# Freedom of Information Request/Captive Elk-Deer



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

You might want to sit down in a chair. Cervids=deer, elk, moose, etc. 
A few quotes:

"As of 2003 there were seven instances of CWD exposed captive elk being brought into ND."

"Five ND elk ranches imported elk from a MN dealer that lied about the health of his herd. The CWD postive elk from Aitkin MN came from this same dealer's herd.'

"One of the ND elk farms that had imported elk from this dealer was found to have at least 12 dead elk in a pit on his farm near Walhalla. None of the animals had their heads removed for CWD testing as required. Five of the dead were not properly taged as required. The dead elk had not been reported as required. Nor were they ever tested. Nearly six months later the elk on this farm had not been inventoried."

"In a Sept 13th 2002 CWD update, authored by Bruce Morrison of Nebraska, it was reported that a group of elk brokers operating nationally were illegally shipping up to 25,000 deer and elk *per month* around the US. Aditionally, veterinarians had been bribed to falisfy papers to get shipments through borders.* Falisfying documents and illeagelly shipping upwards of 300,000 deer and elk around the country is not an insignificant issue.* It should be remembered that this is just one localized investigation of one group of brokers operating out of Michigan."

"Modeling has predicted that mule deer and white-tailed deer populations infected with CWD may undergo *localized extinctions* in 20 to 50 years."

As of 2002, " 18 states and provinces prohibit the importation of live captive cervids. ..... North Dakota will become the sink for animals from unscruplous dealers."

"The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) passed a resolution on Sept. 21st, 2002 that asks for a prohibition of live captive cervids from herds that are less than five years of monitering as being free of CWD. This would in effect shut down the interstate movement of all captive cervids."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tip of the iceberg. So much for high regulatory standards in the captive wildlife industry.
Tell your senator to yes on SB-2254 to ban canned shooting.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Dick,

Scary info. What is the source?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

FOIA-NDGF-captive cervid correspondence


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, again how will SB 2254 fix this? It will do nothing all your bill does is stop people from shooting Elk,Deer, Pheasants,Grouse, Chuckar and what ever else falls into the catagory of nontraditional livestock. SB 2254 will do absolutely nothing the stop or prevent disease in livestock. SB 2254 is a poorly written bill I wonder if it will even pass.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

When I go back and read the support for this bill I read about disease in captive non-typical livestock, deer & elk. I know who is checking for disease in captive non-typical livestock.
Who is checking for disease in non-captive deer & elk? 
We won't know until their numbers decline or they start to die, will we?

I read about the ethics of killing captive non-typical livestock and calling it hunting, but nobody talks about the killing of typical livestock and not calling it hunting.

Then there are the people that will pay too much money to participate in killing of non-typical livestock, but nobody talks about participation in killing of typical livestock.

Nobody is required to participate in the killing of game animals during hunting season. Nobody is required to participate in the killing of non-typical livestock. Nobody is required to participate in the killing of typical livestock either.

There are people attempting to ban the killing of typical livestock.

There are people attempting to ban the killing of game animals during hunting season.

There are people attempting to ban the killing of non-typical livestock.

It looks to me like there is a big problem with some people understanding other people.

It looks to me like there is a bigger problem with some people that are scared that someone will find out they do the same thing as the other people, they only hide behind the name and don't want anyone else to use it.

Things can be controlled without banning them. Things can be legislated into changing the name of what they do.

I know it rambles but read it a couple of times. I think this whole bill is about forcing one groups so-called-ethics on another group.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Since you brought up "history from 2002" here's a little more:



> USA: June 6, 2002
> 
> BISMARCK, North Dakota - Wildlife experts in North Dakota are readying a plan to prevent or contain the introduction of a deadly disease in the state's deer and elk populations, Gov. John Hoeven said yesterday.
> 
> ...


http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/16297/newsDate/6-Jun-2002/story.htm

It looks to me like 2002 or so was the pivot point for everyone concerning CWD.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

JAD



> I know it rambles but read it a couple of times. I think this whole bill is about forcing one groups so-called-ethics on another group.


Doesn't that kinda go both ways?

Bob


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> Quote:
> I know it rambles but read it a couple of times. I think this whole bill is about forcing one groups so-called-ethics on another group.
> 
> Doesn't that kinda go both ways?


There's a bill requiring everyone to participate in canned hunting?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

JAD, the industry you represent is missing the point. SB-2254 is the compromise offer to your industry. Your group would be better served to make the best business decision.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, I see as usual you ducked my question. Like I said be Dick this bill will do nothing to stop or prevent the spread of disease will it. All this bill will do is stop the hunting or shooting as you say as any non traditional livestock or Elk. I know you don't care to go and shoot pheasants at a game farm or shooting preserve. Remember Dick under this bill you will be no longer allowed to use chukar and pigeons for dog training either. I guess your dog is trained well enough so you do not care.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> DIck M. said:
> 
> JAD, the industry you represent is missing the point. SB-2254 is the compromise offer to your industry. Your group would be better served to make the best business decision.


I don't represent any industry, nor do I have a group. I'm just a hunter interested in the ND legislature who happens to believe in not mandating my ethics on others. Kinda hard to understand?



> G/O said:
> 
> Remember Dick under this bill you will be no longer allowed to use chukar and pigeons for dog training either. I guess your dog is trained well enough so you do not care.


I don't see anywhere that this bill affects anyone other than deer or elk ranchers, show me if I'm wrong.

They have done a good job of "Divide & Conquer" knowing a lot of ND hunters use bird preserves to sharpen their shooting and train their dogs. If they were actually as ethical as they claim, they would have included all animals/birds raised for "sport shooting" such as pheasants, etc. But no, they paint a picture to the non-hunting public of all non-typical livestock is shot while tied up to a post for shooting as they did in the survey.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> don't see anywhere that this bill affects anyone other than deer or elk ranchers, show me if I'm wrong.


OK very simple go read the bill. It says Nontraditional livestock and farmed Elk facilities fee shooting prohibited-penalty. It goes on from there and I will let you read it for yourself... For your information JAD I raise pheasants and chucker guess what I have a nontraditional livestock license. Is that enough proof for you?


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

I was unable to find a definition of "non-traditional livestock" but found this:


> 36-01-08.1. Nontraditional livestock license - Fee. The board of animal health may require a license for nontraditional livestock maintained within this state. *The annual fee for a license for a bird species required to be licensed is seven dollars. The maximum amount of annual fees for bird species licenses to be paid by a person holding more than one bird species
> license is forty dollars.* The annual fee for a license for any other species required to be licensed is fifteen dollars. The maximum amount of annual fees for nonbird species licenses to be paid by a person holding more than one nonbird species license is one hundred dollars.


So what all of the people forcing their ethics on others dont' tell you, the bill as written will force the bird preserves out of business.

No more dog training with live birds. No more sharpening your shooting skills at live birds on a preserve.

If you truly think shooting NON-TYPICAL LIVESTOCK is wrong, leave the bill as is.

I wonder how many folks knew this and were just waiting for the legislature to change the wording??

*Maybe someone should define ETHICS and HONESTY for us.*


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bingo we have a winner!!!! Why wasn't the bill addressed as deer and elk as they say the concerns are.. No they knew damn well what they were doing. These people are so far to the right they are one breath away from PETA.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

g/o, as you well know and have told on before, there have been multiple versions of this bill drafted since last summer. The author of the bill, Senator Mathern, has almost 20 years experiance as a State Senator, and possibly his political knowledge may be more extensive than yours. He has also been quoted in the media that the sole intent of SB2254 is to eliminate the shooting of captive big game. I take him at his word and his final wording. As you well know the bill is subject to ammendments from him or other legislators between now and the final vote, however that may fall.

As for answering your every accusation when you exercise your jaws, I would prefer to let you, JAD, and Kim run unimpeded. We could never produce a better picture on this industry to the public than you good fellows do by your own words.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

g/o , don't you mean LEFT like PETA. Not to quibble over politics.

Dick, go ahead and beat your drum. Just like Idaho, lots of hype, short on facts. I challenge anyone that has questions regarding all Dick's quotes to call Dr. Keller and ask her the results of the trace testing in regards to the MN herd. This is why we test and why we got rid of CWD in the domestic herds. Thats been 3 yrs ago now and many more elk have been tested and ND is still CWD free. We unfortunately had a noncompliance issue at Walhalla. NDBOAH is dealing with it and it is being resolved. The entire remaining herd will be tested. That herd has been quaranteened since 2003 and no elk have left since. There is very little, if any chance, of CWD there, but if it is, it will be found.

Now lets talk about the real risk. STILL the only positive CWD case in ND came in as a hunter kill wild elk from CO. We do now have carsass import restrictions, BUT. I know for a fact because I saw them myself at the butcher in my home town. A couple yrs ago, after the carcass import ban was in place, at least 6 head of elk hanging. I know where these guys hunt in CO and it is in the endemic area. I do not know where the bones from these elk were taken but I do know the renderring plants will not take elk and deer bones of any kind. So they were likely hauled to a local pit, hopefully not accessable to wildlife. That says nothing for the hunters that bring carcasses and butcher themselves. Is the import ban really enforced. Is someone sitting at the border checking the mule deer and elk being brought in from CO, WY, SD and where ever CWD has spread to now. It is a mere 100 miles from the sw corner of ND. Dick, try all you want to rally the troops, but the facts will prevail that ND's cervid industry has a good health record that will stand on its own. The MN case was found because they were testing. That must be about time ND G/F started testing, we had been testing for 5 yrs already by then and tested several thousand heads.

I believe CWD will eventually get to ND. I also believe it will be brought in by you "free chase" hunters that are hunting these wildlife that are known to be carrying disease. Either that or it will walk here on its own.
So lets hear your strategy to for when it does infect ND wildlife. Genetic resistance could still be an answer.

I have been in this business for 10 years and have not heard of one instance of elk being shipped illegally, or bribed vets. Lets see some evidence. Have they caught anyone? Are there elk missing? ?All state have inventory requirements, these missing elk would show up missing somewhere.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, Like always you make assumptions and duck the question. Lets reverse this situation, what if Jon Nelson was sponsoring a bill for the outfitters and the language was questionable. You would be ranting and raving and you know it. So why shouldn't I question this? Read it Dick for what it says and you will have to agree with me. Tell me Dick are pheasants not covered under nontraditional livestock? What does this bill say concerning nontraditional livestock. I do not question Senator Matherns ability or knowledge.. The problem is the way its worded unless its changed it will do all the things I say it will. I'm suppose to trust you? I don't think so I'm not that stupid. Would you guys try to slip something past us? Remember the week only resident hunting on PLOTS? Remember Dick every thought well it only meant pheasant hunting guess what it didn't and you laughed all the way to the bank. I'm concerned about this and I have a right to my livelihood depends on it.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

g/o, these are the organizations supporting SB-2254. Yep, you're right again, all radical anti-hunting orgs. You're kind of like my pup, doesn't want to be inside, doesn't want to be outside, but makes a lot of noise whereever he is. 

http://www.ndctws.homestead.com/NDCTWS_HOME.html

http://www.ndwf.org/index.html

http://www.rmef.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
And now to 45:


> We unfortunately had a noncompliance issue at Walhalla.


Documented, not one, but seven CWD exposed instances. This case is especially interesting.


> The entire remaining herd will be tested.


OK......it's now three years later. Has the entire herd been tested YET, and why weren't they tested immediately. BOAH was neglegent. Quaratine did not go on immediately, It took more than six months. BOAH should have been there the first day.This is the high regulatory standard?


> Now lets talk about the real risk


 Which of course in ND is captive facilities. USGS as of August 2006 details every outbreak of CWD. At least 67 captive facilites have been liquidated for infection. 5 more are infected but not liquidated.

ND's public property of wildlife lost a minimum of 60+ deer and elk, due to blatant acts of negilence on the part of ND canned shooting operations and those who supply them. The minimum cost was $40,000 from NDGF funding. 
This doesn't even count the Sheyenne Valley lodge fiasco where 26 elk escaped into the wild. And dozens of wild deer had to be destroyed. That file alone is 3/4" thick


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, Boy that was a real shocker!!! Are you serious you mean those three groups support this WOW.

Again like always Dick you avoid the question put forth to you. Dick again as the bill written now will this not include the pheasant people? Will this not also imply to dog training and field trials etc. I again wait your comment. Funny thing is Dick people in two of the three organizations which are higher up than you agree with me 100%

By the way Dick where on those websites does it say they support this bill. I'm sure they do but they aren't saying it


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

Ok, where was CWD first discovered? In a captive elk herd.

Where is cwd prevalent? In captive elk herds, captive deer herds, and in areas that are extremely overpopulated where the animals have extensive contact with each other (which is a lot like being in a captive environment).

So how do we eliminate the problem? Eliminate captive herds, and thin populations in areas that are overpopulated.

Maybe some day we can breed genetic resistance, but until that is proven, it's just an argument for the status quo to continue.

n South Dakota, CWD was discovered in seven private, captive elk herds during the winter of 1997-98 and in another private, captive elk herd in August of 2002. CWD was first found in free-roaming wildlife in a white-tailed deer in Fall River County during the 2001 big game hunting season. Surveillance of free-roaming elk and deer by Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) has detected 24 infected deer and 7 infected elk.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

and there is no way to know if the origin of CWD was from the wild infecting the private herd or the private infecting the wild herd.

At least the private herd gets checked.

Who is checking the wild herd??


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

g/o, email Senator Mathern directly and ask him how his final bill will appear. I doubt you're shy.

And a bit bit more info for 45:
"John Phillip Murray, DMV was charged with stealing hundreds of whitetails from the wild, producing false certificates of Orgin and false Health certificates, then 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"
http://www.albertawilderness.ca/AWRC/WL ... 200210.pdf

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. 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.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

JustAnotherDog said:


> and there is no way to know if the origin of CWD was from the wild infecting the private herd or the private infecting the wild herd.
> 
> At least the private herd gets checked.
> 
> Who is checking the wild herd??


I wouldn't know how a private herd of elk in eastern south dakota would have contracted the disease when no deer in eastern south dakota have tested positive, and there are no wild elk in eastern south dakota.

My point was simple, when you have a problem, you eliminate the knowns. Which are, this disease is almost always found in captive herds and overpopulated areas, I.E. eliminate the captive herds and overpopulation and you eliminate the problem.

Also, in south dakota they do check the wild herds.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick you are a funny guy absolutley no substance to anything you say. Simply afraid to admidt when you're wrong. Remember the movie Best Little Whorehouse In Texas. You remind me of the govenor singning side step,


> Ooh, I love to dance the little sidestep / Now they see me, now they don't / I've come and gone / And ooh, I love to sweep around a wide step / Cut a little swath / And lead the people on!


 Yep Dick like always hide the truth.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*JAD Wrote*



> I was unable to find a definition of "non-traditional livestock"





> 36-01-00.1. Definitions. In this chapter unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires:
> .
> .
> .
> ...


Do you Pheasant farm boys clip wings or pull tail feathers to"limit movement and facilitate capture" Why don't you just throw a chicken out for the boys to shoot you wouldn't have to worry about the "Non Traditional Livestock Tag.



> *Maybe someone should define ETHICS and HONESTY for us.*


Why are you waiting for someone else to do it. Knock yourself out then again we would just be getting a version of honesty and ethics from a screen name Just another dog or Hound Dog or whatever your name is.

I would really like to hear the ethic base for shooting a penned animal.

The bill has a long way to go It should be interesting.

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Do you Pheasant farm boys clip wings or pull tail feathers to"limit movement and facilitate capture" Why don't you just throw a chicken out for the boys to shoot you wouldn't have to worry about the "Non Traditional Livestock Tag.


Good one Bob, actually if you ever had done any dog training you would realize its pull wing feathers that limit flight. Also its a common practice at game farms to spin the birds to put them to sleep so they will hold. When taining for retreves in water we use a shakled duck, of course none of this will be legal under the way this bill is written. It's to bad people like you and Dick become so offended when someone points out the truth to you.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Trained many dogs in my life time g/o never had the need to go to a pheasant farm to do it.

Who is offended? I'm not you are the one whining about something that is not even reality yet, the bill has not even had a public hearing. Have you contacted the legislators or are you just grandstanding on talk forums to find support?

So much for trust and cooperation!

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

You even posted this Bob!!!



> 36-01-00.1. Definitions. In this chapter unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires:
> .
> .
> .
> ...


Bob does this say anything about happening on a game farm?


> or an animal that is physically altered to limit movement and facilitate capture


When you have lots of time tell me about trust and cooperation. As long as its one sided towards you its fine. Let it never go the other way


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

This whole "you won't be able to train dogs if this bill passes" rant was quite comical now its just boring and not worth reading or responding to.

:beer:


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

So as written the deer/elk/bird ranchers will find a way to seperate the raising from the shooting. The bill will have no effect in the long run.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> The bill has a long way to go It should be interesting.


So now it has a long way to go?

Where oh where is the bird section in all of the posts for this bill??

I find a lot of people say "It doesn't matter to me since I dont' do that anyway."

I thought hunting was a friendly thing to do but the arrogance of property rights and you must do it for me sure takes the friendly out of it.

Everyone seems to know what is good for everyone else. I have yet so see a bill that forces anyone to participate in what they don't want to do other than those that hate landowners, G/Os, farmers.


----------



## griffman (Jan 17, 2004)

JustAnotherDog- I think you should change your call name to.....

JustAnotherG/O

:eyeroll:


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Why? Now it's name calling?

I've never met a G/O.

I've never used a G/O?

I see a lot of names that should include "I hate landowners."

or "I wish my pappy had been a farmer."

or "I know what that land should be used for."

I think a lot of people need to get out other than hunting season, like 
when the land is being prepped for seeding, (Ever picked rock?) or during 
harvest. Even during planning time. Or during grain embargo times 
and watch your grain go down the tubes in value.

During hunting season when farmers flip you off because they 
think you should have done something different just for them.
("Go plow somewhere else, the ducks might land here")

During township board meetings when the township is trying to 
figure out how to pay for the damaged roads that were just fine before 
hunting season.

Anti-hunter, no! A lot of farmers hunt, I no longer farm, but I still 
hunt. I've learned a lot from this site and others. A lot of it during 
the legislative discussion. Some of it good and some of it not so good.

I've read a lot of B-S on both sides but I still hold personal property rights very high. And I hate it when people push their agenda without being honest with everyone about all that the bill will actually do. I guess it has someting to do with my 20+ years in law enforcement where honesty and experience are sometimes the only thing I have for backup.


----------



## griffman (Jan 17, 2004)

Whoa Dog..... 

You really seem to upset about this bill. I don't really understand why? What about the bill do you think is wrong? Are you upset about personal property rights?

Look JAD, if you've been in law enforcement you understand rules, regulations, policies etc. etc. You should also understand right from wrong. Do you think canned hunts are a good thing? I don't.

I'm not against personal property rights either. I am for fair chase of game when hunting, canned hunts don't allow this. No one is saying you can't raise elk or birds or whatever....they are just trying to regulate the fair chase and slow the disease spread....I personally don't see a problem with that.

Look, just because it's your land doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it! If you wanted to set up camp for a terrorist munitions the government wouldn't allow that either!

The People make the laws. I personally think this bill is a good one.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> The People make the laws.


Yes they do when some people don't withhold information about the 
bill and the information given is honestly given.



> I personally think this bill is a good one.


I personally don't think this is a good bill.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dog many of the people on this site and others are landowners, sons and daughters of landowners. Spent their youth and part of their adult life working cattle, picking rocks, hauling square bales and cleaning out barns with a pitch fork and manure spreader.

You fling out the issue of grain embargo's and if I remember right the person who implemented that was not who the state of ND voted for in that Pres election. Besides I doubt you even had a clue as to what caused it !

In regards to roads and trails being torn up during hunting season, a bill was submitted last session to do just that, but in the end the truth came out that damage was home grown more than not. In my home area that is the case more times than not. Bigger equipment are more of the culprit than hunters pickups.

The old worn line that we hunters are anti landowner is BS and is a line tossed out when the other arguments are weak or non existent.

Like I said before on this issue, cattlemen of ND have more to loose without this bill than we as hunters do. But many seem to forget that and or chose not to look at it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron Gilmore said:


> Dog many of the people on this site and others are landowners, sons and daughters of landowners. Spent their youth and part of their adult life working cattle, picking rocks, hauling square bales and cleaning out barns with a pitch fork and manure spreader.


That would be me Ron. I took care of the farm for two years when my father had a heart attack. I was in the eighth and ninth grade. The farmhand broke down so I fed 80 head of herfords by hand morning and evening and cleaned barn in the summer with a wheel barrow. I guess my life as a young man doesn't make me respond to whining when someone thinks things are bad. Most have not seen bad. When you have eaten oatmeal and potatoes only for four months because the bank owns the cows, and you have no money for better food you can whine to me. Food stamps and such ----- now days no one knows real tough times period.

Just Another Dog, high fence killing needs to go. I don't care to hear how it affects landowner rights. Try cooking meth in your barn and see if law enforcement respects that as a landowners right. The people will decide what landowner rights are. That's how a democracy works. If people don't like that maybe there is somewhere else that wants them.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Meth ain't got anything to do with it and you know it.

Meth isnt' healthy and leads to other things.

What I do with the livestock on my land is completely different and you know that too.

No it isn't prostitution as that leads to other crime as well.

So I guess we should just close down the discussion as I havent' 
heard anything new and you aren't going to get anything new so I guess you know what's best for me and all of the livestock rancher's that just happen to have non-typical livestock.

myoptic!


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Dick,

Think you struck a nerve??

Lots of good info - the value can be judged by the venom spewed toward you. Good work.

M.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

> Lots of good info - the value can be judged by the venom spewed toward you. Good work.


Excellent point MRN, when G/O, the master of debate comes back with such sizzling and penetrating rebuttals, you are standing on high ground. Keep up the good work and send these clowns packing to another state.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Don't want to chase them to another state. There are always a few undecided voters that they knock off the fence into our basket. Many thanks. All things come to he who waits.
------------------------------------------------------------
USGS, National Wildlife Health Center, Madison WI
These guys publish a detailed map updated Aug-2006 of the distribution of CWD in NA. What is striking is that apx. 67 captive facilities have been liquidated for CWD. In almost every case, CWD in the wild appears adjacent to these same liquidated facilities. But....... over half of the liquidated facilities have NO CWD adjacent to them.  And the closest occurance to ND was just over the stateline south of Ashley. Makes everyone sleep better.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

like always Dick duck the question. Tell me Dick this bill does nothing to address any disease problems it only is an ethics bill on high fence shooting of Elk and Deer and Pheasant and other birds. Why is it that if you are so concerned about ethics why are going to allow people to shoot buffalo in a pen?

This will still be legal scroll to the bottom
http://www.thebisonranch.com/bisonht_testim.html


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

g/o, if you want bison shooting outlawed take it up with your legislator. The boys involved in captive wildlife want to tie this bill into bison to create a stir and draw more allies. Won't happen. Nice try though. You'll have to fish somewhere else. Bison are defined seperately from NTL.

It's puzzeling to see you wear out your teeth biting chunks from the table, but a ban on canned shooting is going to pass in ND one way or the other. Don't how you are involved in canned shooting, and don't care.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dick I very much appreciate you keeping us posted on this bill. I can fully understand why buffalo are exempt. They are a large animal, and the public just would not put up with them roaming wild anymore than they would with grizzlies in North Dakota. Unfortunately their day has come and gone. It is not so with smaller species like deer and elk. Further, the general public not only tolerates these species, they enjoy seeing them. 
I don't think these game farms can be trusted to follow the rules on disease testing anymore than the oil companies can be trusted to ship oil without spills. When a large number of people get involved someone cheats. Your original posts very well exposed that.
As far as the pheasants, I don't much care what someone does with exotic species. I also feel the same about exotic species of large mammals in Texas. I wouldn't want someone in North Dakota starting to raise European Red Stag, because of the danger of genetic contamination of our wild elk. 
This is not a matter of if it will pass, it is only a matter of when. A general referendum would have 75% support. They may stall us for a few months while they dump the captive trophies they have.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick from the century code 


> Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
> farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.


Dick Monson wrote



> You'll have to fish somewhere else. Bison are defined seperately from NTL.


You are right Dick bison are right with farmed Elk. I feel if you are going to have a bill against canned shooting then why not include everyone. If Elk and Deer are a disease problem then lets get rid of them. This bill as written does nothing to address any of these problems.


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

The "clowns" you guys refer to are ranchers in North Dakota, they are the landowners, and the ones that suffer from the idealistic views of the "North American Wildlife Federations" and the "Cass County Wildlife Club". It is extremely easy to see why these people would want to force their beliefs onto the unwilling (ranchers and farmers in the western part of the state). Simply put, we have what they want. How many members of the Cass county wildlife club hunt in cass county on the weekends? I think you all know the answer to that one. I for one am really becoming fond of out of state hunters, I really think we need a different license plate for those unfortunate enough to be from the eastern 1/3 of the state. 
The facts of the matter are this, game farms, g/o's, and baiting are all threatening to pop the "I'm from north dakota I can do whatever the hell I want for free" bubble that stigmatizes so many of the people on these sites. (Dick, Ron, Bob, and good old Curt Wells to name a few) They just don't understand the fact that as demand for something goes up so does the cost. Whether this means hiring an outfitter or going to a game farm, it doesn't matter, it is a shot to their traditional ways of getting things and they are not willing to adjust. 
ETHIC, DISEASE, ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, you can disguise it under whatever you want the fact of the matter is it is an ATTEMPT TO PUSH THE WILL OF ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE ONTO THAT OF ANOTHER.

The sad thing about it is I do believe that these people will prevail. It is a true fact that the loudmouth of the minority will overcome a quiet minority. THE END RESULT IS THAT FAMILIES LIKE MINE WILL END UP LOSING THEIR WAY OF LIFE AS A RESULT OF IT.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I don't know Cranebuster.And I'm not taking sides here but....your mouth sounds as loud as anyone else's on this site.And Contrary to what you might think.....every citizen of the state has 1 vote.....yours isn't worth anymore than someone who lives in the eastern 1/3 of the state.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It is a true fact that the loudmouth of the minority will overcome a quiet minority.


It doesn't make any difference how loud their mouths are, the majority will be heard even if they speak softly. Democracy is founded on majority rule. 
Polls show that 75% of the people support getting rid of high fence operations. This means that it is a wide spread attitude, not just the eastern 1/3 of North Dakota. It must include your neighbors. 
Things change. Market hunting which was perfectly acceptable at one time is looked down upon now. Baiting was common and now called into question. Four gauge punt guns were used for waterfowl, and now we are limited to 10 gauge. People who got into high fence operations must have had enough sense to realize they were operating on the fringe of acceptability. I sure would have, and the money would not have been enough to tempt me into making the risk. I think these operations will end throughout the United States in the not to distant future. Those with good business sense are currently selling out to the gamblers.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> It is a true fact that the loudmouth of the minority will overcome a quiet minority. THE END RESULT IS THAT FAMILIES LIKE MINE WILL END UP LOSING THEIR WAY OF LIFE AS A RESULT OF IT.


I don't understand that staement. If the majority of people want it they will have it. If the majority don't want it they won't have it. Namecalling is usually the last resort of the defeated.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

KEN W said:


> I don't know Cranebuster.And I'm not taking sides here but....your mouth sounds as loud as anyone else's on this site.And Contrary to what you might think.....every citizen of the state has 1 vote.....yours isn't worth anymore than someone who lives in the eastern 1/3 of the state.


I agree with you 100% Ken everyone has one vote, unless you live in Chicago :roll:

Cranebuster you need to realize that these guys could care less if you or I or anyone else goes belly up. These guys here only care about one thing and that's themselves. I believe it was last session in which Tony Dean referred to them as me firsters. So don't loose any sleep over it remember we still own the land and they always wonder why access is getting more difficult.


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

The problem lies in the fact that the majority lives in the eastern 1/3 of the state. It is obvious that a majority of North Dakotans do not own non-traditional livestock. More than likely the majority doesn't even know that it exists as a practice.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

cranebuster,



> THE END RESULT IS THAT FAMILIES LIKE MINE WILL END UP LOSING THEIR WAY OF LIFE AS A RESULT OF IT.


Sad that your way of life involves shooting animals in pens. Is that what your ancestors did too?

Still waiting for an answer to this:

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

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


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Don't give us that same old story about urban-rual split. That was specificaly addressed in the survey, plus or minus 4% differance. :wink: The fact of the matter is rural ND folks don't like canned shooting any better than anyone else.

The neglegent acts of the industry prove it is unwilling and unable to police it's self. So society will do it. They had a chance and threw it away. There is only one market for these operations and that is canned shooting of big game. And that is all SB2254 addresses. No different than Montana.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> These guys here only care about one thing and that's themselves. I believe it was last session in which Tony Dean referred to them as me firsters.


 :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

Yea, Tony Dean calling someone a "me firster". Someone that wanted limits put on out of state hunters in ND and his home state of SD has a way more stringent cap than we were looking for. He has done nothing to remove the SD cap. He is paid well by the Devils Lake COC and we are the "me firsters"!!!!!

Come one Jim, you can do better than that.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> There is only one market for these operations and that is canned shooting of big game. And that is all SB2254 addresses.


Thank You Dick Monson FINALLY you admit this nothing but an ethics bill and disease has nothing to do with it. Now tell what the difference is between shooting an Elk in fenced area or a buffalo?


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Any of this sound familiar!!

I thought I as; President of a responsible group of outdoorsmen, Concerned Sportsmen of Idaho (CSI) should send this on to all of you in hopes that sportsmen can keep well informed. Here is the latest status of one of the claims made against the Idaho elk ranchers. The claim that one of the elk that escaped from Rammel's elk ranch, was or may have been an elk / red deer hybrid. I hope this new finding will be on the front page of the newspapers and, especially in the Outdoor sections, all around the Pacific Northwest. There has been so much misinformation spread about Idaho elk ranches it has almost been criminal.
One event where this and more misinformation was spread was the Idaho Sportsman's Caucus Advisory Council (ISCAC) sponsored Camo Day. At this Boise rally at the Capital, ISCAC, stood along-side of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the largest ANTI-HUNTING group in the our country. They and a few other 'sportsman?' groups openly campaigned Idaho legislators to remove ALL domestic elk ranching operations from Idaho.
This was spear-headed by people like ISCAC representative, Senator David Langhorst, the former Ketchum based Wolf Education & Research director. This group claims to be the largest wolf advocacy group in the world. It has members of the Board, such as Ed Bangs and David Mech.
Is ISCAC and these type of groups really the legislative representative for Idaho sportsmen? It sure hasn't been from the many thousands of Idaho sportsmen I have talked to.
Few sportsmen or Idaho residents period that I know even want the Canadian gray wolves in Idaho. [Please don't sight the Boise State (BS) study that clam most Idaho residents want wolves in Idaho. The initials BS then will take on an entirely different meaning.] Most outdoorsmen, myself included, were much more comfortable with the 'natural recovery' of the native Idaho timber wolf that was going on well before the whole "we need to 'help nature' by bringing in an entirely different strain of wolves from Canada and we need to do it right now."
Although I may seem to have gotten off track in reporting and passing along this information on that there were New test shows no hybrid elk escaped from the Rammel ranch. I don't think it takes much to see the ties between this and the things we see happening under the guise of 'representation of Idaho sportsmen' to our legislators.
A few weeks ago I saw the headlines in newspapers that read something like 'Test show escaped Rammel elk red deer hybrid'. You had to read well into the article to find that one of the elk tests had come back inconclusive. After I finished reading the article I made a bet 'when all the smoke clears' that elk will be found not to have any red deer genes.
My 'gut feeling' about inconclusive tests, my knowledge of animal husbandry and liability in inaccurate claims were right. If you buy a certified pure Yellowstone elk and breed to other certified Yellowstone elk all the genes will be Yellowstone elk. If that didn't happen the certified elk testing lab that checked the animals before they came into Idaho and the certified out-of-state breeder would be in deep legal and financial trouble. To put it simply 'that ain't going to happen' there would have been way too much to loose and way to little to gain.

Pete Ellsworth
33620 Winchester Grade
Culdesac, ID 83524
208 843 5178


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Now tell what the difference is between shooting an Elk in fenced area or a buffalo?


The time of the large ungulates has come and gone. Society will not tolerate buffalo running wild, tearing down farmers fences, damaging crops, and other things I am not thinking of at the moment. On the other hand most people enjoy and want to see deer and elk. Although they may cause some damage it would be nothing compared to a herd of even 20 buffalo passing through your corn field.
Neither shooting elk or buffalo in a high fence situation is a hunt. It looks like the only future for buffalo is the large national parks, and serving as a livestock species for agriculture. Elk and deer have a much brighter future and will survive just fine not because of agriculture, but in spite of it. Society will better tolerate shooting buffalo in enclosures, because most have consigned them to the status of domestic livestock , even though they are not. 
There are three concerns with deer and elk and that is hunting ethics, CWD, and genetic contamination. Even if this bill was ethics alone, it will stand the test. 
g/o I am sure you see the difference between buffalo and elk shooting, but you don't want the buffalo raisers to see it. If we would all complain about the buffalo ranchers and they joined your hysteria it would add to political clout opposing the bill. That's your real objective isn't it? Lets be very clear about this, the bill doesn't nor will it include buffalo. Nice try g/o.
Oh, one other thing. I have not read about buffalo shooters shipping their animal to a scenic area, taking pictures, and trying to register it with Boon and Crocket. One fellow went so far as to shoot a family pet bear and try register it. Another tried to register an elk/red deer hybrid. Not surprising that the people that would stoop to this would also try cheat with Boon and Crocket entries. It's this very attitude that will make society reject this form of killing. Keep this in mind: it not only endangers hunting, it endangers all game farming. Hunters and game farms need to clean the mess up.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Zimo: Idahoans appreciate fair chase and understand true hunting
Canned hunting is just shooting; Legislature needs to discuss shooter-bull operations this session
- Idaho Statesman
Edition Date: 01/28/07

The mountains around Council were hidden in fog. Everything was gray and black. 
I had an elk permit for the area and thought it was going to be a sure thing. It was going to be easy meat for the freezer.

My buddies had scouted the area a week before when the late fall weather was clear and beautiful. It changed fast, as the weather can in the mountains of Idaho.

It was socked in. I moved slowly across an opening on a slope mixed with timber and brush and found a place to sit down where I could lean up against a ponderosa pine tree. It was a good spot to scan the mountainside where the elk had been passing through.

You've got to love sitting up there in the woods and mountains and watching everything that's going on, whether it's listening to a squirrel chattering or just watching the dried grasses waving in the breeze. It's part of the hunt.

Hours later, nothing. My sure thing? Ha!

But you know, real hunting is not a sure thing. And that's fine.

Those elk could have decided to move out and migrate miles away. I was hunting public national forest lands that go for hundreds of miles. The animals are free roaming.

That's real hunting.

That's why lots of Idaho hunters are disgusted with the idea of high-fence hunting or shooter-bull operations, where elk are raised in enclosures to be shot in the enclosures by people who just want to shoot something and forget the hunt.

Instead of taking the chance of hunting in a general hunt and on public lands, and possibly getting skunked, the shooter plunks down big bucks to shoot a large bull elk in a fenced hunting area.

Some do it for convenience because they don't have the time to scout areas for a real hunt.

But that brings up the question of what is true hunting? What is fair chase? Hunting is stalking an animal that has plenty of room to give you the slip. I don't know how many times I've tracked what I thought was a big buck that was leaving huge prints in the snow, thinking at any moment that I was going to come up on him. Then, I'd come up over a ridge and the darn buck would be clear over the horizon.

That's fair chase.

Hunting brings no guarantees. The only guarantees we have in Idaho are that we have lots of public lands on which our deer and elk can roam and on which we can pursue them.

I saw a TV show on hunting whitetails in Texas. I thought it was really cool at first. I watched as a hunter pulled off a shot and got a massive buck. The hunter was gleaming.

As the camera pulled away, I almost choked. You could see that he was on a ranch and there were whitetail bucks standing around like cattle.

That's not hunting. He could have pursued that big buck from one fence line to another. That's not fair chase.

Idaho isn't Texas. We shouldn't condone shooter-bull operations.

Shooter-bull operations and elk farms are a complicated subject, but one that is not going to go away. The Idaho Legislature is going to have to take a serious look at it this session.

Elk farms are a different story. Families are raising elk to process game meats and jerky for the market. There's a place for that as long as it is strictly controlled to prevent any effect on wild elk populations.

Hunting animals in enclosures, or what is called high-fence hunting, isn't hunting. It's just shooting.

Idahoans are true hunters.

To offer story ideas or comments, contact reporter Pete Zimowsky at [email protected] or 377-6445. Read past columns at IdahoStatesman.com/Zimo.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Still waiting for an answer to this:

Why haven't the deer and elk ranchers in this state tried to get a slaughter house and or meat market going like the bison ranchers have?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, Thank you for answering my question the old question duck er Dick Monson again refuses.



> Neither shooting elk or buffalo in a high fence situation is a hunt.


Thank You for setting the record straight on that you would not consider either a hunt.



> There are three concerns with deer and elk and that is hunting ethics, CWD, and genetic contamination. Even if this bill was ethics alone, it will stand the test.
> g/o I am sure you see the difference between buffalo and elk shooting, but you don't want the buffalo raisers to see it. If we would all complain about the buffalo ranchers and they joined your hysteria it would add to political clout opposing the bill. That's your real objective isn't it? Lets be very clear about this, the bill doesn't nor will it include buffalo. Nice try g/o.


I see you are not happy about the buffalo people but you are afraid that they have to much clout so you are going after the less fortunate the Elk man.

Plainsman you are an old cattleman or at least that's what you profess. Tell are there any disease risks between buffalo and cattle?


----------



## cranebuster (Nov 2, 2004)

HuntfishND, I will gladly answer your question, it is simple economics as to why the meat market doesn't work, at least for whitetailed deer. An average doe has 30 or so pounds of meat on her, it takes them two years to reach full size, and it costs around $1 a week to get them there. So your gonna have $100 into just feed on that deer, not including profit, fencing and labor. To just recoup feed costs on a doe you would need to get around $100 for her. Not too mention the handling of the deer to get it to the slaughter house. You cannot tranquilize a doe before you take her to slaughter (for obvious reasons) and they must be killed at the slaughter house for USDA reasons. The economics just aren't there when you can raise and slaughter red deer and call it venison at a restaurant for a lot cheaper. 
Just to clarify it for you, my family does not do any hunts on our place, not that I would be against it, we just don't have the facilities. Like I said before, we got into the business because we loved deer, we wanted to build our understanding of them, shooter markets have provided us with a way to fund our passion and continue learning from our deer.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

I lost all respect for Tony Dean. He gets paid thousands of dollars from DL and comes here to testify against HPC. I wish someone on the NRC would have asked him if he was going to testify in SD about their regulations! I wish he would come back.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

cranebuster,

Thanks for the info.

You say you don't have the facilities to do shoots on your place. What exactly do you mean? There are no regulations on size of pens right? You do have your deer fenced in right? Then you must have the facilities right?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Boy Huntandfish you are sitting right with PETA by those comments. For your information there are a very few High Fence shooting operations in this state. Out of 110 or so the majority a just raising Elk and Deer high fence operation buy some from guys like Cranebuster. PETA and the Dick Monsons would like you guys to think otherwise. If they can't stretch the truth how else can they get people to listen and join them.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

g/o,

Sorry, but I know more than you think I do. I have a friend that raises whitetail deer. He and I don't agree on the shooting aspect, but we agree to disagree.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

Let me start out by saying I don't follow all this political stuff. I am pretty dumb when it comes to arguing on diseases and genetics, nor would I ever want to. I have been trying to read all of the debates on here about this elk thing. Still am pretty dumb on the issue, but here goes.

I think it is a bad bill. Why? Because it is an ethics bill, as some people have called it. You guys are talking about putting fellow North Dakotans out of business because they raise their own animals, and charge people to kill them. Well, that is some peoples way of life. They may not know anything else. Do I think high fence KILLING is right? No. Will I ever do it? Hell no. But I don't think that gives me the right to take away someones way of life because I feel it is ethically wrong. Just let it be as is. One way or the other, it does not affect you, if you really think about it.

What does affect you, and me, and all other ND hunters is the increase in posted land, the relationships between landowners and farmers, which is going to sh!t, and how ND hunters are percieved by fellow North Dakotans. And people wonder why some farmers hate ND hunters and not NR's. Easy, NR's are not trying to take away their way of life.

I could care less one way or the other on this bill, but I do care about having land to hunt in ten years. I am 23 yrs old and I don't own any land. I am from a small rural area where I know everybody, and it continues to get harder and harder every year to hunt. I just don't want the landowners to get to the point where they say "F off North Dakotans, I only let NR's hunt my land," which some are doing. I don't agree with high fence shooting, but I also don't agree with taking away someone's way of life because I feel it is wrong. IMO, it is sh!t like this that will make it harder for ND hunters in the long run.

What do you guys think? I am a freelance hunting fool just like most of you. I feel we need a NR cap, and G/O's are taking away great hunting oppurtunites from everybody else. But I also feel we need to not piss off the ND landowners and farmers too much. There's my thoughts.

Adam


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Adam, if you read the voter survey result from UND the feeling against canned shooting is the same rural and urban. So much for the propaganda from the other side. These canned shoot operations are the biggest friend of the "anti" groups because the it is the biggest fund raising issue for them, and the "antis" don't want that gravey train of money to go away. Hunters won't get more ground to hunt by defeating this bill; the commercializers will just steal more public wildlife for private profit.
Support the bill SB-2254. If it fails, there is a simple way to settle it, put it to a vote of the people of ND. What is scaring the commericalizers whitless, is that a ND wildlife issue would go to initiated measure. Because that leaves a big door open.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick Monson said:


> Adam, if you read the voter survey result from UND the feeling against canned shooting is the same rural and urban. So much for the propaganda from the other side. These canned shoot operations are the biggest friend of the "anti" groups because the it is the biggest fund raising issue for them, and the "antis" don't want that gravey train of money to go away. Hunters won't get more ground to hunt by defeating this bill; the commercializers will just steal more public wildlife for private profit.
> Support the bill SB-2254. If it fails, there is a simple way to settle it, put it to a vote of the people of ND. What is scaring the commericalizers whitless, is that a ND wildlife issue would go to initiated measure. Because that leaves a big door open.


Huh Dick????? The "anti" on our side? I don't think so here is what PETA says about canned hunt. Other than they are not afraid of the buffalo people like you SB2254 and PETA are perfectly aligned.



> Most hunting occurs on private land, where laws that protect wildlife are often inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On private lands that are set up as for-profit hunting reserves or game ranches, hunters can pay to kill native and exotic species in "canned hunts." These animals may be native to the area, raised elsewhere and brought in, or purchased from individuals who are trafficking in unwanted or surplus animals from zoos and circuses. They are hunted and killed for the sole purpose of providing hunters with a "trophy."
> 
> Canned hunts are becoming big business-there are an estimated 1,000 game preserves in the U.S.(22) Ted Turner, who owns more land than any other landowner in the country, operates 20 ranches, where hunters pay thousands of dollars to kill bison, deer, African antelopes, and turkeys.(23)
> 
> ...


Hey Dick is PETA going to have a rally in support of 2254?


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Don't really care what other organizations have seen the light and realized that high fence hunting should be banned. I don't support or not support things because some group does. I support them because I think they are the right thing to do. I would bet that most supporters of SB 2254 do the same.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> SB2254 and PETA are perfectly aligned.


g/o I think you are making my point. This travesty is not hunting, and PETA will try make us all guilty by association. The longer these high fence operations exist the more they endanger hunting. Don't forget, in a round about way that is what you just agreed with. I have been trying to tell you that for some time. Good to see you finally caught on.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

g/o said:


> PETA and the Dick Monsons would like you guys to think otherwise.


Boy there is the "stretch" of the day, lumping Dick in with PETA. g/o you are rather entertaining though. :lol:


----------

