# The Fair Chase Fray



## RogerK

I've stayed out of the Fair Chase fray on this site and all other sites. Too busy gathering signatures for the initiative. I spent the last 5 weekends away from home conspiring with the citizens of this state to do away with HF Shooting Galleries. 

Somebody emailed a link to a post on this site that questioned what Fair Chase members are sharing with the public in private. I couldn't resist poking at that oxymoron.

Exactly how does somebody say something to the public in private? If you say something to the public, it isn't private anymore. :roll:

DG - I'm assuming that's Dwight Grosz - you bluster about emails between me and the HSUS, me being Roger Kaseman. Do you or any of your fellow anti-hunting cohorts in the Shooting Gallery industry really think you can convince North Dakotans to support your position with innuendo like that?

High Fence Operators anti-hunting? Yes, very much so. There is a line of reasoning in the citizenry of this state that labels High Fencer operators anti-hunting because shooting a fenced animal doesn't involve any hunting whatsoever. Not my idea. Just reporting what people say when I am taking signatures.

Most common response: "That's not hunting."

Concerning the emails claimed to be the HSUS/FC smoking gun: Dwight, did you disclose that the emails are between a Fair Chase volunteer and your relatives? I'm asking because I haven't read your posts concerning those emails. I know what I wrote in emails, and kept what I wrote. Your smoking gun is a water pistol, a dry pistol to boot.

Dwight, put aside your wishful thinking about your fantasy Fair Chase/HSUS alliance that you think will turn the people of this state against the Fair Chase Measure and think about this very carefully: I exchanged emails with you and your fellow Shooting Gallery Operators Leroy Haffner, Willard Swanke and Wayne Pederson. You know what I wrote to you. If you deleted my email and don't remember, I can forward a copy of your email to me and my answer. Just ask.

If anyone read your email to me, could the reader honestly accuse you of being a Fair Chase supporter because you emailed me?

If anyone read my reply to you, could the reader honestly accuse me of being a Shooting Gallery supporter?

Exchanging emails with you and other Shooting Gallery Operators does not make me a Shooting Gallery Operator or supporter.

A resident of North Dakota can do 3 things for the Fair Chase petition drive: Sign a petition, circulate a petition, or donate money. The money can come from out of state, as you well know since you and your Shooting Gallery cohorts accepted $84,000.00 from out of state interests to defeat the FC initiative, donations you had to report to the Secretary of State.

Dwight, I imagine you and your fellow Shooting Gallery Proprietors were giddy with excitement anticipating the FC committee disclosing the billions of dollars that the HSUS allegedly donated to the FC drive. We had to disclose just like you had to disclose. Bad news for you and your cohorts since Fair Chase didn't take a penny from HSUS, or from any other animal rights group. We voted not to take any money or an endorsement from any animal rights group. The vote was 100% to 0. We didn't take any money and we said so in every forum available. It wasn't in your interest to believe us so you accused us of lying. The FC form disclosing our finances tells the story. No HSUS money. Happy to disappoint you Dwight. That makes every sentence any Shooting Gallery Operator wrote on sites like this accusing the HSUS of financing and colluding with FC a lie. How much credibility do you think you have left? I can answer that question based on talking to over 10,000 North Dakotans face to face over the last few months. Dwight, you have Zero credibility. The charge of HSUS collusion with the Fair Chase committee backfired. It had ZERO impact. People understand that High Fence Operations aren't a hunting versus anti-hunting issue. North Dakotans understand that there is no hunting involved inside the fence.

Dwight, both logic and emotion are against Shooting Gallery Operations. Since logic and emotion are against you, you resort to distortion. Face it, you can't tell people what you do inside your fences. To the citizens of North Dakota, you claim you are harvesting, to your clients, you offer a pretend hunt for a trophy fence in for their convenience.

Dwight, the people of this state are more sophisticated than you think. They don't buy your bull.


----------



## DG

Hello Roger,

I let a couple days go by so some of the tens of thousands you claim to represent would have the opportunity to read and respond to what you write. A WHOPPING 86 views.

Remember at the state fair in Minot I asked you who David Pauli, Regional Director for the Humane Society of the United States, met with. Remember you said it was you. Here is the story.



> Humane Society of United States director meets with N.D. Fair Chase
> A North Dakota Fair Chase official met with Dave Pauli, Director of the Northern Rockies Regional Office (NRRO) of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) recently during a visit Pauli made to North Dakota.
> 
> According to a June 30 posting on the blog, art4animals, Pauli, "met with an official of the Fair Chase hunting movement" during a tour of the NRRO states. The region consists of eight states including North Dakota. Pauli's June 30 posting goes on to cite the HSUS assistance put forth to pass hunting bans in Montana in 2005, and their support of similar goals in Idaho and Colorado.
> 
> Pauli noted in the blog posting that while in North Dakota he stopped at "shelters and activists homes along the way to encourage them to support the ballot initiative."
> According to the HSUS web site, "the HSUS opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or sport."


Roger, I didn't believe you then and I don't believe you now. The word "official" is usually reserved for government.
Maybe David Pauli met with Mike McEnroe, former biologist for the USFWS and lobbyist for the wildlife society? Two years ago how many days did Mike help gather signatures in Minot? Was it one or two?

We all know Mike is quite the little coalition builder. Durring last winters legislative session Mike put together the coalition to ban baiting. It failed. Could you tell us anything about that being how were you made temporary lobbyist for the NDWF in Mike Donahues absence?

The fair chase committee is a coalition between "fedgov employees" "elitist fair chasers" and "animal rights advocates"

I'll bet Mike McEnroe still cannot believe his dumb luck the day you stumbled into his life.


----------



## RogerK

Dwight, I remember Minot very well. It's hard to forget your wife screaming in my face while she ran people away from the Fair Chase table. It took two Deputy Sheriffs to stop her from disturbing the peace. Your wife made it clear that my right to peaceably assemble to redress my government over a grievance isn't high on her list of priorities. It isn't on her list at all.

Question: If you had the power to put the HSUS and the other animal rights organizations out of business, would you do it? Or would you conclude that the United States Constitution and the North Dakota Constitution protect people we disagree with, specifically, radical animal rights groups.

The people we agree with don't need constitutional protection; the people we disagree with do.

You don't get that point, and neither does your wife. That's why it took intervention by the Sheriff to bring your wife and her rage under control. I had a right to be where I was, doing what I was doing, a right protected by both the state and federal Constitution. The people attending the fair had the same rights. You wife didn't show any concern for their rights.

The right to peaceably assemble to redress government over a grievance. To hell with that right.

The right to free speech. To hell with that right.

The right to circulate a petition. To hell with that right.

The right to sign a petition. To hell with that right.

The right to vote on an issue. To hell with that right.

Don't respect any of those rights. Throw a riot. Disturb the peace. But do not allow people to exercise their rights. To hell with the people. That's your wife's attitude and action.

I'll take your word that the HSUS web site does say, "the HSUS opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or sport." What the HSUS posts on their web site is beyond my control just like your wife was beyond my control when she parked herself in front of our table and with stared running people off.

Let me be clear. When it comes to protecting hunting, I will fight the HSUS with the same ferocity that I am devoting to the Fair Chase initiative. I'm not too worried about fighting the HSUS over hunting here in North Dakota since Article 11, Section 27 of the State Constitution declares that: "Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good."

The HSUS would first have to repeal Article 11, Section 27, and then they would have to pass a bill or initiated measure outlawing hunting. Isn't going to happen, Dwight.

You argue that outlawing High Fence Shooting is outlawing a method of hunting. Outlawing High Fence shooting operations like Red Butte Elk isn't outlawing a form of hunting because the shooting you do inside the fence isn't hunting. Dwight, the hunt is over the moment you close the gate on your bull elk or on the cow elk that will give birth to your target bulls.

With some High Fence operations, the hunt is over the moment the owner artificially inseminates a cow elk or doe with super superior monster antler semen hoping for a set of antlers worthy of sale to the highest bidder.

I've concluded that High Fence operators have a form of Schizophrenia. The Schizophrenic suffers from a false perception or expression of reality manifested as bizarre delusions.

It's a bizarre delusion to think that shooting a hand raised, hand fed animal inside an escape proof fence is hunting.

You tell North Dakotans that you are harvesting the product of you agricultural enterprise. Another bizarre delusion.

You tell your prospective clients that they will engage in a hunt for a critter so wily and wild, that you, the owner of the critter, will take days to find him inside the fenced 200 acre pasture that holds the animal, and even then, he might escape. To the other end of the pasture. That's what? A few hundred yards? That's right after you run the bull through a squeeze chute to remove the identification tag from his ear so that it won't muddy the lie when your client take his "mighty hunter" after the shot picture.

Now that's a bizarre delusion.


----------



## swift

Excellent Roger.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> You argue that outlawing High Fence Shooting is outlawing a method of hunting. Outlawing High Fence shooting operations like Red Butte Elk isn't outlawing a form of hunting because the shooting you do inside the fence isn't hunting. Dwight, the hunt is over the moment you close the gate on your bull elk or on the cow elk that will give birth to your target bulls.
> 
> With some High Fence operations, the hunt is over the moment the owner artificially inseminates a cow elk or doe with super superior monster antler semen hoping for a set of antlers worthy of sale to the highest bidder.


So you are saying that what happens behind these fences is not hunting. Correct?

If that is the case....how is it giving hunters a black eye....when in fact you and others don't think it is hunting. It is shooting. You state that over and over. So instead of going after the operations who are with in their legal right. Go after the way they advertise.

Now if you go off on how it is immoral or unethical. Then how is not a butcher shop or anyone who slaughters an animal for food not acting in an immoral or unethical way? These animals are in a confined area and killed. Just like the HF operations. Why don't you go and try to shut them down? Because if that is the problem you are having with ethics and morals.....it should apply to butcher shops, slaughter houses as well. Because they are killing animals in a confined area.

Also on ethics....some bow hunters think hunting with a gun is unethical and vice versa. Some people think the only way to fish is with a fly rod and others who do it with worm and hook is unethical. I could go on and on with "ethics". Some people think it is unethical or immoral to date a person of opposite religion, color, or race. So ethics is one slippery slope.


----------



## LT

You forgot one of your rights Roger:

The right to say anything, regarding an initiative in promoting it, even if it includes lying, as it is the responsibility of people to read the measure (this is according to the Secretary of State).

So do you think that this is why DG's wife hollered at you and Mr. Masching that you are liars when she was told that the animals were stolen. I see you conveniently left out that DG actually was the one who brought the cops there, not that they were called to break up this major ruckus you claim that his wife made. :roll:

Makes me wonder what else has been said in "private" to unsuspecting individuals, when you can say on public radio that these animals are shot in the hind end to save the cape, and stand up in front of a whole room of people and tell them that you represent tens of thousands of people. Where were those tens of thousands?



> If you had the power to put the HSUS and the other animal rights organizations out of business, would you do it? Or would you conclude that the United States Constitution and the North Dakota Constitution protect people we disagree with, specifically, radical animal rights groups.


So let me get this straight Roger. You are saying people we disagree with need constitutional protection. But isn't that what this whole initiative is about? You don't think what they do is ethical and you are trying to put them out of business?

So what recourse and protection do the elk/deer growers have?


----------



## DG

Rogerk wrote,



> Dwight, I remember Minot very well. It's hard to forget your wife screaming in my face while she ran people away from the Fair Chase table. It took two Deputy Sheriffs to stop her from disturbing the peace. Your wife made it clear that my right to peaceably assemble to redress my government over a grievance isn't high on her list of priorities. It isn't on her list at all.


Roger you need to start telling the truth. It was reported to me that you had downloaded info from certain high fence websites and were using it in a defamitory way at the minot fair. You had it hidden under a cardboard piece on your table. I asked the fair board president and two sheriffs to accompany me to your booth. I asked you to give it to me or discontinue using it. You held it up and said, "if you want me to stop using it you have to sue me, I want you to sue me." The fair board president spun around and left. Gary Masching had been telling people that these animals are stolen from the wild. My wife called you both liars. She is blonde blue eyed five foot seven 115 lbs. Hardly intimadating. I was talking to Gary Masching and told him he should not be telling people that they are stolen. He said, "then where did you get them?" Maybe my wife should not have called you liars. Maybe you are ignorant. However, Mike McEnroe was also working the booth. Mike McEnroe is a retired federal biologist and current lobbyist for the wildlife society. Mike knows these animals were purchased from the federal government at the same time as buffalo. The two sheriffs asked me to come away and said they couldn't intervene as this is a civil matter and I would need to hire a lawyer. Roger, the sheriffs did not escort my wife away. You sir are grandstanding.

If anyone cares to verify what I say they can check the report with the ward county sheriffs dept. Dockett No. ND0510000
Inquiry 200-00003312

The view from here. Roger, you used your computer to download someone elses "intellectual property" (without their permission) from the internet unto your printer. It is now your property and you will use your property as you see fit.

Roger wrote,



> Question: If you had the power to put the HSUS and the other animal rights organizations out of business, would you do it? Or would you conclude that the United States Constitution and the North Dakota Constitution protect people we disagree with, specifically, radical animal rights groups.


RACKETEERING LAWSUIT FINGERS HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES

http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/c ... /circuses/

I hope these people sue the pants off of HSUS.

Roger wrote,



> The people we agree with don't need constitutional protection; the people we disagree with do.


Amen

Roger wrote,



> Let me be clear. When it comes to protecting hunting, I will fight the HSUS with the same ferocity that I am devoting to the Fair Chase initiative. I'm not too worried about fighting the HSUS over hunting here in North Dakota since Article 11, Section 27 of the State Constitution declares that: "Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good."


It was voted as our National Heritage! Nothing is guaranteed.

Roger wrote,



> You tell your prospective clients that they will engage in a hunt for a critter so wily and wild, that you, the owner of the critter, will take days to find him inside the fenced 200 acre pasture that holds the animal, and even then, he might escape. To the other end of the pasture. That's what? A few hundred yards? That's right after you run the bull through a squeeze chute to remove the identification tag from his ear so that it won't muddy the lie when your client take his "mighty hunter" after the shot picture.


The last guy at my place was 82 years old and has prostate cancer. He didn't weigh 100 lbs. He was an avid hunter all his life. He now lives next to the bison range in Montana. He can veiw elk and buffalo out of his livingroom window. So why did he come to my place? Because he lives in America. The land of the free. With an asterisk.

Roger, shortly after you moved here from California you began submitting letters to the editor. In the Bismarck Tribune you attacked Clay Jenkinson and gave him a (D) for a piece he wrote on why we are a super power. Sam Mcquade responded to you, giving you an (F) for total lack of research, mixed metaphors and hook-line and sinker swallowing of current government-think.

Roger, do you remember that? I think Sam Mcquade got it right. It seems you were looking for a cause when you found this one.

I'll bet Mike McEnroe still cannot believe his dumb luck when you walked into his sphere of influence.


----------



## swift

If the HF guys would realize that it is every Americans right to bring initiatives to be voted on and spent their time convincing the voting public that their operations are not the way they are being portrayed they wouldn't have to worry about the outcome of the elections. Personally I don't care one way or the other. My only concern is the misrepresentation of "hunting" that is advertised by the HF operators. Call it harvesting, shooting , taking or whatever but drop hunting from your vocabulary and you will have more than enough support come election time.

Putting such a fight up against a groups attempt to bring an initiative makes us fence sitters wonder what you have to hide and why you don't think your line of business will not survive a vote? Remember the pen is mightier than the sword. Win through education not character asassinations.

Whatever happened at the fair will never be known for sure but one thing is certain somebody that doesn't like the FC initiative or the people organizing it went to their booth looking for a confrontation. That's not taking the high road.


----------



## gst

Perhaps if the group pushing this initiative would tell the truth the HF operations would have VERY little to defend. It is everyones right to bring an initiative, how ever shouldn't that right require the truth be told? One would think a law based on anything less would be flawed at best. Many think perhaps the high road is telling the truth.
The truth about what happens in ND operations not those few extreme examples from other states as is being insinuated to be happening here.
The truth that this measure as written will do nothing to eliminate any risk of disease as is being suggested. 
The truth about how this CWD disease being used as a threat MAY possibly originate. 
The truth that because of Article 11 Section 27 of the state constitution these operations will not cause the end of hunting as is being suggested.
The truth that HSUS was contacted by a HF initiative sponsor in the first attempt. If anyone on here that was a sponsor at that time cares to elaborate feel free. 
The truth these are not "wild" animals "stolen" from the wild and the public as is being suggested.
The truth that here in ND these animals are not being shot inside "cages" such as in the Montgomery Gentry incident as is being insinuated.
The truth that the board of animal health, the state vet, and USDA regulate this industry here in ND far more strictly than most other states.

Rodger, At the very least, please answer a few questions. 
1.As the measure is written it is illegal to recieve a fee or renumeration for the killing of an animal confined in or RELEASED FROM A MAN MADE ENCLOSURE DESIGNED TO PREVENT ESCAPE. WHY THEN WERE GAME BIRD PRESERVES THAT RECEIVE A FEE FOR THE KILLING OF BIRDS RELEASED FROM A MAN MADE ENCLOSURE DESIGNED TO PREVENT ESCAPE not included in this measure?
2. Do you believe it is ethical to shoot a pen raised bird that is acclimated to humans giving it food and water after it has been spun around so it won't fly before being planted for the hunter to "find"?
3. Do you believe Dick is being truthful and accurately representing the science on this issue when he states conclusively CWD CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE SPONTANEOUSLY given the information in the study provided by Bob. 
4. Did you go out seeking support for an initiated measure to ban baiting, and do you plan on starting another initiated ballot to ban baiting when this HF one is done.
Please take the time to answer each of these questions directly as no other sponsor has. It is your opportunity to set the record straight.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

DG,

Is it true that you remove the ear tags from these animals prior to the "hunts"?


----------



## DG

It is required by law that each animal carry two forms of identification (2 ear tags). Every elk ranch has a premise ID. Mine is RBW. It is the only one in North America with that 3-letter prefix. The tags are on the animal until the brain stem is removed from the animal and then those tags are sent to a laboratory in Ames, Iowa with the brain stem for the mandatory chronic wasting disease surveillance program. This program was implemented at the request of the ND Elk Growers in 1998 to safeguard the industry. Each elk ranch is required by law to keep an inventory report. It is mandatory in North Dakota that if an animal is removed from the inventory report that there has to have been a brain stem submitted, and there is a referral number from Ames, Iowa which is submitted to Board of Animal Health and the elk producers.



> Is it true that you remove the ear tags from these animals prior to the "hunts"?


To answer your question, *NO!!!*


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

Thank you.


----------



## RogerK

Dwight, your posts are a target rich environment.

I'll start with the infamous information hidden under cardboard at Fair Chase table.

Fair Chase members faced two problems when we started the signature drive. One, nobody knew we existed or what we stood for, and two, few North Dakotans knew that High Fence operations tainted the state. There was nothing more frustrating than explaining the Fair Chase Initiative to people that abhor fenced shooting, and then have them walk away without signing the petition because they didn't believe we had the problem in North Dakota. The few people that knew we had Shooting Gallery Operations in North Dakota, signed the petition without hesitation.

Before there was a Fair Chase Committee, a bunch of guys that love hunting met to discuss the possibility of doing an initiated measure that would outlaw High Fence Shooting Operations. We discussed the arguments that the HF operators would throw at us. It was clear from the start that the best argument in support the Fair Chase initiative was the material HF operators use to promote their Shooting Galleries. The print button on my computer gave us undisputable proof that High Fence operators exist in the state.

The cardboard in question had pictures of Fair Chase members and supporters doing a variety of hunting, from deer to coyotes. The pictures were there to counter the false charge that HF operators leveled that we were a radical animal rights group out to end all hunting. The pictures worked, especially the one of me with a buck I killed, hands bloody from dressing the deer. "Does this guy look like a radical animal rights guys?" A look at the picture, a look at me, a smile and a signature.

Dwight, why would I hide proof that HF operations exist in North Dakota under cardboard? I didn't. Space at a table is limited so I glued your web site printouts and several others to the back of the Fair Chase hunting pictures. Space. Limited. Is that clear?

I made a BIG mistake the first time I used your HF web printouts at a show. I turned the Fair Chase hunting pictures down and your Shooting Gallery printouts up. About 30 minutes into the show, when the twentieth person gave me a dirty look and told me to shove my High Operation where the sun don't shine, I realized that people thought we were promoting High Fence shooting. I turned the FC hunting pictures up and told the woman that we weren't promoting HF, that we wanted to do away with the shooting operations. I got her signature. From then on, the HF web printouts stayed face down until we needed them to prove that we had Shooting Gallery Operations in the state.

Dwight, the material off your web site, material you use to attract clients, convinced doubters that you exist. Doubters became believers and signed the Fair Chase petition by the thousands. I did make one alteration to your web material: I blew up the picture of you, and, what I assume are two clients and their pet elk in the back of a pickup, so that people could more easily see the high fence in the background. That picture is responsible for thousands of signatures. I didn't have to lie. I didn't have to say anything. The fence talked for me. The fence in that picture doesn't lie; it can't lie. The fence speaks volumes. The fence is articulate. The fence and the 2 dead elk in the pickup are the issue. That picture frames the issue as clear as possible.

Dwight, you did come to the Fair Chase table, but not with the Fair Board President. You brought the fair manager. You brought a single Deputy Sheriff, not two. The fair manager asked if I had stolen property at the table. You wanted me and Fair Chase tossed out of the fair, and you wanted me arrested for copyright infringement, the property you accused me of stealing from you.

The fair manager did spin around and leave. He was disgusted. With you. Your charge was frivolous at best, false at worst. You wasted his time and patience.

Except for keeping the peace, the Deputy Sheriff was useless. Copyright law is federal jurisdiction, not state. Title 17 Chapter 1, Section 107 U.S. Code. Look it up and read it. I read the entire section BEFORE I used the material pasted to the back of the cardboard.

There was no violation. Copyright law has a fair use exemption. According to Title 17 of the U.S. Code, "&#8230; the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies &#8230; for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Dwight, using your material to educate North Dakotans to your existence clearly falls under the fair use exemption.

Using your material on the web to do the same is exempt as well. To wit:

http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/Hall_of_Shame.htm

Ditto for this page:

http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/sel ... itage.html

Dwight, I'm sure the attorneys you and your HF cohorts consulted told you about the fair use exemption. Almost every email I received demanding that I take down the Hall of Shame had a cc to an attorney. I can send you copies of the emails to refresh your memory.

I said this to you in Minot, and I'll post it here: I would buy a ticket to sit in a courtroom to listen to your lawyer try to convince a judge that me using the exact same material you use to let prospective clients know that you exist, somehow defames you when I use that same material to prove to potential petition signers and future voters that you exist. The fence doesn't lie; the fence can't lie. The fence is articulate; the fence speaks volumes. The truth comes wrapped in wire.

That brings me back to the first problem Fair Chase faced. Nobody knew we existed.

The day after we filed the first petition with the Secretary of State, the members of the committee knew we existed, the Secretary of State knew we existed, and HF operators knew we existed. Then HF operators fired up their computers and their mouths, in print and on the air, and let the entire state know we existed.

Every time HF operators held a news conference, my email inbox lit up with people wanting to help the Fair Chase cause. People didn't know HF operations exist until they saw a high fence operator on television or heard him on the radio attacking the Fair Chase initiative. That had side effects. Conservation organizations and individuals started endorsing the Fair Chase initiative. Organizations like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Mule Deer Foundation, The North Dakota Wildlife Federation, the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, MuleyCrazy Magazine, Dakota Country Magazine, the Late Tony Dean, 
Jim Posewitz, Ted Kerasote, Bernie Kuntz, and Curt Wells.

The fence is articulate; the fence speaks volumes. The truth comes wrapped in wire.

No need to embellish, not even a little.

Roger Kaseman


----------



## KurtR

you lost all credibilaty just puting phony deans name in there. All it would take is the money and he would have adevertised how good it was. So if this is voted down by the people will this be the last time we here about or will you keep the ethics crusade going. Just what we need in the usa right now is more rights taken away from people. If all regulations are being followed it should be a persons decision if they want to use one of these operations. I wont at this time have a need for one but say some unforseen circumstanes come along like being sick or a family member not able to hunt a free range elk and one of their last wishes is to get to harvest one who are you to tell them they cant. I am all for strict regulations even as swift said take the actual hunting word out of the advertisments but for some one to sit on there high ethics horse and tell people what they should be able on there own land(with in laws and regulations) is rediculous. What is next you going to go after the trout ponds they have for kids at sports shows. Pretty sure they cant escape that.


----------



## seabass

I have been following the Fair Chase discussions off and on for as long as they have been going on in Hot Topics. I certainly have nothing more to add that hasn't been discussed here ad nauseam before, except for my own opinion on the matter. My opinion is very similar to what KurtR just wrote. Basically, I for one think that there should be strict adherence to the current laws that regulate the industry, but there is no need for more. I don't ever plan on shooting an animal in a fence, but I don't care if someone else does. I'm not even that concerned if you call it "shooting" instead of "hunting." It is what it is and the definition of what goes on in a preserve is really up to the individual who is paying the price for shooting the animal. No matter how you slice it, it's hard to call this "wrong" on one hand, but then feel comfortable eating hamburger that was derived from feed lot-raised cattle, in my opinion.

I'm sure I'll regret posting my opinion here, but it was prompted in part by bringing up DG's wife (over and over again). I can imagine the wife was upset, given it appears you are attempting to take away their livelihood (I presume, I really have no idea who DG or his wife are, nor do I know what they do for a living). But I wasn't there, so I really shouldn't comment.

Many people here strictly vote conservative to limit government interference in their lives. In that sense, I don't understand why this should be any different. I for one would not sign a petition to end this industry.


----------



## gst

Rodger, would you please answer the questions I have asked. Thank you.


----------



## bioman

The vitriol by the likes of Dwight and Gabe is absolutely comical.

Roger,

Kudos to you, and keep fighting the good fight.

At the end of the day, these high fence clones are nothing but market hunters in drag.


----------



## Chuck Smith

I still want someone to answer me if this is all about ETHICS and MORALS.

How is it ethical to shoot a domesticated pig or cow in an enclosure but not ethical to shoot a domesticated deer or elk in an enclosure? How is one ethical and one not if these animals are domesticated animals?

Nobody on any of these threads that spouts ethics and morals can answer this question. I will ask it again.....

If a cow and a elk are both domesticated how is one ethical being killed in an enclosure and one not ethical if they are both domesticated?


----------



## RogerK

Nobody will pay fifteen grand to dress in camo, then sneak around a fenced pasture to shoot Bessie the cow with the intent of hanging her head on the wall for bragging rights. That is the difference.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Roger....



> Nobody will pay fifteen grand to dress in camo, then sneak around a fenced pasture to shoot Bessie the cow with the intent of hanging her head on the wall for bragging rights. That is the difference.


That has nothing to do with Ethics or Morals. I won't pay big $$ for theater or Opera tickets. But that is my choice. You are talking about personal choice here. Not ethics.

Again.... How is one ethically ok and one is not?


----------



## swift

One could make the arguement that Hunting ethics and morals are not the same as slaughter house ethics unless you are an animal rights activist. The "hunt" for pen raised animals would fall under hunting ethics. The slaughter for food of domestic animals do not fall under 'hunting ethics' That is the difference Chuck. If you cannot understand that difference then you are dangerously close to having the same viewpoint as PETA and HSUS.


----------



## gst

RogerK said:


> Nobody will pay fifteen grand to dress in camo, then sneak around a fenced pasture to shoot Bessie the cow with the intent of hanging her head on the wall for bragging rights. That is the difference.


This single statement right here sums up EXACTLY what this is all about!!!!!!! Not ethics, not disease, not wether it is hunting, not about the black eye. It is simply about someones fragile EGO having a problem with someone else "hanging her head on the wall for bragging rights" The TRUTH finally does come out!!!!! Take the antlers off their heads and these people would care less about HF.

Now Rodger, you have been on here twice and yet have not answered 4 simple questions. Please do so. I care more about the answers to these questions than I do what a group like HSUS's rights maybe or what you have to say about someones wife.


----------



## LT

Roger Stated:



> Dwight, using your material to educate North Dakotans to your existence clearly falls under the fair use exemption.


But the difference is your using it all the while lies are being told, i.e. the animals are stolen. How is that using it to educate North Dakotans?

Roger Stated:



> I said this to you in Minot, and I'll post it here: I would buy a ticket to sit in a courtroom to listen to your lawyer try to convince a judge that me using the exact same material you use to let prospective clients know that you exist, somehow defames you when I use that same material to prove to potential petition signers and future voters that you exist.


But you see Roger you did not just use their material to show people they exist; you added lies to your website two years ago such as stating for a fact that this measure would eliminate internet hunting.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> One could make the arguement that Hunting ethics and morals are not the same as slaughter house ethics unless you are an animal rights activist. The "hunt" for pen raised animals would fall under hunting ethics. The slaughter for food of domestic animals do not fall under 'hunting ethics' That is the difference Chuck. If you cannot understand that difference then you are dangerously close to having the same viewpoint as PETA and HSUS.


Swift, Rodger has made it clear that he believes "what happens behind these fences is not hunting". Given that statement, "hunting" ethics should not apply and so then one could argue it becomes no different than a steer being shot and butchered in a pasture. Like I have always said and Rodger just confirmed, take the antlers off these animals and this wouldn't even be happening.


----------



## Maverick

bioman said:


> The vitriol by the likes of Dwight and Gabe is absolutely comical.
> 
> Roger,
> 
> Kudos to you, and keep fighting the good fight.
> 
> At the end of the day, these high fence clones are nothing but market hunters in drag.


 :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith

> One could make the arguement that Hunting ethics and morals are not the same as slaughter house ethics unless you are an animal rights activist. The "hunt" for pen raised animals would fall under hunting ethics. The slaughter for food of domestic animals do not fall under 'hunting ethics' That is the difference Chuck. If you cannot understand that difference then you are dangerously close to having the same viewpoint as PETA and HSUS.


No you are wrong. We are talking ETHIC's of killing animals in a pen. Period. *The people of this bill don't view this as hunting.* So "Hunting" ethics does not play a role at all. Because it is not hunting it says that on the website. That is what this group has been saying. They are stating it is unethical to kill an animal in a pen. (the animals being elk, deer, etc). But yet they have no problem with killing pig, cow, etc in pens.

I am glad you brought up PETA and HSUS. But yet many for this bill don't want to be associated with these groups.....yet is seems they are pretty close to these groups in some way in thinking.

I just don't think that saying this whole issue is about ethics is correct. If this issue is about CWD, treatment of animals, the way these place advertise about "hunting", etc. Is fine. But to push "ethics" is wrong. Like I have stated.....some bow hunters think it is unethical to kill an animal with a gun....and vice versa. Also with Fly fishing...some people think fishing with bait and hook is unethical because of hooking too deep.. One person will think the way another raises their kids could be unethical in the methods they use (spanking), Some think drinking is unethical, smoking is unethical, etc.

FYI.... I really don't care if people kill animals in a pen or not. If someone wants to pay $15,000 to shoot an elk in a pen....So be it, I could care less.


----------



## LT

The measure also is being added to the Century Code under the livestock section, not the Game and Fish section. Could this set a precedent?


----------



## DG

Bioman wrote,



> The vitriol by the likes of Dwight and Gabe is absolutely comical.
> 
> Roger,
> 
> Kudos to you, and keep fighting the good fight.
> 
> At the end of the day, these high fence clones are nothing but market hunters in drag.


Bioman, Are you a federal biologist?


----------



## bioman

> Bioman, Are you a federal biologist?


I am part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.'


----------



## ImpalaSSpeed96

I certainly don't think this HF stuff sheds a good light on hunting, but that arguement is easily dissuaded against an anti. As stated earlier, plenty of animals are killed behind fences all the time. Hell, we don't allow baby calves to even stand in their short life before we kill them. Its honestly a terrible thing to think about, but I won't be the one to stand up and say Ill never eat veal again... I will say, however, I would like to see these filmed hunts behind HF operations, taken off the air. W/ little research, anyone who can use the internet, can find these hunts are done behind HF. That is a black eye to the hunting community...

Far as the bragging rights, who cares? You can walk around telling everyone how big your "gun" is and you can even make it appear big in its "case". But at the end of the day you have to look at it and live w/ the truth... If you're foolish enough to really think your "gun" is big, then good for you. All that matters to me is I find it funny... 

I personally think our chances of defending our rights to "hunt" are better united than divided. Whats the old saying, "united we stand, divided we fall."??? At the end of the day we all have to live with our choices. And I sleep just fine knowing Ill never shoot an animal behind a fence.... I'm sure the other guys do the same.


----------



## KurtR

It is nice that the truth is now coming out. this is all because some guy is jealous that some one shot a big tame elk. Plain and simple it has nothing to do with science or even hunting ethics because as stated before this is not hunting. Please we are having enough of out rights taken as it is. Give a little and the anti's will take alot. Just look at MT they banned trail cams. What is next the little ponds at the sport shows with trout in them. I dont think those fish have a fair chance at escape.


----------



## gst

So far on this thread, the 3 people that have posted in support of this HF measure Rodger, bioman and maverick have done nothing more than berate individuals (including someones wife) rather than discuss the points of this issue. :eyeroll:

The one thing that bothers me as much as anything over this is exactly what impala mentioned the fact that a group of hunters is so willing to push a personal agenda that will cause division amoungst hunters themselves. Rodger mentioned no one even knew these orgs existed in ND, they had to be told. Stir the pot up and cause dissention amoungst hunters over an issue no one other than the anti hunting crowd knew existed and do them a favor in the process. Next will be baiting. Wether Rodger has the stones to admit it I have a copy of the draft of his measure to ban baiting he passed out at a NDSA meeting seeking support. Montana banned trail cams. I suppose that is next here as well. Meanwhile these anti groups don't even have to do anything but sit back and let hunters themselves pick away at our sport and divide us till there is nothing left. All because someones ego is bruised over someone hanging something up on the wall. :eyeroll: Thanks alot fellas. It's time to say enough is enough.


----------



## DG

Bioman wrote,



> I am part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.'


Well, you are going to have to make up your mind. On another forum you wrote,

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=71341



> [This is beyond a slippery slope. Allowing any non-governmental organization the ability to influence policy and local land use decisions is an absolute disaster that will have numerous unintended consequences.
> 
> In Wyoming, the Audubon Society successfully implemented the 'core population area' concept via a greater sage-grouse working group (http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife ... /index.asp). The core area concept was subsequently issued by proclamation of Governor Freudenthal via Executive Order (EO) in 2008. It was an extremely bad policy that was not fully vetted. More importantly, the EO was supposed to recognize existing rights and to have state agencies work colloboratively with private landowners.
> 
> Unfortunately, existing rights of private landowners have now been substantially modified. Case in point wind energy development. The resulting article shows the level of influence these types of policies can reach to the private landowner. I would guess that the Anschutz project will file a private land taking lawsuit, because the private land is now precluded from development.
> 
> The moral of the story, these NGO's are nobody's friends. Some have radical agendas and they don't act in the best interest of private landowners.
> /quote]
> 
> Rogers endorsements come from NGO's
> 
> http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/endorsements.htm
> 
> Mule Deer Foundation
> Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
> North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society
> The North Dakota Wildlife Federation


----------



## DG

Roger wrote,



> Dwight, you did come to the Fair Chase table, but not with the Fair Board President. You brought the fair manager. You brought a single Deputy Sheriff, not two. The fair manager asked if I had stolen property at the table. You wanted me and Fair Chase tossed out of the fair, and you wanted me arrested for copyright infringement, the property you accused me of stealing from you.
> 
> The fair manager did spin around and leave. He was disgusted. With you. Your charge was frivolous at best, false at worst. You wasted his time and patience.


Roger, It wasn't the manager. It was indeed the fair board president. I live in Hazen. Look at his address. I know him very well. I think I shall call him and direct him to this website and what you say. "eyeroll"

North Dakota State Fair Board of Directors: 
Gary Knell, President
831 45th Ave NW
Hazen, ND 58545
870-3314

Charles Meikle, Vice President
3021 97th Ave SE
Spiritwood, ND 58481
252-5987

Lee Ann Karsky, Treasurer
11480 35th St SW
Dickinson, ND 58601
483-0421

Kandi Mikkelson, Secretary
12400 72nd St SW
Minot, ND 58701
722-3349

Neil Fleming
PO Box 633
Cavalier, ND 58220
265-4629

Dennis Wendel
6793 102nd Ave SE
LaMoure, ND 58458
883-5888

Connie Hanson
7766 50th St NE
Devils Lake, ND 58301
662-5910

Butch Haugland
12520 104th St NW
Ambrose, ND 58833
965-6234

Kelly Hanson
PO Box 118
Hannaford, ND 58448
769-2241


----------



## ImpalaSSpeed96

Hey, and at least we're keeping American earned money in America :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

I may bother all sides with this post. In the early years after wildlife was nearly decimated conservationists/hunters (one in the same in the early years) wanted to halt the destruction. They voted to have government provide research, information, and management of wildlife. It is those government biologists that provide the information to managers and the public. However, in this republic it is the citizen that makes the decisions what they want. Unfortunately I have seen first hand that many have forgotten that they work for the taxpayer and think they work for the round eyed, fuzzy, cut little animals. On the other hand they work for all Americans not just those making a buck off wildlife like the market hunters who caused many of the problems in the early years.

With that said the Wildlife Federation are groups of hunter/citizens from around the nation. Most are formed at county or regional level and run on dues and contributions from members. Most of their accomplishments come through volunteering of members. Like Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and The Mule Deer Foundation are private organizations. The Wildlife Society although made up of biologists are biologists from federal, state, and private organizations. Their purpose is to meet so that they can all stay abreast of the latest scientific developments. They often present public opinion based on the latest scientific research to get information into the hands of the public and not just wildlife mangers. I know this organization is also funded by membership, and their annual banquet and auction. None of these are government organizations or get government funding as some keep repeating like crazed parrots. Try keep it real.


----------



## swift

Red Butte elk ranches website conveys what they do is hunting. They use the term hunt many times so they view what they do as hunting don't they. You can't make the arguement that it is not hunting until both sides see it that way.


----------



## DG

Plainsman wrote,



> Like Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and The Mule Deer Foundation are private organizations.


These organizations are part of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Ducks Unlimited
Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies
Pheasants Forever
American Sportfi shing Association
Izaak Walton League of America
Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation
National Wildlife Federation
The Nature Conservancy
North American Grouse Partnership
Quail Forever
Quail Unlimited
Ruffed Grouse Society
Trout Unlimited
The Wildlife Society
Wildlife Management Institute

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is part of,

The Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee
A national steering committee of thirteen conservation organizations provides national leadership for the Teaming with Wildlife initiative, setting national strategy and supporting the activities of state coalitions.

American Fisheries Society 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
Association of Zoos and Aquariums 
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 
Izaak Walton League of America 
National Audubon Society 
National Wild Turkey Federation 
National Wildlife Federation 
The Nature Conservancy 
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 
The Wildlife Society 
Wildlife Conservation Society 
Wildlife Management Institute

OK Plainsman, they are national steering committees setting national strategy. In 2005 the north dakota chapter of the wildlife society and the north dakota wildlife federation paid Dr. Valerius Geist to come speak in Bismarck ND. He said these game farms must all be shut down period. He did not say a word how that was to be accomplished. Plainsman, you are or used to be a member of the wildlife society. You know Mike McEnroe is behind this.

http://ndctws.org/newsletters/2009-4.pdf

The North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is again leading a petition drive to
place an initiated measure to ban the killing of big game or exotic mammals
behind a high fence. The group had an excellent article in Dakota Country
magazine last month. The Fair Chase website is very well done:
http://www.northdakotafairchase.com
Anyone interested in carrying a petition, please contact Mike McEnroe or the
website.

Plainsman, Is this ongoing smear campaign part of the steering committees strategy?


----------



## Plainsman

Many groups form partnerships, but normally for specific projects. However, I repeat they are not government organizations or government funded.


----------



## barebackjack

swift said:


> Red Butte elk ranches website conveys what they do is hunting. They use the term hunt many times so they view what they do as hunting don't they. You can't make the arguement that it is not hunting until both sides see it that way.


Do you use a scoped rifle or gun when you hunt? In my eyes that "unethical". If you want to hunt, for real, you need to use a big stick, big rock, or a big rock tied to a big stick. Otherwise its just completely and utterly unfair to the animal as they do not have reasonable chance for escape.

See how I did that?

Now, unlike Dick and friends, I DONT CARE if you call something hunting that I dont. As long as its done as humanely as possible.

I bet I could even spin it further, telling half truths, generalizations, and maybe a few outright lies, to get many non-hunting members of the public to see it my way too.

Lets see here...........

These "hunters" use rifles made of space age materials that are impervious to all elements, with scopes that magnify the target 15-20 times allowing most hunters to take shots at a half mile or more on a regular basis with amazing accuracy. These scopes also magnify available light which allows these hunters to hunt at night even! Some even equipped with laser sights that even if not shot, could damage the retinas of the animals targeted causing blindness and agonizing death to starvation or predators. They shoot exploding bullets at these animals. How is that fair? The success rate for ND gun hunters has average over 70% for many years. How is that fair?

Dick and friends (Roger) specialize in these little half truths (and lies) when addressing the unknowing public. Ive heard their ilk, first hand tell these half truths and lies. And because Dick and Roger seem to be the driving public voice of hunters against high fence whatever they are, I hold them responsible for the lies.

They kind of remind me of Obama. You know, the guy that told us all he was going to be the "uniter", bring us all together, work in a "bipartisan" fashion, bring some "transparency" to govt. He told us all that to get us to vote for him. Yet, none of it was true.


----------



## DG

Plainsman wrote,



> Many groups form partnerships, but normally for specific projects. However, I repeat they are not government organizations or government funded.


Do they ever form partnerships with the humae society of the United States? Back in 2008 David Pauli, regional director for HSUS wrote this on his blogsite.



> According to a June 30 posting on the blog, art4animals, Pauli, "met with an official of the Fair Chase hunting movement" during a tour of the NRRO states. The region consists of eight states including North Dakota. Pauli's June 30 posting goes on to cite the HSUS assistance put forth to pass hunting bans in Montana in 2005, and their support of similar goals in Idaho and Colorado.
> 
> Pauli noted in the blog posting that while in North Dakota he stopped at "shelters and activists homes along the way to encourage them to support the ballot initiative."


Plainsman, Roger told me it was him. Roger is hardly an "official." Roger is covering for someone. Here is what we did. We e-mailed David Pauli and tried to get him to name this "official" he met with. He writes many blogs and couldn't think of which blog we were refering to. But it seems he comes to North Dakota often and meets with several government "officials."

Plainsman, Do they ever form partnerships with HSUS? You know, "coalition building."


----------



## dakotashooter2

> Take the antlers off their heads and these people would care less about HF.


This statement is correct......................because there also would be no HF. No antlers.... no reason to have them. Nobody is gonna spend 1000s of dollars to hunt does/cows. See it works both ways.


----------



## dakotashooter2

The problem is HF hunting isn't about hunting ...It's about assuring success and bragging rights. It's about getting a trophy animal "no matter the cost". Sure there are some "management" animals taken that don't qualify as trophys but if those were the only animals available for harvest HF hunting operations would collapse. On game farms the normal "rules" and ethics of hunting don't apply. There are no possesion limits, season limitations or other such regulations those users are bound by except those set by the operator. If that isn't a slap in face face of hunting ethics what is. Some might even consider it legalized poaching. I don't think we can deny that the average hunter feels a twinge of jealousy. Most of us are probably lucky to be able to take time and spend our limited resources to hunt within the state allowed seasons. We work hard just for the opportunity to hunt. I really don't think most hunters see game farms as taking away animals from the average hunter. They do however see them as taking habitat and hunting areas away from them. Even if an unfenced parcel of land is posted there is a chance that game may come off that area and be huntable. Not so with properties consumed in a HF operation.

I wonder ...does a trophy taken from a game farm command the same respect from ones peers as one taken from a wild/natural setting? I wonder how many hunters even admit to their peers that they took their trophy from a game farm. Of course that is why game farms tile themselves as "ranches" . You generally don't see them promote themselves as "Joes High Fence Hunting Farm". I wonder why that is ?????? Would admitting you took your trophy from a HF operation it be like me asking someone if they want to see "my" Superbowl ring, then seeing their disapointment when they found out I bought it instead of actually played ? Or the difference between a signed home run ball and a signed ground ball some baseball superstar hit in the world series? .

I would ask a HF operator, how would you feel if HF operations surrounded you? I suspect you would resent the competition. Does that switch on the light bulb.

I have heard comparisons to "bird" farms but birds (who can fly) are not bound by fences once they are relased from the pen. I hear the argument that for large HF operations there is more than enough property for a game animal to elude a hunter. Maybe... maybe not. But leaving the area entirely, a tactic sometimes used by game is,removed from it arsenal of trick completely no matter how large the property is. Is that FAIR.

I'll admit it's not only about fairness to game but about fairness to the average hunter.We are feeling squeezed out. It's becoming the "Kings game".


----------



## Maverick

Great Post Dakota!!!! :beer:


----------



## eliptiabeht

dakotashooter2 said:


> On game farms the normal "rules" and ethics of hunting don't apply. There are no possesion limits, season limitations or other such regulations those users are bound by except those set by the operator. If that isn't a slap in face face of hunting ethics what is. Some might even consider it legalized poaching.


What are the possesion limits,season limits, and other such regulations for pheasant preserves.


----------



## gst

Dakota shooter, Your statement that "HF hunting isn't about hunting, but assuring success and bragging rights" is exactly what this issue is all about. BRAGGING RIGHTS. Your quote"'the average hunter feels a twinge of jealousy" spells it out once again what this is all about. BRUISED EGOS. It is all about the horns, this measure, this industry, and for many hunting itself, it's NOT about wether these animals are shot in a fence or not. Back when the velvet industry was booming and these bulls were more valuable alive then dead, there were cows being shot in HF operations and NO ONE had an issue. Why, no horns and no bruised egos. As Rodger himself said, BRAGGING RIGHTS with a substantial doses of EGO thrown in is what is driving this issue. I wonder where measureing a hunt based off the size of the animal and "bragging rights" fits in the ethically pure "fair chase" ideology?

If it is not about hunting, why are hunting ethics being discussed? Rodger has clearly stated he does not believe this is hunting, and yet he continues to insisit that ethics that apply to hunting be considered???????????
Why are laws being passed to protect someones "bragging rights" ?

These animals are privately owned privately managed on private lands. You yourself stated most hunters don't see these operations as taking animals away from the average hunter. And yet you make the comment it could be compared to legalized poaching?????? Animals have to be wild to be poached.

There are no possesion limits or seasons because these are not a part of the wild population that has to be managed with these tools to ensure their sustainability.

In regards to game bird preserves. The measure clearly states you can not receive payment for the killingof animals RELEASED FROM an enclosure for hunting purposes. Rodger has refered several times to the lack of "ethics" involved in shooting these hand fed, pen reared animals that are acustomed to people. These game bird preserves are doing exactly what this measure is worded to prevent, yet this group chose not to include them. Why? To base your "ethics" arguement on the fact these birds can "fly away" is weak at best if you have any knowledge of pen raised birds. And to do so indicates your "fair chase ethics" have a pretty large grey area.

As to what respect the taking of an animal commands, the traditionalist archer may believe the deer shot with a new 85% letoff bow "commands" less respect, the flintlock muzzleloader may feel a deer shot with a centerfire rifle with a 10 power scope "commands" less respect. Should we now pass laws based on someones personal level of respect for how an animal is killed? Think of what doors that will open. Think of what groups would like this!!

Stop and think about this for a second. There are roughly 80,000 deer hunters in ND. If this truly was the issue amongst hunters this group claims it is, woouldn;t it have been relatively easy to collet 12,0000 signatures. Not even 1/5 of all hunters signed this petition last time around. So this group has had to resort to "proving" to people these operations even existed. They do this in a disingenuous manner with the nonhunting public, but yet apparently don;t have the stones to answer a few simple questions on these hunting websites. Go figure.


----------



## swift

> Do you use a scoped rifle or gun when you hunt? In my eyes that "unethical". If you want to hunt, for real, you need to use a big stick, big rock, or a big rock tied to a big stick. Otherwise its just completely and utterly unfair to the animal as they do not have reasonable chance for escape.


BBJ, I was answering the question what is the difference between HF and a slaughter house. That's all.

Now to your silly analogy...

The concept of hunting and the sport of hunting has been written about for centuries by such writers as T Roosevelt, E. Hemingway, A. Leupold and many others. They helped discribe to the nonhunting public the essence of hunting. Within that essence is the idea of free chase. It was Roosevelt that started the Boone and Crocket club to help protect hunting for the common people. It's ironically unfortunate that the same club has been the biggest fractioner of the sport by putting a "score" for people to try to achieve, leading to micromanagement of animals for the sole gain of trophy size and money.

Ask 100 hunting neutral people (nonhunters that are not antihunting) if guns, scopes, archery equiptment are necessary for hunting and overwhelmingly the answer will be yes. ask those same 100 people if a 12 foot fence surrounding the property is a necessary part of hunting the number will be much less.

BBJ you sound very passionate about this opposition and I admire that. But state you claims in a well thought out convincing way that doesn't attack or us off the wall unintelligent analogies.


----------



## gst

Sarcasm: the act of using off the wall unintelligent analogies to prove how off the wall and unintelligent another position maybe.


----------



## barebackjack

gst said:


> Sarcasm: the act of using off the wall unintelligent analogies to prove how off the wall and unintelligent another position maybe.


 :thumb:


----------



## barebackjack

swift said:


> BBJ you sound very passionate about this opposition and I admire that. But state you claims in a well thought out convincing way that doesn't attack or us off the wall unintelligent analogies.


My "unintelligent analogies" were EXTREMELY ridiculous. I even admit that.

But, they were made in a sarcastic manner, to show the ridiculous nature of comments, however untruthful they may be, and how they can be manipulated to non-knowing persons.

If Dick and friends could gain their signatures using only the truth, and nothing but the truth, than good for them.

The FACT is, they dont. Their group tells half truths and outright blatant LIES to gain the signatures they need from the public. They prey on the ignorance of the general public when it comes to the subject matter. I have heard the lies, first hand. They have been spoken directly to me by members of Dick and Rogers group. I was educated on the matter enough to know some of what was told me was an outright lie, and much of what was told me was a half truth, a broad generalization of an entire industry based on the acts of but a few.

Dick, Roger, and others of this group, for this reason, have ZERO respect from me. And because of the unscrupulous nature of their actions, I will oppose them. To me, HF has little to do with it. Personaly wouldnt ever do it myself, but dont really care if someone else does. Dont really care if they stay, or go either. Id rather they stay, as PETA, HSUS, and every other anti-hunting group/animal rights group in this country will use it as a feather in the hat and possibly use it as "precedent" at a later date for something that maybe I do partake of myself.

At first it was how this group does business that I disagreed with. Now, after hearing them for several years, and now firmly believing it is about the jealousy and elite attitude of a few, I have one other reason to disagree with them.


----------



## RogerK

BarebackJack

I tell people that we have High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations in North Dakota.

I tell people that Shooting Gallery Operators pen* deer and elk inside escape proof pastures then bring in people from out of state to shoot them for high fees and pass that off as hunting.

When time permits, I tell people about artificial insemination to grow bigger bucks and bigger bulls, and the Texas A & M cloning project that would allow the discriminating shooting gallery client to shoot the same buck over and over.

I tell people that these operations are a direct threat to hunting as we know it. We don't want to turn into Texas.

I tell people that we want to get rid of these operations.

I tell people we want a vote on the issue, that the electorate ought to decide the issue, not politicos doing a back room deal.

I ask them to sign the petition.

What exactly isn't true about any of the above? The lie is where?

One Shooting Gallery Operator had the stones to engage me in conversation without identifying himself as such. When I finished and asked him to sign the petition, the weasel** said that what I told him was false since I didn't inform the public of his side of the story.

I told him that I tell people that you exist; that you fence deer and elk inside escape proof pastures; that you bring in people from out of state to shoot them for high fees, and you pass that off as hunting. That is your side of the story.

He was not amused and didn't stick around to argue the point.

You are an egg sucking anti-hunter. You probable beat your dog, kick your cat and steal pennies from poor homeless kids selling apples on the street corners because their daddies are addicted to shooting the Bull inside a High Fence blowing the rent and grocery money in quest of a bigger, better, artificial inseminated, cloned trophy and leaving the family destitute.

Hey, if you can make up crap about me, I guess I'll take a crack at you.

*pen (pèn) noun
1.	a. A fenced enclosure for animals. b. The animals kept in such an enclosure. c. Any of various enclosures, such as a bullpen or playpen, used for a variety of purposes.
2.	A repair dock for submarines.

verb, transitive
penned or pent (pènt) pen•ning, pens
To confine in or as if in a pen. See synonyms at ENCLOSE.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.

**wea•sel (wê¹zel) noun
A person regarded as sneaky or treacherous.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.


----------



## Plainsman

> wildlife society and the north dakota wildlife federation paid Dr. Valerius Geist


Yes they did. He is very pro hunting, and at the university he teaches at he has one class that you don't pass unless you go out in the field, help with the hunt, and help gut and pack an animal out. He studies the North American management model and compares it to the European. His effort is to make sure that we don't fall victim to only the aristocracy being able to hunt like Europe.



> Do they ever form partnerships with the humae society of the United States? Back in 2008 David Pauli, regional director for HSUS wrote this on his blogsite.


I am not aware of anyone in North Dakota every forming any partnership with HSUS. As far as government agencies they would shy away from getting involved with any activist groups, even if the supported them. Individuals could do that after hours and on their own time, but I'm not aware of anyone currently employed that has been involved with these groups. Most federal employees I know are very careful not to step across any lines. Groups like the Nature Conservancy have received information from the government, but only after filing under the freedom of information act.

Here is my opinion of biologists being involved with HSUS. If they are over 40 years old I doubt it very much and would lay a lot of money against it. If they are younger and coming out of some of these bone head universities that push this animal rights crap there is a slight chance, but very slight, and then only after hours.

Beyond that I can't tell you much. I'm not going beyond what I know because I'm not laying my credibility on the line for anyone.


----------



## ImpalaSSpeed96

Roger, why exactly do you want this business stopped? You have never once written your personal convictions on here. That I have seen anyway... Is it because you really think it gives that much of a black eye to the hunting community? What about the farmers that raise the elk in ND for butchering. They shoot them in a pen too. Is it ok because it is not done as "hunting"?

Secondly, think about the majority of people that book these types of "hunts". Most, are probably very well off Lawyers, bankers, traders, whatever. If the time ever came that we had to form up and fight for our rights to free range hunt, do you suppose they would step up, if they're no longer "hunting". Or what about giving money towards a campaign? I for one, think they would be a lot more likely to do both if they still have the opportunity to "hunt" they way they choose too...

I just honestly feel like this is a non issue in reality. And I think the forum census is showing the same... Until they start breaking the laws, it would be nice if you went after PETA w/ the same energy as you do HF operations...


----------



## barebackjack

RogerK said:


> BarebackJack
> 
> I tell people that we have High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations in North Dakota.
> 
> I tell people that Shooting Gallery Operators pen* deer and elk inside escape proof pastures then bring in people from out of state to shoot them for high fees and pass that off as hunting.


Your group also leads people to believe all these operations take place in an enclosure no bigger than their suburban back yard.



> When time permits, I tell people about artificial insemination to grow bigger bucks and bigger bulls, and the Texas A & M cloning project that would allow the discriminating shooting gallery client to shoot the same buck over and over.


Your group also uses language that leads people to believe that drugging these animals so they have even less chance of eluding hunters is a normal practice of these facilities.

Your group also uses flat out LIES to people in referencing these animals as "wild" and uses specific language to lead people to believe that these animals are stolen from the wild. Like they are literally plucked off mommas teat and forced into captivity.

Your group also uses language that leads people to believe these animals are regularly harassed with vehicles and aircraft over the course of the "hunt" to allow the "hunter" easier access to them.

Now, Roger, I ask YOU. Where is the truth in these extremely deceptive comments made by YOUR group???

Im waiting.........

You cannot deny the statements Roger because I heard EXACTLY these deceptive comments made by members of YOUR group at the Fargo Sportsmans show in an effort to solicit signatures from the un-knowing public. Quite frankly, the lies and half-truths spewed by YOUR group made me sick.

Because YOU and Dick seem to be the public voices of this group, I hold YOU responsible for the lies.

Like I said before, your group has to rely on the twists and turns of half-truths, the broad generalizations, the rhetoric, and the flat out lies to further your agenda. You tug at the heart strings of John Q. Public. The tactics used by YOU and your group are no different than the lies spewed by groups such as PETA in their efforts to end hunting, fishing, and trapping.

YOUR group needs these lies. With just the truth, YOU know your cause would have but not a leg to stand on. Without the lies, this would be a non-issue.

And as explained before, it is because of these lies and tactics that your cause has zero respect from me.


----------



## jhegg

BBJ,

You make an interesting statement.



> Your group also uses language that leads people to believe that drugging these animals so they have even less chance of eluding hunters is a normal practice of these facilities.
> 
> Your group also uses flat out LIES to people in referencing these animals as "wild" and uses specific language to lead people to believe that these animals are stolen from the wild. Like they are literally plucked off mommas teat and forced into captivity.
> 
> Your group also uses language that leads people to believe these animals are regularly harassed with vehicles and aircraft over the course of the "hunt" to allow the "hunter" easier access to them.
> 
> Now, Roger, I ask YOU. Where is the truth in these extremely deceptive comments made by YOUR group???
> 
> Im waiting.........
> 
> You cannot deny the statements Roger because I heard EXACTLY these deceptive comments made by members of YOUR group at the Fargo Sportsmans show in an effort to solicit signatures from the un-knowing public. Quite frankly, the lies and half-truths spewed by YOUR group made me sick.


Interesting, because Dick and I worked the Fargo Sportsman Show. I didn't make those statements and I never heard Dick say them either. Who was it you were talking to?

Jim


----------



## LT

The following lies were on the website two years ago: They drug their animals before they are killed and this will eliminate internet hunting. It also stated that these operations do not have bag limits and are not required to get licenses (why would they when they pay taxes on their privately owned animals/operations.

All of this has since been removed. Maybe someone was afraid they might have a free ticket.

Roger, By the way didn't you just say on here the following: You tell your prospective clients that they will engage in a hunt for a critter so wily and wild, that you, the owner of the critter, will take days to find him inside the fenced 200 acre pasture that holds the animal, and even then, he might escape. To the other end of the pasture. That's what? A few hundred yards? *That's right after you run the bull through a squeeze chute to remove the identification tag from his ear so that it won't muddy the lie when your client take his "mighty hunter" after the shot picture.*

JHegg, Did you work the Fargo show two years ago? Did you work the State Fair -- I was told there the animals were stolen.


----------



## barebackjack

I talked to nobody. But I did listen as others were solicited.


----------



## jhegg

LT,



> JHegg, Did you work the Fargo show two years ago? Did you work the State Fair -- I was told there the animals were stolen.


No, I didn't.

Jim


----------



## DG

Roger wrote,



> I tell people we want a vote on the issue, that the electorate ought to decide the issue, not politicos doing a back room deal.


Last year the north dakota wildlife federations lobbyist, Mike Donahue, had some heart trouble or something like it. You were made temporary lobbyist in his absence for the 2009 legislative session. You just referred to our legislators as "politicos doing back room deals." Are you speaking for the north dakota wildlife federation now?


----------



## 58504451

First off I have never and never will spend money at a HF operation, not because I dislike them but because I choose not to. If you don't like the idea of what they do don't support it! The idea that the sponsors are representing hunters should be an insult to all hunters. By doing so you have just opened the door for the next attack against hunting - the fence will not be in the next debate. Do you really want someone who has never hunted deciding the fate of our sport? My guess is that if the measure read "should hunting be allowed" it would be a close vote. Now becasue a few, with a lot of time and backing from several who don't want to have their names associated with the measure, have decided to be the sportsmen's voice, this could be decided by people influnced by a smear campaign with a few chosen pictures and no information other than that? This isn't about hunting but it will affect our future.

Are the animals being harvested public or private property? If I let someone shoot a steer in my corral is that wrong? If you can not differentiate between wild animals and private property you have other issues to sort out.

You might as well face the fact unless you're number one there will always be someone with more money than you, shoot a bigger deer than you, and have more property than you. If they brag about having a bigger house than you we should outlaw the right for them to have it becasue they may not have worked for their wealth?

I would encourage everyone to study the North American Model, tell me how many times that goverment and ownership by the masses is mentioned. How mayn times is the rights of private individuals mentioned? Individuals should not profit but selling licenses and the money going to the states is ok?? Have we forgotten where the majority of game is fed and raised? Again - check out the model and it's backers. It looks alot like the distribtion of wealth idea for wildlife??


----------



## DG

58504451 wrote,



> I would encourage everyone to study the North American Model, tell me how many times that goverment and ownership by the masses is mentioned. How mayn times is the rights of private individuals mentioned? Individuals should not profit but selling licenses and the money going to the states is ok?? Have we forgotten where the majority of game is fed and raised? Again - check out the model and it's backers. It looks alot like the distribtion of wealth idea for wildlife??


5850445, You are absolutely correct. Dr. Valerius Geist grew up in communist East Germany. He now lives in Canada. The other promoter of the north american wildlife conservation model is Shane Mahoney, also from Canada. Shane has that Santa Clause look and a voice that can melt a crowd. Shane now works for the Dallas Safari Club. Home of high fence central. He must have compromised his ethics. Geist has a thick German accent and likes to talk at great length about wildlife corridors and vast roadless areas barred from human interaction.

In july 2008, Geist came to Bismarck ND to speak at the Outdoor Writers Association Conference. Before the meeting started I sat right behind him. He was visiting with our G/F fella in charge of waterfowl and Jim Carter (i think that is his name) in charge of Hunter Safety. Geist showed them a card that said, "should people own wildlife." They went on to talk about the fair chase intitiative and each was wondering how many signature were collected so far.

The meeting started and Geist spoke for an hour and a half about wolves and bears killing people. His answer to that is these animals need a place to live devoid of humans. No back packing, no hiking, no getting out of vehicles, no camping, no mountain biking and certainly no jogging. When he was done he asked everyone to write their questions down on a card. He probably collected ten cards or questions.

The very first question, "should people own wildlife?" ........................WTF

He answered his question that only trained wildlife professionals such as himself should go near wild animals because they know how to raise their hand up or make themselves look larger.

I looked around the room and everyone was looking at the floor or someplace of non-interest. So Geist moved on. The next ten questions were about lions and wolves and bears. Especially the attacks.

That first question was STAGED. This whole high fence initiative is a staged media event.

In 2005 Dr. Valerius Geist was paid by the NDWF and NDCTWS to come to Bismarck

A FREE public presentation and discussion forum by Dr. Valerius Geist 
An internationally respected wildlife biologist, author and one of the world's leading experts in cervid (deer family) biology and management.

-The North American Wildlife Conservation Model- 
Why wildlife management in North America has been so successful. 
What are the threats to the future of hunting and wildlife conservation? 
Fee Hunting Captive Wildlife 
Canned Hunts Wildlife Diseases 
Feeding and Baiting Genetic Manipulation 
Commercialization of Hunting and Wildlife Resources

What can we do to insure that wildlife and hunting is maintained for future generations?

Where: Ramkota Inn 
800 South 3rd Street

Bismarck, North Dakota 58504 
Phone: 701-258-7700

When: Friday, 11 February 2005 
7-9 p.m.

Presentation to be followed by a question and answer discussion session and refreshments.

Who should attend: -Wildlife enthusiasts 
-Hunters -Government leaders 
-Legislators -Hunter education instructors 
-Wildlife biologist and managers 
-Media representatives 
-General public -Guides and outfitters 
-Deer and elk producers -Tourism interests 
-Chambers of commerce -Business leaders 
-Outdoor recreationists 
-Anyone who has a stake in wildlife and hunting in North Dakota

Sponsors: 
North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society 
North Dakota Wildlife Federation 
Lewis and Clark Wildlife Club 
Northern Badlands Chapter of The Mule Deer Foundation

For information contact: 
Mike McEnroe, North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Phone: 701-224-8335

58504451 Geist said a lot of things, At the wildlife society meeting he said the legislature needs to take more of a hands off approach to wildlife management. It should be placed squarely in the hands of highly intelligent wildlife professionals.

This is from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation magazine, Bugle. Jan/Feb2004

Wildlife provides the highest quality food available to humans. Period! Agriculture cannot match nature. Happily, it is becoming widely known that organically raised, grass-fed livestock-minus all the antibiotics, hormones and artificial fattening-live better lives and produce far healthier meat.
Ultimately, we must learn how to live with planet earth. Wise wildlife management, allowed its full potenial, can serve as a model for the wise use of all natural landscapes. Rather than converting more wildlands to agriculture we must now go the opposite way-to husband our planet rather than continuing to destroy it piecemeal. Wildlife and wildlands conservation is pregnant with ideas regarding how to do this.

58504451, You are right about the NAWCM. I have said it before and I'll say it again,

There is no environmental or animal rights movement, which does not operate in the interest of money, in the direction indicated by money, and for that period of time allowed by money, and all this without the idealist in its ranks having the slightest suspicion of the fact.

April 19th is approaching. Earth Day. For those of us living in the midwest "buffalo commons"


----------



## RogerK

There is no environmental or animal rights movement, which does not operate in the interest of money, in the direction indicated by money, and for that period of time allowed by money, and all this without the idealist in its ranks having the slightest suspicion of the fact.

Really?

Dwight, hypocritical charge, considering the price tag on your elk.

You do your shooting for the esthetics?

Out of a sense of???

Can't get my mind around a reason other than money.

Take away the antlers and the money, and you would be looking for another scam.


----------



## DG

Roger wrote,



> Take away the antlers and the money, and you would be looking for another scam.


Goodnight Roger, I have to get up early to go to my other scam job. Have to put some of that dirty coal fired CO2 into the air.

http://www.ndwf.org/globalwarming.asp

Global warming is the single biggest threat to wildlife today.

Scientists have told us that we must reduce global warming pollution by 80% by 2050 to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. They have set the goal, now we have to set the pace. We can get there by reducing global warming pollution by 2% every year for the next 40 years.

National Wildlife Federation works to reach that goal by demanding climate change legislation that includes a cap-and-trade system and dedicated funding to address the impacts of global warming on America's natural resources.

Everybody needs to be part of the 2% solution. Pledge to reduce your energy use by 2% per year and be part of the solution today!

NWF CEO and President Larry Schweiger's blog 
Global Warming News Blog 
Climate Change Education 
An Inconvenient Truth 
Smithsonian : Science and Technology 
Global Warming Union of Concerned Scientists


----------



## gst

Everyone needs to take a step back and look at what the primary person responsible for this measure has posted on this site once he decided to "enter the HF fray. Everyopne might gain a little insight into this issue. Just take a little time to read his posts. Are they of the nature of what you believe laws of this state should be based on????????????? Not one aspect of a point to why this is being pushed. Merely one attack on a personal level after another. Even going after someones wife. Not one indication of addressing legitimate questions about this issue. Rodger, why won't you or any sponsors answer 4 simple quesions?

The whole reason I decided to involve myself in this issue, (contrary to people like longshots insistance I have any connection to HF) was a result of standing across from the HF measures booth at the state fair in Minot during the first attempt at this measure and listening to what people were being told. It was EXACTLY what bbj said one lie, insinuation and misrepresentation after another. The sponsors of this measure are continueing this and when called on it refuse to accept responsibility or address questions regarding it. That to most says every thing that needs to be said. Unfortunately much like orgs. like HSUS these sponsors will continue to tell these outright lies to "prove" to these nonhunting people this is an issue.

I simply believe the laws created in this state should be based of truth. Not what is being done by these few sponsors. I really dont't understand, if I had signed on to support this I would demand my fellow sponsors represent the truth of this issue. But it appears this group is not willing to require that of their fellow sponsors.

Rodger apparently is unwilling to address the 4 simple question posed about this issue. If it is truly about the truth, why won't he do so?

I guess just maybe after his admission this is all about "bragging rights" ,answering these questions is irrelevent as we all now know the driving force behind this measure. Bruised egos and jealousy. Rodger said it , dakota shooter said it, Maverick chimed in supporting it. What a basis for creating a new state law.


----------



## swift

Good post Gabe. You gave a reason not to vote for this measure.

Unfortunately you have to be reading with biased eyes to not see that both sides of this issue that posted on this topic have been one attack after another based on hearsay and emotion. The "lies" you and your compatriots continue to bring up you have not substantiated other than hearsay, Just like BBJ's claim at the Fargo sports show then his admission that he didn't speak to anyone just eavesdropped other conversations.

I have an idea, we form a committee of private land orgs and public land orgs to hear each individual hunters desire to take part in a high fenced excursion. They can weigh in and make their reccommendations to the govenor and he can okay or deny each request. On the board we can have the NDSA, NDG&F, NDWF and the idiots from the board of higher education. We could probably sell PPV to watch the proceedings and make a ton of money. Oh I forgot this isn't about money.


----------



## Plainsman

> I would encourage everyone to study the North American Model, tell me how many times that goverment and ownership by the masses is mentioned.


I would like to clear up some misconceptions. The North American Model is not something Geist is striving for, it is what we have. The formers of this nation were sick of the European model where only the rich aristocrats and royalty could hunt so they made wildlife the property of the state. Geist only studies and admires our form of wildlife management when he compares it to Europe. Sorry, I'm out of time.

Later.


----------



## KurtR

The sad part about this is that the ethics gods are going to get hf shooters and hunters all lumped together. The voting public do not pay attention to details (how we ended up with obama). So if this thing gets passed every time a anti hunting bill or anti hunting anything comes around those people will think i voted aginst the hf hunting thingy because they dont remeber details just the oh poor animal this poor animal that. so when your buddies from the hsus come and try to take away our free range hunting they will already have a base of voters. Just because your little egos are hurt that some one has more jack than you and can go shoot a big tame elk.


----------



## gst

swift said:


> Good post Gabe. You gave a reason not to vote for this measure.
> 
> Unfortunately you have to be reading with biased eyes to not see that both sides of this issue that posted on this topic have been one attack after another based on hearsay and emotion. The "lies" you and your compatriots continue to bring up you have not substantiated other than hearsay, Just like BBJ's claim at the Fargo sports show then his admission that he didn't speak to anyone just eavesdropped other conversations.
> 
> Swift, if you had just stopped with the first sentence, I would have agrreed with you whole heartedly.
> 
> Actually I AM looking at this with biased eyes. I am biased towards the belief laws should be based on truth. If you take a moment and consider the replies or lack there of from the sponsors of this measure, you should be able to judge if that is happening or not if you approach it from an unbiased position. And you can weigh what is "heresay" or truth yourself.
> 
> One sponsor Dick Monson was caught in a direct statement he cannot prove as truth when he said CWD CAN NOT demonstrate spontaneously, insinuateing a response meant to further his previous unsubstantiated claims regarding this disease. Another sponsor jhegg would not state he doesn't think his fellow sponsors shouldn't be lying or that they were not lying, only insisting that he can't be held responsible for what they are saying and doing. And the primary sponsor of this measure Rodger Kaseman, upon fianlly entering into this "HF fray", chooses to make this personal from the very first sentence posted, even going after someones wife rather than addressing the merits of this measure or answering 4 little questions about the measure itself and his plans for future measures such as this one. For most that is answer enough.
> 
> Rodger has been unable to generate enough support from within the hunting community to gather enough signatures. It would require less than 1/5 of the deer hunters in this state to garner the required signatures. Yet he has had to go to home and garden shows and "prove" to people this is an issue. So his claim that this is a major issue for all hunters is in itself a bit of a stretch of the truth. Rodger and these sponsors have made various claims as to what this measure is all about, and they have basically been a "cover story" for what has now come out as the driving force behind this measure as stated by the sponsors and their supporters themselves. Bragging rights, jealousy and bruised egos. I guess at this point after this admission, the questions I asked that NO ONE will address are irrelant, finally we all know the real TRUTH about this measure.


----------



## barebackjack

swift said:


> Good post Gabe. You gave a reason not to vote for this measure.
> 
> Unfortunately you have to be reading with biased eyes to not see that both sides of this issue that posted on this topic have been one attack after another based on hearsay and emotion. The "lies" you and your compatriots continue to bring up you have not substantiated other than hearsay, Just like BBJ's claim at the Fargo sports show then his admission that he didn't speak to anyone just eavesdropped other conversations.


A lie is a lie swift, doesn't matter if its spoken directly to me, or to the guy standing next to me. The fact is, I heard the lies spoken to people who did not know any better with my own ears mere feet away. This is NOT hearsay.

hear·say   [heer-sey] 
-noun
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.

2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.


----------



## swift

No Offense BBJ but your definition you gave is exactly right. You may not consider it hearsay but when you repeat it, it becomes hearsay. Lets hear a tape or a video of these lies. With video cell phones it shouldn't be that hard if it is truely as rampant as is being claimed.

Gabe as someone that is pretty much neutral on this topic I have to say that DG's and LT's responses have been very attacking and unsupported. As far as Dick's statement that CWD cannot be spontaneous chances are there was no intent to decieve, therefore he likely misspoke not lied. Also if I remember their is a theory that CWD can occur spontaneously it hasn't been proven so his estimation is just as founded or unfounded as your that it can be spontaneous.

From the article...


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


So while there might be a chance of a 1 in a million that spontaneous CWD may occur, is has not been proven nor is it likely to be proven, it is FACT that it can be passed from one to another. Gabe if your not prefacing your claim of Spontaneous CWD with the real numbers are you infact lying or just witholding some facts to make your point? Question not an accusation.


----------



## gst

Swift, Dicks statements were directly meant to decieve. They were in regards to the isolated occurance of CWD here in ND. He stated CWD CAN NOT demonstrate spontaneously as an insinuation that this must have came from another source. I can use only a little bit of common sense given Dicks position on HF and his reccuring posts on this disease and HF operations that he was insinuating a HF operation as the likely source of this case. Not to big of a leap to see that.

Given the fact that CWD only happens to a very small number or percentage of animals, the scientific ASSUMPTION that spontaneous CWD happens at all is worth noting. In the science behind BSE the bovine form of this where more data is avalible due to the more controled enviroment of the domestic animals, records and such. there is a growing scientific ideology that these TSE's do demonstrate spontaneously. The point being there is simply not enough science for Dick to have "mispoken" as he did so so factually.

One of the first things Rodger brought up was this mention of someone from the Fair Chase group contacting HSUS in regards to this measure. I looked, but nowhere in any of his posts did I see Rodger catagorically deny he contacted HSUS at any time in regards to this measure. Even Bill Clinton publically stated he "did not have sexual relations with that woman" for all the good that was. :wink:

Hopefully from your neutral position you can consider things like this and weigh the credibility of those involved in this issue.


----------



## barebackjack

swift said:


> No Offense BBJ but your definition you gave is exactly right. You may not consider it hearsay but when you repeat it, it becomes hearsay. Lets hear a tape or a video of these lies. With video cell phones it shouldn't be that hard if it is truely as rampant as is being claimed.


I actually kind of wish I had been "wired" that day.

Had I been, we wouldn't be having this conversation and this "issue" would finally be a "non-issue" as Dick and friends would have zero credibility.


----------



## swift

Gabe did you read what I posted? A 1 in 1,000,000 rate of spontaneous contraction of CWD MIGHT occur. They extrapolated that out from human CJD theories. That is a pretty small chance to be basing an arguement on. I would say, useing these numbers, it is very much more likely to not happen then the opposite. You didn't answer the question are you telling everyone that a deer is more likely to be struck be lightening that contract spontaneous CWD if in fact it can be don, or are you deceiving them, i.e. lying to them by ommision?


----------



## 58504451

Plainsman - Please help me out on the North American Model. Our founding fathers came up with the idea??? How does the king owning the wildlife differ from states claiming it and selling tags for the right to harvest?? Thanks.


----------



## LT

Swift said:


> Gabe as someone that is pretty much neutral on this topic I have to say that DG's and LT's responses have been very attacking and unsupported.


Documented: Dick Monson said this on the Fair Chase website the first go round and in the Dakota Country magazine, October 2008 issue.



> This measure, when passed, will do only three things:
> 
> 1. Eliminate canned shooting of captive big-game species inside escape-proof fences for fees.
> 
> 2. Same for exotic non-native mammals, (read Russian Wild Boar, one of which was found in central North Dakota last year. He didn't parachute in here).
> 
> *　 3. Eliminate computer-controlled remotely fired weapons for canned shooting, (the infamous Texas-style computer shooting at game ranches).*
> 
> The measure does not affect game ranching or bison in any way, nor commercial slaughter of big game species for meat and animal products, nor the sale of breeding stock, nor the sale of individual animals, nor the raising of any of them.
> 
> Dick Monson, Committee Member, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=51137&start=240


----------



## LT

Documented: Roger Kaseman wrote the following on the Bismarck Tribune Forums (all taken down now), but can still view my original post here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=51137&start=280



> Roger Kaseman Wrote on the Bismarck Tribune Site:
> People are flocking to sign. Ask the Deer Growers and Elk Growers that set up a table in Fargo. They saw first hand. I personally have collected 2,000 signatures. We need 12,844.
> 
> And the landowner boogyman is just that, a boogyman. Landowners are just as anxious to sign. They recognize a dirty business when they see it.
> 
> *
> You want to know who refused to sign? Members of Animal rights groups.*


Documented: The following alert was sent out by HSUS:



> Time is Running Out!
> Please Help Ban Canned Hunts in North Dakota
> 
> Dear Friend,
> 
> North Dakota voters have the opportunity to stop the trophy shooting of captive animals trapped behind fences -- an inhumane and unsportsmanlike practice opposed by hunters and non-hunters alike -- but only with your help. These "canned hunting" operations offer wealthy customers the opportunity to kill tame, captive animals for guaranteed trophies. Get involved today in stopping this unethical practice.
> 
> Both hunters and non-hunters condemn canned hunting, but it has not yet been outlawed in North Dakota. Be part of the team that puts this critical issue on the November statewide ballot! The campaign must collect 12,844 valid signatures by the end of July, and we need your help.
> 
> If you have volunteered to gather signatures already, thank you! If not, please sign up today. Email Karen at [email protected] or call 701-839-6210.
> 
> Just a little of your time will help give North Dakotans the chance to vote to stop canned hunting this fall.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Wayne Pacelle
> President & CEO
> The Humane Society of the United States


Documented: The elk growers have correspondence from Karen which shows all the HSUS members collecting sigs. The elk growers have copies of the petition signatures gathered the first go round and the collectors of those signatures. These are on file with the Secretary of State. From those names in Karen's address book they were cross referenced with the collectors names on the petitions. HSUS gathered approximately 2000 signatures.

*Supported, substantiated, documented.*


----------



## LT

Documented: http://www.times-online.com/content/view/70241/60/



> By Jay Stephenson
> Valley City Times-Record
> 
> A ballot measure to ban 'canned hunts' in North Dakota continues to be debated as supporters try to gather enough signatures to put the measure on the 2008 election ballot.
> Canned hunting is a practice that allows people to hunt exotic or native animals within private owned enclosures. The landowners usually charge a fee for people hunting on the property.
> Locally, arguments in support of the proposed ban were renewed last week during Barnes County Wildlife Federation's membership drive.
> Invoking former President Theodore Roosevelt, an avid North Dakota hunter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuse Coordinator Lloyd Jones said if canned hunting continues in North Dakota, it could be used as a political tool by animal rights groups to ban other hunts.
> Supporters of game farms say the measure would take landowners' rights away, and that canned hunting benefits handicapped and elderly people who otherwise wouldn't be able to hunt. They also say it increases tourism in the state.
> Under the proposal, violators could be charged with a misdemeanor, punishable by 20 days in jail and a $1,000.
> Barnes County Wildlife Federation Coordinator Perry Kapaun says some BCWF members are sponsoring the measure, but the group isn't officially part of the ballot initiative effort.
> Kapaun, who supports the measure to ban canned hunts, says there would be an uphill battle against the Farm Bureau and other groups that he says have "more money" than canned hunt opponents.
> "I'm not saying all game farms are bad, and there's only a few in North Dakota that actually kill," Kapaun said. "*But a wild herd is public property, theirs and mine. *Some of them don't police themselves. Their animals get out and they don't keep records."
> Kapaun, not citing North Dakota specifically, says in some canned hunts, *animals are drugged to make it easier for the participants *
> "*They're even doing now, in Texas, where you, a rich guy sitting in New York, can shoot an elk from your computer. *
> North Dakota Elk Growers Vice President Ernie Mau says game farm opponents are using extreme examples to make their case. He says that he is against drugging animals or the hunting of them within small enclosures.
> "We're under the Board of Animal Health and we've got rules," Mau said. "Our fences, our gates, it's all controlled."
> Mau, who says 90 percent of hunters on his game farm come from out of state, adds that banning game farms would hurt the North Dakota economy.
> "It's going to be a land rights issue, that I've got the right to do what I want on my own property as long as I'm paying taxes and not breaking any laws," he says.
> In order for the ballot measure to make the 2008 election ballot, supporters will need 12,844 verified signatures


----------



## swift

LT, I don't quite know what your last posts have to do with the legitemacy of HF operations. If your inferring that since the HSUS supports it that is good enough reason not to support it, would be an adolescent point of view. Mr. Pacelle's letter actually acknowledges sport hunting by this statement...


> trophy shooting of captive animals trapped behind fences -- an inhumane and *unsportsmanlike* practice opposed by hunters and non-hunters alike


There is nothing wrong working with an opponent when both have the same cause in mind. It happens all over the world everyday amongst enemies. Also 33 states have banned internet hunting my math says 17+ US territories have not. Dicks point could be geared to those 17.

Tell us what your operations bring to the betterment of huntings image and tradition? These are the things that will help you win this vote. Mudslinging doesn't help anyones cause. Also using statements from 2 years ago is a bit much. All of us say things that we regret then change our ideas for the next battle. Again it's hurting your cause.

Roger, You and your supporters arguement about the high price of these trophy animals is also hurting your cause. No buisness should be shuttered because someone else is jealous or because someone is making money in their business. Does your group have a mission statement? If so lets hear it and keep your arguements to the topics in the mission statement. The more petty the bashing gets the less interested the voters get.


----------



## gst

Swift I was simply quoting a scientific study provided by a supporter of this measure Bob Kellum that contradicted what Dick was claiming in absolute terms. I provided the link to where the statement originated from so people could read it themselves. If you want to draw your own conclusions that is entirely up to you. I will allow the scientific study to speak for itself. This was debated thououghly on another thread, so I'm not going to dive into the kind of discussion we just had on FBO abit ago on another topic. It becomes time consumming with little positive results.

And for the record, as a hunter, if you are willing to "work with " HSUS to acheive anything, you have just lost any credibility you may have had. You want a mission statement? Read HSUS's in regards to sport hunting! Then explain to us what justifies working with this org. :eyeroll:


----------



## RogerK

Fair Chase Mission:

Article 11, Section 27 of the North Dakota Constitution declares that:

"Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good."

Penning selectively bred, hand raised, hand fed deer and elk inside an escape proof fence and selling a guaranteed shot at the animal threatens our hunting heritage in direct violation of Section 27 of our state constitution. This threat is why a group of ordinary hunters organized North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, and why we seek stop these operations by a vote of the people.

The objective of the Fair Chase Initiative is to:

Enforce the intent of Section 27 of the North Dakota Constitution;

Protect and promote our hunting heritage;

Leave our children and grand children a legacy of Fair Chase hunting;

Prevent the creation and expansion of commercial markets for wildlife;

Combat the bankrupt image the paid shooting of captive animals creates, an image that reflects on all legitimate hunters.

In simple terms, we want to PROTECT WHAT'S RIGHT.

There is right and wrong. Shooting captive deer and elk inside and escape proof fence is wrong.


----------



## gst

Rodger, Please explain how HF is in 'direct violation of Sec 27 of our states constitution"?

And while your at it please address the four questions asked prior. :wink:


----------



## swift

poor poor poor. You didn't answer the question. Your all about having your questions answered but you wont answer the question. I'm just pointing out that you are just as guilty of the tactics that you loathe when Dick uses them. As far as the HSUS it's a nonissue really if you cant see that your biased glasses are getting darker and darker. Are they collecting signatures this go around? I don't know I'm asking. If not to continually

Does anyone have any proof that the fairchase group solicited the HSUS? I mean concrete proof. Not surmizes from hearsay.

Here is a little scientific fact for you. Do you see a trend in it?



> Year Event
> 1967 CWD was first identified as a clinical disease in *captive* mule deer at the Colorado Division of Wildlife Foothills Wildlife Research Facility in Fort Collins, Colorado.
> 1978 CWD was officially classified as a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE). TSE's include scrapie in sheep and goats, Mad Cow disease in cattle, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.
> 1979 CWD was first recognized in *captive *mule deer and black-tailed deer at the Wyoming Fish and Game Department's Sybille wildlife research facility.
> 
> CWD was diagnosed in captive elk for the first time.
> 1981 The Colorado Division of Wildlife identified CWD in a wild elk, marking the first documented case of CWD in a wild cervid.
> 1985 The Colorado Division of Wildlife confirmed the presence of CWD in a wild mule deer for the first time.
> 
> The Colorado Division of Wildlife attempted to eliminate CWD from the Fort Collins Foothills Wildlife Research Facility by treating the soil with chlorine, removing the treated soil, and applying an additional chlorine treatment before letting the facility remain vacant for more than a year. The effort was unsuccessful.
> 
> The Wyoming Fish and Game Department identified CWD in a wild mule deer, marking the state's first case of CWD in a wild cervid.
> 1996 CWD was found for the first time outside of the Colorado/Wyoming CWD "endemic zone" in a captive elk farm in Saskatchewan.
> 1997 CWD is identified on several captive elk facilities in South Dakota, marking the first documented cases of CWD in the state.
> 1999 The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission discovered CWD in a wild mule deer, the state's first documented case of the disease.
> 2000 CWD was found in a Saskatchewan mule deer, marking the first time the disease was found in the province's wild cervids.
> 2001 The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources detected CWD in wild white-tailed deer, the state's first documented case of CWD.
> 
> South Dakota discovered CWD in wild white-tailed deer for the first time.
> 
> Nebraska discovered CWD in a captive white-tailed deer facility for the first time
> 2002 The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish discovered CWD in a mule deer near White Sands Missile Range. This is the first case of CWD in the state of New Mexico.
> 
> The Minnesota Board of Animal Health confirmed the presence of CWD in a captive elk, the state's first documented case of the disease.
> 
> The 1st International CWD Symposium was held in Denver, Colorado.
> 
> The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources detected CWD in a captive white-tailed deer, the state's first documented case of CWD in captive cervids.
> 
> Saskatchewan detected CWD in a mule deer outside of the province's previously delineated CWD containment area.
> 
> CWD is detected in a captive elk facility in Oklahoma, marking the first time the disease was found in the state.
> 
> The Illinois Department of Natural Resources discovered CWD in a wild white-tailed deer, the state's first documented case of CWD.
> 
> The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks discovered CWD in wild elk from the Wind Cave National Park. This documented the first case of CWD found in the state's wild elk populations.
> 
> The first case of CWD in Alberta was found at a white-tailed deer farm near Edmonton.
> 
> Wyoming confirmed the first case of CWD in a mule deer west of the Continental Divide.
> 
> 2003 The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources detected CWD in a wild mule deer, marking the state's first case of CWD.
> 
> A dot blot ELISA test for CWD, developed by VMRD, Inc., was licensed for CWD testing.
> 
> United States Department of Agriculture licensed a CWD dot plot (ELISA) test developed by VMRD, Inc. The test analyzes retropharyngeal lymph node samples and has a turnaround time of approximately 24 hours.
> 
> U.S. Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) introduced a comprehensive bi-partisan bill targeted at coordinating and increasing federal response to CWD management.
> 
> Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) introduced two bills created to assist states in combating the spread of CWD; the National Chronic Wasting Disease Task Force Establishment Act and the Chronic Wasting Disease Research, Monitoring, and Education Enhancement Act.
> 
> The United States Department of Agriculture approved a second-generation CWD test developed by Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.
> 
> Congress approved a bill that includes $4.2 million to expand research on CWD in wild deer and elk populations.
> 
> 2004 Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson announced creation of a federal interagency working group to identify gaps in scientific knowledge about abnormal prion proteins and promote coordination of prion research projects by federal agencies.
> 
> CWD was set as a national priority for piloting a Wildlife Disease Action Plan by the Canadian Councils of Resource Ministers.
> 
> The Wyoming Game and Fish Department discovered the presence of CWD for the first time on the east slope of the Snowy Range Mountains in the north-central part of the state.
> 
> The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission confirmed a case of CWD in a white-tailed deer near the town of Grand Island. This is approximately 250 miles east of the Panhandle where all previous cases of CWD had been documented.
> 2005 The Colorado Division of Wildlife identified a case of CWD in a mule deer south of Colorado Springs. This is the farthest south on the Front Range that CWD has been detected.
> 
> The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets confirmed the presence of CWD in a captive white-tailed deer, marking the state's first documented case of CWD.
> 
> The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation discovered CWD in a wild white-tailed deer from Oneida County. This documented the first case of CWD found in the state's wild deer populations.
> 
> The 2nd International CWD Symposium was held in Madison, Wisconsin.
> 
> The first documented case of CWD in West Virginia is identified in a wild white-tailed deer.
> 
> The Colorado Division of Wildlife confirmed the first documented case of CWD in a wild moose.
> 
> Alberta discovered a case of CWD in a wild mule deer, marking the first time CWD was found in the province's wild cervids.
> 
> The New Mexico Department of Fish and Game discovered CWD in two wild elk from the Sacramento Mountains, documenting the first cases of CWD found in the state's wild elk populations.
> 2006 Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks discovered CWD in a white-tailed deer from Cheyenne County. This is the first time CWD was found in the state.
> 
> Researchers at the University of Kentucky found that CWD prions are present in the leg muscles of infected deer.
> 
> The Minnesota Board of Animal Health confirmed that a captive white-tailed deer from Lac Qui Parle County tested positive for CWD. This is the state's first case of CWD in captive white-tailed deer.
> 
> University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers discovered that infectious prions adhere to specific soil minerals where they remain infective.
> 
> The New Mexico Game and Fish Department identified CWD in a mule deer on the Stallion site of White Sands Missile Range, 75 miles further north of the state's northernmost infection area.
> 
> Colorado State University researchers found that infectious prions are capable of transmitting CWD through saliva and blood.
> 
> The Colorado Division of Wildlife reported finding two additional moose with CWD in the northern part of the state.
> 2007 The first white-tailed deer to test positive for CWD in Alberta was identified by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
> 
> The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources published an e-book addressing various modeling approaches to describe the spatial epidemiology of CWD.
> 
> Research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison revealed that the infectivity of prions significantly increases when they are bound to certain soil minerals.
> 2008 The first cases of CWD in Saskatchewan's wild elk population are found in the province's east-central region.
> 
> Researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Colorado State University developed a new pre-mortem CWD test for elk.
> 
> The Michigan Department of Natural Resources detected CWD in a captive white-tailed deer from Kent County. This is state's first documented case of CWD.
> 
> The Wyoming Game and Fish Department discovered CWD in a wild moose. This is the first time a moose infected with CWD is found outside of Colorado.
> 
> Elk meat sold at a Longmont, Colorado farmers market was found to come from a captive elk infected with CWD.
> 
> 2009 Researchers found that prions are shed in the feces of early-stage CWD-infected deer.
> 
> Colorado State University researchers were granted $2.5 million from the National Science Foundation to study transmission of CWD.
> 
> 2010 The first documented case of CWD in Virginia is identified in a wild white-tailed deer.
> 
> The Missouri Department of Agriculture discovers the state's first case of CWD in a captive white-tailed deer.
> 
> The first documented case of CWD in North Dakota is identified in a wild mule deer.


----------



## swift

I heading to Costa Rica in the morning so you guys will have to have fun without me for a while. Keep it civil I will be thinking of you when I'm catching sailfish and marlin with no fences in sight.


----------



## DG

On page two LT wrote a piece from that Valley City Paper,



> Invoking former President Theodore Roosevelt, an avid North Dakota hunter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuse Coordinator Lloyd Jones said if canned hunting continues in North Dakota, it could be used as a political tool by animal rights groups to ban other hunts.


Swift, this whole statement is contentious. Instead of Refuse it should have been stated Refuge. Mr. Lloyd Jones cannot identify himself as a federal employee engaged in a states rights issue. He cannot use the name of his federal employer to add weight or credibility to his remarks. That is a federal violation of the HATCH ACT. Mr. Lloyd Jones was a sponser of the HFI in 2008 and currently is again in 2010. If his concern is animal rights groups trying to make political hay, then why did he do nothing when his group contacted the humane society leader to gather signatures in 2008? Documented

Swift wrote,



> There is nothing wrong working with an opponent when both have the same cause in mind. It happens all over the world everyday amongst enemies.


The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

In my community I don't have any enemies. Most people know me and they didn't sign. There are 3500 people in this community. Only five signed the initiative. I have copies of all the signatures collected from the secretary of state. Documented.

Swift wrote,



> Also 33 states have banned internet hunting my math says 17+ US territories have not. Dicks point could be geared to those 17.


Internet hunting doesn't exist, it never did. Some states got snookered by Dick Monson look-a-likes and tacked a double negative onto legislation such as this.

Swift wrote,



> Tell us what your operations bring to the betterment of huntings image and tradition? These are the things that will help you win this vote. Mudslinging doesn't help anyones cause. Also using statements from 2 years ago is a bit much. All of us say things that we regret then change our ideas for the next battle. Again it's hurting your cause.


Now you want to be the ombudsman.


----------



## DG

Swift, here are somemore scientific facts and trends,

WHAT IS CWD? Chronic Wasting Disease is a neurological disease specific to cervid species such as deer and elk. It is in the same family of disease as CJD in humans, scrapie in sheep and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or "mad cow" disease. All are Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE disease) meaning they can be passed to other animals and eventually results in sponge-like brain damage. The deer version is called CWD because it causes progressive eating dysfunctions resulting in gradual loss of weight and eventual death, usually by pneumonia.

HOW ARE THE SPONGY BRAINS FORMED? Since brain cells cannot regenerate efficiently, Spongiform texture is the result of individual brain cells being killed off, leaving open voids where the brain cells formerly resided. The individual cells are probably killed by the toxic presence of abnormal brain proteins known as "Prions" which are a diagnostic symptom of the TSE diseases. All tissue have prion protein, but only TSE victims develop excessive abnormal prion protein in their brains.

WHY IS THE PRION PROTEIN ABNORMAL? Virtually all, normal living protein material can be digested in proteinase enzymes. This is how the body cleanses itself of processed proteins for recycling or excretion. Abnormal prions apparently have a high manganese content, which seems to render proteinase digestion ineffective; hence abnormal prions cannot be dissolved via normal bodily functions resulting in toxic accumulations.

WHAT FORMS THE ABNORMAL "PRIONS"? Much controversy surrounds the cause of abnormal prion creation. While many suggest that the prions themselves are "self-replicating", this premise is in contravention with traditional biological principals whereby living cells needing RNA or DNA to identically replicate. Prions have no RNA or DNA. Alternate theories of toxic chemicals, heavy metals, nutritional deficiencies, bacteria, virus', viroids and virinos have been proposed, but NO theory has yet been proven as to the specific cause of abnormal prions.

HOW FAST DOES CWD KILL ITS VICTIMS? CWD is not very contagious unless animals are intensively exposed to the unknown pathogen. While evidence is not widely available, government research and publications indicate that the maximum natural incubation from exposure to death is 33 months +/- 2 months, or less than 3 years. Shorter durations have been documented and the earliest detectable disease has been in 4-month old artificially exposed fawn. Farmed cervid regulations require a 60-month safety factor, a margin not substantiated by collected data.

HOW IS CWD DETECTED? Clinical signs of CWD (a sickly, emaciated deer) are NOT diagnostic. Currently, TSE diseases are detected by observation of the brain vacuoles (void spaces) and by immunochemistry or ELISA tests upon brain or lymph nodes, whereby a chemical stain attaches to the abnormal prions allowing them to be detected by visual or optical methods. All tests are currently post-mortem, although several pre-mortem tests are being perfected. Only a few government-sponsored labs are allowed to do the testing.

ARE THE TESTS INFALLIBLE? NO! All test methods are somewhat subjective and are constantly subject to misinterpretation and interference. Bacteria have been known to confuse test results. False negatives are common during the early stage of disease and false positives are possible. Post-mortem sampling procedures and sample treatment after collection will potentially affect results. Human errors are always possible.

IS THERE A CWD CURE OR VACCINE? No! Since the actual cause of CWD is undetermined, there is as yet no cure or vaccine. While early stage infection might yet prove reversible, once clinical signs appear, the disease is terminal. Numerous private companies and government research efforts are being devoted to solving the CWD dilemma.

CAN CWD PERSIST IN THE ENVIRONMENT? Yes! Abundant evidence suggests that residual environmental contamination, probably via feces, urine, saliva or carcass debris, may play a more important role in disease transmission than direct animal-to-animal contact. Insects may be a factor as well.

IS THERE A RISK TO HUMANS? To date, NO EVIDENCE has been found of a human disease derived from eating or handling a CWD positive animal. However, some evidence does exist for BSE beef cows infecting an extremely minute fraction of human consumers with "new variant" CJD. All domestic cervids slaughtered for meat under government inspection must be tested negative for CWD. However, wild harvested animals are NOT required to be tested. As with any disease, precautions are advisable.

HOW DID TSE DISEASES ORIGINALLY START? Two TSE's, spontaneous human Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and sheep scrapie have been documented for many, many decades. But, most of the other TSE diseases found in mink, monkeys, cats, zoo animals, etc. have been created or manipulated by man's influence over animals.

SO WHERE DID CWD COME FROM? Observational evidence and most theories suggest that CWD, like BSE, originated from the sheep TSE disease, scrapie, which has been documented for over 400 years in Europe and about 60 years in North America. In the 1950's and 1960's, northeastern Colorado, specifically Larimer County, Colorado had a high infection rate for sheep scrapie. Close proximity of wild deer to sheep may have randomly passed the disease, or more logically the human-induced close confinement of deer and sheep undergoing artificial stress events, may have mutated and passed the disease to deer.

WHEN DID CWD FIRST APPEAR? The first cases of classic "chronic wasting" appeared in the late 1960's in captive wild deer held in interchangeable deer research facilities operated by Colorado State University (CSU) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) at Ft Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. Wild deer cases were not observed until the late 1970's and then only with in a 50-kilometers (usually within a 5-km radius) of the research facilities even though sampling occurred outside that radius.

WHAT KIND OF EXPERIMENTS WERE DONE ON DEER IN THE 1960's? Many unusual and controversial studies were performed. Fully documented research studies placed starved deer and sheep into common pens to determine stress-induced activity, time to death, or preferred food under stressed conditions. Nuclear radiation studies had deer and sheep injected with, fed or exposed to contaminated radioactive materials to determine death dosages and behavioral aberrations. Eventually cross-species (non TSE) disease transmission studies were also attempted. The US Fish and Wildlife Service conducted lethal dosage pesticide studies at it's tiny confined Denver Federal Center deer pens located in nearby Lakewood, Colorado.

CHRONOLOGICALLY, WHERE in the world HAS CWD BEEN FOUND?
1960's CSU and CDOW Research facilities at Ft Collins were contaminated, and possibility the USFW facilities at Lakewood CO.

1970's: The Wyoming Sybille Wildlife Research facility, a private zoo and the Toronto, Canada Zoo all of which had received animals from the Colorado research facilities. Exposed animals were sent to at least four other Colorado deer research pens at Meeker, Kremmling, USFS Fraser and the USFW Federal Center pens. Additionally, animals were shipped to facilities and zoos around the continent. Numerous positive wild animals were found in and around the Ft Collins area.

1980's to mid 1990's: CWD was found in Rocky Mountain National Park, and in wild animals of SE Wyoming. The "endemic area" was spreading predominately north and east. Until 1991, deliberate and knowingly, the CDOW moved exposed research animals to numerous locales around Colorado including fawning pens at Pawnee Grasslands and to nutrition research pens in far NW Colorado near the Utah border. CWD research tissue samples sent all over the country, including the University of Wisconsin at Madison. SEE inset MAP below.

1996-98: CWD was found on a Saskatchewan, Canada game farm, which had in turn, infected several dozen other SK farms over several years. The SK source farm was found to have had elk from a South Dakota farm, which had received deer from the Denver Zoo, which in turn, had gotten deer from the CDOW. Domestic cases were found on a farm in Montana and one in Oklahoma, which traced a history of animals from the South Dakota source farm.

1999-2000: Domestic cases were found in NE Colorado, in the wild and in domestic elk of Nebraska and in South Dakota. The endemic area was expanding. A few wild CWD cases in SK, Canada. A single case was found in South Korea from animals imported from SK, Canada.

2001: A large outbreak emanating from a NE Colorado elk farm but was caught by a state-mandated domestic cervid CWD surveillance program with several Colorado farm animals and one Kansas animal positive. The NE Colorado source herd was in the endemic area near the CDOW's Pawnee Grassland fawning pens and had animals from two elk farms near Ft. Collins.

2002: Implementation of the USDA CWD program. Rapid depopulation completed upon the exposed domestic cervid herds. Much increased wild surveillance. Numerous positive Wisconsin wild animals found west of Madison WI. and south into Northern Illinois. CWD found widely dispersed in Western Colorado wild animals, but clustered near the above-mentioned CDOW research facilities. Alberta had one CWD elk on a farm, which had years ago received animals from the South Dakota source farm. Positive animals found in Utah near the border with Colorado. Several CWD animals found in Southern New Mexico. Two infected deer farms in Southern Wisconsin, but were not the source of wild CWD.

2003: More wild positives in WI, UT, NM, SD WY and CO. More domestic positives found in WI and MN. Greatly increased lab testing abilities and surveillance programs were instigated all around the continent. Two more CWD cases in Alberta domestic whitetail deer and then UNRELATED BSE in a beef cow closed the Canada ruminant trade.

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE COLORADO FARM CWD CASES? In 1997 Colorado elk farmers voluntarily began disease testing for CWD. A mandatory program was installed and discovered the first domestic CWD case in 1999, with many more in late 2001. By early 2002, ALL Colorado domestic cases and their herd mates, as well as most farms in the endemic wild CWD area, (total ~4,500 head) were depopulated with 56 positive cases, 48 from the NE Colorado original source ranch and six separate cases within the NE Colorado endemic area presumed to have been transmitted from the wild. NO additional cases since early 2002.

WHAT CONTROLS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON COLORADO ELK FARMS? Despite a mandatory and SUCESSFULL CWD surveillance program on all farm cervid deaths, in 2002 the Colorado Dept of Agriculture (CDOA) and the CDOW, subjected to undue pressure from Governor Owens and the press, executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA unilaterally gave away the exclusive and proper legislative authority of the CDOA to regulate farmed cervids as Alternative Livestock. Onerous new rules dictated by the CDOW restricted farm cervid import, export, fencing, testing, wild animal contact, intra-state movement, etc. with review and veto authority from the CDOW. These rules were imposed upon elk farms, which were in the midst of already successfully eradicating CWD from their herds with the help of the CDOA by mid-2002. NO controls were demanded or imposed upon wild animal movements, disease sources, or government sponsored and/or operated research activities.

HOW DID CWD SPREAD AROUND COLORADO? While many insinuate that game farms have spread CWD, NO case of wild CWD has been tracked back to a domestic elk farm and ALL exposed farms have been depopulated. To the contrary, at least six domestic cases, as well as, the initial NE Colorado source farm must have obtained the disease from the wild. Wild animal migrations have moved the disease in all directions from Larimer County and government research animal movements have jumped CWD all across Western Colorado.

SO WHO IS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CWD? While the evidence of the origin of CWD back in the 1960's is somewhat cloudy, the movement of the disease since then is not at all ambiguous. While CSU has not made any specific animal information available, Colorado Open Records requests and the CDOW have published a portion of their research activities, which acknowledged exposed research animals co-mingled with wild study subjects. Captive wild deer held in contaminated pens escaped, were returned to the wild, or when dead, were disposed of in an unknown fashion. Further, exposed animals were given or sold to zoos, universities and private individuals. Diseased tissue samples were sent around the continent. In 1996, CDOW internal documents (See inset memo above) admitted the potential liability of the CDOW for the eventual and possible introduction of CWD into domestic elk herds. While some mitigation steps were then taken in 1997, such as providing double fence materials, by 1999 the disease had entered the Colorado domestic farms, but was fortunately caught by mandatory industry surveillance and was eliminated by 2002.

CAN CWD BE CONTROLLED? Predominately, CWD HAS BEEN controlled in domestic cervids that are not exposed to infected wild animals. Recent discussions at the United States Animal Health Association Annual Meetings in October included the following key points:

Route of transmission is horizontal and other, and is contagious; 
Infectivity is high in mule deer and lower in elk; 
Incidence higher in males and lower in females, 
Primarily a risk to wildlife populations, rather than livestock or human populations; 
Factors that contribute include: scrapie in sheep and wildlife movements;

Comments attributed to Dr. Mike Miller of the CDOW suggested that 'There is no apparent and practical means of eliminating the disease from the wildlife in Colorado.' Here in Colorado wild CWD movement remains unabated to date.

SO IF CWD IS PREDOMINATELY AN UNCONTROLLED WILD CERVID DISEASE, WHY ARE CERVIDS FARMERS SUBJECTED TO CONTINUING ONEROUS REGULATIONS? Quite simply, an agenda to defer attention and responsibility away from the ongoing wild problem. The Zero CWD risk currently demanded of farmers via excessive regulations, regulations not based upon scientific fact, will NOT have a significant impact upon the steady progress of the wild disease. Onerous rules serve only to eliminate farmers from a private business that "competes" with government agencies; agencies which desire to control cervid species, exclusively. To date, scores of farmers have been put out of business with virtually NO impact on the rampant progression of wild disease. "FACTS from the Farm" suggests that corrective, scientifically justified regulations and procedures are now necessary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Author: Mr. Forrest, a graduate of the Montana School of Mines, has over 30 years of investigative earth science background, directs and compiles CWD research for the Foundation and was formerly a full time elk farmer depopulated by CWD concerns. His detailed, factual research and writings on CWD may be viewed at www.stopcwd.org. The information presented above is excerpted from extensive published and unpublished literature, all of which are available for review. Inquires welcome (719-657-0942), [email protected].


----------



## swift

> SO IF CWD IS PREDOMINATELY AN UNCONTROLLED WILD CERVID DISEASE, WHY ARE CERVIDS FARMERS SUBJECTED TO CONTINUING ONEROUS REGULATIONS? Quite simply, an agenda to defer attention and responsibility away from the ongoing wild problem. The Zero CWD risk currently demanded of farmers via excessive regulations, regulations not based upon scientific fact, will NOT have a significant impact upon the steady progress of the wild disease. Onerous rules serve only to eliminate farmers from a private business that "competes" with government agencies; agencies which desire to control cervid species, exclusively. To date, scores of farmers have been put out of business with virtually NO impact on the rampant progression of wild disease. "FACTS from the Farm" suggests that corrective, scientifically justified regulations and procedures are now necessary.


("AN UNCONTROLLED WILD CERVID DISEASE") He looses all credibility with this one statement. He should have left out the last paragraph he was doing pretty well up to then....

An article written by a former full time elk farmer is hardly unbiased science. His bias screams throughout that article. And for the record there is no scientific research stated in that article. It is just one person that claims to be an expert (and he may well be) on CWD rewriting the Wyoming Game and Fish ariticle with a biased slant. The common denominator in both articles is Captive animals were infected 18 years earlier than any wild animals. Another common denominator is the vast majority of cervids with cwd have been captive. That in itself shows it is NOT a WILD cervid disease" It is a cervid disease.

CJD is an awful disease that I have had the opportunity to care for. 


> In the last four years, 11 cases of a human form of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, have been diagnosed in rural western Kentucky, said Dr. Erick Weisman, clinical director of the Neurobehavioral Institute in Hartford, Ky., where the patients were treated. "All of them were squirrel-brain eaters," Weisman said. Of the 11 patients, at least six have died.


Their are about 200 new cases of CJD every year.


----------



## barebackjack

swift said:


> The common denominator in both articles is Captive animals were infected 18 years earlier than any wild animals.


Why do you suppose that is?



> Another common denominator is the vast majority of cervids with cwd have been captive.


Why do you suppose this is?

The logical answer is that captive animals, being under closer human scrutiny, tested, observed, and regulated are much more likely to be successfully diagnosed than their wild counterparts.

It is very likely that wild animals were infected first, because there are more of them. Its also very likely that more wild animals contract and succumb to CWD every year than their captive counterparts. We just don't know about it. We cant observe them like the captive animals, and we cant test them easily and readily like the captive ones.


----------



## gst

Swift, there is far more known about vCJD than there is BSE. There is far more known about BSE and scrappies than there is CWD. Why? It is quite simple. As bbj mentions the "controled enviroment" allows for a more conclusive assumption to be made. I say assumption, becasue even with vCJD there is still many variables that science simply does not know. But even so, they have come to a conclusion on is it's apparent ability to demonstrate spontaneously. As mentioned there is becoming more and more scientific assumption in the bovine area that BSE can and does demonstrate spontaneously as well. So one could responsibly make the assumption this could happen in the wild in regards to CWD as well. This scientific study makes that assumption. I merely pointed out what this study states is in direct conflict what Dicks statement was according to what was given as the best scince in regards to CWD. I am not as scientifically versed or apparently confident as is Dick to make such absolute statements. longshot informed me of this when I "mispoke" and used the word "can" instead of "may" in this discussion earlier. The scientific community itself readily admits there is very little factually known about these TSE's yet someone like Dick insinuates there is to further his agenda. As a physician would you make the statement one of these TSE's can not demonstrate spontaneously or not? yes or no?

As to answering your question, I believe posting a link to a scientific document including the information you mentioned shows I was merely providing information that suggested something other than what Dick claimed as fact so people could make their own informed conclusion. No lying, no insinuations, simply providing a scientific study that contradicted Dicks statement.

As to your question wether there is any proof HSUS was indeed contacted, from a simple common sense aspect, Rodgers refusal to individually and personally deny doing so should be answer enough. There is someone on this site who was a sponsor in this first attempt, who is no longer one that may be able provide you what you seem not able to conclude on your own.

As to your claim there is nothing wrong with working with HSUS as a hunter. It was mentioned earlier polling hunters in regards to what they believed about HF? What would you guess the positive response would happen to be if you asked 100 hunters if they believed working with an antihunting group whose goal is to end all forms of hunting to form state law should be allowed. Apparently as you stated you see no problem with doing this. :eyeroll: As I mentioned before if this is how you believe we protect hunting by working with these groups, you have lost any credibility you may have had with that one statement.

Good luck down supporting the greedy commercialization of sport fishing in Costa Rica. :wink:


----------



## DG

Swift on page two you said,



> Also 33 states have banned internet hunting my math says 17+ US territories have not. Dicks point could be geared to those 17.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/ ... 4891.shtml



> Remember all that outrage a couple years ago over "Internet hunting"? You know, those Web sites where you could log on, peer into the leafy wilderness through live web cam and, when an unsuspecting buck crossed the screen, click a mouse to drop him?
> 
> It turns out there weren't really Web "sites," the Wall Street Journal reports. More like one site, which was shut down almost soon as it opened. And, despite the fact that 33 states have outlawed the Internet hunting since 2005 and a bill to ban it nationally has been introduced into Congress, "nobody actually hunts over the Internet."
> 
> "Internet hunting would be wrong," said a Delaware representative who opposed his state's ban. "But there's a lot that would be wrong, if it were happening."


I totally got what LT conveyed in those three posts on page two. I'm going to go back and retreive two.

Dick Monson said this measure will,



> 3. Eliminate computer-controlled remotely fired weapons for canned shooting, (the infamous Texas-style computer shooting at game ranches).


and Barnes County Wildlife Federation Coordinator Perry Kapaun in the Valley City Times said,



> Their animals get out and they don't keep records."
> Kapaun, not citing North Dakota specifically, says in some canned hunts, animals are drugged to make it easier for the participants
> "They're even doing now, in Texas, where you, a rich guy sitting in New York, can shoot an elk from your computer.


Swift, Internet hunting doesn't exist it never did. What part don't you get? This is a NEGATIVE ATTACK AD.

Permit to me simplify it for you. If the city of Bismarck wants to pass an ordinance to ban young boys from hiding in old car bodies and shooting privately owned cats and dogs any where near the city limits thats one thing. But if the propondents of the regulation tell the people of Bismarck that this law will also ban these young men from internet hunting of cats and dogs then that is a lie to sway public opinion. You can piggy back that internet hunting double negative unto about any legislation, regulation or ordinance and dupe some people.

I have heard there are some states that have passed legislation to double ban internet hunting. It may have been piggybacked unto some other legislation, measure or some other Dick Monson look-a-like just like this one.


----------



## gst

Swift one other thing to ponder as you are fishing in Costa Rica. The fact this law will not prevent these captive operations from existing for other purposes makes the insinuation this measure prevents or protects from this disease one more lie any way and any disease discussion a moot point. Besides as we all know now anyway this really never was about CWD. :wink:


----------



## RogerK

GST, the answer to your questions: The Fair Chase initiative is not about pheasants or people raising pheasants.

Fair Chase is not about people raising deer and elk for meat.

Fair Chase is about big game species or exotic mammals penned in an escape proof pasture and offered up as targets to well heeled clients in a sham "hunt". Shooting Gallery Operators and supporters have no valid arguments for what they do so they divert the conversation away from the fence and the shooting inside the fence, to something like pheasants.

Shooting Gallery Operators avoid or obfuscate how many acres they have fenced. Dwight, in your case, two hundred (200) acres. Your wife told me how happy your elk are inside your 200 acre pasture right before the Sheriff's Deputies arrived to calm her down.

On June 21, 2008, a Shooting Gallery Operator wrote a letter to the editor of the Grand Forks Herald that had this gem: "If you asked my hunters how many of them knew where the fence was when they shot their elk, you'd find out that almost all of them did not feel fenced in."

How exactly how did he get his hunters inside the fence so they didn't know they were in a fence?

Parachute them in?

Blindfold them so they wouldn't see the gate to the fence as he drove them into the Kill Pasture?

His elk know exactly where the fence is.

How about the elk crammed into the feed lot on this web page:

http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/urban_elk.html

Think any of them are wild and will offer up a Fair Chase hunt inside a fence, which a leading HF operator claimed on statewide radio a few weeks ago. He actually said that Shooting Galleries do fair chase inside the fence. Prod you guys a little, and you make our argument for us. When the Operator said the fence wasn't the issue, the host said the fence is the issue.

An operator that raises shooter bucks boasts of keeping, "60 huge northern whitetail deer in a 20 acre natural environment."

A Natural Environment? Sorry guys, most North Dakotans think of 20 acres as a feed lot, not a natural environment.

Why do I call the enclosures pastures and pens? Right out of your mouths or off your web sites.

One Shooting Gallery Operator called the eighty (80) acre high fence enclosure where the client did the killing, "The Kill Pasture". I have that in writing on a report submitted to the state. The operator cut the sale bull out of the main herd in a five (5) acre pen and put the animal in the eighty (80) acre Kill Pasture (pen) the day before the client arrived.

The word pen came off a web site that sells antler enhancing supplements. Buttons on the left side of the web page linked to pictures of Wild Deer, and Penned Deer, pictures that demonstrated the effectiveness of their product. Penned Deer. Shooting Gallery Operators promote and defend their kill pastures and make the Fair Chase argument for us. The words of the industry, used to promote the industry, bite the industry on the backside. Judging from the screams from the Shooting Gallery Operators and supporters on the use of these words, the bite is deep, painful, and more than a bit awkward. That's the way it is when you try to defend the indefensible.

Somebody wrote something in a previous post about stealing the animals inside the fence from the wild. That bothered me, so I did some research from original sources. I got out my King James version of the Bible, opened it to Genesis, and found a part of the creation story that I've managed to missed over the years.

Genesis Chapter 1.1, verse 20.01, says, "And on the ninth day, God created Captive Wildlife, animals to be held in a cage, fence, enclosure, or other manmade means of confinement that limits its movement within definite boundaries ...."

On the eleventh day, God said, "It is not good to call Captive Wildlife, Captive Wildlife, for surely, captivity shall make them meek and spiritless. I shall call Captive Wildlife, Nontraditional Livestock, for surely, mankind will not confuse these creatures created by My hand, with Wildlife. The name Captive Wildlife shall make Wildlife like cattle in the field, and sheep in a fold, each in turn led to slaughter upon payment of an offering."

On the thirteenth day, God looked at his creation and said, "It is not good to name Captive Wildlife, Captive Wildlife, nor is it good to name Nontraditional Livestock, Nontraditional Livestock, for to call them Livestock demeans My Wild Creation. From this day forward, Captive Wildlife and Nontraditional Livestock, shall be Farmed Elk, for it is better for Mankind to call them by this name."

God rested and beheld His new creation, and He was sorely troubled.

The Archangel Gabriel approached the throne and said, "Lord, hear Your humble servant. Behold, in Your infinite wisdom, You created Captive Wildlife, and then You created Nontraditional Livestock, and then You created Farmed Elk. Lord, You created this miracle for the good of all mankind, yet You are troubled."

And God said, "Is it good that a few of Mankind keep these new creatures I have made out of the dust of the Earth in a fold like sheep?"

And the Archangel Gabriel said, "Lord, a few Men among Mankind prayed to their lawgivers for these new creatures and You answered their prayer.

And God said, "Is it good to make that which I created wild and free, captive and meek and spiritless, so that a few Men may serve mammon?"

Now where did I come up with that? Indirectly from a Shooting Gallery Operator.

A grizzled old timer approached me at a table and asked what Fair Chase was all about (A grizzled Old Timer is anybody 15 minutes older than I am). I explained the Fair Chase petition. He went off on me like Dwight's wife did, except I didn't have to call the Sheriff on him. It was property rights this, and property rights that, and a few rights that I didn't know existed. He eventually ran out of steam, grabbed a petition and signed. I asked him why he signed. He said a neighbor ran elk inside a high fence. He said an SOB like that comes into a piece of property and because he has a deed, thinks he's God and can do anything he wants. (He didn't use letters for SOB.)

Captive Wildlife, Nontraditional Livestock, and Farmed Elk &#8230;. "held in a cage, fence, enclosure, or other manmade means of confinement that limits its movement within definite boundaries ...." Every word from legislation.

It took the North Dakota Legislative Assembly four attempts to get around federal law and 300 years of legal precedent to allow fenced operations; 1991, SB 2221; 1993, HB 1297; 1995, SB 2505.

In 1999, HB 1337 transformed "Nontraditional Livestock" into "Farmed Elk". All this with minimum or no input from hunting groups.

As for the repeated, lame, and false HSUS connection charge: The best weapon anti-hunting organizations have in their arsenal are the Canned Shooting operations. High Fence shooting operations present the non-hunting public with an image of hunters so sloppy, so lazy, and so unmotivated by the actual experience of hunting, that they have to fence the animal in an escape proof pasture in order to find it and kill it. Side with the Shooting Gallery Operators and you side with HSUS and every radical animal rights group in the country.

I stayed off these sites since we started this petition drive. I came back and tossed out some bait with my first post to if the Shooting Gallery Operator and supporters had any new arguments. Same old arguments.

Property rights. Shot down by the Montana and federal courts after Montanans voted to outlaw Shooting Gallery Operations.

The lie that Fair Chase people lie when collecting signatures.

Think about this: With all the video capable cell phones out there, somebody would have clandestinely taped those lies and spread them all over the internet. Zip, zero, nada. Like somebody write above: Hearsay. Shooting Gallery Operators or supporters taped us too many times to count. I am sure Shooting Gallery Operators taped us when we didn't see the person doing the taping. Again, zip, zero, nada.

One argument that the Shooting Gallery Operators make is the handicapped. The Shooting Gallery Operators argue that they offer the handicapped a place to "hunt".

Before you HF operators and supports go off on me for attacking the handicapped, I offer you Dustin Carter, Ohio state high school wrestling champion: 




Nobody handicapped Dustin's opponents to make him feel good, like Shooting Gallery Operators handicap deer and elk with a fence before they offer them up as targets.

I had 100% of the handicapped that passed the Fair Chase table while I was there sign the petition. I didn't keep a count, but estimate 12 to 15. Two of them unloaded on me about the unfairness of fencing animals in and calling the kill a "hunt". Some well meaning people took another one of the handicapped signers hunting. The people taking him hunting didn't tell him it was a fenced shoot. He refused to take part when he saw the fence. One man in a wheelchair signed, then came back later and talked my ear off on the unfairness of fencing deer and elk into a Shooting Gallery Kill Pasture.

In case you think Dustin Carter is fluke, here is Kyle Maynard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xhVaoi7 ... re=related


----------



## LT

Swift said:



> Tell us what your operations bring to the betterment of huntings image and tradition? These are the things that will help you win this vote. Mudslinging doesn't help anyones cause. Also using statements from 2 years ago is a bit much. All of us say things that we regret then change our ideas for the next battle. Again it's hurting your cause.


Why is using statements from 2 years ago a bit much. Those statements were lies. They were intentional. I feel the only regret they may have is being caught. You are right, they may have changed their ideas for the next battle - just don't put anything in print, only say it one on one, that way it is my word against theirs.

Do you think a court of law would consider those statements defamation, civil libel, harassment, or just a mistake?


----------



## 58504451

Roger - Given what's planned for the elk inTNRP, If I participate would I be in the same group as the rich people who shoot an animal inside a fence?? How do you view the proposed action?


----------



## LT

Roger Stated:



> A grizzled old timer approached me at a table and asked what Fair Chase was all about (A grizzled Old Timer is anybody 15 minutes older than I am). I explained the Fair Chase petition. He went off on me like Dwight's wife did, *except I didn't have to call the Sheriff on him.* It was property rights this, and property rights that, and a few rights that I didn't know existed. He eventually ran out of steam, grabbed a petition and signed. I asked him why he signed. He said a neighbor ran elk inside a high fence. He said an SOB like that comes into a piece of property and because he has a deed, thinks he's God and can do anything he wants. (He didn't use letters for SOB.)


Thou shalt not lie Roger.


----------



## RogerK

58504451 said:


> Roger - Given what's planned for the elk inTNRP, If I participate would I be in the same group as the rich people who shoot an animal inside a fence?? How do you view the proposed action?


That is a federal issue.


----------



## RogerK

LT said:


> Roger Stated:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A grizzled old timer approached me at a table and asked what Fair Chase was all about (A grizzled Old Timer is anybody 15 minutes older than I am). I explained the Fair Chase petition. He went off on me like Dwight's wife did, *except I didn't have to call the Sheriff on him.* It was property rights this, and property rights that, and a few rights that I didn't know existed. He eventually ran out of steam, grabbed a petition and signed. I asked him why he signed. He said a neighbor ran elk inside a high fence. He said an SOB like that comes into a piece of property and because he has a deed, thinks he's God and can do anything he wants. (He didn't use letters for SOB.)
> 
> 
> 
> Thou shalt not lie Roger.
Click to expand...

And your proof is what?


----------



## RogerK

LT said:


> Swift said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us what your operations bring to the betterment of huntings image and tradition? These are the things that will help you win this vote. Mudslinging doesn't help anyones cause. Also using statements from 2 years ago is a bit much. All of us say things that we regret then change our ideas for the next battle. Again it's hurting your cause.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is using statements from 2 years ago a bit much. Those statements were lies. They were intentional. I feel the only regret they may have is being caught. You are right, they may have changed their ideas for the next battle - just don't put anything in print, only say it one on one, that way it is my word against theirs.
> 
> Do you think a court of law would consider those statements defamation, civil libel, harassment, or just a mistake?
Click to expand...

There is one way to find out.


----------



## RogerK

gst said:


> Rodger, Please explain how HF is in 'direct violation of Sec 27 of our states constitution"?
> 
> And while your at it please address the four questions asked prior. :wink:


Fair chase is the defining element of hunting. In a fair chase hunt, the animal decides how far and in what direction to escape, unhindered by a fence. Fencing an animal in precludes fair chase; the absence of fair chase precludes hunting. The perceived unfairness by the general public of shooting an animal trapped in an escape proof fence is a black mark against all hunters. Seventy-five percent of the non-hunting public approves of hunting, or at the very least, doesn't object to hunting. If the general public decides not to support hunting, there won't be any hunting. Math applied to state demographics will decide the future of hunting. There are too few hunters to make a difference in any vote, whether by initiative or by pressure on the state legislature. Radical animal rights groups are an even smaller percentage of the North Dakota population. Shooting Gallery Operations hand the radicals the publicity they need to influence the non-hunting public. The radicals can point to fenced killing and tell people that all hunters are that unmotivated, that lazy, that unwilling to actually get out there and hunt.

I repeat, there is no hunt, there can be no hunt inside a fence.


----------



## barebackjack

RogerK said:


> The radicals can point to fenced killing and tell people that all hunters are that unmotivated, that lazy, that unwilling to actually get out there and hunt.


HOW DARE they make such a broad generalization about a whole group/industry!


----------



## 58504451

Roger - Given what's planned for the elk inTNRP, If I participate would I be in the same group as the rich people who shoot an animal inside a fence?? How do you view the proposed action?

A federal issue??? Poor answer Rodger. I think it has real basis in this debate. So it's ok if it's under federal order?


----------



## gst

Rodger, so are you saying that you are picking which type of hunting is done under fair chase rules? Big game must follow these rules , but upland does not? Where does it state that Fair Chase Rules are the laws governing any or all hunting. They are simply a set of rules set forth by one org. that must be followed to enter an animal under their record keeping system.

You hardly answered my questions. Please address each of the four seperately if you would.

Your measure is worded as such and clearly states it is illegal to receive a fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal inside or released from a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape. Exactly what is being done on these game bird preserves.

You stated shooting a hand fed, pen reared elk is unethical, but shooting a hand fed, pen reared pheasant that has been planted is not? I'm not asking about people raising pheasnats to be released to supplement populations, but rather raising them to be brought by people to be shot, and calling it hunting and why that is not being adressed by your group.

You did not answer how HF violates our state constitution. HF does nothing to limit ones ability to pursue the act of hunting that has been guaranteed under the constitution here in ND. If it did the state attorney general would have had to have made a ruling on it. Stating it does so is yet another lie.

You refuse to state catagorically that you nor anyone of your fellow sponsors contacted HSUS in regards to this petition in the first attempt at this measure.

Now you choose to mock the bible and Gods word to further your agenda. :eyeroll: Apparently nothing is to much. :eyeroll:

As I've stated, everyone take a step back and read what the primary sponsor of this measure has wrote (and as importantly what he has avoided having to write) sense choosing to "enter the HF fray" and ask yourself what basis has been given to create a new law for the state of ND and how it has been presented.


----------



## LT

Let's try this one more time.

Roger by stating the following you are implying that you had to call the sheriff's dept on the wife.



> He went off on me like Dwight's wife did, except I didn't have to call the Sheriff on him.


You also stated the following in the Minot paper article that was written after the state fair:



> Roger Kaseman of Linton, an initiative proponent, said sheriff's deputies were called to settle a disturbance that occurred when a measure opponent dropped by his Commercial III booth earlier in the week. Fair management was called in after opponents disputed the right of measure proponents to use information from Web sites of game farms, he said. That's on top of two death threats that he's received, Kaseman said.


DG was the one that brought the Sheriff and fair president, but you already knew that. And even if the sheriff had not been there at the request of DG, there was not enough of a disturbance to warrant one.

DG stated:


> If anyone cares to verify what I say they can check the report with the ward county sheriffs dept. Dockett No. ND0510000 Inquiry 200-00003312


----------



## DG

LT wrote,



> You also stated the following in the Minot paper article that was written after the state fair:
> 
> Roger Kaseman of Linton, an initiative proponent, said sheriff's deputies were called to settle a disturbance that occurred when a measure opponent dropped by his Commercial III booth earlier in the week. Fair management was called in after opponents disputed the right of measure proponents to use information from Web sites of game farms, he said. That's on top of two death threats that he's received, Kaseman said.


I guess I didn't Know about this article in the Minot Paper back in 2008. So who called the Minot paper and gave them the "unfacts?"

Roger, Did you call the Minot paper trying to make some political hay out of a minor incident? Even bad publicity is better than no publicity, isn't it Roger?

Two death threats? Are you sure?


----------



## djleye

OK, I have tried to stay out of this debate because you are like the dog that chased its tail.......Never caught it. It will go on forever until it is truly put to a vote.

But come on BBJ, you can make a better argument than this.



> It is very likely that wild animals were infected first, because there are more of them. Its also very likely that more wild animals contract and succumb to CWD every year than their captive counterparts. We just don't know about it. We cant observe them like the captive animals, and we cant test them easily and readily like the captive ones.


It is very likely?????/ Where did you dig up that information???? :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## barebackjack

I know stating the obvious gets tiresome, but sometimes it is needed.


----------



## Chuck Smith

this might be my last post on this..... But again I bring up the "Ehtic" stand point that the people of this bill are using as it's poster child.

I won't go into the what I have already stated....how is killing a domesticated cow different than these domesticated elk/deer.

But this is what I will go into with ethics and how this is not the road you want to go on.

Is it ethical to use electronic calls in the spring for snow geese? Is it ethical to shoot and leave p-dogs or shoot a p-dog with .50 cal. or large caliber rifles? Is it ethical to use electronic calls for predators? How about motorized decoys for predators? How about trapping....is that ethical to use leg holds, etc? Then the baiting issue with deer? Are these things ethical? How about long range shooting (like the best of the west guys)? etc?

I think all are fine and don't care. But many have different views on these even in the hunting community. So if this HF bill gets passed on "ethics"....who is to say some other group won't go after some of the things I just brought up? *Because if this bill passes it will be the foundation for any other group or organization to go after hunting based on ethics!* Hunters are in the minority out in the world and this country. So one could argue the fact that the majority of the population (which does not hunt) and based on that a group could say hunting is unethical! This is something to think about with this bill. The more states that "ban" HF operation soon you will see some group trying to ban trapping and hunting.....using the grounds of "ethic's" Look at some states are fighting tooth and nail to keep bear hunting. It will only get worse if more legislation passes to ban anything based on ethics!

Like I have stated over and over.....if the people of this bill will would go after disease, treatment of animals, size of "kill pens", regulations and penalties for non-compliance, they way they advertise (can't use the word hunting), etc. It would hold more merit than ethics. IMHO.


----------



## Plainsman

> So if this HF bill gets passed on "ethics"....who is to say some other group won't go after some of the things I just brought up?


I am sure they will, especially if you keep bringing it up and telling the anti-hunters that there is some division here. Not good. Also, using one thing to justify another is not an argument. Baiting will be next, and I will not support a bill against baiting even though I don't do it. My goal is to preserve hunting, by getting rid of the bad things and supporting the good. 
Also, the tact that if it's legal it's ok makes no sense. That's the whole point of the initiative isn't it, to decide if it should be legal or not? That argument shows people have no idea how our system works. 
I make the above argument for both sides to consider. I would like to see some posts worth thinking about, but I have not seen it yet.


----------



## barebackjack

Well said Chuck.

The sponsors and supporters of this bill like to believe they're "policing themselves". And they naively think that it will end at this. The reality is, whether they realize it or not, that they are opening up a whole can of big fat worms with this issue. The true, hardcore, anti hunters will use them, they will use HF as a precedent and an example when they move on to more common practices, trapping, baiting, trail cameras, long range shooting, spring bear, etc etc etc.

When the anti's push for further restrictions, it wont be hard to find "hunters" that support them. There ARE "hunters' out there that would push to end trapping (there were in the 80's). There ARE "hunters" out there that would like to end snaring. There ARE "hunters" out there that would like to ban trail cameras. There ARE "hunters" out there that would like to ban long range shooting. There ARE "hunters" out there that want to ban baiting.

And when the anti's come to ban something these "hunters" do practice, there will be nobody left to help them.


----------



## Plainsman

BBJ do you think the effort to outlaw baiting will do the same thing?


----------



## gst

Plainsman, Even Rodger has stated they have had to "prove" to people that this is an issue, that these operations even exist. So why would you want someone pointing out something the public never had a concern over knowing it will cause division amongst hunters themselves? If you don't believe groups like HSUS will use this measure in and of itself as a stepping stone to legitimize their positions by showing hunters supported one of their agendas to go after the hunting you want to protect, you are allowing your judgement to be clouded. There is a cost for everything, The cost of hunters supporting antihunting groups agendas to further a persoanl issue of "bragging rights" and bruised egos is greater than the HF operations themselves being in existance in the big picture. Look what is happening in Mt. in the 10 years following thier initiative to end HF.

I do have a question for you, do you believe the sponsors of these initiated measures should tell the truth in regards questions people ask about the issues involved in these measures such as wether any sponsors of the initial FC measure contacted HSUS?


----------



## Plainsman

You always have questions gst, but I notice you don't answer many.

As to telling the truth, I think everyone should at all times. That's the reason I don't like politicians.

Do I think a bill against the HF industry will cause other bills against hunting to come up? I think other bills against hunting will come up no matter what happens. Will it encourage organizations like HSUS. I would guess it would, but it will not actually give them any advantage in getting anything passed. The average person in North Dakota has a very poor image of HSUS and PETA. If that was not true the HF people would not be trying to associate the initiative with these groups. Their name alone on a bill will see that it has no chance to pass. The argument that something worse will follow is baseless. If it were true any laws we pass that restrict hunting would endanger hunting. It's simply baiting the naive.

You may have noticed I am not a sponsor of the bill this time. I would have preferred a different tact, and different timing. They didn't ask my input and I decided I don't support things blindly without input.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> BBJ do you think the effort to outlaw baiting will do the same thing?


I think every thing is another "brick" from the wall. It further divides us, and some more than others, depletes our numbers.

Just for an example, if modern muzzleoading equipment were banned tomorrow, how many people would quit muzzleloader hunting? If bowhunting deer was banned tomorrow, how many people would just quit hunting deer? Not a lot in either case likely, but some. We cant afford to loose even some.

Its much the same as the "dominoe effect" and gun control, of which I know you subscribe to Plainsman. I for one do not see the need to own a .50 BMG, or even a AR style "assault rifle". I however will NEVER support anything that prevents law-abiding people from owning one. Just because I dont see a need, or want for one, doesnt mean others dont.

I will say, its hard for me to compare the HF issue with baiting as the animals in question with HF are livestock. No different than a beef cow.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Also, the tact that if it's legal it's ok makes no sense. That's the whole point of the initiative isn't it, to decide if it should be legal or not? That argument shows people have no idea how our system works.


I have no problem with the system at all. I am glad people are trying using our Goverment system. But I am pointing out the flaws in this bill. I did the same in the political forum with HC debate. People used the system for HC bill which is great....do I believe what was pass is good...NOPE. Did I point out the major flaws...YEP. Just like with this issue.

Plainsman.... How about some of those other things I brought up....ie spring bear, trapping, electronic calls, electronic decoys, baiting (you already touched on this one), the fur trade, etc. All of these have been hot button issues just like HF. Do you not think that if the flag of "ethic's" wins in this battle people won't use "ethics" as their groups agenda. Ethics is a slippery slope and change from one person to another.

Here is an example of ethics.... Your child does something wrong. You send them to bed with out dinner. Some will think this is an ethical way to punish bad behavior. Others will say it is a form of abuse....even though it is not because you can go with out food for 19 days before your body starts to shut down. So no physical harm will happen to the child at all. One person thinks it is ethical another does not.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> I would guess it would, but it will not actually give them any advantage in getting anything passed. The average person in North Dakota has a very poor image of HSUS and PETA. .


I agree, but I think you also need to look even further into the future.

ND has become much more "urbanized" and there is much more "liberal" tendency here than 20-30 years ago. Fast forward, 20-30 years, 40-60 years.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, if you have a question please ask it. I'll try to do a bit better than some to answer it. If there are some you feel I have not addressed please point them out and I'll do my best.

Here's one more question for you, based on your knowledge gained from being a sponsor the first time, do you believe the current sponsors are being truthful when they infer without denying it that no one from the HF initiative sponsors contacted HSUS in regards to this measure during the first attempt?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> The argument that something worse will follow is baseless. If it were true any laws we pass that restrict hunting would endanger hunting. It's simply baiting the naive.


BBJ brought up the domino effect like in gun control. In my mind it would do the same thing. Good job BBJ. :thumb:


----------



## RogerK

Mocking God and the Bible? The density of brain matter on the Shooting Gallery side is astounding.

I was mocking Shooting Gallery Operators and our Legislative Assembly for the God-like power they assumed when they created a new species called Captive Wildlife, recreated and reenacted Captive Wildlife as Nontraditional Livestock the next legislative session, and finally, reenacted Captive Wildlife and Nontraditional Livestock as Farmed Elk after two more legislative sessions. It took eight years for this new creation to come into being. In those eight years, our Legislative Assembly overturned three hundred and fifty years of law and legal precedent in the name of commercialization and greed. And I mock God and the Bible?

The people that settled this nation fled an oppressive King and an arrogant aristocracy. Under the system the settlers fled, King and the aristocracy owned all game. The common man had no right to take any game. The penalty for poaching the King's deer was hanging. The settlers and founders of this nation changed that. In the new country they were building, game belonged to the people. From the Colonial Ordinance of 1647 onward, legislation and court decisions established three principles concerning wildlife. One, the state holds wildlife in trust for all the people. Two, the state has an affirmative duty to fulfill the responsibilities created by this trust. Three, the state has no power to abrogate its trust over wildlife by transferring ownership or management of wildlife to private concerns or individuals.

Did you Shooting Gallery Operators and supporters paying attention to that last statement. I'll repeat it: The state has no power to abrogate its trust over wildlife by transferring ownership or management of wildlife to private concerns or individuals.

You Shooting Gallery Operators argue that the elk and deer inside your fences aren't wildlife but privately owned Captive Wildlife, Nontraditional Livestock, or Farmed Elk, depending on which Legislative enactment or reenactment you choose to cite.

And I mock God and the Bible?

The three principles cited above make up the Public Trust Doctrine. The Public Trust Doctrine led to the North American Model of Wildlife Management and the seven principles that drive the Model. Wildlife as a public resource. Markets for wildlife eliminated. Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife killed only for a legitimate purpose. Wildlife species considered an international resource. Science as the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. Democracy in hunting, that is, wildlife allocated to anyone in good standing, not allocated by privilege and aristocracy.

Some of you claim you heard us talk to people while taking signatures. You claim we lie. Why don't you quote the people we talked to? If you were close enough to Fair Chase booth to hear us, you were close enough to hear what people say to us about HF operations. Why is it you never report what people say about Shooting Gallery Operations when they sign the petition? Why no tape of the alleged lies? These days video capable cell phones are as common as rectums; everybody has one.

A few comments on Roberta Grosz, Dwight's wife.

Have any of you Shooting Gallery Operators or supporters ever testified in court?

Have you ever prepared a case to present in court?

From your posts here, the answer is an emphatic no. You pass on hearsay as fact on this thread, accusations that wouldn't make it past any judge to the eyes and ears of a jury.

This is the information that would go before the jury, had there been criminal charges.

I got up that morning, had breakfast then drove to the fairgrounds from my motel. I paid my entry fee and went directly to my table to prepare for the day. Except for quick bathroom breaks and an even quicker lunch break, I stayed at the Fair Chase booth until closing.

Missus Grosz got up that day, and either traveled to Minot from her home in Hazen, or she traveled to the fairground from a motel. Maybe she stayed in a camper somewhere in Minot. I don't know and don't pretend to know. I do know that she paid her fee and entered the fairgrounds. More than likely Missus Grosz made her way to the booth she and her fellow Shooting Gallery Operators staffed in another building. I don't know her exact movements. A prosecuting attorney would establish her movements in detail. At some point she walked across the fairground to the building where Fair Chase had a booth, found our booth, planted herself in front of that booth, and since I didn't know her from Eve, introduced herself to me, so that, according to what some of you "Experts" in criminal law allege, I could be nasty to her.

Do you see a problem with your story?

That day I did what I did every day throughout the fair. Missus Grosz went out of her way to get to the Fair Chase table and cause a nasty scene.

The incident isn't my word against her word, or Gary Masching's word against her word. There were people at the booths to the left, people at the booths to the right, people at the booths across the aisle, and people in the aisle that stopped to see what the commotion was about. In other words, witnesses. Some of the people that stopped to watch the commotion approached after Missus Grosz left and asked what happened. We told them that Missus Grosz and her husband owned a HF operation. They all signed the petition.

Gary or I could have signed a complaint against Missus Grosz and had her arrested, or cited. We choose not to do that. We wanted her gone so we could go about our business. The Ward County Sheriff's Deputies made that happen.

In a post above, somebody asked for the Fair Chase mission statement. We never discussed a mission statement. We aren't the sophisticated. I realized that the first page of our web site is a perfect mission statement and posted it in response to the request.

http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/

While taking signatures in the Western part of the state, somebody asked me a question about the Fair Chase constitution and bylaws. I had to laugh. We don't have a constitution or bylaws. Nobody brought it up when we organized, if organization is what you want to call what we did. A day or so later I realized that we do have a constitution and bylaws.

The Public Trust Doctrine is our constitution, the North American Model of Wildlife Management is our bylaw.

I started this post to see if the arguments that Shooting Gallery Operators and their supporters put forward have changed. No change. Still obfuscating and diverting innuendo and bearing false witness.

And I came here to gather evidence. I expected some, but harvested a bumper crop.

From the moment of birth, your deer or elk are in the realm of man, not the realm of the wild. Born in a small space to facilitate discovery, imprinted with human contact when ear tagged as required by law, the future brood doe or target buck is as far from wild as you can imagine. The fence takes your deer and elk out of the wild; that same fence takes the wild out of your deer and elk. There is no wild in high fence animals. There can't be.

The fence is articulate; the fence speaks volumes. The truth comes wrapped in wire.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> From the moment of birth, your deer or elk are in the realm of man, not the realm of the wild. Born in a small space to facilitate discovery, imprinted with human contact when ear tagged as required by law, the future brood doe or target buck is as far from wild as you can imagine. The fence takes your deer and elk out of the wild; that same fence takes the wild out of your deer and elk. There is no wild in high fence animals. There can't be.
> 
> The fence is articulate; the fence speaks volumes. The truth comes wrapped in wire.


THEN HOW ARE THESE OPERATIONS ANY DIFFERENT THAN A PIG, COW, CALF, CHICKEN, ETC THAT GETS SHOT OR KILLED IN A CONFINEMENT? HOW IS ONE ETHICAL AND ONE NOT?

Yes I meant the caps because you just called these animals tame. How is one ethical and one not?

Here is an example I have done personally. I have bought a hog from a farmer. I have walked up and shot it in the head while it was in a pen. Then took it home and butchered it. Now how is that any different than what a HF operation is doing. I paid a farmer for his livestock and killed it inside a pen.

How is this ethically superior than any HF operation? Please tell me the difference.


----------



## gst

Chuck thats easy, you are not putting the horns on the wall for "bragging rights"!!! :wink: No one is going to be "jealous" of that pig you shot. No ones egos were bruised by your plinking a porker. Now if that hog had horns, well you know.

Rodger, there were any number of ways you could have brought forth the chronology of the legislaitve assemblies actions in regards to this manner, YOU were the one that chose to do so in the manner you did invoking God and his power of creation. If not mocking, extremely poor taste and immature as is continueing to go after someones wife. However both provide a little insight.
And yet you still refuse to address any questions directly.

You mentioned it took eight years for the legislature to do whatever it is that you have a problem with. EIGHT YEARS, 4 legislative sesions, ample time for the people of ND to speak up and weigh in if they had an issue with what you are claiming is the stealing of these animals from the public. How much more opportunity do you need. I know the baiting issue has been presented 3 times over a 6 year period and voted down each time after extensive testimony and input from the public, and yet because you didn't get your way there you sought support for starting a measure in regards to that. One could draw an analogy to a small child throwing a tantrum until they are given what they want.

Chuck the analogy of how the NRA and gun owners have managed to protect ALL our gun rights because of all gun owners standing together is a very valid one and has been made before. However this NDH for FC group is so blinded by their bruised egos and jealousy over not having the bragging rights to the biggest bull or buck they don't stop to think about those kinds of comparisons and the true cost of what it is they are doing. Perhaps when they make this "top ten" list as supporters of HSUS's anti hunting initiatives like the folks in Mt. did they will be happy. Or perhaps it will take banning baiting, trail cameras, hunting predators with dogs ect....... 
http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/Initiativechart.pdf
One hell of a list for a group of "hunters" to be a part of I'd say.


----------



## gst

Heres a statement from the HSUS link. http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/Initiativechart.pdf

Quote"From 1990 to the present 32 of the measures were initiatives or referenda pushed by animal protection advocates, three measures were introduced by animal use industries, five were prohunting referenda placed on the ballot by state legislators and one was a proanimal referendum placed on the ballot by state lawmakers." end quote

If this initiative is successful HSUS will be able to update this list with the following One pro animal antihunting initiative was placed on the ballot by "hunters" themselves.

Rodger, here's a mission statement for you "NDH for FC, hunters proudly protecting their "bragging rights" by arrogantly forcing their ethical choices onto everyone else by the use of disingenous rhetoric and insinuation all the while furthering HSUS's antihunting agenda for them." :wink:

No wonder HSUS is quietly sitting back and letting NDH for FC do their work for them. It's simply one more "win"to add to their growing list. :eyeroll:


----------



## ezzie77

Any group who claims to be an outdoorsman advocate, and is using HSUS for help is like letting the fox in the hen house, bottomline.....


----------



## dakotashooter2

The biggest ethical issue is passing off HF shooting as hunting. I have to feel sorry for those able bodied persons that really believe that is a hunt. While it may not fit the legal description of poaching because the game is private property, poaching is not only taking game in a strictly non legal manner but also a manner that is normally deemed illegal because of it's ethics.

While HF operators think that they are enhancing deer genetics by selective breeding one has to wonder if they are not doing the opposite. What is a trophy? In my mind and that of other it is either an animal that is physically unique or unique in how it was pursued and harvested. Sadly I'm not sure that the first is even applicable any more. Face it, pretty much anyone with any money can buy his way to a trophy. Just like I could buy a superbowl ring. Undoubtedly the average hunter feels that his trophy, one that is much harder to come by in the natural world is diminished by being compared to a "pen raised, store bought" trophy. Ethic is not only about how we play the game but if the game and rules are fair to start with.

It's somewhat laughable that someone will make claim to taking a **** point Boone and Crocket animal taken from a high fence hunt. Particularly when B&C standards won't recognize such an animal. Maybe B&C should add a HF standard into their book. Or maybe HF operators should make their own standard. Of course then their hunters wouldn't have any way of judging them against the legitimate hunters.


----------



## ezzie77

After reading this, I have a question, whats the diff between HF and a game farm, like a pheasant farm??? Could the game farm be next???


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman, if you have a question please ask it. I'll try to do a bit better than some to answer it. If there are some you feel I have not addressed please point them out and I'll do my best.
> 
> Here's one more question for you, based on your knowledge gained from being a sponsor the first time, do you believe the current sponsors are being truthful when they infer without denying it that no one from the HF initiative sponsors contacted HSUS in regards to this measure during the first attempt?


No, I don't have a question. I simply seen someone said they were still waiting for an answer.

I would bet no one has contacted HSUS this time. Last time, I don't know. You said you were going to send me proof and you may have had good intentions, but I never received it. Last year I was going to contact HSUS and tell them to keep their nose out of our business, but I was afraid someone would accuse me of asking them for help.

BBJ, your right about I will not give an inch on firearms. There is nothing unethical about shooting a deer with a 50 caliber even though it's not legal in North Dakota right now. I have always thought you can be under-gunned, but you can't be over-gunned.

As far as the slippery slope, I look at the HF as more of a ball and chain pulling us down in the public eye. I thought you were all gung ho last year for getting rid of baiting? Is my memory goofed up ----- again? I do remember there were some fellows on here pro HF, but anti baiting. Boy did that leave me scratching my head.


----------



## 58504451

Roger - I find it strange that you won't answer the question on the proposed solution for the elk in TRNP other than to say it's a federal issue? If the basis for your proposed law is ethics you should have an easy answer. Is it then ethical if a federal official is involved?

Is baiting unethical?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Face it, pretty much anyone with any money can buy his way to a trophy. Just like I could buy a superbowl ring. Undoubtedly the average hunter feels that his trophy, one that is much harder to come by in the natural world is diminished by being compared to a "pen raised, store bought" trophy. Ethic is not only about how we play the game but if the game and rules are fair to start with.


How is a person buying an animal dealing with hunting ethics? People buy prized bulls, pigs, cattle, etc all the time.

Again someone answer my question to what I have done personally. I bought a hog from a farmer. Shot it in its pen and took it home and butchered it. How is this different than a high fenced operation. How do people think this is ethical while shooting a deer or elk in a pen is not?



> What is a trophy? In my mind and that of other it is either an animal that is physically unique or unique in how it was pursued and harvested


I agree. This is what is also getting in the way of the people for this bill are forgetting. A person who shoots one of these animals in a HF operation my think it is a trophy in their mind. They had a great time with friends or family and shot a huge animal. The "act of taking this game" is a trophy in their mind not just the animal itself.

So you are telling me that the russian boar my handicaped brother shot at a high fence operation is not a trophy to him? I guess you did not see the huge smile on his face and you don't see the huge smile on his face when he tells the story even though it was over 10 years ago. :eyeroll:

Again this is like someone shooting a 2 1/2 year old deer. Someone will ***** and complain because they did not let it grow. WHO CARES....if the person who takes the animal is happy....it is a trophy in their mind.

Like you stated the B&C does not consider HF kills in the record books.....SO WHO CARES.


----------



## Plainsman

58504451 said:


> Roger - I find it strange that you won't answer the question on the proposed solution for the elk in TRNP other than to say it's a federal issue? If the basis for your proposed law is ethics you should have an easy answer. Is it then ethical if a federal official is involved?
> 
> Is baiting unethical?


I wouldn't answer that question either since it has nothing to do with HF operations. Sure they have a fence at the TRNP, but they move in and out of that fence often, and then too the fence is how many tens of thousands of acres. If anyone has a fence that big I will not complain. The comparison is a poor example and simply trying to make a comparison that really doesn't exist.

It sure would be interesting to see some new ideas.


----------



## 58504451

So it's the size of the fence that's the issue?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman, if you have a question please ask it. I'll try to do a bit better than some to answer it. If there are some you feel I have not addressed please point them out and I'll do my best.
> 
> Here's one more question for you, based on your knowledge gained from being a sponsor the first time, do you believe the current sponsors are being truthful when they infer without denying it that no one from the HF initiative sponsors contacted HSUS in regards to this measure during the first attempt?
Click to expand...

No, I don't have a question. I simply seen someone said they were still waiting for an answer.

I would bet no one has contacted HSUS this time. Last time, I don't know. You said you were going to send me proof and you may have had good intentions, but I never received it. Last year I was going to contact HSUS and tell them to keep their nose out of our business, but I was afraid someone would accuse me of asking them for help.

Plainsman I sent you a PM please read it.


----------



## DG

Dear Mr. Kaseman,

I did not know that you read the Bible so diligently. King James version even. God created everything in seven days. Not nine. Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves.
They will be masters over all life-the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals."
If you are confused maybe you can come to my church for bible study on Wednesday nights. And by the way Missus is not a word.

Signed, Mrs. Roberta Grosz.


----------



## gst

dakotashooter2 said:


> "Undoubtedly the average hunter feels that his trophy, one that is much harder to come by in the natural world is diminished by being compared to a "pen raised, store bought" trophy. Ethic is not only about how we play the game but if the game and rules are fair to start with. "


I actually know very few hunters if any that feel their "trophy" is "diminished" because of this. Those that wish to enter their trophies into the B&C record keeping do so knowing these HF animals are not allowed. Most understand the difference and do not have such fragile egos as to have their pride bruised by this. Apparently the few that don't are sponsors and supporters of this measure.



dakotashooter2 said:


> It's somewhat laughable that someone will make claim to taking a **** point Boone and Crocket animal taken from a high fence hunt. Particularly when B&C standards won't recognize such an animal. Maybe B&C should add a HF standard into their book. Or maybe HF operators should make their own standard. Of course then their hunters wouldn't have any way of judging them against the legitimate hunters.


Perhaps if the sponsors and supporters of this measure didn't place such a high priority on B&C scores, bragging rights, jealousy and "hanging a head on the wall" they would have a better understanding that a hunt is what the individual chooses to take from it, not what someone perhaps a "legitimate hunter" says they must. Hopefully we all measure up to the standard of a "legitimate hunter" even if we use a high powered rifle with a scope and a laser range finder to shoot a deer ( "found" by using a trail camera) out of a heated elavated stand that walks out into a small food plot 100 yards away. Hopefully this "legitimate hunter doesn't miss and make a bad shot wounding the deer in the guts with his .223 and not recover it as that would surely give hunting a black eye and cause the nonhunting public to rise up and ban hunting if someone were to be sitting at a home and garden show or state fair with a cardboard full of pictures of wounded unrecovered deer. But hey what do I know, I have yet to take the "legitimate hunter" test.


----------



## RogerK

DG said:


> Dear Mr. Kaseman,
> 
> I did not know that you read the Bible so diligently. King James version even. God created everything in seven days. Not nine. Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves.
> They will be masters over all life-the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals."
> If you are confused maybe you can come to my church for bible study on Wednesday nights. And by the way Missus is not a word.
> 
> Signed, Mrs. Roberta Grosz.


Dear Mrs. Grosz:

If I offended you by using Missus, I apologize. I did not intend to offend. I fell into the habit of using either Missus, or Missis a few years ago. Contrary to what you wrote, Missus is a word with a meaning although archaic. For that reason it isn't in all dictionaries. It is a variant of Missis which means the mistress of a household, or a man's wife.

I do not write to offend. If a writing or utterance of mine does offend, the offended needs to closely examine his or her beliefs.

If my use of Pen, Penned, Pasture, Kill Pasture, Escape Proof Pasture, or Shooting Gallery offends, the offended needs to examine his or her beliefs and practices.

Over the last months of taking signatures I have learned a few things. The one thing that stands out in my mind is how Shooting Gallery Operators have to distort their business practices, sometimes in the same sentence.

A shooter buck producer that brags about keeping, &#8230; "60 huge northern whitetail deer in a 20 acre natural environment."

A 20 acre fenced lot contradicts natural environment.

Wild and wily bulls for a prospective client represented as an agricultural product to North Dakotans.

Mrs. Grosz, God didn't create everything in seven days. He created everything in six days. He rested the seventh day. I'm sure your Wednesday night Bible study will eventually make the timeframe clear to you.

The only way you can survive the Fair Chase initiative is to distort what you do inside your fences. Turning to the Bible is another distortion.

In your version of Genesis 1:26, God says, "Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life-the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals."

Master over "wild animals" fits your Shooting Gallery Operation. To get that to fit your operation, somebody had to rewrite the passage.

I prefer my King James version of Genesis 1:26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

In the original, wild animals stay wild.

As to my use of Geneses and the Creation, it's a metaphor, a figure of speech.

Note that I used odd numbered days.

The North Dakota Legislative Assembly meets in odd numbered years.

Substitute Legislative Assembly for God and my purpose is clear.

The North Dakota legislative Assembly took on God-Like power to create new species, first Captive Wildlife, then Nontraditional Livestock, and then Farmed Elk for harvest.

Harvest turning into shooting inside high fence pastures.

We intend to rectify that in November.

Sincerely,

Roger Kaseman

PS: Mister Grosz disparaged my comment that I have talked to over 10,000 people. He said he has in his possession copies of the petitions we circulates the last time. Cut mine out of the herd. My name is on the back page of every petition I circulated. Do a count. You will come up with over 6,000 signatures, all people that I talked to. I have talked to over 4,000 people this time. Way over.


----------



## barebackjack

RogerK said:


> The only way you can survive the Fair Chase initiative is to distort what you do inside your fences.


And on the flipside, the only way the Fair Chase initiative can survive, is to distort what goes on inside the fence.


----------



## DG

bbj wrote



> And on the flipside, the only way the Fair Chase initiative can survive, is to distort what goes on inside the fence.


We legally raise domestic elk for food and fiber.

Roger wrote,



> The North Dakota legislative Assembly took on God-Like power to create new species, first Captive Wildlife, then Nontraditional Livestock, and then Farmed Elk for harvest.


You and I both testified at Senate Bill 2254 to ban high fence. It first included all NTL's (including pheasants) and was later amended to include only elk and deer. It was brought forward by the wildlife society and wildlife federation. The Senators led by Sen. Joel Heitkamp had great fun teasing the six propondents. If you feel they wronged you than why not set up a website and libel, slander and defame them? You could take their pictures off the N.D. Legislative Council and write ridiculous captions under them. You could write tall stories and mock them. The nd chapter of the wildlife society and the north dakota wildlife federation could be on there as endorsements. The Senate Subcommittee Hearing voted 0-7 do not pass. The floor vote was 3-44 do not pass.

The U.S. Constitution says what it means and means what it says. The N.D. Century Code says what it means and means what it says. Words mean things. Each is defined.

On page 3 Roger wrote,



> The Public Trust Doctrine is our constitution, the North American Model of Wildlife Management is our bylaw.


The north american model of wildlife management is not law. It is an open ended document. No beginng no end. It is whatever the unelected powers that be, decide it to be to fit their agenda. The environmentalist and animal rights new approach to the Public Trust Doctrine is simply another unfortunate effort to create instability in private rights, in harmony with modern efforts to eviscerate the Eminent Domain Clause.

Domestic elk and deer are raised for food and fiber. These over-regulations and taking of options (proposed by the wildlife society and wildlife federation) is "intended" to create an atmosphere of economic euthanasia. The death of an industry. But only the elk and deer growers will feel pain.

FIFTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution]
'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'

Did you get that Roger,



> nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'


If all this must be done for the public good, than the good public has an obligation here.

You need to take this to the legislature. It is a very formal setting. What has been said on this forum would not be tolerated. 
What you, wildlife society and wildlife federation members have tried to do is turn this into the Jerry Springer Show. Part of the problem with the media is that negatives and crisis attract bigger ratings than positives. You all want it to be an issue of public opinion. Trial by media.


----------



## RogerK

The North Dakota Legislative Assembly had the chance to do the right thing. They chose to do otherwise. We are going to correct that mistake.

You are 100% right, we want High Fence to be an issue of public opinion. Dwight, what do you think democracy is all about? Why do you think the Pioneer North Dakotans that framed our state constitution wrote in the power to make law by initiated measure? Do you think they took a look at the legislative body they created and decided that body would be infallible forever, but then decided to stick initiated measures in just to tick off people like you?

Your Shooting Gallery Operation didn't come into existence via Immaculate Conception. Your operation came into existence by a vote of a legislative body. We intend to take your operation out by a vote of the people.

Not a trial by media, trial by voter.

The North American Model of Wildlife Management doesn't have the force of law. Neither does the Declaration of Independent. Look where that led. Look where the North American Model of Wildlife Management led.

Trial by voter, Dwight, trial by voter.


----------



## gst

Rodger, since you want to invoke the ideologies of the pioneer founders of our state govt and legislation, lets assume for one minute what they might be. I would guess most people would believe, one could readily assume that the people that included the initiated measure in our constitution as a form of publically created law, believed the parties involved in creating this law and presenting it to the public to vote on would do so in a factual, truthful manner as they more than likely believed law should be created based on truth and fact, rather than bruised egos, "jealousy" and "bragging rights" and insinuative rhetoric as you are basing this measure off by your own words and actions. Nor do I believe the intent was to be a "trial" as you apparently are choosing to make it by either the media or voter.

As to your quote, "Not a trial by media, but by voter." Your appearences on state radio talk shows such as the Mike McFeely show where you stated along these lines these hunters shoot these animals in the hind quarters on purpose so as to not ruin the capes for their valuble mounts. Not only are you making this a trial by media, contrary to your very own statement in the above thread, "Not a trial by media" (apparently yet another lie) you are doing so with statements that can hardly be veiwed as truthful fact, but rather inflamatory rhetoric. It appears you are indeed pursueing this "trial" in the media, and using tactics that would make the most scoundrelous lawyer proud!!! I would guess the pioneer founders of this states constitution would be sadly shaking their heads at what is happening with this initiated measure. :eyeroll:


----------



## 58504451

Roger - I was hopng you would answer some questions I had asked in order to get a better understanding our your propsal and the underlying effects. I would appreciate you answering some of the questions I asked about the TRNP elk solution and is baiting ethical. Your next step will be to convince sportsmen if the signatures are gathered. Thanks.


----------



## gst

Apparently answering questions isn't what this "trial" is about!!!!! :-?


----------



## DG

Roger wrote,



> Look where the North American Model of Wildlife Management led.


The NAWCM was written by two Canadians just a few years ago. So this johny-come-lately, the north american wildlife conservation model, is now taking credit for this wildlife come back that we enjoy?

And who are these idealists, sidewalk stewards of the enviroment and champions of the north american wildlife conservation model?

At SB 2254 in Bismarck Feb.1,2007 Senator Connie Triplet asked Shawn Mckenna, north dakota wildlife federation, in the area of property rights, what good reason can you give me to vote to take these peoples property rights away? Shawn replied, "We know this law will negatively effect some peoples livelyhoods, however when they banned prostitution it negatively effected their livelyhoods also." (stupid)

Roger, Sen. Connie Triplet is female. And now we have your attacks against my wife. (stupid) It is obvious that your side has little to no respect for women or others in general. However, you and the wildlife society and wildlife federation ARE the "ethical ones" the champions of the north americam wildlife conservation model. Let us represent you. Join today.

I saw something on fishing buddy two years ago. A post by Dick Monson. "The NAWCM is the "gold standard" of wildlife management used by wildlife managers.

What a bunch of Model Talk, promoted by Valerius Geist who grew up in communist East Germany. Funny, the East Germans are inviting our people over there to teach them about free enterprize.


----------



## RogerK

58504451 said:


> Roger - I was hopng you would answer some questions I had asked in order to get a better understanding our your propsal and the underlying effects. I would appreciate you answering some of the questions I asked about the TRNP elk solution and is baiting ethical. Your next step will be to convince sportsmen if the signatures are gathered. Thanks.


I just made an executive decision. I don't anwer questions from numbers. If you don't have the stones to identify yourself, no answers.


----------



## barebackjack

RogerK said:


> 58504451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roger - I was hopng you would answer some questions I had asked in order to get a better understanding our your propsal and the underlying effects. I would appreciate you answering some of the questions I asked about the TRNP elk solution and is baiting ethical. Your next step will be to convince sportsmen if the signatures are gathered. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> I just made an executive decision. I don't anwer questions from numbers. If you don't have the stones to identify yourself, no answers.
Click to expand...

Get over yourself Roger. You dont answer questions period.


----------



## 58504451

And why does it matter that my user name is numbers? I thought this was a talk forum??


----------



## tsodak

I would like to just say that I wish I had a vote in this one!!! I am quite sure that when this exact argument was being had a couple of years ago in Montana, the opponents said the same things about "United we stand, divided we fall!!" and "You can't legislate morality." Unfortunately for that argument, there has not been of flood to my knowledge of initiated measures to ban hunting in MT.

I live by the adage that you have every right to do on your property whatever you will as long as what you are doing does not harm anyone else. As soon as what you are doing causes harm to me, society has a responsibility to step in and at least look at the issue. I beleive that High Fence Shooting in the long term will negatively impact the right of myself and my grandchildren to pursue a way of life that I cherish very deeply. Notice that it is not a "sport" or a "recreational activity", but a way of life as intimately tied to who I am as the children I am raising. I can understand why the opponents feel the way they do, but I know they will never see mine. For that reason all I can say to the Fair Chase team is keep up the high level of courtesy and energy. Good Luck!!!


----------



## barebackjack

tsodak said:


> Unfortunately for that argument, there has not been of flood to my knowledge of initiated measures to ban hunting in MT.


Maybe not, but there is an initiated measure to ban all trapping on public ground in MT.

Pretty easy for the supporters of Initiative 160 (I-160), the Montana Trap-Free Public Land Act Initiative to draw "morale" and "ethical" parallels between trapping and "high fence hunting".


----------



## barebackjack

tsodak said:


> For that reason all I can say to the Fair Chase team is keep up the *high level of courtesy* and energy. Good Luck!!!


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

Now THATS funny!


----------



## gst

tsodak, regardless of how passionate your are about hunting, and I'd wager I'm as passionate as anyone, it is not a "way of life" unless you make your livlihood from it. It is indeed a recreational activity. No more no less.

On the flip side there are HF operators that this is their livlihood, it is not something they do with their childeren, it is how they put THEIR children thru college, provide for them. That is where the difference lies.

ANYONE that thinks these measures do not embolden groups like HSUS and give a degree of legitimacy to their agendas with the nonhunting public is fooling themselves. ESPECIALY when hunters themselves believe as swift wrote there is nothing wrong with working with these groups to accomplish these parrallel agendas. http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/Initiativechart.pdf
If this group NDHfor FC accomplishes this parallel agenda to HSUS's and is put on the list in this link, how proud will any hunter that was a part of that really be???? Explain to your kids what kind of an antihunting group HSUS is and then explain how you worked so hard to accomplish their agenda for them. And when they do come after some other form of hunting, which is inevitable, explain(justify) to your kids again why you supported their agenda at one time. There was talk of mission statements, do a little research, look up HSUS's in regardds to hunting and ask yourself why you would do anything to help them in their agendas. ANY hunter that helps a group like HSUS accomplish ANY of their agendas is foolishly selling out the rest of the hunting community. And to do so over "BRAGGING RIGHTS" as Rodger stated this is about is the ultimate slap in the face to hunters. Maybe that is why they have resorted to home and garden shows to gather their signatures.

As to Rodger answering a direct question, don't expect it anytime soon. It requires a straight forward response that he can be held accountable to. That is the last thing in this groups game plan.


----------



## 58504451

BBJ - interesting that you bring up I-160 in Montana, I would encourage everyone to do a search on the initiated measure being proposed in Montana. They use many of the seven rules of the North American Model for their ban of trapping on public land in Montana. For those of you who think that the measure passed in the legislature will guarantee forever that hunting and trapping be legal in ND should think again. Don't take my word or it - I'm just a number - check it out for yourself!


----------



## barebackjack

58504451 said:


> BBJ - interesting that you bring up I-160 in Montana, I would encourage everyone to do a search on the initiated measure being proposed in Montana. They use many of the seven rules of the North American Model for their ban of trapping on public land in Montana. For those of you who think that the measure passed in the legislature will guarantee forever that hunting and trapping be legal in ND should think again. Don't take my word or it - I'm just a number - check it out for yourself!


Scary isnt it?


----------



## RogerK

tsodak said:


> I would like to just say that I wish I had a vote in this one!!! I am quite sure that when this exact argument was being had a couple of years ago in Montana, the opponents said the same things about "United we stand, divided we fall!!" and "You can't legislate morality." Unfortunately for that argument, there has not been of flood to my knowledge of initiated measures to ban hunting in MT.
> 
> I live by the adage that you have every right to do on your property whatever you will as long as what you are doing does not harm anyone else. As soon as what you are doing causes harm to me, society has a responsibility to step in and at least look at the issue. I beleive that High Fence Shooting in the long term will negatively impact the right of myself and my grandchildren to pursue a way of life that I cherish very deeply. Notice that it is not a "sport" or a "recreational activity", but a way of life as intimately tied to who I am as the children I am raising. I can understand why the opponents feel the way they do, but I know they will never see mine. For that reason all I can say to the Fair Chase team is keep up the high level of courtesy and energy. Good Luck!!!


Thank you. Sanity at last.

Roger


----------



## RogerK

Okay, a practicle question. No spin. No lying.

Where has the HSUS succeeded in banning all hunting?


----------



## DG

What eveyone should know is that tsodak is a federal employee who works for the NRCS in SD. He attended Valerius Geists lecture in Bismarck ND back in 2005. Geist was paid by the ndctws and ndwf to speak.

Tom, Durring the question and answer session there was a big argument over disease. You asked Geist, "take CWD out of the equation, what must be done about these elk farms?" Geist replied, "They all must be shut down PERIOD." The officials jumped up said meeting over thank you all for coming. Good night.

Tom, do you have any idea how this was to be accomplished or is the fair chase committee following the ndtcws and ndwf script right now?


----------



## eliptiabeht

RogerK said:


> Okay, a practicle question. No spin. No lying.
> 
> Where has the HSUS succeeded in banning all hunting?


How long is the Mountain Lion season in your home state of California?


----------



## KurtR

tsodak said:


> I would like to just say that I wish I had a vote in this one!!! I am quite sure that when this exact argument was being had a couple of years ago in Montana, the opponents said the same things about "United we stand, divided we fall!!" and "You can't legislate morality." Unfortunately for that argument, there has not been of flood to my knowledge of initiated measures to ban hunting in MT.
> 
> I live by the adage that you have every right to do on your property whatever you will as long as what you are doing does not harm anyone else. As soon as what you are doing causes harm to me, society has a responsibility to step in and at least look at the issue. I beleive that High Fence Shooting in the long term will negatively impact the right of myself and my grandchildren to pursue a way of life that I cherish very deeply. Notice that it is not a "sport" or a "recreational activity", but a way of life as intimately tied to who I am as the children I am raising. I can understand why the opponents feel the way they do, but I know they will never see mine. For that reason all I can say to the Fair Chase team is keep up the high level of courtesy and energy. Good Luck!!!


well they have baned trail cams in mt what is next you can heat them just chiping away at our privligages every day. But it is all the tree hugging people from cali coming in there and trying to mess it all up. California seems to be a link here to all the people who think they know what is the best for every one.


----------



## gst

eliptiabeht said:


> RogerK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, a practicle question. No spin. No lying.
> 
> Where has the HSUS succeeded in banning all hunting?
> 
> 
> 
> How long is the Mountain Lion season in your home state of California?
Click to expand...

Ouch!  Rodger, if you would take a little time to answer questions asked of you perhaps others would give you the same courteousy. Here's another question for you to not answer. Where is HSUS not actively trying to end all hunting one step at a time? Answer nowhere. They have a presence in every state, and when groups of hunters are so foolish as to open the door for them, it makes their agenda that much easier. They learned a lesson in the first attempt at this. The connections that were made between NDH for FC and HSUS hurt the initiative. HSUS realized this. The sponsors of the initiative realized this. This attempt they are quietly sitting back and waiting for this group of hunters to do their job for them and get this on the ballot thru this initiated measure. Here is a link to one of these anti hunting groups game plan how to accomplish this. http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus8animall223.htm

Once these hunters get this measure on this ballot, does anyone really think HSUS will quietly sit back? They will bring their millions of donated dollars into this state to try and accomplish one more step in their agenda and create another win to put on their list http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/Initiativechart.pdf And the group NDH for FC will forever be able to point to this HSUS list and "cherish" the fact they were a part of that. That will be a story to tell your grand kids when they can no longer hunt mt. lions here in ND or SD as well! They can sort thru this ever growing list of HSUS successes to ban forms of hunting to find the legacy their grand parent left them.

And this group of hunters sees no problem with allowing the nations number one anti hunting group to have a platform in our state as long as it results in them gaining back their egos and "bragging rights" as Roger says. :eyeroll:


----------



## AdamFisk

KurtR said:


> tsodak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to just say that I wish I had a vote in this one!!! I am quite sure that when this exact argument was being had a couple of years ago in Montana, the opponents said the same things about "United we stand, divided we fall!!" and "You can't legislate morality." Unfortunately for that argument, there has not been of flood to my knowledge of initiated measures to ban hunting in MT.
> 
> I live by the adage that you have every right to do on your property whatever you will as long as what you are doing does not harm anyone else. As soon as what you are doing causes harm to me, society has a responsibility to step in and at least look at the issue. I beleive that High Fence Shooting in the long term will negatively impact the right of myself and my grandchildren to pursue a way of life that I cherish very deeply. Notice that it is not a "sport" or a "recreational activity", but a way of life as intimately tied to who I am as the children I am raising. I can understand why the opponents feel the way they do, but I know they will never see mine. For that reason all I can say to the Fair Chase team is keep up the high level of courtesy and energy. Good Luck!!!
> 
> 
> 
> well they have baned trail cams in mt what is next you can heat them just chiping away at our privligages every day. But it is all the tree hugging people from cali coming in there and trying to mess it all up. California seems to be a link here to all the people who think they know what is the best for every one.
Click to expand...

 :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:

And their arrogance on this thread is disgusting..........I don't write to offend. If you're offended, maybe you need to closely examine your attitude.

uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke:


----------



## RogerK

The question is, Where has the HSUS succeeded in banning all hunting?
Not HSUS policy.
Not the HSUS agenda.
Not what states have a HSUS presence.
Where has the HSUS succeeded in banning all hunting?


----------



## RogerK

Dwight, you just can't help putting your foot in bull doo every time you turn on your computer.

So Valerius Geist was born in Communist East Germany.

The insinuation: Geist is a communist.

And Valerius Geist speaks with a German accent, the insinuation being, what?

I am going to make sure my friends, neighbors and relatives in McIntosh know what you and your Shooting Gallery buddies think of their parents', grandparents' accents, and their great grandparents accents.

Sorry, that not quite true. Their grandparents probably didn't speak English, or spoke very limited English. Their great grandparents didn't speak English at all. At least mine didn't.

For those of you unfamiliar with McIntosh County, early census data show a 98% German ancestry, mostly Germans from Russia with a few Germans from Germany.

My ancestors fled the German Kaiser's tyranny for religious freedom on the Russian Steppe. A hundred years later the Czar tried to force my ancestors to convert to the Orthodox religion. My Great Grandparents fled to America and Dakota Territory where they could practice their religion without government interference.

My father cherished freedom. He never missed an election, and except for blizzards when nobody could get to church, he never missed a church service. He dressed in his Sunday best when he went to the small town of Venturia to vote. He understood that elections were the voice of the people, and if people gave up that voice by not paying attention to what politicians were doing or by not voting, they deserved what was coming.

Valerius Geist fled Communist tyranny for freedom. And you attack his accent.

If wildlife professionals, active and retired, individuals that dedicated their lives to the conservation of wildlife, dare support or speak in favor of the Fair Chase Initiative, you dismiss their expertise and run them down. If these individuals know so little, and the North American Model of Wildlife Management is so empty of meaning, why do we have the wildlife populations we have today? Our wildlife professionals and their predecessors, with the support of hunters, are responsible for the abundant wildlife we have today. Wildlife professionals got us here using their expertise. The North American Model is the cumulative result of their research and the application of that research; a creed a hundred years or more in the development summarized in seven points, like the Apostle's creed or the Nicene Creed summarize Christian belief.

Dwight, your constant and incessant attacks on wildlife professionals like Valerius Geist, Mike McEnroe and others, pegs you as radically anti-wildlife. You can't be for wildlife and at the same time dismiss the people that brought us to this point. In your narrow world, the professionals that did the research and management that grew wildlife from near extinction to what we have today, are persona non grata. That stand is radically anti-wildlife no matter how you spin it. Imaging the gall of you preaching wildlife based on having elk inside a 200 acre escape proof pasture.

Fencing elk inside a small pasture for a sham "hunt" shows you to be radically anti-hunting.

In your narrow world, distortion trumps free speech and the right to petition government for a redress of grievances, and more important, the right to think and vote freely based on facts. Your incessant attacks on wildlife professionals shows that you don't want North Dakotans to consider facts; you want voters to take your distorted view of your Shooting Gallery Operation into the voting booth, a view so distorted that shooting a fenced elk is a "hunt".

Like taking a rifle to a zoo, is how one lady put it as she signed the Fair Chase petition.


----------



## barebackjack

RogerK said:


> The question is, Where has the HSUS succeeded in banning all hunting?
> Not HSUS policy.
> Not the HSUS agenda.
> Not what states have a HSUS presence.
> Where has the HSUS succeeded in banning all hunting?


Nice to see you FINALLY defending your ally Roger.


----------



## DG

The template is right here.

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus8animall223.htm



> The initiative process also creates an opportunity for animal advocates, ethical hunters, and wildlife biologists to work together to eliminate inhumane, unethical, and biologically harmful canned hunt operations. In Montana, hunters were the driving force behind a 2000 initiative that banned game ranches and canned hunt operations.61 Though many individuals view Montana as a pro-hunting state, ethical hunters, animal rights activists, and wildlife biologists, built an effective coalition. While it is a significant tool for animal advocates, the initiative process should be a last resort because it is time consuming, expensive, and requires extensive organizing and citizen participation.62


Mike McEnroe has his coalition.

animal advocates (HSUS)=emotion

ethical hunters (Kaseman and his Krusaders)=elitists hunters

wildlife biologists (federal wildlife biologists)=Where is the science?

Roger, Could you give us a play-by-play how you are following the script?


----------



## gst

barebackjack said:


> RogerK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question is, Where has the HSUS succeeded in banning all hunting?
> Not HSUS policy.
> Not the HSUS agenda.
> Not what states have a HSUS presence.
> Where has the HSUS succeeded in banning all hunting?
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to see you FINALLY defending your ally Roger.
Click to expand...

Earlier he was concerned that their rights weren't being protected as well!! And he has yet to deny communicating with them.

Rodger for most of us we do not want to wait until HSUS has banned ALL hunting, we are concerned when they ban ANY hunting. I would guess there are folks that liked to hunt mt lions in your home state of california, did you defend their right to do so against this HSUS supported ban at that time as "passionately" as you are pursueing this HSUS agenda here in ND??

In regards to your's and others German ancestors, what do you think their response would have been if after fleeing the Kaiser to come here and start a new life in the freedoms they associated America with and working hard to settle their lands and earn title to them , an eliteist group of people told them you can no longer raise a particualr kind of domestic animal or exercise the rights you earned by your hard work and sacrafices on your own property?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Where has the HSUS succeeded in banning all hunting?


I will answer this. NOWHERE is hunting banned. But there are forms of hunting banned.....ie using dogs for certain activities, trapping on the list in some states or where you can trap, spring seasons for bears, etc. Like others mentioned...they are taking it one at a time.



> 58504451 wrote:Roger - I was hopng you would answer some questions I had asked in order to get a better understanding our your propsal and the underlying effects. I would appreciate you answering some of the questions I asked about the TRNP elk solution and is baiting ethical. Your next step will be to convince sportsmen if the signatures are gathered. Thanks.
> 
> I just made an executive decision. I don't answer questions from numbers. If you don't have the stones to identify yourself, no answers.


You have not answered my question about what I have done and I am not a number. I am totally identified.... So I will ask the question again.

I bought a hog from a farmer. Went to his farm. Walked into the hog pen. Shot it in the head. Took it home and butchered it. How is this ethically fine while shooting a deer or elk in a pen is not? Money was exchanged and the animal was dispatched in a pen. How is one in your eyes ethical and one is not?



> At SB 2254 in Bismarck Feb.1,2007 Senator Connie Triplet asked Shawn Mckenna, north dakota wildlife federation, in the area of property rights, what good reason can you give me to vote to take these peoples property rights away? Shawn replied, "We know this law will negatively effect some peoples livelyhoods, however when they banned prostitution it negatively effected their livelyhoods also."


I love how people bring up prostitution. Do you know why prostitution was outlawed in most states. The main reason was spread of disease. It was not 100% based on ethics or morals. It was the disease factor and the spread and cost of regulating the spread of disease. The other aspect was the treatment of women. Women were getting abused. So safety was another issues. NOT JUST ETHICS.


----------



## Plainsman

> wildlife biologists (federal wildlife biologists)=Where is the science?


DG since deer and elk do not migrate they fall under the jurisdiction of the state. Federal biologist work on habitat and migratory wildlife. If federal biologists give public opinion it's based on state published data. 
I have not read the current initiative, but whatever it is it's based on personal standards and not science. I do have scientific opinions on this, but that's not what the initiative is based on. If this is an ethical standard there is no need for science unless part of your belief is based on disease. I would guess for some people it is based on disease, and for others it'strictly personal opinion. 
I have never met many of the people who are introducing this measure, but I have met Valerius Geist. I only spoke with him for moments, but I have heard him speak a couple of times. The guy does not like the European model for wildlife management. In his speeches his major point is how much better wildlife management is in North America where common people and not just the rich can partake of natures bounty. He has the highest respect for wildlife management here on this content, and trying to paint him as an East German Communist is way out of line.
DG, I understand that your trying to protect you income, but false information like your portrayal of Valeries Geist does you little good, and perhaps damages your credibility. 
I sure would like to see some posts based on things other than character assassination and disinformation, and I hold both sides to that standard.


----------



## LT

Roger Stated:


> In your narrow world, distortion trumps free speech and the right to petition government for a redress of grievances, and more important, *the right to think and vote freely based on facts.*. Your incessant attacks on wildlife professionals shows that *you don't want North Dakotans to consider facts*; you want voters to take your distorted view of your Shooting Gallery Operation into the voting booth, a view so distorted that shooting a fenced elk is a "hunt".


And your presenting facts, right Roger. :shake:

By the way, I think GROSZ is German.


----------



## LT

Thank you for the following link GST: http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus8animall223.htm



> The initiative process also creates an opportunity for animal advocates, ethical hunters, and wildlife biologists to work together to eliminate inhumane, unethical, and biologically harmful canned hunt operations.
> 
> The most effective language for rules, statutes, or initiatives would include a ban on owning exotic animals; it would prevent the killing or wounding of any animal tied, staked, or confined in any enclosure, despite the enclosure's size; and it would prohibit paying anyone, other than states in the form of hunting licenses, for the opportunity to hunt.


Since day one, I have been harping on the wording of this measure. I believed it was all scripted and they were following a template. The above article just proved it to me. I never thought a "grassroots organization" came up with any of it. This is coming from the top!


----------



## DG

Plainsman wrote,



> but I have met Valerius Geist. I only spoke with him for moments, but I have heard him speak a couple of times. The guy does not like the European model for wildlife management. In his speeches his major point is how much better wildlife management is in North America where common people and not just the rich can partake of natures bounty.


Well I don't suppose he liked the East German model much. All wildlife was owned by the state. All natural resources were owned by the state. The water the forest the rocks the dirt. It was to be a working mans paradise. No guns no hunting.

Plainsman wrote,



> I sure would like to see some posts based on things other than character assassination and disinformation, and I hold both sides to that standard.


Would it be more fun for you to talk about the red-herring issues embedded by the ndctws and ndwf? 
It's not hunting
disease
genetic pollution
ethics
it is raising the "ire" of HSUS
how big should the size of the fence be?


----------



## RogerK

Operators like Dwight, pen deer and elk inside an escape proof pasture, bring in people from out of state to shoot them, and pass that shooting inside the pasture off as hunting. All fair chase arguments being with those facts. You may not like the words or the presentation, but you can't dispute that is what happens inside the fence. That is impossible to defend. So the Shooting Gallery Operators attack a man's origin, his accent, or his residence, none of which shed any light on the issue but does shed glaring light on the Shooting Gallery Operators that make those specious arguments.


----------



## gst

Rodger, please go back and read the very first post you made in starting this conversation.

Plainsman, There are a number of us that would like to hear more than the character assasination and tiresome rhetoric that Roger started this thread with. That is why I asked 4 simple questions at the start of this thread that Roger has chosen not to answer. At this point I am left to conclude the reason he is choosing not to answer the questions some have asked is he knows the answers if presented honestly will not put this measure or why and how it is being pursued in a favorable light. And that once commited in print, he would be held accountable for these answers no one is getting to their questions.

Myself, I believe law should be based of truthful fact, that is why I have been persistant in this issue. That and as a cattleman involved in state and national orgs., we have witnessed firsthand what lengths these groups, particularily HSUS will go to to accomplish their agendas. And we believe this measure may very well open the door to them furthering their agendas not only in regards to hunting but animal ag as well. Because of how this measure is written, without a much broader interpretation of this law in the judicial arena, it will NOT do what the proponents are claiming it will. And therein is where the risk lies. One judge making a broader interpretation than what a law states including a much wider scope opening the door , and setting presedence for these anti hunting, anti animal ag groups to move these agendas forward.


----------



## Plainsman

> And we believe this measure may very well open the door to them furthering their agendas not only in regards to hunting but animal ag as well.


Don't give the animal rights extremists to much credit. I don't think they need any door opened they will go after you guys with ag animals anyway. Just like they went after the production of estrogen with horses. I would be willing to bet that every person on this site would come to your aid should they attack the cattle industry etc. The most efficient and best way environmentally to harvest production from rocky, highly erodible land unsuited for crop production, is through grazing. Grazing can be good or bad for the environment dependent upon the grazing pressure. Nothing is worse for habitat than total non use.

Sorry, that was sort of off subject, but I wanted you to know where I stood on that issue.


----------



## Plainsman

I just recieved some information about the NWF and thought I would pass it along.



> The NWF had a resolution last year supporting trapping that they have defended vigorously against HSUS . Second, what follows is the original 2007 resolution of national wildlife federation on the public trust and north american model. All state affiliates including NDWF subscribed to and approved the resolution. Publicly available if you need a link.
> 
> Name Public Trust Doctrine and North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation
> Date Apr 24, 2007
> Description
> 
> Number: 2007-17
> 
> WHEREAS, the Public Trust Doctrine is the keystone component of fish and wildlife conservation in the United States; and
> 
> WHEREAS, the Public Trust Doctrine mandates that fish and wildlife resources are held in trust by the government(s) for the benefit of the present and future generations of all citizens; and
> 
> WHEREAS, the Public Trust Doctrine is well-established in contemporary common law and was first addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1800s, Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. 367 (1842), and Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892), where the Court explained that states hold natural resources in trust for the people and cannot alienate the trust; and
> 
> WHEREAS, it is through the Public Trust Doctrine that fish and wildlife are managed by governmental fish and wildlife agencies with professional fish and wildlife managers ascribing to the North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation; and
> 
> WHEREAS, the public must be made aware of the Public Trust, and it must be enforceable against the government, and it must be adaptive to contemporary concerns; and
> 
> WHEREAS, the Public Trust Doctrine protects fish and wildlife so that they may be enjoyed by all citizens for bird-watching, hiking, camping, hunting, trapping, fishing and other outdoor wildlife-associated experiences;
> 
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the National Wildlife Federation, at its annual meeting assembled March 30-31, 2007, in Washington, D.C., fully supports the Public Trust Doctrine wherein fish and wildlife are held in trust by the government for the benefit of all citizens now and in the future;


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## DG

Plainsman wrote,



> The NWF had a resolution last year supporting trapping that they have defended vigorously against HSUS . Second, what follows is the original 2007 resolution of national wildlife federation on the public trust and north american model. All state affiliates including NDWF subscribed to and approved the resolution. Publicly available if you need a link.


This is from the Montana anti-trapping initiative,



> Trapping does not honor the hunters' ethical code of 'Fair Chase,' or the time-honored principles of quick and efficient kill," Provow continued. "Tens of thousands of untended, unmonitored traps on public lands lure wild and domestic animals with bait. For every wild furbearer killed, many more non-targeted wild and domestic animals are killed and discarded, in violation of hunting and outdoors ethics," Provow said.


"Fair Chase"

Plainsman, if it works for you it works for them.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> I would be willing to bet that every person on this site would come to your aid should they attack the cattle industry etc. The most efficient and best way environmentally to harvest production from rocky, highly erodible land unsuited for crop production, is through grazing. Grazing can be good or bad for the environment dependent upon the grazing pressure. Nothing is worse for habitat than total non use.


http://stewards.us/hage_v_us/hage_v_us-timeline.htm

_David Grider sends a copy of the February 13, 1991 letter canceling Hage's livestock grazing permit to Roy Elicker, attorney for the National Wildlife Federation.

March 10 1991: Elicker Speaks at Law Conference

Roy Elicker explains the National Wildlife Federation's policy on livestock grazing to eliminate the livestock industry on the federal lands. In this seminar he teaches participants how they can help accomplish this. Excerpts from this lecture follow:

"What everyone likes is the Big Victory. You load them cattle trucks for the last time and they go driving off into the sunset and they never come back.

But you can win a lot more victories that that ultimate one, you can win a lot more victories by making him (the rancher) pay for what he does out there and by making it so expensive in his operation and making so many changes for him to continue to run his cattle on the public lands that he goes broke, he can't do it, he has to come up with other ways to be a rancher.

When you get right down to it, the boots and the hat, boy for them guys, it's a way of life.

The ultimate picture is of course, the last cattle truck driving off into the sunset, but that's not how you win.

How you win is one at a time, one at a time, he goes out of business, he dies, you wait him out, and you win." - Roy Elicker _


----------



## gst

Plainsman, It is not about wether any on this site will come to the aid of the animal ag industry when a group such as HSUS comes after them, it is about groups making choices that make it easier for them to do so. This measure in how it is so poorly worded does just that. It opens the door a bit wider.

I doubt anyone disputes that the "wild" animals of this country should be held in this public trust. But the govt or it's entities must have the ablity to mange these "wild" populations to ensure they are avalible for this public trust. At times thru out history the govt "modified" this public trust because of concerns for the species, wether from a survival or research standing, ect...., and that is where these now captive animals originated and descended from. This was the topic discussed in another thread to great lengths. So there really is no way you can effectively tie these HF animals to what people claim is protected under the Public Trust doctrine, "wild" animals. Wether you agree 100 years later with what was done or why at the time or not, it falls under the old saying once the horse is out of the barn it does no good to lay blame on who left the door open or why. You simply can not jold these HF operations responsible for what was done a century ago. While some argue this point, these anti groups are using the courts and this Public Trust Doctrine to manipulate how these govt agencies are managing certain species. The lawsuit over the delisting of the wolf in Mn. is a pefect example.

There was a portion of what you shared from the NWF statement that I thought should be looked at a little closer. 
The section is "Whereas the public must be made aware of the Public Trust and it must be enforcable against the government, and it must be adaptable to contemporary concerns." Exactly who gets to determine what these "contemporary concerns" are?????
According to Roger it is the simple majority of voters nothing more. As a hunter I have a problem when these supposed hunting orgs begin taking this position. It is well known that hunters are in a minority in regards to voters in this democracy Roger mentions. So ANYONE, please tell me what happens when this nonhunting majority that is "made aware of the Public Trust" is persuaded by groups like HSUS that they have the right thru the Public Trust Doctrine to prevent these animals from being hunted?(a "contemporary concern") This very Public Trust Doctrine that keeps being brought up is the very tool groups like HSUS will use to end all hunting one species at a time. It may take 10, 20 50 ....years to do so, but they will continue to work to that end. How long it takes or wether it happens depends soley on how effective the hunting community can work TOGETHER to prevent it. To create an issue out of one that was not there outside of a few anti hunting orgs or "jealous" hunters, (Roger states they have to prove to people this is an issue and that it exists) and to basically do HSUS's leg work for them all the while dividing the hunting community, all over BRAGGING RIGHTS is beyond my being able to buy into the protecting hunting arguement. Hunters standing together and educating a concerned public will delay or prevent HSUS's agendas from occuring much surer than banning this, banning that , segmenting and dividing the hunting community. To me that's pretty simple common sense.It's really too bad some peoples bruised egos don't allow them to see that.


----------



## Plainsman

> Exactly who gets to determine what these "contemporary concerns" are?????


The American people I would guess. I sure as heck don't want some liberal bureaucrat making the decision. To many have forgotten they are public servants, not masters. I hate arrogance. 
I think the HSUS and the slippery slope are being way over played. I have zero respect for that organization, but Kalifornia hasn't polluted us like they have Montana. I think the HSUS thing is just a scare technique. There is no doubt we need to keep an eye on people like PETA and HSUS, but it doesn't mean they lurk behind every bill related to wildlife. If that were true every restriction on hunters should be one of those slippery slopes. We can't let fear rule our life, especially when it's misplaced.

No, I didn't misspell Kalifornia.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> Exactly who gets to determine what these "contemporary concerns" are?????
> 
> 
> 
> The American people I would guess. I sure as heck don't want some liberal bureaucrat making the decision. To many have forgotten they are public servants, not masters. I hate arrogance.
> I think the HSUS and the slippery slope are being way over played. I have zero respect for that organization, but Kalifornia hasn't polluted us like they have Montana. I think the HSUS thing is just a scare technique. There is no doubt we need to keep an eye on people like PETA and HSUS, but it doesn't mean they lurk behind every bill related to wildlife. *If that were true every restriction on hunters should be one of those slippery slopes.* We can't let fear rule our life, especially when it's misplaced.
> 
> No, I didn't misspell Kalifornia.
Click to expand...

Just like every restriction on guns is a "slippery slope"?

Come on Plainsman.

Once again, you subscribe to the "domino theory" as it pertains to gun control, but not the anti-hunter groups who ultimately want to abolish all hunting?

They are, quite literally the SAME situation. You have groups, wanting to abolish something (in this case hunting, or guns) and their going to do it by any means necessary (siding with certain groups of "hunters") and their going to do it one small step at a time.

Same thing. Just a different topic.


----------



## 58504451

Plainsman - Couldn't agree with you more on who I want and don't want making the decisions for us. My point at the begining of this thread was do we want the people deciding any hunting issue who have not hunted or fished. I'm pretty sure that if we put most of what we enjoy to a vote of the people it would fail, most would view any killing of an animal as inhumane. To them killing a steer is the same as killing a wild animal, they're both viewed as a pet. If we put the issue of paying taxes to a vote of the people do you think it would pass?

I think you may be taking the intent of the HSUS too lightly. Check out the availablity of their literature to our educators. Most of us are probably one generation from being raised on a farm, we're losing alot of the connection to food production with it. Suprising how many kids don't know where food comes from. Thanks.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, those of us in the animal ag industry have learned the hard way not to take groups(especially HSUS) lightly. One look at what happened with the horse slaughter is an insight into what can happen when these groups play on uninformed public emotion and target one single issue. There is legislation being purposed that would make it illegal for anyone to knowingly sell a horse to anyone that will at any time kill that animal. The horse industry, even inspite of horse associations, vetrinary associations ect.... saying this is bad for the horse itself, has been extremely negatively impacted because of this feel good legislation pushed by the public thru these orgs such as HSUS. The animal ag industry has seen first hand the power these groups have thru the initiative process. They have effectively ended ag practices in some states.

For any hunter to dismiss the threat of these groups, or even worse as has been suggested on here to work with these orgs. such as HSUS is not very responsibly protecting the future of hunting. I'd bet you anything you want the vast majority of hunters feel this way. That is why this group NDH for FC has had to go outside of the hunting community to find support for their measure. As was said, hunters should by enlarge be the ones regulating hunting. This is accomplished thru the legislative system. Bills are presented, testimony is heard and they are voted on. Mostly only those directly involved or affected are a part of forming law in this manner. By using the initiated measure this opens the door to groups who have less concern about writing good law but rather are trying to further ideological or emotional agendas which are rarely a good basis for law. Anyone that quotes the Public Trust Doctrine and doesn't understand these anti hunting groups abilities to sway public opinion and the consequences of blindly supporting this publics right to soley determine how this public resource should be used has their head deeply placed in the sand. Take a little time and delve into the group HSUS's policies and agendas and finances and then tell us what you think this group is capable of accomplishing. It is a hard enough battle protecting our heritage even thru the legislative arena given the influences these groups already have in there. http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/adv ... r-2009-10/ http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press ... 12610.html

Please take these orgs and their financial and political abilities serious when it comes to protecting the heritage of hunting. They are in this for the long haul and realize it may take decades to accomplish their goals. As was mentioned they are starting in the schools to form ideologies and opionion with their biased literature at the earliest levels they can knowing these are the people that will further their agendas 20 years down the road. Segmenting hunters by banning certain things from an ideological postion does not help our cause, but simply further divides us. And to do so over simple "bragging rights" is ridiculous at best, childish at the very least.


----------



## gst

RogerK said:


> Question: If you had the power to put the HSUS and the other animal rights organizations out of business, would you do it? Or would you conclude that the United States Constitution and the North Dakota Constitution protect people we disagree with, specifically, radical animal rights groups.
> 
> The people we agree with don't need constitutional protection; the people we disagree with do.
> The right to peaceably assemble to redress government over a grievance. To hell with that right.
> The right to free speech. To hell with that right.
> The right to circulate a petition. To hell with that right.
> The right to sign a petition. To hell with that right.
> The right to vote on an issue. To hell with that right.
> 
> Let me be clear. When it comes to protecting hunting, I will fight the HSUS with the same ferocity that I am devoting to the Fair Chase initiative.


Roger is pretty clear where he stands on the rights of groups such as HSUS, he's all for them. But what about the right of the property owner to use their property unencumbered by excessive regulation? What about the right of the individual hunter to choose what they wish to take from the hunting experience? These rights he wants to throw by the wayside in his quest to create new state law even though they are the people he disagrees with. Apparently their constitutional rights do not warrant the same protection as those of the HSUS! :eyeroll:

When questioned wether he opposed the HSUS with the same "ferocity" when they banned Mt. lion hunting in his home state of kalifornia he has yet to answer or provide proof he did. One could question the ideologies he brought back from living in kalifornia to our state. Just perhaps there is a little of this kalifornia pollution as Plainsman calls it blowing around our state at these various home and garden shows. :wink:


----------



## DG

Plainsman,

Do you ever tire of defending Roger Kaseman and Dick Monson types? Plainsman, you used to be a federal employee working for the USGS and USFWS. Are or were a member of the wildlife society. You will defend these types even when their actions are not defendable. Here is Dick Monson talking to the Friends of animals. Dicks entry is toward the bottom.



> http://www.times-online.com/content/view/82703/168
> 
> Paws to Consider... Identify your pet
> Wednesday, 09 April 2008
> 
> Have you been wondering about the hype associated with micro-chipping pet identification systems? Maybe you've heard the advertisements on the radio or read about pet identification in this column. The real message is that identifying your pet greatly increases the chances that you will be reunited with your dog or cat. Remember the dog from Grand Forks who was found in South Carolina, and because of the micro-chip I.D. the dog was returned to its family?
> The Sheyenne Valley Friends of Animals recently had a similar experience. A person living on a local farm called to say that two dogs showed up near her home, one had a collar but no tags and the other had no collar at all, and they were not in good shape. She had given them some food but had not confined them, hoping they would go home. After eight days, the SVFA was contacted again. The dogs were still returning to the farm. They were continuing to lose weight. At the conclusion of the weekend SVFA volunteers picked up the dogs and took them the Valley City Veterinary Hospital. KOVC broadcast descriptions of the dogs and the SVFA took pictures and "found dog" ads were placed in the VC Times Record.
> At the Valley City Vet Hospital, as part of the routine procedure, the dogs were "scanned," and one of them had a micro-chip I.D. After tracing the chip to a college in Minnesota, obtaining a telephone number that was no longer accurate, and contacting some local residents, the owners were found. The moral of this story: I.D. your pet.
> Having your cat or dog wear identification is important for minimizing the chances of theft or permanent loss. Visible tags with your phone number are a must but because the collar can slip off or the tags can be lost, also consider a microchip. Call Valley City Veterinary Hospital for an appointment. The one time cost is only $35. If your pet is missing, check with the local veterinary hospital, the police department, the sheriff's department, and the local radio station. These dogs were two of the lucky ones. Most lost pets are never recovered; most die. Please I.D. your pet through collars, tags, or micro-chip identification.
> UPCOMING EVENT:
> The SVFA will hold its April general membership meeting on Monday April 14, 2008, at 7:00p.m. in the Municipal Courtroom in the Valley City Police Department. Everyone, members and non-members, is welcome. Refreshments will be served, and the program will include: recent SVFA activities, a report on the 2008 Spay/Neuter Campaign, a preliminary report on a proposed Dog Park for Valley City and a (an informational) presentation by Dick Monson on the initiative to ban "canned hunting" in North Dakota. Join us. Take this opportunity to join SVFA, perhaps win a prize (a free microchip for your pet!), and learn more about animal related issues in our community.
> CAN YOU GIVE A CAT A HOME?
> We have a number of cats available for adoption. We have cats who like to play, cats who like to nap, polydactyl cats, calico cats, cats that tolerate dogs, cats that don't, cats with all claws, cats with some claws, and more. We have a variety


Plainsman,

This was posted on another page of this site,

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=79643&start=0

Here is Dicks response to me,



> Dwight, you bet I speak to groups. And will until you are out of the canned shooting business.


Okay Plainsman,

Let's here your defense of Dicks actions. BTW, the SVFA isn't a sportmens club. And remember, you don't put your "credibility" out there for anyone. You have very little left to put out there.


----------



## Plainsman

> Check out the availablity of their literature to our educators.


No kidding. My brother retired a few years ago after 41 years of teaching. Way back in the 1970's these fanatics were slipping animal rights type literature to teachers. When teachers were offered hunting information they always turned it down. When a few teachers had information on hunting and wildlife management the other teachers would complain. It appears they don't know who they work for either. Pay attention to what your children are learning in school and if they are getting animal rights crap rammed down their throat talk to the school board. Sorry, off subject again.


----------



## DG

Plaisman wrote,



> Pay attention to what your children are learning in school and if they are getting animal rights crap rammed down their throat talk to the school board. Sorry, off subject again.


About a week ago in Minot some of these HSUS types were allowed in. The class was to interact with them about topics such as humane treatment of animals, agricultures contribution to global warming and dang it if the high fence issue wasn't brought up. The only way these groups can come in is with blessing of state officials.

Remember what David Pauli Said, "met with an "official" of the Fair Chase hunting movement"



> Humane Society of United States director meets with N.D. Fair Chase
> A North Dakota Fair Chase official met with Dave Pauli, Director of the Northern Rockies Regional Office (NRRO) of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) recently during a visit Pauli made to North Dakota.
> 
> According to a June 30 posting on the blog, art4animals, Pauli, "met with an official of the Fair Chase hunting movement" during a tour of the NRRO states. The region consists of eight states including North Dakota. Pauli's June 30 posting goes on to cite the HSUS assistance put forth to pass hunting bans in Montana in 2005, and their support of similar goals in Idaho and Colorado.
> 
> Pauli noted in the blog posting that while in North Dakota he stopped at "shelters and activists homes along the way to encourage them to support the ballot initiative."
> According to the HSUS web site, "the HSUS opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or sport."


Plainsman, Who is the "official" David Pauli met with?

And here is another one you can try to defend. Roger Kaseman is documented on more than one occasion saying, "We do not recognize property rights." The word "we" is plural. Is he speaking for the ndctws and ndwf?


----------



## RogerK

58504451 said:


> I think you may be taking the intent of the HSUS too lightly. Check out the availablity of their literature to our educators. Most of us are probably one generation from being raised on a farm, we're losing alot of the connection to food production with it. Suprising how many kids don't know where food comes from. Thanks.


Finally, some common ground. It's a small plot, but here we stand.

The HSUS does have access to our children through educators that present the HSUS Bambi version of the world.

Kids are losing touch with the farm - food - grocery store connection. The coming generation of kids has a Star Trek the Next Generation view of food. Captain Picard asks a replicator for a cup of tea or some exotic food and it magically appears. Ever notice how Picard never asks for a good old greasy cheeseburger? Hollywood pushes its politically correct philosophy as background noise. One thing I never understood about Star Trek the Next Generation. Why did they need a bartender when the crew can ask a replicator for a drink without going through a bartender?

Who do we blame for our children losing the farm food connection?

Who do we blame for our children loosing the hunter/hunting/conservation connection?

Radical animal rights groups like the HSUS?

The educators?

Blame hunters and conservationists.

Educators are always looking for material. Where is the hunter/hunting/conservation material?

Hunters have a fascinating story to tell, a story of near extinction for much of our wildlife. Ducks, Prairie Chickens and a variety of other birds sold on the Chicago Board of Trade. Had there been radio in 1890, people would have heard the Dow Jones, the price of wheat, the price of live feeder cattle, the slaughter cattle market, and how much carloads of duck and grouse carcasses were up or down.

The market report would in all probability have included the price of birds slaughtered wholesale for their feathers so that fashionable ladies could wear the latest hat decorated with exotic plumage.

I recently read Wilderness Warrior, Douglas Brinkley's history of Theodore Roosevelt and the early conservation movement. It is a story that will make a true hunter blush with shame on one page, and burst with pride on the next; shame at the slaughter of wildlife for commercial gain, and pride that hunters stepped up, willingly taxed themselves, and did something about the slaughter that was leading to extinction of much of our wildlife.

Imagine getting hunters to support bills in forty-eight state legislative assemblies that except for tightly controlled seasons, outlawed hunting. Hunters did just that.

Imagine convincing forty-eight state legislative bodies to pass laws that set tight bag limits as opposed to bagging as many as a man could shoot and carry and sell.

There were howls of protest from those that made a profit off the slaughter. The men that opposed the new laws claimed a free man had a right to make a living as he saw fit. There were arrests, trials, convictions and appeals. The courts consistently and with one voice ruled that wildlife is a public trust, not a private enterprise, that the state had an affirmative duty to manage it for the public good.

People that oppose the Fair Chase Initiative argue that the new law will give radical animal rights groups like the HSUS a toe in the door that will lead to a ban on all hunting.

Those people are right about the toe in the door, but banning High Fence shooting operations isn't the toe they claim, it's the High Fence operations themselves that are the toe.

True hunters can point to families with kids out hunting as a wholesome activity that honors our legacy of hunting and at the same time respects and honors the quarry animal with a fair chase hunt. Fair chase means failing more times that you succeed.

High Fence means a 100% guarantee, a warranty made possible by the fence. I use the word warranty deliberately since a warranty is a written assurance that the product or service provided will meet certain specifications. A guaranteed kill is the product delivered, and a certain antler score is a specification all guaranteed by a written warranty.

High Fence operations are a foot in the door for anti-hunting organizations like the HSUS, operations radical animal rights groups can use to convince the non-hunting public that all hunters are so lazy, so unmotivated, that they literally need a captive animal inside a fence to kill.

Who to blame?

Blame hunters and conservationists. They sat on their butts and did nothing when the North Dakota Legislative Assembly passed a law that allowed private ownership and management of deer and elk in the name of economic development. It seems that not one conservation organization raised the possibility that an enterprising High Fence operator would realize that his prize bull elk or prize buck was worth more hanging on a wall than he was in a meat counter, and that this enterprising individual would start selling shots at the bull or buck giving legitimate hunters a black eye.

HSUS in the classroom? *****ing about radical animal rights material in schools won't help. Making hunting and conservation material available to teachers; sending conservationists and dedicated hunters into the classroom to talk to students about wildlife, conservation and hunting; that will help keep hunting alive; *****ing about and attacking the HSUS won't help a bit.

Unfortunately, the biologists and scientists that research and write the material that presents the hunter's story, the people best qualified to present the conservation, hunter, hunting partnership to students, are vilified and demonized by the High Fence Shooting Gallery Operators and their supports.

HSUS is a toe in the proverbial door, but the cause of that toe in the door isn't the Fair Chase Measure, it's the High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations themselves. Defending and promoting High Fence operations to North Dakotans is impossible. That's why Fair Chase using the very material that High Fence operators use to promote their operations brought on howls of protest, threats of arrest, and threats of law suits over that use. High Fence Shooting Gallery Operators have to hide what they do from the public but in order to draw clients to their pastures, they have to advertize. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

On the positive side, at this date, it looks like taking the High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations down is going to be as easy as, well, shooting a captive deer or elk inside an escape proof pasture.


----------



## LT

Roger Stated:


> Defending and promoting High Fence operations to North Dakotans is impossible. That's why Fair Chase using the very material that High Fence operators use to promote their operations brought on howls of protest, threats of arrest, and threats of law suits over that use.


It was not just the USE of that material that brought protest. It was the way it was used in association with lies on the website and at the fair booth, etc. If you had used Walmart's jingles, banners, pictures, etc. and then stated lies, mistruths, and half truths in conjunction with them, what do you think the consequences would be? You have even said that you would like the elk growers to sue you, as even bad publicity would be good publicity for you.

At the Jamestown Public Forum two years ago when the elk/deer growers and Fair Chase Committee each presented their sides, I witnessed an elk grower handing out a piece of paper that stated: "Neither 'property' nor the value of property is a physical thing. Property is a set of defined options...It is that set of options which has economic value...It is the options, and not the physical things, which are the 'property' - economically as well as legally... But because the public tends to think of property as tangible, physical things, this opens the way politically for government confiscation of property by forcibly taking away options while leaving the physical objects untouched." 
- Thomas Sowell

And what happened next is probably the biggest reason I am here. A federal employee who works for the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown which is part of the US Geological Survey took the paper from the elk grower, read it, and threw it back at him stating: "You F'n landowners and your F'n property rights, that sh*t doesn't mean anything to me."


----------



## DG

Roger wrote,



> Blame hunters and conservationists. They sat on their butts and did nothing when the North Dakota Legislative Assembly passed a law that allowed private ownership and management of deer and elk in the name of economic development. It seems that not one conservation organization raised the possibility that an enterprising High Fence operator would realize that his prize bull elk or prize buck was worth more hanging on a wall than he was in a meat counter, and that this enterprising individual would start selling shots at the bull or buck giving legitimate hunters a black eye.


In the 1990's the regulatory duties were shifted from the Game and Fish to the Board of Animal Health. That included all non-traditional livestock including pheasants. These laws passed in the 1990's did not create shooting or hunting preserves. Those already existed back in the 1980's under the supervision and regulatory arm of the Game and Fish.


----------



## RogerK

gst said:


> "By using the initiated measure this opens the door to groups who have less concern about writing good law but rather are trying to further ideological or emotional agendas which are rarely a good basis for law."
> 
> GST, that is an astonishingly low opinion of a people that are supposed to be self-governing, rather than governed by an elite the way a shepherd governs a flock of sheep.
> 
> I have learned several things talking to North Dakotans while taking signatures; the people of this state are a hell of a lot smarter than you High Fence guys think. They know a good law from a bad law. Your low opinion of North Dakota citizens will come back to bite you in the butt.
> 
> You think the Fair Chase Measure is bad law. That's not for you to decide, that isn't for me to decide; that is for the voters of this state to decide.
> 
> You High Fence guys like to toss property rights out as a defence. You don't have a legal leg to stand on. You have 350 years of court decisions against you. During the legal battle over the 2001 Montana voter initiated ban on High Fence operations, the Montana trial courts, the Montana Supreme court, the United States District court, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court, sided with the ban. Every court ruled that there is no property right to fence deer or elk in a pasture and selling shots at those animals. The lawyers representing the High Fence operators could not cite a single court decision that supported their argument.
> 
> If I am wrong, if there is a constitutional right that protects High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations, point out the relevant section of the State Constitution that protects that right, and failing that, the relevant section of the United States Constitution that offers the protection you claim. What section protects the right to shoot deer and elk inside a High Fence pasture? In that last 350 years, the best legal minds this nation has produced have not been able to find the right you claim.
> 
> In your second post above you wrote: "Roger is pretty clear where he stands on the rights of groups such as HSUS, he's all for them."
> 
> Don't confuse my support for rights with the agenda the HSUS is pushing.
> 
> I am opposed to High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations and advocate against them. That is an agenda.
> 
> I will support to the death the right of the High Fence operators' that I oppose to advocate for their cause. That is a right.
> 
> That includes Dwight.


----------



## LT

Roger,

They deliberated for at least 2 years the last go round. It was not cut and dry. The judges were very divided. In fact, in Montana the measure was promoted heavily regarding disease, at a time when mad cow disease was in the news, playing very much on emotions. The "concerned sportsmen" group even called themselves MADCCOW.

In the deliberations one of the judges became very disgusted with the Montana Wildlife Federation lawyer's response to his question.

The judge asked the lawyer for the Montana Wildlife Federation why they did not just flat out ban the existence of these ranches if disease was an issue? The lawyer then responded that if they had done it that way, it would have been considered a TAKINGS. They were allowed to keep their animals, otherwise it would have been a TAKINGS. The judge then responded so instead you just took away one of their main sources of income, how is that not doing the same thing?

The measure in Montana also involved the licenses of these facilities. They are not allowed to will or pass on their business to a family member or even sell that business. How is that not a TAKINGS?

I believe there was a catch 22 for the state of Montana. If they would have overthrown this initiative they would have then set a precedent for all Mom and Pop businesses to sue the state regarding licensing issues.


----------



## gst

So roger, explain to us how this measure will stop the sale of a live animal to someone in a legally binding sale, who then kills that animal they own without a much broader interpretation of the law as written by a judge. This is what opens the door to legal interpretation to further encompass more than what the law was intended. Which is why this is a badly written law. But then I'd guess groups like yours and HSUS realize this and write these proposed laws in this manner on purpose. In order for this law to ban HF hunting as you want, it will require a judge to rule that you can not kill an animal you own within a fence or allow an animal someone else owns to be killed on your property. And the door squeaks open a little further than what the people signing this measure ever intended.

You claim HF is the toe in the door, but yet you admit to having to "prove" and educate people these operations even exist. That statement itself suggests it is indeed your group NDH for FC that is willingly opening not only the door, but eyes as to this issue that parrallels HSUS's agenda. And the fact that you are using disingenuous statements to do so is where the problem lies. You yourself have gave indications the general public could care less about these operations until you "educate" them. So it comes back to groups wether they be HSUS or NDH for FC that are pushing these agendas that are opening these doors, not the HF operations themselves regardless of what you would like peole to believe. And in the case of HSUS it doesn't matter wether it is fair chase or HF they veiw them EXACTLY the same, they want them both ended. You can not say there are not things involved in FC hunting that will not open this door just as widely as HF to the nonhunting public if someone was doing exactly as you are at the home and garden shows with your card board full of pictures. That is why hunters can not afford to segment activities. Because simply based on what hunting is, the taking of a life of an animal, there are things that some groups with a differing agenda will use to paint a negative picture. Your doing so in the manner you are with this measure is simply helping them. And all over as you stated "BRAGGING RIGHTS" and your bruised ego. :eyeroll:

Roger, you have steadfastly refused to answer ANY questions asked you in regards to this measure, you have steadfastly refused to deny any you initiated any communication with HSUS in regards to this issue, WHY?????


----------



## DG

Roger,

Have you read the web link provided by GST? All your words and actions are as if they are following this script.

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus8animall223.htm

Is this what you believe in? Is this the real "MODEL" you follow?

Even Jim Posewits and Ted Karasote are listed there as referances. If animal rights advocates are borrowing info from these two than Jim and Ted are doing something wrong.

This written on that web link:



> After a guide drove the ram directly into the path of his client, the hunter shot the trapped animal with an arrow at point-blank range. The wounded ram, with an arrow sticking out of his hindquarters, backed up against the fence that forced him to stay close to his killers. A shot to the head might have meant a quick kill, but would have spoiled the eventual trophy. So the hunter repeatedly took aim at the ram's body, and the animal writhed in pain for four minutes before dying.1


On the Mike McFeely program, Roger you stated that the clients to these game farms do not want to ruin the antlers head or cape so they shoot them in the hind quarters and let them die slowly.

Roger, are you following the script from these animal rights advocates right now?


----------



## KurtR

So if i owned a hf operation why not just charge for the lodging and going out and shooting was just some thing that you did for fun at no cost. Or will they ban lodging to. Or you could buy the animal because they can still be sold and then shoot it before it is loaded in the trailer. Did not pay to hunt just bought the animal. No different if i went and bought a cow and shot it and took it to the butcher. Even if this law is passed it will not stop anything other than the way it can be advertised as i see many loop holes. And if the voters do vote this down will the ethics gods quit or will they keep bringing this up time and time agin even though the people spoke?


----------



## jhegg

Chuck,

You need to wake up if you can't see any differences here.



> I bought a hog from a farmer. Went to his farm. Walked into the hog pen. Shot it in the head. Took it home and butchered it. How is this ethically fine while shooting a deer or elk in a pen is not? Money was exchanged and the animal was dispatched in a pen. How is one in your eyes ethical and one is not?


You bought the hog for meat (at least I hope you did). I bet you didn't pay $5,000 to $15,000+ for it depending on the size of it's whatever. You had no intention of "hunting" this hog - or at least I hope you didn't. I'll bet this hog wasn't marketed to you as a "hog hunt". In short, you weren't "hunting". But, apparently, none of this makes any difference to you.

Jim


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Chuck,
> 
> You need to wake up if you can't see any differences here.
> 
> I bought a hog from a farmer. Went to his farm. Walked into the hog pen. Shot it in the head. Took it home and butchered it. How is this ethically fine while shooting a deer or elk in a pen is not? Money was exchanged and the animal was dispatched in a pen. How is one in your eyes ethical and one is not?
> 
> You bought the hog for meat (at least I hope you did). *I bet you didn't pay $5,000 to $15,000+* for it depending on the size of it's whatever.


Jhegg....

First part of your post....in bold.

So this is about the Price paid, and that the animal is considered a trophy. Correct?? Not about the ethic's. Thank You for proving my point that "ethics" does not play a role at all in this fact. It is the $$$ and that this animal is considered a "trophy". That is it. Like many have stated take the horns off the animal or the "score" away from the animal and people would not care. So this bill is about jealousy plain and simple. Jealous that a rancher or HF operator is charging $5000+ an animal and making profit and the jealous factor that people are shooting "trophy" animals. PERIOD! No science, no health standard reasons, no animals care reasons, no disease issues, etc..... JUST JEALOUSY.



> _*You had no intention of "hunting" this hog - or at least I hope you didn't. I'll bet this hog wasn't marketed to you as a "hog hunt". In short, you weren't "hunting".[*/i] But, apparently, none of this makes any difference to you._


_

Now the other 1/2 of your post.....in italics.... You are worried about these operations calling what happens behind the fence "hunting".... Go after the way they advertise. Many, Many, Many industries and business have restrictions on how they can advertise. Go after that. Then this bill will hold more water than "ethics". I have been saying this during this whole debate. Go after advertising if people don't like the fact that the word "hunting" is used. Make these operations call it what it is.... Penned shooting or Penned Hunting. The keyword that must always be used is PENNED or FENCED. Make these operation have to make it clear that these animals are PENNED and/or TAME/DOMESTICATED. This will separate what hunting is to all of us. It will draw a line that even the anti's can't avoid or skirt._


----------



## RogerK

gst said:


> So roger, explain to us how this measure will stop the sale of a live animal to someone in a legally binding sale, who then kills that animal they own without a much broader interpretation of the law as written by a judge. This is what opens the door to legal interpretation to further encompass more than what the law was intended. Which is why this is a badly written law. But then I'd guess groups like yours and HSUS realize this and write these proposed laws in this manner on purpose. In order for this law to ban HF hunting as you want, it will require a judge to rule that you can not kill an animal you own within a fence or allow an animal someone else owns to be killed on your property. And the door squeaks open a little further than what the people signing this measure ever intended.
> 
> You claim HF is the toe in the door, but yet you admit to having to "prove" and educate people these operations even exist. That statement itself suggests it is indeed your group NDH for FC that is willingly opening not only the door, but eyes as to this issue that parrallels HSUS's agenda. And the fact that you are using disingenuous statements to do so is where the problem lies. You yourself have gave indications the general public could care less about these operations until you "educate" them. So it comes back to groups wether they be HSUS or NDH for FC that are pushing these agendas that are opening these doors, not the HF operations themselves regardless of what you would like peole to believe. And in the case of HSUS it doesn't matter wether it is fair chase or HF they veiw them EXACTLY the same, they want them both ended. You can not say there are not things involved in FC hunting that will not open this door just as widely as HF to the nonhunting public if someone was doing exactly as you are at the home and garden shows with your card board full of pictures. That is why hunters can not afford to segment activities. Because simply based on what hunting is, the taking of a life of an animal, there are things that some groups with a differing agenda will use to paint a negative picture. Your doing so in the manner you are with this measure is simply helping them. And all over as you stated "BRAGGING RIGHTS" and your bruised ego. :eyeroll:
> 
> Roger, you have steadfastly refused to answer ANY questions asked you in regards to this measure, you have steadfastly refused to deny any you initiated any communication with HSUS in regards to this issue, WHY?????


Are you deaf? Are you blind?

Can you read?

We DID NOT contact the HSUS.

HSUS contacted us.

We told them, thanks, but no thanks.

Is that clear?


----------



## RogerK

LT said:


> Roger,
> 
> They deliberated for at least 2 years the last go round. It was not cut and dry. The judges were very divided. In fact, in Montana the measure was promoted heavily regarding disease, at a time when mad cow disease was in the news, playing very much on emotions. The "concerned sportsmen" group even called themselves MADCCOW.
> 
> In the deliberations one of the judges became very disgusted with the Montana Wildlife Federation lawyer's response to his question.
> 
> The judge asked the lawyer for the Montana Wildlife Federation why they did not just flat out ban the existence of these ranches if disease was an issue? The lawyer then responded that if they had done it that way, it would have been considered a TAKINGS. They were allowed to keep their animals, otherwise it would have been a TAKINGS. The judge then responded so instead you just took away one of their main sources of income, how is that not doing the same thing?
> 
> The measure in Montana also involved the licenses of these facilities. They are not allowed to will or pass on their business to a family member or even sell that business. How is that not a TAKINGS?
> 
> I believe there was a catch 22 for the state of Montana. If they would have overthrown this initiative they would have then set a precedent for all Mom and Pop businesses to sue the state regarding licensing issues.


Lame excuse. The division of the courts is meaningless.

For the record, 100% of the judges in the trial courts ruled against the High Fence operators.

Of the federal courts, 100% ruled against the High Fence operators.

The Judge of the United States Circuit Court, ruled against the High Fence operators.

The three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; 100% against the High Fence operators.

The United States Supreme Court, 100% opposed to hearing the case.

The Montana Supreme Court, a dissenting opinion. The dissenting judge did not cite any case law to support his opinion, he cited Shakespeare.

Excuses as to how a case came out does not add up to a right. If I am wrong, prove it; cite your cases.


----------



## LT

Roger Stated:



> Are you deaf? Are you blind?
> 
> Can you read?
> 
> We DID NOT contact the HSUS.
> 
> HSUS contacted us.
> 
> We told them, thanks, but no thanks.
> 
> Is that clear?


Wow, just Wow!!

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/0 ... -you-done/

According to that article Mr. Curren contacted Karen, the HSUS representative here in ND, and she stated that she was contacted by you, Mr. Kaseman. When this came out, I also then contacted her, and asked her flat out: "Did Roger Kaseman contact you." Her response, "What does it matter who contacted who first?" She could have just answered yes or no but chose not to. Very telling to me.


----------



## DG

Chuck Smith wrote,



> Now the other 1/2 of your post.....in italics.... You are worried about these operations calling what happens behind the fence "hunting".... Go after the way they advertise. Many, Many, Many industries and business have restrictions on how they can advertise. Go after that. Then this bill will hold more water than "ethics". I have been saying this during this whole debate. Go after advertising if people don't like the fact that the word "hunting" is used. Make these operations call it what it is.... Penned shooting or Penned Hunting. The keyword that must always be used is PENNED or FENCED. Make these operation have to make it clear that these animals are PENNED and/or TAME/DOMESTICATED. This will separate what hunting is to all of us. It will draw a line that even the anti's can't avoid or skirt.


Chuck you need to read this,

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus8animall223.htm



> 2. Common Husbandry Practices do not Include "Hunting"
> 
> Additionally, canned hunt operations should not be exempt from anti-cruelty statutes, even if they are defined as livestock operations, because their practices are not "normal" or "common" husbandry practices. The drafters of anti-cruelty statutes recognized the need to exempt farm animals from the protections of anti-cruelty statutes in order to allow common livestock practices. State legislatures have left the task of defining "common" or "normal" husbandry practices to the industries themselves.107 Although countless objectionable practices are allowed in the farming industry, pinning an animal against a fence, shooting her in the side, and watching her bleed is not one of them. Canned hunts do mirror agricultural practices-but only in how the animals live, not in how they die. If, however, canned hunting operations were exempt from anti-cruelty statutes, and even if they could convincingly argue that their practices are "normal" and "common," they should then be subject to humane slaughter regulations.
> 
> Canned hunts not only supply heads to hang on the wall, and animal skins to drape across the floor, but also allow canned hunters to take the flesh of the animals they have killed. Canned hunt operators prefer to be classified under agricultural, rather than wildlife, regulations because agriculture departments tend to be more sympathetic to canned hunt operations.108 If these facilities are to be classified as agricultural institutions, they should be held to the same standards for slaughter as other livestock operations.
> 
> Congress passed the Humane Slaughter Act, in part, to protect animals from cruel and inhumane deaths.109 The Act includes protections for "cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock" who are slaughtered110 for human consumption.111 Animals in canned hunting facilities live under the same conditions as traditional livestock. They are hand-raised, transported in trucks, fed, and sheltered by humans. If the animals are kept in large enclosures they may forage, as do livestock. The only difference between the two groups of animals is that sometimes the trucks that normally bring food for the animals in canned hunts also bring humans brandishing weapons.
> 
> Canned hunt patrons are slaughtering animals, inhumanely, and their hunts should be violations of humane slaughter regulations. Although the language of the Humane Slaughter Act seems to offer adequate protections for animals and consumers, unfortunately, the scope of the Act is narrow and numerous funding and enforcement problems have plagued its application.112 The enforcement mechanisms of the Humane Slaughter Act are inherently flawed. First, the Act carries no penalties for violations.113 Also, the USDA, who is charged with enforcing the act, has strong political ties to the meat industries.114 The USDA even opposed the Humane Slaughter Act during its introduction in 1958 and when the act was broadened in 1978.115 In order for the Humane Slaughter Act to be effective, it must include protections for all animals who are slaughtered for human consumption, and it must be enforced by an agency that is not economically or politically tied to the industry.


Chuck, This is all coming to a state near you. These antis cannot take on the whole ag industry at one time. They are looking for words to segment and divide the industries. Read Laura J. Ireland* statements. She doesn't like any kind of "on" farm slaughter. What they are looking for is precedent in the courts. And a new enforcement agency more freindly to the antis.


----------



## Chuck Smith

DG....

You are missing my point. I am not talking about a bill to get rid of HF operations. I am talking about making a law on how they can advertise. Just like Real estate, Food, Drug, Tabacco, Alcohol, etc. industries. They have words that they can't use. That is all. It won't effect your business at all because the people who use your operation know that the animals are in a fence.

Then people can't say..... these HF operation give hunting a black eye... When in fact they can't use the word hunting. Simple solution to what many are complaining about.


----------



## jhegg

Chuck,



> So this is about the Price paid, and that the animal is considered a trophy. Correct?? Not about the ethic's. Thank You for proving my point that "ethics" does not play a role at all in this fact. It is the $$$ and that this animal is considered a "trophy". That is it. Like many have stated take the horns off the animal or the "score" away from the animal and people would not care. So this bill is about jealousy plain and simple. Jealous that a rancher or HF operator is charging $5000+ an animal and making profit and the jealous factor that people are shooting "trophy" animals. PERIOD! No science, no health standard reasons, no animals care reasons, no disease issues, etc..... JUST JEALOUSY.


I can not believe that you do not recognize the difference between hunting and shooting a captive big game animal in a pen. If you can't, that tells me a lot about your "hunting ethics" - or more properly the lack thereof.

You said it is about the price paid and whether the animal is considered a trophy. When you say that, you better be talking about the HF operators, not me. Do you think I am jealous of some idiot that shot a captive big game animal in a fence? Do you think I am jealous because somebody made a profit? Get real!

I do not like the idea that 12 HF operations in ND are bastardizing the tradition of hunting to make a personnal gain. If they make that profit without being parasites on the tradition of hunting, more power to them. I wish them all the money and success thay can get. But not at the expense of hunting tradition.

So, for me it is an ethics issue. I have no idea where you are coming from.

Jim


----------



## gst

Jim, do you believe what these HF operations do is hunting? If not, why then are you and others keep insisting they be held up to hunting ethics????? That is simply in a nutshell what is being asked. Chuck suggested if you have a problem with what they call it, approach it from that angle, but to insist something you claim is not hunting be held to hunting ethical standards is ridiculous. 
If you do not consider it hunting then it is NO different than shooting a pig in a pen. Plain and simple. From his posts, Chuck, like most of us, seems to realize the difference between hunting and shooting something inside a fence, our egos just don't get as bruised over it as do the supporters of this measure.
The simple fact is there is another door being opened here, and that is into what is truly driving this measure. "Jealousy," bruised egos, and "bragging rights". Roger and his supporters finally admited to what most knew all along.

Roger, based on the tendency you have to be less than forthcoming with truthful statements, and given the fact you have still not catagorically denied you yourself have EVER been in contact with HSUS members, and given the fact you dance around claiming you have no control over HSUS's involvement, and given the fact you would do ANYTHING that makes their agenda easier for them as a "hunter", you'll have to forgive me if I believe you are simply making one more disingenuous statement in regards to your involvement with HSUS in the first attempt at gathering signatures. I can imagine you may have learned a thing or two from the first attempt and may very well have not contacted them this time around to give yourself the ability to deny involvement. And if it appears you are gathering enough signatures without their help, you probably will leave it at that. It still does not change the fact you did indeed contact them the first time around, which says everything most need to know. Nor does it change the fact that because of what you are doing this org will have the ability once those sigs. are gathered to enter into this issue full force with their donated millions to continue the tradition NDH for FC have started of disingenuous statements and insinuations to the nonhunting public to further your agenda of gaining back your "bragging rights".

Roger, Please tell me how if I sell someone a live animal and get a signed bill of sale for a live animal to that individual and he shoots that animal on my property and is charged no fee for this, how I am in violation of this measure as it is written?


----------



## jhegg

Gabe,

You seem to have some difficulty understanding what constitutes an answer to your questions. So, let me try to make it perfectly clear that I am answering your questions.

Question:


> Jim, do you believe what these HF operations do is hunting?


Answer: I do not believe that HF operations are hunting.

Question:


> If not, why then are you and others keep insisting they be held up to hunting ethics????? That is simply in a nutshell what is being asked.


Answer: Because your HF operator friends advertise killing big game animals in a pen as hunting.



> Chuck suggested if you have a problem with what they call it, approach it from that angle, but to insist something you claim is not hunting be held to hunting ethical standards is ridiculous.
> If you do not consider it hunting then it is NO different than shooting a pig in a pen. Plain and simple. From his posts, Chuck, like most of us, seems to realize the difference between hunting and shooting something inside a fence, our egos just don't get as bruised over it as do the supporters of this measure.


Claiming that a HF operation is not hunting (so you do not need to worry about hunting ethics) and then go advertise that activity as hunting to draw in high paying clients is about as *"disingenuous"* as you can get. If high fence operators don't want to be held to hunting ethics, they should not advertise that they provide "hunts". Does this help clear the air for you?

Jim


----------



## DG

jhegg,



> Claiming that a HF operation is not hunting (so you do not need to worry about hunting ethics) and then go advertise that activity as hunting to draw in high paying clients is about as "disingenuous" as you can get.


The hunters know it is a HF ranch up front. Most cannot hunt in the mountains for various reasons such as health. Who told you they are high paying clients? Do you think they are doctors, lawyers and bankers? Have you ever been to a HF ranch and met a person who owns one?

Jim, For to long I think you have been listening to just one side. You and I have never met. I have met several of your partners.

Chuck and Jim, the way I am reading that animal law web link is best described here,



> This is taken from an HSUS blogspot in 2007:
> 
> AN ADVOCATES HANDBOOK TO END CANNED HUNTING
> 
> Critics of this ballot measure (fair chase) raise questions of property rights. They claim that the animals are not taken from the wild, but instead raised in captivity, and are therefore not the property of the state.The animals at canned hunting areas are purchased or reared by the landowners and are raised like livestock. Since these animals are regulated like livestock, critics claim the issue of hunting is mute. They further argue that it is not within the power of the government to encroach upon the rights of the private landowners. It should be noted, however, that if the landowners want the "livestock" to be removed from the considerations of hunting, then the federal Humane Slaughter Act should apply to the taking of individual members from the canned hunting areas. Application of the Humane Slaughter Act would require the captive animals be "rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or by other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter."75 If enforced, this could effectively shut down canned hunting areas, as compliance with the Act would be virtually impossible.


----------



## gst

Jim The problem is your measure is not going after HF operators for calling what they do hunting. It is going after what they do, read the wording of the measure. As a sponsor you should realize this. You state what happens inside these fences is not hunting, so then it has to be no different than shooting a pig or steer. If your issue is truly only about what it is called, why then are you a sponsor of this measure aimed at ending the act of shooting an animal inside a fence rather than simply going after what it is called? Why didn't your group go after this idustry in a civil court for false advertising instead of writing bad law and lying to the public to acheive your agenda???? What is your agenda, getting them to quit calling it hunting or putting them out of business??? The TRUTH is this isn't about what it is called, but simply as Roger stated "BRAGGING RIGHTS" and "jealousy"the one truth he has told about this whole deal.

Jim, as none of the other sponsors want to respond, please answer the question I posed as to how this measure will even stop what you want stopped. How will this measure stop someone from selling a live animal to someone and that person then shooting an animal they now own. Stop and imagine the ramifications this could mean for animal ag if a judge sets precedence by interpreting the meaning of the law to make this illegal. Why was this measure worded the way it was? It is fresh out of the HSUS's hand book to write laws in this manner for the very purpose I described. Getting one judge that agrees with their agendas to rule on a poorly written law and open the door to other interpretations of it. So whose idea was it to write this measure in this manner?


----------



## jhegg

*Dwight,*



> The hunters know it is a HF ranch up front. Most cannot hunt in the mountains for various reasons such as health. Who told you they are high paying clients? Do you think they are doctors, lawyers and bankers? Have you ever been to a HF ranch and met a person who owns one?


I would assume that they know that up front. That does not trump the "hunting ethics" card.

Just who are your clients?

I have never been to a high fence operation. You are the closest I have come to knowing someone who owns one.



> Jim, For to long I think you have been listening to just one side. You and I have never met. I have met several of your partners.


My side says shooting a captive big game animal in an enclosure is just not right. If you have some information to the contrary, I would like to hear it. Some day, I hope we meet. I would like to sit down at a table with you over a cup of coffee and discuss this.

*Gabe,*

We have been arguing in circles for a long time, but lets try again.



> Jim The problem is your measure is not going after HF operators for calling what they do hunting. It is going after what they do, read the wording of the measure. As a sponsor you should realize this.


Exactly! They offer "hunts" for captive big game animals. In your mind, what is the difference?



> If you do not consider it hunting then it is NO different than shooting a pig in a pen. Plain and simple.


Plain and simple, if the HF operators choose to advertise it as hunting, it should stand up to hunting ethics. What is so hard to understand about that?

As far a claim that we are in league with HSUS, that is ridiculous. I hate those people more that you do.

Jim


----------



## barebackjack

jhegg said:


> *Dwight,*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hunters know it is a HF ranch up front. Most cannot hunt in the mountains for various reasons such as health. Who told you they are high paying clients? Do you think they are doctors, lawyers and bankers? Have you ever been to a HF ranch and met a person who owns one?
> 
> 
> 
> I would assume that they know that up front. That does not trump the "hunting ethics" card.
> 
> Just who are your clients?
> 
> I have never been to a high fence operation. You are the closest I have come to knowing someone who owns one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim, For to long I think you have been listening to just one side. You and I have never met. I have met several of your partners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My side says shooting a captive livestock animal in an enclosure is just not right. If you have some information to the contrary, I would like to hear it. Some day, I hope we meet. I would like to sit down at a table with you over a cup of coffee and discuss this.
> 
> *Gabe,*
> 
> We have been arguing in circles for a long time, but lets try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim The problem is your measure is not going after HF operators for calling what they do hunting. It is going after what they do, read the wording of the measure. As a sponsor you should realize this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly! They offer "hunts" for livestock. In your mind, what is the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you do not consider it hunting then it is NO different than shooting a pig in a pen. Plain and simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain and simple, if the HF operators choose to advertise it as hunting, it should stand up to hunting ethics. What is so hard to understand about that?
> 
> As far a claim that we are in league with HSUS, that is ridiculous. I hate those people more that you do.
> 
> Jim
Click to expand...

There. I fixed it for you.

So......if I buy a horned hereford (ya know, for the "trophy" aspect of those big horns), shot it in the pasture, and called it hunting, you'd consider that "unethical" and would want that banned?


----------



## jhegg

Dear BareBackJackAss



> So......if I buy a horned hereford (ya know, for the "trophy" aspect of those big horns), shot it in the pasture, and called it hunting, you'd consider that "unethical" and would want that banned?


The initiated measure deals with big game animals and exotics. A "horned hereford" doesn't fall into either category.

Jim


----------



## gst

Ok, More adult dialogue from a sponsor of this measure. bbj, that sounds to much like what HSUS would say. 

Jim I'll try one last time to straighten the circle out to linear thinking. You say what they do is not hunting. These are simply animals inside this fence, not wild, domestic. No different than cattle other than the fact because they have these horns someone is willing to as roger says" dress up in camoflage and pay fifteen thousand dollars" to shoot one and "hang it's head on the wall for bragging rights". If you think what they are doing is not hunting why do they have to measure up to your standards of hunting ethics. If it is about what it is being called, why not pursue that avenue rather than ban the shooting of the animal. The answer, you don't want them to stop calling it hunting, you want them out of business. Roger and Dick have made that very clear. The real issue, is why, and wether anyone else wants to admit it other than Roger, this is all about ego's and "bragging rights". That was finally brought out by a slip of the tongue in black and white by this measures primary sponsor. A "twinge of jealousy" as a supporter said. It's being brought forth under the guise of protecting hunting, but in reality it is about protecting a few fragile egos over a set of antlers.

Jim, but if for you it is about it being called hunting, explain this to me, why aren't these HF buffalo "hunts" included under this measure? They are being advertised as hunts? Please answer this as it would shed a little light on your position. Answer this question as well, if I sat in a booth down the aisle from roger and he has his cardboard full of pictures of HF animals shot and killed cleanly and recovered(which every single one of them are), and I had a cardboard full of pictures of FC hunted animals that had been wounded and left suffering to die unrecovered (as many are) and had a video loop running showing a deer with a shot off leg or jaw ect... who do you think would get more signatures to ban something? I could tell every person, but this is done under "ethical FC hunting" and do you really think it would matter?? Roger and his fellow sponsors primed the pump and the antihunting group (HSUS, PETA, ALF ect...) down the aisle or at the next show loves him for it. If you can't see that you are truly blinded by this issue.

No one wants to actually answer any questions that will cause them to have to take a stance over this issue. Roger entered into the HF fray to go after an individual and their wife. He refuses to answer a handful of simple questions, one very basic one as to how this measure will even stop HF from happening in this state. The reality is unless that one single question can be answered, the sponsors of this measure have lied to every single person that signed this petition. But then again what's new. Until roger is willing to one by one answer the questions that have been posed on this thread he started, there is little else worth contributing as it has already been spelled out quite clearly in black and white statements by the sponsors and supporters themselves what this measure is really all about, "jealousy" and "bragging rights" Deny involvement with HSUS all you want the simple fact as a hunter you will do ANYTHING that furthers their agendas speaks more truth than anything you will write. The simple fact you can not get your 12000 signatures from within the states hunting community alone should tell you what most hunters themselves believe about this measure. And yet like a little child that pouts until they get their way, you continue to go where ever and say whatever to whoever it takes to get your way.


----------



## jhegg

*Gabe,*



> Jim, but if for you it is about it being called hunting, explain this to me, why aren't these HF buffalo "hunts" included under this measure? They are being advertised as hunts? Please answer this as it would shed a little light on your position.


Buffalo are not big game animals or exotics. You already know my position - I have stated it clearly.



> Answer this question as well, if I sat in a booth down the aisle from roger and he has his cardboard full of pictures of HF animals shot and killed cleanly and recovered(which every single one of them are), and I had a cardboard full of pictures of FC hunted animals that had been wounded and left suffering to die unrecovered (as many are) and had a video loop running showing a deer with a shot off leg or jaw ect... who do you think would get more signatures to ban something?


Of course every HF animal is recovered - where would they go to escape? I suppose you are trying to make the case that HF killing is more ethical than hunting. It sounds to me like you and your HSUS friends are trying to travel the same road.



> Roger entered into the HF fray to go after an individual and their wife.


Bull!



> He refuses to answer a handful of simple questions, one very basic one as to how this measure will even stop HF from happening in this state. The reality is unless that one single question can be answered, the sponsors of this measure have lied to every single person that signed this petition. But then again what's new.


If you believe this won't end HF hunting and the initiated measure passes, you can be the first one to test it.



> Until roger is willing to one by one answer the questions that have been posed on this thread he started, there is little else worth contributing as it has already been spelled out quite clearly in black and white statements by the sponsors and supporters themselves what this measure is really all about, "jealousy" and "bragging rights" Deny involvement with HSUS all you want the simple fact as a hunter you will do ANYTHING that furthers their agendas speaks more truth than anything you will write.


Gabe, your four questions are nothing more than smoke screens. You know it, I know it and everybody else knows it. I don't think anybody takes you seriously.



> Deny involvement with HSUS all you want the simple fact as a hunter you will do ANYTHING that furthers their agendas speaks more truth than anything you will write.


That statement is absolutely asinine!



> The simple fact you can not get your 12000 signatures from within the states hunting community alone should tell you what most hunters themselves believe about this measure.


You obviously think the voting population in ND should not have a say in this matter.



> And yet like a little child that pouts until they get their way, you continue to go where ever and say whatever to whoever it takes to get your way.


Look in the mirror Gabe, look in the mirror.


----------



## LT

JHegg Stated:


> Buffalo are not big game animals or exotics. You already know my position - I have stated it clearly.


Just as farmed elk are not big game animals. If you are going to use the Century Code to exclude Buffalo, then the same should hold true for farmed elk and privately owned animals.

Why does the measure use terminology from the Game & Fish section, i.e. big game species, but yet the measure is being placed in the livestock section? Big game species according to the Century Code excludes all privately owned animals.

Who wrote this measure? Who paid the lawyer to draft it?


----------



## gst

Jim, You made it perfectly clear it is about something being shot behind a fence being called hunting. That is EXACTLY what these buffalo hunts are doing. Your not including them says quite a little.

As to the issues behind FC I mentioned that would garner more signatures . I'm merely pointing out your holier than thou FC ethics and way of hunting has it's own set of issues that if delt with in the same manner roger is would most certainly give your FC hunting you consider ethically superior the same kind of problems you claim HF does in the eyes of the nonhunting public.

As to roger going after a person and his wife, go back and read the first page of this thread.

As a sponsor you are responsible for presenting to the public a law that will do as it claims. Explain how if someone gets a bill of sale for a live animal, and then the new owner of that animal shoots that animal on your property, I am in violation of this law? It is badly written and will require a judge to more broadly interpret it to do what you are claiming. Text book HSUS, or very poorly thought out.

As to the questions I have posed, roger and you other sponsors know the will not help your "cause" if they are answered, so they do not do so.

Poll the states hunters and see who would support making HSUS's agendas to end all hunting any easier for them. That in a nutshell is why you can't get less than 20% of the states hunters to sign this petition easily gaining your 12000 signatures without going to home and garden shows as you do.

As to the "voting public" having a say, I see the risk in begining to involve the nonhunting public in these issues in this manner. Think back to the example I gave of the issues with your FC hunting and what happens and involving the nonhunting public in the manner roger is. Actually stop and think for a moment what most nonhunters would think.

As to your groups pouting like a child, when I look in the mirror, I see I'm not the one that has made several attempts at this and issues like baiting and continue to pursue them till they get their way and justify it by saying their giving the public their say regardless of the cost. I'm merely the one pointing out the flaws in your arguement when you do so. This is badly written law that will not do as you claim, that opens the door to give groups coming after hunting alittle more credibility in the eyes of the nonhunting public. And it is being done for the most childish reason, "jealousy" and "bragging rights". As roger likes to say, the truth comes wrapped in black and white, "bragging rights" and "jealousy" :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

There are few people on the Fair Chase measure that I know, but I do know JHegg. I knew him well 30 years ago, and talked to him once a year ago. He hasn't changed, he is still the pro hunter, pro firearms, pro second amendment person I knew 30 years ago. We didn't hunt much together since he was a waterfowl person and I was more of a big game hunter. It's good that people have different interests, or we would be tripping over each other in the field. I suppose I will upset people if I say I wouldn't walk across the road to shoot a duck. 

I think one of the ideas JHegg has that no one is catching onto is the same as mine. If you put a pig in a pasture and took a rifle after him thinking you were a real sport I would not have a good opinion of you then either. If you release dogs in a pasture and shake a Purina bowl as a call then shoot them it doesn't make you a predator hunter. Same thing with elk or deer in a pen. It isn't a hunt, and the customers are not hunters.

You know we all see things differently. I seen a headline on the Drudge Report just seconds ago that I thought was just wrong.


> Felon accused of running animal-sex farm in Whatcom County


 I sure hope I don't get any arguments about that.  I'm kind of wondering if he will use the landowners rights angle in court. Now to keep you guys from going for the cheap sympathy shot I am not making any comparison here other than people see things differently, shutting this guy down is not a slippery slope for landowner rights, and HSUS and PETA will not monitor your bedroom. Well that last part wasn't quite right. HSUS and PETA may hang around that guys farm.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> You know we all see things differently. I seen a headline on the Drudge Report just seconds ago that I thought was just wrong. Felon accused of running animal-sex farm in Whatcom County. I sure hope I don't get any arguments about that.


Maybe it can be included as one of the things that will be eliminated with this measure, like internet hunting. I'm sure that would gain a lot of supporters. :thumb:


----------



## jhegg

*LT,*



> Who wrote this measure? Who paid the lawyer to draft it?


I don't know who drafted it or whether any money was paid to do so. I do know I support the wording as it is written and believe it will accomplish its stated objective.

*Gabe,*



> Jim, You made it perfectly clear it is about something being shot behind a fence being called hunting. That is EXACTLY what these buffalo hunts are doing. Your not including them says quite a little.


It says nothing. What you can not seem to understand is that this measure covers big game animals and exotics - period. It doesn't cover bison, it doesn't cover pigs, it doesn't cover horned herefords, it doesn't cover pheasants. You can complain until hell freezes over about what this measure does not accomplish. Why don't you re-focus you efforts on what it will accomplish and why you think that is bad. (I suppose that will happen when hell freezes over too).



> As a sponsor you are responsible for presenting to the public a law that will do as it claims. Explain how if someone gets a bill of sale for a live animal, and then the new owner of that animal shoots that animal on your property, I am in violation of this law? It is badly written and will require a judge to more broadly interpret it to do what you are claiming. Text book HSUS, or very poorly thought out.


I will leave that to the judge. As far as "text book HSUS", I see you are telling them how to accomplish their goals. If HSUS thinks your plan will work, I'm sure they will follow your lead.



> As to the "voting public" having a say, I see the risk in begining to involve the nonhunting public in these issues in this manner.


I see. Then you believe that the "voting public" should not have a say in how livestock waste is disposed of, or have a say in how mining operations are conducted, or have a say in how banks are regulated because they are not directly involved in these "issues". I don't buy that one!



> This is badly written law that will not do as you claim, that opens the door to give groups coming after hunting alittle more credibility in the eyes of the nonhunting public.


Your opinion - for whatever that is worth.



> And it is being done for the most childish reason, "jealousy" and "bragging rights".


I already told you my reason. I do not consider it ethical to shoot a penned up big game animal. Nothing there about "jealousy" and "bragging rights".


----------



## LT

JHegg stated:


> It says nothing. What you can not seem to understand is that this measure covers big game animals and exotics - period. It doesn't cover bison, it doesn't cover pigs, it doesn't cover horned herefords, it doesn't cover pheasants. You can complain until hell freezes over about what this measure does not accomplish. Why don't you re-focus you efforts on what it will accomplish and why you think that is bad. (I suppose that will happen when hell freezes over too).


JHegg, if you want to get technical, where does it say it doesn't cover bison in the measure; it says "big game species." It doesn't say farmed elk, it doesn't say deer, it doesn't say bison...

So if you are using the century code interpretation to not include bison, how can you then say it includes farmed elk or any privately owned animal, when by the century code interpretation big game species specifically excludes any privately owned animals?


----------



## jhegg

*LT,*



> JHegg, if you want to get technical, where does it say it doesn't cover bison in the measure; it says "big game species." It doesn't say farmed elk, it doesn't say deer, it doesn't say bison...


OK, lets' get technical.

In the ND Century code, section 20.1-01-02. Definitions.



> 5. "Big game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and antelope.


Jim


----------



## LT

And it goes on to say this in the same section:

_46. "Species" includes any subspecies of WILDLIFE and any other group of WILDLIFE of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.

54. "Wildlife" means any member of the animal kingdom including any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead part or parts thereof. Wildlife DOES NOT INCLUDE domestic animals as defined by section 36-01-00.1 or birds or animals held in private ownership. _

Section 36-01-00.1 defines domestic animals as such: http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t36c01.pdf

_3. "Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.
4. "Nontraditional livestock" means any wildlife held in a cage, fence, enclosure, or
other manmade means of confinement that limits its movement within definite
boundaries or an animal that is physically altered to limit movement and facilitate
capture._


----------



## gst

jhegg said:


> You said it is about the price paid and whether the animal is considered a trophy. When you say that, you better be talking about the HF operators, not me. Do you think I am jealous of some idiot that shot a captive big game animal in a fence? Do you think I am jealous because somebody made a profit? Get real!
> 
> I do not like the idea that 12 HF operations in ND are bastardizing the tradition of hunting to make a personnal gain. If they make that profit without being parasites on the tradition of hunting, more power to them. I wish them all the money and success thay can get. But not at the expense of hunting tradition.
> Jim


Jim, so apparently for you it is only about the 12 HF operations that are selling elk and deer that are calling it hunting that are "bastardizing the hunting tradition" and not about the HF buffalo operations and game bird operations that are doing the same thing and calling it hunting, advertising it as hunting. Apparently in your eyes they aren't "bastardizing the hunting tradition" because it is not "big game animals"? If that is the case, this is clearly not about wether something is called hunting or not.

So let me get this straight , you have a problem with someone shooting animals with large antlers behind a HF, but someone that is shooting animals with no large antlers behind a HF and calling it hunting is ok, simply because it is not classified as a "big game animal" . And yet you want people to believe it is not about "jealousy" and "bragging rights" :eyeroll: At least roger was honest enoughto admit it.

Answer the question if this is soley about big game animals why is it under the livestock section of the centruy code?


----------



## LT

GST stated:


> Answer the question if this is soley about big game animals why is it under the livestock section of the centruy code?


This is something I have been hammering on from the beginning. Why are they using terminology from one section of the Century Code (Game & Fish) and crossing over to another section by placing the measure in the livestock section.

Any why when the measure was initially presented to the legislators (SB 2254) was it written in a manner that it used the terminology farmed elk, nontraditional livestock, but now when it is presented to the people it is written in the most confusing manner, so that you will need a lawyer to break the code? Actually I think I know the answer to that! :shake:


----------



## gst

LT, This group has learned a thing or two since then, mainly from these groups like HSUS's play book on how to write laws so they can be more broadly interpreted to include much more than what they were intended to. 


jhegg said:


> *Gabe,*
> We have been arguing in circles for a long time, but lets try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim The problem is your measure is not going after HF operators for calling what they do hunting. It is going after what they do, read the wording of the measure. As a sponsor you should realize this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you do not consider it hunting then it is NO different than shooting a pig in a pen. Plain and simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plain and simple, if the HF operators choose to advertise it as hunting, it should stand up to hunting ethics. What is so hard to understand about that?
> Jim
Click to expand...

Jim I'm confused  help me out here is it the HF operators that are just advertising elk hunts and deer hunts or the ones advertsizing buffalo hunts that you require to "stand up to hunting ethics"? I guess simply because one is not a big game animal it's ok. Hey wait a minute ND century code defines Farmed elk as domestic animals not big game. Oops. Do I smell another initiated measure to change the wording of the ND century code to fit your agenda as well?


----------



## RogerK

I was away for the weekend taking signatures. Had a few interesting conversations, or at least listened to some interesting conversations.

Had several young fellows tell me about following the debate on this site. They didn't have a clued that I am involved. Their comments on you High Fence boys were not kind. They are laughing at you and your flimsy arguments. I did not bring up the subject. Your comments are the best support and the best argument we have for the Fair Chase measure. So you High Fence boys keep posting away.

I have never waffled on the objective of the Fair Chase initiative. I don't want to change the name of what goes on inside the fence from hunting to something else. It isn't an advertising problem. High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations are a cancer on hunting. They will destroy hunting as we know it. Look at Texas. Somebody fenced that first acre and put a deer inside the enclosure. Look where they ended up. I want to put High Fence operations out of the shooting business.

I have talked to dozens of Texans over the last 2 months in North Dakota working in the oil patch. Not one of them had anything positive to say about the Texas system. If they moved here and were eligible voters, they enthusiastically signed the petition. If they were not qualified, they were ticked that they couldn't sign.

As to enforcement of the law after it passes: The operators will get a letter from the appropriate state authority setting the new parameters for their operations along with deadline to end the shooting. Word will fly out over the internet that North Dakota is close to High Fence shooting. That will dry up the shooting business. What are you High Fence boys going to advertise: Come to North Dakota, shoot an elk, risk arrested? Scheming how to get around the law with a bill of sale won't work.

The difference between shooting a steer or pig: Nobody will pay fifteen grand to sneak around a pasture pretending to be hunting, and then hang the hog or steer on the wall.

Bottom line: Take away your hypothetical arguments, and you have no argument. :rollin:


----------



## LT

Roger Stated: What are you High Fence boys going to advertise: Come to North Dakota, shoot an elk, risk arrested? Scheming how to get around the law with a bill of sale won't work.

But those same operators can still advertise: Come to North dakota, shoot a bison!


----------



## RogerK

Do you serve toast with your red herring?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Chuck,
> 
> So this is about the Price paid, and that the animal is considered a trophy. Correct?? Not about the ethic's. Thank You for proving my point that "ethics" does not play a role at all in this fact. It is the $$$ and that this animal is considered a "trophy". That is it. Like many have stated take the horns off the animal or the "score" away from the animal and people would not care. So this bill is about jealousy plain and simple. Jealous that a rancher or HF operator is charging $5000+ an animal and making profit and the jealous factor that people are shooting "trophy" animals. PERIOD! No science, no health standard reasons, no animals care reasons, no disease issues, etc..... JUST JEALOUSY.
> 
> I can not believe that you do not recognize the difference between hunting and shooting a captive big game animal in a pen. If you can't, that tells me a lot about your "hunting ethics" - or more properly the lack thereof.
> 
> You said it is about the price paid and whether the animal is considered a trophy. When you say that, you better be talking about the HF operators, not me. Do you think I am jealous of some idiot that shot a captive big game animal in a fence? Do you think I am jealous because somebody made a profit? Get real!
> 
> I do not like the idea that 12 HF operations in ND are bastardizing the tradition of hunting to make a personnal gain. If they make that profit without being parasites on the tradition of hunting, more power to them. I wish them all the money and success thay can get. But not at the expense of hunting tradition.
> 
> So, for me it is an ethics issue. I have no idea where you are coming from.
> 
> Jim


*Hunting Ethics does not play a role at all in this. PERIOD. * Like everyone for this measure states.....it is shooting. Which I believe it to be as well. *But the only "ethics" that come into play is the matter of a quick kill or death for the animal*. Period. Otherwise it has nothing else to do with ethics.
Unless these operators are treating animal in-humanely or drugging the animals. Which I don't think any do like you see in that one vid on i think PETA's website years ago of a drugged elk. If operators are doing this. SHUT THEM DOWN....that sole operator. But again this is not hunting ethics.....this is just ethical treatment of animals. That is totally different than hunting ethics. (sorry that is a little close to PETA. I almost scared myself.)

Because it is just like killing an other animal in a pen either for slaughter. HUNTING does not happen at these places. So hunting ethics don't play a role. How much clearer can I make a point... again.... HUNTING DOES NOT HAPPEN AT THESE PLACES.....SO IN TURN HUNTING ETHICS HAS NO ROLE AT THESE PLACES.

JIM....
I take personal offense to you thinking I have no hunting ethics. You don't know me so I can let it slide....a little. But if you would be around me you would know my ethics and morals in general but more when it comes to hunting are at one of the very highest standards. But again you don't know me.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> I have never waffled on the objective of the Fair Chase initiative. I don't want to change the name of what goes on inside the fence from hunting to something else. It isn't an advertising problem. High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations are a cancer on hunting. They will destroy hunting as we know it. Look at Texas. Somebody fenced that first acre and put a deer inside the enclosure. Look where they ended up. I want to put High Fence operations out of the shooting business


Roger.... this is a little misleading.

How it started in Texas people fenced in acres to keep people out and a wild deer herd in. *The state allowed them to pen the wild animals. Then rancher paid the state $$ for the deer inside the fence. The state then allows these ranchers to manage the herd as they see fit.* So then that herd became privately owned and "managed" for that land. I am not 100% sure if these "ranches" need to pay a fee every year to privately manage the ranch. But they don't have an offical deer season and they don't have to draw tags. But I do think they can only harvest X number of deer a year. The difference and problem is the state sold the public resource. This is totally wrong in my book. This is the actual stealing of the public resource. This is taking public and making it private.

What happened in ND or so I believe. Please tell me if it was different..... A person puts up a fence. Buys deer and elk from a private party. Puts the deer or elk inside fence. *So these animals were already privately owned never public property.* They were never once owned or managed by the state or the public. Like a cattle ranchers exchange or selling heads of cattle to each other. This is taking private and keeping it private.

Big difference between the two... read the bold.

Now on how you don't think the advertising it the issue. You keep saying it is about hunting ethics. Yet you say hunting does not happen at these operations. So how does hunting ethics even play a role? It is like yelling at a football ref about the ethics of baseball. Two totally different things. So it must be that these places advertise a "hunt" is what is bothering you and others for this bill. Because many keep saying that it is ok to shoot pig or cow for slaughter. But yet it is not a elk or deer. When if you bring it to its basic form....shooting an animal in a pen or enclosure they are the same. Just species of animal is the only thing different. Because all the animals are privately owned.


----------



## 58504451

I asked a few questions on this topic to get backround on what this is really about. It has been amusing to see the amount of effort that is being put into a law that affects so few people.

You continue to distance yourself from PETA and HSUS, if the tactics you use and the message you send is the same does it matter what you call yourself?? I would bet that I could gather 12,000 signatures by showing pictures of legally and ethically killed animals to people who have not idea about hunting, food production, and how the steak egts to the store. Do we want them deciding all of the hunting issues??

You will not answer questions on the proposal for elk in the park. I must assume then that it will be ethical becasue it's a federal order? The last article I read quoted the use of satelites to locate them easier. Ethical??

You will not answer a question of the ethics of baiting but pictures of your supporters on your own websie show a guy with a whitetail buck in front of a couple of piles of sunflowers. Ethical???

Keep in mind that whats happening in Texas is being done on private land. You can turn us into Texas in a hurry by pushing your ideas onto every landowner in North Dakota. Next time you go to your support group meeting look around and see how many supporters actually have an investment in farming, ranching, or owning a business. How many make their living from licenses sales, non-profits, or tax dollars?? Not asaybing there's anything wron with it but trying to run everyone elses ethical life seems a big of a stretch.

As I said in the beginning of this thread I do not nor ever intend to support a HF operation but I also don't wish the worst for them every morning when I wake up as some seem to. Your statement about sportsmen sitting on their butts during the session was funny. Maybe they did vioce their concerns??


----------



## RogerK

58504451

When Dwight showed up at the Fair Chase table at the state fair to have me arrested, or whatever he intended, he had a local law enforcement office in tow. Wrong jurisdiction. You keep showing up at the Fair Chase debate with the feds and TRNP in tow. If you guys can't keep you jurisdictions straight, how are you going to defeat the new law in court?

Federal, big fish, like Red Herring, state little fish, like little red herring.

As far as the detailed explanation of how Texas got to be Texas; doesn't matter how a septic tank got dug, it's still full of crap. It won't have that system her in North Dakota, is I can help it. And I am helping it.

Just keep talking. You assume that the people of this state are not very smart. Trust me, they know a bad situation when they see it.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> As far as the detailed explanation of how Texas got to be Texas; doesn't matter how a septic tank got dug, it's still full of crap. It won't have that system her in North Dakota, is I can help it. And I am helping it.


Again....you are misleading saying ND will become texas. It is two different things. One they bought the animals first from the state! They fenced in wild animals and then payed the state. In ND (unless someone tells me different) they put up the fence. Then buy the animals not from the state but from private people (could be from texas) but it is not the "public" owned animals that you say you are fighting for.

I would still like a few answers to the questions I have asked.

How is shooting a hog and shooting a deer different if when you boil it down to its most basic form is shooting animals in a pen. How is one ethical and one not?

Then how does hunting ethics apply when you state it yourself that what happens at these HF operations is not hunting? So how does hunting ethics apply when hunting is not involved?


----------



## Chuck Smith

I am going to add this in.... About my two questions. Please if someone responds please dont say "if you can't see the difference they you are ethically wrong"... I obiviously cant see the different from shooting a privately owned animals where one is ethically ok and the other is not. I can't see where hunting ethic's play a role when in fact hunting is not taking place what so ever.

So please try to explain to me how one is ethical and the other is not when you are shooting privately owned animals. Then explain to me how hunting ethics plays a role in something that is not hunting at all.


----------



## LT

Roger Stated:


> When Dwight showed up at the Fair Chase table at the state fair to have me arrested, or whatever he intended, he had a local law enforcement office in tow.


Are you getting confused Roger.



> Roger by stating the following you are implying that you had to call the sheriff's dept on the wife.
> He went off on me like Dwight's wife did, except I didn't have to call the Sheriff on him.
> 
> You also stated the following in the Minot paper article that was written after the state fair:
> Roger Kaseman of Linton, an initiative proponent, said sheriff's deputies were called to settle a disturbance that occurred when a measure opponent dropped by his Commercial III booth earlier in the week. Fair management was called in after opponents disputed the right of measure proponents to use information from Web sites of game farms, he said. That's on top of two death threats that he's received, Kaseman said.
> 
> DG was the one that brought the Sheriff and fair president, but you already knew that.


----------



## RogerK

Not confused at all. Two separated incidents a day or so apart.


----------



## LT

Roger, Two separate incidents. Don't think so. :roll:


----------



## 58504451

Roger - I have no idea who any of the people defending their past on this topic are. I am not at all interested in your squabbles with operators. Thanks again for avoiding answeing questions.


----------



## gst

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. This Act becomes effective on November 1, 2012.

Roger, please explain how someone selling a LIVE animal to someone else and that person who is now the new owner of that animal kills this animal is in violation of this law as it is written without much broader interpretation?

Please explain how if farmed elk are considered a DOMESTIC animal under the state century code this law as written will apply to them without a change to the states centry code?

Please look at the section of the state century code LT provided listing farmed elk in the same catagory as swine and cattle and tell me if a judge interprets this law to include "farmed elk" why that won't open the door to including cattle and swine? At the very least allowing HSUS to argue it does!


----------



## gst

Chuck, the reality and I'm pretty sure you already know this is this isn't about ethics, it isn't about disease, it's not about FC. It is about one thing and one thing only. ANTLERS An elitist group of individuals whose fragile egos are challenged when someone buys an animal with large antlers and "hangs it on the wall for bragging rights". Roger and these other sponsors won't answer any of the questions asked because to say anything other than that is an undefensible lie. They are walking hand in hand with anti hunting groups such as HSUS with this measure and could care less as long as they get what they were denied on several seperate occassions in the legislative arena anyway they can.

I would guess roger is sure they have enough signatures to place this on the ballot or he wouldn't be on here risking being asked these questions he won't answer. How much does anyone want to bet that when this is placed on the ballot, HSUS becomes involved pushing and advertising for this measure, and these same sponsors will be on here claiming they have no control over HSUS becoming involved in this issue. All because of some childish bruised egos over as roger says "bragging rights" :eyeroll:


----------



## jhegg

Gabe,
Do you really work for HSUS? You sure think like they do.
Jim


----------



## gst

No Jim I don't. That's how you protect things such as ranching and hunting from groups such as these by educating yourself to how they work. I am a cattle rancher that is involved in state and national orgs. that deal firsthand with groups such as HSUS and their agendas and that have a very good insight into what they are willing to do and how they go about accomplishing it. Something you sponsors of this measure ACT as if you have no clue to, nor even want to. Roger defends their rights, dick says he can't help wether they become involved collecting signatures, some have even said there is nothing wrong with working together with them on this measure. Your group might be better served to take this group and what they do a little more seriously. Here's a question , how is your group going to respond when this is on the ballot and HSUS is running ads all over ND TV stations and sending out mass mailings? I suppose you can continue to deny any responsibility for giving them this platform here in ND as you are now.

Roger claims to ferociously defend against groups like HSUS, but has not shown what he did if anything in opposition out in California when they used the initiated measure to ban mountian lion hunting. He has not denied that he himself contacted anyone from HSUS in the first attempt at this measure. Your group NDH for FC is taking pages right out of the HSUS playbook for using these measures to further parrallel agendas to what they want to see accomplished doing their job for them. So who will send who the thank you note first, your group when HSUS starts their ad campaign this fall, or HSUS for you guys opening the door and doing their job for them? So tell me jim, how proud is your group going to be when you are on this list. 
http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/Initiativechart.pdf :eyeroll:


----------



## barebackjack

jhegg said:


> Dear BareBackJackAss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So......if I buy a horned hereford (ya know, for the "trophy" aspect of those big horns), shot it in the pasture, and called it hunting, you'd consider that "unethical" and would want that banned?
> 
> 
> 
> The initiated measure deals with big game animals and exotics. A "horned hereford" doesn't fall into either category.
> 
> Jim
Click to expand...

Real classy Jim. I guess its ok for the arrogant elitists to cast stones.

And no, they are NOT big game animals.

NDCC 36-01-00.1.
"Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
*farmed elk*, llama, alpaca, or swine.

Sooooo......according to the ND century code, a horned hereford DOES fall into the same category as that farmed elk.


----------



## Plainsman

You know in debate there is the old technique of diverting the real subject. It would be interesting to see where this would go if the real issue was talked about. Did you notice my last post about that nut job running an animal sex farm? My question was do you think landowner rights will save him from the law. That should make it crystal clear this is not about landowner rights, nothing to do with if an animal is wild or an ag animal, nothing to do with all the distractions and dust people keep kicking up.

Landowner rights is not the issue, slippery slope is fear not logic, HSUS is a problem for hunters that we should face, but trying to link them is simply an attempt at character assassination through affiliation of a group we all dislike. They stuck their nose in last time, but this is a new effort. I would rather have done this a different way, but I have to tell you guys the truth, the pro high fence people are convincing me they are wrong. Then their is the ultimate hypocrisy I have observed. People who were against baiting are supporting high fence operations. That makes me wonder if they have any grasp on sportsmanship.

High fence supporters would have received more sympathy from me if they had said nothing. However, your attempts to demonize people makes me think there is something very very wrong. If you have a good argument you should present it. So far it's simply trying to tie people into HSUS that I know would have nothing to do with them. My personal opinion is JHegg is further from HSUS than the people who would like to make it look like he gets ideas from them. I see one group of hunters trying to police their own against the wildlife exploiters.

One of the problems wildlife has always faced is money. Habitat is lost for money. Animals are poached often for trophy heads for money, and the list goes on. I think the real problem here is what are people willing to do for money. We have sportsmen against business in this situation. Hunters are not part of this problem, because the guys who pay to shoot an animal in a pen, pasture, or whatever you want to call it are not hunters. I think we should make it a huge fine for anyone who pays to shoot an animal in a pen.


----------



## jhegg

barebackjack,

Read the measure. The following is a direct quote from it. The italics and bold are mine to point out the obvious to you.



> 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.


Jim


----------



## jhegg

Gabe,

Being the lead strategy thinker for HSUS is a mighty strange job for a cattle rancher.

Jim


----------



## Chuck Smith

> 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.


So if a person sells an private- owned big game species to a butcher then it is killed in a chute. Does that make it a class A misdemeanor?

I am sure there are some provisions in this bill that will make it ok for the farms to sell their livestock to butcher shops or other places that buy elk, deer, exotics for the slaughter......correct? Because the quote above does not specify this at all?


----------



## LT

Plainsman stated:


> Did you notice my last post about that nut job running an animal sex farm? My question was do you think landowner rights will save him from the law. That should make it crystal clear this is not about landowner rights, nothing to do with if an animal is wild or an ag animal, nothing to do with all the distractions and dust people keep kicking up.


Since when has animal sex farms been legal? How can you even compare this as an issue of landowner's rights? This is about as bad as comparing this with prostitution.

Hunting/killing/shooting in a humane manner is legal. Hunting/killing/shooting an elk/deer for meat, antlers, hide is legal, and for the sport of it is legal, hanging the head on the wall is legal. This is a commodity of this animal that already exists that is privately owned by these ranchers. Animal beastility is not a product that already exists for these animals.

This is not about landowner's rights. This is about PROPERTY rights. This is why I became involved in this issue.

At the Jamestown Public Forum 2 years ago I witnessed an elk grower handing out a piece of paper that said: "Neither 'property' nor the value of property is a physical thing. Property is a set of defined options...It is that set of options which has economic value...It is the options, and not the physical things, which are the 'property' - economically as well as legally... But because the public tends to think of property as tangible, physical things, this opens the way politically for government confiscation of property by forcibly taking away options while leaving the physical objects untouched." 
- Thomas Sowell

And what happened next is probably the biggest reason I am here. A federal employee who works for the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown which is part of the US Geological Survey took the paper from the elk grower, read it, and threw it back at him stating: "You F'n landowners and your F'n property rights, that **** doesn't mean anything to me."


----------



## gst

Plainsman, it would be nice to debate the merit of this issue. But to have debate, when a question is asked the "other" side has to be willing to answer. The primary sponsors have not answered any questions as to this issue. Here is just a handfull they could, that have already been asked.

1.If this measure does not prevent these operations from existing for meat or antler markets how will this measure lessen the risk of disease as is being suggested?
2.If this measure is about the hunting ethics of killing an animal in or released from a fenced enclosure as it is written and being suggested, why are buffalo and game birds not included? 
3.Should the sponsors of this measure be held to a standard of fact and truth when presenting this measure to the public? 
4.As this measure is written, how will it accomplish what is being promised to the signers of this petition if these animals are already classified as domestic animals rather than big game under the states century code? 
5.Will this measure require a change to the states century code as to how these animals are currently classified to be included under the big game or exotic distinction made in this measure?
6.As this measure is written,if I sell a live big game or exotic animal to someone can they then shoot that animal they now own without being in violation of this measure?
7. If this is not considered hunting by measure sponsors, then why is it being held to hunting ethical standards?
8. If it is about it being advertsed as hunting and the effects of allowing an animal shot inside a fence to be called and advertised as hunting based on FC rules, why are buffalo operations still being allowed to advertise what they do behind a fence as hunting and are exempt from this measure?
9.If this measure is adopted as law and the domestic classification of animals which farmed elk are now listed under is included by judicial interpretation, will this affect wether I can legally sell a steer or hog to someone to be shot in a pen to be butchered without them being exempted? 
10. If the nonhunting public is invited to have a say in issues involving the shooting of animals thru these initiated maesures, do you believe this opens the door at all to them possibly being invited into having a say thru other initiated measures regulating what forms of hunting and shooting of animals should be allowed in the future?

Plainsman, 10 simple questions that are not derogatory, that are not demonizing anyone, not misdirecting the debate from the issue, but are simply asking for clarification and positions of this group in regards to the factors involved in them bringing this measure to the public, most of which have already been asked but not answered . If the sponsors are unwilling to address each one seperately and directly, they then open themselves up to individual interpretation of these questions based on why they won't answer them. Unfortunately that is what is happening as NONE of the sponsors of this measure have directly answered anyone's questions. As sponsors, one would think it is their obligation to provide factual answers to questions like those posed above under the initiated measure process, lets see if they start now.


----------



## jhegg

LT,
I don't know who you are. Could you post your name, location and connection to the HF industry for me? Thanks.
Jim


----------



## gst

jhegg said:


> Gabe,
> 
> Being the lead strategy thinker for HSUS is a mighty strange job for a cattle rancher.
> 
> Jim


Jim if one does not know what his enemies will do and what lengths they will go to to accomplish their agendas, and how they go about it, he is a fool that will be left wondering what happened once it is too late. And make no mistake, HSUS is an enemy to both hunting and ranching. It's too bad your group NDH for FC , as sponsors of this measure, doesn't think in this manner rather than concerning yourself soley with "bragging rights" and bruised egos from someone "hanging a head onthe wall". :wink:


----------



## LT

Chuck Stated:


> I am sure there are some provisions in this bill that will make it ok for the farms to sell their livestock to butcher shops or other places that buy elk, deer, exotics for the slaughter......correct? Because the quote above does not specify this at all?


It is my understanding that elk/deer cannot go to the nearest livestock ring or butcher shop as they are not permitted to accept them. They cannot be transported live in a stock trailer and hauled by someone that has no permit. A live elk can only be transported from a permitted facility to another permitted facility. That is the number one reason these animals are harvested on the farm.


----------



## Chuck Smith

LT....

Lets say the butcher shop is USDA approved, have the people with the right permits to move the animals from the ranch to the butcher shop. Can they then kill the animal with our being in violation of this measure?

Because if not they will be going after any elk farm out there even though they are not selling the so called "hunt". They are just selling the animal like cattle for process of horns, hide and meat. So in fact not just closing down HF operations it will be closing down the elk farmers as well. Because these people would be in a violation.


----------



## KRAKMT

Lame excuse. The division of the courts is meaningless.

For the record, 100% of the judges in the trial courts ruled against the High Fence operators.

Of the federal courts, 100% ruled against the High Fence operators.

The Judge of the United States Circuit Court, ruled against the High Fence operators.

The three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; 100% against the High Fence operators.

The United States Supreme Court, 100% opposed to hearing the case.

The Montana Supreme Court, a dissenting opinion. The dissenting judge did not cite any case law to support his opinion, he cited Shakespeare.

Excuses as to how a case came out does not add up to a right. If I am wrong, prove it; cite your cases.[/quote]

This is not 100 percent accurate.
But ironically the Montana Supreme Court justice that dissented is the Court's most liberal.
K


----------



## Plainsman

> Since when has animal sex farms been legal? How can you even compare this as an issue of landowner's rights? This is about as bad as comparing this with prostitution.


I think things like this were asked all last year, but many perhaps didn't see that. Anyway, first of all in my original post I took the opportunity to say I am making no comparison, but I did have two points. 
Second I would guess at one time anything was legal, but as any civilization developes they make laws. I doubt there were computer hackers in George Washington's day, but new laws are required for new situations. That makes the question about legal very good. Many people keep saying "it's legal, it's legal, it's legal". Well that's the whole idea of this initiative, to let the people decide if it should be legal. 


> How can you even compare this issue to landowner's rights?


 Once the issue is decided whether it should be legal or not we will know if it's a landowners right or not. It's not a landowners right to break the law. I'm not comparing the nut job with the animal sex farm to high fence operations, I am comparing an illegal farm activity to another that may be outlawed.

Please go read my post again, I took precautions to say I was not going to make comparisons sho anyone could go for the cheap sympathy shot.

Have to go ten imported Koi just showed up FedEx.


----------



## jhegg

Dwight,

I know Doug Johnson, Gary Krapu, Marsha Savoda and Bob Woodward from when I worked there. I met Pam Pietz on a project in MN when I was working there. I recognize a few other names, but don't know them. I would call them all pretty good people.

I have no beef (pardon the pun) with agriculture, meat production or an agrian way of life. I now work for Amerrican Crystal Sugar Company which, of course, is heavily involved with agriculture.

Jim


----------



## DG

jhegg wrote,



> I know Doug Johnson, Gary Krapu, Marsha Savoda and Bob Woodward from when I worked there. I met Pam Pietz on a project in MN when I was working there. I recognize a few other names, but don't know them. I would call them all pretty good people.


You used to work there. Well that would explain a few things. It comes full circle. Did you work with Plainsman when he was there?

Jim, We have alot of good employees who work for the fedgov. How do you think those good employees feel about the way this campaign is being conducted?


----------



## jhegg

Dwight,



> Jim, We have alot of good employees who work for the fedgov. How do you think those good employees feel about the way this campaign is being conducted?


Don't know, haven't asked them. It's pretty obvious though, that you must think anyone that works for the Feds in the wildlife field isn't a "good employee". In what fields do the "good employees" work? Maybe I contact some of them and find out the answer to your question.

Jim


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> I'm not comparing the nut job with the animal sex farm to high fence operations, I am comparing an illegal farm activity to another that may be outlawed.


Illegal farm activity. Not sure it is just an illegal farm activity. :wink:

But killing/shooting/hunting these animals is already being done off the farm. It is an option of these animals, an option of this privately owned animal. It is not about landowner's rights, but property rights.

Property is a set of defined options...It is that set of options which has economic value...It is the options, and not the physical things, which are the 'property' - economically as well as legally... But because the public tends to think of property as tangible, physical things, this opens the way politically for government confiscation of property by forcibly taking away options while leaving the physical objects untouched." 
- Thomas Sowell


----------



## KurtR

Plainsman said:


> You know in debate there is the old technique of diverting the real subject. It would be interesting to see where this would go if the real issue was talked about. Did you notice my last post about that nut job running an animal sex farm? My question was do you think landowner rights will save him from the law. That should make it crystal clear this is not about landowner rights, nothing to do with if an animal is wild or an ag animal, nothing to do with all the distractions and dust people keep kicking up.
> 
> Landowner rights is not the issue, slippery slope is fear not logic, HSUS is a problem for hunters that we should face, but trying to link them is simply an attempt at character assassination through affiliation of a group we all dislike. They stuck their nose in last time, but this is a new effort. I would rather have done this a different way, but I have to tell you guys the truth, the pro high fence people are convincing me they are wrong. Then their is the ultimate hypocrisy I have observed. People who were against baiting are supporting high fence operations. That makes me wonder if they have any grasp on sportsmanship.
> 
> High fence supporters would have received more sympathy from me if they had said nothing. However, your attempts to demonize people makes me think there is something very very wrong. If you have a good argument you should present it. So far it's simply trying to tie people into HSUS that I know would have nothing to do with them. My personal opinion is JHegg is further from HSUS than the people who would like to make it look like he gets ideas from them. I see one group of hunters trying to police their own against the wildlife exploiters.
> 
> One of the problems wildlife has always faced is money. Habitat is lost for money. Animals are poached often for trophy heads for money, and the list goes on. I think the real problem here is what are people willing to do for money. We have sportsmen against business in this situation. Hunters are not part of this problem, because the guys who pay to shoot an animal in a pen, pasture, or whatever you want to call it are not hunters. I think we should make it a huge fine for anyone who pays to shoot an animal in a pen.


how can you say that when in the politcal forums you are always preaching about the govt and how we are going to be socalist if we keep going down this slope(which i agree with you) but when others say the same thing you just did they get lit up. seems that this regulation is what you are aginst when it fits your own agenda. maybe not but that is what it looks like from the outside.


----------



## Plainsman

> It is not about landowner's rights, but property rights.


It isn't a property right if the people decide it's not legal. That's what this is about, determining if it should be legal.



> how can you say that when in the politcal forums you are always preaching about the govt and how we are going to be socalist if we keep going down this slope(which i agree with you) but when others say the same thing you just did they get lit up. seems that this regulation is what you are aginst when it fits your own agenda. maybe not but that is what it looks like from the outside.


I have never said we are on a slippery slope in politics. We are in a full fledged sprint for full socialism.

I am wondering what the purpose of that list of names was. I can't see anything to be gained by it unless someone thinks that by exposing innocent people to the public they will react against the sponsors of the bill. Most people on that list don't know the measure exists. It would be much like me not liking a farmer, so I listed the names of all farmers within ten miles of him hoping to cause them problems so they bring about pressure on the single farmer I do not like. It looks like simple vindictiveness to me. I wondered about some stories I hear, and backdoor tactics like this lend credability to those other stories. I don't know any elk or deer high fence operators. The only thing I have to go on is the way people act on this site.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, if all you have to go on is how people act on this site, you must be awfully proud of this measures primary sponsor???
Tell me what question in the following is not appropriate to be asked concerning this measure, and why they should not be answered.



gst said:


> Plainsman, it would be nice to debate the merit of this issue. But to have debate, when a question is asked the "other" side has to be willing to answer. The primary sponsors have not answered any questions as to this issue. Here is just a handfull they could, that have already been asked.
> 
> 1.If this measure does not prevent these operations from existing for meat or antler markets how will this measure lessen the risk of disease as is being suggested?
> 2.If this measure is about the hunting ethics of killing an animal in or released from a fenced enclosure as it is written and being suggested, why are buffalo and game birds not included?
> 3.Should the sponsors of this measure be held to a standard of fact and truth when presenting this measure to the public?
> 4.As this measure is written, how will it accomplish what is being promised to the signers of this petition if these animals are already classified as domestic animals rather than big game under the states century code?
> 5.Will this measure require a change to the states century code as to how these animals are currently classified to be included under the big game or exotic distinction made in this measure?
> 6.As this measure is written,if I sell a live big game or exotic animal to someone can they then shoot that animal they now own without being in violation of this measure?
> 7. If this is not considered hunting by measure sponsors, then why is it being held to hunting ethical standards?
> 8. If it is about it being advertsed as hunting and the effects of allowing an animal shot inside a fence to be called and advertised as hunting based on FC rules, why are buffalo operations still being allowed to advertise what they do behind a fence as hunting and are exempt from this measure?
> 9.If this measure is adopted as law and the domestic classification of animals which farmed elk are now listed under is included by judicial interpretation, will this affect wether I can legally sell a steer or hog to someone to be shot in a pen to be butchered without them being exempted?
> 10. If the nonhunting public is invited to have a say in issues involving the shooting of animals thru these initiated maesures, do you believe this opens the door at all to them possibly being invited into having a say thru other initiated measures regulating what forms of hunting and shooting of animals should be allowed in the future?
> 
> Plainsman, 10 simple questions that are not derogatory, that are not demonizing anyone, not misdirecting the debate from the issue, but are simply asking for clarification and positions of this group in regards to the factors involved in them bringing this measure to the public, most of which have already been asked but not answered . If the sponsors are unwilling to address each one seperately and directly, they then open themselves up to individual interpretation of these questions based on why they won't answer them. Unfortunately that is what is happening as NONE of the sponsors of this measure have directly answered anyone's questions. As sponsors, one would think it is their obligation to provide factual answers to questions like those posed above under the initiated measure process, lets see if they start now.


----------



## LT

KRAKMT: I see you quoted Mr. Kaseman:


> Lame excuse. The division of the courts is meaningless.
> 
> For the record, 100% of the judges in the trial courts ruled against the High Fence operators.
> 
> Of the federal courts, 100% ruled against the High Fence operators.
> 
> The Judge of the United States Circuit Court, ruled against the High Fence operators.
> 
> The three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; 100% against the High Fence operators.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court, 100% opposed to hearing the case.
> 
> The Montana Supreme Court, a dissenting opinion. The dissenting judge did not cite any case law to support his opinion, he cited Shakespeare.
> 
> Excuses as to how a case came out does not add up to a right. If I am wrong, prove it; cite your cases.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you stated:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not 100 percent accurate.
> But ironically the Montana Supreme Court justice that dissented is the Court's most liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate.


----------



## LT

Plainsman, I find it interesting that you would be concerned about a list of names being posted that is readily available on the internet. Nothing was said bad about them, no pictures were posted with captions, and no lies were told about them. Yet you have never stated any concern about taking the elk/deer growers material/pictures and placing it on the fair chase website, actually trying to incite hatred of them.

I have to agree with Kurt R. It seems like something is only wrong or right if it fits your agenda.


----------



## Plainsman

Big difference. The people he listed have nothing to do with the measure. The people the sponsors list have everything to do with high fence operations. You can't be so blind you don't see that. Why involve people who have no idea what's going on? You do have an idea, your involved in the debate, yet I would never divulge your name or use your picture. Why? I guess I could only hope someone would harass you, and I don't want that. I don't agree with you, but I wish you well.


----------



## gst

Plainsman instead of getting side tracked on lists and crimes with animals, please indicate wether you believe there is any reason why the sponsors should not answer directly the 10 questions I posed.


----------



## LT

Plainsman stated:


> Big difference. The people he listed have nothing to do with the measure.


Now that is not entirely true, as there is one active employee who is a sponsor, one active employee (and possibly more) that is a very outspoken supporter, and ex-employees that are/were sponsors/supporters. I find it hard to believe that the other employees at USGS would not know about this measure. With so many sponsors/supporters coming from one office, it makes me go, hmmmm.


----------



## Plainsman

Surprisingly these people pay little attention to each others personal lives. People in wetland ecology know what each other is doing, people working in waterfowl know what each other is doing, but get outside of your expertise and you don't know that much that is going on. In off hours these people have all different interests. Some hunt, some fish, some golf, some do other things. You work all day together, you may not want to spend your evenings together too.
Your right, one or two people, so I see listing the rest as simply a trouble maker taking a cheap shot. That's just my personal opinion, and I have not talked to the people I worked with for three years since I retired. They were simply people I worked with not my buddies.
It would be great to see something worth talking about instead of smoke and mirrors.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> It would be great to see something worth talking about instead of smoke and mirrors.


Maybe Roger could talk about DG's wife some more.


----------



## LT

Chuck Stated:


> LT....
> 
> Lets say the butcher shop is USDA approved, have the people with the right permits to move the animals from the ranch to the butcher shop. Can they then kill the animal with our being in violation of this measure?
> 
> Because if not they will be going after any elk farm out there even though they are not selling the so called "hunt". They are just selling the animal like cattle for process of horns, hide and meat. So in fact not just closing down HF operations it will be closing down the elk farmers as well. Because these people would be in a violation.


Here is what a previous poster and past president of the elk growers had to say about the wording of the measure.



> The terminology in this initiative is another obvious attempt at deception.
> The term "captive game animals" conjures up an idea in peoples minds that is not true. Most would understand that to mean animals captured from the wild and released in a fence to be shot for a fee. If the sponsors of this measure were straight forward, as it has been suggested, why didn't they use the legal terms set forth in NDCC. FARMED ELK is the legal term for what they are and its spelled out clearly that they are considered domestic animals. Deer are designated as NONTRADITIONAL LIVESTOCK. These are obviously the two species targeted with this bill. So if we are going to try and take away someones livelyhood why shroud the question with disingenious verbage and not call it what it is? Can it be possible that the sponsors of this bill are concerned that when people really understand the scope and ramifications of the measure they will vote against it?
> 
> NDCC TITLE 36
> 36-01-00.1. Definitions.
> 3. "Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison, farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.
> 
> So does this measure apply to "farmed elk". If so, and its immoral to shoot them in a preserve, why not all the others on the list? Many of these have wild counterparts.
> 
> Interesting that as the measure is proposed it would become a part of Title 36 which is the title that applies to the State Board of Animal Health in relation livestock issues. Who will enforce this measure if it passed? I am sure every livestock producer in the state will be interested to see how a public initiative can restrict the management and disposal of their production.
> 
> The measure says "A person (doesn't say owner) is guilty... if the person (doesn't say owner) obtains fees from another person (doesn't say hunter of course, could be the owner or other buyer) for the killing of privately owned big game species confined in any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape ( a kill chute would certainly qualify). So according to Mr. Germolus and Dick my butcher could do "hard time" for killing my elk at the butcher shop.


Here is what Tom Remington, Black Bear Blog, had to say about the wording: http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2007/08/page/2/

A group calling themselves the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase are in the process of attempting to get a citizen's initiative on this November's ballot that they say is aimed to stop hunting behind fences. There has already been ample debate about the intent of the bill as sponsors are saying their intent is to stop the shooting of caged or drugged animals, yet their proposed bill will eliminate all hunting behind all fences.

There has also been discussion about how this proposed initiative would effect the elk and deer ranching industry in North Dakota. While sponsors claim the bill is not intended to do that, the wording of the proposal is being seen by some in the legal profession as a back door attempt to also shut down the domestic ranching of elk, deer and other exotics. If not a blatant attempt, it could very well happen anyway.

Here is the text of the proposed initiative.

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 â€" Penalty â€" 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. This Act becomes effective on November 1, 2010

*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


----------



## KurtR

Plainsman said:


> It is not about landowner's rights, but property rights.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a property right if the people decide it's not legal. That's what this is about, determining if it should be legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how can you say that when in the politcal forums you are always preaching about the govt and how we are going to be socalist if we keep going down this slope(which i agree with you) but when others say the same thing you just did they get lit up. seems that this regulation is what you are aginst when it fits your own agenda. maybe not but that is what it looks like from the outside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have never said we are on a slippery slope in politics. We are in a full fledged sprint for full socialism.
> 
> I am wondering what the purpose of that list of names was. I can't see anything to be gained by it unless someone thinks that by exposing innocent people to the public they will react against the sponsors of the bill. Most people on that list don't know the measure exists. It would be much like me not liking a farmer, so I listed the names of all farmers within ten miles of him hoping to cause them problems so they bring about pressure on the single farmer I do not like. It looks like simple vindictiveness to me. I wondered about some stories I hear, and backdoor tactics like this lend credability to those other stories. I don't know any elk or deer high fence operators. The only thing I have to go on is the way people act on this site.
Click to expand...

so you want to take more people right to free enterprise away. Make stringent rules and regulations and let them live there life. If they are not breaking any laws then why do we need to take more away from people. Isnt the govt doing a good enough job on its own. This is one of those cant have your cake and eat it to things. I dont use and wont use a high fence but i am all for a guy making a good living lawfully whnich they are doing right now. Just seems there are a few ethics elitest that dont want to use science or spread of disease as a legitimate reason to stop this. I guess all the people i have talked to wonder why some one always has the butt in because some one else is making more money than they are. the people that have read this said they see this bill as a im jealous of the guy with the big horns and i am jealous of the guy who just got paid 10000


----------



## Plainsman

> If they are not breaking any laws


I'm sorry you don't understand when I say that's what the people who sponsor this bill want the people of the state to determine. If it should be legal or not. When something is new often laws are designed to govern them. We have to try to think of something that doesn't exist today for an example. OK, I may have to go a little off track here to make my point. Lets try to imagine that a geneticist finds he an create intelligence in gorillas by reversing one of the DNA strands. Years later another geneticist finds he can have them give birth to litters like a cat if he reverses the ninth DNA strand. Years later a guy finds that they are smart enough to do some farm tasks like load bales and pick rocks from the field. A few years later a farmer buys a pair breads a herd and uses them for farm work. Lets imagine they have advanced nearly to speech, show affection to each other as a family, but the farmer pays them nothing, feeds them garbage, and locks them in small dirty pens. Do you think someone may try to change some laws? Oh, but it's legal so why should we interfere some will think.

Me personally, I have a number of problems with high fence operations.
One is ethics. I think a fellow who shoots an animal in a pen is a lot like an adult who would brag about beating up a first grader.
Second I do worry about disease, because time after time we see these people around the United States violating the laws. When an animal like a cow worth a few hundred gets sick they put the animal down and let people know, but when an animal is worth $5000 they try to ship it somewhere they can charge someone to shoot it before the authorities find it's diseased.
Three like all businesses they want to be the only game in town. One day in steel (gas station west side of the road) I heard this comment, and I don't know if they were guides, outfitters, or just farmers, or who they were, but one fellow said to another "if we can tie up enough land they will have to come to us". 
I don't know about everyone else, but I see high fence wrong on many different levels. I'm old, but I want my grandchildren to be able to hunt. I don't want the public to think we all hunt that way, and I don't want all hunting to get banned because we are all portrayed that way. I feel wedged between the animal rights activists on one side, and the animal exploiters on the other. Both are going to hurt us.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> It would be great to see something worth talking about instead of smoke and mirrors.


Then why not encourage the sponsors to answer the following ten questions?



gst said:


> 1.If this measure does not prevent these operations from existing for meat or antler markets how will this measure lessen the risk of disease as is being suggested?
> 2.If this measure is about the hunting ethics of killing an animal in or released from a fenced enclosure as it is written and being suggested, why are buffalo and game birds not included?
> 3.Should the sponsors of this measure be held to a standard of fact and truth when presenting this measure to the public?
> 4.As this measure is written, how will it accomplish what is being promised to the signers of this petition if these animals are already classified as domestic animals rather than big game under the states century code?
> 5.Will this measure require a change to the states century code as to how these animals are currently classified to be included under the big game or exotic distinction made in this measure?
> 6.As this measure is written,if I sell a live big game or exotic animal to someone can they then shoot that animal they now own without being in violation of this measure?
> 7. If this is not considered hunting by measure sponsors, then why is it being held to hunting ethical standards?
> 8. If it is about it being advertsed as hunting and the effects of allowing an animal shot inside a fence to be called and advertised as hunting based on FC rules, why are buffalo operations still being allowed to advertise what they do behind a fence as hunting and are exempt from this measure?
> 9.If this measure is adopted as law and the domestic classification of animals which farmed elk are now listed under is included by judicial interpretation, will this affect wether I can legally sell a steer or hog to someone to be shot in a pen to be butchered without them being exempted?
> 10. If the nonhunting public is invited to have a say in issues involving the shooting of animals thru these initiated maesures, do you believe this opens the door at all to them possibly being invited into having a say thru other initiated measures regulating what forms of hunting and shooting of animals should be allowed in the future?
> 
> Plainsman, 10 simple questions that are not derogatory, that are not demonizing anyone, not misdirecting the debate from the issue, but are simply asking for clarification and positions of this group in regards to the factors involved in them bringing this measure to the public, most of which have already been asked but not answered . I


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, 10 simple questions that are not derogatory, that are not demonizing anyone, not misdirecting the debate from the issue, but are simply asking for clarification and positions of this group in regards to the factors involved in them bringing this measure to the public, most of which have already been asked but not answered .


Answering questions is reasonable. However, I'm going to be in trouble if I don't get to my honey do list, and I would have to go through this whole thread to check which questions have already been answered. I know some people have answered some questions, but you say they have not and keep asking the same questions. I remember last year answering your question about why buffalo were not included then. 
Actually last year I answered #1, 2,3 I think, 6, 7, well you get the idea. Some of these questions have been answered four, five times, why do you keep asking as if no one has answered? I have not read the current measure, so I can only give opinions of my own. I would say it would be informative and courteous of a sponsor to answer the questions that are really pertinent to the measure. They will have to decide for themselves which are pertinent and which are not.
gst, I liked the way you asked that question. It was polite, and I am not trying to be impolite, but to come to the point. You may not agree with the answers your going to get, but they are answers so you will need to listen and not just keep asking the same questions over and over.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, Which of these 10 questions do you believe is not "pertinent"? And I'm sorry if I don't consider someone saying they don't believe that question is "pertinent" is an answer to the question. I apologize if I have a short memory and do not remember anyone answering these questions, perhaps they would be kind enough to take the time to post their answers to each of these 10 questions one more time. Or at the very least, show where they have directly answered them before.


----------



## Plainsman

Ya, I have never claimed to have the best memory either. If memory is the case I apologize for thinking you were just being stubborn. That's a sincere apology. 
Like I said the sponsors will have to decide which questions they believe are pertinent. I do think some have no bearing on a measure based on ethics. For example disease issues keep getting into the questions, and I have been guilty of that also, but it isn't relevant.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, Dick Monson, one of the primary sponsors continueally brings the disease issue into the discussion of this measure. So one of sponsors by his insinuations and statements has made it relevant. I do recall you stating you believe the sponsors of this measure should be held to a standard of truth when presenting this measure to the public, but not one actual sponsor of this measure has answered that question in a statement, although a couple have answered it in their actions by what they have disingenuously said to the public in regards to this measure, and one has claimed he is not responsible for what the others may say. If you are going to accept the responsibility of signing your name to something that may become a new law you had better be willing to accept the responsibilty to answering the publics questions in regard to it, even if they will not shine a positive light on your measure. To not address concerns that some may have with this measure is an indication this group cares less about the affects of this measure than they do acheiving a personal agenda. Perhaps one such as protecting their egos and "bragging rights".


----------



## RogerK

LT, it is a blast watching amateurs interpret law.

So you think the term "captive game animals" conjures up an idea in peoples minds of animals captured from the wild and released in a fence to be shot for a fee. The people of this state are not stupid. They know the difference between an open septic tank and an open chocolate ice cream bucket.

You High Fence boys jump up and down and claim that using the term captive game animals is a lie. Fair Chase members didn't make up the term, the North Dakota Senate did. 1991. SB 2221. Captive Wildlife is, &#8230;"any wildlife held in a cage, fence, enclosure, or other manmade means of confinement&#8230;"

In a later session, North Dakota Legislators replaced Captive Wildlife with Nontraditional Livestock in an attempt to nullify federal statutory law and a series of court decisions going back to the founding of the nation, decisions that declared wildlife a public trust.

In 1999, the Legislature transformed Nontraditional Livestock into Farmed Elk defining farmed elk as elk raised for, &#8230; "fiber, meat, or animal byproducts; or raised for breeding, exhibition, or harvest".

At no time did the Legislature write an explicit provision into law that allowed Canned Shoots to take place. Shooting operations that slipped in under the radar disguised as farmed elk hang their legitimacy on the word, harvest.

The Legislature didn't specifically write shooting operations into law because the people would have come unglued.

With all due respect to Tom Remington and his "legal advisor", which is very little, both Tom and his "legal advisor" are full of particulate septic tank matter.

Look at the 1999 bill, which is current law. It allows for farmed elk raise for meat. Without slaughter, how does an elk turn into meat? Call it slaughter, or call it harvest, turning farmed elk into meat is legal.

Harvest has a common meaning. It is an ancient concept.

Hunting has a common meaning. It too is an ancient practice.

Passing off shooting inside a high fence as harvest as defined by the 1999 bill won't cut it because harvest isn't a single common action.

A farmer doesn't cut his alfalfa field for hay with his John Deere combine, and he doesn't bale his wheat field and haul the bales to the elevator to sell.

The legislative attempt to legitimize High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations was a slight of hand magic trick to get around 350 years of legislative and legal precedent that placed wildlife in the public trust and charged government with management of that wildlife. Proof of the slight of hand is right here on this post. The Fair Chase Initiative isn't law and some of you are scheming to get around the law using a bill of sale. I have an answer for that: The Lacey Act.

Section 3372 of the Lacey act makes it unlawful for any person, "to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law; or to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law&#8230;"

The Fair Chase Initiative will be a law and regulation of this state. Federal fine for breaking the law: $10,000.00.

It's a blast watching amateurs interpret law. Like watching a falling down drink try to ride a unicycle. :rollin:


----------



## LT

Roger Stated:


> LT, it is a blast watching amateurs interpret law.


Well if amateurs as you say cannot interpret it, how is the general public going to interpret it to vote on it. Oh, I forgot, Dick Monson said on another forum if you don't understand it just hire a lawyer!!! Glad you are having so much fun Roger. :shake:


----------



## Chuck Smith

Plainsman wrote:


> Me personally, I have a number of problems with high fence operations.
> One is ethics. I think a fellow who shoots an animal in a pen is a lot like an adult who would brag about beating up a first grader.
> Second I do worry about disease, because time after time we see these people around the United States violating the laws. When an animal like a cow worth a few hundred gets sick they put the animal down and let people know, but when an animal is worth $5000 they try to ship it somewhere they can charge someone to shoot it before the authorities find it's diseased.
> Three like all businesses they want to be the only game in town. One day in steel (gas station west side of the road) I heard this comment, and I don't know if they were guides, outfitters, or just farmers, or who they were, but one fellow said to another "if we can tie up enough land they will have to come to us".
> I don't know about everyone else, but I see high fence wrong on many different levels. I'm old, but I want my grandchildren to be able to hunt. I don't want the public to think we all hunt that way, and I don't want all hunting to get banned because we are all portrayed that way. I feel wedged between the animal rights activists on one side, and the animal exploiters on the other. Both are going to hurt us.


Plainsman.....

On your first point. You say ethics. It is like an adult bragging about beating up a kid. So it is not the act of killing the animal. It is the bragging aspect? Because people kill animals in confinements all the time. Like mentioned....slaughter houses, butcher shops, vets, ranchers, HF operations, etc. It is not the actual act of the kill that you feel is unethical but the bragging?

Disease.... That is a valid point. But the sponsors of this new bill say it is all based on ethics.

Then you talk about access on land with your last point. HF operators are not the ones leasing land for hunting rights, they are not the ones charging $$$ per gun to hunt on the land for WILD ANIMALS. They are just charging a price for people to shoot their product or livestock. Again THEIR PRODUCT OR LIVESTOCK. Not wild animals, not the public's interest, not the public's or ND's animals. PRIVATE LIVESTOCK. It is like telling someone not to shoot their beef cattle.

Roger K wrote:


> In 1999, the Legislature transformed Nontraditional Livestock into Farmed Elk defining farmed elk as elk raised for, &#8230; "fiber, meat, or animal byproducts; or raised for breeding, exhibition, or harvest".
> 
> At no time did the Legislature write an explicit provision into law that allowed Canned Shoots to take place. Shooting operations that slipped in under the radar disguised as farmed elk hang their legitimacy on the word, harvest.


So now you are using the word "harvest" against even Elk Farmers. Not HF operators. So like I stated can an Elk Farmer have his animals put down or shot by a USDA approved Butcher, USDA approved Slaughter House, Transported by a USDA approved trucker, etc. Without these people being in violation of this law you want in acted? Because these animals are being harvested for meat, horns, hide, bones, genetics, etc. One person interperted the new bill as it would shut down all of these ELK Farmers. Also if this bill gets passed. Will it open the door for these ELk Farmers to be shut down?


----------



## Plainsman

gst[quote said:


> "y86uou3]Plainsman, Dick Monson, one of the primary sponsors continueally brings the disease issue into the discussion of this measure. So one of sponsors by his insinuations and statements has made it relevant.


Yes, I perhaps did that also.



> I do recall you stating you believe the sponsors of this measure should be held to a standard of truth when presenting this measure to the public,


Yes, I did say that, and I still stand by it.



> but not one actual sponsor of this measure has answered that question in a statement, although a couple have answered it in their actions by what they have disingenuously said to the public in regards to this measure,


To be 100% accurate neither you nor I know if it is disingenuous, or what was said. We both have to guess at it by using our judgement based on what we know of people. However, I am going to be very careful and admit I don't know at this point, but neither do you.



> and one has claimed he is not responsible for what the others may say.


That's true. I would never hold you responsible for the destructive tantrum type posts that DG posts. He tries to damage innocent people I think, and after many PM's with you I am sure you would not do that. I know your talking about JHegg, and he is right he isn't responsible for what I say or anyone else. He can go chew on them if he thinks someone said something wrong. I worked the Jamestown sport show last year. A high fence operator (buffalo) was there watching me, but we never had a conflict. Maybe that's because I tried to help him sell some land, maybe it's simply because I didn't get out of line. Who knows. Maybe it's because he knows I like him.



> If you are going to accept the responsibility of signing your name to something that may become a new law you had better be willing to accept the responsibilty to answering the publics questions in regard to it


No, you just have to agree with the measure.



> To not address concerns that some may have with this measure is an indication this group cares less about the affects of this measure than they do acheiving a personal agenda. Perhaps one such as protecting their egos and "bragging rights".


I think they will address concerns with the general public, but lets face it there are those who will simply twist their words, misinterpret on purpose, exaggerate circumstances, and as you say be disingenuous. It's a waste of time to explain to those people, because they already understand, they are simply trying to confuse others.


----------



## Plainsman

I can't get the cursor to move down, so I guess I will have to make two posts.



> On your first point. You say ethics. It is like an adult bragging about beating up a kid. So it is not the act of killing the animal. It is the bragging aspect? Because people kill animals in confinements all the time. Like mentioned....slaughter houses, butcher shops, vets, ranchers, HF operations, etc. It is not the actual act of the kill that you feel is unethical but the bragging?


No, it's not the bragging, it's the mentality that they actually think it's an achievement. Well, maybe that's not it either. I guess I don't think it's fair to the first grader. Wouldn't you agree?



> Disease.... That is a valid point. But the sponsors of this new bill say it is all based on ethics


. Yes, I think disease is a valid point also, but I guess it's the sponsors perogative if they want to make it an issue or not. I know it's not up to me.



> Then you talk about access on land with your last point. HF operators are not the ones leasing land for hunting rights,


How do you know they are not?? I don't know.



> they are not the ones charging $$$ per gun to hunt on the land for WILD ANIMALS.


Yes, we all know and agree with that.

Some are some are not, but that's just a guess.



> Again THEIR PRODUCT OR LIVESTOCK. Not wild animals, not the public's interest, not the public's or ND's animals. PRIVATE LIVESTOCK. It is like telling someone not to shoot their beef cattle.


In reality it takes a long time for animals to become domesticated. They will be wild animals until that is bread out after hundreds of generations.


----------



## Plainsman

DG, your giving me a lot more credit for information than I deserve. You have asked me questions I have no idea of. My only problem is you have listed people as if they are guilty. You have listed statisticians, technicians, and others who have no idea what we are talking about. It's like punishing a wheat farmer for what a high fence operator does. Your shooting wild at anyone and everyone, and many do not deserve your scatter gun wrath. You may have listed people who would agree with you. That's not a smart move. Perhaps the measure sponsors should thank you for showing your indifference to the innocent publicly.

gst has perhaps told me, but I don't remember if he is involved with high fence operations or not. However, we have had many pm's back and fourth and I have no doubt we have mutual respect. His attitude sways me to have some measure of sympathy for high fence operations that got sucked into this. They should have had an idea that the public would turn on them eventually. Anyway, if they did or not I guess is a mute point. However, please understand that the way you go about things makes me loose all the sympathy that gst has created. If gst was a high fence operator I would be in favor of going to the legislature and saying to them they had a hand in leading him down this path and he should be fairly compensated if he is put out of business. DG, your attitude on the other hand garners no sympathy and although I would never raise a hand to destroy your chances of compensation I also would do nothing to help.

You know I have no way to know if the stories I hear are true or not, and I don't judge anyone without evidence. Your behavior on here makes the stories I hear believable. It's unkind to involve people who have no involvement. I automatically give respect to people until they destroy it.

I see high fence operations as a black eye to my fellow hunters. I see it as endangering the sport I care about. If others do not see that I don't think there is much I can do to convince them. Yet I keep finding myself making posts. I guess it's a waste of my time. Sorry for so many posts in row, but my page keeps jumping up and down and I cana't type.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Again THEIR PRODUCT OR LIVESTOCK. Not wild animals, not the public's interest, not the public's or ND's animals. PRIVATE LIVESTOCK. It is like telling someone not to shoot their beef cattle.
> 
> Oh, come on now in the sentence before you admitted they were charging to hunt wild animals, with wild animals all capitalized.


I did not explain myself well. The HF operators are not charging per gun to hunt wild animals. They are charging per livestock. The wild animals are the regular land owners charging per gun....not the HF operators.



> Then you talk about access on land with your last point. HF operators are not the ones leasing land for hunting rights,
> 
> How do you know they are not?? I don't know.


You are right I don't know that 100% for sure. But most operations that I know of are done on their own land. Not on land they lease or rent.



> On your first point. You say ethics. It is like an adult bragging about beating up a kid. So it is not the act of killing the animal. It is the bragging aspect? Because people kill animals in confinements all the time. Like mentioned....slaughter houses, butcher shops, vets, ranchers, HF operations, etc. It is not the actual act of the kill that you feel is unethical but the bragging?
> 
> No, it's not the bragging, it's the mentality that they actually think it's an achievement. Well, maybe that's not it either. I guess I don't think it's fair to the first grader. Wouldn't you agree?


So it is not fair for a cow, pig, chicken, etc to be killed in a pen or fence? Why the distinction between species? All are live stock.

The point I am trying to make is people get bent out of shape when you get the species involved. Domestic cattle, hogs, chickens it is ok to kill in a pen. But domestic elk, deer, etc are not. How can that be when they are both domestic? Then people will go off on I hope you are not paying $5000 to shoot a cow and then bragging about it. Of course not but if you strip this bill down to its most basic form (which lawyers will do for future laws and lawsuits....trust me that is what they do to prove a point) it is just the act of killing a penned animal. No matter if it is a 3ft by 6 ft chute or a 20000 acre pen. It is all about killing an animals in a confinement. People may think it is just about the elk and deer. But if this law gets passed....watch out. A lawyer will say......What is the difference between a *farmed* elk and a *farmed* pig. I know people will say this is just a scare tactic......it is. But it hold validity. Look at all the law suits that happen in the USA. They take a basic law and then prove how either that law works for them or against the other side. That is how the legal system works. People will use this law out of the context it was meant to be.


----------



## Plainsman

> I did not explain myself well


.  Ya, but part of the problem was I didn't read well either. 



> No, it's not the bragging, it's the mentality that they actually think it's an achievement. Well, maybe that's not it either. I guess I don't think it's fair to the first grader. Wouldn't you agree?


So it is not fair for a cow, pig, chicken, etc to be killed in a pen or fence? Why the distinction between species? All are live stock.

I'm sorry I lost you there. I said it's not fair to the first grader, but you think that's somehow comparable to not being fair to a pig?? I don't understand the comparison your making at all.



> The point I am trying to make is people get bent out of shape when you get the species involved. Domestic cattle, hogs, chickens it is ok to kill in a pen. But domestic elk, deer, etc are not. How can that be when they are both domestic?


I don't agree that elk or deer at this point are domestic. Wanting it to be so does not make it so. I would have a problem if a guy put on a camo suite, shakes a bucket of grain to get a pig to come in, shoots it, and tells the general public that he was on a hunt. I think a person can understand what is sporting or they can't. If I can't get that across I give up. But I will still vote for the measure.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> No, it's not the bragging, it's the mentality that they actually think it's an achievement. Well, maybe that's not it either. I guess I don't think it's fair to the first grader. Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> So it is not fair for a cow, pig, chicken, etc to be killed in a pen or fence? Why the distinction between species? All are live stock.
> 
> I'm sorry I lost you there. I said it's not fair to the first grader, but you think that's somehow comparable to not being fair to a pig?? I don't understand the comparison your making at all.


The first grader is the animal correct? So it is not fair that the animal can't get away.....correct. The deer or elk can't escape...correct?

Because we both agree that the animals are livestock. They are raised as live stock. ALways in a fence, being fed by man. Correct? So that is live stock. Also the ND code says they are Non-traditional livestock. Correct? So they already say these animals are live stock.



> The point I am trying to make is people get bent out of shape when you get the species involved. Domestic cattle, hogs, chickens it is ok to kill in a pen. But domestic elk, deer, etc are not. How can that be when they are both domestic?
> 
> I don't agree that elk or deer at this point are domestic. Wanting it to be so does not make it so. I would have a problem if a guy put on a camo suite, shakes a bucket of grain to get a pig to come in, shoots it, and tells the general public that he was on a hunt. I think a person can understand what is sporting or they can't. If I can't get that across I give up. But I will still vote for the measure.


Maybe I should not use the term Domesticated.....but they are both livestock. We agreed on that. Just like cattle, pigs, etc are considered livestock. So are Farmed deer and elk are considered livestock.

Then you talk about the camo suit, baits it in, call it hunting, etc. . Like I have stated.....people have a problem because others are bragging or the HF operators are saying it is "hunting". When in fact it is not. People for the measure say it is not hunting, hunters know it is not hunting, etc. So how do hunting ethics apply to something that is not hunting? So the giving hunters a black eye philosophy is all in the verbage or the way they advertise. Take that away. Like I have mentioned before.


----------



## gst

If I didn't know better, I'd sure think this was an HSUS supporter writing this! 



RogerK said:


> LT, it is a blast watching amateurs interpret law.
> 
> So you think the term "captive game animals" conjures up an idea in peoples minds of animals captured from the wild and released in a fence to be shot for a fee. The people of this state are not stupid. They know the difference between an open septic tank and an open chocolate ice cream bucket.
> 
> You High Fence boys jump up and down and claim that using the term captive game animals is a lie. Fair Chase members didn't make up the term, the North Dakota Senate did. 1991. SB 2221. Captive Wildlife is, &#8230;"any wildlife held in a cage, fence, enclosure, or other manmade means of confinement&#8230;"
> 
> In a later session, North Dakota Legislators replaced Captive Wildlife with Nontraditional Livestock in an attempt to nullify federal statutory law and a series of court decisions going back to the founding of the nation, decisions that declared wildlife a public trust.
> 
> In 1999, the Legislature transformed Nontraditional Livestock into Farmed Elk defining farmed elk as elk raised for, &#8230; "fiber, meat, or animal byproducts; or raised for breeding, exhibition, or harvest".
> 
> At no time did the Legislature write an explicit provision into law that allowed Canned Shoots to take place. Shooting operations that slipped in under the radar disguised as farmed elk hang their legitimacy on the word, harvest.
> 
> The Legislature didn't specifically write shooting operations into law because the people would have come unglued.
> 
> With all due respect to Tom Remington and his "legal advisor", which is very little, both Tom and his "legal advisor" are full of particulate septic tank matter.
> 
> Look at the 1999 bill, which is current law. It allows for farmed elk raise for meat. Without slaughter, how does an elk turn into meat? Call it slaughter, or call it harvest, turning farmed elk into meat is legal.
> 
> Harvest has a common meaning. It is an ancient concept.
> 
> Hunting has a common meaning. It too is an ancient practice.
> 
> Passing off shooting inside a high fence as harvest as defined by the 1999 bill won't cut it because harvest isn't a single common action.
> 
> A farmer doesn't cut his alfalfa field for hay with his John Deere combine, and he doesn't bale his wheat field and haul the bales to the elevator to sell.
> 
> The legislative attempt to legitimize High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations was a slight of hand magic trick to get around 350 years of legislative and legal precedent that placed wildlife in the public trust and charged government with management of that wildlife. Proof of the slight of hand is right here on this post. The Fair Chase Initiative isn't law and some of you are scheming to get around the law using a bill of sale. I have an answer for that: The Lacey Act.
> 
> Section 3372 of the Lacey act makes it unlawful for any person, "to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law; or to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law&#8230;"
> 
> The Fair Chase Initiative will be a law and regulation of this state. Federal fine for breaking the law: $10,000.00.
> 
> It's a blast watching amateurs interpret law. Like watching a falling down drink try to ride a unicycle. :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman

> Then you talk about the camo suit, baits it in, call it hunting, etc. . Like I have stated.....people have a problem because others are bragging


Your not close to getting it Chuck. I don't care how much people brag. I doubt anyone cares how much someone brags. I just think it's beneath dignity to shoot an animal that has not a chance. Sure I would shoot a pig or cow simply for the meat even if I don't like to do it. I like meat, and when I was a kid I didn't like to shoot something I took care of, but I did it. If these are for meat, take them to the butcher shop, but don't turn it loose in a pen with no chance and make a sport of a non domestic animal.

I don't like flies, I don't like mosquitoes, etc, but I don't pull their wings off as a sport. I consider getting close with a bow without the wild animal knowing I am around. I consider it sport to shoot well enough to kill an animal with a rifle at along range. I consider it way less than unsporting to put an animal in a pen and take a rifle after it. Any hunter that talks about being a good sport should understand.

There is a reason it isn't legal to spotlight deer, there is a reason that it's illegal to snare deer, net fish, use four gages on ducks etc. There is a reason, and these were all legal at one time. Hunters who were true sportsmen asked for these laws to be put in place. They didn't worry about slippery slopes keeping them from doing the right thing. These things are a test of what a "hunter" is made of. Trying to look understanding by saying one would never do it, but would not stop others from doing it just doesn't cut it. You either have an understanding of sportsmanship or you do not. You meaning anyone in general.


----------



## gst

Roger, if you are basing your arguement on a 19 year old State Senate Bill wording that is no longer even law, you need to pause for a moment. 
By your own admission the ND century code defines farmed elk as elk raised for " fiber, meat or animal byproducts;or raised for breeding exhibition or harvest" The wording "animals being raised for meat" was included in this bill to adress the slaughter of these animals for meat, the additional inclusion of the wording "or harvest" was included in this same bill to address exactly what every politically correct person is calling killing an animal while hunting anymore. The State Legislature called it harvest, you call it canned shooting, it is the same thing.

In regards to your analogy of a farmer and what he does with HIS PROPERTY, the key thing to remember this farmer you use as an example has the right if he so chooses to combine his alfalfa, or bale his wheat. And in certain instances where economics dictate it, they actually do both as it is their right to use their property as they choose. Something you are taking away with this measure. Your own example shows this is indeed about property rights.

You are claiming the FC initiative will become STATE law, and yet you are insinuating the penalty will be a $10,000 FEDERAL fine. When did the Feds start imposing federal fines for the violation of state law? Are you assuming that once this measure passes it will be interpreted as a violation of something more than what your measure states? Sounds like another page right out of the HSUS play book.


----------



## Plainsman

For those of you who say you would ever do it, but allow others to I have a question. If you were a multimillionaire and money was no object would you do it? If not why not?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Then you talk about the camo suit, baits it in, call it hunting, etc. . Like I have stated.....people have a problem because others are bragging
> 
> Your not close to getting it Chuck. I don't care how much people brag. I doubt anyone cares how much someone brags. I just think it's beneath dignity to shoot an animal that has not a chance. Sure I would shoot a pig or cow simply for the meat even if I don't like to do it. I like meat, and when I was a kid I didn't like to shoot something I took care of, but I did it. If these are for meat, take them to the butcher shop, but don't turn it loose in a pen with no chance and make a sport of a non domestic animal.
> 
> I don't like flies, I don't like mosquitoes, etc, but I don't pull their wings off as a sport. I consider getting close with a bow without the wild animal knowing I am around. I consider it sport to shoot well enough to kill an animal with a rifle at along range. I consider it way less than unsporting to put an animal in a pen and take a rifle after it. Any hunter that talks about being a good sport should understand.


You and I are on the same page here of our personal beliefs. Again personal beliefs for the taking of wild animals. But the thing that is different from you and I is that I don't care if others think it is a sport or not. I don't want to push my beliefs of what I personally think is a sport onto others. Some people think it is sporting to shoot a deer only with a bow. Others think long range shooting is not sportsman. To each there own. Again this bill is pushing personal ethics onto others for the taking of wild animals vs livestock. *Again pushing personal beliefs of taking wild game onto the killing of livestock.*



> There is a reason it isn't legal to spotlight deer, there is a reason that it's illegal to snare deer, net fish, use four gages on ducks etc. There is a reason, and these were all legal at one time. Hunters who were true sportsmen asked for these laws to be put in place. They didn't worry about slippery slopes keeping them from doing the right thing. These things are a test of what a "hunter" is made of. Trying to look understanding by saying one would never do it, but would not stop others from doing it just doesn't cut it. You either have an understanding of sportsmanship or you do not. You meaning anyone in general.


Now I know you like history for other forums. Look at the real reasons why some of these things were outlawed for the use on wild animals... Snaring of deer or big game was because of the animal and how it died. Not the "quick kill". Net fish was about the control on limits and the catching of other species of fish. 4 gauges or "punt guns" were outlawed for multiple reasons but the main one was the market hunting and limits wounding of wild ducks and geese. Just like lead shot....ducks and geese were eating lead off the bottom while eating the vegitation. Many of these laws were all based on wild animals. The animals in question now are not wild. They are livestock. That is where I can separate the issue. Wild Animals vs Livestock.

I think people for this measure can't separate the difference from Livestock deer and elk from Wild deer and elk. This is the difference with this issue. Wild vs Livestock.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> For those of you who say you would ever do it, but allow others to I have a question. If you were a multimillionaire and money was no object would you do it? If not why not?


Nope it would not matter at all.

Now why....I don't want to shoot someones livestock. Like I have stated......these animals are livestock.

The only way I would go to one of these places for an elk or deer...The only way I would do it is like the example I have done with a hog. I bought a hog from a farmer for a little better than market (because the market was very, very low so I helped him out a little). If i would buy an elk for market meat price.

Now I have a question.... is hunting about the actual kill of the animal or is it about the experience? What do people believe is the hunt or hunting.... the actual act of the "harvest or kill" or what goes on before, after the moment of truth so to speak?

Because to me the actual "Hunt" is 99% everything before and after and 1% the actual "moment of truth". It is being with friends and family at deer camp or hunting camp. The prep time or bench time sighting in your weapon of choice. The scouting. The time in the woods listening to the sounds, smells, sights of what is going on. Seeing the other animals. Calling, decoy placements. Planting of food plots, placing of deer stands. ETC. After the shot.....the getting the harvested animal out of the woods, the processing of the animal. Telling the story of what happened up until the pulling of the trigger or releasing of the arrow. The ribbing to a fellow hunter of their miss or not having success. ETC.

What people are losing site of this bill is all of this. They are just focused on the kill aspect.


----------



## Plainsman

Chuck Smith said:


> For those of you who say you would ever do it, but allow others to I have a question. If you were a multimillionaire and money was no object would you do it? If not why not?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope it would not matter at all.
> 
> Now why....I don't want to shoot someones livestock. Like I have stated......these animals are livestock.
> 
> The only way I would go to one of these places for an elk or deer...The only way I would do it is like the example I have done with a hog. I bought a hog from a farmer for a little better than market (because the market was very, very low so I helped him out a little). If i would buy an elk for market meat price.
Click to expand...

We need to read the bill, I think you could still do that. What do you think of guys that think this is hunting?


----------



## Chuck Smith

Plainsman....

Some against this have said it is not legal. To buy the animal for market price and harvest it.

Sponsor of the bill have not stated that it is legal. So who knows.

I added this to my previous post....while you were typing.



> Now I have a question.... is hunting about the actual kill of the animal or is it about the experience? What do people believe is the hunt or hunting.... the actual act of the "harvest or kill" or what goes on before, after the moment of truth so to speak?
> 
> Because to me the actual "Hunt" is 99% everything before and after and 1% the actual "moment of truth". It is being with friends and family at deer camp or hunting camp. The prep time or bench time sighting in your weapon of choice. The scouting. The time in the woods listening to the sounds, smells, sights of what is going on. Seeing the other animals. Calling, decoy placements. Planting of food plots, placing of deer stands. ETC. After the shot.....the getting the harvested animal out of the woods, the processing of the animal. Telling the story of what happened up until the pulling of the trigger or releasing of the arrow. The ribbing to a fellow hunter of their miss or not having success. ETC.
> 
> What people are losing site of this bill is all of this. They are just focused on the kill aspect.


Now on the guys who think it is hunting....... I really don't care.

Like I have stated in other threads. I know how Handicap or disabled people use these facilities. To some this is all they can do to get as close as possible to what we consider "hunting" because of physical limitations and legal limitations (laser sights or mechanical devise laws.....trust me they are out there). I also know first hand how this can lead a handicap person to believe or see that they can really do what we all call hunting. IE the pursuit of wild game. I also know first hand that the smiles on the faces of these handicap people is worth a million $$$. To take away that experience for them, the joy they get, etc. is what this bill will do.

Here is another one for you. Grandpa just cant get around the Mts. Like he used to. He would like to experience an elk trip (see I did not use the word hunt) with his grandson and son. So he books a HF operation. They go have a great time all together. Harvest animals, share in the experience, rib each other, etc. To me that is still hunting other than the actual act of taking the animal.

But like I typed earlier...... Hunting is not just the act of the kill. It is all that is goes with the act of the kill.

EDIT.....

I know of families that butchered chickens. It is a family event when the time comes. They have a great time. They have a meal, get together. Now they I hope are not getting a thrill out of chopping the heads off the chickens. But the rest of it is a great experience.....family time.


----------



## Plainsman

> Because to me the actual "Hunt" is 99% everything before and after and 1% the actual "moment of truth". It is being with friends and family at deer camp or hunting camp. The prep time or bench time sighting in your weapon of choice. The scouting. The time in the woods listening to the sounds, smells, sights of what is going on. Seeing the other animals. Calling, decoy placements. Planting of food plots, placing of deer stands. ETC. After the shot.....the getting the harvested animal out of the woods, the processing of the animal. Telling the story of what happened up until the pulling of the trigger or releasing of the arrow. The ribbing to a fellow hunter of their miss or not having success. ETC.
> 
> What people are losing site of this bill is all of this. They are just focused on the kill aspect.


I completely agree. You can tell where the climax of the hunt occurs because that's when your heart is pumping the hardest. The moment of kill and after is such a crash from the moment before a shot that it's sort of a bummer. 
You know I get a kick out of the word harvest for killing a deer. I guess we think by being politically correct we can placate the HSUS, PETA, and the others who suffer anthropomorphic psychosis. Now I don't know if that is a Psychological/Clinically correct term, but I like it when I describe these groups. I don't use a combine for deer I use a rifle, and it kills them. I eat dead meat and harvested wheat.


----------



## AdamFisk

Plainsman said:


> For those of you who say you would ever do it, but allow others to I have a question. If you were a multimillionaire and money was no object would you do it? If not why not?


Nope...PERSONAL ethics/moral, whatever you want to call it....... I agree, it's not hunting, it's shooting. I would gain absolutely NO satisfaction from shooting an animal in a fence, hence why I would never do it. I know people who would gain no satisfaction from shooting a deer with a rifle also, so they don't hunt with a rifle. Same as baiting; I used to bait, but not anymore. I grew up and realized I'd gain no satisfaction from shooting a big buck over a bait pile. But I don't believe it should be banned because some people think it's despicable. It's all a personal choice really. And I think people should have that choice to make, assuming it's not a detriment to the sport. Frankly, I don't see HF shooting as detrimental to the sport as some of you make it out to be. But whatever, to each their own.

Honestly, I don't care how this turns out anymore, or the baiting deal for that matter. I'm sick of hearing about it, sick of reading the same **** over and over. I'll save my energy for when some yahoo on a high horse goes after something that I really am passionate about. Both sides have proved in this thread that they are arrogant and relentless.


----------



## AdamFisk

Plainsman said:


> Chuck Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you who say you would ever do it, but allow others to I have a question. If you were a multimillionaire and money was no object would you do it? If not why not?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope it would not matter at all.
> 
> Now why....I don't want to shoot someones livestock. Like I have stated......these animals are livestock.
> 
> The only way I would go to one of these places for an elk or deer...The only way I would do it is like the example I have done with a hog. I bought a hog from a farmer for a little better than market (because the market was very, very low so I helped him out a little). If i would buy an elk for market meat price.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We need to read the bill, I think you could still do that. What do you think of guys that think this is hunting?
Click to expand...

If they think it is hunting, whatever. Again, to each their own. If somebody was telling me a story on how they shot this monster bull, and then went on to say they shot it in a HF, I'd probably lose interest. Would I think less of them? Yeah, as a hunter, I would. But I'd still show that person respect and remind my self, everybody's cup of tea is a little different.


----------



## KurtR

if i had all the money and did not have to worry about jim shockey would be getting a call not a hf operation.


----------



## AdamFisk

KurtR said:


> if i had all the money and did not have to worry about jim shockey would be getting a call not a hf operation.


x2......A Yukon archery moose hunt is on my wish list.


----------



## blhunter3

I personally dislike the penned in shooting and people label that as hunting. To me hunting is where you pursue the animal and the animal can escape, no matter how large the area is. Whether the penned in area is 1000 acres or 10,000 acres, you still could corner it if you wanted to. If they quit calling it hunting and changed it to penned in shooting then I wouldn't have a problem with it. With calling it hunting, they are misrepresenting what they are doing.

Yes, I have shot a cow with a broke leg and a horse that was ready to die(owner was a horse lover and couldn't bring herself to shoot the animal, but didn't want it to suffer). I didn't think of myself as a big bad a$$ hunter, in fact I would prefer not to do it again. It's part of farming though, but to shoot an elk in a pen that probably was hand fed, does not count as hunting. Its only shooting.

You can't tell anyone what is ethically or morally right, due to the due that morals and ethics change from person to person, culture to culture.

I know that Wikipedia isn't the best place for information, but some of this is interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication


----------



## LT

GST Stated:


> Roger, You are claiming the FC initiative will become STATE law, and yet you are insinuating the penalty will be a $10,000 FEDERAL fine. When did the Feds start imposing federal fines for the violation of state law? Are you assuming that once this measure passes it will be interpreted as a violation of something more than what your measure states? Sounds like another page right out of the HSUS play book.


I would like to know the answer to this as well.


----------



## brooks264

Plainsman wrote,

"I don't know about everyone else, but I see high fence wrong on many different levels. I'm old, but I want my grandchildren to be able to hunt. I don't want the public to think we all hunt that way, and I don't want all hunting to get banned because we are all portrayed that way. I feel wedged between the animal rights activists on one side, and the animal exploiters on the other. Both are going to hurt us."[/quote]

Plainsman,

You've waded through all of the barnyard #rap related to this subject, pro/con, but your last paragraph should set us all down to think, I know I have. :wink:

Daryl


----------



## gst

Plainsman, as I have said many times I have NO connection to HF outside of a couple friends that run an operation. Going back thru this thread there are a couple points that need to be made to a handful of your comments. 
First of all HF operations are not out "leasing up land", the cost of fencing alone is prohibitive enough to do on land you own, no one is going to do so on leased land.
You state we don't know if sponsors of tis measure oare being disingenuous? A couple have been caught in black and white lies that have been pointed out.
If you choose to sign on as a sponsor, you are a part of the group of people that is required by law,inorder to be able to begin to gather signatures. As a member of this group that is representing this issue to the public you are indeed responsible to what your fellow members of this group is saying to this public. If they are lying it is your responsibility to make them tell the truth, unless you yourself condone lying to further this measure you are a sponsor of. 
Animals can be domesticated in one generation. The offspring of an animal raised in captivity is domesticated as they have no basis of knowledge of what it takes to live in the wild. They are dependent on humans for survival. In the case of these HF animals this is a moot point as these animals have been removed from the wild for many multiple generations. They are truly domesticated animals. 
The majority of the general public will not turn on HF operations any more than they will turn on hunting or animal agriculture without being lead there by someone wether this is NDHfor FC or HSUS. 
This is a property rights issue, roger alluded to that when he made the comparison of HF to combining or baling of a crop. Managing animals that are privately owned and domesticated is by law a property right if done under the regulations governing them. It is true these property rights can be over ridden when the affects of the property right itself has a negative affect on society as a whole. HF operations simply do not. You can not point out one instance of something you take as a right being taken away, infringed upon or a direct negative affect on the health or well being of society from this activity. If you are willing to lessen these requirements of overriding private property rights just to deal with something a very few people find morally wrong, ask yourself what will you do when a few people find hunting morally wrong and decide to over ride your "right" to do so?


----------



## gst

Plainsman to answer your if I had a million dollars question,(I'd hate to be viewed as someone that can't answer a simple question)  No I would more than likely not go to a HF operation. I have said repeatedly before that I couldn't find what I PERSONALLY need to take from the hunting experience there. That does not mean someone else can't. I am not so ARROGANT as to believe everyone else must take exactly what I do from the experience to call it hunting or force everyone to define their experiences based on my philosophy towards hunting. These people that can afford to pay these dollars for these animals could also afford to hire Jim Shockey to hold their hand on a private guided FC hunt. For what ever PERSONAL reason they don't. Who am I or you or anyone else to be the judge of why. I feel sorry for them because they will probably never know the experience hunting is for me, but then that is their CHOICE to make. This measure begins to take the ability to make that individual choice away, once we start that where do we stop, who gets to say what choices can or can not be made, or MUST be followed??? Certain hunting groups??? A simple majority of the public??? That is a dangerous road to start down in more ways than one in regards to ethical regulations not pertaining to the management of wild game populations.

Now here's my 2 cents on the "philosophical" aspect of this issue. Hunting for most is a VERY personal journey. We each choose what path we will take, what effort we will put into our pursuit, what satisfaction we will take from it, what standards we will hold ourselves to. That is the true individual essence of hunting. NO ONE else has the ability to know what each of those things are or mean for anyone else. And when we start to regulate onto others what this experience must be, based on individual, personal beliefs or things not related to the management of wild game, we take away a part of that individual satisfaction that the hunting experience gives each of us whatever it maybe. Some people find this inner satisfaction from the experience only by losing themselves deep into the wilderness away from most all mankind. Others not so much, others very little. For some it is merely a social event. Who is to say who is right? Why should one persons EGO determine this choice for someone else? When a group of people try to begin to control what we MUST take from the hunting experience based on their personal standards, it takes away much more from the individual experience hunting is for all than what this HF industry ever will. If you do not understand this you do not understand how individually and uniquely personal the hunting experience is and always should be. And I feel sorry for those people as well. Especially those whose "jealousy" and concern over "bragging rights" over ride what should be the individuals right to detemine their own hunting experience.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> Big difference. The people he listed have nothing to do with the measure. The people the sponsors list have everything to do with high fence operations. You can't be so blind you don't see that.


Plainsman, when I told you I found it interesting you were expressing concern over a list of names posted here and never expressing concern about placing the elk/deer growers information on the Fair Chase website and the use of it to try to incite hatred the above was your response to me.

Yes, the people the sponsors list are high fence operators, but it is the way they use the material at booths and on their website in conjunction with lies to incite hatred that concerns me.

Kaseman has actually went on the Mike McFeeley show and said that the animals are shot in the hindquarters so as not to damage the cape and die a slow death. He stated in this very thread that the operator removes the ear tag from the animal before the hunt (illegal). Gary Masching told me the animals were stolen, all the while these operators pictures are being shown. Many other people on here and other forums have relayed the lies that were told to them.

Two years ago the website had terms like "pasture killers", they drug their animals, this will end internet hunting, the infamous style of Texas game farm hunting.

So am I blind or concerned?


----------



## gst

roger, for us amateur legal minds please explain how the sale of a ND State Century Code classified "domestic animal" farmed elk (which cattle and swine are classified as as well) to another individual that the kills this animal he now owns is in violation of Sec 3372 of the Federal Lacey Act as you are suggesting?

If this is indeed a violation of this measure as you suggested, as a rancher this is of concern to me and is a much broader scope than what your stating your measure is meant to encompass.

Please explain your statement to clarify this. If you are not willing to do so then it would leave us to believe you wish to include all state classified domestic livestock under your measures scope which will open the door to other livestock industries challenging this.


----------



## LT

Plainsman, you also stated why bring people up on that list that probably do not even know about the measure.

Well maybe those people should know about the measure and should be aware of what their co-workers are doing.

We already know of one federal employee who is a sponsor from another office that used his work office and his federal employer's name to send out a position statement regarding this measure. He also appeared in several papers around the state using his title and federal employer to validate his position as well as spoke at a public forum doing the same. His regional director reprimanded him after he was reported and he was immediately stopped from using the papers as a platform. This is a violation of the Hatch Act.

Not saying that anything has gone on in this office, but you have to wonder when one of the employees from that office told an elk grower "You F'n landowners and your F'n property rights, that **** doesn't mean anything to me." You have to wonder when one employee is currently a sponsor and the other a very vocal supporter, and several ex-employees have been sponsors/supporters. This office's maps and materials have been used several times in regards to CWD as a valid reason to get rid of these hunt facilities.

So do the elk/deer growers have a reason to be concerned that federal employees are involved in this measure? Do they have a right to ask questions regarding this? You tell me honestly that they don't when something like the above incident happened. You tell me honestly that they don't when they have everything to lose.


----------



## Longshot

Lt

Show me where a person employed by any organization or business somehow has to give up their personal right to public opinion. Have you ever worked in an office before LT and if so did everyone within that office have all the same opinions? Am I to believe that you think that if I'm employed by a company that is somewhat related to a measure I have no right to support or oppose that measure?

Use of employer resources without permission in both government and private corporations is not permitted anywhere I am aware of. Anyone doing so isn't too bright in my opinion


----------



## Plainsman

gst, I like your hunting explanation.



> Animals can be domesticated in one generation.


That is way, way off base. I guess that's why we have scientists, because without them people actually believe things like this. There is a big difference in semi-tame and domestic. Our common dog for example we consider domesticated, and we talk about them as one of our first domesticated animals. Now, your going to tell me that if you have a bear in captivity that produces young you would trust your children playing with that animal when it reaches full adult size? It takes dozens of generations, perhaps more, before an animal is domesticated in the full sense.



> First of all HF operations are not out "leasing up land", the cost of fencing alone is prohibitive enough to do on land you own, no one is going to do so on leased land.


No one implied they were leasing it up for a high fence operation. How many high fence operators are also outfitters or guides. I don't know, but I am sure you don't know either.



> A couple have been caught in black and white lies that have been pointed out.


From my perspective I don't know if they lied, or the people that say they lied are the liars. I don't know. I didn't hear them, and the people saying it have no more nor less credibility. Who are the liars? I know the people that tried to imply things about me last year were liars. Do you think it would be wise of me to extend credibility to them this year? I think admitting I don't know is more honest than those who think they know the truth. Oh, forgot, one guy who was trying to tell people what I said at a meeting in Jamestown was way off base. I was not at the meeting, I was not even in Jamestown, but supposedly I was very nasty to him at that meeting.


> Who am I or you or anyone else to be the judge


The same kind of people who asked society to stop market hunting, night lighting deer, put limits on waterfowl and other game species, protect endangered species like the whooping crane, etc, etc, etc.



> This office's maps and materials have been used several times in regards to CWD as a valid reason to get rid of these hunt facilities.


Through the freedom of information act they would have to give you those maps too if your requested them. If an employee requests them through the same avenue he is entitled to them also. Is your problem that these maps educated people that you wanted to remain ignorant?


----------



## LT

Longshot, Did I say I do not believe someone who works in a federal position should not have an opinion?

Plainsman, Did I say that I felt they did not have a right to use that info if it was obtained by the Freedom of Information Act? Did those maps actually educate anyone in regards to this measure?

I asked if the elk growers should have a concerns regarding federal employees being involved in this measure when there has already been one case of one of those federal sponsors using his work office, his work email, and his work title to endorse this measure?


----------



## DG

Longshot wrote,



> Use of employer resources without permission in both government and private corporations is not permitted anywhere I am aware of. Anyone doing so isn't too bright in my opinion


I believe Roger called it his "fair use."


----------



## Plainsman

> I asked if the elk growers should have a concerns regarding federal employees being involved in this measure when there has already been one case of one of those federal sponsors using his work office, his work email, and his work title to endorse this measure?


It depends on if what he was presenting was part of his job. In wildlife work he may be working with CWD and asked for a presentation. I suppose elk growers would be concerned that they would be put in a bad light, and the general public may be concerned that those in charge of wildlife need tighter restrictions. I'm not aware of some of the situations people are talking about. Personal use would depend on if the person was working outside the realm of his responsibility. 
The truth is I can't answer your question because I don't know the truth. Many on here sure think they do, but I'll admit I have no idea what some are talking about. First I would have to believe what is being said.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Who am I or you or anyone else to be the judge
> 
> The same kind of people who asked society to stop market hunting, night lighting deer, put limits on waterfowl and other game species, protect endangered species like the whooping crane, etc, etc, etc.


The majority of this stuff became law because of population control or the lack there of (Science was reason). Limits were established because wild animals were disappearing. Market hunting was stopped because of wild birds and animals were disappearing. Night lights for deer were more of a safety concern of what is behind or out of the light, also following deer that were hit. During light hours you can see where they go. If you are slow on the spot light...you lose the animal. Again all of these were for WILD POPULATION. These laws were to protect species and safety reasons. How does this bill protect a species or how does it improve safety? (how this bill is being brought up as ethics?)

If someone wants to go out and shoot their cow at night nobody cares. It someone wants to go out and shoot their whole herd of cattle or stock pile of pigs... who cares. See livestock. Just like what the elk, deer, etc are at these operations. THEY ARE LIVESTOCK.

I have stated over and over.....people think of these penned elk and deer as the think of the wild ones.....they are not. They are LIVESTOCK.


----------



## Plainsman

Chuck, you missed the point. It makes no difference the reason for the laws, but that when they need new laws people step up to the plate. If those laws are unwarranted the citizens will say so. If they are reasonable they will pass. It's very simple, if you don't like the measure don't vote for it.


----------



## Chuck Smith

No I get the point totally. Let the people decide. But those laws were brought up because of scientific data (population control), safety issues, etc. This law has none of that.


----------



## gst

Plainsman you want proof of lies or disingenuous facts presented by sponsors, here are three in this one post. Roger claims raising elk for meat is legal as spelled out in the century code, but it is not legal to harvest them, a completely different activity which is HF even though that is spelled out in the very same century code. (read below in his post)How can one be legal and the other not? If he believes the legislature didn't mean "harvest" to include what is done in HF he needs to show prof other than his personal interpretation.

Roger is claiming there is 350 years of legislative and legal precedence when this countries basis of law has only been around for less than 250 years.

And the most telling lie of all, even though he is telling petition signers this petition will end hf operations he admits below that it will require the Federal Lacey Act to end HF regarding the sale of a live animal to an individual and that individual then killing his animal. That is a pretty clear indication this measure in and of itself will not end HF as he has been stating. It will require a much broader intepretation not thru state courts, but thru Federal courts. And he has not even shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the lacey act can be applied to these animals when there is no violation of state law.

Perhaps roger should explain this more thouroughlyt before he hops on his unicycle :wink:



RogerK said:


> LT, it is a blast watching amateurs interpret law.
> 
> In 1999, the Legislature transformed Nontraditional Livestock into Farmed Elk defining farmed elk as elk raised for, &#8230; "fiber, meat, or animal byproducts; or raised for breeding, exhibition, or harvest".
> 
> Look at the 1999 bill, which is current law. It allows for farmed elk raise for meat. Without slaughter, how does an elk turn into meat? Call it slaughter, or call it harvest, turning farmed elk into meat is legal.
> 
> The legislative attempt to legitimize High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations was a slight of hand magic trick to get around 350 years of legislative and legal precedent that placed wildlife in the public trust and charged government with management of that wildlife. Proof of the slight of hand is right here on this post. The Fair Chase Initiative isn't law and some of you are scheming to get around the law using a bill of sale. I have an answer for that: The Lacey Act.
> 
> Section 3372 of the Lacey act makes it unlawful for any person, "to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law; or to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law&#8230;"
> 
> The Fair Chase Initiative will be a law and regulation of this state. Federal fine for breaking the law,$10,000 fine.
> 
> It's a blast watching amateurs interpret law. Like watching a falling down drink try to ride a unicycle. :rollin:


----------



## gst

Plainsman, If you liked my hunting explanation you must realize it is based entirely on individual choice, and the importance in maintaining the integrity of the ability of the individual to take from the experience what he must to enjoy it and continue doing it. So why would you support begining to take that choice away as this measure does? And before you answer to protect hunting from this issue HF, show me any indication of the general public wanting to end FC hunting because of HF. Not inference or personal beliefs, proof.

As to domesticated animals and your method of determination of what is domesticated by a child playing with an adult bear, I wouldn't let a child walk into the corral I have my domesticated angus bulls in, I wouldn't let a child walk in a pen of domesticated stallions, I wouldn't let a child play with some domesticated dogs and I sure as hell wouldn't let a child in a pen of domesticated sows with piglets. Even the wikepidia definition provided earlier contradicts itself on what animals are domesticated or not. In regards to this measure the state has determined farmed elk to be "domesticated" and this measure contains no wording to change that state centruy code. So explain to me how this measure as worded applies to the State determined domestic animal farmed elk?

This measure is not about g/o leasing land for guiding hunters, it is about HF and HF alone. Do not try to muddy the water further with the inclusion of the G/O debate.


----------



## barebackjack

jhegg said:


> barebackjack,
> 
> Read the measure. The following is a direct quote from it. The italics and bold are mine to point out the obvious to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim
Click to expand...

Since were spelling things out Jim, read the ND century code.

Here is a direct quote from it.

NDCC 36-01-00.1.
"Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
_*farmed elk*_, llama, alpaca, or swine.

What is an elk thats never seen the outside of a fence? A _*farmed elk*_.

The bold italics are mine, put there to illustrate what is a blatantly obvious fact that references what these animals are, a fact that is apparently miles over the heads of some. A fact that, no matter how hard you try to ignore, or spin away from, is STILL a fact. Elk in a fence are domestic animals in ND. No different than a beef cow.


----------



## blhunter3

There is no such thing as a domesticated elk. Tame yes, they have not been full domesticated yet. Like bison (or buffalo which ever they are being called now). They rely on humans for help, but have not been domesticated yet.


----------



## Plainsman

blhunter3 said:


> There is no such thing as a domesticated elk. Tame yes, they have not been full domesticated yet. Like bison (or buffalo which ever they are being called now). They rely on humans for help, but have not been domesticated yet.


That's right. Simply because someone in the legislature calls them that don't make them domesticated. I can tell you the sun rises in the west, and some may believe that, but it doesn't make it so. Maybe if our legislature says it rises in the west.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> jhegg wrote:barebackjack,
> 
> Read the measure. The following is a direct quote from it. The italics and bold are mine to point out the obvious to you.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Jim


Now with the way this is written. It gives no protection to Elk farmers who want to have their animals processed for meat, hide, antlers. Because a person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remumeration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man0made enclosure designed to prevent escape. So that would be selling an animal that was behind a fence (man made enclosure) to another person who is going to kill it for meat (butcher shop).


----------



## jhegg

Chuck,



> 4 gauges or "punt guns" were outlawed for multiple reasons but the main one was the market hunting and limits wounding of wild ducks and geese.


Please cite your reference for this statement. Thanks.

Jim


----------



## jhegg

Gabe,



> This measure is not about g/o leasing land for guiding hunters, it is about HF and HF alone. Do not try to muddy the water further with the inclusion of the G/O debate.


"Do not try to muddy the water further with the inclusion of the G/O debate."
Holy Smokes! (Pardon the pun - smoke screen if you don't get it.) Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Jim

*ps: The bold is mine* 
OOPS, I removed the bold from the quote.


----------



## jhegg

barebackjack,



> Since were spelling things out Jim, read the ND century code.
> 
> Here is a direct quote from it.
> 
> NDCC 36-01-00.1.
> "Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
> farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.
> 
> What is an elk thats never seen the outside of a fence? A farmed elk.


What is an elk?



> In the ND Century code, section 20.1-01-02. Definitions.
> 
> 5. "Big game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and antelope.


The ND century code defines elk as big game. The measure states "big game species" of which elk is one. What is your next question?

Jim


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> There is no such thing as a domesticated elk. Tame yes, they have not been full domesticated yet. Like bison (or buffalo which ever they are being called now). They rely on humans for help, but have not been domesticated yet.


 :withstupid:

Websters dictionary defines "domestic" as:

1 a : living near or about human habitations b : *tame*, domesticated <the domestic cat>
2 : of, relating to, or originating within a country and especially one's own country <domestic politics> <domestic wines>
3 : of or relating to the household or the family <domestic chores> <domestic happiness>
4 : devoted to home duties and pleasures <leading a quietly domestic life>
5 : indigenous

(Notice the bolded word).

It defines "domesticated" as:

1 : to bring into domestic use : adopt
2 : to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans
3 : to make domestic : fit for domestic life
4 : to bring to the level of ordinary people
- do·mes·ti·ca·tion \-ˌmes-ti-ˈkā-shən\

So......*farmed elk* fall under both definitions. They are "living near or about human habitations" to "a life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans".

Some distinction can be made between "domestic" and "tame". For example, the Indian Elephant, however being "tamed" to be used as a beast of burden by man for centuries, is NOT considered "domestic" because they have not normally been bred under human control. We can throw this distinction out the window in reference to *farmed elk* because they HAVE had widespread breeding under human control.

You can think of *farmed elk* however you want. You can make whatever hair brained association between them and true wild elk as you like. But, according to the definition of the word, and the NDCC, a *farmed elk* IS a "domesticated" animal.


----------



## barebackjack

jhegg said:


> barebackjack,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since were spelling things out Jim, read the ND century code.
> 
> Here is a direct quote from it.
> 
> NDCC 36-01-00.1.
> "Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
> farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.
> 
> What is an elk thats never seen the outside of a fence? A farmed elk.
> 
> 
> 
> What is an elk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the ND Century code, section 20.1-01-02. Definitions.
> 
> 5. "Big game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and antelope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ND century code defines elk as big game. The measure states "big game species" of which elk is one. What is your next question?
> 
> Jim
Click to expand...

You're pretty dense.

Elk in a fence........*farmed elk*.....DOMESTICATED.

Elk not in a fence.......big game.

Are you really not bright enough to make the distinction?

As per my previous post, you either cant make this distinction or you do not want to. If you did, your initiative would be sunk. You want everyone to think of farmed elk as big game. Which they are NOT.


----------



## blhunter3

bbj, I have not found anywhere that have claimed that elk have officially been domesticated. It takes many generations to domesticate animals, if not thousands of years.

Not the greatest table, but where are the elk?

http://archaeology.about.com/od/dterms/ ... cation.htm


----------



## barebackjack

What is the definition of "domestic" or "domesticated"?

Read the definition read the definition read the definition.

As per the definition of BOTH words, *farmed elk*, that is, elk behind a fence are both "domestic" and "domesticated".

They ARE raised in close proximity to human habitation, and they ARE raised in intimate association with man for the benefit of man. According to the accepted definitions of the words, this is what must be met for an animal to be considered "domestic" and "domesticated".

Roger best be obtaining signatures to vote to change the definition of domestic.

The anti-HF boys would love for you to think that *farmed elk* were "big game" (like they do). The fact is, they are not.


----------



## jhegg

barebackjack,



> You're pretty dense.


And you talk about me being classless.

Try telling that to the judge and see where it gets you.

Jim


----------



## blhunter3

I understand what your saying bbj, but elk have not been officially labeled as domesticated yet. They may have domestication tendances but they have been classified.


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> I understand what your saying bbj, but elk have not been officially labeled as domesticated yet. They may have domestication tendances but they have been classified.


Yes they have. In ND, farmed elk are officially domestic. The NDCC "official" and legal definition of farmed elk.......

NDCC 36-01-00.1.
"Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
*farmed elk*, llama, alpaca, or swine.

The NDCC is official to the state of ND.

How is this so hard to understand? How much more official can it get?

Pretty sure the NDCC trumps about.com.


----------



## gst

blhunter 3 under ND state law, FARMED ELK have been classified as domestic animals.

Fact, there are three definitions in the ND State Century Code regarding elk.

One in the section Title 20.1 Game, Fish, Predators and Boating Sec 20.1-01-02 This is intended to govern the regulation of WILD elk within this state as big game. Note the distinction, WILD. Note the section this is under Game, Fish, Predators and Boating and governs the wildlife of the state. If you don't choose to believe me call the NDG&F. There is nothing else in this section regarding domesticated or farmed animals. http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/T201.html However they do have a section 20.1-12 titled Private Shooting Preserves. This governs game bird preserves and allows for the raising in and release from an enclosure of these birds to be shot for a fee. These private SHOOTING preserves as described by state law have been known to advertise what they do as hunting!!!! Doesn't roger refer to HF as canned "shooting" preserves??? :wink:

The second definition in the section Title 36 Livestock Sec 36-01 references elk as "domestic" animals governed under the board of animal health. This section is devoted to animal agriculture. The "nontraditional" determination clearly covers captive tame deer. http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t36c01.pdf

The third definition in the same section Title 36 Livestock Sec 36-25-01 is devoted entirely to and titled FARMED ELK. http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t36c25.pdf 
Please note section 36-25-06 Agricultural Pursuit. It states the following: quote [ "Farmed elk are livestock, and the products of farmed elk are farm products for purposes of financial transactions and collateral. The raising of farmed elk is agricultural production and an agricultural pursuit."] end quote
This pretty clearly defines Farmed Elk as LIVESTOCK under the legislative assemblies determination where by the public had the right and opportunity to provide input and testify when this distinction was made.

The other thing to note is this measure if inacted as law, will be included under the Title 36 Livestock section rather than the Title 20.1 Game, Fish, Predator and Boating section. It will be in direct conflict with long established rulings in this section and one or the other will have to be addressed. It is clear as from rogers admission that the final enforcement of the intent of this measure will not even come from this measure itself, but from a rulling of the Federal Lacey Act. So for Roger to be giving the signers of this measures petition the impression this is a simple cut and dried determination that if this measure passes it will end HF is disingenuous based on current state law. To claim even this Federa Lacey Act will address this without direct proof how is disingenuous based off state law that clearly states farmed elk would not be covered under the Lacey Act. To refer to these farmed elk as wild animals or big game is disingenuous based on current state law which exempts them from the Lacey Act. To claim the use of an agricultural product, livestock, when done in accordance with state law is not a property right is disingenuous based on current state law.This is not my personal opinion, it is black and white law written in our states century code and the language of the Lacey Act. To be covered under the Lacey act the distinction made by our states legislature calling these animals farmed elk would have to be over ridden and changed to big game so the usage of these animals is in violation of state law . This measure does not do this in and of itself, it will require a rulling by a judge. Textbook HSUS stratagy. To continue to deny this and insinuate something different, shows a disregard for the truth.


----------



## Plainsman

The North Dakota Century Code is simply a political process. They can call a pig a cow and I guess it's official, but it's still a pig.



> Back to Timeline 20000 B.C. thru 301 B.C.
> 
> Animal Domestication
> 
> "The domestication of animals probably began about 12,000 years ago and involves more than simply taming.


From a real scientific, archaeological, anthropological, historical, animal husbandry standpoint it's much more complicated.

http://www.science-ebooks.com/timeline/ ... cation.htm
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal ... ation1.htm
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1499.htm
Anyone can write anything they want for wikipedia. Look up Koi breeding on wikipedia. I wrote it.


----------



## gst

Plainsman the ND Century Code is NOT a political process, it is a legislative process where by the laws of this state are developed with allowances for input and testimony to be given in regards to each specific law. As to these laws of this state that govern us I would rather they be based on common sense truth than your "archaeological, anthroplogical, historical, animal husbandry standpoint" in regards to the domestication classification of an animal. :-? Say that ten times real fast!


----------



## barebackjack

deoxy.org?.........Plainsman, I had no idea you were a hippie! :lol: :wink:


----------



## blhunter3

I comprehend the ND Code, but what I want to know is why aren't elk officailly classified as domesticated? Just because something is a state law doesn't mean its scientifical correct or right.

http://www.lawguru.com/weird/part01.html


----------



## Plainsman

barebackjack said:


> deoxy.org?.........Plainsman, I had no idea you were a hippie! :lol: :wink:


I just googled and through a couple on there. I see I doubled up on that one. Sort of goofy alright isn't it. Goofy enough I feel kind of silly putting that one on there. There are many of them though, and none agree with it just means tame.



> Plainsman the ND Century Code is NOT a political process, it is a legislative process


That was a gem. I had to quick quote it before you figured out what you said and deleted it. That one deserves framing.


----------



## blhunter3

barebackjack said:


> deoxy.org?.........Plainsman, I had no idea you were a hippie! :lol: :wink:


Closet Hippie. He puts on a big tough conservative front on nodak, but he was out and about campaigning to Obama.


----------



## Plainsman

blhunter3 said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> deoxy.org?.........Plainsman, I had no idea you were a hippie! :lol: :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> Closet Hippie. He puts on a big tough conservative front on nodak, but he was out and about campaigning to Obama.
Click to expand...

Shucks your on to me.

I corrected that silly goof of mine. Here is a better one. Notice what they say about deer.

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1499.htm



> Fifth, Tendency to Panic: The wonderful French word farouche catches this idea. It means wild in the sense of being shy and poised to flee. A deer is farouche, and it can't be domesticated.





> And so, out of some 72 large-animal candidates in Europe and Asia, only thirteen have been domesticated. And, in Africa, all the domesticated animals are imports. Next time you look at farm animals, bear that in mind. For they are the few rare examples of marriages between human and animals that have actually succeeded


I'm going to ignore you and go to bed now bbj. :wink:


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> I comprehend the ND Code, but what I want to know is why aren't elk officailly classified as domesticated? Just because something is a state law doesn't mean its scientifical correct or right.


And once again, in ND, farmed elk ARE officially classified as domesticated. Clearly defined.

It doesn't matter if someone on about.com, Wikipedia, or "scientific" website or otherwise doesn't classify them as such. Farmed elk, in ND, ARE classified as domesticated. ND makes a clear distinction between wild elk and farmed elk.

And who as you say makes the "official classification" to call them "domesticated"? I have a degree in the sciences. Would it make you feel better if I "officially classified" them for you?
What criteria must be met for a species to be considered "domesticated" in your eyes?
When you go by the accepted definitions for domestic and domesticated, farmed elk are already there. The accepted definitions of those two words fits farmed elk to the letter.

BL, your starting to remind me of these supreme court justices that try to "interpret" the constitution, when its written in English so plain a four year old can understand it.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, are you serious??? http://deoxy.org/ct/domestication.htm WOW  


Plainsman said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> deoxy.org?.........Plainsman, I had no idea you were a hippie! :lol: :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> I just googled and through a couple on there. I see I doubled up on that one. Sort of goofy alright isn't it. Goofy enough I feel kind of silly putting that one on there. There are many of them though, and none agree with it just means tame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman the ND Century Code is NOT a political process, it is a legislative process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was a gem. I had to quick quote it before you figured out what you said and deleted it. That one deserves framing.
Click to expand...

OK that was some pretty fast backpedalling there plainsman! I knew what I said before I typed it much like you knew what you coppied and pasted before you hit the submit button.

The NDCC IS developed in the legislative process, it would be hard to deny the legislative process is what creates our laws. Are there politics involved, of course, but to call it a political process is not correctly identifying how the state constitution determined our law making process be classified. You know, all that legislative, judicial, executive branch of govt stuff you learned in High School. 

Maybe it is just me, but when it comes to the creation of law,I would rather it be based on decisions made by individuals responsible to the citizens of the state that can be held accountable and replaced thru the election process than some "archaeological, anthropological, historical" scientific guru that answers to no one.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> deoxy.org?.........Plainsman, I had no idea you were a hippie! :lol: :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> Closet Hippie. He puts on a big tough conservative front on nodak, but he was out and about campaigning to Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shucks your on to me.
> 
> I corrected that silly goof of mine. Here is a better one. Notice what they say about deer.
> 
> http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1499.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fifth, Tendency to Panic: The wonderful French word farouche catches this idea. It means wild in the sense of being shy and poised to flee. A deer is farouche, and it can't be domesticated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so, out of some 72 large-animal candidates in Europe and Asia, only thirteen have been domesticated. And, in Africa, all the domesticated animals are imports. Next time you look at farm animals, bear that in mind. For they are the few rare examples of marriages between human and animals that have actually succeeded
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm going to ignore you and go to bed now bbj. :wink:
Click to expand...

Interesting, but hardly scientific (and poorly defended).

Farouche? Come on. Being "easy to handle" and domesticated are two separate things. If im breeding and raising a species in confinement, for my benefit, it is not wild, it is domestic. 
If domestic meant "easy to handle" than most of the cattle and horses ive worked were NOT domestic. Tame pertains more to "ease of handling", domestic pertains to usage. Just because an animal may just as soon stomp your guts into the ground or run away from as look at you, doesn't mean its not domesticated. It just means its not tame.

Everyone seems to be trying to refute just what domestic means, or more accurately, what id doesn't mean, yet NOBODY has tried to refute the definition of the word itself, or tried to refute farmed elk meeting the criteria that defines the word.


----------



## gst

OK they are lots of websites out there with a WIDE variety of definitions of a domesticated animal. How about looking at one that is based on law creation, (after all that IS what this measure is all about right?) and the "legal" definition of domestic animals.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/ ... nimal.aspx

Note the following "legal" definition of a domesticated animal given in this link: quote["Domestic animal means an animal of a species of vertabrates that has been domesticated by humans so as to live and breed in a tame condition and depend on human kind for survival."]endquote.

Given the pictures of deer being fed out of a bucket by a human on the FC website put there by the sponsors of this measure, and their claims these animals are "tame" animals made accustomed to humans I'd say these "farmed elk and deer" fit the "legal" discription of domesticated animals given on this law based website to a T. The point here is we can consider these common sense legal determinations made by people accountable for their actions OR we can use French words (farouche) and hippy websites to create a basis for state law. :wink:

Perhaps these "legal" determinations are the basis our legislators used to determine the wording and distinctions in our Century Code.

Here is one more question that will determine how one veiws these animals. If you were driving by a HF operation and 5 of their tagged elk ran out onto the road and you hit them and were paralyzed in the ensueing crash, would you or could you sue them and hold them liable?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Re: The Fair Chase Fray
> 
> Postby jhegg » Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:12 pm
> Chuck,
> 
> 4 gauges or "punt guns" were outlawed for multiple reasons but the main one was the market hunting and limits wounding of wild ducks and geese.
> 
> Please cite your reference for this statement. Thanks.
> 
> Jim


Here is one of many. Google outlawing of punt guns, over harvest of waterfowl, market hunting, etc. ALso this is again dealing with WILD POPULATIONS. Not the killing of livestock. They have not outlawed use up a punt gun if someone wanted to kill their domestic ducks or chickens or even cattle.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/RiverWeb/ ... nting.html


----------



## Plainsman

> BL, your starting to remind me of these supreme court justices that try to "interpret" the constitution, when its written in English so plain a four year old can understand it


. :rollin:

Whether or not a species can be domesticated is written within the genome of each species. Polticians can call a square peg round, but it still will not fit in a round hole. It makes little difference if it is written in English, Chinese, or legaleze. Yes, I know it's not a word, so lets not get on that subject.



> Here is one more question that will determine how one veiws these animals. If you were driving by a HF operation and 5 of their tagged elk ran out onto the road and you hit them and were paralyzed in the ensueing crash, would you or could you sue them and hold them liable?


How could that happen? We know they can't escape right?


----------



## Chuck Smith

What I get a kick out of is now some on this site or this thread are disputing the ND Century Code as not being something to follow or use as guide lines. Yet in other threads they will quote the ND Century Code or defend it tooth and nail......ie trespass Law, licensing law, etc.

Hypocricy at its fullest!

But lets get rid of the domestic dispute. So any elk with this measure could not be killed....period. By a butcher, etc. The only person who could kill an elk or deer would be the farmer himself. Correct? So you are going to completely kill all farmed elk that are not even being sold as HF operations. Right? So not only are you getting rid of HF operations but family elk farms. Ones that sell meat, horns, hides, etc. Not "hunts" or penned shooting.

Please someone tell me I am wrong.


----------



## blhunter3

gst said:


> Here is one more question that will determine how one veiws these animals. If you were driving by a HF operation and 5 of their tagged elk ran out onto the road and you hit them and were paralyzed in the ensueing crash, would you or could you sue them and hold them liable?


If North Dakota is still open range then the responsibly lies on the driver, not the owner of the animals.


----------



## blhunter3

Chuck Smith said:


> What I get a kick out of is now some on this site or this thread are disputing the ND Century Code as not being something to follow or use as guide lines. Yet in other threads they will quote the ND Century Code or defend it tooth and nail......ie trespass Law, licensing law, etc.
> 
> Hypocricy at its fullest!
> 
> But lets get rid of the domestic dispute. So any elk with this measure could not be killed....period. By a butcher, etc. The only person who could kill an elk or deer would be the farmer himself. Correct? So you are going to completely kill all farmed elk that are not even being sold as HF operations. Right? So not only are you getting rid of HF operations but family elk farms. Ones that sell meat, horns, hides, etc. Not "hunts" or penned shooting.
> 
> Please someone tell me I am wrong.


Any law can be scrutinized right? That is all that I am doing. According the scientist that work with animals, elk have not been domesticated. But North Dakota Law says they are. So what I want to know is how they decided that elk or domesticated?


----------



## Plainsman

> Please someone tell me I am wrong


.

OK, your wrong. :rollin: :wink:

Seriously though that is not correct. The few people who are sponsors of this bill that I know certainly do not have that as their goal. It's just another one of those scare tactics being used. You know how that goes. 
I guess I am assuming that the bill changed little from last year. To tell the truth I have not even looked at their website. I was going to stay out of the fray this year until people resorted to the same old foolish HSUS bs. Some are just going to throw all the bs they can and hope some sticks.


----------



## gst

BL, at some point in creation of law the determination has to change from debatable dialogue to that of black and white legal verbage for the purpose of the example I gave of the accident among others. It is the legislative assemblies job to do this,(in this case they have) the executive branch to approve or disaprove it,(in this case they have) and the judicial branches job to carry it out. And possibly interpret it if there is a challenge. This group NDH for FC should have challenged the legislative determination of these animals being classified "domestic animals" prior to this measure, but they probably knew in all likelyhood that would have failed, effectively killing their agenda. They are now trying to backdoor this measure with it's contradictory wording( big game rather than domestic animal) into the livestock section of the states century code as they believe it will stand up to the enevitable challange better there.

Plainsman, the primary sponsor of this measure has stated publically he will not quit until these operations are out of business. Until they are any claim by a sponsor this measure reduces a disease issue is a LIE!!! (take a look on this site and you will find a few)

Plainsman, the question I asked was a hypothetical question to prove a long standing legal determination. If the accident were caused by wild "big game" species, there is no one to be sued nor held liable for the result of the animals actions. If the accident is cause by domestic animals the owner of the animals maybe sued and held liable for the animals actions. The HF elk in the instance I gave would be deemed domestic animals in a court of law not big game animals thru judicial interpretation. Your unwillingness to answer this question indicates you as well as most people knew this. These animals have also clearly been defined as domestic animals (livestock)thru legislative distinction as well and accepted as such thru the executive branch when this determination was signed into law by the govenor back in 99. All three branches of law creation in the state of ND veiw these "farmed elk" as domestic animals yet you argue your point based on French words such as "farouche"???? 

Mind you this is all admittedly only amatuer legal analogy but given the professional roger k. refuses to address these issues,(or any other for that matter)that is all we have! :wink:


----------



## blhunter3

I stand corrected

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t36c11.pdf

36-11-09. Action permitted when livestock breaks through lawful fence. Any person
owning or having charge of any livestock that goes through, over, or under any lawful fence is
liable for all resulting damages. Any livestock that goes through, over, or under a lawful fence is
deemed trespassing livestock for the purposes of this chapter.

Damn, these laws are confusing. I'm having a hard time understanding some of them.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Seriously though that is not correct. The few people who are sponsors of this bill that I know certainly do not have that as their goal. It's just another one of those scare tactics being used. You know how that goes.


Plainsman I agree that *some sponsors* don't have that intent or want elk farmers closed down. But the way this proposed law is written it will in fact shut them down or they can't sell their livestock to USDA butchers and processors with out someone being in violation of the bill. Just the way it is written. That is the point I am trying to make.

Also thanks for telling me I am wrong...lol oke:



> Any law can be scrutinized right? That is all that I am doing. According the scientist that work with animals, elk have not been domesticated. But North Dakota Law says they are. So what I want to know is how they decided that elk or domesticated?


You are correct. But the ND century code is the so called "bible" to some. They will fight tooth and nail saying it is "law" but yet if it does not fit their agenda....the century code is off. Just like saying the Constitution is right or wrong only when it fits your agenda. I just find it funny is all.


----------



## LT

Plainsman Stated:


> Seriously though that is not correct. The few people who are sponsors of this bill that I know certainly do not have that as their goal. It's just another one of those scare tactics being used. You know how that goes.


But there are definitely some that are trying to shut all game farms down. Shortly after this initiative failed the first time, another bill was presented to the legislators. HB 1210 - (Rep's Hanson, Gruchalla, Mueller, Porter; Sen's Fischer, Freborg) - Would prohibit the use of state and federal funds to regulate any enclosed big game or farmed elk facilities. House Agriculture Committee heard 1/23, no action taken.

If you notice the bill was only targeting farmed elk, not NTLs, which are also included in the $200,000 plus funding for regulation. Dick Monson has said repeatedly stated here, on other forums, and in Dakota Country magazine that this money from Game and Fish is used to subsidize the canned shooting industry, implying that the full 200,000 is used for them. It is my understanding that the money now comes out of the general fund directly to BOAH and is no longer received from Game & Fish. Originally it was payment to the Board of Animal Health for the use of their veterinarian and other services the Board of Animal Health performed for Game & Fish.

Remember this post by DG: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=79643&p=656844#p656844



> Dick Monson,
> 
> Have you opened that link I posted concerning HB 1210.
> 
> http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-200 ... HB1210.PDF
> 
> Dick said,
> 
> Dwight, if the NTL folks had been actively policing themselves their problems would go away. USDA-APHIS has been calling for tighter monitering of NTL facilities to avoid these problems. But the NTL industry has fought that regulation tooth & nail. You might run a tight ship but there are plenty that don't. NTL needs to cut them loose. But you're so damn afraid of regulation for your own good, imposed by yourselves.
> 
> Here you are all concerned about regulations but you were right here cheerleading for HB 1210 designed to cut all funding for regulation last winter. Rep. Hanson submitted HB 1210 at the request of a constituant in his district. (Jamestown)He doesn't have to disclose who drafted it.
> 
> Dick, The explanations for the 200,000 dollars you keep harping about should be right here.
> 
> http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-200 ... HB1210.PDF
> 
> Notice how the Representatives keep asking "are you opposed to farmed elk facilities?' And toward the end Rep. Boe says, "the real issue is when we came in, it's only a small group of people that are concerned about this."
> Rep. Lyle Hansons constituant or constituants who drafted the bill didn't bother to show. Rep. Hanson and Mike McEnroe federal biologist and current lobbyist for the wildlife society were the only two there in support of 1210. I guess that would constitute a "small" group of people.


----------



## blhunter3

I see where your coming from Chuck. I person can't see elk as domesticated already, being, that humans haven't started "farming" them until recent. But I suppose that you have to start somewhere.

I think I'm going to be done trying to understand some of those laws that's for sure.


----------



## Plainsman

LT, for the record I am a person who believes each organization should pay it's own way. Of that $200K you listed I don't think Game and Fish should be ripped off, but they should also pay for what portion they use and the elk growers pay for their portion. Or department of agriculture pay for the elk growers portion. If government pays for the regulations that is. None of us should parasitize the other.


----------



## LT

Game and fish does not pay for it. Originally this was money that was paid for services Board of Animal Health supplied to Game & Fish. It is my understanding this money has now been shifted and now comes from the general fund directly to BOAH.

But my question is why were only the elk/deer growers targeted, since the money was for all NTLs? And why to take away all funding, even Federal? I am not even sure that is legal. And why has Dick repeatedly stated that 200,000 of sportsman's dollars are used to subsidize the canned shooting industry? Disingenuous?


----------



## LT

http://www.deer-library.com/artman/publ ... e_39.shtml

Many North Americans think that farming deer or elk is a radically new idea. In fact, deer have been farmed for thousands of years in various parts of the world. Written records describe intensive farming techniques for deer in Mediterranean and Asian countries well before the birth of Christ. In North America, elk (wapiti) were kept as farmed livestock in Pennsylvania in the late 1800's, and in 1910, USDA Bulletin #36 noted the suitability of elk for farming. In spite of this knowledge, the industry really did not develop until more recently.


----------



## blhunter3

How long have elk been shot in pens and call it hunting?


----------



## LT

Blhunter,

Do you think our forefather's would call hunting that we do today, hunting?


----------



## blhunter3

Where there are no pens yes.


----------



## LT

Blhunter,

I don't think they would necessarily call what we do today hunting since for them it was about survival, not sport.


----------



## blhunter3

Good point, but you do have to take into account that we have changed the landscape and have artificially made animal populations high and over their normal carrying capacity. So hunting is need whether it be for sport or survival of that species.

Here is a question for you. What makes shooting a penned in animal a sport? Or is it just a blood lust that someone needs to fulfill?


----------



## LT

Well, apparently there is a lot of blood lust out there then, because I am not sure I would consider a lot of hunting that goes on today a sport as well. Might as well go back to knives and bare hands.

But for many preserve hunting is a thrill for them, it is the experience they take from it. It is a challenge for the handicapped as well as elderly. I personally know a facility whose majority of customers are elderly. As long as the animals are treated humanely I don't have a problem with it. The end result for these animals is death, no matter who pulls the trigger.

I personally would never do it, but I am not going to tell someone they cannot. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean someone else won't or shouldn't. But I would be all for outlawing rap music. :beer:


----------



## gst

blhunter, Here's a question for you, do you believe I should tell you what you need to take from the hunting experience to call it hunting?


----------



## blhunter3

I will agree there is alot of blood lust out there, its not good and it will do alot of harm to us hunters. I know its a personal thing, but how can someone get joy from shooting an animal in a pen? I have yet to meet someone who participates in that sort of shooting, so I don't have an answer for it.

gst. I don't believe that anyone should tell anyone what type of experience you or I should have from hunting or anything. But how can someone call shooting a penned in animal hunting? Also what experience is there to have other then the thrill of pulling the trigger, hearing the gun go boom, and watching an animal that can't escape die? If all someone cares about is the kill, they shouldn't be hunting.

I understand this is an ethical debate and there are no right or wrong answers. I am just trying to understand why someone would support shooting an animal in a pen and call it hunting.


----------



## gst

Blhunter, what you have to realize is not many opposed to this measure are supporting someone that chooses to shoot an animal in a pen, most would never got to a HF operation, many don't necessarily even look on most people that choose to use these operations with much favor, they are simply defending someones right to make their own choice what they want to take from the hunting experience because they realize the risk of starting to regulate this sole thing (what is hunting)based on personal agendas.

Your sitting in a heated, elevated enclosed stand, your rifle is resting on sandbags on a table, you have a laser range finder and a rifle with mildots for yardages. You are over looking a 200 yard by 100 yard food plot that was planted in the spring that deer have gotten accustomed to feeding in. Out walks a deer. Really and honestly answer this, how much chance does that deer have of "running away"? What percentage of a chance? I know the arguement is there is still that chance how ever slight. But I know several people that believe the ONLY way to consider yourself "hunting deer" is if you are pushing them on drives. They look at the example I give with the same disdain you look at high fence. You may say, well I only have a problem with HF. Tell me once you start drawing this line, where do you stop someone else from doing the same.


----------



## blhunter3

Touche gst.

Yes, your correct, the deer more then likely doesn't have a chance, but the deer does have free will to either leave the area, and not come back, unlike a penned in shoot.

I have hunted with people that think the only way to hunt deer is to drive them, but the deer can actually escape. Unlike a penned in shoot.

I know that the slippery slope issue can come up with the banning of penned in shoots, but you also have to look at the other side and see that its a great target for anti-hunters. Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils.

I guess in my mind, as long as the animal has free will and can escape its fine. But once you limit it, its not hunting, its pure shooting.


----------



## RogerK

gst said:


> Plainsman, are you serious??? http://deoxy.org/ct/domestication.htm WOW
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> deoxy.org?.........Plainsman, I had no idea you were a hippie! :lol: :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman the ND Century Code is NOT a political process, it is a legislative process
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe it is just me, but when it comes to the creation of law,I would rather it be based on decisions made by individuals responsible to the citizens of the state that can be held accountable and replaced thru the election process than some "archaeological, anthropological, historical" scientific guru that answers to no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You are about to get your wish. The people that hold "individuals responsible" are about to hold them responsible for legislating in the shooting operations. The citizens are goning to vote, which is the ultimate responsibility.


----------



## gst

So roger, for us amateur legal minds please explain clearly step by step how this measure that states it is illegal to shoot big game inside a fence will be interpreted onto an animal that is classified as a domestic animal in the same livestock section of the century code. Explain to us how if a live animal is sold to an individual that then kills it how this will be illegal in step by step detail. As I said, as a cattleman I'm interested to learn how this will happen. If you have the signatures, and it will be a legal rulling that will have either of these happen, what do you have to lose by explaining it in detail?


----------



## AdamFisk

gst said:


> Blhunter, what you have to realize is not many opposed to this measure are supporting someone that chooses to shoot an animal in a pen, most would never got to a HF operation, many don't necessarily even look on most people that choose to use these operations with much favor, they are simply defending someones right to make their own choice what they want to take from the hunting experience because they realize the risk of starting to regulate this sole thing (what is hunting)based on personal agendas.
> 
> Your sitting in a heated, elevated enclosed stand, your rifle is resting on sandbags on a table, you have a laser range finder and a rifle with mildots for yardages. You are over looking a 200 yard by 100 yard food plot that was planted in the spring that deer have gotten accustomed to feeding in. Out walks a deer. Really and honestly answer this, how much chance does that deer have of "running away"? What percentage of a chance? I know the arguement is there is still that chance how ever slight. But I know several people that believe the ONLY way to consider yourself "hunting deer" is if you are pushing them on drives. They look at the example I give with the same disdain you look at high fence. You may say, well I only have a problem with HF. Tell me once you start drawing this line, where do you stop someone else from doing the same.


Spot on....... :beer:

Where does the line stop???????????????????????????? Look at Montana; no trail cams allowed and I believe they are trying to outlaw trapping. Makes me uke: .

Plainsman, since you are into asking hypothetical questions, what if somebody started a crusade to outlaw long range hunting? How would you react?

I understand the need to "self police" the hunting world. I don't want to see ND end up like Texas anymore than the next guy, I promise you that. IMO, there are bigger fish to fry. I don't think 12 HF operations in the state of ND are doing much harm to the tradition of hunting. I think slob POS "hunters" do far worse damage. Honestly, I could give two ****s less what goes on in these HF operations, as long as the kill is humane. It takes place on their own land. It takes place with their privatley owned farmed animals, aka livestock. IMO, it doesn't give hunters as bad of a rep from the public as some of you make it out to be. The ****heads running down deer in a pickup on a Hwy do far worse damage. They, the HF operations, aren't taking away any opportunities from us, the public. They aren't illegally killing a big buck or elk that you may have had a chance at. They aren't leasing up acre after acre of land that you could have possibly hunted on and chargin for access or a guiding service....They are providing opportunites for the handicapped, the elderly, or even the rich lazy wannabe hunters who think they've actually participated in a hunt.....Who gives a crap? That many less people to deal with on public ground. Gotta look at the bright side you know.


----------



## gst

Blhunter, Stop and think about this. You are a nonhunter, you are at a home and gardenshow. One booth has a video of a person shooting and killing a deer inside a HF. It also has pictures of other animals shot with a fence in the background. One booth down has a video of a hunter shooting and wounding a deer that runs away and is not recovered in a FC hunt. It also has pictures of other badly wounded unrecovered deer shot in FC hunts. Which gives the anti hunter a greater target? The FC hunt is "ethical" in the eyes of the group NDH for FC looking to ban HF, simply because the deer can "run away". So which causes the nonhunter to have a greater negative image of hunting? Once you start down this road, how do you stop others from doing the same? How is this protecting hunting? I promise you if these boothes are collecting signatures to ban something the booth showing FC scenarios will gather more nonhunting signatures. Because one group of arrogant elitest people with thin skin and fragile egos took it upon themselves to "prove" to the public these operations exist because of their "jealousy" and concern over "bragging rights", that slippery slope got a little slipperier. Wether they admit to it or accept the responsibility for it they are inviting other groups to come in and do the same by their actions. This fall when this is on the ballot and HSUS is running ads all over ND ask yourself this. Do you really believe it was worth it? Do you really believe it is being done in the name of "protecting hunting"??? Do you really believe it is even accomplishing that???


----------



## chiben16

As Medivh's father, Shade of Aran is a nothing short of Buy WOW Gold big Master, master three-line talent and has a strong big move in WOW. Only three spell have been quiet at the same time, he will use his not WOW Gold mentioning physical attacks, and his fighting has been limited to a radius of thirty five yards inside the circular study. His target is BBBB and WOW Gold sale random, Metin2 Gold there is no hate list. However, when some players have fewer blood volumes, he has very likely to continued to attack in an attempt Aion Gold, Cheap WOW Gold, Aion Power Leveling and Aion Kinah to get rid of him. 
Skills of Shade of Aran Lotro Gold, Metin2 Yang

Shade of Aran skills can be divided into general Buy WOW Gold, AAAA and special skills. The cast time of all skills will not hurt or poison and tongue tie curse extend in WOW. But the general skills can be interrupted in any way, special skills have not restrictions.

Common Skills of Shade of Aran

Ice Arrow can cast magic for three second, causing four thousand four hundred frost damages. With sustained the deceleration effects for four seconds, it can be lifted. Fireball can cast magic for three second and cause four thousand four hundred fire damages. Arcane missile is a channel magic, causing one thousand five hundred points of Arcane damage every second, sustained for five seconds.

Frost bound can freeze the target can not be moved within ten seconds. It has no harm and can be dispersed, through lift all the skills of held and items can be lifted. Visual effects, WOW Power Leveling or Kaufen WOW Gold to the shackles of the souls of priests. Scope of silence can play a role in the scope of ten yards distance of Elam, and it is launched very frequently in WOW. Only interrupt the current cast and does not result in continued silence. Deceleration is usually accompanied by powerful explosive used in conjunction with Austria, it can reduce all movement and attack speed. It can sustain for ten seconds and can be dispersed through all skills can lift movement restrictions effect and items.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, since you are into asking hypothetical questions, what if somebody started a crusade to outlaw long range hunting? How would you react?


Your a year to late. The sky is falling crowd asked me that last year. How do you think I would react?

Montana has been Kalifornicated. The big difference is these are all hunters policing their own over here. If they don't clean up their own mess, the Kalifornicaters may very well do our job for us and it will be far worse. I would just as soon get rid of the ball and chain that can drag us down.
These are not hunters as many have agreed with. Once it's out of the way I see nothing else we can not be united on. I have heard that the North Dakota Bow Hunters want to have a drawing instead of over the counter for deer hunting. I don't know if it's true or not, but there is an example of shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## LT

Plainsman said previously:


> I was going to stay out of the fray this year until people resorted to the same old foolish HSUS bs. Some are just going to throw all the bs they can and hope some sticks.


Plainsman just stated:


> Montana has been Kalifornicated. The big difference is these are all hunters policing their own over here. If they don't clean up their own mess, the Kalifornicaters may very well do our job for us and it will be far worse. I would just as soon get rid of the ball and chain that can drag us down. These are not hunters as many have agreed with. Once it's out of the way I see nothing else we can not be united on.


Plainsman, which HSUS bs were you talking about?


----------



## gst

Plainsman, didn't the primary sponsor behind this measure spend most of his adult life in Kalifornia? Maybe he is bringing those "Kalifornicated" ideologies back to good old ND! :wink:

Please answer this if you would. Your saying if a group of 20 or so people that call themselves hunters did decide that too many animals are wounded and not recovered because of shooting over 200 yards and that it gives hunting a black eye, and so they took it upon themselves to start an initiated measure and started going to home and garden shows and had a booth like I described above we can rest assured that you would be "united" with them and that you would be on this website supporting getting rid of this ball and chain dragging us down that they were claiming long range shooting is?????????? I would really like to hear your answer to that. How about a group just wanting to end mourning dove hunting? How about trapping, trail cameras, running coyotes with dogs,electronic calls, traditional archery ect.......................................?????

You claim the the "kalifornicators may very well do our job for us, and it will be far worse" if we don't get rid of HF insinuating they will end all hunting. But then you turn around and say anyone that claims HSUS may use this to further their agenda of ending all hunting is nothing but "scare tactics". Your Kalifonia mindset molded buddy roger claims HSUS can not take away our right to hunt because of our constitutional wording, but yet claims HF may cause this right to hunt to be put in jeapody? Which one is it you guys?????? Apparently when it fits your agenda it is the truth, but when it doesn't it is a lie????

So what are you guys going to do when HSUS comes into this state advertising for this measure this fall if it is on the ballot??????

roger K the primary sponsor of this measure started this thread, and "entered the HF fray". After 10 pages, can ANYONE show any factually based information he has provided regarding this measure he is trying to have made into state law????? Can anyone show where he directly answered a question???? Maybe he just saves all these facts for those nonhunting folks he meets at these home and garden shows they collect signatures at.

The one single truth mixed in the disingenuous statements that the sponsor and supporters of this measure stated in their own words in this thread is about why this measure even exists. "Jealousy" and "bragging rights" over "hanging a head on the wall" What a basis for state law and moral high ground. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Plainsman, since you are into asking hypothetical questions, what if somebody started a crusade to outlaw long range hunting? How would you react?
> 
> 
> 
> Once it's out of the way I see nothing else we can not be united on.
Click to expand...

Plainsman, If kalifornia kasmeman is successful with this initiated measure, want to bet a steak dinner he has an initiated measure to ban baiting? At the last legislative session this was one of the most hotly debated issues they delt with. But maybe things have changed since then and we will all be united from here on out. The phrase Divide and Conquer has been around for quite awhile primarily because it is a successful stratagey. So tell me again, what is to be gained by splintering hunters into factions protecting their own methods or ideologies when it comes to hunting???????


----------



## blhunter3

gst, your situation with the booths can go either way. Bunny huggers are going to attack both. I would almost put money on it, that they would attack the penned in hunts simply because, those animals are "pets". Both situation with the penned in shooting and the wounding of an animal both aren't the tapes to be showing at a show either.

I know this is a small percentage, but I am taking an ethics class right now at school, and we talked about animal rights, I am the only farmer and hunter in the class, and the very first thing the other people attacked was the penned in shooting.


----------



## gst

blhunter3 said:


> gst, your situation with the booths can go either way. Bunny huggers are going to attack both. I would almost put money on it, that they would attack the penned in hunts simply because, those animals are "pets". Both situation with the penned in shooting and the wounding of an animal both aren't the tapes to be showing at a show either.
> 
> I know this is a small percentage, but I am taking an ethics class right now at school, and we talked about animal rights, I am the only farmer and hunter in the class, and the very first thing the other people attacked was the penned in shooting.


Bl, And there in lies the problem. How many in your class are confirmed card carrying "bunny huggers and how many are just ordinary non ag background non hunting people. Go to the FC website and one of the very first photos you see is that of a cute little girl feeding an apple to a buck with a large rack. A pet. This emotion is being played upon successfully, classic anti tactics. The picture is placed there to illicite the very response you suggest from this group of people. Once this is done how much easier do you believe it would be for another group to come in and paint an equally negative veiw of another form of hunting? Within your class, what do you think your fellow students would find more disturbing and negative , an animal killed cleanly behind a fence even though it is portrayed as a "pet", or a gut shoot deer with it's front leg shot off limping of to die a slow death? How much would it take to turn these students from non hunters to anti hunters? The reality is neither of these portrayed scenarios helps public perception in the eyes of most nonhunters. And for one group to go after one creating an issue where there was none soley because of personal issues, knowing full well it opens the door and will make a group that goes after the other job easier is IMO not responsibly protecting hunting. (Remember, they tried once and couldn't get enough signatures. So how big an issue was this before they started going to these home and garden shows with their cardboard full of pictures?)

Stop and think about how an anti group could respond? "This group of hunters claim shooting these animals behind a fence is morally and ethically wrong? But yet they claim this wounded animal left to suffer and die is ethically justified because of FC rules?" How do you think that would play to the public when presented in that manner. In what light do you think any hunter would be thought of. This measure not only opens this door, but primes the pump. By their own admission these sponsors have had to "prove" to the public this is an issue and that these operations even exist here in ND by showing these very kinds of pictures, they can't deny that. Now that that has been done, this first step will make it that much easier for anti groups to continue this and prove their issues to this very same public. Especially after being given a platform this fall to run ad after ad and get a degree of acceptance and legitimacy in the eyes of the public for being on the same page as this group of "hunters". And think all this simply because roger and his ego, once again by his own admission, has a problem over "bragging rights" and someone "hanging a head on the wall". :eyeroll:


----------



## jhegg

Gabe,

The arguments you present for the high fence crowd are asinine.

The Fair Chase (FC) people say High Fence (HF) operations are not hunting. The HF people say that since the FC people don't consider HF operations hunting, "fair chase" principles do not apply. Yet, it is OK for the HF operations to advertise their activities as "hunting". Is this "disingenuous" or what?

The HF people say that if the FC people hadn't informed the public about HF operations, the public would not know about them and everything would be fine. If I was selling drugs and nobody knew about it, according to your ideas, that would be fine also.

The HF people don't think the average ND voter is intelligent enough to decide whether HF operations should be allowed to continue. I do not agree and I know that attitude will not get you any votes.

The HF people claim we are in league with HSUS. That is BS, pure and simple. Yet, you continually provide HSUS with strategy tips on how to shut down hunting. Way to go Gabe!

We will see how ND voters consider this activity in the next general election.

Jim


----------



## g/o

> The HF people say that if the FC people hadn't informed the public about HF operations, the public would not know about them and everything would be fine. [If I was selling drugs and nobody knew about it, according to your ideas, that would be fine also.


Come on Jim, How ignorant are you? One is legal other isn't


----------



## jhegg

g/o



> The HF people say that if the FC people hadn't informed the public about HF operations, the public would not know about them and everything would be fine. [If I was selling drugs and nobody knew about it, according to your ideas, that would be fine also.
> 
> Come on Jim, How ignorant are you? One is legal other isn't


It won't be legal for long!


----------



## g/o

Jim. Your reply is about what I expected from you. Had you correted your example I would apologize in a second for calling you ignorant but I guess if the shoe fits,


----------



## RogerK

GST, the cute little girl feeding an apple to the buck is off a High Fence web site. That is how that High Fence owner wants the public to see his operation. That is how I want the public to see High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations.

One of your leaders told a state wide radio audience that High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations do fair chase inside the fence. Fair chase takes wild deer. The deer in the picture eating the apple is wild?

Pet or not, once his antlers reach full maturity, he will end up in the line of fire. His rack has dollar signs all over. The owner can't allow the buck to die of old age. That doesn't fit a comprehensive business plan. That buck is in all probability collateral. Letting him die of old age would tick his banker off. That picture is the public perception High Fence operators have to deal with.

The best material Fair Chase has to use against Shooting Gallery Operations is the same material Shooting Gallery Operators use to promote their operations. High Fence Shooting Gallery Operators want fat cat spenders to know that they exist so they can drop a few thousand Shekels sharpening their shooting skills inside their pasture, but want to keep North Dakota voters in the dark so they can't hold politicians accountable for creating these operations.

Everything about High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations is two faced; one face for the voting public, another for the client with an itchy trigger finger. The buck in the picture with the little girl is cute and tame to the public, but wild and woolly with ghostlike ability to escape humans to a prospective client even though he is fenced inside a concentration camp for deer. That buck has a price on his head. It's a matter of time and antler growth before he is offered up as a target.

I didn't start this thread to convince High Fence supporters to abandon their stand.

I didn't start this thread to answer questions.

I didn't start this thread to debate the High Fence issue, although I had to do some of that to keep it going.

I came here to provoke questions from High Fence Shooting Gallery Operators and their supporters, questions we will have to answer over the next few months.

Sun Tzu wrote: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

I came here to build an argument based on fact and sound legal principles, not on these pages, but for the future. Know your enemy.

All High Fence Shooting Gallery Operators and their supporters can offer up is an ephemeral claim of a property right, and the phony HSUS accusation. The claimed property right is without a legal basis. If you doubt that, ask the Montana Shooting Gallery Operators. They spent millions, and if not millions, hundreds of thousands in legal fees over nine years trying to prove a right that doesn't exist. They lost in every court and they tried a passel of courts, right up to the Big Kahuna in Washington, DC. Legal system didn't buy the bull they were selling.

Edmund Burke said, "He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper."

Thank you to all that wrestled with me, that helped me, especially Dwight.

Kalifornia Kaseman


----------



## gst

What is ASSININE is having a hissy fit over some rich guy shooting an animal that the state classifies as livestock and calling it hunting and comparing that to selling drugs. How many lives have been ruined because someone shot an elk behind a fence, How many people have dropped over dead from an overdose from shooting a deer behind a fence. Tell someones family that had a child or sibling die from a drug overdose that HF is no different and see what response you get. :eyeroll: That comparison is beyond ASSININE, but then again we have gotten use to that from some of the sponsors of this measure.

The sponsors of this measure admitted to having to prove these operations even existed here in ND. A hornets nest gets along just fine until you start whacking it with a stick. Give one shred of proof that any group here in the state was going to move to ban hunting beause of HF operations existing. There is none, but yet the sponsors of this measure insinuate it is inevitable. But yet they claim because of the wording of our constitution groups like HSUS can not move to ban hunting here in ND. Talking out both sides of their mouths, but then again we have come to expect that out of some sponsors of this measure.

So Jim, if this gets on the ballot this fall and HSUS begins advertising for this measure here in ND are you going to appologize publically to the hunters of ND for giving the number one anti hunting org. a platform here in ND? For you to think that a group like HSUS hasn't already thought about how they can go about accomplishing their agendas far beyond any warnings given here is not only ASSININE but incredibly naive as well, but then again we have gotten use to that from some of the sponsors of this measure.

Show me one statement where ANYONE has said the ND voter is not intelligent to make a decision on this issue if they are told the TRUTH on this issue. The ND voter has been told one mistruth, disingenuous statement and outright LIE after another in regards to this measure publically. But then again we have come to expect this from some of the sponsors of this measure.

The biggest lie of all is what this measure is about, it's not about what this is called, it's not about ethics, it's not about disease,it's not about animals being wild or domestic. The one honest truthful thing the primary sponsor of this measure and one of it's supporters has said was when they ADMITTED in writing in this thread this is about "JEALOUSY" AND "BRAGGING RIGHTS" OVER" HANGING A HEAD ON THE WALL" . But I highly doubt the public is being told that by any of the sponsors of this measure. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

Roger, it is the context in which the picture is being used that becomes the problem. Your website is using it to illicite a given response as was suggested to create an anger over shooting these "pets" inside a fence. The same way anti groups such as HSUS do, if there is no connection, you have sure learned their tactics :eyeroll: I have cattle that will eat out of my hand that are not pets, but merely an animal that I give a great deal of humane care for in a manner that allows me to hopefully make a profit from it. This is called domestic livestock. The state has classified "farmed elk" as such. The problem some anti groups such as HSUS have is what happens to the animal in order for this profit to be gained. Apparently the same problem your group NDH for FC has, killing an animal. The difference is HSUS has a problem with any animal being killed for any reason, HF or FC, your group NDH for FC just has a problem with animals with large antlers being killed behind a fence so they may be hung on a wall. :wink: . If you have a problem with the classification, why didn't you run that thru the court system??? If you have a problem with what this is called, why not challenge that in court??? The fact is you know that you would have lost, so you came up with a plan to present one disingenuous statement and insinuation after another to the public instead to ease your bruised egos. :eyeroll:

So roger what your saying is that you didn't start this thread on a ND hunting website to provide any factual or truthful information to the states hunters that are on this site of any of your posititons on this issue,or why they should support it but rather simply to gather ideas of of those opposed to your personal vendetta against HF so you can better prepare what lies to tell the public to counteract these concerns and questions??????????? :eyeroll: I'm sure many on this site appreciate this admission.

roger,I guess as long as we are thanking folks on here, it would only be appropriate to thank you and your supporters for being ever so briefly honest and giving us a glimpse into what is really driving this measure. Your slip of the tongue "jealousy" and bruised ego over the "bragging rights" of "hanging a head on the wall" gave us a truthful insight into what is behind this measure. The next time you are on the Mike McFeely show, it would be nice to hear that same candor and honesty spoken to the public as you wrote here in this thread.


----------



## DG

Good morning Roger,

So who did David Pauli (regional director for the Humane Society) meet with? You told me it was you, however, being chairman of the HFI hardly makes you an "official." In Idaho David Paulis group was stopped cold because they had their picture taken on the Boise capitol steps with the fair chase committee. The voters in Idaho saw the picture. The End.



> After Baker I kept going east to Dickinson and Bismarck ND where i met with an official of the Fair Chase hunting movement who are trying to pass a ballot initiative to ban "canned hunting" practices in North Dakota. This is where ranchers or elk farmers put animals into small enclosures and those with more money than ethics can pay four or five thousand to shoot the tame elk, deer, zebra or exotic goat when the animal is not wild or cannot escape. We helped pass a ban on this egregious practice in Montana in 2005 and are supporting similar goals in Idaho and Colorado. There is a strong agricultural and personal property rights lobby that is trying to derail the publics opportunity to decide if they want this unethical form of trophy shooting ( note not using hunting) in their state. The signatures have to be in by the end of July so I stopped at shelters and activists homes along the way to encourage them to support the ballot initiative.


Roger, who did David Pauli meet with????

What is lost in this debate is constitutional law.

Property defined:

To posses is defined as the practical inability of another to contradict the ends of the possessor. Title to property is defined as the expectation that others will recognize rights to control resource. In any given situation if someone could contradict , restrict, over regulate or try to legislate away the property owners right to control his property than someone or some organization would daily disreguard the U.S. Constitution and challenge everything.

This is a ggod website.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/pboettke/pub ... ociety.pdf

blhunter3 said,



> I know this is a small percentage, but I am taking an ethics class right now at school, and we talked about animal rights,


bl, Times are changing. It used to be reading writing and arithmetic. Just poking a little fun at you bl3.

1. Teaching Math In 1950s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?

2. Teaching Math In 1960s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math In 1970s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Math In 1980s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In 1990s

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok.)

Roger wrote,



> Thank you to all that wrestled with me, that helped me, especially Dwight.


Roger, you are taking this way too personal.


----------



## RogerK

And a Great Good Morning to you, Dwight.

The kneejerk reaction would be to say that this isn't personal. It is personal because hunting is a personal pursuit, pursuit outside the fence I might add.

I went to the web site and read the article you referenced in your post. I agree with everything in the article. I have Friedrich August von Hayek's books, The Constitution of Liberty, and The Road to Serfdom. I also have Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. All of them read, reread and annotated.

I assume you raised this web site and the article on that site to support your argument that the elk inside your fence are private property and it isn't any of my business what you do with them. Peter Boettke, Ph.D., author of the article on the site, invokes the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, David Hume and Adam Smith, as well as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington, three of my favorite Presidents.

Dwight, there is one gigantic flaw in your argument invoking Peter Boettke who invokes Washington, Jefferson and Madison in defense of property rights; during their time, there were men that defended their right to own their fellow man and to help themselves to all that the captive man produced by the sweat of his brow in the way of property, tangible and intangible, as adamantly as you defend your supposed right to shoot elk inside a fence. Some men defended their right to own their fellow man to such an extent it led to a shooting war. Their property rights claim to a fellow human being didn't make as a property right.

If you want to argue property rights with me, skip the philosophy. I've read almost all of the philosophy. Give me case law, give me a section of the United States or the North Dakota Constitutions that gave rise to the case law. You can't because it doesn't exist.

By the way, the owners of their fellow man justified their property by demoting the chattel slave from human to animal, the same way you reduce a wild creature to domestic livestock. Go back and reread my Geneses Metaphor with this exchange in mind.


----------



## LT

DG Stated:


> Roger, who did David Pauli meet with????


Roger at the Jamestown Public Forum 2 years ago you stated you were the "lightening rod." We all know that the lightening rod grounds all strikes and protects the house and occupants within. So who are you protecting, Roger.

If this is truly about ethics, why is this statement by Jim Posewitz on the Fair Chase website?



> "Game farming commercializes the last remnants of the great wild commons, it seeks to privatize what is held in trust by all of us, it domesticates the wildness we sought to preserve, and it trivializes what is exceptional . . . . The things we value die inside the woven wire of game farms." Jim Posewitz, Orion-The Hunter's Institute.


This is about destroying all game farms. I have a very hard time believing that anyone would go to these lengths over bruised egos and jealousy, and spend this much time of their life traveling all over collecting approximately 6000 signatures as you did last time Roger.

So I will ask you again Roger, who are you protecting, who are you the "lightening rod" for?


----------



## RogerK

No matter how many times I answer that it was me, you won't believe me. So make somebody up. You are good at making thinks up.

Kalifornai Kaseman


----------



## LT

Roger Stated:


> the same way you reduce a wild creature to domestic livestock.


So is this about the handful of hunting facilities or all game farms?

Who are you protecting Roger?


----------



## RogerK

I am protecting Fair Chase and the hunting tradiition.

Kalifornia Kaseman


----------



## gst

WOW, I really don't know what more to say. The last two sponsors comments from roger and jhegg have now compared HF to slavery and selling illegal drugs. And this is an example of common sense thinking we want to have creating law here in ND. If they are posting crap like this in black and white on these sites, imagine what they are whispering in someones ear in private! :eyeroll:



RogerK said:


> By the way, the owners of their fellow man justified their property by demoting the chattel slave from human to animal, the same way you reduce a wild creature to domestic livestock. Go back and reread my Geneses Metaphor with this exchange in mind.


Roger, a few more slips of the tongue like this and people will start connecting you with HSUS!!  If this statement isn't straight out of the anti animal use handbook I don't know what is. Comparing the domestication of animals to human slavery. PETA, HSUS, most all the anti animal use groups have made this comparison at one time or another. It would be interesting to know what other reading materials roger has "read and reread and annotated". :eyeroll: Maybe this was one of them!!! http://www.animalrights.net/articles/20 ... o-slavery/ :eyeroll:
or maybe this one!! http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Ph ... OCAUST.htm


----------



## gst

RogerK said:


> I am protecting Fair Chase and the hunting tradiition.
> 
> Kalifornia Kaseman


Roger, you forgot to mention your ego and "bragging rights" :wink:


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> I will agree there is alot of blood lust out there, its not good and it will do alot of harm to us hunters. I know its a personal thing, but how can someone get joy from shooting an animal in a pen? I have yet to meet someone who participates in that sort of shooting, so I don't have an answer for it.
> 
> gst. I don't believe that anyone should tell anyone what type of experience you or I should have from hunting or anything. But how can someone call shooting a penned in animal hunting? Also what experience is there to have other then the thrill of pulling the trigger, hearing the gun go boom, and watching an animal that can't escape die? If all someone cares about is the kill, they shouldn't be hunting.
> 
> I understand this is an ethical debate and there are no right or wrong answers. I am just trying to understand why someone would support shooting an animal in a pen and call it hunting.


Horribly weak argument BL. Your falling into the trap set by Roger and Dick (and friends).

Trying to "tug at the heartstrings" of others by using words like "bloodlust".

You dont think shooting an animal in a pen is hunting, thats fine. DONT DO IT!

You want to understand why someone would call it hunting. Well, I personally would like to know why someone thinks shooting a stupid deer with a high-power scoped rifle is "hunting". I want to know why someone can shoot a bunch of big dumb birds over thousands of dollars of high-tech decoys "hunting". I want to know why someone can shoot a pheasant "hunting", over a dog that did all the work. I mean geez, the dog did ALL the work, the "hunter" just pulled the trigger. Talk about BLOODLUST! I want to know what is so sporting about using a trail camera to watch deer. Or putting a few gallons of corn out to attract some deer. I want to know what is so sporting about using electronic sounds to call in predators. The electronic device did all the work, the hunter is just there to pull the trigger. Some more BLOODLUST!

And dont let Dick, Roger, Jim, or any other elitist anti-HF "my way or the highway" person tell you the examples I gave above arent EXACTLY like the HF issue. Because they are. It is one person telling another person what they do does not fall under their personal definition of something, so they cant do it anymore.

Dont let Dick and Roger (or any other HF sponsor) fool you. Their argument is based on jealousy and arrogance, NOT ethics. They dont do it, so YOU shouldnt do it. They want it gone, so YOU should want it gone.

They are setting a trap for people BL using outright lies and half truths. You are falling into this trap.


----------



## barebackjack

RogerK said:


> I am protecting Fair Chase and the hunting tradiition.
> 
> Kalifornia Kaseman


Your arrogance knows no bounds.


----------



## bretts

So whose side are you on bbj? Pretty lame if you think High fence hunting is fine & dandy, & don't spin it with the high powered rifle bs argument, cuz if your going to do that then why do you have sights on a bow??? Its a horrible come back, things change with the years such as the technology involved with hunting, some I absolutely disagree with, & some is very useful in having a productive hunt with a clean kill, but one thing will never change, hunting an animal that has a limit as to where it can go is just plain wrong.


----------



## gst

This is worth another look.


RogerK said:


> Dwight, there is one gigantic flaw in your argument invoking Peter Boettke who invokes Washington, Jefferson and Madison in defense of property rights; during their time, there were men that defended their right to own their fellow man and to help themselves to all that the captive man produced by the sweat of his brow in the way of property, tangible and intangible, as adamantly as you defend your supposed right to shoot elk inside a fence. Some men defended their right to own their fellow man to such an extent it led to a shooting war. Their property rights claim to a fellow human being didn't make as a property right.
> 
> By the way, the owners of their fellow man justified their property by demoting the chattel slave from human to animal, the same way you reduce a wild creature to domestic livestock. Go back and reread my Geneses Metaphor with this exchange in mind.


http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Ph ... OCAUST.htm

http://www.animalrights.net/articles/20 ... o-slavery/

Take a good look at these sites.
Bretts, or anyone that is not simply blinded over this issue, wether you are for or against HF how comfortable are you with a small group of people following so many parallels to some of the top anti hunting groups there are. HSUS, PETA, ALF These are the whose who of animals rights and roger is quoting them almost verbatim. Look at these sites and compare them to rogers statements and apparent philosophy and tell me as a hunter wether you are comfortable with this way of thinking behind this measure. For no connection with HSUS there sure seems to be more than a few parallels with the way they think and how they do things. Don't take my word for it, take the time to read rogers.

The simple truth is as a cattle rancher if HF dissappears it really won't affect me directly. UNTIL these groups that are one and the same (antihunting, anti animal agriculture) gain a foothold or any momentum. We in animal ag as I have said before have seen firsthand what they can accomplish, and we are fighting their agendas to end all human use of animals everyday. That is NOT an exageration. And as a hunter as well as a rancher there are simply too many parallels between these orgs and the primary sponsor of this measure to sit quietly by while he opens the door and invites the groups he seems to think alot alike to come into ND. As hunters how many of you are going to be okay with HSUS buying air time advertising here in ND if this makes the ballot?

Every once in awhile you are given a glimpse into the true ideologies of someone by little slips of the tongue or peeks into their way of thinking. Roger has given us a couple to consider.


----------



## duckmander

Guys I have not read all of this and probably not going to. I am not a fan of neither have I hunted inside a fence. But I have guided hunts inside a fence. I can tell you for one. Yes they are confined they can not excape the fence. but they can escape the hunter. I am talking about X amount of animals inside a large area. This is not shooting fish in a barrel. But it is not just enter shoot and go home either. Its not that easy. Yes there is good points on both sides of this arguement. My side is I choose not to hunt inside. But to each his own. Seems to me some are saying If your fishing in a10,000 acre lake its FISHING. but if your fishing in a 1/4 acre pond its cheating. they are contained they can not escape. And so on. there is both good and evil in both. also If these are wild animals they are (WILD) and not for pinning. Now say if he went to a sale and purchased these animals then they are livestock and he can do as he pleases with such animals. The same as cows, horses, goats, sheep, ect. Kind of the same thing as hunting buffalo. there is not many places a person can go and hunt a free, (as in wild and free) free ranging buffalo. so most are hunted inside a fence be it high or barbed wire. To me this is the same thing. even though I would love to have on hanging on my wall. This is not an animal I will be hunting. Just for the above reason. If your fishing with minnows is this too ilegal because you didnt catch the minows on your own. But instead you purchased them. out of a bucket so to speak. This is unfair to the minnow. You should catch them yourself. and not with a trap But, rather with a hook. one at a time.

There have been times when I have hunted my tail off and never fired a shot. WELL THATS HUNTING. RIGHT.
There have also been times when I just got settled in and there is the animal. I shoot it and go home. Ok this is hunting also. What I am trying to say is who are we to decide what is right for the other person. If you dont like it then dont go there to hunt. If you like it then go get them. It is just another way of one persons vision to make a dollar. By seeing the need for a lazy hunter to pay for an animal out of pocket without putting in his time in the woods. Cheating? Yes I think so. But thats not on me. I dont hunt them places. And It is no skin off of my teeth. If you choose to hunt them. I hunt turkeys on a 12,000 acre public land area. there is thousands of turkeys there. there is also a thousand hunters in there. does this make it cheating because the birds are being moved sometimes by the hunter. there is no high fence but there is so much pressure. Yet the birds dont leave even though they could cross the fence on private land and not be followed by us hunters.

So as long as they dont come steel that deer out from under my tree stand while Im trying to draw my bow. Then leave it be, I say. This would be the same as a anti hunter jumping up in front of me just as I'm squeesing the trigger on a deer. Spooking it so I could not hurt it. Well Thats the moment when we are going to have us a come to jesus meeting. And this person may pull this stunt again. But you can bet It wont be me they will be doing it to. they will have already learned that sesson. 
Thanks for letting me vent my .02...........


----------



## bretts

duckmander said:


> Guys I have not read all of this and probably not going to. I am not a fan of neither have I hunted inside a fence. But I have guided hunts inside a fence. I can tell you for one. Yes they are confined they can not excape the fence. but they can escape the hunter. I am talking about X amount of animals inside a large area. This is not shooting fish in a barrel. But it is not just enter shoot and go home either. Its not that easy. Yes there is good points on both sides of this arguement. My side is I choose not to hunt inside. But to each his own. Seems to me some are saying If your fishing in a10,000 acre lake its FISHING. but if your fishing in a 1/4 acre pond its cheating. they are contained they can not escape. And so on. there is both good and evil in both. also If these are wild animals they are (WILD) and not for pinning. Now say if he went to a sale and purchased these animals then they are livestock and he can do as he pleases with such animals. The same as cows, horses, goats, sheep, ect. Kind of the same thing as hunting buffalo. there is not many places a person can go and hunt a free, (as in wild and free) free ranging buffalo. so most are hunted inside a fence be it high or barbed wire. To me this is the same thing. even though I would love to have on hanging on my wall. This is not an animal I will be hunting. Just for the above reason. If your fishing with minnows is this too ilegal because you didnt catch the minows on your own. But instead you purchased them. out of a bucket so to speak. This is unfair to the minnow. You should catch them yourself. and not with a trap But, rather with a hook. one at a time.
> 
> There have been times when I have hunted my tail off and never fired a shot. WELL THATS HUNTING. RIGHT.
> There have also been times when I just got settled in and there is the animal. I shoot it and go home. Ok this is hunting also. What I am trying to say is who are we to decide what is right for the other person. If you dont like it then dont go there to hunt. If you like it then go get them. It is just another way of one persons vision to make a dollar. By seeing the need for a lazy hunter to pay for an animal out of pocket without putting in his time in the woods. Cheating? Yes I think so. But thats not on me. I dont hunt them places. And It is no skin off of my teeth. If you choose to hunt them. I hunt turkeys on a 12,000 acre public land area. there is thousands of turkeys there. there is also a thousand hunters in there. does this make it cheating because the birds are being moved sometimes by the hunter. there is no high fence but there is so much pressure. Yet the birds dont leave even though they could cross the fence on private land and not be followed by us hunters.
> 
> So as long as they dont come steel that deer out from under my tree stand while Im trying to draw my bow. Then leave it be, I say. This would be the same as a anti hunter jumping up in front of me just as I'm squeesing the trigger on a deer. Spooking it so I could not hurt it. Well Thats the moment when we are going to have us a come to jesus meeting. And this person may pull this stunt again. But you can bet It wont be me they will be doing it to. they will have already learned that sesson.
> Thanks for letting me vent my .02...........


You make very good points, there are two things in hunting I feel strongly against, high fence hunting & baiting. I realize you can make an arguement about both pro's & con's , but I don't see why it even had to get to that point. It just flat out shouldn't have been allowed in the first place, IMO. These arguements will go on for years and years unfortunately, once both were deemed legal, it's awfully hard to get rid of them, it's too bad.


----------



## Ref

If the animal can escape the hunter, why the need for the fence? Only one answer..... to keep the animal from ultimately getting away. The animal is trapped. End of discussion.

FYI.....I have been reading this discusson for the past couple of years and I am not going to get into a bunch of hypothetical questions. My feelings are in the statement above and they have absolutely nothing to do with bragging rights or egos. They will not change.


----------



## KurtR

Ref said:


> If the animal can escape the hunter, why the need for the fence? Only one answer..... to keep the animal from ultimately getting away. The animal is trapped. End of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is a privately owned tame animal such as a cow or pig or even a tame elk and if there is no fence then it could get hit by a car and said owner would get sued. Thats why there is a fence.
Click to expand...


----------



## DG

Ref said,



> If the animal can escape the hunter, why the need for the fence? Only one answer..... to keep the animal from ultimately getting away. The animal is trapped. End of discussion.


According to the ND Century Code.

48-12-01.1-09. Fencing requirements.
1. Owners of all categories of nontraditional livestock must comply with
fencing or enclosure standards that will assure containment.
2. Unless otherwise specied, perimeter fences for cervids, nondomestic
sheep and goats, and nondomestic hybrid sheep and goats must follow
the height requirements in this section. The bottom of the fence must
be at or below ground level. The fence must be a mesh of a size to
prevent escape and not spaced more than six inches apart.
a. Electric fencing materials may be used on perimeter fences only as
a supplement to conventional fencing materials.
b. All gates in the perimeter fence must be locked and there must not
be more than six inches below or between gates.
c. Posts must be of sufcient strength to keep nontraditional livestock
securely contained. The posts must extend to the upper limits of
the height requirement and be spaced no more than twenty-four
feet apart.
d. Each fawning or lambing pen must not exceed one hundred sixty
acres.
e. The minimum standards for perimeter fences are as follows:
(1) A four-foot fence for small cervid species, including muntjac.
(2) A six-foot fence for fallow deer.
(3) An eight-foot fence for white-tailed deer, mule deer, red deer,
nondomestic sheep and hybrids, and nondomestic goats and
hybrids.
3. Animals may be subject to additional fencing requirements at the
discretion of the state veterinarian.


----------



## RogerK

Dwight, Chapter 48 regulates public buildings.

Did you get the numbers wrong?

Roger


----------



## RogerK

I wasn't comparing slavery to animal use, I was comparing the mindset of the slave owner to the mindset of the elk owner on property rights. The slave owner and elk owner are light years apart on the moral scale, but the mindset is identical. "It's my property, and I'll well do with it what I damned well please." Credit the quote to either one. Read what slave owners said about slavery. Read what newspaper editors editorialized on slavery. Preachers used to publish their sermons. Go to a library and read what they preached on slavery. Slaves were subhuman animals that needed a master and were better off as slaves. God sanctioned slavery in the Bible, according to the preachers and slave owners. Preachers preached that from the pulpit. I recently came across an article on the Amish High Fence operations in Ohio and Indiana. An Amish man told a hearing that God put deer on earth so he could do with them as he pleased.

God may speak to this Amish man, but the law speaks louder and with consequences in this life, not the next.

If your asinine argument comparing FC to the HSUS on High Fence had any validity, nobody could ever support any issue because somebody that agreed with the issue had different agenda the polar opposite in other areas.

Abraham Lincoln, anticipating Radical Animal Rights organizations, would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation because they agreed on slavery, but not on animal rights. Congress would not have passed the Constitutional amendments that outlawed slavery in the United States for all time.

Winston Churchill would not have made his alliance with Stalin and the Communists because Churchill hated Stalin and the Communists as much as he hated Hitler and the Nazis. Churchill would have stood by and watched England go down in flames because Stalin had a totalitarian political, economic and social agenda. The only thing that Churchill and Stalin agreed on, was the destruction of Hitler and the Nazis.

I purchased my first hunting license in 1960, and my 51st this year. If there was such a thing as a radical animal rights group when I purchased my first license, they were obscure and powerless. There were high fence operations in Texas. The outdoor rags I read wrote about them. I hated the fenced operations back then before there were radical animal rights groups to agree or disagree High Fence operations. High Fence Shooting Gallery Operators are a cancer that will eventually destroy hunting. We don't want them in North Dakota. They have to go.

The people that engage in and support High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations, have a narrow, self-centered view of the world at large. Their property rights view is a fantasy mix of Posse Comitatus, Sovereign Citizen, and the Common Law movement, a philosophy embraced by the likes of Gordon Kahl, the Montana Freemen, and Randy Weaver; nut jobs engaged in groupthink.

If any of you had a pinhead to stand on regarding your claimed property right, you would have clobbered me the same way I clobber you with the nine year legal battle that the Montana Shooting Gallery Operators fought and lost. I asked for an article in the United States Constitution, a section in the North Dakota Constitution; anything to validate your claim. Zip, zero, nada. You can't produce an argument because the right your claim don't exist.

"Do you live in North Dakota? Are you aware of the High Fence shooting operations that have sprung up (popped up) in the state over the last few years?* We have twelve high fence operations in the state. That is where they pen deer and elk inside an escape proof pasture, bring in people from out of state to shoot them for a high fee, and pass that off as hunting. Shooting deer and elk in an escape proof fence gives legitimate hunters a black eye. These operations will destroy hunting as we know it. We are gathering signatures for an initiated measure that will bring the issue to a vote in November. The question is, do we want these operations in the state? We want them gone. We think the people will vote them out."

*Option: "Are you familiar with the term, canned hunt?"
*Option: "Are you familiar with Texas style hunting?"

That is what I tell people when I am taking signatures. That is the entire Fair Chase argument. Do we want High Fence killing operations in this state?

Take a good look at the elk in the satellite photo on the Fair Chase web site linked below.

Take a good look at the bottle fed fawns in the background.

http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/urban_elk.html

Eighty elk in an area the size of two football fields. This operation is a short drive from my house. I see it often. These are shooter bulls growing antlers in a feed lot before being shipped to a Shooting Gallery Operation.

Fawns are bottle fed to get more minerals into them so they grow bigger antlers.

All of them in close, intimate contact with their human owners. All of them desensitized to human scent, human sight, and human contact.

It isn't BS when I tell people that the deer and elk at the shooter operations are hand raised and hand fed.

High Fence Shooting Gallery Operators and supporters have to defend feedlot elk and the bottle fed deer.

That is what Shooting Gallery Operators have to sell to the people of this state.

You think the voters of this state are going to buy that?

Somebody called me arrogant. Arrogance is making claims of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride.

What I am doing in support of the Fair Chase initiative is important to the future of hunting, but there is no pride on my part, overbearing or otherwise. I am ashamed that we have Shooting Gallery Operations in this state.

The people of this state will do the right thing come November. Shooting Gallery Operations will be history.

Unless you can convince North Dakotans that feedlot elk and the bottle fed deer are so wild they can elude a "hunter" inside an escape proof fence. The only way feedlot elk and bottle fed deer can make their escape is to grow wings.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> The arguments you present for the high fence crowd are asinine.
> 
> The Fair Chase (FC) people say High Fence (HF) operations are not hunting. The HF people say that since the FC people don't consider HF operations hunting, "fair chase" principles do not apply. Yet, it is OK for the HF operations to advertise their activities as "hunting". Is this "disingenuous" or what?


So you are upset by the way they advertise? They call it hunting. Go after that.

Now on the "fair chase" ..... should livestock be held to "fair chase" aspects?


----------



## DG

Roger wrote,



> Dwight, Chapter 48 regulates public buildings.
> 
> Did you get the numbers wrong?
> 
> Roger


Roger, if you need some help finding your way around inside the North Dakota Century Code, call Mike McEnroe, lobbyist for the wildlife society.


----------



## LT

Roger Stated:


> Eighty elk in an area the size of two football fields. This operation is a short drive from my house. I see it often. These are shooter bulls growing antlers in a feed lot before being shipped to a Shooting Gallery Operation.


 http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/urban_elk.html

Roger this is what it states on your website with the above link you just provided.



> This is a shooter bull holding operation in central North Dakota viewed from space via satellite. The larva like images in the trapezoid shaped corral are bull elk. The operator keeps the bulls in this feedlot until they grow antlers large enough to satisfy a well heeled client's desire to hang a large set of antlers on his or her wall. When the bulls reach trophy quality, they are moved to a kill pasture for a sham hunt.
> 
> There are at least 62 + elk in the right corral and 20 + in the left. The corral measures 130 yards at the widest, 75 yards per side, and 50 yards at the narrow end. That is roughly equal to 2 football fields for 80 + elk.
> 
> This photo shoots down the argument that the Shooting Gallery Operators raise their targets under conditions that rival wild deer and elk. Are the elk in this picture wild? Not a blade of grass in the feedlot.


You know all of this about this operation just from driving by his place and some satellite images?


----------



## bretts

AdamFisk said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blhunter, what you have to realize is not many opposed to this measure are supporting someone that chooses to shoot an animal in a pen, most would never got to a HF operation, many don't necessarily even look on most people that choose to use these operations with much favor, they are simply defending someones right to make their own choice what they want to take from the hunting experience because they realize the risk of starting to regulate this sole thing (what is hunting)based on personal agendas.
> 
> Your sitting in a heated, elevated enclosed stand, your rifle is resting on sandbags on a table, you have a laser range finder and a rifle with mildots for yardages. You are over looking a 200 yard by 100 yard food plot that was planted in the spring that deer have gotten accustomed to feeding in. Out walks a deer. Really and honestly answer this, how much chance does that deer have of "running away"? What percentage of a chance? I know the arguement is there is still that chance how ever slight. But I know several people that believe the ONLY way to consider yourself "hunting deer" is if you are pushing them on drives. They look at the example I give with the same disdain you look at high fence. You may say, well I only have a problem with HF. Tell me once you start drawing this line, where do you stop someone else from doing the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Spot on....... :beer:
> 
> Where does the line stop???????????????????????????? Look at Montana; no trail cams allowed and I believe they are trying to outlaw trapping. Makes me uke: .
> 
> Plainsman, since you are into asking hypothetical questions, what if somebody started a crusade to outlaw long range hunting? How would you react?
> 
> I understand the need to "self police" the hunting world. I don't want to see ND end up like Texas anymore than the next guy, I promise you that. IMO, there are bigger fish to fry. I don't think 12 HF operations in the state of ND are doing much harm to the tradition of hunting. I think slob POS "hunters" do far worse damage. Honestly, I could give two sh*ts less what goes on in these HF operations, as long as the kill is humane. It takes place on their own land. It takes place with their privatley owned farmed animals, aka livestock. IMO, it doesn't give hunters as bad of a rep from the public as some of you make it out to be. The ****heads running down deer in a pickup on a Hwy do far worse damage. They, the HF operations, aren't taking away any opportunities from us, the public. They aren't illegally killing a big buck or elk that you may have had a chance at. They aren't leasing up acre after acre of land that you could have possibly hunted on and chargin for access or a guiding service....They are providing opportunites for the handicapped, the elderly, or even the rich lazy wannabe hunters who think they've actually participated in a hunt.....Who gives a crap? That many less people to deal with on public ground. Gotta look at the bright side you know.
Click to expand...

C'mon fisky, bbj has you brain washed. Think outside the box, read ref's post above, he's got it exactly right. High fence hunting is just another way to keep moving this sport towards a rich man sports, and getting rid of it is just another way to take back how hunting should be! I can't believe you somewhat agree with HF


----------



## gst

Bretts, I don't want to speak for anyone other than myself. It is not that I agree with HF, I simply understand the necessity as a hunter to be able to make the indiviual choice as to what I am going to take from the hunting experience to continue to get out of it what I need to continue huting. Along with the other issues I have with this measure as a rancher. You claim HF will make hunting a rich mans sport, this measure and ideologies of the people driving this measure being forced on people will make this an eliteists sport even sooner. And if you don't see the risk to hunting from that angle, you must not hunt doves, trap, hunt coyotes with dogs, use electronic calls, trail cameras ect.........

Roger wrote ["I purchased my first hunting license in 1960, and my 51st this year. If there was such a thing as a radical animal rights group when I purchased my first license, they were obscure and powerless. There were high fence operations in Texas. The outdoor rags I read wrote about them. I hated the fenced operations back then before there were radical animal rights groups to agree or disagree High Fence operations. High Fence Shooting Gallery Operators are a cancer that will eventually destroy hunting. We don't want them in North Dakota. They have to go.']

And we are suppose to believe this is a law directed at what is best for ND rather than a personal vendetta that clouds an individuals judgment or allows them to make any deal with the devil that is required to satisfy this 51 year long "hate"???? :eyeroll: Yet again, one more glimpse into what is driving this measure. Given the chronology of your statement, perhaps it is the anti hunting groups that got their ideologies and agendas from you rather than the other way around! :wink:

Roger, backpedal all you want, not only do you equal HF to human slavery, you now invoke Nazis and communist Stalanism in comparison to your HF quest. You reinterpret the bible, state law, and now history itself to justify going after what private individuals are able to do in the management of their privately owned domestic animals when done under existing state law and regulations. :eyeroll:

So by rogers own admission in this thread we now have "hate" as well as "bragging rights" over "hanging a head on the wall" driving what is to be state law???? :eyeroll:


----------



## blhunter3

barebackjack said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will agree there is alot of blood lust out there, its not good and it will do alot of harm to us hunters. I know its a personal thing, but how can someone get joy from shooting an animal in a pen? I have yet to meet someone who participates in that sort of shooting, so I don't have an answer for it.
> 
> gst. I don't believe that anyone should tell anyone what type of experience you or I should have from hunting or anything. But how can someone call shooting a penned in animal hunting? Also what experience is there to have other then the thrill of pulling the trigger, hearing the gun go boom, and watching an animal that can't escape die? If all someone cares about is the kill, they shouldn't be hunting.
> 
> I understand this is an ethical debate and there are no right or wrong answers. I am just trying to understand why someone would support shooting an animal in a pen and call it hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> Horribly weak argument BL. Your falling into the trap set by Roger and Dick (and friends).
> 
> Trying to "tug at the heartstrings" of others by using words like "bloodlust".
> 
> You dont think shooting an animal in a pen is hunting, thats fine. DONT DO IT!
> 
> You want to understand why someone would call it hunting. Well, I personally would like to know why someone thinks shooting a stupid deer with a high-power scoped rifle is "hunting". I want to know why someone can shoot a bunch of big dumb birds over thousands of dollars of high-tech decoys "hunting". I want to know why someone can shoot a pheasant "hunting", over a dog that did all the work. I mean geez, the dog did ALL the work, the "hunter" just pulled the trigger. Talk about BLOODLUST! I want to know what is so sporting about using a trail camera to watch deer. Or putting a few gallons of corn out to attract some deer. I want to know what is so sporting about using electronic sounds to call in predators. The electronic device did all the work, the hunter is just there to pull the trigger. Some more BLOODLUST!
> 
> And dont let Dick, Roger, Jim, or any other elitist anti-HF "my way or the highway" person tell you the examples I gave above arent EXACTLY like the HF issue. Because they are. It is one person telling another person what they do does not fall under their personal definition of something, so they cant do it anymore.
> 
> Dont let Dick and Roger (or any other HF sponsor) fool you. Their argument is based on jealousy and arrogance, NOT ethics. They dont do it, so YOU shouldnt do it. They want it gone, so YOU should want it gone.
> 
> They are setting a trap for people BL using outright lies and half truths. You are falling into this trap.
Click to expand...

Difference between hunting and shooting, is that hunting, the animal have a choice of where they can go, shooting the animals are confined to a set area. If someone really wants to just shoot something, go to a butcher shop.


----------



## blhunter3

DG said:


> blhunter3 said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know this is a small percentage, but I am taking an ethics class right now at school, and we talked about animal rights,
> 
> 
> 
> bl, Times are changing. It used to be reading writing and arithmetic. Just poking a little fun at you bl3.
> 
> 1. Teaching Math In 1950s
> 
> A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?
> 
> 2. Teaching Math In 1960s
> 
> A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
> 
> 3. Teaching Math In 1970s
> 
> A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?
> 
> 4. Teaching Math In 1980s
> 
> A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
> 
> 5. Teaching Math In 1990s
> 
> A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok.)
Click to expand...

All I was trying to say, was that even non-hunters who I would have never guess even knew what penned in shooting was, know about it. I was hard explaining to them, that penned in shooting isn't hunting, is strictly shooting for blood lust. Where as hunting the animal have free choice.


----------



## AdamFisk

bretts said:


> AdamFisk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blhunter, what you have to realize is not many opposed to this measure are supporting someone that chooses to shoot an animal in a pen, most would never got to a HF operation, many don't necessarily even look on most people that choose to use these operations with much favor, they are simply defending someones right to make their own choice what they want to take from the hunting experience because they realize the risk of starting to regulate this sole thing (what is hunting)based on personal agendas.
> 
> Your sitting in a heated, elevated enclosed stand, your rifle is resting on sandbags on a table, you have a laser range finder and a rifle with mildots for yardages. You are over looking a 200 yard by 100 yard food plot that was planted in the spring that deer have gotten accustomed to feeding in. Out walks a deer. Really and honestly answer this, how much chance does that deer have of "running away"? What percentage of a chance? I know the arguement is there is still that chance how ever slight. But I know several people that believe the ONLY way to consider yourself "hunting deer" is if you are pushing them on drives. They look at the example I give with the same disdain you look at high fence. You may say, well I only have a problem with HF. Tell me once you start drawing this line, where do you stop someone else from doing the same.
> 
> 
> 
> Spot on....... :beer:
> 
> Where does the line stop???????????????????????????? Look at Montana; no trail cams allowed and I believe they are trying to outlaw trapping. Makes me uke: .
> 
> Plainsman, since you are into asking hypothetical questions, what if somebody started a crusade to outlaw long range hunting? How would you react?
> 
> I understand the need to "self police" the hunting world. I don't want to see ND end up like Texas anymore than the next guy, I promise you that. IMO, there are bigger fish to fry. I don't think 12 HF operations in the state of ND are doing much harm to the tradition of hunting. I think slob POS "hunters" do far worse damage. Honestly, I could give two sh*ts less what goes on in these HF operations, as long as the kill is humane. It takes place on their own land. It takes place with their privatley owned farmed animals, aka livestock. IMO, it doesn't give hunters as bad of a rep from the public as some of you make it out to be. The ****heads running down deer in a pickup on a Hwy do far worse damage. They, the HF operations, aren't taking away any opportunities from us, the public. They aren't illegally killing a big buck or elk that you may have had a chance at. They aren't leasing up acre after acre of land that you could have possibly hunted on and chargin for access or a guiding service....They are providing opportunites for the handicapped, the elderly, or even the rich lazy wannabe hunters who think they've actually participated in a hunt.....Who gives a crap? That many less people to deal with on public ground. Gotta look at the bright side you know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> C'mon fisky, bbj has you brain washed. Think outside the box, read ref's post above, he's got it exactly right. High fence hunting is just another way to keep moving this sport towards a rich man sports, and getting rid of it is just another way to take back how hunting should be! I can't believe you somewhat agree with HF
Click to expand...

Brett, I'm quite capable of forming my own opinions. You tell me to think outside the box, it is you that needs to think outside the box. I don't look at what is done in these fences as hunting. I don't look at the animals in these fences anymore differently than I do a cow, therefore, as Chuck has stated, see no need to hold these operations to fair chase hunting standards. That is point number 1.

Point number 2, and the biggest reason I'm not in support of this crusade is, just because some people don't agree with something, doesnt mean it should be outlawed. Obviously the fact that I don't see the harm in these operations contributes to that also.... You call BBJ's arguments of comparing this to outlawing trail cams, baiting, etc bull****. I don't think so. It's very comparable in my opinion. Why don't we all start our own crusade to ban **** we don't like. SOunds like fun. BBJ can try to ban rifle hunting, you can ban baiting, and I'll ban whatever that leaves left over.... :eyeroll:

C'mon Brett, hope you know me well enough to know I would not participate in 1 of these "hunts". Think you can see from my previous posts I have no respect, as a hunter, for the rich able bodied lazy people that particpate in these so called hunts. I do see a need for the less fortunate or elderly to use these operations though.....But it's the principle of it man. I will not support someting, especially something I don't see as detrimental to the sport as some make it out to be, started by a few who think they know what is best for the rest of us, PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT IS NEXT ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK????????????????????????????

Tell me, how do these HF operations DIRECTLY affect you?????????????? I would imagine they affect you the same they affect me, not at all.

How should hunting be?????????? Remember, what's hunting in your eyes may not be hunting in anothers.

You talk about a rich man's sport. Well, IMO, there are a few more things, higher up on the list than HF operations, turning this sport into a rich man's sport.


----------



## RogerK

DG said:


> Roger wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dwight, Chapter 48 regulates public buildings.
> 
> Did you get the numbers wrong?
> 
> Roger
> 
> 
> 
> Roger, if you need some help finding your way around inside the North Dakota Century Code, call Mike McEnroe, lobbyist for the wildlife society.
Click to expand...

Dwight, I spent an entire career immersed in the law and law books. No help needed. Even when you try to mislead me. :wink:

Section 48-12-01.1-09, Fencing Requirements, isn't in the Century Code, it's in the North Dakota Administrative Code. For the most part, the laws in there are created by administrative agencies under authority granted the agency by the Legislative Assembly.


----------



## gst

Roger, if your life has been spent immersed in law books, (if California law is the same as ND law)(or if we want it to be)you should be more than able to explain clearly in detail how this measure will prevent someone from selling another party a live animal classified by state law as a domestic animal, recieving a bill of sale for said live domestic animal and that person then killing this domestic animal he now owns without a reclassification of the states century code that classifies these animals as domestic animals rather then the big game animal that is stated in this measure. The way the Lacey Act is wrote there must be a violation of state law for this to take effect in this manner in this issue. Without a reclassification where is this violation of state law. Without this reclassification of farmed elk from domestic animal to big game any rulling that prohibits someone recieving a fee or renumeration for the killing of that animal within a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape would also have to include the other forms of domestic livestock listed such as cattle,swine ,sheep, ect..... If your group is not willing to make this distinction, and explain irrefutably how this will not open the door to such a thing as described, the livestock industry will have no choice but to become involved in this issue. Nowhere in Section 36 of the states century code is there any refence to big game animals as this section is meant to govern domestic livestock. Explain how a law governing big game animals should be included in this section.

I would imagine a group such as HSUS would love to have such a poorly written law that can be that broadly interpreted placed on the books.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Please someone answer me this question (i am sure nobody will)....

But should livestock be included in Fair Chase principles that are being expressed by people for this measure? Just a simple yes or no...


----------



## RogerK

GST, I would, but you wouldn't believe me so I won't waste my time writing an explanation That will save you the time reading my explanation and save you the time writing a refutation that wouldn't make any sense.

As far as the Lacey act, violating the Fair Chase law would be the kick start to a federal prosecution because in order to ship the mighty trophy head the "hunter" would need a tag from G & F and there would be no tag forthcoming. A bill of sale would not cut it.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Roger,

Please explain to me how this bill won't shut down Elk Farmers. Because they would sell an animal to a USDA butcher and they would kill it. How would not either place be in violation of this law?


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils.


Stick with that attitude and eventually you'll have nothing left to pick from.


----------



## barebackjack

bretts said:


> So whose side are you on bbj? Pretty lame if you think High fence hunting is fine & dandy, & don't spin it with the high powered rifle bs argument, cuz if your going to do that then why do you have sights on a bow??? Its a horrible come back, things change with the years such as the technology involved with hunting, some I absolutely disagree with, & some is very useful in having a productive hunt with a clean kill, but one thing will never change, hunting an animal that has a limit as to where it can go is just plain wrong.


So you say the sights on my bow equate the same advantage and range of a scoped rifle?! HA!

The point is apparently ten miles over your head.


----------



## barebackjack

blhunter3 said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will agree there is alot of blood lust out there, its not good and it will do alot of harm to us hunters. I know its a personal thing, but how can someone get joy from shooting an animal in a pen? I have yet to meet someone who participates in that sort of shooting, so I don't have an answer for it.
> 
> gst. I don't believe that anyone should tell anyone what type of experience you or I should have from hunting or anything. But how can someone call shooting a penned in animal hunting? Also what experience is there to have other then the thrill of pulling the trigger, hearing the gun go boom, and watching an animal that can't escape die? If all someone cares about is the kill, they shouldn't be hunting.
> 
> I understand this is an ethical debate and there are no right or wrong answers. I am just trying to understand why someone would support shooting an animal in a pen and call it hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> Horribly weak argument BL. Your falling into the trap set by Roger and Dick (and friends).
> 
> Trying to "tug at the heartstrings" of others by using words like "bloodlust".
> 
> You dont think shooting an animal in a pen is hunting, thats fine. DONT DO IT!
> 
> You want to understand why someone would call it hunting. Well, I personally would like to know why someone thinks shooting a stupid deer with a high-power scoped rifle is "hunting". I want to know why someone can shoot a bunch of big dumb birds over thousands of dollars of high-tech decoys "hunting". I want to know why someone can shoot a pheasant "hunting", over a dog that did all the work. I mean geez, the dog did ALL the work, the "hunter" just pulled the trigger. Talk about BLOODLUST! I want to know what is so sporting about using a trail camera to watch deer. Or putting a few gallons of corn out to attract some deer. I want to know what is so sporting about using electronic sounds to call in predators. The electronic device did all the work, the hunter is just there to pull the trigger. Some more BLOODLUST!
> 
> And dont let Dick, Roger, Jim, or any other elitist anti-HF "my way or the highway" person tell you the examples I gave above arent EXACTLY like the HF issue. Because they are. It is one person telling another person what they do does not fall under their personal definition of something, so they cant do it anymore.
> 
> Dont let Dick and Roger (or any other HF sponsor) fool you. Their argument is based on jealousy and arrogance, NOT ethics. They dont do it, so YOU shouldnt do it. They want it gone, so YOU should want it gone.
> 
> They are setting a trap for people BL using outright lies and half truths. You are falling into this trap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Difference between hunting and shooting,* is that hunting, the animal have a choice of where they can go, shooting the animals are confined to a set area. If someone really wants to just shoot something, go to a butcher shop.
Click to expand...

In your head, I believe that you believe that. Its exactly how I feel about gun hunting big game. Its more shooting than hunting. Its not to difficult to get within 300-400 yards of a big game animal (Less hunting....more shooting). Yet, who am I to tell someone they cant do that anymore because some feel it didnt give the animal a fair enough chance, or just because I dont do it?

You, nor I, are everybody. Just because YOU only consider it shooting, doesn't mean someone else doesn't.

I dont really consider trolling with downriggers "fishing", but many do.

Down south, hunting deer and bear with hounds is part of their heritage and is widely accepted.

Once upon a time in Canada, a bunch of people thought baiting spring bear was unethical, guess what happened there?

Some think its ok to jump geese, others dont.

Some think its ok to bait, some dont.

Some think its ok to use a trail camera, some dont.

Some think its only ok to use traditional archery gear, some only compound.

If hunters continue to jump on everybody that does things differently than they themselves do, than eventually, when someone comes for something YOU do, youll have nobody left to fight with you. Hunting has gotten quite competitive, and there is A LOT of jealousy out there. People need to stop worrying about what the other guys doing and worry more about what their doing. Does it really matter that the neighbor shot a deer over a bucket of corn? Does it really matter that the neighbor paid a rancher to shoot one of his elk? Does it really matter that the neighbor shot a deer at 250 yards with their scoped rifle when I need to be within 40 yards with my bow? As long as the animal died in as humane a fashion as possible, NO IT DOESNT!

If someone ever came after bow hunting on "ethical grounds" (and believe me, they easily could) I would rather have the HF operators and users standing WITH me, rather than taking up golf and telling me to piss off.


----------



## bretts

--Hypocrisy, if this is how you feel, quit talking about high powered rifles w/scopes not being right, because when you rant that, and you have & will, you just defeated the purpose of the above statements. :bop:


----------



## barebackjack

bretts said:


> --Hypocrisy, if this is how you feel, quit talking about high powered rifles w/scopes not being right, because when you rant that, and you have & will, you just defeated the purpose of the above statements. :bop:


The difference being.......im not trying to make it illegal.


----------



## bretts

barebackjack said:


> bretts said:
> 
> 
> 
> --Hypocrisy, if this is how you feel, quit talking about high powered rifles w/scopes not being right, because when you rant that, and you have & will, you just defeated the purpose of the above statements. :bop:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being.......im not trying to make it illegal.
Click to expand...

There is no difference, if you could, you would, that's point enough.


----------



## barebackjack

bretts said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bretts said:
> 
> 
> 
> --Hypocrisy, if this is how you feel, quit talking about high powered rifles w/scopes not being right, because when you rant that, and you have & will, you just defeated the purpose of the above statements. :bop:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being.......im not trying to make it illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no difference, if you could, you would, that's point enough.
Click to expand...

Put a lot of thought into that statement didn't ya?

Im so glad you know what I really want. :roll:


----------



## DG

Roger wrote,



> As far as the Lacey act, violating the Fair Chase law would be the kick start to a federal prosecution because in order to ship the mighty trophy head the "hunter" would need a tag from G & F and there would be no tag forthcoming. A bill of sale would not cut it.


What "fair chase law" are you trying to kick start Roger? Is this the back door precedent the wildlife society is looking for? Defining "fair chase" in federal law? In 2005 at the wildlife society meeting, Valerius Giest said, "the legislature needs to take a hands off approach to wildlife management. The management of wildlife should be placed squarely in the hands of highly intelligent wildlife professionals." The attendees cheered.

Well, the legislature is representative government or the will of the people. Why should the people of this state give up the management of wildlife and to whom? Sportsmen beware.

Bill to Federalize Wildlife Management Fails in Senate Committee 
Sportsmen's Voices Heard

October 8, 2002 (National)

(Columbus) - Legislation that could have jeopardized wildlife programs across the country by federalizing hunting laws received no action during today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Senate Bill 1655, the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act, purports to ban the hunting of exotic animals in enclosures. An amendment that was planned for the bill contained a backdoor attempt to define "fair chase" in federal law. The move would have introduced a dangerous precedent that ignores diverse hunting cultures existing in various states. It would have also opened the door for the federal government to begin regulating hunting and fishing, the jurisdiction of state governments.

The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and other organizations rallied sportsmen who flooded their Senators with messages opposing Senate Bill 1655. The Alliance issued calls to action and news releases urging hunter involvement. Sportsmen involvement appeared to have stopped the bill, as it saw no action and was not amended during its committee hearing.

Although the bill could still see action, it is unlikely given Congress' focus on appropriations issues.

"Sportsmen realized the dangers that Senate Bill 1655 presented to the future of hunting," said U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance President Bud Pidgeon. "They took immediate action on the issue and sent a clear message to their U.S. Senators. Sportsmen let their Senators know that they did not want this threatening legislation to impact their hunting heritage."

The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers nationally in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the organization, call (614) 888-4868 or visit www.ussportsmen.org.


----------



## Plainsman

> Well, the legislature is representative government or the will of the people. Why should the people of this state give up the management of wildlife and to whom? Sportsmen beware.


Well, I wasn't going to make any more comments, but this one struck me. I will have to agree with you on this because I have seen to many bunny huggers coming out of college, and I say that with 36 years experience. I also like the sportsmen's alliance.

Valerius Giest likes to hunt, but I don't think he sees the danger in letting "professionals" handle the hunting aspect. Management yes, but not the hunting portion. What did he say exactly? I don't remember him saying it the way you interpret.


----------



## gst

blhunter, you seem like someone that could look at this with an open mind. So if you would, consider this for a moment. Forget about the domestic/wild arguements, the property right /none , ect.......... Lets focas on what many including yourself claim is the main issue behind this measure, FC, the fact the animal can not run away. You have just defended hunting in your ethics class by saying HF is not hunting because the animal can not escape or run away. It is simply bloodlust. your fellow classmate that is a card carrying anti member gets up next and asks you if the animal can run away is that hunting ethical? What is your answer? He then proceeds to play a video showing a hunter shooting a deer, the video then shows a wounded deer suffering, the video then shows a person stateing this deer was never recovered and dies an agonizing death. Answer these three questions
1. How do you now defend FC hunting from an ethical standpoint? 
2. How many of your fellow students have gone from being nonhunters to antihunters
3. Do you now see the risk in opening these doors for these anti groups.

Go to you tube and type in animals wounded while hunting. Check out the following websites especially the first one and think about what questions have been raised about the different kinds of hunting that will be targeted, and why pen raised pheasants and the hunting of them aren't included under the black eye arguement. Pay particular attention in the first site to the comments that under the canned hunt section where it claims hunters wound or strike the animal repeatedly in the body to not ruin the trophy head. I believe roger made that very statement on the Mike McFeely show! Comparing animals to slaves, shooting them in the hind quarters to not ruin their capes, where does he get this information? :eyeroll: And before anyone makes an assinine comment that I am laying out a game plan for antihunters, realize these are existing websites and this is being done hundreds of times in hundreds of places.

http://www.lcanimal.org/cmpgn/cmpgn_003.htm 
http://www.idausa.org/facts/hunting.html

Segmenting and using rhetoric to ban certain things within hunting based off personal emotions such as "hatred" and "jealousy" is not going to protect hunting. They will ultimately be used aginst hunting itself. We need to stand united and educate the public that the humane killing of animals is a necessary part of hunting, animal ag, and life itself. This has become a difficult enough battle without people opening the door to allowing groups to come into our state and advertise their agendas which are to end all hunting, not just HF which is what this measure will do. All over something that was not even an issue here in our state. Remember a sponsor admitted to having to "prove" these operations even existed here in ND, and they have been using radio, print any media they can to get there message across. And the first attempt didn't even gather enough signatures. If you beat a hornets nest long enough you will get them ****** enough to sting you. And this is all simply because of admitted personal hatred and jealousy. So blhunter, after reading these websites, and watching a few videos, which is the "lesser evil, standing together supporting an individuals right to choose how they hunt within the law, or picking one segment after another until we have satisfied everyones personal ethical standards of what is the "right" way to hunt?


----------



## blhunter3

Question 1.)

I would defend FD, with the argument that they kills are quicker and more humane for the animal so the animal doesn't suffer. It also caters to people who are unable to move around in the "wild" (sorry, I don't have a better word so all hunting area's).

But I would attack that too, by stating, that just because something is in a pen, doesn't mean that the shooter still can't screw up the shot and wound the animal and the animal would still suffer. I'm not sure how I would attack the catering aspect of it because that is a very dangerous road, with disability rights and everything, so I would have to think about that for a bit.

Question 2)

I'm not sure about the non-hunters to anti-hunters. I know of for sure there is one true bunny hugger, and the other kids are probably band wagons people. I don't think anyone's mind was changed, but it did inform them more of what is really going on with hunting, as we only had 50 minutes of debating animal rights, so not much time was spent on hunting, most was spent on factory farming, and that was me explaining every process, and why its done that way. The other time was spent reading about bunny hugger movements across America uke: uke: uke:

Question 3.)

I understand the full risk on what could happen with the the aid of the anti's. I also understand the risk of doing nothing too. I am actually split on what I truelly feel. I hate penned in shoots with a passion. Its not hunting its only shooting and I believe that is a huge black eye for hunters. On the other hand, I hate people telling a landowner what to do on their own personal land. (I'm not talking about growing pot and all the other b.s., just management practice and so forth.)


----------



## DG

GST,

I found this website http://www.idausa.org/facts/hunting.html to be one of those that not only detracts from the truth about wildlife management but also runs a misdirection game to confuse. This part for instance,



> WHAT CAN BE DONE:
> Before you support a "wildlife" or "conservation" group, ask if it supports hunting. Such groups as the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Izaak Walton League, the Wilderness Society, World Wildlife Fund, and many others are pro-hunting.


Most don't know that Tereza Heins Kerry donated a million or two, to the National Wildlife Federation. In return the NWR started sportsmen for John Kerry in 2004. Remember John Kerry in that store saying in a poor hunter slang, "can I get me a huntin' license here?" John Kerry is very anti 2nd amendment.

Most don't know that the National Audubon Society and its affiliate the Michigan Audubon Society partnered with the Humane Society to ban dove hunting in Michigan. HSUS spent 1.6 million. The Michigan Audubon Society told the public that sportsmen are using toxic lead shot and spraying lead all over including water. Only one in six shots connect and most of those are not recovered. They got that information from the USGS and USFWS.

Just look at the last line on the first paragraph. http://www.idausa.org/facts/hunting.html



> (Compiled by The Fund for Animals with data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies.)





> Nevertheless, people not only engage in hunting but strongly defend it as their right to do so. With an arsenal of rifles, shotguns, muzzleloaders, handguns, bows and arrows, hunters kill more than 200 million animals yearly - crippling, orphaning, and harassing millions more. The annual death toll in the U.S. includes 42 million mourning doves, 30 million squirrels, 28 million quail, 25 million rabbits, 20 million pheasants, 14 million ducks, 6 million deer, and thousands of geese, bears, moose, elk, antelope, swans, cougars, turkeys, wolves, foxes, coyotes, bobcats, boars, and other woodland creatures. (Compiled by The Fund for Animals with data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state wildlife agencies.)


Why is the USFWS compiling this kind of data. What use is it to sportsmen?

The fair chase committee is a coalition of fedgov employees-elitists fairchasers-animal rights advocates.


----------



## RogerK

gst, I did make the statement you allege on the McFeely show, but you are lifting it out of context. I used the example of a video of an exotic sheep taken by an individual who shot the animal in the hindquarter with a bow so he wouldn't damage the cape to illustrate what radical animal rights groups are using the smear legitimate hunter. The wounded animal ran to the fence and died a slow, painful death after taking more arrows.

I'll repeat: An animal rights group used the video to smear legitimate, fair chase hunters right along with the Shooting Gallery Operator that allowed the shot to happen. The video of the act isn't a smear on the Shooting Gallery Operator. It's simple fact and a fact can't smear. The video of the act by the so called "hunter" inside a Shooting Gallery Operation is despicable. If you defend the actions of that individual, you are as despicable as the shooter. There is no excuse for an act like that. Only a High Fence Shooting Gallery Operator or supporter would stoop so low as to defend operations like that. If you had any regard for legitimate hunting, legitimate hunters and the wild game they pursue, you would get behind the Fair Chase measure.

If you are reading these posts and you are on the fence over this issue, keep in mind that the non-hunting public will judge you by the actions of the Shooting Gallery Operators, not by what you do when your hunt free ranging game.

Calling High Fence operations Shooting Galleries is perfect. Step right up, pick your target, take the shot, and pay your fee; 100% guarantee.

Here is a problem some Shooting Gallery Operators face. The owner sent a "guide" and a "hunter" into his pasture after the "hunter" paid for a $5,000.00 class bull elk. The "guide" pointed out the wrong animal and the "hunter" killed a $10,000.00 bull. The "hunter" refused to pay the difference, so the owner deducted the difference from the "guide's" pay.

It isn't about wildlife.

It isn't about hunting.

It's about big money.

It's about the commercialisation of game animals.

To get their operations up and running, the High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations had to create the legal fiction of Farmed Elk and the legal fictional "harvest" of the animals inside their concentration camps.

Shooting Gallery Operations are built on and around one gigantic lie.

Do you High Fence Shooting Gallery Operators think you will be able to sell the fiction to North Dakota voters?

I do know you won't be able to sell it as hunting. North Dakotans know better.


----------



## RogerK

Dwight, you wrote above: "The fair chase committee is a coalition of fedgov employees-elitists fairchasers-animal rights advocates."

That is misleading.

In light of the statement above, I suggest you call your attorney and have him explain an interrogatory.

I told you in an early post on this thread that I came here to gather evidence. You didn't disappoint.

As you mull over an interrogatory, keep in mind that an accusation isn't evidence.

I'll give you my short version. An interrogatory is put up or shut up time.

Remember Copyright law. How far did you get? Did you have a case? I know lawyers were consulted because several of you cc'd your email demands that I stop using your web pages to various attorneys. I can forward a copy of your emailed demand to me, if you deleted yours, or if you don't remember. If you had a case, your would have come after me. You had nothing.

Dwight, you do have the right to remain silent.* Thanks for not exercising that right.

*Miranda v. Arizona
Vignera v. New York
Westover v. United States
California v. Stewart
384 U.S. 436 (1966)


----------



## LT

Roger,

I find it laughable, asinine, and just plain disgusting that you are on here as you say to gather evidence, when these operators wouldn't do what you wanted them to do last time, "Sue me," as you told Mr. Grosz. When you can't get the public attention you want, you are now here on this board trying to garner that attention by taunting and goading.

You being an ex-cop from California, I am sure you know every loop hole of the law and the fine line that can be walked without crossing illegal boundaries.

Your statement that Mr. Grosz's statement: The fair chase committee is a coalition of fedgov employees-elitists fairchasers-animal rights advocates is misleading and he should check on an interrogatory. What is misleading?

There are federal government employees that are sponsors and outspoken supporters, one going so far as to use his federal title in papers around the state and use his work email to send a position statement. Tom Remington, Bear Blog writer, has also called you elitists as well as many others, and as far as the animal rights groups, you yourself have stated on here that you met with David Pauli, Regional HSUS director. And we can't forget the fact that a HSUS alert was sent out last go round to ask people to collect signatures and that indeed approximately 2000 signatures resulted from that alert, that an email from Karen T., the HSUS coordinator mentioned in the alert as the ND contact, had sent an email with a cc to you Roger, directing donations to you Roger, and also sent an email that contained messages from you Roger.

Definition of coalition: A coalition is an alliance among individuals or groups, during which they cooperate in joint action, each in their own self-interest, joining forces together for a common cause. This alliance may be temporary or a matter of convenience.

Sounds like a coalition to me.


----------



## RogerK

LT, my post went right over your head.


----------



## LT

Roger Stated: LT, my post went right over your head.

Well, Roger maybe since your the expert and I am nothing but an amateur, you could explain.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Also please explain to me and my inferior mind this...



> Roger,
> 
> Please explain to me how this bill won't shut down Elk Farmers. Because they would sell an animal to a USDA butcher and they would kill it. How would not either place be in violation of this law?


Also please answer me this.... Is the killing of livestock considered ethical under the same F C concepts of this bill?


----------



## bioman

Less than 100 days until the election. Is the Fair Chase initiative going to make the ballot or not :koolaid: ???


----------



## LT

*Dakota Country, September 2010*

*Fair Chase Petitions Delivered to ND Secretary of State*
Fair Chase group expecting strong opposition from high fence operations before ballot

By Bill Mitzel

The Fair Chase Committee of North Dakota presented 13,860 signatures to Secretary of State Al Jaeger on August 4 in an effort to get the measure opposing the captive hunting of native and exotic big game animals to the vote of the people. If approved by Jaeger's office, the measure will appear on the November 2 ballot.

Such high fence operations are presently illegal in nearly half of the states in the US. The committee, led by Roger Kaseman of Bismarck, worked all year long to gather the signatures, setting up booths at public events. Kaseman said once the process of fair chase was explained to people, the signatures came easy. He said high fence hunting, or canned hunting as it is often called, involves ethical problems, among other things, that threatens the image of legitimate hunting throughout America and now North Dakota.

Traditional hunting does not involve hunting animals inside fences, as canned hunting provides. High fence hunting usually involving deer and elk, is pay-to-kill, often at huge sums going into thousands of dollars. There are about a dozen such operations in North Dakota, though there are over a 100 that produce deer and elk meat commercially and do not provide hunting. Such operations would not be affected by the measure on the upcoming ballot in November.

During his efforts across the state, Kaseman encountered a number of experiences involving the signature gathering process, including verbal confrontations, attempts at sabotaging the process, accusations of being connected with animal rights and more, most coming from a small group of high fence hunting operations. For the most part though, he explained, people are energetically opposed to such operations when they know what's involved.

"The reaction from the people was very positive," said Gary Masching, a member of the committee gathering signatures. "People were thanking us for doing this. When we showed them Article 11, Section 27 of the North Dakota Constitution they would look at that and bring more people over to sign. I would say it was running 75-80 percent of people wanted to sign this and get rid of it."

*While the game farms have promoted the initiated measure is a violation of their property rights, Article 11, Section 27 proclaims the right of the public to preserve and manage wild game for the public good. *

The North Dakota Board of Animal Health regulates the canned hunting operations, as well as those exclusively in meat production, and at times has had its hands full in dealing with escaped animals who've caused damage on other property, in addition to presenting a potential health hazard from disease. Captive animals must be marked by their owners, but through the years have escaped their pens in various numbers.

For example, a report from members of the big game staff at state Game and Fish Department on June 10, 2002, highlights just some of the problems.

Said the report: "On June 4 we became aware of an instance involving dead captive animals found in a pit. At least eight of the 112 were adults with visible ear tags. None of the heads had been removed for CWD testing as required by North Dakota Board of Animal Health. This instance is disturbingly similar to a newspaper story from Colorado where a rancher reported losing elk to lightening strikes. Later, elk from this herd tested positive for CWD."

Dozens upon dozens of other reports are on file that show escaped penned animals in which officials from various agencies had to help recapture. The animal owner is obligated to round up the animals when they escape but that isn't always done. Some escaped animals have also traveled across state lines.

The Orlan Mertz commercial operation near Goodrich, known as the Sheyenne Valley Lodge, which was shut down and prosecuted in the fall of 2005 for extensive illegal activity, was regularly dealing with escaped animals according to filed reports, which often were not recovered and had the potential to join wild herds. In fact, a report from Jacquie Ermer to several officials in enforcement and other agencies, said:

"In a letter dated June 12, 2003, Dr. Schuler of the Board of Animal Health reported that farmed elk had escaped from the Orlan Mertz facility near Goodrich on May 23, 2003. Because Mr. Mertz was unable to recapture all of the elk that had escaped, Dr. Schuler authorized the Game and Fish Dept. and the USDA-Wildlife Services to seize, capture, or destroy the escaped elk belonging to Mr. Mertz. As of today, not all elk have been recovered."

The report continued: "After a recent facility inventory inspection, Dr. Susan Keller (ND Deputy State Veterinarian) has notified me that the 26 elk are still at large and G&F is still authorized to seize, capture, or destroy the escaped elk. FYI, one elk was destroyed in northwestern MN a few weeks ago and a hunter killed one of the escaped elk near Walhalla last hunting season. A couple of elk were destroyed near Wilton by Wildlife Services personnel shortly after the escape last year. The remaining elk could be anywhere."

The threat of captive elk joining a wild herd is not considered a viable option. There is also an understanding that free-ranging animals from a wild herd are sometimes killed in the process of trying to capture escaped animals.

"They (game farm operations) are subject to inspection when they set up the operation, they are subject to inspection a year later, and then every other year," Kaseman said. "A lot of things happen over a year's time, animals dying, animals escaping. I'll tell you this. The Board of Animal Health does not have a handle on this. And if they do, that handle is very slippery."

Large horns are a valuable commodity in the black market, Kaseman explained. Good breeding stock is also highly prized.

From the standpoint of the petition and trying to get the decision on high fence hunting to the vote of the people, Kasemen said he's anticipating a strong battle between now and November.

*"They're going to launch a dirty campaign like has never been seen in this state," he said. "It's going to be personal and it's going to be ugly. * There were radio commercials on the air while we were at the state fair, they didn't name us by our group, just "a" group collecting signatures, and then they went on to attack, trying to align us with The Humane Society of the United States and their agenda. According to my information, I was accused of being a member of the The Humane Society specifically sent into North Dakota to lead the effort to outlaw, not just their operations, but all hunting, all animal agriculture, circuses, and rodeos."

"They accused us of being East Coast fanatics trying to get rid of all hunting and property rights," said Masching.

Kaseman said he anticipated such degradation and prepared for it.

* At the State Fair, Kaseman said he also dealt with those who approached his booth to sign the petition, who were obviously under the legal age of 18. The efforts were made by the canned hunting group, he believes, to be able to allege signature fraud in the lawsuit Kaseman says is coming from the commercial operations. No signatures are valid from anyone under 18.
*
Though the North Dakota legislature has bypassed issues relating to canned hunting in recent sessions, they did pass HB 1110 which eliminated feral hog commercial hunting under the exotic animals sections of the law. Masching said that passage mirrors what his group are trying to do.

"The vote was, House 72 yeas, 19 nays, 3 absent," said Masching. "It passed the Senate 46-1, and that one was absent. What it says is that you can't propagate, you can't release, you can't do what we're trying to do with the elk and deer. They did that with feral swine. There were two infestations in the state, in the Turtle Mountains and the Badlands, and there were sportsman's dollars sent there trying to eradicate them."

"Hundreds of thousands of dollars," Kaseman reiterated.

The feral swine were brought in from out of state for purposes of canned hunting, Kaseman explained, and some escaped creating a safety hazard for people and other problems. A campaign was launched to locate them, and some likely remain in the wild.

Kaseman said he expects a lawsuit from the high fence hunting group, and in fact, it may have been served as this is read. Once the petition signatures are accepted so that a ballot measure becomes reality in November, the problem then falls under state control.

"The Attorney General is going to have to defend it (at that point)," Kaseman explained. He believes the basis for their lawsuit will be fraud.

*"We're going to be able to show that there was no wrongdoing," Masching said of the lawsuit if it's filed. "We can account for all the people who were at the venues, and I think it (the lawsuit) will be a help to us, as has some of their other slander.
*


----------



## barebackjack

Boy. I wonder what side of the issue Bill Mitzel is on? :roll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore

barebackjack said:


> Boy. I wonder what side of the issue Bill Mitzel is on? :roll:


 So is Bill not entitled to his opinion and point of view? Simply put this issue is now on the ballot and will be decided in Nov. There are strong feelings on both sides, but a lot of the BS as well!


----------



## barebackjack

Ron Gilmore said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy. I wonder what side of the issue Bill Mitzel is on? :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> So is Bill not entitled to his opinion and point of view? Simply put this issue is now on the ballot and will be decided in Nov. There are strong feelings on both sides, but a lot of the BS as well!
Click to expand...

That depends.

Was the article to be informative, or an opinion?

Judging by the title, "Fair Chase Petitions Delivered to ND Secretary of State" it looks the article was intended to be informing us that the petitions had been delivered and were waiting on validation.

But, he just HAD to go on to inject all those little very one-sided jabs. There has been a lot of BS, from both sides, and this article too, is full of it.

Like most media, he couldn't just inform and leave it at that, he had to make an attempt at persuasion.


----------



## AdamFisk

> This just posted on Nodak Outdoors: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85231
> 
> Fair Chase
> by RogerK » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:00 pm
> 
> Secretary of State approved the Fair Chase Measure today.
> 
> 13,860 people signed the petition.
> 
> 13,860 peopla can't be wrong.
> 
> Measure 2.
> 
> How sweet it is!
> 
> Dwight, how do you like me now?
> 
> Roger Kaseman


----------



## AdamFisk

So Roger, what's next?


----------



## gst

How about answering why these animals were presented to the public as "wild game" that falls under Article 11 Sec. 27 of the states Century Code? The Bill Mitzel article has a quote by Gary Masching saying they were presented to the public in this manner, which resulted in people bringing back more people to sign the petition. The FC website goes out of it's way to paint these animals as tame( the picture of the little girl feeding a buck an apple) but when it suits them they claim they are "wild game". Telling people that these animals are "wild game" that fall under Article 11 Sec. 27 of the NDCC is a specific, direct, outright lie given the fact the very same NDCC defines them as "domestic animals" and classifies them as "farmed elk" in Sec 36 .

So Ron Gilmore/hardwaterman, now that it is in black and white print that a sponsor admits to lying to the public while collecting signatures do you want to answer the question I asked on FBO as to wether state law should be based on factual truth and wether the sponsors of a measure should be held to a standard of truth now???


----------

