would rather not hunt again in my lifetime than stoop to that level.

Laite319 please don't give g/o any more tips.


----------



## angus 1

Good points.

So someone please tell me . Will this bill ban these livestock? or just the sale of them for a hunt? SO if the landowner charged an "access fee" instead of "selling " the elk this would then be ok.? Access fee is $3500 but shooting the elk if free? If this is true . I'm lost and don't see the point . Please tell me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Plainsman

The measure does not affect production what so ever. It does not affect penned hunts of Bison, or exotics like pheasant. It only affects other native ungulates like elk and deer. The initiative simply seeks to stop putting native wildlife species into pens that they can not escape from and shooting them. It is as I have said strictly a hunter ethics issue.

I also would never be interested in stopping livestock production. I am to addicted to ribeye to ever think of anything that idiotic. I didn't support stopping estrogen production from pregnant mares. If landowners ever found themselves in a fight with PETA types over cattle production you can bet ever (every) sportsman on here would come to your aid.


----------



## angus 1

So a rancher could still raise them ? SO this shoots down the arguement of disease. It's all just ethics? I'm not buying it. There truely must be another motive .


----------



## Plainsman

angus 1 said:


> So a rancher could still raise them ? SO this shoots down the arguement of disease. It's all just ethics? I'm not buying it. There truely must be another motive .


Well, buy it, because that is the whole thing. Many of us are concerned with disease, but that isn't the crux of the initiative. By watching what is happening in other states we worry less about the producer that raises for meat vs. the producer that raises for trophy. I think the differentiation is two fold. First off I think that a producer raising for meat is not going to take high risks for a $100 animal whereas a producer raising for a $5000 or even $10,000 trophy will take far greater chances. Secondly I think a meat producer is more closely aligned with a normal animal operation and will be less likely to violate the law. I see canned hunts as unethical therefore I think that canned hunting operations have more of a propensity to skirt ethics and the law. The history of disease spread bears out this hypothesis.


----------



## Savage260

> It does not affect penned hunts of Bison, or exotics like pheasant. It only affects other native ungulates like elk and deer.


I am a little confused on this. Bison/buffalo are or were not native wildlife? Then at one point cattle were wild too were they not? If so and we can domesticate those species, how is it any different with elk or deer?


----------



## djleye

g/o said:


> djleye, I see the humane society has joined up with you way to go!!!!! Whose next PETA? I also see the humane society is after pheasant hunting, will you guys be joining them on that next also???
> 
> http://www.hsus.org/hunt/campaigns/


So, Now I am a member of PETA. 
Come on Jim, you know me better than that, thanks for the cheap shot though!!!!! :eyeroll:
Jim, I have never once shot a bird at your place. I have no problem with it, but I never have shot one there. I don't own a dog and therefore I pheasant hunt very little. I have also told you many times that I would fight tooth and nail against it if it ever came to someone trying to ban pheasant farms, so don't even try that song and dance with me!!


----------



## angus 1

SO the rancher can still raise the elk just not sell them for someone to "hunt" . Can the rancher raise the elk, deer ect and charge an access fee and let the person shoot the animal for free? I think if this passes it should be all or nothing, elk, deer , bison and phesants, why discriminate ?


----------



## Plainsman

Pheasants have been raised so long in captive circumstances that I don't know if we have birds left that can survive in the wild in any but the most mild habitats. You can see the color phase changes in the birds and other indicators that they just are not what they had been. Also, they can fly so pens don't enter into the equation.

Buffalo: I think their time has come and gone in all but the national parks. We either raise them domestically or the genetics becomes very poor. We can not hope to have the buffalo back again. No one is going to tolerate a 1000 to 2000lb animal roaming through their wheat fields. We can't expect farmers to put up with that.

I don't have a problem with bird species, I don't have a problem with fish farms, I don't have a problem with buffalo producers. I do have a problem with a guy who has deer or elk, puts them in a small pen, for an unethical hunter to shoot. There is a reason the Safari club, the Pop and Young club, and the Boon and Crockett have fair chase rules to enter trophies. You can not enter any trophy animal that was helpless with no means of escape when taken. We can all live by those rules can't we. We do call ourselves sportsmen right. Sort of like don't kick a man when he is down. It follows the same thought process.


----------



## angus 1

SO for the 3rd time . The ranch can still raise the elk ( shooting down the disease arguement) Can he charge a access fee of $$$$ whatever amount , and the taking of the elk is free. ?


----------



## Savage260

> There is a reason the Safari club, the Pop and Young club, and the Boon and Crockett have fair chase rules to enter trophies. You can not enter any trophy animal that was helpless with no means of escape when taken.


Sorry, Plainsman, I don't mean to be picking on you, but there is a pretty credible story of a member of the Safari club hunting a bison on a ranch in the Devils Lake region. The rancher loaded it up and brought it to an area set aside for "hunting" the animal. The story goes, the guy played out the whole, "ssshhhhhh, there is a big one over there!! Lets see if we can get close enough for a shot." The bison wouldn't have moved an inch if the guy had just walked right up to it. He shot it as one of his "trophys".

Could be rumor, but I doubt it.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> I don't have a problem with bird species, I don't have a problem with fish farms, I don't have a problem with buffalo producers. I do have a problem with a guy who has deer or elk, puts them in a small pen, for an unethical hunter to shoot.


I dont see the difference. Guy A goes into a so many acre pasture to shoot an elk. Guy B goes into a so many acre CRP field to shoot a half tame, retarded pheasant that was placed there five minutes prior. A pen raised pheasant is no different than a yard chicken. Pastured elk=retarded half tame pheasant.......pretty much the same, but you have no problem with guy B? That kind of sounds like hypocricy.

Go ahead guys, unwittingly set the precedence with the anti's, ill be sure to thank you in 20 years when alot more is gone.


----------



## Plainsman

> Go ahead guys, unwittingly set the precedence with the anti's, ill be sure to thank you in 20 years when alot more is gone.


That's simply a scare tactic. It makes me wonder what your real motive is for supporting canned hunts. For a guy that wants to stay traditional with black powder you sure are willing to let ethics go out the window when it comes to the pursuit.

As far as pheasants they have been raised so long the ones shot around here are not wild birds any more. Elk have not become even semi domesticated. Pheasants as dumb as they are can still escape if they have the wits. Elk can't. They are far more than poor stupid corn buzzards.



> The bison wouldn't have moved an inch if the guy had just walked right up to it. He shot it as one of his "trophys".


He may have done that, but he will not be entering it in any trophy records. That practice is entirely unacceptable. Most will not accept a animal as a trophy if it is bogged down in snow or helpless on ice. What ever happened to sportsman ethics? Within each of us there should be the knowledge of fair chase. I am terribly disappointed that it isn't obvious to all. People point out how bad it is in Texas, but because it's bad somewhere else is not a reason to accept it here or anywhere.



> SO for the 3rd time . The ranch can still raise the elk ( shooting down the disease arguement) Can he charge a access fee of $$$$ whatever amount , and the taking of the elk is free. ?


That would be the same thing angus, your just trying to make and end run on us. Some people sell wildlife today under the guise of access. Also, it doesn't shoot down the disease argument at all. More canned hunt operations take chances than operations that raise elk just for the meat. However, the initiative doesn't address disease.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> Go ahead guys, unwittingly set the precedence with the anti's, ill be sure to thank you in 20 years when alot more is gone.
> 
> 
> 
> That's simply a scare tactic. It makes me wonder what your real motive is for supporting canned hunts. For a guy that wants to stay traditional with black powder you sure are willing to let ethics go out the window when it comes to the pursuit.
Click to expand...

Are you sure its a scare tactic? Are you 100% SURE that the anti hunting agenda in this country will stop with the abolishment of "canned" hunting. We already know the anti gun agenda doesnt stop with one type of gun ban, so im guessing its pretty safe to say the anti hunting groups will only use this as an example and a feather in their hat to go after more forms of hunting. I think its naive to not even consider this fact. If thats just a scare tactic, it can be said than that your guys argument is also a scare tactic. Ill go ahead and say it, your argument is a scare tactic. There.

And as far as my views towards muzzleloading, there is a BIG difference. Our MLing season is PUBLIC, what someone does with THEIR livestock on THEIR land is PRIVATE.......huge difference. There is no "season" for "canned" hunts, it is a private endeavor. Public vs private has play here. There are things a person can do in private that they cant do in public.


----------



## rowdie

angus....I don't think the situation you describe would be legal.

It would be like whore charging access fees to her property, but the sex is free.


----------



## Savage260

> It would be like whore charging access fees to her property, but the sex is free.


I think she would have to do it in her own home though, not in a car or hotel room. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Are you 100% SURE that the anti hunting agenda in this country will stop with the abolishment of "canned" hunting.


No, I am sure they will keep trying to abolish all hunting no matter what happens. I wouldn't be dumb enough to think that. Your surely not asking me to promise that are you? I can with full confidence tell you that they will never stop.



> the anti hunting groups will only use this as an example and a feather in their hat


It will not be a feather in their hat if hunters self regulate themselves. The feather will be in our hat for being true sportsmen and not allowing money, greed, or self boasting about trophies to sway our ethics.



> I think its naive to not even consider this fact.


Which fact is that, I didn't see anything factual in your post. I seen opinions, but not facts.



> Ill go ahead and say it, your argument is a scare tactic.


Sportsman like ethics is a scare tactic? Maybe you better explain that one.



> Our MLing season is PUBLIC, what someone does with THEIR livestock on THEIR land is PRIVATE.......huge difference.


Were not talking landowner right, we are talking hunting ethics. If it isn't right to use a scope on a muzzleloader because it isn't sportsman like it surely can't be sportsman like to take your flintlock and walk into a pen with a corn cob tied on the muzzle. No double standards please. All trophy hunting organizations and most hunting clubs have fair chase rules. Don't you think fair chase is something we should all live by. I think the time for double standards is over.



> There are things a person can do in private that they cant do in public.


We all know that bareback, but there are things you can't do in either place also. I don't get your point because in all honesty you didn't make one.


----------



## DG

Gentlemen, It is all a slippery slope. Today elk and deer, tomorrow pen raised pheasants. Then bison, hogs, chickens and finally beef. Check out www.themeatrix2.com and 2.5 It's an animated cartoon. Enjoy


----------



## Plainsman

> Gentlemen, It is all a slippery slope.


Well, that makes about ten or twenty times we have heard that. If we follow the premise of the slippery slope we would be frightened to make any laws. One could say that if we pass any law the government will try take all of our freedom. Requiring safety belts would then be a slippery slope.

As far as the cartoon, yes there are a bunch of radicals out there, we all know that, what's the point.

For myself I am not going to let the fear of radicals scare me into not doing the right thing. One is always tempted to take the easy road not the right road.

I am tired, and no one has said anything new for weeks so I think I'll let this dead horse rest. I'll leave you with this thought. Isn't it better that the public sees hunters as ethical self regulating, than seeing hunters as having to be pushed into ethical behavior by society?


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> I do have a problem with a guy who has deer or elk, puts them in a small pen, for an unethical hunter to shoot. There is a reason the Safari club, the Pop and Young club, and the Boon and Crockett have fair chase rules to enter trophies. You can not enter any trophy animal that was helpless with no means of escape when taken. We can all live by those rules can't we.


The difference is that clubs don't enforce their rules under force of law. They don't take liberty and property.


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> I am tired, and no one has said anything new for weeks so I think I'll let this dead horse rest. I'll leave you with this thought. Isn't it better that the public sees hunters as ethical self regulating, than seeing hunters as having to be pushed into ethical behavior by society?


I don't mean this in a mean way, but to be honest I rejected your "ethics" a long time a go. They are inconsistent. Ethics by definition must be consistent.


----------



## DG

Plainsman wrote, As for the cartoon, yes there are a bunch of radicals out there, we all know that, what's the point. Just a bunch of radicals? You can do better than that. Lash out man. They deserve it.


----------



## RogerK

Those of you that support high fence operators for whatever reason and think there will be a general revolt of landowners when the measure passes, have not taken into account any factual information on the issue.

I talked to hundreds of people at the Bismarck show, some land owners, some not, some hunters, some not. The one question people I talked to asked enough times to catch my attention: "Is this going on in North Dakota?" I got the question so often from a majority of the people and with enough skepticism when I answered that it was, I made a note to find and print out web sites advertising these operations right here in the Flicker Tail State to show people that these operations actually exist when in the future I asked people to sign the petition.

In other words, based on personal conversations with hundreds of people at the Bismarck Sports Show, very few people, land owners included, know that these operations exist inside our borders. When told that high fence operations exist, they couldn't sign the petition fast enough. Most were disgusted, hunters and land owners included. That's based on fact, not pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking about some fanciful landowner revolt.

Based on my experience at the Bismarck show, on election day myself and the members of the Fair Chase Committee will be getting together and doing this :beer:

The people that oppose us will be doing this: :******:

That's life when you are on the wrong side of an issue.


----------



## DG

Roger, Did you look at the cartoon? What did you think of it?


----------



## 4590

Not the first time Plainsman couldn't back up his statements but just fyi SCI does recognize high fence trophies:



> The SCI Record Book of Trophy Animals is an all-inclusive record keeping system documenting the hunting heritage. The scoring system recognizes typical and non typical animals and both free range and estate taken animals.


Thats right from their website. I am not sure any cervid producers really care if they get SCI recognition, but just thought I would call Plains on his ERROR. You might check out the SCI website you will also see they consider fenced hunts to be fair chase if they meet a certain criteria.

On another note, any "hunter", I don't care how much you practice, or how good you think you are, that tries to shoot a deer at 800 yrds, is not ethical. That is just plain rediculous. The chances of wounding and wasting an animal are just too great. That is not even a humane kill in my opinion. That would never happen on our preserve. We have too much respect for the animals we raise to allow that. BUT would I try to take your right to do it away, never. I would hope to educate you though on your poor judgement.

Roger,

In regard to a previous statement, ND elk and deer producers did not have any hired lobbyists. I would like to know who the legislator was that you claim was arm twisted to vote a certain way. IF you actually were at the committee hearing, you would know all the members asked probing questions of both sides and I saw no indication of manipulation, only objecctive fact finding. And of course again your side could not get one vote!!!!!!!!


----------



## barebackjack

> Don't you think fair chase is something we should all live by.


When it is a public resource, yes. When it is someones livestock, no. Would you ask a beef producer to let that steer run wild before he whacks em on the forehead, no.....because its l i v e s t o c k. Just like that deer or elk raised in a pasture, their livestock, they are NOT wild and therefore fall under different rules.

100% black angus=pasture raised elk. No difference, both raised for one purpose and one purpose only, to die. Know I know your all mad that they call it "hunting", but there are ALL KINDS of things guys do to 100% free range public wildlife that I dont consider "ethical". So what do we do about that?

And I believe the anti's WILL use this as a feather in their hat. They will spin it further, and who do you honestly think the ignorant non-hunting american public will believe (who have just had their heart strings pulled by some yuppie PETA wacko)?

They have alot of money to throw around, and they do. Ive seen peta adds on the internet, radio, print, and television. Yet, I see VERY FEW ads to counteract. I think your trusting to highly in the american public to make a "well informed" decision Plainsmen.


----------



## cwoparson

> "Is this going on in North Dakota?"


The real question is what were they told that was going on? Was it something along the lines some of the slander spewed by some on here such as rich fat cat whore house hunter slobs shooting animals in slaughter pens or tied to a tree or was it explained to them what most game farm consisted of and was offered to the public? Something tells me it was the former.

I'm not saying you in particular used those terms but some have. In addition there is constant misleading remarks made such as one person just a few posts back constantly uses the term pen when describing the area these animals are hunted in. To me and I think most common sense people the use of pen conjures up impressions of a fenced enclosure that two people can sit on opposite sides and carry on a conversation. I don't consider a area of several hundred enclosed acres or more a pen, and I don't believe common sense folks do either. It's a misleading statement and the people that continue to use that term know it full well.


----------



## angus 1

I've noticed that they will say pretty much anything to get this passed. I'm pretty sure it will pass and then next fall this site will be filled with complaints about acess. The passing of this will have a down fall. Landowners here in western ND don't like to be told what they can and can't do.

This is the same arguement as many other issues in ND. The majority , the east , always gets their way and basicly screw us in the west. I'm very firm on landowners rights and personal property rights and no matter how you decorate it up that is what this is all about. You can not legislate ethics. I'm going to be calling on all the landowners in my area to stick up for fellow landowners this is going to affect. We will not win this at election time . But we can win this come hunting time. I'm now considering posting the rest of my land . IF this passes you can put my 2700 acres in the posted catagory . I've never posted it and why I don't know , We landowners on this site have taken it pretty hard and I really don't think the hunters on ND appreciate us. We are constantly refered to as pimps and look at a few posts back we were put in the same catagory as a whore. We are hated for signing up for a government program and called welfare recpiants all while you have a full belly. I've put up with garbage strewed on my land and yet kept it open , I've put up with shot cattle and kept it open, cut fences , torn up roads and shot up equipment and kept it open. Witnessed poaching, driving off trails and yet kept it open and now those same people are going to put a good neighbor out of business and help pave the way for an animal rights group in the future to shut down hog operations , turkey and chicken farms and so on.

I've always been pro hunter , against posting and for protecting the heritage. This site and the comments over the past year or so have made me stop and think. ............ Why. ?


----------



## 4590

cwo and angus,

You are making way too much sense. I have made the point numerous times that we have been raising cervids in this state for 40 yrs. Many people don't even know we are here. Doesn't that tell you something??
But now all of a sudden we have a crisis and need to shut the industry down??? Seems like if we were a problem, people would know the industry exists. That however can work against us as uninformed people are often easily influenced by a onesided arguement.

Angus, I admire your tolerance and I for one hope this issue doesn't force you to post your land. Sad fact is an uninformed electorate of primarily nonhunters and nonlandowners, and a few discruntled sportsmen in ND, may cause this initiative to pass. The net result would be detrimental to all hunters, even if they didn't support the measure. Thats why this is not the right way to make laws. Our founders in this country set up a system in which minority states and groups would be protected with representation. If it was strictly majority rules, ND would never be heard. We wouldn't have any voice in Congress. We would also have Al Gore as President, need I say more!!


----------



## angus 1

I don't want post my propety. But I haven't wittnessed to many good things said about a landowner in sometime. With the possiblity of a smooth lawyer and liablity issues for people on my property and the slander of the landowner it makes a person stop and think. I've always been pro hunting!! But now I'm looking at it in a different light. The hunters of ND want us to be like every other state and get rid of or put these people out of business. OK then lets be like every other state and everything is posted to , wouldn't this be a fair trade? both sides give in a little. You can walk on my private property anytime you want and now your telling landowners that they can't do this or that . It is ours not yours leave us alone. What gives the ND hunter the right to dictate what we can and can't do ? Just because you pay taxes and the farmer gets government support? You can not legislate ethics.

As I have said I would not partcipate in a fenced hunt because it's not ethical . But our freedoms are being chiseled away everyday and at some point there has to be tolerance for somethings, ( like my spelling) and this is one of those things. When these farms are shut down , these guys already have the facility to operate a guide service or lease to hunt anyway your not really gaining anything.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Angus and all the landowners on this site...

*THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING HUNTERS ACCESS!* :beer:

Now one thing I keep reading is that people say the Hunting community has to police itself.

My question is how is shutting down these high fenced operations policing Hunters?

Wouldn't policing hunters be turning in poachers and law breakers, picking up trash and shell casings after a day in the field, voting on issues to hand down stiffer penalties for law breakers, etc.

Again I ask How is shutting down High Fenced operations Policing hunters?


----------



## angus 1

I've questioned the policing of hunters by hunters before and it always gets turned around. If the landower didn't post we wouldn't have to road hunt , shoot from the pickup, the arguement of a signed or not signed posted sign, *$&$ gratis tags on and on and on . I'm tired of it. I'm tired of being the bad guy and all this time I wasn't, so after years of accusations of being a s.o.b. of a landowner I'm now going to be one .


----------



## Chuck Smith

Another thing I think which muddies this whole issue is that people view the ELK and DEER at these operations just as they view the ones they see in the wild.

When in fact they are just like cattle. They are livestock. They are being raised to be killed. Now they can be killed at the butcher or by a shooter.

The thing the non educated on this subject public needs to get out of their minds is that these animals are not wild......they are domesticated live stock.

When people talk ethics......is it ethical to shoot a steer? Is it ethical to charge someone who wants the farmers steer for meat and the leather? I say yes on all of these.


----------



## 4590

Angus,

I appreciate your sentiment as a landowner. As I said before, I am also impressed with your tolerance in the past, and I am surprised you haven't posted your property already. However I hope you realize that most of the opinions you read here are not a reflection of the majority of ND hunters. I am one myself and most of the people I know honor and respect property owners. I am just saying you have every right to post, but I certainly wouldn't make that decision based on attitudes you read on this site.



> As I have said I would not partcipate in a fenced hunt because it's not ethical .


As a livestock producer I hope you realize this issue has nothing to do with hunting ethics but is an issue of whether the animals are harvested in a humane manner. I certainly appreciate your support of property rights.


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,



> I have shot smaller bucks at 800 yards when larger ones were standing at 200.





> we are talking hunting ethics. If it isn't right to use a scope on a muzzleloader because it isn't sportsman like


These two quotes still amaze me. You have ranted on this site for months about hunting ethics, and how YOU know ethics by your gut instinct. Your gut tells you to abhore fenced hunting as unethical. Yet these two comment tell me your ETHICAL judgement is in serious question.

I fail to see how attempting to shoot an animal at 800 yds resembles anything close to fair chase. What ever happened to the thrill of the hunt and the stalk. If it is possible to accurately make a clean kill at that range, what is the point, just to set at the bar and brag that you did it. The game certainly has no fear of you at that range - its nearly a half mile away. By my judgement, except in the case of a sniper with the right equipment, that is not an ethical hunt. You have mentioned slob hunters at preserves and how easy it is to walk in a "pen" and plug the critter, how difficult a hunt can it be to shoot "at" animal at 800 yds.

In regard to having a scope on a muzzleloader. Again how is that unethical? The powers that be have decided that scopes are not to be a part of that type of hunting and those that do it say so be it. Its not anymore unethical than using a scope on any rifle.

Point is you have just demonstrated, with no help from me, the very point we have been making for months. No one has a corner on ethics. We have certainly have different preferrences, but they do not reflect on ethics. How many of the nonhunting public do you think would endorse you shooting at a deer from 800yds, when the chances of wounding or maiming is certainly very high??? Actually how many of the hunting public would endorse that????????? Use you stalking skills to get with clean kill range. Use the equipment that the law allows. Make the shot! Thats hunting ethics!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## g/o

> I've noticed that they will say pretty much anything to get this passed. I'm pretty sure it will pass and then next fall this site will be filled with complaints about acess. The passing of this will have a down fall.


Angus, don't let these guys on this forum fool you. They have little support for this measure and they know it. They have this going since September if they could not get 12,000 signatures by now they are in serious trouble. Roger is bragging about the response he received, remember he was at a sports show not a landowners convention. I congratulate Roger for having the common sense to take it to the show. That is good marketing, when I do a show I don't do one in ND because thats not where my client base is. From the people I've talked to you will not find much support for this measure.


----------



## Plainsman

> In regard to having a scope on a muzzleloader. Again how is that unethical?


It wasn't my idea. I have a scope on my rifle. You just don't look at any of the other forms or know what I was talking about.

I have a call into SCI, and am waiting for a return. I think an Estate hunt is a hunt on a large ranch in Africa. They do promote fair chase. It says that on their web site also.

Stop by 45/90 and I will show you how to put five out of five in a deer size kill zone.

I do my stalking with archery. I have shot over 60 deer with a bow. Many of them under ten yards. I have also shot many under 100 yards with my muzzleloder. What's the sport getting to 200 yards. Once at two hundred whats the sport shooting them with a scoped 30-06. If you say go to a 45/70, then I am simply handicapping myself the same as I do now. I have shot nearly a dozen deer at 800 yards and some beyond. I have wounded none. If you can't do it that doesn't mean other people can. If you can do something well I doubt you would stop. The complaint about shooting 800 yards simply demonstrates ignorance. I don't recommend it for everyone.

We have gone through this in the rifle form about once a year. I hope that takes care of this year. You don't know me or my equipment 45/90, and you also don't know I now have a hard time walking far. Maybe Chucks brother and I should just give it up? Would that make you happy? Sometimes you don't know what is ethical until you have walked a mile in another guys shoes. No pun intended.

But this is about canned shooting. We have all voiced out opinions and nothing is changing. The only thing changing is the request to sign a petition is picking up. It kind of makes me feel bad that a person I like on here has just created the most requests to sign. The comment about everything will be posted and access will be tough just ticked people off. That wasn't a good public relations move.

This is a dead horse guys. I know you keep wanting me to come back and debate with you. I can tell by the nasty comments made in an attempt to get me back. Now I think I will go talk rifles which is much more enjoyable.


----------



## Dick Monson

Canned shooting. Public hunting.

Does canned shooting preserve and promote public hunting? Think about it.

Does canned shooting make trophies more desirable, or valuable? No. It diminishes them.

Does canned shooting raise the reputation of hunting in the public eye? No. It demeans hunting.

Does canned shooting promote the sportsmanship of fair chase? No. It mocks fair chase hunting.

Does canned shooting cherish the skills of the hunting tradition? No. None of them. Not one.

Canned shooting is the direct opposite of public hunting. Think about it.

They are fire and water in the same cup. One will survive. Only room for one. Private use or public use of hunting. You will be able to choose. You are granted a choice for once. And read the measure again.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:

SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

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.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective on November 1, 2010.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society is the association of professional natural resource managers. Below is their white paper on the commercialization of wildlife:

COMMERCIALIZATION OF WILDLIFE

The mission of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society is to 
provide a forum for discussion of ecological issues among natural resource 
professionals; to enable its membership to pursue conservation of natural 
resources; and to inform the public on ecologically wise uses of natural 
resources in support of a conservation ethic. 
http://www.ndctws.homestead.com/OctNov04.pdf 
_____________________________________________________________

COMMERCIALIZATION OF WILDLIFE 
A standard principle of wildlife management in the United States is that wildlife belongs to the public. This principle goes back to the founding fathers of this Nation and has been supported by the Supreme Court. Commercialization of wildlife occurs when the public wildlife (or fish) resource is used or exploited by individuals for financial gain. Examples of commercialization include fee hunting, guiding and outfitting for compensation, and hunting derbies or contests. Under certain circumstances, activities such as taxidermy, emphasis on trophy hunting, shooting preserves and game farms, sales of trophy animals or heads, and certain non-traditional livestock may be considered as commercialization of wildlife. 
Commercialization of wildlife becomes a wildlife management issue when commercial interests interfere with or conflict with the ability of a wildlife management agency to manage the public's wildlife. Other aspects of commercialization include efforts by commercial interests to influence or interfere with wildlife or natural resource management or the public's opportunity to access their wildlife and natural resources. This may include lobbying efforts by commercial interests and landowners to secure guaranteed access to licenses or permits or access to public lands for fee operations. 
Commercialization may result in law enforcement issues because of the need to provide success to paying clients. 
Commercialization may conflict with the public's access to its wildlife resources, may directly or indirectly impact those wildlife resources, or affect a wildlife or natural resource agency's management programs. 
Commercial interests who use or exploit wildlife seldom make a financial or meaningful contribution to the production, conservation, or protection of that wildlife resource. While commercialization of wildlife may impart a monetary value to wildlife and to natural resource experiences, it seldom provides a benefit to the resource or to the agencies charged with managing wildlife and natural resources. 
This committee recognizes that there are differences between commercial interests use of the public's wildlife resource and an individual's right to conduct commercial activities involving wildlife on his or her own land. Landowners have the right to limit or manage access and trespass on their lands. 
However, landowners, guides, outfitters, clients, or other commercial interests should have no special consideration in the issuance of licenses or tags. 
Commercial activities that provide recreational opportunities to the public, but do not require the exploitation of the public wildlife resource or restrict the public's access to wildlife are generally not an issue.

Commercialization of Wildlife Committee 
Law Enforcement Issues 
I. Introduction: Many of the various aspects of commercialization of wildlife require state and/or federal game wardens and law enforcement officers to inspect operations, investigate violations, work big game depredation complaints, assist the Board of Animal Health with non-traditional livestock operations, and other duties that relate to commercial use of wildlife. As the commercialization of wildlife grows in North Dakota, more time will have to be directed at these commercial activities. 
II. Potential Aspects of Commercial Uses of Wildlife that require additional Law Enforcement: 
A. Guides and Outfitting and Fee Hunting: 
1. May be more inclination to commit violations - when a hunter pays for the right to hunt an exclusive area, such as in a fee operation or a guided hunt, that hunter may expect more. Bag limits may become meaningless, especially behind locked gates and in an area were there are few wardens. Guides may feel pressured to give clients what they want even if it means breaking wildlife laws. 
2. More time-consuming investigations - increased costs and time will be needed to investigate illegal activities associated with guides and outfitters. Such investigations are of high importance but detract from other duties performed by law enforcement staff, or other conservation 
responsibilities from the Game and Fish Department. Illegal guiding cases consume huge amounts of 
staff hours bringing a case to trial. 
3. Ties up land - as more hunters lose their favorite place to hunt, some may become frustrated and tend to violate laws. One estimate claims that guides and outfitters have leased or tied up approximately 70 % of Hettinger County and 50 % of Adams County One survey reveals that the average guide controls almost 16,000 acres of land, and that the average hunting/lodging provider controls over 5,500 acres. 
4. Additional time is required to inspect records and operations - one full-time warden position has been added to the NDGFD to oversee commercial hunting operations. 
5. Increased depredations - Due to a limited harvest of big game animals on fee hunting and leased land operations, there may be increased wildlife depredations during the fall and winter.

B. Non-traditional Livestock Operations: 
1. Inspections - state wardens usually inspect big game enclosures for the State Board of Animal Health (BOAH). 
2. Escapes - wardens are the first notified and usually assist BOAH with the capture or euthanasia of escaped big game animals. 
3. Wildlife Disease Testing - wardens assist BOAH with collecting samples for disease testing. 
4. Utilizing sportsmen's' dollars for monitoring private ventures - all dealings with BOAH issues not only detracts from NDGFD wardens time to conduct other duties, but uses sportsmen's' dollars/license fees to do so.

C. Hunting Contests: 
1. Require extra patrols for surveillance and compliance for coyote, pheasant, and snow goose contests. 
2. Potential illegal activities associated with big buck contests.

D. Other Commercial Uses of Wildlife: All these activities require conservation agencies' staff time and funds for monitoring and regulation. As these businesses and other commercial operations involving wildlife increase, additional time and funds will be required and taken from other resource management activities. 
1. Taxidermists 
2. Shooting Preserves and Game Farms 
3. Bait vendors

III. Recommendations: The North Dakota Game and Fish Department should regulate all aspects of commercialization of recognized game species. 
The NDCTWS supports increased civil penalties involving illegal commercial take of wildlife.

Commercialization of Wildlife/Nature Based Tourism 
I. Introduction: Nature Based Tourism (NBT) is a general term to cover that portion of the tourism industry that relies on wildlife and natural resources as its drawing card, with the exception of hunting and fishing. NBT may take on many forms in North Dakota from visiting the scenic and historic Badlands along the Little Missouri River, birding festivals and contests, berry-picking, harvesting wild native plants 
for private or commercial use, fossil digs, harvesting "caviar" from legally caught paddlefish, and crafts that depend on natural resources such as driftwood, bark, "weeds" for their components. 
II. Definition: This broad topic can include activities such as photography, camping, hiking, biking, wildlife watching, horseback riding, canoeing, water skiing, and others when done commercially or as part of a paid tourism activity. 
III. Potential impacts to the natural resource base in North Dakota due to NBT: As with any activity based on the consumptive use such as collection or harvest, or the non-consumptive use such as access to certain sites, views, or vistas, there is the potential for over harvest, overuse, or the diminished quality of the experience from the volume of people using the resource or competing for use of the resource at the same time. 
IV. Private vs public land: Development of new visitor services (travel, interpretive, others) or commercial development intended to accommodate the NBT industry should not impact public lands, public access to public lands, the public's natural resources, or the funding generated by user group to support these resources.

V. Funding of NBT industry/activities: The NDCTWS opposes having the natural resource agencies having to pay or support the development of commercial NBT industry. Funding for infrastructure development should come from the beneficiaries of the NBT industry, not from re-direction of wildlife and natural resource management funds. 
VII. Support of NBT: The NDCTWS supports further development of NBT on private lands, and supports NBT on public lands where compatible or consistent with area objectives and management plans. It is not acceptable to make a private profit on public land or from the public resources.

VIII. Recommendation: The NDCTWS recommends that natural resources agencies work up front with NBT groups, the North Dakota Department of Tourism, and others to identify areas of support and agreement and areas of potential conflict, in order to work together more efficiently.

Commercialization of Wildlife 
Fee Hunting and Fishing (Includes Guides and Outfitters) 
I. Mission of NDCTWS: To provide a forum for discussion of ecological issues among natural resource professionals; to enable its membership to pursue conservation of natural resources; and to inform the public on ecologically wise uses of natural resources in support of a conservation ethic. 
II. Introduction: Providers of hunting and fishing opportunities for fee gain financially from public resources and often attempt to influence the management of those resources. As a result, this topic is of great interest to professional wildlife managers and to consumptive and non-consumptive users of public wildlife and other natural resources. 
III. Definition of fee hunting and fishing: Fee hunting and fishing occurs when money or other tangible payment is made to a party in exchange for assistance to locate, pursue, or access public wildlife for the purpose of taking that wildlife. Public wildlife includes all fish and wild animals held in trust and managed by state or federal agencies for the people of North Dakota and the Nation. 
IV. Potential negative impacts to wildlife management in North Dakota due to fee hunting: 
A. Less opportunity for the public to access wildlife resources. 
B. Interference with wildlife management decisions by wildlife professionals. 
C. Potential for increased illegal take of wildlife; i.e., over-bagging justified because of costs and fees, over-bagging because of high wildlife populations on fee operation lands. 
D. Unfavorable distribution of harvest (geographically, and demographically) which may lead to disease or depredation problems on private lands, and over harvest and over- use of public lands. 
E. Reduced hunter numbers which results in reduced license revenues, reduced advocacy for hunting, agency conservation programs, and reduced support for public wildlife conservation agencies. 
F. Undesirable consequences to habitat. 
V. Beneficiaries of fee hunting and fishing: 
A. Individuals, guides, and outfitters who receive payment from hunters and fishermen. 
B. A select group of hunters and fishermen who can afford or chose to pay for hunting access or trophy fees.

VI. Funding for fee hunting: In most cases fee hunting is an extractive business where a select group of individuals benefit at the expense of a larger public that provide funding for wildlife management and 
conservation. Public agencies should not subsidize or fund the management of habitat, hunter numbers and permits, or wild 
populations that primarily benefit fee hunting operations.

VII. Recommendation: Oppose any fee hunting or fishing operations/activities in which the participants; 
A. Restrict hunting/fishing access to wildlife by the public. 
B. Influence or attempt to influence the distribution of hunting licenses or permits to benefit their fee hunting or fishing operations. 
C. Influence or attempt to influence wildlife population or habitat management by public agencies primarily to benefit their fee hunting or fishing operations.

Commercialization of Wildlife Hunting and Fishing Contests 
I. Introduction of Hunting Contests and how they relate to the NDCTWS Mission: Hunting and Fishing 
Contests promote a use of natural resources, therefore an issue of concern to the NDCTWS. Many related issues; ethics, the potential for cheating/poaching, public perceptions, especially with regard to contests 
for the most animals killed, i.e., prairie dog or coyote shoots, or the fastest limit of snow geese; also affect wildlife and natural resource management. 
II. Definition of Hunting Contests: Any organized hunting activity that establishes competition and/or a scoring system with prizes or money awarded based on the number of or size of wildlife. Examples 
include: biggest buck, heaviest doe, longest pheasant tail, largest goose, most waterfowl, most coyote/fox, most prairie dogs, or most rattlesnakes, etc. In North Dakota, hunting contests generally involve a 
consumptive use of wildlife, but there is potential for non-consumptive uses such as birding contests.

IV. Potential impacts to natural resources in North Dakota due to Hunting Contests: 
A. There is potential that Hunting or Fishing Contests could promote illegal activities that may require management agencies to redirect staff time to monitor or regulate these activities that may interfere with the management agencies ability to manage natural resources. 
B. There is potential for Hunting and Fishing Contests to interfere with the general public's (not participating in the contests) ability to access and enjoy either consumptive or non-consumptive uses of wildlife. 
C. There is potential for Hunting Contests to negatively impact local wildlife populations and associated species (i.e. prairie dogs and associated burrowing owls, mountain plovers, etc). 
V. Beneficiaries of Hunting Contests: Hunting Contests may enhance the enjoyment of outdoor recreation for some of the general public and promote support for wildlife, natural resource protection and 
management. Certain businesses and chambers of commerce that support and/or promote the contest likely benefit from an increased customer base and sales during the contest period. These beneficiaries 
rarely contribute to the management of the natural resource base that supports their commerce. 
VI. Private vs. Public lands: Hunting Contests occurring on private lands are generally not a natural resource agency concern unless the contest has a significant negative impact on wildlife populations.

Hunting Contests that occur on public lands and interferes with the general public's ability to access and/or enjoy wildlife on these public lands is a concern for the managing agency. 
VII. Funding for Hunting Contests: The general public should not have to pay for Hunting Contest, their promotion, or regulation. 
VIII. Support for Hunting Contests: Recommendation to maintain a neutral position on Hunting Contests in general. However, Hunting Contests should not have a significant negative impact on wildlife populations and associated species/habitats. Hunting Contests should not interfere with the general public's ability to access and/or enjoy wildlife/natural resources on public lands. Hunting Contests should not interfere with a natural resource agencies ability to manage wildlife/natural resources or redirect staff time to regulate these contests.

Commercialization of Wildlife: Allocation of Lottery Licenses 
Introduction: Many surrounding states already allocate a portion of their lottery licenses to guides and outfitters for sale to clients. In Montana, two-thirds of the big game licenses are allocated to guides/outfitters to sell as a part of their package hunts. The South Dakota State Legislature in 2004 
considered a proposal to allow ranchers and farmers to sell West river deer licenses. One half of the nonresident allocation of white-tailed deer licenses per unit are available to licensed guides and outfitters in North Dakota.

Issue: Such allocations remove licenses from the public that does not want to or need to hunt with a guide. They may re-distribute harvest in an area above or below what the wildlife management agency intends or proposes. Such allocation may alter the age structure and /or sex ratio in a big game population over a small area, or even a large area, depending on the percentage of licenses that are allocated to guides, outfitters, ranchers or farmers. 
Position: The NDCTWS recommends and strongly supports that all license sales and allocation be conducted through the North Dakota Game and Fish Department in order to assure fair distribution of licenses, and maintain desired harvest levels and wildlife populations.

Game Farms and Shooting Preserves 
I. Introduction: Two components in the commercialization of wildlife that are on the increase in North Dakota are shooting preserves and game farms or non-traditional livestock operations. Both are designed to diversify or increase on-farm income, and shooting preserves may provide outdoor recreation opportunities. For purposes of the NDCTWS discussion, the two operations are defined as follow: 
II. Definition: A shooting preserve is a facility where native, introduced, or exotic species of wildlife are propagated, raised, released and are hunted on a per gun, per animal released, or per animal shot payment basis. In North Dakota, these facilities raise and shoot primarily upland game birds such as pheasants and chukars. There are currently thirty-three shooting preserves licensed by the North Dakota Game and Fish 
Department. Current regulations call for the maintenance of records on the number of animals raised and killed. Although birds released by shooting preserves are somewhat free to fly anywhere, mammals are generally confined by high fences or enclosures. 
Game Farms or non-traditional livestock operations raise and sell animals for meat, horns/antlers, hides or feathers, or to sell as breeding stock. Species raised in North Dakota include native, non-native, and exotic game animals such as white-tailed deer, mountain lions and fallow deer or exotic livestock species. 
These facilities are licensed by the State Board of Animal Health within the State Department of Agriculture, and must maintain defined standards for animal health and sanitation. The Board of Animal Health currently licenses about 35-40 game farm/non-traditional livestock operations in the State. In addition, there are 103 farmed elk operations licensed in North Dakota. Farmed elk operations are not included as non-traditional livestock operations, and farmed elk or captive deer herd operators can develop shooting operations without having to be licensed as a shooting preserve. 
Issues: Proponents of preserves and game farms often suggest that there are wildlife benefits due to good land stewardship and herd management. Although this may be true in some cases, it is not universally true, and in many cases the high fences are needed to confine animals within poor quality habitats. Both types of facilities maintain confined wildlife or semi-wild species of wildlife or exotic species and run risks of having disease outbreaks which could spread to either unconfined wildlife populations or to domestic livestock operations. In addition, shooting preserves by their nature of providing animals to 
shoot or to release and shoot, decrease the need for traditional hunting and outdoor skills, and emphasize the kill of animals at the expense of the total hunting experience or exposure to the relationship between wildlife and habitat.

The following is the position of NDCTWS with regard to shooting preserves and game farms: 
1. Oppose further conversion of the public's native wildlife to private ownership. 
2. Oppose high-fenced enclosures, regardless of size, if they exclude free-ranging native wildlife from critical seasonal habitats or migration routes. 
3. Support regulations and enforcement to prevent escapes and facilitate the recovery in the event of an escape. 
4. Support the state wildlife agencies as the primary regulatory agency over native North American ungulates, including those confined by high fences. 
5. Encourage anyone using a high fence to confine ungulates to thoroughly analyze and understand potential effects and commit to minimizing the risks to native species. 
6. For all ungulates confined by high fences, encourage management at or below natural carrying capacity in a manner that prevents inbreeding, disease, habitat degradation and effects on non-target species. 
7. Encourage authorized agencies to collaborate with interested parties on funding and development of systems for detecting and monitoring wildlife diseases within enclosed and free-ranging native and exotic ungulate populations. 
8. Support a moratorium on further construction of high-fenced facilities and the shipment of live ungulates until live animal diagnostic tests are available for detecting and monitoring important infectious diseases such as chronic wasting disease (CWD), brucellosis, and tuberculosis. 
9. Oppose the use of funds generated from traditional sources (recreational licenses, tags, and other fees) for confined-ungulate inspections and regulatory programs. 
10. Oppose all high fences as a management tool except for those associated with research facilities.


----------



## g/o

Dick, and you thought the Farm Bureau had some wacky ideas :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,

As usual you missed the point. If you can consistently make the shot-bully for you. I still say in my opinion that is target shooting, not fair chase hunting. BUT my point is how does that even resemble hunting other than point and pull the trigger. I guarantee the people who hunt preserves work harder than that-which seems to be the gold standard here. Point is hunting ethics is not an exact science as you your self have just proven.

If you look around a little more on the SCI website you will see they recongize high fence hunts as fair chase. I am sure that is their reference to estate hunting.

On another note I have neuropathy as well, though I am not diabetic. I refuse to let it stop my hunting however. This last fall I shot three deer from a tree stand and an antelope from the ground all with a Matthews. Don't give it up, take your time climbing and make sure you are strapped in good on a good stand.


----------



## Plainsman

You might be right about SCI. I didn't think any of those type of organizations would allow that. That sure makes me think a lot less of them. I will wait for the return call before I condemn them to much. If he says they do accept it he is going to get an earful from me.

It hasn't stopped my hunting, but I don't use a tree stand anymore. My knee can drop me to the ground faster than you can blink your eye, and I don't want to be 15 feet in the air when it happens. I don't even care to hit the end of that safety harness. My ribs are so brittle that a couple years ago they cracked at the chiropractor.
Like I said I have shot about 60 deer with a bow, and only about ten from a tree stand. Most of my bow hunting is spot and stalk. I don't know, I just think it's a lot of fun. That is what made me get bored with rifle hunting. I didn't find it a challenge. It was like going to the grocery and buying a pound of burger. I kept doing different things to try keep my interest up. I tried old 1885 falling blocks in 45/70, then went to a long range 300 mag, then back to a Marlin Cowboy action in 44 mag.
In long range about the only thing that can happen is the deer could move just as your firing pins heads forward. You have to watch the deer behavior, and you can be certain you have a few seconds for the shot. It isn't like my old style of hunting. I thought it would be a snap, but darn it's hard to get a deer that far away in a safe position to shoot, standing, relaxed and not ready to run, perfectly broadside, and above all no wind. That normally gives me about 15 minutes either side of sunrise. 
Archery tests the hunting ability and nowadays the rifle season is more of a shooting ability. I think you already said that. The only comparison is you have to know where the trails are, if deer are using them and what time of day, then you just back up. I shoot from one side of the river valley (on top the hill) to the other side at the base of the hills. That, and I am fortunate enough that I hunt an area where the next house north is six miles, and that is a four mile wide swat. That makes it safe, and everyone has taken their cows in for the winter around there.
Sorry, I guess I got off subject. It's easy to do that if you talk archery, rifles, or deer.


----------



## walker

RogerK said:


> That's life when you are on the wrong side of an issue.


I'm confident I'm on the right side of this issue. I wouldn't care if every person in ND disagreed with me.


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> I have shot nearly a dozen deer at 800 yards and some beyond. I have wounded none.


That is exactly the point. You have arbitrarily decided that 800 yd shots are ethical because you can do them, and it does not hurt that it benefits you. Others may disagree based on the fact that the marksmanship required may not be commonly held, and if this were a common practice then wounded deer would increase. Based on that maybe we should out law 800 yd shots. What? You say you can make that shot? To bad for you. It is for the "greater" good.

Personally I don't think 800 yds should be outlawed. I would not try one myself because it just doesn't seem like hunting to me.


----------



## Savage260

> That is exactly the point. You have arbitrarily decided that 800 yd shots are ethical because you can do them, and it does not hurt that it benefits you. Others may disagree based on the fact that the marksmanship required may not be commonly held, and if this were a common practice then wounded deer would increase. Based on that maybe we should out law 800 yd shots. What? You say you can make that shot? To bad for you. It is for the "greater" good.


Very strong point there!!! That is kinda the jist of this whole measure. I can't wait to see how they down play this comment. GOOD WORK WALKER!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

Laite, that's easy to counter. First off it would never happen, because it would not be able to be enforced. Second if you want to stop wounding deer you would have to reduce the legal range to 25 yards, maybe less. No matter what range there are guys out there that just barely know which end of a gun to point and they try 200 yard running shots. Some states require proficiency tests for archery. I certainly would be willing to do that with a rifle for myself. I don't advocate it, because even if you're a lousy shot you should be able to hunt. I have enough faith in most people limiting themselves to a range they are capable of. Unfortunately there are a few that don't know their limitations. 
I am happy to see that everyone finally understands that this is an ethics issue, and I did get your point walker. Some think shooting them at 800 yards isn't hunting. At what yardage does it become hunting? I guess it takes some skill to get to 100 yards, but if 800 yards isn't hunting neither is 200 yards. What's the difference? I hope everyone understands that I am not saying 200 yards isn't hunting , but there are guys on here that think hunting or not hunting has an identifiable range component. Some say that it is because the deer doesn't know you are there. The deer I shoot at ten yards don't know I am there. 
We may be a little off subject, but the different aspects of hunting are enjoyable to talk about. They would be better to talk about in the deer hunting or rifle form.


----------



## Savage260

Plainsman, I don't believe you got the point of that. The 800yd shot wasn't the issue. It was "some don't like it so now ALL can't do it". If they turned the tables on us and said bowhunting would be illegal because it is inhumane,unethical, ect, how would that sit with you?


----------



## Plainsman

You know I did get that, then when I started writing I forgot all about it. I guess I thought it was so silly that I forgot the point. Taking the point into consideration removed the silly part. I have to stop thinking about walleye tomorrow morning and maybe I'll keep thing straight.

It doesn't change my mind though. Some day I suppose there will be rules that I don't agree with. I'll live with it.

I think ending high fence operations is inevitable. We may be just moving up the end by a year or two, but i would guess that within ten years it will end in most or all states. I would guess you will see an end to it in Texas eventually. If we don't stop them they may stop all of us by ending hunting. Or, the geniuses in Washington will delete the 2nd amendment.


----------



## walker

laite319 got it right.



Plainsman said:


> I am happy to see that everyone finally understands that this is an ethics issue ...


I've always understood this to be an ethical issue for you.



Plainsman said:


> It doesn't change my mind though. Some day I suppose there will be rules that I don't agree with. I'll live with it.


Honestly, I don't post to change your mind. I post for those that read and don't post.

What ever the law becomes I will live with it also. We are a nation of laws. I believe in that 100%.


----------



## Savage260

Plainsman, you know I wouldn't try to change your mind, like walker said. Just trying to keep both sides of the coin visible. When you think about it, it just isn't silly, it is the fact of the matter. This one isn't protecting the few from the many, it is satisfying a few at the expense(rather large expense) of a few. If they outlawed bow hunting, it would be the same way, and if they outlawed 800yd shots for hunting, again the same. Most folks wouldn't think bow hunting to be horrible, but a few do, also a few tend to think 800yd shots at deer are horrible. (I am just jealous because I can't do it). As silly as it may be in your head, you know in your heart it is a very similar, and very valid arguement.


----------



## g/o

> The governor
> shall make one-half of the antlered white-tailed deer licenses and permits allocated to
> nonresidents under subsection 4 of section 20.1-03-11, up to a maximum of one hundred
> licenses, available to hunting outfitters licensed in this state.


Dick, I always love the way you guys spin things. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:



> One half of the nonresident allocation of white-tailed deer licenses per unit are available to licensed guides and outfitters in North Dakota.


----------



## angus 1

Hey it's me again . I need to make a few things clear. I've been getting ALOT of pm's on me going over the edge. The bad thing about posting or an email is you don't know how it is being written or or taken. I don't hate anyone or anything like that . yes I'm a little offended by having my buisness ( cattle/farming) being put in the same catagory as a pimp or whore house. I'm not ani hunting or anti hunter, I just like pointing out things from my point of view just as you are also doing. I'm just out numbered so I have to fire off a little harder than the normal person posting. By the way I have a LOT of coyotes here if anyone is interested. 
Well I'd better go see if the wife needs any help with chores. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

I can see where your frustrated angus1. I didn't notice anyone compared your business unfavorably. If you into cattle, and your not out west where government range land is dirt cheap, your getting the wrong end of the stick. I don't think cattle get subsidized like grain. Then you have to compete with western ranchers leasing public land for pennies on the dollar. When I was growing up we were into Herefords. My dad had a heart attack and I took care of the farm when I was in the seventh grade. The darn farmhand broke down and I had to pitch hay from 4:00am until the school bus can, and again in the evening until 8:00pm. I had to drop out in March for caving, and go back next year. I don't miss that getting up at 1:00am to check for calves when it's 10 below. I didn't loose any calves, but one calf lost his ears, his tail, his nose, and one rear foot. We ate hop along in the fall.

Thanks for putting up with all the crap and still leaving your land open. It's very magnanimous of you.

I often wonder about the people who support high fence operations. I see you have a neighbor in the business. Do they shoot his animals or is he just raising them for meat? I think many people that support the high fence operations know someone, have a relative, or a friend that has a relative in the business. I have some sympathy for some of the high fence operators. I would guess some are good people, I know one as a matter of fact. Then there are some real jerks ruining it for everyone. That guy who let them loose in Wisconsin, and the guy who didn't report the escape in Idaho should spend about five years behind bars. They are endangering the wild herds. If the animals in that area pick up CWD I would throw them in jail and throw away the key. They care about the dollar and no one but themselves.

Society is like a mud puddle angus. Go out next time it rains and scoop up a glass of water and watch it for an hour. You will notice how gradually the scum rises to the top, and the dirt settles to the bottom. That leaves you and me in the middle angus.


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> I think many people that support the high fence operations know someone, have a relative, or a friend that has a relative in the business.


I don't know anyone who has one nor have I ever shot any animal at one. No particular reason.


----------



## angus 1

If I recall Plainsman you've called landowners pimps. But I could be wrong. Lets not argue about it.

Yes I have a neighbor who has a fenced elk farm. And yes he sells shoots , he calls them hunts but in my opinon there not hunts . Any way he runs a very professional business. He gives alot of elk meat to the needy families in the area. He knows I don't agree with his business . I asked him what he was going to do if this passes. He said that he already has the facility to run a nice guiding service so he will just lease up hunting rights in the area and guide. I don't think thats what most of you want to hear but that's his plan. He has offered me some GOOD coin for my hunting rights , but remember he's not the only one. There are a couple of business men in Minot who lease some next to me and have offered $$ for mine also.

Not all hunters are bad people. It just takes few bad ones to get alot of land posted and ruin it for everyone. Not all landowners are bad people . It just takes a few bad ones to give all of us a bad reputation. Same with the fenced operations. Not all of them are bad but we are going to punish all of them because of a few bad ones. There are unethical hunters, landowners , guides and fence operators. How can one of these point their finger at another ? If this passes who wins? No one, now you have ****** landowners looking for revenge and a fenced operation looking to lease more hunting rights to help make up for lost revenue. If this don't pass who wins ? No one , now you have animal rights groups looking at the poorly run operations and tying it all up as hunting which it is not, and hunters mad at landowners for raising livestock for unethical shoots and calling it hunting. I see no real winner either way this goes.


----------



## Dick Monson

angus, the differance between these canned shoot operations and farming is huge. They can and do have the ability to severely damage the the big game profile of whole areas with disease and gentic alteration. The ethics question damages all hunters too as evidenced by numberous surveys across the country.

Think back to the Starlink fiasco. That variety of corn drifted pollen onto other fields and destroyed the value of other farmers corn. With no compensation. Or think of it as field spraying where one farmer sprays his own field and the drift damages someone else, again with no compensation. Or like a farmer that buys uncertified grass seed that has Spotted Knapweed and spreads it across a community. It is the same with these operations, simply because we do not view publicly owened wildlife as a owned property with an assigned value.

One bad operator can and has damaged whole ecosystems. Just one. And this industry will not accecpt the regulations neccessary to prevent that damage. It boils down to a lack of personal responsibility that damages everybody.


----------



## DG

www.themeatrix2.com is from the defenders of wildlife. It is an attack on animal agriculture. Defenders of wildlife is a sister organization to the wildlife society and the national wildlife federation. These steering committees are funded by the government, the superrich, and powerful elites. Their mission is to guide, steer and the lead an unsuspecting public to a predetermined conclusion. It's a mix of precautionary principles, fact, fear, fiction and fun house mirrors. There is always the danger of planted deliberate disinformation and misinformation. www.themeatrix2.com. Dick Monsons post from the ndctws or north dakota chapter of the wildlife society is an example. It looks intellegent and appears as if it has some kind of authority. The reader can easily be drawn to the conclusion that the public trust is always in danger always the victim. Does the private sector always win? The Wildlife Society was front and center during the Spotted owl wars. Father and son loggers have lost their livelyhoods, their equipment and their homes with no compensation. The Defenders of Wildlife was instrumental in reintroducing the wolf. They have eaten several million dollars worth of livestock and the rancher is not being compensated. Ecologists for the National Wildlife Federation have publicly stated cattle do not belong in much of the interior west. Cattle are an invasive species leading to competition with wildlife for water and grazing. The Wildlife Federation is challenging everything from grazing permits to water rights to air. Again no compensentation to the landowner. And now we have this high fence issue with farmed elk and deer. It seems the elk and deer farmers have escaped the grasp of the government. The Wildlife Society and The National Wildlife Federation brought forth Senate bill 2254 to ban high fence hunting. It did not go well. Their whole case was strung together with macaroni noodles. But this iniative is going to be different. The power they yeild in shaping public opinion and thus mobilizing public policy in a certain direction has all the delicacy of a sledgehammer wrapped in velvet. I'm pulling for the little guy.


----------



## g/o

> One bad operator can and has damaged whole ecosystems. Just one.


Dick, If you are so concerned why don't you go after them? This measure will do nothing to stop what you are concerned about. The 103 licensed Elk and Deer farmers will still be allowed to be in business. The handful of producers offering shoot will no longer be able to and thats all. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

> Defenders of wildlife is a sister organization to the wildlife society and the national wildlife federation.


DJ you have no idea what your talking about. The wildlife society is a professional organization of wildlife biologists.

Founded in 1937, it is a non-profit scientific and educational association dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education.

Nearly every professional federal, state, and private wildlife biologist belongs to the wildlife society.



> Dick Monsons post from the ndctws or north dakota chapter of the wildlife society is an example. It looks intellegent and appears as if it has some kind of authority.


It is the authority and represents research, into wildlife and wildlife habitat. Many organizations do research and present them at the annual wildlife society meetings. People attend the meetings to get up to speed on what new fields are being researched and new findings. Biologists from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife, State, U.S. Geological Survey, U. S. Department of Agriculture, any scientific organization. Not just any private Joe Blow can belong to this organization. It is made up of professional people doing research with strict Standard Operating Procedures and Quality Control.

You really need to get a grip on this hysteria. Going off with wild wide eyed ideas and starting foolish rumors will get you nowhere but at the bottom of the credability ladder.



> Cattle are an invasive species leading to competition with wildlife for water and grazing. The Wildlife Federation is challenging everything from grazing permits to water rights to air. Again no compensentation to the landowner.


Well anything not native is an invasive species. Also the land they are talking about is federal land so we are the landowners not the ranchers.


> Again no compensentation to the landowner.


 Again totally ridiculous.

Also if I am not mistaken the Wildlife Federation is the national equivalent of all our country wildlife clubs., and the state game and fish works closely with them. Not exactly anti hunting. 
http://www.ndwf.org/youth_camp.html

This is a very misleading, and inaccurate post.


----------



## walker

g/o said:


> One bad operator can and has damaged whole ecosystems. Just one.
> 
> 
> 
> Dick, If you are so concerned why don't you go after them? This measure will do nothing to stop what you are concerned about. The 103 licensed Elk and Deer farmers will still be allowed to be in business. The handful of producers offering shoot will no longer be able to and thats all. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:
Click to expand...

Excellent point. This has been brought up a couple times.

No matter what angle I look at this from I see a case of "I don't like what you do. So you have to do what I like under penalty of law."


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> Nearly every professional federal, state, and private wildlife biologist belongs to the wildlife society.


The Wildlife Society does some great research, and I'm an ardent reader of "Wildlife Monographs" and the "The Journal of Wildlife Management". You have to admit though, it would be a very interesting statistic to see how many members belong to the Defenders of Wildlife. You think we will ever see that correlation. :lol:



Plainsman said:


> Dick Monsons post from the ndctws or north dakota chapter of the wildlife society is an example. It looks intellegent and appears as if it has some kind of authority.
> 
> 
> 
> It is the authority and represents research, into wildlife and wildlife habitat. Many organizations do research and present them at the annual wildlife society meetings.
Click to expand...

But what was posted on this site was not a research paper. It was a position paper. If you look at the last section (the 10 positions), most of which I agree with, you will see a couple of them are just opinions like yours and mine. Science should not mix opinion with objective conclusion.


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> Again no compensentation to the landowner.
> 
> 
> 
> Again totally ridiculous.
Click to expand...

What does the current proposal allow for landowner compensation?


----------



## Plainsman

walker said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again no compensentation to the landowner.
> 
> 
> 
> Again totally ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the current proposal allow for landowner compensation?
Click to expand...

We were talking about federal land out west. I also think it would be foolish to compensate high fence operations. They still have their animals. I am sure they wouldn't mind making a buck of the taxpayer though.

Yes walker it was a position paper, but a position taken by wildlife professionals. People with a lot more knowledge of wildlife than the armchair types who think they know everything, but haven't got a clue.


----------



## Dick Monson

*DG said:*


> The Wildlife Society and The National Wildlife Federation brought forth Senate bill 2254 to ban high fence hunting.


Your statement is incorrect. I sat through all the previous meetings before SB 2254 and that was not the case. The NDWF is a state chapter of national. It composed of apx 20 local wildlife clubs from across the state. If you are aware of a rich contibutor please call ASAP. The check book is low and everyone is tired of selling raffel tickets.

Your attempt to wrap other issues around canned killing seems to be the normal course for opponents of the measure since they have no defense. Targets in a barrel.


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> Yes walker it was a position paper, but a position taken by wildlife professionals. People with a lot more knowledge of wildlife than the armchair types who think they know everything, but haven't got a clue.


I'm not questioning their knowledge. If a professional states a position as part of a respected professional organization then that position should be backed by evidence. If that professional has an opinion on a subject then by all means make your opinion known; just don't mix it in with professional statements.

Science is not based on senority or position.


----------



## walker

Dick Monson said:


> Targets in a barrel.


Replace those deer in the picture with cattle, and you have written a PETA ad. Doesn't that seem strange.


----------



## Plainsman

walker said:


> Dick Monson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Targets in a barrel.
> 
> 
> 
> Replace those deer in the picture with cattle, and you have a PETA ad.
Click to expand...

Please make a point that we can understand. No one wants to outlaw cattle. That's not real. PETA, PETA, PETA, lets drop the imaginary and get down to reality. It's not that I am angry, but bored of the crying wolf when serious debate can not be made.


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> walker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dick Monson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Targets in a barrel.
> 
> 
> 
> Replace those deer in the picture with cattle, and you have a PETA ad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please make a point that we can understand. No one wants to outlaw cattle. That's not real. PETA, PETA, PETA, lets drop the imaginary and get down to reality.
Click to expand...

As you can see I edited it to clarify, but I'll clarify further.

Your objection to high fence hunts uses the same reasoning as PETA uses. This combined with the fact that both situations are *objectively* identical.


----------



## huntin1

Please explain what makes those two situations "identical". Cattle are raised to be slaughtered in a controled situation so that we can buy our hamburger on styrofoam trays. Deer are raised so that some wannabe can get his jollies shooting an animal that has no place to run.

Identical? I think not.

huntin1


----------



## walker

huntin1 said:


> Please explain what makes those two situations "identical". Cattle are raised to be slaughtered in a controled situation so that we can buy our hamburger on styrofoam trays. Deer are raised so that some wannabe can get his jollies shooting an animal that has no place to run.
> Identical? I think not.


I said they were objectively identical. Your difference is subjective. It's based on your emotion.

Both animals are kept under the same conditions. Anyone who hunts agrees that shooting an animal is an ethical form of slaughter, hence both animals are killed in an ethical way. Both animals are killed to be used , for example, no one is killing them and throwing away the carcass.


----------



## huntin1

Not true.

One is raised strictly for food, the other is raised for it's trophy appeal, the fact that someone eats the meat doesn't matter, it's not what they are raised for.

Not identical, objectively or subjectively.

My emotion, as you put it, has nothing to do with it.

huntin1


----------



## walker

huntin1 said:


> One is raised strictly for food, the other is raised for it's trophy appeal, the fact that someone eats the meat doesn't matter, it's not what they are raised for.
> 
> Not identical, objectively or subjectively.
> 
> My emotion, as you put it, has nothing to do with it.


So if a person shoots a doe in the above picture, or a buck under a certain antler score (therefore not making it a trophy) it is okay with you? It is only "unethical" if the buck is over a certain score?


----------



## cwoparson

t


> he other is raised for it's trophy appeal


With many many hunting seasons behind me I have yet to ever shoot any game animal as a trophy. It has and always will be for my pleasure and freezer.


----------



## angus 1

I find it interesting that disease hasnt' been mentioned to much at all. Then after my last post Monson went after me as a cattleman and through out the disease arguement which I don't buy at all . ( scare tactic really) If it were about disease these operations would not be able to continue raising their livestock. SO disease isn't the issue. But it didn't take long after Monsons disease arguement for the real reason to reappear, ethics , or as I'm now seeing it jealous hunters.

DG , I found your info interesting. I knew from the beginning there was a dirty agenda here. I just knew it. When this passes and this info gets out about this being a true animal rights invasion the landowners will post tighter and a frog's a$$. I've said it before there will be bad things that come from this. First deer, elk, then hogs then cattle.


----------



## DG

Plainsman, Visiting with my senator on S.B. 2254 he said he was very disappointed with a certain biologist and lobbyist for the wildlife society. The senator expected something more. This is second hand info but the biologist said does North Dakota want to be known as a state where people come to kill animals and it is the duty of government to restrict the people in areas where they need help being restricted. Thats why we have seat belt laws and smokeing bans. g/o was there. Maybe he can verify. If it's true then I stand on my first post. Fun house mirrors.


----------



## DG

Dick Monson, If your checkbook is low than you need to call headquarters. Follow the money at www.activistcash.com. It is pages and pages of foundations giving money away. The recipients read like a who's who's in the environmental and animal rights community. The people who serve on these boards of directors are very influential and powerful people. There is enough money here to pay off the national debt. An interesting one is The Joyce Foundation. Is that the same Barak Obama that I'm thinking of? So much MISCHIEF


----------



## walker

DG said:


> Plainsman, Visiting with my senator on S.B. 2254 he said he was very disappointed with a certain biologist and lobbyist for the wildlife society. The senator expected something more. This is second hand info but the biologist said does North Dakota want to be known as a state where people come to kill animals and it is* the duty of government to restrict the people in areas where they need help being restricted.* Thats why we have seat belt laws and smokeing bans. g/o was there. Maybe he can verify. If it's true then I stand on my first post. Fun house mirrors.


This kind of attitude is so fundamental to the left in this country. They believe that *they* know better then us poor "uninformed" masses, and that we are unable to manage our own lives so they must do it for us.


----------



## Dick Monson

DG, thanks for the hot tip. But something tells me it will still be raffel tickets. When you spoke to your Senator did you ask *why the SNRC did not read any submitted written testimony before they voted?* Odd way to handle a decision making process.

And as noted above it is hardly surprising that when opponents are unable to refute the facts, that they would refute the messengers like the Wildlife Society.

A little more reading on the subject of canned killing. (you have to keep asking yourself how canned killing promotes public hunting.....when they are the direct opposite?) Like fox promote pheasants maybe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

*Captive Deer and Elk Industry
Awareness Information
By Brian Preston
Updated February 7, 2006 National Wildlife Federation*
Basic information on wildlife disease and other risks associated with the
captive deer and elk industry along with State specific information from
Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana. All reports and references are available
upon request.
Introduction: The estimated 8,000 captive deer and elk (cervid) facilities in the United States have produced well documented disease risks and movement of infected animals around North America. This has
caused increasing threats to free ranging wildlife as well as substantial financial burdens to local and state economies. Audits have revealed rampant non-compliance with even the most basic regulations designed to
protect free ranging wildlife and human health. The primary financial incentive for the U.S. captive deer and elk (cervid) industry has evolved to paid "shoots" inside high fenced enclosures. Recently produced public
record information reveals video evidence of the shocking decline of ethics demonstrated by this industry.
This document is intended to provide general information on the disease risks, ethical concerns and economic impacts of commercialized wildlife.

*Wildlife Disease Risks*
In 2004, an expert panel on wildlife disease produced a report stating CWD "has the potential to reduce cervid (deer and elk) populations in the long-term and to create major socio-economic impacts". Excessive
concentrations of deer is a leading cause of disease. Captive cervid facilities have been identified with equivalent deer densities in excess of 10,000 animals per square mile versus the wildlife biologists
recommendation of approximately 20 per square mile in many areas. A recent technical report by the Wildlife Society, sighting more than 250 research sources, describes 11 known diseases associated with the captive deer and elk industry. The report also states "new diseases are being found in diagnostic laboratories throughout North America with regularity"(source - Biological and Social Issues Related to Confinement of Will Ungulates), The Wildlife Society, Technical Review 02-3, 2002).

• Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky are considered "high risk" CWD states due to CWD presence in
a bordering State and lack of effective regulatory oversight of captive cervid operations
• CWD has been found in 14 states, 2 Canadian Providences and Korea (infected elk shipment)
• CWD is spread by movement of captive deer and elk
• The United States Department of Agriculture has declared CWD an animal health emergency due to the rampant spread of CWD in the commercial elk industry
• A single Colorado captive cervid facility shipped CWD exposed captive cervids to enclosures in more
than 20 states
• In Saskatchewan, 38 CWD infected captive elk herds were traced back to shipments from a single source captive operation

*Basic CWD Facts*
After remaining in an isolated corner of Colorado for more than 20 years Chronic Wasting Disease has spread rapidly to 15 States, 2 Canadian Providences and Korea (main importer of antler velvet). A research report by the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia commented "to date, the only documented method for the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease from one location to another, including to new states, is via movement of live captive cervids".
CWD is a 100% fatal brain disorder that kills deer and elk
There is no evidence that CWD is a naturally occurring disease in free ranging deer and elk
There is no reliable live animal test for CWD
Long incubation period - animals may be contagious without showing signs for more that 4 years
Disease causing "prion" requires incineration at 1500 degrees F to be destroyed
CWD is closely related to BSE - Mad Cow Disease

H*uman Health Risks*
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is the form of TSE that affects humans. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease spontaneously affects approximately 1 out of 1 million humans. Of greater concern is Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease,
which has been linked to the consumption of BSE tainted beef products. Reports have linked 154 human deaths to BSE (Mad Cow) in Great Britain. In vitro conversion experiments indicate CWD prions can
infect humans, all though at low rates. The World Health Organization as well as other health agencies recommends that any animals with CWD not be consumed. The more than 300 New York residents exposed to CWD infected venison are now part of a long-term health study.

*Ethics*
(eth-i-cal) - Having to do with standards of right and wrong.
Well-documented unethical behavior in this industry puts legitimate recreational hunting and professional wildlife management at risk. Video footage such as evidence presented at the federal trial of Russ Bellar, is
now a matter of public record and available for animal rights organizations to use in well funded campaigns to compromise legitimate recreational hunting. While private property rights are an important part of the American way of life, there are limits to those rights. You have a right to own dogs and roosters, but you don't have a right to be in the business of dog or cock fighting. Regardless of rules related to pen size, weapons restrictions, length of season or bag limits, the shooting of animals inside high fenced enclosures, is viewed as wrong by an overwhelming percentage of the American public and even amongst hunters themselves.

A national poll of hunters by Field & Streams reported that 88% of hunters DO NOT support shooting of big game in high fenced enclosures
In 2005, Indiana banned all high fenced big game shooting for ethical reasons
15 states have already banned or never allowed high fenced captive paid shoot operations
John Phillip Murray, DMV was charged with stealing hundreds of whitetail deer from the wild andselling them to captive facilities throughout the United States. Dr. Murray pled guilty in January 2004 and paid a $100,000 fine out of his estimated $600,000 profits.
*
Economics*
The rapidly growing economic impact of wildlife disease management threatens local and State economies as CWD spreads across the country. Wildlife recreation contributes $108 billion annually to the US economy (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation - 2001)
1st year economic impact of CWD in Wisconsin was estimated at $100 million
Federal legislation was proposed my Senator Lieberman allocating $8 billion for wildlife disease work
*
Michigan Captive Cervid Audit*
Introduction: In response to recommendations made by the Michigan Chronic Wasting Disease Task Force the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources conducted an audit of 584 of the 740 registered captive cervid
facilities in the state. The audits were announced via Governor Executive Order 2004-3 issued on April 15, 2004, 60 days before the first audit. Audits were scheduled in advance and conducted from June 15, 2004 -
October 26, 2004. The audit cost an estimated $500,000 paid for with state fish and wildlife funds.
Link to Executive Summary:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CPOCA ... 8653_7.pdf
Link to full report:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CPOCA ... 8651_7.pdf (168 Pages)
*Highlights of Results*• Overall 37% of captive cervid facilities were found non-compliant with current regulations
• 456 previously unreported escaped and intentionally released animals
o Reporting escaped animals required by current law
o This figure only reflects escapes from the 18 facilities where operators admitted to auditors they
violated current law by not previously reporting escapes
• Nearly 90% of the reported deaths from captive cervid facilities were not tested for CWD
o Also required by current law
• 48% of facilities had inadequate fencing
• 32% of captive cervid facilities in MI did not have current herd inventories on file
• 31% of captive cervid facilities did not have a final registration certificate
Recommendations of additional regulations made by MDNR
o Individual animal identification (all captive animals)
o Mandatory testing for wildlife disease of culled individuals
o Protocol for de-commissioning/de-registering captive cervid facilities
o Procedure for dealing with facility abandonment
o Development of approved record keeping system
o Development of more stringent escape and recovery protocols
o Uniform requirements for the composition and maintenance of perimeter fencing
After the Audit
•* Six days after the Audit results were announced State Representative Hune introduced HB 4493 to transfer all responsibility for wildlife management from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
to the Michigan Department of Agriculture.*
• One year after violations were reportedly corrected Michigan deer hunters shot 8 ear tagged escaped deer.
o Not one of the 8 deer had been reported "escaped" as required by law
o Not one of the eight operators were even aware the deer had escaped
o QUESTION: How many escapes must still be occurring for 8 deer to be shot while mixed in with 1.8 million free ranging wild animals?

Introduction: In February of 2002 three whitetail deer tested positive for CWD in Wisconsin, making the 11th state in the country with the disease. In response an audit of captive deer facilities was initiated to audit as
many of the state's 639 facilities as possible. The audit was conducted from September - December of 2002.
Audit procedure included:
• Inventory of captive deer
• Fence inspections
• Receipts and records of sales
• Purchases and transfers of deer
Electronic copies of the Summary of a Statewide Audit and Inspection of Wisconsin's Captive Whitetail Deer Farms are available by e-mailing a request to [email protected]
*Highlights of Results*• Wisconsin currently has a reported 720 registered deer and elk facilities
• 460 violations were documented in the 550 facilities inspected
• 436 reported intentionally released and escaped deer
• 1,222 deer which died in the facilities with no disease testing
• 24 unlicensed captive cervid operations found
• Tracking of individual deer for disease trace back considered "almost impossible" due to poor records Highlights of CWD in Wisconsin
Following information is highlighted in Wisconsin DNR PUB-CE-461 2005.
Details of the Wisconsin CWD management program and updates are available at:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wil ... sert04.pdf
First year financial impact of CWD on Wisconsin economy was estimated at more than $100 million
CWD Management Zone has been expanded to 12,000 square miles targeting dramatic herd reductions
Deer "Eradication Zone" has been expanded to 1,300 square miles
Annual CWD management cost includes more than $7 million of hunting and fishing license revenues
Reported escapes from captive facilities still average more than 150 deer per year
If the current management plan fails, the projected economic loss is estimated at $500 million annually
Latest Impact on Free Ranging Deer
• In January 2006, it was discovered that a Wisconsin captive facility with 21 confirmed cases of CWD
infected deer had a hole in its perimeter fences with evidence deer had been moving through it
• In February 2006, the Wisconsin DNR announced their plan to "eradicate free ranging deer in a 19
square mile zone around the facility
Indiana Captive Cervid Industry
and the Bellar Trial
Introduction: Indiana had a reported 263 licensed deer farms and ranches in 2002. Shooting of deer
currently requires compliance with all Indiana deer regulations and seasons. The largest captive deer facility in
Indiana is Bellar's Place, a 1400 acre facility in Peru Indiana with reported shooting fees of more than $20,000.
In 2004 the facility was raided by both Federal Fish & Wildlife and State DNR agents. The owner was served
with 38 federal indictments. Bellar's Place was presented by captive cervid industry leaders as the model
captive cervid operation shortly before the raid. Highlights include:
• Sedating deer to measure antlers before dumping the deer into 3-6 acre shooting pens
• Shipping the drug contaminated meat across state lines
• Killing deer out of season
• Use of illegal weapons
• Unlicensed hunters
• Exceeding bag limits
Russ Bellar pleaded guilty in January of 2005 to a plea bargain agreement. One week after the trial captive cervid industry friendly State Legislators introduced a Bill to make nearly everything that happened at Bellar's place legal.
Video evidence used in the trial is now a matter of public record including a twelve and a half minute video of
highlights used during the sentencing phase. Scenes included in the video:
• Propping up a dying deer to be shot with a muzzleloader for a reported fee of $15,000
• A drugged deer staggering into a bait pile over a hunter in a tree stand which is shot with a blunt arrow for a promotional film
• Famous fishing celebrity Jimmy Houston waiting to shoot a deer from a tree stand, over hidden bait, inside a 3-6 acre pen

*Miscellaneous Highlights from Indiana*
A first year financial impact for CWD in Indiana would be an estimated $50 million based on Wisconsin impacts
In August of 2005, the Director of the Indiana DNR announced a complete ban on shooting big game inside high fenced facilities, including exotic species.
In September, 2005 A South Bend Indiana man plead guilty in federal court to illegally capturing more than 30 deer near Potato Creek State Park and selling them to a game ranch in Texas.

_"The rich&#8230;who are content to buy what they have not the skill to
get by their own exertions, these are the real enemies of game"
Theodore Roosevelt's Principles of the Hunt_


----------



## Dick Monson

The vaid positions put forward for the measure have been ethics, disease, and genetic pollution. After reading the positions by the Wildlife Society and the NWF, a fourth must be added, economics. As in how the canned killing industry bleeds off sportsman and taxpayer dollars to subsidize themselves. You as a public hunter get to pay them twice, once with your tax dollars and once with your license money. Comforting.


----------



## hunter9494

you know the piece about the guy in Wisconsin trying to capture/sell 30 deer to a game farm in Texas is not surprising at all.

the Texas game ranchers down here will do anything to introduce new genetics in hope of making bigger deer down here, as most are small in size and rack compared to their northern cousins.

they should hang the guy in Texas for being the potential buyer. down here there is a continuous push for bigger deer, bigger racks, more money for kill tags and bragging rights.....i would love to see legislation against high fence ops down here.


----------



## walker

Dick Monson said:


> A drugged deer staggering into a bait pile over a hunter in a tree stand which is shot with a blunt arrow for a promotional film


Can anyone tell me how they knew that it was a blunt arrow? Maybe it is just me but this one smacks of propaganda. No? Am I missing some details here?

You see the problem I have is my first reaction is ... okay, good, we have some more information, then I get to parts like this and I say, hmmm, you know this don't pass the "sniff" test. Then I start to ask myself ... if this part smells like BS what other parts are BS that maybe my sniffer did not pick up on.


----------



## walker

Dick Monson said:


> ... and genetic pollution.


What exactly is genetic pollution? I mean it sounds bad, but it would be much better if you were clear in what you were claiming.



Dick Monson said:


> After reading the positions by the Wildlife Society and the NWF, a fourth must be added, economics. As in how the canned killing industry bleeds off sportsman and taxpayer dollars to subsidize themselves.


I assume you mean the regulatory costs? Again why is it we can not pass those costs on to the captive establishments. I mean you could use the same argument to say we should outlaw Zoos because they cost us money.

You know sometimes I get the sense that you are trying to throw as much at the wall as possible in hope something sticks.


----------



## angus 1

I'm with walker , something stinks here. I'm going to get ahold of the Stockmans Assocation and see what their take is on this . If what Monson says about disease and such being a big risk to cattle then the Stocmans Assocation should be in favor of this . I'm sure they are more informed and up on this as I am. If they say disease is a big issue and this bill should pass then I will help support the bill. If they say its nothing more than the beginning of animal rights then I will not support it.


----------



## Dick Monson

*walker said:*


> I assume you mean the regulatory costs? Again why is it we can not pass those costs on to the captive establishments.


Why indeed? Pass the hat and see what you get. Ask DG's Senator to write the bill. Ask 4590 or any of the others if they'll chip in. Ask them if they will bond the facility for escapes and problems from them. Also pick up the enforcement costs and the those of the Wildlife Services, as well as regulatory expense. As for the blunt arrow, google Russ Bellar. Since its on tape where you can see it strike and fall back yourself.  Why would you make a call without looking at the evidence?

Genetic pollution? Line breeding and AI for salable characteristics with those animals escaping into the wild population, spreading those genes into public wildlife. Nature does not breed for salable characteristics, only survivable characteristics. Ask the canned kill boys how many escape. With a little searching you can find the many color phases being bred for canned kill. Why only shoot a brown one?


----------



## walker

Dick Monson said:


> As for the blunt arrow, google Russ Bellar. Since its on tape where you can see it strike and fall back yourself. Why would you make a call without looking at the evidence?


I asked for evidence, and thank you for pointing me to it. I understand now. So let me state what I saw.

*• Propping up a dying deer to be shot with a muzzleloader for a reported fee of $15,000 *
A deer dying from causes unrelated to hunting was shot by a guy who was dumb enough to pay 15,000 for the antlers. Being dumb is not illegal, thank goodness.

*• A drugged deer staggering into a bait pile over a hunter in a tree stand which is shot with a blunt arrow for a promotional film *
I non-lethal buck shoot was staged for a commercial. You can actually see the guy shoot him in a stupid place for a kill.

*• Famous fishing celebrity Jimmy Houston waiting to shoot a deer from a tree stand, over hidden bait, inside a 3-6 acre pen *
Jimmy Houston's TV show sucks.

Did I get any of this wrong? If not, then it was spin. I think the videos are tasteless, stupid and part of the antler fetish in our society. I personally don't suffer from antler envy, never have, never even understood it to be honest. The bets way to combat bad TV is to let the sponsers of the shows know that we don't like it.

I still don't think these videos warrant outlawing captive cervid shooting.


----------



## walker

Dick Monson said:


> Ask them if they will bond the facility for escapes and problems from them.
> ...
> as well as regulatory expense.


Our society passes costs onto businesses all the time. They fight back. That is normal. What the proper costs should be depends. I'm sure there are many opponents of the industry who would try and use these regulatory charges as a way to expense them out of business. Good science, proper evidence and good faith would have to be part of the process.



Dick Monson said:


> Also pick up the enforcement costs and the those of the Wildlife Services,


We have a principal in this country called .. "Innocent until proven guilty". It would not be just for an innocent person to pay the costs of enforcement. We as a society collectively pay the costs of law enforcement. Of course, convicted individuals also pay fines which go toward enforcement - I think Russ Bellar payed $575,000.


----------



## walker

Dick Monson said:


> Genetic pollution? Line breeding and AI for salable characteristics with those animals escaping into the wild population, spreading those genes into public wildlife. Nature does not breed for salable characteristics, only survivable characteristics


Salable characteristics - I assume you mean antler size? If so, I think you are overstating the "danger" significantly.

There is overlap here between nature and hunter antler envy. Nature does select toward antler size, else we would not see large antler sizes. Selective breeding could be used to enhance the antler size, but if these deer escaped and these antler sizes were a disadvantage then the deer would not survive. Also, remember selective breeding alone does not introduce new genetics into the population. It just supports artificial survivability. The survival tension here is the cost of growing and carrying a large set of antlers.

Is there any science that supports your concern here?


----------



## boondocks

RogerK said:


> North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase had a table at the Bismarck Tribune Sport Show January 25 through the 27th for the purpose of collecting signatures on a petition to do away with high fence killing operations. The response by the public was overwhelmingly in favor of what we are doing. I was at the table for the entire 3 day event taking less than 5 minutes away from the table for 1 john run and a water break for the entire 3 days. Friday, no break, Saturday, one break, Sunday, no break. I didn't even break to eat.
> 
> The show was open to the public a total of 22 hours, or 1320 minutes. I personally filled 20 petitions during the time for a total of 760 signatures. That's 1 signature every 1.7 to 1.8 minutes. We collected a total of 1100 signatures on our way to 12,844.
> 
> If you want to help save public hunting, contact me and I'll put you in touch with a petition circulator so you can sign on to put this issue to a vote of the people. If Bismarck is any indication of the support for this initiative, we will win big and put these operations out of business before they kill public hunting for all of us.
> 
> Roger Kaseman, Chair, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.
> 
> E-Mail: [email protected]
> 701-254-4875


Way to go Roger! Awsome work. :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## Turner

Since Plainsman, Dick and others have turned this into an ethics battle, even thought they say it isn't, you better be prepared to defend other forms of harvesting animals that will be viewed by others as the unethical treatment of animals once you get your agenda passed and shown the Anti's what can be done with in our own group. 
Do you think the non hunting public will view the killing of animals with archery equipment to be humane? Plainsman, I know all the animals you have shot have never walked further than 12" and died the instant your arrow struck the animal, you are an exception to the rest. How many animals are not recovered, or walked miles bleeding to death while suffocating while their lungs fill with blood? Now let's talk about the trapping of animals. Do you think the public will like to hear how animals are caught in leg traps and sit and bleed till the trapper comes to dispatch them with a club or a .22? Or how about the animals that chews their leg completely off to escape and then tries to survive the rest of the winter hunting with one less leg. I know both of these forms of harvesting animals have been in the Anti's cross-hairs, however, by what you are doing will only give them more strength. 
There are enough nut jobs in Hollywood, that do not have a clue battling to put an end to what we all like to do. As much as you do not like to admit it, you and a bunch of others have joined the battle on their side by trying to BAN a form of harvesting animals. You say it is only going to help the Free Range Hunters by showing others that we can manage our "own", you really think that? That is what really scares me about your whole plan. 
It has been said countless times that we need to put restrictions on these shooting preserves and manage them accordingly, not BAN them. However you and the others do not want to attempt to do it because you say it's too hard and it will cost way too much money. Look at the effort, time and money (very minimal at this time) you and your group has put forth to BAN them. You already have a group formed, you need to pull back regroup, and form a new battle plan, there is time left.


----------



## 4590

Does the industry need more regulation??

In ten years of owning an elk operation, the only cost to the state I recall was to have the DAIRY INSPECTOR ( no one from the g/f ) come for an inspection of facilities that took about an hour. This was paid by the NDBOAH. We also never lost an animal to escape. Maybe Monson can shed some light on the this subsidy he continues to claim. Or are we still talking about the $$ paid to NDBOAH for services provided to g/f.


----------



## Turner

4590 said:


> Does the industry need more regulation??


The way I look at it, you either except more regulations or you could possibly lose what you have. If you are by the book and have nothing to hide, then you should have nothing to worry aobut.


----------



## g/o

> Does the industry need more regulation??


Yes you do 4590, you got past the senate and hopefully you will get through this. If you do next session you need to get some regulations in place especially for the shooting part. The main concern here seems to be the ethics behind the shoots. You will need to regulate the area in which the shoots will take place. You guys really need to get some guidelines set, or next time you will not have a chance.


----------



## Plainsman

> Do you think the non hunting public will view the killing of animals with archery equipment to be humane? Plainsman, I know all the animals you have shot have never walked further than 12" and died the instant your arrow struck the animal, you are an exception to the rest. How many animals are not recovered, or walked miles bleeding to death while suffocating while their lungs fill with blood? Now let's talk about the trapping of animals. Do you think the public will like to hear how animals are caught in leg traps and sit and bleed till the trapper comes to dispatch them with a club or a .22? Or how about the animals that chews their leg completely off to escape and then tries to survive the rest of the winter hunting with one less leg. I know both of these forms of harvesting animals have been in the Anti's cross-hairs, however, by what you are doing will only give them more strength.


This is just a judgement call on my part, and I am not telling you to do anything, but the above was not very smart. Why would you post something like this on the Internet for the anti-hunters to read? I don't know what your interest is in protecting the unethical, but to risk everything in a dirty laundry post for the world to read isn't the way to convince anyone. Are you willing to risk hunting to preserve unethical forms of hunting. Your desperate post disappoints me. Please consider an edit.


----------



## angus 1

Turner,

Please do not edit the truth . You would then be part of the politically correct crowd.


----------



## DG

Dick Monson, There is an saying. They who define the issues control the debate. You do that well. That's why you throw up pages and pages of reports, policy positions, slogans, buzz words and red herrings written by some professional somewhere. It's familiar territory. You have it all memorised sucking everyone into this morass. I have some reading for you. It's from the National Rifle Association. Dated Feb. 08 Like Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate Barak Obama is using the scripted rhetorical tricks in the Third Way playbook to the letter. And like Hillary, he is talking our talk while walking our walk. Obama's attempt to fool guns rights voters is designed for the political less savvy and is intentionally opaque. Part of his sryupy rhetoric is an attack on NRA. The problem that we've had is that the overwhelming majority...would be amenable to reasonable gun control laws, Obama said. The NRS's attitude has been that any restriction is an infringement on the rights of gun owners... I think they are oftentimes able to scare law-abiding gun owners. If anybody should scare gun owners it is Obama-the real Obama, not the scripted actor in the Third Way. The freshman Illinois U.S. Senator has embarked on a cynical divide-and-conquer strategy where he would have some firearms owners believe they would be out of harm's way when it comes to gun control schemes. In, Iowa, a recent headline told it all- Obama: My wife sees need for rural gun ownership. But given the first commandment of the Third Way's "Taking Back The Second Amendment"- "progressives need not change their positions..."but simply, "change the rhetoric they employ"-the positions he has taken should scream out to anyone hearing his soothing words that begin with, "I respect the second amendment" "But..." There is always that word, followed by the inevitable "reasonable" and "commonsense" code words as covered by the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign. OBAMA'S POSITION VERSUS RHETORIC Try this for "reasonable." As an Illinois candidate for reelection to the state senate, Obama set the " common sense" standard for his gun control stance in pledging support on a "1998 National Political Awareness Test" to Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons." That position, cited on pro-and anti-gun websites across the net, is such a remarkably harsh choice that it has been condemned on far-left blogs like the Democratic Underground. In agreeing to the goal of banning commerce in "all forms" of semi-autos, Obama had ratcheted up his position expressed in an earlier questionnare where Independent Voters of Illinois interviewers garnered his support for a ban on the "manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. As an Illinois state senator he was an aggressive advocate for all manners of new gun controls. In a state that has gun-owner licensing and de facto firearms registration, he pressed for creating mug-shot files and fingerprint databases for law-abiding gun owners. He voted against legislation giving homeowners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. The true test of his anti-Second Amendment activism, however, can be found in his service on the 10-member board of directors of the radical anti-gun money machine, the Joyce Foundation. That foundation, which has given at least 50 million to anti-Second Amendment forces, is the principal source of capital for the gun ban far- left Violence Policy Center, and for a host of groups like Handgun Free America and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), which under a recent Joyce grant called for the routine warrantless seizure and destruction of firearms by police agencies. Yet Obama's spot on the board was more than ceremonial. According to a puff piece in the Oct. 12, 2007, Boston Globe, Obama considered becoming the CEO of the Joyce Foundation in 2000, after he was defeated in a race for the U.S. Congress. Durring his tenure at the Joyce Foundation, Obama was involved in the approval of 18,326,183 in anti-Second Amendment grants, including finds for the Consumer Federation of America, which had just hired retiring arch anti-gun U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum. That grant was to support a backdoor ban on firearms under the guise of "regulation of guns as consumer products." Joyce also gave 600,000 as seed money to create a group whose purpose is to provide anti-gun propaganda to Hollywood filmmakers. Or try this: Joyce even gave a 1 million grant to the Violence Policy Center to "promote public health-oriented gun policy through research, public education, coalition building and advocacy. All of the anti-gun rights grant descriptions for the years 1998 through 2001-when Obama was an activist board member- boil down to words like "advocacy activities," "communications strategies,""comprehensive health and safety regulation of the firearms industry,""policy advocacy activities" or "sound public health regulations of firearms. Doubtless, if Obama were to ascend to the Oval Office, much of this same pervasive, corrosive work would be carried out by the federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Justice,the Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs Development, using tens of millions of taxpayer funding. Finally, as a U.S. senator, Obama voted against punitive lawsuits designed to bankrupt the federally regulated firearm-business community. With the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the District of Columbia,s challenge to the U.S. Court of Appeals decision striking down the cities ban on operable firearms in private homes as unconstitional, Obama, the Harvard Law School Graduate, opined unequivocally that D.C.'s ban was "constitutional." This is coming from a man , who, as president, could appoint perhaps three or more members of the U.S. Supreme Court over the next several years. Dick, I know you are here gnashing your teeth. Back to www.activitcash.com The Joyce Foundation funds Greenpeace, The National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, Seirra Club etc. They hire the best professionals that money can buy.


----------



## Dick Monson

*walker said:*


> Nature does select toward antler size, else we would not see large antler sizes.


Actually your statement is dead wrong. Again. For the cost of a phone call you can get the Geist DVD to find out the real reason for selection to antler size, or research Nodak archives, or get the Geist article from NDGF ND Outdoors. I wish you a good life.


----------



## Plainsman

DJ, I don't see your point with the gun control issue, but I agree with you about it, and Obama. He is more liberal than Hillary. However, I see your post as more appropriate in the political form I wish half the people on this site would pay as much attention to the second amendment as you do. I commend you for your wise interpretations of Obama's intentions. 
As for the articles Dick posts, most are professional biologists not working for any of the foundations you listed. Most are from government agencies including game and fish from other states. They have only one motive, to provide the healthiest herds they can for their clients the sportsmen and women of the states they work for. They work for everyone, not just outfitters and guides, and certainly not for canned shoots. They also do not work for anti-hunting organizations. Hunters have no better friend that the biologist that works for government agencies.


----------



## Plainsman

> Since Plainsman, Dick and others have turned this into an ethics battle, even thought they say it isn't, you better be prepared to defend other forms of harvesting animals that will be viewed by others as the unethical treatment of animals once you get your agenda passed and shown the Anti's what can be done with in our own group.


Turner,



> Please do not edit the truth . You would then be part of the politically correct crowd.


I don't think what we do will make any difference with the antis, because they want to stop all hunting, always have, and always will. Our efforts will not change that either way. As to being prepared to defend other forms of hunting "I find the term harvesting to be political correct" I am prepared, always have been, always will be.

As to your describing for the antis all the forms of misery hunting can cause what was the point? Surely because other forms of hunting cause animal misery you didn't intend to imply that forms of unethical hunting should therefore be accepted? Whether you intended or not what you did say was because of all these bad things I should accept unethical hunting.



> There are enough nut jobs in Hollywood, that do not have a clue battling to put an end to what we all like to do. As much as you do not like to admit it, you and a bunch of others have joined the battle on their side by trying to BAN a form of harvesting animals.


We all know Hollywood is nut jobs. Do we accept anything goes out of fear? I see you keep using the term harvesting instead of killing animals. I don't use a combine, I use a rifle, bow, pistol, etc. I guess you use the term harvesting to not offend the antis. Am I right? Of course I am, and your preaching to me? Like Mr. Rogers would say can you say hypocritical?

How about some real thought in this debate? I would like to hear from someone without the motivation of ethics or profit, or connections to the profit. You know what I mean, a friend, a neighbor, a friend of an acquaintance, etc. In other words I am starved for a non biased opinion. I know many are not non biased, because they are not based on logic. I would guess 90% of the nay Sayers are connected.


----------



## cwoparson

> but to risk everything in a dirty laundry post for the world to read isn't the way to convince anyone


Are you serious? Go back and read all the post on this subject, the same one's the anti hunters are reading right now, and you would think the only dirty laundry in the hunting world is high fence hunting. Don't kid yourself, the anti hunters are already well aware of everything that was mentioned and already have taken action on several of them. What everyone has been trying to tell you is this petition on high fence hunting is just one more thing to add to their play book. I don't understand why it is so hard for some of you to understand it is not the high fence operations that are being supported by most but the method you're using that is not being supported.


----------



## Turner

[quote="Plainsman"


> Are you willing to risk hunting to preserve unethical forms of hunting.


I am risking no more by what I have wrote, than what you are risking by what you are doing by forcing your views of ethics on others.

The question you should have asked yourself a while ago.
Is my way of hunting and killing animals viewed ethical enough to others, in order for me to force my ethics on to others in the attempt to shut down another form of shooting animals that I feel is unethical?

Plainsman, I will not edit anything unless I feel I am in the wrong or miss-spoke. You think what I wrote is a big secret? You have opened this door long time ago when you started on your high horse preaching your ethics to the rest of us on how you feel this is wrong. Yes, the preserves that have been caught drugging and posing animals for the sake of making a show were definitely in the wrong and those hunters and preserve owners should be punished, again regulation would control this. As long as the animals are shot with legal weapons and not have had their physical state altered in any way, what is the problem? That animal was raised on a ranch and knows nothing about running free no more than Joe Farmers Holstein cow. Don't tell me about the domestication of cattle, killing is killing in the eyes of the anti's and you are not going to convince them either way. Your tactics are going to do nothing except set precedence for all the future battles we will be up against with every anti hunting group known to man. 
It is not ethics that your battle should be based on, it should be based on what are the possibilities of the spread of disease or genetic problems by these ranch raised animals and what is the damage that could occur if spread into the free range animals that we all hunt. Heck I would sign the petition.

Regulation not Banning is the answer here.


----------



## Plainsman

> The question you should have asked yourself a while ago.
> Is my way of hunting and killing animals viewed ethical enough to others, in order for me to force my ethics on to others in the attempt to shut down another form of shooting animals that I feel is unethical?


I did ask myself that question, and I am sure every other sponsor did. What made you think we didn't? 
Let me put the shoe on the other foot for you. Why should I let you or this hunting façade endanger the sport I live for? Do you care that the anti groups use footage of these hunts to attack us all? If your truly concerned about our sport how do you feel about that? Don't give me the more holy than thou line, because by supporting this facade your endangering the sport while I am trying to preserve it.



> As long as the animals are shot with legal weapons and not have had their physical state altered in any way, what is the problem?


For the sake of our sport you should be happy that there are those of us who see the problem.



> Your tactics are going to do nothing except set precedence for all the future battles we will be up against with every anti hunting group known to man.


I will use that line when I explain hyperbole to people.



> It is not ethics that your battle should be based on, it should be based on what are the possibilities of the spread of disease or genetic problems by these ranch raised animals and what is the damage that could occur if spread into the free range animals that we all hunt. *Heck I would sign the petition*.


So you are saying you are against these high fence operations, but you don't think it should be ethics. Then start a petition and get it on the ballot. You know what they say (put up or shut up)?


----------



## Turner

Plainsman said:


> I did ask myself that question, and I am sure every other sponsor did. What made you think we didn't
Click to expand...

Your tactics
.


----------



## Turner

Plainsman said:


> Why should I let you or this hunting façade endanger the sport I live for?
Click to expand...

You are doing a fine job on your own endangering the sport that WE both live for.


----------



## Turner

Plainsman said:


> Do you care that the anti groups use footage of these hunts to attack us all?
Click to expand...

Very much so, that is why we need to punish, fine or shut down the preserves that are doing this. By regulating them the others can be kept in check.

I have no ties to the High Fence industry.


----------



## Plainsman

Your last post was the one I was looking for, thanks. That indicates to me your looking for the same thing I am, you just see a different path. In that event it's not good for us to beat on each other. Have a good evening.

If you really would sign a petition to get rid of high fence hunts because they pose a disease risk you should take some action. Disease is a factor for me also, but only one of many. I will get rid of them any way I can.


----------



## walker

4590 said:


> Does the industry need more regulation??


I can not answer that for sure since I don't know what the current regulations are, but I believe more is needed. Of course, any new regulations would need evidence to support them.


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> Why would you post something like this on the Internet for the anti-hunters to read?


That is a silly rhetorical question. Why would you post incessantly what you yourself consider dirty laundry. Oh, ya, to save us all. Sounds self righteous to me.


----------



## walker

Dick Monson said:


> Actually your statement is dead wrong. Again. For the cost of a phone call you can get the Geist DVD to *find out the real reason for selection to antler size*, or research Nodak archives, or get the Geist article from NDGF ND Outdoors. I wish you a good life.


If I'm dead wrong why do you say there is selection pressure. That is what I said. I think you are spinning.

The ethogram of selection, and the exact effects of the environment may all be debatable, but antlers size is selected for. Now of course as I said in my post there is a counter pressure, but that does not mean there is no selection to maintain antler size.

Antler size and fluctuating asymmetry in red deer (Cervus elaphus) 
stags and probability of becoming a harem holder in rut
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
Volume 87 Issue 1 Page 59-68, January 2006

In any event, you avoided the point. The genes are in the population.


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> How about some real thought in this debate? ...


What you really mean in your condescending way is ... "How about someone that agrees with me."



Plainsman said:


> In other words I am starved for a non biased opinion.
> ...
> I would guess 90% of the nay Sayers are connected.


Well I guess you got what you wanted from 10% of the people, but maybe it was not what you wanted to hear. :lol:



Plainsman said:


> I know many are not non biased, because they are not based on logic.


That is an illogical statement. Obviously, a biased opinion can be logical, and an unbiased opinion can be illogical. Bias is a characteristic of the person. Logic is a characteristic of the argument.


----------



## Plainsman

> That is an illogical statement. Obviously, a biased opinion can be logical, and an unbiased opinion can be illogical. Bias is a characteristic of the person. Logic is a characteristic of the argument.


You know thinking about it your right about that. I guess I seen some things that didn't follow logic so made the assumption they were biased. Assumptions will get you into those pickles won't they?
Still I would like to see something new. There has to be some angles we have not thought of yet. Pro or con, anything, it's getting old.


----------



## Savage260

I am an unbiased, hopefully logical person, but any time I posted the arguement on the pro measure side stayed the same.....if vacillation can be called staying the same. As has been stated before, shutting down the "hunting" but allowing the ranching won't do any good save for one less thing the "antis" have to associate with the evils of hunting. It won't change the disease arguement, so stop using that, obviously it isn't a concern of the measure. The animals they say escape can escape from a "hunting" ranch as easily as from a "meat processing??" ranch. Also, I think we all know full well that disease can march into our state across any border in the wild just as easily as it can be shipped in a trailer. Where do ethics factor in here???

The hunters regulating themselves is also a non issue. What the "pros" have been saying is this is some hunters trying to end a practice they don't like under the guise of "saving the future of hunting". We all know, as has been stated a number of times, the "antis" will still be after hunting no matter what we do. The future of hunting is not and never will be safe. If this measure passes it will allow them to focus in on another area of hunting because this will be one less thing on their list. Both sides are trying to keep our hunting alive and well, but in the process of this we are just fighting the battle for them. Where do ethics factor in here???

If this passes and no "hunts" are allowed, but the ranching of cervids as livestock continues, they will still be killed, just by different people in a different manner. Since the "pros" think these animals deserve a more fitting fate than being shot in a pen, why don't they think the animals deserve more than being killed after being loaded into a chute? Where do the ethics factor in here???

Now that the above arguements have been laid to rest because non of them were worth a crap, we can get down to the only thing left I can see as being a thorn in the side of the "pros". Why does this person get to shoot a trophy with minimal time put in when I might hunt my whole life and never get one.

Now I may be wrong, and I am sure I will be told I am, but I do not think I have seen one concrete reason to ban these ranches. If you "pros" can get your heads together to find the real reason you want to ban these places, and stick to it, I will applaud, but still not vote for it.

Again, just for the record, I have no bias. I am not a rancher, landowner, or farmer. I am not related to any one in the industry. I do not sell any products related to the industry, but I really do like elk steaks!!! I have never, and will never shoot an animal at one of these operations, but that doesn't give me the right to help shut them down.


----------



## Plainsman

You know, I have been banging my head around trying to figure this out. I think we all agree that this initiative isn't aimed at convincing the anti hunters, it's aimed at convincing the non hunters that we are ethical. Non hunters are an entirely different thing than anti hunters.
So what did I figure out while out walking (trying to, darn it was cold) for coyotes this morning. I thought 90% of the people on this site would be for this initiative, but evidently I am mistaken there. So what can explain that not being true? Then I thought about the stages of hunting, and wondered what would be the average number of years people on this site have hunted. I have been hunting for 50 years. I hate to think about that, but I would venture that's longer than the average age on this site. So what has that to do with anything? I think it has to do with the hunters stage that your in. Of course sometimes people never get beyond the kill stage even at 70 years old. Anyway, see how many of you can relate to the five stages of a hunter. Also try to ***** your stage of a hunter with how you feel about canned shooting. Thanks.

FIVE STAGES OF A HUNTER

Hunters change through the years. Factors used to determine 
"successful hunting" change as well for each hunter. A hunter's age, 
role models, and his years of hunting experience affect his ideas of 
"success."

Many hunters may fit into one of the following five groups. In 
1975-1980, groups of over 1,000 hunters in Wisconsin were studied, 
surveyed, and written about by Professors Robert Jackson and Robert 
Norton, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. The results of their 
studies form a widely accepted theory of hunter behavior and 
development. Where are you now? Where would you like to be?

SHOOTER STAGE

The hunter talks about satisfaction with hunting being closely tied to 
being able to "get shooting." Often the beginning duck hunter will 
relate he had an excellent day if he got in a lot of shooting. The 
beginning deer hunter will talk about the number of shooting 
opportunities. Missing game means little to hunters in this phase. A 
beginning hunter wants to pull the trigger and test the capability of 
his firearm. A hunter in this stage may be a dangerous hunting 
partner.

LIMITING OUT STAGE

A hunter still talks about satisfaction gained from shooting. But what 
seems more important is measuring success through the killing of game 
and the number of birds or animals shot. Limiting out, or filling a 
tag, is the absolute measure. Do not let your desire to limit out be 
stronger than the need for safe behavior at all times.

TROPHY STAGE

Satisfaction is described in terms of selectivity of game. A duck 
hunter might take only greenheads. A deer hunter looks for one special 
deer. A hunter might travel far to find a real trophy animal. Shooting 
opportunity and skills become less important.

METHOD STAGE

This hunter has all the special equipment. Hunting has become one of 
the most important things in his life. Satisfaction comes from the 
method that enables the hunter to take game. Taking game is important, 
but second to how it is taken. This hunter will study long and hard 
how best to pick a blind site, lay out decoys, and call in 
waterfowl. A deer hunter will go one on one with a white-tailed deer, 
studying sign, tracking, and the life habits of the deer. Often, the 
hunter will handicap himself by hunting only with black powder 
firearms or bow and arrow. Bagging game, or limiting, still is 
understood as being a necessary part of the hunt during this phase.

SPORTSMAN STAGE

As a hunter ages and after many years of hunting, he "mellows out." 
Satisfaction now can be found in the total hunting experience. Being 
in the field, enjoying the company of friends and family, and seeing 
nature outweigh the need for taking game.

Not all hunters go through all the stages, or go through them in that 
particular order. It is also possible for hunters who pursue several 
species of game to be in different stages with regard to each 
species. Some hunters feel that role models of good sportsmen, 
training, or reading books or magazines helped them pass more quickly 
through some stages.


----------



## 4590

Here is some LOGIC for you!!!

Hunter sets up shooting bench accross a valley from where he has done a little scouting and expects deer to feed morning and evening. The deer are 1/2 mile away (800 yds). Hunter uses range finder, high powered spotting scope, and sophisticated optics on quality firearm to make the shot on deer. Totally FAIR CHASE and SPORTING!!!!

Scenario two is hunter who enters several hundred acre preserve. Terrain is at least half wooded and very rough. Hunters spend from 1 two 3 days hiking and stalking for deer. At some point he makes 150 yd shot and a clean kill on the prey. LIkely never say or gave a second thought to the fence after entering at the gate. SUPPOSEDLY TOTALLY UNETHICAL!!

Scenario three is hunter who arranges a hunt at a local bison ranch. He stops by the ranch headquarters and is instructed as to which pasture, primarily prarie grass, he allowed to shoot his animal. Rancher likely takes him within reasonable distance from which he make short stalk and kills the bison. CERTAINLY NOT FAIR CHASE BUT NO PROBLEM!!!!

Sounds like good unbiased logic to me.


----------



## Plainsman

> 1 two 3 days hiking


Wow, he must have made a lot of laps around the pen. Lucky he didn't get dizzy and shoot himself.


----------



## 4590

Just curious, but what stage would you consider taking an 800 yd shot at a deer would be?

By the way I am quite certain the hunting preserve industry would not be oppose to some regulation in regard to drugging and similar practices. I am also certain that has never been an issue in ND.


----------



## g/o

> SPORTSMAN STAGE
> 
> As a hunter ages and after many years of hunting, he "mellows out."
> Satisfaction now can be found in the total hunting experience. Being
> in the field, enjoying the company of friends and family, and seeing
> nature outweigh the need for taking game.


Plainsman, This is the stage I'm in and that is why I love being an outfitter, and oppose this measure. I enjoy meeting people from all over the country that come and enjoy my place. I had a lady last fall that only hunted with a camera and took some outstanding photos. Most that come to my place don't fill out every day, they are with family and friends. Taking of the game is secondary.


----------



## Plainsman

g/o said:


> SPORTSMAN STAGE
> 
> As a hunter ages and after many years of hunting, he "mellows out."
> Satisfaction now can be found in the total hunting experience. Being
> in the field, enjoying the company of friends and family, and seeing
> nature outweigh the need for taking game.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman, This is the stage I'm in and that is why I love being an outfitter, and oppose this measure. I enjoy meeting people from all over the country that come and enjoy my place. I had a lady last fall that only hunted with a camera and took some outstanding photos. Most that come to my place don't fill out every day, they are with family and friends. Taking of the game is secondary.
Click to expand...

I can't find a tip of the hat emoticon, but this one will have to do :beer:


----------



## barebackjack

I would say that im in a combination of the trophy/method/sportsman stage.

Unless its spring snow geese, than im in the "what the heck im a doing in this mud pit?" stage.


----------



## djleye

> Scenario two is hunter who enters several hundred acre preserve. Terrain is at least half wooded and very rough. Hunters spend from 1 two 3 days hiking and stalking for deer. At some point he makes 150 yd shot and a clean kill on the prey. LIkely never say or gave a second thought to the fence after entering at the gate. SUPPOSEDLY TOTALLY UNETHICAL!!


I am not taking issue with what you say about what is ethical, etc. Neither side will ever cnvince the other so I am staying out of that one. But, do you really think that it would take someone 2-3 days of hiking to find deer in a couple hundred acre pen????? THat must be someone that has never seen a deer or has never hunted before!!! THat would be very unbelievable!!!!
I could send my 7 year old son into a pen and he could find deer in less than a day!!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith

Djleye......seeing the deer and getting the shot are two different things.

I just talked with a friend of mine. He went on a Russian Boar hunt at a high fenced operation...600 acres. Anyway it took him two days to get a good shot on a boar. He saw boars everyday. But to get a shot on the one he wanted took him till the afternoon of the second day.

This guy is a good hunter. He only hunts with a bow. He has harvested deer, turkey with his bow (Fair chase). He just wanted to shoot a russian boar so he did this high fenced thing. He thought it would have been much easier than what he encountered. He said it was easier for him to shoot all of his deer, he harvested 3, this year on stand than it was to shoot this boar.

So to say it is an easy experience is not always the case.


----------



## djleye

Especially when it is me shooting!!!!!!  Unless it is with my bow!!!
Thought I would throw that in there before others do. :lol: 
I was commenting on his quote.......Finding the deer. THat is much different than what you said. I suppose that it does get tougher when you are after only one or two of the herd, but come on, two days to find the deer!!!!!


----------



## barebackjack

Thats another propoganda statement made by people against these operations. They make it sound as though ALL these shoots take place in a half acre enclosure.


----------



## barebackjack

Thats another propoganda statement made by people against these operations. They make it sound as though ALL these shoots take place in a half acre enclosure.


----------



## djleye

djleye said:


> Scenario two is hunter who enters several hundred acre preserve. Terrain is at least half wooded and very rough. Hunters spend from 1 two 3 days hiking and stalking for deer. At some point he makes 150 yd shot and a clean kill on the prey. LIkely never say or gave a second thought to the fence after entering at the gate. SUPPOSEDLY TOTALLY UNETHICAL!!
> 
> 
> 
> I am not taking issue with what you say about what is ethical, etc. Neither side will ever cnvince the other so I am staying out of that one. But, do you really think that it would take someone 2-3 days of hiking to find deer in a couple hundred acre pen????? THat must be someone that has never seen a deer or has never hunted before!!! THat would be very unbelievable!!!!
> I could send my 7 year old son into a pen and he could find deer in less than a day!!!!
Click to expand...

BBJ,

Maybe you missed the part where I said in a couple hundred acre enclosure. Who is spreading propoganda now??? :eyeroll: I was quoting what he said. His words, not mine.
Again, let me clarify, I am not getting into this argument with you guys, neither side will ever win. I just took issue with it taking 2-3 days to find deer in a couple hundred acres, shouldn't be that big of an issue!!!!


----------



## barebackjack

djleye said:


> djleye said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scenario two is hunter who enters several hundred acre preserve. Terrain is at least half wooded and very rough. Hunters spend from 1 two 3 days hiking and stalking for deer. At some point he makes 150 yd shot and a clean kill on the prey. LIkely never say or gave a second thought to the fence after entering at the gate. SUPPOSEDLY TOTALLY UNETHICAL!!
> 
> 
> 
> I am not taking issue with what you say about what is ethical, etc. Neither side will ever cnvince the other so I am staying out of that one. But, do you really think that it would take someone 2-3 days of hiking to find deer in a couple hundred acre pen????? THat must be someone that has never seen a deer or has never hunted before!!! THat would be very unbelievable!!!!
> I could send my 7 year old son into a pen and he could find deer in less than a day!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BBJ,
> 
> Maybe you missed the part where I said in a couple hundred acre enclosure. Who is spreading propoganda now??? :eyeroll: I was quoting what he said. His words, not mine.
> Again, let me clarify, I am not getting into this argument with you guys, neither side will ever win. I just took issue with it taking 2-3 days to find deer in a couple hundred acres, shouldn't be that big of an issue!!!!
Click to expand...

Well a couple hundred acres is alot of ground, especially if its wooded cover. But, when most people argue against this practice (high fence), they ELUDE to the fact that they all take place in enclosures not much bigger than a round pen. THAT is propoganda. Much like the photo of the deer peeking through the hog panel on another thread.......a picture that could have literally been taken in any one of a million places or settings, but used as PROPAGANDA towards this issue. Much like statetments such as "he must have made several laps around the fence, hope he didnt get dizzy"....and a whole host of others.

And obviously you ARE getting into the argument, if you werent you wouldnt have posted anything. So dont make comments than claim your not in the argument.


----------



## djleye

Keep arguing with yourself brother!!!!! :eyeroll:


----------



## angus 1

If PETA was peddling this petition would you guys sign it??

What would you guys do if PETA caught wind of this and gave you guys their endorsement ? I know I'd laugh my fool head off. Pehaps they could do some door to door vistis for ya , make a few phone calls.


----------



## cwoparson

angus 1 said:


> If PETA was peddling this petition would you guys sign it??
> 
> What would you guys do if PETA caught wind of this and gave you guys their endorsement ? I know I'd laugh my fool head off. Pehaps they could do some door to door vistis for ya , make a few phone calls.


They don't have to peddle it in ND. It's being done for them. This is from a PETA site called "care2" where someone else is doing their work for them. Be assured they are watching this closely.

House Bill 1096: The Canned Hunt.

A bill from Rep. Debbie Stafford - an Aurora Democrat and perennial advocate of animal rights - would outlaw the "guaranteed kill" of animals that have been caged, staked or confined.

About 25 businesses in Colorado are offering confined, farm-raised deer and elk for hunting, Stafford said. 

Note she doesn't call it shooting or slaughter but hunting.


----------



## angus 1

What if the media caught wind of this around election time, and made the connection of PETA and ND Hunters for Fair Chase. Can you say posted !


----------



## Plainsman

angus 1 said:


> What if the media caught wind of this around election time, and made the connection of PETA and ND Hunters for Fair Chase. Can you say posted !


Keep in mind that the average non hunter will know it's a ruse and then your side will loose all credibility. Making up things usually comes back to bite you. I would guess every nonbiased person on here seen that statement as an intention to deceive people.



> Note she doesn't call it shooting or slaughter but hunting.


Isn't that what I have been trying to tell you for months? I have said over and over, that the anti hunters think this is hunting and it's giving true hunters a black eye. Now you just had the revelation?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

cwoparson said:


> Note she doesn't call it shooting or slaughter but hunting.


That's what these "farmers" call it too. Even though they keep telling us it's just livestock slaughter they promote it as hunting! uke:


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> Keep in mind that the average non hunter will know it's a ruse and then your side will loose all credibility. Making up things usually comes back to bite you. I would guess every nonbiased person on here seen that statement as an intention to deceive people.


Your average North Dakota non-hunter would probably see it as a ruse. I will give you that Plainsman, but I think your putting to much stock in the average urbanized american, who knows squat about EITHER sides argument. Im not worried about ND'ans, im worried about a precedence being set on a national basis and the snowball effect it could EASILY have against all other forms of hunting.


----------



## Plainsman

BBJ, I don't think that is a realistic premise. Someone has just frightened you with propaganda. 
I am interested in your double standard. Why are you not frightened by promoting no scopes on muzzleloaders. After all maybe it will set a president for the Brady anti gun people. The initiative to outlaw high fence shooting is no different than your desire to limit muzzleloaders. Give it some thought. Please understand that I don't think your desire to limit primitive weapons endangers anyone, it's just that your applying a double standard to two things you talk about.


----------



## cwoparson

> Isn't that what I have been trying to tell you for months? I have said over and over, that the anti hunters think this is hunting and it's giving true hunters a black eye. Now you just had the revelation?


No Plainsman they don't think it is hunting. These people view hunting as murder and the only reason they would call it hunting is because they want to destroy all hunting. In their minds hunters don't have eyes to blacken, they don't have ears to hear and they don't have brains to think with. They attach the word hunting to everything because that is what they want to destroy. Yard by yard, foot by foot, inch by inch, they are on the march. Now they are getting free help. That's the revelation that seems to escape some people.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> BBJ, I don't think that is a realistic premise. Someone has just frightened you with propaganda.
> I am interested in your double standard. Why are you not frightened by promoting no scopes on muzzleloaders. After all maybe it will set a president for the Brady anti gun people. The initiative to outlaw high fence shooting is no different than your desire to limit muzzleloaders. Give it some thought. Please understand that I don't think your desire to limit primitive weapons endangers us, it's just that your applying a double standard to two things you talk about.


I think its a completely realistic premise, given the direction our society has headed in recent years towards ALL shooting sports. Im a firm believer in never giving one inch, lest they take a mile. Why take that risk? This "domino theory" has already been a proven tactic of anti-gun people, and I can definatly see it being used by anti-hunting organization. So I would rather not take any chances. I hope it is just propaganda, but id rather not take the chance that its not.

And I really dont feel that comparing my stance on scopes on MLers to my stance on this issue has any merit. Like I have said many times, one deals with a state run, PUBLIC season, utilizing PUBLIC wildlife, in a standalone "SPECIAL" season, the other deals in a private entity, with PRIVATELY owned animals. Very different in my eyes.

I just dont see what the big deal is harvesting someones personal property. What does it matter if the thing is pushed into a chute and shot in the head, or shot in a pasture? Seriously? Either way, it was raised for only one purpose, to die, no different than a beef cow. These kills arent allowed in record books, so what would anybody care if some big whig wants to "hunt" a semi-domesticated elk, deer, whatever. They are just plain and simply NOT wild animals. I think were better off to NOT abolish it (which I do fear will fuel the anti fire), *we are better off to educate the public as to the DIFFERENCES between these animals, and wild animals.* No matter what anybody says, they are NOT wild. They may not be fully domesticed (yet), but they are NOT wild, and therefore, should not fall under the same definition.

They are semi-domestic, and dont bother trying to state they are not. If its bred in captivity, its domestic. I dont care if its first generation, or 100th generation. An animal that has spent its entire life in an enclosure is not wild.

I do understand the animosity towards those that do this and than go home "claiming" and telling stories of their "hunt". But come on, theres a thousand guys out there doing things to our public wildlife every hunting season that I dont call "hunting".


----------



## Plainsman

cwoparson wrote:


> Note she doesn't call it shooting or slaughter but hunting


cwoparson also wrote:


> No Plainsman they don't think it is hunting.


Enough said, self explanatory.

You guys just keep saying the same thing. Yada, yada, yada. There are no monsters under the bed.


----------



## cwoparson

> No Plainsman they don't think it is hunting. These people view hunting as murder and the only reason they would call it hunting is because they want to destroy all hunting.


Well lets get the entire quote in there. Taking things out of context seems to be the norm these days. Now this is self explanatory.


----------



## Plainsman

cwoparson said:


> No Plainsman they don't think it is hunting. These people view hunting as murder and the only reason they would call it hunting is because they want to destroy all hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> Well lets get the entire quote in there. Taking things out of context seems to be the norm these days. Now this is self explanatory.
Click to expand...

We all know what the antihuntes think cwo. Do you think everyone is stupid? I don't think my quotes were out of context at all. I simply ignored the part that had no relevance to your contradictory statements.

You aren't interested in anyone else's thoughts cwo, just winning an argument. I am confused why you would be so interested in something happening here in North Dakota. Your trying to twist four ways at once in this debate, and it isn't going anywhere so I think I will just watch.


----------



## Dick Monson

Interesting discussion on the difference between hunting wildlife and butchering domestic animals. The canned kill folks do make the distinction however, in spite of what cwo and bbj tell you.

Pull up "Cedar Ridge Elk Ranch", "Red Butte Elk", "Badlands Elk Ranch", and "Silver Wing Ranch Big Game Hunts". All ND game ranches that advertise "hunts", no mention of harvest there. Just "hunts". No mention of "domestic livestock", just "big game elk and and deer". Hummmm. Odd how you want it both ways, in law you want the definition domestic livestock, but selling the product you want the definition wildlife. Two faces on the same neck. 

And below is a discussion topic *by elk farm breeders on the dangers of line breeding*, (genetic pollution when they escape to the wild) their words not mine:
http://www.wapiti.net/1999adisc/Default.htm

Re: The Risks of Line Breeding
From: antler333
Location: co
Date: 11/13/99

Comments (On The Risks of Line Breeding)
All the negative conotations are still there, but the love of success (big antlers ... read... big money) seems to have a strong alure these days. Several of the top bulls are line bred animals. Line breeding can combine the best genetic traits, or perhaps the worst. Fortunately the natural system of elk reproduction seems to be relatively tolerant of this practice. Out in the wild, a big bull may capture a harem and keep them for several years. Hence he is likely to breed his daughters. Obviously, a defective wild elk will rapidly surcome to the environment. Not so in captive elk. A defective one may be used as breeder and perpetuate a possible problem while being maintained with superior feed and modern medicine. A young breeder may not have yet even shown the problem (if any. We as an industry are undoubtedly creating some defective elk ... but you rarely hear about the breeding failures. This is another of those buyer beware problems that may not be obvious upon casual examination. Just upon random genetic chance, for every really good line bred animal born, you can be sure of the opposite as well.

WAPITI.NET Home Page
http://www.wapiti.net/
Copyright © 1996 WAPITI.NET
Please send questions and comments to [email protected]


----------



## angus 1

Plainsman said:


> angus 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if the media caught wind of this around election time, and made the connection of PETA and ND Hunters for Fair Chase. Can you say posted !
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that the average non hunter will know it's a ruse and then your side will loose all credibility. Making up things usually comes back to bite you. I would guess every nonbiased person on here seen that statement as an intention to deceive people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note she doesn't call it shooting or slaughter but hunting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't that what I have been trying to tell you for months? I have said over and over, that the anti hunters think this is hunting and it's giving true hunters a black eye. Now you just had the revelation?
Click to expand...

I"m not the one making things up so I have nothing that will come back to bite me. Being in bed with PETA certainly will come back to bite you. I ask you this Does PETA support your law. ? If PETA was circulating this petition would you sign?


----------



## Chuck Smith

Dick,

That is why there should be a regulation on how these farms should advertise. Make sure they can't use words like hunting and what not. Make them use domestic herd, pen raised, etc.

Then the distinction between fair chase and the operations will be in Black and white.


----------



## cwoparson

> I am confused why you would be so interested in something happening here in North Dakota


Well, lets try this again despite it having been explained so many times. What happens in North Dakota is your problem and the people that live there. But the method you have chosen to use will have repercussions and set precedents that will have a impact across the country. I firmly believe that. Don't lecture me about winning a argument when you are here for that very reason. I've made it very clear my concern is not about whether high fence hunting should be allowed or not but is about the method you have chosen to accomplish your goals. I trust I'll not need to explain that again.

Every time someone disagrees with your position you seem to think there is a alternative motive other than they simply disagree with you. You've said many time you find high fence hunting unethical and disgusting and that is fine with me. I respect your right to believe that but I've never accused you of having a alternative motive or a hidden agenda as you have done so many times to several people on here.

I'm not twisting anything but just responding to your each and every response to me. If I'm not allowed to do that or should not do that then simply tell me that is disallowed or stop responding to my posts. That shouldn't be difficult.

I do listen to all sides of a debate but when a subject goes from fair chase to ethics, to disease control, to genetic control, and a host of other reasons then one does have a difficult time understanding what is really going on.


----------



## barebackjack

Dick Monson said:


> Pull up "Cedar Ridge Elk Ranch", "Red Butte Elk", "Badlands Elk Ranch", and "Silver Wing Ranch Big Game Hunts". All ND game ranches that advertise "hunts", no mention of harvest there. Just "hunts". No mention of "domestic livestock", just "big game elk and and deer". Hummmm. Odd how you want it both ways, in law you want the definition domestic livestock, but selling the product you want the definition wildlife. Two faces on the same neck.


Theres a million things done by a million hunters to REAL FREE RANGE WILDLIFE every fall that are referred to as "hunting" that I and many others dont consider or call hunting in the least bit, so your argument of these operations being advertised as "hunts" should pertain to far more than JUST these operations, yet this is all you attack. And I for one never stated I wanted the definition of wildlife applied to these animals, as they are not wildlife.


----------



## Dick Monson

bbj, your roundabout appology is accecpted.

NDWF is one of the prime supporters of RAP, their VP heads the program I believe. Most of the unethical activities committed by slobs in the field already are illeagl. Call RAP when you see it. Case closed.

Oregon is now considering a bill to ban canned kill there. There is also Federal legislation in the works. The writing is on the wall for canned kill. Sooner or later the hammer is going to drop.


----------



## walker

Dick Monson said:


> And below is a discussion topic by elk farm breeders on the dangers of line breeding, (genetic pollution when they escape to the wild) their words not mine:
> http://www.wapiti.net/1999adisc/Default.htm
> 
> Re: The Risks of Line Breeding
> From: antler333
> Location: co
> Date: 11/13/99
> 
> Comments (On The Risks of Line Breeding)


As they describe in the discussion line breeding is a concentration of existing traits. There is no new genes introduced. So this is not "genetic pollution". There is no boogeyman in selective breeding. If a bred animal escapes and the traits bred for are a disadvantage then the animal ends up as bird s**t soon enough.

The domestic dog is a genetic nightmare. Here they have perpetuated all kinds of "mutations". If these dogs are let loose they end up as bird s**t.


----------



## angus 1

NONE of you supporters are answering my quetion. Plainsman you have avoided this question.

Does PETA support this law?

IF PETA was the one circulating this petition would you guys still sign it. ??

How are the hunters of ND going to explain their way out of this law when PETA does step up and either give money or time to the cause. ?

If disease is such a concern why would these farms be able to continue raising their animals?

I would like to have an answer to these questions and I'm sure there are others who would like them answered to . These quetions are simple yes or no quetions so don't try to spin them .


----------



## Plainsman

Plainsman said:


> Your trying to twist four ways at once in this debate, and it isn't going anywhere so I think I will just watch.


Seriously those questions are absolutely to silly to answer angus. I will not lower myself to childish debate. You know the answer, so why ask it? I thought you were above starting a whiz match, but I guess I misjudged.

I notice when I stop posting you guy just get more radical, but I refuse to get involved further with non productive debate. Perhaps someone else will engage you when you get serious.


----------



## angus 1

I am serious. When the sportsmen of ND are on the same side as PETA that is serious and by not seeing what you guys are doing is childish. I've looked at the PETA site they are well aware of what you guys are doing and support you. I'm not the one who has lowered my standards.

You are after these game farms now and then you WILL come after HOGs , chickens ,turkeys and what ever else in raise and killed in a confined area.

Call me a radical but I have no ties to any radical group such as peta . To bad you guys can't say the same.

Now Why won't anyone answer these questions??

Plainsman I'm disappointed in you . You spun this.

The owernship of private property is the cornerstone to a free society.


----------



## g/o

Angus, Plainsman always runs and hides when faced with a question he can't answer. I don't know about PETA but yes they are endorsed by the Humane Society

http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/ba ... tives.html


----------



## angus 1

I can't believe no one will answer. I'm just a dumb cowboy who wants simple answers to simple questions.


----------



## g/o

> If disease is such a concern why would these farms be able to continue raising their animals?


Angus, They will now answer this by saying it's only about "fair chase" but they always bring up the disease issue as the main argument.


----------



## angus 1

angus 1 said:


> NONE of you supporters are answering my quetion. Plainsman you have avoided this question.
> 
> Does PETA support this law?
> 
> IF PETA was the one circulating this petition would you guys still sign it. ??
> 
> How are the hunters of ND going to explain their way out of this law when PETA does step up and either give money or time to the cause. ?
> 
> If disease is such a concern why would these farms be able to continue raising their animals?
> 
> I would like to have an answer to these questions and I'm sure there are others who would like them answered to . These quetions are simple yes or no quetions so don't try to spin them .


I want some answers. 
Are Hogs next?

I'm not the brightest person , can hardly spell my name some days. I really think we need to do a poll and ask the question: If PETA was circulating the VERY SAME petition as ND Hunters for Fair Chase would you sign it?

I want some clear non spun answers.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> BBJ, I don't think that is a realistic premise. Someone has just frightened you with propaganda.





g/o said:


> http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/ba ... tives.html


 :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

Looks like their in bed together to me, humane society even gives a link to the fair chase website on how their members can "get involved".

Looks like my "unrealistic premise" just got a little more realistic. :eyeroll:


----------



## Ref

I'll answer the question from my personal point of view. I would not support a petition sponsored by PETA.

I know that you guys are going to spin this to your liking, but to me, there is a HUGE difference between those groups supporting me and me supporting them. You are going to say that the end result is the same, but the road traveled to get there is totally different. High fenced shooting is wrong and if they want to agree with me, that's their choice.


----------



## angus 1

Will you stand with them or against them when they come after the livestock industry , hogs , turkeys ect?

They are standing with you I'm just afraid that you guys may return the favor.

Once again I don't agree with the fenced hunts but its LANDOWNER RIGHTS


----------



## Ref

Angus 1,

I don't look at them "doing a favor" for me. I have tons of farmer friends who I support 100%. In fact, I pulled my bride off of the farm 37 years ago.


----------



## g/o

Ref, Good post and I see where you are coming from. I would not shoot an animal in fenced enclosed area either. I don't feel however if you want you should not be allowed to, should be your choice. The measure is for fair chase, not disease as Dick Monson says, fine. Fine I can go along with that as soon as you can explain to me why it's not fair chase when you shoot a buffalo in an enclosed area.


----------



## Longshot

angus 1 said:


> Will you stand with them or against them when they come after the livestock industry , hogs , turkeys ect?
> 
> They are standing with you I'm just afraid that you guys may return the favor.
> 
> Once again I don't agree with the fenced hunts but its LANDOWNER RIGHTS


You are way off base angus 1. Calling those that don't support high fenced shooting sellouts is disgraceful. You know the true answer would be no, but you like the shock value to try to give yourself some type of leverage in a debate.

I'm sure PETA would support BBJ and others in the banning of scopes on muzzleloaders also. Would you think that they in turn would vote to ban all modern firearms to return the favor? I didn't think so.


----------



## barebackjack

Longshot said:


> I'm sure PETA would support BBJ and others in the banning of scopes on muzzleloaders also. Would you think that they in turn would vote to ban all modern firearms to return the favor? I didn't think so.


Im sure they probably would, if I wanted to completely ban scopes, which I dont. Only in a specific season (which I might add is a public season, using public wildlife) for the use of a more PRIMITIVE weapon. But thats neither here nor there.


----------



## Plainsman

> there is a HUGE difference between those groups supporting me and me supporting them.


That was to good not to rejoin this to complement you ref. I thought that would be obvious to everyone, and I have been waiting for that very post. If I had said it we know some people would jump all over it.

I will not tell anyone who I sent this PM to, but I will share it now:



> My take would be a little different. I think bad organizations and bad people sometimes do something good. If I was drowning and someone from PETA offered me a life preserver (with no strings attached) I would take it.
> If PETA distributed the petitions I would be suspicious. If they explained that it was intended to preserve fair chase hunting I would sign it. I don't believe in stopping something good simply because someone I don't like is doing it. If PETA wanted to send $10 million in jerky, candy, outdoor life magazines to our troops in Iraq I would support it.
> I thought angus1 question was simply intended as character assassination. If he can't attack the measure, then attack the messenger.


If PETA ever attacks beef, chicken, or pork I will be right there beside angus1, even if he makes me out as a PETA lover today.


----------



## angus 1

I'm not attacking anyones character. And I have discredited many things said about this topic . I'm not mad or upset or anything of the such. The bad thing about email/computer is that you can't hear the way its being said.

I just want the truth to get out, That we in the livestock industry are soon going to be under attack.


----------



## Ref

G/O,

Again, this is my personal opinion. I am against high fenced bison shootings as well. It almost seems worse because of the appearance and mobility of a bison to be able to escape danger compared to an elk or whitetail deer.

If you would put a huge net over your CRP field (even if the field was a square mile) so that those roosters had no chance of getting away, I'd be against your operation too.

I think it has been stated here before that this measure is not going to convince PETA or Humane Society members to come over to our side. But it will have an impact on the non-hunting public sitting on the fence. We need to have them either come to our side or stay where they are .....on the fence and not go over to Peta's side. If they see that we are trying to keep our act clean, ie. fair chase, it will help convince them to keep an open mind about those of us who love to hunt.


----------



## Plainsman

> I just want the truth to get out, That we in the livestock industry are soon going to be under attack.


Then I will be voicing my opinion in your support as strongly as I voice my opinion now for fair chase. If the time comes call me and tell me what I can do. That's not an idle offer. 
I don't look to see who is on who's side before making my decisions. I also don't give a rip if my opinion is popular or not. My only concern is if it is the right thing to do. 
Opposition only strengthens my resolve. I may not have got involved and certainly wouldn't have been a sponsored had it not been for the attitude of g/o on this site. You may think that's a joke, but I am dead serious. That attitude has also produced a lot of PM's in support and requests for signing a petition. There are about three people on this site that have generated a lot of requests to sign petitions and I just can't stop laughing. What they think is good argument time after time has turned against them. I perhaps should have kept my mouth shut about that, but it's just to funny. That's the only reason I have stuck with this debate that goes nowhere. To let them keep drowning.


----------



## barebackjack

Ref said:


> If they see that we are trying to keep our act clean, ie. fair chase, it will help convince them to keep an open mind about those of us who love to hunt.


I think your putting far to much stock into the general non-hunting american public.


----------



## Ref

BBJ,

You might be right, but I'd rather try to convince the fence sitters through our actions, than doing nothing and having them think that the fair chase hunting contingent condones high fence shootings just because the owners want to call then "hunts".


----------



## Plainsman

barebackjack said:


> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure PETA would support BBJ and others in the banning of scopes on muzzleloaders also. Would you think that they in turn would vote to ban all modern firearms to return the favor? I didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> Im sure they probably would, if I wanted to completely ban scopes, which I dont. Only in a specific season (which I might add is a public season, using public wildlife) for the use of a more PRIMITIVE weapon. But thats neither here nor there.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point BBJ. The point was you wouldn't vote to ban all firearms simply because they supported you banning scopes. It makes no difference if you really wanted to ban scopes or not, that wasn't the point. It really was a complement to you if you read it correctly.


----------



## angus 1

99% of the time I disagree with g/o myself. 
But I think I have held my own pretty good in this friendly debate. But still no one has answered my questions. It was over 2 hours after I first posted it before I got any repsonse . And then when I did get a response you guys ganged up on me pretty good. You mention g/o getting more people to sign than not well , Monson has admitted to being against hog farms and that in my mind is an attack on the livestock industry, and my livelyhood.

We know its not about disease,or else the ranches would not be allowed to keep raising the animals. Eithic's ? I don't know about that either .You must include all confined animals for slaughter and that is a problem for me and should be for everyone this evening who sits down for a nice meal containing meat from a farm. So your just saying it is the right thing to do?


----------



## Plainsman

> You must include all confined animals for slaughter


Your wrong, I don't have to do that. If you have to fine, but I don't have to and I don't. I have a nice pork loin upstairs in the crock pot right now. I drenched it in Italian dressing, sprinkled it with Mrs. Dash, threw in some carrots, onions, and a couple of potatoes. I don't give a rats behind how it died, only what it taste like in a couple of hours. Hypocritical, nope. I distinguish between true domestication and wild animals in confinement. Argue that point if you want, but people that don't agree simply want all ranchers on the high fence side. I see a huge difference in domestic and wild, be thankful for it.



> So your just saying it is the right thing to do?


Yup.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ref



> If they see that we are trying to keep our act clean, ie. fair chase, it will help convince them to keep an open mind about those of us who love to hunt.


How is this measure doing this....keeping our, the non-high fence, hunters act clean?

I would rather see enforcement on these operations to keep them "Clean". Then have tighter or better enforcement of penalties for the violators of the current game laws. These actions will show more of keeping things "Clean" or enforcing our own.

Because the non-hunting public, which everyone is worried about, will still see poaching, game violations and what not as a big no-no. Then the PETA types will convince them that see the hunting public needs a ban. They will use the argument ..look they banned high fenced but yet they can't police the rest of it. Think about it. They will use the banning of high fenced operations as vehicle to push there agenda.

I see all sides and respect all sides to this debate. I look at things from both views and have made my opinions. But to those that are on the "Ban" side that don't see that PETA will use this as a vehicle are looking at this issue with blinders on.

That is why I have stated over and over. Regulate and enforce the industry is the way to go. Now that is policing "your own".


----------



## g/o

Ref, I respect your feelings that you are against buffalo hunting also. That is why I can't support this measure, as far I'm concerned it is not treating everyone fairly. Ask any cattleman about the diseases buffalo carry and you will soon find out disease is a concern also.



> I think it has been stated here before that this measure is not going to convince PETA or Humane Society members to come over to our side


This state I have to take issue with you on. When the Humane society puts on its website to support this measure. Members will, come to your aid.


----------



## angus 1

In gathering your signatures why is it your only hanging out at the Sport Shows. If disease is such an issue shouldn't every cattleman out there be in support of this. Why not take the petition to the local Sale Barn or to an Ag Show? Are you guys struggling to get signatures?


----------



## g/o

> I may not have got involved and certainly wouldn't have been a sponsored had it not been for the attitude of g/o on this site. You may think that's a joke, but I am dead serious. That attitude has also produced a lot of PM's in support and requests for signing a petition. There are about three people on this site that have generated a lot of requests to sign petitions and I just can't stop laughing.


Plainsman what a crock :lol: :lol: lets see when someone mentions farmers are going to be posting land because of this you get all kinds of signatures also. I got to hand it to you, that quite an imagination you have. :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith

I have a question for everyone who is for this bill....

If you don't have a problem with a farmer or someone who pays a farmer to go out into a pasture and shoot a steer. Why do you have a problem with that same farmer but all you do is change the steer to a pen raised elk or deer?

What is the difference? Or if you have a problem with the steer aspect, Why?

Please answer me these questions?


----------



## Ref

g/o,

By "our side", I meant the hunting culture, not just the side that I support on this measure. I don't think that PETA or Humane Society members will ever support fair chase hunting...but the fence sitters might. The longer that we can keep the fence sitter from going to the other side, the longer our hunting culture wil exist.


----------



## angus 1

A steer and a pen raised elk are both domestic . Chuck , this is what I'm getting at if they word this wrong every farmer out there is now in trouble.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman what a crock lets see when someone mentions farmers are going to be posting land because of this you get all kinds of signatures also. I got to hand it to you, that quite an imagination you have.


No crock g/o you convinced me more than anyone else to push hard on this measure. Your attitude now will only make me work harder. You convinced me that the attitude of high fence operations is arrogance. They also convinced me when they fought all regulations. Then there is always that remark: "didn't do to well in the legislature did you". They were right and that's why were going to the voting booth.

More posted land???   I really doubt it, behind closed doors many farmers will sign this petition. You know we all grew up with the attitude that no matter what little Johnny did we shouldn't rat him out to the teacher. Now as adults we have grown out of that and don't tolerate little Johnny. Farmers don't want little Johnny retaliating, but they will sign the petition when little Johnny isn't watching. Nice try on the blackmail though.   

I sure hope no one is paying you to represent them.


----------



## angus 1

Did the Humane Society pay for your both at the Bismarck Sport Show.?


----------



## Ref

I look at elk and deer as "wild, free-roaming" animals. I certainly do not look at a steer with the same view. I'm almost to the point of feeling sorry for the elk inside the fence. Every day of their life is laid out for them. Not so with the wild ones.

Time to go and work a ballgame.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ref,

Thanks for the reply. But the thing that you are not realizing is that these animals are raised in a pen every day of there life. Just like a steer. I think that is what people is confusing about this issue. They think that these animals in the high fenced operations are just like the ones you see outside of the fence. BUT THEY ARE NOT. They are farm raised.

Thanks for your input. And watch those blocking fouls down low. :lol:


----------



## g/o

Ref, We both feel the same about fence sitters except in a different way. As cities like Fargo become more urban they loose touch with rural ND. Many do not hunt or even have a clue what we are talking about. These people will jump on your band wagon and maybe you will succeed in killing high fence shooting. What happens down the line? What will be next?


----------



## g/o

> It kind of makes me feel bad that a person I like on here has just created the most requests to sign. The comment about everything will be posted and access will be tough just ticked people off. That wasn't a good public relations move.


Plainsman this what you said to someone you like. I guarantee it sure as hell WASN'T ME. :lol:



> didn't do to well in the legislature did you"


I don't know if I said that or not but its a fact isn't it. Unlike you I have faith in the legislature and respect them.

Now as far as signing your petition I'd be glad to sign it. I will never turn someone down from having the right to vote on something. Will I vote for it in the booth, hell no!!!! Getting signatures are easy.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman this what you said to someone you like. I guarantee it sure as hell WASN'T ME.


That statement was correct, and no it wasn't you. The affect was short lived, but it was helpful. It generated about four fast PM's, then died down. I referred them to the fair chase web site. What reminded me of it was your comment about posted land.



> Now as far as signing your petition I'd be glad to sign it.


Crip g/o, your just shocked the heck out of me. Careful, of my heart, I'm kind of old you know. Congratulations and welcome to America. I am pleasantly surprised, and now I'm just going to my lazy boy and sit and ponder this. I might scratch my head a little too, maybe a lot.

The reason I did sponsor this measure was because all other avenues looked fruitless. You were influential in that you always stick up for outfitters even the bad ones. The high fence operators all but flipped us of at the legislature. What choice do we have? I don't want to see high fence operations exist so I'm not interested in negotiations anymore either. I want to see them banned from this entire nation, including Texas. The longer they exist the longer they endanger sport hunting. The sooner they follow the dinosaurs the better off we (hunters and landowners) will be. That's right in the larger cities (not North Dakota)some people blame the landowner more than the guy pulling the trigger.


----------



## walker

Ref said:


> I look at elk and deer as "wild, free-roaming" animals. I certainly do not look at a steer with the same view. I'm almost to the point of feeling sorry for the elk inside the fence. Every day of their life is laid out for them. Not so with the wild ones.


I assume then you are going to push for laws closing your local Zoos.

I don't associate human feelings with animals, myself.


----------



## g/o

> What reminded me of it was your comment about posted land.


Plainsman, what comment?

Yes Plainsman welcome to America. I unlike you still respect the fact that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Don't scratch to hard, you don't have much gray matter left. :lol:


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, what comment?


You will have to read back yourself. There is nothing gained by embarrassing anyone.



> I unlike you still respect the fact that someone is innocent until proven guilty.


Actually that's just like me. I guess we have something in common, but what's the connection.



> Don't scratch to hard, you don't have much gray matter left.


The hair I still have is grey, does that count?

I'm out of here, I have a meeting in 20 minutes.


----------



## Longshot

angus 1 said:


> We know its not about disease,or else the ranches would not be allowed to keep raising the animals. Eithic's ? I don't know about that either .You must include all confined animals for slaughter and that is a problem for me and should be for everyone this evening who sits down for a nice meal containing meat from a farm. So your just saying it is the right thing to do?


Nice threat, but you can only post land once. Most everything is already posted around here so what would change? No you don't have to include all confined animals. You just want it to seem so to scare those who aren't informed (i.e. those on the fence).


----------



## Ref

Just got home from the game.

Chuck, focus on the defensive player, not the offensive player just prior to the contact and you'll get the block/charge call right. 

Walker, I'm not in favor of closing the zoo. I haven't seen where a zoo makes money off of letting someone come in and shoot one of their fenced-in animals.


----------



## Savage260

I don't believe you "pros" fully appreciate the fallout this measure is going to cause if it passes. You all are on this great crusade to save hunting. This measure is going to do more to kill our hunting in the minds of the uninformed masses than leaving these operations open. I don't mind a small minority of the uninformed masses thinking hunters are evil, stupid,mean, what ever the hell they want to think. This measure isn't going to change any one's mind on the issue. How can you all be so near sighted to think that it will??? Passing this measure is akin to slitting our own throats. It will be another battle won for the antis, and the uninformed masses will stay mostly uninformed, and not give a crap what happened. Those minds that are changed will change from "I don't care" to "ok they shut down another operation I know nothing about, but if they shut it down it must be bad." What will be next? Guide services? Bow hunting? This measure will do nothing to help hunting in the eyes of the uninformed masses. I don't know how many times it needs to be said before you people realize it.

Tunnel vision is very deadly. Time to take the blinders off and take a look at the big picture, not just your pet project.


----------



## walker

Ref said:


> Walker, I'm not in favor of closing the zoo. I haven't seen where a zoo makes money off of letting someone come in and shoot one of their fenced-in animals.


I didn't think you would be. So the ethics argument of all those in favor of closing high fence preserves goes something like this ...

It is okay to shoot cattle in a pen.
It is okay to keep elk in a pen.
It is okay to shoot elk not in a pen.
It is not okay to shoot elk in a pen.

No consistency in the argument. It is based on pure emotion. Same kind of emotion my daughter uses when she sees a "poor" kitty.


----------



## cwoparson

> Walker, I'm not in favor of closing the zoo. I haven't seen where a zoo makes money off of letting someone come in and shoot one of their fenced-in animals.


I think the point is do you think it is ethical to keep a animal captured in the wild locked in a pen with a concrete floor, fed unnatural food just for your viewing pleasure? Maybe you do, maybe you don't. Ethics is a personal choice.


----------



## Plainsman

> This measure is going to do more to kill our hunting in the minds of the uninformed masses than leaving these operations open.


I'm glad you brought this up. My primary concern is that the practice is unethical. I would make a poor citizen of New York, because I wouldn't be able to walk past a woman being mugged either. However, I have a very important secondary motivation also, that directly links to your premise. You see PETA is doing their best to inform the uninformed masses you speak of. PETA wants people to think all hunters are this unsportsmanlike. That is the black eye I speak of. So we are between a rock and a hard place. Do we let PETA tell the story of unethical hunters, or do we remove the practice, and in the process show the public that the average hunter is a sportsman, respects fair chase, and is capable of self regulation.



> I don't mind a small minority of the uninformed masses thinking hunters are evil, stupid,mean, what ever the hell they want to think.


I agree, it is something we may have to just live with. However, I don't want this small minority turning the majority into the misinformed majority. That is the problem we currently face. We can not turn out back on that and wait for it to disappear. That would not be near sighted, but blind to an imminent problem.



> Tunnel vision is very deadly. Time to take the blinders off and take a look at the big picture.


I totally agree laite, and please interpret my comments as food for thought and not simply arguing with you. The world is a very complex place, and simply hating PETA will not do. We need to be smarter. It should be easy, because they have underestimated us as stupid neanderthals. It's always lethal to underestimate your foe.

Here is some more food for thought.

As you know I was a wildlife biologist. About ten years ago a person working for me (just finished her PhD through Woods Hole Institute) told me this joke
Three guys die and go to heaven. At the Pearly Gates St. Peter is talking with them He asks the first guy what did you do in life. He says he was a physics professor. St. Peter says Wow what was your IQ? The guy says 160. St. Peter says we will have to get together some day and talk about Quantum Physics. St. Peter asks the next guy what did you do on earth? The guy says I was a professor of Philosophy. St. Peter says Wow what was your IQ? The guy says 150. St Peter says well have to get together and discuss the theory of relativity some time. The third guy comes before St. Peter and St Peter asks what did you do on earth. The guy says I was a truck driver. St. Peter says Wow, what was your IQ? The guy says 60. St. Peter says Wow, well have to get together some time and talk about, about, about, --------hunting.

My question is are we satisfied with society thinking this about us? Are we happy with a college professor telling this joke to his biology students? Are we willing to ignore, and will ignoring make us safe, or respected?


----------



## Ref

I think that you are spinning off of the subject here, although I will answer the zoo question. I think that a zoo is more of an educational tool than for viewing pleasure. For most people that will never see a wild elk or whitetail, it's probably a combination of both. I might enjoy being able to see an elephant or giraffe because I will not see them in the wild. But I do not really "enjoy" seeing an elk or whitetail in a zoo because I can relate to seeing them in their natural, wild environment. I cannot compare a zoo to your high-fence shooting arena.

Any person that can shoot an elk inside your fence can do the same in the wild. That includes the handicapped. I have a firend that is paralyzed from the neck down. Every year, he is taken out in his wheelchair to a ground blind. He uses a special trigger mechanism. He shoots a deer every year. Your clients are only paying you for the "sure thing" opportunity. You might say that your clients are not batting 1000%. But that usually is because of choice to pull the trigger or time constraints. That's why the fence is there! Most elk hunters take at least a week to go hunting. It's hard for me to believe that after a full week inside your fence that a person cannot pull the trigger.

For me, this issue goes back to fair chase.


----------



## Turner

Plainsman said:


> This measure is going to do more to kill our hunting in the minds of the uninformed masses than leaving these operations open.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you brought this up. My primary concern is that the practice is unethical. I would make a poor citizen of New York, because I wouldn't be able to walk past a woman being mugged either. However, I have a very important secondary motivation also, that directly links to your premise. You see PETA is doing their best to inform the uninformed masses you speak of. PETA wants people to think all hunters are this unsportsmanlike. That is the black eye I speak of. So we are between a rock and a hard place. Do we let PETA tell the story of unethical hunters, or do we remove the practice, and in the process show the public that the average hunter is a sportsman, respects fair chase, and is capable of self regulation.
Click to expand...

Wow Plainsman, your getting closer to the correct way of thinking. You said a mouth full when you talked about self regulation, I am impressed.

You say that us "ethical" hunters have to stick together and BAN (not regulate) these high fence operations because we say they are unethical and BANNING (not regulate) is the only option in order to show the uninformed and the non-hunting groups that we can police our own? By the tactics you are using to control this, you and PETA are showing the public that since we can not control something we need to BAN it (not regulate). So, I ask you, since we have countless poaching, hunting, and fishing violations with in our "ethical" group of free range hunters and the laws we have in place does not stop the repeat offenders why stop at just BANNING the high fence shooting of animals? You are acting so vain, pompous, self-righteous and close minded about this you cannot see that PETA is riding shotgun with you and just waiting for you to get off the stage coach so they can continue right on using your same tactics to reach their final goal, all with your help. PETA could care less if an animal is killed in a fenced in area or standing on mountain side, killing is killing to them no matter how you look at it.


----------



## Savage260

> PETA wants people to think all hunters are this unsportsmanlike. That is the black eye I speak of.


No, PETA wants to end killing animals. They couldn't care less if the killing is sportsman like or not.



> I don't want this small minority turning the majority into the misinformed majority.


We seem to be ignoring the fact that America is taking a turn for the worse. Most people don't care about things that don't concern them. Be it peta, NRA, or average joe. The uninformed will stay mostly uninformed. Some will turn into hunters some will turn into haters, but most will just not care. This measure won't reach nearly enough people to do what you want it to. It will hurt enough people to make a big difference on the other side of the fence. Again (they banned this so it must have been bad. Now they are trying to ban bowhunting so it must be bad.) (average uninformed public opinion)



> The world is a very complex place, and simply hating PETA will not do. We need to be smarter. It should be easy, because they have underestimated us as stupid neanderthals. It's always lethal to underestimate your foe.


I don't "hate"peta, and I don't think you do either. I am sure they have some very brilliant people working for them. I wouldn't underestimate them in the least, but this issue isn't about them. It is about the fact that this measure will hurt hunting in public opinion by "banning an evil (not so bad really)practice".

Which headline grabs your attention more? (which would you look at if you were the uninformed masses??)

Elk Ranchers Banned for Unethical Killing of Pen Raised Animals

or

Elk "Hunts" Regulated More Closely by the State of ND


----------



## cwoparson

Since you referred to the words "viewing pleasure" I have to assume you were referring to my post. Yet you also said "your high-fence shooting arena", "your clients", and "inside your fence". Since I am not affiliated with none of these operations, have never used one and have no intention to do so it seems to me your assumptions are meant to give a black eye to anyone that has a opinion different than your own. I've never seen a dodo bird or a dinosaur but I know about them and what they look like. A zoo was not needed for the education.

Zoo animals in my opinion are caged for the simple reason of pleasure for the viewer. As you said yourself you enjoy seeing a elephant or giraffe in a zoo but not a Elk or Whitetail deer which is how some see all the animals in a zoo and consider the practice as unethical. I think that was the point Walker was making. If Elk and Deer have the right to be free roaming animals then animals in a zoo have that same right. Personally like Walker, I don't attach human emotions to animals and I don't think animals have rights. Except for the two mutts that have taken over my couch this morning.


----------



## cwoparson

> but most will just not care


The sad and scary part is when this is over with they still won't care but will side with the side that spends the most money and puts on the best show.


----------



## Chuck Smith

I see nobody, but ref, answered my questions.

Here they are again:


> If you don't have a problem with a farmer or someone who pays a farmer to go out into a pasture and shoot a steer. Why do you have a problem with that same farmer but all you do is change the steer to a pen raised elk or deer?
> 
> What is the difference? Or if you have a problem with the steer aspect, Why?


So this is my questioning of ethic's that people keep talking about. How is it ethical to shoot a steer but not ethical to shoot the elk in this situation. Both are domesticated, both are raised livestock, both are being purchased and slaughtered. What is the difference?

Just think about that when people preach of ethics.


----------



## Ref

cwoparson,

I apologize for the misuse of my words in my post. When I used the word "your", I was referring to the high-fenced operations. I guess I used the word "your" for anyone that is in favor of these operations.

I understand your position on a zoo. That doesn't mean that I agree with it. A huge part of the education about an animal would be able to see it in person. For alot of people, a zoo is educational.

I think that we need to get back to the fair chase issue.


----------



## Savage260

> The sad and scary part is when this is over with they still won't care but will side with the side that spends the most money and puts on the best show.


Isn't that the sad truth???


----------



## Plainsman

> I think that we need to get back to the fair chase issue.


Bingo. Zoos, steers in pastures, PETA, it's all just throwing dust in the air in the hopes of obscuring the target. If they can't dazzle with brilliance baffle with BS. That's why they keep asking questions. It's to keep you on the defensive. They have their ideas, we have ours. Now we will see who the electorate agrees with. We will not convince those we debate. How often have we said that it isn't PETA that we are trying to convince, but the non hunters, only to have them ask the same question two pages later in the same thread. Over, and over, and over the same questions are asked, and now they want them answered again. It's time to hang it up and let some people talk to themselves. 
Don't fall for them getting nastier and nastier to get you to come back and play with them.


----------



## Turner

Plainsman said:


> Over, and over, and over the same questions are asked, and now they want them answered again.


They are asked over and over again because you have failed to answer them. How can this be a debate if you do not answer the questions that are asked to you? Even if you do not think the questions are good enough to answer or you think you are above answering them, obviously some one thought they were important enough to ask. You owe them the respect to answer them, not with a spin, but with a direct answer.


----------



## Plainsman

Turner said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over, and over, and over the same questions are asked, and now they want them answered again.
> 
> 
> 
> They are asked over and over again because you have failed to answer them. How can this be a debate if you do not answer the questions that are asked to you? Even if you do not think the questions are good enough to answer or you think you are above answering them, obviously some one thought they were important enough to ask. You owe them the respect to answer them, not with a spin, but with a direct answer.
Click to expand...

If you go through all the threads about this subject you will see that nearly every question has been answered multiple times. Asking again is just being difficult. Not answering them 50 more times is not being disrespectful. I would guess that was simply a ploy to get me to come back and play. No thanks I have a 2X6 handy right here that I can bang my head against. I think it is disrespectful to ask a question over and over, no one owes anyone an answer. You know what they call it when you keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result? They call it insanity. I'm tired of looking for different results. I think this thread should just die.


----------



## angus 1

Plainsman said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your trying to twist four ways at once in this debate, and it isn't going anywhere so I think I will just watch.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously those questions are absolutely to silly to answer angus. I will not lower myself to childish debate. You know the answer, so why ask it? I thought you were above starting a whiz match, but I guess I misjudged.
> 
> I notice when I stop posting you guy just get more radical, but I refuse to get involved further with non productive debate. Perhaps someone else will engage you when you get serious.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't answer my questions and they were simple yes or no questions.

I'm not getting a booth at an ag show or anything but I went to the local cenex today and the local cafe this morning with some of the things said on here that I have been collecting over the past few months. The locals really didn't like the fact that Monson was against hog farms , especially when we have 2 that employ quite a few people . They didn't like being compared to pimps, welfare recips, greedy farmers and the list went on. I also let them in on the fact that the ND Hunters for Fair Chase are holding hands with the Humane Society and Peta, which really didn't go over very well. I encourage every one of them to post their property and not let anyone hunt it . I offered to pay for the signs and help put them up.Which is No different than an endorsement from the radical groups you are in bed with.

You supports of this bill over the past week made it very clear that you are against landowners. Sitting in town why would you care about us farmers and cattlemen ? The TRUTH has been written not only in this topic but other topics , on the true feelings about landowners , farmers and us cattlemen .Someone even wrote it on the Bismarck Forum blog that we landowers are hated by hunters and refered to this site! If this passes so be it we will still win come hunting season . You think access is a problem now , well in my local area it just got a whole lot worse today.

Give up a freedom for temporary safety , You deserve neither safety or freedom. 
May God bless the American Farmer.


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> My primary concern is that the practice is unethical. I would make a poor citizen of New York, because I wouldn't be able to walk past a woman being mugged either.
> ...
> It should be easy, because they have underestimated us as stupid neanderthals.


Their tactics are the tried and true tactics of relentless unending propaganda. Very small pressure applied over very long periods of time. It is working too. I'm willing to bet all of our grandfathers and great grandfathers would laugh at us having the debate over the ethics of shooting an elk in a pen.

I think ethics are absolute. The ethics of a good Samaritan was just as valid 2000 years ago as it is today. The ethics of shooting an animal in a pen is just as valid today as it was 2000 years ago.



Plainsman said:


> Are we happy with a college professor telling this joke to his biology students?


We can't appease them. Not possible.


----------



## walker

Turner said:


> By the tactics you are using to control this, you and PETA are showing the public that since we can not control something we need to BAN it (not regulate).





laite319 said:


> Elk Ranchers Banned for Unethical Killing of Pen Raised Animals
> or
> Elk "Hunts" Regulated More Closely by the State of ND


Very good points. I had not thought of that perspective.


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> That's why they keep asking questions. It's to keep you on the defensive.


No, it's called the Socratic Method. It is a very effective way to show an illogical or irrational position. If your position was sound the answers to the questions would be easy and support your position.


----------

