# Fact Sheet/Fair Chase Hunting Measure # 2



## Dick Monson

*Fact Sheet-ND Fair Chase Hunting Measure # 2*








*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. This Act becomes effective on November 1, 2012.

North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase (NDHFC) is a non-profit group of North Dakota hunters who organized to protect North Dakota's public hunting heritage from anti-hunting extremists and people who have profit-driven motives to destroy our constitutionally protected hunting heritage under Section 27 of the ND Constitution. Details about NDHFC can be found at: http://northdakotafairchase.com/

NDHFC has never, nor will it ever, accept any money or solicit endorsements from any group that does not fully support the public's right to hunt.

During the past year NDHFC volunteers gathered signatures across the state for an initiated measure that would enact a North Dakota state law to stop the despicable pay-to-play practice of "fee-killing" captive big game and exotic mammals caged in enclosures such as high fences or pens designed to prevent escape. That measure to prohibit fee-killing of captive big game species and exotic mammals will be on the November 2010 ballot and deserves a "yes" vote from anyone who values the traditions that have made the North Dakota outdoors the revered resource it is. This short video depicts what high fenced "hunting" is all about: 




Fair Chase is the gold standard of hunting ethics by which we are judged as sportsmen. The prestigious Boone & Crockett Club founded by Teddy Roosevelt articulates this concept well: http://www.boone-crockett.org/huntingEt ... tingEthics 
Boone & Crockett supports our position as evidenced by their statements on Fair Chase and their condemnation of fee killing confined big game animals.

High fenced shooting provides anti-hunting groups with ready-made propaganda to mislead the non-hunting public about North Dakota's ethical public hunting heritage in their misguided efforts to ban all public hunting. Radical animal rights groups use "fenced" or "canned hunts" to tarnish the image of all hunters in their efforts to get federal legislation enacted to limit or eliminate the public's right to hunt. In a "fact sheet" entitled Why Sport Hunting is Cruel and Unnecessary, PETA rationalizes elimination of all hunting by using fenced hunts as an example of "sport hunting":
Canned Cruelty
Most hunting occurs on private land, where laws that protect wildlife are often inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On private lands that are set up as for-profit hunting reserves or game ranches, hunters can pay to kill native and exotic species in "canned hunts." These animals may be native to the area, raised elsewhere and brought in, or purchased from individuals who are trafficking in unwanted or surplus animals from zoos and circuses. They are hunted and killed for the sole purpose of providing hunters with a "trophy."&#8230;
&#8230;Animals on canned-hunting ranches are often accustomed to humans and are usually unable to escape from the enclosures that they are confined to, which range in size from just a few yards to thousands of acres. Most of these ranches operate on a "no kill, no pay" policy, so it is in owners' best interests to ensure that clients get what they came for. Owners do this by offering guides who are familiar with animals' locations and habits, permitting the use of dogs, and supplying "feeding stations" that lure unsuspecting animals to food while hunters lie in wait&#8230;. 
http://www.peta2.com/takecharge/t_factsheet_hunting.asp

Nothing in this measure prevents hunting of elk in Theodore Roosevelt National Park or limits what a rancher can do with any livestock such as cattle or buffalo.

Instead, the measure is focused on keeping North Dakota from being an island state surrounded by other states that have already banned "fenced hunts" - thus making North Dakota ripe for further expansion of the high fenced industry. It is quite evident that out-of state commercial deer and elk groups see North Dakota as a prime market to expand pay to play high fenced shooting preserves as their home states restrict or ban them. To date, these out-of state money interests have reported to the North Dakota Secretary of State that they have spent $84,000 in their efforts to advertise against or obstruct the measure's signature process in hopes the voters wouldn't have a chance to exercise their right to decide what is best for our state. Their advertisements have been a "guise", claiming that they are only interested in protecting "property rights". No doubt these groups will spend tens of thousands of dollars more now that the measure is on the November ballot, all the while disguising their true motives from the voters. They may even fund, or continue to fund, in-state groups pretending to be property rights advocates. Note all 3 pages in the report below:
http://web.apps.state.nd.us/sec/emspubl ... &offset2=0

The reality is, however, the more high fenced shooting operations we have in our state the greater the risk of diseases infecting our wild deer and elk populations. Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), cervid strains of Bovine Tuberculosis, and new parasite infections like the Fallow Deer Louse have been scientifically linked to captive deer and elk facilities in other states before transferring into wild populations. 
http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inform ... /index.jsp

The Fallow Deer Louse was first reported in Oregon and then spread across the West Coast of the US and Canada while decimating native deer populations. In one years time it jumped the Rockies from Washington State into Wyoming and South Dakota. It is now expanding into the upper watershed of the Little Missouri.
http://dailyrecordnews.com/news/article ... 9767c.html

To date, Wisconsin alone has spent over twenty million dollars and has eradicated thousands of wild deer in their attempts to contain CWD transmission.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lab/report ... lights.htm

In Montana, one of the many states that already banned high fence shooting, voters recognized that threat to public hunting and public wildlife and their voters acted through initiated measure to protect their wild deer and elk herds. None of the bans in these proactive states have been overturned in any court decision - including cases that alleged a property right infringement. NDHFC strongly supports the property rights of our citizens, both private property and public property. By voting yes on measure #2, voters will instill in law appropriate protections for public property in the traditions of President Teddy Roosevelt and many others before and after him.

There is no economic benefit pay-to play high fenced shooting offers our state that offsets the risk to the fifty million dollars public big game hunting generates for North Dakota every year.

A UND survey and also national polls have shown a vast majority of the public supports bans on high fenced shooting and numerous hunting organizations and outdoor publications have endorsed this North Dakota measure. Some of those include The Mule Deer Foundation; The North Dakota Wildlife Federation; The North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society; Dakota Country Magazine; and MuleyCrazy Magazine.

North Dakotans who care about protecting our proud hunting heritage have an opportunity to speak loudly by voting "yes" on this measure. The time to stop fee killing is now.

Already the North Dakota Game and Fish Department has had to kill numerous wild deer and elk exposed to fenced hunting operations and have had a number of other enforcement cases that show we are playing Russian roulette with North Dakota's hunting future. http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/sum ... nd_ca.html

Submitted by Dick Monson, Sec., ND Hunters for Fair Chase


----------



## gst

Dick,welcome to the debate as a sponsor of this measure! To keep this as a debate rather than becoming an arguement, please answer a few questions directly to factually address some concerns citizens of this state have in regards to a measure they are being asked to vote on this November that can potentially become state law.

1. Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman on this site when asked if this measure will prevent someone from selling a live animal to another individual who then shoots the animal he now owns, stated this measure will allow the Federal Lacey Act to be used to make this a possible felony with a $10,000 dollar fine. Is this true and who has your group communicated with for a sponsor to be able to factually publically make this claim?

2. Are these animals defined in the state NDCC as privately owned domestic animals that can be used as collateral?

3.Why is this being placed in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC where there is currently a definition of these animals as privately owned domestic farmed elk, when the measure lists them as big game that is regulated in Sec 27 of the NDCC. And who advised your group as to putting it here?

4. If the intent is to protect hunnting from the "black eye" shooting an animal inside a fenced enclosure and calling it hunting gives hunting itself, why were buffalo purposely excluded from the measure when there are more operations advertising "canned" "fenced" buffalo "hunts" here in the state than there are deer hunting operations?

5.If your goal is to eliminate a disease risk here in the state from these elk and deer operations, to accomplish this do you have to eliminate all of these operations that raise deer or elk for any purposes from operating here in ND and is that the goal of the group NDH for FC?

6. You claim this measure does nothing to affect ranchers raising cattle or buffalo, what about the elk rancher raising elk for slaughter rather than a HF enterprise. Will these ranchers be able to continue the practice of selling an animal to an individual for a fee or renumeration that then shoots said aninmal on the premise and takes that animal to process it themselves as is currently allowed by law??

7. Do you believe raising legaly defined privately owned domestic animals in accordance with all appropriate state regulations is a property right?

8. And one just for fun, Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman claimed on this site this measure is about "bragging rights" and "hanging a head on the wall" . Is this the official position of NDH for FC?

Thanks in advance for directly answering each of these questions. Gabe Thompson Jr. Antler ND


----------



## Chuck Smith

Wow....people for this measure say they are not affiliated with PETA. Yet on this thread that Mr. Monson started is a link to a PETA website.



> North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase (NDHFC) is a non-profit group of North Dakota hunters who organized to protect North Dakota's public hunting heritage from anti-hunting extremists and people who have profit-driven motives to destroy our constitutionally protected hunting heritage under Section 27 of the ND Constitution. Details about NDHFC can be found at: http://northdakotafairchase.com/
> 
> *NDHFC has never, nor will it ever, accept any money or solicit endorsements from any group that does not fully support the public's right to hunt.*





> Canned Cruelty
> Most hunting occurs on private land, where laws that protect wildlife are often inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On private lands that are set up as for-profit hunting reserves or game ranches, hunters can pay to kill native and exotic species in "canned hunts." These animals may be native to the area, raised elsewhere and brought in, or purchased from individuals who are trafficking in unwanted or surplus animals from zoos and circuses. They are hunted and killed for the sole purpose of providing hunters with a "trophy."&#8230;
> &#8230;Animals on canned-hunting ranches are often accustomed to humans and are usually unable to escape from the enclosures that they are confined to, which range in size from just a few yards to thousands of acres. Most of these ranches operate on a "no kill, no pay" policy, so it is in owners' best interests to ensure that clients get what they came for. Owners do this by offering guides who are familiar with animals' locations and habits, permitting the use of dogs, and supplying "feeding stations" that lure unsuspecting animals to food while hunters lie in wait&#8230;.
> http://www.peta2.com/takecharge/t_factsheet_hunting.asp


So if people think PETA distorts the truth. Then how can we expect what is on this flier as truth when parts of it are taken from a PETA website.

Also people for this measure say no affiliation with PETA yet will use its propaganda. Does not make sense???


----------



## Archimedes

Of course if you translate what they state here into english they show the opposite by pointing out the truth that PETA is using HF "hunting" to give all hunters a black eye. That video is the most dispictable thing have seen in longer than I can recall. I had no clue there were so many problems with HF operations right here in ND until I read their link to those GF reports and emails. The press has been dropping the ball. Some of those Hf operators have no repsect for the impacts to public resources they can have.


----------



## Plainsman

> Of course if you translate what they state here into english they show the opposite by pointing out the truth that PETA is using HF "hunting" to give all hunters a black eye.


Absolutely right. That should have been clear to everyone.


----------



## gst

Archimedes, plainsman, can you then show me anywhere that PETA supports FC hunting and does not use pictures of unrecovered wounded gutshot deer resulting from FC hunts to further their agenda to end all FC hunting as well? And before you answer, do a little research on google as to how many links there are to this kind of tactics by these groups. So please before you defend the usage of PETA rhetoric by this FC group inform yourselves and at least be honest enough with yourself to be even slightly objective as to why a hunting group would be using PETA websites to further their goal.

I will await your posting of links showing PETAS support of FC hunting.


----------



## gst

Dick Monsons quote *NDHFC has never, nor will it ever, accept any money or solicit endorsements from any group that does not fully support the public's right to hunt.*[/quote]

But apparently they are willing to use this anti ALL hunting group's website and rhetoric to further their own agendas. I thought that should have been clear to everyone.


----------



## Plainsman

> Archimedes, plainsman, can you then show me anywhere that PETA supports FC hunting and does not use pictures of unrecovered wounded gutshot deer resulting from FC hunts to further their agenda to end all FC hunting as well?


Your a smarter man than that gst. Your simply trying to persuade the not very intelligent. Of course we all know that PETA would like to end all hunting. What you fail to grasp, or stubbornly will not admit is that they use high fence operations to paint all hunters in a bad light. I doubt you missed the point, but rather simply deny it. Your tactics of late will backfire on you gst because they make you look insincere. The debate has turned to misinformation and character assassination. When all else fails you cry Roger, Roger, Roger. If Roger does something super intelligent I am not affected. If Roger does something super stupid I am not affected. I'll let Roger control your life.


----------



## LT

*FACT OR FICTION:*

Dakota Country, September 2010: "The vote was, House 72 yeas, 19 nays, 3 absent," said Masching. "It passed the Senate 46-1, and that one was absent. What it says is that you can't propagate, you can't release, you can't do what we're trying to do with the elk and deer. They did that with feral swine. There were two infestations in the state, in the Turtle Mountains and the Badlands, and there were sportsman's dollars sent there trying to eradicate them."

"Hundreds of thousands of dollars," Kaseman reiterated.

The feral swine were brought in from out of state for purposes of canned hunting, Kaseman explained, and some escaped creating a safety hazard for people and other problems. A campaign was launched to locate them, and some likely remain in the wild.

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

Dick Monson on Nodak: Dwight, if the NTL folks had been actively policing themselves their problems would go away. USDA-APHIS has been calling for tighter monitering of NTL facilities to avoid these problems. But the NTL industry has fought that regulation tooth & nail. You might run a tight ship but there are plenty that don't. NTL needs to cut them loose. But you're so damn afraid of regulation for your own good, imposed by yourselves.

To the credit of the ND Professional Guides and Outfitters, they did exactly that by working to remove the rogues through legislation. The NTL industry should take the lesson from ND outfitters.

Let me give you an example. There was no prohibition against feral swine in ND, so the Board of Animal Health was forced to issue a permit for a feral swine facility, even though they knew problems would arise from it. The swine promtly escaped and established a wild population. Then the BOAH sponsored legislation to prohibit feral swine in ND. That is insane. So now we have feral swine established and prohibited! If NTL would have eliminated exotics in-state in the first place we would not be blessed with russian wild boar in the Turtle Mountains.

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

*"No agencies were able to determine the origin of the feral swine in the badlands or the Turtle Mountains." *

Phil Mastrangelo
State Director
USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services


----------



## LT

*FACT OR FICTION: *

This measure, when passed, will do only three things:

　1. Eliminate canned shooting of captive big-game species inside escape-proof fences for fees.

　 2. Same for exotic non-native mammals, (read Russian Wild Boar, one of which was found in central North Dakota last year. He didn't parachute in here).

　3. Eliminate computer-controlled remotely fired weapons for canned shooting, (the infamous Texas-style computer shooting at game ranches).

The measure does not affect game ranching or bison in any way, nor commercial slaughter of big game species for meat and animal products, nor the sale of breeding stock, nor the sale of individual animals, nor the raising of any of them.

Dick Monson, Committee Member, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/ ... 4891.shtml

Remember all that outrage a couple years ago over "Internet hunting"? You know, those Web sites where you could log on, peer into the leafy wilderness through live web cam and, when an unsuspecting buck crossed the screen, click a mouse to drop him?

It turns out there weren't really Web "sites," the Wall Street Journal reports. More like one site, which was shut down almost soon as it opened. And, despite the fact that 33 states have outlawed the Internet hunting since 2005 and a bill to ban it nationally has been introduced into Congress, "nobody actually hunts over the Internet."

"Internet hunting would be wrong," said a Delaware representative who opposed his state's ban. "But there's a lot that would be wrong, if it were happening."


----------



## Archimedes

Plainsman - Good points. Do you suppose some people are posting nonsense in hopes others might not take the time in express their views because if they do somebody will try and start grinding an ax and distractions from the issues? Maybe they're just hoping others won't read the facts in that post and its links? There is certainly no mystery here. PETA and the HSUS would like to ban all hunting. That PETA document that was cited in the fact sheet is called "Why Sport Hunting is Cruel and Unnecessary " and then PETA goes on to included "canned cruelty" as part of "sport" hunting. Nobody of sound mind can argue PETA isn't using canned hunts to make all sportsman look bad to the non-hunting public. Certainly they will use as many bad examples as they can find when people break the law during public hunts or they get facts from public hunting that they think will mislead the non-hunting public. With public hunting they take isolated examples and try and make it out to be the norm. With canned hunting PETA takes the norm and tries to paint all public hunters as that norm when its not even hunting in the first place.


----------



## LT

> Archimedes Stated: Certainly they will use as many bad examples as they can find when people break the law during public hunts or they get facts from public hunting that they think will mislead the non-hunting public. With public hunting they take isolated examples and try and make it out to be the norm. With canned hunting PETA takes the norm and tries to paint all public hunters as that norm when its not even hunting in the first place.


Kind of like what is happening here --- using bad examples from other states, and violations and escapes from a handful of facilities (nonhunt and hunt and some now nonexistant) trying to mislead the public into thinking this is how the hunt facilities operate.

And what is the norm -- small pens, drugging their animals?

Taking a page right out of PETA and HSUS handbook.


----------



## Archimedes

If they were isolated examples I would agree with you. But they are not. The whole basis of canned hunting is as an industry is a bad example. It's just a matter of degree. Some worse than others. Those linked reports and emails prove that. Escapes, letting wild deer interact with captive wildlife, drugging deer and elk for transport in and out of ND, hiding animals from authorities that came from herds inflected by CWD, letting animals escape so they couldn't be tested for disease, forcing wardens and sheriff deputies to kill numerious wild deer and elk, not in isolation, but multiple times. There aren't that many HF operations in ND to have that many problems if this was an above board industry. It only tales a few bad actors here to put significant portions of our wild populations at risk and the evidence shows ND has more than a few bad actors....


----------



## LT

Violations from 2002 and 2003, an operation that was closed down. An out of state individual posing as someone else illegally buying animals? Another individual with wild deer in his facility willing to cooperate with the G&F? Escapes and contact with wild animals from various facilities.

So are you saying that all these facilities are a threat to the public game? If so, why not go after all approximately 65, rather than the 12 that offer hunts?

Is the real agenda to take away a source of income in the hopes that it will cripple the whole industry to the point that they die a slow death without having to compensate people for their losses, declaring it as only a partial takings and therefore no compensation is needed like they did in Montana. The Montana Wildlife Federation lawyer admitted to this in oral arguments when asked by the judge, "If this was about disease, why not shut all game farms down, rather than go after a major source of their income?" Response from the lawyer, "Because this way it is not a TAKINGS, it is only a PARTIAL TAKINGS."


----------



## Archimedes

I see rerports for 2009 @ 2005. I got a pm that said they have a bunch more that they haven't posted yet. What in the world is going on here? Were in the heck has the media been? If I would have known about this I would have been helping them get signatures. Geeez. Montana had a guy bred fallow deer to elk to create a specality "hunt" and 13 escaped into the wild...."takings" isn't an issue. Protecting the public interest is. We're suppose to bow down to 12 guys dong HF hunting in ND who are being funding from out of state people to try and keep us from voting. What a bunch of non sense. The future of real deer hunting in ND is a lot more important to me than these 12 guys self-interest and some out of state groups. Those groups are probably saying look there are only 12 HF operators in ND. That's a good place for us to expand if we can keep it open to us since our state is banning what we do.......No wonder those groups are paying for all this misleading advertisment about "property rights" and "animal rights" I smell a rat here and wish I would have been paying more attention to this


----------



## KurtR

If this is about public intrest then why dont they ban the raising and ranching of all elk and deer. They will still be in the cages they will still be able to get out and now being worth even less by taking people lively hood they might get away even easier than before. So this is just about people thinking they know what is best for everyone wanting them to think and act just as they do. So the disease is a bunch of BS if they are still allowed to keep raising said animals. Nothing to do with public intrest and just about how a few select individuals feel. The only rat i smell is the guy who joins under a different name to post on here.


----------



## Archimedes

Your sense of smell isn't so good. I have never posted anything on this site before. I was sent a copy of that fact sheet posted here and decided to chime in. In fact I didn't have easy access to the I-net until very recently. Perhaps the public interest would be protected more if the measure went further, that doesn't mean banning canned hunts isn't in the public interest. Those out of state commerical interests that are funding the opponents of the measure sure seem afraid the public might have an interest in this.


----------



## Plainsman

I keep hearing people say if disease is a threat then why don't we shut all of them down. Maybe they have a point. They keep bringing it up. However, please remember it wasn't my idea.


----------



## LT

> Archimedes Stated: Those out of state commerical interests that are funding the opponents of the measure sure seem afraid the public might have an interest in this.


I see that approximately 3000 dollars was disclosed by the Fair Chase committee for attending fairs, home and garden shows last go round. But what happened to any attorney fees for writing the measure, who pays for their website and maintains it, or is it kind of like the HSUS alerts where HSUS paid for those out of their own pocket so therefore no disclosure needed.

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

Dear Friend,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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


----------



## LT

> Plainsman said: I keep hearing people say if disease is a threat then why don't we shut all of them down. Maybe they have a point. They keep bringing it up.


If they did that, they would have to compensate them. This way they can take their business without compensating them, just like in Montana.



> Plainsman said: However, please remember it wasn't my idea.


Will you sleep better!


----------



## gst

Plainsman. Perhaps the "not very inteligent" you mention were those "persuaded" to sign this petition.  I have asked a handful of simple direct questions that have been brought up by many people in regards to this possible new state law. If there is one that is a "character assassination" or one that is not directly related to concerns involving this measure or "misinformation" please point it out. Then lets see if the sponsors respond to them. If they don't why do you suppose that would be?

As to your point, I understand it plainly, PETA does indeed use HFH to make the killing of any aimal look bad, the EXACT same way they use gut shot unrecovered wounded deer that often happen when someone tries a shot at a running deer while FC HUNTING. So if one is to follow your point to it's logical conclusion, should we then ban all practices that may give the anti hunting groups their ammunition? You are simply trying to use ONE link in PETA's chain that supports your agenda while not addressing others hoping the "not very intelligent" you mention do not realize it. :roll:

Archimedes If the intent of posting this link to PETAS websites is to show how "canned hunts" are being used to "make all huntinglook bad" , why wouldn't the sponsors have included the advertised hunts for buffalo in fenced areas here in ND in their measure?

Before we all get carried away and this "fact sheet" thread becomes like every other HF one on here, lets wait for the group NDH for FC response to 8 simple direct questions regarding the potential state law they are trying to create. If they do not answer each of these questions directly, how can their secretary claim to be setting the facts straight?


----------



## KurtR

Archimedes said:


> Your sense of smell isn't so good. I have never posted anything on this site before. I was sent a copy of that fact sheet posted here and decided to chime in. In fact I didn't have easy access to the I-net until very recently. Perhaps the public interest would be protected more if the measure went further, that doesn't mean banning canned hunts isn't in the public interest. Those out of state commerical interests that are funding the opponents of the measure sure seem afraid the public might have an interest in this.


Who are all of the out of state intrests? How is banning the hunts in public intrest, it is in the intrest of a few that feel they know what is best for every one. And dont give me we did this survey or that because i can get a survey to say what ever i want it to. Biased one way or another and anything in out doors magazine will read the way to who ever has paid the most money they are about one thing money and truth is of little consiquence. Oh the wonders of modern technology every one leaves a trail and eventually the rat hangs him self dont think my sense of smell is that far off or is it.


----------



## gst

Archimedes said:


> Plainsman - Good points. Do you suppose some people are posting nonsense in hopes others might not take the time in express their views because if they do somebody will try and start grinding an ax and distractions from the issues? Maybe they're just hoping others won't read the facts in that post and its links? [end quote]
> 
> Or perhaps rather than dealing with answering questions they don;t want to have to, the sponsors are letting other supporters grind their ax and keep distractions from the issues for them! :wink:
> 
> When it comes to creating law there is a responsibility that falls on those creating it to answer questions asked by everyone the law will govern, not just those that jump on the band wagon supporting the law. Even if a truthful factual direct answer to the question is something they really do not want to have to answer for various reasons. So lets simply see if the sponsors of this measure are interested in accepting that responsibility of directly answering questions about the "issues" their measure creates.


----------



## Archimedes

Maybe they have better things to do than get into an infinate loop with people who won't accept any answer they give to their questions. Those people will probably just spin their answers like some are trying spin their fact sheet. $82K of out of state money by people that have a commerical interest in expanding HF in ND = $3K of probably in-state money to get signatures. Interesting math.

Maybe you should assure them that you will accept their answers and not keep issuing pointless demands. Some people have lives apart from the I-net. Perhaps people on this site keep taking their information out of context and try and make fraudulent misleading arguments with it so there is no point in responding to your questions.......


----------



## Plainsman

gst use your search botton. Many questions were answered last year. For example why were buffalo not included. Would you like to include them? It would appear you feel like they were left out.

Also, my point was I think you guys should stop bringing up the operations that don't have hunting. When animals get to be worth a lot people will cheat and try sell a diseased animal. When animals are less valuable the temptation is less. Since no one is bothering the non hunting producers I think it would be a good idea to leave them out of it unless you don't care if someone takes up the cause and goes after them too.


----------



## jhegg

Archimedes,

You stated:


> Maybe they have better things to do than get into an infinate loop with people who won't accept any answer they give to their questions. Those people will probably just spin their answers like some are trying spin their fact sheet. $82K of out of state money by people that have a commerical interest in expanding HF in ND = $3K of probably in-state money to get signatures. Interesting math.
> 
> Maybe you should assure them that you will accept their answers and not keep issuing pointless demands. Some people have lives apart from the I-net. Perhaps people on this site keep taking their information out of context and try and make fraudulent misleading arguments with it so there is no point in responding to your questions.......


That was a very good post and is exactly why I have stopped responding to the bs questions posed by some on here - and yes, this statement is directed at you Gabe (and a few others).

Jim Heggeness


----------



## gst

Plainsman if you would, please show where a SPONSOR has answered any one of the questions I asked. 
Jim do you believe the 8 questions I have asked in this thread are relative to the discussion regarding your measure?

1. Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman on this site when asked if this measure will prevent someone from selling a live animal to another individual who then shoots the animal he now owns, stated this measure will allow the Federal Lacey Act to be used to make this a possible felony with a $10,000 dollar fine. Is this true and who has your group communicated with for a sponsor to be able to factually publically make this claim?

2. Are these animals defined in the state NDCC as privately owned domestic animals that can be used as collateral?

3.Why is this being placed in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC where there is currently a definition of these animals as privately owned domestic farmed elk, when the measure lists them as big game that is regulated in Sec 27 of the NDCC. And who advised your group as to putting it here?

4. If the intent is to protect hunnting from the "black eye" shooting an animal inside a fenced enclosure and calling it hunting gives hunting itself, why were buffalo purposely excluded from the measure when there are more operations advertising "canned" "fenced" buffalo "hunts" here in the state than there are deer hunting operations?

5.If your goal is to eliminate a disease risk here in the state from these elk and deer operations, to accomplish this do you have to eliminate all of these operations that raise deer or elk for any purposes from operating here in ND and is that the goal of the group NDH for FC?

6. You claim this measure does nothing to affect ranchers raising cattle or buffalo, what about the elk rancher raising elk for slaughter rather than a HF enterprise. Will these ranchers be able to continue the practice of selling an animal to an individual for a fee or renumeration that then shoots said aninmal on the premise and takes that animal to process it themselves as is currently allowed by law??

7. Do you believe raising legaly defined privately owned domestic animals in accordance with all appropriate state regulations is a property right?

8. And one just for fun, Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman claimed on this site this measure is about "bragging rights" and "hanging a head on the wall" . Is this the official position of NDH for FC?


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman if you would, please show where a SPONSOR has answered any one of the questions I asked.
> Jim do you believe the 8 questions I have asked in this thread are relative to the discussion regarding your measure?


Last year I gave you my perspective on why I would not include buffalo. The other questions I have no idea why your not getting answers. I suppose it varies. Some may not have the answer while some may think you just want to run this in circles.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> Some may not have the answer while some may think you just want to run this in circles.


Now you know that when given an answer he simply asks the same question in a slightly different form! You only need to tell a person once the sky is blue! If they ask what color it is again then either they are incapable of comprehension or are hoping to carve a sound bite from your answer!!!!!!

The only thing wrong with your response Plainsman is that you should have said know instead of think!!! :beer:


----------



## Archimedes

The kind of questions I have are: Why are hunting groups like the B & C Club and the other hunting groups that endorsed this measure supporting it if passing it isn't good for public hunting? Why are professional wildlife managers who are also often hunters supporting it if it doesn't protect wildlife or other public interests? Why are out of state deer and elk grower groups willing to spent so much money trying to keep ND reisdents from voting on this measure if the measure won't put public interests ahead of their self-interests? What's stopping ND from having dozens more of these HF operations if the measure does not pass ? And, considering the documented problems with the ones that do exist already why would people think having more would not create more risks to wildlife and public hunting? Finally, who pays the cost of disease outbreaks that go from captive wildlife to wild herds? Are the operators of these places socalistic, expecting the public to pay for the damages fron there operations like has happened in other states, while they keep the profits?


----------



## KurtR

For only learning about this a few days ago you seem to have alot of info on it that no one else has pointed out. If you could point me to some of the sources of money being spent from out of state intrests. And also the sources of the rampant disease that you claim is being spread and public is paying to fix. Would be much appriciated as i would like to review and read those.


----------



## gst

plainsman, wether you gave your opinion last year why you believed buffalo were not included it is irrelevant. YOU ARE NOT A SPONSOR. It is merely an opinion. By the title of this thread, we are looking for FACTS here.

Ron, on FBO(espringers) someone involved in the legal profession made it fairly clear why the sponsors would not answer questions like I have asked. If they do not answer them It appears that he is correct. If there are no answers given, and it is merely peoples opinions that we are left to base our beliefs of what this law may actually do, I would tend to give more weight an opinion from someone directly innvolved in the legal profession and his was that the sponsors know if they give factual black and white answers regarding these questions, it will in all likelyhood come back to bite them when this ends up in the courts. You do recall espringers posts on FBO regarding this?

Alchemidedes, if you wish I could address those questions, but it would simply be my opinion on most of them, and that is not what one should be after in a thread titled as a "FACT SHEET' regarding this measure, at least in my opinion. 

Dick Monson A SPONSOR started this thread to apparently get factual information regarding their measure to the public. I have asked a handful of questions regarding this measure that have been discussed back and forth by people that are not sponsors in an attempt to clear the air as to the facts involving this measure. If ANYONE can show me where these questions have been directly answered by a SPONSOR of this measure I would greatly appreciate it. If this can not be done, perhaps one should wonder why they are so reluctant to have the answers to 8 simple questions be given. My "guess" is there are a few folks on these sites that are not sponsors, that actually may know the factual answers to these questions, and realize if they are answered honestly it will not help a measure they want to have passed so we end up dealing with what we have instead of a group of sponsors directly answering these questions.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, Ladd on FBO however addressed and explained things as well in his opinion and he is in the legal field as well. You want answers to the questions to favor your position, and that is fine. However when they are not, you and others ask them over and over in a slightly different manner but really the same question. Thus anyone who does provide an answer you try and chase it in a circle. So all of these have been answered, just because you do not like the answer does not mean they have not been answered. Simple as that!!!!!


----------



## Dick Monson

Opponents of the measure have to lay down heavy machine gun fire so that people are distracted from the fence. Blood on the wire if you will. It is an intentional distraction.

Voters need to ask themselves if this is the future of hunting they want for the kids and grandkids?









A "yes" vote sends this business back to Texas.

A "no" vote expands fee killing across the state.

Very simple.

When you view the disclosure web page from ND SOS you have to ask yourself who really owns these operations in North Dakota? Who owns the animals themselves? Out-of-staters? $84,000 dollars came in from out-of-state high fence organizations just to kill the petition drive. Likely the amount coming in now will run into the hundreds of thousands of $$$$.

The measure opponents have hired one of the biggest public relation firms in North Dakotan to kill this measure about the future of public hunting in *our* state.


----------



## gst

Ron as you well know ladd admited to not knowing much about the Federal Lacey Act which SPONSOR Roger Kaseman claims will prevent one person from selling a live animal to another person that then kills the animal he now owns. Ladd also defered to the other person involved in the legal profession I have mentioned stating he may have done more research into this measure.

You claim these questions have been answered by a sponsor. If this is indeed true, please cut and paste the answers to each question.

Dick you once suggested I write a letter to the editor of the states leading papers, since this measure is now on the ballot perhaps the public would like to hear the answers to these questions that you are refuseing to answwer and why you are refusing to answer them as well.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

:bop:


----------



## gst

Ron, you, plainsman, and jhegg have claimed these questions have been answered muliple times All I am asking is that you cut and paste one direct answer to each of the questions I asked.

The simple fact is the sponsors of this measure have not answered these questions and likely will not as they know (as espringers stated on FBO) that to do so will not help their agenda when this ends up in a court of law. Simply because raising a privately owned animal in accordance with the regulations governing it is indeed a recognized property right here in ND and to admit they knew this and that this measure will allow a Federal Law (Lacey Act)to do what Roger Kaseman claims in regards to an individuals right to sell and use these privtely owned animals, will open the door to this measure being considered a takings as was debated by the Mt. Supreme Court (and narrowly defeated)and they do not want the ND courts to be able to use that to overule this measure.

If I am wrong, all the sponsors simply have to do is address these questions directly and individually on this site or FBO. But if they do not answer a handful of questions and sit back and let their lackeys distract the debate from the issues one begins to see what this measure is truly all about despite Dick's simplistic claims.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst take your ball and go home! You have had them answered and simply do not like the response so you claim it was not answered. If you want to continue this then say I am not in agreement!

Nobody and I mean nobody has to please you nor does your saying they have not been addressed make it so! Like I said you simply are attempting to bait them to spin things against them. So prudence tells them or anyone else that your intent does not deserve any further response!


----------



## Eric Hustad

I was watching the youtube video and my wife couldn't even stand to listen to what was happening let alone watch. Now I understand in business there are a few bad eggs, and I'm sure most owners of these operations aren't drugging animals etc. However seeing an running not being able to escape because of that fence just doesn't sit well with me as a hunter. I can understand how owner's see this as an infringement on their rights, but from what I understand they can still sell the elk for butchering right? Also what was the results of the vote in Montana on the issue? How close was the vote?


----------



## Dick Monson

Eric, of course farmed elk and nontraditional livestock like deer can be butchered. Despite what the opposition says. And it applies only to big game species and exotics. You can do as you wish with them, just can't accecpt a payment for the "privilage" of selling the act of killing it. *FEE KILLING PROHIBITED*

The wording exotic mammals was chosen rather that listing them individually. Maybe it would have been a good idea.

The Montana vote won by 1%. Nip and tuck. People need to understand that huge amounts of money are coming into the opposition camp from out-of-state high fence. If they lose here they might lose in their state. Or maybe this already is their state.
Guys, print his picture and take it into the voting booth. You are deciding the future of public hunting in North Dakota.


----------



## gst

Eric, if what Dick claims is true, what have they to lose by answering the questions I asked?????? Despite what Ron claims these questions have not been answered by any sponsors on this site or FBO. If they have someone, anyone, cut and paste the answers. Plain and simple. Ask yourself what does SPONSOR Roger Kaseman mean when he states the Lacey Act will prevent an individual from selling a live animal to another person who then kills the animal he now owns. Ask yourself if he is telling the truth how this may indeed prevent the sale of these animals for slaughter. Ask yourself why is this being placed in the livestock section 36.1 that has a different definition of these animals and what is the procedure for rectifying these oposing definitions in the same section of the NDCC and which will take precedence. ANSWER, it is the later dated definition that takes over. Which will that be? Not the one that defines these animals as privately owned domestic animals, but rather now defined as big game. Now go back to what Roger Kaseman claims about the Lacey Act.

Ask yourself and perhaps a sponsor if this you tube video is from an operation in ND and where the video originated from. ND laws regulating ND operations should be based on the track record of ND operations. I don't think we want to start basing ND law of something that happens say in California. :-?

Eric now show your wife any of the multitude of videos on the net posted by anti hunting groups that show deer and other animals that were wounded and not recovered during FAIR CHASE hunting and see if she feels that is any more ethical or right. Regardless of wether the animal behind a fence can escape, it is an almost absolute certainty the animals are killed and are not left to suffer and die days later. How do you think that would play out to many of the same people that signed this initiative???????


----------



## gst

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuKy2-w1 ... re=related

And finally
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FArqWvEq ... re=related

So now ask yourself just where the video on the NDH for FC websites came from and how this type of graphic, emotional, rhetoric unbased in fact can be used against FC hunting just as easily. Then ask yourself how using it to advance a personal agenda is in actuality responsibly "protecting" the hunting heritage. For every person that is "offended" by Dicks picture of a dead elk by a fence, how many will be offended of a video of a wounded suffering "fair chase" hunt deer? This group NDHfor FC is doing EXACTLY what the anti hunting groups are doing to acheive their goals. Something to be proud of indeed. Why are they doing this? Because they know by playing to peoples emotions rather than providing factual answers to questions they are more likely to succeede in their agendas. And now tell me how if this is what they believe they need to do to be successful with their measure and agenda, they can deny these same tactics can then also be used by anti groups to further their agendas or possible measure.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

GO home with your ball gst, if something is purple and you are told it is purple, you can keep asking why it is green all you want and it changes nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> GO home with your ball gst, if something is purple and you are told it is purple, you can keep asking why it is green all you want and it changes nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Ron Gilmore said:


> gst take your ball and go home! You have had them answered and simply do not like the response so you claim it was not answered. If you want to continue this then say I am not in agreement! !


Ron all I am doing is questioning the intent and consequences of a potential state law and how the sponsors of this new law are going about acheiving their agenda. And also expecting the creation of law to be held to a standard of factual truth. By your insistance that I take my ball and go home, thus forfeit my right and duty to publically ask questions of an opposing nature when it comes to the creation of the laws that govern us, it be comes clear to see the mentality of the people behind wanting to take choices away from other people that are sponsoring and supporting this measure.

Have you been able to find the answers to cut and paste to the questions you say the sponsors have already answered?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Again asking a question or demanding a answer to questions already addressed. The text of this message appears black, you have been told it is black, but you keep asking why it is green and then claiming your questions are not being answered.

Your last response is a prime example of this! Take your ball and go home if that is all you have!


----------



## KurtR

Wow those videos of the fair chase sure look like the same ones that the ethics god put on here aginst HF. Now tell me that peta and hsus is not indirectly involved with this and you are a liar. Pushing the same agenda as the antis is the reason why this needs to be defeated.

Oh and i had asked before to see where all the out of state money was coming from. Starting to wonder if there is factual evidence to back up the claims or if it is just more false statements.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> Again asking a question or demanding a answer to questions already addressed. The text of this message appears black, you have been told it is black, but you keep asking why it is green and then claiming your questions are not being answered.
> 
> Your last response is a prime example of this! Take your ball and go home if that is all you have!


Ron cut and paste the direct answers by the sponsors of this measure to the questions I have asked. Plain and simple. It appears you believe that the citizens of ND should not be able to question the sponsors of this measure or require them to address concerns over the intent and consequences of a law they are being asked to vote on. Thanks for the glimpse into the mindset that is driving this measure. If you do not provide the direct answers to these questions that the sponsors have addressed, one must assume that regardless of your claims they do not exist. :wink:


----------



## bioman

Gabe,

In all honesty, how many hours of your life have been wasted on these forums?

First you rant and rave about a few sportsman ruining access for all. Now on here and FBO, you simply retype and recast the same drivel about this ruining the cattle industry, property rights, slaughter, etc. And then when you don't get your way, you spin these topics this way and everyway in between by asking and reasking the same questions.

This an Internet forum, and no rules of debate apply here, on FBO, or anywhere else. 99% of the people don't reveal their identities, and for good reason. If you want to debate the issues, find a venue and sponsor, write and agree to the rules, and hire a moderator.

Seriously, don't you have a family that would be better served with your time??? I honestly feel sorry for your children.


----------



## barebackjack

Dick Monson said:


> Opponents of the measure have to lay down heavy machine gun fire so that people are distracted from the fence. Blood on the wire if you will. It is an intentional distraction.
> 
> Voters need to ask themselves if this is the future of hunting they want for the kids and grandkids?
> 
> 
> A "yes" vote sends this business back to Texas.
> 
> A "no" vote expands fee killing across the state.
> 
> Very simple.


Talk about "heavy machine gun fire" to distract.

A "no" vote will expand fee killing across the state?????? Nice try dickey dick.

The spin factor of this post if off the charts! uke:


----------



## barebackjack

bioman said:


> Gabe,
> 
> In all honesty, how many hours of your life have been wasted on these forums?
> 
> First you rant and rave about a few sportsman ruining access for all. Now on here and FBO, you simply retype and recast the same drivel about this ruining the cattle industry, property rights, slaughter, etc. And then when you don't get your way, you spin these topics this way and everyway in between by asking and reasking the same questions.
> 
> This an Internet forum, and no rules of debate apply here, on FBO, or anywhere else. 99% of the people don't reveal their identities, and for good reason. If you want to debate the issues, find a venue and sponsor, write and agree to the rules, and hire a moderator.
> 
> Seriously, don't you have a family that would be better served with your time??? I honestly feel sorry for your children.


As opposed to Roger, Dick, and Ron's childish behavior?

I suppose Ron will tell me to take my ball and go home now, or perhaps ask me what my "connection" is with HF? :roll:


----------



## barebackjack

gst said:


> The simple fact is the sponsors of this measure have not answered these questions and likely will not as they know (as espringers stated on FBO) that to do so will not help their agenda when this ends up in a court of law.


Nail, you have been hit on the head.


----------



## bioman

BBJ,

Espringers, Ladd, etc. have offered their opinion and not legal analysis or advice. As such, providing their comments is pure speculation and innuendo, which is really not that compelling in these topics. I sure don't see them providing a Legal Analysis via a Memo posted to the webpage with their Esquire signature attached. Any writing on these sites is opinion, and opinion only. Hence the name Internet forum.

Why don't you, Gabe, Kurt R, LT et al. find a venue and a sponsor, agree upon rules of engagement, and debate the issue in a public forum. If the sponsors don't agree, then come back to these forums. But until then, please do continue the mindless drivel, insults, character attacks, libel, slander, etc.


----------



## barebackjack

bioman said:


> Why don't you, Gabe, Kurt R, LT et al. find a venue and a sponsor, agree upon rules of engagement, and debate the issue in a public forum. If the sponsors don't agree, then come back to these forums. But until then, please do continue the mindless drivel, insults, character attacks, libel, slander, etc.


Nice hidden jab, using only the handles of those opposed to measure 2 while implying the continuation of "mindless drivel, insults, character attacks, libel, slander, etc"......while ignoring the childish comments of some of those supporting measure 2. :roll:

Oh yeah, I noticed.


----------



## Dave Brandt

KurtR, you should actually read things like what is in the fact sheet to prevent asking questions which make you look foolish.



KurtR said:


> Oh and i had asked before to see where all the out of state money was coming from. Starting to wonder if there is factual evidence to back up the claims or if it is just more false statements.


Now let's really look at another foolish claim that this measure will be a foothold for PETA/HSUS to come into North Dakota and ban real hunting or outlaw on-farm slaughter of livestock.

For a total ban on hunting and animal agriculture to become law in North Dakota, one of the following three scenarios would have to happen.

1. Animal Rights activists would have to convince a majority of the North Dakota House and Senate to pass bills banning both, and then they would have to convince the Governor to sign these bills into law.

What argument would convince the Legislature and the Governor to outlaw hunting and animal agriculture?

2. Failing in the Legislature, Animal Rights activists would have to circulate petitions for two initiated measures to place these bans on the ballot for the people to vote on. They would have to convince 12,844 North Dakota voters, people with strong connections to agriculture, to sign a petition bringing a law outlawing animal agriculture to a vote. Animal Rights activists would have to do the same on a separate measure written to outlaw hunting. Animal Rights activists would then have to convince a majority of the people of this state to vote for both measures.

What argument would possibly convince the majority of North Dakotans to vote for an initiated measure that would outlaw hunting and animal agriculture?

3. Failing to implement bans on hunting and animal agriculture by legislation or initiated measure, an Animal Rights army would have to invade North Dakota, depose our current government, impose a dictatorship, and outlaw hunting and animal agriculture by decree. I think we have enough guns and people who know how to use them in North Dakota to keep this from happening.

If by some miracle legislation or two initiated measures did somehow pass, the statute outlawing hunting would have to pass constitutional muster by the North Dakota Supreme Court. *Article 11, Section 27 of the state constitution states that, "Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good."*

Valued part of our heritage. Forever preserved. No wiggle room there.

Outlawing hunting in North Dakota is impossible because it is unconstitutional. Article 11, Section 27 doesn't allow the Legislature or the initiated measure process to pass such a law.

It could happen at the national level (Federal superceeds State law) if the 90% of people out there that don't hunt start viewing what we as hunters love to do as having no redeeming values such as those which they have long supported:
-legitimate management of wildlife populations
-procurement of food
-part of our cultural heritage

Like I said, a smokescreen because they know they can't actually defend High Fenced Shooting, the same way you as a hunter would have a hard time defending it to the non-hunter that still supports what you do. In my humble opinion, we need to keep our house clean. Remember, hunters have never been a majority and our numbers are only dwindling.


----------



## KurtR

i got the info that i wanted pm to me with the break down of who and what gave money so that is not a problem any more. And dont know where i said i wanted a public debate with the sponsors but would like to see some one more versed than i(gst or maybe uncle ted) in a debate would be interesting. I am to mindless to be in a actual debate and will just stick to telling people to take there ball and go home. Oh ya that wasnt me.

Dave all it takes is a little here and a little there. Next thing we see is deer with arrows laying all over playing to the emotions of people and so on. So to say it will never or cant happen is very small thinking. Look at at all the other states that have had seasons taken away from them(bear seasons/no lead in cal). Hell it took a fight to get a dove season in MN and that is under atack all the time.

If this was a disease issue than all captive elk and deer should be banned as nothing is getting taken care of if the animals are still on site and still able to escape. If you listen to the sponsors there are tame elk running every where and in the last five years i have put about 40000 miles on a year in nd and have not seen all these elk but must be that mindless thing agin.

Nothing more can be gained from being here as all of us on here have made our mind up one way or another so guess the voters in ND (not me) get to decide this. I just hope that either way it goes that the publics vote is respected and the issue is done when this is over.

I have no affiliation with any hf people or operators so these are my personal opinions and not anyone elses. the only thing i have shot behind a fence has been a chicken with my bb gun when i was 8 (got *** kicking for that) And some buffalo right spot right time rancher wanted them dead and i had some balistic testing to do. Guess i got paid to do that as he gave me a bunch of buffalo jerky.

So now i take my ball and will go home.


----------



## gst

Dave, can you explain to the hunters in states where mourning dove hunting has been banned, bear hunting has been banned, mountain lion hunting has been banned, trapping has been banned, attempts made to ban predator hunting with dogs, ect....... how that has happened in their states?

Then if you would please answer if the raising of domestic elk is currently a legally accepted and defined animal agriculture enterprise that is being attacked in the very manner you suggest others can not be here in ND.

Then if you would address the fact that in all likelyhood in the next years time there will be no auction barns offering horse sales to sell unusable horses for slaughter here in ND because of what these groups you claim can not acheive their agendas here in ND have accomplished on the Federal level that does indeed impact an animal ag industry here in ND. Then explain SPONSOR Roger Kasemans claim that the FEDERAL Lacey Act will prevent someone from selling a live elk to someone else that then kills the animal they now own by fining them $10,000 that if correct will indeed do to the elk industry what has happened to the horse industry.


----------



## jhegg

gabe,



> If I am wrong, all the sponsors simply have to do is address these questions directly and individually on this site or FBO. But if they do not answer a handful of questions and sit back and let their lackeys distract the debate from the issues one begins to see what this measure is truly all about despite Dick's simplistic claims.


Of course, you are a "lackey" for the high fence boys. You are also a an expert at "distraction". Why don't you just admit to that?

Jim Heggeness


----------



## jhegg

To Gabe,



> Dave, can you explain to the hunters in states where mourning dove hunting has been banned, bear hunting has been banned, mountain lion hunting has been banned, trapping has been banned, attempts made to ban predator hunting with dogs, ect....... how that has happened in their states?


Gabe,
Please enlighten us as to the answer you expect from your question and how that pertains to the HF initiative.



> Then if you would please answer if the raising of domestic elk is currently a legally accepted and defined animal agriculture enterprise that is being attacked in the very manner you suggest others can not be here in ND.


Again, how is this germane to the measure. This measure does not affect the raising of "domestic elk".



> Then if you would address the fact that in all likelyhood in the next years time there will be no auction barns offering horse sales to sell unusable horses for slaughter here in ND because of what these groups you claim can not acheive their agendas here in ND have accomplished on the Federal level that does indeed impact an animal ag industry here in ND. Then explain SPONSOR Roger Kasemans claim that the FEDERAL Lacey Act will prevent someone from selling a live elk to someone else that then kills the animal they now own by fining them $10,000 that if correct will indeed do to the elk industry what has happened to the horse industry.


As I read the measure, it makes no reference to horses. Please explain the justification of referring to horses in regards to this measure.

Thank you (in advance) for answering these "simple questions".


----------



## gst

Jim how are the questions you refuse to answer a "distraction" from getting the "facts" straight about this measure. Don't citizens of this state have the right to have the sponsors answer questions about the law they are being asked to vote on????????? Contrary to what Ron claims they have not been answered previously. Why will none of the sponsors do so now????? Perhaps if they do answer them and this ends up with the ND Supreme Court ruling on this measure as did Montanas and when it comes to considering wether this is indeed a takings as was extensively debated and narrow;ly ruled 5 to 4 by Mt's court, Nd's court may indeed look at the answers given and determine this measure is a takings and their agenda will fail. If this is not the case, what have you got to lose by answering them? Simply answer them directly and then you can choose to leave the debate or continue if you like.

1. Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman on this site when asked if this measure will prevent someone from selling a live animal to another individual who then shoots the animal he now owns, stated this measure will allow the Federal Lacey Act to be used to make this a possible felony with a $10,000 dollar fine. Is this true and who has your group communicated with for a sponsor to be able to factually publically make this claim?

2. Are these animals defined in the state NDCC as privately owned domestic animals that can be used as collateral?

3.Why is this being placed in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC where there is currently a definition of these animals as privately owned domestic farmed elk, when the measure lists them as big game that is regulated in Sec 27 of the NDCC. And who advised your group as to putting it here?

4. If the intent is to protect hunting from the "black eye" shooting an animal inside a fenced enclosure and calling it hunting gives hunting itself, why were buffalo purposely excluded from the measure when there are more operations advertising "canned" "fenced" buffalo "hunts" here in the state than there are deer hunting operations?

5.If your goal is to eliminate a disease risk here in the state from these elk and deer operations, to accomplish this do you have to eliminate all of these operations that raise deer or elk for any purposes from operating here in ND and is that the goal of the group NDH for FC?

6. You claim this measure does nothing to affect ranchers raising cattle or buffalo, what about the elk rancher raising elk for slaughter rather than a HF enterprise. Will these ranchers be able to continue the practice of selling an animal to an individual for a fee or renumeration that then shoots said aninmal on the premise and takes that animal to process it themselves as is currently allowed by law??

7. Do you believe raising legaly defined privately owned domestic animals in accordance with all appropriate state regulations is a property right?

8. And one just for fun, Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman claimed on this site this measure is about "bragging rights" and "hanging a head on the wall" . Is this the official position of NDH for FC?[/quote]


----------



## Dave Brandt

KurtR,

The reason that new seasons do eventually get implemented (such as dove, the conservation order on snow geese, special seasons for Canada geese, special youth seasons, etc.) and also successfully defended against attacks by antis is based upon good scientific information relative to their impacts to the resource and public support of that information and the reasons for implementing those seasons .

I happen to believe that the overwhelming majority of people in our State and in fact nationwide are intelligent enough to understand that there are certain uncontrollables in fair chase hunting and they can accept them, especially when they are aware or made aware of the alternatives (death by starvation, cars, disease, and the likes). I don't think many accept this activity.

As far as the disease issue, I do think there is a disease issue associated with game farms in general which puts the public's wildlife at risk and there is good infomation from other states to back this up. I also feel that one aspect in particular of cervid farms causes people to have reckless disregard for any regulation and that is the super inflated prices attached to these shooter bulls. Just recently there was a case where a game farm was quaranteened and condemned to be depopulated because it had CWD (often times infections rates are 75%) and the operator was arrested shortly thereafter on his way to Texas to sell several of his shooter bulls. I don't think North Dakota's wildlife are worth that risk, and eliminating this aspect accomplishes a lot to control many issues surrounding the industry. Does it eliminate it? No. Do DUI laws eliminate drunk driving? No. Should we then not have any DUI laws?........

As far as animals unaccounted for, the numbers in the fact sheet represent minimums obtained from the captive cervid industries' own manifests. I don't know what to tell you about not seeing them, but hunters have shot them. One all the way in NW Minnesota.


----------



## gst

Jim, Dave stated these anti groups will not be able to accomplish their agendas here in ND because of the relatively rural aspect of our state. I merely pointed out an agenda (ending horse slaughter or more specifically horses being sold for slaughter) that these groups were able to accomplish here in ND thru the use of Federal law that takes away the market. And given SPONSOR Roger Kasemans claim that a Federal law will prevent one individual from selling an elk to another individual that then kills the animal he now owns there by taking away a market with a $10,000 fine, there would seem to be a parrallel that most with an open mind could draw between these agendas.

Dave are you a sponsor of this measure?

So simply answer one question will the sponsors of this measure answer the questions asked or not.


----------



## Dave Brandt

Gabe,

I won't even take a jab at explaining what someone else like Roger said, just as I suspect you would not attempt to explain some of the crazy statements made by Dwight.

I am not an attorney neither is Roger. My "non-legal" understanding of the Lacey act is that it applies to interstate commerce of dead wildlife not privately held elk and deer, therefore I don't know how it could apply. As Jim pointed out, the measure says nothing about the Lacey act and Ladd tried to explain to you how he has seen things work in the past if there were indeed any conflicts in the Century Code. Non-relevant to any serious discussion about this measure as interpreting the law is not the duty of any initiated measure committee, the AG looks at the intent. I will tell you that we had Attorney Paul Germolus (who was assistant Attorney General for ND and I believe also worked heavily with AG department legislation) write the language of this measure in an effort to do our best to assure that those things you guys are throwing around as smokescreens would not happen.

Another brush you are painting all sponsors of this measure with is that we are anti property rights. First of all, I respect property rights as does everyone else I know on the sponsoring committee. The fact is that a permit or license to operate a game farm, bar, restaurant, vegetable stand or anything similar is not a right, it is under the purview of regulations imposed by the state, decided by the state or its citizens. Second, if the sponsors are all cold hearted Marxists, why then would we have included a sunset clause of 2 years to allow for divestment of these 12 operations? I hate the fact that this may cause any hardship to these handful of fellow North Dakotans currently involved with this, but my personal reason for supporting this measure is that the benefit currently falling upon those very few, does not come anywhere close to being worth the risks I feel they pose to the state's wildlife or the future of our hunting heritage.

As far as where this is to be placed in the Century Code and your issue with the whole Big Game species language, I can tell you that a past ND assistant AG who worked with the ND Agriculture Department all the time saw no problem with it, in fact identified where it needed to be. I am also pretty sure if I were to ask my 5th grade English teacher for clarification, she would say that the term Big Game species simply identifies a group of animals, since Big Game is a modifier to the subject "species". As such it does not reclassify anything, only identify which members of any group are being identified. Hence Big game species as identified in the NDCC could apply to any group or subset of a group, which meet that criteria and are classified differently elsewhere. That is why this measure only includes species of mammals which are hunted in our state yet excludes multiple other species identified as domestic or farmed. I hope that is clear now, as you have got way more mileage on that one than you deserved.

As to your other questions, I reiterate Jim's sentiment about their relevance to the measure. All I can comment on is what the measure language says, other than that, I leave it up to those with professional experience and expertise that I am positive is far more extensive than yours or mine.


----------



## jhegg

Gabe,

Cut and paste away!



> 1. Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman on this site when asked if this measure will prevent someone from selling a live animal to another individual who then shoots the animal he now owns, stated this measure will allow the Federal Lacey Act to be used to make this a possible felony with a $10,000 dollar fine. Is this true and who has your group communicated with for a sponsor to be able to factually publically make this claim?


It is my belief that this measure will "prevent someone from selling a live animal to another individual who then shoots the animal he now owns" if the sale is "for the killing" of said animal.



> 2. Are these animals defined in the state NDCC as privately owned domestic animals that can be used as collateral?


What does this have to do with the measure>



> 3.Why is this being placed in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC where there is currently a definition of these animals as privately owned domestic farmed elk, when the measure lists them as big game that is regulated in Sec 27 of the NDCC. And who advised your group as to putting it here?


What difference does it make where it is placed?



> 4. If the intent is to protect hunting from the "black eye" shooting an animal inside a fenced enclosure and calling it hunting gives hunting itself, why were buffalo purposely excluded from the measure when there are more operations advertising "canned" "fenced" buffalo "hunts" here in the state than there are deer hunting operations?


This measure does not address pigs, cattle, chickens, etc. What is your point?



> 5.If your goal is to eliminate a disease risk here in the state from these elk and deer operations, to accomplish this do you have to eliminate all of these operations that raise deer or elk for any purposes from operating here in ND and is that the goal of the group NDH for FC?


This is not my goal



> 6. You claim this measure does nothing to affect ranchers raising cattle or buffalo, what about the elk rancher raising elk for slaughter rather than a HF enterprise. Will these ranchers be able to continue the practice of selling an animal to an individual for a fee or renumeration that then shoots said aninmal on the premise and takes that animal to process it themselves as is currently allowed by law??


If "said individual" does not pay for the "killing" of "said" animal - no problem.



> 7. Do you believe raising legaly defined privately owned domestic animals in accordance with all appropriate state regulations is a property right?


Do you believe that a feed lot operator has a "property right " to send the waste material into a stream or river?



> 8. And one just for fun, Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman claimed on this site this measure is about "bragging rights" and "hanging a head on the wall" . Is this the official position of NDH for FC?


This is not my position. You will have to ask the other sponsors if this is their position.


----------



## LT

> David Brandt Said: I will tell you that we had Attorney Paul Germolus (who was assistant Attorney General for ND and I believe also worked heavily with AG department legislation) write the language of this measure


So who paid for Mr. Germolus fees? Who is paying for the web site and maintenance of it? Why wasn't any of this disclosed in the financials? Out-of-state interests?

If you are so passionate regarding this issue David, how come you collected not one signature? Did you know that Roger was going to do most of it? 8350 signatures!! Why did the majority of sponsors not collect as well? HSUS members collected more than most of the sponsors.

Or maybe Dave, as a federal employee as well as the other federal employees that sponsored this and supported this measure, you didn't want to do the dirty work in collecting the signatures -- the lies, mistruths, half truths that were told in the process of collection.

Do you condone Mr. Kaseman's behavior or do you encourage it? Do you believe state laws should be made based on truth?


----------



## gst

Dave, The difference is Dwight and I are not fellow sponsors trying to create state law that should be held accountable as a group for what is being said in regards to their measure when they accepted the responsibility of becoming a sponsor. There seems to be a theme where no sponsor is accountable for what their fellow sponsors claim with this group.

The following is part of the rules by which the legislature has to deal with the implementation of these measures. This measure will place a "conflicting provision" in the same sec. 36.1 of the NDCC that currently defines these animals as privately owned domestic animals. This " conflicting provision" defining these animals as big game will be the "later" definition of these animals placed in this Sec. 36.1

Ladd stated on FBO that the courts use the latter dated provision when addressing conflicts regarding these provisions. So the legislature if it follows the rules they must will not be able to allow a "conflicting provision" to remain in Sec. 36.1 defining these animals as privately owned domestic farmed elk, but will have to reclassify them as "big game". If they do not, if a group pushes to have it changed, the avenue is open for the courts to do it. All the while leaving the sponsors free to claim it was not them that made this distinction. Once this classification is acheived, the Lacey Act,which can apply to live animals, can be then used because the state has an applicable state law on the books. As long as these animals are defined as domestic farmed elk, the Lacey Act does not apply, but as soon as they acheive the definition of "big game" it can be used much like SPONSOR Roger Kaseman claims it would in his statement on this site. So Dave, is SPONSOR Roger Kaseman lying when he made this claim or not? Espringers mentions this backdoor disingenuous manner that the sponsors maybe using to accomplish a "takings" here in ND. If you want to clear this up, have the attorneys you mentioned come on this site and state what I and others are suggesting may happen can not.

1-02-08. Conflicting provisions found in the same statute. Except as otherwise
provided in section 1-02-07, whenever, in the same statute, several clauses are irreconcilable,
the clause last in order of date or position shall prevail.
1-02-09. Irreconcilable statutes or constitutional amendments passed during the
same session.
1. Whenever the provisions of two or more statutes passed during the same session of
the legislative assembly are irreconcilable, the statute latest in date of final passage
by the legislative assembly, irrespective of the date on which it was approved or
allowed to become law by the governor or of its effective date, prevails from the time
it becomes effective. However, whenever a provision of one or more statutes
repeals a law and a provision of one or more statutes passed later during the same
Page No. 1
session of the legislative assembly amends that law, the provision amending the law
prevails from the time it becomes effective only if:
a. The legislative council determines the intent of the legislative assembly was to
retain the amended law as an independent law; or
b. The provision amending the law has an earlier effective date than the effective
date of the provision repealing the law, in which case the amendment prevails
from its effective date until the effective date of the provision repealing the law.
2. Whenever two or more concurrent resolutions, adopted during the same session of
the legislative assembly, propose to create or amend, or amend and repeal, the
same section of the Constitution of North Dakota, the secretary of state, in
consultation with the attorney general, shall determine if the proposals are
irreconcilable, and if they are irreconcilable, the resolution last adopted by the
legislative assembly, as determined by the legislative council, must be placed on the
ballot for the appropriate election for approval or disapproval by the electorate.


----------



## gst

Sponsors, Who will determine if the fee is being paid for the "killing" or for the animals itself? If there is a bill of sale for the live animal, it is clearly the animal that was being paid for, yet SPONSOR Roger Kaseman claims the Lacey Act will prevent this with a $10,000 fine. So even if all I want to do is buy a cow elk for meat, shoot it and process it myself will I possibly be at the mercy of a judge to determine what the fee I paid the owner of the elk is for and face the risk of a $10,000 as will the elk rancher?

The answer to question number 2 is relavent as an answer yes will indicate the sponsors knew these were privately owned animals that have a distinct value and will be considered when the courts ultimately decide if this was a "takings" or not much like was considered in Mt. and narrowly ruled on 5 to 4. The sponsors know this and will avoid answering this question. If I am wrong, simply answer it yes or no.

Why this is placed in Sec. 36 has been explained. Once again if I am wrong, have your attorney come on this site and explain it otherwise. Doing so would clear this up.

Not including Fenced advertised "hunts" for buffalo that are occuring here in ND pokes a huge hole in the theory it is the ethics of not shooting an animal behind a fence and calling it hunting that is the claim to be driving this measure. The sponsors want to take the choice away from someone that wants to shoot an elk behind a fence when it is called hunting, but does not seem concerned when someone shoots a buffalo behind a fence when it is called hunting. Apparently the sponsors are picking and choosing which ethics they will allow while trying to take that same ability away from others.


----------



## gst

Jim you missed where I stated "in accordance with all appropriate state regulations"

Sending "waste material into a stream or river" is in violation of those said regulations. But these regulations are not designed thru their ambiguous, legaly disingenuous wording to prevent someone from feeding cattle thru the use of Federal Laws such as SPONSOR Roger Kaseman claims this measure will do preventing the sale of live elk and the killing of that animal by its owner by using the Lacey Act.

How can you claim this measure is directed at eliminating the disease risk these operations pose to the states wildlife if nonhunting operations are allowed to continue under the same state regulations you claim are not adequete enough to prevent the shooting operations from being a risk? Or do these nonhunting operations magically have elk that will not escape into the wild populations??

So if you would, have another go at actually answering the questions asked with an answer rather than another question if your intent is to set the facts straight. (ron answering a question with a question does not constitute an answer, it only appears you are trying to duck having to answer the question)

If I am indeed wrong(which has happened before  ) as to WHY the sponsors will not DIRECTLY answer these questions simply answer all the questions. You should have nothing to lose.


----------



## jhegg

Gabe,



> Jim you missed where I stated "in accordance with all appropriate state regulations"
> 
> Sending "waste material into a stream or river" is in violation of those said regulations.


After the November elections, the initiated measure will be law. Then you can rest in peace.



> So if you would, have another go at actually answering the questions asked with an answer rather than another question if your intent is to set the facts straight. (ron answering a question with a question does not constitute an answer, it only appears you are trying to duck having to answer the question)


What a line of bs that statement is. Were you looking in a mirror when you thought of it? I tell ya, it sure is a good thing you don't ask any questions!

Jim


----------



## Dick Monson

Just Mom and Pop HF operations. Sure. Gotta love these boys, not shy at all. Barebackjack you were right, it's just like selling milk. Shooter bucks............love that term, sounds like Vegas.

http://www.deerforums.com/vbforums/show ... php?t=2024

THE PLAN
Fellow deer farmers. 
Most of you by now are wondering what the plan is to get move hunters so we can harvest more bucks and promote breeding to a new level. 
*The SPECIFIC GOAL or vision encompasses advertising for more hunters to the hunting ranch's. *WHY: To harvest the shooter bucks produced by the breeders. For years breeders have been marketing their breeding stock. Now is the time to *market their shooter bucks.* *Just as dairy farmers market their milk. The specific goal is to bring down the wall or stigma of canned hunts. *HOW: To advertise the experience and advantages of high fenced hunting. Note: the focus must be on the hunting experience and not the hunting ranch. Sell potential hunters on the benefits of high fenced hunting, they will find the ranch's. *What are the benefits, No licenses, guaranteed hunt, great values, good selection, close proximity ect. *

What is the plan? 
Concerning a plan, we do have a plan and are prepared to move forward. But the reason we have not given you our plan is because this is all of OUR industry and with that in mind, we all should be taking part in OUR plan.. We want and need YOUR input to form a plan that will be flexible enough to change and it will change. We project it will take five years to get the plan to level off. What I call level is when the hunting ranch's have purchased all the available shooters from the breeders.
Donations and plan must be implemented by September 1st so advertising will have maximum effective. If not we loose another year.

How is the plan implemented? 
If we have 100-200+ hunts and donations. The possibilities are endless. If marketed right, major sporting goods chains, hunting clothes manufactures, deer calls, deer urine, tree stands. Any business marketing products for deer hunters will want in on part of the action. *Because with posted ground and limited deer herds and time the future of hunting is gradually shifting to high fenced hunting. This will take time and persistence but with 100 to 200 free hunts we will get attention. *Who is going to implement the plan? 
At this time we are just getting the ball rolling. At whose feet the ball stops is in the deer industries hands. Perhaps NADEFA hunting Ranch council. I stress it is very important that an unbiased party controls the decision making and the cash flow of this "no name plan" (at this time).


----------



## LT

North Dakota: YES! on Measure 2

North Dakota voters in November will decide whether to stop the trophy shooting of captive animals trapped behind fences - an inhumane and unsportsmanlike practice opposed by hunters and non-hunters alike. These 'canned hunting' operations offer wealthy customers the opportunity to kill tame, captive animals for guaranteed trophies.

For more information, visit NorthDakotaFairChase.com.

http://www.humanesociety.org/about/depa ... tives.html


----------



## LT

Mom and Pop Operation on 2nd video: http://huntersforhighfencehunting.com/


----------



## Archimedes

I sort of got wore out on follwoing this last week and quite posting. But that "mom and pop" link to those three videos, "huntersforhighfencedhunting" , got me wondering. "hunters" for high fenced hunting? A lot of the people posting stuff against the measure openingly state fenced shooting isn't hunting. So where did these "hunters" come from? Or is this the new astroturf name for what used to be a "property rights" grouped funded by out of state commerical interests?

I watched those videos. Who's side are those supposed to help? The first video is a "staged" political science class. Image that, "staging" something to try and make it appear real? Hmmm...But the "staged" messages doesn't help one side or the other, seems like most people on both sides of the measure wouldn't find much to disagree with. I must have missed the point.
]
The second video is a staged elk hunt. Watch that one more than once. Watch how they stage their sneaks. Look at all the wall hangers they readily come across. It's like they picked out the elk they wanted like the deer in this video:

http://www.dabuckchannel.com/video/516/ ... tails-Buck

And then faked a sneak like they were hunting. What side in the debate is this supposed to help? Those elk weren't going anywhere unless the guy rounded them up and moved them to a different pen.

Then for some reason there is a video of a debate about fenced shooting in Texas. Measure two is about trying to keep ND from becoming Texas where public hunting is gone. If the point is some of the fenced areas in Texas are pretty big. Who cares. There not that big in ND, 50 acre kill pens and such...I must be missing something. Maybe the point is the out of state funders of the HF team has ponied up more cash for nice graphics and tv ads...


----------



## Ron Gilmore

DG what difference does it make where he works what he does? I submit then that if it matters concerning Dave then the readers of this thread what your profession is and how you are connected to the canned shooting!

It is just as relavent if not more!~


----------



## Archimedes

It seems to me that the dispute over this measure boils down to two competing world views of hunting. The back and forth over details is getting the essence of the issues lost in the weeds.

The supporters of the measure have highlighted all the out of state money from commercial deer and elk groups that was used to try and thwart the signature process and to advertize against the measure. It seems to me that's more of a "weed" than getting at the essence of the issue. If you look at the groups that sent money listed on the SOS link on the Fair Chase "fact-sheet" (1st post on this thread) like the Illinois and Wisconsin Deer growers and all the rest they also have a bunch of members that use this website: http://www.dabuckchannel.com/

On that website there are tons of videos of deer genetically bred and/or hormonally feed for big horns to be sold for fenced "hunts". This isn't some PETA video, it's their own website. They also have what appears to be a rolling online auction of shooter bucks: http://www.whitetailexchange.net/auction/

Now, as Dick Monson posted, in their talk forms they openly discuss their goals and plans to expand their market for fenced "shooter bucks":

THE PLAN
Fellow deer farmers. 
Most of you by now are wondering what the plan is to get move hunters so we can harvest more bucks and promote breeding to a new level.

The SPECIFIC GOAL or vision encompasses advertising for more hunters to the hunting ranch's. WHY: To harvest the shooter bucks produced by the breeders. For years breeders have been marketing their breeding stock. Now is the time to market their shooter bucks. Just as dairy farmers market their milk. The specific goal is to bring down the wall or stigma of canned hunts. HOW: To advertise the experience and advantages of high fenced hunting. Note: the focus must be on the hunting experience and not the hunting ranch. Sell potential hunters on the benefits of high fenced hunting, they will find the ranch's. What are the benefits, No licenses, guaranteed hunt, great values, good selection, close proximity ect.

What is the plan?

...We project it will take five years to get the plan to level off. What I call level is when the hunting ranch's have purchased all the available shooters from the breeders...

How is the plan implemented?

If we have 100-200+ hunts and donations. The possibilities are endless. If marketed right, major sporting goods chains, hunting clothes manufactures, deer calls, deer urine, tree stands. Any business marketing products for deer hunters will want in on part of the action. Because with posted ground and limited deer herds and time the future of hunting is gradually shifting to high fenced hunting. This will take time and persistence but with 100 to 200 free hunts we will get attention... http://www.deerforums.com/vbforums/show

So what the people and groups funding the opposition to measure two are saying is overtime their competition from people that still have access to public deer hunting will be squeezed out and their five year plan is to have enough HF operations to market their "shooter" bucks to so every "shooter" buck they raise gets purchased by shooting operations. They term their goal as a "level" situation. This seems why they are spending so much money in ND, it fits their plan to keep and expand HF operations wherever they can so they can market their shooter bucks.

What these out of state groups are using as a local name working with local HF operators was "Citizens to Protect North Dakota Property Rights", and the SOS link on the fact sheet is for that group. Of course there real agenda is advancing their marketing plan, which isn't very appealing for them to publically admit, so they decided to use the "property rights" angle. The video that was posted by these guys is now using a different name so the same people and funding sources must planning on going by two names until the election? The second name is "Hunters for High Fenced Hunting" and they put out this set of videos: http://huntersforhighfencehunting.com/

As I posted before, I didn't understand what they were getting at with these videos? Now I think I get it. This is a slickly produced piece with great graphics. It took some $$$$. That third video about Texas fenced hunts wouldn't be anything local people just produced or thought of producing. But the out of state funders, that is their world view of hunting at its best - Texas canned hunts. In Texas the governor appoints a board of outfitters and other commercial operators and then that board picks who is the equivalent of our game and fish director. Public hunting is gone. So when you hold their world view, that video debate about Texas makes sense because the message in it is that is still "hunting" in their minds and that video was made for the purpose of encouraging people to try that type of "hunting" - they type they profit from.

The second video of the canned elk hunt in ND showing those two out of state hunters readily bagging the wall hangers is sort of a promotional piece for canned hunting also, all staged to make it look real. The "staged" political science class must be in there to send some sort of "good v. evil" - Canned hunts "good" v. "evil" , with anyone opposed to HF hunts being evil animal rights extremists. I guess that's supposed to be the subliminal messaging? There has obviously been a meeting and a decision made to keep painting over and over, and over and over, any supporters of measure 2 as animal rights extremists. I'm guessing that approach has either been poll tested or worked for the commercial deer and elk groups in other states. That tactic or ploy isn't going to change anytime soon.

So those out of state guys put their world view out there about "hunting" and video's of the merchandise they sell. The Fair Chase guys, hunting groups, outdoor writers, and professional wildlife managers, have their world view encompassed by measure two, supported perhaps best by the Boone and Cockett Club:

CANNED SHOOT STATEMENT

The Boone and Crockett Club's Board of Directors and its membership have unanimously adopted and approved a position statement on "Canned Shoots" because of the growing concern among hunters and the increased public interest in the practice of "canned hunts."

BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB POSITION STATEMENT
ETHICAL HUNTING VERSUS UNETHICAL SHOOTING AND OTHER PRACTICES

The Boone and Crockett Club has been a highly respected conservation leader and proponent of ethical Fair Chase hunting of North American big game since 1887.

Ethical Fair Chase Hunting

The Boone and Crockett Club, in its Fair Chase statement, advocates any hunting that is "the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals."

Unethical "Canned" Shooting (Improperly referred to as "canned" hunting.)

The Boone and Crockett Club condemns the pursuit and killing of any big game animal kept in or released from captivity to be killed in an artificial or bogus "hunting" situation where the game lacks the equivalent chance to escape afforded free-ranging animals, virtually assuring the shooter a certain or unrealistically favorable chance of a kill.

Genetic Manipulation of Game Animals

The Boone and Crockett Club condemns artificial and unnatural enhancement of a big game species' genetic characteristics. Unacceptable practices for genetic enhancement include, but are not limited to, artificial insemination, controlled or unnatural breeding programs, cloning, and translocation of breeding stock for canned shooting purposes.

Public Perception

The Boone and Crockett Club is greatly concerned that the non-hunting public may confuse ethical, fair chase hunting with canned shoots, genetic manipulations and other related practices, which the Club condemns.

The world view of the Boone and Crockett Club, a world view I agree with, is that genetic manipulation of deer and elk, and canned hunting itself is bad for public hunting. And that puts hunting groups and wildlife professionals at odds with the deer and elk producers funding the opponents of measure two. I believe this is the essence of the dispute.


----------



## Dave Brandt

> LT said:
> So who paid for Mr. Germolus fees? Who is paying for the web site and maintenance of it? Why wasn't any of this disclosed in the financials? Out-of-state interests?
> 
> If you are so passionate regarding this issue David, how come you collected not one signature? Did you know that Roger was going to do most of it? 8350 signatures!! Why did the majority of sponsors not collect as well? HSUS members collected more than most of the sponsors.
> 
> Or maybe Dave, as a federal employee as well as the other federal employees that sponsored this and supported this measure, you didn't want to do the dirty work in collecting the signatures -- the lies, mistruths, half truths that were told in the process of collection.
> 
> Do you condone Mr. Kaseman's behavior or do you encourage it? Do you believe state laws should be made based on truth?


LT,

How does anything you mention pertain to eliminating fee killing in a fence?

Actually committee members paid for all costs leading up to the measure, yes we care that much about this issue. The reporting requirements only begin once the measure has been given the OK from the AG. Why would you report anything before it is actually certified? Your hated Roger maintains the website. Pretty good for an old guy don't you think?

Do I have to justify my personal life to you, someone I know nothing about? Sorry if you think so. Roger was selected from the sponsors as the individual who had the most time and ability to attend venues. I guess he did a pretty good job. Too bad we were not more organized and secured 10 more like Roger; we may have collected 150,000 signatures.

Last I knew, state laws are based upon the language in the bill or measure. It is up to the legislators or the people to decide the relevant truth from everything put forth on both sides of the issue.

GST,

Its not a conflicting provision, I again refer you to my 5th grade English teacher "Big Game" is a modifier to the noun "species".

If you want to buffalo included you will have to start your own measure. The scientific name _Bison bison _is not a "big game" species in the ND Century Code.

Dwight,

I appreciate you putting together a resume for me, but really I don't need one since I am not planning on leaving my current occupation. Once again, I couldn't find anything in your post that is really relevant to this measure, but I will comment on a couple of things:

I find it interesting/troubling that you seem to have this radical posse/freeman fear of anyone employed as a public servant. I fail to understand why you would find it so abhorrent that people with such a passion for wildlife, hunting or both that they decided to devote their time (4 years minimum, many 6+) and plenty of money to get a degree in that field so that they could then typically enter into public service (at a pay usually lower than a similar degree in the private sector), all for the terrible reason of helping to ensure that those things they are so passionate about remain available for everyone to enjoy well into the future. I would think that would be a good thing, but obviously that is a bad thing in your world. It just makes sense that those employed in the wildlife field would be passionate and concerned about issues that affect hunting and wildlife. I fail to see your conspiracy.

Yes I made, and still stand by the statements I made to Brian Gehring regarding tougher laws for game violators whatever their zip code. Are you against or worried about the tougher laws that were passed? You fail to understand that the NDWF makes decisions by the democratic process regardless of who is President, so everyone's point of view is considered and voted upon. No, it is not a conflict of interest, and before you bring up the Lacey Act smoke screen, that Act only applies to partisan politics, in other words activity related to a specific political party. Just like there is no conflict of interest in me being a sponsor on this measure, it is not partisan, its Democracy at is most basic level; letting the citizens of ND decide.

I have only ever heard the term Militant Conservation Biology from you, but I can tell you that the author of that piece is erroneous in the very first paragraph. Conservation Biology was around long before 1980. Typically I don't read further after I see errors like that as it means they are either misinformed or they have an agenda.

Yes Dwight, I have been involved in many youth and disabled pheasant hunts where pheasants were released 2-24 hours before taking hunters into the field. I can tell you that nobody ever paid a red penny to do it, and I can also tell you that the highest percentage of the released pheasants I have every seen shot was about 35%, typically it is more like 20%. If they miss the shot, the bird gets away and they usually don't get another shot at it. Many youngsters go home empty handed and I use that opportunity to reinforce what hunting really is about. It is not guaranteed success like what this measure is against.


----------



## LT

Dave Said:


> Roger was selected from the sponsors as the individual who had the most time and ability to attend venues. I guess he did a pretty good job. Too bad we were not more organized and secured 10 more like Roger; we may have collected 150,000 signatures.
> 
> Last I knew, state laws are based upon the language in the bill or measure. It is up to the legislators or the people to decide the relevant truth from everything put forth on both sides of the issue.


Do you condone lying, mistruths and half truths in gathering signatures? Do you think laws should be based on truth?

Dave Said:


> Your hated Roger maintains the website. Pretty good for an old guy don't you think?


Roger is using material from real-hunters.com, a site run by the National Wildlife Federation, that went down shortly after the Fair Chase site went up. The picture of the man in the yellow rain coat is from that site. There was other info taken from there as well. The video Dick is using in the fact sheet is also taken from that site. So you guys are simply just a grass roots organization? No help from outside interests?

Here is a post I made on Nodak in 2008:



> Postby LT » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:39 am
> Within months of the passage of I-143, game farm operators began challenging the new laws by suing the State of Montana and Fish, Wildlife and Parks; eleven (11) cases to-date. Montana Wildlife Federation has intervened in each of the cases to defend the initiative, the will of the people (voters), and the interests of ethical, conservation minded hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, and in the interest of healthy, wild, free-ranging public wildlife.
> 
> http://www.montanawildlife.com/newslett ... arming.doc
> 
> A sportsmen's group called MADCOW - Montanans against the Domestication and Commercialization of Wildlife - drafted a ballot initiative, I-143, that if passed will effectively throttle the elk-ranching industry here.
> 
> The initiative was supported from the beginning by the Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana Bowhunters Association, and Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society, a group that represents professional wildlife biologists. MADCOW volunteers collected over 29,000 signatures on their petition to place I-143 on the ballot, almost 10,000 more than is required by law.
> 
> http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article ... e_id=10031
> 
> Here in North Dakota I believe the North Dakota Wildlife Federation is just using a new vehicle called the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.
> 
> http://www.ndwf.org/contactus.asp
> 
> The North Dakota Wildlife Federation is part of the National Wildlife Federation, which is part of a national steering committee.
> 
> http://www.teaming.com/about/
> 
> I find it interesting that the pictures are now gone from the fair chase site that were the EXACT same pictures that were on the site of http://www.real-hunters.com, and I believe this site is run by the National Wildlife Federation. This site is now down as was the fair chase site yesterday when I posted it had CWD. Now why would the Fair Chase site have the same pictures as a site run by the NWF?
> 
> It sounds like the same scenario as in Montana. They are using the guise of a "concerned" sportsmen group as the vehicle for the Wildlife Federation.


Dave Said:


> If you want to buffalo included you will have to start your own measure. The scientific name Bison bison is not a "big game" species in the ND Century Code.


So this really is not about ethics?

Dave Said:


> Yes Dwight, I have been involved in many youth and disabled pheasant hunts where pheasants were released 2-24 hours before taking hunters into the field. I can tell you that nobody ever paid a red penny to do it, and I can also tell you that the highest percentage of the released pheasants I have every seen shot was about 35%, typically it is more like 20%. If they miss the shot, the bird gets away and they usually don't get another shot at it. Many youngsters go home empty handed and I use that opportunity to reinforce what hunting really is about. It is not guaranteed success like what this measure is against.


This makes it all okay to swing a pen-raised pheasant, swing it around, plant it, and let a youth and disabled hunter shoot it. As Roger told the elk growers the night of the Jamestown Public forum when it was brought up regarding a child's dying wish with leukemia to do an elk hunt and it had been granted at one of the game farms, "As far as a dying child, it happens, but why would you teach a dying child to cheat and risk his eternal soul?"

Ron Said:


> DG what difference does it make where he works what he does? I submit then that if it matters concerning Dave then the readers of this thread what your profession is and how you are connected to the canned shooting!


Archimedes Said:


> The world view of the Boone and Crockett Club, a world view I agree with, is that genetic manipulation of deer and elk, and canned hunting itself is bad for public hunting. And that puts hunting groups and *wildlife professionals *at odds with the deer and elk producers funding the opponents of measure two. I believe this is the essence of the dispute.


Yes, it does matter that Dave is a wildlife professional and belongs to the North Dakota Wildlife Federation. I believe this is not some grass roots movement. This is coming from the top down. That is why Regional Director of the National Wildlife Federation, Land Tawney, (now with Sportsman for Obama) was here in an organized meeting before SB 2254 discussing how they could keep farm bureau from getting involved in this, how they could keep this issue in front of the people, and that it raises the ire of HSUS. A few weeks later Mr. Wayne Pacelle wrote a letter to the Bismarck Tribune talking about needing to get rid of canned hunts. Coincidence?

And now you guys have found a way using an initiated measure to take someone's property options away from them without compensation, using a partial takings, hoping to shut all operations down eventually. Using an unethical means to justify your ethical causes.

Here is something I have asked Roger in the past:


> Roger, Do you remember when you told me in Montana if they would have over ruled this measure, it would have set a precedent regarding mom and pop businesses to sue the state regarding licensing? I told you that you had just proved my point that the state was in a catch 22 and that is why it took 2 years to decide regarding the last appeal.
> 
> During the last appeal the Montana Wildlife Federation lawyer when asked by the judge, "if this was about disease why not shut down all these operations." The lawyer answered, because if we did that it would be considered a TAKINGS, but this way it is only a partial takings and no compensation is necessary. The judge pushed back in disgust and said, "but isn't that what you just did by taking away one of their major sources of income?"
> 
> So Roger, isn't that what you are attempting to do here, shut these operations down without compensating them?
> 
> Why would one person have that much conviction to collect 6000 signatures the first go round with this measure and now collect 8350 signatures?
> 
> By the way Roger, that is how the Humane Society of the United States works, using ballot initiatives and finding judges that are sympathetic to their cause. Is that why you met with David Pauli, Regional Director for HSUS, two years ago?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> Do you condone lying, mis truths and half truths in gathering signatures? Do you think laws should be based on truth?


Funny how this keeps being brought up by supporters of canned shooting as being important, but it is OK for them to paint conspiracy theories and try to pass them off as fact, try and make claims of behind the scenes support through innuendo and outright lies!!!!

So to you LT just as I asked DG and will ask anyone else if you think a persons profession or livelihood has bearing if they do not support your position, I would suggest that your supporters who call on someones profession state what connection they have with canned shooting or any organization that is not supporting this. Pretty simple wouldn't you say?

To make it simple for you, do not WHINE ABOUT POSSIBLE MISS TRUTHS, THEN COME ON AND POSTS MISS TRUTHS!


----------



## KurtR

looks like the email is going over good.
http://www.fishingbuddy.com/email_from_roger_kaseman


----------



## jhegg

KurtR,

Well Kurt, according to this pm you sent me at Fishing Buddy, you must be a real class act. I really don't expect anything other than this from you and the crowd that runs in the high fence circle.

Jim Heggeness



> by KurtR » Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:53 pm
> 
> jhegg wrote:KurtR,
> 
> I suppose. according to you, that we should stop trying to enforce any laws because that will put the issues in front of the people and encourage them to break those laws. Hey - get a life!
> 
> Jim
> 
> Ok dishrag i never said anything about not enforcing any laws and never said anything about breaking laws so quit making crap up in your friken head. Hey thanks for helping me get a life and texting all my friends in ND and getting the word that your group is a bunch of D-bags and now i have a bunch of people that will go vote that usally do not. And you know how news travels amongst the younger people via twitter and facebook. Hows that for a life. know it all ethics god.
> KurtR
> guest


Edited by Jim H to reflect this message from KurtR was a pm at Fishing Buddy, not an e-mail as I had stated.


----------



## bioman

Is this what high fence hunting leads to??? Read below. With scum like the Mertz brothers running past operations and involved with the North Dakota Professional Guides and Outfitters Association, the wholesale cheapening of the heritage for profit and ultimately greed by the professional profiteers was a signature display. Read below and draw your own conclusion. Also, can anybody verify that the Mertz' sold high fence hunts?

Hey Gabe, please feel free to call Tim Purdon or Mike Hoffman and ask for their legal opinions of the Lacey Act and implementation under this initiated measure. The Mertz brothers were obviously convicted of violating the act, read the last paragraph of the first posting...

Aug 29, 2007 - 09:42:12 CDT 
By RICHARD HINTON 
Bismarck Tribune 
The owners and operators of Sheyenne Valley Lodge have signed plea agreements in a federal wildlife case involving migratory game bird violations, court documents show.

Theodore Mertz and Orlan Mertz made their initial court appearance Tuesday in Bismarck in a video conference hookup before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Klein, who was in Fargo.

Although the two men and the corporation entered not-guilty pleas in Tuesday's preliminary hearing, plea-change and sentencing proceedings will be held Nov. 9 before U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland. The men and the corporation are presumed innocent until the change of plea, Klein said. At assistant U.S. attorney Cameron Hayden's request, the men were released on their own recognizance after Tuesday's hearing.

"I would have to say it's a far-reaching prosecution, probably the largest game and fish prosecution in the state of North Dakota on several levels," said Hayden.

The case also involves seven guides who worked at Sheyenne Valley Lodge, west of Goodrich in Sheridan County, and 94 hunters from across the United States. Federal authorities mailed ticket to the hunters, who are from 27 states including North Dakota, and have all paid their fines. Fines in the entire case total $120,000.

Theodore Mertz signed a plea agreement admitting to unlawful transportation of wildlife, a misdemeanor, and signed a plea agreement admitting to unlawful sale of wildlife as a partner of Sheyenne Valley Lodge, LLP. That count is a felony.

Orlan Mertz's plea agreement admits to unlawful transportation of wildlife.

In the plea agreements, the government will recommend that Theodore Mertz and Orlan Mertz each be sentenced to 18 months probation and loss of hunting privileges in North America for 18 months. Together, the men and the corporation will pay an $80,000 fine. Together, they also will pay $10,000 restitution to the federal government and forfeit two shotguns to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They also have agreed to a lifetime ban on guiding or outfitting in the United States.

Although federal prosecutors, the defendants and their lawyers have agreed to the plea arrangement, the final decision on the sentence lies with Hovland.

The felony count carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, a $250,000 fine and supervised release for a maximum of three years. The misdemeanors have a maximum penalty of one year in prison, a $100,000 fine and up to a year supervised release.

"Ted Mertz accepts responsibility as far as the charges are concerned, and he regrets the situation. He has entered into a plea agreement, which we think is fair, and Ted is anxious to put this behind him and move on," said Tim Purdon, who is representing Theodore Mertz and Sheyenne Valley Lodge.

Mike Hoffman, Orlan Mertz's attorney, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

Federal and state authorities served a federal search warrant in October 2005 after numerous citizen complaints and an undercover investigation. The violations took place between October 2004 and October 2005, court records said.

Guides regularly took clients on morning and evening hunts, even if the clients had limited in the morning, the court record said. The guides also were instructed to falsify records to cover up the excess number of ducks and geese brought back to the lodge.

Guides also pitched some ducks into dump pits, where authorities found carcasses in various states of decomposition and retrieved 94 waterfowl carcasses, including shovelers, gadwalls, mallards and pintails.

The guides also allowed clients to harvest their daily bag limit of waterfowl, court records show.

Hunters paid between $1,600 and $2,000 for a three-day upland game and waterfowl hunt at Sheyenne Valley Lodge, and most clients who flew into Bismarck would leave without taking their birds.

A $60,000 fine and restitution paid by Warren W. Anderson had been the largest ever for wildlife-related crimes in North Dakota. In a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for killing five hawks and for violating the Lacey Act by helping hunters transport an over-limit of pheasants out of state. All of the violations were committed in 2004.

Plea agreements, by their nature, are compromises, Hayden pointed out.

"There are many facts and factors taken into consideration. As far as from the government prospective, we look at the impact of the overall prosecution of the case," he explained.

(Reach outdoor writer Richard Hinton at 250-8256 or [email protected];bismarcktribune.com.)

Aug 29, 2007 - 04:04:37 CDT 
By RICHARD HINTON 
Bismarck Tribune 
Seven guides who worked at Sheyenne Valley Lodge have made plea deals that involve probation, loss of hunting privileges and fines totaling almost $10,000 in a federal case against the Sheridan County lodge, documents show.

Kyle M. Davis faced one count of unlawful sale and transportation of migratory game birds, and another count of custody of birds of another, according to court documents. At sentencing, the government will recommend that Davis be given 12 months probation and loss of hunting, guiding and outfitting privileges, a $1,000 fine for the first count and a $250 fine for the second count. The agreement also calls for Davis to pay a $325 fine to the North Dakota Game and Fish Department for a wanton waste of migratory game bird violation and to plead guilty to that state violation.

Guide Carl Cree faced one count of unlawful sale and transportation of migratory game birds and a second count of unlawful take of migratory game birds, court documents said. At Cree's sentencing, the government will recommend 18 months probation and loss of hunting, guiding and firearms privileges, a $1,000 fine for the first count and a $750 fine for the second count.

Troy D. Regstad faced one count of unlawful sale and transportation of migratory game birds, and a second count of custody of birds of another, court records show. The government will recommend 12 months probation and loss of hunting, guiding and outfitting privileges, a $1,000 fine for the first count and a $250 fine for the second count. Regstad also will pay a $450 fine to the NDGFD for a deer poaching violation and to plead guilty to that state violation at sentencing.

Evan Sieling also faced a count of unlawful sale and transportation of migratory game birds and a second count of unlawful possession of untagged migratory game birds, the documents said. According to the agreement, the government will recommend 18 months probation and loss of hunting, guiding and firearms privileges, a $1,000 fine for the first count and a $250 fine for the second count.

Jason R. Grahn faced a count of unlawful sale and transportation of migratory game birds and a count of unlawful possession of untagged migratory game birds. The government will recommend 18 months of probation with loss of hunting, firearms and guiding privileges, a $1,000 fine for the first count and a $250 fine for count two. Grahn also will agree to pay a $450 fine to the NDGFD for a state deer poaching violation and plead guilty to that violation.

Adam Herberlie also faced a count of unlawful sale and transportation of migratory game birds and a second count of custody of birds of another, the documents showed. At sentencing, the government will recommend six months of probation with loss of hunting, guiding and outfitting privileges, a $500 fine for the count one and a $250 fine for the second count.

Guide Andy Uhlich faced a count of unlawful sale and transportation of migratory game birds, and a second count of custody of birds of another, court documents showed. According to his signed plea agreement, the government will recommend that Uhlich will be given 12 months probation and lose hunting, guiding and outfitting privileges, pay a $1,000 fine for the first count and a $250 fine on the second count. He also will pay a $325 to NDGFD for a wanton waste of migratory game birds violation and plead guilty to that state violation. Uhlich made an initial court appearance Monday in Minot. Appearance dates for the other six guides are pending.


----------



## KurtR

jhegg said:


> KurtR,
> 
> Well Kurt, according to this pm you sent me at Fishing Buddy, you must be a real class act. I really don't expect anything other than this from you and the crowd that runs in the high fence circle.
> 
> Jim Heggeness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by KurtR » Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:53 pm
> 
> jhegg wrote:KurtR,
> 
> I suppose. according to you, that we should stop trying to enforce any laws because that will put the issues in front of the people and encourage them to break those laws. Hey - get a life!
> 
> Jim
> 
> Ok dishrag i never said anything about not enforcing any laws and never said anything about breaking laws so quit making crap up in your friken head. Hey thanks for helping me get a life and texting all my friends in ND and getting the word that your group is a bunch of D-bags and now i have a bunch of people that will go vote that usally do not. And you know how news travels amongst the younger people via twitter and facebook. Hows that for a life. know it all ethics god.
> KurtR
> guest
> 
> 
> 
> Edited by Jim H to reflect this message from KurtR was a pm at Fishing Buddy, not an e-mail as I had stated.
Click to expand...

I have never pm you anything i wrote that on the other fair chase fiasco thing on here go look on page 3 sunday sept 5th 3:53 if you dont believe me. If you want i can have the moderators on here and FB go throug my in and out box of my private messages to prove it. I dont know any one who runs a high fence operation so guess that is not my crowd. Funny how you can talk some crap but if anyone says anything to you it is because they are some kind of bad person. If i did not know any better i would think you are some 10 year old who can dish it out but throws a fit when some on gives it back.. So if you are going to say i did some thing get it right and dont make sh!t up becaue i can see how your crowd works and really guess i am not to surprised but what do i know you seem to know what and how every one should do every thing (maybe give childress a call)

Funny seems that email is going over good is there a trend and walls are starting to crumble? Is that why you are so butt hurt that i posted that? Why dont you go on FB and tell everyone to take there ball and go home to.


----------



## gst

bioman why will 3 sponsors that are posting on this thread not directly answer all the questions that were asked? If they want to dispell what is being suggested their measure will do, the simplist way to do that would be to directly and completely answer the questions asked.


----------



## djleye

I simply cannot wait for this vote to be over............I wish that both sides could lose!!!!!!!!! :roll:


----------



## gst

djleye, If these type of things bother you, go directly to the source. If a small group of elitist thinking individuals were not trying to impose their personal agenda of controling what one must take from the experience to call it hunting by starting this measure, this issue would not exist. This group claimed to represent all ND hunters at one time, it has become clear they do not. If more hunters had stood up during the first failed attempt to gather signatures, perhaps this measure would not be here today. But given the nature of these few sponsors that is probably unlikely. So it rests on the rest of ND hunters to ask yourselves if having one group of people determining what you as an individual has to take from the hunting experience not only to call it hunting but to even be allowed to pursue the experience in a certain manner, is what you want happening here in ND. Remember Roger Kaseman went around seeking support for an initiated measure to ban hunting and has publically stated he does not believe trail cameras are ethical. A success in this measure will likely end up with others following by this group and the debates that accompany them will continue. Once other groups see success thru regulating some kinds or methods of hunting thru the initiated process, what else may follow? The ability to prevent these type things from continueoing lies in your hands. A defeat at the polls, and a clear measage sent to this group is the only way to keep this type thing from continueing. The problem is now besides just hunters, the nonhunting public AS WELL AS THE ANTI HUNTING PUBLIC can cast their vote to determine the outcome of this measure. Ask yourself if you want to give them that opportunity on other issues related to hunting.


----------



## jhegg

Gabe,



> The problem is now besides just hunters, the nonhunting public AS WELL AS THE ANTI HUNTING PUBLIC can cast their vote to determine the outcome of this measure. Ask yourself if you want to give them that opportunity on other issues related to hunting.


You seem to think that only you and your cronies should have any say in the activities you are involved in. And you call us elitist...

Jim


----------



## KurtR

Still waiting for you to explain to me why you said i pm you some thing. Dont like when people make stuff up that i have done and take shots at me. I guess you must be a real class act to just make it up as you go. What else can i expect though


----------



## gst

jhegg said:


> Gabe,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is now besides just hunters, the nonhunting public AS WELL AS THE ANTI HUNTING PUBLIC can cast their vote to determine the outcome of this measure. Ask yourself if you want to give them that opportunity on other issues related to hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think that only you and your cronies should have any say in the activities you are involved in. And you call us elitist...
> 
> Jim
Click to expand...

Jim I simply do not believe it is wise to open the door to anti hunting groups to welcome them to have a say in regulating hunting. And from the comments by several people on this site and FBO, I am not alone. Perhaps that is why you could not get enough support from within the hunting community the first atempt, and you started going to home and garden shows instead. :-?

Now if you or any other sponsor would care to clear the air in regards to the questions I have asked , many people would like to hear your answers to ALL of them. If your intent in this measure is upfront and honest, what do you really have to lose by answering them ?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

So gst, you are afraid to allow voters a choice! You can try and claim it is about one group or another, but the reality is you are afraid of the ND voter period. You should be happy this is going to a vote if all that you claim is accurate this measure should go down 80% NO votes. I have never seen a group more afraid of a ballot box in my life! So stop with the spin about group X or group Y being the issue.


----------



## eliptiabeht

Ron Gilmore said:


> So gst, you are afraid to allow voters a choice! You can try and claim it is about one group or another, but the reality is you are afraid of the ND voter period. You should be happy this is going to a vote if all that you claim is accurate this measure should go down 80% NO votes. I have never seen a group more afraid of a ballot box in my life! So stop with the spin about group X or group Y being the issue.


 :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

Exactly where is your common sense with this post! 
Common sense would tell you there are also many many things in the fair chase world you would not want the church basement ladies voting on.


----------



## swift

I think if the voters of ND could read the statements of a board member of NDSA saying people aren't smart enough to vote on this issue. And people should not be given the opportunity to vote on this because he and his know what is best for North Dakota and are willing to dictate that to the masses. Much like they do with there blanket opposition to land sales to nonprofits. There are a lot of votes that can be garnered just be using the words of those on both sides. It seems like GST et.al want to turn this into a rural vs urban issue. I knew given long enough the "land will be posted because of this" arguement would come out. Refreshing it wasn't from GST this time.


----------



## FowlBoysInc

> I have never seen a group more afraid of a ballot box in my life!


 You hit the nail on the head !!!!!!!!!!!! because if this thing passes, it scares me to death just thinking of all the doors it will open,and close.


----------



## gst

Where have I said the voters of ND "are not smart enough" to vote on an issue, or have claimed "he and his know whats best"???? If you guys are going to make these claims, back them up or it looks rather petty ands childish and takes away from the debate of what this measure may indeed do.

I simply believe opening the door to WELCOME anti hunters and non hunters to begin having a say in regulating any form of hunting is a mistake. If you are willing to overlook the possible consequences MANY people have brought up and are concerned with by opening this door just to get a personal agenda passed, how can you claim to be "responsibly" protecting the hunting heritage.

I also simply believe state law chould be based on factual truth. Anyone would be hard pressed to claim the sponsors of this measure have foillowed that standard.

Instead of making this debate personal on a juvenile level, why not simply answer 8 questions as to the "facts" of this measure. To continue not to do so appears that there is indeed a reason why they are not being addressed. All the sponsors have to do is answer all the questions directly to set the record straight in regards to this measure.


----------



## Archimedes

1.	Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman on this site when asked if this measure will prevent someone from selling a live animal to another individual who then shoots the animal he now owns, stated this measure will allow the Federal Lacey Act to be used to make this a possible felony with a $10,000 dollar fine. Is this true and who has your group communicated with for a sponsor to be able to factually publically make this claim?

Answer: No clue what Roger Kaseman might have said...

2. Are these animals defined in the state NDCC as privately owned domestic animals that can be used as collateral?

Answer: Who cares? probably

3.Why is this being placed in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC where there is currently a definition of these animals as privately owned domestic farmed elk, when the measure lists them as big game that is regulated in Sec 27 of the NDCC. And who advised your group as to putting it here?

Answer: As has been stated more than once by others, the former lawyer for the board of animal health and ag department that drafted the measure drafted it to fit where it will go if passed. The terms in the current law were written for other purposes. The measure language won't impact those purposes if it becomes law.

4. If the intent is to protect hunnting from the "black eye" shooting an animal inside a fenced enclosure and calling it hunting gives hunting itself, why were buffalo purposely excluded from the measure when there are more operations advertising "canned" "fenced" buffalo "hunts" here in the state than there are deer hunting operations?

Answer: Bison don't threaten the public interest in wildlife like genetically altering deer and elk do. The "freak" deer the HF operators want and trade in weaken the gene pool of wild herds creating a conduit for disease transfer to a greater degree than naturally occurs, or even occurs in game farming. These types of freak deer are bred for horns only: http://www.dabuckchannel.com/video/516/ ... tails-Buck
These irresponsible risky practices don't occur in bison herds and there is no wild herds of bison in ND the public has an interest in protecting.

5.If your goal is to eliminate a disease risk here in the state from these elk and deer operations, to accomplish this do you have to eliminate all of these operations that raise deer or elk for any purposes from operating here in ND and is that the goal of the group NDH for FC?

Answer: If you want to ban game farms you are welcome to gather signatures. The HF operations create an increased risk of disease because it is a growing industry and if the measure fails nothing will stop many more HF operations in the state. Which is the stated goal of the out of state funders of the opponents hiding behind "property rights". Their plan to expand the market for their mutant deer is posted above. You can't eliminate the risk of disease just reduce it. . The more HF operations the more of a disease risk to public herds. This measure reduces the disease risk it doesn't eliminate it.

6. You claim this measure does nothing to affect ranchers raising cattle or buffalo, what about the elk rancher raising elk for slaughter rather than a HF enterprise. Will these ranchers be able to continue the practice of selling an animal to an individual for a fee or renumeration that then shoots said aninmal on the premise and takes that animal to process it themselves as is currently allowed by law??

Answer: Nothing stops the farm slaughter of any animal. Why wouldn't the game farmer just shoot the animal if it is not a "hunt"...

7. Do you believe raising legaly defined privately owned domestic animals in accordance with all appropriate state regulations is a property right?

Answer: all wildlife belongs to the public to be protected in the public interest by the public trust doctrine. This has been the law long before ND was a state. States can create some statutory rights to own or possess wildlife, and they can also change the conditions of ownership in those statutes to protect the interests of the public. When wildlife is privatized for some purposes it is subject to debate. But when it is privatized to "hunt" the states are not protecting wildlife under the public trust doctrine. All of this is laid out on the fair chase website.

8. And one just for fun, Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman claimed on this site this measure is about "bragging rights" and "hanging a head on the wall" . Is this the official position of NDH for FC? 
Answer: No

There, I hope that helps you get past your fixation on this particular set of questions. Something tells me you will just create a bunch of new ones.....Image that..


----------



## LT

Archimedes Stated:


> 4. If the intent is to protect hunnting from the "black eye" shooting an animal inside a fenced enclosure and calling it hunting gives hunting itself, why were buffalo purposely excluded from the measure when there are more operations advertising "canned" "fenced" buffalo "hunts" here in the state than there are deer hunting operations?
> 
> Answer: Bison don't threaten the public interest in wildlife like genetically altering deer and elk do. The "freak" deer the HF operators want and trade in weaken the gene pool of wild herds creating a conduit for disease transfer to a greater degree than naturally occurs, or even occurs in game farming. These types of freak deer are bred for horns only: http://www.dabuckchannel.com/video/516/ ... tails-Buck
> These irresponsible risky practices don't occur in bison herds and there is no wild herds of bison in ND the public has an interest in protecting.
> 
> 5.If your goal is to eliminate a disease risk here in the state from these elk and deer operations, to accomplish this do you have to eliminate all of these operations that raise deer or elk for any purposes from operating here in ND and is that the goal of the group NDH for FC?
> 
> Answer: If you want to ban game farms you are welcome to gather signatures. The HF operations create an increased risk of disease because it is a growing industry and if the measure fails nothing will stop many more HF operations in the state. Which is the stated goal of the out of state funders of the opponents hiding behind "property rights". Their plan to expand the market for their mutant deer is posted above. You can't eliminate the risk of disease just reduce it. . The more HF operations the more of a disease risk to public herds. This measure reduces the disease risk it doesn't eliminate it.


And now we have the truth. This is not about ethics. If these operations are truly such a risk to the public wildlife, then shut them down and compensate them! Don't use a backdoor method to take their businesses away. This is exactly what happened in Montana and is being tried here. This is what this measure is all about, and it is totally disgusting!!

http://dakotabeacon.com/entry/dwight_gr ... asure_two/



> Therefore I believe it is your mission to shut all game farms down by using the exact method that was admitted to by the Wildlife Federation Lawyer in Montana. He told the judge when asked "if this was truly about disease" then why didn't you just get rid of all game farms. His response was because if we had done that, it would have been a takings, this way it is only a PARTIAL takings. Therefore no compensation is needed. The judge asked him, but isn't that what you have done by taking away a main source of income.





> Roger,
> 
> Do you remember when you told me in Montana if they would have over ruled this measure, it would have set a precedent regarding mom and pop businesses to sue the state regarding licensing? I told you that you had just proved my point that the state was in a catch 22 and that is why it took 2 years to decide regarding the last appeal.
> 
> During the last appeal the Montana Wildlife Federation lawyer when asked by the judge, "if this was about disease why not shut down all these operations." The lawyer answered, because if we did that it would be considered a TAKINGS, but this way it is only a partial takings and no compensation is necessary. The judge pushed back in disgust and said, "but isn't that what you just did by taking away one of their major sources of income?"
> 
> So Roger, isn't that what you are attempting to do here, shut these operations down without compensating them?
> 
> Why would one person have that much conviction to collect 6000 signatures the first go round with this measure and now collect 8350 signatures?
> 
> By the way Roger, that is how the Humane Society of the United States works, using ballot initiatives and finding judges that are sympathetic to their cause. Is that why you met with David Pauli, Regional Director for HSUS, two years ago?


http://www.ndpropertyrights.com/


----------



## KurtR

Archimedes said:


> 1.	Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman on this site when asked if this measure will prevent someone from selling a live animal to another individual who then shoots the animal he now owns, stated this measure will allow the Federal Lacey Act to be used to make this a possible felony with a $10,000 dollar fine. Is this true and who has your group communicated with for a sponsor to be able to factually publically make this claim?
> 
> Answer: No clue what Roger Kaseman might have said...
> 
> 2. Are these animals defined in the state NDCC as privately owned domestic animals that can be used as collateral?
> 
> Answer: Who cares? probably
> 
> 3.Why is this being placed in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC where there is currently a definition of these animals as privately owned domestic farmed elk, when the measure lists them as big game that is regulated in Sec 27 of the NDCC. And who advised your group as to putting it here?
> 
> Answer: As has been stated more than once by others, the former lawyer for the board of animal health and ag department that drafted the measure drafted it to fit where it will go if passed. The terms in the current law were written for other purposes. The measure language won't impact those purposes if it becomes law.
> 
> 4. If the intent is to protect hunnting from the "black eye" shooting an animal inside a fenced enclosure and calling it hunting gives hunting itself, why were buffalo purposely excluded from the measure when there are more operations advertising "canned" "fenced" buffalo "hunts" here in the state than there are deer hunting operations?
> 
> Answer: Bison don't threaten the public interest in wildlife like genetically altering deer and elk do. The "freak" deer the HF operators want and trade in weaken the gene pool of wild herds creating a conduit for disease transfer to a greater degree than naturally occurs, or even occurs in game farming. These types of freak deer are bred for horns only: http://www.dabuckchannel.com/video/516/ ... tails-Buck
> These irresponsible risky practices don't occur in bison herds and there is no wild herds of bison in ND the public has an interest in protecting.
> 
> 5.If your goal is to eliminate a disease risk here in the state from these elk and deer operations, to accomplish this do you have to eliminate all of these operations that raise deer or elk for any purposes from operating here in ND and is that the goal of the group NDH for FC?
> 
> Answer: If you want to ban game farms you are welcome to gather signatures. The HF operations create an increased risk of disease because it is a growing industry and if the measure fails nothing will stop many more HF operations in the state. Which is the stated goal of the out of state funders of the opponents hiding behind "property rights". Their plan to expand the market for their mutant deer is posted above. You can't eliminate the risk of disease just reduce it. . The more HF operations the more of a disease risk to public herds. This measure reduces the disease risk it doesn't eliminate it.
> 
> 6. You claim this measure does nothing to affect ranchers raising cattle or buffalo, what about the elk rancher raising elk for slaughter rather than a HF enterprise. Will these ranchers be able to continue the practice of selling an animal to an individual for a fee or renumeration that then shoots said aninmal on the premise and takes that animal to process it themselves as is currently allowed by law??
> 
> Answer: Nothing stops the farm slaughter of any animal. Why wouldn't the game farmer just shoot the animal if it is not a "hunt"...
> 
> 7. Do you believe raising legaly defined privately owned domestic animals in accordance with all appropriate state regulations is a property right?
> 
> Answer: all wildlife belongs to the public to be protected in the public interest by the public trust doctrine. This has been the law long before ND was a state. States can create some statutory rights to own or possess wildlife, and they can also change the conditions of ownership in those statutes to protect the interests of the public. When wildlife is privatized for some purposes it is subject to debate. But when it is privatized to "hunt" the states are not protecting wildlife under the public trust doctrine. All of this is laid out on the fair chase website.
> 
> 8. And one just for fun, Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman claimed on this site this measure is about "bragging rights" and "hanging a head on the wall" . Is this the official position of NDH for FC?
> Answer: No
> 
> There, I hope that helps you get past your fixation on this particular set of questions. Something tells me you will just create a bunch of new ones.....Image that..


So you go from only finding this on the intraweb a week ago to being able to answer the questions asked of the sponsors. To bad the guys in charge of this were not as efficient as you are. Thanks for answering those questions now if only one of the sponsors would take the time you did .


----------



## swift

LT, If this measure passes why would you have to shut down? Why couldn't you change your focus from hunting to selling cervids to slaughter, or whatever the 60+ non HFH cervid ranchers do with their livestock? This is a serious question.


----------



## gst

Archemides, thanks for kinda answering some of the questions. You are certainly entitled to have your opinion on these questions. But you see as you are not a sponsor, your opinion is simply that, an opinion. And when this ends up in a court of law from the challenge that will likely come as it did in Mt., your "opinion" is of no consequence, as is mine or anyone elses that is not a sponsor. It is the "facts" of the intent behind the sponsors in what this measure will do that matters and that will be considered by the courts.

Would you like to bet a steak dinner wether the attorney guiding these sponsors is of the same ideologies regarding these HF operations as are the sponsors?

So if the sponsors are unwilling to come on these sites and answer these questions it says a great deal to the "intent" behind this measure. It appears they are willing to sit back and let their lackeys distract from the debate. As I have stated if the intent is as straight forward as is being claimed regarding this measure, what harm can come from these sponsors answering these 8 questions?


----------



## Archimedes

I just took from what I have read in other posts and articles about this and tried to help you out with your questions. As a hunter, if the "ideology" of the attorney that wrote the measure matches the sponsors and the Boone and Crockett Club, I am fine with that:

BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB POSITION STATEMENT
ETHICAL HUNTING VERSUS UNETHICAL SHOOTING AND OTHER PRACTICES

The Boone and Crockett Club has been a highly respected conservation leader and proponent of ethical Fair Chase hunting of North American big game since 1887.

Ethical Fair Chase Hunting

The Boone and Crockett Club, in its Fair Chase statement, advocates any hunting that is "the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals."

Unethical "Canned" Shooting (Improperly referred to as "canned" hunting.)

The Boone and Crockett Club condemns the pursuit and killing of any big game animal kept in or released from captivity to be killed in an artificial or bogus "hunting" situation where the game lacks the equivalent chance to escape afforded free-ranging animals, virtually assuring the shooter a certain or unrealistically favorable chance of a kill.

Genetic Manipulation of Game Animals

The Boone and Crockett Club condemns artificial and unnatural enhancement of a big game species' genetic characteristics. Unacceptable practices for genetic enhancement include, but are not limited to, artificial insemination, controlled or unnatural breeding programs, cloning, and translocation of breeding stock for canned shooting purposes.

Public Perception

The Boone and Crockett Club is greatly concerned that the non-hunting public may confuse ethical, fair chase hunting with canned shoots, genetic manipulations and other related practices, which the Club condemns.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

If we who have an opinion against canned shooting are lackeys, and you have stated you have no interest in HFS, then that makes you a lackey for the canned shooters, or are you speaking for the organization you sit on the board of GST? Will they be a plaintiff if this passes and ends up in court?

Now let's address the issue of voters. You keep implying that some people based on your critera should not have a right to vote upon this issue. Your reason for them not being proper voters is as weak as a soap bubble against a finger poking it. I think the comment by a supporter about church basement women is more telling and probably an accurate portrait of your and others on the side of canned shooting.

Why is it you fear the voters so much in truth?


----------



## Bob Kellam

*Financial impact of North Dakota hunting measure unknown *
BISMARCK - There are no known added expenses to the government if voters approve an initiated measure related to fee hunting of captive exotic and native game animals, lawmakers learned Thursday. 
By: Teri Finneman, INFORUM

There are no known added expenses to the government if voters approve an initiated measure related to fee hunting of captive exotic and native game animals, lawmakers learned Thursday.

Voters will decide in November whether people should be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if they obtain payment for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals in or released from a man-made enclosure.

The measure doesn't apply to authorized government employees or agents controlling an animal population or preventing or controlling diseases.

The Legislative Management meeting on Thursday was not an opportunity to debate the issue, but to determine what the fiscal impact of the measure may be, said Chairman Rep. Al Carlson, R-Fargo.

The State Board of Animal Health doesn't know what the impact may be, said Beth Carlson, deputy state veterinarian.


----------



## bioman

> _*Archemides, thanks for kinda answering some of the questions. You are certainly entitled to have your opinion on these questions. But you see as you are not a sponsor, your opinion is simply that, an opinion. And when this ends up in a court of law from the challenge that will likely come as it did in Mt., your "opinion" is of no consequence, as is mine or anyone elses that is not a sponsor. It is the "facts" of the intent behind the sponsors in what this measure will do that matters and that will be considered by the courts. *_


Gabe, WOW, your post and logic is astoundingly funny and amusingly ironic!

I am trying to follow your logic based specifically on the highlighted comment above. Evidently, you, Gabe Thompson Jr., have some inherent or implied right to issue a set of eight 'fact seeking questions' that are issued based on your OPINION and BIAS? However, you EXPECT a sponsor to issue a 'factual' response to your OPINION and BIASED set of questions. Would their response be an opinion, a fact, or a statement? Regardless, you just stated above the OPINION is of no consequence. Don't you love your own irony?

Since you are such a big fan of asking questions, I have one for you. Name one, better yet, name any initiated measure in any state for that matter, where the sponsors of an initiated measure bear the responsibility, inherent or implied, to address anybody's, and more importantly YOUR, so called set of 'factually seeking questions' on an internet forum or any other media type? Of course, there are debates, but those have specific rules of engagement etc. The last time I checked, an internet forum is not a formal debate venue, or anything even close. Hence, the reason a vast majority of the participants purposefully choose to remain anonymous.

Here's my answer/OPINION to the question: The last time I voted, if a measure has gathered enough signatures and made it's way past the Attorney General's review and onto a ballot, it is the States responsibility to issue a voter Blue Book that details the 'facts' of the measure if APPROVED. Both sides of the measure get to cast their viewpoint in Blue Book i.e., their OPINION. However, it is simply nothing more than their OPINION. As a voter, I get the inherent right to determine whether or not I approve or disapprove of the MEASURE, and how I base it is my decision. As a voter, you can seek whatever 'facts' you wish in determining your vote. However, an initiated measure does not have any requirement to provide the voter with their set of implied/opined set of 'facts.' So thanks for the guffaw, I really enjoyed your contradiction in logic.

And another question, is the following 'fact' or opinion by Mr. Dwight Grosz. Funny how the same internet High Fence lackeys that remain anonymous do the same in the public. And I am quite pleased to see that your 'fact-finding' mission has already taken you to this OPINION.

Monday, September 20, 2010 
DWIGHT GROSZ: THE REAL AGENDA OF MEASURE TWO
By Beacon Author on September 20, 2010 at 03:07 am 
10 Comments 
What is the real agenda of Measure Two, the captive-hunting initiative on the November ballot? Is it simply about abolishing hunting of farmed elk and deer. One of the big question marks out there amongst the public is, "people own domestic elk and deer?" They were purchased from the federal government or the U.S. Biological Survey back in the 1920s, same time as buffalo. They are several generations removed from the wild. They are private property same as buffalo.
The measure: 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. This Act becomes effective on November 1, 2012.
The measure does not say farmed elk, bison or deer. It does not say hunting, owner or on farm slaughter. If it were passed in Nov. it will have to go to court to decipher its code. A judge may throw it out as it means nothing. However, it is written so vaguely, a judge could interpret it broadly. It could have far more ramifications than what the public is being told or what voters would even allow. Language like this would never make it out of a legislative committee. It would be amended to say what it means.
The sponsers of the measure are a coalition of three things.No.1 Elitist fair chasers. If you don't hunt the way they do then just stay home. No.2 Animal Rights Advocates. They like the language of this measure as it would be placed in the livestock section of the NDCC. Think about it, no killing or attempted killing of an animal confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. It could be a future virus planted in the livestock section. No.3 Certain current/retired federal government employees from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Geological Survey. There are seven who are/were sponsers of the fair chase initiative in 2007 and now in 2009. They refuse to recognize "farmed elk and deer." Theirs is a militant approach. Nature knows best.
Whether it's high fence hunting, cattle burping and farting methane, navigateable waters, wolves, CRP, spotted owls, wetlands, global warming, lead ammunition and just about every other politcal debate we are having, it increasingly defines the two world views between states rights and federal encroachment.

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

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

Measure two is about the delivery-ethics, disease, it's not fair-coming from the fair chase committee. Create a "crisis discipline." Pound the table with emotion when the facts are not on their side.

Using the fair chase committee as a front and using the press they realize that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Social change is always about pressure. Newsworthy or colorfull demonstrations in the streets are the tested, tried and true method to grow the number of uninterested voters. Trial by media.
The chairman of the fair chase committee, Roger Kaseman moved to North Dakota about six years ago from California. His activities with the Humane Society are well documented. At a public forum in Jamestown ND he said, "We do not recognize property rights." The word "we" is plural. He was speaking for the committee as a whole. The man seated next to him was Lloyd Jones, sponser of the measure, federal employee with the USFWS.
The proponents of the measure do not want the government to take physical possession of the animal because then they would have to compensate the owner.
Property is defined as five things:
No.1 Possession
No.2 Use
No.3 Control
No.4 To the exclusion of others
No.5 Disposition
This isn't about the ethics of hunting in a high fence as much as it is a stripping away of options and economic value on property with no compensation. Take away the option of how these animals are sold and make them worth as much as an unwanted horse. Force every elk and deer grower out of business. That is the real agenda.
Please vote no on Measure Two


----------



## Savage260

Just wanted to say "congrats" to the fair chase committee!!! Your back door Humane Society tactics claimed at least one of the "uneducated public". I was talking with an individual today about the vote. I asked him how he felt about your measure. I was told he didn't really know any thing about it, but he took one look at the pic of the elk by the fence and voted for you.

Is it ethical to TRICK people into voting by making them think these HF places are so small that the animals are all shot within a stone's throw of a fence? :eyeroll:

He said "I don't think it is fair for people to shoot animals fenced in like that". He has never hunted a day in his life, and knows nothing about HF, but all the sudden every HF operation in the country was putting an animal in a tiny enclosure and allowing some one to take pot shots at it. Propaganda at its finest! uke:

I have said before, and I will say again: I am not for HF, never have been, never will be. But I will not vote to support banning the practice. You say the measure will "preserve our hunting heritage" but I believe it will only lead to more bans which will endanger our heritage much more than the HF operations.


----------



## gst

Archemides, the beauty of the Boone and Crocket guidelines for acceptance into their record keeping system is one can choose wether to follow them or not. Once they begin to be forced onto individuals, at that time they become much less in stature then what they are now. Much like what one must take from the experience to call it hunting. When one group begins to determine that for others it lessens the hunting experience for all. Simply my opinion! :wink:


----------



## gst

Bob, this is the text from an update sent by someone that was in the room at the fiscal impact meeting. It conicides with a conversation I had over the weekend with the vets from the SBoAH.

quote[reps from the SBoAH and the G&F stated the fiscal impact was unknown or unable to be determined because of the vagueness of the language and the impact would depend on the interpretation if passed. ] end quote.

A little different take than the "news" release you shared. If you choose not to believe this, simply call the SBoAH and ask for yourself.


----------



## DG

bioman,

Thank you for posting my on-line letter in The Dakota Beacon. Everybody who is anybody (ND) following politics reads The Dakota Beacon. It should be out in it's magazine form soon. Did you like what I wrote? Somebody told me your name is Ryan, but I can't remember your last name. Do you work for the fedgov? Which service do you work for? Do you think elk and deer farms must all be shut down PERIOD? No compensation? Is that the real agenda?

And one more question just for fun. Do you suppose Plainsman and Archimedes share the same IP address?


----------



## gst

bioman, I have no more "inherent right" to ask questions of the sponsors of this measure than anyone else. Remember, it was a SPONSOR of this measure that started this thread entitled a "fact sheet" regarding this measure not me!!!! I am merely exercising my right as a citizen of this state that this law will be enacted in to ask a few questions regarding this measure, it's intent, how it will be implemented, and the consequences of it's intent and implementation and get "factual" answers here on this measures "fact sheet" . If the sponsors do not want to address them, many people other than myself are wondering why. I have shared my opinion of why that is. If that opinion is wrong, all the sponsors have to do is answer these 8 simple questions directly and entirely to prove my opinion wrong. Simple as that.

There is no state held requirement that sponsors answer any questions at all regarding their measure, nor is there any state held requirement for them to answer truthfully if they choose not to. But once a sponsor chooses to come on an internet site, wether it is an official debate or not and create an official "FACT SHEET" regarding their measure, they should expect a few questions regarding their measure and the "facts" involving it. If they choose not to answer them it will be left up to the voting public to form an opinion as to why they will not. Simple as that.

So if the sponsors continue to choose not to answer a simple set of questions, the voters will be able to form their own opinion why. I and others have shared ours. Apparently you are not of the same opinion,  but hey, as you said that is the perogative of the voters to be able to make that determination. I believe the voters should be able to make this determination based on ALL the "factual" truth pertaining to the measure, not just the ones the sponsors want to share. Simple as that.

So bioman answer this one simple question when sponsor Gary Masching stated he told voters these animals are wild game protected under article 11 sec 27 ofthe NDCC was he telling the truth by making this claim to potential signers of the petition. ? Yes or no?


----------



## Bob Kellam

*Effect of ND ban on fenced hunting hard to measure *
By DALE WETZEL Associated Press Writer , The Associated Press - BISMARCK, N.D.

Two state agencies said Thursday it would be difficult to calculate the budgetary effects of a proposed ban on shooting deer, elk and other big game inside a fenced preserve _ an issue North Dakota voters will decide Nov. 2.

Beth Carlson, the deputy North Dakota state veterinarian, said the Board of Animal Health may need to monitor fenced hunting operations more closely if North Dakota residents approve a voter initiative that would ban the practice.

The board regulates the state's 103 deer and elk farms, but its rules do not distinguish between those that offer paying customers a chance to shoot an animal and those that do not, Carlson said.

"We're not really sure whether we would have additional enforcement responsibilities," she said. "Obviously, if someone were required to be out there monitoring to make sure none of these types of activities were taking place, it would require several people."

If the Board of Animal Health has to draft new administrative rules to regulate a hunting ban, it would cost $2,000 to $3,000, Carlson said.

Greg Link, assistant wildlife chief for North Dakota's Game and Fish Department, and Shawn Schafer, director of the North Dakota Deer Farmers Association, said about a dozen of the fenced game ranches offer hunting for a price.

Measure 2 on North Dakota's fall ballot would bar the practice. The initiative's supporters contend fenced hunting is unethical because the targeted animals cannot escape; its critics say the measure would violate their property rights.

The state Legislature's Legislative Management committee, which includes legislative leaders from both parties, holds hearings on initiated measures to determine their potential impact on North Dakota's state budget. The panel then forwards a report to Secretary of State Al Jaeger.

Thursday's hearing did not provide much budget information. Carlson said it was impossible for the Board of Animal Health to calculate the measure's impact; Link said he expected the effect on the Game and Fish Department to be minimal.

Because of concerns about the spreading of animal diseases, the Game and Fish Department investigates incidents of animals escaping from the fenced preserves, and reports of wild animals trying to get in.

Schafer said the state would be likely to incur added legal expenses if the measure is approved.

"There's a good possibility that there will be a lawsuit," Schafer said.

Agencies unsure who would enforce hunting ban
StoryDiscussionBy REBECCA BEITSCH Bismarck Tribune | Posted: Thursday, September 30, 2010 4:36 pm |

Font Sizeefault font sizeLarger font sizeVarious state agencies were unable to tell lawmakers how much a proposed ban on captive hunting would cost them, mainly because they are unsure if they'll be the ones enforcing it.

There are more than 100 farms in North Dakota with elk, deer and other more exotic livestock that are monitored by the Game and Fish Department and the Board of Animal Health, but neither agency is sure if they'd be in charge of monitoring these farms for illegal activity should Measure 2 pass.

"It's a long way of saying we don't know," Deputy State Veterinarian Beth Carlson said of written testimony that said the board would need more employees and money to monitor the situation, but only if they learn the agency is designated to do so.

Rather than being regulated by state agencies, it's possible that local police departments would monitor the situation like they do many other crimes. It would then be that county's state's attorney who would charge the potential violator with a Class A misdemeanor.

Roger Kaseman, a member of the group sponsoring the measure, said it was his hope that the enforcement would ultimately happen through Game and Fish, but realizes that it won't be his decision.

"The department heads will have to sit down, discuss it, and come to an understanding," he said.

It's unclear how many people would be affected by the new law should it pass. Carlson said the Board of Animal Health doesn't ask what people do with these types of animals on their property, their concern is that they get tested for certain diseases before the meat is sold. It was her estimate that of the 100 farms they monitor, only about a dozen engage in captive hunting.

Shawn Schafer, executive director of the North American Deer Farmers Association, agreed with that figure and said the farms are spread throughout the state, excluding the Red River Valley.

Schafer himself is a breeder that supplies these types of farms. He said the farms make in the hundreds of thousands of dollars from out-of-state tourists.

He compared the state's restrictive tag rules to the lottery, saying captive hunting was the only way in-state hunters would be able to shoot several types of game and would certainly be the only option for out-of-state hunters.

Schafer didn't beat around the bush in telling lawmakers that while the departments might be unsure about the fiscal impact, if the measure passes, the lawsuit his group likely would bring would not be so cheap.

Although legislators were not asked to comment on the merit of the measure, two of Bismarck's state senators noted that even if the measure passes, it could be easy to get around.

"The bill bans fee hunting but doesn't ban someone from buying their elk or deer, and how I dispose of it is my business. I bought the deer and now, 'boom,' I get to shoot it," said state Sen. Tracy Potter, D-Bismarck. "That to me is the truck you could drive through this measure.


----------



## gst

Bob Kellam said:


> *Effect of ND ban on fenced hunting hard to measure *
> By DALE WETZEL Associated Press Writer , The Associated Press - BISMARCK, N.D.
> Schafer said the state would be likely to incur added legal expenses if the measure is approved.
> "There's a good possibility that there will be a lawsuit," Schafer said.


And thus the reason no sponsor will answer all 8 simple questions regarding thier measure. Wether bioman understands it or not, what mine or Ron Gilmore or anyone else that is not a sponsor opinions or statements are have little or no relevance when this ends up in the courts. However what the sponsors state in their "fact" sheet would indeed be relevant in this court of law, so I really do not expect any answers to all the questions posed, because if they were answered truthfully by the SPONSORS, the sponsors know that the courts could look at those answers and determine the sponsors indeed knew this is a legaly established property right that is bdeing taken away, that the intent of the measure is to close down all of these elk and deer operations by taking away a marketing ability, and that their actions indeed constitute a "takings" as 4 of 9 judges in Mt. believed their measure did. With the decision in Mt. being that close this group here in ND and the attorney that is advising them is no doubt not going to provide anything that the courts can use in regards to this aspect. That is more than likely why after slipping up and breifly claiming the Federal Lacey Act will be used to prevent the sale of a live animal by one individual to another individual who then shoots the animals he now owns on this very site, SPONSOR Roger Kaseman has not since defended that statement when asked about it or even when some SUPPORTERS are making claims this statement regarding the Lacey Act is not factual.

Now of course this is merely my "opinion", if the sponsors want to prove me wrong and set the record straight, all they have to do is come on THEIR "fact sheet" and answer all 8 questions directly and honestly. :wink:


----------



## bioman

> So bioman answer this one simple question when sponsor Gary Masching stated he told voters these animals are wild game protected under article 11 sec 27 ofthe NDCC was he telling the truth by making this claim to potential signers of the petition. ? Yes or no?


Gabe, what is the context of this quote? Was it stated directly to you? If not, your question and inference to the statement is a matter of simple conjecture. More importanlty, I always love your answering a question with a question ruse :thumb:.


----------



## gst

Bob Kellam said:


> *Effect of ND ban on fenced hunting hard to measure *
> Rather than being regulated by state agencies, it's possible that local police departments would monitor the situation like they do many other crimes. It would then be that county's state's attorney who would charge the potential violator with a Class A misdemeanor.
> 
> Roger Kaseman, a member of the group sponsoring the measure, said it was his hope that the enforcement would ultimately happen through Game and Fish, but realizes that it won't be his decision.
> 
> "The department heads will have to sit down, discuss it, and come to an understanding," he said.
> 
> Although legislators were not asked to comment on the merit of the measure, two of Bismarck's state senators noted that even if the measure passes, it could be easy to get around.
> 
> "The bill bans fee hunting but doesn't ban someone from buying their elk or deer, and how I dispose of it is my business. I bought the deer and now, 'boom,' I get to shoot it," said state Sen. Tracy Potter, D-Bismarck. "That to me is the truck you could drive through this measure.


I wonder why SPONSOR Roger Kaseman didn't share his claim the Federal Lacey Act will prevent this with a $10,000 fine with the two Bismarck Senators! :wink: I wonder if these two Senators fall under Rogers claim people with this question are merely "amaters trying to interpret law" like some "drunks trying to ride a bicycle" as he claimed in this HF thread! :wink:


----------



## bioman

> Wether bioman understands it or not, what mine or Ron Gilmore or anyone else that is not a sponsor opinions or statements are have little or no relevance when this ends up in the courts.


The only thing relevant Gabe is the outcome of the ballot vote and indeed, the wording of the measure. And I am fully aware that the courts will ultimately decide. Your opinion, as you stated, is of truly no consequence, including your biased 8 set of questions.


----------



## gst

bioman said:


> So bioman answer this one simple question when sponsor Gary Masching stated he told voters these animals are wild game protected under article 11 sec 27 ofthe NDCC was he telling the truth by making this claim to potential signers of the petition. ? Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> Gabe, what is the context of this quote? Was it stated directly to you? If not, your question and inference to the statement is a matter of simple conjecture. More importanlty, I always love your answering a question with a question ruse :thumb:.
Click to expand...

This was stated in a Dakota Country article. No conjecture.


----------



## gst

bioman said:


> Wether bioman understands it or not, what mine or Ron Gilmore or anyone else that is not a sponsor opinions or statements are have little or no relevance when this ends up in the courts.
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing relevant Gabe is the outcome of the ballot vote and indeed, the wording of the measure. And I am fully aware that the courts will ultimately decide. Your opinion, as you stated, is of truly no consequence, including your biased 8 set of questions.
Click to expand...

If the SPONSORS continue to duck answering these 8 simple questions many others believe are unbiased and simply trying to get at the intent and consequences of this measure (see Tim Sanstrums comments regarding these questions on FBO), you are correct in that the 8 questions will have little relevance in the courts decision. It appears you are beginning to understand why the SPONSORS will likely never answer them. :wink:


----------



## bioman

> If the SPONSORS continue to duck answering these 8 simple questions many others believe are unbiased and simply trying to get at the intent and consequences of this measure (see Tim Sanstrums comments regarding these questions on FBO), you are correct in that the 8 questions will have little relevance in the courts decision. It appears you are beginning to understand why the SPONSORS will likely never answer them.


Actually Gabe, you are of the OPINION that the questions are unbiased. Also, you have a very bad habit of changing the question when the answer is not to your liking.

So again, to recap, your 8 BIASED questions have zero relevance to the issue. You, again, are of the OPINION that they are relevant to you and 'many others.' That is simply your OPINION, as you stated above.

The wording of the measure will be on the ballot for all voters to read and decide. If the measure passes, the courts will decide the legal context of each and every word of the measure.

Regardless, please do continue your vocal and written opposition of the measure, because there is ultimate irony to your chronic postings, here, and elsewhere. When you first came onto this website, you beat the drum about a few sportsman ruining access, harming landowners etc. based on their convictions. Here is the ironic part, I have pointed numerous people to your posts for their reaction, and guess what, you are doing the same thing for this measure. Irony indeed .


----------



## DG

bioman said,



> Here is the ironic part, I have pointed numerous people to your posts for their reaction, and guess what, you are doing the same thing for this measure. Irony indeed


If you are from Colorado, who are these numerous people you are pointing to this site? Would you care to answer my questions posted above?



> Thank you for posting my on-line letter in The Dakota Beacon. Everybody who is anybody (ND) following politics reads The Dakota Beacon. It should be out in it's magazine form soon. Did you like what I wrote? Somebody told me your name is Ryan, but I can't remember your last name. Do you work for the fedgov? Which service do you work for? Do you think elk and deer farms must all be shut down PERIOD? No compensation? Is that the real agenda?
> 
> And one more question just for fun. Do you suppose Plainsman and Archimedes share the same IP address?


----------



## bioman

Hi Dwight,



> If you are from Colorado, who are these numerous people you are pointing to this site? Would you care to answer my questions posted above?


I have relatives in the State of ND along with numerous colleagues, friends, and acquaintances. All, of whom, are of legal voting age.


----------



## DG

bioman,

I work at a coal mine and I farm a little. OK, your turn.


----------



## DG

bioman,

I see I should have quoted you as you deleted your question to me about where I work. Doesn't matter. Let's get back to where you work. It is all relevant. You know what I mean.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Relevant to what DG? I have said before that supporters try and make this into a conspiracy that this measure was brought forward. From claims of conflict of interest to as you are doing with bioman in what type of job he holds. GST and others have complained about who is going to get to vote, or who signed the petition. All in an attempt to try and paint this measure as some secret hidden agenda by unknown forces who have ulterior motives.

So if one's occupation if you support it is relevant, then those who oppose it should be telling everyone if they are in any manner connected to HFS or related to someone that runs such an operation, or are users of said services. Otherwise it is not relevant and never will be.

You said you work at a coal mine and farm a little. Pretty vague in that does the farming side include the selling of canned shooting? Or do you sell or supply things to canned shooting operations? I really do not care about the answers, simply pointing out that an occupation does not matter. Ones occupation however may give the person an advantage in understanding things, or it can also create a warped view as well.


----------



## bioman

Okay, Dwight, I will bite on your question.

I am employed in the PRIVATE sector. Who pays the check is simply and succinctly none of your business. Sorry, but you can't lump me with those evil FEDERAL government employees :beer: .


----------



## KurtR

Bioman i have been told by certain sponors that since i live in Sd and not ND i should not have a opinion about this so means you cant either. Or is it if you agree with them then is it ok to have a opinion and be from out of state?


----------



## jhegg

Gabe,

You posted:



> Archemides, the beauty of the Boone and Crocket guidelines for acceptance into their record keeping system is one can choose wether to follow them or not. Once they begin to be forced onto individuals, at that time they become much less in stature then what they are now. Much like what one must take from the experience to call it hunting. *When one group begins to determine that for others it lessens the hunting experience for all.* Simply my opinion! :wink:


Bolds are mine. Thus, when "church women" and others find prostitution to be offensive, they should not try to make it illegal (which they and others have), but just realize that "others" have different opinions and we should all try to get along - right?

Jim

edit - spelling


----------



## jhegg

KurtR,
I posted the pm from Fishing Buddy as I received it. If it is not yours, then you have a problem, not me. Given your last blatantly erroneous post linking me to the HSUS (which link does not exist), I have decided that your posts are not worthy of any response. Thus, this is my last response to any of your posts.
Jim Heggeness


----------



## KurtR

You are a liar. I posted exactly where that post came from it was right here on NODAK. So it is now easy to see you are a liar and have no problem saying what ever you need to( make it up as you go). You are such a liitle baby it is ok to take shots and talk **** but as soon as some one gives it back you take your ball and go run home all butt hurt. I could really care less if i ever get a resoponse from you on any thing as it is probally just another lie as you like to do.

Kurt

But i have no opinions on this as i am from mobridge sd and live of state. I just know i dont like liars and if liars are going to sponsor bills i hope the public sees them for all the lieing they do.

So has your signs from the HSUS came in yet or are you still waiting?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Poor Kurt, nobody said you could not nor should not have an opinion. Just that it should be clear that you are not a voter in ND, nor is Mauser from FBO so that people can judge and weigh the value and content of your posts. Just as I said before about me having lived in WI. I follow what is going on, but I have no vote to change anything.


----------



## KurtR

I am not a voter in ND is that clear for anyone that reads this repeat i am not a voter in ND. So with that my views should be looked at different than the guys who are from ND because they are smarter, stronger and better looking. Pretty much just all around know what is best for every one and know the best way to hunt fish and just live the most ethical life possible. One more time just so everyone that reads this knows i can not vote in ND so i have no idea about anything because i am just not smart enough to know any thing because i dont live in ND. But all the people i have met working in ND that last 5 years are voters and they can influence the vote so i will ask what they think and only write their opinions so as not to have any dumbass out of staters messing up this disscusion because we all know fat slob out of staters are the root of all evil pretty much satin all in one big suburban shooting big elk in little pens.


----------



## eliptiabeht

Don't let it get to ya Kurt....
The supporters of this measure have had no problem working with certain groups from out of state. They've had no problem taking pictures of poorly run operations from out of state and trying to attach them to ND operations. They like to attack every body (resident and non- resdient alike) that has a different opinion than theirs.

You could merely speak up and say you don't like the fact that certain groups are being asked to vote on animal legislation that absolutely should not be voting on it. No hunters can benefit from this group. I am talking the same type of people that have shut down fair chase opportunities in other states. For that I have been labeled a supporter of high fence. Been told I must have ties to an operation or have family that does it. Those alone are all bald faced lies coming right from sponsors!


----------



## TK33

> I am not for HF, never have been, never will be. But I will not vote to support banning the practice. You say the measure will "preserve our hunting heritage" but I believe it will only lead to more bans which will endanger our heritage much more than the HF operations.


Right on Savage.

Can anyone guarantee that this will not open the door to trail cam bans, bow hunting restrictions, trapping restrictions, and further attempts to wittle away other hunting practices?

Who gets to foot the bill for enforcement? Is the highway patrol or the BCI going to be responsible for investigations and turning over charges?

Who is going to pay for the enivitable lawsuits and compliance?7


----------



## jhegg

T/C,



> Can anyone guarantee that this will not open the door to trail cam bans, bow hunting restrictions, trapping restrictions, and further attempts to wittle away other hunting practices?


Can you guarantee that the items you mentioned would not happen without the high fence initiative?



> Who gets to foot the bill for enforcement? Is the highway patrol or the BCI going to be responsible for investigations and turning over charges?


As with everything else, you and I will end up footing the bill.



> Who is going to pay for the enivitable lawsuits and compliance?7


The AG office will defend any lawsuits against his bill.

Jim


----------



## TK33

No I can't guarantee that lawsuits wouldn't happen anyways. I do think this could open doors for it though.


----------



## LT

Focus Magazine: October/November 2010 - Volume 11, Issue 5

Vote "NO" on Measure Two

Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom to own property. We enjoy these freedoms as citizens of the United States of America. This country was founded on the right and freedom of personal choice. Don't let that founding principle be compromised. Vote NO on Measure 2.
Measure 2 on the general election ballot this fall would ban high fence hunting in North Dakota. The measure is aimed at those people who raise domestic deer and elk, be that for a trophy hunting experience or for harvest to provide nontraditional meat sources.

Those supporting the measure argue that the animal does not have an opportunity to escape in a high fence hunting situation, thus hunter has an unfair advantage. They believe this is not hunting and not an ethical way to pursue game.
"Whether you agree that a controlled hunt is ethical is one thing. Forcing your opinion on others is completely different," said Brian Kramer, NDFB public policy director. "The measure isn't about a type of hunting, it is about your choice. It is a matter of whether hunting in any form should be allowed.

"Right now," he continued, "you can choose to hunt traditionally or you can choose to participate in a more controlled environment. The important word in that sentence is 'choose.' You make that decision. You determine if the hunting experience meets your definition of a sporting activity."
America was founded on the premise of personal choice. It is a free country where people are given the right to choose their religion, what they want to eat or what they want kind of car they want to drive. For those who enjoy hunting, that right to choose will be infringed if this measure passes.

If this measure is defeated, people with physical challenges will be able to continue a recreational activity they currently enjoy. Many sportsmen cannot overcome the physical stress and rigors of hunting in the traditional manner. They are not physically capable of walking long distances, but through a controlled hunt they can still get the thrill of harvesting an animal.
Unfortunately, there are a number of anti-hunting and vegetarian groups that would hail this measure. 
"They wish to impose their will on society. They wish to take away your choices. They wish to control how you live," Kramer said.
North Dakota Farm Bureau policy states, We support North Dakota property owner' rights to continue to control all types of hunting, including high fence hunting, on their property. Property owners or lessees shall decide who hunts their land, and if they prefer, to charge a fee to the hunter for that privilege.

"This too is about choice. It is the choice of the landowner to control and use his or her property as they see fit. It is the choice of the sportsman to pay for that opportunity or seek game elsewhere," Kramer explained.

Keep your choice by voting "no" on Measure 2. For more information, go to www.ndfb.org/measuretwo.


----------



## Archimedes

High fence hunting controversy

by Curt Wells

The latest controversy raging in North Dakota is coming to a head as the November election nears. North Dakotans will have an opportunity to make a statement on how they feel about the shooting of captive big game animals for a fee.

Currently, there are 12 so-called high-fence hunting operations in North Dakota. That number doesn't include ranches that raise deer and elk. However, some of those operations provide the animals to be released on the high-fence ranches. The concern among many North Dakotans is that high-fence hunting ranches will increase in number if the practice is allowed to continue unchecked.

Other reasons to prohibit high-fence hunting include the potential for the spread of diseases such as chronic wasting disease (CWD), bovine tuberculosis and the fallow deer louse. Many of the instances of CWD have occurred in captive ungulate populations, in Minnesota, for example, so this is not a false concern.

Many are also concerned about the image high-fence hunting projects for hunting in general and the state in particular. Anti-hunting organizations commonly insinuate captive hunts are the norm and contend they're examples of why all hunting should be banned. They've even used undercover videos of captive hunts, often with a fence in the background, in their propaganda campaigns.

The non-hunting public also has a very negative view of the concept of hunting animals enclosed in a fence, regardless of the size of the enclosure. If the animal cannot escape it's often characterized as shooting rather than hunting.

The majority of resident hunters feel high-fence hunting just isn't right and they don't want their state to become known as a northern version of Texas, a state in which high-fence hunting is common. It's not an image they care to project, especially since most of our surrounding states, particularly to the west, prohibit high-fence hunting.

The issue has been addressed in the legislature but that can be a minefield of ineptitude when it comes to passing outdoor legislation so a concerned group of North Dakotans formed a group called North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase (NDHFC). They collected 13,860 signatures to take the issue to North Dakota's voters on November 2nd. The wording of the initiated Measure 2 is as follows:

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.

To effectively ban high-fence hunting in North Dakota a yes vote is required.

The opposition to this measure is strong. According to Roger Kaseman, spokesman for NDHFC, high-fence operators spent $104,000 to prevent the initiated measure and $84,000 of that money came from out-of-state high-fence operators. The Deer Farmers of Ohio contributed $20,000 alone, claims Kaseman.

One of the major points of the opposition is the preservation of property rights. They believe landowners should be able to do what they want on their property. Fact is, that has never been the case. There are many laws governing what can be done on private property and that won't change. Property rights were addressed in the courts after Montana banned high-fence operations and the ban was upheld in several courts.

Some claim Measure 2 will impact the raising and killing of livestock but that is also untrue. It applies only to the killing of game animals, for a fee, within a fenced enclosure. That claim is simply a scare tactic used by opponents.

Yet another tactic used by opponents is to discredit NDHFC by claiming they are aligned with anti-hunting organizations. That's a ridiculous claim.

Certainly, some animal rights groups have endorsed the measure but that's because they want to end all hunting. If they can start with canned hunts, they're good with that. Rest assured, there is no alliance between the hunters of North Dakota and any anti-hunting organization.

Logic dictates that if Measure 2 fails there will be a proliferation of high-fence hunting operations in North Dakota. It will be the green light that industry is looking for.

In the interest of full-disclosure, as part of my job as an outdoor writer, I have hunted on a high-fence ranch in Texas twice, once for hogs and again for exotics. That is not an endorsement, implied or otherwise. Rather it's personal experience that partially qualifies me to comment on the merits of high-fence hunting. Other states and countries can make their own rules. For North Dakota, however, high-fence hunting is a bad idea. It goes against the hunting heritage and standards of fair chase North Dakotans hold so dear. It just doesn't fit here.

You'll have to make up your own mind but on November 2nd, I will be voting yes on Measure 2.....

Wells is a hunter and Daily News columnist.


----------



## KurtR

"The majority of resident hunters feel high-fence hunting just isn't right "

Dont know if this guys does much looking around but by just taking a fast head count it looks as most on both FB and Nodak are not in favor of this bill.

Disclaimer: I am not a voter in ND so my views should be looked at as such in the words of a sponsor of this bill.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

KurtR said:


> "The majority of resident hunters feel high-fence hunting just isn't right "
> 
> Dont know if this guys does much looking around but by just taking a fast head count it looks as most on both FB and Nodak are not in favor of this bill.
> 
> Disclaimer: I am not a voter in ND so my views should be looked at as such in the words of a sponsor of this bill.


Thus his info was taken from a poll done in ND regarding canned shooting as to where your info was taken from a local few that are connected for the most part to canned shooting! :rollin:


----------



## KurtR

So all the people on here and fb are conected to HF hunting? Since there are only 12 operators they must have alot of user names they use. If this fails is this a done deal or will the fc group keep there conquest. Looking forward to see how this turns out either way there is going to be alot of ****** of people.

Disclaimer: I am not a voter in ND so my views should be looked at as such in the words of a sponsor of this bill


----------



## gst

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

Re: Fact Sheet/Fair Chase Hunting Measure # 2
by Dave Brandt » Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:44 pm

Gabe,

I won't even take a jab at explaining what someone else like Roger said, just as I suspect you would not attempt to explain some of the crazy statements made by Dwight.

I am not an attorney neither is Roger. My "non-legal" understanding of the Lacey act is that it applies to interstate commerce of dead wildlife not privately held elk and deer, therefore I don't know how it could apply. As Jim pointed out, the measure says nothing about the Lacey act and Ladd tried to explain to you how he has seen things work in the past if there were indeed any conflicts in the Century Code. Non-relevant to any serious discussion about this measure as interpreting the law is not the duty of any initiated measure committee, the AG looks at the intent. I will tell you that we had Attorney Paul Germolus (who was assistant Attorney General for ND and I believe also worked heavily with AG department legislation) write the language of this measure in an effort to do our best to assure that those things you guys are throwing around as smokescreens would not happen.

Another brush you are painting all sponsors of this measure with is that we are anti property rights. First of all, I respect property rights as does everyone else I know on the sponsoring committee. The fact is that a permit or license to operate a game farm, bar, restaurant, vegetable stand or anything similar is not a right, it is under the purview of regulations imposed by the state, decided by the state or its citizens. Second, if the sponsors are all cold hearted Marxists, why then would we have included a sunset clause of 2 years to allow for divestment of these 12 operations? I hate the fact that this may cause any hardship to these handful of fellow North Dakotans currently involved with this, but my personal reason for supporting this measure is that the benefit currently falling upon those very few, does not come anywhere close to being worth the risks I feel they pose to the state's wildlife or the future of our hunting heritage.

As far as where this is to be placed in the Century Code and your issue with the whole Big Game species language, I can tell you that a past ND assistant AG who worked with the ND Agriculture Department all the time saw no problem with it, in fact identified where it needed to be. I am also pretty sure if I were to ask my 5th grade English teacher for clarification, she would say that the term Big Game species simply identifies a group of animals, since Big Game is a modifier to the subject "species". As such it does not reclassify anything, only identify which members of any group are being identified. Hence Big game species as identified in the NDCC could apply to any group or subset of a group, which meet that criteria and are classified differently elsewhere. That is why this measure only includes species of mammals which are hunted in our state yet excludes multiple other species identified as domestic or farmed. I hope that is clear now, as you have got way more mileage on that one than you deserved.

As to your other questions, I reiterate Jim's sentiment about their relevance to the measure. All I can comment on is what the measure language says, other than that, I leave it up to those with professional experience and expertise that I am positive is far more extensive than yours or mine.


----------



## gst

Dave, the following is a portion of a response from the State Attorney Generals office in repy to a request from the State Vets office as to what their or the SBoAH duties would be if this measure passes. In the post above sponsor Dave Brandt assures us that their attorney, a former assistant AG, made sure the language of this measure would not restrict someone that is not involved in HFH from selling an animal to be "harversted" for a "fee or renumeration" . It appears that the state AG's office has a different opinion.

This is from page two of the response from the State AG's office. It was sent to the State Vets office, The SBoAH as well as forwarded to the NDSA.

quote [We also have to think about the definition of "farmed elk" in 36-25-01m which is also broad and would include, it seems, animals confined for the purpose of for-pay hunting, for it states that "farmed elk" are mammals of the elk family confined and raised for "harvest." But Measure No. 2 would now say that you can't hold elk for harvest. To ensure that there isn't a conflict in the statues, we'd have to read "harvest" as limited to harvests that don't involve fees or other remuneration.

Well, enough rambling. Bottom line, I think it premature to say that the Measure, if approved, will impose significanat work or duties on the BAH and state vet.

Oh, one more thing. This morning we talked about the terms in the Measure, that is, "privately-owned big game species" and "exotic mammals," and wondered whether since those terms are not defined in code whether the Measure would be really do anything. It will most definitely do something. It will be given effect and a landowner who thinks otherwise would do so at his peril. The Measures provisions and terms do have meaning and if they aren't defined in rule or in statutes enacted down the road, they will be difined by a court in a criminal prosecution under the Measure or, possibly, in an enforcement action by the BAH.

Looks like the measure will take effect 30 days after the election and can't be ammended or repealed by the legislature during the next 7 years, except by a 2/3rds vote. See ArtIII, Sec. 8 of the constitution.] end quote

Dave perhaps your attorney could come on here and explain to the non HF elk producers if they market their animals by selling them to someone that butchers them themselves( "harvest for a fee or renumeration" )they are not doing so at "their own peril" or perhaps even explain which sponsor is telling the truth when one claims the Lacey Act is applicable and another says it will not be. Also if you would please explain where this "sunset clause of 2 years to divest" is you mention as the Ag's opinion is this measure takes effect 30 days after the election and can not be ammended or repeal for 7 years without a 2/3 majority vote by the legislature.


----------

