# Michigan High Fence Busted



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Trafficing in wildlife. Go figure. :******:

*Hunt club operators face 54 charges after passers-by spot swine eating animal carcasses in Saginaw County*

By Paul Rau | The Saginaw News

April 09, 2009, 6:02PM

A mother and son who ran a wild-game hunting business may end up in the pen themselves now that they face 54 criminal counts of illegally possessing and mistreating herds of exotic animals.

Jannet J. Turner, 74, and Scott J. Turner, 45, pleaded not guilty in Saginaw County on Wednesday to charges of violating deer and elk import bans, cruelty -- including starvation -- of 10 or more animals, misrepresenting health of animals and exposing swine to garbage.
The pair also faces accusations of food law violations, illegally permitting animals to run and not taking care of animal corpses.

A year ago, passers-by reported seeing wild boars feasting on dead animals at Michigan Trophy Hunts, 9008 Meridian (M-30) in Marion Township, prompting a visit from conservation officers and officials with the state departments of Natural Resources and Agriculture, said Traverse City-based Detective Lt. Wade Hamilton with the DNR's Special Investigation Unit.

Investigators learned some banned animals possibly were present, Hamilton said. Michigan Trophy Hunts is in Jannet Turner's name, although her son operates it, court records show.

Investigators returned with a search warrant "for the entire grounds, all the animals and all their records," Hamilton said. They have closed and quarantined the ranch.

"Our investigation binder is 6 inches thick," he said.

Working around the clock for four days beginning April 14, 2008, officers corralled all the animals and inspected them for general health and identification tags. Staff with the Agriculture Department shot all the swine, "hundreds" of them, Hamilton said.

Seventeen illegally imported animals came from Minnesota, Colorado, Iowa and Saskatchewan, he said.

"The investigation took a year to complete because we were at the mercy of other states to get information on the animals from their tags," Hamilton said.

Workers inspected about 200 elk and dozens of deer, Hamilton said. Hamilton suspects that 10 to 12 animals escaped herding.

"The property is just shy of 500 acres, and they have hunts for white-tailed deer, elk, wild boar, water buffalo, bison, various rams and a few other species," Hamilton said of the Turners.

The Web site for the business advertises bull elk hunts for $1,900 to $5,900 depending on size, deer hunts from $1,800 to $7,500, Russian boar hunts at $400, buffalo hunts from $1,600 to $1,800, semi-guided wild turkey hunts for $450 and more.

Michigan closed the borders to imported deer and elk in April 2002 because of chronic wasting disease among such animals in other states, Hamilton said. So far, state officials have recorded one case of the disease, in Kent County.

The Turners, free on $97,000 personal recognizance bonds, could face potential penalties of up to four years in prison, a $15,000 fine and community service


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I hope they get jail time.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dick thanks for bringing this Crime to light....but to group all HF operators into this group (that is what you are attempting to do) is wrong...what these people did was a crime....period. I will post another article...

Mendota Heights, MN -- A former Girl Scout leader from Mendota Heights has been charged with allegedly stealing her troop's cookie proceeds.

54-year-old Joleen Hopkins is charged with theft and theft by swindle.

According to the criminal complaint filed in Dakota County, Hopkins was responsible for collecting money from her troop's annual cookie sale and depositing the funds into the troop's bank account.

In a statement, the Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin River Valleys said it "was disappointed to have to file a criminal complaint against a former Girl Scout volunteer in Mendota Heights, resulting in charges of several counts of theft and theft by swindle involving troop cookie proceeds."

"It's a great opportunity for young people to get involved with a positive thing, that's the sad thing with this case," Dakota County Attorney James Backstrom said. "This is someone that was involved in overseeing woman, helping them learn positive
things, and we are now alleging she stole money intended to benefit these children. It's a disturbing thing."

Prosecutors say Hopkins instead kept more than $8,000 in cookie money for herself in 2008 and 2009. Authorities say Hopkins admitted to the fraud and told police that she used the Girl Scout money to pay personal bills, go to the casino and buy sports equipment for her daughters.

"It's still a significant theft because this money was intended to benefit children, it's a significant breach of trust," Backstrom said.

Hopkins didn't appear to be home Wednesday afternoon, but the Dakota County Attorney's Office says Hopkins and her husband were unemployed during her shenanigans in 2008 and 2009.

"She was using these funds for her own personal use because she was unemployed at the time, and it's not an excuse, it's not an excuse to steal," Backstrom said.

Hopkins has had three previous theft convictions in 1981, 2000 and 2009. If found guilty, Hopkins could face more than five years in prison.

Now by this article people should stop buying girl scout cookies because this person did something illegal....CORRECT? I know this is a huge stretch....but this is to prove a point. Crime happens and to call an industry corrupt is wrong when it was an individual. It is like calling a poacher a hunter.....wrong. That individual did something illegal. But to group all hunters with that individual is wrong....Correct? I know I will catch a bunch of crap on this....but oh well.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Chuck,



> Now by this article people should stop buying girl scout cookies because this person did something illegal....CORRECT? I know this is a huge stretch....but this is to prove a point.


That's a large enough strech to pull a gnat's a$$ over a 55 gallon drum!

Jim


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Dang Chuck with that large a stretch you could justify about anything with your thought process. There have been quite a few HF operations that have been charged lately, but you find a single incident for your example with a single individual preying on an innocent organization. Thanks for the entertainment. :rollin:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Dang Chuck with that large a stretch you could justify about anything with your thought process. There have been quite a few HF operations that have been charged lately, but you find a single incident for your example with a single individual preying on an innocent organization. Thanks for the entertainment.


Glad I could entertain. ;-)

But if I wanted to dig I could find many examples of people breaking laws using non-profit organizations I could.....what Dick is doing is posting anything he can find on HF operations to prove his point.

The reason why I used such an example is because this person broke the law period.....in both cases. What Dick is trying to do is group all HF operations into one group....law breakers. Do the HF operations have law breakers....yes. But are all of them.....no! So why blame or skew and say all are this way....when in fact many are not.

Like I stated before......poacher vs hunter. A hunter does not break the law....a poacher does. But if you see any news print on poaching....the media calls them hunters....which they are not!


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Chuck Smith said:


> Like I stated before......poacher vs hunter. A hunter does not break the law....a poacher does. But if you see any news print on poaching....the media calls them hunters....which they are not!


I agree. Just like those who shoot game animals in a HF operation call themselves hunters.....which they are not. If you want to shoot animals in a HF fine, but don't call it hunting. For those who can find suckers to pay you a good amount of cash to shoot your animals, may you make a good living, but don't advertise it as hunting as it's not. If you get caught breaking the law, may I wish you a good amount of time in your own HF (jail).


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Longshot said:


> Chuck Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Like I stated before......poacher vs hunter. A hunter does not break the law....a poacher does. But if you see any news print on poaching....the media calls them hunters....which they are not!
> ...


I agree 100% it is not hunting. But I am not for closing these places down. I am more in favor of restrictions....ie kill pen needs to be X number of acres, Strict guidelines for animal care, advertising restrictions (can't call it hunting), etc.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

What you and some others are unable to grasp Chuck is the serious outcomes of the crime.

Illeagl transportation of animals risks spreading epidemic diseases into whole wildlife populations. There is a difference between nuking a wildlife population and cookie money. IMHO.

Now add Missouri to the CWD list:

_JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - State officials say a captive white-tail deer in northern Missouri's Linn County has tested positive for chronic wasting disease.

The disease is transmitted from animal to animal or from soil to animal. The state veterinarian said Thursday there was no risk to domestic animals or humans.

Chronic wasting disease is a neurological disease found in deer, elk and moose. It has been documented in 15 states and two Canadian provinces.

The farm-raised deer in Linn County had been inspected as part of Missouri's chronic wasting disease surveillance and testing program. The agriculture department said the state immediately initiated a contingency plan to limit spread of the disease among the deer population._

And course this one from Nebraska last fall:

Bovine TB was confirmed in a captive cervid (elk and fallow deer) facility. 60% of elk and 60% of fallow deer had lesions when facility was eventually depopulated. 42 wild deer were collected outside of facility and 0 were positive. TB was a cervid strain. Live animal test preformed poorly for cervids. Will be asking hunters to be aware of TB signs via mailings and news releases. Four mule deer were collected with hair loss syndrome, associate with lice. HLS has caused significant population decline in Washington State. HLS is caused by spread spread of the Asian deer louse which came from Fallow deer releases.

It just gets worse.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Bovine TB was confirmed in a captive cervid (elk and fallow deer) facility. 60% of elk and 60% of fallow deer had lesions when facility was eventually depopulated. *42 wild deer were collected outside of facility and 0 were positive*. TB was a cervid strain. Live animal test preformed poorly for cervids. Will be asking hunters to be aware of TB signs via mailings and news releases. Four mule deer were collected with hair loss syndrome, associate with lice. HLS has caused significant population decline in Washington State. HLS is caused by spread spread of the Asian deer louse which came from Fallow deer releases.


No wild deer where tested positive.

I understand the spread of diseases...... ie...more restrictions, checks, x # of animals per acre, etc!

But Dick do you want all Cervid farms shut down? Do you want petting zoos or zoos who have deer to be shut down or have to kill these animals? Because they also transport these animals across state lines.

The thing these people did was against the law. They could not import animals into the state since 2000. They broke the law period!!! So you are saying all HF operations should be shut down because someone broke the law? How about the HF operations that are doing things by the books? Should they have to be shut down because of one operation?


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Chuck,
What you are also missing is that the non-hunting crowd see this as hunting so it really gives a black eye to what you and I do in the free-lance hunting world! If you think this is just a black eye for HFH than you are only joking yourself!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. :fiddle: :fiddle: :fiddle:

Nothing like tuggin at the heart stings and grouping them all together Dick.

These two are obvious scum. It wouldn't matter if they had exotic species, a kennel, or a bakery. They would have broken laws REGARDLESS of the business they were in.

I know some farmers out there that have been scamming the gov't and taxpayers for years. Does that mean all farmer are POS scum?
I know some hunters that preach a holier than thou attitude, trying to force their "ethics" down the throats of everybody else, than turn around, tresspass, and argue with the landowner over whos right. Pretty high and mighty huh?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck,
> What you are also missing is that the non-hunting crowd see this as hunting so it really gives a black eye to what you and I do in the free-lance hunting world! If you think this is just a black eye for HFH than you are only joking yourself!


Why do you think I always talk about changing the law on the way they can advertise. Make it illegal for them to call in hunting. Also don't you think poachers, trespassers, road hunters, people who put the deer on the hood of a vehicle, etc.....give hunting a bad name!

I say patrol our own group first....then work on the HF operations. Because I can talk to a non hunting person or public and tell them the difference between HF and Freelance hunting. Then they can see what is true hunting and what is not.


----------



## Nick Roehl (Mar 7, 2002)

No matter how you group them or what light you try to shine on HF operations, they are ridiculous! Kill pens should be X amount of acres, are you kidding me Chuck??? I can't believe you are trying to rationalize what they are doing. Shut them all down.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Chuck, if you think changing the wording to eliminate "hunt" from the advertising, and enforcing tighter regulations would solve the problem, why aren't you working at it? Why isn't anybody working at it? The $$$$$$$$$$$$ are against you.

Anybody can talk about a fix, but where is the action? :bop:

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service under USDA oversees the regulations on high fence. They have proposed tighter regulations for years but high fence has fought it tooth and nail. It won't happen until the situation is so bad it can't be fixed. Just like the feral pigs in ND. Legislation to bar them came after they escaped. :bop:

Ethics are not the only problem with canned shooting. Invasive species are tied to this like a Siamese twin. It looks inevitable that the the Asian louse will come down the Little Missouri drainage into North Dakota. And deer are going to die from it.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Wingmaster said:


> No matter how you group them or what light you try to shine on HF operations, they are ridiculous! Kill pens should be X amount of acres, are you kidding me Chuck??? I can't believe you are trying to rationalize what they are doing. Shut them all down.


Than by that logic you shouldnt be able to kill a cow in a kill chute.


----------



## Bug Guy (Jul 19, 2009)

Why add more laws and regulations?????? Livestock producers, already have laws and regulations to follow. Regardless of species. Why not just enforce the ones already on the books??????? The height of the fence has no bearing IMO. I could put a 12' fence around my chickens or cattle or sheep and it could be called a High Fence operation. Are we talking exotics or ethics? If it is exotics, I am for preventing escape. Whatever it takes. If it is ethics????? You keep yours and stay the heck out of mine.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

wingmaster wrote,



> Shut them all down.


Would you like to elaborate on how you plan to accomplish this? I mean within the parameters of constitutional law.

Dick wrote,



> Animal Plant Health Inspection Service under USDA oversees the regulations on high fence. They have proposed tighter regulations for years but high fence has fought it tooth and nail.


Once again Dick you need to tell truth. Your little group went to G/F and a meeting was called with BOAH. What you wanted was a double fence. Of coarse the cost was to be born by the producer. The material is $10,000 per mile before installation. Cost prohibitive. But then that is your objective. Over-regulation, take away options with initiatives and cost impediments. What is obvious is that you will partner with and say anything to get at those elk ranchers. Sad.

I'll make you a deal. You give me the approximately $300,000 dollars you have lifted off the taxpayers in the form of farm subsidies and I will trade you every elk I have.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

DG said:


> I'll make you a deal. You give me the approximately $300,000 dollars you have lifted off the taxpayers in the form of farm subsidies and I will trade you every elk I have.


Zing!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

A couple of things to notice, one this violation took place a year ago the date is April 2009. Dick is trying to rally the troops no matter what he has to do or half truths he has to tell. The fact of the matter is the high fence initiative will do nothing to curtail disease "IF" that is what Dick and the are worried about. The Elk and Deer farmers will still be able to raise them for meat and antlers if the initiative would pass. So if all these disease concerns bother Dick and the boys why don't they outlaw raising of Deer and Elk? Instead all they would do would stop the shooting of them.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dick Monson said:


> Chuck, if you think changing the wording to eliminate "hunt" from the advertising, and enforcing tighter regulations would solve the problem, why aren't you working at it? Why isn't anybody working at it? The $$$$$$$$$$$$ are against you.
> 
> Anybody can talk about a fix, but where is the action? :bop:
> 
> ...


Dick I really don't care. But people keep bringing up that HF operations calling what happens hunts makes them mad.....then go after the way they advertise. every other industry have restrictions on how they can advertise....why not HF operations.

Some say USDA has tight restrictions....also others talk about costs. Hmmm...that is why they are not getting passed.

You talk about ethics. How HF shooting is not ethical.... Again I ask do you think it is ethical to kill a steer? Because they are a caged animal getting killed. PERIOD! One can't be ethical and the other one not. Because the animal can't escape while it is being killed.

Now if you are talking about stopping exotics......I agree.

If you are worried about disease.....why is the HF initiative not targeting deer or elk farms?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Or why is it ethical to shoot a bison behind a high fence and not a elk or deer?????


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

g/o said:


> Or why is it ethical to shoot a bison behind a high fence and not a elk or deer?????


Bison are a perfect example.....Please show me one spot where I can legally get a tag and hunt a bison free range!



> one this violation took place a year ago the date is April 2009


What's your point? That's not even a year ago. I would call that recent and factual!



> Dick is trying to rally the troops no matter what he has to do or half truths he has to tell.


Sorry...but a date doesn't make it half truthful!



> The fact of the matter is the high fence initiative will do nothing to curtail disease "IF" that is what Dick and the are worried about.


Within the industry itself it has shown how deceitful it has become!
This is nothing more than a rich man's killing club! With the exception of the handicap there are no reasons for them! Just look at the prices! They will do what they want to fullfill a clients wishes! The industry itself has proven so!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Maverick said:


> g/o said:
> 
> 
> > Or why is it ethical to shoot a bison behind a high fence and not a elk or deer?????
> ...


Ahem.

http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/h_f/HuntAZ2009.pdf

Starting on page 126.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Maverick said:


> Within the industry itself it has shown how deceitful it has become!
> This is nothing more than a rich man's killing club! With the exception of the handicap there are no reasons for them! Just look at the prices! They will do what they want to fullfill a clients wishes! The industry itself has proven so!


If you REALLY want to spin it that way Mav, the same thing can be said of guides/outfitters in general.

How many game violations are committed to PUBLIC resources by guides/outfitters each and every year in the name of "making clients happy"? Violations made to animals and resources belonging to YOU and ME!

By that logic, we should just outlaw ALL guiding/outfitting.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

g/o said:


> A couple of things to notice, one this violation took place a year ago the date is April 2009. Dick is trying to rally the troops no matter what he has to do or half truths he has to tell. The fact of the matter is the high fence initiative will do nothing to curtail disease "IF" that is what Dick and the are worried about. The Elk and Deer farmers will still be able to raise them for meat and antlers if the initiative would pass. So if all these disease concerns bother Dick and the boys why don't they outlaw raising of Deer and Elk? Instead all they would do would stop the shooting of them.


NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has addressed this point in their argument that these HF operations should be shut down based on a disease risk issue. Go figure. Only a fool believes this is about disease. This is SOLEY about one groups desire to push their ethics onto others. It would be refreshing if this group would at least be honest enough to admit that.

Dick, there are hundreds of animal cruelty, neglect, state animal health code and transportation violations happening all over the country every year. Some of these put wildlife at risk, yet you only seem to focas on the HF operations. Go figure.

Here's a novel thought, if you are going to create a law regulating or banning an industry here in ND, shouldn't it be based off what takes place here in ND rather than some "BATES HOTEL" type hillbilly operation in the backwoods of Michigan. Perhaps there wouldn't be much for Dick to post if this was the case.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

hey just think if they ban hf hunting there will be no culling of elk in tr park up there. That is surounded by a big tall fence isnt it?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

KurtR said:


> hey just think if they ban hf hunting there will be no culling of elk in tr park up there. That is surounded by a big tall fence isnt it?


Cant compare them.

The park elk come and go all the time.

However, anybody that thinks the park "hunt" is going to be a "hunt", are only fooling themselves.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

ya i know not the same thing just wanted to see what the ethics gods would have to say about the "hunt" in the park there


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Maverick said:


> Chuck,
> What you are also missing is that the non-hunting crowd see this as hunting so it really gives a black eye to what you and I do in the free-lance hunting world! If you think this is just a black eye for HFH than you are only joking yourself!


So Maverick if the concern here is what may give a black eye to hunting based off the nonhunting publics opinion, is it safe to assume you are in favor of hunters having to say pass a competency test in marksmanship prior to being able to go hunting. Perhaps say hit a 5" circle 3 times in a row from 250 yards. Perhaps they should have to be able to hit a 12" target 3 shots in a row moving 30 mph. This would perhaps illiminate things that happen in the "free-lance" world of hunting that would surely give all hunting a black eye if people like Dick and Kaseman were taking out ads and sitting at sport shows with videos of wounded deer being left to die because someone shot them in the *** with a .223 and didn't even know it as they were running 300 yards away.

Dick and Kaseman and the group NDH for FC have taken this one thing that they chose to believe the nonhunting public would have a problem with and put it front and center with this nonhunting public to achieve their agenda. What do you think would happen if an anti hunting group such as HSUS chose to do the same and sat at these sports shows with videos of hunters shooting running deer in the guts, blowing a leg or jaw off shooting at a running deer 400 yards away all the while hi fiving each other after "making the shot". All this is perfectly legal in "free-lance hunting" and apparently ethical and not an issue because this group NDHforFC has not deemed it so and is not trying to ban it to protect the sport of hunting from getting a "black eye" in the nonhunting publics perception. At least not yet. :-?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

gst said:


> Maverick said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck,
> ...


And thats all done to MY animals!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> By that logic, we should just outlaw ALL guiding/outfitting


I got NO problems with that, as most know I grew up hunting where ND most notorious guide/outfitter leased most of his land! I could tell you story upon story...but that would be changing the subject!



> And thats all done to MY animals!


Wrong BBL...its OUR animals!

GST- (still on my ignore list).... I got no time for someone who doesn't listen!

Funny how the ignore option doesn't work when people put your quotes in their replies! I wouldn't have even noticed anything had BBJ not put it in his reply! Still not going to answer you either! Not worth my time!


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Well gst, almost all your posts on this site are on this issue yet you claim you have no part in a HF operation. I have a hard time believing that, while you continue to stretch comparisons as far as possible to justify these non-hunting operations. If suckers want to spend money shooting livestock, have at it. But it's not hunting, nor should it be advertised as such. For those who make a living by exploiting a public resource you will not change my view of you.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I have posted my name and where I am from on this site before. I would guess if there was ANYTHING that ties me to a HF operation outside of having a couple of friends involved as I have repeatedly stated, people such as Dick would have had a hay day pointing it out by now. So once again, I have NO ties to a HF operation, just don't believe these ethical elitists should pick and choose soley on their whims what the rest of us should be able to do and cram it down our throats. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Nor do I like it when hunters themselves, NDH for FC ,open the door to anti hunting groups, or as in the case of the last petition actually contact a group like HSUS in regards to this issue. Then try to get people to believe they are doing it to "protect" hunting itself.

For some reason after reading Mavericks last post, a picture of a little kid with his fingers in his ears singing la la la la la la as loud as he can as someone is talking to them pops into my head :wink:

Here's a question, how is advocating banning ALL HF operations because a very small handful choose to ignore the laws already in place governing them and break them any different from a gun control advocate saying because some one chooses to break the law governing the legal use of guns we should ban all guns? I'd guess most on this site would take exception as hunters to that ideology or being lumped into the same catagory as someone that commits a crime with a gun, but that is exactly what is trying to be done every time Dick posts one of these articles. Hopefullyy that comparison is not too much of a "stretch" for some of you.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Longshot wrote,



> For those who make a living by exploiting a public resource you will not change my view of you.


Do you or do you not recognize farmed elk as privately owned?

Do you or do you not recognize pen raised pheasants as privately owned?

Do you or do you not recognize domestic buffalo as privately owned?

The measure is vaguely worded and open to much interpretation. Hypothetically, if this measure were passed, it would have to go to court to decipher its code. Its final judgement could have far more ramifications than what the public is being told or what the voters would allow. The measure should be rejected on this premise alone. It also would require government enforcement and arrest of individuals for selling their property.

Longshot, you need to think about that for a moment. Then reread your caption at the bottom of your posts.

Socialism = Theft by the Government stealing from some to give to another. The bible does not say Thou Shall Not Steal without a majority vote in Congress.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Nice try gst and DG, but I didn't state that I supported this measure. You should have realized that by my post. They may be privately owned livestock, but in my opinion should not have been and at one time illegally obtained. What's done is done I guess.



> Longshot, you need to think about that for a moment. Then reread your caption at the bottom of your posts.
> 
> Socialism = Theft by the Government stealing from some to give to another. The bible does not say Thou Shall Not Steal without a majority vote in Congress.


DG, your attempt to link these is an insult to one's intelligence. As I mentioned above, at one time these privately owned herds were taken from the public's trust. We have debated this before and I don't think either of us will change the others opinion on it.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Longshot,



> They may be privately owned livestock, but in my opinion should not have been and at one time illegally obtained. What's done is done I guess.


They were not illegally obtained. In 1927 Courtland Durand "purchased" 74 surplus cow elk and calves from the United States Bureau of Biological Survey. This information is archived at the Historical Society in Helena MT. They were acquired much the same way as buffalo. Back then not a lot of paper work was needed to prove ownership because a mans word meant something. That was then this is now.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

So the United States Bureau of Biological Survey made sale of a public trust (I thought wildlife was the state's jurisdiction). And I'm sure you believe the government always does what's right. Just because you believe that this was legit doesn't mean that I and others do or have to. And like I stated above, what's done is done. That doesn't change my opinion nor do I think I will change yours.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

When you step into the voting booth next fall the decision is simple. Yes or No.

Yes, you support fair chase hunting, or No, you don't. 
Yes, you support public hunting and public wildlife, or NO, you support the Texas Model of high fence and exclusitivity.

DG, the meeting which I aluded to and you know nothing about, was held in August 2007 between the State Vet's Office and NDWF, at her request. The subject was proposed rule changes by APHIS concerning increased regulation of high fence operations. The proposal by APHIS would have implemented annual outside inspections of facilities, inventory, and records. Of course you would not have known that, but it wouldn't stop you from commenting anyway in your ususal inaccurate style.

And speaking of inaccurate style,hey DG, did they misspell your name as president of the ND Elk Growers? I mean you spell it however you want for sure, but it used to Grosz wasn't it? http://www.wapiti.net/nd/ndega/association_members.cfm

g/o, you point out that regulation will solve abuse in the industry, but the articles above show the falicy of your assumption. Regulations are as good as the lowest level of compliance. When high fence breaks these regulations they can nuke a whole wildlife population. And they have and will continue to do so.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

barebackjack said:


> Maverick said:
> 
> 
> > g/o said:
> ...


That is the first I have seen! Any other out there that you know of! Really...not trying to be facetious, as that is the first of any state that I have read that even has a program for Buffalo. Even though it is held at a ranch


> "Public buffalo hunts have been held at House Rock Ranch since the 1920s".


 I guess this would still apply seeing you have to actually apply for the tag!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Maverick said:


> That is the first I have seen! Any other out there that you know of! Really...not trying to be facetious, as that is the first of any state that I have read that even has a program for Buffalo. Even though it is held at a ranch "Public buffalo hunts have been held at House Rock Ranch since the 1920s". I guess this would still apply seeing you have to actually apply for the tag!


Where are coming up with this "ranch" stuff. Read man, read.

The former "House Rock Ranch" and "Raymond Ranch" are now "House Rock Wildlife Area" and "Raymond Ranch Wildlife Area", acquired by the state of AZ in the 1940s....that is STATE owned and managed PUBLIC GROUNDS.

You apparently only read the first sentence.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> The herds at House Rock and Raymond Ranch wildlife areas remained, however, and the Department set out to manage these herds on a sustained basis. A economic profit proved elusive, however, as it was impossible to sustain sufficient breeding stock without damaging the range. Moreover, the shooting of buffalo being driven out of a corral, while making economic sense, became increasingly difficult to justify from a sociological perspective. As a result, both herds were drastically reduced in the early 1970s by hunters who had to take their animals in the field.


Sounds like they did it right! They had problems with shooting them in a pen so they let all hunters take them a field! Sounds like the state had a problem with shooting animals in a pen back then!

So I ask you again...Is there ANY other state that has a program like this or is this the only one out of all the states! I can't find any other state that allows this kind of hunting! One out of 50 ain't to bad...huh.. STill paints a good picture as to what can happen to our wild population!



> You apparently only read the first sentence.


Seriously....apparently not, considering it was in the middle of the 6th paragraph and second topic...... Evidentially you didn't read the first sentence as it goes nothing like that...... uke:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Maverick said:


> So I ask you again...Is there ANY other state that has a program like this or is this the only one out of all the states! I can't find any other state that allows this kind of hunting! One out of 50 ain't to bad...huh.. STill paints a good picture as to what can happen to our wild population!


Arizona offers hunts, like previously stated.

Utah offers two primary hunts. The Henry Mountains, draw odds are horrible (1-in-300, or so). The second is on Antelope Island on the Great Salt Lake.

Wyoming, basically offers 20 bull tags for residents and 5 for non-residents. This hunt occurs outside Grand Teton. Yearly draw for NR's, no preference points alloted for unsuccessful applications.

And I believe Montana started offering hunts outside the park (Yellowstone) in 2005 after to much controversy having state shooters cull animals wandering off the park and having more animals beginning to migrate off park.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

So 3 maybe 4 states of 50 actaully allows some hunting of Bison..... why is that?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Maverick said:


> So 3 maybe 4 states of 50 actaully allows some hunting of Bison..... why is that?


Why is it all 50 states don't allow mule deer hunting?

Why don't all 50 states allow coues deer hunting, or blacktails?

Why don't all 50 states allow wolf hunting?

Why doesn't ND have an alligator season?

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> g/o, you point out that regulation will solve abuse in the industry, but the articles above show the falicy of your assumption. Regulations are as good as the lowest level of compliance. When high fence breaks these regulations they can nuke a whole wildlife population. And they have and will continue to do so.


I did? Don't think so Dick. I pointed out that "if" disease is what your main concern is then why not outlaw the raising of elk and deer. Also why is it ethical to shoot a bison behind a high fence and not an elk or deer? I'm glad to see you finally agree with me, I have said many times "if" we get disease it will walk in and now you agree.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, take a moment and think about what you are saying, and the question G/O has pointed out. You claim that there is the risk to "nuke a whole wildlife population" if these HF operations are left as is regardless of the regulations in place to prevent it. However as G/O stated even if this measure is successful and the ability to sell "hunts" is banned, these operations can still be in existance selling meat and antlers and animals. SO IN EFFECT, THIS MEASURE DOES NOTHING TO LESSEN THIS RISK OF DISEASE AS YOU ARE DISINGENUOUSLY INSINUATING IT WILL. It's not rocket science to figure this out!!!! In order for your dream to be effective these operations will have to be forced out of business entirely, which is then not about regulating a form of "hunting", but effectively banning the right to raise animals on private property, which if done in accordance with the laws governing it, is in fact a property right.

Dick here's a question for you. There have been several instances of individuals breaking the rules regarding farm subsidies and programs. Under your line of thinking that these few HF operations thru out the nation that choose to break the rules are reason enough to ban the activity entirely here in ND, I would guess you then think all farm programs should be banned because a few choose to break the rules???????
I doubt you will support this as it directly affects your pocket book if not your "ethics"!!

longshot, I'm aware you said earlier that you do not support this measure regardless of what you think about HF operations. I appreciate for what ever reason you have chosen to look at this objectively and see thru the disingenuous rhetoric being bantered about by some of the sponsors of this measure. The federal and state govts at various times have chosen to sell several diferent parts of the publics property, (timber, grass, minerals, access,animals and even the land itself) it's actually pretty common. Buffalo have been rounded up off public lands and sold or given to private individuals. There are thousands of wild horses sold each year. Granted these can be traced back to early Spanish settlers, but now the ones running wild on public lands have become the property of the federal govt(therefore the people) just the same as an elk or a deer. The fact is regardless of what may have happened decades ago, and wether you agree with it now, these animals are in fact not "public property" any more than that wild horse I pay an adoption fee to the govt to gain ownership of or it's off spring are decades down the road. .


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

gst;


> timber, grass, minerals, access,animals and even the land itself


These do not fall in the same realm of wildlife. Access? How do you figure that into the equation? The land you and I own was originally owned by the federal government along with the mineral rights. Maybe you don't remember that little purchase years ago. Over time the mineral rights were also sold or deeded over to the people. If you don't believe me, please visit your local county recorder and take a look at the original US Patent for each section. As far as access, that is under state regulation just like wildlife. It's not under Federal jurisdiction. For example, ND granted public easement access along all section lines limited to 33' on each side. I still do not agree that a federal entity or even a state had the right to do so. As far as my not supporting this issue, it comes down to being sick of government's escalated control over the people with the alarming increase of regulations. I have little trust in our politicians who continue, more so than before, to twist legislation into something it was never intended for. I have yet to see wording within this issue that looks to be fool proof. With our current politicians it seems they keep finding bigger fools to justify legislation to benefit them and push it to control other arenas that were never intended to be related.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Wildlife is a public resource as is grass, timber, ect..... that are sold by the state and federal govt to private individuals or companies. Buffalo that were sold or given to individuals are public resources same as elk. If you do not believe so please explain your reasoning. 
How many state or national parks does the public have to pay to access the land they own thru the govt? The govt, leases or charges access fees to companies mining on public lands all the time.

I to agree that govt even without the encouragement of groups like NDH for FC and their continual attempts to further regulate based not on what is best for society as a whole but rather their own personal beliefs, has taken a far more over reaching position in regards to regulating it's citizenry than what was the original intent. Badly written laws based on disingenuous representations of facts and the issue itself leave the door open for interpretation and expansion far beyond what may have been originally intended. This measure, if put on the ballot and voted into law is such. Unfortunately some are so blinded by their own personal ideologies they are apparently willing to over look the negative aspects of what this measure and group is doing, dividing hunters when we can ill afford to be so given the agendas, money and now acceptance in the legislative arena by the extreme animal rights orgs such as HSUS and others.

http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/Initiativechart.pdf
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press ... 12610.html
http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/adv ... r-2009-10/

So I wonder if this measure will make the list provided in the first link if enough signatures are gathered to place it on the ballot??????? Quite a list for a group of Fair Chase hunters out to "protect" hunting to get on!!!!!


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

gst,



> I to agree that govt even without the encouragement of* groups like NDH for FC and their continual attempts to further regulate based not on what is best for society as a whole but rather their own personal beliefs*, has taken a far more over reaching position in regards to regulating it's citizenry than what was the original intent.


Good one Gabe. Now you would have us believe that HF operations "are best for society as a whole"? Even you wouldn't believe that if you had seen the expressions of disgust on peoples faces when we explain what high fence killing is.

Jim


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

do you explain that these animals are TAME elk,cows,bison,sheep as there is no difference between a tame animal is a tame animal.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

gst, we have been through this before and I'm not sure if you just are ignoring it or lack the mental ability. The more you talk the more you make this proposal look good. As we have discussed before, you don't seem to grasp public trust. The government holds wildlife for the benefit of all the people (the public) and cannot grant private rights to control, manage, or hold renewable wildlife. You can continue your circular arguments and your trying to justify something that should not have been done all you want, but it does not change the facts.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim, NOWHERE have I said HF operations are "best for society as a whole", you missed the point. These operations have very little to do with society as a whole, as does this initiated measure your group is trying to make into law. That's the point, this initiated measure, if it becomes law, will have been initiated by a very small percentage of society, to regulate a very small percentage of society. There in is the risk in such "measures". And when this regulation is "sold" to the public or whole of society that will vote on it thru disingenuous statements and and misrepresentation of the facts as is being done by some members of this group, it is a very poor basis for the formation of law. There is no legislative assembly that represents society as a whole to hold accountable, just some small group that has accomplished an agenda.

The simple fact this measure in how it is written will lessen the risk of disease is disingenuous, the very claim HSUS will not become involved in this measure somehow is disingenuous, the belief HSUS will not use this as a stepping stone to further their true agendas is disingenuous, and the belief this measure in how it is written will even prevent HF from continueing is disingenuous.

Jim if the group NDH for FC is making the same disingenuous statements to the public which they are on these sites to "sell" this bill of goods, I'd imagine the looks of disgust on these people's faces is the same as those that HSUS gets when they show videos of animals being wounded and left to die, animals being hunted with dogs, ect..... or other things that happen during "fair chase" or "free lance" hunting. This IS being done by these groups. And there in lies the problem in opening the door to small groups of people with access to the funds or blindly impassioned activists to manipulate what they want the public to believe in an attempt to formulate laws that will further these small groups such as NDH for FC or HSUS's agendas. Most times the LAWS that result are not "best for society as a whole" . So hunters have to ask themselves, even though I may not agree with what these HF operations do, is the attempt to ban them opening the door to a greater risk of other anti hunting groups doing the same with other forms of hunting??? People should consider all the consequences of their actions before engaging in them. THAT is the question I believe must be asked prior to signing this petition if we are to truly protect the future of ALL hunting for generations to come from these groups out to ban things.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

gst, you may want to look up the difference between someone who is "disingenuous" and someone with an opinion.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot, an opinion is just that, an opinion, however representing "facts" that are not true to others to gain their support IS disingenuous. Pretty simple to understand if one has the mental capacity. :wink: Please show me where any of the sponsors of this measure have made the disclaimer these are only our opinions!!!!

Back at the turn of the century, President Teddy Roosevelt saw what was happening with wildlife and the public lands in this country. Elk and Bison numbers were at critically low levels. At that time he recognized the ability of some private individuals to do what govt had not able to do and elk and buffalo were given and sold to private individuals. This was the base stepping stone from which the successful growth of the numbers of these animals we have today was accomplished. It was also the foundation from which most of the privately owned animals came from. Had this not been done, think about where we could be today. Various states have chosen to do this with other wildlife over the years. Every single domesticated privately owned animal on the face of the earth can be traced back to it's "wild" origins. So does that mean they have been "stole" from the public trust??? These animals in these game farms are privately owned livestock, it appears you don't realize they are as different and generationally removed from the wild elk the public does own as my cattle are from the wild bovine species hunted in other countries.

Heres a question for you. Where do you think some of the buffalo that the 3 affiliated tribes have and are selling hunts to came from???


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

gst said:


> longshot, an opinion is just that, an opinion, however representing "facts" that are not true to others to gain their support IS disingenuous. Pretty simple to understand if one has the mental capacity. :wink: Please show me where any of the sponsors of this measure have made the disclaimer these are only our opinions!!!!





> the very claim HSUS will not become involved in this measure somehow is disingenuous, the belief HSUS will not use this as a stepping stone to further their true agendas is disingenuous, and the belief this measure in how it is written will even prevent HF from continueing is disingenuous.


To quote the word you used, "belief" a term that can also be used in place of the word opinion. Their belief/opinion is that........... As you said;


> Pretty simple to understand if one has the mental capacity. :wink:





> Back at the turn of the century, President Teddy Roosevelt saw what was happening with wildlife and the public lands in this country. Elk and Bison numbers were at critically low levels. At that time he recognized the ability of some private individuals to do what govt had not able to do and elk and buffalo were given and sold to private individuals. This was the base stepping stone from which the successful growth of the numbers of these animals we have today was accomplished. It was also the foundation from which most of the privately owned animals came from. Had this not been done, think about where we could be today. Various states have chosen to do this with other wildlife over the years. Every single domesticated privately owned animal on the face of the earth can be traced back to it's "wild" origins. So does that mean they have been "stole" from the public trust??? These animals in these game farms are privately owned livestock, it appears you don't realize they are as different and generationally removed from the wild elk the public does own as my cattle are from the wild bovine species hunted in other countries.


We have already discussed this. The government holds wildlife for the benefit of all the people (the public) and cannot grant private rights to control, manage, or hold renewable wildlife. Just because someone in the government chose to do this doesn't make it right. Now you can claim that this saved wildlife but that is just an opinion, not fact. Possible, but not fact. We have also discussed you trying to link your cows to be the same as elk. The founding fathers didn't claim cattle as wildlife as they were already domesticated as were horses and such that were also not originally here in North America. Wildlife was put in the public trust to protect hunting and fishing due to what they had witnessed in Europe previously. I wonder what President Teddy Roosevelt would think of the HF operations of today. Do you really think this was his intent?



> Heres a question for you. Where do you think some of the buffalo that the 3 affiliated tribes have and are selling hunts to came from???


IT doesn't really make any difference due to tribal sovereignty.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

barebackjack said:


> Maverick said:
> 
> 
> > So 3 maybe 4 states of 50 actaully allows some hunting of Bison..... why is that?
> ...


Wow...good answer...You thought long and hard on that one! I can tell!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot Okay, instead of the word belief, I should have used the word insinuation which is what these sponsors are doing. Once again I ask, show me where these sponsors have stated what they are sharing with the nonhunting public regarding this issue is merely their opinion!!!!!!!

I'm not trying to change your apparent belief that these animals in these HF operations are "wild" animals owned by the public, just posting nondisingenuous information so others may understand that these indeed are privately owned animals bred for many generations in captivity rather than something that is a part of any public trust wildlife in spite of what others are suggesting wether thru disingenuous insinuations of fact, or mere opinions. :wink:

Wether these bufflo ended up in a tribaly sovern location, they were in fact a part of this very wildlife you state were given in trust to the people of this country. This govt, does indeed have the power to" grant private rights to control, manage or hold renewable wildlife." There are many examples of this. Depredation tags given to individuals to control overpopulations, if a wolf is attacking my livestock the govt has given me the right to "control" this publically owned wildlife even outside of established seasons. The example I gave of buffalo being given to the tribe to "manage and hold" ect.........

Here's another question for you I asked once before and no one answered. Beings you mention the founding fathers and their intentions, what is your OPINION of what the founding fathers would have a greater concern over, someone placing privately owned domesticated animals inside a fence on privately owned property to be hunted, or a small group of elitists passing a law banning someone from using their own private property without excessive govt intrusion or regulation????


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

> This govt, does indeed have the power to" grant private rights to control, manage or hold renewable wildlife." There are many examples of this. Depredation tags given to individuals to control overpopulations, if a wolf is attacking my livestock the govt has given me the right to "control" this publically owned wildlife even outside of established seasons. The example I gave of buffalo being given to the tribe to "manage and hold" ect.........


Being issued a tag is not the same thing gst and you know it. I don't think you understand public trust. Wildlife is to be for all people. They do NOT have the right to take wildlife and turn it over to private ownership that is the whole premise. Turning it over to private ownership takes it out of the public trust and the rights to it are given to a single person of organizations. Also the law has always given us the right to protect ourselves and our property even though there are people who have in some areas taken that right away. Unfortunately there will always be people who view property and people to be of less value than, for example, a wolf. But let's not get into the wolf controversy, those PETA type make me sick.



> Here's another question for you I asked once before and no one answered. Beings you mention the founding fathers and their intentions, what is your OPINION of what the founding fathers would have a greater concern over, someone placing privately owned domesticated animals inside a fence on privately owned property to be hunted, or a small group of elitists passing a law banning someone from using their own private property without excessive govt intrusion or regulation????


I don't believe that the founding fathers would have had a positive view of HF operations. As to the second category I believe it would depend on the reason for intrusion and regulation. If, and I'm sure you are, you are talking about HF operations I have mixed thoughts on that. The founding fathers were very much against most government intrusions and regulations, but they also had their opinions on what should be. Hence the reason they formed a Republic. Rule of law, to be determined by the peoples and their elected officials. With that said, in their beliefs, by what has been written by them, the HF operations should have never been established. Now what do we do about them. We can't release them into the wild. We can't destroy them, what a waste that would be and now they are wrongfully private property, and too late to change that as it is under ownership. Shutting down kill pens also doesn't fix the fact that they shouldn't have been created with the once public's wildlife. To call it hunting is my biggest problem since it isn't in my OPINION! I would guess that the founding fathers wouldn't see it as hunting and would bet that President Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't see it as hunting either.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick wrote,



> Animal Plant Health Inspection Service under USDA oversees the regulations on high fence. They have proposed tighter regulations for years but high fence has fought it tooth and nail.


Dick contradicts himself,



> DG, the meeting which I aluded to and you know nothing about, was held in August 2007 between the State Vet's Office and NDWF, at her request. The subject was proposed rule changes by APHIS concerning increased regulation of high fence operations. The proposal by APHIS would have implemented annual outside inspections of facilities, inventory, and records. Of course you would not have known that, but it wouldn't stop you from commenting anyway in your ususal inaccurate style.


Dick, Which is it? We fought it tooth and nail or we didn't know about it?

The States Vet's Office, at her request contacted NDWF (a political advocacy group)?????? In August 2007 the HFI had already been filed with SOS. Maybe you are confusing an informational meeting to educate some of the NDWF members because they were spreading misinformation.

Longshot wrote,



> DG, your attempt to link these is an insult to one's intelligence. As I mentioned above, at one time these privately owned herds were taken from the public's trust. We have debated this before and I don't think either of us will change the others opinion on it.


How can the government sell animals that belong to the public trust? Good question. The first that comes to mind is the buffalo roundup and sale at Custer Park S.D.

Here is an article that has it all. The rich city fat cat, disease, crisis, government transfer of public animals to private ownership, enviros and animal rightys cloaked inside conservation groups, public opinion and saving wildlife. It is a struggle between NATURE vs NUTURE.

BISON HEADED FOR TURNER RANCH

By Matthew Brown

Associated Press

Billings, Mont - Billionaire Ted Turner is getting 88 Yellowstone National Park bison from a faltering Montana program that was supposed to put the disease-free animals on public or tribal lands.

The animals were spared several years ago from a periodic slaughter of bison leaving Yellowstone because of worries about animal disease.

They now are in a joint federal-state quarantine compound in southern Montana's Paradise valley but could be moved to Turner's Montana ranch within weeks, state officials say.

Montana turned down requests from a Wyoming state park and at least two American Indian reservations that said they wanted some or all of the bison.

Turner will care for the animals for five years and in return, wants 75% of their offspring, an estimated 188 bison. He already owns more than 50,000 bison but wants the Yellowstone animals because of their pure genetics.

Montana would get an estimated 150 bison back.

Conservation groups, a group of tribes, and U.S. Departmment of Agriculture veterinarians had criticized the proposal because it privatizes public wildlife.

"There were a lot of people that wanted them on public lands. We're not ready," says Montana wildlife chief David Risley. "The Turner option, all it does is buy us time to come up with a long-term solution."

Guernsey State Park in Wyoming had sought 14 of the animals. Tribes on Montana's Fort Belkanp Indian Reservation and Fort Peck Indian Reservation also asked for some of the bison but were denied.

Turner had said that if some of the animals went to Wyoming, Montana would get fewer bison back because he needs a certain number to justify his expenses.

The bison will be kept on 12,000 acres on Turner's Flying D Ranch south of Bozeman.

The ranch already has about 4,500 commercial bison and thousands of elk that are hunted by paying clients and some members of the public.

Turner's representatives say the Yellowstone bison are too valuable to hunt and will be mixed with a herd being conserved on another ranch he owns in New Mexico.

Longshot, the expression, "its seems one hand of government doesn't know what the other is doing," could apply here. Using this model the same could be done with the elk in TRNP. Instead of killing 200 cow elk, take them to a ranch. Test them for everything for 5 years and get a whole herd history. Then transport them live to Tennesse who wants them. Imagine the howls of protest from the Wildlife Society and Wildlife Federation.

There are just too many federal biologists and ecologist involved in the HFI as sponsers and supporters to be ignored. They want NATURE over NUTURE. Natural selection over human manipulation. That is fine and good when wildlife populations are high. But what if they were to plummet or crash. Then it is back to NUTURE and the deal cutting of yesteryears with landowners. Back then it was a handshake and a mans word. Do we now have more wildlife in the year 2000 then we did in 1900, or less?

Roger Kaseman said many times, "WE DO NOT RECOGNIZE PROPERTY RIGHTS". The word "we" is plural. Does he speak for the committee as a whole? Does he speak for the federal employees who are sponsers and supporters?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

> Do we now have more wildlife in the year 2000 then we did in 1900, or less?


Wildlife populations have fluctuated throughout the years and before man was on this continent I would bet.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot, Wether you believe the govt, state or federal, has the right to "take" this public property(wildlife) and give it to someone to control, manage or hold, the fact is it has been done many times in the past, and is still being done. This can't be denied. The examples (depredation)I gave were examples thru out history of an individual being granted the right to control this publics wildlife by the govt. plain and simple. No tags needed. There have been many examples of wildlife being given to individuals, a couple examples have been provided. If you have a problem with this take it up with the govt. But for the sake of factual discussion on this issue, accept it has happened, and that you can't change what happened in the past or the results of these actions that made these animals privately owned, different from the wild animals in the public trust, and as such realize they can not be veiwed as the same.

Here's something for you to ponder as you reiterate that the public owns and controls the wild game of this nation. What happens when a majority of this nonhunting public (which outnumbers hunters many times over) decides they don't want private individuals to be killing these wild animals intrusted to them by our founding fathers? Don't believe these anti hunting groups aren't thinking of this. They will be using the very same argument you are using to justify ending HF in their attempt to end all hunting. How will view this arguement at that time????

As to what the founding fathers would have thought about HF, back in the 1700's pioneers often times captured wild fowl and animals and raised them in pens for food. I don't believe there were many "sport hunters" or to many advocates of Fair Chase Hunting back in the 1700's.

There were however many individuals who had their businesses excessively taxed and regulated by an elitist group of people that thought they knew what was best for everyone. This caused quite abit of contention amoungst the founding fathers. So much so that a war was fought over this very thing. So if I had to bet, I would guess (and I would assume most people that are not trying to justify a position to ban HF would as well) that our founding fathers would have a greater concern over an elitist group of individuals that believe they know what is best , and their banning the ability to use ones property in a manner within the law unencumbered by excessive regulation and interference, than they would with someone killing an animal inside a fence. That's just my OPINION :wink:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Maverick said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > Maverick said:
> ...


Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

jhegg said:


> Good one Gabe. Now you would have us believe that HF operations "are best for society as a whole"? Even you wouldn't believe that if you had seen the expressions of disgust on peoples faces when we explain what high fence killing is.
> 
> Jim


Pretty easy to get expressions of disgust when spewing half truths, outright lies, and propganda DESIGNED to tug at the heart strings of john q ignorant public. Dont deny it, ive heard it first hand.

PETA mastered the art in the 80's with the anti fur campaign.

Really something to be proud of.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot, your statement and I quote" Hence the reason they formed a Republic. Rule of law to be determined by the peoples and their elected officials." got me thinking abit.

This issue was brought forth to our "elected officials" discussed and failed to be made into law. This group is using something that was not around at the time of our founding fathers and is not a part of a Republics structure, the initiated measure where by a simple majority creates law, to accomplish their agendas. That is a Democracy, something our founding fathers had enough foresight to realize ultimately implodes on itself once the majority realizes they can have their way. Do you begin to see how pursueing this agenda (banning HF)in this manner (initiated measure) can open doors that are not in the best interest of hunting itself?????


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

> There have been many examples of wildlife being given to individuals, a couple examples have been provided.


You keep using other instances thinking that it makes it right. It doesn't, unfortunately you don't understand that. Being given the right to take wildlife due to depredation is the right of a person to protect their property from an over population of the publics wildlife. When I have a tag and fill it, I am in possesion of the meat, not a living "*renewable*" wildlife.



> So if I had to bet, I would guess (and I would assume most people that are not trying to justify a position to ban HF would as well) that our founding fathers would have a greater concern over an elitist group of individuals that believe they know what is best , and their banning the ability to use ones property in a manner within the law unencumbered by excessive regulation and interference, than they would with someone killing an animal inside a fence. That's just my OPINION


I understand your opinion, but do you understand mine. They were also strongly against an elitist group controlling a portion of the public trust also. It's hard to say which would concern them and both should.



> Here's something for you to ponder as you reiterate that the public owns and controls the wild game of this nation. What happens when a majority of this nonhunting public (which outnumbers hunters many times over) decides they don't want private individuals to be killing these wild animals intrusted to them by our founding fathers? Don't believe these anti hunting groups aren't thinking of this. They will be using the very same argument you are using to justify ending HF in their attempt to end all hunting. How will view this arguement at that time????


You still do not understand public trust, have you tried. It is something that shall not be controlled or regulated by one person or group, but is to remain for all people.

Here's a good quote for you;


> Wildlife management has historically been, and continues to be, a difficult and often contentious arena. Contrary to the political hype of the animal rights movement there are no "magic bullets." To drive wildlife management on the premise of political agenda - on the premise of ballot box biology - when at least fifteen hundred years of history, science, litigation and experience has demonstrated that government (the sovereign) must make such decisions so that they reflect the balanced needs of society and the resource is simply wrong.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

gst said:


> longshot, your statement and I quote" Hence the reason they formed a Republic. Rule of law to be determined by the peoples and their elected officials." got me thinking abit.
> 
> This issue was brought forth to our "elected officials" discussed and failed to be made into law. This group is using something that was not around at the time of our founding fathers and is not a part of a Republics structure, the initiated measure where by a simple majority creates law, to accomplish their agendas. That is a Democracy, something our founding fathers had enough foresight to realize ultimately implodes on itself once the majority realizes they can have their way. Do you begin to see how pursueing this agenda (banning HF)in this manner (initiated measure) can open doors that are not in the best interest of hunting itself?????


I am in agreement. It is sad that when talking and debating government as some time in our history people started to call it a democracy. And now we see people trying to transform it into one. With that said, lately we don't see our elected officials representing the people either. uke:


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.


 :withstupid: ...and yes...I did expect a stupid answer from you! :wink:

It's not my fault you can't comprehend the question and answer it with a bit of thought behind it!
I can see your lack of intellect has you pulling for personal attacks now! I ask you a serious question and you reply as such....

Again I ask you why is it that we can only hunt Bison in 3 MAYBE 4 states?
...and please use a little bit of your brain to give an inteligent answer! Enlighten me with your wisdom!!! :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Also gst in public trust cases it points to the inescapable conclusion that management of our natural resources is the administrative responsibility of government and that government cannot turn that responsibility over to someone else. In recent years, in the twenty-four states that permit ballot initiatives, the animal rights movement has ignored management of our natural resources on the premise of science and law and bought their way to the ballot with measures seeking to establish their political agenda by changing how natural resources are administered. As a consequence of this activity there are now a number of states where public trust doctrine lawsuits seek to overturn these politically motivated initiatives. Let's hope people continue to notice these anti-hunting groups and overturn their poor legislation. Also I hope that people realize that the government cannot legislate the public trust to private ownership. And before you try to link HF operation to protected hunting, it is not hunting. Can we ban these privately owned herds, no. As you have said it's to late now. The people who own them now were not the ones the ill obtained them in the first place.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Maverick said:


> > Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.
> 
> 
> :withstupid: ...and yes...I did expect a stupid answer from you! :wink:
> ...


I just don't think I can dumb it down anymore for you, but ill try.

Think about it real hard Mav, I know it might hurt, but try.

Why don't they have free range buffalo hunts in New York? Conneticut? Arkansas? Kansas? Iowa? Michigan? Hawaii? Or any of the other 39 states?

The obvious, and logical answer (if you posses logic) is that those states either A) do not have free range bison, or B) do not posses free range bison populations large enough to warrant or require hunts.

Who would have thought a person would have to spell that out for you? :roll:

And WHO brought about a personal attack first???
WHO brought into question the others "lack of intellect"??? I merely stated you asked a stupid question, NEVER ONCE did I say YOU were stupid. YOU brought into DIRECT question MY lack of intellect?

Must be nice being buddy buddy with Chris and be able to get away with that crap.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.


Sorry buddy ...but there you go....Strike one!



> The obvious, and logical answer (if you posses logic) is that those states either A) do not have free range bison, or B) do not free range bison populations large enough to warrant or require hunts.


Sorry Einstien but it was through market hunting!!! Sorry your not bright enough to see that (but thats something your going to have to figure out yourself)! Instead of the "Because there not there" answer! Ya...again...I can tell you did take some time to think of that one! I guess that all I should expect from you! The squirl is chasing his tail cuz he ran out of nuts up there!



> Ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.


It wasn't a stupid question but I surely got a stupid answer!!!
That's where the personal attacks started...eh buddddyyyy....open your eyes...
....and just so you know BBJ .....Chris treats me just the same as you on here! We can keep business and friendships separate!
Nice cheap shot though...shows your TRUE integrity!! uke: uke:


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Maverick said:


> Sorry Einstien but it was through market hunting!!!


Thats a real stretch buddy, however partly true. But has little bearing on the present discussion and question. You didn't ask why there are no bison, you asked why you cant hunt free range bison in more than 3 or 4 states. Which I answered.

Market hunting was one of a MULTITUDE of reasons for the decimation of bison herds in this country. Bison were destined to fail once the white man arrived. Look at any large civilization. Large, plentiful herbivores, and large carnivores are ALWAYS the first to go.
Many were shot for hides and tongue.
Many were shot by the railroads, for no other reason than they were there.
Many were shot by any jack*** with a rifle, for no other reason than they were there.
Many were shot to exterminate a food base for the plains tribes that relied on them.

But, market hunting has LITTLE to do with the lack of opportunity to hunt free range bison here now. The reason being, there just aren't any free range bison around. There cant be. There are just to few places left to support any large, huntable numbers of them.

And I stand by what I said, your friend in a high place has allowed you to get away with a lot of crap on here that many others would not of. Your to full of yourself to realize that though.

You made a bold statement that there is nowhere you can hunt free range bison in the US. I proved you wrong. You could not let that go and resorted to personal attacks, like so many times before.

I take my leave of arguing with your ignorance and arrogance.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

bbj, you might want to watch it,you might be getting close to Maverick "ignoring" you! la la la la la la 

longshot, I'm not giving you these examples to prove it was right, merely to show that it happens quite regularly. To hold current owners of these animals liable for what the govt did decades ago and is currently doing is not exactly fair.

I understand public trust, the point is that wether we think it is right or wrong, the govt itself is the one that ultimately violated this public trust, not the current owners of these animals. So as you say how can we ban ownership of these animals or what one choses to do with them if they are being managed in accordance with the laws that govern these operations? In that manner these animals and how they are managed really are no different than the cattle I have in my pastures.

As I have said repeatedly before, personally I do not believe a HF operation can give me what I need to take from the experience to call it hunting, so I don't. But who am I to make that decision for someone else? To me, demanding that everyone else conform to what I consider hunting is arrogant at the very least.

Now, given the ideologies of our countries leadership and the people he surrounds himself with, Obama, Cass Sustien(believes animals should be able to sue people) ect...how comfortable are you that this govt would not accept an anti hunting groups ideology that THEIR right to have a live animal based of this public trust outweighs the hunting minorities right to kill this animal under this same public trust? Whose usage of this public trust outweighs the other. If two groups have diametrically opposing beliefs of how these animals should be used under this public trust who will the govt listen to?? And when people are being swayed by groups with an agenda that are willing to be disingenuous with their sharing of the facts, can these groups sway the simple majority and gain a voice and control of how this govt manages this public trust???


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

That is one of the points that I have tried to make. The government has broken the public trust in turning over wildlife to private ownership. They broke the public trust, not the current owners of these animals. Now some people think that since it happened long ago it's ok now. With that said, what stops these animal rights groups and our current politicians from using this example as justification to push additional legislation and break the public trust doctrine? The public trust doctrine holds that government cannot legislate the public trust to give rights and access to only a few but it is to remain for all. Just like earlier in this discussion, it was stated that the government grants access. In reality they do not grant it, but are to assure access for all.

There is no doubt in my mind that Cass Sustien is a nutcase that needs to be watched.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot, regardless of what the public trust doctrine was originally designed to do, the reality, and this has been proven time and again, is that the govt (state and federal) does indeed limit or deny access to these things included in this public trust. Wether it is limiting access to national grasslands, denying access to certain public lands, or banning mourning dove hunts or bear hunts or lion hunts ect...... Often times these limits in regards to the public being able to hunt these animals have been restricted or eliminated because of these animal activists using the initiated measure where by they can use lies and sway public emotion bsed not on fact but rhetoric to accomplish their goals. This has happened all over this country.

That has been one of my issues with this measure all along, it's proponents are free to say and make whatever claims they want, wether factual or not. Some people may take the time to discover what they are being told is not exactly accurate, but most simply hear statements designed to incite a response the sponsors of this measure are looking for. The simple fact they will not use the track record of ND HF operations but rather these few extreme examples of people that have chosen to break the law or operate in violation of the rules governing these enterprises in other states is proof that they are willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish this personal agenda.

Dick even made the statement on this site that they legally can't control who collects signatures to justify that there is in all likelyhood members of HSUS (the nations largest anti hunting group) out collecting signatures to put this measure on the ballot. Maybe it is simplistic thinking, but my OPINION is any time ones agenda (NDH for FC) in regards to a form of "hunting" runs parrallel with that of HSUS's , garners support from HSUS, gives HSUS a platform here in our state to further their agenda of ending all hunting, you are not responsibly protecting the future of hunting itself.

http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/Initiativechart.pdf

Regardless of what anyone may think of the activity of HF, take a look once again at this link and ask yourself if this NDH for FC measure moves forward because of your signature,and ends up on this link as a success for HSUS, how proud you can be as a hunter for being a part of this.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

gst said:


> longshot, regardless of what the public trust doctrine was originally designed to do, the reality, and this has been proven time and again, is that the govt (state and federal) does indeed limit or deny access to these things included in this public trust. Wether it is limiting access to national grasslands, denying access to certain public lands, or banning mourning dove hunts or bear hunts or lion hunts ect...... Often times these limits in regards to the public being able to hunt these animals have been restricted or eliminated because of these animal activists using the initiated measure where by they can use lies and sway public emotion bsed not on fact but rhetoric to accomplish their goals. This has happened all over this country.


I guess I now understand why some have put you on the ignore list. You really haven't read what I have wrote nor have you really looked into the public trust doctrine, the Magna Carta of 1215, the 1842 the Supreme Court ruling of the Magna Carta, or any other Supreme Court rulings.

Instead now you want to discount the public trust doctrine and not answer my question. Since you claim it doesn't do what it was originally intended for I guess in your mind my question didn't need answering. Access has been limited in some cases, but limitations come under more recent rulings that can limited to not impact the natural state (mostly by type of travel across). The recent court rulings have added things like recreational boating and preservation of lands in their natural state in order to protect scenic and wildlife habitat as part of the public trust doctrine. This trust is to be held not just for you and me, but for all future generations also. For example you can still hike to about any destination you want.

Why not answer my question from my previous post;


> The government has broken the public trust in turning over wildlife to private ownership. They broke the public trust, not the current owners of these animals. Now some people think that since it happened long ago it's ok now. With that said, what stops these animal rights groups and our current politicians from using this example as justification to push additional legislation and break the public trust doctrine? The public trust doctrine holds that government cannot legislate the public trust to give rights and access to only a few but it is to remain for all. Just like earlier in this discussion, it was stated that the government grants access.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot, If you want to join the likes of swift and maverick and put me on your ignore list, I'm probably not going to lose much sleep over it. 

You don't seem to understand, I am not "discounting the public trust doctrine" merely pointing out what you have confirmed the govt has and is breaking or modifying it all the time. I'd guess things have maybe changed abit since 1215, even since 1842 for that matter. In 1842, not only could I have hiked to anywhere I wanted to, I could have camped anywhere I wanted to and I could have shot any animal or as many as I wanted any time I wanted ect...... Right or wrong, the govt for various reasons sees fit to modify, limit, control, change ect... this public trust doctrine. In the issue you started discussing as to where these HF animals came from,the govt modified, broke(whatever you want to call it)this public trust doctrine to give these animals to private individuals. You were shown it has happened more than once over the years for various reasons. And yet you and others insinuate these HF animals have been "taken" from the public. That is simply not correct, and part of the disingenuous rhetoric that is bantered about as fact by some.

As to answer your question, what stops animal rights groups and politicians from using the examples of the govt breaking or modifying this public trust doctrine to further their agendas?

Hunters standing united against them, not divided by personal issues such as this HF one that supports their agenda. Unfortunately because of the design of the initiated measure where by a simple majority that can be swayed by lies and rhetoric can create new law governing others regardless of the public trust doctrine, it is an uphill battle. I've provided a small handful of links showing this. So tell me why a group of hunters (NDH for FC) would want to make it easier for them (HSUS) to do so??????


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Like I said gst, it all comes down to the language and my mistrust of our politicians trend of twisting past legislation. As for the Public Trust Doctrine, there are cases that sight it as recent as 1998, from what I am aware of.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

The language is yet another strike against this measure. It was either written by a very poor lawyer, or a very smart one. As it is written I would be very surprised if this measure will stop HF hunting without a much broader interpretation by a judge, which is in my OPINION a very poor way to draft law as it opens the door to inclusion of much more than just what was originally intended.


----------



## alleyyooper (Jul 6, 2007)

*Time for ya'll to take a deep breath.*

First off the county of Saginaw Michigan nor the city it's self is, *in the backwoods of Michigan* any more than Fargo is the back woods of NDK.

Ok go back to the bickering. Really it is all about Money, bragging rights and so forth.

 Al


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

It really doesn't matter if this was in Saginaw county or Cass county, An ols lady and her son were running far more animals on limited acreage than should have, letting the pigs eat what ever died, apparently all within plain veiw of people driving by on the hiway. That's "backwoods" enough for me. The fact is it wouldn't matter if it was dogs, horses, exotic animals or elk, these type people will always cause these type problems. It's these extreme examples Dick seems to post in his disingenuous attempt to portray all HF operators. Imagine the story he tells the nonhunting public when no one else is around to listen!!!


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

alleyyooper said:


> Ok go back to the bickering. Really it is all about Money, bragging rights and so forth.


I guess you really haven't read the post.



> It's these extreme examples Dick seems to post in his disingenuous attempt to portray all HF operators. Imagine the story he tells the nonhunting public when no one else is around to listen!!!


There is a clear reason why both sides disgust me, they will both say and do anything.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Just heard a report today that at the current trend of wolves depleting the elk herds in WY and Mont., elk hunting will likely be changed and eilliminated entirely within two years. So much for public protection of wildlife. Elk producers hang in there you will likely save the species just like the bison producers did. Wouldn't that be something if states had to come to producers to replenish public herds with disease free farm elk.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Fish and Game survey shows declining Lolo elk population
By Brad Iverson-Long
March 1st, 2010

Wolf depredation listed as main causeNew aerial surveys by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) show that the elk population is declining in the Lolo Elk Management Zone in north central Idaho. The number of elk in the area dropped 57 percent since 2006. Wolf predation the main source of the declining numbers of elk, according to an IDFG news release.

Yellowstone elk herd population down since wolves were restored 
Posted: Mar 17, 2010 4:37 PM 
Updated: Mar 17, 2010 4:38 PM

At least 6,070 elk make up the Northern Yellowstone elk herd, a number that has stayed stable since 2006, according to an annual winter aerial survey.

The herd winters between the Northeast Entrance of Yellowstone National Park and Dome Mountain and Dailey Lake in Paradise Valley, Montana. Half of the elk counted this year were inside Yellowstone, while the other half were observed north of the park boundary, according to a news release from the park.

This population count is down significantly from the 9,545 elk counted during the winter of 2004-2005.

Since wolves were restored to the region, there has been a 60 percent decrease in elk numbers, according to the park. However, a significant reduction in both wolf numbers and wolf predation has been observed on the park's northern range, the park said.

11 Feb 2009, 1:12am
Deer, Elk, Bison Wolves
by admin

Wolves Reducing Elk Populations In Montana
A new study of wolves and elk was released last week by the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks that showed the MT wolf population has been increasing exponentially since 1995 at rates of approximately 10% to 34% annually. The best estimate as of December 2007 is that there were a minimum of 422 wolves (73 packs) and 39 breeding packs within the State boundaries of Montana.

The study, entitled Monitoring and Assessment of Wolf-Ungulate Interactions and Population Trends within the Greater Yellowstone Area, Southwestern Montana, and Montana Statewide by Kenneth L. Hamlin and Julie A. Cunningham, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, found that wolves killed approximately 7 to 23 elk per wolf in winter (November through April). Summer kill rates were not estimated.

The study also found that "the number of grizzly bears in southwest Montana and the GYA has increased more than 3-fold since 1987," and the combined effect of wolves and bears has reduced elk calf survival:

In the Northern Yellowstone and Gallatin- Madison elk herds, calf per 100 cow ratios have recently been approximately half or less than levels recorded prior to wolf restoration.

Elk counts from 1994 to 2008 have dropped from 67% to 81% in those herds.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

4590,

pm sent.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I found the article about elk numbers interesting but confusing. Wolves were introduced in 94/95. One report states that elk populations have remained constant in the since 2006 in the park and adjacent part of Montana, the Idaho report says elk populations dropped 57% since 2006. Considering wolves were first introduced inside the park and has the highest wolf population, something is clearly going on with the Idaho area. Dumber elk or more wolves or both? Habitat loss or changes? Bad winters? Loss of wintering grounds? 4590, could you post the links? Thanks.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Elk producers hang in there you will likely save the species just like the bison producers did. Wouldn't that be something if states had to come to producers to replenish public herds with disease free farm elk.


That's the biggest joke of a statement as I have read in awhile.....Bison are a very bad example as market hunting and making a wild animal private property put them where they are at now!

Buffalo Bill and a few other wreckless market hunters killed the wild Bison.....and many indians were hurt from it!!!


----------

