# Ethics - Using for Game/Hunting Laws



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

OK...I'm trying to understand something here and I honestly would like some input. from all sides. In regards to arguments for and against these High Fenced "hunts," ethics seems to be the word involved.

Many state that "ethics" can't be used to regulate/influence game laws. If my understanding is correct, that is because some feel everyone may possess and interpret ethics differently.

Here is the basis of my question. It's been cited that the government (i.e. G&F, DNR, Feds, etc) shouldn't begin to impose hunting regulations/restrictions based on what could be perceived as ethics.

*My question is*... Don't they already use ethics as a guideline? Why can't I use a poison-laced arrow to kill a deer. Why can't shoot a deer in the head with a 17 HMR? Why are they not smashing snow geese eggs or poisoning the birds? The list goes on.

If it's not ethics, what is it?

Let me be clear...I'm not including rules that deal with population control...such as plugged guns or harvest limits. I understand how/why those are in-place.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Many game laws have little resemblance to a thought process of ethics or morality being put into them. Though people working in the field of the game we hunt have a input and try their best, it usually comes down to politics by politicians that haven't a clue what is right or wrong for hunting rules. This is evident in some states allowing hunting of all game with anything that is center fire and others restricting to bullet weight, speed, power, or size.

Consider this then, "Because animals are not moral agents with free will, they cannot - strictly speaking - be regarded as morally responsible. That granted, it follows that they can never (unlike, arguably, adult humans) deserve suffering, or be improved morally by it. Animals can never merit suffering; proper recognition of this consideration makes any infliction of suffering upon them particularly problematic". Thus "moral implications are or should be the guiding criteria for game laws. Individuals who cannot adequately represent themselves have to depend upon others to do so. Because it is not possible to ask an animal about its welfare, or to know what is going on inside its head, it is necessary to draw up some indicators which enable one to make a judgment".

In summary and in my judgment, it is not the ethics that guides a hunter as to how or what he uses to make the kill or legal to use in that kill but the moral responsibility to make a humane kill when that point is at hand. That responsibility (morality) alone should be what is used by law makers in their decision as to what is legal for hunting and what is not. That also requires common sense which seems to be a lacking quality in some game laws.

Whether we want to admit it or not, hunting is no longer a necessity in our daily lives for survival. We pursue it for one purpose and one purpose only and that is our own personal pleasure. We can use the excuse that it is for our heritage or food to feed ourselves but that is not true and we all know it. I love to hunt. I love to eat the game I shoot. But I won't parish if that is lost to me, only become a less happy camper.

The 17HMR cannot be use humanly to take deer. Poisoned arrows are not effective if you want to find the deer you shot and again would not be humane. As for snow geese, not being a waterfowl hunter I don't understand why anyone would want to smash their eggs or poison them.


----------



## Raghorn (Aug 30, 2007)

YEP... I'm back, and a GREAT time it was in the backcountry! I see that some interesting developements have taken place while I was away 

ETHICS.... hmmm good question, one that has been pondered by many a scholar. I'd have to agree with cwoparson that we hunt to pleasure ourselves and not out of necessity. What is "ethical" to one may be unethical to another and it does boil down to what is humane treatment of the prey (the hunted) that the preditor (the hunter) is taking. I personally do not believe that wolves kill animals humanely just as some hunters do not kill humanely. If an animal is not taken out with the first shot and runs off to die a slow and painful death or is torn apart while it is still alive.... WOW! what a sobering thought.

Another thought on ethics would be what type of hype could be used while well meaning folks are trying to get a law passed. I guess that is MY main concern for you folks in ND. It can and WILL get nasty, trust me, I know! and when it does, be ready to answer to everyone as to why hunting should be allowed at all and answer the metro's as to what happens to the animals that are left wounded in the field.. :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Taddy1340
There are many misconceptions in regards to wildlife law.
I took wildlife law enforcement from the man that wrote the book, (Wildlife Law Enforcement ) by William F. Sigler. 


> Chapter 3, page 39 State Jurisdiction over Wildlife:


 It starts:


> We have seen that before the signing of the Magna Charta at Runnemede, ownership of wildlife was vested exclusively in the person of the king, and that after the signing, ownership was vested in the office of the king, to be held in sacred trust for the people. Colonists who settled America carried the common law of England with them.


Further:


> At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the state delegates invested the Federal Government with certain powers, but they did not mention control of wildlife. It was not until the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that federal government control over migratory birds was finally decided.


Further: Page 39 now:


> The Tenth Amendment proves that all powers not delegated to the federal government and not prohibited to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. The right of the states to govern the taking of fish and game was established in the famous case of Geer V. Connecticut. In this case the right of the state to regulate and control the manner of which wild game may be taken is sustained on two grounds. (1) the sovereign ownership of wild animals by the state: and (2) the police poser of the state etc etc etc.





> Chapter 5 Rights of Private Citizens under Wildlife Law.
> Page 80: Ownership of Wildlife A Privilege.


That's why a permit is required, which means you never have total control of your animals even if North Dakota does think they are livestock.


> Page 83 Rights of the Property Owner: The mere fact that a landowner posts his property against hunting, fishing, or trespassing in no way gives him title to the game. The state holds ownership of game within it's boundaries, but the individual owner of real estate has an interest in the game on his premises. This is not an absolute interest, but rather a qualified one.


Sorry for being long winded, but I wanted to give some background to how this all came about. Ethics is the foundation for many game laws, but it matters little, because the power of the people is absolute.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

CWO,

Thanks for the response.

In regards to the snow geese...it's an actual consideration for the extreme over-population of them. Conservation and regular seasons are not decreasing the numbers enough so the control of their numbers in the breeding ground is a consideration...hence destroying nests/poisoning birds. I raised this issue because I want to know why people think that measure has not yet been approved. I know it's been tied to public image.

If I deem those other two methods morally right to harvest deer, why can't I? Especially if it's on my land? Do you see the connection I'm trying to make?

I would like someone to help clarify the difference. Don't get caught up on my examples...I'm trying to see why others think they (game depts, DNR, etc) make these rules and regulations? What guides them to decide which harvest measures are acceptable and which are not? Again, I'm not talking about population control, but means/tactics of harvesting. Is it solely politics, ethics, morals or a combination? If it is a combination, how does that relate to our topic of restrictions on High Fence "hunts" and those who feel the gov't doesn't have a right to base a measure on ethics/how others perceive the sport?


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

Plainsman,

Thanks for the reply as well...

Mike


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

I can appretiate the quotes posted by Plainsman. I would guess no one on either side of this issue disputes who or how wildlife is managed or regulated according to state and federal law. At present these laws have no application to domestic livestock.

The real ethics violation is trying to change the rules concerning game farm livestock. We have come way to far down this road to just adobt a measure as has been proposed.

If it were the will of the people to change things at this point, it needs to be done in proper order. First would be to change the state designation of these animals as livestock. Then reimburse the producers who have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a business the state encouraged and actually subsidized. Then implement laws forbidding the ownership of any native species. If you feel strongly enough about the issue - go for it.

You see the arguement over whether its ethical to shoot an animal in an enclosure, pales in comparison to what a handful of people are trying to do to their fellow citizens with a stroke of the pen at the voting booth. It is out right UNETHICAL by any standard of ethics that should govern how we treat our fellow man.

The debate over how we kill animals will always come down to he most humane method possible for the situation. Dead is dead, wounded is bad, overpopulation and disease are bad, so we try to manage both wild and domestic animals the best we can with the means available to us.

It is perfectly clear that those who oppose fenced hunting, really want the whole industry to go away. If that is the case, do the ethical thing and reimburse your fellow citizens and buy them out. The arguement that "you should have known going in the risk involved" is just bogus and totally unethical. Once these livestock became private property, all the rules regarding wildlife were replace with the constitutional right to own property. Along with that came the ethical right to dispose of that property in a humane fashion for whatever consideration the market would offer.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

4590,

Thanks for the reply as well. I'm truly trying to understand how the different sides view these hot-button issues.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly...it becomes a classification as livestock...then translates to your rights as a property owner. Therefore game laws would not pertain to your type of operations. Is that about right?

Although, I see the motive to classifying elk, deer, etc as livestock, what about the perception? If you ask average joe hunter or non-hunter how to classify an elk, deer, etc, I doubt livestock will be an answer. To me they will continue to base perceptions on what they see. They drive by, read about, witness a high-fenced hunt, I doubt they'll say, "Well that's OK those elk are livestock." Does that make sense? Not trying to be sarcastic but trying to share IMO how the classification doesn't affect the *perception.* It's simply a legal term that will allow these operations to exist.

Mike Taddy


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> At present these laws have no application to domestic livestock.


I think that is where our state has run afoul of federal law. When they state that owning wildlife is a privilege they mean you can never have complete ownership. You purchase them, but first you must have a permit. You are subjected to many rules that you are not subjected to if you want to own 1000 angus cattle.

At one time it was illegal to own wildlife. Through the political process, which I am not familiar with breed stock was acquired for some species. Once there was a hole in the **** the flood begin and many people now under permit own wildlife. They should realize that it is a great gamble to do this as the rules can change at any time. Constitutional law, disease concerns, and simply public opinion. We begin with no wildlife ownership, shifted to wildlife ownership, and although I have no problem with raising them for consumption I am afraid that eventually we will go back to no wildlife management.

Wildlife producers and hunters are both in danger of public perception. High fence operations endanger us both. It is my opinion that high fence shooting puts all hunters in a bad light with joe public. It is also my opinion that high fence shooting puts wildlife producers into more danger than it does hunters.

I see this measure staving off the end of hunting and wildlife farming, at least for a few years, until the PETA type convince a majority of the public. Like they say, you can drag a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I find it ironic that a bill which has the ability to be beneficial to hunters and wildlife producers alike is received poorly by some. I would venture to guess that many producers fear that it will carry over to them. Fear is an ugly master.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

*Kim said:*


> Then reimburse the producers who have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a business the state encouraged and actually subsidized. Then implement laws forbidding the ownership of any native species.


Kim, I call to question your statement of "subsidized". When it was brought to attention last winter I believe your industry denied it. The government was lobbied heavily by the high fence industry to get those subsidies, then turns around and says the government encouraged it? The worst slap of all is that APHIS will buy out a contaminated herd at $1700 + per animal. Taxpayer money, not an indemnity fund from the growers because they would never finance their own way. Espesially when they are still being smuggled all over the country. How is that ethical? Did you read the news release below? Your industry sought protection through redefining wildlife as NTL, then turns around and sells the act of the kill, not of NTL, but whitetail deer or Rockey Mountain Elk. Is it ethical to face both ways in the saddle according to the wind?

The animal is not being sold, it is the act of the kill which of course you call "harvest". *Raising a true domestic animal for a usefull purpose has merit, raising it for an artifical kill inside an escape-proof enclosure has none.* None at all. Case law does not support your opinion Kim. If this indusrty had any ethics it would demand severe self regulation. It has avoided it like the plague. APHIS has proposed new regulations of annual independent audits of facilities and records on game ranches. Guess where that baby landed in the indusrty wish list?Did you read the news release below?
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_113901.asp 
Tennessee Man Faces Felony Charges for Importing Elk 
posted September 24, 2007

A Tennessee man is being held in the McCracken County jail today facing six felony counts of illegally importing elk and deer into Kentucky after a Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources conservation officer stopped his vehicle just west of Paducah Thursday night.

Sgt. Garry Clark arrested Timothy Cory Looper, 25, of Livingston, Tennessee, after a tip from a citizen alerted him to a vehicle towing a trailer loaded with deer through Ballard County. Clark also charged Looper with two misdemeanor counts for importing antelope without transportation permits.

Clark stopped the white Chevrolet pickup and cattle trailer on U.S. 60 and discovered five illegal bull elk, one axis buck deer, and two black buck antelope along with 12 exotic sheep. State law prohibits the importation of elk and deer. The antelope, while not members of the cervid (deer) family, are wildlife native to India and require a transportation permit before entering the state. The sheep are considered livestock.

Identification tags on four of the elk indicate their origin as a captive facility in Minnesota, a state where Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has been identified. CWD is a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE), the deer equivalent of Mad Cow Disease. Overwhelming evidence suggests CWD's rapid spread to 14 states is due to interstate transportation of infected animals.

Absent the availability of a live animal test for CWD, the 2006 Kentucky General Assembly enacted an importation ban for all cervids to protect Kentucky's elk and white-tailed deer herds.

Looper told officers that he picked up the animals at Hostetler Wildlife Farms in Miller, Missouri, and was transporting them to Wilderness Hunting Lodge in Monterey, Tennessee, a shooting preserve.

Clark was joined by Kentucky Fish and Wildlife officers Lt. Larry Ashford, Brad Lowe, and Tony Dunker, and wildlife biologists Tony Black and Pat Hahs, who assisted with impounding the vehicle, trailer and animals. The animals were immediately transported to Murray State University's Breathitt Veterinary Center in Hopkinsville where the elk and axis buck were euthanized. They will be disease tested.

"This is a prime example of why the legislature enacted an importation ban for all cervids," said Dr. Karen Alexy, wildlife division director for Kentucky Fish and Wildlife. "These elk came from a CWD positive state and any breech of their containment by traffic accident or otherwise could place Kentucky deer and elk at risk."

Deer and elk hunting, and watching, contribute nearly $750 million annually to Kentucky's economy and support about 10,500 jobs.

Each felony count carries a maximum penalty of $10,000 in fines and up to five years in jail.

"We encourage all citizens to be alert for vehicles or trailers transporting deer or elk in Kentucky and call us at 1-800-25-ALERT," said Alexy. "It could be one of the most significant contributions anyone could make toward protecting our herds."
----------------------------------------------------------------
There is no conscience in canned shooting, it is the kill for the money.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Dick,

Once again, lots of hype, very little fact.

The subsidies I am referring to were the grants and loans the state gave to producers encouraging them to develope this industry.

As livestock the cervid industry falls under the same disease management as any other. Cervids actually are indemnified just like any other livestock if it be necessary to test an animal or herd. This is how the beef and other industries have maintained a clean disease record - encourage producers to address disease issues head on.

The instance that has been hyped here as "supposed smuggling" doesn't give us enough information to determine if there was a true disease risk or not. The animals were bound for Tenn. not Kent. They may very well have had all the necessary permits to go to Tenn. We have not been told if the G/F over reacted or not. One post here seems to suggest that. Many kinds of livestock pass through ND every day that don't have an import permit. The article attempts to hype the fact that these elk came from Minn. There are thousands of domestic elk in Minn. There was one or maybe two positive cases of CWD found. That was several years ago and the source herds have been tested and the exposure elliminated. Based on that type of journalism one could say ND is a positive CWD state as well because of one carcass found here several years ago.

The ND cervid industry has done an excellent job of working with NDBOAH to regulate the industry. Our record speaks for itself - NO CWD. They started mandatory CWD testing several years before G/F did any testing. That was self imposed by the industry.

ND DOES have a mandatory annual audits. I think you know not what you are talking about.

Cervids are raised for a useful purpose, just like any other livestock. By the way Dick, I thought this was just about hunting preserves. This proposed measure will do nothing to address most of you hype, ie. transporting state to state, disease, audits, subsidies. If all your concerned about is "Raising a true domestic animal for a usefull purpose", I am still waiting for you to endorse the cervid industry as a meat a by product industry.

Plainsman,

I take issue with your "permit" reasoning. The permit process was implemented to provide the extra regulation that Dick is always suggesting is not present. It is not demanded of other livestock producers and is in place to help the NDBOAH better manage cervid producers. It is primarily a safe guard so that people cannot capture wildlife and keep them in an enclosure for their own use.

However I have never heard it suggested that the permits represents the fact that owning cervids is a "priviledge" that can be revoked at any time. The permit can be revoked for violation of regulations, but not merely because someone changed their mind about whether property owners should be allowed to own a certain species.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

One thing about this issue that I have not read yet on this thread....

If you have an elk or deer farm and you purchase the animals they become live stock. They are not wild to that land. They are purchased and brought in. So that would deem them as Livestock and then they are property of the land owner or person who bought them. So then those animals can be dispatched or put down in anyway deemed Humane by societies standards, i.e. hunting/shooting them.

Just an observation.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good evening Chuck

Wildlife can never be owned without strings attached. Even if you buy it you must have permits and are subject to the state laws, sometimes even federal law. You don't have the same freedom as you do with cattle. This applies to mammals, birds, reptiles, any form of native animal species. Even those who raise animals for fur are never truely in total ownership as we think of it. People are not free to do as they please.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I take issue with your "permit" reasoning.


It's not my reasoning. Also, good luck arguing with the author, he passed away a couple years ago. The courts have upheld challenges. I doubt with the modern idea of wildlife and bunny huggers in the courts that the courts will be any more lenient.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Kim, you have again failed to address the statement. I said *independent* audits. Which scares the boys skinny, because they wouldn't pass. Dr. Carlson and Dr. Keller specifically asked NDWF to oppose the new proposed APHIS regs that would mandate *independent *outside audits.

Just recently a ND elk farmer called in that a bull was harassing the fence. He was allowed to haze it away with gun fire. He called back that the bull was hit in the butt, unable to rise, and NDGF should dispatch it. They did. It was his bull. He didn't even know it was out. Nice six pointer. Good thing the records are ship shape.


----------



## Raghorn (Aug 30, 2007)

After weeks of reflection and nights of discussions around a campfire, I have new found interest in this discussion and I think I can see the difference in opinion here.. I am trying to be as objective as I can, since I don't really have a dog in this fight other than how it may be recieved by the metro's nationwide when it hits the newstands.

One side have what they consider domestic livestock that they feel is perfectly harmless to harvest however they see fit. The other side feels that it is unethical to shoot these domestic animals behind wire and that this type of operation will tarnish the reputation of the ND hunter.

So..... what constitutes ownership of private property? I know that some argue that these types of animals are never really "owned" but if I pay money for something, the way I understand the law, I OWN it! Even contriban is owned by the person that is holding it.

That said, the US Constitution protects our right to own property, both real and personal. The right to own and convey property was upheld numerous times by the US Supreme Court and a revisit in 1982 states that:
*All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.*
Title 42; CH21 US Code

Now, how bad are the high wire operations effecting other states? TX has recently noted that their hunting license sales will reach an all time high this year despite the fact that TX has more high fenced operations than probably all the other states put together. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/out ... 30581.html

The term ETHICS then, has many faces. Whether in peace or war the study of moral character (ethics) must be sought after. Now, my only fear of this type of conundrum is that the opposing sides will resort to less than ethical tactics to gain the vote of unsuspecting metro's who may or may not even CARE about this issue (this happened in MT). Forced to cast a vote at the poll on something they have only heard about can offer a less than perfect outcome.

If this issue is going to be pushed forward by a few well meaning citizens, bent on getting their way, the question that must be asked is; what might the long term effect be on our (everyone's) hunting heritage and could it be that a template is being set for those who oppose hunting in general being formulated buy ads and propaganda produced by both sides of the issue? Just my thoughts as I believe there is more to this agenda than meets the eye. :sniper:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman....

I understand what you are saying. People that raise these animals have certain laws they have to follow......what they feed them, how they contain them (fence height requirements), how they dispose of carcasses, how they transport them, permits on being able to obtain them, etc. I have know a couple of elk farmers. I know some of the things that they have to go through (not all).

But what I get from them is if they want to kill their livestock they can do it in anyway that is humane. But after the kill it is a whole different story.

The thing that I am trying to say is that the animals are Livestock. They are classified as livestock. So if people want to let someone kill their livestock for money and it is legal and humane....who cares.

IMO. Ethics should not play a role just as long as it is done legal and humane.

A question I want to pose is with ethics and game laws....

What do you do about these? Or How should a G&F deal with these?

- Hunters putting up posted signs on land they don't own just so people don't beat them to a spot.

- Hunters chasing others off land that they don't own or have the right to.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Chuck Smith said:


> A question I want to pose is with ethics and game laws....
> 
> What do you do about these? Or How should a G&F deal with these?
> 
> ...


Chuck,

Those are already illegal. People who do those should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The question should be how did wildlife become livestock? Someone had to have stolen from the public trust. How did the practice of shooting a penned animal ever become a suitable method of "hunting"?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Huntnfishnd...

The beloved game bird know as the pheasant is not native to the US. It was livestock or domestic.

The wildlife that is in zoo's is the same way.

Now one thing I don't agree with is if they are selling them for people to shoot, the term "Hunting" should not be involved.


----------



## Raghorn (Aug 30, 2007)

> The question should be how did wildlife become livestock? Someone had to have stolen from the public trust.


My understanding of this is:
The great elk reduction program of Yellowstone that existed from the late 1800's until the 1960's. Elk were given or sold to organizations for reintroduction and to private individuals for alternative livestock programs that were being promoted by the US goverment.

There were way to many elk in one place and a need to disperse them. There wasn't any "stealing from the public trust", it was an effort to keep the elk population from going the way of the buffalo.

As far as when "hunting" of domestic animals was encouraged, I'd have to say it was due to mismanagment of wild herds that encouraged this the most. That is the way of the free American enterprise; supply on demand.

Discouragement of private property ownership is, at best, Marxism! :sniper:

By the way.....

*Who said these quotes? *

(1) "We're going to take things away from you on

behalf of the common good."

(2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to

government of the few, by the few, and for the

few, and to replace it with shared responsibility

for shared prosperity."

(3) "(We) can't just let business as usual go on,

and that means something has to be taken away

from some people."

(4) "We have to build a political consensus, and that

requires people to give up a little bit of their own

turf in order to create this common ground."

(5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

(6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what

has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire

economy - that they are being watched."

Now you might think these were the famous words

of the Father of communism, Karl Marx And you

would be on the right track in thinking so. But you

would be wrong.

These pearls of socialist/Marxist wisdom are from

non other than our very own, home-grown Marxist. . .

Hillary Clinton

Comments made on:

(1) 6/29/04

(2) 5/29/07

(3) 6/4/07

(4) 6/4/07

(5) 6/4/07

(6) 9/2/05

Be afraid,

Be very afraid!!


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Raghorn said:


> My understanding of this is:
> The great elk reduction program of Yellowstone that existed from the late 1800's until the 1960's. Elk were given or sold to organizations for reintroduction and to private individuals for alternative livestock programs that were being promoted by the US goverment.
> 
> There were way to many elk in one place and a need to disperse them. There wasn't any "stealing from the public trust", it was an effort to keep the elk population from going the way of the buffalo.
> ...


Your understanding? Any documentation?


----------



## Raghorn (Aug 30, 2007)

> Your understanding? Any documentation?


Yep... 
Elk of North America, Ecology and Management by Jack Ward Thomas and Dale E. Toweill


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

:wink: Or possibly animals were purchased this way:

WLA, Vol. 10, No. 5 • October 2002 Page 17
Game Farm Dilemma Deepens-Huge
Illegal Trade Revealed
By Shirley Bray
*Poaching of wild deer by game farmers is a serious problem.* At a recent meeting of the Midwest Deer/Turkey Group Meeting, Conception, MO August 19-20, 2002, the extent of the illegal laundering of wild deer into the captive cervid trade industry was discussed. Terry Doughtery, a warden with Missouri DOC, offered some insights. Much was based on the testimony of a former deer hauler who has turned states evidence. He had hauled numerous loads of illegal deer and elk that were shipped to many states by Michigan brokers. *Untested deer bring premium prices on shooting preserves because they can be laundered for entry into Boone and Crockett Hunting Preserves, a full service, 2000-acre wildlife habitat for the managed field hunting of upland game birds and trophy whitetail in the Midwest. TB-tested deer with ear-tags and shaved
necks show evidence of being from game farms and cannot be entered in Boone and Crockett. Gate hunts are going for $40-50,000 and no record of these hunts appears on the books.*
*Most of the deer that the deer hauler moved were wild caught deer from Ontario. *Ontario deer farmers baited wild deer into pens, and veterinarians supplied false health certificates for wild
deer. Twenty-nine were shipped into Wisconsin without testing. Major destination states were Texas, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Mississippi. Deer were brought into the U.S. at a friendly border crossing in Montana. *The driver carried two sets of papers, one for the authorities and one for the ranch owner.* Untested loads were hauled at night to minimize stress on the animal and to minimize the number of inspections at the border. In Texas, wardens can stop cattle haulers on the interstate for inspection. Five thousand prosecutable violations have been documented, many from discrepancies between the age of deer and the age on tags. The illegal market is dependent on veterinarians supplying false papers for a cut of the profit.

*Illegal shipments will continue until there is no market for trophy deer on shooting preserves. *(Fair Chase initiated measure anyone?)

Brokers prefer deer from Canada because of the good exchange rate and lax border enforcement. It is estimated that 25,000 deer per month are being moved throughout the U.S.

One of the largest poaching cases in Canada involved Saskatchewan veterinarian and game farmer John Phillip Murray, who faced charges of fraud this summer for allegedly trapping and selling as many as 1000 white-tailed deer over three years. IFAW has requested that the RCMP expand its investigation into the alleged poaching of wildlife by game farmers. The Canadian Cervid Council has stated that game farming is not a valid wildlife issue. The poaching of public wildlife, in addition to the problems of disease, habitat loss and genetic pollution, clearly
refutes this notion.
In the summer a significant number of game farmers approached well-known game farming opponent, Darrel Rowledge, a director of the Alliance for Public Wildlife, and asked for help in getting out of the industry. Conservation groups agreed that game farmers should be compensated provided the industry was shut down. Now these game farmers are considering
a class action lawsuit against the federal government and have consulted with one of Canada's leading class-action lawyers. While Alberta Agriculture encouraged the growth of the
industry without a proper analysis, they have attempted to limit their liability by putting a weasel clause into the Livestock Industry Diversification Act, the legislation that legalized game
farming. 
Section 25 reads: "No right of compensation exists against the Crown, the Minister, the Director or any inspector for any act done, or any failure to act, pursuant to this Act."
One of the accomplishments that the Alberta Elk Association listed on their website under "liaison between Government and farmers" is that they "halted [an] environmental review." When game farmers were challenged on this point in one of their web forums, this item was quickly removed. "Why would the industry association boast of NOT protecting the best interests of the
Canadian people?" demanded the whistle-blowing participant.


----------



## Raghorn (Aug 30, 2007)

Dick,
Since this article is 5 years old, I would imagine that there is case history to corroborate this media report? Sounds somewhat outlandish to me but who am I to say. So there surely must be case history to back it up, i.e., if these allegations were true then there were certainly some convictions of illegal activity.

This is exactly what I am afraid of, that people on both sides of this argument will taint it with all kinds of stuff, some fact but mostly hype, and how are voters supposed to know what to believe in order to make a logical choice? Alot of laundry to dig through here. :sniper:


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Not only is the article 5 yrs old, (and as most of Dick's info - he posts the news release but little factual info as you suggest such as convictions) but if we use the same line of logic then we better get rid of hunting all together. If it is the market that must be elliminated to do away with poaching then the same is true of fair chase hunting. Statistically there are way more incidence of poaching in the fair chase hunting arena there will ever be in the cervid industry. I make no excuses for and certainly support the prosecution of all poaching activities. But doing away with game preserves will not elliminate poaching any more than elliminating hunting would elliminate poaching. It all comes down to law enforcement and penalties to make an activity painful enough to act as a deterant. Interesting that if poaching for game preserves is such a problem, Dick couldn't find a more recent incident. I am sure he looked!!! The testamony of a someone trying to save their own hide is always a good source of factual info as well.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Maybe I am missing something. If I am wrong please point it out. I think 4590 when you talk of hunting having poachers we are talking about shooting deer illegally. A dead deer isn't worth much to anyone. However, I think Dick is talking about poaching as capturing wild deer for high fence shooting. A live deer can be worth a lot more money. The more money involved the more willing people are to become criminals. Joe Blow may not poach a live deer for $1000, but if he seen a large buck he could shoot with a tranquilizer gun, or capture alive by some other method and it was a 160 class buck he may know where he could get $5,000. Maybe a 180 class buck would bring $10,000. The more money involved the more people are willing to break the law. 
If you took 1000 hunters you may find a dozen willing to poach a deer. How many people would it take to find a dozen willing to take a little risk for $10,000? I don't want to overwork an old cliché, but when you compare poachers your talking apples and oranges, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

I think your off base on your thinking. There are thousands of little service stations robbers in this country but only a hand full of armored car robbers where the big money is at. The reason being is the risk involved and the means of being able to commit the act. Apples to oranges it is not, in my opinion.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson said:


> I think your off base on your thinking. There are thousands of little service stations robbers in this country but only a hand full of armored car robbers where the big money is at. The reason being is the risk involved and the means of being able to commit the act. Apples to oranges it is not, in my opinion.


My only point is money is a great motivator. How many people are willing to poach for 70 pounds of meat, as apposed to how many would be willing to poach for $5,000. However, this I think 4590 successfully threw us off subject.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The truth is never outdated. 10 months ago the governors of Wyoming and Montana called for an end to domestic elk ranching. Old news? You'll note from the article above, that it is 25,000 animals *per month*, or 300,000 per year, smuggled around the country. Animals laundered into the game ranch system become "legit" in the same way laundering drug money into legal business gives them the appearance of legitimacy.

This last summer, again old news, USFW released their report on unlawfull wildlife trafficking. Second biggest criminal activity in the world today, second only to drugs. Their conclussion was nearly identical to the statement,


> Illegal shipments will continue until there is no market for trophy deer on shooting preserves.


 , in that they said legal activity serves as the cover for smuggling and poaching wildlife.

The industry refuses to regulate it's self. There is no motive in this industry other than money from trafficking wildlife species.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Again, more old news, 2006. The yellow dots are liquidated CWD infected game farms. Red dots are infected but not liquidated. In nearly every instance the infection in the wild is adjacent to an infected game farm. The reverse is not true. Connect the dots. When you consider the ethics of spreading CWD across the country for a handfull of silver, the ethics become extinct, as may also happen to cervids in these areas. E-X-T-I-N-I-C-T.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> In nearly every instance the infection in the wild is adjacent to an infected game farm.


I think logical thinkers could say the reverse is possible so how can one claim the reverse is not true? Just curious. Is there something concrete available to firmly support either possible means or is this just another one of those choose the one that suits your purpose?


----------



## Raghorn (Aug 30, 2007)

*Again I say*


Raghorn said:


> Dick,
> Since this article is 5 years old, I would imagine that there is case history to corroborate this media report? Sounds somewhat outlandish to me but who am I to say. So there surely must be case history to back it up, i.e., if these allegations were true then there were certainly some convictions of illegal activity.
> 
> This is exactly what I am afraid of, that people on both sides of this argument will taint it with all kinds of stuff, some fact but mostly hype, and how are voters supposed to know what to believe in order to make a logical choice? Alot of laundry to dig through here. :sniper:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

No sweat Raghorn.

Here is all the info on the poacher John Phillip Murray you could possibly want.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ca ... tnG=Search

He was only fined $100,000 out of his $600,000 profits for smuggling wildlife.  Cool half million dollar profit. 

The ethics in the canned shooting industry are nonexistant. It is a moral desert. As long as canned shooting is allowed to continue under the guise of legal business, the poaching and smuggling of public wildlife will continue.


----------



## Raghorn (Aug 30, 2007)

Dick Monson said:


> No sweat Raghorn.
> 
> Here is all the info on the poacher John Phillip Murray you could possibly want.
> 
> ...


I guess I'm mostly computer and internet inept. All I could find on the link you posted was:


> June 8, 1998
> 
> VETERINARIAN INDICTED IN CLENBUTEROL SMUGGLING CASE
> 
> ...


This and a few other incidents of other canadian vets that have misused drugs???? I must ask, what does this have to do with the price of tea in china?

You are blowing smoke man.... just admit it! I would bet you cannot come up with ONE solid conviction of any rancher in the US "smuggling" WILDLIFE in or out of the US. I've been around farmers and ranchers all my life, charred many a dog over hot coals with them, swapped lies and bull ****ted withe best. I have no idea what your background is but I would bet my bottom dollar that you have more of an agenda here that you are letting on. This ain't about high fenced hunting.... this is about HUNTING in general and you are sounding more like greenie every time you post! :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Under that internet address their are many pertinent to what Dick is talking about. Don't just cherry pick what you find at that address. Here is only one example.

Introduction: The estimated 8,000 captive deer and elk (cervid) facilities in the United States have produced well documented disease risks and movement of infected animals around North America. This has caused increasing threats to free ranging wildlife as well as substantial financial burdens to local and state economies. Audits have revealed rampant non-compliance with even the most basic regulations designed to protect free ranging wildlife and human health. The primary financial incentive for the U.S. captive deer and elk (cervid) industry has evolved to paid "shoots" inside high fenced enclosures. Recently produced publicrecord information reveals video evidence of the shocking decline of ethics demonstrated by this industry.This document is intended to provide general information on the disease risks, ethical concerns and economic impacts of commercialized wildlife. Wildlife Disease Risks In 2004, an expert panel on wildlife disease produced a report stating CWD "has the potential to reduce cervid (deer and elk) populations in the long-term and to create major socio-economic impacts". Excessive concentrations of deer is a leading cause of disease. Captive cervid facilities have been identified with equivalent deer densities in excess of 10,000 animals per square mile versus the wildlife biologists recommendation of approximately 20 per square mile in many areas. A recent technical report by the Wildlife Society, sighting more than 250 research sources, describes 11 known diseases associated with the captive deer and elk industry. The report also states "new diseases are being found in diagnostic laboratories throughoutNorth America with regularity"(source - Biological and Social Issues Related to Confinement of Will Ungulates), The Wildlife Society, Technical Review 02-3, 2002).• Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky are considered "high risk" CWD states due to CWD presence in a bordering State and lack of effective regulatory oversight of captive cervid operations • CWD has been found in 14 states, 2 Canadian Providences and Korea (infected elk shipment) • CWD is spread by movement of captive deer and elk • The United States Department of Agriculture has declared CWD an animal health emergency due to the rampant spread of CWD in the commercial elk industry• A single Colorado captive cervid facility shipped CWD exposed captive cervids to enclosures in more than 20 states • In Saskatchewan, 38 CWD infected captive elk herds were traced back to shipments from a single source captive operation 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2 
2Basic CWD Facts After remaining in an isolated corner of Colorado for more than 20 years Chronic Wasting Disease has spread rapidly to 15 States, 2 Canadian Providences and Korea (main importer of antler velvet). A research report bythe Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia commented "to date, the only documented method for the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease from one location to another, including to new states, is via movement of live captive cervids". CWD is a 100% fatal brain disorder that kills deer and elk There is no evidence that CWD is a naturally occurring disease in free ranging deer and elk There is no reliable live animal test for CWD Long incubation period - animals may be contagious without showing signs for more that 4 years Disease causing "prion" requires incineration at 1500 degrees F to be destroyed CWD is closely related to BSE - Mad Cow Disease Human Health Risks Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is the form of TSE that affects humans. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease spontaneouslyaffects approximately 1 out of 1 million humans. Of greater concern is Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, which has been linked to the consumption of BSE tainted beef products. Reports have linked 154 human deaths to BSE (Mad Cow) in Great Britain. In vitro conversion experiments indicate CWD prions can infect humans, all though at low rates. The World Health Organization as well as other health agencies recommends that any animals with CWD not be consumed. The more than 300 New York residents exposed to CWD infected venison are now part of a long-term health study. Ethics (eth-i-cal) - Having to do with standards of right and wrong.Well-documented unethical behavior in this industry puts legitimate recreational hunting and professional wildlife management at risk. Video footage such as evidence presented at the federal trial of Russ Bellar, isnow a matter of public record and available for animal rights organizations to use in well funded campaigns to compromise legitimate recreational hunting. While private property rights are an important part of the American way of life, there are limits to those rights. You have a right to own dogs and roosters, but you don't have a right to be in the business of dog or cock fighting. Regardless of rules related to pen size, weapons restrictions, length of season or bag limits, the shooting of animals inside high fenced enclosures, is viewed as wrong by an overwhelming percentage of the American public and even amongst hunters themselves. A national poll of hunters by Field & Streams reported that 88% of hunters DO NOT support shootingof big game in high fenced enclosures In 2005, Indiana banned all high fenced big game shooting for ethical reasons 15 states have already banned or never allowed high fenced captive paid shoot operations John Phillip Murray, DMV was charged with stealing hundreds of whitetail deer from the wild and selling them to captive facilities throughout the United States. Dr. Murray pled guilty in January 2004 and paid a $100,000 fine out of his estimated $600,000 profits Economics The rapidly growing economic impact of wildlife disease management threatens local and State economies as CWD spreads across the country. Wildlife recreation contributes $108 billion annually to the US economy(U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation - 2001)1styear economic impact of CWD in Wisconsin was estimated at $100 million Federal legislation was proposed my Senator Lieberman allocating $8 billion for wildlife disease work 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3 
3Michigan Captive Cervid AuditIntroduction: In response to recommendations made by the Michigan Chronic Wasting Disease Task Force the Michigan Department of Natural Resources conducted an audit of 584 of the 740 registered captive cervid facilities in the state. The audits were announced via Governor Executive Order 2004-3 issued on April 15, 2004, 60 days before the first audit. Audits were scheduled in advance and conducted from June 15, 2004 - October 26, 2004. The audit cost an estimated $500,000 paid for with state fish and wildlife funds. Link to Executive Summary:http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CPOCAuditReport_ExSummary_118653_7.pdfLink to full report: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CPOCA ... 8651_7.pdf (168 Pages) Highlights of Results • Overall 37% of captive cervid facilities were found non-compliant with current regulations • 456 previously unreported escaped and intentionally released animals o Reporting escaped animals required by current law o This figure only reflects escapes from the 18 facilities where operators admitted to auditors theyviolated current law by not previously reporting escapes • Nearly 90% of the reported deaths from captive cervid facilities were not tested for CWD o Also required by current law • 48% of facilities had inadequate fencing • 32% of captive cervid facilities in MI did not have current herd inventories on file• 31% of captive cervid facilities did not have a final registration certificate Recommendations of additional regulations made by MDNR oIndividual animal identification (all captive animals)o Mandatory testing for wildlife disease of culled individuals o Protocol for de-commissioning/de-registering captive cervid facilities o Procedure for dealing with facility abandonment o Development of approved record keeping systemo Development of more stringent escape and recovery protocols o Uniform requirements for the composition and maintenance of perimeter fencing After the Audit • Six days after the Audit results were announced State Representative Hune introduced HB 4493 to transfer all responsibility for wildlife management from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to the Michigan Department of Agriculture. • One year after violations were reportedly corrected Michigan deer hunters shot 8 ear tagged escaped deer. o Not one of the 8 deer had been reported "escaped" as required by law o Not one of the eight operators were even aware the deer had escapedo QUESTION: How many escapes must still be occurring for 8 deer to be shot while mixed in with 1.8 million free ranging wild animals? 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4 
4Wisconsin Captive Cervid Audit and CWD Management Efforts Introduction: In February of 2002 three whitetail deer tested positive for CWD in Wisconsin, making the 11thstate in the country with the disease. In response an audit of captive deer facilities was initiated to audit as many of the state's 639 facilities as possible. The audit was conducted from September - December of 2002. Audit procedure included:• Inventory of captive deer • Fence inspections • Receipts and records of sales • Purchases and transfers of deer Electronic copies of the Summary of a Statewide Audit and Inspection of Wisconsin's Captive Whitetail Deer Farms are available by e-mailing a request to [email protected] of Results • Wisconsin currently has a reported 720 registered deer and elk facilities • 460 violations were documented in the 550 facilities inspected • 436 reported intentionally released and escaped deer• 1,222 deer which died in the facilities with no disease testing • 24 unlicensed captive cervid operations found• Tracking of individual deer for disease trace back considered "almost impossible" due to poor records Highlights of CWD in Wisconsin Following information is highlighted in Wisconsin DNR PUB-CE-461 2005. Details of the Wisconsin CWD management program and updates are available at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wil ... 4.pdfFirst year financial impact of CWD on Wisconsin economy was estimated at more than $100 million CWD Management Zone has been expanded to 12,000 square miles targeting dramatic herd reductions Deer "Eradication Zone" has been expanded to 1,300 square miles Annual CWD management cost includes more than $7 million of hunting and fishing license revenues Reported escapes from captive facilities still average more than 150 deer per year If the current management plan fails, the projected economic loss is estimated at $500 million annuallyLatest Impact on Free Ranging Deer • In January 2006, it was discovered that a Wisconsin captive facility with 21 confirmed cases of CWD infected deer had a hole in its perimeter fences with evidence deer had been moving through it • In February 2006, the Wisconsin DNR announced their plan to "eradicate free ranging deer in a 19 square mile zone around the facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5 
5Indiana Captive Cervid Industry and the Bellar Trial Introduction: Indiana had a reported 263 licensed deer farms and ranches in 2002. Shooting of deer currently requires compliance with all Indiana deer regulations and seasons. The largest captive deer facility in Indiana is Bellar's Place, a 1400 acre facility in Peru Indiana with reported shooting fees of more than $20,000. In 2004 the facility was raided by both Federal Fish & Wildlife and State DNR agents. The owner was served with 38 federal indictments. Bellar's Place was presented by captive cervid industry leaders as the model captive cervid operation shortly before the raid. Highlights include: • Sedating deer to measure antlers before dumping the deer into 3-6 acre shooting pens • Shipping the drug contaminated meat across state lines• Killing deer out of season • Use of illegal weapons • Unlicensed hunters • Exceeding bag limits Russ Bellar pleaded guilty in January of 2005 to a plea bargain agreement. One week after the trial captive cervid industry friendly State Legislators introduced a Bill to make nearly everything that happened at Bellar's place legal. Video evidence used in the trial is now a matter of public record including a twelve and a half minute video of highlights used during the sentencing phase. Scenes included in the video: • Propping up a dying deer to be shot with a muzzleloader for a reported fee of $15,000 • A drugged deer staggering into a bait pile over a hunter in a tree stand which is shot with a blunt arrow for a promotional film• Famous fishing celebrity Jimmy Houston waiting to shoot a deer from a tree stand, over hidden bait, inside a 3-6 acre pen Miscellaneous Highlights from Indiana A first year financial impact for CWD in Indiana would be an estimated $50 million based on Wisconsin impacts In August of 2005, the Director of the Indiana DNR announced a complete ban on shooting big game inside high fenced facilities, including exotic speciesIn September, 2005 A South Bend Indiana man plead guilty in federal court to illegally capturing more than 30 deer near Potato Creek State Park and selling them to a game ranch in Texas. "The rich&#8230;who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own exertions, these are the real enemies of game" Theodore Roosevelt's Principles of the Hunt _________________________________________________________________________ For more information: Brian Preston - National Wildlife Federationemail: [email protected] phone: 419-349-2717


----------



## Raghorn (Aug 30, 2007)

Thank you Dick and plainman for educating me on how to do an internet search. :lol:

I started putting in search items like National Wildlife Federation, PETA, HSUS... guess what?

Some of the MOST interesting were:

http://www.prin.edu/users/els/departmen ... rights.htm

http://www.idahohotsprings.com/links/support.htm

http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/

http://www.wspa-usa.org/

and MOST of all....

http://www.idahohumanesociety.com/stopcannedhunts.pdf

INTERESTING! If you guys are in bed with the NWF, HSUS and PETA ND hunters ARE in trouble! I'm not sayingthat there aren't some bad apples out there, there are bad apples in every sector... so I guess the only safe thing to do is just shut it all down so our animals will be safe.... after all... they have rights too! AND... no need for guns if there isn't any legitamate reason, RIGHT? You boys better wake up and smell the coffee before you loose it ALL for MY grandkids! :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There certainly are some nut case organizations listed with the NWF and other groups. However, they have no control over how their name is listed. If I look in a phone book your name is perhaps listed along with the child molesters. That doesn't mean you have anything to do with them. Same with the lists you have displayed. 
Did you notice that link quoted? It lists high fence hunting as a target which gets a lot of funding for the animal rights groups. Your grandchildren have a better chance of hunting if we eliminate them. I hope your grandchildren, my grandchildren, and their grandchildren will enjoy the outdoors as we have. 
88% of hunters agree with me.


----------



## norstar (Sep 12, 2007)

This whole CWD thing drives me nuts, if you want to find blame, blame the Colorado Fish and Game Dept. the donkey's that ran there research facilities and the zoo's that they sold there surplus animals to. This is a published paper from Beth Williams illustrating how it got into the system, the same system that you think is all about "The Silver" was originally about "The Silver" for the Fish and Game depts. Now they have no way of controlling there mess and the game farms do. If there are bad apples enforce the laws if they are not being enforced then fire the beauracrat in charge. If you don't like the terminology of "Garuanteed Hunt" then ask the industry to change it. There is a lot of industries out there that a lot of people don't like and I would suspect that some of you are employed by them but you just don't cut them out of society because you think you have the moral high ground.

The natural "wild" option has been well pursued by Miller (1998, 2000). According to
Miller (2000) the current distribution of wild CWD cases suggests that the most plausible scenario was the occurrence some 30 years ago of more or less spontaneous CWD in free-ranging deer of North-central Colorado or south eastern Wyoming, spreading via species contact and normal migration routes to the situational scenario now found today.
Such a finding is grounded upon the wider distribution of CWD and a higher prevalence rate in south Wyoming. However, documented observational data seems to belie such a simple and exculpatory source and origin.

Historically, a recurrent chronic emaciating disease was first recognized in the late
1960's in wild mule deer held captive at the Colorado Fish and Game Department facilities and the nearby Colorado State University Wildlife Disease Research Center, both at Ft. Collins, Colorado (Williams and Miller 2002). Williams (1982) places the first case in 1967 based upon research personnel observational data. Deer at these facilities originated from free ranging populations and were maintained with routine animal exchanges from Wyoming Fish and Game facilities at Sybille Canyon, Wyoming and the Denver Wildlife Research Center (DWRC) initially controlled by the Colorado
Fish and Game Department (pre-Colorado Division of Wildlife), but later turned over to the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (USBSFW), a predecessor to the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In 1978, Williams (1980) first diagnosed "chronic wasting disease" as a spongiform encephalopathy in Ft. Collins animals. Additional cases were noted shortly thereafter at the Sybille, Wyoming research facility. By 1979, two captive Ft. Collins elk, housed adjacent to diseased captive mule deer were noted with similar maladies. About two years after the 1978 diagnosis of mule deer at Sybille, elk cases began appearing within the Sybille facility (Williams, 1982). Prominently, Williams (1982) noted that the disease is apparently limited to wildlife facilities in Colorado and Wyoming. Williams also critically noted the possible fence line contact with wild animals, and the strong, albeit circumstantial evidence of intra-facility transmission from infected mule deer into the captive elk. Ostensibly, no great effort was expended to mitigate this early acknowledged problem.

Identification of the disease followed in at least two zoological collections, a private Wyoming zoo (found in a Sybille, hand-reared elk), and more notably at the Toronto city zoo, Ontario, Canada. Additionally, suspected cases were thought to have occurred at the Denver, Colorado city zoo (the likely source of the Toronto animals), but was never confirmed (Williams, 1992). The Denver zoo was the source of CWD-positive animals later found in a South Dakota commercial herd. CWD was rampant at Ft Collins from 1970 well into the 1980's. By 1981, free ranging elk infected with CWD were found within Rocky Mountain National Park, about 35 miles south and west of Ft. Collins (Spraker, 1997). By 1985, CWD had been found in free ranging mule deer, and sequentially in wild white tailed deer by 1990 (Williams and Miller, 2002). Williams (1992) noted that CWD was found in the wild deer population within approximately 50 kilometres of the Ft Collins facilities, and was found in two wild elk but no deer within 50 kilometres of the Wyoming facility. However, Williams also noted that virtually all the Colorado cases were within 5 kilometres of the Ft Collin's facilities. Most certainly, this is compelling evidence of disease "leakage" dissemination via animal release, escape or other mechanism, if not of disease origination itself. To date, the question still remains whether the disease originated at those facilities or was perhaps brought into those facilities from the wild population.

Critically, one must recognize that disease identification within wild populations is much more problematical due to widely dispersed animals, confusing clinical symptoms, time delayed evidentiary degradation prior to diagnostic evaluation and the presence of scavengers literally consuming the evidence. Miller (2000) speculated that due to surveillance data and epidemiological modeling, CWD might have been present for 30 years or more before being detected. Nonetheless, since the wild and captive animal's disease appears to be identical, it is not possible to determine whether CWD arose in captive or free-ranging populations first (Williams, 2002)

Tully, J.G., et al, 1983,Yale J Biol Med V56: pgs 599-603
Tully, J.G., et al, 1995, Int J Syst Bacteriol Jan;45(1): pg 23-28
Vazeille-Falcoz M, et al, 1997, J Med Entomol, Mar;34(2): pp238-41
Williams, E.S., & Miller, M.W. 2002, Rev Sci et Tech 21, pg 305-316
Williams, E.S., & Young S., 1980, J Wildl Dis V16 pp 89-98
Williams, E.S., & Young S., 1982, J Wildl Dis V18 #4 pp 465-471
Williams, E.S., & Young S., 1992a, Rev Sci Tech 1992 Jun;11(2): pp 551-67
Williams, E.S., et al, 2002, J Wildl Man 66 #3 pg 551-563
Wineland, N.E., 1993, Masters Thesis, CSU (SF969.S3 W56 1993)
Wisniewski, H.M, et al, 1996, The Lancet V347 pp1114


----------



## norstar (Sep 12, 2007)

Dick I think that you should think through some of what you read and have a critical look at it before you start on. That article that you quote stating that 25000 animals a month are smuggled. That isn't what it says it says that 25000 animals a month are moved in the US. Don't you think that if there where 300000 animals a year missing from the wild that someone (possibly even you) would have noticed a few missing or a few traps out in the bush.

Second I'm no rocket scientist but this thing with the Canadian Vet. if there is some missing documentation I would like to see it but what you have supplied says he was shipping a banned drug to a buddy in the states it doesn't say anything about smuggling deer. Again I might have missed it but feel free to paste up here so we can see what you're talking about

Plainsman your source of the "National Wildlife Federation" isn't any better a source than those that you criticize on the other side of the argument. I'm sure they are well meaning people but they too have an axe to grind and are not showing the whole picture. I suggest to you that every disease issue that has come up in the farmed cervid industry has been addressed and I would also suggest has being dealt with quickly and appropriatley. The same cannot be said for the wild herd where I would also suggest most of the problem orginated.

EXTINCT I don't think so, the animals in Wyoming have been placed in this position for 50 years and they're still there no thanks to your beloved F&G.

Plainsman your text book quotes earlier are very interesting. If the state is the owner of these animals and by all accounts they are the ones that (way back when) where willing to sell them to the public (with the F&G's blessing for the eventual payoff) then have they not already ruled that they give up there right to ownership on those individual animals and all there offspring? They sold them or gave them away right or wrong. Not unlike the way the state gives away timber leases, oil and mining rights ect. A fee for the natural resources.

Finally if I read the orginal post on this thread correctly, What is Unethical about "Hunting, Harvesting, Slaughtering" (or whatever other phrase you would like to use) elk and deer behind a high fence. There's a post on this site about a huge bull just harvested where the hunter says...

_After this same routine Fri to Sun morning, we decided to have our helpers walk the trees by the park fence. After sitting til 30 min past sunrise, I decided to move to a different spot, just two min early. Just after we left along my father-in law saw 3 spikes, a cow and a 5x5 come within 50 yards of where we were sitting.

They were fervently trying to get in the park. The 5x5 could not fit, so he backed up and jumped the fence. So we missed out, as well as everyone else hunting there. _

That's a govt' fence everyone is hunting along.

Again please answer this "What is unethical about hunting elk in an enclosure?"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> have they not already ruled that they give up there right to ownership on those individual animals and all there offspring?


Who owns the animals is about as clear as mud. The animals were evidently sold, given, whatever, I don't know, but the receivers were required to have permits. When you need a permit it means that having these animals is a privilege and not a right. I think before I used the example of the right to free speech. If you needed a permit many of us on here would be going broke right now. Lucky for you and I this is a right not a privilege. Driving is a privilege and requires a license. Hunting even though each animal belongs to the people as a whole must be done with a license. That privilege like driving can be taken away. If an elk or deer rancher does not follow the rules specified by his permit he can loose those animals. So they are a qualified private property. Much as a deer you shoot in the wild. If you have a license you are allowed to kill it and reduce it to your possession. However, you must follow rules in acquiring the animal or you will not only loose it, you will loose hunting rights and be fined.

I agree that the people who let CWD get out of hand to begin with perpetrated a terrible fumble on society and our elk herds. That doesn't mean we should continue down that path. It also doesn't mean that because Colorado started it that many elk and deer ranchers can not be blamed for it's further spread. If a bad cop robs a bank it doesn't leave everyone blameless if they rob a bank also.

If someone asks: "What is unethical about shooting an animal inside a high fence" I don't think there is any way for me to explain it to them. Knowing when something is unethical is akin to inherent. You know, or you do not.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Maybe lost your glasses?

1
Captive Deer and Elk Industry
Awareness Information
By Brian Preston
Updated February 7, 2006 National Wildlife Federation
Basic information on wildlife disease and other risks associated with the
captive deer and elk industry along with State specific information from
Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana. All reports and references are available
upon request.
Introduction: The estimated 8,000 captive deer and elk (cervid) facilities in the United States have
produced well documented disease risks and movement of infected animals around North America. This has
caused increasing threats to free ranging wildlife as well as substantial financial burdens to local and state
economies. Audits have revealed rampant non-compliance with even the most basic regulations designed to
protect free ranging wildlife and human health. The primary financial incentive for the U.S. captive deer and
elk (cervid) industry has evolved to paid "shoots" inside high fenced enclosures. Recently produced public
record information reveals video evidence of the shocking decline of ethics demonstrated by this industry.
This document is intended to provide general information on the disease risks, ethical concerns and economic
impacts of commercialized wildlife.
Wildlife Disease Risks
In 2004, an expert panel on wildlife disease produced a report stating CWD "has the potential to reduce cervid
(deer and elk) populations in the long-term and to create major socio-economic impacts". Excessive
concentrations of deer is a leading cause of disease. Captive cervid facilities have been identified with
equivalent deer densities in excess of 10,000 animals per square mile versus the wildlife biologists
recommendation of approximately 20 per square mile in many areas. A recent technical report by the Wildlife
Society, sighting more than 250 research sources, describes 11 known diseases associated with the captive deer
and elk industry. The report also states "new diseases are being found in diagnostic laboratories throughout
North America with regularity"(source - Biological and Social Issues Related to Confinement of Will
Ungulates), The Wildlife Society, Technical Review 02-3, 2002).
• Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky are considered "high risk" CWD states due to CWD presence in
a bordering State and lack of effective regulatory oversight of captive cervid operations
• CWD has been found in 14 states, 2 Canadian Providences and Korea (infected elk shipment)
• CWD is spread by movement of captive deer and elk
• The United States Department of Agriculture has declared CWD an animal health emergency due to the
rampant spread of CWD in the commercial elk industry
• A single Colorado captive cervid facility shipped CWD exposed captive cervids to enclosures in more
than 20 states
• In Saskatchewan, 38 CWD infected captive elk herds were traced back to shipments from a single
source captive operation
2
Basic CWD Facts
After remaining in an isolated corner of Colorado for more than 20 years Chronic Wasting Disease has spread
rapidly to 15 States, 2 Canadian Providences and Korea (main importer of antler velvet). A research report by
the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia
commented "to date, the only documented method for the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease from one location
to another, including to new states, is via movement of live captive cervids".
CWD is a 100% fatal brain disorder that kills deer and elk
There is no evidence that CWD is a naturally occurring disease in free ranging deer and elk
There is no reliable live animal test for CWD
Long incubation period - animals may be contagious without showing signs for more that 4 years
Disease causing "prion" requires incineration at 1500 degrees F to be destroyed
CWD is closely related to BSE - Mad Cow Disease
Human Health Risks
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is the form of TSE that affects humans. Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease spontaneously
affects approximately 1 out of 1 million humans. Of greater concern is Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease,
which has been linked to the consumption of BSE tainted beef products. Reports have linked 154 human
deaths to BSE (Mad Cow) in Great Britain. In vitro conversion experiments indicate CWD prions can
infect humans, all though at low rates. The World Health Organization as well as other health agencies
recommends that any animals with CWD not be consumed. The more than 300 New York residents exposed to
CWD infected venison are now part of a long-term health study.
Ethics
(eth-i-cal) - Having to do with standards of right and wrong.
Well-documented unethical behavior in this industry puts legitimate recreational hunting and professional
wildlife management at risk. Video footage such as evidence presented at the federal trial of Russ Bellar, is
now a matter of public record and available for animal rights organizations to use in well funded campaigns to
compromise legitimate recreational hunting. While private property rights are an important part of the
American way of life, there are limits to those rights. You have a right to own dogs and roosters, but you don't
have a right to be in the business of dog or cock fighting. Regardless of rules related to pen size, weapons
restrictions, length of season or bag limits, the shooting of animals inside high fenced enclosures, is viewed as
wrong by an overwhelming percentage of the American public and even amongst hunters themselves.
A national poll of hunters by Field & Streams reported that 88% of hunters DO NOT support shooting
of big game in high fenced enclosures
In 2005, Indiana banned all high fenced big game shooting for ethical reasons
15 states have already banned or never allowed high fenced captive paid shoot operations

*John Phillip Murray, DMV was charged with stealing hundreds of whitetail deer from the wild and
selling them to captive facilities throughout the United States. Dr. Murray pled guilty in January 2004
and paid a $100,000 fine out of his estimated $600,000 profits*

Economics
The rapidly growing economic impact of wildlife disease management threatens local and State economies as
CWD spreads across the country. Wildlife recreation contributes $108 billion annually to the US economy (U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation - 2001)
1st year economic impact of CWD in Wisconsin was estimated at $100 million
Federal legislation was proposed my Senator Lieberman allocating $8 billion for wildlife disease work
3
Michigan Captive Cervid Audit
Introduction: In response to recommendations made by the Michigan Chronic Wasting Disease Task Force the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources conducted an audit of 584 of the 740 registered captive cervid
facilities in the state. The audits were announced via Governor Executive Order 2004-3 issued on April 15,
2004, 60 days before the first audit. Audits were scheduled in advance and conducted from June 15, 2004 -
October 26, 2004. The audit cost an estimated $500,000 paid for with state fish and wildlife funds.
Link to Executive Summary:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CPOCA ... 8653_7.pdf
Link to full report:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CPOCA ... 8651_7.pdf (168 Pages)
Highlights of Results
• Overall 37% of captive cervid facilities were found non-compliant with current regulations
• 456 previously unreported escaped and intentionally released animals
o Reporting escaped animals required by current law
o This figure only reflects escapes from the 18 facilities where operators admitted to auditors they
violated current law by not previously reporting escapes
• Nearly 90% of the reported deaths from captive cervid facilities were not tested for CWD
o Also required by current law
• 48% of facilities had inadequate fencing
• 32% of captive cervid facilities in MI did not have current herd inventories on file
• 31% of captive cervid facilities did not have a final registration certificate
Recommendations of additional regulations made by MDNR
o Individual animal identification (all captive animals)
o Mandatory testing for wildlife disease of culled individuals
o Protocol for de-commissioning/de-registering captive cervid facilities
o Procedure for dealing with facility abandonment
o Development of approved record keeping system
o Development of more stringent escape and recovery protocols
o Uniform requirements for the composition and maintenance of perimeter fencing
After the Audit
• Six days after the Audit results were announced State Representative Hune introduced HB 4493 to
transfer all responsibility for wildlife management from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
to the Michigan Department of Agriculture.
• One year after violations were reportedly corrected Michigan deer hunters shot 8 ear tagged escaped
deer.
o Not one of the 8 deer had been reported "escaped" as required by law
o Not one of the eight operators were even aware the deer had escaped
o QUESTION: How many escapes must still be occurring for 8 deer to be shot while mixed in
with 1.8 million free ranging wild animals?
4
Wisconsin Captive Cervid Audit
and CWD Management Efforts
Introduction: In February of 2002 three whitetail deer tested positive for CWD in Wisconsin, making the 11th
state in the country with the disease. In response an audit of captive deer facilities was initiated to audit as
many of the state's 639 facilities as possible. The audit was conducted from September - December of 2002.
Audit procedure included:
• Inventory of captive deer
• Fence inspections
• Receipts and records of sales
• Purchases and transfers of deer
Electronic copies of the Summary of a Statewide Audit and Inspection of Wisconsin's Captive Whitetail Deer
Farms are available by e-mailing a request to [email protected]
Highlights of Results
• Wisconsin currently has a reported 720 registered deer and elk facilities
• 460 violations were documented in the 550 facilities inspected
• 436 reported intentionally released and escaped deer
• 1,222 deer which died in the facilities with no disease testing
• 24 unlicensed captive cervid operations found
• Tracking of individual deer for disease trace back considered "almost impossible" due to poor records
Highlights of CWD in Wisconsin
Following information is highlighted in Wisconsin DNR PUB-CE-461 2005.
Details of the Wisconsin CWD management program and updates are available at:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wil ... sert04.pdf
First year financial impact of CWD on Wisconsin economy was estimated at more than $100 million
CWD Management Zone has been expanded to 12,000 square miles targeting dramatic herd reductions
Deer "Eradication Zone" has been expanded to 1,300 square miles
Annual CWD management cost includes more than $7 million of hunting and fishing license revenues
Reported escapes from captive facilities still average more than 150 deer per year
If the current management plan fails, the projected economic loss is estimated at $500 million annually
Latest Impact on Free Ranging Deer
• In January 2006, it was discovered that a Wisconsin captive facility with 21 confirmed cases of CWD
infected deer had a hole in its perimeter fences with evidence deer had been moving through it
• In February 2006, the Wisconsin DNR announced their plan to "eradicate free ranging deer in a 19
square mile zone around the facility
5
Indiana Captive Cervid Industry
and the Bellar Trial
Introduction: Indiana had a reported 263 licensed deer farms and ranches in 2002. Shooting of deer
currently requires compliance with all Indiana deer regulations and seasons. The largest captive deer facility in
Indiana is Bellar's Place, a 1400 acre facility in Peru Indiana with reported shooting fees of more than $20,000.
In 2004 the facility was raided by both Federal Fish & Wildlife and State DNR agents. The owner was served
with 38 federal indictments. Bellar's Place was presented by captive cervid industry leaders as the model
captive cervid operation shortly before the raid. Highlights include:
• Sedating deer to measure antlers before dumping the deer into 3-6 acre shooting pens
• Shipping the drug contaminated meat across state lines
• Killing deer out of season
• Use of illegal weapons
• Unlicensed hunters
• Exceeding bag limits
Russ Bellar pleaded guilty in January of 2005 to a plea bargain agreement. One week after the trial captive
cervid industry friendly State Legislators introduced a Bill to make nearly everything that happened at Bellar's
place legal.
Video evidence used in the trial is now a matter of public record including a twelve and a half minute video of
highlights used during the sentencing phase. Scenes included in the video:
• Propping up a dying deer to be shot with a muzzleloader for a reported fee of $15,000
• A drugged deer staggering into a bait pile over a hunter in a tree stand which is shot with a blunt arrow
for a promotional film
• Famous fishing celebrity Jimmy Houston waiting to shoot a deer from a tree stand, over hidden bait,
inside a 3-6 acre pen
Miscellaneous Highlights from Indiana
A first year financial impact for CWD in Indiana would be an estimated $50 million based on
Wisconsin impacts
In August of 2005, the Director of the Indiana DNR announced a complete ban on shooting big
game inside high fenced facilities, including exotic species
In September, 2005 A South Bend Indiana man plead guilty in federal court to illegally capturing more
than 30 deer near Potato Creek State Park and selling them to a game ranch in Texas.
"The rich&#8230;who are content to buy what they have not the skill to
get by their own exertions, these are the real enemies of game"
Theodore Roosevelt's Principles of the Hunt
_________________________________________________________________________
For more information:
Brian Preston - National Wildlife Federation
email: [email protected]
phone: 419-349-2717


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Ethics on display:

Chronic Wasting Disease Timeline - Anatomy of a Killer 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Game Farm Audit Results

1967-Deer begin dying from a mystery disease at Foothills Wildlife Research Facility, Fort Collins, Colorado.

1980 the illness is identified as chronic wasting disease. (CWD)

1981-First wild elk with CWD found in Larimar County, Colorado. Disease begins spreading into the northeast corner of the state.

1986-An elk in southeastern Wyoming is the first wild animal to test CWD positive there. By 2001 10% of Wyoming deer have CWD.

1996-Saskatchewan game farm is found to be infected with CWD.

1997-South Dakota game farm tests positive for CWD. Within a year two more farms are infested.

1998-Game farm in Cherry County, Nebraska has CWD. First in the state.

1998-Second Saskatchewan game farm has CWD.

1998-June-A game farm in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma reports outbreak of CWD.

1999-Animals from a game farm near Philipsburg, Montana test CWD positive.

1999-Wisconsin begins testing deer for CWD, fearing game farm have imported CWD exposed elk.

March 2000 to July 2001-CWD concerns cause Saskatchewan game officials to slaughter 4,600 elk at 29 game farms.

Fall 2000-Nebraska's first wild mule deer with CWD is killed by a hunter in Kimball County.

April 2001-Saskatchewan confirms first wild mule deer with CWD near Lloyd Minster. Two more positive tests follow.

September 2001-The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture declares a CWD emergency., begins creating a plan to eradicate it in game farm and in the wild.

October 2001-Eleven Colorado game farms placed under CWD quarantine. 450 elk from these game farms had been shipped to game farms in 15 states.

December 2001-Game farm in Anthony, Kansas reports states first case of CWD from an elk purchased from one of the now quarantined Colorado farms.

December 2001-Game farm in Sioux County, Nebraska is CWD infected. Its whitetails test 43% positive.

February 2002-South Dakota reports first case of CWD in wild deer.

March 2002-Colorado finishes slaughtering 1,600 game farm elk from the 2001 quarantine.

March 2002-Wisconsin reports three deer taken during 2001 season were CWD positive.

April 2002-Wisconsin shoots 506 deer in the infected area and tests them for CWD. 14 are CWD positive.

May 2002-Wisconsin prepares to eradicate 15,000 deer in a 287 square mile area to stop the spread of CWD.

May 2002- Two more cases of chronic wasting disease have been found inside an elk ranch in southwestern Routt County, Colorado

May 23, 2002-Four more deer near Mount Horeb, Wi. tested positive for CWD. One of the deer was killed outside of the eradication zone, so the zone will be expanded by 74 square miles. The tests initially came back negative, but additional tests of the lymph nodes were done, and those tests showed infection. That suggests that the deer were in the earlier stages of infection, than those whose brain stems show infection.

June 17, 2002-A total of 262 deer were killed in the first week in an effort to kill 25,000 deer. There are three more 1 week hunts planned before bow season opens. Landowners shot 170 deer and sharpshooters killed 92.

June 21,2002-A mule deer from white Sands Missile Range, Albuquerque, New Mexico has tested positive for CWD. It is the first case verified in this state. Game officials are banning the importation of deer and elk.

June26, 2002-The Wisconsin State Natural Resources board voted 6-1 in favor of a number of measures they hope will stop the spread of CWD. The most controversial is the banning of feeding and baiting deer until June 2004.

August 3, 2002-6 more cases of CWD have been found in the 261 deer tested from the special hunt June 8 to June 14 in Wisconsin. Two of the deer killed were near the boundary of the current zone so the DNR is going to extend the zone by 13 square miles to 374 square miles. The next special hunt is Aug. 10 to 16.

August 31, 2002-Seven more deer out of 336 that were shot in the special season in July tested positive. Another 15 square miles was added to the eradication zone. Minnesota found its first CWD case in an elk that was part of a farm raised herd in Aitkin County. Minnesota plans to immediately kill and test wild deer in the vicinity of the elk farm.

October 15, 2002-Out of 669 deer tested on Wisconsin game farms only one has tested positive for CWD. A panel of experts at UW Madison has determined that by leaving the disease alone will only fan its distribution. They also say that hunters should not use the test for CWD to judge the safety of the venison. They say the risk for contracting CWD from eating infected venison is very low.

October 18, 2002- 9 more wild deer tested and 1 doe on a second game farm tested positive for CWD. That brings the total to 40 deer that have tested positive in the eradication zone west of Madison. Wardens want to inspect 590 deer farms by the end of the year, by checking fences and in some cases checking the financial records of the sales and purchases of deer.

November 3, 2002- Wildlife officials have confirmed the first known case of CWD in deer in Illinois. A deer was shot Oct. 23 just east of Roscoe near the Wisconsin border.

November 5, 2002- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will spend about $500,000 to commission a study whether CWD can jump from deer to other species.

December 4, 2002-CWD has been discovered for the first time in a wild deer outside the eradication zone. A 3 year old buck shot in Grant County during the gun hunt tested positive for the disease. The testing was done by a private diagnostic lab from test kits available through sporting goods stores.

December 7, 2002-Early results have shown that CWD has not spread beyond an area near Mount Horeb. The DNR has tested 662 deer shot in the 10 county zone that surrounds the eradication zone. None has tested positive.

December 13, 2002-All 118 deer on a deer farm in Walworth County were killed by federal sharpshooters. All of the deer will be tested for CWD. A deer tested positive on Sept. 30 for the disease so a decision was made to test the rest of the deer. The oldest deer on the farm were about 15 years old.

December 14, 2002-A deer that escaped from the Walworth County farm and roamed freely for at least six months has tested positive. The deer was shot by sharpshooters on Oct. 22. It is the first escaped deer in Wisconsin to test positive. So far no wild deer have tested positive for the disease outside of the eradication zone.

December 22, 2002-The states latest round of testing revealed no new cases of CWD in the wild. 5,045 deer have been tested from outside the quarantine area and none were infected. The state will be testing a total of 37, 938 deer from this falls hunt. Meanwhile Illinois has reported a total of four positives, all in counties bordering Wisconsin.

December 29,2002-73 more deer were tested and none were positive. The small number of deer tested was due to the holidays.

January 4, 2003-7, 785 deer have been tested so far. 50 have tested positive and they are from Dane and Iowa counties. So far it looks like the disease hasn't spread beyond the eradication zone. A private lab has reported that 3 deer it examined tested positive, however state official's have disputed the accuracy of the lab's tests.

January 8, 2003- State officials decided Tuesday to allow baiting in the hot zone, to extend the season to March 31, and to bring in government sharpshooters. So far only 8,000 of the estimated 30,000 deer in that area have been killed. The 8,000 deer killed is equivalent to a yearly fawn crop in the area. Wildlife biologists say that 10,000 to 12,000 deer must be harvested to get the density down to 20 to 25 deer per square mile. The agency is considering paying a bounty to landowners for every deer killed, but funding and liability issues may scuttle that.

January 9, 2003-Stanley Hall , owner of Buckhorn Flats game farm is going to court to block the state from killing the animals. The first captive animal to test positive came from the game farm. Hall said he retained some of the brain tissue and had it tested at a Wyoming lab, which found no evidence of the disease. Calls to the DNR were not returned yet. State law allows for a second test if the initial test is positive. The DNR killed all 118 deer on the game farm of James Hirschboek after one deer tested positive. The Hirschboek farm came under suspicion after authorities traced his purchase of deer from Hall.

January 11, 2003- Five infected deer were found outside the hot zone, 1 in Richland County and 4 in western Iowa County. The new cases were still inside the management zone, which extends 40 miles beyond the area where the disease was first detected. The deer in Richland County was killed 16 miles from the hot zone boundary and the Iowa County deer were up to 12 miles from the boundary. So far 9,064 deer have been tested.

January 18, 2003- State agencies have spent about $11.5 million on CWD in Wisconsin. The estimate includes the salaries of wildlife experts who have devoted their time to the problem. That figure means the state has spent the equivalent of $209,000 for each of the 55 deer that tested positive. $1.1 million was spent last fall to collect thousand of deer heads from hunters across the state, and about $1.6 million was spent disposing of the deer. A big bulk of the upfront costs were to get the project started.

February 2, 2003-3 more deer test positive in the hot zone. 1,390 new samples were analyzed last week. So far 13,977 deer have been tested which is 36% of the deer that will be tested. 2.21% of the deer in the hot zone have tested positive. In the broader 10 county management zone 5 deer have tested positive an incidence of 0.9%.

February 8, 2003-With 16, 119 or 41% of the results in the DNR said that no new cases were found in the last week. 
February 15, 2003-With 18,838 deer tested there were no new cases of CWD.

March 9, 2003-With 26,232 deer tested 62 have been infected. 33 from Dane County, 27 from Iowa County, 1 from Richland County and 1 from Sauk County. Wisconsin's eradication initiative is the biggest in the country. The testing of almost 40,000 deer is the most comprehensive of any state. the incidence rate in the hot zone is 1.9%. 
March 15, 2003-Two new cases of CWD were found out of 2,055 more deer tested. The two deer that tested positive came out of Dane County. A total of 64 deer have tested positive. 28,287 deer have been tested.

March 20, 2003-Wisconsin-436 deer have escaped from farms to wild. State finds violations, lax record keeping at many sites, report says. A state inspection of private deer farms, prompted by the discovery of chronic wasting disease, found that 436 white-tailed deer escaped into the wild, officials said Tuesday.

Chronic Wasting Disease Game Farms Inspected:
A summary of the findings of the Department of Natural Resources' inspection of 550 private white-tailed deer farms in the state: The deer farms contained at least 16,070 deer, but the DNR believes there are more deer in captivity than that because large deer farms are unable to accurately count their deer. 671 deer had escaped from game farms, including 436 that were never found. 24 farmers were unlicensed. One had been operating illegally since 1999 after he was denied a license because his deer fence did not meet minimum specifications. Records maintained by operators ranged from "meticulous documentation to relying on memory." At least 227 farms conducted various portions of their deer farm business with cash.

Over the last three years, 1,222 deer died on farms for various reasons. Disease testing was not performed nor required on the majority of deer.

Farmers reported doing business with people in 22 other states and one Canadian province.

The Department of Natural Resources found that captive deer have escaped from one-third of the state's 550 deer farms over the lifetime of the operations. The agency also uncovered hundreds of violations and has sought a total of 60 citations or charges against deer farm operators. These and other findings come as state officials say they are still no closer to understanding how the fatal deer disease got to Wisconsin.

March 24,2003-16 new cases were found in the latest round of testing. 2,574 deer were analyzed this week. A total of 80 deer have been found to be infected. All of the infected deer were from the eradication zone.

March 26, 2003-CWD has been found in a farm raised elk in Manitowoc County marking the first time in Wi. that it has been found in an animal other than a deer. The 6 year old female elk, one of 20 imported by a Valders elk farmer from Stearns County, Minn. tested positive after dying in a fight with another elk. One elk died earlier and was not tested. The remaining 18 elk were killed for testing. 6 game farms imported elk from Minn. and all are quarantined since Sept. when the Minn. game farm had an elk that tested positive.

March 30, 2003-14 more deer test positive bringing the total to 94. All were killed within the three county eradication zone. The DNR figures about 2% of the deer in that area are infected. The illness which jeopardizes the state's $1 billion hunting industry was discovered near Mt. Horeb in February 2002.

April 5, 2003-36 new cases were found in the latest round of testing. 2655 samples were tested this week. That brings the total to 130 infected deer out of 35,196 deer tested. 40,002 deer will be tested for the last season..

April 19, 2003-49 more deer were found with CWD, all within the hot zone. That brings the total number of infected deer to 190 or about 2% of the deer tested in that area. 39,012 of the 40,111 deer have been tested. Of the diseased deer, 99 were in Iowa County, 89 were in Dane County, 1 in each in Richland and Sauk Counties.

May 3, 2003-With all 41, 046 deer tested there have been 207 positive cases, all within the zone. Dane county had 97 cases, Iowa county had 107 cases, 2 cases in Sauk county and 1 case in Richland county.

May 14, 2003-Six wild fawns that were killed last fall have tested positive for CWD, state officials announced last week. The fawns were 5 to 6 months old. Officials had previously believed CWD didn't begin to appear in white-tailed deer until the animal was at least 16 months old.

The six fawns were shot in Wisconsin's 411-square-mile CWD eradication zone, where 4,200 fawns less than a year old were tested for CWD last fall. 
For more information, visit www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/news/on/index.htm#art4.

July 2, 2003-To fight the spread of CWD, the DNR wants to create a special zone in and near Beloit, where hunters and sharpshooters will try to wipe out the deer population. Covering 25 square miles, the area lies along the Wisconsin-Illinois border and within 4 1/2 miles of where a deer in northern Illinois tested positive for the disease. None of the 308 deer killed last season in Rock County tested positive. 
August 12, 2003-A sickly deer shot in a village park in Fontana on the west end of Lake Geneva has tested positive for CWD the DNR reported Monday. 
August 16, 2003-The Dnr will test between 20,00 and 25,00 deer in selected counties this year, compared to 41,000 deer in all 72 counties. They will be using a rapid test so hunters will know in a matter of weeks instead of months to see if the deer they shot tests positive. 
December 3, 2003-Every deer in the herd reduction zone and intensive harvest zone is being tested. 11, 500 samples have been collected and 2,100 have been tested since the archery season began in Sept. Of those 18 tested positive bringing the total of infected deer to 226. 
December 5, 2003-A 4th deer from a Portage county hunting preserve has tested positive for CWD. A 5 1/2 year old deer shot at Buckhorn Flats game farm in Almond tested positive.

The farms owner told the agency that the deer was born on the farm. Sixteen herds in Wisconsin are quarantined over the disease. Six other herds are linked to this case. Two received animals from a positive herd in Minnesota and seven other are in the state's eradication zone.

January 12, 2004-CWD has spread into Kenosha County for the first time after a yearling buck tested positive after it was shot last fall. So far they have tested 85% of the 14,290 deer that were sampled from the 2003 season. Of that, 57 tested positive.

© 2002-2006 Hunt Fish Camp Wisconsin .Com.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Thanks for the history lesson Dick. Bottom line is, no one knows how CWD has been spread. No one will dispute it is a grave concern. But the evidence just does not prove which side of the fence had it first. No one is going to defend some of the mistakes made by wildlife officials or producers.

ND has been way ahead of the curve, NO CWD.

Plainsman,

The permit is for the facility not the animals. May seem like splitting hairs, but in ND you need an approval of your facility to get a permit to have the animals on your property. You do not need a permit to own the animals. You could actually own animals on another ranch, and not be required to have a permit your self. The private ownership of cervids is absolute.


----------



## Raghorn (Aug 30, 2007)

I think you have thrown a shoe and have a burr someplace Dick&#8230;.

A few examples I found of "ethics in wildlife law" exibited by sportsmen and women&#8230; not to mention the many atrocities that I have experienced personally. *As I thought this was what this thread was about... NOT CWD!*

*More Anglers Taking Too Many Walleye*
PIERRE, S.D. -- Game, Fish and Parks officials say Lynn Lake in Day County is another example of where anglers have had troubles obeying laws for daily fish limits.
"During the month of June, Conservation Officers issued 30 citations to people for being over their limit for walleye," said Day County Conservation Office Bob Losco. "Since the daily limit on Lynn Lake is two walleye per day, most of the anglers have been cited for being two walleye over their daily limit, which has given most violators a fine of $104, a possible loss of fishing privileges and pending civil damages of $100.00."
Losco noted that the most drastic case on Lynn Lake involved Philip Turner, 66, Ft Dodge, IA and Russell Johnson, 68, Ft. Dodge, IA. Each angler was charged with being two walleye and six crappie over his daily limit, paid a $448 fine, had one-year of fishing privileges revoked and are pending civil damages of $400.
East River anglers are reminded to check pages 15-19 of the 2005 SD Fishing Handbook for lake-specific harvest limits and lake-specific regulations.
Anglers should also note that if a person pleads guilty or is found guilty of a wildlife violation in South Dakota that carries the additional penalty of loss of privilege, such loss of privilege may affect that person's ability to engage in that same privilege in one or more of the 19 states involved in the Wildlife Violator Compact. "If an angler's conviction in South Dakota results in a loss of fishing privileges, it is that angler's responsibility to determine whether his/her loss of privilege in South Dakota will affect his/her ability to lawfully engage in angling in the other compact states," Losco said.
*Poacher does jail time *
DNR Reports
A Minnesota hunter knows what he will be doing for the next three weeks: sitting in jail.
This is part of the punishment that Richard D. Deterra, Jr., 43, of Princeton recently received for poaching a deer in Morrison County last December. 
Deterra will also pay $1,400 in fines and restitution. His hunting privileges were revoked for three years.
The conviction is the result of conservation officers with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources observing Deterra retrieve the partially buried deer from snow near a township road in Morrison County.
State Conservation Officer Paul Kuske of Little Falls responded to someone firing rifle shots on late December 15, 2005, in rural Ripley Township. Kuske found tracks from a man and a sled led to a site in the woods where a deer had been field dressed.
"The sled left a fresh blood trail that ran for about a quarter mile," Kuske said. "I followed the tracks into a row of pine trees where I found the deer on the sled partially buried under the snow."
Kuske called Conservation Officer Jim Guida of Brainerd to the location. Early the next morning they observed a small pick up truck drive slowly past their location, turn around, stop next to where the deer was buried and then turn off its lights.
"Using night vision equipment and binoculars I could see an individual come out of the woods with the deer and sled, load the deer on the truck and begin driving away," Kuske said. The officers stopped the vehicle.
Deterra admitted that he had taken the deer earlier and hid it in the woods until it could be picked up later.
"Jail time, a hefty fine and losing hunting privileges show how seriously the courts take natural resources violations," said Colonel Mike Hamm, Minnesota DNR Enforcement Chief. "These are serious consequences to consider if you're caught poaching."

*North Dakota wardens ticketing more anglers on Devils Lake*

DEVILS LAKE, N.D. (AP) - North Dakota's game wardens are making catches along the lake - of anglers who have more fish than allowed under a new white bass limit.
The latest incidents occurred Saturday, when state Game and Fish Department wardens cited five Minnesota anglers in two groups who came to fish on Devils Lake.
District game warden Gene Masse said three anglers were stopped Saturday afternoon south of Minnewaukan, after a bait shop owner reported the trio had purchased a large amount of ice.
A search of the anglers' coolers found 482 white bass, or 272 more than they legally could have kept in two days of fishing.
North Dakota's white bass limit, new this year, is 35 daily and 175 in possession, but anglers have to fish five days to legally possess the full 175 fish.
In the latest incident, Masse said, Pao Lor and Chong Chou Lor, both of Taylors Falls, Minn., and a juvenile were cited. Wardens confiscated the anglers' fishing gear, Masse said, and donated the white bass to a church on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. The men are scheduled to appear in court next month in Minnewaukan.
Later that day, Masse said, he checked two more anglers who had been fishing along North Dakota Highway 19 and found 261 white bass, more than 60 above the legal limit for the time the anglers had been fishing. Chue Vang and Mai Vang, both of St. Paul, Minn., were cited in that incident.
Saturday's cases marked the fourth time in less than two weeks in which Minnesota anglers of Asian descent, primarily Hmong, have been charged with keeping too many fish on Devils Lake. The first incident involved six men with 598 white bass, or 388 over the limit.
Minnesota officials say they have been working to educate members of the Hmong community about fish and wildlife laws. They say members of the older generation grew up in a culture with no restrictions on hunting and fishing for food.
Masse said he has contacted Minnesota officials to help spread the word about the change in North Dakota white bass laws.
Masse said his department also is working to compile a list of groups interested in taking confiscated fish so they do not go to waste if more incidents occur.
"It's kind of tough to find a home for this many fish, because we don't have much time," Masse said.

*Conservation officer cooperation nabs poachers *
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources recently busted three metro poachers after a TIP call to a conservation officer in northern Minnesota. 
The investigation began when Conservation Officer Frank Rezac of Duluth received a call about illegal netting of a dozen rainbow trout on the Sucker River, in St. Louis County in northeast Minnesota. Rezac checked the area, but the violators were gone. However, the tipster had provided a license plate number. After running the plate, Rezac discovered the owner was a Minneapolis resident. 
"I can't tell you how important it is for people to call us as soon as they see or hear about some type of illegal activity," said Rezac. "That is the number one way to stop poaching activity. We appreciate and investigate all the tips that come in." 
Rezac provided the information on the vehicle to metro Conservation Officer Kevin Neitzke who discovered the suspect had moved to another address. The new address was provided to Conservation Officer Todd Kanieski of Osseo who talked to Manuel J. Astudillo, 30, 630 17th Ave NE, Minneapolis. A search of a freezer at the residence provided two small rainbow trout, and one rainbow trout approximately 14- inches long. Astudillo refused to give 
Officer Kanieski the names of the other subjects that were with him. 
Before driving from Duluth to Minneapolis to continue the investigation, Officer Rezac spoke to Astudillo by phone about the violations of taking undersize fish and taking fish with illegal equipment. He also wanted the names and phone numbers of the other individuals involved in the incident. The long trip was worth it. Rezac was able to interview Astudillo as well as Oscar S. Morocho, 27, and Juan B. Jaia, 44, both of Minneapolis, who admitted that they were illegally netting fish on the river. The three men were charged with taking fish with illegal equipment. 
"Compared to the number of high profile poaching cases in the media lately this activity may appear small, but it really isn't," said DNR Chief Conservation Officer Mike Hamm. "It's further evidence that Minnesota Conservation Officers work cooperatively, and will travel any distance to stop illegal activity. It also shows the importance of the Turn In Poachers Hotline in protecting the resource."

*Wildlife agents are not above being unethical either *

*WASHINGTON - Lawmakers want an investigation into whether government wildlife biologists reported finding lynx fur in two national forests to keep people out of the areas. *
The Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service are tracking the rare Canadian lynx to determine how many there are and where they live. Data from the four-year survey will be used to determine how best to protect the lynx, which is classified as "threatened." 
During the 2000 sampling session, biologists sent the lab doing DNA tests for the project three fur samples they said had come from parts of the Wenatchee and Gifford Pinchot national forests in Washington state. Those areas are normally not home to lynx, which roam mostly along the northern border of the United States, plus Utah and Colorado. 
The seven biologists later admitted they planted the samples, saying they did so to test whether the lab could accurately identify the lynx fur. 
By Kevin Woster, Journal staff
Of the eight states in this FWS region, only North Dakota does not have MOAs with the FWS, Mowad said. A 30-day written notice is required to end the MOAs, and Mowad said he hadn't received that notice Tuesday. Skjonsberg acknowledged that, adding that the notice would go out this week to begin the countdown.

Asked if the FWS was considering firing or reassigning Prieksat, Mowad said: "We can't answer that for you. When it comes down to what is occurring with Bob, all I can really say is that there is a process in place, and we're following the process."

A FWS professional accountability team has been investigating the complaints against Prieksat, which include allegations that he fabricated violations against hunters and landowners, was verbally abusive and used profanity.

*AND of Course one of the latest&#8230;*

*TWRA in bear trap: Wildlife officers accused of bear baiting*
By Rick Laney
of The Daily Times Staff

A group of Blount County hunters say two Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) officers were hunting bear over a baited area early Wednesday morning.

*Wednesday afternoon, TWRA said that four men - including two Tennessee wildlife officers - have been accused of running dogs and hunting near a 20-gallon drum covered with sticks. *

Willard Perryman, the TWRA wildlife officer supervisor said, "We did find bait in there. It was a plastic barrel that was buried and half-full of fresh donuts.

"The first TWRA Wildlife officer to arrive, Jeff Pierce, did not participate in the investigation because two of the men are his colleagues.

"We have to decide if we can actually conduct the investigation or if we need to turn it over to an investigator from Nashville because it involves our people.

"If we do the investigation here, the first thing we'll do is go out and interview the accused."

TWRA did not identify the accused officers pending the investigation.

The bait was found on property off Montvale Road on Chilhowee Mountain. A drive for off-road vehicles was used to access the area.

Lennie Mason, one of about 25 hunters who saw a truck enter the baited area Wednesday morning, said, "After we saw the truck go in, we started hearing dogs up there.

"We've seen game warden trucks going in there before. We called TWRA and everyone we could think of, but it took hours to get anyone out here who would do anything about it.

"The two game wardens and the other two guys who were hunting in the baited area with them took off and left around 10 a.m.

"Hunting over bait is hunting over bait - it doesn't matter if you're a hunter or a game warden."

The hunters said that Billy Hackler and James Sheehan found the barrel and donuts Monday, but didn't report it until they heard someone hunting near it.

One hunter who reported the baiting incident, 70-year-old Thomas Franklin Lewis, was arrested at the scene by Blount County Sheriff's deputies and charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and interfering with police officers. He was freed at 3:30 p.m. on his own recognizance pending an appearance Oct. 5 in Blount County General Sessions Court.

Witnesses said Lewis was getting ready to leave when deputies pulled him from his truck and handcuffed him.

Bear season (dogs permitted) opened on Monday and continues through Sunday. Bear baiting is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and loss of a hunting license.

According to Perryman, about 20 people are charged with bear baiting each year in Tennessee, and approximately 30 are charged with deer baiting.

"I'm not aware of any other instance when a wildlife officer was accused of hunting over bait," Perryman said.

Mason, who was charged on Monday with hunting bear over bait on Chilhowee Mountain, said, "My dogs ran into a baited area and I went after them. They charged me with it just because my dogs ran up the hill.

"I'm starting to think they took my guns so they could sneak over here and hunt over bait with them."
Originally published: September 27. 2007 3:01AM
Last modified: September 27. 2007 12:35AM

*AND according to C.A.S.H. hunting just isn't SAFE!*
*Hunting Accidents 2007*
FL: Jacksonville man dies in an apparently accidental shooting - 9 Oct 2007
OR - Mom, son shot in Crook County hunting mishap - 8 Oct 2007
Hunters mistakes friend for grouse - 7 Oct 2007
Rhino 1, hunter 0 - 5 Oct 2007
FL: Father kills son in apparent hunting accident - 4 Oct 2007
MN - 2 kids hunting squirrel hit trucker in St. Louis County - 1 Oct 2007
WI - Man injured in hunting accident - 30 Sep 2007
VT - 77-year-old shoots man in a tree instead of a squirrel - 28 Sep 2007
TN - man drowns while hunting crayfish - 28 Sep 2007
KY - teen killed in hunting accident - 28 Sep 2007
MA - Hunter shot in the face - 25 Sep 2007
UT - Teen bow hunters shoot - 10 Sep 2007
CO - Man dies on hunting trip - 10 Sep 2007
GA - Boy, 10, recovering after being shot while hunting - 2 Sep 2007
IN - Hunter mistakes nephew's face for a squirrel - 26 Aug 2007
OR - Hunter falls off cliff - 25 Aug 2007
First time hunter kills man - 7 Aug 2007
Cop shoots at snake, kills boy, 5 - 6 Aug 2007
UT - Hunters' Small Plane Crashes In South Central Utah - 1 Jun 2007
NY - Hunting accident result of neglect, say police - 31 May 2007
PA - Turkey hunter shot in face - 19 May 2007
CT: Man shot while hunting - 16 May 2007
IA: Man shot in head while hunting - 6 May 2007
PA: Youth, 16, shot, wounded in Medford hunting accident - 6 May 2007
NH: 15-year old shot in hunting accident - 4 May 2007
IA: Man shot in hunting accident - 2 May 2007
NC - Man shot during hunting trip - 30 Apr 2007
IN - Teen shoots self while hunting - 30 Apr 2007
IA - Grandfather shoots grandson he thought was a turkey - 30 Apr 2007
WI - man dies in hunting accident - 19 Apr 2007
TN - Teen Injured in Hunting Accident - 5 Apr 2007
TN - man shot by a member of his own hunting party - 2 Apr 2007
SC - Hunter Killed Retrieving Deer Stand From I-95 - 2 Apr 2007
IA - Boy, 7, dies after being shot while hunting - 1 Apr 2007
WI - man shot in face while pheasant hunting - 30 Mar 2007
TN - 14-yr.-old girl, two others shot in face while turkey hunting - 24 Mar 2007 
IN - Report Submission by Diana Cook - 21 Mar 2007
NY - Man accidentally shoots his brother while hunting - 20 Mar 2007
OR - Teen shot in reported hunting mishap - 12 Mar 2007
IA - man shot while hunting - 12 Mar 2007
WI - teen hurt in hunting incident - 20 Feb 2007
MD - man shot in hunting incident - 17 Feb 2007
SC - Youth killed while hunting - 28 Jan 2007
CA - Duck hunter killed - 22 Jan 2007
SD - dog blows off hunter's arm - 20 Jan 2007
AZ - Man killed by own rifle in hunting accident - 19 Jan 2007
TN - Duck Hunter Shot and Killed by Dog - 13 Jan 2007
TN -Man killed by shotgun blast while duck hunting - 13 Jan 2007
FL - Man dies in probable hunting accident - 12 Jan 2007
FL - Man Shot, Killed By Brother While Hunting - 11 Jan 2007
PA - Man Critically Injured in Hunting Accident - 10 Jan 2007
TX - FATAL HUNTING ACCIDENT IN WICHITA COUNTY - 8 Jan 2007
MN - Man dies after being shot while hunting coyotes - 7 Jan 2007
WI - Man subscribes to Dick Cheney - 5 Jan 2007
TN - Man killed while hunting - 4 Jan 2007

*So what say let's just cut to the chase and abolish ALL hunting and fishing&#8230; since there seem to be so many unethical participants! *


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The permit is for the facility not the animals. May seem like splitting hairs, but in ND you need an approval of your facility to get a permit to have the animals on your property. You do not need a permit to own the animals. You could actually own animals on another ranch, and not be required to have a permit your self. The private ownership of cervids is absolute.


Really? I guess things have changed since I took wildlife law. I wonder how much the politician cost that got that changed. That was a giant step backwards. Whatever, I'm sure your familiar with what is required of you. Thank you for the update.

Raghorn, and others. There are stupid hunters, stupid biologists, stupid wildlife officers, many many stupid people. So what is the point to all this. Surely your not trying to say that because there are all these other bad people we should also accept high fence shooting? Is there a point, or is this just a smoke screen to divert the subject? I am confused.


----------



## Raghorn (Aug 30, 2007)

Well, I spent an hour typing a reply and went to post and it sent me back to log in again... probaly just as well. I got MY frustrations out and know what I said to you in return was the truth.

I will say, you might want to check the constitution, both US and ND and see what it says about property ownership. I don't believe the ownership of "wildlife" applies anyway plainman, that is where you are confused.

Also, what I typed before was a series of events that I have witnessed in my 60 years here on ol terra firma. Everything from seeing my best friend shot off of his dad's tote goat to a group of "hunters" target practicing on a fawn and the list went on. My point was in answer to Dick's "smoke" about cwd spreading. The point is, there aer bad apples in every barrel and using the standard that you guys propose, we could easily eliminate just about every business or profession in the world.

And lastly I cited a website that is for a ND group called C.A.S.H. if ya think yer safe by eliminating these citizens of your state that have game farms, check this out. http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/accident-center.html I'm sure they would love to help out, why don't you get in touch with them... or more than likely some of your support group are from there anyway, just ask them.

really wish I had of coppied that other post, I really liked it better... anyway. Have a good day and don't let the woodpecker fall in the brush. :sniper:


----------



## norstar (Sep 12, 2007)

Yes there is a point to all of this it is that you are prepared to put an industry that was started in good faith out of business for a gut feeling.

"I don't think there is any way for me to explain it to them. Knowing when something is unethical is akin to inherent." Plainsman

I've read all of these posts and have read time and again how the industry representatives believe they are being good ranchers and treating there animals properly but I have yet to hear from one of the authors of this ridiculous measure how it is unethical to have a high fence facility; at least Plainsman has a belief and is willing to put himself out there with his comment but how is that supposed to sway me to your side. I'm right you're wrong so I'm going to outlaw you because that's what I want.

The industry that Dick would have us believe is no better than a cess pool of ex-convicts and drug dealers, was put into a position that they, or no other organization could have predicted with CWD. They are now trying to fix it and from what I've seen are doing a great job of it. The F&G guys should be doing so good. If there is non-complaince with the rules than that is not the fault of the ranchers it is the fault of the beauracrats that are more concerned about budgeting the next christmas party than going out and enforcing the laws.

When nobody new what the disease would bring when it was discoverd what do you think would happen, infected animals were discovered a plan was put in place to fix it and now it looks like it has worked. The NWF doesn't want to believe it or see that any one else could be a responsible steward well that's there problem and should be considered when reading there "Cherry Pickings".

Dick two things: agian you quote the NWF but the only reference to a conviction for that DVM was transporting drugs not wildlife smuggling it was a $30000 fine and $50000 lawyers fees. Show me some real evidence. Second lets hear from you why it is unethical to harvest elk in a farmed setting.

Sway me.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> The industry that Dick would have us believe is no better than a cess pool of ex-convicts and drug dealers, was put into a position that they, or no other organization could have predicted with CWD.


 That is not true. There are many well intentioned people in the game ranch business. There are unfortunately too many who would sell the eyes out of a curcifix for a dollar by destroying public wildlife by regulatory negelct, wether intentional or not. And they are still in business. The violations are documented.

I could never sway you nor would I attempt too. I know how you will vote. The point is to present your arguements to the undecided. Thank you. They are identical to those use in Montana. Not unexpected.



> They are now trying to fix it and from what I've seen are doing a great job of it.


If your industry was at all serious about "fixing" the problems, they would have agreed with the new proposed AHPIS regulations for independent outside audit, instead of fighting them tooth and nail. 4590 said ND NTL already does their own audits, which of course is far different from independent outside audits. Scares them to death because they know the that when WS and MI required the same, noncompliance went as high as 80%.

If your industry was serious they would require compentent testing for CWD, rather than the 12% failure rate in the current process.

If your industry was serious they would demand double fencing to prevent "through the wire, nose to nose" contact.

If your industry was serious they would require a fence height high enough to prevent ingress and egress.

If your industry was serious they would have a checkoff fund to cover the NDGF expenses incurred in cleaning up industry messes. Which they do not.

It is only my opinion that your canned shooting industry is not solving problems, but creating a host of new problems that they will not accecpt responsibility for. Not uncommon in the commercialization of wildlife industry.


----------

