# Fair Chase Hunting - POLL



## tb

*How will you vote on the Fair Chase Hunting measure?*​
yes6459.81%no4340.19%


----------



## tb

Let's gets this settled scientifically. Will you vote for this:
SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited (the wording of the ballot title may be changed by the Secretary of State) 
- Penalty - Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective on November 1, 2010.


----------



## goosebusters

I have no idea what I am even supposed to answer, I just said yes, all I know is I don't like fenced in hunts.


----------



## Plainsman

Thanks for the poll TB it was an excellent idea. Many people don't like conflict (neither do I but some things are worth fighting for) so they don't make any comments. They do however vote anonymously much like they will vote in the booth in 2008.
goosbuster, you did good.


----------



## bandman

Do you guys that hunt in fences fish in aquariums also??? :huh:


----------



## rowdie

Don't give them any ideas, next they'll be selling 15 lb walleye to catch out of thier stock tanks.


----------



## Acer

Ok but I have a friend that allows people to come in and shoot young bull Buffalo (or any bull they don't want) out of their herd. Granted it would be like going out into a pasture and shooting a cow, but they do sell whole and by pound of Buffalo meat. So allowing someone to come in and take their animal them selves in what in this case? I say it is fair for what they are doing. But to go into an elk farm have the farmer tell you here he is the one alone in the pen go shoot it, that then is different to me. I have a hard time with elk guides that tell you what animal to shoot or hey we seen this animal here and we have been watching it and all you need to do is shoot it and they do the rest. But I guess the mighty $$$ has a lot to do with it. Just not something I would do. I'd rather go on a hunt into areas that have the game (wild game that is) and have someone with that knows the area and areas different animals frequent. If I don't see something I'd shoot or could shoot that be ok in my book.

Oh and yah some people do get their fish out of an aquarium. Go to a meat market and you might see a bunch of fish, good sized too, in a tank and all you need to do is say what one you want and they'll get it for yah. 

and its goy my vote for yes


----------



## Plainsman

This is very heartening fellows. If hunters are not tolerant of this type of "hunting" (and I use the word loosely) the general public that doesn't hunt will look at high fence operations with an even more jaundiced eye.


----------



## Dick Monson

Intresting stats for only a few replys. Without looking back the approval for the measure was +- 4% @ 74% approved passage. Swarm theory rules.


----------



## huntin1

I'd vote for it, and I voted here also. Not a fan of fenced hunting.

huntin1


----------



## Trapper62

I am sort of repeating ACER's post but here is my question.

For red meat all I eat is deer, antelope, and buffalo. We butcher 3 buffalo each and every. I pay $500.00/head and yes I could haul them in my stock trailer but I really don't relish the idea of working and hauling live buffalo. Instead I put them down in his pasture, we gut them on his land with the help of his tractor, I than haul them to the processor and get them cut and wrapped.

Would this now be illegal if this new law is passed? If yes, than NO I would not support it, if no than I would have no problem with it.


----------



## Plainsman

No it would not be illegal. Also, buffalo are exempt. I don't think anyone wants to come down on the meat producers. They just don't want them shooting Bambi with his head in the feed bucket and calling it hunting. I think it creates one of the major funding themes for anti hunting groups, and I don't like the general public thinking this is how all sportsmen are doing it. I see it get to much this way on some of the hunting shows.


----------



## Dick Monson

Shoot all the bison you want, they'll appreciate the business. Custom slaughter of deer and elk is not affected either under the Fair Chase hunting measure.


----------



## redlabel

Plainsman said:


> This is very heartening fellows. If hunters are not tolerant of this type of "hunting" (and I use the word loosely) the general public that doesn't hunt will look at high fence operations with an even more jaundiced eye.


A statistic I would like to know, is what percentage of the people that don't hunt, would vote to ban all hunting if given a choice?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Red, I do believe that the last nation wide poll done on this subject showed support of 70+% for fair chase hunting. I do believe that same poll also showed almost identical support for banning of canned shooting or high fenced enclosures which mirrored the poll taken in ND last fall.

Today the non hunting public support fair chase, but like dog fighting and cock fighting overwhelmingly do not support it.

I think if you do a on line search you will find what I am referring to. Fair chase hunting for the second straight poll saw increased support in the general publics opinion over a 2-4 year period in between the polls if I am not mistaken.

A computer crash cost me a listing of these polls. I did not have them backed up to disc, but when I look about a year ago I was able to find polls going back to the mid 80's regarding hunting and the public. Forms of hunting are not favored as high. The issue of baiting,dog use on big game etc tend to send the favorably down. Canned shooting was a prime example where the numbers flipped completely and was also the most visible and largest growing sector covered in the polls.

So as I have stated before the impact that this practice has on hunters is far reaching and is not simply a local or state issue, but should be dealt with at the state level.


----------



## Dick Monson

This one is from Illinois. USFW had an exhaustive one that I can't find now, but it mirrored what Ron posted above. Might be under USGS too.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Hunter Attitudes Toward High Fence Enclosure Shooting Operations

Craig A. Miller, Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Dr., Champaign, IL 61820; 217-333- 
7485; FAX 217-244-5313; [email protected] 
Christopher Colligan, Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody Dr., Champaign, IL 61820; 
217-265-5124

High fence enclosure shooting operations have become a concern of wildlife managers in some states. In order to properly understand the issues surrounding high fence enclosure shooting opportunities, it is necessary to determine hunter perspectives on these operations. A recent mail survey of 3,418 Illinois deer hunters was conducted during spring 2003 to investigate hunter attitudes toward high fence enclosures and the shooting opportunities these operations provide. We received 2,683 (79%) completed questionnaires from the deer hunters surveyed. Hunters were asked to respond to 11 7-point Likert-type scale items (1 = "Strongly Disagree, 7 = "Strongly Agree) measuring attitudes toward high fence shooting of ungulates and exotic game. Most deer hunters (78%) felt shooting deer or elk inside a high fence enclosure was an unacceptable practice. A majority of hunters (54%) believed the practice should be made illegal, a minority of hunters (21%) agreed that high fence enclosures would help preserve the legacy of hunting in North America, and most (77%) agreed that shooting game animals inside high fence enclosures gives hunting a bad name. A majority of deer hunters (65%) disagreed that shooting game behind high fence enclosures was acceptable as a way to obtain hides or meat. Principal Components Factor Analysis produced 2 factors of the 11 variables: one that measured high fence enclosure shooting operations in respect to trophy hunting (Cronbach's alpha = 0.72), and a second that accounted for ethical questions surrounding the practice (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83). High fence enclosure shooting operations are a divisive issue for wildlife managers and hunters, alike. Some individuals defend the practice as a means of providing meat without having to impact wildlife populations or as an affordable way to harvest exotic trophies. Other hunters and managers view the practice as unethical and damaging to the image of hunting. Results of this study illustrate the attitudes Illinois deer hunters hold toward the practice.


----------



## 4590

According to Dick, the measure exempts slaughter. Of course when I broke it down word for word to show that is not the case, he just hedged and said get a legal opinion. So when your voting realize alot of what is said here is just opinion and not fact. I am sure anyone with a good handle on the English language will agree the measure does make fee slaughter of deer and elk illegal.

Bison will be next, just as unethical.


----------



## Dick Monson

Kim, fish or cut bait. My offer for the legal opinion on custom slaughter still stands. Are you willing to take it? Are you willing to stand behind your statement? I can understand you believe that throwing lots of mud will cause some to stick. However, the Fair Chase measure is teflon coated.

If you are unwilling to put up your own money to back your arguement then have a legislator request a written opinion from the Attorney General and post it up here for all to see.

When the survey of voter opinion on canned shooting was run by the University of North Dakota last Nov. those in your camp decried the results immediately because it showed 3/4s of the voters in ND do not approve of canned shooting. Although tb's poll above is not scientific it shows about the same percentage. The survey from Illinois too shows about the same results too. The USFW survey reflected the same also.

What is it about NO that canned shooting operations cannot understand? :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

Dick

Misinformation is all they have to fight with. When the public understands it's a done deal. When they also understand that as each state follows the lead of the first eleven that have already done it the rest of us will become a dumping ground. The more unethical the operation the greater the risk for disease. We need to get this done in North Dakota and fast.


----------



## 4590

Dick,

I think we can see who is throwing the mud here. I could get a legal opinion, as you suggest, and because I paid for it, it would no doubt support my position. I have already proven that normal interpretation of the language used, could certainly be interpreted to include slaughter. And what would that prove. If the language becomes law it will certainly be tested in the courts and then the "opinion" will be come final. Until then if one simply reads the language just the way it is written, it doesn't exempt slaughter. You can blow all the smoke you want but it says what it says. If there was no intention to apply this to slaughter, then why doesn't it simply say slaughter is exempt. You exempted other areas, why not slaughter.


----------



## 4590

What are the other 11 states that have banned hunting preserves?


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,

Back to your rhetoric I see. Everything I have posted here is factual. If not lets see the quote.

Again here is the exact wording of the measure: A person is guilty ... if the person( doesn't say who) obtains fees ... from another person (doesn't say who) for the killing ... of privately owned big game species ... confined in ... any man made enclosure designed to prevent escape.

A fourth grader could understand that "any person who obtains a fee" could apply to alot more than hunting preserves. I don't need a lawyer to tell me that. I can read. Like I say, blow all the smoke you want, but the misinformation is definitely coming from your side of the arguement. You are right when the people on ND understand the true nature and intent of this bill they not support it. Just like the legislature.


----------



## Plainsman

> I have already proven


I guess I missed that. Could you copy and past, or point me to the thread? I thought it was still up in the air where you were invited to get a legal opinion, but had not yet done so.

As to the eleven states: I must admit that when I read that in this thread coming from a what I considered a reputable source I believed it. Maybe someone can give us the reference for that.

Meanwhile if other polls do mirror this one it would be my judgment that the initiated measure will be successful. That's not rhetoric, that is my estimate based on some very simple analysis of this poll. The man with the heaviest bucket of apples ( individual apples all the same weight) wins. One bucket currently has 73 apples the other has 26 apples.


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzzzz


----------



## Plainsman

> Out of the 11 states that have banned this, how many were done the proper way, through the legislature or Game and Fish dept.?


Woodpecker you need to respect the people of this nation more. Bringing something to vote by the people is the proper way. The people have say over the legislature and the Game and Fish. "The people" of this nation are the ultimate power.

The bucket I was referring to are the hunters included in this poll on this thread. The rotten apples are exactly what this measure is intended to get rid of.

The anti hunters are a pain in the posterior for all of us. The non hunters far outnumber us, and we better help them realize that not all of us shoot Bambi when his vision is obscured by the edges of a feed bucket and the "guides" hands that are scratching his ears.


----------



## woodpecker

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Plainsman

No, that's not what I am saying. When you said the proper way, my question is why isn't it proper to let the people decide? They are the ultimate power in this nation. I was sort of picking on you for what I thought was not proper respect for the people. Sorry about that, but explain your reasoning, other than the anti hunters. They are far from a majority here in North Dakota. They are not something to realistically worry about here in North Dakota.
You know woodpecker, you put to much trust in politicians. I worry more about a handful of politicians selling out to the anti hunters more than I worry about the anti hunters becoming a majority of the voters. The legislature is a bigger concern. Also, with the bunny huggers that the universities are turning out the game and fish agencies of the future will lean more away from responding to the hunters. I watched this attitude change in my 36 year career. When I started in 1971 most biologists were hunters. Today some are offended by talking about hunting. The universities have certainly turned out more of the touchy-feely, types, who think they work for the warm, fuzzy, round eyed animals, and not the American taxpayer.


----------



## Drakekiller

Baiting next.


----------



## woodpecker

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Drakekiller

Even those two groups understand fair chase,and real hunting. Some people now are just learning how to become Master baiters.


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## north14

Drakekiller, do you really believe that the anti hunting groups know the difference between fair chase and real hunting? Their one and only agenda is to ban all forms of hunting.


----------



## Dick Monson

> do you really believe that the anti hunting groups know the difference between fair chase and real hunting?


"difference between fair chase and real hunting"? Possibly that should read fair chase and canned shooting!

High-fence hunts should come to an end
Tony Dean
The Forum - 05/14/2006



> Several years ago, I was one of the speakers at the Governor's Conference on America's hunting heritage at Green Bay, Wis. This annual event that rotates among various states brings together all players.
> 
> Two major ones were present:
> 
> Heidi Prescott of the anti-hunting Fund for Animals organization and Ted Nugent. She criticized hunters for looking the other way on the subject of canned hunts. For once, Nugent had little to offer in way of rebuttal other than his flip, "You know me, Heidi, I just kill it and grill it." Most of the more than 1,000 in attendance conceded that round to Ms. Prescott.
> 
> A few years ago, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation had the courage to call for an end to hunting penned animals. I've been told that under the current leadership, wherein the new CEO came from the Safari Club, the policy has changed. If so, that's shameful.


----------



## Plainsman

North14

Your absolutely right. I think they can tell the difference between fair chase real hunting, and the slob hunters, but they don't care. I am not convinced they even care about animals, they may just want to see firearms disappear. If they can get rid of the major reason for owning a firearm much of America will not own firearms.
I would like to recommend "The Illusions of Animal Rights" by Russ Carman. It talks about abandoning the herds, and how populations will exceed the carrying capacity of the habitat and wide spread starvation and disease decimating the population. Then it will climb and crash again. The major predators are gone from much of the landscape, and we take their place or only disease and starvation will control populations. These methods cause boom and bust populations. It's an interesting read, and exposes the animal rights for what they are. I would guess some care about animals, but are to stupid to understand that nature no longer balances itself in the modern world. Others really don't give a hoot about the animals, they just hate hunters. They may preach tolerance, but are the first to violate their supposedly superior goals. What a bunch of hypocritical idiots. 
However, we hunters live in this modern world, and we must play this game smart. That is why I support the ban on high fence operations. If you have cancer of one lung it's best to remove it so the rest of the body survives.


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Turner

There is no "IF". Canned/High fenced hunting IS a cancer to us sportsman and it needs to be removed.


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Turner

Woodpecker, I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. 
No, I will not denounce it, Since the Game and Fish are letting in hunters to do a herd reduction of Elk with in a fenced in area to make sure the herd doesn't over graze and do further damage to the park or the herd. Instead of paying countless tax dollars to bring in "sharp shooters" and helicopters to do the same thing that qualified hunters can do. However, I feel no animal should be placed in the record books that are harvested on this shoot. 
This herd reduction is the most economical way to ensure the safety and the longevity of the TRNP herd.


----------



## woodpecker

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Plainsman

woodpecker said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have cancer of one lung it's best to remove it so the rest of the body survives.
> 
> 
> 
> "IF" you have cancer I would suggest a better "Doctor" than the ones you are asking to remove it!! You might only have a mosquito bite, but they could cut you deep!!
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. With that response it's becoming clear your arguing just to argue. I can't tell what you think about this. Do you know? 
TRNP has nothing to do with this measure. Baiting, road hunting, none of those things have a bearing on this measure. They are simply distractions from the subject at hand, functioning as a smoke screens for the real debate. How about getting this thread back to the real subject?

I think with as many votes as there are in this poll that we have a good representation of where this is going. Another ten thousand votes doubtfully will change the ratio of three to one.


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Plainsman

I don't play those games woodpecker. If I was sure I wouldn't have asked. If I have to guess most times it appears your against this measure, but other times I'm not sure. Sometimes I think to myself you must have friends or relatives in the business. I can't see why anyone other than the high fence operations would be against it. Your position is somewhat nebulous to me.


----------



## north14

I know exactly what Woodpecker is talking about-- Putting this measure on a general election ballot for the non- hunting public and the Anti's to vote on. This has the potential to open a huge can of worms. Next will be baiting, then the tresspass law, then those sinister ND Outfitters, hell, the sky's the limit. Anything having to do with the so called ethics of hunting and fishing could get voted on by the general public in the future. Is that what we want? And before anyone bashes me about ethics, I firmly believe we have to police ourselves and keep up a good image to the non-hunting public. I think by bringing the public on board to support this will damage our hunting heritage in the future. And please, tell me you are not planning on using the media to get the public to vote for this. They don't need to see Bambi chained up in a 10x12 dog kennel with a couple of ******* looking good ol boys giving the shady looking deer owner a hundred bucks to blow poor Bambi away.


----------



## Plainsman

> Anything having to do with the so called ethics of hunting and fishing could get voted on by the general public in the future.


You must think the general public is a bunch of goblins. They have always been able to vote on anything they want to. They have voted in other states and unfortunately they have made some wrong decisions. To date we are safe in North Dakota.



> And before anyone bashes me about ethics, I firmly believe we have to police ourselves and keep up a good image to the non-hunting public.


How are we going to police ourselves if we turn our backs on the unethical? That is what this measure is all about. Through the legislature didn't work, and your kidding yourself if you think the governor wouldn't step on the game and fish if they tried. A measure before the people is the only way to get this done. Money talks to much, but they can't buy off all the voters.



> I think by bringing the public on board to support this will damage our hunting heritage in the future.


Isn't it funny how people can see things differently? Personally I think our image will be much better. I think the public will open their eyes and understand that the average North Dakota hunter is responsible, and ethical. Our image should rise in the public eye.

Some people think this is a landowner rights violation, and some landowners stand beside the high fence operations simply because most do own their land. However, when I talk to individual landowners many would not say anything publicly, yet privately over a cup of coffee they agree with me.


----------



## north14

> Our image should rise in the public eye.


I hope you are right and I am wrong about this, time will tell.


----------



## Dak

The people may decide to end canned hunts or not. Hopefully they/we do. I have always thought letting the people decide an issue was what the country was about. We may not agree with all the decisions but for the most part I still have faith in the American public and certainly in the NoDak public.


----------



## Plainsman

north14, thank you very much for actually looking at this from both angles. I hope I am right too. I have thought about it a lot, some sleepless nights, and I think it is the right thing to do. I hope many will see this as policing our own.


----------



## Raghorn

Me thinks y'all best look verrrry carefully before ya leap here..... If we get to carried away with with putting down ANY type of "hunting" (call it that or not) the anti's are waiting with baited breath... (I like that, "baited" breath uke: ) to jump on this and say that ALL hunting is unethical or immoral and should be outlawed.

My ol pappy used to always warn me, "be careful as to what ya ask for, ya might just get it"!

Here's hoping that more will get the underlying agenda here.... it really has NOTHING to do with high fences... :sniper:


----------



## always_outdoors

Raghorn wrote:


> Me thinks y'all best look verrrry carefully before ya leap here..... If we get to carried away with with putting down ANY type of "hunting" (call it that or not) the anti's are waiting with baited breath... (I like that, "baited" breath ) to jump on this and say that ALL hunting is unethical or immoral and should be outlawed.


I disagree. I think using the "anti's" is a form of spinning the real issue at hand. I think just the opposite will occur if these types of "killing" techniques are allowed to happen.

As a sportsmen of hunting I believe we have a duty to uphold the ethics and promotion of hunting to those who either don't do it or are against it. We have the duty to educate those kinds of people and quite frankly it is hard to do that with canned hunting operations in practice.


----------



## Plainsman

Raghorn

I started hunting at seven years old, and I am 59 now. I do have an agenda, and that is to see my grandsons hunting. If I am alive I will perhaps be in a nursing home, but it would be great to hear my great grandchildren talk about hunting trips. 
Put aside your fears and ask yourself what is the right thing to do? That answer makes it easier to come to the right conclusion. 
I would guess the anti- hunters don't want to see this measure pass, because it will take away some of their steam. They paint us all as unsporting killers, and this measure if passed will take that away. 
I would guess that people that are smart enough to type know this. That leaves only one conclusion I can come to. People those that pretend not to understand have an agenda. That agenda is born of either loyalty (they have a friend or relative in the business) or monetary ( they have money invested or are in the business themselves). They will not admit this because then we know their motives. Instead they will come on this thread as one of the good old boys, but just a little concerned. If they can get us to believe that this is an anti-hunting move, then perhaps your fear will keep you from voting for this measure. 
This is a measure that is sponsored by and supported by hunters. Hunters who have seen decades of hunting, and enjoyed every year of it. Hunters who want the generations to come to enjoy hunting. This is an effort to ensure that. Always keep that in mind.


----------



## Raghorn

Well plainsman... I too want to see my grandson hunting in a free society and I too have been hunting since I was old enuff ta hold my gun and to make the accustaions you have just made is exactly what I was talking about... are ya a bit paranoid or do you not have a pair?

Mark my words, and be careful of what you ask for! :sniper: 
I refuse to get caught in your ongoing banter.... you say more than anyone else and don't hear anything anyone else says.... good sign that you are somewhat unsure of what you stand for... nuff said


----------



## Dick Monson

2 posts, both against the Fair Chase measure, new member, Name Raghorn (elk), what am I missing here........? By any chance are you affialted with a high fence operation in some way? Just curious. Because as a Montana hunter you must be aware that your state got CWD from a game ranch. nuff said.


----------



## ALLSUNND

Fair Chase is laughable. Here is some free advice to PETA. 
Make a short film showing hunter set up 400+ yards away from food plot or watering hole or loafing area. Mr.Great White HUNTER is sitting on a ridge with his 300 mag.rifle scoped to the max, spotting scope,range finder, scent lock clothes, some beefed up hand loaded ammo probably knowing what time they will show up because of trail cam and BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a fair chase!!!!!! WOW 
No difference in my eyes then shooting the one with his head in feed bucket!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Raghorn

"Because as a Montana hunter you must be aware that your state got CWD from a game ranch. "

I wasn't aware that Montana has CWD in the wild, I was aware that it was found in one animal on a game farm.... and I am not associated with any "high fenced hunting operation". Like I told plainsman, you must be paranoid or unsure of what you believe in if you attack anyone that says anything ABOUT... not against.... what you are promoting. All I am doing is stating something my ol man always said... be careful of what you ask for, you might get it and it may not be what you thought it was going to be... that's all!

I DO know that PETA and the HSUS are LOVING this.... uke:


----------



## Plainsman

> if you attack anyone that says anything ABOUT... not against


I guess I misinterpreted your intention. It keeps coming up, "your going to get more than you want". I don't believe that. I believe if we don't police ourselves we may loose the whole enchilada. Besides these people are not one of us. 
I understand what your dad was saying, but I don't think it applies. There are also other cliché's you may be interested in. One bad apple spoils the whole barrel, would offset some of this fear. I think that is what it is also, fear. I guess fear may decide how sportsmen feel. Do you fear the anti-hunters will see an opening, or do you think like I do that we will close an opening. Do you fear that anti-hunters will see all of us in the same light as high fence operations, or do you think they will differentiate? So what do people think?



> I DO know that PETA and the HSUS are LOVING this


No you don't know any such thing raghorn. There is no way for you to know unless you set in on their executive meetings. This is why I question that you were just making a comment and not attacking the measure. Why else would you say you "know"? Your trying to spread fear. So that leaves me questioning again, what's your connection?


----------



## Dick Monson

Sheyenne Valley Lodge is a classic example of a canned shooting operation run amuck.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=43121

What isn't posted there is that the canned shooting part of the operation had more violations than you can shake a stick at. Pages of 'em. And nobody in that industry said a peep. Out of sight out of mind. Yet when news reports like the above hit the papers some non-hunters see us all in the same light. Excuse me, the burden was on the opposition to this measure to clean up their own mess in their own house through NDBOA regulation. The indusrty refused. It's a lick on them. Just like the outfitters had the chance to cut the bad ones loose, but they didn't do it either.


----------



## Plainsman

ALLSUNND said:


> Fair Chase is laughable. Here is some free advice to PETA.
> Make a short film showing hunter set up 400+ yards away from food plot or watering hole or loafing area. Mr.Great White HUNTER is sitting on a ridge with his 300 mag.rifle scoped to the max, spotting scope,range finder, scent lock clothes, some beefed up hand loaded ammo probably knowing what time they will show up because of trail cam and BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a fair chase!!!!!! WOW
> No difference in my eyes then shooting the one with his head in feed bucket!!!!!!!!!!!


Hey, I would resemble that. Except for the water hole, food plot, loafing area, scent lock, trail cam. Maybe I don't, but the long range part I do. Maybe that's why I don't like those who shoot them point blank. I wonder if they ever make a mess of their three piece suits or Gucci shoes when they are so close? 

Say, why would you want to give PETA a tip? Also, could you tell me what you have against handloads?


----------



## huntin1

ALLSUNND said:


> Fair Chase is laughable. Here is some free advice to PETA.
> Make a short film showing hunter set up 400+ yards away from food plot or watering hole or loafing area. Mr.Great White HUNTER is sitting on a ridge with his 300 mag.rifle scoped to the max, spotting scope,range finder, scent lock clothes, some beefed up hand loaded ammo probably knowing what time they will show up because of trail cam and BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a fair chase!!!!!! WOW
> No difference in my eyes then shooting the one with his head in feed bucket!!!!!!!!!!!


Quite a bit of difference, but if you can't see that then I would guess you aren't much of a hunter. Perhaps you are one of those who take part in canned hunts on a regular basis.

huntin1


----------



## Jiffy

ALLSUNND said:


> Fair Chase is laughable. Here is some free advice to PETA.
> Make a short film showing hunter set up 400+ yards away from food plot or watering hole or loafing area. Mr.Great White HUNTER is sitting on a ridge with his 300 mag.rifle scoped to the max, spotting scope,range finder, scent lock clothes, some beefed up hand loaded ammo probably knowing what time they will show up because of trail cam and BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a fair chase!!!!!! WOW
> No difference in my eyes then shooting the one with his head in feed bucket!!!!!!!!!!!


So a 400+ yard shot is easy under hunting conditions? Remember you're not on the bench. You're out in the weeds. Have you even shot from distances of such? Better yet, can you connect on a consistant basis from distances of such? You better be able to if you even attempt it. For most people that would be a hell of a shot!

Then again some would consider that shot rather routine. However, I don't believe there are too many people that would miss a 25 yard shot on a preconditioned animal with nothing but filling his stomach in mind.

The two can't be realistically compared. Maybe we should all throw rocks and sticks at them. Or better yet, run them down and bite their necks until they suffocate. Now that would be REAL hunting! :roll:


----------



## jhegg

The biggest spin I see here is the idea that if "this measure passes, what will come next?" What would happen if we used that rational to stop passage of every bill, measure and regulation that came up? Total chaos!

If people are so worried about what comes next, and there is nothing that will come next from the gruop sponsoring this measure, then "they" and "we" have to be vigilant enough to stop it. This measure is about one thing only - ending the high fence hunting of big game animals - nothing more - nothing less!

Jim Heggeness


----------



## north14

For the record, I am not associated with, or a relative to anyone that owns or works for a pay to hunt operation or game ranch. I do have one question for the supporters of this measure. Are you willing to ally yourselves with the anti-hunting groups to support this measure? Like it or not, that is what it is going to look like. Shutting down the elk and deer operations won't be enough for these people. There are bison being paid for by so called "rich snobs" where the meat is left to the owner and the head and hide sent to the taxidermy shop. The bird perserves raise hundeds of birds that are set out by the owners to be shot by their paying clients, and yes, they could fly away but a very large pecentage of them just sit there until they are flushed and then only fly a short distance until someone connects with a shot. How long before another group of concerned citizens will want to stop these "unethical things "from happening. Well hell, that should be easy, just put it on the next public ballot. The non hunting public out number the hunters in nearly every state.


----------



## jhegg

North14,



> I do have one question for the supporters of this measure. Are you willing to ally yourselves with the anti-hunting groups to support this measure? Like it or not, that is what it is going to look like.


This measure is not sponsored by anti-hunters. It is sponsored by hunters who are very concerned about the total lack of regard for hunting ethics displayed by those who run high fence operations. High fence operations are very damaging to the perception the non-hunting public has of hunters. Like it or not, non-support of this measure is really aligning yourself with anti-hunting forces!

I am a sponsor of and support this measure and will do whatever I can to see that it makes it on the ballot. Then the public can vote on it as they wish.

I do not and will not support any measure that goes further than this.

Jim Heggeness


----------



## Raghorn

> The biggest spin I see here is the idea that if "this measure passes, what will come next?" What would happen if we used that rational to stop passage of every bill, measure and regulation that came up? Total chaos!If people are so worried about what comes next, and there is nothing that will come next from the gruop sponsoring this measure, then "they" and "we" have to be vigilant enough to stop it.
> 
> Taking it from history, any measure that reduces our citizen rights always sets precidence that usually cannot be easily reversed. Further rights can and will be suspended on that premis alone and "they" or "we" will never be able to stop the steam roller.
> 
> This measure is about one thing only - ending the high fence hunting of big game animals - nothing more - nothing less!


Not spreading "fear" as some fearful suggest, just a word of caution... take the words "high fenced" out of your statement and read what you are saying.

Another cliche that I recieved from may ol man, "the best way to protect your rights is to help someone else protect theirs" not help take them away...

Many sportsmen here have learned that we lost more than was gained by a similar initiative. Many of our landowners locked the gates following that effort and have since turned to limited fee hunting that is sold to out of staters for big $s. Times are a chang'n and not for the better! :sniper:


----------



## north14

> Like it or not, non-support of this measure is really aligning yourself with anti-hunting forces!


 What in the world do you mean by that? Are you saying the Anti's don't support this measure? I bet they're licking their chops over it!


----------



## Plainsman

Jhegg

Like you I would align myself with anti-hunters when he!! freezes over. I wouldn't take money from PETA, if they delivered it by the sack full. Like you I support all forms of sport hunting, but this isn't sport hunting. Also like you if anyone tries to restrict us (hunters) further I will fight tooth and nail to not let that happen.

On many threads there appears to be a lot of conflict lately. I think I have to step out of much of the debate, because I am afraid I will have to put the moderator cap on. Nothing certain, but on some threads I will bet you dollars to donuts we will need to remove people. It's a good thing the hunting season is here some people can't take it anymore.

My thoughts as I step away from much of the debate (Don't worry guys I will walk the streets of Jamestown getting signatures) : This is going to be a long and drawn out battle. People will tell you many things that' are not true. Also, people will try tick you off just to get you thrown so please behave yourselves (I'll be watching). Some people are sincere in their skepticism, others are just playing good old boy and casting doubt in the hopes of scaring you. Think about what you will hear about this measure, think about the motivations of those who post, and don't get suckered.
I would guess the opposition will be looking for support. Personally I expect many new people on this thread. Not the type that come here to contribute, but come here with an agenda. Shortly we will see if my prophecy comes true.


----------



## north14

Plainsman, all I've done is voice my opinion about why I think putting this measure to a public vote is the wrong thing to do. I'll stand by what I've said and if you feel the need to remove me from this site then go ahead and put your mod cap on and do it. The last time I checked the rules on Nodak it was ok to voice your opinion or debate a topic. Maybe the rules are changing? 


> Also like you if anyone tries to restrict us (hunters) further I will fight tooth and nail to not let that happen.


I'll remember this statement when the anti-baiting measure comes up next .


----------



## Plainsman

north14, get over the paranoia, I wasn't even thinking about this thread. You are welcome to voice your opinion. Have at it, but play nice.
I sent you a PM also, so I hope that will change your thoughts about me banning anyone. Check your PM box.


----------



## sotaman

Carefull what you wish for I am skeptical at any law that allows non hunting orginazations to put there foot in the door so on that principal allown I would vote no


----------



## Crazy Horse RVN

I feel that what you need to becareful about is that this ban does not include such things a Pheasant Preserves. It could be very damaging to hunting in general and would open up many doors for a group such as PETA. Just my opinion.


----------



## Dick Monson

CH-RVN, the reason it is being done as an intitiated measure is that it is lock tight in wording. That is what is driving the opposition nuts.  
They can't ammend the measure to sandbag it. Narrow in scope and specific in definition. Straight yes or no, the people rule the decision, not the paid lobbyists.



> *BALLOT TITLE *
> 
> This initiated measure would add a new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code effective November 1, 2010, providing that a person, other than an authorized government employee or agent, is guilty of a crime if the person obtains payment for the killing or attempted killing of privately owned big game species or exotic mammals in or released from a man-made enclosure.
> 
> * FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE*
> 
> IF MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED, IT IS NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING
> ADDED. IF MATERIAL IS OVERSTRUCK BY DASHES, THE MATERIAL IS BEING DELETED. IF NO MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED OR OVERSTRUCK, THE MEASURE CONTAINS ALL NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING ADDED.
> BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
> 
> SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:
> 
> Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited  Penalty  Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic
> mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.
> 
> SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective on November 1, 2010.


Today one of the wire services was reporting on the falling number of hunters in the USA. 12.5 million. That's less that 4% of the population. Best we clean our own house instead of the 96% that don't hunt. Because when they write the law it's going to look ugly for everybody.


----------



## Bobm

> *Today one of the wire services was reporting on the falling number of hunters in the USA. 12.5 million. That's less that 4% of the population. Best we clean our own house instead of the 96% that don't hunt. Because when they write the law it's going to look ugly for everybody.*


Thats exactly correct and all the people that cant see that are blind, every organization or group that lets some poison like fenced "hunting" fester in its midst ends up losing a lot more than they would of if they acted responsibly on their own and cleaned their own house.

I am really shocked at how little the "rules of fair chase" established for so long mean to people today.


----------



## Dak

Dick, Bob,

Exactly right. Here is the full article.



> Number of U.S. hunters declines, worrying wildlife agencies
> By DAVID CRARY AP National Writer
> The Associated Press - Sunday, September 02, 2007
> 
> Hunters remain a powerful force in American society, as evidenced by the presidential candidates who routinely pay them homage, but their ranks are shrinking dramatically and wildlife agencies worry increasingly about the loss of sorely needed license-fee revenue.
> 
> New figures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that the number of hunters 16 and older declined by 10 percent between 1996 and 2006 - from 14 million to about 12.5 million. The drop was most acute in New England, the Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific states, which lost 400,000 hunters in that span.
> 
> The primary reasons, experts say, are the loss of hunting land to urbanization plus a perception by many families that they can't afford the time or costs that hunting entails.
> 
> "To recruit new hunters, it takes hunting families," said Gregg Patterson of Ducks Unlimited. "I was introduced to it by my father, he was introduced to it by his father. When you have boys and girls without a hunter in the household, it's tough to give them the experience."
> 
> Some animal-welfare activists welcome the trend, noting that it coincides with a 13 percent increase in wildlife watching since 1996. But hunters and state wildlife agencies, as they prepare for the fall hunting season, say the drop is worrisome.
> 
> "It's hunters who are the most willing to give their own dollar for wildlife conservation," Patterson said.
> 
> Compounding the problem, the number of Americans who fish also has dropped sharply - down 15 percent, from 35.2 million in 1996 to 30 million in 2006, according to the latest version of a national survey that the Fish and Wildlife Service conducts every five years.
> 
> Of the 50 state wildlife agencies, most rely on hunting and fishing license fees for the bulk of their revenue, and only a handful receive significant infusions from their state's general fund.
> 
> "They're trying to take care of all wildlife and all habitats on a shoestring budget," said Rachel Brittin of the Washington-based Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
> 
> In New Hampshire, only multiple fee increases - which produced numerous complaints - have enabled the Fish and Game Department to keep revenues robust. Its ranks of registered hunters has dropped from 83,292 in 1996 to 61,076 last year, according to department spokeswoman Judy Stokes.
> 
> "We hear concerns about land access," Stokes said. "People grew up hunting - you went out with your family, your uncle. And now you go back, and there's a shopping plaza or a housing development. Some of your favorite places just aren't available anymore."
> 
> National hunting expert Mark Damian Duda, executive director of Virginia-based research firm Responsive Management, says America's increasingly urban and suburban culture makes it less friendly toward the pastime.
> 
> "You don't just get up and go hunting one day - your father or father-type figure has to have hunted," Duda said. "In a rural environment, where your friends and family hunt, you feel comfortable with guns, you feel comfortable with killing an animal."
> 
> Indeed, hunting remains vibrant in many rural states - 19 percent of residents 16 and older hunted last year in Montana and 17 percent in North Dakota, compared with 1 percent in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Nationally, 5 percent of the 16-and-over population hunted in 2006, down from 7 percent in 1996.
> 
> As their ranks dwindle, hunters are far from unified. The often big-spending, wide-traveling trophy hunters of Safari Club International, for example, have different priorities from duck hunters frequenting close-to-home wetlands.
> 
> One rift involves hunters disenchanted with the National Rifle Association, which runs major hunting programs and lobbies vigorously against gun control. A Maryland hunter, Ray Schoenke, has formed a new group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, primarily as a home for hunters who would support some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales.
> 
> "The NRA's extreme positions have hurt the hunting movement," Schoenke said. "Soccer moms now believe hunters have made things more dangerous."
> 
> Political support for hunting remains strong, though, with several states recently enshrining the right to hunt and fish in their constitutions.
> 
> Last month, President Bush ordered all federal agencies that manage public lands to look for more room for hunting. In the 2004 presidential campaign, both Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry courted hunters' and gun owners' votes. A camouflage-jacketed Kerry even toted a shotgun during a goose hunt.
> 
> Among the 2008 candidates, Democrat Bill Richardson aired a TV ad showing him hunting, while Republican Mitt Romney was derided for calling himself a lifelong hunter even though he never had state hunting licenses.
> 
> Public support for hunting also is high, in part because huge deer populations have become a nuisance in many areas. Duda's surveys indicate less than 25 percent of Americans oppose hunting, although groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals denounce it as cruel.
> 
> Most major animal-welfare and conservation groups don't campaign to end hunting, but some lobby against specific practices such as bear hunting or "canned" hunts in which game is confined in fenced areas and shot by hunters who pay large sums for the opportunity.
> 
> "As a matter of principle, we should not condone the killing of any animal in the interest of sport," said Andrew Page of the Humane Society of the United States. "But as a matter of pragmatism, we target those practices that even hunters would agree are egregious."
> 
> The Humane Society welcomed the new federal data showing a surging number of birdwatchers, wildlife photographers and other wildlife watchers. They increased from 62.8 million in 1996 to 71.1 million in 2006, spending $45 billion on their activities compared to $75 billion spent by hunters and anglers.
> 
> "The American attitude regarding wildlife is changing," Page said. "I suspect the day will come when a presidential candidate goes to a local humane society to adopt a homeless animal, rather than go the field and pose as hunter with a gun."
> 
> However, hunting groups and state wildlife agencies are striving to reverse the decline by recruiting new hunters. Vermont's Game and Wildlife Department, for example, sponsors thrice-annual youth hunting weekends, offers low-cost youth licenses and teaches firearms safety and outdoor skills each summer at youth conservation camps.
> 
> Another initiative is Families Afield, sponsored by three national hunting groups; it aims to ease state restrictions on youth hunting. At least 12 states have obliged, enabling thousands of youths to sample hunting before taking required hunter education courses.
> 
> Other programs seek to attract more women, though few promote racial diversity. More than 90 percent of U.S. hunters are male; roughly 96 percent are white.
> 
> Rob Sexton, a vice president of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, said one upside of the shrinking numbers is that hunting groups are more motivated to seek remedies, such as access to more land and less burdensome regulations.
> 
> "There are still a lot of us," he said. "Hunting is a great passion for our people."


___

On the Net:

Federal hunting/fishing survey: http://federalasst.fws.gov/surveys/surveys.html


----------



## Raghorn

"the reason it is being done as an intitiated measure is that it is lock tight in wording"

Sorry guys, this wording is NOT "locktight in wording". I'm not an attorney but I can see the loopholes in this wording and am suprised that you don't. Who drafted this anyway?

Also I have seen it stated that it doesn't include bison? I don't see any exclusions in this wording except for goverment action... DANGEROUS!

The HSUS and peta work on the premise that ALL domestic mammals, "exotic" or otherwise are being held "captive" or against their will, and should thus be set free. Therefore, you may want to ask your cattlemen, sheepmen, hog and dairy farmers how they feel about this.

Furthermore, take out a few words like "captive" and "privately owned" and you are eliminating the killing of ANY game animal period. This is the main objective of the radical "conservatives" that have an agenda to accomplish just that!

So, as I have warned in previous posts, be careful of what you ask, you may get MORE than you bargained for. No fear, just fact! :sniper:

Oh, and Bob... what ARE the "rules of fair chase"? Maybe for clarity you could list them for us here. Make sure you keep the traditionalist in mind!


----------



## Bobm

Raghorn asked


> Oh, and Bob... what ARE the "rules of fair chase"? Maybe for clarity you could list them for us here. Make sure you keep the traditionalist in mind!


be happy to Raghorn here they are

from boone and Crockette



> CANNED SHOOT STATEMENT
> The Boone and Crockett Club's Board of Directors and its membership have unanimously adopted and approved a position statement on "Canned Shoots" because of the growing concern among hunters and the increased public interest in the practice of "canned hunts."
> 
> BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB POSITION STATEMENT
> ETHICAL HUNTING VERSUS UNETHICAL SHOOTING AND OTHER PRACTICES
> 
> The Boone and Crockett Club has been a highly respected conservation leader and proponent of ethical Fair Chase hunting of North American big game since 1887.
> 
> Ethical Fair Chase Hunting
> The Boone and Crockett Club, in its Fair Chase statement, advocates any hunting that is "the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals."
> 
> *Unethical "Canned" Shooting (Improperly referred to as "canned" hunting.)
> The Boone and Crockett Club condemns the pursuit and killing of any big game animal kept in or released from captivity to be killed in an artificial or bogus "hunting" situation where the game lacks the equivalent chance to escape afforded free-ranging animals, virtually assuring the shooter a certain or unrealistically favorable chance of a kill.*
> 
> Genetic Manipulation of Game Animals
> The Boone and Crockett Club condemns artificial and unnatural enhancement of a big game species' genetic characteristics. Unacceptable practices for genetic enhancement include, but are not limited to, artificial insemination, controlled or unnatural breeding programs, cloning, and translocation of breeding stock for canned shooting purposes.
> 
> Public Perception
> The Boone and Crockett Club is greatly concerned that the non-hunting public may confuse ethical, fair chase hunting with canned shoots, genetic manipulations and other related practices, which the Club condemns.
> If you have any questions, please contact:
> C. Robert Palmer , President
> Boone and Crockett Club Headquarters
> 
> Prepared for and Adopted by the Board of Directors - June 4, 2005
> 
> 
> 
> and from pope and Young
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From its beginnings, the Club has grown to epitomize fair chase and sportsmanship in hunting. This fair chase philosophy reaches to the very foundations of the hunting spirit; it remains a dominant factor in the personal hunting ethic of every responsible individual; it is key to bowhunting's future with deep roots in America's hunting heritage. Simply defined, fair chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal. It does, however, extend beyond the hunt itself; it is an attitude and a way of life based in a deep-seated respect for wildlife, for the environment, and for other individuals who share the bounty of this vast continent's natural resources.
> 
> The term *"Fair Chase" shall not include *the taking of animals under the following conditions:
> 
> Helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice.
> From any power vehicle or power boat.
> By "jacklighting" or shining at night.
> By the use of any tranquilizers or poisons.
> *While inside escape-proof fenced enclosures. *By the use of any power vehicles or power boats for herding or driving animals, including use of aircraft to land alongside or to communicate with or direct a hunter on the ground.
> By the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating, or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game, or by the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached.
> 
> Any other condition considered by the Board of Directors as unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## north14

Just wondering where the second half of this article came from? The Minot Daily only had half of what is pasted above ending with the line " A camoflage-jacketed Kerry even toted a shotgun during a goose hunt"


----------



## Raghorn

Just for the sake of argument, now remember, I'm not disagreeing with these position statements... I am only pointing out that these statements do not include livestock and this is where it becomes a a bit sticky... And for clarity, I do not condone the terminology "hunting" unless it is actually "hunted" for.



> CANNED SHOOT STATEMENT
> The Boone and Crockett Club's Board of Directors and its membership have unanimously adopted and approved a position statement on "Canned Shoots" because of the growing concern among hunters and the increased public interest in the practice of "canned hunts."
> 
> BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB POSITION STATEMENT
> ETHICAL HUNTING VERSUS UNETHICAL SHOOTING AND OTHER PRACTICES
> 
> The Boone and Crockett Club has been a highly respected conservation leader and proponent of ethical Fair Chase hunting of North American big game since 1887.
> 
> Ethical Fair Chase Hunting
> The Boone and Crockett Club, in its Fair Chase statement, advocates any hunting that is "the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of any *free-ranging wild game animal *in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals."
> 
> *Unethical "Canned" Shooting (Improperly referred to as "canned" hunting.)
> The Boone and Crockett Club condemns the pursuit and killing of any big game animal kept in or released from captivity to be killed in an artificial or bogus "hunting" situation where the game lacks the equivalent chance to escape afforded free-ranging animals, virtually assuring the shooter a certain or unrealistically favorable chance of a kill.*
> 
> Genetic Manipulation of Game Animals
> The Boone and Crockett Club condemns artificial and unnatural enhancement of a big game species' genetic characteristics. Unacceptable practices for genetic enhancement include, but are not limited to, artificial insemination, controlled or unnatural breeding programs, cloning, and translocation of breeding stock for canned shooting purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> so"controlled hunts" and "translocating animals" could be considered am unnatural program, could it not?
> 
> 
> 
> Public Perception
> The Boone and Crockett Club is greatly concerned that the non-hunting public may confuse ethical, fair chase hunting with canned shoots, genetic manipulations and other related practices, which the Club condemns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one must ask, what is the definition of "ethical"? So read on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and from pope and Young
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From its beginnings, the Club has grown to epitomize fair chase and sportsmanship in hunting. This fair chase philosophy reaches to the very foundations of the hunting spirit; it remains a dominant factor in the personal hunting ethic of every responsible individual; it is key to bowhunting's future with deep roots in America's hunting heritage. Simply defined, *fair chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals *in a manner which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal. It does, however, extend beyond the hunt itself; it is an attitude and a way of life based in a deep-seated respect for wildlife, for the environment, and for other individuals who share the bounty of this vast continent's natural resources.
> 
> The term *"Fair Chase" shall not include *the taking of animals under the following conditions:
> 
> Helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice.
> From any power vehicle or power boat.
> By "jacklighting" or shining at night.
> By the use of any tranquilizers or poisons.
> *While inside escape-proof fenced enclosures. *By the use of any power vehicles or power boats for herding or driving animals, including use of aircraft to land alongside or to communicate with or direct a hunter on the ground.
> By the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating, or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game, or by the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So in other words, it is unethical to entrap and take wild free ranging wildlife or use artificial means in so doing ..... I whole heartidly agree with all of that so pass a law that says it cannot be called hunting!!

I do also, however, respect free enterprise and a persons right to raise and market domestic animals. Now if and since some of these animals are cousins to some that are wild does not constitute me being part of taking that persons right away. Remember, once a right is abolished, it cannot be regained. Since our rights are being taken away on a regular basis, I have a hard time supporting ANY measure to take away a right of free enterprise...sorry, but that is how I feel!

As my dad always said; the best way to preserve your right is to help someone else preserve theirs... :sniper:


----------



## Bobm

Raghorn,

Do you or any close friends or relatives derive any income from guiding or any activity related to hunting whether penned game or otherwise?


----------



## Raghorn

Bobm said:


> Raghorn,
> 
> Do you or any close friends or relatives derive any income from guiding or any activity related to hunting whether penned game or otherwise?


Well fyi, an uncle , retired now, was a conservation officer with the CO DOW and another uncle was a gov trapper.... I was a guide and outfitter in my younger days... so why do you ask? because I am an American and believe in fairness or because the only way I could take a stand against this measure is if I am "one of them"?

Bob, I just think we need to be very cautious as to what doors we open these days! There are to many special interest peeps waiting to run through! :sniper:


----------



## jhegg

Chris,
We need a new icon for spin - I think a "spinning top" will serve the purpose!
Jim


----------



## redlabel

Plainsman said:


> I would guess the anti- hunters don't want to see this measure pass, because it will take away some of their steam. They paint us all as unsporting killers, and this measure if passed will take that away.
> I would guess that people that are smart enough to type know this. That leaves only one conclusion I can come to. People those that pretend not to understand have an agenda. That agenda is born of either loyalty (they have a friend or relative in the business) or monetary ( they have money invested or are in the business themselves). They will not admit this because then we know their motives. Instead they will come on this thread as one of the good old boys, but just a little concerned. If they can get us to believe that this is an anti-hunting move, then perhaps your fear will keep you from voting for this measure.
> This is a measure that is sponsored by and supported by hunters. Hunters who have seen decades of hunting, and enjoyed every year of it. Hunters who want the generations to come to enjoy hunting. This is an effort to ensure that. Always keep that in mind.


I think it is wrong to "guess" what the anti-hunting crowd thinks. They have a clear cut agenda, much like the anti gun people. They will take whatever victories they can, but never fear their ultimate goal is the elimination of all hunting.

I know of no one in the business nor have a vested interest in any hunting operation, however I am against the action you propose. As I said earlier I'm concerned that if successful it is a very small step to ban bird shooting preserves and I do enjoy using them several times a year. I've used them for dog training, personal enjoyment, and introducing kids to hunting. My dogs love it when we continue to go after pheasants in January and February.

I was concerned when one of the proponents said something about bird shooting opertations were not included and g/o lives for another day. Sounded a lot like saying we'll go for this one and go after another part we don't like later.


----------



## Dick Monson

> I was concerned when one of the proponents said something about bird shooting opertations were not included and g/o lives for another day.


That would be me. One of the guys here runs a bird preserve and always engages in light hearted banter. :wink: Possibly I should have said bird preserves are not affected by this measure, or are not targeted by this measure now or in the future. How many ways can one say that?


----------



## redlabel

I understand what you are saying Dick, but if this passed someone could use this premise and idea to further their agenda that is different than yours.

Plus I don't think it is right to change the program in the middle of the game for those that have invested time and money into a lawful regulated operation.

I may not be a proponent of these types of operations but I have no burning desire to have them eliminated because my opinion is different than their's is.


----------



## always_outdoors

> but if this passed someone could use this premise and idea to further their agenda that is different than yours.


But what if they use high fence hunting as a way of showing the 90% of the non-hunting public that this is what we do (when actually many of us don't).

As I stated before, I remember everyone screaming that the anti's were behind us going to steel shot for waterfowl and that this was a small step to regulating us even more. It hasn't happened....


----------



## rowdie

Raghorn,

If the people of Nevada wanted to say.....ban prostitution, like other states have done, would be for or agaisnt banning that states' free enterprise?


----------



## Raghorn

"rowdie"



> If the people of Nevada wanted to say.....ban prostitution, like other states have done, would be for or agaisnt banning that states' free enterprise?


I would think that the answer to your question is obvious..... maybe not!



> Statistics are like a Bikini, for what they reveal is exciting, but what they conceal is significant


I suppose that you also believe that prostitution does not exist in NoDak?

Even so, let me ask you, any time one group of people decide to ban or make illegal anything that another group of people *legally* have been engaged in, does it effect those peoples right to free enterprise? And 2)does it in any way affect the right of free enterprise of those inflicting the ban? :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman

> Even so, let me ask you, any time one group of people decide to ban or make illegal anything that another group of people legally have been engaged in, does it effect those peoples right to free enterprise? And 2)does it in any way affect the right of free enterprise of those inflicting the ban?


No comment about the ban or anything, but I must comment on the logic or lack there of in this statement. With this attitude no laws would ever be passed. We would still be operating under the laws of 1776. Smog would fill out air, personal weapons could include nukes, there would be no speed limits, all drugs would still be legal, slavery would still be legal etc. I don't think we can accept the premise that something legal today should remain so forever. Sure some bad laws like the "assault weapons" ban. It has passed away, but is in danger of coming back again if my gal pal Nancy has her way. Most of the bad laws have been passed by politicians, and not by the people. 
We can't run a state or nation with archaic attitudes and laws. What would we do when an activity begins that 99 percent of society finds repugnant but a very few people are making money at it? An activity that no one could foresee. For example no one ever thought that people would be drugging people and stealing their organs for sale. Now it's happening. There were no laws to cover this, because the medical field nor anyone else could have foreseen such a thing. Some people get a lot of money for a fresh kidney. What if someone wants to sell a kidney? Should it be legal?


----------



## Dak

You're right Plainsman. I expect Coca-Cola will soon be suing because they can't use cocaine. :lol:


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,

You continue to make your arguement that society makes laws regarding ethics.



> Smog would fill out air, personal weapons could include nukes, there would be no speed limits, all drugs would still be legal, slavery would still be legal etc.


So now we are comparing stealing someones organs to hunting on a private game preserve - clear logic there??????????

What you can't seem to get is every law you mentioned is to protect human health or welfare. No matter what you base your ethics on, I think we all agree we need laws to protect us from some of our own. However this is strictly an issue of preference. It harms no ones health or welfare. It is simply a livestock producer selling his product and harming no one. It is a minority trying to impose their will on someone else simply because they find it distateful. If that is how we are going to govern this country, we hunters, sportsmen, and gun owners are in big trouble.


----------



## Plainsman

> So now we are comparing stealing someones organs to hunting on a private game preserve


No one would be dumb enough to think that. It was simply an example of society making laws. I think you want people to think I was making a comparison so you can reap the sympathy. That wasn't the case, and I think you know it. 
Do you know why I say this? Did you even read my post? Did you not understand the following:



> No comment about the ban or anything


Now tell me again how I was making a comparison. *Would you like to retract that statement? * I would be pleased if you would, because it isn't true.



> It is a minority trying to impose their will on someone else


An election will tell us if that is true or not. If it is I will live with it, if it isn't then PETA will have less ammunition to put us in a bad light.



> If that is how we are going to govern this country, we hunters, sportsmen, and gun owners are in big trouble.


We are in big trouble. Between the shooting at Virginia tech and the anti-firearms people flipping out we need to let the public know hunters are responsible. With PETA chomping at our tail every year we need to make darn sure that they don't have a legitimate beefs with us. Anything bad, or any stupid action and our enemies are waiting to point it out to the general public.


----------



## Raghorn

> With this attitude no laws would ever be passed. We would still be operating under the laws of 1776. Smog would fill out air, personal weapons could include nukes, there would be no speed limits, all drugs would still be legal, slavery would still be legal etc. I don't think we can accept the premise that something legal today should remain so forever. Sure some bad laws like the "assault weapons" ban. It has passed away, but is in danger of coming back again *if my gal pal Nancy has her way*. Most of the bad laws have been passed by politicians, and not by the people.
> We can't run a state or nation with archaic attitudes and laws.


Geeze plainsman.... I'm so sorry, I had NO idea that you were such a staunch liberal.... we wonder no longer...

Let me paint you a simple picture of how you and I differ plainsman [gag]... You and I walking along hunting squirrels... we come accross a burlap bag with what seems to be a cat, a very ****** off cat inside... I suggest that we leave it be and you... YOU say, oh no... lets take it out and drag it around by it's tail... now I have to wonder about your logic... as a matter of fact, I might have to assume that you are one of them, i.e., no, I can't... that would be lowering myself to YOUR level... :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman

> Geeze plainsman.... I'm so sorry, I had NO idea that you were such a staunch liberal.... we wonder no longer...


Shucks you got me. :huh:


----------



## Dak

"An election will tell us if that is true or not. If it is I will live with it, if it isn't then PETA will have less ammunition to put us in a bad light."

Plainsman,

The above statement you made is EXACTLY RIGHT. I continue to be amazed that so many are scared of what their fellow voters will do. Perhaps they aren't confident that the public will be believe their story. If they were, they'd sign the petition and then gleefully kill the iniative in vote of the people.

:beer:


----------



## 4590

I have no fear of an informed ND voter. However we all know many are not informed and certainly those promoting this measure will hype it just as they do on this site with paranoia and untruth. I am not certain the ND deer and elk farmers have the resources to make sure every voter is informed.

To prove my point, here is a list of other similar issues that the public would likely vote against if given the opportunity.

Chasing wildlife with dogs.
Shooting wildlife over a bait pile.
All archery hunting. Too many wounded animals.
All killing of wildlife for fun or recreation. Hunting as you all call it.
Gun ownership.
Castrating calves with out anesthesia.
Branding cattle.
Docking lambs.
Dehorning cattle.
Use of pesticides on crops.
Slaughter of Horses - oh I guess they already got that one done.
Concentrated feeding operations of livestock.
Egg factories.

I believe the majority of people, removed from hunting and agriculture, would have an imediate negative reaction to all these issues. Especially given the right spin along with a video of the process as some continue to suggest of preserves hunts. Does that give them the right to vote them down. I think not.


----------



## jhegg

4590,



> I believe the majority of people, removed from hunting and agriculture, would have an imediate negative reaction to all these issues. Especially given the right spin along with a video of the process as some continue to suggest of preserves hunts. Does that give them the right to vote them down. I think not.


Obviously, you do not think that people should have the right to vote against any activity that puts money in your pocket. However, most people may not share your opinions. Let's give them the opportunity to speak.

I am a sponsor of this measure and will welcome anyone who wants to sign on and give the public an opportunity to speak on this issue a chance to do so. I can be contacted at:

Jim Heggeness
2406 9-1/2 Street North
Fargo, ND 58102
701-219-4550

ps: 4590 - who are you?


----------



## rowdie

If laws were only passed to "protect the health and welafare of the people", how is it that prostitution is leagel in Nevada. When I vactioned there for a week a couple years ago, I didn't realize I was putting my health and saftey at risk just because there were leagel prostitues there. The people in the local communities in Nevada survive somehow.

Is there prostitution in ND? I would guess yes. Does it put my health and saftey at risk....ah no. SO WHY IS IT REALLY ILLEAGEL HERE IN ND??? Could ethics have anything to do with it??? So then, should it be legal, because some people do it???

Some people feel that the people of this state have no right to declare this activity illeagel, but if that is true, then many laws, like outlawing prostitution, should not be left up for the people, or legislature either.


----------



## jhegg

Rowdie,
From what I have seen and heard so far, I don't think 4590 would have any objection to legalizing prostitution on his ranch as money making endeavor.
Jim


----------



## 4590

Rowdie,

You and I have had the prostitution debate before, so I have been avoiding it as you abviously don't get it.

YES I am vehemently apposed to prostitution any where any time. It preys on the lives of especially young poor women and certainly does affect the health and welfare of the same. Ever heard of sexual transmitted disease. Prostitution is also condemned in the Bible, which I consider the final authority on morality. Prostitition is a "cancer", to quote some on this site, on society and should not be legal anywhere. It has absolutely no comparison to the issue at hand. Actually preserve hunting is much safer than other hunting.


----------



## 4590

Jim,

I fail to believe you are as dull as your response would suggest.

My point is that many uninformed people vote. That is why initiated measures are not wise. That is why our lawmaking system is set up the way it is. If we all agreed that the people should make the laws, then disban the legislature and bring hundreds of bills before people every other year. You would have total kaos.

I made a list of things that should not be banned but many uninformed people would find distateful.

That is why we elect legislators. They do study issues and vote in the best interest of the majority of their constituents. They carefully weigh all the ramifications of each vote. Decide whether it sets a prescident that could affect other issues. Explore in depth the wording of a bill to see if will actually do what it says and whether it violates the state constitution. Sounds like you would rather let the people vote their emotions and let the chips fall where they may. Say good bye to taxes, school, civil services, guns, hunting, you get the point.


----------



## Plainsman

> They do study issues and vote in the best interest of the majority of their constituents.


If they vote for the best interest of the majority of their constituents then they vote the same way the public does and you have no worries. The problem is I suspect that many legislators put their self interest before the interest of their constituents.


----------



## Dick Monson

The legislature is going to watch this measure closely with great interest. It is probably one of the first natural resource measures, at least as far back as I can remember, that came from the people.

The arguement that people should not decide the law is silly. Initiated measures are one of the checks and balances purposely put into the state constitution to guard against excess. It is the most fudimental right we have.

It is also an act we are not used to exercising as evidenced by the fact that 2575 people have viewed this topic, but only 66 have voted on the poll. Maybe we are too used to having others think & act for us.


----------



## jhegg

4590,



> That is why we elect legislators. They do study issues and vote in the best interest of the majority of their constituents. They carefully weigh all the ramifications of each vote. Decide whether it sets a prescident that could affect other issues. Explore in depth the wording of a bill to see if will actually do what it says and whether it violates the state constitution.


I wish that is how it would work! Unfortunately, money speaks louder to our legislators than ethics. Thus, when ethics get slam-dunked by money interestes, we still have initiated measures to fall back on. We tried in the legislature and were overwhelmed by the money interests. Therefore, we will bring this issue to a vote of the people. What happens will happen - 'nough said!

Jim Heggeness

ps: I still have not seen you identify yourself on this forum. Why not?


----------



## ALLSUNND

Dick Monson said:


> The legislature is going to watch this measure closely with great interest. It is probably one of the first natural resource measures, at least as far back as I can remember, that came from the people.
> 
> The argument that people should not decide the law is silly. Initiated measures are one of the checks and balances purposely put into the state constitution to guard against excess. It is the most fundamental right we have.
> It is also an act we are not used to exercising as evidenced by the fact that 2575 people have viewed this topic, but only 66 have voted on the poll. Maybe we are too used to having others think & act for us.


Initiated measures are just a way for the populated cities can dictate their preferences on the rural areas and side step the republic forum of gov. 
North Dakotans would scream to high heaven if this worked nationally and the west coast and east coast would force their ethics on all things on them !!!!


----------



## Dick Monson

ALLSUNND said:


> Initiated measures are just a way for the populated cities can dictate their preferences on the rural areas and side step the republic forum of gov.


I said state constitution. The rural-urban wedge argument is wore (whore) out. Just like a old flat tire. The UND survey showed basicly no difference of opinion urban-rural to prohibit canned shooting. Face it, their neighbors don't like it either.


----------



## ALLSUNND

Dick Monson said:


> ALLSUNND said:
> 
> 
> 
> Initiated measures are just a way for the populated cities can dictate their preferences on the rural areas and side step the republic forum of gov.
> 
> 
> 
> I said state constitution. The rural-urban wedge argument is wore (whore) out. Just like a old flat tire. The UND survey showed basicly no difference of opinion urban-rural to prohibit canned shooting. Face it, their neighbors don't like it either.
Click to expand...



I guess time will only tell who whored out to who!!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> Actually preserve hunting is much safer than other hunting.


4590 are you now claiming that you are preserving elk and deer? Last I knew neither are in danger that they need protection?

* Spin away because selling canned shoots is no different than pimping for a PRO!*


----------



## Dak

If you are afraid of uniformed voters, educate them. That may not be to the advantage of the canned hunt folks though.


----------



## rowdie

4950

When people bring up the issue that free enterprise can't be legislated against, or property rights issues, thats when I point to the enterprise of prostitution. It is a free enterprise in Nevada, and I believe its leagel in Candada. You never know, other states may leagelize it someday, although I doubt ND ever will.

I believe the state that has it leagel has the "merchandise" medically checked to help prevent the spread of disease. But even in states that don't have prostitution there are still STD's. Even IF everyone followed the law in the states that have outlawed it, there would still be STD's. Sound familiar to any other industry thats been discussed?

While certain enterprised may be totally different, they are in fact both business, conducted on private property. How can you not get that??? And what is it that I actually do not get???

BTW, are we to believe that Nevada is such an evil place because of prostitution, that the people living there are risking their health. If I visit Nevada, should I get a check for STD's even if I never endulge in any unhealthy activity.


----------



## Raghorn

> And what is it that I actually do not get???
> 
> BTW, are we to believe that Nevada is such an evil place because of prostitution, that the people living there are risking their health. If I visit Nevada, should I get a check for STD's even if I never endulge in any unhealthy activity.


Let me put my "bickering" "spin" on this phrase... I just CAN'T let this go by...

BTW, are we to believe that *North Dakota *is such an evil place because of *hunting preserves*, that the people living there are risking their health. If I visit *North Dakota*, should I get a check for *CWD* even if I never endulge in any unhealthy activity. :sniper:

PS... No cigar plainman, my metaphor wasn't about "secrets" i.e., the ol "let the cat out of the bag" idiom... it was about you and 29 others making an illogical decision for the rest of us.


----------



## 4590

Ron,

Well again I think we can see who is spinning. And again if you can't make a logical rebutal just attack the messenger. I don't appreciate being called a pimp.

My statement that preserve hunting is safer is easily documented. How many hunters have you heard of getting shot on a hunt ranch. It is just a safer place to hunt because we don't send multiple hunters out at one time. The meat is also safer as the herd is constantly tested and monitored for CWD and usually TB accredited.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

No 4590 you are the one spinning by continuing to call it hunting! It is either hunting or livestock slaughter! You want it both ways and it will not happen. If you want to call it hunting then you are a PIMP for shooters. If it is livestock slaughter then advertise it as such and not call it hunting! Because that is your whole argument in a nutshell. You want to spin it one way and then spin it another.

Most people will see right through your attempts as has been pointed out. So which is it? Hunting or livestock slaughter? It is not both and never will be. If you call it livestock slaughter then you are guilty of false advertising by listing the activity as *hunting!*

Your motto should be*" Have shovel will continue to dig my own hole!!"*


----------



## Plainsman

Take heart Ron. Currently 66 people have voted and 72 percent agree with us. One would think that it was 50/50 reading this thread, but many just don't want to get into a whiz match. So they vote and sit back and watch. I noticed that it has hovered in the low to upper 70 percentile all through this debate. 
The interesting part is there are a couple of threads that just look like we are bickering. However, every time some people post more people call and ask for petitions. It's going wonderful. I think if we need 12,000 signatures we should turn in 30,000 just for good measure. As soon as I finish a couple projects I will go door to door if I have to.



> Your motto should be" Have shovel will continue to dig my own hole!!


Your absolutely right Ron. I just didn't want to tell them just yet. I sure was waiting for someone to tell them. I was about to bust at the seams from keeping quiet. :beer:


----------



## 4590

> False advertising


Well thats a new spin. Preserve hunting fits very nicely into the definition of "hunting" in NDCC.

Any one else notice the voting seems to have ended. Is there a reason for that. Got the first locals to vote and shut it off or what. I never voted and yet when I open the site there is no option to do so.


----------



## Plainsman

4590 said:


> False advertising
> 
> 
> 
> Well thats a new spin. Preserve hunting fits very nicely into the definition of "hunting" in NDCC.
> 
> Any one else notice the voting seems to have ended. Is there a reason for that. Got the first locals to vote and shut it off or what. I never voted and yet when I open the site there is no option to do so.
Click to expand...

Bert. (AKA Poop) had a related complaint, but it would appear he forgot his password. Even those of us who are supermoderators can not turn off your options 4590. You are doing something wrong, or your trying to vote twice.
Do you see the percentages when you bring up the thread. If you do you have already voted. If you don't vote you can't see the percentage for or against the measure.


----------



## R y a n

4590 said:


> Any one else notice the voting seems to have ended. Is there a reason for that. Got the first locals to vote and shut it off or what. I never voted and yet when I open the site there is no option to do so.


I went back in to review what might be happening. It seems that a standard poll that anyone creates lasts for 10 days by default.

I went into the original post and switched it to 60 days. It should work now.

Seeing as you likely had already voted (once)on this 4590... just how did you magically discover that detail? Were you trying to vote a second time and skew the true numbers? Curious....

Ryan


----------



## 4590

Well Ryan nothing like assuming the worst in people. Actually I never did vote just because I figured on this site the vote would likely be very lopsided anyway. Just found it curious that the numbers weren't changing.


----------



## Turner

4590 said:


> Well Ryan nothing like assuming the worst in people. Actually I never did vote just because I figured on this site the vote would likely be very lopsided anyway. Just found it curious that the numbers weren't changing.


You give Ryan grief for assuming the worst in people, and then turn around and make the commen't "I never did vote just because I figured on this site the vote would likely be very lopsided anyway". :eyeroll:

It might not be lopsided, but a landslide likely. Due to the #'s of people on here that don't support high fence shooting.


----------



## Autry

Is the poll closed?


----------



## R y a n

Autry said:


> Is the poll closed?


Hello Autry

How's the weather down in Dallas?

Yes the poll should still be open.... Thanks for joining Nodak. Hopefully you'll post more than a few times, and didn't just join due to this topic...

Ryan


----------



## Autry

Thanks for the reply!

As for the weather in Dallas, I don't have a clue what's happening in Dallas since I'm not from there. You might check with weather.com if it is really an issue.

I do believe that you may have a technical problem on the poll as I was told by a friend that he was unable to vote. Could you check this out just to be sure?

Also, when is the poll scheduled to close?


----------



## woodpecker

xxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

Polls can get rigged pretty easily too. 

http://www.deer-forums.com/discus/messages/2/20052.html


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

Chris Hustad said:


> Polls can get rigged pretty easily too.
> 
> http://www.deer-forums.com/discus/messages/2/20052.html


Not the one that counts though! :wink:


----------



## Robert A. Langager

R y a n said:


> Autry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the poll closed?
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Autry
> 
> How's the weather down in Dallas?
> 
> Yes the poll should still be open.... Thanks for joining Nodak. Hopefully you'll post more than a few times, and didn't just join due to this topic...
> 
> Ryan
Click to expand...

Actually, David Autry is in Tennessee.

http://www.autryfarms.com/


----------



## Jiffy

BUSTED!









I love it!! :beer:


----------



## R y a n

Robert A. Langager said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Autry said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the poll closed?
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Autry
> 
> How's the weather down in Dallas?
> 
> Yes the poll should still be open.... Thanks for joining Nodak. Hopefully you'll post more than a few times, and didn't just join due to this topic...
> 
> Ryan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, David Autry is in Tennessee.
> 
> http://www.autryfarms.com/
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Thanks Robert! 

Sorry 'bout that David. I'm just curious what made you join the forum and decide to post on this very topic. Looking at your website I think I might have an idea why though...

Where did you go?

Ryan


----------



## Bobm

At least they plainly state its not a hunt, if the ethics were at that level industry wide I wouldn't have nearly as much problem with it.


----------



## luv2hunt

I do not participate in high fence hunting. I do not personally see the point. BUT I do not want to see more laws passed that restrict the freedoms of people. They are not shooting people, and if they were there are already laws to address that. This is just how they choose to "hunt". I'm sure it's the only way they would ever bag a deer or elk or what ever and that's why they do it. We have enough laws forming every day that take away more and more of our freedoms. That's how governemnts pull off taking over a whole free society, one group is stripped of freedoms at a time. No one backs them up because it doesn't affect them personally. 
People who say allowing high fence hunting gives real hunters a black eye are being stupid, they don't like you anyway and they are not going to ever as long as you hunt in any form. You are just finding a way to elevate your own status in your own mind by being high and mighty at the expense of folks who can't successfully "hunt" any other way. Stop supporting out enemies, the bleeding heart liberal non-hunting new-law-imposing-for-our-own-good politicians who are just looking for a cause to grab a few more votes with. This just happens to be their flavor of the day, and in secret they are very likely some of the very same high-fence hunters they are trying to attack now. And I haven't even gotten started on the dopes willing to strip the people in the business of running these facilities of their freedoms !!!!


----------



## jhegg

luv2hunt,



> I do not participate in high fence hunting. I do not personally see the point.


I do not participate in high fence shoots either. Not because I don't


> see the point


, but because I find it ethically indefensible. Hunting must involve an element of fair chase. There is no fair chase when an animal is confined inside a fence.

The people who offer this type of activity are parasites feeding off the image of ethical hunters.



> BUT I do not want to see more laws passed that restrict the freedoms of people. They are not shooting people, and if they were there are already laws to address that.


So then, anything goes as long as people are not being shot? I can see right away that your ethics reside in the toilet.



> This is just how they choose to hunt.


You folks will never get it. This is not and never has been hunting. Get used to the idea!

Jim


----------



## luv2hunt

Sorry, it's you who do not get it. 
Just because I don't do it, don't like it, find it distasteful, doesn't mean laws should be passed to stop it. I'm not the king of the world, and neither are you. They are doing something different than you, it is not so awful that laws are needed to stop it. There are plenty of people who think hunting of any sort is terrible. Do you want them to pass laws to stop hunting altogether? 
This is not an issue about whether or not high fence hunting or game ranch ownership is ethical, tasteful, sporting or worst than fair chase. It is about passing another law to stop something you personally don't like, wouldn't do, think is distasteful or unethical. It's just about another law.


----------



## luv2hunt

Here's one other way to express my sentiments on the issue. I'm not as eloquent a "speaker" as some.

http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/news/20 ... inter.html

By the way, when I said "hunting" I put it in quote marks this way for a reason.[/url]


----------



## luv2hunt

Sorry, but I had to include this one also.

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/forum/pr ... php?tid=92

So tell me, are you one of the tree huggers they are talking about, masquerading as a real hunter???[/url]


----------



## luv2hunt

One more. 
These guys really have a way with words that I envy.

http://ushuntingtoday.com/news/archives/279


----------



## elkman

Preview 
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:02 pm Post subject: 
Fee killing is just that any money charged for an animal could have a charge for the killing of an animal hidden in the purchase price. If on farm slaughter is ok for buffalo, domestic cows, sheep, pigs why is it bad for domestic elk? Is it not just as humane treatment? 
Montana Fish and Game deemed any money paid for a private owned elk could have a charge in it for the shooting of that animal. Easy answer for the State was to only allow the owner of the elk ranch to kill all the animals sold for slaughter on his property. What makes the State of Montana think he should do that or that he would want to do that? 
What part of using good hunting skills to harvest these domestic elk, which were raised for slaughter any different from on farm slaughter of domestic cows? Isn't ranch slaughter the most humane method of slaughter for any animal? Better be or hunting is just as bad. I for one think it is and should be the only ethical question asked by anyone for the animals humane treatment in it's harvest..


----------



## Dick Monson

> _I sent a copy of the text to my legal resource to get an opinion on the bill's text. This is the response I got.
> 
> This language includes ANY big game or exotic species which is privately owned so yes, if an elk/deer rancher calls a butcher to kill one of their animals and pays the butcher for doing so, it would be against the law. It exempts a government trapper or Wildlife Services from killing such an animal inside a pen. It would even be unlawful for a vet to put down such an animal if it was severely injured. Animals can only be killed by government employees/agents for specific reasons: to reduce the population, control/prevent diseases or another action authorized by law.
> 
> I'm sure that this is not the first nor the last legal opinion that will be expressed during this debate. There are distinctly at least two separate issues at play here and the citizens of North Dakota need to know exactly what it is that they may be asked to sign a petition for or vote on. At this point in time, it is far from clear as to what the actual intent of the proposed bill is regardless of what the sponsors are saying.
> 
> For the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase to publicly promote their initiative as strictly and anti-hunting bill would be inaccurate. The last thing the state of North Dakota needs to do is pass a bill that is so unclear in its wording, thousands, perhaps millions of dollars will be spent battling it out in court.
> 
> Tom Remington _


Legal Expert?????????????????????????Tom Remington of the Cranberry Bog fame is a legal expert???????? If so there is a God. My day just got better.


----------



## cwoparson

You read it wrong. Remington stated he sent A copy of the text to a legal expert and what you read was the reply he received. Tom Remington never claimed to be a legal expert, but not to worry as there is still a God. Your day is still safe.


----------



## Dick Monson

According to the blog statement Tom Remington issued that opinion. If there is a real legal opinion post the name of the attorney.

Very simple, not neccessary to hide the name. Put it out there.


----------



## cwoparson

> According to the blog statement Tom Remington issued that opinion.


Here is a link to the blog. http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/catego ... ting-news/

Remington said and I quote


> "I sent a copy of the text to my legal resource to get an opinion on the bill's text. This is the response I got".


Here is the response he received.


> "This language includes ANY big game or exotic species which is privately owned so yes, if an elk/deer rancher calls a butcher to kill one of their animals and pays the butcher for doing so, it would be against the law. It exempts a government trapper or Wildlife Services from killing such an animal inside a pen. It would even be unlawful for a vet to put down such an animal if it was severely injured. Animals can only be killed by government employees/agents for specific reasons: to reduce the population, control/prevent diseases or another action authorized by law".


As you see it is not his opinion.

Who his legal adviser is I don't know but if it is that important of a issue to you I'm sure he will tell you if you feel the need to contact him.


----------



## zogman

Lawyers and Snowflakes are alot alike. No two are the same. They teach them that in law school. That why there are so many lawsuits and lawyers.

Nothing personel to my lawyer friends.


----------



## Dick Monson

cw, we are looking at 2 different articles, http://www.bismarcktribune.com/forum/pr ... php?tid=92

No matter.

Which ND gov. inspected butcher facilities will or can, take live big game animals?


----------



## 4590

I am sure there are many. I personally have taken many live elk to Harvey - state of the art facility, worked great for slaughter of live elk. I also know for a fact that the USDA plant in Williston has slaughter hundreds of live elk.

I also used our local custom slaughter plant to butcher many live elk.

Now I would like to know why it matters.


----------



## Autry

Exclusive Interview: Ted Nugent on High Fence Hunting

F&S Contributing Editor Hal Herring sat down with Ted Nugent the other day to pick his brain on the question of high-fence hunting. The interview got a bit heated when The Nuge took issue with some of Hal's questions, calling them "loaded with assumptions and ignorant bias." Check it out below, then let us know; is this just another example of "hippie, dope-smoking antihunting 'journalism'?" What do you think of high-fence operations?

Simply put, is high fence hunting, "hunting?
Of course, if all the factors of escape and stealth are in play. Terrain, size, layout,
balanced animal populations, the very conditions that determine quality hunting
anywhere determine the quality of the experience, fenced or unfenced. The easiest deer I've ever killed were whitetails in Illinois, Nebraska, and South Dakota, due to these universal truisms, but lack of hunting pressure. Conversely, the most difficult deer I have yet to kill are found on my own SpiritWild Ranch in central Texas where for the last 21 days, I haven't killed jack squat. Go figure.

Does high fence hunting degrade the heritage of American hunting and the notion of fair chase, and respect for wildlife and the quarry?
There will always be whiners and small-minded squawkers who overreact based on assumption and other unidentifiable presumptuous notions. There are those small minded individuals, a lunatic fringe if you will, that think many forms of legal hunting "degrade the heritage of American hunting." To their way of thinking, in-line muzzleloaders degrade our reputation. They consider scopes on same, treestands, compound bows, crossbows, deer drives, women afield, ad nauseam, as unethical methodologies. I've heard some real doozies out there and don't know whether to laugh or cry, they are so divisive and unsophisticated. I pray they become educated.

Do you personally prefer to hunt in enclosures or in the wild?
I prefer to hunt, period, and shall more and more each year everyplace I possibly can. I am a hunter.

Does the ready availability, for a price, of "monster bucks" in high fences affect the experience of hunting in the wild for those who cannot pay, or would not, hunt a high fence preserve?
Does the "ready availability" of monster bucks on open ground in Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Texas, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Washington, or wherever they clearly flourish, change the dynamic of the overall "real" hunting experience? Of course not. Does hiring a guide in Alaska to hunt the mighty grizzly bear affect the experience? It is simply how it is, and I cannot imagine finding fault with any of it. Supply and demand, free choice, private property rights, good old American capitalism and entrepreneurialism are beautiful things.

Is high fence hunting in places like Idaho, or Colorado, where there are lots of public hunting opportunities, inappropriate? What about if the high fences block wild big game migration corridors or where domestic big game pose a disease threat to wild game herds?
Private property rights, supply and demand, freedom of choice, sustained yield and individual preference are the guiding forces in the America where I come from. Everybody knows that CWD & bovine TB are a direct result of our all-knowing government bureaucrats messing things up way back in 1967 and beyond. No believable evidence has ever been produced linking these diseases to fences.

Why do you or people that you know choose to hunt enclosed big game animals, rather than hunting in the wild? Is there a difference? In perception? in reality? (I know that you do hunt in the wild a great deal). 
I gotta tell ya, your questions are loaded with assumptions and ignorant bias, almost as if you represented ABC news and its hippie dope smoking antihunting "journalists." That is quite a letdown coming from what was once a highly respected American hunting family magazine. I guide and outfit and hunt with 100s of great American hunters each fall with my Sunrize Safaris operation, and I am absolutely confident when I share with you that my hunters hunt every imaginable legal hunting we can find. We truly love it all.

I know that hunters need to stand together in the face of the anti-hunting forces. But I also see that those anti-hunting forces are given a great deal of fuel by pointing to "canned hunting" as a reason to attacks us. Do high fence operations create a public perception that hunting is just about killing, not about the experience of hunting and the conservation of wild game and wild places?
With all due respect, you don't know anyone who connects with a more or wider cross section of America in a public forum than I do each year. With my dedication to take the battle to the enemies' own trenches, I've conducted literally thousands of media interviews annually for more than 40 years; talkradio, newsradio, rock, sports, humor, everything from the BBC, Larry King and Rush Limbaugh to Howard Stern and Bob and Tom, cooking wildgame with Dana Carvey and John Ritter on Conan O'Brian and David
Letterman. In these unprecedented mass media arenas the dialog and communication has been over-the-top positive in every instance because I don't back down nor compromise my absolutist stand on hunting, fishing, trapping and the 2nd Amendment. The antis are clearly a lunatic fringe that represent the laughing stock to ma & pa America. They are out to ban all hunting, and to be gullible and unsophisticated enough to think that giving up or joining them in condemning any single hunting methodology is pathetically out of touch. I implore you to ignore them. I consider the Troy Gentry/Cubby the Bear shooting incident an anomaly, but anti-hunters will love it. Does it indicate that somewhere, high fence hunting needs to develop some standards? The embarrassing Gentry incident is remembered by no one, except Troy. I read nearly all the reports back when it happened. Not only were "fences" not mentioned, the entire incident didn't even quality as a blip on the radar. A big zero.

Is there a high fence hunting experience that you personally would feel is objectionable? A place too small? Animals too tame? Where do we draw the lines? One of my best interviews concerns the "meeting place between livestock and hunting" Any thoughts on this?
Personally objectionable, yes. Too small -- of course. Too tame -- of course. Again, I repeat, though the word "tame" has never come into play, the calmest animals I have ever hunted were free ranging whitetails in Illinois where there was near zero hunting pressure. Would I do that again? Hell yeah!

Do you feel that the many high fence operations in existence now, and the growing numbers of them, represent a "privatization" of the hunting experience, as in Europe, and does that pose a threat to the "public resource" idea of wild big game that is a cornerstone of the unique American model of wildlife restoration and conservation?
Nope. All private hunting in America whether fenced or nonfenced is controlled by private landowners. America is blessed with vast public grounds, and I do wish the hunting industry and community would put forth the proper effort to open up every square inch of majestic big game country currently owned by "we the people" instead of the vulgar anti-American corruption currently in place where soulless bureaucrats
continue to charge American tax payers to hire killers of our game where we are not allowed to utilize it properly. That should be Job One for F&S and every sporting concern in America right now.

Is this controversy over high fence hunting operations going to have a negative effect on American hunting? Will more high fence operations make hunting in the wild less attractive? Make conservation of wild lands and habitat seem less important? Will it become the norm (it seems far more accepted now than it used to be)? What are the implications of that?
No. The powerful heart of the American hunter and adventurer is alive and well in this great land. Recruitment of this instinct in our young people is the most important guarantee for the future of conservation and the environment. My own Ted Nugent Kamp for Kids and its amazing volunteers have been doing just that for 20-plus years. SCI, NRA, NWTF, RMEF, DU, Delta Waterfowl, FNAWS, 4H, FFA, National Archery in Schools programs, NSSF, NFAA, and every sporting org out there are upgrading their mentorship programs and finally reaching out to more and more young Americans outside our sporting community. It is thrilling to note that my various TV productions, Surviving Nugent, Wanted Ted Or Alive, SuperGroup, and Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild have all achieved top ratings on not only OLN, CMT, and The Outdoor Channel, but wonderfully top-rated on the anti's networks of VH1 and MTV, every show celebrating, defending my gungho hunting, fishing,trapping, shooting lifestyle.


----------



## elkman

Elk harvesting ranches are used for two reasons. The best price can be received for your product by direct person to person sales. This is the goal of any ranch family producing livestock for food. The second reason is it's the most humane method of harvesting a domestic elk or deer. Fair chase has nothing to do with this type of on farm harvesting as the goal was to harvest the animal in as humane of a way as you do cattle, sheep or pigs. No consumable animal produced for food receive fair chase. The only ethical question is how to harvest that animal in the most humane way. On farm harvesting is that humane way for sure.
Critics are angered when an elk or deer is harvested with this humane method but don't seem to care when livestock like cattle are harvested in the same manor. The elk harvest facility has only one responsibility and that is to produce the most humane death of the livestock they produce.
Domestic elk and deer should be harvested with the same humane method as hunter's use which is by high quality hunting tactics to produce a quick death.
ETHICS= ELK TREATED HUMANELY IN COMMERCIAL SLAUGHTER


----------



## dot

NO MATTER WHERE THE ANIMAL IS HARVESTED, IN OR OUTSIDE THE FENCE, IT STILL BECOMES MEAT SERVING IN THE END. I SUPPORT HIGH FENCES BECAUSE THE HARVEST IS GUARANTEED AND NOT LOST BECAUSE THE SHOOTER COULDN'T FIND THE DOWNED ANIMAL. SO FOR YOUR POLL IF IT IS STILL BEING TALLIED I VOTE YES TO HIGH FENCE


----------



## dryc66

I think hunters who don't like high fences should probably hunt low fenced ranches......High fenced ranches should only sell their hunts to people who don't mind hunting high fenced ranches......All the PETA members who look to outlaw ALL hunting..... should create a divide between these two hunter types and get them destroy each other.... IN THE END ALL HUNTERS LOSE AND PETA WINS!!!!!


----------



## coopersgirl

I wish I knew how many of the ones who are against fenced hunting have ever been on a fenced hunt? I bet not many, yet you have no problem expressing your opinion and trying to convince everyone that your way is the only way. First of all, no one is forcing you to ever hunt in a high or low fenced area. Second.... the deer don't know which side of the fence they're on. If you ever get the chance to go on a high fenced hunt, be aware that you will need to be in the same physical condition or better than your "natural habitat" hunts. You are not shooting fish in a barrel, which is a common uninformed misconception. You have acres to hunt, to stalk, to guess and predict, and hopefully get that high scoring buck you want. Some people hunt "fenced" deer because they are fed a better diet than what a deer would eat in the wild, therefore producing better meat. So before you attempt to destroy what many of us deer farmers work so hard to perfect, gain some knowledge.


----------



## Dick Monson

Dear one post wonders, this is how it's sometimes done here. The kill pen is about 60' square. You run your credit card, walk over to fence, wack him through the old blood pump, get the posed picture, and the remainder will be sent to you. You must be in good enough shape to get from the car door to the fence, although you could shoot from the vehicle, as there is "no government interferance", as advertised here in ND. uke:


----------



## elkman

Well Dick, Here is how it's done after the initiative-143 in Montana in the legal method now allowed by law. I might ad hunting/harvesting facilities were much more humane to the animal than what we have to do now to be legal as you can clearly see. SUPPORTERS OF I-143 NEVER CARED ABOUT THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF THESE ANIMALS ONLY THE CRAP ABOUT HUNTER ETHICS AND FAIR CHASE. Remember Dick these animals are raised for consumpion and slaughtered so nothing about fair chase applies, only their humane death is important. You are right the facilities never should have called themselves hunting ranches, only harvesting places. Back to the legal method now allowed by law in Montana.
In Montana you load up any elk you want for slaughter in your horse trailer and take them to slaughter. But as most slaughter places in Montana are not able to unload the elk they shoot them in your trailer. Even the 60' pen you discribe would be more humane than what we have to do in Montana to be legal. I wouldn't kill any animal let alone an elk with the legal method now allowed by law in Montana because the legal method is just so inhumane. By the way what Dick discribes is called "on farm slaughter" which is used for all domestic live animals used for consumption, killed on the ranch. It is required by Federal meat law when you sell a live animal for food, person to person on the ranch. The size of the slaughter area isn't inportant for a humane harvest of the animal only the shot placement for the animals humane death.
Loss of the harvesting facilities for domestic elk and deer in ND will place these special animals in a inhumane position for slaughter like has happened here in Montana. As I have said in other posts using quality hunting tactics to harvest these animals is the most humane method of death for this very special animal. 
ETHICS== ELK TREATED HUMANLY IN COMMERCIAL SLAUGHTER


----------



## coopersgirl

I would say that harvesting and hunting are quite different. I know many deer farms on the east coast that offer hunts and I can tell you from personal experience there's a lot more involved than walking from your car to the fence. I can also tell you the ones I've hunted were a few hundred acres, not a 60' pen. I would have to agree with you that a 60' pen is inhumane and hardly a hunt. I suppose the biggest challenge in that instance would be getting your fat butt out of the car seat.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

elkman then why are the slaughters offered as hunts? You and others continue to try and split hairs over this issue, but the crux of this issue surrounds the advertising as hunting, which brings into play the reason of *fair chase & ethics*!

We would not be at this point if those selling these services had advertised farm raised elk for slaughter and meat. We are here because they continue to advertise them as *Hunts!*

Now I have asked 4590 if he would pony up the money to put the documentary Guns of Autumn on this web site or any other website as a way to support your side. He has ignored the request, so I will put it to you?

Understand that as long as you continue to call it hunting in your advertising and continue to try and justify it as simply slaughter on these forms, myself and others will continue to point out the hypocrisy and continue to make sure people understand the difference!!


----------



## cwoparson

> Now I have asked 4590 if he would pony up the money to put the documentary Guns of Autumn on this web site or any other website as a way to support your side.


What are you talking about? That is one of the most ridiculous things that has been posted yet. The documentary "Guns of Autumn" was a smear film against all hunters by CBS back in 1975. Pay attention to all hunters. That makes about as much sense as someone wanting you to have PETA put one of their documentaries on a pro site.


----------



## coopersgirl

I have to agree with Ron. Those should not be advertised as "hunts" but as slaughtered meat for sale. There is definately a difference and by advertising them as hunts you are casting a bad light on the legitimate hunts. I enjoy the hunt as much as the prize. The getting up early, walking through a field or the trees, looking for signs of deer, picking the right spot and hoping to get the big one. We eat everything we kill. We hunt in the wild and like I said, we have hunted in some high fence preserves. But never would I consider shooting an animal in a small contained area where it never stood a chance. That's just me.


----------



## bowhunter04

Then also remember, if it's slaughtered meat for sale, the price shouldn't go up with the size of the horns. If it's just for meat, then the price of a bull wouldn't be several times higher than that of a cow.


----------



## coopersgirl

I absolutely agree with Bowhunter. Excellent point. If it's a "slaughter hunt", you should only have to pay for the meat and not an "antler charge".


----------



## elkman

Mr Ron Gilmore, This Ethics statement was what I had in every room at my harvesting facility in Montana. We did about 150 clients a year whose hunting/harvesting ethics were not like yours. Forty of these harvests were buffalo. The facility was almost 2000 acres of very good habitiat. So your fight is not with me as I called it what it was. 
As far as any support to Guns of Autumn you have got to be kidding and I would have to agree with cwoparson on that. 
bowhunter4 Of course the bulls cost more. Even when hunting wild elk most people want the bulls. My guess is you bow hunt for antlers also. This is not wrong to do. Their antlers have extra value to collectors and they cost more to produce. The bulls make up the difference it cost to produce the cow for slaughter which is sold below production cost. We harvested 3 to 8 year old bulls, with the average being 4 to 5 years. My production costs on a bull is about five hundred dollars a year plus the cost of the cow that produced that animal. A clients harvesting stay averaged five hundred. Booking that client cost 15% of the cost the animal was sold for. Most animals averaged over thirty five hundred in production costs alone. So if you sold that animal for six thousand you made about five hundred a year for your labor. Bet you would not work for that wage.
I now raise these animals for my personal enjoyment and collect my social security thanks to I-143 and the theft of my private property value.

ETHICS
ELK/EXOTICS Treated Humanly In Commercial Slaughter 
Critics of the industry have convinced the public to believe agricultural private raised domestic elk/exotics used for on farm slaughter should have the same chance of survival as a wild elk by adding fair chase. This nonsense is much like demanding private raised agricultural cattle to have fair chase in their slaughter. The only ETHICAL DEMAND for the agricultural on farm harvesting facilities is that the animal is dispatched humanely. On farm slaughter/hunting does this with the least amount of stress on the animal. This code of ethics for agricultural harvesting facilities will put the emphasis on humanely harvesting animals WHERE IT BELONGS, not on knee jerk emotionalism where most of the public has been led by critics of the industry. 
ETHICS CODE FOR AGRICULTURAL ELK / EXOTICS HUNTING/HARVESTING FACILITIES
HARVEST AREA:
1) ACREAGE, TERRAIN OR COVER MUST BE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW ANIMAL TO FEEL SECURE.
2) ADEQUATE FOOD, WATER, AND COVER MUST BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES.
3) PURSUIT WILL MIRROR THE BEST QUALITY IMAGE OF HUNTING ETHICS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL RULES. A HUMANE DISPATCH IS THE GOAL ON ALL HUNTING/HARVESTING PRESERVES.
WEAPONS:
1)	ALL TRADITIONAL RIFLES AND ARCHERY EQUIPMENT THAT THE ETHICAL HUNTING COMMUNITY HAS PROVEN TO HUMANELY DISPATCH AN ANIMAL. 
ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS:
1)	ALL PARTICIPANTS WILL DEMONSTRATE ADEQUATE ACCURACY WITH THEIR WEAPON TO THEIR GUIDE PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PRESERVE TO INSURE A HUMANE KILL. 
HUMANE HARVEST POLICY:
1)	NO MOVING SHOTS AS A CONSTANT HUMANE HARVEST IS NOT ASSURED.
2)	NO SHOTS THAT WILL NOT PRODUCE A HUMANE KILL. NO HEAD OR NECK SHOTS ALLOWED. THE ONLY RECOMMENDED SHOT IS THE HEART AND LUNG AREA.
3)	LESS THAN OPTIMUM HITS WILL BE BACKED UP BY THE GUIDE.
4)	THE HUNTING PARTICIPANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO DISPLAY THE HIGHEST HUNTING ETHICS FROM SCI SO AS TO PRODUCE THE MOST HUMANE DISPATCH OF THE ANIMAL.
5)	CLIENTS WHO DO NOT WANT THEIR MEAT WILL PAY FOR PROCESSING, THIS MEAT CAN THEN BE DONATED TO CHARITY OR AS DIRECTED.
6)	ALCOHOL MAY BE ENJOYED IN THE LODGE AFTER THE HUNT/HARVEST. NO ALCOHOL WILL BE ALLOWED WHILE PARTICIPATING IN HUNTING/HARVESTING.
7)	CLIENTS WILL HAVE A GUIDE AT ALL TIMES TO INSURE THESE HIGH STANDARDS. 
COMPLIANCE:
1)	GUIDES MAY ALLOW SOME DEVIATION TO CODE AS LONG AS THE HUMANE HUNTING/HARVESTING OF THAT ANIMAL IS HELD TO THE HIGHEST HUMANE LEVEL. 
2)	HUNTERS/HARVESTERS WHO WILL NOT OR CANNOT COMPLY WITH THESE RULES WILL HAVE THEIR HUNT/HARVEST CANCELED.


----------



## Raghorn

Elkman, I appreciate you posting this as I feel that the most intelligent and ETHICAL people I know are ranchers and farmers! When metro's start tellin ******** what they can and can't do then our freedom is GONE!

I wonder if they are also paying politicians from CA to move to ND like they have done here in MT? If ya can only stack the cards high enough..... ANYTHING is possible, right or not! :sniper:


----------



## bioman

Elkman,

You have been drinking your own Kool-Aid for way too long. Re-read your ETHICS post. The best part is that your bias and greed showcase your business model of selling a harvest as a hunt. PRICELESS.


----------



## 4590

Ron,

Talk about blowing smoke!! You suggest that if these activities weren't being called hunts, there would be no initiated measure. We all know better than that. Fair chase ethics has been a significant part of this discussion, but both you and Dick and many others beat the drum on many other issues this measure will not affect. The truth is you want to destroy the cervid industry. Why not just admit it.


----------



## bowhunter04

Elkman,
The supports of high-fenced hunts keep saying that it is only commercial slaughter for meat. If this is the case, then antler sizes should not come in to play. If they are so-called "hunts" then antler sizes will change the price. That's the point I'm making. You are semi-correct in saying that I hunt for antlers under FAIR-CHASE conditions. In years past I was fortunate enough to live in an area where I could purchase an antlerless permit and a regular bow permit. The antlerless went towards meat and I saved the bow permit for a buck of a life-time. This year, however, I can not longer purchase an antlerless permit so the bow permit will be used to harvest a more tasty deer than than an old rutting swamp buck.


----------



## elkman

*Pure ethics and morals really don't exist in real life whether they're yours or mine. We all have our own agenda. What I find most disturbing is I like kool-aid. But even more disturbing is I think bioman and I both watch Bill O'Reilley.*LOL :lol: 
The bias and greed of which bioman speaks is what most Americans call entrepreneurship or the American way. Find a need for your product and produce and sell that product for a profit. I did that for thirty years and would apologize to no one for that. Montana made what I did legally for that time illegal in one day. Not very fair or ethical in my opinion. Montana should have given the elk producer time to liquidate their stock and business. I would hope those of you in ND would have more class then Montana if you insist on this industry ellimination and respect the Industry still should have rights and consideration.
I liked our world better in the old days when we respected each other's values and opinions and property rights. I would hope we would go back to that and accept the elk Industry has these rights even if you have other ethics and views. Thanks for listening to my opinions.


----------



## Dick Monson

elkman, if you had taken time to read the measure, (apparently not) there would still be three "seasons" before it takes effect, giving a generous selldown period. Nor does it so drasticly restrict your industry as did I-43. That arguement about humane treatment is just mouthwash. You're not selling a product just the act of the kill of an artifical trophy. And what's humane treatment in this industry anyway?


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Home this weekend for my uncles estate sale. Saw a beautiful wild bull elk. My hope is that this animal lives another few weeks, he is at risk not from hunters but the USFWS. A decent guy and neighbor raises elk and once again having elk in a captive area is creating issues between wild and captive animals.

Two years ago two bulls had to be destroyed as they continued to fight through very well built fences. I heard but did not verify it that another was destroyed this past week. Will this nice 5x5 succumb to the urges of the rut and have to be destroyed?

Now just so everyone knows, this is just south of Jamestown and not in the heart of the elk range in this state and the person raising elk does not run captive shooting arena. But this underscores the real risk of disease transfer that is going to happen when elk or deer are made captive.

So boys it is an ethics issue, but it also is a real disease issue and no right minded person would believe that all the captive elk and deer shooting arena are run by upstanding people who would never import a trophy elk for the right price from a CWD, or other disease infected herd or area!


----------



## g/o

Ron, With all your wisdom, please show where this initiated measure will stop the raising of Elk ?


----------



## Autry

Ron Gilmore said:


> Home this weekend for my uncles estate sale. Saw a beautiful wild bull elk. My hope is that this animal lives another few weeks, he is at risk not from hunters but the USFWS. A decent guy and neighbor raises elk and once again having elk in a captive area is creating issues between wild and captive animals.
> 
> Two years ago two bulls had to be destroyed as they continued to fight through very well built fences. I heard but did not verify it that another was destroyed this past week. Will this nice 5x5 succumb to the urges of the rut and have to be destroyed?
> 
> Now just so everyone knows, this is just south of Jamestown and not in the heart of the elk range in this state and the person raising elk does not run captive shooting arena. But this underscores the real risk of disease transfer that is going to happen when elk or deer are made captive.
> 
> So boys it is an ethics issue, but it also is a real disease issue and no right minded person would believe that all the captive elk and deer shooting arena are run by upstanding people who would never import a trophy elk for the right price from a CWD, or other disease infected herd or area!


The TN Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), just a few months ago, tried to import 150 to 300 live elk from an area known to have CWD in wild deer nearby. I don't know of any individuals who have ever been caught trying such dangerous importations. No where on record, has an individual ever threatened the health of wildlife to the extent that this state wildlife agency did. Because of the efforts of individual cervid ranchers across this country, TWRA was stopped from importing unsafe and risky elk that did not meet state or federal import regulations in regard to disease issues. TWRA let greed cloud their judgement and was willing to jeopardize the health of TN's wildlife in order to line their pockets.

Shame on TWRA, RMEF and TWF!


----------



## Ron Gilmore

G/O it won't! But it does not change the facts on wild and captive contacts which Elkboy and 4590 have claimed is not an issue. It is a huge issue! Now toss in the operators who do not care about anything but the money factor and we will if we have not already will have imported elk or deer from diseased areas regardless of the state laws!


----------



## g/o

Ron, This measure deals with the ethics of shooting in a high fence area nothing more nothing less. You keep bringing disease and the one lost Elk near Jud. If you want to ban the raising of Elk in ND then get a measure that does that. Until then like always your argument is fruitless.


----------



## cwoparson

> contacts which Elkboy and


Why is there a need for this kind of childish insults. It is interesting to note that you have given up the ethic argument and have admitted and switched to a goal to shut down anything connected with captive elk.


----------



## Autry

Ron Gilmore said:


> G/O it won't! But it does not change the facts on wild and captive contacts which Elkboy and 4590 have claimed is not an issue. It is a huge issue! Now toss in the operators who do not care about anything but the money factor and we will if we have not already will have imported elk or deer from diseased areas regardless of the state laws!


Reckless state wildlife agencies, like TWRA, are a much greater risk of importing diseased animals than the captive cervid industry which is the most highly regulated livestock industry in the world. No other livestock industry has to meet as many regulations as the cervid industry in order to be able to ship across state lines and yet state wildlife agencies are still trying to import animals that do not qualify for importation in regard to disease issues.

State wildlife agencies operate outside the law, in regard to disease issues, when left unchecked by the captive cervid industry. If it had not been for the captive cervid industry, TWRA would have imported 150 to 300 elk from an area that was known to have CWD in wild deer nearby but the captive cervid industry made sure that TWRA had to follow the federal laws of this country just like everyone else.

In the past, TWRA has imported elk that did not meet state or federal regulations in regard to disease issues and now TN has an elk herd that may be diseased and is not growing. TWRA imported 167 elk in 2000 to 2003, that did not qualify for importation because of disease risk, and now in 2007 when the herd should be 600 to 800 head, it is only about 200 head.

Look at some of the wild herds mismanaged wildlife agencies and see how diseased these herds are with TB, Brucellosis and CWD. Herds like Yellowstone National Park in WY, a state that has no game farms to blame for their disease problems in wildlife, also Rocky Mountain National Park in CO and so many other diseased wild herds that have been mismanaged by wildlife agencies and have been diseased for decades.

The captive cervid herds that caught disease from animals that was once under the control of the CO. Wildlife Agency, have now depopulated their diseased herds and have met strict testing and monitoring regulations and are now allowed to ship their captive animals across state lines and yet the wild herds are still diseased and can not be shipped anywhere, not even by state wildlife agencies or the RMEF.

If your concerns were really about disease, you would be doing just as the captive cervid industry is doing which is making sure that state wildlife agencies are made to follow the state and federal laws in regard to disease issues when importing cervids.


----------



## elkman

Prevalence on CWD now exceeds 25% to 30% on some winter ranges in Colorado and Wyoming. Scares me from hunting there.
I believe these states issue 30,000 out of state hunting licenses for deer and elk. At the current rate of 25% CWD that would be 7,500 sick and infected CWD animals shot and moved to some other state be these hunters. Even 100 CWD animals moved is way too many. This has been going on for years and was not the fault of the hunters. It is the people who have been hiding the disease for so many years.
The Greater Yellowstone Tri State report on brucellosis and CWD reports elk and deer are infected with brucellosis from 5% to over 20% depending on the state (MT, ID and WY ) and the county. They also list black bear infected at 28% and the grizzly at 32% with brucellosis. This disease will transfer to people for life. 
Montana and Idaho private elk herds have never had a brucellosis elk or deer found using the same disease tests that identifies brucellosis in wild elk and deer. I'll bet ND domestic elk and deer have never had any brucellosis found either.
So I do agree that there is a real disease issue here but would believe it comes from the wild animals that have tested sick and infected. The wild elk and deer are the sick ones in this case and could give the domestic game farm elk and deer in Montana and Idaho brucellosis. My guess it's the same in ND.
Montana domestic elk and deer are in their seventh year of testing for CWD. This testing was asked for by both the MWF and the Elk and Deer Industry when a domestic elk herd was found to have CWD in Montana. Their animals traced back to SD and then to a Colorado zoo. The Montana herd was depopulated. Domestic elk and deer in Montana have fifteen years of testing for TB and Brucellosis.
I feel very safe eating and handling one of my domestic elk or deer which have a proven health record. With the figures given by Western States' disease experts on wild elk and deer diseases one would need a reality check on the direction of the disease risk. You can't protect wild elk and deer from diseases they have or are exposed to from other wild elk and deer. Thanks for listening. :lol:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Elkman, the risk of importation of disease from a live animal is the issue. The case in TN is a prime example of what is at risk. While you follow the rules and are concerned about the health of your animals, unfortunately many are not!

Tell me honestly if someone like the Mertz's would have thought twice about bringing in an infected animal if they had a sale for it? Tell me honestly why they or anyone should be allowed to put our entire wild herd of deer and elk in jeopardy with a dark of the night transfer!!!

In regards to the deer and elk harvested in CWD areas you need to be a bit more forth coming on transportation requirements. Spinal cord material cannot be brought out of those infected areas. Only boned out meat. So the risk is lower from a 1000 dead animals properly handled than one live animal from a facility that is in a CWD area!

Guys we can go in circles on this, but the people of ND have the right and to many of us the duty to close down canned shooting arenas to protect the health of the wild herd, as well as ethically in that it is not a fair chase setting being promoted as a hunt!

The legislature as well as the ballot box have always set down laws concerning ethics and morality. Some successfully others not so. Drainage of water is the one I like to compare it to, because the drainage of water has an impact on others outside of the property it is coming off of. Same with disease from captive elk and deer. Every person in this state is affected if a shooting arena or captive elk or deer farm causes disease to jump to the wild herd. Just like drainage, it may not cause any issues today or next week, but it will down the road and if we can prevent it by outlawing it then we would be foolish not to do so!


----------



## Autry

Ron Gilmore said:


> Elkman, the risk of importation of disease from a live animal is the issue. The case in TN is a prime example of what is at risk. While you follow the rules and are concerned about the health of your animals, unfortunately many are not!
> 
> Tell me honestly if someone like the Mertz's would have thought twice about bringing in an infected animal if they had a sale for it? Tell me honestly why they or anyone should be allowed to put our entire wild herd of deer and elk in jeopardy with a dark of the night transfer!!!
> 
> In regards to the deer and elk harvested in CWD areas you need to be a bit more forth coming on transportation requirements. Spinal cord material cannot be brought out of those infected areas. Only boned out meat. So the risk is lower from a 1000 dead animals properly handled than one live animal from a facility that is in a CWD area!
> 
> Guys we can go in circles on this, but the people of ND have the right and to many of us the duty to close down canned shooting arenas to protect the health of the wild herd, as well as ethically in that it is not a fair chase setting being promoted as a hunt!
> 
> The legislature as well as the ballot box have always set down laws concerning ethics and morality. Some successfully others not so. Drainage of water is the one I like to compare it to, because the drainage of water has an impact on others outside of the property it is coming off of. Same with disease from captive elk and deer. Every person in this state is affected if a shooting arena or captive elk or deer farm causes disease to jump to the wild herd. Just like drainage, it may not cause any issues today or next week, but it will down the road and if we can prevent it by outlawing it then we would be foolish not to do so!


Many hunters are not abiding by the laws on the movement of hunter killed carcasses from CWD infected areas so with your line of thinking, a ban should be issued which prevents any out of state hunting period. How would that affect ND's economy? Also, some hunters have had automobile accidents while traveling to their hunting spots so with your line of thinking, a ban should be issued to prevent hunters from driving. Also, over the years many hunters have gut shot and lost hundreds of deer while bow hunting leaving the animal to suffer and die a long horrible death so with your line of thinking, a ban should be issued to prevent the use of Bows for big game hunting. Also many so called hunters spotlight and kill big game illegally so again with your line of thinking a ban should be issued to prevent hunters from buying any type of lighting that could be used to spotlight big game.

As you can see, with your line of thinking, none of this makes any sense at all!

*PUNISH THE PEOPLE WHO BREAK THE LAWS INSTEAD OF THE PEOPLE WHO ABIDE BY THEM which is what your line of thinking does!*


----------



## elkman

Ron, 
The system is working and people that break the law will be caught. Just like people poaching while hunting will be caught. All hunters are not poachers any more than all elk farmers are not taking the laws seriously. You don't really believe everyone is taking hunted animals out of CWD infected areas legally all the time any more than I do. I would agree with Autry here on this.
We have just started to protect our wild elk and deer from the CWD problem caused by hunting in the last few years. Just like our industry, the hunting industry also has just recently found out about CWD. The shame is it's been here for over forty years in the wild elk and deer and nothing was done to protect other wild herds from being infected. The elk and deer went out just like I stated with CWD to other states moved by hunters. Elk and deer farms are a victim of this lack of responsibility about CWD just like hunters are. 
This industry has acted very responsibly for the safety of wildlife and shouldn't be closed down because some don't find the harvest method to be ethical in their opinion. Hunting methods produce the most humane method of slaughter for this very special animal period. 
[/b]Domestic elk and deer are the most disease tested animals on this planet. The Elk Industry wanted the testing to protect the wild elk and deer from harm and their own. Now that the elk and deer industry is getting close to assuring that goal you want to close them down. 
You see, I was on the state committee that made the rules for the state of Montana for the elk industry so I know why and how we became the most tested industry for livestock in the world.
You talk about disease risks, you would be amazed at the diseases and parasites cattle have that could transfer to wildlife and cattle freely mingle with wildlife.
Thanks for listening. [/i]


----------



## Plainsman

cwoparson said:


> contacts which Elkboy and
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there a need for this kind of childish insults. It is interesting to note that you have given up the ethic argument and have admitted and switched to a goal to shut down anything connected with captive elk.
Click to expand...

Actually everything got pulled off track by a rant about the Tennessee Wildlife Agency. Why don't those of you with a beef about state wildlife agencies take it up with them, or at least start a thread about it rather than hijack this one. This is a pole about high fence shooting, not elk and deer production. This has been carrying on more about what it is not than what it is. Hijacked to the max I would say. Back to the real subject.


----------



## elkman

I was confused I thought this thread was for an exchange of opinions. I went back to the start of this thread and see it was a bashing of domestic elk producers and the method used for the harvest of their elk with little or no input from the people you wish to ruin finacially with this initiative.
A statement was made that shutting down canned shooting arenas would protect the health of the wild herds. How would that stop the disease you precieved the domestic elk to have if the elk are still left on the farm? It would do nothing in that regard. But then what difference did it make? Elk farms have tested for disease and now are healthier than wild elk. Disease testing has proved that.
The real sole purpose of the initiative produced by the critics of the Industry is to remove the most profitable part of the Industry so the Industry will not grow. But leave them in "business" so the state will not have to buy them out because of a takings. Not much ethics or high moral ground here.
If the State Veterinary or Animal Health Division really thought the domestic elk herds were a disease issue the state should and would shut the industry down, not a group with an agenda with an initiative.
When facts come forth the critics respond by bringing forth a few bad people in the elk Industry. Or they show the removed antlers of elk with so much blood someone must pour it on them. Or they just beat the drum about disease even though the elk Industry has safe guards and disease testing on their side to prove domestic elk are healthier than wild elk.
Most people in the Industry used some type of pain relief or sedated the elk for antler removal. Remember the antlers are the weapons of death for these animals when in the rut in confined areas. Like the cattle industry with their horn removal and the elk industry with their antler removal both are done for the animals safety and the peoples safety. Yes their is a market for the elk antler whether it's hard or soft.
You bow hunters don't seem to know about the video the Humane Society has out about bow hunting. Picture a man and his wife standing around the spike bull he has just shot with his arrow. They are talking and every now and then the man kicks the elk to see if it's dead. There is no respect shown the elk. Hunter heritage, ethics, moral code all lacking here. You can hear the elk trying to breathe as it is coughing up blood. You get the picture. 
I would think most hunters would realize that bow hunting is the next agenda for the Humane Society. They will use an initiative to also get their high moral ethic code to the public just as you are doing now. Or do you think the Humane Society made the video for the fun of it? Guess we will all hang together after all.


----------



## Dick Monson

elkman, you are mistaken on this:


> If the State Veterinary or Animal Health Division really thought the domestic elk herds were a disease issue the state should and would shut the industry down, not a group with an agenda with an initiative.
> When facts come forth the critics respond by bringing forth a few bad people in the elk Industry. Or they just beat the drum about disease even though the elk Industry has safe guards and disease testing on their side to prove domestic elk are healthier than wild elk.


When the last big case broke open with CWD exposed elk brought to ND without health certs, it took *6* *months* for a quarantine to be placed on the ranch. Talk about safety with lighting speed. BOAH never would known about this dangerous activity if MN DNR had not informed NDGF. If your industry gave a hoot about the "bad apples" they would have sponsored legislation to fix it. You didn't do that and never will. Like the Professional Guides and Outfitters Asc., with their corrupt former lobbyists, you just turn a blind eye for the money. Money talks and ethics walk.


----------



## elkman

Hello Dick,
Well in Montana we did go to the Departments to get problems like that fixed. Didn't do us much good cause we are still out of any real business after the initiative which devalued Montana private property . 
Sounds like ND needed to improve it's animal health department and I'm sure they did just that..
I know our Department of Livestock would have quarantined the game farm in 24 to 48 hours after a problem like that was found and investigated. Any problems like that it's a automatic quarantine. 
If an animal has a reaction to a health test the farm is quarantined till the animal is tested healthy. Depending on the facts and disease the animal is destroyed or more tests are given. Your farm is shut down till the health issue is gone or animal is destroyed. No movement is allowed of your animals. What more could you ask? Thanks for educating me on your past ND health problem but I stand on my statement domestic elk and deer are healthier than wild elk and testing proves this.


----------

