# Economic Benefits of Hunting



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

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

Today a broad-based group of organizations, businesses and individuals will announce the formation of a partnership promoting the economic benefits of hunting in North Dakota.

Hunts Work$ for North Dakota will hold a press conference at 10:30 a.m. today at the Bismarck Municipal Airport.

Terri Thiel, executive director of the Dickinson Convention and Visitors Bureau, said the North Dakota group is part of a three-state pilot program started by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Other states in the program are Minnesota and Arizona.

The group now has 44 members from a broad range of interests including the hotel and motel industry, chambers of commerce, gas stations, hunting outfitters and bars and restaurants.

Thiel said she has lived in southwest North Dakota for most of her life and has witnessed first-hand the economic benefits hunting has on communities.

"These people that come here to hunt are regulars," she said. "Hunting is very vital to the economies of these communities."

According to the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation and the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, hunting contributes more than $100 million to the state's economy annually, supporting more than 2,800 jobs.

But Thiel said it is about more than money. She said it's also about connections between families and their communities.

She said the best form of advertising most North Dakota communities can receive is by word of mouth from people who have hunted here and experienced the state's hospitality.

"What kind of price tag do you put on that?" Thiel said.

John Arman, co-owner and host of "Ultimate Outdoor Adventures," a hunting show based in Bismarck, said he decided to become involved with some reservations.

Arman said the group is not about pitting resident hunters against non-resident hunters or anything of that nature, but rather a collection of like-minded people who view hunting as an important economic and cultural part of North Dakota.

Rudie Martinson, executive director of the North Dakota Hospitality Association, said one of the group's goals is to be a non-partisan, non-political voice for the benefits that hunting brings to the state.

He said small communities as well as large communities benefit.

"And it's not just out-of-state hunters," he said. Resident hunters contribute to economies through lodging, fuel purchases, bar and restaurant sales and other areas.

"It can be a huge economic shot in the arm for not only small communities, but for all communities."

(Reach reporter Brian Gehring at 250-8254 or [email protected])

The federal guys from the Wildlife Society and Wildlife Federation should soon be ramping up their anti-nonresident rhetoric again on nodakouthouse. 2002 all over again. Commercialization of wildlife ya know.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dwight,



> "What kind of price tag do you put on that?" Thiel said.


You and your high fence buddies know exactly "What kind of price tag do you put on that?". $15,000 or more for a tame "trophy" bull elk.

Jim


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Former federal employee Jim said,



> You and your high fence buddies know exactly "What kind of price tag do you put on that?". $15,000 or more for a tame "trophy" bull elk.


I sold a three year old cow elk today for $500 to a man who is 89 years old. He is going to eat it. I have never sold one for fifteen thousand dollars. The average mature bull is $4200. Six years old and one year inside its mother equals seven years. Divide 4200 by 6 and it equates to $600 a year. Nobody is cutting a fat hog in the *** here. And even if someone did get $15000 for a special bull, what is your socialist point? If they all became worthless or only brought $500 a piece would that make you happy mister former federal employee Jim?


----------



## wurgs (Mar 3, 2008)

Does this really have to be brought up in every topic?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dwight,



> I sold a three year old cow elk today for $500 to a man who is 89 years old. He is going to eat it.


I am glad to hear that and my congratulations to you for doing so. I have absolutely no objections to raising elk, deer, whatever as food animals. My objection is pimping the horns at prices way inflated over the food value of that animal and passing that activity off as hunting. The following are details of a few of the "hunts" offered by the high fence crowd. This information was obtained off the internet sites of these companies. It looks like you may be selling yourself a little short compared to what your buddies get. I have *bolded* some of the statements that really trash the fair chase aspects of hunting.

RED BUTTE ELK (RED BUTTE WAPITI RANCH)
*We offer Elk and bird hunting. The elk are on a game preserve where you are guaranteed 100% success with no license required.
You will receive a bill of sale and will not be questioned by any government official.*
Rates
Elk Bulls
6X6 Bulls....................................&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.&#8230;&#8230;. $3,500
325 - 350 SCI Bulls........................&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..... $4,500
351 - 375 SCI Bulls....................&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;...&#8230;..... $6,000
376 - 400 SCI Bulls..................&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;........... $7,500
*400 Plus SCI Bulls..............&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.......&#8230;...... $15,000*
Cow & Pheasant......................&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.....&#8230;.... $2,000
* SCI (Safari Club International)

SILVERWING RANCH
Fair chase bow hunts. (Deer)
*Our success rate for elk trophies is 100%. We have a wide range of many larger trophy bulls to choose from.*
TROPHY ELK HUNTS
GROSS SCORE PRICE
Cow Hunts $1,045
Up to 325 $3,500
326 - 350 $4,000
351 - 375 $5,000
376 - 399 $7,000
*400 - 420 $8,500
421 + Call for Prices
*
CEDAR CREEK ELK RANCH
*No License Required
We guarantee success 
or the hunt is free!*
BULL ELK
Featured Hunt..........&#8230;........... 6 x 6 Trophy Bull....... $6,500
5 x 5............................................................................&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;... $4,000
6 x 6 .......................................... 300-330....................... $5,000
*B/C*............................................ 360-390........................ $8,500
Larger Elk available upon request.............................&#8230;&#8230;... $ call*
* B/C (Boone & Crockett gross score)

BADLANDS ELK RANCH
Rates for Elk Hunts
300-340---------Contact us for reduced rates!
341-370---------Contact us for reduced rates!
371-399---------Contact us for reduced rates!
*400 plus----------Contact us for reduced rates!*

Management bull ----------Contact us for reduced rates!
Elk cow hunt--------------Contact us for reduced rates!
*No license required.*

Here are some of the hunting success rates of *real* elk hunts.
Elk Hunting Success Rates (2008)
Montana Elk Hunting Success&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. 22% 
Wyoming Elk Hunting Success&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. 40% 
Colorado Elk Hunting Success&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. 22%

The high fence outfits really cater to the "sportsman", don't they.

"The elk are on a game preserve where you are guaranteed 100% success with no license required."
"No License Required We guarantee success or the hunt is free!"
"Our success rate for elk trophies is 100%. We have a wide range of many larger trophy bulls to choose from."

Dwight, this kind of activity presented as "hunting" is repulsive. But, hey - the anti-hunting organizations eat this stuff up. This is what they tell people hunting is all about. And then you guys try to link us to the anti-hunting crowd. What a bunch of bull - but then you guys are totally immersed in bull.

Jim 
(aka: Mr former federal employee)

ps: I worked for three summers at Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center while I was attending NDSU. That makes me a really bad person, doesn't it.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg said:


> Dwight,
> I am glad to hear that and my congratulations to you for doing so. I have absolutely no objections to raising elk, deer, whatever as food animals.[Jim
> (quote]
> 
> Then why are you a sponsor of a measure that is worded in a manner that the States AG's office beleives will indeed prevent non HFH operations from receiving a fee or renumeration for the "harvest" of the animals they raise for food? If you would like I can repost that unbiased opinion from the AG's office for you.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Simply because I do not believe that is true.

Jim


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> jhegg said:
> 
> 
> > Dwight,
> ...


I know you like to ask questions so why don't you answer this one?

Do you honestly think that if this measure passes someone will not be allowed to come out to a ranch, run an elk into an alley way, and butcher him for a fee?

I don't and I feel the real reason the opponents are using this stance is because who in their right mind would pay 8K to do that when they can get a side of beef for much less?


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Unbelievable, this is about the price!!! Do you realize that these animals take years and years to raise? What about the owner's time spent with someone for several days showing them around the area, inviting them into their homes for meals, getting a butcher lined up for them, a taxidermist, time spent skinning the animal for them, etc., etc. You guys have no dam clue!! This is all included in the price.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed, not only do I believe the measure is worded to possibly allow the sale of "farmed elk" for "harvest" for a fee to be included, but apparently the State AG's office does as well .

This is page two of the response from the State AG office given to the State Vet and the State Board of Animal Health and forwarded to other ag groups in response to their request what their inforcement duties would be if this passes. .

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.] end quote


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

GST Said,

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.] end quote[/quote]

Okay lets try this again. If this measure ever does pass and by the time it becomes law do you really think they will not have beat it down enough to allow a rancher to sell an elk just not charge someone to hunt it in a high fence? I find it really hard to believe this measure if passed, in the end would not allow you to raise an Elk on your property and sell it for food. Is there any place in the US that does not allow this? I don't know? Show me a place that does not allow a rancher to raise an Elk and sell it as meat and I will be further informed.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Are you familiar with the issues horse slaughter is facing?

Remember this opinion is not mine, but that of the states highest legal authority outside of the courts that will ultimately decide this measures outcome and intent. If this measure does pass and it is not delt with by the legislature which is possible, (and even if they do they have rules they must follow that the attorney for this group is more than aware of) and the courts decide the intent is what the AG's office states, it will be to late now won't it. But then again, that is what the sponsors are counting on.

By the way, did you catch sponsor roger kasemans claim the Federal Lacey Act will prevent one individual from selling an animal to another individual that then kills the animal he now owns with a $10,000 fine , He made that statement right here on good ole Nodak.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

former federal employee Jim said,



> ps: I worked for three summers at Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center while I was attending NDSU. That makes me a really bad person, doesn't it.


Did you fall into a nice crowd? Did you meet, David Alan Brandt, Bruce Hanson, and H.Thomas Sklebar, all sponsers of this measure, federal employees with Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center part of the United States Geological Survey?

It takes 25 sponsers to file a petition. Four came from the federally funded Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Eleven came from this board, some who got sucked in by reading David Alan Brandts, Plainsmans and Dick Monsons garbage. All moderators of this board. Their influence is waning. Nobody reads their nonsense anymore.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> Are you familiar with the issues horse slaughter is facing?
> 
> Remember this opinion is not mine, but that of the states highest legal authority outside of the courts that will ultimately decide this measures outcome and intent. If this measure does pass and it is not delt with by the legislature which is possible, (and even if they do they have rules they must follow that the attorney for this group is more than aware of) and the courts decide the intent is what the AG's office states, it will be to late now won't it. But then again, that is what the sponsors are counting on.
> 
> ...


Yes I've seen you post this plenty. You have to remember Roger is ONE person involved in this and I don't take what he says as gospel and you shouldn't either. However, It is a good "claim" to use in a fear-mongering campaign though I have to give you that.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dwight,



> Did you fall into a nice crowd? Did you meet, David Alan Brandt, Bruce Hanson, and H.Thomas Sklebar, all sponsers of this measure, federal employees with Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center part of the United States Geological Survey?
> 
> It takes 25 sponsers to file a petition. Four came from the federally funded Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Eleven came from this board, some who got sucked in by reading David Alan Brandts, Plainsmans and Dick Monsons garbage. All moderators of this board. Their influence is waning. Nobody reads their nonsense anymore.


Actually, I "fell into" a very nice crowd while working there. I worked for Lew Corwardin and Dave Gilmer. I knew Plainsman while I was there. I met Dick Monson when we were collecting signatures for this measure. I have never met Dave Brant or H. Thomas Sklebar. None the less, I would accept the integrity of any of these people over that of the high fence crowd.

None of them would send a 17 year old girl to try to sign a measure while two others waited in ambush to record an illegal signing of the measure.

Neither would they open a booth at the state fair and outright lie to people that we were associated with the HSUS.

Neither would they station people outside our booth at the state fair and lie to people that just visited our booth that we were associated with HSUS.

Neither would they send people over to vehemently argue with us so as to disrupt other booths alongside of us.

After my experiences at the State Fair in Minot with the high fence crowd, I realized that your buddies would stoop to any extremes to prevent the passage of this measure. That is when I lost any semblance of respect for you and the people you represent.

Jim


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Oh, I have heard it all now. Sending a 17-year-old girl over to sign while someone laid in ambush?? How the heck do you lay in ambush -- what did they have video cameras waiting to tape you? Did they jump out from their ambush when the 17 year old arrived?

No you guys would never lie. I guess I must have been hearing things when Gary Masching told me the animals were stolen. I wish I had been wired that day.

Would you like to comment on Roger's lies in the following video where he states that at the legislative session for SB 2254 there were sportsmen's groups representing tens of thousands of sportsman, that there were sportsman's groups from all over?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

former federal employee Jim said,



> Neither would they open a booth at the state fair and outright lie to people that we were associated with the HSUS.


Back in March 2010 I sent you the e-mails from Roger Kaseman to the head co-ordinator for the HSUS in ND one Karen Thunshell in Minot. Karen sent Rogers correspondence out to her people. We intercepted it. No lie.



> Neither would they send people over to vehemently argue with us so as to disrupt other booths alongside of us.


I worked the Elk Growers booth two days. Kaseman knows me very well and even he can't lie that I was near your booth. We had a hard time getting anyone to work our booth because they were out haying and working. They were not at the state fair harassing or video taping you. You being are paranoid. As far as sending over 17 year old girls to sign the petition kaseman reported the same corny story in Dakota Country rag mag. We have made that accusation no where. The vendors around you mutinied because they didn't like you. The fair board doesn't like you, nobody does.

We had fishing buddy sportsmen stop by and introduce themselves. The security guard in charge of Commercial Building 3 thanked us and said he had no trouble or complaints.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

The Topic is "Economic Benefits of Hunting" DG, Since what goes on inside your fences is NOT hunting I find it ironic that you would start this topic. GST and you have maintained that you run an Agricultural business. Since you have ostrasized wild animals from your fenced properties and no hunting takes place in your fences you really aren't a player in these economic benefits are you?

DG you sound like a Gordon Kahl anti-American extremist dare I say terrorist when you label biologists as "Federal Agents" it's not suprising you don't have respect for America you haven't shown any respect anyone that doesn't have the same opinion as you.

It doesn't matter where someone works and maybe a wildlife biologist has a little more insight as to the dangers of your business than the guy cashing the checks from that business.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed said:


> "By the way, did you catch sponsor roger kasemans claim the Federal Lacey Act will prevent one individual from selling an animal to another individual that then kills the animal he now owns with a $10,000 fine , He made that statement right here on good ole Nodak.


Yes I've seen you post this plenty. You have to remember Roger is ONE person involved in this and I don't take what he says as gospel and you shouldn't either. However, It is a good "claim" to use in a fear-mongering campaign though I have to give you that. [/quote]

So leadfed, just so we are straight here are you suggesting the sponmsor that collected over 8000 signatures himself is making claims that are not true regarding this measure? 
If we can not even trust what these sponsors are claiming regarding this measure how can we inform ourselves regarding it? :wink:

Swift the only "ostrasizing" of animals I do is keeping my own cattle inside the 4 foot high fences I build to do so. Maybe pulling the bulls after 60 days.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

GST, not everything is about you. That post was to DG, hence the DG, at the beginning


> DG, Since what goes on inside your fences is NOT hunting


.

You GST continue to claim these operations as Ag enterprises which I agree they are. So DG need not try to take credit for the Economic Benefits of Hunting. AND if the wild big game animals that were on that land weren't removed and returned to the wild that would be a violation of the Lacey act. For clarification I am not accusing anyone of fencing in wild big game animals.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Swift said,



> You GST continue to claim these operations as Ag enterprises which I agree they are. So DG need not try to take credit for the Economic Benefits of Hunting. AND if the wild big game animals that were on that land weren't removed and returned to the wild that would be a violation of the Lacey act. For clarification I am not accusing anyone of fencing in wild big game animals.


Swift, What you write is stupid. You argue for the sake of arguing. No where did I claim credit for the economic benefits of hunting. Former federal empolyee Jim turned this thread into another HF thread with his childish $15,000 jab. 
Why don't you jump on his ***! You won't, you are just here to argue. You never really add anything to the conversation.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dwight,



> Former federal empolyee Jim turned this thread into another HF thread with his childish $15,000 jab.
> Why don't you jump on his a$$!


Wow, aren't we sensitive. Maybe you should go over to your high fence buddies and get a big man hug.

Jim


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

DG my apology I assumed you were posting this topic as a defense to your industry. If that's not the case Your right and I apologize.

If you are sincere in not wanting to tie this to your industry then Jim H was also wrong for bringing up the initiative.

Again my apologies.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

former federal employee Jim said,



> Wow, aren't we sensitive. Maybe you should go over to your high fence buddies and get a big man hug.


Again...... childish, how old are you now Jim? Just about 60?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Nope - 63. How old are you?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

former federal emplyee Jim said,



> Nope - 63. How old are you?


As a supporting member of nodakouthouse, does owner Chris Hustad give you the senior citizens discount?


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

Good grief...this drivel is getting mind-numbingly ridiculous. I can't even pick a side anymore. After reading the countless threads and countless pages of the same garbage over, and over (and over and over and over) again, one thing is clear: all parties involved have the social skills of bighorn rams.

Pro Measure 2: "Hey, I have a great idea!"

Anti-Measure 2: "Oh ya? What's that?"

Pro Measure 2: "Let's just keep banging our heads together repeatedly until one of us either gives up or dies."

Anti-Measure 2: "That's a great idea!"

Gallop-gallop-gallop-gallop....WHAM!!!!
...
..
.
Gallop-gallop-gallop-gallop....WHAM!!!

I liked it better when NodakOutdoors consisted of nothing but internet scouting and hunting pictures.

I'd like to think there will be an era of peace after this goes to the polls, but I have a feeling that, no matter the result, this kind of crap is going to go on, and on, and on..... :crybaby:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Duckslayer, I don't tend to disagree with you. So if you want to keep these kind of things from happening again, vote this measure down and tell the sponsors a resounding enough is enough. If you do not think a success with this measure will bring more of the same, you have not talked much with Mr. Kaseman. He presented the "Senate bill on baiting morphed into an initiated measure" to the NDSA looking for support. I was at that meeting, and have a copy of his initiated measure he handed out. And so it begins.


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

GST,

But that's just it, isn't it? No matter what the outcome -- whether Measure 2 passes or fails -- this back-and-forth, banging-your-head-against-the-wall bickering isn't going to stop. Both parties involved obviously have deep emotional and/or financial investment into this struggle, and likely won't just quick after the votes are tallied.

Let me ask you this, GST: If Measure 2 passes, are you just going to drop the subject? I highly doubt it. You'll be banging on the door of congress until the Measure either get repealed or the whole mess winds up in the Supreme Court.

For Measure 2 supporters: Are you going to drop the subject if the people of North Dakota vote against the measure? I doubt it. Just because it doesn't pass once, doesn't mean something similar can't be brought up again in the future. Then we'll be on the same carnival ride we've been on for the past however-many months (years) it's been.

No, sadly, I fear that no matter what the result, this isn't the end of it. Pass or fail, arguments about fair chase, high-fence hunting and property rights will continue on well past the point when I'm turning in my grave.

So to the winning party, I'll say this: enjoy your moment in the spotlight when you can pat yourself on the back, but I wouldn't let your guard down. This Hatfield and McCoy crap ain't over by a long shot, I guarantee it.

-DS


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Duckslayer, actually if this measure passes, to provide debate over it so that perhaps people can perhaps cast an informed vote will be a mute point. And I really have no need to continue to point out the flaws as I am not an attorney that will be argueing it thru the courts nor will what is said at that point have any bearing .

Nor am I a HF operator who's livlihood depends on the outcome of the court proceedings.

As a cattleman, I will simply move on to the next issue where someone tries to ban the legal use of domestic livestock and proactively try to prevent that by getting the truth out to the voters if it comes in the form of the seemingly popular initiated measure. I'll do this in an attempt to stop the slow but steady agenda of people to end the usage of all animals one segment at a time by people for what ever means.

And if there are other attempts to regulate or legislate something, I will include myself in the discussion if I choose as I strongly believe it is ones responsibility to have a say in govt and the creation of the laws that govern us.

But I can insure you that I personally will not be "banging on the door of congress" or pushing this particular issue to the courts as unfortunately there does seem to be some group wanting to bring forth the next issue as you suggest.

And I'll bet you that old steak dinner if this measure passes this same group will begin one to ban baiting.

Wether it is HFH, baiting, should crossbows be legal during archery season (a 5 page debate on FBO) ect...... There will indeed be people pushing their agendas onto others. And then there will be those like myself bringing forth an opposing veiw. However, I would guess if enough sportsmen stood up and said enough is enough it would at least go a ways towards slowing it down a little. You can do so with a no vote on this measure.

So let me ask this one simple question. If the sponsors of this measure had not brought it forth, would there be the discussion on this measure? Obviously not. There in lies the answer to your concerns


----------

