# Former NDGF Directors Support Measure 2



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Published October 29 2010 
*High-fence shooting a disgrace to the outdoor heritage of ND*
For more than 30 years, we've worked on behalf of North Dakota sportsmen and women and all citizens who enjoy wildlife and value North Dakota's outdoor heritage. 
By: Lloyd Jones, Larry Kruckenberg and Keith Trego, INFORUM

For more than 30 years, we've worked on behalf of North Dakota sportsmen and women and all citizens who enjoy wildlife and value North Dakota's outdoor heritage. As both conservation professionals and hunters deeply concerned about the future of North Dakota's outdoor heritage, we strongly encourage a "yes" vote on ballot Measure 2.

Shooting traditionally wild animals confined in a high fence is not ethical, does not display sportsmanship and is not in the best interest of continued fair-chase hunting. If not eliminated, high-fence, or "canned," shooting will damage the future of sport hunting in North Dakota. Voting "yes" on Measure 2 will put an end to this indefensible activity.

The common thread that binds both hunters and the nonhunting public's acceptance of hunting (fewer than 10 percent of our population hunts) is the consistent display of ethics and the sense of fair play embodied by true sportsmanship.

Shooting an animal that is confined in a fence has none of these attributes. Success measured by effort, sportsmanship and the universal bond of fair chase and respect for wildlife is absent. No attribute of why true sportsmen or women hunt is present behind the high fence. When the gate closes, the hunt is over.

High-fence shooting is a disgrace to our outdoor heritage, goes against every principle of fair chase and is contradictory to every rational thought about what hunting is or has ever been. To even imply it is hunting conjures a dirty and disgusting image among nonhunters and most hunters alike. Shooting confined animals in a fence is a practice that has no place in North Dakota. We ask you to support the future of traditional hunting in North Dakota and vote "yes" on Measure 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jones, Baldwin, N.D., is former director of the N.D. Game and Fish Dept.; Kruckenberg, Cheyenne, Wyo., is former director of the N.D. Game and Fish Dept.; Trego, Bismarck, is former deputy director of the N.D. Game and Fish Dept.

Ta


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Boy that is a schocker


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Shooting traditionally* wild animals* confined in a high fence is not ethical, does not display sportsmanship and is not in the best interest of continued fair-chase hunting. If not eliminated, high-fence, or "canned," shooting will damage the future of sport hunting in North Dakota. Voting "yes" on Measure 2 will put an end to this indefensible activity.


Some Flaw in his statement..... These are not wild animals confined in fences. These are domestic animals


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

The statement says "TRADITIONALLY wild animals"..........

No need to re-hash this.....just pointing out the quote.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ref, are buffalo "traditionally" wild animals?


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

GST,

I'm not going to get into your game of questions. I merely corrected the post about a quote.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE #2


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

Ref said:


> GST,
> 
> I'm not going to get into your game of questions. I merely corrected the post about a quote.
> 
> VOTE YES ON MEASURE #2


IT seems that these people have something to gain for their own purposes by supporting M2. 
Maybe more power for them in their Current positions. Or maybe they will have the chance to buy the property of one of these Ranches being forced out of business. Maybe some of these ranches are next to their property and they want it?
Yeah, that sounds about right. *

Lets see here: Life, Liberity and the pursuit of Happiness.* 
Seems to me that those values are being violated by measure 2. 
People imposing their "feelings" upon a group who have been investing, working, paying taxes, and of course operating within the guidelines of current law.
With this vote on a Poorly Written measure, your willing to flush all their hardwork and investment down the tiolet. 
*Your Un-American!* 
Just so you can have some "warm fuzzy feeling" inside take away Personal Property Rights.
*That is Un-American*! 
To tie the very hands which labor to put food on your table, so you can feel good about yourself.
*Yeah, not only Un-American but STUPID! * 
I support the Ranchers, Farmers who don't want to be told how they must operate on theri property. Now if it were an illegal activity that these Game Ranchers were involved in I could understand passing such a measure.
The current LAW allows their businesses to operate within our states border.
*I think that if measure 2 passes, we should take a proposal to the ND Legislature which will compensate the Game Ranchers for their losses.* *
After all we are voting to take the very food from their families mouths. *
Maybe in the next election there will be a measure that will vote your investment capital into complete ruin. *
What seed are we planting which will haunt us later.*

*VOTE NO on Measure 2!*


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ref... I understand the "traditionally" part. But yet they are still calling them wild animals. When they are domestic. That is the point I am making....People keep calling these animals wild....or traditionally wild that is creating a cloud. When in fact these animals are domestic.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

NDeaglei,

Your first paragraph sounds like a stretch.........grasping at straws.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE #2


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

Chuck, I think that is a very key point. The elk inside that fence is looked at as a wild animal in a pen. That is the way the public looks at it. That is the way I look at it. That is the way that the operators sell it. You and I will be in the grave a long time before the public looks at those elk as they do cows.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE #2


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

But it wasn' the general public who brought this measure forward. This was a NONISSUE with the general public.

And that is the real issue behind this measure isn't it -- that some do not believe these animals should be in captivity. That is why buffalo were not included in this measure. It is nothing to do with fair chase. That was only the emotion used to get the hunters on this board riled up -- and this board was the launching platform.

It is a select few of individuals who are wildlife biologists, G&F, US Geological Survey federal employees, Valerius Geists, Jim Posewitzs, who feel that these animals belong to the public, were stolen from the public, and that is why there is an attempt to cloud the distinction of wild and privately owned animals, going so far as telling people in the gathering of signatures that the animals are stolen.

I believe some have overstepped boundaries here. Mr. Lloyd Jones using his federal office to send out an email with a position statement, Mr. Kaseman being allowed to collect signatures by setting up a booth at G&F hunter safety courses. What lengths will these people go to to support their "supposed" ethical cause?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> But it wasn't the general public who brought this measure forward. This was a NONISSUE with the general public.


BS. If it was a non-issue the voter survey would have indicated so. The exact opposite was the case when 83% of ladies & 67% of men said it has to go. The ND wildlife professionals of the ND Chapter of the Wildlife Society endorsed the measure. So it is hardly a surprise the former leadership of NDGF would do so too.

A non-issue? 27,000 people of ND signed the petition in both 2008 and 2010. Get real.

Check out the measure 2 endorsement page: http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/endorsements.htm


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

That was a BS loaded survey.

Mr. Monson, you are liar.

1. You stated several times (Dakota Country magazine) that feral hogs were brought into this state by canned hunt facilities. I contacted the USDA who oversaw this in our state. They said the origin of the hogs was never identified.



> Here are answers to your three questions:
> 
> 1) My agency has no regulatory authority over commercial hunting facilities. The ND Board of Animal Health could better answer your question.
> 
> ...


2. You stated two years ago on your website as a fact that internet hunting, the infamous style of Texas game farm hunting, would be banned with this measure. Internet hunting does not exist and is NOT used by these game farms. Here is what a tax auditor thought of your site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IekCDz3 ... re=related

3. You and Roger couldn't support the claim that tens of thousands of sportsman were represented at SB 2254. 




4. You stated on the radio last week, that the measure is so well written that it will still allow handicapped and disabled to use these facilities. If that was the case why didn't you tell that to Hunt of a Lifetime two years ago, as the wording has not changed. How will these facilities even stay in business to offer these charity hunts. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lLa6kqI ... 8FM1GKJtXo

5. You have stated several times that 200,000 from G&F is used to subsidize canned hunts, when you knew that the 200,000 was used to oversee all alternative livestock, including pheasant farms. Were you trying to bring contempt from the sportsmen on these facilities? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3ZNMQ2V ... emZcXJRQcc

6. And lastly how were a lot of those signatures obtained -- were the people told the truth. I was told the animals were stolen by Mr. Gary Masching, and when I argued with him, he actually came out from behind his booth and grabbed me by the arm wanting to continue our conversation as I attempted to leave the booth. I told him the conversation was over.

You are nothing but a bunch of egotistical ________.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Your personal feelings for me are the best accolades I could possibly desire. I thank you and am in your debt.

If you wish to discuss the feral hog situation you need to get up earlier in morning. I was in the APHIS office 3 years ago.








When they were first discovered they were on both sides of the fence. You think they parachuted in? The time sheets presented to me by APHIS showed an excess of $100,000 spent in liquidating feral hogs. Sportsmen pay twice. Now we have other exotics in the wild in ND besides pigs. Fallow deer have been reported around the state. ANS, noxious weeds, exotics...all the same.


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! All who are supporting measure 2 on three: The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Funny I can't seem to hear one unified voice supporting measure 2?

The people who support it will personally gain from its passage. Its another case of redristribution of wealth. Take from someone else's pocket to line their own, legally or not! Maybe some of the funds funneled into the state from the anti's is some supprter's pocket? We will never be told.
Take the wealth and property from hardworking Law abiding ranchers and farmers is UN-AMERICAN! These game ranchers have invested in land, feed, fences, in good faith under current law...... Now YOU the dicks of the world are going to wipe their investment off the map so you can have a warm "fuzzy feeling" inside.
REMEMBER it was "Game Ranchers who saved the American Bison, both from Montana and South Dakota. Without their efforts the Bison would be GONE! Sorry Dick, I disagree will your UN-American stance! 
Washing someone else's legal investment by a vote is same as STEALING! 
*I do support the Idea that if measure 2 passes, The ND Legislature should step forward and reinbruse the Game Ranchers who are put out of business. Maybe take it from G&F Licsense revenue! Now that's a great Idea!

If you choose to vote someone else's livihood away, YOU PAY! *

Now that would be a GREAT Bumper Sticker!
*
VOTE NO on the poorly written Measure 2. *


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Maybe take it from G&F Licsense revenue! Now that's a great Idea!


You know I have alway supported the state helping the high fence operators, but with statements like the above I am near changing my mind. If your serious about taking it from the Game and Fish then my response turns to your on your own.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ref said:


> Chuck, I think that is a very key point. The elk inside that fence is looked at as a wild animal in a pen. That is the way the public looks at it. That is the way I look at it. That is the way that the operators sell it. You and I will be in the grave a long time before the public looks at those elk as they do cows.
> 
> So ref, how doies the public look at buffalo, you do not wantto answer questions when they will have a negative result on this measure. You are beginning to fall into Dick and the other sponsors way of sticking their heads in the sand regarding the negatives of this measure. :roll:


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

Sorry GST, I'm not going to be "baited" into your question game. You can lump me with the sponsors if you wish (even though I told you that I am not one of them), I'm okay with being on their side on this issue. I only know one of the sponsors and I would hunt with him anytime.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE #2


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> > Maybe take it from G&F Licsense revenue! Now that's a great Idea!
> 
> 
> You know I have alway supported the state helping the high fence operators, but with statements like the above I am near changing my mind. If your serious about taking it from the Game and Fish then my response turns to your on your own.


If your willing to vote away someone else's Legal Livihood, then you are a *"thief"* and should pay the fine. 
That being reinburse the families who "in good faith" under existing law have invested, sweated, worried, to build a Legally Operated Business.
Taking G&F funds was a good way to get your attention* wasn't it?* also it was with the word _*"maybe"*_. Stirred your pot anyways! That was my intention, to make people think of the cause and effect. If these "game ranchers" go out of business, who will sell less gasoline, who will prepare fewer meals, who will not get revenue for motels, other lodging, shells, other spontanous buying that hunters seem to do. Who will eat the loss when the "rancher" folds. You, Me, everyone else who pays taxes or has money in a bank somewhere. Measure 2 will hit back at everyone. So be careful very what you vote for!
Now for more descussion: 
Plainsman, what do you do to make a Legal Living for which I can get signatures on a sheet of paper so voters can steal the food from your table, the money your kids were going to use for college, or force you to lose your property.[/b]

Think Real Hard about the ramifications of a yes vote here. IS it really right?

What seed will we plant which will haunt all of us later?

*VOTE NO on Measure 2*


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Stirred your pot anyways! That was my intention


Mission accomplished then I guess. My advise is not to act like an a$$ if your looking for support. If all high fence operations have your attitude then they deserve no help. I guess that's the kind that got into this business. 
I remember one of the guys talking about what a jerk I was at the Jamestown meeting. It's been a while so I don't even remember what meeting they were talking about. However, the bottom line is I was at no meeting, and still have not met the man. 
I am aware that some actually believe the sponsors got money from HSUS, but they would never have thought that if they had not been lied to first.
I have sending PM's back and fourth with a lady who I do respect. I have never met her either, but she contacted me and was very polite. She reinforced me thoughts towards how to handle this should it pass. I would have been willing to testify at meetings etc. to negate the blow this would be to her family. You however NDeaglei like DG often destroy good will every time you open your mouth.
With your attitude NDeaglei do you think we will go away even if this measure passes. Part of the data one takes in when judging these operations is the attitude of the high fence proponents.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman it wporks both ways, part of how these "sportsmen groups" and ther positions are looked at is dependent on the people presenting them and Roger Kaseman, Dick Monson and their handful of vocal fellow sponsors have not shone a very good light on "sportsmen groups" in general. If you do not believe me look at some of the posts regarding the HSUS supporting this measure this groupsponsored. That and Roger Kasemans arrogant condescending manner have turned more sportsmen as well as ranchers/farmers against these groups than anything.

By the way Dick where is Roger of late, we haven't heard any of his biblical posts or legal claims as to what this measure is and will do? :wink: You guys didn't put a muzzle on him after he spilt the beans about this measure preventing someone from being able to sell someone else a live animal that they then kill as a means to close all these facilities did you?


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> > Stirred your pot anyways! That was my intention
> 
> 
> Mission accomplished then I guess. My advise is not to act like an a$$ if your looking for support. If all high fence operations have your attitude then they deserve no help. I guess that's the kind that got into this business.
> ...


 OK Plaisnman.....are not all High fence operations Legally Operating Private Businesses? Conforming and operating within current law? Huge investments? land? feed? fences? medicine? Buildings? etc,etc,etc? Yes they are!

DO you support "stealing" wealth from regular families trying to make a living after in GOOD FAITH extended themselves to develop a LEGAL BUSINESS.

Deep in your gut you know destroying someone's livihood at a whim of a *"warm fuzzy feel good about me*" vote is *WRONG*!

My voice is to stir that "gut" into doing the correct and proper handling of this issue. This POORLY WRITTEN measure isn't it!
Is there any provision to conpensate the owners for the loss of their means of Living? No! Its Theft!

*Maybe we organize together and start a donation fund to compensate the families who's "wealth" will be stripped from them by this Measure. *

*I will VOTE NO on M2 because it is the Correct way to vote.*

Outspoken! yeah! 
deserve to be publicly called an ***? 
No!

And I destroy "goodwill"?


----------

