# Poacher gets 1.5 million dollar fine



## Dick Monson

Feds hit deer breeder with $1.5 million fine

From the U.S. Attorney's office for Texas' Eastern District:

Charleston Gazette

June 15, 2011

TYLER, TX - After a lengthy four year investigation a 77-year-old Cherokee County, Texas licensed deer breeder has pleaded guilty to illegally transporting wildlife in the Eastern District of Texas and then lying about it to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife agent, announced U.S. Attorney John M. Bales today.

Billy Powell pleaded guilty on June 14, 2011, to the felony offense of smuggling at least 37 whitetail deer, over a 3 year time span, from Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio into Texas in violation of state and federal laws. Powell also admitted that he made a false statement and submitted a false document to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife special agent who was looking into the matter. Powell has agreed to pay a $1 million fine, to be deposited into the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Lacy Act Reward Fund, as well as $500,000.00 in restitution to Texas Parks and Wildlife, on his sentencing date. Powell's agreement with the government calls for Powell to serve 3 years probation with six months of home confinement which will be monitored with an electric anklet. During the term of probation, Powell will be prohibited from participating in any manner in commercial deer breeding. Additionally, Powell must forfeit any illegally imported deer, any progeny of those deer, and any biological material derived from said deer, which would include any semen, antlers, mounts, and cloned deer. Powell has already forfeited over 1,300 straws of frozen semen valued at approximately $961,500.00 to U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

Full text:

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/johnmccoy/20 ... lion-fine/


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

Wow


----------



## Kelly Hannan

ouch


----------



## GriffGruff78

Moving deer from an area with endemic Chronic Wasting Disease is a MAJOR problem that MUST be dealt with in an extremely severe manner. I'm concerned that this is not getting enough publicity and I think this fool deserves every bit of financial ruin that the government can dish out.

Texas cervids are protected from CWD by distance and geography, the only way it can get here is by the illegal import of Northern/Midwestern/Rocky Mountain stock.


----------



## Dick Monson

GriffGruff78 said:


> Texas cervids are protected from CWD by distance and geography, the only way it can get here is by the illegal import of Northern/Midwestern/Rocky Mountain stock.


State game officals there are unable to address this problem there so only the Feds are able to act. Built in corruption in the system. The smuggling is common place so it is only a matter of time. And if testing is not required, the disease will not be reported.


----------



## Plainsman

There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers. Just a matter of time. There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it. Like Dick said corruption in the system. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.

When it comes you remember who said it would.


----------



## Kelly Hannan

Rumor is, that is how CWD go into Wis. Importing Deer from Texas to produce larger racks, and exporting Deer to Texas to produce larger bodies


----------



## Csquared

Does this bother anyone but me?

I'm getting sick of seeing how the govt uses various laws to increase their coffers, whether it's DUI, tax evasion or the game code. I remember the old days when people obeyed the laws because they wanted to stay out of jail. Nowadays your willingness to comply is more likely tempered by your expendable income :eyeroll:

Not to remotely infer that 1.5 mil is expendable (but it might be to him), but why not take what he made in the illegal transactions AND put him in jail?

My guess is there are many involved in this sort of thing who are more than willing to gamble on the financial risk of getting caught with so much to gain if they don't.


----------



## Plainsman

csquared I would rather see him in jail also. I think if they put him in jail and threw away the key some may sit up and take notice. Maybe then it wouldn't make it to North Dakota. However, with so much to gain and so little risk it will come.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers. Just a matter of time. There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it. Like Dick said corruption in the system. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.
> 
> When it comes you remember who said it would.





Plainsman said:


> csquared I would rather see him in jail also. I think if they put him in jail and threw away the key some may sit up and take notice. Maybe then it wouldn't make it to North Dakota. However, with so much to gain and so little risk it will come.


I'm not even going to waste my time trying to be courteous on this one. Pull your head out of your ***. CWD IS ALREADY IN ND. Plainsman, Dick can you prove at all beyond your personal anti insinuations that the CWD found here in ND originated from a "local cervid raiser" ???

Yes or No

Before anyone starts making acusations please understand as a CATTLE rancher and particularily given that I am involved in some degree to animal health issues regarding our industry at the state level, I have a great concern that proper and adequate regulations regarding animal health diseases and the issues that arise from them are in place and ENFORCED. But it is CRITICAL that sound science and real fact be used when developing all aspects of these regulations designed to protect the states livestock industry AS WELL AS the states wildlife. Rumor, insinuation, supposition and personal bias and agendas have NO PLACE in developing these regulations designed to protect.


----------



## Plainsman

> I am involved in some degree to animal health issues regarding our industry at the state level,


I would guess that is the fox in charge of the hen house. Perhaps that is the problem in Texas also. Maybe we should get rid of all of our game wardens and put hunters in charge. Maybe we should get rid of all of our police. No disrespect gst, but farmers involved watching other farmers just don't cut it.

When there are hundreds of miles between CWD infections how do you think it spreads. It isn't a deer running across country at 60 mph, it's a deer in a trailer behind a pickup moving one infected animal from point A to point B. It's like burning a candle at both ends. The cervid raisers are destroying traditional hunting by trying to lock up everything and make it pay to play at one end of the candle, and at the other end they will destroy the wild populations through disease. I suppose it would be unkind to call that greed????

gst, why did I know you would be on here building cover for these people. Do you think that Texas man deserves a fine, jail, or a pat on the back? I think that's a fair question.


----------



## djleye

About time!!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith

Before people go off on CWD. They tested these animals and nothing has been found yet (as of this article).

Yes CWD is on cervid farms. Yet maybe the reason is because there is no regulation as to how many animals you can have per acre. So when you put many animals in close contact with each other where saliva can spread CWD gets born. So maybe a regulation that should be seriously looked at is only having X number of animals per acre. But yet I hear nobody trying from either side to push that along in any debate. Just my .02 on this subject.


----------



## gst

gst said:


> I'm not even going to waste my time trying to be courteous on this one. Pull your head out of your a$$. CWD IS ALREADY IN ND. Plainsman, Dick can you prove at all beyond your personal anti insinuations that the CWD found here in ND originated from a "local cervid raiser" ???
> 
> Yes or No


plainsman answer one simple question.



Chuck Smith said:


> Yet maybe the reason is because there is no regulation as to how many animals you can have per acre. So when you put many animals in close contact with each other where saliva can spread CWD gets born.


Chuck, what is the average number of animals on these cervid ranches in close contact? I know of several dozen none cervid ranches that had a few hundred wild cervids in close contact for several monthes here in ND. I would guess salivia can spread CWD in these situations as well?


----------



## Plainsman

> can you prove at all


That is what I would expect, and your involved in animal health???? Wow. I expect that when it becomes prevalent and anyone with an ounce of common sense is sure where disease comes from they will say "can you prove". Every violator will make the state spend thousands proving they are guilty. Things like this will be very hard to prove. However, if the closest infected wild animal is 500 miles away that is a good indicator something else is going on. If the animal is also found within a mile or two of a game farm that is another indicator. Granted it isn't proof, but that's where common sense comes in. Unfortunately common sense doesn't count in court so it will take a lot of work to "prove it".

gst, as a self described conservationist I am surprised your always supporting questionable things. You support wetland draining, tile, high fence, game farms, etc. The conservation practices you mentioned before all benefit you directly. Do you ever measure conservation value beyond monetary values? Just curious. I think you and I have a different view of conservation.


----------



## Csquared

http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/cont ... 37603.html



> The presence of CWD in Sioux County came as a mild surprise, primarily because the closest known cases of the disease are at least 200 miles distant.


Wow! ND mule deer must be SUPER FAST !!!!!!


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, as a self described conservationist I am surprised your always supporting questionable things. You support wetland draining, tile, high fence, game farms, etc.


plainsman, stay on topic here, CWD in ND, not tile, wetland draining ect..... if you can't stay on topic perhaps someone will have to lock this thread as well :wink:

So I take it you can not provide any facts or research regarding these cases of CWD here in ND to back up your claims?

I could give two ****s about your curiousity or personal opinion, simply quit telling whoppers you can not back up with factual data and research.


----------



## gst

I really do not care what peoples personal opinions are regarding cervid ranches, please simply keep from making claims that can not be backed up factually in furthering ones personal agendas.

I will be the first one on here to admit the following:
I do not know what causes CWD nor do I beleive I am qualified to make claims as to what does. I will simply use what sound science is avalible from the experts who put an incredible amount of unbiased effort into researching this disease rather than make claims I can not back up with research simply to further a personal agneda. Who else wants to make this admission?

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fusea ... t.overview

From this link: (note the word spontaneous)

_It may be possible that CWD is a spontaneous TSE that arose in deer in the wild or in captivity and has biological features promoting transmission to other deer and elk. The majority of human CJD cases are thought to be spontaneous and associated with conformational change in a normal cellular protein (PrPC) to the abnormal disease associated protease resistant protein (PrPres) considered by many to be infectious agents of the TSEs. Occurrence of spontaneous CJD is approximately 1 per 1 million population per year. Spontaneous CWD may have happened in deer though it is difficult to see how this could be proven_

As can be seen even within the most "experts" of the experts, not alot is scientifically known regarding these TSE's to be able to make claims one way or another such as routinely are on this site by a handful of people/"experts" tied directly to HFH initiatives.

So plainsman can you provide any factual information from the G&F vetrinarian and research (not regulated/overseen by farmers)mentioned in CSqaureds link regarding the cases of CWD here in ND to back up your claims? Yes or No?


----------



## Plainsman

> I really do not care what peoples personal opinions are regarding cervid ranches, please simply keep from making claims that can not be backed upo factually in furthering ones personal agendas.


From another perspective can you prove that the CWD didn't come from a game farm? I don't think it can be proven either way, so we are going to need to use some common sense here. So what's the chances it jumped 200 miles with no infected animals in between. What's the chance it came from a game farm? If the game farm suspected the animal do you think they would take the chance of getting shut down, having the entire state know it came from them, or let the animal go. I doubt many would report it like they should. At least they could shoot and bury it.



> I'm not even going to waste my time trying to be courteous on this one.


Oh, come on now, try something new. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Oh, come on now, try something new





gst said:


> I will be the first one on here to admit the following:
> I do not know what causes CWD nor do I beleive I am qualified to make claims as to what does. I will simply use what sound science is avalible from the experts who put an incredible amount of unbiased effort into researching this disease rather than make claims I can not back up with research simply to further a personal agneda. Who else wants to make this admission?


Plainsman, care to sign on to this admission ? Or do you wish to continue to make your "scientific" claims not even the experts in the NDG&F are willing to make regarding these cases of CWD here in ND?

What you need to realize is I'm not the one coming on this sit making bull**** claims I can't back up with fact or proof. i readily admit I do not know much about CWD, perhaps you would be better off admitting the same instead of making the kind of claims you did at your start in this thread.

Tell you what, you "try something new" by not making claims you can not back up with factual proof, and I'll try being a little more courteous in my replies. :wink:

So given the fact that most TSE's in humans are thought to happen spontaneously, perhaps "common sense" would lead one to beleive the same thing COULD happen in wild cervids regardless of how far they are from ANY infected source wild or captive in the case of this cervid TSE, CWD. But then again that attempt at "common sense" would do little to further the personal agenda the people repeatedly making these claims they can not prove regarding the HFH initiatives they have sponsored.

The simple FACT is no one, not even "experts" plainsman or dick, know enough about this disease to make the claims they do. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why they continue to make them regardless of proof or fact, or the lack there of.


----------



## Dick Monson

Poaching animals from the wild for these operations and or smuggling live animals across state lines is not isolated to this one case in Texas. The point of this topic is that enforcement and sentencing are becoming more severe as public awareness increases. And that is a good thing. :beer:



> St Paul Pioneer Press
> Deer-smuggling case raises questions about hunting industry
> By Barry Shlachter
> McClatchy Newspapers
> Updated: 12/11/2008 09:19:52 AM CST
> 
> FORT WORTH, Texas - Two years ago, Brian Becker drove 1,008 miles from Madelia, Minn., to the small East Texas town of Bedias, unaware that federal authorities had him under surveillance after being tipped off that his gooseneck trailer carried contraband - trophy deer.
> 
> His smuggling operation, which reaped $300,000 from a single customer in four years, exposes a dark underside to Texas' $73 million deer-hunting industry, which has provided jobs and other economic benefits to many rural areas of the state.
> 
> On Nov. 24, Becker, 38, already on probation for smuggling deer to Oklahoma in 2005, was sentenced by a federal court in Plano, Texas, to 33 months in prison.
> 
> The buyer, Robert L. Eichenour, 51, a wealthy Houston businessman and owner of a posh hunting ranch in Bedias, received an 18-month term and was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine. Both had pleaded guilty and did not dispute the charges.
> 
> "This is just the tip of the iceberg," said Mike Merida, a Fort Worth-based special agent with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, referring to interstate deer trafficking, which he said threatens herds with bovine tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease, a devastating condition likened to mad-cow disease but spread among deer, elk and moose.
> 
> Authorities disclosed that the tip-off came from within the game industry and pinpointed Becker's destination and shipment dates. During interrogations, the Minnesotan also claimed to have been dealing with a hunting ranch in North Texas and an investigation is ongoing, they said, declining to provide further details.
> 
> "From my perspective, there's a lot of movement of black-market deer, whether it's wild deer 'laundered' into a high-fence operation or 'put and take' hunting," said Capt. Greg Williford of Texas Parks & Wildlife, who says smuggling is an open secret in the industry. "We're out to try to prove it."
> 
> When breeding bucks with the right genetics can fetch as much as $500,000 at auction, "you always have some trying to go around corners," said John Meng, marketing director of the Texas Deer Association.
> 
> Eichenour was not a member of the industry association and, therefore, not subject to the group's code of ethics, Meng said.
> 
> Others cautioned against exaggerating the scope of wildlife trafficking, noting the Becker case was only the third in the state in recent years.
> 
> "I would think it is extremely rare with all the restrictions and everything we must follow," said Johnny Hudman, game-ranch manager at the Stasney Cook Ranch in Albany, Texas.
> 
> Becker, who was seen napping at truck stops, was to have been arrested crossing the Oklahoma-Texas state line, but authorities missed him, as they did on an earlier run.
> 
> He was finally nabbed hours later by Merida and Texas Parks and Wildlife personnel when his pickup and gooseneck trailer fell into a ditch outside Eichenour's 2,000-acre property, a high-fenced hunting ranch called Circle E. Eichenour was arrested when he came out to accept delivery of eight "shooter" bucks, Merida said.
> 
> Out-of-state deer, whether wild or bred in captivity, are banned by Texas, which is free of chronic wasting disease.
> 
> The restriction helps heighten demand for whitetail deer with large antlers, making it profitable for traffickers like Becker to haul loads 1,000 miles.
> 
> Circle E Ranch offers hunters "luxurious" accommodations and an array of game, including exotic species ranging from addax and aoudad to wildebeest and zebra. The ranch Web site, www.circleeranch.com, carries rave endorsements by hunters from as far away as Australia and South Africa. Circle E, appraised by Grimes County at $4.2 million and located between the towns of Huntsville and Navasota, charges $250 a day lodging - a three-day minimum for hunters - and a fee per animal shot - for example, $6,500 for a zebra - including field dressing.
> 
> But domestic white-tailed deer was a major draw. Trophy bucks with mountable racks cost hunters $2,500 to $15,000, depending on antler size.
> 
> In Texas hunting circles, a whitetail buck with antlers scoring 140 to 149 on the Boone and Crockett scale is a popular size.
> 
> Although Texas had 1,007 deer-farming facilities in 2006, more than any other state, demand for that 140-149 trophy buck is high, says Mike Lamb, a West Texas breeder.
> 
> Recreational hunters who shot such trophy deer at Circle E were charged $3,500.
> 
> Lamb, who operates Lamb Ranch in Cross Plains, Texas, doubted whether anyone in the state could profitably breed, vaccinate and raise a 140-score buck for the hunting market even at that price.
> 
> "It would take four years and cost me $3,500 to $4,000," he said.
> 
> But Becker was offering Eichenour such trophy bucks delivered for less than $2,000, according to Eichenour's attorney and federal and state investigators.
> 
> "This was purely a crime of greed," said Shamoil Shipchandler, an assistant U.S. attorney in Plano who prosecuted the case. "And the risks they took were significant and could have had great impact. Wisconsin already has spent $30 million combating chronic wasting disease in deer."
> 
> Eichenour's lawyer, Trent Gaither of Houston, said that much of the $300,000 had been paid as "advances" on deer shipments to help fund Becker's breeding operation in Minnesota, called Becker's Deer Crossing. Merida disputes that assertion, quoting Eichenour as saying all of the money was spent on deer he received at his hunting ranch.
> 
> Paul Anderson of the Minnesota Board of Animal Health said Becker had a certified deer farm at one time but had not operated it as a breeding facility in years.
> 
> Both defendants pleaded guilty in February, but Eichenour failed to convince U.S. District Judge Richard Schell during the trial's sentencing phase that his action didn't pose a significant risk of spreading disease to wildlife and humans. This raised the punishment level under federal guidelines, Shipchandler said.
> 
> The only expert witness was called by the prosecution. Brian Richards, who studies elk for the U.S. Geological Survey in Wisconsin, spoke of the costly efforts to contain chronic wasting disease in that state.
> 
> Anderson told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that Minnesota has not found a case of chronic wasting disease in wild deer and the last confirmed diagnosis in a bred deer was five years ago. The eight deer trucked down by Becker in October 2006 and six from an earlier delivery were euthanized. Their remains, sent to Texas AM University, tested negative for bovine tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease, Merida said.
> 
> Eichenour did not return calls seeking comment, but his attorney said he expressed remorse before sentencing and had made arrangements for the hunting ranch to continue operations after he reports to a minimum-security federal prison in Bastrop on Jan. 9.
> 
> His client was used to dramatic shifts in fate, having saved his family's business, Coastal Casting Service, in his early 20s after his "drinking, gambling and philandering" father had "bled the company dry," according to a statement to the court filed by Eichenour.
> 
> Coastal, a multimillion-dollar venture that employed nearly 100, rebuilt engines for the oil-service industry.
> 
> "Yes, he is an astute businessman but remember this (hunting ranch venture) was not his business, it was a hobby," said the attorney, who described Eichenour as "old school - a 'your-word-is-your-bond' kind of guy."
> 
> When told of Becker's long criminal record, which included horse theft, Eichenour expressed shock, Gaither said.
> 
> "He was amazed and said, 'Holy s---.' He had always considered Becker a good, decent guy who talked a good game and claimed to have a full-fledged breeding facility in Minnesota," the attorney recalled.
> 
> Efforts to reach Becker were unsuccessful. A woman who answered his telephone and identified herself as a relative declined to comment.
> 
> During the sentencing phase, Schell asked Eichenour why he bought deer from out of state.
> 
> According to his attorney, Eichenour said he never understood why Texas kept its borders closed to deer.
> 
> Moreover, he did not believe that chronic wasting disease was a real threat since elk and other species susceptible to the ailment could be transported to the state.
> 
> In a March 14 letter released by his attorney, Eichenour said the deer he bought from out of state were better quality and 10 to 25 percent cheaper than comparable Texas bucks he could buy to stock for his hunting clients.
> 
> "Whatever money I saved through my improper actions cannot nearly make up for the embarrassment, lost sleep and anxiety I've felt for the last two years," he wrote. "I have lost the privilege of hunting, which I absolutely love."
> 
> Admitting he knew he was breaking Texas regulations, Eichenour said he did not realize he also had violated the Lacey Act, a federal law that he had believed dealt only with endangered species.
> 
> "The bottom line is that I allowed myself to be swayed into believing that the closing of the Texas border to whitetail deer was politically motivated by the mega-breeders and not because of any real health threat," he wrote.
> 
> Bedias Mayor Mackie Bobo said Eichenour was not active in the community. Yet much sympathy has been expressed in Grimes County, where Circle E is located, with some officials saying the punishment was unduly harsh or, at the very least, reflecting misplaced priorities.
> 
> "We see murderers and rapists given probation, but bring a whitetail deer to Texas, and you do federal time," Constable Dale Schaper said.
> 
> Grimes County Judge Gene Stapleton said the 18-month sentence "totally ruins (Eichenour's) life. If you are going to ruin someone's life, ruin a drug dealer's life."
> 
> But Eichenour will not win any popularity contests among the state's deer breeders.
> 
> "I am outraged," said Lamb, the West Texas whitetail rancher. "I've spent a lot of money proving my deer are tested and healthy. An outbreak from smuggled deer would totally wipe me out. Nothing is worth the risk, and to have people exposing the wildlife population to make a few thousand is just ridiculous.
> 
> "Am I surprised? Actually I am. I would believe someone might move deer from Arkansas, Louisiana or Alabama. But deer brought down from up there have a very poor survival rate. If they were bringing them down to hunt them instantly, how close to 'canned' hunting can you get?"
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Dec. 12, 2008
> Game Wardens Arrest Men for Illegal Deer Trapping, Sale
> 
> AUSTIN, Texas - Game wardens in the Special Operations Unit of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's Law Enforcement Division have arrested six men and executed two search warrants as part of Operation Texas Shuffle, a year-long investigation into the black market deer trade in Texas.
> 
> "Our focus here is stopping two main areas of criminal activity: deer being brought illegally across state lines, and wild deer being illegally laundered into deer breeding facilities," said Col. Pete Flores, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department law enforcement director.
> 
> Five of the men were arrested yesterday, including William Kornegay, 42, of Eden in Concho County; James Johnson, 60, of Florence in Williamson County; and Jeff Arbogust, 48, of Austin in Travis County, Chris Sharp, 33, of Marble Falls in Burnet County; and Ronald Rogers, 39, of San Saba in San Saba County. The sixth suspect, Lance Clawson, 40, of Regency in Mills County, turned himself in this morning.
> 
> All six are alleged to have trapped, purchased or sold wild native whitetail deer. In addition, Rogers, Clawson and Kornegay are involved with permitted deer breeding facilities and are believed to have laundered wild deer into the permitted facilities. Kornegay serves as an agent for multiple licensed deer breeders. In one case, Clawson, a permitted deer breeding facility operator, allegedly darted wild deer and put them illegally into his facility.
> 
> Deer breeding is a legal and growing business in Texas, estimated by one breeder organization to be worth about $650 million per year for the state economy. It is illegal to capture or obtain wild deer and place them into breeding facilities. Breeders must obtain captive, pen-raised deer from other permitted breeders. There are currently 1,099 permitted deer breeders in Texas, holding 86,989 deer in 1,161 facilities. The vast majority of these are whitetail deer, and the rest are mule deer, the two native species in Texas.
> 
> "Money is driving the illegal trade in wild native deer," said Capt. Greg Williford with TPWD Law Enforcement Division's Special Operations Unit. "A captive-raised breeder buck can sell for tens of thousands of dollars. So, catching deer in the wild seems a lot less expensive, until you get caught."
> 
> TPWD regulates deer breeding, issuing permits and conducting periodic facility inspections as warranted. A particular concern is monitoring breeding facilities for diseases such as Chronic Wasting Disease. CWD has not been detected in Texas, but it has cost tens of millions of dollars in other states. Texas borders essentially remain closed to the importation of whitetail and mule deer because of disease concerns.
> 
> Clawson and Rogers were previously apprehended Oct. 16 by Texas game wardens and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service special agents for smuggling eight deer into Texas from Oklahoma. Such interstate smuggling is not only illegal but also poses a disease threat to native whitetail deer.
> 
> Numerous Class B misdemeanors (fines up to $2,000 and up to 180 days confinement) have been filed on all six men for violating state Trap, Transport, and Transplant regulations relating to whitetail deer. As the investigation continues, additional charges and arrests are anticipated, including possible felony charges of tampering with a government document, and possible illegal possession of tranquilizer drugs, also a felony.
> 
> Based on where the alleged offenses occurred, county attorneys in Mills, Bell, Lampasas and Concho Counties will be prosecuting the misdemeanor charges.
> 
> Anyone who observes illegal deer trapping, sale or purchase in Texas should call Operation Game Thief toll-free at (800) 792-GAME. OGT is Texas' privately funded wildlife crime stoppers hotline, operating 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week. Rewards of up to $1,000 may be paid to callers (who may remain anonymous). Game wardens recommend making the call immediately when illegal activity is observed, and say it is helpful to have a description of the activity, location of the violation, physical descriptions of alleged violators, description of any vehicles and the direction of travel.


----------



## Csquared

> I really do not care what peoples personal opinions are regarding cervid ranches


....but the people who will weigh in on this issue at the polls have opinions on it that will matter, and as far as I'm concerned, as bad as CWD is it isn't even at the top of my list of negatives resulting from cervid commercialization.

But considering that the total economic impact of ALL cervid farming, nationwide, is roughly comparable to the amount of revenue generated in a single state by hunting wild deer, why are we even risking a CWD epidemic at a time when the only thing the "experts" seem to agree on concerning CWD is that they really don't know much about it????

I say, while they're trying to figure it out, let's use a few of the other side effects of cervid farming as our justification to keep IL deer in IL and let everything _BUT_ whitetails be bigger in Texas :wink:


----------



## shaug

Each state has rules such as a risk assessment. There is a trace back system on each animal from a game farm. A tag with a three letter prefix or farm premis ID. Transporting animals across state lines is a lengthy process. If a farm has not imported or traded an animal for at least 6 years, everything home raised, they are more likely going to be able to export out of state over someone who trades often. We have interstate commerce laws in many areas, but it can only work if people follow the laws that everyone has agreed to.

Then there are those who try to take short cuts. Taking deer without a license, out of season or taking them live is wrong. Moving them without the proper paperwork is wrong. That is when the law kicks in. Billy Powell broke the law. Is one and a half million dollars excessive? I am just asking. Consider this. If a coyote smuggles 37 illegals (could have TB, aids or whatever) in from Mexico and gets caught, he will be fined $1000 per head or thirty-seven thousand. What a great way for the federal government to raise funds. Fine the coyotes about the same as Billy Powell or $40,000 per head. Wouldn't it be nice if Dick and Bruce were as passionate about our southern border with Mexico.

What is obvious here is that a certain few are not interested in letting the authorities do their jobs but instead are trying to take ownership of these animals from the farmers/ranchers without paying for them.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> ....but the people who will weigh in on this issue at the polls have opinions on it that will matter


Indeed they do, and that opinion was shared last Nov. here in ND. All the claims made by the people most commonly making them on this site regarding CWD, and all those other "negatives" they claimed that result from "cervid commercialization" were heardby the people of ND, and the voters of ND rejected them at those very polls you mention. Even after all that "help" from HSUS! :wink: And yet here they are once again making claims they can not factually establish as truth.

All that is being asked is to stop making claims about something one can not back up factually (because there is not enough information to do so) to further your personal agenda of forcing your ethics onto someone else.


----------



## Plainsman

gst I didn't make any claims about a great understanding of CWD. What I did say was that common sense can tell us much about what is happening. An example was a deer showing up with CWD and the closest wild animal with it was 500 miles away and a game farm was a couple of miles. What would be the most suspect?

No I'm not going to take an ignorance pledge with you. :wink:



> I really do not care what peoples personal opinions are regarding cervid ranches


Oh, Pleeeeeaaase, at least be honest with us. :wink:



> plainsman, stay on topic here


OK, the topic is smuggling diseased animals and the proper punishment.



> Wouldn't it be nice if Dick and Bruce were as passionate about our southern border with Mexico.


Shaug I would put claymores on the border and back that up with sniper teams. Is that passionate enough for you?


----------



## zogman

And Plainsman I bet you would supply some ammo. :sniper: :sniper:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. *It will come through the local cervid raisers.* Just a matter of time. There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it. Like Dick said corruption in the system. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.
> 
> _When it comes you remember who said it would_.


plainsman, after making a claim like this given the fact CWD is already been discovered in this state, and the best researchers in the NDG&F have not been able to support your "claim" as to where the origination occurred. It appears your "ignorance" was demonstrate in your first post as well as your willingness to say anything regardless of factual truth to further your agenda against cervid ranches.

You can "explain" once again on this issue your statements to try to give a degree of legitimacy to your "claims" but the simple fact is you can not back up what you claim with any sort of factual proof. If you can please do so.It certainly appears you are eagerly awaiting CWD to be found so it can be linked to cervid ranches so you can say "I told you so. " simply to further your agenda. Meanwhile the people involved in this "system" you mistakenly or blindly bias claim is "corrupt" everyday go about their business of doing their best to keep this and others diseases at bay here in our state with much different regulations than many of the other states you and dick love to give as examples.


----------



## Plainsman

zogman said:


> And Plainsman I bet you would supply some ammo. :sniper: :sniper:


I had a humorous response to that, but some people who perhaps shadow these conversations may not have a sense of humor.


----------



## Plainsman

> What would be the most suspect?


gst it appears you struggle with the English language. Please notice the question mark. :wink:


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Chuck Smith wrote:Yet maybe the reason is because there is no regulation as to how many animals you can have per acre. So when you put many animals in close contact with each other where saliva can spread CWD gets born.
> 
> Chuck, what is the average number of animals on these cervid ranches in close contact? I know of several dozen none cervid ranches that had a few hundred wild cervids in close contact for several monthes here in ND. I would guess salivia can spread CWD in these situations as well?


GST... why so combative.

I was saying that to help monitor cwd in farms there should be a limit of x number of animals per acre. It is called self regulation. I know in the wild you can't control how many deer are per acre. The game and fish try with hunting. But yet some land is posted, some people have food plots, some people leave standing corn or crop for the animals, some people use bait, some people just shovel corn out of a pick up to feed deer in the winter. One that can be controlled is how many deer a rancher can have behind a fence.


----------



## g/o

Plainsman said:


> What would be the most suspect?
> 
> 
> 
> gst it appears you struggle with the English language. Please notice the question mark. :wink:
Click to expand...




> There is no doubt in my mine


Kettle Black? Plainsman :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman

> Kettle Black? Plainsman g/o


Sometimes when I am having to much fun and get careless.  When I do though there is always someone who catches it. I think we all do it, but some try to improve. I always feel foolish when I miss those question marks and icons that change meanings. 

The point is I didn't make the claims gst insinuates. I goof up enough all on my own I don't need someone inventing more.


----------



## walleyeguy13

gst said:


> http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fusea ... t.overview
> 
> From this link: (note the word spontaneous)
> 
> _It may be possible that CWD is a spontaneous TSE that arose in deer in the wild or in captivity and has biological features promoting transmission to other deer and elk. The majority of human CJD cases are thought to be spontaneous and associated with conformational change in a normal cellular protein (PrPC) to the abnormal disease associated protease resistant protein (PrPres) considered by many to be infectious agents of the TSEs. Occurrence of spontaneous CJD is approximately 1 per 1 million population per year. Spontaneous CWD may have happened in deer though it is difficult to see how this could be proven_


Not to put too fine a point on it... but you may want to re-read that article. The excerpt you posted above was referring to the origin of CWD.

From the link referenced:



> *Epidemiology*
> Chronic wasting disease is both transmissible and infectious, but many details of its transmission remain to be determined. In contrast to BSE, CWD is not a foodborne disease associated with rendered ruminant meat and bonemeal. Instead, observations of CWD among captive deer and elk provide *strong evidence* of *lateral transmission* which is more similar to scrapie; experimental and epidemic modeling data support these anecdotal observations.


Lateral Transmission: Transmission of a disease from one animal to another except from the parent to the offspring. Generally this is the transmission between two animals alive at the same time and for one to be exposed to the agent from the other.

Again... from the link referenced:



> The presumed CWD agent (PrPCWD) has been demonstrated by immunohistochemistry in various lymphoid tissues, including those of the digestive tract (e.g., tonsil, Peyer's patches, and mesenteric lymph nodes). These distribution patterns suggest that PrPCWD may be shed through the alimentary tract. Because TSE agents are extremely resistant in the environment, transmission may be both direct and indirect. A recent study has shown that, in a controlled environment, PrPCWD is capable of transmitting CWD through saliva (by oral inoculation) and blood (by transfusion) (Mathiason et al. 2006). Concentrating deer and elk in captivity or by artificial feeding probably increases the likelihood of direct and indirect transmission between individuals. Contaminated pastures appear to have served as sources of infection in some CWD epidemics; similar phenomena have been suspected in some outbreaks of sheep scrapie. The apparent persistence of PrPCWD in contaminated environments represents a significant obstacle to eradication of CWD from either farmed or free-ranging cervid populations.


I don't think this leaves much margin for interpretation. They are pretty clearly stating that CWD is transmitted from one animal to another and are suggesting some likely ways that it is happening.


----------



## Plainsman

> but many details of its transmission remain to be determined


  

Many of the details of gst's omissions remain to be determined. :thumb:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> OK, the topic is smuggling diseased animals and the proper punishment.


Wrong, the topic is smuggling animals. You alone injected the word "diseased" to forward your agenda.



> Shaug I would put claymores on the border and back that up with sniper teams. Is that passionate enough for you?


Would you like others to take you serious? When it comes to issues such as high fence, do you think you should be taken serious?

Dick Monson wrote,



> The point of this topic is that enforcement and sentencing are becoming more severe as public awareness increases. And that is a good thing.


 Yes, there are many good things coming from all this high fence debate. Public awareness has increased to the fact that The Humane Society of the United States "is" active in North Dakota. Listening to the head of the NDSU Extention Service on down the line everyone is saying the same thing. Measure Two was a wake up call.

Billy Powell broke the law. When it comes to interstate commerce there are many rules to follow to protect interstate commerce. Everytime there is a problem some people want to resort to sniper teams and claymores. That is why they should not be in charge of anything.


----------



## Plainsman

> Listening to the head of the NDSU Extention Service on down the line everyone is saying the same thing. Measure Two was a wake up call.


It certainly was, and high fence operations drew that attention just like it does in Texas. Blaming measure two is slick slight of hand. One only needs to think seriously about it without bias. If a neighbor reports another neighbor for shooting neighborhood dogs who attracted the police the violator or the person who reported the violator? I am always amazed how some people can think backwards.
You know shaug I think maybe you were for measure two. If I was a high fence operator I would be wishing people would shut up and let sleeping dogs lie. Hmmmm????


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> It certainly was, and high fence operations drew that attention just like it does in Texas.


It wasn't so much that the elk growers did anything wrong. The whole issue was a staged media event. A lot of money was spent for advertizing or in other words it was economic development for the media. About a half a million dollars. Of coarse they wanted measure two on the ballot.



> If I was a high fence operator I would be wishing people would shut up and let sleeping dogs lie. Hmmmm????


Would you like me to shut up? If no one was here to rebutt some of your wild accusations, why you could just blow smoke out of balaams *** all day long.


----------



## Csquared

Wait a minute.......

I see mention of sticking to facts all througout this thread, but then see that the potential for the spread of CWD through cervid farming is a "wild accusation"?

Did I miss some of those facts?


----------



## Plainsman

> Would you like me to shut up?


Absolutely not. Keep on talking please. I was sort of kicking myself for saying that.

 Csquare, I see you noticed that too. A while ago gst asked if I could prove cervid raisers were causing it, and I asked the opposing question, can you prove they are not. However circumstantial evidence is on my side isn't it? Wild animals 200, 300, 500 miles from an infection, but a game farm just down the road. I'm pretty sure gst's middle initial doesn't stand for Sherlock. :rollin:


----------



## gst

Chuck, not combative, simply pointing out dispite what the "experts" on Nodak post, the real researchers and professionals readily admit not enough is known about these TSE's to conclusively make claims as to their origin of transference methods. They are indeed finding more and more out about them but to make the claims plainsman did in his first posts in this thread smacks clearly of a personal bias. His inability to show actual proof or fact outside of "explaining" this "common sense" theory has simply demonstrated that he will say anything regardless of factual proof to further his agenda. Most ranchers know that over populations of animals in cofined quarters or open populations results in disease issues. So indeed a responsible steward of livestock considers this.

C squared, the "wild accusation" is someone making statesments such as "when CWD is found in ND" as if it has not been found here in the state when in actuality it HAS been found in ND. "wild accusations" are statements such as guaranteeing that when it is found in ND it will have come from a cervid ranch, when it has been found in ND and the two most professional entities dealing with disease here in the state will not confirm these claims as there is not facts or proof to suggest it.



Plainsman said:


> I'm pretty sure gst's middle initial doesn't stand for Sherlock.


plainsman, one thing old Sherlock ALWAYS had was factual, undisputable PROOF that he based solving crimes on. You should perhaps try it sometime. :wink: "It is quite elementary my dear Watson."

This degbate has been carried on before, and likely the same claims will continue to be made with out any proof other than plainsmans "common sense" to back them up. For some reason I doubt that would carry much weight in the scientific community as "sound science".

So one last time, can you show ANY factual PROOF to back up your claims? YES or NO?


----------



## gst

walleye, if there are no infected animals around for the disease to be transmitted from, where does it originate? This article suggests the possibility of "spontaneous" origin much like other research has in regards to others forms of TSE's in other species. . The point I am making, and have all along, is that even within the scientific community( at least the one that contains experts outside those on this site) the real researchers will admit to not knowing enough about this disease to make rock solid indisputable claims as to it's origin. It is why I included the entire link for people to read rather than just an excerpt from the article, to show that even while making assumptions based on limited existing research of captive cervids and particularily the limited research on wild cervids because of the "wild" uncontrolled aspect of the research, these experts admit to not knowing for sure the causation. So if the real experts can not make these rock solid claims regarding this disease, how can plainsman make the ones he has in regards to this specific instance?

As a rancher that has been significantly impacted directly by the bovine form of TSE (dec 23 2003) and the unfactual claims being made about this disease in the past, my industry has experienced firsthand what people with an agenda will do to further it. Sound science goes out the window and claims without factual basis are made instead to "strike while the iron of fear is hot". These groups with their agendas of ending animal agriculture and the consumption of meat claimed you risked your brain turning to mush if you consumed beef. These claims have been factually repudiated by sound science. There is limited understanding of these bovine TSE's as how they manifest themselves within the bovine species even when researched in larger numbers of captive domestic animals worldwide that can be readily researched and monitered, so how can one begin to make unquestionable scientific claims such as plainsman does regarding these TSE's in wild animals that researchers readily admit are much more difficult to find, diagnose, research and verify ?

Don't take my word for it, contact the NDG&F biologists and vets researching this, contact the State Vets office that moniters and regulates these operations, these are your sources of actual facts regarding this disease and the instance here in ND . If plainsmans claims are true, either of these sources should readily back them up. Ask them if they beleive they could make the claims plainsman has.

To many times legitimate science, sound science, is overshadowed by "claims" of "science" or "fact" by those with an agenda they are trying to further rather than being based on unbiased research (think Global Warming) Finding out the real facts about this disease as well as others is too important to make wild accusations based on clear personal biases claiming to be "science" or "fact" . One would be hard pressed not to conclude plainsman as well as dick do indeed have an "agenda" they are pushing. We need to know the truth, not unbased claims. In the case of the instance here in ND in Souix County, the two most directly involved scientific professional agencies did not come to the conclusion plainsman has, so please explain how it is he is qualified to make the claims he does? . Apparently these agencies have little "common sense" nor are their middle names Sherlock either. :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

> "spontaneous" origin


Sounds like an excuse you have tried before. :wink:

Show me my factual claims. I don't think I made any. I did say animals 500 miles away and a game farm down the road which do you think caused the infection? That's open to discussion. I know what I think. That's opinion. Now it's up to readers to decide if they think my opinion or your "spontaneous origin" is more reasonable. Game farm vs spontaneous origin hmmmm.

I am very surprised that a scientist would use the term "spontaneous origin" since there has been so much fun made of it. You see in Europe long ago before they understood migration they thought that at night plums fell from trees and became geese. They called it "spontaneous origin" and sometimes "spontaneous generation". You will find the two terms interchangeable within the scientific community.



> The theory was synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th Century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory.
> 
> The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented. However, the question of abiogenesis, how living things originally arose from non-living material, remains relevant today.


In ending I would add that it remains relevant today because in the grand scheme of things we are nearly as ignorant today as they were in the dark ages. Unfortunately man's greatest influences are still greed and ignorance.


----------



## gst

plainsman you are certainly able to beleive what you wish regarding scientific studies. Please realize that the suggestion of possible"spontaneous" origin is no different than how many other diseases such as cancer originate and is being suggested by experts in research on these TSE's, not me. So when discussing scientific issues, when you make the claims you did in your very first post in this thread, it would be more credible if you had any facts or proof to back it up.



Plainsman said:


> There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers. Just a matter of time. There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it. Like Dick said corruption in the system. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.
> 
> When it comes you remember who said it would.


plainsman, you keep mentioning "common sense". Wouldn't it be a little bit of "common sense" to beleive the NDG&F would be closely monitoring any potential source to protect the wild population they are charged with protecting from this disease? Wouldn;t it be common sense to beleive the State Vet dept. would be enforcing the regulations they implemented to keep what you are claiming from happening? Do you even know what the regualtions the State Vet Dept. has requireing ALL these animals to be permanantly ID ed and notified upon the animals demise so that the brain stem can be examined ?

But then again perhaps you simply beleive these two govt agencies are "controled" by "farmers" much like the legislature claims you made so nothing they do is legitimate. :eyeroll:

So make your claims, I beleive that much like the voters of ND most people will recognize them for what they are. A personal agenda to impose your ethics onto others, nothing more.

If one wishes to know the truth as based on avalible FACTS, all one has to do is contact the two agencies in charge of dealing with this disease here in ND.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> plainsman, you keep mentioning "common sense". Wouldn't it be a little bit of "common sense" to beleive the NDG&F would be closely monitoring any potential source to protect the wild population they are charged with protecting from this disease? Wouldn;t it be common sense to beleive the State Vet dept. would be enforcing the regulations they implemented to keep what you are claiming from happening? Do you even know what the regualtions the State Vet Dept. has requireing ALL these animals to be permanantly ID ed and notified upon the animals demise so that the brain stem can be examined ?
> 
> But then again perhaps you simply beleive these two govt agencies are "controled" by "farmers" much like the legislature claims you made so nothing they do is legitimate. :eyeroll:


So gst, you are claiming that other state's agencies didn't "closely monitoring any potential source to protect the wild population". You believe they didn't have the same measures as our G&F and State Vet, yet now have these same problems we are talking about? Unfortunately there is only so much you can do when some are dead set to break the law for personal gain. Your argument is laughable.

gst, you sure can't stand knowing someone has a different opinion than you.


----------



## Plainsman

> So make your claims, I beleive that much like the voters of ND most people will recognize them for what they are. A personal agenda to impose your ethics onto others, nothing more.


We all have agenda's gst. Some of us admit it and others are liars. That isn't an accusations since I don't know which way you will fall until you tell me. I see you having an agenda that makes the rest of society slaves to landowners. You say your a conservationist yet you support every bad ag practice out there. Drain, tile, high fence, game farms at any expense etc. Tell me again what makes you a conservationist. No till etc is for your own benefit and simply good agriculture practices. I don't see that as something to hold up like the guy who plants trees, sets aside a couple of acres, joins a local wildlife club gives a couple of bucks for habitat. Most of the things you have told me about are simply as I said, good agriculture practices. I do however commend you for that since not all people do that.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> So gst, you are claiming that other state's agencies didn't "closely monitoring any potential source to protect the wild population". You believe they didn't have the same measures as our G&F and State Vet, yet now have these same problems we are talking about?


longshot, I am not talking about other states or other states agencies nor have I made the claim" you suggest. I am talking about the specific claim plainsman made in regards to the finding of CWD in Souix County here in ND and how and where it originated. Can you provide the factual proof to back up plainsmans claims as to where it came from? The agencies here in ND that closely monitored this situation have not. Nor has he.



Longshot said:


> Unfortunately there is only so much you can do when some are dead set to break the law for personal gain. Your argument is laughable.


So longshot answer this if you would, "some are dead set to break the law" by illegally using a gun to kill someone during a robbery for "personal gain" . Does that mean all guns will do is kill people regardless of the laws we implement to prevent it? does it mean that all guns should be banned simply because a few will break the laws designed to protect?



Longshot said:


> gst, you sure can't stand knowing someone has a different opinion than you.


I could care less what someone else has for an opinion, but when they try to influence others to beleive their "opinion" by making claims they can not back up with facts or proof, I will call bull**** and leave it up to the person to provide the facts to back up their claims. Please show me where plainsman has done so.

plainsman, simply provide fact or proof to back up your claims you make. Go to the G&F or the State Vet and obtain the proof to show what you claim in regards to the incident in Souix County to be true.


----------



## Plainsman

gst go to your dictionary and look up opinion. You either can't understand or are so bull headed you refuse to understand.


----------



## Longshot

gst, you obviously don't understand what an opinion is, nor want to hear how someone comes about that opinion, unless of course someone agrees with you. The same can be said to you, can you prove CWD in Sioux County didn't come from a game farm. I believe our G&F is doing all they can just as other states have, but it is no guarantee that our wildlife is ultimately safe as you seem to claim with your poor "common sense" post.

Also you can come up with as many off the wall scenarios as you like but it would be nice if you could actually have one that made sense and is relevant to the discussion.


----------



## walleyeguy13

The point of the original post sort of got lost in the mix here. As I said, I was probably trying to put too fine a point on it. GST, I understand what you are struggling to point out here... a strong statement was made suggesting that CWD will arrive through cervid ranchers. There is obviously no way to prove this, and I see how that would be annoying in a discussion that should be focused on facts. I interpreted it as a strong opinion and filed it away as such.

There is a much larger argument here and the CWD issue is certainly a part of it. Canned hunting is obviously big business. So big that many feel that it is worth the risk to break the law in order to achieve financial gain. The laws partially address the biological concerns related to CWD and other diseases. That is why I pointed out what I did. I believe it is fairly well established that CWD is laterally transmitted. The laws are there in large part to prevent the possibility of introducing infected animals into wild or captive populations because doing so would put the captive or wild populations at risk of infection through lateral transmission. Because there is currently no way to test a live animal for CWD the logical course of action is to ban the import of live animals from one state to another. The guy in the article got what he deserved... and it sounds like he pretty much knew what was coming once he was caught.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst go to your dictionary and look up opinion. You either can't understand or are so bull headed you refuse to understand.





Longshot said:


> gst, you obviously don't understand what an opinion is


longshot, plainsman it is my "opinion" I know what an opinion is. It is merely your "opinion" that I do not. 

Everyone has an opinion, in the case of the " strong opinion" plainsman gave all that was asked is to provide the factual proof he used to make such a "strong opinion" with. He has not done so outside of his "common sense" claim which can be easily disputed by researchers "opinions" that know far more about this disease than does plainsman. At least that is my "strong opinion" :wink: .

So for you guys that seem to think you know more about definitions than others such as myself, please explain the difference between an "opinion" and an "accusation", heck while you're at it please explain the difference between an "opinion" and flat out bull****. :wink:

Once again as a rancher, I have spent a bit of time informing myself in regards to the TSE which affects cattle. In doing so other research into other TSE's has been a part of the information involved. And the simple fact is the truely unbiased researchers that are basing their data on sound science will readily admit not enough is known about these TSE's in captive animals where they are more easily researched, and even less is known about it in wild populations to make deinite conclusive statments in regards to how and where it originates. They have developed theories in how it is transferred, and are learning more about this disease as research progresses, but much like many other diseases no one knows for sure how it originates.

The trouble is outside of a few researchers doing what they do from an unbiased position, many others as plainsman suggests have an agenda. Taking a look into these agendas and the lengths some go to accomplish them gives a little insight into how much fact, proof and truth is behind the "opinions" that come out of them.

So plainsman, once again, can you simply provide any factual proof to show your "opinion" should be given more credibility or weight than the findings of the 2 state agencies that have spent a great deal of effort researching all aspects of this discovery of CWD here in ND?

Yes or No.


----------



## gst

Walleye, thanks for your understanding, please consider this. Animal agriculture, in this particular case ranching" is "big business". As a result of the finding of an imported cow to have contracted BSE (the bovine form of TSE such as CWD is the cervid form of TSE) back in Dec of 2003, many groups with an admitted "agenda" made many "strong opinions" that were not based in fact or sound science in an attmept to further their agenda of ending animal agriculture and the consumption of beef. Their agenda had NOTHING to do with factually educating people in regards to a disease. Their agenda had NOTHING to do with progressing research regarding this disease. Their agenda had NOTHING to do with protecting anyone or anything other than their own agenda.

So when people who have similar agendas come on sites such as this and make "strong opinions" regarding a disease they know so little about that they do not even correctly identify it is already occured in this state and can not or will not back up these claims with fact or scientific proof, particularily when state agencies findings will not back up their "strong opinions", indeed in does become "annoying" as it does nothing but sidetrack what the debate should be about (factual information regarding a disease), into furthering their agenda.

Now if plainsman would come on here and admit he has an agenda to ban commercial cervid ranches and HFH operations because they go against what his "ethics" are regarding hunting, perhaps a bit of truth and fact would enter into the dialogue. If he were to preface that his "strong opinions" were made without any basis of fact or truth to further this agenda of imposing his "ethics" onto others, rather than to provide factual scientifically sound proof about a serious disease, perhaps some fact and truth would enter this discussion. Until then, I think most can use their "common sense" to see why these "strong opinions" he has yet to back up with any facts or proof were made.

There are many "big business" industries that have significant incentives for people to break the laws regulating them for personal gain. Banking and finance/investment is just one that comes to mind. So should we ban out of existance these industries simply because a small minority of those involved choose not to follow the laws set forth governing? Once you start going down this road of using this arguement as justification for the banning of things where do you suggest we stop? Only with the ones plainsman, longshot and dick wish to ban, or how about the ones Charles Schumer and Diane Fienstein wish to ban based on the same arguement?

Now before someone goes and claims I am suggesting it should be a free for all, that is simply not true. I am a strong advocate for responsible regulations based on sound science and fact, (not "strong opinions") to protect and prevent. Plainsman says everyone has an agenda, THAT is my agenda in regards to conversations about disease issues wether it is CWD and HFH or TB and baiting or BSE and ranching. RESPONSIBLE REGULATION BASED ON SOUND UNBIASED SCIENCE AND PROVABLE FACT.

plainsman wish to sign onto that agenda?


----------



## Plainsman

> I interpreted it as a strong opinion and filed it away as such.


Walleyeguy your absolutely right. Strong opinion based on years of observing human behavior more so than wildlife biology. Put a dollar in front of people and most can resist gambling on disease. Put a few thousand dollars in front of them -----well you know how that goes. CWD will become more prevalent and if you know people you know you can take that to the bank.
It's like the old west bank robbers. Not many would risk getting their neck stretched for $10, but a load of gold changed a lot of minds about taking chances. Forget about gst and me, think about that for a minute, and see what conclusion you come to on your own. I hope you see that as a reasonable request.



> Everyone has an opinion, in the case of the " strong opinion" plainsman gave all that was asked is to provide the factual proof


I think Cool Hand Luke is on tomorrow night. Watch it. Pay close attention to the statement "what we have here,------ is a failure,------- to communicate".
gst, lets put the shoe on the other foot shall we? Can you give me proof that all these cervid raisers in North Dakota are different than the ones already caught in other states risking disease for money? Can you prove to me that all of them for the next many years will comply with all rules? I understand you can't prove those things, and it wouldn't be realistic to ask you to, but all the safety measures your so proud of mean very little when not followed. Do you realistically think everyone will. Can you prove it?

Look at the boat checks along I94 in the summer. Do you think they have ever found any invasives coming into the state? I don't know, but I know they will. It only takes one careless person and sooner or later they come along. Heck, how did leafy spurge get here?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Can you give me proof that all these cervid raisers in North Dakota are different than the ones already caught in other states risking disease for money? Can you prove to me that all of them for the next many years will comply with all rules?


plainsman, I'm not the one coming on here pulling "strong opinions" out of my *** that I can't provide proof to. Here is one of those please show me once again opportunities for you in regards to your claims, please show me where I have ever claimed all cervid ranchers will follow all the regulations regarding their industry???

plain and simple. You claimed "strongly" when CWD was found in this state it would be thru commercial cervid operations. CWD has been found in ND and the 2 state agencies most closely responsible for researching and documenting this have NOT came to the same conclusion you "strongly" have.

Apparently your agenda once again got in the way of any "facts".


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, I'm not the one coming on here pulling "strong opinions"


Sure you have. You have had strong opinion on how well the state monitors and have insinuated it just can't happen here. You and I have had strong opposite opinions. Yours is that ranchers are responsible and will report any problems. My opinion is people are people and ranchers are no different. You think farmers and ranchers are perfect and I think they are like everyone else, no better, no worse. Among any group of people there are those who resist temptation and those who have little resistance. Those who go for the fast buck are often those with the least resistance. It will become more prevalent and it will come through cervid ranches. That's my prediction. Remember it.


----------



## gst

plainsman, please show EXACTLY where I have "insinuated" what you claim. Please show where I "think farmers and ranchers are perfect" as you claim. You keep wanting to make this personal when all I am asking you to do is to provide the "proof" for your claiims you make.

I can not "promise" CWD or any other disease will not at some point be found in a captive "ranch" setting any more than you can "promise" it will. What can be done is to put in place appropriate regulations to lessen the risk and hold those accountable that do not follow these regulations. My position is these regulations be based on sound science rather than personal agendas/vendettas.

You made a very SPECIFIC claim as to CWD and it being found in ND. CWD HAS been found here in ND.

Please show where it came here thru a cervid ranch as you claimed it would in your "strong opinion" at the start of this discussion.

Re: Poacher gets 1.5 million dollar fine
by Plainsman » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:51 pm

Quote "*There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers*." End quote.

So given the FACT CWD HAS been found here in ND please provide the proof to back up this "strong opinion" you have made.

Until you can back up this claim with proof rather than side stepping the responsibilities for your "strong opinions/accusations" , there really is not much further to say.


----------



## Plainsman

> I interpreted it as a strong opinion and filed it away as such.





> Until you can back up this claim with proof


Why bother since you don't grasp the English language? :wink:

I have said that I think ethanol is a net energy loss. We already know you disagree with that. Let me give you another one to chews on. I think there are many great things about agriculture, and I do respect it, but I'm not a robot that things everything they do is right. For example one of my pet pieves is that advertisement for corn sugar. You know the one where the lady is mixing drinks for the kids and she says sugar is sugar your body can't tell the difference? Well what a bunch of bs. Corn starch has to go through an acid bath to become sugar, and then it's high fructose not regular sugar. Your body does know the difference because it makes you much more susceptible to diabetes. The soda pop companies use it because it's cheap. The buck wins again with little thought to the health costs of the consumer. Not to mention the misery. This is one of those things you will defend no matter the cost to society and individuals. Am I right or wrong?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I have said that I think ethanol is a net energy loss. We already know you disagree with that


plainsman once again, please show where I have said this.



Plainsman said:


> Let me give you another one to chews on. I think there are many great things about agriculture, and I do respect it, but I'm not a robot that things everything they do is right. For example one of my pet pieves is that advertisement for corn sugar. You know the one where the lady is mixing drinks for the kids and she says sugar is sugar your body can't tell the difference? Well what a bunch of bs. Corn starch has to go through an acid bath to become sugar, and then it's high fructose not regular sugar. Your body does know the difference because it makes you much more susceptible to diabetes. The soda pop companies use it because it's cheap. The buck wins again with little thought to the health costs of the consumer. Not to mention the misery. This is one of those things you will defend no matter the cost to society and individuals. Am I right or wrong?


What the hell are you talking about??? 

We have gone from a discussion about your claims of how CWD came into ND to corn syrup?????? :roll:

One hint, when someone asks you to please show where they have made the statement you claim they have, your credibility takes a pretty good hit when you can not show where they made the statement you claim they did.

Make whatever "strong opinion/accusation" you wish, all that is asked is when it is as much an accusation as opinion, you provide the proof to back it up. You have not.


----------



## Plainsman

Once again "failure to communicate".

My only point is whenever I disagree with some small aspect of agriculture your there to defend it no matter how destructive it is. I don't like tile, you defend it, I don't like high fence, you defend it, I don't like etc etc, you defend it. The corn syrup was just thrown out as another thing I think you would defend. After all why worry about a few thousand cases of diabetes when there is a buck to be made.
Oh, and by the way do you agree with my opinion that corn ethanol is a huge expense to the American taxpayer and results in not less, but more foreign oil dependence? Do you agree that it's not a program for energy independence, but simply another ag redistribution of wealth program?



> strong opinion/accusation





> you provide the proof to back it up


gst, gst, this is third grade understanding. Others on here have indicated that they understand it's strong opinion. You add your little "accusation" to try make more of it than it is, or to cover your tracks on the foolish proof, proof, proof. If that is the way you feel and one must have proof to have an opinion then please provide me the proof that non of these high fence people will introduce cwd, provide proof that tile will not put water into already flooded conditions, provide proof gst. As a matter of fact provide proof to me that you really are a hunter/sportsman and not just an ag mouthpiece. Your not on the legislature are you?

Your right we should stay on track. The subject was a "Poacher gets 1.5 million dollar fine". Is there something about that that you don't like? Maybe he was a rancher too right? :wink: :wink: :wink: Hey I know, I'll follow your lead with: Rancher/Poacher gets 1.5 million dollar fine. :wink: :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers. Just a matter of time. There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it. Like Dick said corruption in the system. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.
> 
> When it comes you remember who said it would.


 Plainsman please revist the start of this thread and realize it was not I that diverted this topic from a poacher getting a $1.5 million dollar fine to a discussion regarding CWD, but you that took this "off topic" with your "strong opinion".

Fact: CWD is already in ND.

Please provide any documentation that shows the accusations you made above are factually true.

.


----------



## Plainsman

> Please provide any documentation that shows the accusations you made above are factually true.


Once again you prove you can't understand.

I remember back to articles I have read about cwd transferred to states and it nearly always included people raising these animals. Now if you want to educate yourself that's find, but I have better things to do. So I offer them as opinion, and that leaves me time to mow my lawn, clean my pond, feed my fish, go to the local sport shop, attend three or four bible classes per week, spend time on vacation with family, etc. I'm not going to spend my time sifting through literature. I did that for 36 years and now I am retired. It's up to you to defeat your own ignorance. If you really care about these things don't depend on others.

Yes this has gotten off subject, slightly. I like the fact that this guy got a 1.5 million dollar fine because he is the type of person who would have cheated on testing for cwd. I think North Dakota will have them too. After all we are following the Texas model. Soon those who make less than $250,000 a year can put away their guns, or trade them for garden rakes.


----------



## gst

The issue here in regards to these diseases, wether it be CWD in cervids or BSE in cattle or other diseases is that there are groups and individuals that will use them simply to further an agenda. They care less about the disease itself or it's impact than they do in how it will further their "cause". In the case of BSE groups such as PETA, HSUS and others that have an anti animal ag agenda make "strong opinions" regarding this disease that they can not factually substantiate based on research and sound science and the actual findings based of this. This very same thing is being done by individuals and groups regarding CWD to further their agendas. What benefit in how these diseases are researched, prevented, dealt with results from such rhetoric that can not be substantiated ??????

In regards to CWD here in ND, it has already been found in wild deer here in this state already contrary to plainsmans beleif. Do people like plainsman and dick engage in fact based rational discussion about this disease and it's being found here in this state based off information the professional agencies here in ND most knowledgable about this incident can provide??? No. They infer, make "strong opinions" they can not substantiate, and flat out accuse rather than responsibly discuss.

Dick, plainsman, please show one single post you have made regarding CWD here in ND that references the findings of our two professional state agencies as it pertains to CWD in ND.

People such as dick and plainsman are eagerly awaiting CWD to be found in a captive cervid operation simply to be able to say "I told you so" in regards to their agendas. Until it is they will infer any wild case came from captive sources without any substantive information from our own state agencies. The fact is Plainsman can not guarantee the source will be a captive operation any more than I can gaurantee it will not. In regards to CWD that has been found here in ND, the facts gathered by the two state agencies most directly involved and that have the most direct information regarding the finding of CWD here in the state do not substantiate plainsmans claims.

So I guess it is up to the individual to choose who to believe regarding the instances of CWD here in ND, a former sponsor of an initiated measure to ban HFH that has made claims against the ethics of hunting within a fence such as the most recent one comparing some one that does to a "pedophile thinking they are the worlds greatest lover", or professional vetrinarians, biologists, and scientists of the State Vetrinarians office and the NDG&F dept.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Now if you want to educate yourself that's find, but I have better things to do. .


 That might explain things!!! :wink:


----------



## ShineRunner

This is for year 2010, gst are there any closed fence operations or commercial raising of deer, cervids in or around the area mentioned below?

One mule deer taken last fall in unit 3F2 in western Grant County tested positive for CWD, the second positive sample taken from a North Dakota animal. The first was taken during the deer gun season in 2009, also from a mule deer in unit 3F2.


----------



## gst

I do not know the locations of captive cervid operations. The ND State Vets office does as well as the NDG&F Dept. It is the State Vets office that moniters and regulates the cervid operations here in ND , and they work closely with the NDG&F in regards to their findings to monitor the animals in these operations. I know the people in this office. They are DEDICATED professionals.

As I said before, do not take either mine or plainsmans word in this issue. These state agencies have people that have spent their lifetime dealing with disease and the facts and issues surrounding them. Perhaps if dick or plainsman would share actual information and findings from these two agencies regarding the direct cases here in ND rather than posting what happens elsewhere, their claims regarding CWD here in the state would carry more weight.

If anyone wcares to please answer the following questions.

Given the finding of CWD in these areas, do you beleive the NDG&F as well as the State Vets office will more closely monitor any cervid operations located in the area to identify if there exists CWD within these operations?

At some point CWD may be found in a captive operation here in ND. If one is using this arguement of possibility to suggest these operations be banned to prevent this from happening, how then do you counter the arguement by the anti gun people that eventually a gun will be used to murder someone so this possibility warrants banning all guns?


----------



## ShineRunner

In researching the issue I came across this little tidbit.

CWD, GAME FARMS, BAITING, AND POLITICS 
Monday, January 05, 2009

IN regards to CWD, baiting, and game farms, _science shows_ us that game farms can be nothing short of a Petri dish for prions. Science shows us also that BOTH (game farms and baiting) enhances the spreading of CWD, and with baiting, the enhancements comes from multiple routes i.e. feeding of TSE tainted feed to cervids and the horizontal transmission from humans by _non-natural_ enhancement of congregating cervids by feeding. So, if your feeding them 50 lb. bags of potentially tainted TSE feed, and or planting a food plot, or throwing a bucket of beets out, you enhance the potential for CWD. I see no political agenda for the ban on baiting and or the ban on game farms, if that is what it takes. ...


----------



## gst

shine, if you would, please include the link so the entire article can be read as well as the source from which it originated. It would be interesting to see what knowledge the author of this article has in regards to "TSE tainted feeds" and the bans that have been put in place that prevent animal by products that could possibly contain TSE prions from being used in feed manufacturing.

Given your posting of this excerpt including the ending "if that's what it takes" , it would be interesting to hear your answer to the question I asked regarding how you would respond to those wishing to ban guns using this very same arguement.


----------



## ShineRunner

I think we should ban cars, people kill more people with them, than people do with guns!


----------



## ShineRunner

Here is one website with info. Look under *Transmission and Spread of CWD*, it would correlate to being propagated and spread by/through cervid farms along with movement to and from. Not saying that is the only way. Common sense would dictate that cervid farming has a really high average for causing the problem.

I live at the entrance to a state park (no hunting allowed) the deer have over populated and look really bad. I talked with a guy that used to work there and he said the didn't check for cwd but did for some other diseases. Whatever happens with the park deer will affect our healthy heard outside the park.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/researchreports/report16.pdf

This is a deer killed by my home. I have seen much larger deer in ND and KS but this is respectable for my area.


----------



## gst

shine thanks for the link to that article. There are some good sound science information in it. Here are a couple of excerpts from it as well.

In western Nebraska, where CWD occurs, NWRC is using telemetry to
learn about the ranges and movements of mule and white-tailed deer.
At the same time, surveillance is being conducted at the county level
to locate infected deer, particularly along the North Platte River. *The
potential exists for CWD to move east along the river rather quickly*
if management actions are not taken. NWRC researchers are also
continuing a long-term study of the ecology of deer along the Missouri
River. Data from these studies will be used in the development of
movement models and formation of management decisions.

Also from this link:

*Once more is learned about the
ecology of the disease;* the cervids and other species it affects; and
the transmission, prevalence and persistence of CWD in wild and
captive cervids, *the knowledge can be used not only to manage the
disease but also to educate the public about CWD disease* and any
associated risks. Insights gained through these studies will also aid in
the understanding of other wildlife diseases, such as bovine spongiform
encephalopathy.

Although I was not aware BOVINE spongiform encephalopathy was a "wildlife" disease.


----------



## gst

also from this link.

*The origin of CWD is unknown*. The disease may have existed in the wild or began in captivity under abnormally high deer densities.

So how would it manifest itself in isolated wild animals?

also:

Interactions of Wild and Farmed Cervids Through Game-Farm Fences-NWRC biologists are using track plots and motion-activated video to determine how farmed and wild cervids (mule deer, white-tailed deer, and Rocky Mountain elk) interact through game-farm fences. The primary objective of the study is to determine if disease transmission risk exists along game-farm fences. Nine fences around elk farms in Colorado and five fences around white-tailed deer farms in Michigan are being evaluated.Observations have found considerable variation in the species, sex,age class, and number of wild cervids that frequent game-farm fencelines. Preliminary information indicates that direct interactions between farmed and wild white-tailed deer appear less common thanbetween farmed and wild elk. Game-farm management practices such as stocking rates, proximity of males to females, feeding procedures and fence construction all appear to contribute to the potentialfor interaction. Based on these results, recommendations for methods of reducing interactions will be developed and made available to ranchers.

No mention or "strong opinion" of banning captive cervid ranching. And yet once again (please note the emboldened):

*Once more is learned about the ecology of the disease;* the cervids and other species it affects; and the transmission, prevalence and persistence of CWD in wild and captive cervids, *the knowledge can be used not only to manage the
disease but also to educate the public about CWD disease and any associated risks.*

I for one will place more credibility in the findings based on sound science and research than plainsmans "strong opinion" festered in a personal agenda.


----------



## Plainsman

That sounds very good. I will have to call and talk with the biologist in charge of the research. Don't expect me to divulge data that is yet unpublished. I know you will want "proof" of any opinion I may have.

I'm always happy to see research for a better understanding of things if its disease, habitat, or species directed. However, no amount of knowledge in the world will change guys like the cheater in Texas. Many things would be possible, but human failure (greed in most cases) is always the culprit.

gst, are you willing to take risks with things that don't provide ag income? Your bias appears to me as very extreme. I noticed in the news last night that farmers will now need proper license to drive vehicles on public roadways. I would guess your against that. To me it compares to the use of chemicals. A professional chemical aplicator has to jump through a lot of hoopes to apply chemical, while a farmer only needs to spend a day. I have always looked at that like giving your four year old hand grenades to play with. Just trying to get a grasp on the depth of your bias, to see what your willing to endanger. Since you never post in the deer hunting form, or the fishing form, and only ag related subjects I am guessing you would risk wildlife without a blink. Is that close, or am I wrong, and can you prove it? :wink:


----------



## gst

plainsman, I have repeatedly stated I simply post on this site to bring an ag perspective to some topics that start on here. I try to remain courteous, polite and factual and try when I can to provide links to the information I source. I try to refrain from insinating or accusing family members of people posting on here I have never met of childish things. I try to refrain from claiming people have said things they have not, and if asked to show where someone has said something try my best to do so. I have little interest in discussing deer hunting or fishing with people on here when I have ample friends that are as knowledgeable as most on here if I have a question. Beleive what you wish about me personally though you have never once met me to form an "opinion" on with any degree of actaul knowledge or accuracy. So your assumptions regarding me personally are as accurate as your claims no till planting of corn was not happening.

Simply try to refrain from pulling crap out of your *** you can not back up factually and I would have little reason to even post on your site.


----------



## gst

Oh, one question, shine from the data written in the link you posted, could wild cervids transmit CWD to captive cervids?


----------



## ShineRunner

Yes it could very well happen if the farm doesn't have double fence or other restraints. Also contagious animals could break free before getting so sick they couldn't escape.


----------



## Plainsman

We debate disease, but actually for me it's people that are the biggest problem. I have been observing them for 63 years and if you expect something stupid from humanity as a group they will never let you down.

I see a two level threat from cervid farms. I see a mid range threat when animals are worth about $1000 or less, but a huge threat when they get to $5000 or more.

There are two types of people. Myself, I don't gamble. I can spend an entire evening at a casino and spend nothing on gambling. Others who think they may actually win will gamble. Those who think they can win a lot will gamble more. When it comes to wildlife and gambling I'm not willing to risk much because I have so much to loose. Others who put little value on wildlife are willing to risk more. Those who can make large profits and care little for wildlife are willing to risk a lot more.

That is why my opinion goes beyond the biology. Whether or not cwd has been found in North Dakota or not is important, but not as important as it becoming prevalent. It's the unknown infection that can spread before we have a chance to contain it. When a captive deer or elk gets infected and has a high value what will happen? When a captive buck in some other state is just starting to show symptoms, and can be had at a bargain price during breeding season what will happen? When a very large buck in some other state that normally would be worth $10,000 can be purchased for $500 and a rancher knows a hunter who will pay the $10,000 to shoot this deer what is going to happen?

Does anyone remember that buck from Minnesota that made it's way by night in a stock trailer to I think it was Tennessee? What is going to keep that from happening in other states? What is going to keep that from happening in North Dakota? To be on topic doesn't this same behavior relate to the guy in Texas? Our problem is always people. Disease can be contained until there is a buck to be made. No pun intended.

A dozen safety measures mean nothing if a person is intent on violating them. We are always being guaranteed and we are always being let down. Oh, and gst, he who swears the most doesn't automatically win. :wink:


----------



## gst

So shine, if CWD is found on a cervid ranch for the first time in an area where new cases of CWD have been discovered in wild animals if you are looking at this in an unbiased manner could you make a "strong opinion" as to which animal infected which?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> .I see a two level threat from cervid farms.
> 
> I'm not willing to risk much because I have so much to loose. Others who put little value on wildlife are willing to risk more. Those who can make large profits and care little for wildlife are willing to risk a lot more. quote]
> 
> So plainsman actually honestly answer this one question. What would you propose to deal with this "threat " that "risks" your "having so much to lose" ?


----------



## Plainsman

Well, I think that study about interaction between wild and wild but reared tame will tell us more. I think a double fence ten feet apart would be good, but at the same time we need to learn more about transmitting the disease. Those things should be learned before we allow even one more cervid ranch. If a couple of hundred ranches are going everyone will say it's to late to turn back. I think many have that attitude now, but if it's to dangerous it's better to stop cervid ranching soon when it hurts fewer people. 
These people were encouraged by others so if they need to stop raising animals it's only fair they get a buy out.

Next if there is no danger of cwd and we don't allow cross breeding of species with danger of escape into the wild then let them raise deer and elk. There are many more concerns than just cwd. Remember the guy in Idaho that was crossing elk with European species to get bigger horns? What scares me most is the record these people already have around the United States. Do you seriously think North Dakota ranchers are any different? I highly doubt it.

Perhaps you can tell me about the guy in Wisconsin who had infected deer and when the DNR came to destroy them the fence had magically been breached and the deer escaped. Was it a tractor or a tree that fell on that fence, and was it a double fence? I don't remember, but maybe someone reading this will and can tell us about it. You see gst they have made many wrong moves and I don't think a lot of them were accidents. Perhaps if they had about a five million dollar insurance policy to pay whoever needs to clean up their possible mess. This is to important to sportsmen, and a good chunk of the economy for North Dakota. I had a personal conversation with a large vehicle dealer one day and he estimated that 60% of his 4X4 sales were to hunters. I then asked that same question of a Polaris dealer and a Honda dealer and they thought their percentage was much larger. So you see there are many people that can get hurt by loosing our deer herd.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I think many have that attitude now, but if it's to dangerous it's better to stop cervid ranching soon when it hurts fewer people.
> These people were encouraged by others so if they need to stop raising animals it's only fair they get a buy out.





Plainsman said:


> Do you seriously think North Dakota ranchers are any different? I highly doubt it.
> 
> Perhaps you can tell me about the guy in Wisconsin who had infected deer and when the DNR came to destroy them the fence had magically been breached and the deer escaped. Was it a tractor or a tree that fell on that fence, and was it a double fence? I don't remember, but maybe someone reading this will and can tell us about it. You see gst they have made many wrong moves and I don't think a lot of them were accidents.


So you are advocating banning the raising of cervids because the risk of the consequences of one person breaking the law are to great to risk all you have to lose?? Yes or no?


----------



## Plainsman

> So you are advocating banning the raising of cervids because the risk of the consequences of one person breaking the law are to great to risk all you have to lose?? Yes or no?


Not at this point, and only if very necessary. Wouldn't you agree? Also, since this discussion should be about punishment if one of our ranchers releases a known infected animal what do you think the punishment should be? I think it needs to be enough to make them think long and hard about the gamble they are willing to take. I think the greater danger is they hide an infected animal or transport to another state. If that happens gst what do you think the punishment should be? Do you think they should be held accountable?



> plainsman, I have repeatedly stated I simply post on this site to bring an ag perspective to some topics that start on here.


So you admit you have an agenda, but scold others for having one. Have I not explained that everyone has an agenda. Do you hope for your son to take over your farm? That's an agenda. My agenda is that my great grandchildren can still hunt without being millionaires. Is that a bad agenda? My agenda is that there are wild deer left for them to hunt. Is that a bad agenda. My opinion is that the thousands of hunters in North Dakota and the millions they spend are more important than twelve high fence operations. Is that unreasonable? Please notice I didn't say they were not important because I believe the people are. If I was carrying a deadly disease that spread easily and would kill people should I be quarantined even thou my life is important to at least me and maybe two three other people?

I have an agenda and I admit it. You have an agenda and unwittingly admit it and scold others who have an agenda. Engage the old grey matter old boy. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> I try to remain courteous, polite and factual


I see you really do have a sense of humor. :wink:



> I have little interest in discussing deer hunting or fishing with people on here


That sounds to me like you don't give a rats behind about anyone on here, and that your simply here to further your agenda. I got your point clear as crystal.


----------



## Csquared

> o·pin·ion   /əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled
> [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
> 
> -noun
> 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds *insufficient to produce complete certainty. *2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.


Looks to me like you got all the proof you need to have as strong an opinion as your keyboard can type, Plainsman. You can hate cervid farming because of CWD fears, or simply because you don't own one....or anywhere in between.

That's the beauty of talk forums.....just a place for people to post their opinions to give others something to think (or talk) about.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> My opinion is that the thousands of hunters in North Dakota and the millions they spend are more important than twelve high fence operations.





Plainsman said:


> Those things should be learned before we allow even one more cervid ranch.





Plainsman said:


> but if it's to dangerous it's better to stop cervid ranching soon when it hurts fewer people


plainsman I am not going to waste time getting into a childish personal back and forth. You have made enough statements on this site to raise suspicion about any claim you make that you do not wish to shut down cervid ranches in ND. Please realize most people are smart enough to realize that. You were sponsor of an initiated measure that would have ultimately done just that. You wish to go down the path of banning something if there is a significant risk to what "you have to lose" . The gun control advocates argue that the "risk" of people having guns is that they will be used by people who do not wish to follow the law and commit crimes including murder. Do you feel the loss of life is more substantial than the "loss of a deer herd"?

As to the rules and regulations governing these ranches, I'll leave that to the professionals that understand the issues involved more so than you or I.

As to why I am even on your site of late, I made it perfectly clear, if you would simply stop making claims that you can not back up, I would not have to even be on here. So please for my sake and those that perhaps would like to have this kind of BS disappear, simply do not make unfactual claims such as you did in your first post in this thread, and I will leave your site to those of you that wish to talk hunting and fishing.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers. Just a matter of time. There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it. Like Dick said corruption in the system. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.
> 
> When it comes you remember who said it would.


Csquared all that was asked from the very beginning was given the fact CWD has already been found here in ND was to substantiate the "strong opinion" plainsman made that it would come here thru a cervid ranch. I guess if people wish to make "strong opinions" that are not factually accurate or that can not be substantiated with proof or fact. it is most certainly their right to do so on sites such as this regardless of what it does to their credibility. So for example if you were to come on here and have a "strong opinion" that no till planting of corn is not happening in a discussion regarding current farming practices, your credibility regarding current farming practices would, well you probably get the picture.

The beauty of talk forums also is that when you come on one and pull crap (strong opinions) out of your *** with out being able to substantiate them, (by the way what is the difference between a "strong opinion and an accusation?) someone will likely call you on it.So plainsman I'll ask you the same question I did shine. Can a wild cervid infect a captive one with CWD. Please share a "strong opinion" with us regarding this one direct question. While your answering questions, have researchers ever identified a live wild cervid with CWD prior to the cervid dying?


----------



## ShineRunner

I have allways heard that opinions are like azzholes everyone has one. I will complete this thought, I take what people say with a grain of salt and come to my own conclusions. There is an ad on tv about news gathering, the dude say's that he has to report and explain the complicated issues to the viewers. BS :******: :eyeroll: . Tell me the news and let me figure it out!!!



gst said:


> So shine, if CWD is found on a cervid ranch for the first time in an area where new cases of CWD have been discovered in wild animals if you are looking at this in an unbiased manner could you make a "strong opinion" as to which animal infected which?


Yes gst my opinion is that the fenced deer are more likely to be diseased than range animals because of the close proximity and being put together from different areas.

We are waiting on the heavily populated deer herd in the State Park (no hunting allowed) near here to get sick and spill over to the healthy deer in my area.


----------



## Plainsman

> You wish to go down the path of banning something if there is a significant risk to what "you have to lose" . The gun control advocates argue that the "risk" of people having guns is that they will be used by people who do not wish to follow the law and commit crimes including murder. Do you feel the loss of life is more substantial than the "loss of a deer herd"?


I'm not sure if I should be angry with you for trying to prey on the stupid, or feel sorry for you because you do not understand. First off that is just a chicken little attitude. Second the raising of cervids is not a right it is a priveledge gained by permit. Firearms on the other hand are a right guaranteed by the constitution. Your trying to compare apples and watermelon to scare people. I know the HSUS scare tactic worked during the high fence debates, but a third grader should be able to see through this current ploy.

I notice people are trying to get you to understand what an opinion is. It appears it has not worked yet, but keep thinking about what they have posted.



> As to why I am even on your site of late, I made it perfectly clear, if you would simply stop making claims that you can not back up, I would not have to even be on here. So please for my sake and those that perhaps would like to have this kind of BS disappear, simply do not make unfactual claims such as you did in your first post in this thread, and I will leave your site to those of you that wish to talk hunting and fishing.


Wow, it sounds like your laying down the rules for us.



> Can a wild cervid infect a captive one with CWD.


Please get serious gst. Your not playing in the sandbox with second graders. Do you honestly think someone is dumb enough to think disease doesn't go both ways? It's like me asking you if the sun comes up in the west.

I still say cwd is going to become very serious here in the future, and I am certain it will come through a cervid ranch. Like I said before remember who said it. A ford pickup can bring it here from a long distance faster than it can travel through the wild herd.


----------



## gst

plainsman, simply put so even a 2nd grader can understand. You claimed when CWD came to ND it would come thru a cervid ranch. CWD IS in ND so substantiate your claim as to where it came from. Recall if you would, you wanted us to remember who made that claim! :wink:

Rights or the lack of are not defined by the requirement of a permit. In many states and cities you can not own a firearm unless "permitted" by law. Simply because you are by law required to obtain a permit to raise captive cervids, does not mean it is not your "right" to do so. There are many things that limit or restrict our "rights", please do not get confused, it is not as much "apples and watermelon" as you would wish people to beleive. We held this debate about the "rights" during the HFH fiasco. If you wish reference that discussion. There were links provided both state and federal that you might find interesting. Tell me this if a law was passed banning the raising of captive cervids, would there be a takings hearing in regards to the loss of this private property and industry?

The point was brought up to simply question where your "risk of loss" priorities or hypocracy stand.

So simply substantiate your claim or realize the credibility of your "strong opinions" ( ag practices/notill corn planting) once again is not what you wish others to beleive.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Can a wild cervid infect a captive one with CWD.
> 
> Please get serious gst. Your not playing in the sandbox with second graders. Do you honestly think someone is dumb enough to think disease doesn't go both ways? It's like me asking you if the sun comes up in the west[/quote
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman wrote:
> 
> When it comes you remember who said it would.
Click to expand...

We should all remember what you have just stated regarding disease transfer. So given the fact CWD has already been found in wild cervids here in ND, if a case should be identified in a captive herd can you prove it was not infected by a wild cervid?

For some reason I have the feeling if a case of CWD was found in a captive operation, there would be plenty of "strong opinions" on this site. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> As to why I am even on your site of late, I made it perfectly clear, if you would simply stop making claims that you can not back up, I would not have to even be on here. So please for my sake and those that perhaps would like to have this kind of BS disappear, simply do not make unfactual claims such as you did in your first post in this thread, and I will leave your site to those of you that wish to talk hunting and fishing.
Click to expand...

Wow, it sounds like your laying down the rules for us.


> Plainsman if you wish to have a site where people make unfactual claims or as you call them "strong opinions" they can not substantiate, that is certainly your perogative. As you have locked threads before after getting in one last little insinuation or snide comment yourself, it is clear who makes the rules on your site. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

I am not going to talk about damaging the site again. Strike two. This should be in PM's but your to disrespectful for me to tolerate in PM's.



> "strong opinions" they can not substantiate


As for the same old proof, what's wrong that you can't get opinion understood? We could use a good representative of agriculture to talk with, but your not it. As you like to say "stop making it personal". Perhaps we should get back to the subject and drop the rest of this. Yes, do that, and so will I.


----------



## Csquared

gst wrote:


> The beauty of talk forums also is that when you come on one and pull crap (strong opinions) out of your a$$ with out being able to substantiate them, (by the way what is the difference between a "strong opinion and an accusation?) someone will likely call you on it.


"the reason we have so many murders is because too many people drive black cars"....opinion

"Your neighbor is dead, and you drive a black car, therefore.... you killed your neighbor".....accusation

Quite a difference, gst...don't you think?

But I have to point out something I suspect is redundant, but want to verify. This all started by one man saying that, in his opinion, CWD will come to the ND wild deer population by way of cervid ranching, and it has become another man's mission to discredit him by pressing him for scientific proof that has yet to be determined. My question is does anyone else see the irony in an argument that implies opinions opposite of his have no merit due to the lack of science to back them up when the very same lack of science also makes it impossible to back HIS opinion? Sort of like 2 people walking up to a closed door and implying if person #2 doesn't know what's on the other side of the door than he is obviously not as smart as person #1 (who _ALSO_ hasn't a clue!)

gst also wrote:


> plainsman I am not going to waste time getting into a childish personal back and forth


.

33 posts and tens of thousands of words in this thread alone I believe crossed the line of wasted time in a personal back n forth by virtually anyone's standards. Your opinion differs from Plainsman's. We all got that by your second post. Everything since has been an attempt to discredit thinly disguised as an attempt to educate. A credibility attack, and credibility is not a necessary ingredient of an opinion.

But credibility DOES affect the effect that opinion has on others......

....Hence your 33 posts :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. *It will come through the local cervid raisers.* Just a matter of time. * There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it.* *Like Dick said corruption in the system*. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.
> 
> When it comes you remember who said it would.





Csquared said:


> "Your neighbor is dead, and you drive a black car, therefore.... you killed your neighbor".....accusation


Csquared, If I were to make that accusation you stated above and someone asked me to substatiated it with proof, would it suddenly become a "strong opinion" if I then backpedaled and simply claimed it to be a "strong opinion" because I did NOT or could not substantiate it??

IF (please note the capital letters on the word IF, it is not a type o) IF CWD had NOT already been discovered in ND and plainsman made the statement he had in regards to how it would get here thru a cervid ranch, THAT would be an opinion. Given the FACT CWD had already been found in ND and he made a statement as to local cervid raisers being the source in how it would come into ND and why, what does that make that claim???

Some times there is a very distinct difference between opinion and accusation other times there is a very fine line between opinion and accusation. 
ie. CWD will come into ND thru local cervid raisers, OR local cervid raisers brought CWD into ND. Opinion, accusation????? Intent perhaps one in the same??? 
Given plainsmans stance on Cervid ranching and his direct involvement in trying to end it and his comments over the years on record on this site, most would beleive his "strong opinions" regarding cervid ranching in ND is a hairs breath away from accusation if not outright there. Note the emboldened "opinion/accusation" in plainsmans above quote.

After all he has "accused" me of not even being a hunter without ever meeting me,accused me of being a HF operator, accused me of making statements and claims I have never made ( recall all the "please show me where" questions in any number of threads), accused my son of making "georges" of his FFA pheasant raising project to the point of betting "dimes to dollars" (which he never backed up when he was called) , ect..... so his propensity to make accusations is quite well documented. (perhaps those were only "strong opinions" as well) But in the end, it matters little wether it is an accusation or opinion that someone makes that is asked to be substantiated and they will not.

27 posts and "tens of thousands of words" and not even one single attempt to substantiate a "strong opinion" that was made. Credibility, riiiiight :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I am not going to talk about damaging the site again. Strike two. This should be in PM's but your to disrespectful for me to tolerate in PM's.


Plainsman when I first got on this site we had a number of cordial conversations in the PM feature, you even complimented me on my dedication to conservation and wildlife, right up until I took a position on an issue (HFH) you did not agree with and then your "opinion" of me personally took a one eighty from what you had wrote in those PM's, So why would I take this to the PM's??

I could care less about "damaging this site" as you claim I wish to. Understand, the "talk" is not about YOUR site or damaging it, it is about some peoples propensity to make claims they can not substantiate on this site. Some people have a term for that, you might even discuss it in your bible studies. So threaten strike one, two or three all you wish, lock this thread, kick me off the site rather than simply substantiate a "strong opinion" you made when asked to or admit you can not. (maybe even throw in an apology to my son while your at it) Given your personal bias you have made abundantly clear even to the point of insulting my son you have never met either, most people would know why.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> *My question* is does anyone else see the irony in an argument that implies opinions opposite of his have no merit due to the lack of science to back them up when the very same lack of science also makes it impossible to back HIS opinion? Sort of like 2 people walking up to a closed door and implying if person #2 doesn't know what's on the other side of the door than he is obviously not as smart as person #1 (who ALSO hasn't a clue!)


So someone does not make a "strong opinion" that I do not answer questions related to the discussion, if you note in posts I have made I have repeatedly stated thru out that not enough factual knowledge is known regarding this disease for EITHER plainsman or myself to make defined claims as to where and how it originates. I beleive I have even stated at some point it will likely be found in a captive herd, odds dictate that. But even then this unfinished science as we know it as of today can not conclusively claim where it originated, particularily when it was first found in wild cervids here in ND.

Please show me where I have ever made a defined claim (even asking for people to remember who made the claim/strong opinion) in what was behind that closed door in regards to CWD and where and how it originates. There in lies the difference as well as the lack of irony.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> I'm not sure if I should be angry with you for trying to prey on the stupid, or feel sorry for you because you do not understand. First off that is just a chicken little attitude. Second the raising of cervids is not a right it is a priveledge gained by permit. Firearms on the other hand are a right guaranteed by the constitution. Your trying to compare apples and watermelon to scare people. I know the HSUS scare tactic worked during the high fence debates, but a third grader should be able to see through this current ploy.


Owning property is a right. Plainsman, when did it become a privledge? It is a states rights issue until the fed/gov gets involved.

On June 16th, 2011 Rep. Steve Cohen introduced H.R. 2210: Sportsmanship in Hunting Act of 2011.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2210

It has 8 cosponsers. All anti-hunters anti-Second Amendment. Dick Monson has said here several times that high fence would be eliminated someday at the federal level but he never gave any links. Here is the rest of the story.

On June 20th Animal Planet did an expose for the Humane Society about HFH in the United States.

http://animal.discovery.com/tv-schedule ... 130237.0.0

The program was mostly about two under cover agents pretending to be deep-deep undercover trying to get the goods on high fence operations but they really didn't have anything. The end of the clip was the most interesting with the CEO of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle meeting with Rep. Steve Cohen. The program flopped with the general public so Animal Planet discontinued airing it.

Rep. Steve Cohens bill, H.R. 2210: Sportsmanship in Hunting Act of 2011 has probably been introduced eight times in the last ten years. Has never made it out of committee. The high water mark came back in 2005 when a Senate companion bill was also introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]. It had 18 Senate cosponsers.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-304

Robert Menéndez [D-NJ13]
Daniel Akaka [D-HI]
Joseph Biden [D-DE]
Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
Jon Corzine [D-NJ]
Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Russell Feingold [D-WI]
Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
John Kerry [D-MA]
Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Mary Landrieu [D-LA]
Carl Levin [D-MI]
Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
Patty Murray [D-WA]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Ron Wyden [D-OR]

Plainsman, you claim you are a conservative, but you carry water for whom? Feinstein? Schumer? Anyway, it is said, that when it comes to national trends North Dakota is about 5 years behind. That would be about correct. On the national level this fair chase thingy promoted by these anti-hunting democrats peeked in 2005. Hey, remember Sen. John Kerry running for president in 2004 when he showed up in that hardware store dressed up like Elmer Fudd and said in a dumb accent, "kin i git me a huntin license here." The people behind "Sportsman for John Kerry" was the National Wildliffe Federation. The reason: Sen. John Kerrys wife is Terasa Heins-Kerry. She is heiress to Heins Ketchup. She gave 2 million to the National Wildlife Federation.

The National Wildlife Federation has regional directors. Back in 2005-2008 the director for Monatana North Dakota was Land Tawney. He came to ND and tried to get the ND wildlife federation all fired up for fair chase. In 2008 he resigned his position (conflict of interest) and started Montana Sportsman for Obama. I wonder how much the sell out got paid?

Plainsman wrote,



> I see a two level threat from cervid farms. I see a mid range threat when animals are worth about $1000 or less, but a huge threat when they get to $5000 or more.


So what do you mean by a $1000 or less. What is less? $300 dollars or less or just worthless. Maybe like an unwanted horse? Is that the real federal agenda? Taking someones property without paying for it.

Everyone complains that we are losing our freedoms one by one. Everyone complains it is the fault of the politicians taking our freedoms one by one. Plainsman wants to give up another persons right to own property (cervids). But he claims he is secure in the knowledge that the Second Amendment is off limits by the very same politicians who want to take away both. Are you as sure as he is sure?


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug, when reason fails you guys love scare tactics. Your simply trying to join in on that discredit bandwagon with gst. Trying to paint me as an Obama supporter almost made me spit coffee on my keyboard. :rollin:



> Owning property is a right. Plainsman, when did it become a privledge?


A privilege is when you have to pay for it. For example you need a drivers license to take your car out and drive to Fargo. You need a special license to own an automatic weapon. It is a right to own some property and a privilege to own other property. Your statement would make it sound as if it was a right to own any property. Why don't you go try buy a nuke and see where that gets you and your "right".



> remember Sen. John Kerry running for president in 2004 when he showed up in that hardware store dressed up like Elmer Fudd and said in a dumb accent, "kin i git me a huntin license here."


Yes, I thought that was hilarious. The guy wouldn't know which end of a gun to point, nor what to point it at. I think you and I would agree on most political things, but apparently not all. It's kind of like comparing the Farmers Union to the Farm Bureau. The Farmers Union is far left and I would guess supports Obama still. The Farm Bureau worships the dollar and don't think anything should get in the way. They think if you own a square foot of land that rights are uninhibited with no limit. I have a "strong feeling" you may be Farm Bureau. :wink: Politically on a scale of one to ten and one being very liberal that puts Farmers Union at about a 2, me at about a 7, and you and Farm Bureau at about a 9.5 or slightly less. The only reason you don't make 10 is because your more than willing to take the government handouts. Remember Gordon Kahl? He didn't like taxes, but you couldn't beat him to the bank to cash his government check. I would guess he was about a 9.5 :wink:

In ending I need to thank you. The liberals I debate think I would rate a ten and am a far right zealot. The truth is I even have some socialist tendencies I guess because I support agriculture subsidies. :wink:


----------



## Csquared

Great post, shaug. I think you've articulated very well the main difference between those of us appalled by cervid farming and those who benefit from it, and you did it with one word.....

Property.

I believe cervids (note the lack of wild as an adjective) are the property of the taxpayers, and we allow the state to regulate the resource with provisons for reasonable profit by the state to cover their costs and promote the resource. But I believe a line is crossed long before the state started pimping that resource for their gain along with a select group of taxpayers. I also believe that muddying the waters by implying your side represents conservative, constitutional values, with a laundry list of liberal, anti-hunting and gun-grabbing democrats as your biggest piece of evidence, completely omitting the obvious motive of those mentioned is way off base.

Those of us on my side of the issue could use a myriad of examples of freedom exemplified by free-roaming wild animals that would clearly show the freedom this country stands for, but what would be the point? The real issue here is that your side guards the opinion that anything that prevents you from owning anything you can afford for your own personal gain is anti-American, and unfortunately, that opinion is not as isolated as most on my side of the issue most likely wish it was.

But fortunately, that opinion is not as prevalent as it was in the south in the early 1800's.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> Those of us on my side of the issue could use a myriad of examples of freedom exemplified by free-roaming wild animals that would clearly show the freedom this country stands for, but what would be the point? The real issue here is that your side guards the opinion that anything that prevents you from owning anything you can afford for your own personal gain is anti-American, and unfortunately, that opinion is not as isolated as most on my side of the issue most likely wish it was.
> 
> But fortunately, that opinion is not as prevalent as it was in the south in the early 1800's.


Csquared, so now you are equating the ownership of cervids to slavery??????

I'm sure there are many black Americans that will love this comparison. :roll:

This is the ENTIRE reason why I even brought the gun control aspect into this debate to show that some people do not seem to be able to equate the significance of the difference in risk of loss between that of animals and that of human tradgedy. Your equating now to the owning an animal to that of a person only reinforces this. Roger Kaseman tried making this comparison during the HFH fiasco as well.

By the way, there was a debate during the HFH fiasco as to where any and ALL "domestic" animals origin came from. So by your reasoning my ownership of cattle that are directly tied thru DNA to "wild" origins is the same as me owning a slave.



Plainsman said:


> when reason fails you guys love scare tactics. Your simply trying to join in on that discredit bandwagon


Oh Csquared by the way if the govt had not stepped in and partnered with private individuals at the turn of the century in the conservation and management of this nations elk herd , how many "wild" cervids (elk)would there be for your public to use and enjoy??? So consider how "appalling" it would be to not have the opportunity to hunt elk .


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Shaug, when reason fails you guys love scare tactics. Your simply trying to join in on that discredit bandwagon with gst. Trying to paint me as an Obama supporter almost made me spit coffee on my keyboard.


plainsman, you simply paint yourself as someone that repeatedly makes claims/strong opinions/accusations that you do not back up as true or factual when asked to. Wether that "discredits" you or not will be decided by others. Some will turn a blind eye, and others will see it for what it is, particularily in the issue of cervid ranching and your involvement in trying to end it.

You often bring up your involvement in bible studies, once again at your next bible study, ask the group what it is when someone makes a claim that can not be backed up with fact or proof.


----------



## Plainsman

Buffalo would have recovered slower without private breeders, but elk would have been just fine.



> Csquared, so now you are equating the ownership of cervids to slavery??????


Csquare, notice how radical and hate filled they get when anyone says anything slightly contradictory to their AGENDA? You are now the enemy to be torn to shreds and discredited. Are you sure your not a socialist in conservative clothing? :rollin:

There is a difference between conservative and an agriculture Oligarchy. You have so many millions sunk into agricultural lobbyists that the will of the people in North Dakota is seldom the outcome in Bismarck. What's the going price of a state rep these days, a pheasant or two? One can never be sure, but common opinion is that it worked for Cannonball. :wink:


----------



## gst

plainsman, again with the "legislature is controled by ag" bit?????


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Csquare, notice how radical and hate filled they get when anyone says anything slightly contradictory to their AGENDA? You are now the enemy to be torn to shreds and discredited. Are you sure your not a socialist in conservative clothing





Csquared said:


> Those of us on my side of the issue could use a myriad of examples of freedom exemplified by free-roaming wild animals that would clearly show the freedom this country stands for, but what would be the point? The real issue here is that your side guards the opinion that anything that prevents you from owning anything you can afford for your own personal gain is anti-American, and unfortunately, that opinion is not as isolated as most on my side of the issue most likely wish it was.
> 
> But fortunately, that opinion is not as prevalent as it was in the south in the early 1800's.


palinsman please explain Csqured's post above if not to compare owning a cervid to slavery? Some might think that a comparison of owning an animal as the same is a "radical" comparison, but apparently not you, Csquared or Roger Kaseman.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Buffalo would have recovered slower without private breeders, but elk would have been just fine. quote]
> 
> So is this a claim you can base on any factual proof, or merely another "strong opinion" you can not substantiate?


----------



## Csquared

> Csquare, notice how radical and hate filled they get when anyone says anything slightly contradictory to their AGENDA? You are now the enemy to be torn to shreds and discredited. Are you sure your not a socialist in conservative clothing?


Nothing new. It's in the liberal handbook...."never argue the message...attack the messenger"

But gst said it best....



> The beauty of talk forums also is that when you come on one and pull crap (strong opinions) out of your a$$ someone will likely call you on it.


Plainsman, I''m not sure if gst skipped English or simply slept through it, but his misunderstanding of the subject matter of my statements (and yours) not withstanding, if shaug can compare you to Chuck Schumer, would it be unfair of me to compare them to Tippu Tib? As to shredding me...go ahead. I deal with it almost every day.......and it doesn't change a thing :wink:


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Csquared wrote:
> Those of us on my side of the issue could use a myriad of examples of freedom exemplified by free-roaming wild animals that would clearly show the freedom this country stands for, but what would be the point? The real issue here is that your side guards the opinion that anything that prevents you from owning anything you can afford for your own personal gain is anti-American, and unfortunately, that opinion is not as isolated as most on my side of the issue most likely wish it was.
> 
> But fortunately, that opinion is not as prevalent as it was in the south in the early 1800's


Csquared for those of us you beleive are not as adept at English, please simply answer the question. Are you equating the ownership of cervids (animals) to slavery (ownership of humans) in the above statement? yes or no?


----------



## Plainsman

> As to shredding me...go ahead. I deal with it almost every day.......and it doesn't change a thing


Same here Csquare. It runs of me like water off a ducks back. Especially considering where it comes from.

gst, for the guy who complains that things get personal your always the first to violate it. Where do you come off asking someone if they compare ag to slavery? The only reason I stay with this is to keep you going and hang you out for people to see my opposition. I would like to hear from others if you actually represent agriculture in any formal capacity.

This is a good time to calm any concerns good farmers may have. I grew up on a farm, my relatives farm, and I have supported agriculture for years. I hope you can sympathise with my position that all people have a say in our government. I'm not against agriculture, but I am against a few, very few, of their practices. I stay with some of these arguments simply because I can not allow the method of bullying to carry the day. I am aware of the problem you face with water this year. Many of my relatives have only got half their crop in. Our only hope is that the reduction in production will bring the price up. As I understand sunflowers are at $30 right now, and one relative that got 60% in got it all into sunflowers so he is actually a little excited. I hope all goes well with all of you.


----------



## Csquared

Are you god, gst?

Did Chris assign you king of the site?

You love to demand answers to explain others' opinions. I defined opinion for you earlier...did you read it? Do you care?

It is my OPINION that the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution do not equate to the freedom to do (or possess) anything you can afford or otherwise acquire. You and everyone else here are free to disagree with that exactly as vehemently as you like, but if you're asking me to clarify a statement I believe most here got the first time, I'll oblige you and slowly walk through it for you one step at a time.....



> The real issue here is that your side guards the opinion that anything that prevents you from owning anything you can afford for your own personal gain is anti-American,





> that opinion is not as prevalent as it was in the south in the early 1800's


What word to you see as the common denominator in my two quotes above, gst? It's that dad-burned "o" word that you just can't seem to grasp the concept of. But let's look at just the last one....



> that opinion is not as prevalent as it was in the south in the early 1800's


My point was MANY people shared your views in that America's freedoms allowed you to own whatever you wanted. They felt so strongly about that back then that they went to war over it because they wanted THEIR America to be free of that limitation. The fact that it was about slavery is not my point and is totally irrelevant...it's about where the limits of freedom should be allowed. I personally believe those limits should begin immediately before freedom hurts another, which further illustrates our differences. I believe many aspects of cervid farming adversely affects others, even without CWD considerations, and it's obviously in your best interest to try to encourage otherwise.

Have I cleared it up for you?


----------



## Csquared

Oh, almost forgot you demanded a one word answer........

NO


----------



## gst

C squared, so just to be clear you were referenciung the EARLY 1800's to demonstrate that a war was fought to be able to LIMIT peoples freedoms?????? I thought the war was fought in the later 1800's. I guess plainsman isn't the only one that when taken to task for something they claim they start to back pedal.



Csquared said:


> I personally believe those limits should begin immediately before freedom hurts another, which further illustrates our differences. I believe many aspects of cervid farming adversely affects others, even without CWD considerations, and it's obviously in your best interest to try to encourage otherwise


So as I pointed out given this stance how then do you argue against the HSUS member that claims hunting adversely affects others and so should be "limited" "imediately before freedom hurts another" or that animal ag "adversely affects others"? How do take this stance and yet argue against the gun control folks that say gun ownership adversely affects others and so "limits should begin imediately before freedom hurts another"???? And on and on. You talk of something coming out of a handbook, that is EXACTLY the path of justification people take to impose their will on others to "limit" freedoms. It is why I asked once you start this justification process of "limiting" people freedoms, whose standards are the measure of what freedoms get limited, yours, Hand Gun Inc, HSUS Who gets to say what freedoms are limited?????? THAT is what the war between the states was ultimately about. Stopping one group of people that had "limited" the freedoms of another group of people to the point of enslaving them.

Last Nov. the people of ND heard your arguement about "limiting" the ability to raise captive cervids and voted it down. Apparently there are those on this site who are still questioniing the freedom of choice that was demonstrated thru the voting process that is a "right" of the people. Plainsman mentions an oligarchy?????? Not defering to the voice of the people and continuing to claim you know what is best defines those that would fit an oligarchy form of govt.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> Are you god, gst?
> 
> Did Chris assign you king of the site?


I beleive those titles have already been taken by someone on this site! :wink:


----------



## spentwings

gst
To cut through the crap and maybe it's been addressed...haven't read through all the posts. :bartime: 
You made an excellent point,,,there's a big difference between strong opinions and accusations.
It's all in the wording and really isn't that fine of line. Accusations if not based on facts are malicious BS.


----------



## Plainsman

> Stopping one group of people that had "limited" the freedoms of another group of people to the point of enslaving them.


I think the group they stopped was southern plantation owners.



> How do take this stance and yet argue against the gun control folks


Like I said that isn't apples and oranges, that's apples and watermelon. Right to bear arms is a constitutional right. However, you will continue to ignore that. You spin like a politician gst. Maybe Obama has an opening.

At one time I thought you may be Farm Bureau and for an ag oligarchy. That's kind of the way I see the Froelich guy who is a legislator I think. Isn't he one of Cannonballs puppets? However, I'm starting to think your more liberal like Farmers Union since you don't understand the difference between privilege and constitutional right. Don't tell me your conservative. You may give yourself that title, but I'm guessing that's because you live in a conservative area. Come on it's free country show us your liberal side.

gst, you were upset about the comparison Csquare didn't make. *Wasn't it you that compared us to KKK?* Yup, that was you. Maybe the comparison was anyone who wasn't a farmer or rancher buying land in North Dakota. I don't remember exactly, but it was I think in the Cook getting sued thread. Man, I'm going to send you some cheese to go with that whine.


----------



## Csquared

> C squared, so just to be clear you were referenciung the EARLY 1800's to demonstrate that a war was fought to be able to LIMIT peoples freedoms?????? I thought the war was fought in the later 1800's. I guess plainsman isn't the only one that when taken to task for something they claim they start to back pedal.


Not sure if gst has been kicked in the head one too many times by his captive cervids or is suffering from the first case of human CWD....I hope it's the former. :wink:


----------



## spentwings

OK!
I understand now,,,maybe.
It's all about being contentious
It's like arguing in a bar,,,but more safe. :wink:


----------



## Csquared

With the exception of gst, who's arguing, wings? Most of us here are busy answering all of his questions or helping to "clear things up" for him. But feel free to add something informative or productive, as gst stopped any attempt at that over 35 posts ago :wink:

So show us how to resolve this...in a non-contentious manner, of course


----------



## spentwings

Simple!
Stop posting!
Antagonism breeds antagonism.
No question, somethings really piss me off,,,like so called adult air-gunners that cripple or kill everything in sight.
Still,,,make your point and move on.
That's just my opinion of course. :wink:


----------



## shaug

csquare wrote,



> I also believe that muddying the waters by implying your side represents conservative, constitutional values, with a laundry list of liberal, anti-hunting and gun-grabbing democrats as your biggest piece of evidence, completely omitting the obvious motive of those mentioned is way off base.


HUh!!!! Those 18 democrats named are just a simple laundry list to you. What we have is representative government. The politicions don't invent laws and legislation. Issues are brought to them by their constituants. That would be the people. Certain types of people are more active in bringing anti-hunting anti-second amendment issues forward. Certain politicians are more active in carrying those anti-second amendment anti-hunting issues forward. Together they endeavor to take away one freedom one right at a time. Everybody knows them by their actions. Those 18 Senators named are not exactly known for their obvious good motives when it comes to the Second Amendment and hunting in general. The list of co-sponsers to that piece of legislation is a fact.

Here is another tidbit:

Like I said, Rep. Steve Cohens bill had a Senate companion bill in 2005. Here is the sponsers of the House version.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-1688

Robert Andrews [D-NJ1]
Howard Berman [D-CA28]
Earl Blumenauer [D-OR3]
Lois Capps [D-CA23]
Peter DeFazio [D-OR4]
Eliot Engel [D-NY17]
Anna Eshoo [D-CA14]
Lane Evans [D-IL17]
Terry Everett [R-AL2]
Barney Frank [D-MA4]
Raul Grijalva [D-AZ7]
Luis Gutiérrez [D-IL4]
Maurice Hinchey [D-NY22]
Michael Honda [D-CA15]
Jay Inslee [D-WA1]
Dennis Kucinich [D-OH10]
James Leach [R-IA2]
Carolyn Maloney [D-NY14]
James McDermott [D-WA7]
James McGovern [D-MA3]
Bradley Miller [D-NC13]
George Miller [D-CA7]
James Moran [D-VA8]
Jerrold Nadler [D-NY8]
John Olver [D-MA1]
William Pascrell [D-NJ8]
Charles Rangel [D-NY15]
Steven Rothman [D-NJ9]
Martin Sabo [D-MN5]
Linda Sánchez [D-CA39]
Janice Schakowsky [D-IL9]
José Serrano [D-NY16]
Christopher Shays [R-CT4]
Brad Sherman [D-CA27]
Hilda Solis [D-CA32]
Fortney Stark [D-CA13]
John Tierney [D-MA6]
Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD8]
Henry Waxman [D-CA30]
Anthony Weiner [D-NY9]
Curtis Weldon [R-PA7]
Lynn Woolsey [D-CA6]

The point being the high water mark came in 2005. 17 senators and 43 representatives. It never got out of committee. Today Rep. Steve Cohens bill has just 8 co-sponsers. This HFI is dying.

BTW, now it should be clear to anyone why Dick Monson never provided the links to his claim the HFI would be resolved at the federal level. Just look at those names, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, James Moran and every anti hunter is there promoting fair chase. It is nothing to be proud of.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug I dislike those politicians you have listed as much as you do. However I still subscribe to the only thing worse than a republican is a democrat.
That however was not Csquares point. I'm sick of being a teacher so you go back and figure it out. The sky is not falling, the sun doesn't rise in the west, and comparing a group of gun grabbing no integrity Washington politicians to a group of North Dakota sportsmen isn't realistic. Now if you want to compare Washington corruption to Bismarck corruption be my guest. :wink:

With all the hubbub I can only assume that you guys are putting up a smoke screen and really think the Texas guy should have been able to continue on with no consequences. Am I wrong?


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> So show us how to resolve this...in a non-contentious manner, of course


It really is quite simple. Plainsman can simply substantiate the claim, oops, "strong opinion", he made at the very start of all this. Had that been done or at the very least admit he can not substantiate it when first asked to, case closed.

And plainsman yet once again please show where


Plainsman said:


> Wasn't it you that compared us to KKK?


I merely stated the constitutional defense put up by someone in that thread regarding ANYONES right to buy land would likely not be quite as committed if it were a nonprofit KKK group buying land beside their family. BIG DIFFERENCE once again than what you claim.



spentwings said:


> To cut through the crap and maybe it's been addressed...haven't read through all the posts.
> You made an excellent point,,,there's a big difference between strong opinions and accusations.
> It's all in the wording and really isn't that fine of line. Accusations if not based on facts are malicious BS


Spent, what then is a "strong opinion" "not based on facts aimed at a group of people? I truly am curious to hear your opinion on that.

It IS all in the wording as well as intent. If an opinion is meant to inform thats one thing if it is meant to slander that is another. If plainsmans "strong opinion" was simply meant to inform, all he has to do is substantiate it. Given his comments and stance regarding HF over the last few years I think we all know the real "intent" of his "strong opinion". So is an opinion aimed at a particular group of people not based on fact "malicious BS" or simply slander?

Plainsman wrote:
There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers. Just a matter of time. There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it. Like Dick said corruption in the system. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.

When it comes you remember who said it would.[/quote]

Now spent take the large print statement and tell me if that is accusing cervid ranchers of working around required testing or simply another "strong opinion" based on what fact here in ND? Is it an accusation of corruption in the system or merely another "strong opinion" based on what facts here in ND?

It is my "strong opinion" it is a very fine line between them, and given plainsmans history it is my "strong opinion" it is an accusation aimed at slandering cervid ranchers. :wink:

Plainsmans comments are slandering ND cervid ranchers. Strong opinion, or accusation?


----------



## gst

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/p/Property.htm

plainsman it is an interesting read. Comments on the 5th and 14th amenments to the Constitution and what "rights" they protect. It also mentions what tangible properties fall under this "right" in the Constitution.

But hey continue to beleive the ownership of animals as property is not a right protected under the Constitution if you want.

You never did answer if a law was passed banning individuals from operating cervid ranches would a takings have to be granted?


----------



## Plainsman

> but I would really like to see swift standing in front of his neighbors defending their (KKK's)right to buy land


To me it looked like you were comparing Ducks Unlimited to KKK or anyone else that dared try buy land.



> But hey continue to beleive the ownership of animals as property is not a right protected under the Constitution if you want.


There is a big difference between a cow and a deer. One you have the right to own the other you gain that privilege through a permit to have them. There is no license for rights like free speech. I doubt you paid a penny for the number of times you have called me a liar.

My point is they have to be watched much closer than a regular rancher. Ranchers are concerned about disease in cattle and would never let a neighbor hide dangerous infections in his herd and not report it. People who raise deer are few and a neighbor who has little interest in the outdoors would have little interest in reporting it. The reason I say they need to be watched more closely is because of their history around the United States. We look at this guy in Texas and we read about infected deer smuggled from one state to another. Most often the motive was a very valuable animal. My motive is for people to be alert.

The ownership of wild animals is not a right under the constitution. The intent within our constitution goes all the way back to the Magna Carta and makes wild animals the property of all people. You want to skip over the part about wild in the hopes the ignorant will just take your word for it. Anyone interested can find the truth through google. Our North American wildlife management model goes beyond the European aristocrat model. Maybe your bud Obama could reverse that for you.



> Plainsman can simply substantiate the claim, oops, "strong opinion", he made at the very start of all this


I am sure happy you don't represent anyone in this state since you apparently don't understand English, or is it no one deserves an opinion but you? I think I mentioned I based my opinion on the observation of people for 63 years, not biology. You give me an opinion about your segment of society.
So what do you think should have happened to that guy in Texas. Do you think his big mistake was committing the crime or getting caught?


----------



## Plainsman

As for your "taking question" is this another one of those ask the same question 50 times even though it has been answered before. Go back pages of posts and read what I have said.



> These people were encouraged by others so if they need to stop raising animals it's only fair they get a buy out


----------



## gst

plainsman, You are most certainly entitled to your opinion these animals are "wild" and therefore not entitled to "ownership" status, but the state says otherwise. Oh I know ALL those state legislators are nothing more than lackeys for ag deal. :roll: 
(so, are these animals "wild" or pen raised pets as claimed in the HFH debate???)

If a law is passed banning the raising of cervids would a takings have to be granted to those people raising them? It has nothing to do with what you beleive they should get wether it is a "right". it has to do with the letter of the law regarding compensation for the "taking" of personal property, which the ownership of "tangible" property (animals) is guaranteed under the Constitution. I will place more significance on the letter of the law regarding what is a "right" protected under the Constitution than your strong opinion. So if you are admitting they should be compensated for this takings apparently you beleiv they are indeed private property that the "taking" of requires compensation.

One last time. Your "opinion" was that CWD would come to ND. And your "opinion" was that it would come thru cervid ranchers. And your "opinion" was that it would come thru cervid ranchers because they will work around they system in place to prevent it. And your "opinion" was they will do this because there is corruption in the system.

The FACT is CWD HAS come to ND. So you indeed have the opportunity to substantiate your "opinions" are fact rather than a malicious accusation intended to slander the cervid ranching industry , those involved in it, as well as the agencies that regulate it. You were simply asked, given the FACT CWD IS in ND to substantiate your "opinions" Why will you not do so if you want them to have ANY degree of credibility? Lets examine the one concerning "corruption" in the system here in ND. Strong opinion, or accusation? Do you have any proof of "corruption" in the system. The "system" you talk of involves the State Vets office as well as the State Board of Animal Health, are you inferring there is corruption there? Where does this "corruption here in ND exist. Surely you have proof of this to make this claim. If you do please share it as it needs to be dealt with imediately.

Wether you argue it is a, "strong opinion" accusation, "malicious BS" whatever anyone wishes to call it. The fact is you made the statement and will not substantiate it.

One last thing to consider is the statement plainsman made that when CWD comes into ND it will come thru cervid ranchers the truth?

If a statement is not the truth, what is it? That was always

Do you begin to see the consequences of making a "strong opinion" you can not substantiate?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So what do you think should have happened to that guy in Texas. Do you think his big mistake was committing the crime or getting caught?


Plainsman as I have said repeatedly before, there needs to be in place regulations based on sound science in regards to these diseases. As I have said before these regulations MUST be enforced. So of course when this individual chose to break these regulations there needs to be consequences that will deter the breaking of the regulation.

Now you make much todo about society and the ills of man in their tendency to let greed cause them to break the law and inflict damage on others thru the consequences of breaking the law designed to protect society. You are claiming cervid ranching should be banned to prevent these consequences from happening and that the rights of law abiding ranchers should be trampled on because of a very few that will not follow the laws set in place to protect society. This is the EXACT arguement other groups make in their attempts to ban other things. Why should your arguement be considered valid and theirs not? After all some of these groups are actually trying to save human lives, rather than a recreational activity. So answer this one question, once you begin banning things soley based of risk of consequence, who gets to determine what should be banned? Handgun Inc? MADD? Roman Catholic Church?? PETA???? HSUS??? ND Hunters for Fair Chase???? Please answer that.

What is the definition of the oligarchy form of govt you like to banter about?

ol·i·gar·chy   /ˈɒlɪˌgɑrki/ Show Spelled
[ol-i-gahr-kee] Show IPA

-noun, plural -chies. 
1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. 
2. a state or organization so ruled. 
3. the persons or class so ruling.

So I wonder, do you suppose ND Hunters for FC and their supporters would be interested in this form of govt if it was avalible ? :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> There is a big difference between a cow and a deer. One you have the right to own the other you gain that privilege through a permit to have them


 It is my "opinion" that this statement is not true. I beleive you do not need a permit to "own" cervids. I beleive someone can own a cervid without being permited as long as that cervid is located on a permitted operation. So plainsman how do you explain some cities requiring a permit for you to own a gun if this is a right guarnteed by the Constitution? Before anyone goes off painting me as anti gun I do beleive this right is clearly listed and protected under the Constitution as is the right of ownership of private propety both tangible and non tangible. The point is the permitting process is not the bench mark for what is or is not a right protected under the Constitution. Please understand that.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> Not sure if gst has been kicked in the head one too many times by his captive cervids or is suffering from the first case of human CWD....I hope it's the former.


So now you are "hoping" I get kicked in the head???  :wink:

It is my opinion (who better to know) that I have never been kicked in the head (have been many other places) by a captive cervid. (only cattle and one onery horse). It is my strong opinion that I do not own any captive cervids even though some repeatedly claim I do. :roll: Yet another claim plainsman as well has made prior no one substantiates! Or perhaps it was only his "strong opinion" I own cervids :wink:

I HAVE shot and killed many with both rifle and bow (all outside a fence) as a hunter contrary to plainsmans claim I am not a hunter (one more "strong opinion" he can not substantiate)! :wink:

You guys, I have things to do besides be on here countering all these "strong opinions" you make that you can not substantiate as fact. Why don't you give it a break for a while. I got alot done last week when plainsman was apparently gone, didn;t have to make one post to call :bs: on anything. 

Although I did get kicked by a cow (in the shin) in the wild cow milking event at a ranch rodeo we were in over the 4th!!! Hope things go a little better in the one we're in later today!


----------



## Csquared

Well. it took WAY TOO LONG to get here, but this sums up why this has gone nowhere for so long.
I said this to illustrate the history of differing opinions on ownership as it pertains to American rights...



> that opinion is not as prevalent as it was in the south in the early 1800's


which led to this response by gst...



> C squared, so just to be clear you were referenciung the EARLY 1800's to demonstrate that a war was fought to be able to LIMIT peoples freedoms?????? I thought the war was fought in the later 1800's. I guess plainsman isn't the only one that when taken to task for something they claim they start to back pedal.


Does anyone here need to look up what year the Civil War started? Does anyone here see any mention of a war fought in the early 1800's in my post? Apparantly gst did...which should help to explain some of the reasons for his history of ramblings on this forum.

Then I wrote this in response to his almost incoherent ramblings, which, in my opinion could be indicative of a blow to the head....or worse.....


> Csquared wrote:
> Not sure if gst has been kicked in the head one too many times by his captive cervids or is suffering from the first case of human CWD....I hope it's the former.


Which led to this response from gst....


> So now you are "hoping" I get kicked in the head???


What I was clearly saying was I would hope his ramblings were the result of a blow to the head and NOT a more serious ailment such as CWD, and from that he attempted to morph it into my desire for him to be hurt.... 

So, it is my STRONG OPINION we have successfully cleared things up.....FINALLY !!!

In closing, if gst has a wife, please pass on my condolences, as trying to converse with him on a daily basis has got to be painful well beyond that which my threshold would allow. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> So plainsman how do you explain some cities requiring a permit for you to own a gun if this is a right guarnteed by the Constitution?


Simple those liberal cities violate the constitution which they have no respect for.



> I HAVE shot and killed many with both rifle and bow (all outside a fence) as a hunter contrary to plainsmans claim I am not a hunter


I may be wrong, there are so many posts, but I don't think I have ever stated factually that you are not a hunter. I have questioned it to draw you out since you never post on anything unless it has something to do with your special rights as a landowner.



> It is my strong opinion that I do not own any captive cervids even though some repeatedly claim I do.


Again I think that was a question just like when I asked if your son made any profit of those pheasants. I know that's a sore spot too, but if you want to be offended I guess anyone can be offended over anything they want to be. You may be offended that I am still sucking oxygen. Since you are so strong in your support of cervides perhaps my question should have been more simple. For example: Do you know, or are you involved with any outfitters or game farms? How is that, nicer?

gst, I would not find it hard to be more kind to you if you would not always think kindness was back peddling. You ask what has changed over the year. What has changed is your inability to accept polite conversation without taking advantage of a persons kindness. You immediately attack credibility and say we are back peddling. I guess that means we have to be blunt for you to understand. -------------Well, that doesn't appear to work either does it? :-?

gst, you can not force people to agree with you. You can force the weak to pretend to agree, but even they in their own mind will not. Your belligerent attitude makes you a target. I like headlines like this that fire you up:


> Insurance cheaters call their luxury cars farm vehicles


 Do you know where the even bigger tax cheats are? Sure you do. :wink:


----------



## gst

Jeesh guys first my kids have been brought in to the conversation and now my wife??? :roll:  'Thats really bi of you guys. And Csqured take note of the  :wink: behind my kicked in the head comments.

Tell you what simply go back and given the FACT CWD IS in ND substantiate your claim as to how it got here and ALL this will be cleared up.

And plainsman for the umpteenth time I have NO involvement in outfitters or game farms. Period, not now not 10 years ago not 20 years ago, Never ever ever, is that plain and direct enough for you to FINALLY get over this "strong opinion"?

So plainsman answer this one simple question and ALL this can be done with. Can you substantiate your claim as to how CWD came to be found in ND?

Yes or No.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> o plainsman how do you explain some cities requiring a permit for you to own a gun if this is a right guarnteed by the Constitution?
> Simple those liberal cities violate the constitution which they have no respect for.


I know better, but if the Constitution protects the right of the individual to own tangible properties under the 5th and 14th amendments, aren't you doing the very same thing you acuse these cities of when you suggest cervid ranching should be banned??? If Cervid ranching is banned, would there be cause for a takings ruling? Apparently the concern for the Constitution is important only when it suits your agenda. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

First off I didn't say ban cervid ranching I said don't allow another to start until the research is complete. You took the liberty to say I wanted to ban them. Here is how I look at it. If they are a danger then the state should buy them out because they encouraged it as I understand. If there are 50 now (I have no idea) it wouldn't be as expensive as 500 later on. It wouldn't hurt the current operations. As a matter of fact they wouldn't have competition unless the study says we don't have to worry. If the research says we don't have to worry have at it boys.



> And plainsman for the umpteenth time I have NO involvement in outfitters or game farms. Period, not now not 10 years ago not 20 years ago, Never ever ever, is that plain and direct enough for you to FINALLY get over this "strong opinion"?





> Even after being informed this is a 16 year old young man raising pheasants in conjunction with our local independant pheasant club (Mouse River Loop Pheasants) for his FFA project you make this juvenile snide comment in regards to him.


Tell us more about these guys listed below. I have no idea what they are. Maybe they are just a hatchery. Like you said I have complemented you for conservation practices that you told me you have done. I still admire that, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything you do. When I said I admired what your son was doing you said I was back peddlling. No I just am fair how I look at things. I do not judge you or your son, but I do judge what people do and say. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I do not. Sometimes I agree with people I like, and sometimes I don't agree. Sometimes I agree with people who hate my guts and sometimes I don't agree. As for the guy in Texas some of these guys have a lot of money and the only thing that's going to change their mind is prison time.

Oh, by the way if they are a hatchery I like them, and if they are a pheasant hunting outfit I don't care. Shoot as many penned communist chickens as you like. As long as they don't have a disease that threatens native species, and they don't as far as I know. Please don't try make something of this that it's not. This Dale Harsager sounds like a neet guy, and he doesn't need to be brought into this debate.



> Business CategoriesPheasant farm in Mohall, ND
> Poultry/Poultry Egg Farm
> Other Poultry Production
> View newly formed U.S. businessesCompany Contacts
> 
> Dale Harsager
> Owner Search for more contactsMouse River Loop Pheasant (Nc) Business InformationLocation Type Single Location
> Annual Sales (Estimated) $72,000
> 
> Employees (Estimated) 2
> SIC Code 0259, Poultry and Eggs, NEC
> NAICS Code 112390, Other Poultry Production
> Products, Services
> and Brands Information not found
> State of Incorporation Information not found
> Years in Business 30


----------



## gst

Mouse River Loop Pheasants is a group of those "greedy" farmers and local business men that was formed years ago to improve bird numbers in our area. Dale happened to be involved on the ground floor and did an amazing amount of work to make it a success. It is an entirely independant group that has grown now to be able to provide scholarships each year as well as provide chicks to people like my son who raises and releases them (for zero amount of Georges) into the surrounding areas. Each year between adult birds bought from raisers in Mn. and chicks raised this club is responsible for releasing roughly 5000 birds into our area.

So why exactly would you even bring this into a deabte about where CWD originated in ND? Simply substantiate your claim or admit you can not.


----------



## Plainsman

> So why exactly would you even bring this into a deabte about where CWD originated in ND? Simply substantiate your claim or admit you can not.


Still having trouble with English I see. :wink: 
The biggest reason I think cervid ranches will bring in the cwd is because guys like you will not take it serious enough. You simply make excuses and tell us how good our program is to avoid it. I could sneak a herd past you and you would never know it.

The Mouse River sounds just like the Stutsman County Wildlife Club. You know, the one some of your friends thinks gets federal funding. :wink:

I only asked about Mouse River, because I was interested.

You never have said what you think would be proper for that guy in Texas. If someone smuggles an infected cervid into North Dakota what do you think would be the proper punishment? If no one is interested in punishment then there is little deterrent. If there is stiff punishment there is more detergent and I am a lot less worried.

I don't like to write whole books and bore people, but often I am misinterpreted. I wonder why it's always the wrong way? Do you understand where I stand now on not allowing more cervid ranches until the study is done. You only pay attention to or build false negatives. Try looking at the bright side. I was pleased you didn't bring up that bone headed back peddling bull droppings again. Your son was never insulted, and now try take a complement even from those who debate you. Your son's doing a great job, now you try the same.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> The Mouse River sounds just like the Stutsman County Wildlife Club. You know, the one some of your friends thinks gets federal funding.


Nope, they do not get direct federal funding. The president of the Stutsman County Wildlife Club is David Alan Brandt. Federal biologist from Northern Prairie Wildlife Center in Jamestown. SCWC is an affiliate of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation. The NDWF is an affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation. The NWF used to have a regional director named Land Tawney who used to come to ND and meet with David Alan Brandt types in ND and try to get them fired up for a High Fence Iniative.

Back in 2005 someone or some groups took their issue to the federal politicians in Washington DC and tried to get a bill passed called the Sportsmanship in Hunting Act. Whenever politicians bring a bill forward they do not have to tell who drafted it or what persons were responsible for bringing it forward. It has never made it out of committee.

Everybody has moved on. Except the Humane Society who are now pushing Rep Steve Cohens bill. But it is for exotics aniamls and doesn't include elk or deer. However there has been some attempts in the past to include or define fair chase in federal law piggybacked into these bills.

Think about that. Schumer, Feinstein, Barney Frank, Steve Cohen and every libtard defining fair chase in federal law.

What is the real agenda here?


----------



## Plainsman

I dislike those people you listed, and dislike is putting it mild. As far as fair chase maybe I missed it, but I never seen the term used. Fair Chase is a term used by groups like The Safari Club, and other hunting organizations. A few years before his death I talked with Fred Bear if your old enough to remember him and fair chase was of concern to him. Fair chase is why we do not night light, run animals down with vehicles and the like. I think you guys are misconstruing the intended meaning behind the term.
I can not see supporting anything the guys you mentioned brought up. If they bring a bill I would be to worried it contained anti firearms terminology somewhere in it just like so much junk hidden in the health bill. I will not support anything HSUS or PETA start. If they jump on board of something I will want to know why and what they want out of it. I will want to know if there are strings attached. As far as the last initiative in North Dakota I would rather it was aimed at hunters and not landowners. Aiming it at hunters as we have bag limits, spot lighting, shooting from a vehicle etc controls methods of hunting and not landowners.


----------



## gst

plainsman CWD is already in ND in wild cervids. Do you understand that?

So substantiate your claim as to how you said it would come here or admit you can not. Simple.


----------



## Csquared

:bop:

:bop:

:bop:

:bop:

:bop:

:bop:

:bop:


----------



## Plainsman




----------



## gst

Well it seems as if it is going to be left at a claim , excuse me a "strong opinion" ,being made insinuating something that can not be substantiated.


----------



## Plainsman

It's the middle of the day. Shouldn't you be plowing the field or milking the taxpaye, err I mean cow? :wink:


----------



## spentwings

Well, if I wasn't drunk in the middle of the day, I'd say take your mutual animosity some place else. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

spentwings said:


> Well, if I wasn't drunk in the middle of the day, I'd say take your mutual animosity some place else. :beer:


I agree.


----------



## gst

spent, if there was any "animosity" towards anyone you would know it. I am not one to mince words. Annoyance, would perhaps be a better word. :wink:

Perhaps if plainsman had simply prefaced his claim with an acknowledgement at the time it was merely an "opinion" rather than waiting to claim this defense after he was asked to substantiate it, his claim of "opinion" would carry a little more weight. But given his as well as a handful of other individuals history of less than flattering comments aimed at cervid ranching operations on this site, most people with half an ability to reason see what the real intent was.

An example of what could have been stated as a "strong opinion" concerning CWD in ND.

ie... CWD has already been found in wild cervids here in ND, I beleive it is a matter of time until it is found in captive cervids. Perhaps the state should explore regulations in cooperation with cervid ranchers that will decrease this possibility . (please note this is only an example)

That could be perceived as a non biased "opinion" regarding CWD here in ND. What plainsman claimed and why he claimed it, well you can not be THAT slow as to not know why and what the intent was. He can try to backpedal all he wants, his track record (as well as those of his supporters) regarding cervid ranches is well documented on this site.


----------



## Csquared

This thread has been silly since before the second page, but now it has crossed the line into absurdity with gst now unable to wait for others to post, so he is writing posts for them 

And if we're going to make things up and post what someone _should have said_ (in gst's opinion) or might have said, is it also fair if we consider what someone else could have _meant_?

Remember Planisman's quote that gst is so up in arms about:



> There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers.


Define "here", gst. Since you're now qualified to speak for Plainsman, tell us what he meant by that. With only 2 reported cases of CWD in North Dakota, and both of those being barely into the state just north of the South Dakota border, do you think it could be possible he was referring to Jamestown when he chose to use the word "here"? I could argue his use of the word "local" in the following sentence indicates exactly that, as I seriously doubt anyone in ND uses the word local to describe the entire state...... unless the thread is about non-resident hunters  . I'm fully aware that allowing the specific meaning of individual words within a sentence to dictate the meaning of that sentence (to you) is not your forte, but try to step outside your box just long enough to humor me on this. please?

And instead of busting chops, perhaps you should be a bit grateful that no one else is holding you to the same standards you are demanding of everyone else and asking you to substantiate your claims here. I was done, but since you're refusing to let it go I believe I would like to see you substantiate this claim you made early on...



> So given the fact that most TSE's in humans are thought to happen spontaneously, perhaps "common sense" would lead one to beleive the same thing COULD happen in wild cervids regardless of how far they are from ANY infected source wild or captive in the case of this cervid TSE, CWD. But then again that attempt at "common sense" would do little to further the personal agenda the people repeatedly making these claims they can not prove regarding the HFH initiatives they have sponsored.


I took the liberty to underline those 3 things in your quote. Would you care to list any of your sources backing up that claim, as there should be many to justify use of the word "fact". I would be most interested to see how the instances of spontaneously ocurring Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) relate to other known causes of CJD AND all other TSE's believed to be caused by the same type of infectious prions responsible for CWD.

You are aware that the "T" in TSE stands for transmissable...right?


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spent, if there was any "animosity" towards anyone you would know it. I am not one to mince words. Annoyance, would perhaps be a better word. :wink:


You made the coups de grâce with the observation of strong opinions being a euphemism for accusations. 
Please don't insult me with suggesting animosity is an euphemism for annoyance.
You boys have a personnel thing,,,take it somewhere else.
P.S.
What's your problem Csquared? :-? An annoyance thing? :withstupid: Just because!


----------



## Csquared

Spent, you sound like my ex-wife....

She never could figure out either how 2 people could disagree on a subject without being mad about it.

...but I promise that's the only thing I'll equate about you and my ex :wink:


----------



## spentwings

Former wives,,,current wife,,,legal prostitution will free us all. :wink:


----------



## Csquared

...and as long as the pro hos aren't picked by the pres' standards just think about the dent it could put in the debt 

I must commend you for the welcome topic shift :wink:


----------



## spentwings

Truly! Who gives the big S about the definition of marriage?
It's in our genes,,,,we were never meant to be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?
That's only for geese and muskrats,,,and possibly you too Csquared...but for sure not me!!!! :beer:


----------



## gst

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmissi ... phalopathy

Epidemiology
These spontaneous disorders in humans are very rare, affecting only about one person per million worldwide each year. However, transmissible TSEs can reach epidemic proportions, as was seen in the UK BSE outbreak of the 80s and 90s. It is very hard to map the spread of the disease due to the difficulty of identifying individual strains of the prions. This means that if animals start to show the disease after an outbreak on a nearby farm, you cannot show that it is the same strain affecting both, suggesting transmission, or that the second outbreak came from a completely different source.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tse/tse.htm

Human TSEs can occur three ways: sporadically; as hereditary diseases; or through transmission from infected individuals. Sporadic TSEs may develop because some of a person's normal prions spontaneously change into the infectious form of the protein and then alter the prions in other cells in a chain reaction. Inherited cases arise from a change, or mutation, in the prion protein gene that causes the prions to be shaped in an abnormal way. This genetic change may be transmitted to an individual's offspring.

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/Mol ... r/MFP.html

Consequences of Variablity of Structure

The flexibility of the PrP(C) accounts for the fact that TSE's can have spontaneous origins. As the regular cellular protein varies between all the possible structures, there is the possiblity that one, along with certain cellular conditions, could result in the necessary conformational change from PrP(C) to PrP(Sc

It is beleived "sporadic" TSE's in humans are the most commonly occurring. These Sporadic" TSE's are indeed thought to ocur spontaneously. As are other forms of TSE's. What I have repeatedly said is that there simply is not enough known about these TSE's to make an accusation as to where they originate. That is unless you have an agenda. Plainsmans commitment to an agenda to end cervid ranching is evident in his signing on as a sponsor of the original HFH measure, His comments regarding HF operations are well documented on this site. If you fellas want to tell yourself these "strong opinions" are not paramount to accusations to slander cervid ranchers, you surely are welcoome to beleive what you wish. :rollin:


----------



## gst

Spent you never have answered the question: If


spentwings said:


> Accusations if not based on facts are malicious BS.


what is a strong opinion aimed at a group of people not based on fact?


----------



## spentwings

Probaly maliciousness,,,but what the hell do I know.
gst,,,so much bull and so little time. Use it all wisely. :wink:


----------



## Csquared

> It is beleived "sporadic" TSE's in humans are the most commonly occurring. These Sporadic" TSE's are indeed thought to ocur spontaneously. As are other forms of TSE's. What I have repeatedly said is that there simply is not enough known about these TSE's to make an accusation as to where they originate.


Above you said "fact".

It is believed by whom?

Please post a link, as all info I have separates CJD from all other TSE's.

I asked you to detail how spontaneous (or sporadic) infections relate to others, but all you've given me is "most common".

I'll come back to this later, but for now I'm curious if you saw spentwings' mention of me possibly being gay. Was that his opinion, or an accusation?

Should I press him for facts to back up his assertion, whatever you may decide to call it?

Do you see how this is supposed to work now?


----------



## gst

gst said:


> Spent you never have answered the question: If
> 
> 
> spentwings said:
> 
> 
> 
> Accusations if not based on facts are malicious BS.
> 
> 
> 
> what is a strong opinion aimed at a group of people not based on fact?
Click to expand...




spentwings said:


> Probaly maliciousness,,,but what the hell do I know.
> gst,,,so much bull and so little time. Use it all wisely. :wink:


I would tend to agree with you (on the maliciousness part of your comment!  ) . So what if a person had established a clear pattern of making these "strong opinions" not based on fact towards a group of people?


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> I'll come back to this later, but for now I'm curious if you saw spentwings' mention of me possibly being gay. Was that his opinion, or an accusation?


Perhaps it would depend on if it is based on fact or can be substantiated. And to be quite honest, I as well as I beleive most others on this site would appreciate that being kept between the two of you! :wink:



> So given the fact that most TSE's in humans are *thought* to happen spontaneously,


Csquared I gave you references by reputable sources that the primary type of TSE's in humans are sporadic. I gave you a reputable source that says sporadic forms of TSE's can be "spontaneous". All I am asking is that plainsman give one source to substantiate his claims regarding CWD HERE IN ND and how it got here. If you wish to beleive he was formatting his "strong opinions" on CWD coming to Jamestown instead of ND in it's entirety in his comments, that is certainly your choice to make. :roll:

If you actually wish to comprehend the statement I made that you underlined, please realize that the "fact" claim in it was related to what reputable research "thinks" (the usage of the word thought) which coincedes with my repeated claims that simply not enough is "KNOWN" for certainty about this disease and it's various forms to make defined "strong opinions". If reputable researchers are not so sure about it tell me why plainsman's "strong opinions" should be looked at as anything different in this thread than what they have been regarding HF operations in the past?


----------



## gst

Re: Another One
by Plainsman » Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:29 pm

*Are you talking about the North Dakota deer with CWD. If you are I am afraid I will have to fess up and say I have not checked into it. I suppose I could do that, but until then I really don't know any more than you do. Right now I plead ignorant. I think I can find out though if your really interested. My guess is no one really knows.[/u]* If there are diseased animals close in South Dakota I would say chances are it spread naturally. If the closest natural occurrence is say 200 miles I would start looking for other ways it was brought in. I think the year was about 1968 when a fellow did research on deer movement in North Dakota. His work was near Slade refuge south of Dawson, North Dakota. If I remember right the record traveled by a white tail deer (in one year) was 160 miles. Average was under 25 miles. Sorry I can't remember the author.

Re: Poacher gets 1.5 million dollar fine
by Plainsman » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:51 pm

There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers. Just a matter of time. There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it. Like Dick said corruption in the system. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.

When it comes you remember who said it would.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> Csquared said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll come back to this later, but for now I'm curious if you saw spentwings' mention of me possibly being gay. Was that his opinion, or an accusation?
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps it would depend on if it is based on fact or can be substantiated. And to be quite honest, I as well as I beleive most others on this site would appreciate that being kept between the two of you! :wink:
Click to expand...

 :rollin:

BTW Csquared  ...didn't mean to suggest you were gay,,,never crossed my mind,,,and if in the extremely remote
possibly you are,,,only gst wud care. I do like you guys' humor though. :lol:


----------



## spentwings

In regards to the disease question.
Nothing but spec that CWD can be transferred to humans by eating affected meat.
Even with mad cow,,,studies have suggested that it's all in your genes,,,,only a very small percentage of the population may be susceptible.
But then of course there's Kuru.

So where did CWD originate? In my opinion, on a deer ranch that time forgot.
Human intervention on wild animals over time was all it took.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> Re: Another One
> by Plainsman » Fri Nov 26, 2010 6:29 pm
> 
> *Are you talking about the North Dakota deer with CWD. If you are I am afraid I will have to fess up and say I have not checked into it. I suppose I could do that, but until then I really don't know any more than you do. Right now I plead ignorant. I think I can find out though if your really interested. My guess is no one really knows.[/u]* If there are diseased animals close in South Dakota I would say chances are it spread naturally. If the closest natural occurrence is say 200 miles I would start looking for other ways it was brought in. I think the year was about 1968 when a fellow did research on deer movement in North Dakota. His work was near Slade refuge south of Dawson, North Dakota. If I remember right the record traveled by a white tail deer (in one year) was 160 miles. Average was under 25 miles. Sorry I can't remember the author.
> 
> Re: Poacher gets 1.5 million dollar fine
> by Plainsman » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:51 pm
> 
> There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers. Just a matter of time. There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it. Like Dick said corruption in the system. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.
> 
> When it comes you remember who said it would.



In regards to spontaneous anything, it makes me laugh. There's always cause and effect.
Sitting here under O2, drinking 90 proof and smoking a cig, I have yet to spontaneous combust. :wink:

gst,,,sad to say,,,but I think Plainsman is through with you.
So that leaves Csquared who is smarter than me and me. Of course,,,Plains is smarter than both of us. :rollin:


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> gst,,,sad to say,,,but I think Plainsman is through with you.


That would be alright with me for sure!! A while back I told him if he would only quit making those "strong opinions" that he could not substantiate and that were simply not true, I really would not have much reason to be on here.  So untill the next one, .........

.


spentwings said:


> So that leaves Csquared who is smarter than me and me. Of course,,,Plains is smarter than both of us.


""
:rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

Plainsman might be smart, he just lets his "animosity" make claims that are not true or "based on fact" and can not be substantiated that comes off as "malicious BS" aimed towards a certain group which is an "annoyance" to me and others. At least that is MY "strong opinion" . :wink:

As far as determining "spontanaity" of these diseases or how they have came into ND (or even the Jamestown area)  I will leave that to people who are much smarter than ALL of us combined. If plainsman was only "smart" enough to do the same instead of trying to further his and Dicks agenda(I think even Csquared is "smart" enough to know what that is) Thru a "malicious" "strong opinion", this entire thread could have been avoided and there would have been no reason to interupt your smokin and drinkin!!!!  ! :wink:


----------



## Longshot

So as long as no one gives an opinion contrary to gst everything will be fine? :withstupid:


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> So as long as no one gives an opinion contrary to gst everything will be fine?


Hey someone has to call the "strong opinions, not based on fact, that are malicious BS" all you HFH ban supporters like to throw out there. I really don;t care if someone has an opinion contrary to mine, there are a number of them on here concerning many different topics I never comment on. But if you are going to aim those "opinions" at a group of people in an insinuating malicious manner, at least be able to substantiate them when asked, otherwise you really do come off like the town gossip that can;t wait to start another rumor. And when they are tied to an OBVIOUS agenda, well the term "malicious BS" has been used to describe the intent quite accurately. Enjoy the rest of the weekend and try to take a break from slandering the cervid ranchers of ND for a couple of weeks and everything will get back to normal, unless that is normal on this site! :wink:


----------



## Csquared

> Longshot wrote:
> So as long as no one gives an opinion contrary to gst everything will be fine?


Had company here from CO so I missed some stuff, but looks like others here have things figured out, too!

gst appears to have issued his closing statements, and I can almost see him writing it while performing his self-appointed duties of policing this site to ensure all are held to his standards of decency, in line with his misunderstandings of the English language, in a manner that would make most cervid ranchers proud. I believe it went something like this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndup992f ... re=related

But before you go off half-cocked (hopefully with your bullet still in your pocket) there are still several "holes" in your case you have either avoided or forgotten to address. I asked you to substantiate *proof* of fact that *MOST* human TSE's are *spontaneous*, excepting CJD. You answered with 3 links which cumulatively used the word "*spontaneous*" only twice, provided *ZERO *data relating to percentages of *SPORADIC *infection relative to other known transmission methods, and ended by explaining your use of the word "fact" merely means it's a *fact* that it is _believed_.

It is a *FACT* that my grand daughter believes in Santa Claus, Barn :wink:

Not to infer those you've quoted aren't experts, but it is my opinion it is irresponsible to discredit one for erring on the side of caution when all you have to counter his fears are un-proven beliefs and hypothesis from _SOME_ within the field.

I may have researched this more deeply that you did a while back, as all you've posted are instantly available Google searches, but I didn't want to get back into all that . That's why I asked you to explain it for us. For example, we know that CJD is "sporadic" in humans in approximately 85% of cases. But I have never seen any other statistical data relating to OTHER human forms of TSE's, hence my question to you to provide such. You said it was a FACT MOST human TSE's were spontaneous.

....I'm still waiting for that data


----------



## Csquared

> In regards to spontaneous anything, it makes me laugh. There's always cause and effect


I wish spentwings was more involved, but let's look at this for a moment, Barn. Notice how you use the word "spontaneous" to back your case, but most sources use the word "sporadic"? You have chosen to interchange the words whereas most sources I have found are very careful with their use of the word "spontaneous".



> spon·ta·ne·ous/spänˈtānēəs/Adjective
> 1. Performed or occurring without premeditation or external stimulus
> 
> spon·ta·ne·ous   /spɒnˈteɪniəs/ Show Spelled
> [spon-tey-nee-uhs] Show IPA
> 
> -adjective
> 1. coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause.
> 2. (of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.
> 3. (of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.
> 4. growing naturally or without cultivation, as plants and fruits; indigenous.
> 5. produced by natural process.


Now consider this:



> Hereditary Versus Spontaneous Cancer
> 
> By Amy Adams, MS
> 
> Reviewed by Miriam Komaromy, MD
> Last updated March 26, 2001
> 
> Cancers are the result of mutations in genes. However, in hereditary cancer some of these mutations are inherited, and in sporadic cancer of the mutations occurred spontaneously.
> 
> Sporadic Cancer
> Hereditary Cancer
> Familial Cancer
> 
> Sporadic Cancer
> 
> In people with sporadic cancer, certain cells in their body developed mutations that led to cancer.
> 
> Most cancers are considered sporadic. In people who have sporadic cancer, they did not inherit cancer-causing mutations from their parents. Instead, certain cells in their body developed mutations that led to cancer. These mutations can be caused by sun (which can lead to skin cancer), exposure to radiation or some chemicals, or even random events within the cell.


----------



## Csquared

For us to believe your explanation, Barn, wouldn't it follow we also would have to believe that cancer has no cause? It just sort of _HAPPENED_ ...most of the time?

Spontaneously ? :wink:

You either don't know or purposely omitted the theories explaining the "sporadic" cases of human brain disease are actually caused by an infection with a gestation period approximately equal to half the normal human life expectancy, which makes it VERY difficult to link to one or two specific sources.

I gotta go, but when I get back how 'bout we use the next English lesson to define "slander", and how that can be accomplished in the future tense in the way you accuse some here of doing :wink:


----------



## gst

"So given the fact that most TSE's in humans *are thought *to happen spontaneously, perhaps "common sense" would lead one to beleive the same thing COULD happen in wild cervids regardless of how far they are from ANY infected source wild or captive in the case of this cervid TSE, CWD. But then again that attempt at "common sense" would do little to further the personal agenda the people repeatedly making these claims they can not prove regarding the HFH initiatives they have sponsored."

Csquared, what you do not seem to realize is in the above statement you quoted the "fact" you are referencing and hammering on is actually referencing that it is "THOUGHT" that a majority of TSE's are a result of a "spontaneous" action. The statement was made to emphasize the point that even the most professional and knowledgable and well versed people on these diseases will not make the claims plainsman has. Even here in the state, the agencies most directly involved and versed on the cases here in ND have not made the claims plainsman did.

(note the statement did NOT read "given the fact most TSE's in humans happen spontaneously" for those capable or willing, the difference will be noted)

As to providing you what you are asking, it was done with waht can be veiwed as reputable sources.

As a rancher I actually know there is a good bit of truth in the old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink". In this case no matter what documentation is provided, those that wish to beleive otherwise will do so.

.


Csquared said:


> Not to infer those you've quoted aren't experts, but it is my opinion it is irresponsible to discredit one for erring on the side of caution when all you have to counter his fears are un-proven beliefs and hypothesis from SOME within the field.


So are you then accepting the sources provided or not????? Are you inferring your opinion should carry more weight than those in the sources provided???? Perhaps you are simply distracting from what this originally started out as.

If you go back, all that was asked was for plainsman in making this "strong opinion" aimed at a group of people, was to substantiate his claims of how CWD would come into this state (or even the Jamestown region) :roll: given the "fact" CWD is already here that could be substantiated by ANY experts. As of yet neither he nor you have provided ANY means to substantiate his claim. Perhaps he is right, perhaps he is not, all that was asked for was to provide the facts on which he made his claim regarding CWD here in ND. (or perhaps he was indeed only referencing it comming to the Jamestown area rather than ND) :eyeroll: 

I simply beleive the last sentence in the quote of mine you refenced will spell out quite clearly why these unsubstantiated claims were made by those willing and able to look a tthem with an open mind given plainsmans stance over the years on this site regarding cervid ranchers.

"But then again that attempt at "common sense" would do little to further the personal agenda the people repeatedly making these claims they can not prove regarding the HFH initiatives they have sponsored."

If you truly beleive that is not what these claims that started all this are about, well there really would not be much else to say.


----------



## gst

Csquared here is one simple question.

Do you beleive plainsman has an agenda against cervid ranchers and their business?


----------



## Longshot

gst, I know you have a problem with the English language, but if you were to look back I believe Plainsman already addressed that. Can you admit you have an agenda?


----------



## Csquared

Barn, you putting emphasis on the word "thought" in your statement involving a discussion about facts renders that statement virtually moot. You say you have provided what I asked. You have not. I asked you to show proof of your position (thought, dream, halucination, whatever) that MOST human TSE's are spontaneous. You instead opted to infer I wouldn't understand anyway, so why bother?



> Neuron. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 February 27.
> Published in final edited form as:
> Neuron. 2009 August 27; 63(4): 438-450.
> doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2009.07.026 PMCID: PMC2775465
> HHMIMSID: HHMIMS144058
> 
> Copyright notice and Disclaimer
> Spontaneous generation of prion infectivity in fatal familial insomnia knock-in mice
> Walker S. Jackson,1 Andrew Borkowski,1,2 Henryk Faas,3 Andrew Steele,1 Oliver D. King,1 Nicki Watson,1 Alan Jasanoff,3,4 and Susan Lindquist1,2
> 1Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research Nine Cambridge Center Cambridge, MA 02142
> 2Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02142
> 3Frances Bitter Magnet Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 150 Albany St., NW14-2213 Cambridge, MA 02139
> 4Departments of Biological Engineering, Brain & Cognitive Sciences, and Nuclear Science & Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology 150 Albany St., NW14-2213 Cambridge, MA 02139
> Address correspondence to SL Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research Nine Cambridge Center Cambridge, MA 02142 ; Email: [email protected] phone: 617-258-5184 617-258-5184
> The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Neuron
> See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.
> Publisher's Disclaimer Other Sections▼
> SUMMARYINTRODUCTIONRESULTSDISCUSSIONEXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURESSupplementary MaterialReferencesSUMMARYA crucial tenet of the prion hypothesis is that misfolding of the prion protein (PrP) induced by mutations associated with familial prion disease is, in an otherwise normal mammalian brain, sufficient to generate the infectious agent. Yet this has never been demonstrated.


----------



## Csquared

> The statement was made to emphasize the point that even the most professional and knowledgable and well versed people on these diseases will not make the claims plainsman has.


Opinons of experts notwithstanding, how many cases of first-reported CWD in captive cervids would it take for you to acknowledge it was not opinion, but FACT that CWD was found in captive cervids in states with no prior cases of CWD in the wild? If I provide that info, will you then acknowledge that "common sense" would also indicate if it has happened before it could happen again? You have gone to great lengths to show there is no evidence to hint at the possibility of CWD being brought to ND by cervid ranching by using the fact it was discovered in the wild first as the main point of your case, so is the inverse of your argument also "true", by your standards? What about all the states who had documented cases of CWD in captive cervids BEFORE any wild cases? CWD was identified in 1967 in captive mule deer, but it wasn't until 14 years later it was found in the wild. I believe "common sense" would tell most of us there is cause for concern :wink:

As to your question, I have read enough of your ramblings to now know you have different ideas of word meanings than many of the rest of us here do, so before I answer your question I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for _your_ definition of "agenda".


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> You have gone to great lengths to show there is no evidence to hint at the possibility of CWD being brought to ND by cervid ranching by using the fact it was discovered in the wild first as the main point of your case, so is the inverse of your argument also "true", by your standards?


Csquared, The above statement simply is not true. Please do not require me to go back and show where I have said I nor plainsman nor others know enough about this disease to make such claims. I thought most would be able to understand that inference. The opposite is true in that I have stated regulations based on sound science be used to best prevent, deal with and educate people about these diseases as not enough is known to make specific claims regarding them as plainsman did. So gien the FACT CWD WAS found in wild cervids here in ND, as certain as plainsman was in his claims as to how it would get here, I simply asked him to substantiate those claims. He has not.

We are not dealing with other states here. Plainsmans claim was specifically directed at this state, ND, and how it would be introduced here. Very direct and plain and simple. As CWD HAS been found in ND, if his "strong opinion" is correct, he should be able to substantiate it as asked as it applies to this SPECIFIC claim regarding CWD and how it would enter ND.

PLEASE PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS CLAIM REGARDING CWD HERE IN ND AS PLAINAMAN CLAIMED. Until you do this there really is little else to discuss.

If you are not able to reason what "agenda" I am talking about given plainsmans involvement as a cosponsor with the likes of dick, jim h, roger kaseman and the comments and claims they have made on this very site regarding a measure that would have ultimately effectively ended captive cervid ranching there really is no point in furthering this discussion with someone who clearly wishes to not reason rationally.

Beleive, and claim what you wish, I will simply wait for plainsman to substantiate his claim with fact or maintain my own strong opinion that as suggested by spentwings, strong opinions not based on fact aimed at a group of people are malicious by intent.


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> CWD was identified in 1967 in captive mule deer, but it wasn't until 14 years later it was found in the wild. I believe "common sense" would tell most of us there is cause for concern


One last comment, As with any disease that is possibly transferrable in any form or level of risk, there is indeed "cause for concern" please once again show where I have ever claimed otherwise. But the facts adressing this "cause for concern" should be based on sound science and appropriate regulations put in place to deal with it, not agendas created because of personal ideologies. And please do not insult the intelligence of the posters of this site by claiming such an agenda by plainsman and others does not exist.

As was said earlier on if this is your position how then can you critisize others for pushing to ban things you approve of based on the same arguement?


----------



## shaug

csquared wrote,



> What about all the states who had documented cases of CWD in captive cervids BEFORE any wild cases? CWD was identified in 1967 in captive mule deer, but it wasn't until 14 years later it was found in the wild. I believe "common sense" would tell most of us there is cause for concern


Yes it was "identified" in a captive herd. It was a fed/gov research facility doing nutritional studies and putting the animals through stress tests. They were also housed with sheep infected with scrapies.

No one can put a definate date on the timeline that it was found in the wild. Some friends of mine from Colorado said they saw these emaciated deer back in the 1950's.


----------



## gst

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fusea ... 94b341f0cc
from this link.

Learn About CWD : FAQ Home
Contact the Alliance 
Where and How Did CWD Originate?

"The origin of CWD is unknown, and it may never be possible to definitively determine how or when CWD arose. It was first recognized as a syndrome in captive mule deer held in wildlife research facilities in Colorado in the late 1960s, but it was not identified as a TSE until the 1970s. Computer modeling suggests the disease may have been present in free-ranging populations of mule deer for more than 40 years.

Scrapie, a TSE of domestic sheep, has been recognized in the United States since 1947, and it is possible that CWD was derived from scrapie. It is possible, though never proven, that deer came into contact with scrapie-infected sheep either on shared pastures or in captivity somewhere along the front range of the Rocky Mountains, where high levels of sheep grazing occurred in the early 1900s.

It may be possible that CWD is a spontaneous TSE that arose in deer in the wild or in captivity and has biological features promoting transmission to other deer and elk. "


----------



## gst

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/cap ... sease.html

Hmmm. from this HSUS link. Sound familiar?

Where did CWD originate and how is it transmitted?
CWD was first identified in captive mule deer in Colorado in the late 1960s. It was not observed in the wild until 1981. However, the origin and cause of the disease have never been definitively determined. Most wildlife scientists agree that CWD proliferated in captive herds. In fact, when CWD has been present in a captive population for over two years, over 90% of the animals will be infected. The disease is directly transmissible via saliva, urine, feces, blood, and muscle and is highly infectious.

What can be done?
Most importantly, to halt the continuing spread of the disease all states must cease the importation and exportation of cervids. Banning the transport of cervids will help to contain the disease and prevent further dissemination by the game farming industry. Canada has already prohibited the importation of cervids from the United States, and several states have banned the practice as well.

In order to reduce the potential of future biological threats from this and other zoonotic diseases on a larger scale, states must ban game farms and captive hunts


----------



## gst

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/information_desk/

About the National Wildlife Health Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) is a science center of the Biological Resources Discipline of the United States Geological Survey. The NWHC was established in 1975 as a biomedical laboratory dedicated to assessing the impact of disease on wildlife and to identifying the role of various pathogens in contributing to wildlife losses.

From their site. 
http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_inform ... stions.jsp

from this link. 
"What causes CWD?

The origin of CWD is not known. Spontaneous development of PrPres might have occurred in deer, with subsequent transmission to other deer and elk."

"What is the epidemiology of CWD?

The mode of transmission of CWD is unknown."


----------



## gst

http://gf.nd.gov/hunting/cwd-q-and-a.html

From this link. 
"Where Is It Found?
The origin of CWD in unknown and it may never be possible to definitely determine how or when CWD arose."

"How Is CWD Transmitted?
It is not known exactly how CWD is transmitted."

"Farmed Deer and Elk
What Is The ND Department of Agriculture, State Board Of Animal Health Doing About CWD?
The ND Board of Animal Health is monitoring private, farmed elk and deer herds. The Board initiated mandatory inventory of all game farms in 1993 and initiated mandatory CWD surveillance, reporting, and testing in 1998 of any farmed elk or deer more than 12 months of age that dies from any cause. Before any deer or elk is imported into the state it must have a health certificate and a five-year risk assessment, which includes a review of the herd history."


----------



## gst

As I have said before, please do not take either my or plainsmans or any other "experts" on this sites strong opinions as to CWD and it's origins. Look to others more versed and less biased to find what information is avalible. Sound science and theories based on such rather than agenda driven opinions are what is needed to effectively deal with diseases such as these. What seems to be a constant within these research based "opinions" is that not enough is known about these diseases to make the kind of claims some individuals and groups are making. Even within the scientific community it seems there is not enough information being shared and jointly researched.

http://huntingnet.com/articles/article_ ... les_id=265
From the link:
In my dealings with the scientific community over the last 20 years I have found that many research scientists fail to look beyond their own area of expertise. And I've found this to be true when it comes to CWD. After corresponding with several of the scientists mentioned in this article by e-mail, I found that many of them did not know of the others work, and had not read their research, theories or hypothesis. In an effort to advance the research into the causative agent of CWD, and find possible ways to innoculate against, treat cure, or stop the spread of CWD, I have provided the top CWD scientists (many of who are only looking into prions) with the web sites and e-mail addresses of several non-prion scientists. And I have sent copies of some of the research abstracts of the non-prion scientists to the CWD scientists, in the hopes that they can work together. *Fortunately, at least two of these scientists (who I consider to be very important), have agreed that they should keep an open mind when it comes to CWD.* "


----------



## Csquared

It's a very simple question, gst.

You quoted this from (I assume) a reputable source:



> It may be possible that CWD is a spontaneous TSE that arose in deer in the wild or in captivity and has biological features promoting transmission to other deer and elk. The majority of human CJD cases are thought to be spontaneous and associated with conformational change in a normal cellular protein (PrPC) to the abnormal disease associated protease resistant protein (PrPres) considered by many to be infectious agents of the TSEs. Occurrence of spontaneous CJD is approximately 1 per 1 million population per year. Spontaneous CWD may have happened in deer though it is difficult to see how this could be proven


The key info there being....The majority of human* CJD* cases are thought to be spontaneous

You later changed that info into this:



> So given the fact that most TSE's in humans are thought to happen spontaneously, perhaps "common sense" would lead one to beleive the same thing COULD happen in wild cervids regardless of how far they are from ANY infected source wild or captive in the case of this cervid TSE, CWD. But then again that attempt at "common sense" would do little to further the personal agenda the people repeatedly making these claims they can not prove regarding the HFH initiatives they have sponsored.


The key info there being.... given the *fact* that most *TSE's *in humans are thought to happen spontaneously

At first glance the above might appear as a childish attempt at word games, as lord knows we have seen far too much of that already here. And perhaps it will play out to be just that. Or perhaps it's something much more malicious. Something blatantly indicative of an agenda. You'll note when I asked you to substantiate your claim about human TSE's I explicitly excluded CJD from my question, since you get no argument from me there. What I was clearly asking for was for you to provide data showing what is known about CJD applies to all, or MOST (as you called it) human TSE's.

The above could have very easily been explained as a mistake, what with all the CWD's, TSE's and CJD's being thrown around who could fault you for accidentally typing something you really didn't mean. And surely you're a man secure enough in his standing that you can freely admit when you've made a mistake....but that's not what you did.

Since data suggests about 85% of CJD cases are sporadic, I asked you for comparable data for the other human TSE's. You could have said "oops" right then. "I didn't mean all TSE's, I meant CJD"....but that's not what you did.

Instead, since my question you have posted 67 paragraphs in 16 different posts, none of which contained any info even hinting at a mistake on your part. That makes me wonder if it's at all possible you are, in fact, guilty of attempting to further a personal agenda of your own, at the same time you are accusing others here of doing the same, since it does little to advance your explanation of spontaneous CWD in the wild deer population by comparing it to only ONE human form. But if you can make it appear your data includes ALL TSE's, well that right there is a horse of a different color :wink:

Since you obviously don't want to attempt to provide data to substantiate your human TSE claim, how about an even more simple question...

Is the above an honest mistake, or an agenda?

agen·da noun \ə-ˈjen-də\
Definition of AGENDA
1: a list or outline of things to be considered or done <agendas of faculty meetings> 
2: an underlying often ideological plan or program 
- agen·da·less \-də-ləs\ adjective


----------



## Csquared

Is anyone on here well-versed in tax law?

I'm sure gst had to list a percentage of use when he wrote the cost of his computer off to his ranch, so I'm fearful I may be held as an accessory to tax fraud if he has exceeded those limits!


----------



## gst

One last time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmissi ... phalopathy

From this link. 
Most TSEs are sporadic and occur in an animal with no prion protein mutation.

Mutations in the PRNP gene cause prion disease. Familial forms of prion disease are caused by inherited mutations in the PRNP gene. Only a small percentage of all cases of prion disease run in families, however. *Most cases of prion disease are sporadic, which means they occur in people without any known risk factors or gene mutations*. Rarely, prion diseases also can be transmitted by exposure to prion-contaminated tissues or other biological materials obtained from individuals with prion disease.

Epidemiology
*These spontaneous disorders* in humans are very rare, affecting only about one person per million worldwide each year"

Beleive what you wish Csquared.

If you beleive I have an agenda so be it.

Plainsman was simply asked to substantiate his "strong opinion" of how CWD would be introduced here in ND given the "fact" it has been found here.

He has not.

My agenda if there is one is to base information, management and regulation regarding animal diseases on sound science and fact rather than agenda driven "opinions".


----------



## gst

OK to clarify to the point perhaps that will satisfy you Csquared. 
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tse/tse.htm

From this link. 
Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), also known as prion diseases, are a group of rare degenerative brain disorders characterized by tiny holes that give the brain a "spongy" appearance. These holes can be seen when brain tissue is viewed under a microscope.

*Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is the most well-known of the human TSEs. *It is a rare type of dementia that affects about one in every one million people each year. Other human TSEs include kuru, fatal familial insomnia (FFI), and Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker disease (GSS). *Kuru was identified in people of an isolated tribe in Papua New Guinea and has now almost disappeared. FFI and GSS are extremely rare hereditary diseases, found in just a few families around the world.* A new type of CJD, called variant CJD (vCJD), was first described in 1996 and has been found in Great Britain and several other European countries. The initial symptoms of vCJD are different from those of classic CJD and the disorder typically occurs in younger patients.

Research suggests that TSEs are caused by an abnormal version of a protein called a prion (prion is short for proteinaceous infectious particle). Prion proteins occur in both a normal form, which is a harmless protein found in the body's cells, and in an infectious form, which causes disease. The harmless and infectious forms of the prion protein are nearly identical, but the infectious form takes on a different folded shape from the normal protein.

*Human TSEs can occur three ways: sporadically; as hereditary diseases; or through transmission from infected individuals. Sporadic TSEs may develop because some of a person's normal prions spontaneously change into the infectious form of the protein and then alter the prions in other cells in a chain reaction.*

Please note the emboldened section in the first paragraph which would lead one to beleive CJD is the most often occuring human TSE.

Csquared wrote Quote: Since data suggests about 85% of CJD cases are sporadic, I asked you for comparable data for the other human TSE's" end quote.

So if 85% by your own admission are sporadic and the link I shared states what is underlined and emboldened directly above, well it probably will not satisfy you any way so carry on in your beleifs of what you wish.


----------



## Plainsman

> Infectious
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Infectious disease
> 
> Infectious diseases, also known as communicable diseases, contagious diseases or transmissible diseases comprise clinically evident illness (i.e., characteristic medical signs and/or symptoms of disease) resulting from the infection, presence and growth of pathogenic biological agents in an individual host organism. In certain cases, infectious diseases may be asymtomatic for much or all of their course. Infectious pathogens include some viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa, multicellular parasites, and aberrant proteins known as prions. These pathogens are the cause of disease epidemics, in the sense that without the pathogen, no infectious epidemic occurs.


----------



## gst

Now what can be gleaned from this information is that CJD is the most common and most occuring of these rare human TSE's as the two other types are even rarer. It also go on to state the manner in which these diseases can occur, "sporadic" is the first method listed.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs180/en/

Before the identification of vCJD, CJD was recognized to exist in only three forms. *Sporadic cases, which have an unknown cause and occur throughout the world at the rate of about one per million people, account for 85-90% of CJD cases.* Familial cases are associated with a gene mutation and make up 5-10% of all CJD cases. Iatrogenic cases result from the accidental transmission of the causative agent via contaminated surgical equipment or as a result of cornea or dura mater transplants or the administration of human-derived pituitary growth hormones. Less than 5% of CJD cases are iatrogenic.

So one could assume given these informational examples that sporadic TSE's are "BELEIVED'" to be the most common form of human TSE's and that it is "BELEIVED" "sporadic" TSE's occur when prions change "spontaneously". So one could make the arguement it is fact that it is THOUGHT most human TSE's occur spontaneously. 
KEY word to focas on here is THOUGHT, as most reserchers as shown in a number of reputable links provided will admit not knowing enough about the origin of TSE's to make the cast in stone claims some on here tend to.

So as I said beleive what you wish.



Csquared said:


> Opinons of experts notwithstanding,


 As it is clear from your own words you do not wish to bleive even the "experts" . :roll:


----------



## gst

plainsman, this substantiates your initial claim how????


----------



## spentwings

I guess we all have our word problems.
Mine is spontaneous which I've even seen used to describe tornado formation.
I still maintain there's always cause and effect.
But hey,,,that's just my opinion. :wink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_and_Effect


----------



## Csquared

Spent...you got any of that 90 proof left?

I don't even drink and he's got me wantin some! :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> plainsman, this substantiates your initial claim how????


Oh, it has nothing to do with my claim. I was just trying to be helpful. When I was six and grandpa was somewhere close to 90 it just bugged me when he talked to himself. 
It was interesting that they listed prions under contagious.

Spontaneous??? Would that be like the parthenogenetic birth of Jesus?


----------



## Csquared

> Beleive what you wish Csquared.
> 
> If you beleive I have an agenda so be it.


If you could have grasped that concept 4 pages ago we could have avoided all of this! :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

But spent, does the "cause" in "cause and effect" happen "spontaneously"??????  What causes the "cause" ???? :wink:

The simple fact I do not think any one can argue I have consistantly made is that there simply is not enough known about these diseases to make the claims that plainsman and others on here have. And when these claims have been made on this site in particular, if does not take a rocket scientist to realize they are most likely tied to an agenda that has been discussed to death on this site that was sponsored by several of the loudest "experts" here including the one that made the "strong opinion" that started all this. That (basing opinions not on fact but rather on agendas) simply to me is not a legitimate place to start a discussion regarding diseases such as CWD or BSE in cattle.

Hell I can remember when an expert ( his dad was a doctor so he said he knew!!!) claimed in a "strong opinion" you could catch cooties from just kissing a girl!!!!!

When I later caught this expert kissing the girl behind the concession stand on the football field he claimed would give me the cooties had I done so , I realized even in third grade some people had their own agendas!


----------



## Plainsman

Csquared said:


> Beleive what you wish Csquared.
> 
> If you beleive I have an agenda so be it.
> 
> 
> 
> If you could have grasped that concept 4 pages ago we could have avoided all of this! :eyeroll:
Click to expand...

No kidding. As I have tried to explain more than once, everyone has an agenda. I told gst that I would guess he has an agenda to pass his farm on to his son. Everyone, and I mean everyone has an agenda. If they don't they are fools. Some have an agenda to have enough money to retire at 50 some at 70. Some have an agenda to become teachers, farmers, policemen, etc. Some try to use the term in negative context. There sure has been a lot of word spin around here lately.

I think it all boils down to this: one side believes cervid ranches will bring cwd and others think it will arise spontaneously in our wild herd. You the reader will have to decide which is more realistic because those of us who debate are not going to change each others mind. Game farm vs spontaneous.



> When I later caught this expert kissing the girl behind the concession stand on the football field he claimed would give me the cooties had I done so , I realized even in third grade some people had their own agendas!


As a senior you shouldn't have fallen for that. :rollin:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> plainsman, this substantiates your initial claim how????
Click to expand...

Oh, it has nothing to do with my claim. I was just trying to be helpful. quote]

plainsman if you truly wished to be helpful, you should have simply substantiated the claim you made when asked way back when! :wink:

You know it still is not to late if you wish to! 

Tell you what, I'll try my hand at predicting the future. (or perhaps just sharing a "strong opinion"  ) If CWD is found in a captive cervid ranch somewhere in the future here in ND, no matter when, where or how (spontaneous/sporadically :wink: ) it might happen, it will be claimed by the very same people harboring the very same agendas the cases found in SW ND were a result of that.

"and when it happens, remember who told you it would" :wink: .


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I think it all boils down to this: *one side believes cervid ranches will bring cwd *and others think it will arise spontaneously in our wild herd. You the reader will have to decide which is more realistic because those of us who debate are not going to change each others mind. Game farm vs spontaneous.


And 4 pages later we are right back to where we started!  :roll:

Jeesh plainsamn you just do not seem to grasp the fact that CWD has already been found here in ND. You claimed how it would get here, you are simply being asked to substantiate that claim. Can you do this or not?


----------



## Plainsman

:rollin: :rollin: So your saying if it's found in a captive herd it will have been spontaneous? Have you been successful with this excuse before? I wonder how many teenage boys have tried that excuse? :rollin: :rollin:

Yes gst I know they found one isolated case in North Dakota. What I am talking about is an out of control infection within our wild herd. Numbers that affect how many people will hunt, or how many deer are available to hunt.

You mentioned every animal coming into the state is inspected. Would that include the one like they found with cwd in Tennessee? In other words will that include those coming by pickup, on backroads, after midnight? The people in the business now may not do anything like that, but when the profit gets high enough it will attract people that will. The best move for those raising cervids now is to somehow limit those types of businesses. Eliminating future competition certainly would not hurt those in business now. I explained that before when I said we should not allow more of these businesses until we can finish the research that tells us if it is safe or unsafe. After all, do we want more of these businesses that we have to reimburse because they were encouraged to start?


----------



## Csquared

SPENT!

I NEED THE WHISKEY !!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

Csquared said:


> SPENT!
> 
> I NEED THE WHISKEY !!!!!!!!!


Ya, I have tried to explain numerous times and if I do it again could you help tie the long sleeves of this white coat? 
I notice that when I stop more outrageous bs comes out to keep me going. I hate it when I'm a sucker. Would you two come and break my fingers if I type on this thread again?


----------



## Csquared

gst wrote:


> The simple fact I do not think any one can argue I have consistantly made is that there simply is not enough known about these diseases to make the claims that plainsman and others on here have. And when these claims have been made on this site in particular, if does not take a rocket scientist to realize they are most likely tied to an agenda that has been discussed to death on this site that was sponsored by several of the loudest "experts" here including the one that made the "strong opinion" that started all this. That (basing opinions not on fact but rather on agendas) simply to me is not a legitimate place to start a discussion regarding diseases such as CWD or BSE in cattle.


gst, I have seen no one dispute the lack of knowledge, but what got me interested in this is you made it very obvious your side was the only one allowed to use that lack of knowledge to defend your position.

Well that, and your refusal to allow anyone with an opinion different than your's to go unchallenged 

It's abundantly clear to all with at least 3rd grade reading skills this has very little, if not NOTHING to do with a post made in this thread. You obviously have a hard-on for someone who was on the opposite side of an issue you have a personal interest in, so it appears you will continually look for ways to "make him pay" for opposing you.

So with that in mind, I guess your analogy about how 3rd graders learn about life really does apply here :wink:


----------



## Csquared

> Ya, I have tried to explain numerous times and if I do it again could you help tie the long sleeves of this white coat?


It's like fighting a guy who doesn't feel pain, Plainsman. At some point you realize you're hurting your fists more than his head...so why bother?


----------



## spentwings

Csquared said:


> SPENT!
> 
> I NEED THE WHISKEY !!!!!!!!!


I truly wud advise it,,,cuz when we're all accused of having a neurological disorder, at least you, like me, will have an excuse. :beer:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Yes gst I know they found one isolated case in North Dakota. What I am talking about is an out of control infection within our wild herd. Numbers that affect how many people will hunt, or how many deer are available to hunt.


so now you are quantifying your "strong opinion" you made earlier that it is now not when CWD is found but when it is found at a certain level??? 

Why not just cut thru the bull**** and say that when CWD is found in a captive cervid ranch you and others will claim it has infected every single deer in ND that has CWD, and use it as leverage to accomplish your agenda you can;t let go of even after the people of ND spoke.

In case you forgot, this is what started all this. 
by Plainsman » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:51 pm

"There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers. Just a matter of time. There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it. Like Dick said corruption in the system. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.

When it comes you remember who said it would."

plainsman, so is it when it comes here as it has already or simply when it comes here in a way you can link to a captive cervid farm to further your agenda which you sponsored and argued for extensively on this site?


----------



## Csquared

gst, if you've ever owned a mule, I certainly hope you never called him stubborn


----------



## gst

So plainsman, Csquared, If CWD does not happen spontaneously, how many other wild deer has this one wild deer infected? How many other deer have these infected deer infected? How do you know it has not already reached this new level that suddenly is plainsmans new measuring stick by which he will substantiate his claim?

If it is found in a captive herd near where the wild infected deer was, could the wild deer have infected the captive herd? Yes or no

So if another wild deer is found to have CWD will it have been infected by the wild one already found or by a cervid ranch?

Anyone want to bet what the "strong opinion" will be then?????


----------



## gst

Csquared said:


> gst, if you've ever owned a mule, I certainly hope you never called him stubborn


I never called him stubborn, but he never did drink when someone led him to water either! :wink:

Csquared, answer this one simple question directly if you would, do you beleive the people that spend any amount of time on this site do not realize what plainsmans, dicks, lonshots, ect agendas are regarding captive cervid operations?

It has become my "strong opinion" that plainsman and dick are actually wishing for a case of CWD to be found in a captive cervid farm here in ND just so they can "strongly" say see we told you so.

If anyone is taking bets, who wants to bet that if a case is found in a captive operation the push for a ban once again will arise with many of the same players making the same claims. (who knows maybe HSUS (you know that group that thinks so highly of hunting at all) will jump on the bandwagon again :wink: )

And while we are at it who wants to bet if this does occur this one lonely wild deer with CWD in SW ND will be forgotten despite the claims by those on here how "infectious" this disease is and how if it did "come here" it would decimate our hunting as their reason to ban captive operations.

Plainsman has already discounted this finding of a CWD infected wild deer as not being significant enough to warrant his claims of how it would come here.

Or, how about simply trying a little honesty and admitting yes we do still have an agenda to end captive cervid farms mostly because of the ethics we wish to impose on others regarding HFH. It might be a breath of fresh air.


----------



## gst

When BSE (the bovine TSE) was found in a cow imported from Canada into the US, groups with agendas to end animal agriculture and the consumption of meat made "strong opinions" not based on fact to further their agendas. Many of these same groups are using the CWD issue to accomplish parrallel agendas that coincidentaly parrallel what some on here are doing. It was the steady factual information presented that kept these agendas from being accomplished in regards to the cattle industry and the product we raise for the consumer. So yes I do get abit "annoyed" when I see agenda based claims that are similar to others seen in the past being made regarding these diseases.

So at least have the courteousy for others on this site to be honest enough to admit what is trying to be done, and not try pulling the wool over their eyes with circular bull**** that is then "explained", I think most on here are smart enough to realize plainsmans and dicks agenda, particularily after plainsman has now "quantified" his claim saying THIS discovery of CWD here in ND does not count. :wink: :roll:

by Plainsman » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:51 pm

"There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers. Just a matter of time. There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it. Like Dick said corruption in the system. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.

When it comes you remember who said it would."



Plainsman said:


> Yes gst I know they found one isolated case in North Dakota. What I am talking about is an out of control infection within our wild herd. Numbers that affect how many people will hunt, or how many deer are available to hunt.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> But spent, does the "cause" in "cause and effect" happen "spontaneously"??????  What causes the "cause" ???? :wink:
> 
> The simple fact I do not think any one can argue I have consistantly made is that there simply is not enough known about these diseases to make the claims that plainsman and others on here have. And when these claims have been made on this site in particular, if does not take a rocket scientist to realize they are most likely tied to an agenda that has been discussed to death on this site that was sponsored by several of the loudest "experts" here including the one that made the "strong opinion" that started all this. That (basing opinions not on fact but rather on agendas) simply to me is not a legitimate place to start a discussion regarding diseases such as CWD or BSE in cattle.
> 
> Hell I can remember when an expert ( his dad was a doctor so he said he knew!!!) claimed in a "strong opinion" you could catch cooties from just kissing a girl!!!!!
> 
> When I later caught this expert kissing the girl behind the concession stand on the football field he claimed would give me the cooties had I done so , I realized even in third grade some people had their own agendas!


gst
I bet you've been reading Granger Cause and are trying to confuse me. :wink: 
Whereas my belief in cause and effect is based on the Illustrated Sutra of Cause and Effect from 8th century Japan.










As for kissing and cooties :rollin: , I suspect your expert was right. It all depends where you kiss em. :wink:


----------



## ShineRunner

A lot of the post in this thread is like trying to figure out which came first the chicken or the egg!!! :shake: oke:

someone answer this age old question and this thread will be done? of course a lot of other things will be solved also, like the teenage boy saying he didn't do it, it just happened.


----------



## gst

spent, of course, the Granger causality is CLEARLY the answer. What was I thinking providing numerous links claiming not enough is known about this disease to claim where it originates when all we had to do was apply this formula 

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Granger_causality

"The basic "Granger Causality" definition is quite simple."  

Simply apply the mathimatical formula provided in the link and clearly one sees the origin of CWD. 8)

If that does not clear it up for those on here making "strong opinions", simply use the Fourier methods to analyse the Spectral G causality within the spectral domain !!!!! This can be very useful for neurophysiological signals, where frequency decompositions are often of interest.

Clearly this shows the origins of CWD here in ND beyond a shadow of a doubt, and is much easier to understand than translating Japanese. Often so much is lost in translation!


----------



## gst

ShineRunner said:


> A lot of the post in this thread is like trying to figure out which came first the chicken or the egg!!! :shake: oke:
> 
> someone answer this age old question and this thread will be done? of course a lot of other things will be solved also, like the teenage boy saying he didn't do it, it just happened.


Shine I actually thought quite awhile ago about asking plainsman or Csquared to provide a "strong opinion" regarding that, but since there has been no agendas to ban either chickens or eggs to further on this site that I am aware of, I'm not sure they would have the answer! 

Even if plainsman did provide an answer, it is likely Csquared would claim this "strong opinion" only applies to chickens and eggs in the Jamestown area, not the whole state of ND anyways. :wink:

And according to plainsman, if there is only one chicken or egg, there is not enough to significantly affect anything so the importance of the claim or cause is irrelevant anyways, and his "strong opinion" wouldn't count! :-?  :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Yes gst I know they found one isolated case in North Dakota. What I am talking about is an out of control infection within our wild herd. Numbers that affect how many people will hunt, or how many deer are available to hunt. quote]
> 
> So in an attempt for some HONESTY here, plainsman, if this "one isolated case in ND" had been in a captive cervid ranch rather than the wild, would you be so dismissive of it's possible affect?????
> 
> I think we all know the answer and why.


----------



## spentwings

gst  and Shine
The chicken of course.
In the evolutionary chain,,,there wasn't even a need for sex until pathogens made it necessary for
non pathological life to survive. Besides that, some of us do indeed carry some obscure Neanderthal DNA.
It's always cause and effect. There are believers and there are not.
Who's right is a matter of opinion.

So who actually won this so called debate on points? 
In my not so spontaneous opinion,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you gst.
But considering your endless repetition, that fact must be to abstract for you to comprehend.


----------



## gst

spent, you are risking the wrath of some on here making that "opinion" !! It really is not about "winning or losing" when it comes to issues such as these diseases. It is about how they are best dealt with and as I have repeatedly stated sound science,factual information and responses based on that rather than agenda driven opinions are what is needed if something useful is going to be accomplished regarding these diseases.

As for the endless repetition, after 5 pages of back and forth we ended back where we started with plainsmans "strong opinion once again of where CWD would come from here in ND with nohing to substantiate it. But in getting there, we ended up seeing first hand his agenda driven claims in his dismissal of the case of CWD identified here in ND as not counting as it did little to further his cause.

So as is often the case, if one only continues pushing abit, the truth often comes out in various forms. Had plainsman simply either substantiated his claim or said he could not because it was made to further an agenda rather than to factually inform when he was first asked, think of all the typing that could have been saved!


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> *It is about how they are best dealt with and as I have repeatedly stated sound science,factual information and responses based on that rather than agenda driven opinions are what is needed if something useful is going to be accomplished regarding these diseases.*


Yep, and it's my opinion that we should limit these cervid ranches as much as possible until science catches up. Best error on the safe side.

My guess is gst, that if science were to prove game farms were the cause you would change your aguments and continue to support them. I believe you care more about your fellow rancher than a wild herd.


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> spent, you are risking the wrath of some on here making that "opinion" !!


Maybe, but I don't think so. In many ways I'm on their team.
It's just that I'm a strong believer in property rights with exceptions of course.
Deer ranching/HF and baiting, which I detest, just doesn't happen to be two of them.

I've said more than once on this site that agriculture isn't the sportsman's friend but why should it be.
In regards to wildlife, I suspect in most cases money is the first consideration, and again to a point understandable,,,but only to a point.


----------



## Plainsman

> The Journal of Wildlife Management > Vol. 66, No. 3, Jul., 2002 > Chronic Wasting Dise...
> You are viewing the first page/citation. Full-text access may be available if you are affiliated with a participating library or publisher. Check access options or login if you have an account.





> CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE OF DEER AND ELK: A REVIEW
> WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT
> ELISABETH S. WILLIAMS, Department of Veterinary Science, University of Wyoming, 1174 Snowy Range Road, Laramie, WY
> 82070, USA
> MICHAEL W. MILLER, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wildlife Research Center, 317 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, Co. 80526
> USA
> TERRY J. KREEGER, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2362 Highway 34, Wheatland, WY 82006, USA
> E. TOM THORNE, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 5400 Bishop Boulevard, Cheyenne, WY 82006, USA
> Abstract" Chronic wasting disease (CWD) has emerged as an important disease of wild and farmed cervids in North America. Of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE's), or prion diseases, CWD is the only one found in free-ranging species. Because the TSE's include infamous diseases like bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) of cattle and variant Creutzefeldt-Jacob disease of humans, CWD by association has become a disease of interest beyond the parochial concerns where it is found. Consequently, wildlife managers are faced with developing programs for addressing CWD. Mule deer (_Odeocoileus hemionus_), white-tailed deer _(O. virginianus_), and Rocky Mountain elk (_Cervus elaphus nelsoni_) are the only species known to be naturally susceptible to CWD. Although implications of CWD are not entirely clear at this time, we know that CWD is a fatal, contagious disease of mature reproductive segements of the deer and elk populations. It has been endemic in free-ranging cervids in core ares of contiguous portions of southeastern Wyoming and northeastern Colorado, USA, for a minimum of 20 years and probably longer. The known geographic distribution of endemic CWD is relatively limited at this time, although as a result of intensified surveillance becomes available, this may change. Foci of CWD in free-ranging deer has been identified distant from the core endemic area as far east as Wisconsin. Distribution has greatly expanded in the last decade or more via commerce in infected farmed elk. As a result CWD recently has been found in multiple jurisdictions of the plains, foothills, and Rocky Mountains of western North America and in South Korea.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, I remember when you ranchers were in an uproar over mad cow in Canada. Was HSUS in on the plot to destroy the Canadian beef industry, or was this just a political ploy by United States ranchers to eliminate the competition? It had to be real, or it had to be political maneuvering on the part of ranchers. So gst, did HSUS help you guys? Was it a dark plot on your part? Ya, HSUS, ranchers, and black helicopters. :wink:

How does that work out that you didn't worry about it after we had mad cow in the United States? Why do you worry so little about CWD? Would it bother you if it infected pheasants? :wink:



> U.S. ban on Canadian beef putting farmers out of business
> 
> By Carson Walker
> 
> Associated Press Writer
> 
> STEWIACKE, Nova Scotia --Canadian farmer Curtis Moxsom likes Americans. But he has nothing good to say about the U.S. ban on imported beef.
> 
> He says the border closure put in place because of fears over mad cow disease has become a political issue that's endangering his livelihood and that of his fellow Canadian cattlemen.
> 
> "We're supposed to be two countries that work together. But they're treating us like criminals," Moxsom said as he cut silage on his Nova Scotia farm.
> 
> "I'm not putting down Americans, but it's nearly knocked this farmer off his feet."
> 
> An Alberta cow found to have bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE, in May 2003 led to the U.S. ban on Canadian beef imports. In August, USDA began allowing the importation of meat considered a low risk, including boneless beef, liver and veal.
> 
> People who eat products containing the BSE protein can contract variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a rare but fatal disease similar to BSE.
> 
> Since 1986, 147 people worldwide have died from BSE, nearly all of them in the United Kingdom. The only person in the United States to die from it had moved from England.
> 
> The first six months alone, the ban has cost Canada more than $6 billion, according to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.
> 
> In the United States, some cattlemen and consumer groups say it's worth it because of the risk to U.S. livestock and consumers.


----------



## gst

Plainsman you must have overlooked the part of your information that I enlarged for you! :wink:



Plainsman said:


> TERRY J. KREEGER, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2362 Highway 34, Wheatland, WY 82006, USA
> E. TOM THORNE, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 5400 Bishop Boulevard, Cheyenne, WY 82006, USA
> Abstract" Chronic wasting disease (CWD) has emerged as an important disease of wild and farmed cervids in North America. Of the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE's), or prion diseases, CWD is the only one found in free-ranging species. Because the TSE's include infamous diseases like bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) of cattle and variant Creutzefeldt-Jacob disease of humans, CWD by association has become a disease of interest beyond the parochial concerns where it is found. Consequently, wildlife managers are faced with developing programs for addressing CWD. Mule deer (_Odeocoileus hemionus_), white-tailed deer _(O. virginianus_), and Rocky Mountain elk (_Cervus elaphus nelsoni_) are the only species known to be naturally susceptible to CWD. Although implications of CWD are not entirely clear at this time, we know that CWD is a fatal, contagious disease of mature reproductive segements of the deer and elk populations. It has been endemic in free-ranging cervids in core ares of contiguous portions of southeastern Wyoming and northeastern Colorado, USA, for a minimum of 20 years and probably longer. The known geographic distribution of endemic CWD is relatively limited at this time, although as a result of intensified surveillance becomes available, this may change. Foci of CWD in free-ranging deer has been identified distant from the core endemic area as far east as Wisconsin. Distribution has greatly expanded in the last decade or more via commerce in infected farmed elk. As a result CWD recently has been found in multiple jurisdictions of the plains, foothills, and Rocky Mountains of western North America and in South Korea.


[/quote]


----------



## gst

From the NDSBofAH summer news letter.

CWD
Since 1998, more than 8,700 farmed deer and elk have been tested for chronic wasting disease in North Dakota. No samples have tested positive for the disease. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department has tested more than 22,000 wild deer and elk. In March of 2010, the first case of CWD in North Dakota wildlife was identified in an adult buck. It was one of more than 3,000 animals sampled as part of the 2009 CWD surveillance. This buck was taken in southwestern Sioux County. In the fall of 2010, another positive sample was identified in a doe from the same area. The Game and Fish Department continues to target this area for increased surveillance.

So plainsman given the "fact" that TWO wild cervids have been diagnosed with CWD in two separate years does this make it of any more significance?



gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes gst I know they found one isolated case in North Dakota. What I am talking about is an out of control infection within our wild herd. Numbers that affect how many people will hunt, or how many deer are available to hunt. quote]
> 
> So in an attempt for some HONESTY here, plainsman, if this "one isolated case in ND" had been in a captive cervid ranch rather than the wild, would you be so dismissive of it's possible affect?????
Click to expand...

Do you care to answer this question directly plainsman?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, I remember when you ranchers were in an uproar over mad cow in Canada. Was HSUS in on the plot to destroy the Canadian beef industry, or was this just a political ploy by United States ranchers to eliminate the competition? It had to be real, or it had to be political maneuvering on the part of ranchers. So gst, did HSUS help you guys? Was it a dark plot on your part? Ya, HSUS, ranchers, and black helicopters.
> 
> How does that work out that you didn't worry about it after we had mad cow in the United States? Why do you worry so little about CWD? Would it bother you if it infected pheasants?


I'll try to break this down clearly and slowly so there is no confusion! :wink:

The cow found in the US was actually traced back to be of Canadian origin. The US has not had a domestic case of BSE for decades. We have beeen proactive in developing practices based on sound science to reduce and eliminate this disease without "banning" the practice of raising the animal itself.

SOME within the cattle industry did much like what is happening here in regards to having an agenda that they furthered by making "strong opinions" that were not based on fact to do exactly what you have said in restricting competition in global and domestic markets. Many other ranchers (some would argue a large majority) realized this use of scare tactics to accomplish agendas rather than following sound science was simply wrong, I happened to be of this ideology.

HSUS and other groups whose agendas are to end animal ag as well as meat consumption also made "strong opinions" that simply were not true nor were they supported by sound science.

As was stated, early on after this Canadian cow was found in the US, sound science based on fact and regulations put in place based on this sound science has slowly but surely delt with what is a controlable disease that affects a incredibly small percentage of animals world wide without banning raising the animal itself.

As more is found out about CWD, this disease as well will follow the path of other TSE's . The issue here is the inclusion of a wild population which makes gathering conslusive evidence much more difficult. So when individuals or groups make claims regarding CWD that they can not substantiate with any sort of proof based on sound science, It makes one wonder why they would make such claims. In the case of HSUS it is relatively easy to figure it out. And given plainsmans and others such as members of NDH for FC statements, accusations, claims, and "strong opinions" over the years on this site regarding cervid operations, it is about as easy to spot their agenda as it is HSUS's.

Now before anyone goes off, I am NOT accusing anyone of being connected to HSUS, simply having a parrallel agenda that they are furthering in the same manner of making "strong opinions" they can not substantiate based on fact. So plainsman, given there are now two wild cervid cases of CWD here in ND , if one is to be found in a captive operation in this area, can you factually state which infected which?

Oh and I know of no TSE's which occur in poultry. :wink:


----------



## gst

spentwings said:



> gst wrote:
> spent, you are risking the wrath of some on here making that "opinion" !!
> Maybe, but I don't think so. In many ways I'm on their team


Spent the opinions I was refering to was your one suggesting I "won" this debate, and the one claiming man's neanderthal roots and the "origins" of mankind itself. Surely plainsman was sidetracked on other things to let your "opinion" mankind has "evoloved" rather than originating "spontaneously" thru creation by a higher power go with out comment! For some reason I doubt plainsman would want someone of those ideologies on "his" team.


----------



## gst

Oh and plainsman I do not "worry so littele about CWD. I simply beleive sound science and the usage of it will do more to eventually understand this disease to the point it can be delt with than will personal agendas.

Here is a thought for you to consider. CWD does exist in the wild cervid herds. Most honest researchers will admit to the difficulty in diagnosing and researching the cause and effects within a wild population. So what if the captive operations that people on here wish to end so badly are ultimately the source of the research that provides the control and elimination of this disease you are worried about decimating your wild populations because of the ability of researchers to use a captive study to develope vaccines, treatments ect...? How much sooner can control of this disease be reached by working with captive cervids operations thru sound science based on this as an "agenda" rather than simply banning these operations because of ethical ideologies???

But hey little does understanding and ending this disease mean as long as we can get captive cervid operations banned one way or another. :roll:


----------



## shaug

Dr. Beth williams and her husband were killed in a car accident several years ago. Any material written by her is many years old. She was from Wyoming where there are no game farms. But she very much disliked them anyway. The University of Madison Wisconsin asked her for infected brain matter and she gave it to them.

The University had captive deer on location which ultimately escaped. When the authorities moved in all the paper work concerning the deer was conveniently lost. They claimed they only had experimented with the CWD infected brain tissue on mice. No one will ever know the truth. The University of Madison was at the epicenter of the CWD occurance in Wisconsin.


----------



## Plainsman

> So plainsman given the "fact" that TWO wild cervids


I was only aware of the one out Southwest. Where was the second one found?

Oh, the part you have in bold, I didn't miss it. I simply provided you with a scientific paper that said cervid farms were moving the disease about the country. Wasn't that what you were asking for? :wink: So now that you have it are you just going to write it off? I see Shaug is trying to do that.



> When the authorities moved in all the paper work concerning the deer was conveniently lost.


I need a scratch my head icon. If the above is true, how would you know it? If the above did happen then there are no records. If there are no records that means no one knows. If no one knows -----well follow it to the conclusion. 

 Aw come on gst, you know you and HSUS and PETA were stopping those Canadian cows at the border. :rollin:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I was only aware of the one out Southwest. Where was the second one found?





gst said:


> From the NDSBofAH summer news letter.
> 
> CWD
> Since 1998, more than 8,700 farmed deer and elk have been tested for chronic wasting disease in North Dakota. No samples have tested positive for the disease. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department has tested more than 22,000 wild deer and elk. In *March of 2010, the first case of CWD in North Dakota wildlife was identified in an adult buck. It was one of more than 3,000 animals sampled as part of the 2009 CWD surveillance. This buck was taken in southwestern Sioux County. In the fall of 2010, another positive sample was identified in a doe from the same area.* The Game and Fish Department continues to target this area for increased surveillance.


plainsman perhaps if you actually read what was posted!!!!!

For making such "strong opinions" about where CWD will come from here in ND, you do not seem very aware of what is happening.

So how many will there need to be found in the wild before this rises to a level that is of signifcance to your "strong opinion"?

If 2 have been identified, how many more are there that have not? How do you know in a wild population? Where are these wild deer traveling? How long have they been infected and "transmissable"? Isn;t the SW part of the state where they still have too high numbers of deer even after 3 hard winters in a row according to the NDG&F? Do these deer yard up during the winter monthes? Is it likely several deer may have been infected during these winter monthes when these wild deer have yarded up?

Perhaps it is not as cut and dried as you would like people to beleive based on your "strong opinion" that you have not yet substantiated.


----------



## spentwings

Ah so!
I knew there weren't nothing spontaneous about that Wisconsin outbreak. :lol: 
And yes gst,, I'm definitely not a creationist. In fact, I am an out of the closet agnostic atheist which has caused me the loss of many social circles. 
It really hasn't been much of a loss though. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Perhaps it is not as cut and dried as you would like people to beleive based on your "strong opinion" that you have not yet substantiated.


gst, you must have overlooked the words you enlarged yourself.

 Distribution has greatly expanded in the last decade or more via commerce in infected farmed elk.


----------



## gst

Although implications of CWD are not entirely clear at this time, we know that CWD is a fatal, contagious disease of mature reproductive segements of the deer and elk populations. It has been endemic in *free-ranging cervids* in core ares of contiguous portions of southeastern Wyoming and northeastern Colorado, USA, for a minimum of 20 years and *probably longer*.[size=200][/size]

plainsman you seem to convieniently overlook this part of YOUR information. So is the rest of what you enlarged your attempt to substantiate your claims as to how CWD would come into ND?

You seem to not know very much about the incidents of CWD being found here in ND. *And if you are not informed yourself to be able to share factual information with others, what exactly was the reason for you making your "strong opinion" in the first place*? Usually if people are going to share "strong opinions" to factually inform others, they take the time to gather as much information based on fact as they can before giving their "strong opinion". It is clear you did not do this, so what was the purpose of your strong opinion claiming a disease that has ALREADY been found here in ND would come thru captive cervid ranchers because of greed and corruption?

It seems there are plenty of questions about a number of things to answer if you truly wish to discuss CWD in a manner which might inform or contribute to knowing facts about this disease and beter understanding it, or you can simply continue to make strong opinions you have to quantify that can not be substantiated for what ever reason you are. I think by now most on here know why you would do this.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman you seem to convieniently overlook


There you go with that conveniently bull droppings again. I didn't overlook anything. I presented information from three scientists who say they know what's going on. You presented information from scientists that say they have no idea what's going on. I believe both.

My parents had these old cliche's you may find interesting. "They know which side their bread is buttered on", and "don't bite the hand that feeds you". They used this to depict people who supported those who support them. The scientists I quote were more interested in wildlife and wildlife diseases, so they concentrate on protecting wildlife. Your scientists many department of ag, and veterinarians have lives supported by agriculture as you do. Those people will do all within their power to support agriculture and agriculture commerce. Depending on the priorities of those who read this they will decide who they think is right. Simple.

gst, now you have what you have asked for, but I'm sure you will not let that stop you because you have an agenda. You wanted to know what made me have the opinion I do. Well articles like the one I posted. Maps that show where in the United States CWD has shown up. Rumors like the one Shaug posted. etc etc., but most of all experience watching human behavior.

As I have explained to you and others, many times, my motive is huntable populations for many generations to come. My motive is that the youth of tomorrow have things to do other than electronic video games, and dope to smoke. I am old and perhaps don't have that many years of hunting ahead of me, so my motivation is the hunters of the future, the future of healthy game animals, and the health of our natural environment. Agriculture is not our of the picture for me either. As a matter of fact it is high priority for me. Some of it's poor practices could be improved. That isn't anti agriculture, you only portray it that way because my "opinions" don't fit your agenda. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> y parents had these old cliche's you may find interesting. "They know which side their bread is buttered on", and "don't bite the hand that feeds you".


So plainsman what is the reason these "scientist" you champion get the funding that "butters their bread" or "feeds them"? Surely furthering their claims does not get them more funding?

plainsman mine had a few as well, "if something isn't the truth it's a lie" "if you don;t know what you are talking about, maybe you shouldn't be talking"



Plainsman said:


> Rumors like the one Shaug posted. etc etc.,


plainsman tell me one very simple thing, if someone makes a claim not based on fact that they can not directly substantiate aimed at an individual or group of people would this be considered a "rumor"??? If a "rumor" simply is not true what is it?

You claimed when CWD came into ND it would come thru a captive cervid ranch. Fact: CWD IS in ND. So substantiate your claim or admit what it is and why it was made. plain and simple.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, we don't know how CWD got to North Dakota. How far is it to the next infection site? How far is it to the closest cervid ranch? Evidently that cervid ranch has never had an infected animal. At least not that anyone knows of. I don't believe in spontaneous generation. How did that animal get there? We don't know these things, so saying that animal was natural transfer, spontaneous, from a cervid ranch, are all of equal accuracy or inaccuracy how ever you want to look at it.

How many infected animals will it take before some people don't want to eat the meat anymore? How many infected animals will it require to affect the number of permits available? How many infected animals will it take before the disease gets beyond our ability to control it in North Dakota? You see gst, you often ask questions that no one has the answer for, then think you have won a debate when they can not. A deer here and there is like a blinking light, while a major outbreak is like a spotlight in our eyes. You ask how many deer must be infected before I consider the disease here. We will not know when that threshold is reached until the light hits us in the eyes. Then it's to late, but that's what you think we should wait for, because anything else inhibits agriculture commerce, and the freedom of some to exploit wildlife and hunters.

You see gst, it all comes down to opinion. You simply think your opinion is better than anyone elses. In cases where science knows so little any opinion is as valid as the next. The difference between you and I gst is how much we are willing to gamble. It also reflects on the value each of us put on that which we gamble with. We are not gambling with the future of agriculture, we are gambling with the health of wildlife. I value our game herds very much.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, we don't know how CWD got to North Dakota.


THEN WHY WOULD YOU MAKE A STATEMENT CLAIMING YOU DO????????????
PLAINSMAN WROTE:
There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here. It will come through the local cervid raisers. Just a matter of time. There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it. Like Dick said corruption in the system. They have every excuse in the world that it will not happen and will point fingers in every direction but themselves when it does.

When it comes you remember who said it would.


----------



## Plainsman

Yes, and it's still my opinion that a serious threat will still one day arise, and more, I still think that serious threat will come from a cervid ranch. Not only that, I still say: remember who said it would. :wink: 
Often I find conversation stimulates my mind to think in different ways. This has been the same old story where conflicting ideas are demonized. That I don't find stimulating and I think we have made every point we can. Now people must decide what they think. After all that's why we debate to form opinion. I know you don't have much respect for opinion, but that is what we have been trying to influence, the opinion of others.


----------



## gst

plainsman "*There is no doubt in my mine that it will come here."*
Well I guess that could be veiwed as correct as it is already here and has been identified in wild cervids.

plainsman "*It will come through the local cervid raisers*."

it has already came here so prove this claim by showing where it has or admit why this calim was made.

plainsman :*There is a high value on some animals and even if testing is required they will work around it*
Were is your proof ND producers will work "around it".

plainsman: *Like Dick said corruption in the system*.

Once again where is your proof of corruption in the system

The simple FACT is CWD is already in ND and you can not prove the claim you have made. Everyone with half a brain knows why you made the "opinion" you did given your history of comments against captive cervid operations. You just are not honest enough to admit it.

And to avoid dealing with the consequences of making this claim you then quantified it as a "strong opinion" rather than what it originally was.

Then to avoid further dealing with the facts that were presented regarding how many cases of CWD have already been found here in ND you quantified your "strong opinion" even more.

*Plainsman wrote:
Yes gst I know they found one isolated case in North Dakota. What I am talking about is an out of control infection within our wild herd. Numbers that affect how many people will hunt, or how many deer are available to hunt.* quote]

Definitions of backpedal (v)
back·ped·al [ bák pèdd'l ] 
1.pedal backward: to turn the pedals of a bicycle backward in order to operate a brake
2.move backward: in sports, to move quickly backward in order to get away from an opponent or to catch a ball
3.retract statement: to try to escape the consequences of a statement or action by retracting it, modifying it, or toning it down

Yes indeed people can decide what to beleive, I for one as said before, will draw upon what agencies like the NDG&F, the State Vet, and the ND Board of Animal Health have to say regarding CWD and captive cervid operations here in ND rather than a former sponsor of an initiative to ultimately close them down that has a history of making outlandish claims he can not back up with fact on this site. Wether you want to call them strong opinions, accusations, insinuations, rumors or outright lies is up to whoever to decide. I know what I was told they were growing up.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> After all that's why we debate to form opinion. I know you don't have much respect for opinion, but that is what we have been trying to influence, the opinion of others.


plainsman it all depends on the CREDIBILITY of the person giving the opinion. There are people, some even on this site, that I respect their opinions a great deal even if on occassion I do not agree with them. Others not so much.

FACTUAL
CREDIBILITY
HONESTY

MALICIOUS
RUMOR
AGENDA

Indeed people can make up their own minds.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Often I find conversation stimulates my mind to think in different ways. This has been the same old story where conflicting ideas are demonized. That I don't find stimulating and I think we have made every point we can. Now people must decide what they think.


Now people must decide what they think??????????????????

Plainsman, can you tell me how many times this has already been decided in North Dakota?

And no, not every point you can make has been made. Your friend Dick Monson and federal friend Mike McEnroe had more to say in Dakota Country Magazine. Check it out, new lies for old.

The Dollars behind High Fence Shooting
Dakota Country Magazine
July/August 2011

The effort mounted by those wanting to eliminate high fence shooting galleries in North Dakota was courageous and gallant. But big money won.
By Patricia Stockdill

At first glance, a defeat of the high fence shooting operation in the 2010 North Dakota general election last fall by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent may seem like a thorough trouncing, a definitive statement by the citizens of North Dakota. But for North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase committee members Mike McEnroe and Dick Monson, they're OK with the results - especially considering supporters of the initiated measure were outspent almost 20-to-1, they said.

A group of eight to 10 hunters led the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase committee - emphasis on hunters - in an effort to eliminate the dozen or so commercial big game hunting operations in the state. Its committee totaled 27 people, described McEnroe. They garnered a whopping $22,079 in campaign contributors, mostly from less than 10 individuals. They used their coffers for radio ads, which they decided would provide the most efficient use of their limited resources.

They garnered enough signatures to place Constitutional Measure 2 on the 2010 general election ballot, which would have prohibited the killing of certain captive game animals. McEnroe admitted the ballot's wording might have been awkward to read despite believing it was drafted as concise as legally possible. It's easier for people to vote "no" on something if there's a question or something marginal in the wording he said.

But more than anything, Monson and McEnroe credit high-powered, out-of-state dollars financing a high profile, well-orchestrated media campaign under the guise of protecting private property rights for the demise of their efforts.

And the lack of a high profile spokesperson.

"It takes $250,000 to win it," McEnroe said. "What we did in losing, we found the recipe for winning."

They might not be far off on their assessment.

The 2010 year-end campaign finance report on the N.D. Secretary of State's website for the Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights - the organization opposing Measure 2 - showed 2010 contributions totaling $324,890.

The largest North Dakota contribution -- $10,000 - came from elk producers through the North Dakota Elk Growers. The North Dakota Association of Realtors provided $5,000, while deer growers through the North Dakota Deer Ranchers kicked in another $4,000.

However, those amounts pale in comparison to what came from outside North Dakota's borders, including $150,000 from the North American Deer Farmers Association and four contributions of $10,000 each.

Looking back at the campaign, McEnroe and Monson said their efforts needed three major changes - a recognizable spokesperson, more organizational support and more money. They admit two wildlife conservation organizations lending verbal support, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Mule Deer Foundation, were criticized for supporting the measure despite limiting their efforts to letters of support on the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase website.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) provided television advertising during the week prior to the election. Not known for its support of hunting, HSUS ads featured actors dressed as hunters urging a "yes" vote to protect the state's wildlife and hunting heritage.

McEnroe said HSUS asked if they could run the ads.

"We said it can't hurt&#8230;because were getting killed by all the "anti" (property rights) rhetoric," McEnroe said. People against the measure were going to be against it regardless of what HSUS did, he felt.

McEnroe and Monson feel their organization looks beyond the ethical questions and debate regarding shooting elk or deer behind a fence. High fence shooting has nothing to do with hunting, McEnroe adamantly stated. Because there are no license fees involved - only the fee to the operator - no license dollars go to state agencies managing wildlife resources. There's no conservation effort to provide habitat and no emphasis on wildlife or the recreational aspect of traditional hunting and the hunting heritage.

High fence shooting also negates the good work hunting supports by lumping legitimate hunters and hunter benefits with the negativity associated with high fence shooting among nonhunting and antihunting public, Monson added.

Another challenge measure supporters faced, McEnroe and Monson agree, is how to get hunters to recognize high fence shooting isn't hunting or that it's not good for wildlife and the future of hunting.

When Montana banned nontraditional livestock and high fence shooting operations, a multitude of state agencies and conservation organizations stepped up supporting of the effort.

"We had none of those groups in our state," McEnroe said. "Those same organizations supported Montana's ban but they baled on North Dakota. This has become a hunting issue and hunters don't want to deal with it."

There are no plans at this time to continue the effort to eliminate high fence shooting.

McEnroe summed up his frustration: "We've reduced this to the lowest common denominator. It's all about the money."

The History of High Fence Shooting Galleries

The North Dakota legislature has looked at this issue of high fence shooting twice, in 2007 and 2011. A narrowly defeated 2007 bill banning such operations helped generate the movement for an initiated measure, measure sponsors Dick Monson and Mike McEnroe said. A 2008 initiated measure fell short of the necessary signatures to be placed on the ballot.

The 2011 legislature defeated Senate Bill 2332, which would have developed high fence shooting operation regulations.

It's (SB 2332) one of these "watch your mother-in-law drive over the cliff in your car thing," North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase members Mike McEnroe, Bismarck, lamented.

Had the bill passed, McEnroe said it would clearly have removed any argument regarding property rights issues. By becoming a regulated industry, it could have allowed future regulations. McEnroe felt many voters opposing the 2010 initiated measure did so believing it was a property rights issue.

"In the long run, it (SB 2332) would've helped (efforts to band high fence shooting), " he added.

There was no testimony in opposition to SB 2332.

The North Dakota Board of Animal Health regulates nontraditional livestock, which includes elk and deer growers. There aren't definitive numbers on the amount of high fence shooting operations because there aren't any regulations on the practice.

At least 20 states have banned or restricted high fence shooting, McEnroe said.


----------



## Plainsman

Wow, I never knew so much money came from out of state. Thanks for posting.



> And to avoid dealing with the consequences of making this claim you then quantified it as a "strong opinion" rather than what it originally was.


Hey, I always thought everyone knew it was opinion. I didn't realize you didn't understand it until someone else posted and told you it was opinion. Don't blame me that your so slow to catch on. Just about everything people have to say on here is opinion. You may be the only person who doesn't understand that. Your about the only one that has used the term "fact".

If this country still allowes opinion, mine is that this disease will become prevalent enough to cause problems, and it will come through the cervid ranches. Actually, didn't you bring simple cervid ranches into the debate. Later I said simple ranches are one level of threat (moderate) while high fence and more valuable deer or elk are a higher rate of threat. That's my opinion and you have said nothing to change it. I hope others can see that too.

I think when things are at a low is a good time to move on. Of course you will try keep me in this by becoming even more inflammatory. Man up and let it go.


----------



## gst

shaug said:


> The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) provided television advertising during the week prior to the election. Not known for its support of hunting, HSUS ads featured actors dressed as hunters urging a "yes" vote to protect the state's wildlife and hunting heritage.
> 
> McEnroe said HSUS asked if they could run the ads.
> 
> "We said it can't hurt&#8230;because were getting killed by all the "anti" (property rights) rhetoric," McEnroe said. People against the measure were going to be against it regardless of what HSUS did, he felt.


I thought the claim was there was no connection between HSUS and NDH for FC??? It appears as if this group of ND hunters willingly jumped in bed with the nations leading anti hunting group to accomplish their agenda. And yet they have a hard time grasping why hunters will not support them.

Plainsman it was my "strong opinion" all along that HSUS would become involved in that measure. If I recall you hammered me pretty hard for that "opinion". And yet here you are critisizing me for questioning your opinion and taking you to task for claims you make that most people here know the basis for.

So perhaps in the future if you are going to make claims that are opinions rather than accusations or claims void of proof, perhaps you should identify them AS opinions. Perhaps it truly is my fault, given your tendencies to make claims regarding things you can not back up when asked, well perhaps I should have known this was simply one more of those times and dismissed it as nothing more than what it was a malicious statement directed at a group of people that by your own words you do not like. My appologies to everyone for not accepting the fact that when asked to substantiate an "opinion" someone that would make such claims would not "man up" and simply admit them being what they are.


----------



## Plainsman

From what I have observed 99% of what you say is opinion. You also complain about things becoming personal, but your the first to do it. Since all you are resorting to now is personal attack perhaps we should leave others out of it and go to the PM's. Not everyone is interested in the bickering, but you carry it to points that I have to answer. Because of that PM's are more appropriate, and to continue here is inappropriate. It has come to a point we are abusing those who read our posts. For that I do apologize to the readers.

PM's gst, PM's


----------



## gst

plainsman why in the hell would I converse with you for any reason in the PM's. If you recall in the HFH debate you told me something regarding HSUS and the sponsors of the first measure you were a part of thru a PM and when I tried to get you to publically share that information you tried to get me kicked off the site for posting information shared in PM's.

As was said in an earlier thread, I made the mistake when I first got on this site to have conversations with you regarding our agricultural practices and our commitment to conservation and wildlife and look at the claims you have made towards me in various threads every since I took a stance on the HFH issue you did not agree with.



Plainsman said:


> Not everyone is interested in the bickering, but you carry it to points that I have to answer


If this is indeed the case, simply answer wether you can substantiate the claim you made regarding how and why CWD will come into the state. Yes or No


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> plainsman why in the hell would I converse with you for any reason in the PM's. If you recall in the HFH debate you told me something regarding HSUS and the sponsors of the first measure you were a part of thru a PM and when I tried to get you to publically share that information you tried to get me kicked off the site for posting information shared in PM's.


I guess you still don't understand the rules of the site gst. And once again you have your facts wrong. You posted a PM from me and no one tried to have you kicked off. That is just you playing the victim card again. You were only told to read the rules and still here you are. I wouldn't want you off the site gst, you do more for my views with your attitude than anyone. :thumb:


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> Wow, I never knew so much money came from out of state. Thanks for posting.


The writer, Patricia Stockdill, Mike McEnroe and Dick Monson fail to mention the $150,000 of out of state money spent for those TV ads by HSUS in the arcticle. Claiming that they the fair chasers were outspent 20 to 1 is untrue.

The arctilce says McEnroe decided to use their $22,000 for radio ads. What most don't realize is the media gave a lot of free press to the fair chasers knowing that much money would be spent before Nov. 2nd to do battle for the "trial by media."

They wanted it on the ballot. It is called economic development for the media.

Plainsman, thanks for answering my post.


----------



## spentwings

Golly!
I feel used! :wink: 
To find out I was manipulated into believing it was a property rights issue and HF isn't hunting is shocking .

Ethics, money, CWD, property rights, opinions, strong opinions, animosity,,,,,there are so many deer turds on either side of HF there's no place left to step.


----------



## gst

longshot, it's kind of a little thing, but in the instance you are tallking about I actually was kicked off the site for a short while until a higher power restored my priveledges! 

What I was referring to was when I tried to get plainsman to share publically what he shared privately with me thru the PM's regarding HSUS and the first FC measure I was "threatened" with being kicked off the site if I shared PMed information publicallly, I don"t think you had much to do with that go around.

I'm sure plainsman knows what I am talking about if he wishs to share the information. After all it appears it is now public information that indeed dispite their claims at the time, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase WAS talking with HSUS in regards to helping with their measure this last time according to Mike McEnroes admmission in print media, so what would it hurt for a sponsor of the first measure attempt to set the record straight regarding this claim back then?

Perhaps it is time for this group NDH for FC to be honest with the hunters of ND they claimed to be representing as to why they involved themselves at all with the nations leading ANTIHUNTING org HSUS. I guess as they say, "politics really does make strange bed fellows"!

It is starting to look more and more like the people involved in these measures aimed at captive cervid operations will say and do anything to further their agenda. Perhaps their is "corruption" in the system!!!! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, thanks for answering my post.


Your welcome. You posted some things I was not aware of. Where did you get the $150,000 figure? I didn't sponsor this last go around, so I suppose it was none of my business, but I was sort of in the dark first time around also. I had told gst that in a PM, but what is in PM's is not supposed to be on here. That breaks the rules and really peeved me. Once trust is gone not much remains.

Anyway, Thanks again.



> longshot, it's kind of a little thing, but in the instance you are tallking about I actually was kicked off the site for a short while until a higher power restored my priveledges!


Your just playing dirty again gst. I know what your trying to imply, but let me make this clear to everyone on here. Only administrators can kick people off, and I am not an administrator. Your sinking lower all the time gst. You asked what happened since we talked last year. Things like your above backstabbing insinuation. One would think you had been a politician in the past. The insinuation that I kicked you off is absolutely not true. Have you no shame? So speaking of credibility.


----------



## gst

spent, as is often the case, when one group tries to impose their will on another thru politics, it can get ugly. We can only hope that since the people of ND have spoke this can be put to rest once and for all. But unfortunately given the people involved in trying to force their ethics onto others in this matter, I would guess this will eventually come up once again down the road.

Cervid operations need to police themselves above and beyond to insure what is being accused here does not happen. It is OBVIOUSLY in their best interests to do so. The state agencies involved in monitoring and regulating these operations know what needs to be done and have professionally accomplished their duties for decades here in ND dispite claims of "corruption" by some.

Perhaps if even a single case of CWD is found in a captive operation these same people who are apparently dimissing those lately found in the wild as being "cause of concern" will suddenly find "cause for concern" dispite how ever many have previously been found in wild cervids.

HONESTY
FACTUAL
CREDIBILITY


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> longshot, it's kind of a little thing, but in the instance you are tallking about I actually was kicked off the site for a short while until a higher power restored my priveledges!


Once again you are making assumptions about something you know nothing about. No one kicked you off and then a higher power restore it, but as usual you will believe what you want. You should be a politician gst, you double talk and play the victim card so well.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I didn't sponsor this last go around, so I suppose it was none of my business, but I was sort of in the dark first time around also. I had told gst that in a PM, but what is in PM's is not supposed to be on here. That breaks the rules and really peeved me. Once trust is gone not much remains.


plainsman you are leaving abit out, but that is kinda expected. So why would you wish to take anything to the PM feature of this site? So you can say things privately that you can not be held publically accountable for????? :roll:


----------



## Plainsman

If you don't want things personal gst don't make them personal. This is getting far to personal and I would have dropped it long ago, but every time I try you attack like this and I have to respond or people may believe it. I doubt you were ever kicked off this site your simply looking for sympathy. However, you could have been kicked off many times over. We bend over backwards for you simply as an example that we are not prejudice. You know it and have used us. No one has ever gotten away with breaking so many rules. One reader actually pointed that out to you some time ago. 
Now your starting another dogfight to try drag us in the mud. I will not crawl in the mud with you gst. Knock it off.

I apologize to the readers for speaking this way in public, but I can not get a response and some people refuse to PM. If I am ignored in PM's this is my only option.

Since there is no discussion left and only personal attack I will again lock it. For those who would liked to have further discussed the subject I apologize.


----------



## gst

Longshot said:


> Once again you are making assumptions about something you know nothing about. No one kicked you off and then a higher power restore it, but as usual you will believe what you want. You should be a politician gst, you double talk and play the victim card so well.


longshot, plainsman, what is it called if you are blocked from being able to post comments on this site after you have been able to all along? And then after about a weeks time and a phone conversation with the head fella of the site be once again allowed to post comments? Perhaps you should refresh you memory by talking with Chris, he may remember the actual phone conversation I had with him regarding moderators on this sites behavior. It was shortly after that my ability to post comments on here was restored. (aren't you guys lucky  ) I beleive there might be a PM somewhere regarding this, but sharing it would be against the rules and grounds for being kicked off the site. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

See previous post.


----------

