# Summary of North Dakota Attitudes to High Fence Shooting



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Summary of North Dakota Attitudes towards High Fence Shooting

This survey was conducted by the University of North Dakota's Bureau of Governmental Affairs at the request of ten independent sportsman's organizations from across North Dakota. It consisted of surveying 600 randomly selected people over the age of 18 via telephone regarding their awareness and views of commercial shooting in high-fence game farms. The sample was equally balanced relative to gender (300 male, 300 female), and well balanced relative to region of the state (southeast=24.8%, Northeast=22.8%, south central=19.3%, southwest=14.2%, northwest=18.8%) and rural versus urban (24.4% living on farms plus another 21.9% living in communities of less than 1000 people). People who currently participate in hunting activities comprised 33.4% of the respondents while 66.6% indicated they do not participate in such activities. This survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent. In other words, if this survey were repeated 100 times from random samples of 600 respondents each, one would expect results within the margin of error (± 4%) of the presented values in 95 of those surveys (95% confidence interval).

Respondents were asked seven to nine topical questions depending on their answers, and were also asked some demographic information afterwards. All percentages reported exclude people who responded "don't know" or refused to answer, so the numbers presented here are based on those with an opinion on the question which they were willing to share. This summary does not include all questions or cross tabulations of responses by demographic, only those felt pertinent.

QUESTIONS (paraphrased, for full question see attached survey form):

1. *Aware of privately owned game farms?*

Location	Gender	Recreational Status 
Overall	Farm	Community	Male	Female	Hunters	Non-Hunters 
Yes	*64.8%* 77.4%	60.8%	79.3%	50.3%	83.5%	55.8% 
No	35.2%	22.6%	39.2%	20.7%	49.7%	16.5%	44.2%

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. *Aware people are able to buy opportunities to shoot deer and elk in enclosures?*

Location	Gender	Recreational Status 
Overall	Farm	Community	Male	Female	Hunters	Non-Hunters 
Yes	*53.1%* 67.1%	48.6%	67.7%	38.5%	70.5%	44.6% 
No	46.9%	32.9%	51.4%	32.3%	61.5%	29.5%	55.4%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. *Does shooting in enclosures comply with fair chase principals?*

Location	Gender	Recreational Status 
Overall	Farm	Community	Male	Female	Hunters	Non-Hunters 
Yes	21.8%	24.8%	20.6%	29.2%	14.2%	25.0%	20.1% 
No	*78.2%* 75.2%	79.4%	70.8%	85.8%	75.0%	79.9%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. * Do you support or oppose shooting inside high-fence enclosures when success guaranteed?*

Location	Gender	Recreational Status 
Overall	Farm	Community	Male	Female	Hunters	Non-Hunters 
Support	23.4%	36.4%	19.0%	34.1%	12.3%	33.9%	18.0% 
Oppose	*76.6%* 63.6%	81.0%	65.9%	87.7%	66.1%	82.0%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. *Support or oppose a ban on movement of live game farm deer and elk into and out of North Dakota?*

Location	Gender	Recreational Status 
Overall	Farm	Community	Male	Female	Hunters	Non-Hunters 
Support	*62.5%* 59.7%	63.5%	56.2%	69.2%	60.2%	63.9% 
Oppose	37.5%	40.3%	36.5%	43.8%	30.8%	39.8%	36.1%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. *Support or oppose legislation prohibiting shooting big game species in high-fence enclosures?*

Location	Gender	Recreational Status 
Overall	Farm	Community	Male	Female	Hunters	Non-Hunters 
Support	*71.6%* 70.9%	71.7%	62.8%	80.8%	66.3%	74.3% 
Oppose	28.4%	29.1%	28.3%	37.2%	19.2%	33.7%	25.7%

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. *If on ballot, would you vote for a measure to ban high-fence shooting in North Dakota?*

Location	Gender	Recreational Status 
Overall	Farm	Community	Male	Female	Hunters	Non-Hunters 
Yes	*75.5%* 74.3%	75.8%	67.4%	83.9%	71.9%	77.3% 
No	24.5%	25.7%	24.2%	32.6%	16.1%	28.1%	22.7%

Based on these results, there is broad agreement across all demographic groups that the shooting of game animals in high-fence enclosures does not comply with fair chase principals. There is also finally strong support across all demographic groups for legislation prohibiting the shooting of big game species in high-fence enclosures and also large majorities indicated they would vote for a ballot measure to this ban high fence shooting.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Some very interesting results in the way the respondent base answered the questions.

Thanks for posting this Dick.

Bob


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

So if it doesn't pass through the legislature, can we expect to see it on the ballot??


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Interesting in that people say it's OK to raise them,and ship them out of state to be shot in the same conditions.Just don't do it here???? :eyeroll:


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

All this shows is people need to be educated on the subject. A good question would have been "do you understand that these are domestic, privately owned livestock?" Why didn't you ask about buffalo?

I am telling you guys you are shooting yourselves in the foot. The land owners of this state understand this is a private property rights issue and has nothing to do with wildlife. You keep complaining about access but this will work against you. I know of ranchers in the Killdeer area that have already pledged that if this passes their will be no public access to hunt ANYTHING on their land. They have some of the best free chase hunting for elk in the state. Of course maybe TRNP will open up and you can still hunt elk in there.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I know of ranchers in the Killdeer area that have already pledged that if this passes their will be no public access to hunt ANYTHING on their land.


Speaking of shooting themselves in the foot. I would guess it is mostly non hunters that will support getting rid of high fence hunts. So they will punish the hunters. Who will be left to support them when it comes to agricultural bills? Things are posted tight around Killdeer already, so what's the difference? 
The people of North Dakota stop high fence hunts, followed by the landowners punishing hunters, followed by the loss of hunter support for landowners, and on and on. Who will loose in the end. The group with the lowest numbers that's who. That was a thoughtless threat 4590, whoever it came from.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

> I am telling you guys you are shooting yourselves in the foot. The land owners of this state understand this is a private property rights issue and has nothing to do with wildlife. You keep complaining about access but this will work against you. I know of ranchers in the Killdeer area that have already pledged that if this passes their will be no public access to hunt ANYTHING on their land. They have some of the best free chase hunting for elk in the state. Of course maybe TRNP will open up and you can still hunt elk in there.


Your the one doing the shooting buddy. Scare tactics will do little for sympathy.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Speaking for no one but myself, the folks in the game ranch industry need to ask themselves a question. Can they live with SB-2254 to just ban canned shooting, or do they want to see I-143 on the ballot? Since 75.5% of the people would pass I-143 which is much more restrictive. Their choice.

I'm thinking the signatures could be collected in one weekend. Record time. Bambi-in-a-barrel petition. All huff and puff aside, it's a business decision, cut your losses or go for broke?

*7. If on ballot, would you vote for a measure to ban high-fence shooting in North Dakota?* 
Location Gender Recreational Status 
Overall Farm Community Male Female Hunters Non-Hunters 
*Yes 75.5%*


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

This is NOT a property rights issue!! You cannot conduct illeagel activity on your property. I can't run a casino on my property, or a whore house....why??? Because it is illeagel!!!!


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Uhhh, right now it's a land rights issue. Only if the bill passes will it become a legal or illegal issue.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's all over but for the celebration.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Dick,

Nice survey.

It's great - while farm folks know more about the issue than community folks (first few questions), they both agree with the proper course of action (last few questions). The farm folks want to do away with it as much as everyone else!

Really quite overwhelming numbers, from a properly conducted survey.

M.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

plainsman,

Go ahead and celebrate, but don't continue to whine about limited access. One rancher I am refering to has some of the premier elk hunting in the state. He has been very open to helping folks that draw an elk tag be successful. I know of several awesome bulls shot on his place.  This issue has not had much attention in the media and it will change when people understand the issues involved. I have lived in ND for 50 years and have been an elk producer for 10. I don't recall having anyone object to my operation accept on this site. Certainly no 70% opposition. Makes me very suspiscious.

Dick, it is not just a business decision concerning this bill. You know as well as I do that your intent is to shut down the game farm industry and it will not end with this bill. That is the message people need to hear and will hear. We have hashed all this before so let the hearings begin. I would actually prefer restrictions like I-143, it would give our lawsuit more teeth.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

4590 I just received my issue of Field and Stream and in the unscientific poll they do on line, 50% of all responders favored an out right ban on canned hunting nation wide, with 14% favoring severe restrictions as well. So I would say the poll done in ND is dead on and most likely reflects the sentiment and desires nation wide as well!

So the sentiment and understanding is out there and it looks as if other states will be implementing actions to outlaw or severely limit canned hunting and the transportation of live animals classified as game within the states borders.

Since ND bill is not anymore restrictive and I do believe would meet the states constitutional requirements and is similar to MT's law.Couple that with losses at the appeals court level on the MT law I see no big threat from any lawsuit especially in trying to claim violation of the Commerce clause.

This is a good start bill and more restrictions are needed!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Study shows N.D. residents don't favor canned shooting*
*Dick Monson*; Valley City, 
*The Jamestown Sun*
Published Saturday, January 20, 2007
In November, the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, Barnes County Wildlife Federation, North Dakota Sportsman's Alliance, North Dakota Outdoor Heritage Coalition and other North Dakota wildlife organizations commissioned the Bureau of Governmental Affairs, University of North Dakota, to complete a statistically valid voter attitude survey on canned shooting of captive wildlife in escape proof fences. This survey was completed in December.

The survey found 78.2 percent of North Dakota voters said shooting captive big game species in escape proof enclosures does not comply with fair chase ethics of hunting.

The survey found 71.6 percent of North Dakota voters said they support legislation prohibiting the shooting of captive big game species in escape proof enclosures.

The survey found 75.5 percent of North Dakota voters would vote for an initiated measure to prohibit shooting captive big game species in North Dakota.

The split between rural and urban voters was plus or minus 4 percent.

Results of the survey were mailed Jan. 19 to North Dakota legislators in Bismarck.

State Sen. Tim Mathern has advanced Senate Bill 2254 which would prohibit the canned shooting of captive big game inside escape-proof fences in North Dakota. Captive big game are defined as farmed elk, deer and non-native exotics.

The high ethical standards and moral convictions of North Dakota voters are evidenced in this UND voter survey. The results of this survey mandate legislative support for SB-2254 in its entirety. In North Dakota neither the vast majority of hunters nor non-hunters support canned shooting of captive big game animals inside escape-proof fences. It is time to listen to the people. Captive shooting is only an artificial entertainment experience for immediate gratification.

Across our country anti-hunting and anti-gun organizations use videotaped evidence of high fence shooting of captive big game as a flagship fundraising enterprise to destroy legitimate fair-chase hunting and gun ownership in America. And they are raising hundreds of millions of dollars to do just that. At the same time many states across the country have prohibited or severely restricted high fence shooting on moral grounds and for the proven risks of disease and genetic pollution these operations have caused. The North Dakota game farm industry has too many documented incidences of domestic escapes and failures to recapture, with unaccounted animals still missing and moved into the wild populations.

As canned shooting of native and exotic wildlife is outlawed in other states, these operations quickly move where it is still legal. If this practice is not prohibited here, North Dakota will become a dump site for expansion of these operations.

This past fall the governors of Montana and Wyoming appealed publicly to the governor of Idaho and to the Idaho legislature to ban high fence shooting in Idaho, and Idaho's governor has concurred publicly. Both of Idaho's gubernatorial candidates came out strongly in favor of banning high fence shooting and game farms there after the escape of 160 farmed elk into the Yellowstone Park area. At least one of these escaped elk was carrying red-deer genes as evidenced by DNA testing.

The premier of Alberta calls high fence shooting "Bambi-in-a-barrel" and their citizens banned the practice in Alberta. Wyoming had banned high fence shooting and game ranching through their legislature and Montana did the same through initiated measure, I-143. This initiated measure was brought forward by the citizens when Montana's legislature refused the issue.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

4590,

Or should I refer to you as 25-20? Perhaps Red Rider BB?

You never have, do not now, and probably never will understand this. ND hunters, the majority of ND residents and the majority of people in in the USA do not approve of high fence shooting operations. You and your comrades may think this is an easy way to make money, but most people are disgusted with your antics. Fair chase rules are a well established model in hunting ethics.

You and your kind have conveniently decided to ignore established fair chase hunting principles to maximize your profits. The fact that you and your kind advertise these abominations (high fence shooting operations) as hunting experiences confirms my assumption. Threaten us all you want with law suits, etc. In the end, you do not have a leg to stand on.

Jim Heggeness


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

If banning high fence hunting means not having access to some land to hunt elk...so be it.


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

I guess I am in the minority of this issue. I feel that if people want to pay for this type of service then they should be able to do it. If I decide to put down a cow or pig in a open area there are really no laws that forbid me from shooting it in a simular way that I would a game animal. As long as I am not being unduly sadistic in puting it down. Now if I was to go to a game farm for a "hunt" I would go knowing that I was going to shoot an animal that is likely not wild, and a pretty shure thing. I think that if you described the way cows and pigs and chickens are "processed" but did not tell people that it was a cow, pig, or chicken, they would likely all say don't "hunt" them this way. Here is another take on this, what about birds that are plantted for hunters, ore are "released" to increase the numbers. There may not be a high fence to keep them there, but they will likely stay fairly close to "home". If we are going to play the I only do fair chase thing, we need to be very carefull. If I want to eat an elk, but don't have the time or cash to hunt one ouot west, but I can get away for a weekend clear my head, and shoot some meat that will be very much enjoyed, and I understand that I am purchasing a weekend out and livestock, what is so terrably wrong with that? Is this so much worse that the guy who hunts birds in SD for example where the land owner or hunting ranch raises birds to agument the local population? As hunters and gun owners, we need to police the "hunters" that are doing unethical or unlawful acts. The road hunter that chases a deer until it can no longer run, the one who shoots an animal and leaves it to rot because they did not see that one side of the rack was missing, and all of the others. A high fence operation is not a "true" hunt in many cases, but it does provide a service that I at least can see and understand. Some people see hunting with dogs in the same light as high fence operations, to each their own. I may not choose to "hunt" a certain way, but as long as the animals are taken in a quick humain way, I see at as a choice.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Whelen35,

Would you go to your local rancher (or even a rancher "out west" where you could clear your head better) and shoot a pig or a beef or a mess of chickens? I doubt it. So then maybe it is not valid to compare elk to cows and pigs and chickens. What do you think?

Jim


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

Jim, how can you be so small minded? The point that I am getting at is we as hunters need to protect hunting. For example, I love to hunt alone, one on one with deer. I stand hunt, and stalk. I really have a hard time understanding the thrill of a deer drive. You don't get a chance to examine the animal, or in a lot of cases get a unhurred shot. Since I don't chose to hunt that way, is it wrong, or just wrong for me. If I don't have the time or funds to hunt elk for example is it wrong if I chose to shoot an elk for meat if and when I get the chance? You may not want to do this, but is it wrong just because you chose not to partake in this activity? The best way to win an attack when dealing with an issue like hunting is to fragment the group. Get some of the same group to point fingers and say that is not for me so it is wrong. As far as shooting livestock, I have when I raised cattel. I would several times do this to evaluate how bullets performed on heavy animals. As far as chickens, I still like to lop off the head method the best. KHome raised turkeys have been done in at long range head shots because their were my livestock, and I could. We need to accept that not all people will hunt or have the opportunities to hunt the way that we chose to. If we do this, the people that want to end all hunting will win. Who knows, perhaps the way you like to hunt will be the next finger point. Do you want the people that you joined in and finger pointed and condemed as not the way I would do it to attack the very thing that you hold dear? I have never hunted on a high fence operation, it does not feel right to me at this stage of life. I will defend the choise of people who chose to get their game this way. It may be the only way that some people can get out and shoot game. Like I said before, as long as it is legal and the animals arn dealt with humainly, I will defend their right to do so. I may not rush out and do things that way myself, but then again these same people may not agree with the way I do things. I hope that they would have the forsight to defend my rights to hunt the way I chose to.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The point that I am getting at is we as hunters need to protect hunting.


High fence killing isn't hunting by any stretch of the imagination. Keeping this associated with true hunting is going to be like trying to swim with a ball and chain on your ankle. It will not preserve hunting, it will drag it down. Think of this bill as antibacterial, it will eliminate this sickness which endangers our sport.



> as long as it is legal and the animals arn dealt with humainly, I will defend their right to do so.


With this mentality no new laws would ever be passed, and some are good.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Think of this bill as antibacterial, it will eliminate this sickness which endangers our sport.


 :wink:

Comparing canned shooting to fair chase hunting, is like putting prairie dogs in quart jars on the 50 yd line and calling it prairie dog hunting. Exactly the same thing. And you know what, it would sell like hell.

If we as sportsmen cannot clean up our act someone else will. The ant-gun/anti-hunting groups love canned shooting. It is their best money raiser to shut down your outdoor heritage.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Hey Dick Monson, I'm still confused I thought this was all about the threat of disease? And I thought you said we were going to have the same as Montana? By the way where did the other 17 pages go? :wink:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Whelen35,

"If I don't have the time or funds to hunt elk for example is it wrong if I chose to shoot an elk for meat if and when I get the chance?"

Yes it is! Support real ranchers - eat beef! If you want elk meat that bad, and can not afford a hunt, elk is sold in some supermarkets or you could go in with some buddies and each buy a half or a quarter.

I hope you realize that the real so called "market" is for trophy bulls. Those are not the best animals for eating purposes. If the elk raisers had to depend on all the benevolent sportsmen to shoot an eater elk, I don't think they would be in business very long.

Lets keep shooting livestock and calling it hunting out of the the ranching business. It is not hunting and this type of activity does not belong in the livestock business.

"As far as shooting livestock, I have when I raised cattel. I would several times do this to evaluate how bullets performed on heavy animals."

Cattel???...I assume you mean cattle. Hey, if a rancher wants to go shoot his livestock for whatever reason - so be it. That is a lot different than charging a fee to some pretend hunter to shoot your livestock.

This all boils down to trashing hunting ethics so a few can reap very large profits from trophy animals. I find that very disgusting. If you think it is OK, that tells me a lot about your hunting ethics (or more properly - the lack thereof).

Jim


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I hope you realize that the real so called "market" is for trophy bulls.


Jim, another thing of interest is along this same line. Why do ranchers out west want depredation permits for bulls? Don't cow elk eat as much of their crops as bull elk? If cow only depredation permits were issued how many do you think would apply? I know a ranch family that a father and son have each shot three trophy elk. At least that's what the son told me. He was checking us out on a prairie dog town two miles from their property. I guess he could hear our shooting and wanted to make sure we were not on their land. 
Their posted signs say "Stay the He(( out, don't even ask" So if we close down canned hunts are these signs going to get even worse? When most of it is closed already where is the threat that 4590 throws out there?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Whelen35 wrote:


> The point that I am getting at is we as hunters need to protect hunting.


Exactly why we need to support a ban on high fence shooting. That is not hunting.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

g/o, as you well know when numerous agencies have legislative input, bill language is altered. There is no question, at all, that disease and genetic pollution rank right up there for reasons to ban canned shooting. We just missed a CWD bullet here in ND.

There are some very stickey cases in the ND game farm industry that have files like a Fargo phone book. ND missed (may have missed) CWD by a wisker. There is a continous litney of acts of regulatory indifferance, acts of negligence, acts of omission, and acts of regulatory non-compliance in the ND game farm industry.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I get a real kick out of sportsmen here that say, "I wouldn't do canned shooting myself but......." Moral conviction without action is an absence of moral conviction. Hunters who tolerate this activity will hang hunting. Period. We need to clean it up. Now.

This last weekend at the NDWF convention in Bismarck there was an excellent speaker who told how a variety of what are now hot issues should have been "nipped in the bud" 20 years ago.

Except nobody had the stones to move on it. Their foresight didn't extend past their nose. Sportsmen sat on the bench with their thumb in a warm place instead.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Was your "excellent speaker" Jim Posewitz?

The next time I post an article I will post the whole thing.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=34507

He doesn't think much of bird preserves either but he's smart enough to not say to much about it so people with think he's an excellent speaker?? :-?


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

People can use the term of morrals, but lets not forget that there are a lot of people that would say that hunting deer or bear with dogs is wrong and not ethical, or how about the states that allow baiting? A lot of people would have an issue with these topics. Now just because you don't think that type of hunting is your cup of tea, I think you would get a very heated debate on the issue if spoken in the right place. It is like the anti gun folks saying you hunters should not be against a ban on semi-auto firearms because it does not efect what you do. Divide a large group into many small groups that point fingers at each other saying that I am better than you because I don't partake in XYZ ect.... is the shure fire way to get a lot of groups that have no power to defend what they hold dear. Who exaclty is sleeping with the unclean, the group that says that they defend the rights of people to partake in an activity that you may not find to be right for you, but still a part of the larger scheem of things, or the people who get into the mob pointing fingers hopeing to not draw attention to that they hold dear. I may not agree with all types of high fence hunting, but I do want as many people out there as possible fighting for my rights to hunt. Is this sleeping with the enemy? I don't think so, more like your friends finding you with a fat chick.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Whelen35

There is another way to look at what your talking about as far as safety in numbers (hunters). With the current trend towards hunting becoming more expensive many will be forced to drop their favorite sport and find less expensive things to do. High fence hunting, guided hunts, leased land, all will deplete the current number of hunters we have. Politicians pay attention to one thing. Numbers of people. 
Secondly high fence killing is not hunting. Better to surgically remove the cancer before it endangers the body. What I am saying is this activity reflects poorly on true hunters and is prime fodder for the antihunters. We owe high fence operations no loyalty, they are not one of us.


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

plainsman, the same has been said about fully automatic guns, semi-auto guns, handguns, ect.. Have you ever hunted or really done research on any of the well run aka long term running high fence operations? Back to the guns, I know several people who won and shoot class 3 guns, they are not bad or evil people. Just people who love all type of guns. I started to handgun hunt after the school shootings started to happen. It is also the time when I became a concealed cary person for handguns. I knew they would be under attack. I am shure there are soms very poorly run high fence operations, but we need to weed them out. As a landowner, I still like to have my freinds hunt the land with me, as stated elsewhere, like good bird hunting, the pressure to sell to the highest bidder mentality is ripe for the picking. Too many people see hunting as a right and not a privelage. High fence operations give those who don't have a tie to land a place to hunt. If they are run right, I think it could be a lot of fun. I have lots of trespass problems on my land, and would love some laws pertaining to this that had some real teeth to keep unwanted "hunters" out. If they want to hunt, they can get to know me before they say that they saw a large deer enter my land and just want to push it. Hunting is getting trendy on the east and west coasts, because it is big $$$$ to do so. It will work its way here too. If hunters want to protect their hunting areas, they need to keep the big buck, no attachment to the land "hunters" shooting their game in the high fence operations and the hunter keep on hunting their land, or their freinds, or the landowner they made a point to get to know. And perhaps we can also fill the freezer with a cow elk, or a pig during the off season just for some fun.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Amen Whelen35,

Common sense goes a long way. If you want to check out a well run elk hunting preserve sometime let me know. We might even be able to fill that freezer with some elk meet.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Whelen 35,

"Have you ever hunted or really done research on any of the well run aka long term running high fence operations?"

"High fence operations give those who don't have a tie to land a place to hunt. "

"If hunters want to protect their hunting areas, they need to keep the big buck, no attachment to the land "hunters" shooting their game in the high fence operations and the hunter keep on hunting their land, or their freinds, or the landowner they made a point to get to know."

You do just not get it. High fence operations are not hunting, they are only killing operations devoid of any semblance of "fair chase". To call shooting an animal in a pen hunting demeans the entire concept of hunting.

You allude to the idea that your killing operations provide meat for the poor person who can't afford a hunting trip. I would bet that high fence operations that depended on people shooting livestock for meat would not stay in existence for very long.

The profit in high fence operations comes from the killing of trophy bulls. Now, those aren't ideal animals for eating, are they. Can you talk someone into killing a mature Angus bull for thousands or tens of thousands of dollars? I doubt it.

If you, as a landowner, want to go out and shoot your pigs and cows and chickens - fine, do it. At the same time, have fun sleeping with that fat chick.

Jim

claim that you are


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Whelen35

Automatic, semiauto, handguns, are all firearms owners. High fence killing is not hunting. There is no correlation. I'll give you an ancient analogy to this high fence hunting: you have a barrel of apples and in that barrel one apple is rotten, what do you do?

"one bad apple spoiles the whole barrel"


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

THU 02/01 09:00 AM Fort Lincoln Room 
SB 2254 S-NATRES Chairman: Sen. S. Lyson 
Short Title: Relating to hunting on nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities 
Comments: Relating to hunting on nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities; relating to escape and identification of farmed elk; and to provide a penalty.

Stanley W. Lyson - Chairman ....Email [email protected] 
Ben Tollefson - Vice Chairman.... Email [email protected] 
Layton W. Freborg.... 701-442-5712 
Joel C. Heitkamp ....Email [email protected] 
Jim Pomeroy.... Email [email protected] 
Constance Triplett....Email [email protected] 
Herbert Urlacher.... 701-974-3682


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

JIm, I do not want to get across the idea that high fence hunting is cheap. The non-tropy animals and females usually ary not too badly priced all things considered. I have never hunted on one to date. The service I am refering to is the fact that since I farm and the fall aka the hunting season is the most busy time of the year for me. It would be not possible for me to get away from the farm to hunt in the fall out of state. A high fence operation would provide a way to hunt when I can. If it was run properly, I think it could be a lot of fun. Shooting a penned up animal in a small fenced in area would hold no interest for me. There are some operations out there that really make you work for the shot. Now for you, have you ever hunted a high fence operation? You sound very authoritative on the subject. I am speaking of my ideals, and have stated that if run properly, a high fence operation could be very sporting. Now lets hear about all of your first hand experiences where you were shoot up staked out animals just to see them drop. Talk about people not getting it!! All the condemnation and personal attacks because of a differance of views is why, again, we will be divided. Close down the poorly run outfits, put teeth in laws to weed out the slob hunters, and the face of hunting will indeed look better to all. Calling people names and compairing people to the most base and undesirables is not going to win any one over to one side or the other. And really, if all the anti high fence people really are upset about the "killing" of the animals under that they consider unsporting ways, how can you eat domesticated meat and not gag. Poor dumb critters just raised for us to put in a pen and hit in the head with a hammer. How un sporting!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Whelen35

When I was in high school I worked at a turkey processing plant one summer. I sure would not have taken the job of killing them. I'm glad someone does, I like turkey. When I raised beef I sold them, but after taking care of them I didn't want to butcher one of my own. I would shoot and butcher one I didn't raise. I have shot a couple of buffalo just for the meat. It wasn't a hunt. I would not want anyone else to say it was a hunt. I don't want anyone associating it with a hunt. I don't want high fence operations passing themselves off as providing hunts. 
As far as disease I look at it much like the oil companies and their tankers. They all brag about how good their ships are, how safe they are, and that they will never have a spill. Then they have a spill. These high fence operations and all game farms for that matter can brag about how safe they are, but like the oil spills it's just a matter of time. I would guess our legislature will do anything for a buck, but this will go for a vote and the people will vote out high fence operations. 
I would say that CWD is nearly inevitable with all the game farms around. I don't care if people do blame the Colorado Game and Fish for being part of the problem, the problem in the future is game farms. Wildlife is property of the state, and the states should never have let it get started. But again some greedy people seen a way to make money, and wildlife and nearly anything else you name will take a back seat to money.



> how can you eat domesticated meat and not gag. Poor dumb critters just raised for us to put in a pen and hit in the head with a hammer. How un sporting!!


I hope PETA doesn't read this. Your not makeing a case for high fence operations, your makeing a case against raising domestic meat.


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

Tkhe point is all the meat we eat has been killed one way or another. As long at it was done humainly, to me it is still meat. I am not claiming that I know how all figh fence operations work. As I have said, if done properly, a high fence operation could provide a chance to get away, get out in the field, and get some meat. I would get no pleasure from a $10,000.00 set of horns on my wall if it was a shoot it in a pen thing. I think I would enjoy some cow elk steaks, or some wild hog chops if they were available to me when I can get away from work and get them. Again, if the poeration was run right where you had to work a bit to get them, it could be fun. Going back to bird hunting, is a plantted bird less fun to shoot? How do you tell the differance? If done right, a game farm would be enjoyable to shoot at. And I would know that I am purchasing the animal and renting the time I am there to shoot it. It may be the only chance I could get to shoot an elk untill I quit farming or retire. Besides, I can't go to India and hunt a Blackbuck, they were all but extinct there in their home range. The high fence operations in the USA is where they were able to get enough animals to re-introduce them back into the wild in their native range. Wow, something good came from high fence operations. Where can I go to hunt Axis deer in their native range? Can I ever get a gun there now to hunt them? If so, do they still allow non natives to hunt them? It is not just elk.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

I sent emails to the legislatures the other day:
---------------------

SB 2254 S-NATRES Chairman: Sen. S. Lyson
Short Title: Relating to hunting on nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities

I grew up on a farm in north central ND and now take care of it for my father who is now living in a nursing home, although I am not actively farming.

Farming across the state is very different and it has forced farmers in some areas to diversify in order to stay on the land. Some farmers have gone "outside the box" and invested in ranching and raising non-typical livestock such as elk or deer.

SB 2254 threatens to severely limit the use of the property these farmers have invested their time and finances. Some of the supporters of this bill have brought up the following reasons to support this bill.

Ethics: Nobody including myself think that shooting animals inside a confined area should be called hunting. At the same time, shooting a pig, cow or whatever shouldn't be called hunting either, but is it unethical?
Let them call it something else. Nobody is required to participate so let's make them call it something else, just don't ban it.

Disease: The people I know that raise livestock need those livestock to be healthy and controlling disease is the only way they can make a living. As far as the animals having too much contact with each other, deer have herded up every winter I can remember. There have been hundreds of deer seen feeding on the spilled grain around grain elevators, not to mention those seen feeding on hay feeders, and on spilled grain in my father's yard.

I've heard some say "monitoring for disease is not disease prevention." Well, who is monitoriong or preventing disease in all of the deer that instinctively herd up together every winter throughout this state? Where is the disease problem and how does it fit in this situation?

I would hope you will not support this bill as it is nothing more than an property rights issue with little more than a "name problem."

You have the power to make them call it something besides "hunting" since nobody is required to participate.

Please don't ban something that affects nobody other than the person actually participating.

Thanks for your time,

sincerely,

Me 

(I even left out my thoughts on self-rightous hunters forcing their views on other people)


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Plainsman,

I CAN NOT BELIEVE, you shot a poor buffalo in a pen. So your real colors come through. It really isn't about ethics of the hunt is it. You are as immoral as our clients. Just different critter.

I hope you know I am tongue in cheek here. I would encourage you to shoot one when ever the freezer is empty, and in fact I could arrange you to fill the freezer with a cow elk for less $$ per pound than that Buff cost you.

Any way here is a blog site you guys should read. This guy makes a lot of sense. Also read the blog in regard to the Oregon issues with farmed elk. Notice the alliance hunting groups have formed with the Humane Society of the US. This group is one of the worst enemies of hunters in this country.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/?p=1523


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

4590,

Why haven't the deer and elk ranchers in this state tried to get a slaughter house and or meat market going like the bison ranchers have? I think that you would find much more support by doing that then bringing in high priced shooters.

Most of the ranchers that I know have way more does then bucks that they need to get rid of. We all know that the shooters do not want the does. You guys could make alot more money and reduce your herds if you would get together on a meat packing operation.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I hope you know I am tongue in cheek here.


Yup.

I didn't pay anything for the buffalo. I shot it for a friend. I had a large enough rifle to do it humanly so decided I would do it for him. It was like shooting a cow. I didn't like it, but it's hard to eat them alive. I will get a couple steaks. It definitely was not a form of entertainment. 
The reason I brought up shooting the buffalo is because I suppose many people will say if you haven't done it your not entitled to an opinion. Normally this buffalo would have gone to a plant where they take care of it. In this case the processor wouldn't take it alive.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Well once again the facts despell what all you guys thought was a burning issue.

PRESS RELEASE

1/25/07

CONTACT: Roy Sterns 208. 739.1362

Kristy Sternes 208. 866. 0927

Black Canyon Elk Ranch-Emmett, Idaho

The world's most respected lab, located in New Zealand, concerning elk/red deer genetics has just released results from the one suspect domestic elk cow from Dr Rex Rammell's herd regarding her genetics. The cow elk was not among the elk which escaped from Rammell's elk ranch. The New Zealand lab ran a DNA test which uses thirteen markers determining that the cow elk is pure elk with no red deer genes.

Roy and Kristy Sterns of Black Canyon Elk Ranch near Emmett purchased the animal for meat from Dr Rammell after the Idaho State Dept of Agriculture (ISDA) required the animal be slaughtered. ISDA transported the animal to a slaughter facility in Idaho. At the plant, both a private practice veterinarian and ISDA took DNA samples from the animal.

The independent veterinarian airmailed the sample to the Genomnz Lab in New Zealand. The results came back last night that the cow elk is pure elk.

Ten years ago, when the animal was purchased by Dr Rammell, she was given a certification of genetic purity by a Colorado lab as having no red deer genes. All of her offspring born on Dr Rammell's ranch have been tested as pure elk with no red deer genes.

ISDA sent the cow elk blood to a Canadian lab which uses a test with just four protein markers. This is not a DNA test and not as scientifically sensitive as the New Zealand G3 test. The Canadian lab ran the tests twice showing a possible suspect red deer gene. This test goes back two generations for the red deer gene. This required a DNA test by a premiere lab which goes back three or more generations.

All the genetic and disease results are now back regarding Dr Rammell's entire domestic elk herd, both those that escaped and those who were placed under quarantine. Every animal was checked for brucellosis and tuberculosis and elk that were slaughtered had their brains tested for chronic wasting disease (CWD). All test results have come back negative, proving once again that the domestic elk industry in Idaho is not spreading any disease nor harming wild elk genetics.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Kim 4590

I thought you guys said/claimed it was the wild deer/elk infecting the Farmed livestock??

*Deer herd reduction planned in bovine TB zone (2007-01-26)*

Five wild deer harvested this fall in northwestern Minnesota near bovine tuberculosis (TB)- infected cattle operations tested presumptive positive for the disease, according to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

The DNR will contract with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) sharpshooters and take additional actions for removal of deer potentially infected with the disease. The presumed positive deer from this year are in addition to two deer from the same area found positive for bovine TB during last year's testing. Final test results from 2006 are pending.

"The discovery of more bovine TB-infected cattle operations and deer in 2006 prompted this effort to protect the long-term health of the deer population," said Dr. Michelle Powell, DNR wildlife health program coordinator. "Temporarily reducing deer numbers in highly localized areas will minimize the chance that this disease will begin to spread through deer-to-deer or deer-to-livestock contact. The DNR is committed to working with livestock producers and the Minnesota Board of Animal Health to regain the state's bovine TB-free status."

Bovine TB has been found in seven cattle operations in the area. All of the bovine TB positive deer have been located on or within a few miles of TB positive cattle farms near Skime, about 35 miles south of the Canadian border.

Following an aerial survey next week to assess deer numbers and distribution, USDA Wildlife Services sharpshooters will begin to reduce deer numbers in a six-mile radius surrounding the farms where bovine TB was detected near Skime. USDA Wildlife Services employs teams of trained sharpshooters who are experienced and skilled in efficiently removing large numbers of deer for wildlife damage and health and safety reasons. These teams will take deer on public land and will also work with landowners to take deer on private land with the landowner's permission.

All deer taken will be tested for bovine TB. Meat from deer with no obvious bovine TB infection will be salvaged and released for human consumption. DNR will provide information and food safety guidelines for proper handling and cooking of venison.

"The DNR's effort to reduce the deer population in selected areas of northwest Minnesota is an important step in the process of eradicating bovine TB from the state," said Minnesota Board of Animal Health Executive Director and State Veterinarian Dr. Bill Hartmann, "With each TB-infected deer we remove and each herd we test, Minnesota moves closer to regaining its bovine-TB free status."

The DNR will also continue to issue shooting permits to interested landowners in the affected areas. Last year, landowners took 90 deer under shooting permits. After the sharp-shooting effort the DNR will consider additional management options, possibly in a broader area, including liberalized hunting seasons, special hunts, bonus permits or extended seasons.

"We recognize that this will likely have a temporary, negative affect on deer hunting in the immediate area and we regret any short-term impacts to local hunters," Powell said. "However, taking aggressive action before the disease begins to spread through the deer population ensures the long-term health of the deer herd and good deer hunting in the future. We expect deer numbers will quickly rebound after the completion of this effort."

The DNR will continue to monitor deer for TB in the area throughout the next several years by sampling hunter-harvested deer. Bovine TB is a bacterial disease that primarily affects cattle; however, other animals may become infected. It is known to occur in Michigan deer but does not persist in deer anywhere else in the United States. Cooking meat to an internal temperature of 165 degrees destroys the bacteria. When field dressing all game, the DNR recommends the use of gloves to prevent exposure to a number of diseases, including salmonella and E. coli.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

Proposed ban on game-farm hunting defeated

The Associated Press - Wednesday, February 07, 2007

BISMARCK, N.D.

A suggested ban on private, fenced hunting preserves would violate their owners' property rights, the North Dakota Senate concluded in overwhelmingly defeating the proposal.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, sought to ban hunters from paying to shoot deer, elk and other big game on a game farm. It was often called the "high fence" hunting bill, a reference to the fence that game preserve owners are required to have around their land.

North Dakota's Senate voted 44-3 on Wednesday to defeat the pay-hunting prohibition on private, big-game preserves.

Sen. Connie Triplett, D-Grand Forks, said there is considerable disagreement among hunters about whether it is ethical to hunt on fenced game farms.

However, the state has encouraged the development of game preserves, and banning them would violate the property rights of landowners, Triplett said.

___

The bill is SB2254.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Bob,

Looks too me like your next project should be to ban dairy farming.


----------

