# So just what is domesticated?



## Fallguy (Jan 23, 2004)

I've been reading up on all of the discussions/bickering/arguing about the vote on Measure 2 in ND.

Here is my question: Just what is the definition of "domesticated"?

Here is one that I found:
*To be considered domesticated, a population of animals must have their behavior, life cycle, or physiology systemically altered as a result of being under human control for many generations.*

So...is that where these deer and elk operations stand? It seems to me that in the grand scheme of things, when you look at a change in population, such as in natural selection, often times these changes take many, many generations to take place. Is that also true when domesticating an animal?

If someone has any insight or experience on this, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Bug Guy (Jul 19, 2009)

Domesticated is what happens immediately after a man says " I DO".


----------



## papapete (Jan 2, 2005)

Perfect answer! LOL


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I think that you have domesticated mixed up with herded. The elk and deer at these HF joints are herded livestock. Just like cattle, they tend to behave and act more like herded animals.

Someone posted the stats of HF escapes in ND, in some of the cases I believe DG said that the escaped elk or deer just stood outside or close the hole or breach in the fence, just like cattle do when they pull a jailbreak.


> Domesticated is what happens immediately after a man says " I DO".


 :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> To be considered domesticated, a population of animals must have their behavior, life cycle, or physiology systemically altered as a result of being under human control for many generations.


That's a good definition. Animals don't become domesticated simply because a politician, rancher, or soothsayer says they are. It's often hundreds of years if not thousands. Man had simply given up on some species because they are simply to wild to lend themselves to domestication.

Look for answers to this from qualified people like bioman, Bug Guy (liked your definition by the way  ) Dave Brandt, etc. Scientifically based answers, not wallet based.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, the definition of "domesticated" in the laws that govern us is clearly spelled out in regards to these animals. You want to disregard that law and yet you expect others to accept the one you are proposing. Do you believe that an individual should pick and choose which laws they will follow?

Reindeer have been domesticated for several centuries by various cultures, so should we be able to raise reindeer for the purposes HF operations do? This measure says no. Do you believe that buffalo are domesticated? They have been domesticated for barely a century. Buffalo can live for 20 plus years, so have only been domesticated for a handful of generations. This measure says HF operations can raise them for the purpose they do of hunting.

Are cats and dogs "domesticated" ? Most would believe so as they have been for multiple centuries and generations. How many generations does it take for a feral cat to revert back to its "wild" state or a pack of dogs to revert bacck????? . Are swine "domesticated"? Most would believe so as they have been for many centuries and generations. How many generations does it take for feral swine to revert back to their "wild" state? I can promise you I could take a sow directly out of a farrowing crate, turn her loose in the wilds of a Florida swamp and the very next generations of piglets would be "wild". Do you see where the danger lies in simply following your qualified scientifically based answers to the animal ag industry. Perhaps someone like Dave Brandt with the supportof HSUS starts an initiated measure that states any animal that exists in a "wild" state can not be used for domestic purposes. It passes and becomes law. HSUS then argues in the courts that hogs are indeed existing in a "wild" state and so begins the slippery slope of groups that believe a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy to determining what you an I can use animals for. Wether it is fro animal ag purposes or hunting. And now this measure has invited such a group into ND all in the name of "protecting" hunting.

Tell the sponsors of measure 2 you do not believe inviting the fox (HSUS) in to "protect" the chickens (hunting) is a good idea. VOTE NO ON MEASURE 2


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, the definition of "domesticated" in the laws that govern us is clearly spelled out in regards to these animals.


I think our legislature, the grazing association, and soothsayers are all equally unqualified to make that determination. You can pass a law that a horse is a cow, but we all know the animal is still a horse.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

So lawmaker knows more then a scientist out the field?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

blhunter3 said,



> So lawmaker knows more then a scientist out the field?


What science? Where is the science? Whos science? This whole issue is based on emotion, not science.

bl, you first have to meet these so called scientists in person. Dr Valerius Geist was brought to North Dakota to lecture us about wildlife at the wildlife society and wildlife federation meetings in Bismarck 2005 and 2008. He now lives in Canada, immagrated there from communist East Germany.

He said only trained professionals should handle wildlife because they are trained to know when an animal is false charging, posturing, behaving aggressively or is about to just move off. He said you want to raise your arms up into the air to make yourself look bigger. Wow!

This isn't rocket science. I grew up on a farm and have handled animals all my life. I'll put a farm or ranch raised kid up against a trained city boy biologist any time.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This isn't rocket science. I grew up on a farm and have handled animals all my life. I'll put a farm or ranch raised kid up against a trained city boy biologist any time.


I'll take you up on that. One evening at Trappers Kettle in Belfield I was talking to a rancher from just south of town. He was about 45 years old and it turned out he flunked out of Bottineau school of forestry. He was majoring in wildlife. He said if we wanted to know what was in wetlands west of highway 85 he could have just told us. He said them wetlands got frogs and lizards etc. He didn't know the difference between a lizard and a salamander, didn't know there were such things as aquatic macrinvertebrates, etc etc etc. Your statement makes blhunter3 case.

Odd that you missed 90% of what Geist had to say. He talked mostly about the history of wildlife management and the difference between the European model and the North American model. You want to turn American history around and go back 300 years to the European model.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Retired Federal Agent Plainsman said,



> I think our legislature, the grazing association, and soothsayers are all equally unqualified to make that determination. You can pass a law that a horse is a cow, but we all know the animal is still a horse.


Are you sure about that? The 1972 Horse and Burro Act determined that the horses managed in Nevada by the ranchers were indeed "wild" mustangs. Today Nevada has a big mess with too many of these dang "wild" horses. "We are from the federal government and we are here to help."

Wouldn't it be nice if the Horse and Burro Act could be reversed and let the qualified people, the ranchers, take care of the "wild" horses. It would certainly lower federal government spending.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Retired Federal Agent Plainsman said,



> Odd that you missed 90% of what Geist had to say.


Bruce, did you catch the part when Geist said, "THESE GAME FARMS MUST ALL BE SHUT DOWN PERIOD."

So a front group called the fair chase committee is started with no less than 5 current/former federal employees out of 25 sponsers and start a smear and fear campaign against the elk growers.

What is it you are trying to accomplish? Would you like to take my property without paying for it?

I can still possess the animal, just can't sell them.

Property defined:

Possession
use
control
to the exclusion of others
disposition (sale)

Why don't you guys just be up front about it. You don't want us owning or raising elk period.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> What is it you are trying to accomplish? Would you like to take my property without paying for it?


Not at all. The state has some culpability sucking you into this, and that leaves them with the responsibility to compensate you. At least that's what I think. Now don't take advantage of that and think you have an elk worth $50,000 because if that came out of your mouth they would have good reason to just walk away. I hope you come out of this in good financial shape. I would expect there are more investments than just the animals.



> I can still possess the animal, just can't sell them.


Yes you can still sell them. It's that you have to sell them by the pound on not antler inch.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

gst said:


> Plainsman, the definition of "domesticated" in the laws that govern us is clearly spelled out in regards to these animals. You want to disregard that law and yet you expect others to accept the one you are proposing. Do you believe that an individual should pick and choose which laws they will follow?
> 
> Reindeer have been domesticated for several centuries by various cultures, so should we be able to raise reindeer for the purposes HF operations do? This measure says no. Do you believe that buffalo are domesticated? They have been domesticated for barely a century. Buffalo can live for 20 plus years, so have only been domesticated for a handful of generations. This measure says HF operations can raise them for the purpose they do of hunting.
> 
> ...


Plainsman I would like to hear your "scientific" answers to each of the questions I posed.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

blhunter3 said:


> So lawmaker knows more then a scientist out the field?


bl, I do not believe anyone is claiming that. Science has it's place, but the reality is what true unbiased science finds must somehow be transferred into the rules we live by. The problem is there is little true unbiased science remaining, everyone has an agenda. So the lawmaker has to weigh what is presented to them and the impact it will have on society and create the laws governing us accordingly. That is why we have elections to put the people who can best do that in that position.


----------

