# Measure 2



## Hunter_58346

Just saw an advertisement for measure 2 on channel 8 Grand Forks,,,,,,sponsored AND paid for by the Humane Society!!! Go figure! three guys and one gal all holding bows,,,,,


----------



## jhegg

Seems to be a lot of Devils Lake people in the pocket of the high fence group. Wonder why that is? Maybe it's because people up there seem to think that commercialization of wildlife resources are the only valid use of wildlife resources.

Jim


----------



## Hunter_58346

Maybe its because us country folk take exception to others telling us what is right and wrong and trying to jam their ethics and beliefs down our throats. Sorry,,,,,it dont work up here!


----------



## jhegg

by jhegg,



> Seems to be a lot of Devils Lake people in the pocket of the high fence group. Wonder why that is? Maybe it's because people up there seem to think that commercialization of wildlife resources are the only valid use of wildlife resources.


by Hunter_58346,



> Maybe its because us country folk take exception to others telling us what is right and wrong and trying to jam their ethics and beliefs down our throats. Sorry,,,,,it dont work up here!


Just as I said. Do you "country folks" also object to any assistance from ND taxpayers to alleviate problems with Devils Lake flooding?
Jim


----------



## Hunter_58346

Great response,,,has everything to do with "your" topic. You people that are so set against this whole deal need stand up and take a long look in a full length mirror. Jim, I have heard reports that you are an avid hunter and sportsman,,,,from three people,,,,,doesnt mean squat here. if you dont like what you are watching,,,change the channel!


----------



## Dave Brandt

Jim,

Of course there are a lot of people from Devil's Lake area, it is a hub of wildlife commercialization. Maybe we should start calling it mini-Texas. Ponder that area's stance (or should I say the DL Chamber of commerce and guides and outfitters stance) on legislation in ND from the last decade which promoted commercialization, and of course HF shooting is a logical course of action, it gives them another avenue to suck the pocketbooks of their fat cat "sports" who want everything done for them when it comes to "hunting". North Dakota is being blind here; like I said many years ago, this is not a new comic book being written before our eyes boys and girls, it has been played out in a hell of a lot of other states (and other countries before our ancestors immigrated here). "Those who fail to pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it."

Hunter 90210,
That is exactly what Jim and others are trying to do.....Change the channel. In this case the Outdoor channel which has become driven by industry and money.


----------



## Hunter_58346

Thats fine,,,,but watch the channel that is familiar to you, liberal, union, government, at least you know whats good for EVERYbody else.....I am beginning to see whay SOME people from Fargo are giving everybody from Fargo a bad name and it is a damn shame!


----------



## gst

Jim, Dave, one simple question that the courts probably will not consider how you answer, so you should have no reason not to answer it. IS HSUS ADVERTISING FOR MEASURE 2 IN ND?


----------



## DG

Federal Agent David Brandt said,



> Of course there are a lot of people from Devil's Lake area, it is a hub of wildlife commercialization. Maybe we should start calling it mini-Texas. Ponder that area's stance (or should I say the DL Chamber of commerce and guides and outfitters stance) on legislation in ND from the last decade which promoted commercialization, and of course HF shooting is a logical course of action, it gives them another avenue to suck the pocketbooks of their fat cat "sports" who want everything done for them when it comes to "hunting". North Dakota is being blind here; like I said many years ago, this is not a new comic book being written before our eyes boys and girls, it has been played out in a hell of a lot of other states (and other countries before our ancestors immigrated here). "Those who fail to pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it."


What everyone should know is David Brandt is a biologist with the US Geological Survey in Jamestown. His wages are paid by you the taxpayer. The people "make" the laws and we then hire others to enforce them. However we have an elite few who now want to do more than what they were hired for. WE ARE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP.

We have a lot of good employees hired by the fedgov, but they are not all good.

David Brandt is a sponser of the High Fence Initiative and after he is done with this measure it will be pheasant operations next.

You can veiw him talking about not enough regulation on the pheasant preserves here:

This is meeting of the elite back in june 2006

http://huntersforhighfencehunting.com/t ... initiative


----------



## Hunter_58346

Ahhhh,,,so he does fit my profile ,,,(liberal, government, union, green) now it makes sense....where are you from Dave??? originally I mean


----------



## Dave Brandt

Wow! It baffles me how so many are afraid of the very process this nation was founded upon. For F's sake, the people of North Dakota are simply being asked to vote if they want this activity in their state or not. Last I knew, I was not living in North Dakistan and new laws and regulations as well as changes to existing code are voted upon every year in this manner. If you think that any government body should be given carte blanche in deciding what is best, especially when our legislature only meets biannually, maybe you should move elsewhere. I happen to think our system, while not perfect, works pretty damn well.

GST,

Finally a new question from you! If I answer it will you continue to ask it for the next month, or move on? Contrary to your belief, I have no gag on my mouth, I have no legal council, and don't know crap about what HSUS will/won't do before next Tuesday. While I have not personally seen it other than on this forum today (I don't really watch network tv), I guess I can assume it has aired in ND so your question seems moot. I will tell you unequivically that our committee never asked or wanted them to, in fact we asked them not to do so when we found out yesterday. I can't control them anymore than I can the George W Bush, Bill Clinton, the KKK or Osama Bin Laden. I can only control my own actions and try to help guide the group in this measure. Kind of sounds like how society and life functions doesn't it? HSUS's involvement on their own behalf neither comes as a surpise to me, or changes anything regarding my opinions on High Fence shooting and why it should be banned.

DG (Dwight Grosz of Red Butte Elk shooting Gallery),

I'm sorry that the only weapon in your arsenal revovles around some sort of sociopathic paranoia. You know nothing of me as a person, you simply can't seem to get over that Gordon Kahl complex. If you would not have been so busy hiding your video camera at that sportsman's group coalition meeting so that no one could see what you were doing, you may have realized that I was commenting on the idea of compensation to all hunters for any wild pheasants shot by commercial operations making money off of shoots taking place outside of the regular pheasant season. If that sounds like looking to ban those operations, I assure you, you have misinterpreted it. Remember, I'm that same Federal Agent David Alan Brandt boogey man who dizzies pheasants for youth pheasant hunts every year, ooooooooooooh! For as much as you like to berate Roger K's antics, the maturity level that resounds in your posts speaks volumes to your credibility and personality.


----------



## gst

Dave. Bull****. If this arrogant elitist group calle NDH for FC had not started sponsoring this measure HSUS would not be airing ads here in ND using psuedo hunters to further their agenda which is the end of all hunting. If you are not at least willing to acknowledge that, it truly does show the arrogance of your group.

The claim was made from the start this measure would open the door to HSUS coming into this state and using hunters themselves to further their agenda and there by gaining a degree of legitimacy with the nonhunting public when it comes to them furthering there true agenda of ending allhunting and it was dismissed as scare tactics. Kinda hard to deny that now.

Dave, then simply answer the 8 questions.


----------



## Archimedes

How do you know those aren't ND hunters? That one guy has blood on his arrow. One guy is wearing a Twins jacket. They all state they are ND hunters. What proof do you have that they aren't the real deal?


----------



## DG

Federal Agent David Brandt said,



> I'm sorry that the only weapon in your arsenal revovles around some sort of sociopathic paranoia. You know nothing of me as a person, you simply can't seem to get over that Gordon Kahl complex. If you would not have been so busy hiding your video camera at that sportsman's group coalition meeting so that no one could see what you were doing, you may have realized that I was commenting on the idea of compensation to all hunters for any wild pheasants shot by commercial operations making money off of shoots taking place outside of the regular pheasant season. If that sounds like looking to ban those operations, I assure you, you have misinterpreted it. Remember, I'm that same Federal Agent David Alan Brandt boogey man who dizzies pheasants for youth pheasant hunts every year, ooooooooooooh! For as much as you like to berate Roger K's antics, the maturity level that resounds in your posts speaks volumes to your credibility and personality.


David, Did you view the video? http://huntersforhighfencehunting.com/t ... initiative

Shawn Mckenna looked right into the camera and asked what is the camera for? 
A video camera is lawful at any public meeting. At the end of the clip Gary Masching said turn the camera off. My daughter did so. Do you remember what happened next. Gary wanted a vote to throw me out. Talk about paranoid. He accused me of being from the enemy camp and was there to infiltrate. Things got a little western and he was really wanting me thrown out.

I asked how can I be thrown out of a public meeting? I wasn't saying anything or being disruptive. This was a violation of my freedom to assemble. You, as a federal agent did nothing. You guys didn't want any witnesses to the fear and smear campaign that you were about to unleash on the elk and deer growers. Remember the mantra? Keep it in front of the people.

I testified to this event at Senate Bill 2254

David, you are a member of the wildlife society and were the 2008 president of the wildlife federation. There may be an animal cruelty bill introduced in the 2011 legislative session. The whole template of how this measure went down is going to be laid out in front of the representatives and senators.

David, Let's not leave out your old buddy Land Tawney, regional director for the National wildlife Federation in 2006. He was in Bismarck. Land quit the NWF because of a conflict of interest as he started a group called Montana Sportsman for Obama. Land is now back with NWF in Louisiana. Jim Posewits joined Land promoting Obama. The president should kick back lots of tax payer dollars to his friends at the wildlife federation.

You can still view their infomercial at:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mtsportsmen

They say you can judge a person by the company they keep. Remember Ray Schoenke. This is what the National Rifle Association has to say about him:

http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets ... spx?id=232

AHSA was created with the specific intent to provide political cover for anti-gun politicians by allowing them to claim support from a "sportsmen's" group. In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA's leadership is well documented. For instance, AHSA president Ray Schoenke has a long history of giving political donations to some of the most anti-gun politicians, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy. In 2000, Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation also made donations to the Brady Campaign. AHSA Board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, the Massachusetts anti-gun group. And one of the leading organizers of AHSA is Bob Ricker, who has been a paid expert witness against gun manufacturers in a number of reckless lawsuits. (For more information, see Anti-Gunners Don Camo As Elections Loom.)

David,

If you look under the video of Obama you will see Jim Posewits name, click on it to hear your hero Jim endorsing Obama.


----------



## AdamFisk

Archimedes said:


> How do you know those aren't ND hunters? That one guy has blood on his arrow. One guy is wearing a Twins jacket. They all state they are ND hunters. What proof do you have that they aren't the real deal?


Real ND hutners or not, anybody who helps or appears, on their own accord, in an HSUS commercial can suck it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

For those of you who wonder if these guys are hunters I do know Dave Brandt. I have predator hunted with him and I'm afraid I was to old to keep up most of the time. On cross country skis and with calls Dave took about 40 coyotes in December and January about five years back. Dave and his friends are mostly waterfowl hunters and it is their passion.

Some people are bright in some areas and as dumb as door knobs in others. Like many of you those who voted for Obama I think had to be stupid or looking for a free meal. However, simply because they are dumb in one area doesn't make them dumb in all areas. Do any of you agree on all subjects with all of your friends. If you do start looking for the one who is controlling you. As far as the guy DG was talking about promoting Obama, ya I'll agree he must be a dumb *&&&^%, but does he get everything wrong all of the time?

I can tell I am being fair because I am perhaps ticking everyone off. If that's what honesty brings so be it. If it's true that no good deed goes unpunished so be it.


----------



## Savage260

"Just as I said. Do you "country folks" also object to any assistance from ND taxpayers to alleviate problems with Devils Lake flooding?
Jim"

This is by far the worst, most pointless, most brain dead response I have ever seen on this site. Jim, I am embarrassed for you! :eyeroll:

P.S. no taxpayer money went to FARGO for flood problems????


----------



## barebackjack

jhegg said:


> Seems to be a lot of Devils Lake people in the pocket of the high fence group.
> Jim


You're a tired, broken record. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## jhegg

Savage260 and barebackjack,
Since you are both from Devils Lake HF crowd, I can understand your comments.
Jim


----------



## Hunter_58346

Hey Jim,,,just a quick question,,,,,where is the high fence operation up here???


----------



## barebackjack

jhegg said:


> Savage260 and barebackjack,
> Since you are both from Devils Lake HF crowd, I can understand your comments.
> Jim


And the old record goes around again.


----------



## Hunter_58346

Ahhhh, you can't find one,,,,since you are such an avid sportsman i bet if you come up you could smell one out!!!


----------



## gst

Plainsman, archimedes, as I said I could give two ****s wether the people in the ads or the sponsors of this measure are "hunters" or not. They have opened the door to HSUS pushing their agenda here in ND thru these ads. ANY "hunter" that supports a position of HSUS regarding hunting either does not understand what HSUS is or they are so egotistical that they are willing to make a deal with the devil to get a personal agenda passed that pushes their "ethics" onto everyone else. Either way I don't think much of them as hunters or people.


----------



## barebackjack

AdamFisk said:


> Archimedes said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know those aren't ND hunters? That one guy has blood on his arrow. One guy is wearing a Twins jacket. They all state they are ND hunters. What proof do you have that they aren't the real deal?
> 
> 
> 
> Real ND hutners or not, anybody who helps or appears, on their own accord, in an HSUS commercial can suck it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

 :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: THIS!!!

Dont care if they're real ND hunters or not, they are REAL idiots for being on a commercial payed for and put out by the humane society.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Plainsman, archimedes, as I said I could give two sh*ts wether the people in the ads or the sponsors of this measure are "hunters" or not. They have opened the door to HSUS pushing their agenda here in ND thru these ads. ANY "hunter" that supports a position of HSUS regarding hunting either does not understand what HSUS is or they are so egotistical that they are willing to make a deal with the devil to get a personal agenda passed that pushes their "ethics" onto everyone else. Either way I don't think much of them as hunters or people.


Leadfed said,

Once again gst, that is your point of view. I hate HSUS, peta and any other tree hugging dip **** just as much as you and I've proved it in ways more than words (but thats another story and years ago). You're just using them as a scape goat to push "your" agenda to the "sportsman" that you care so much about. How come you keep preaching that the appocalypse is coming for the "hunter/sportsman" if this measure passes? Do you honestly think if this passes all hell is going to break loose and we as a hunter will be extinct because of it? Get real. First your claim that if this passes, landowners won't be able to sell their elk or deer for meat and now this. Scrambling is what I call it.


----------



## Plainsman

> Real ND hutners or not, anybody who helps or appears, on their own accord, in an HSUS commercial can suck it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: THIS!!!


I find that kind of response from adults disappointing.



> Plainsman, archimedes, as I said I could give two sh*ts wether the people in the ads or the sponsors of this measure are "hunters" or not.


Everyone should care because it gives an indication of intent. gst, I know your problem is everything for ranchers and to heck with everyone else. You may notice I don't always agree with fellow scientists, I don't always agree with fellow hunters, but why is it farmers and ranchers stick together when some are clearly wrong? Arent principles stronger than professional affiliation? They are for me. That's why I endure the ridicule from my fellow hunters which I try do something for at every opportunity.


----------



## gst

leadfed, no one is suggesting we will wake up tommorrow and huinting will be gone. HSUS know's they can not do this as well, they understand incrementaly over an extended period of time they will accomplish their agenda. They have done so in many other states. It would be an egotistical mistake to believe it could not happen here. But then again egotistical seems to be a trait with those sponsoring this measure.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed, no one is suggesting we will wake up tommorrow and huinting will be gone. HSUS know's they can not do this as well, they understand incrementaly over an extended period of time they will accomplish their agenda. They have done so in many other states. It would be an egotistical mistake to believe it could not happen here. But then again egotistical seems to be a trait with those sponsoring this measure.


Leadfed said,

On the other hand gst, it would be an egotistical mistake to believe that if measure 2 passes we are all of the sudden in the crosshairs of HSUS with the saftey off. Capishe?


----------



## gst

No it would be a prudent repsonse to think that HSUS had just gained another incremental victory in their agenda to end all forms of hunting. And it was done by a group of "hunters" right here in good old ND. :eyeroll:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> No it would be a prudent repsonse to think that HSUS had just gained another incremental victory in their agenda to end all forms of hunting. And it was done by a group of "hunters" right here in good old ND. :eyeroll:


Leadfed said,

No, it is a good service that the "hunters" right here in good old ND are doing to try to put an end to this black eye we have to show when those goups you have a fetish with come after us.


----------



## barebackjack

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it would be a prudent repsonse to think that HSUS had just gained another incremental victory in their agenda to end all forms of hunting. And it was done by a group of "hunters" right here in good old ND. :eyeroll:
> 
> 
> 
> Leadfed said,
> 
> No, it is a good service that the "hunters" right here in good old ND are doing to try to put an end to this black eye we have to show when those goups you have a fetish with come after us.
Click to expand...

Than by that logic, we as gun owners should just go ahead and willingly and feverishly give up our "assault rifles", our AR "black guns", our SKS's, our AK clones, our "sniper rifles", our high capacity magazines, we better get rid of "expansive cop killer" bullets too. You know, to put an end to the "black eye" and show the real anti-gun people we're capable of policing ourselves. You know, because those are time and time again the first items the true anti's come after.


----------



## leadfed

barebackjack said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it would be a prudent repsonse to think that HSUS had just gained another incremental victory in their agenda to end all forms of hunting. And it was done by a group of "hunters" right here in good old ND. :eyeroll:
> 
> 
> 
> Leadfed said,
> 
> No, it is a good service that the "hunters" right here in good old ND are doing to try to put an end to this black eye we have to show when those goups you have a fetish with come after us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Than by that logic, we as gun owners should just go ahead and willingly and feverishly give up our "assault rifles", our AR "black guns", our SKS's, our AK clones, our "sniper rifles", our high capacity magazines, we better get rid of "expansive cop killer" bullets too. You know, to put an end to the "black eye" and show the real anti-gun people we're capable of policing ourselves. You know, because those are time and time again the first items the true anti's come after.
Click to expand...

Leadfed said,

Are we talking about weapons now or shooting an elk in the corner of a high fence? Cause if we are we should start a new topic.


----------



## barebackjack

leadfed said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leadfed said,
> 
> No, it is a good service that the "hunters" right here in good old ND are doing to try to put an end to this black eye we have to show when those goups you have a fetish with come after us.
> 
> 
> 
> Than by that logic, we as gun owners should just go ahead and willingly and feverishly give up our "assault rifles", our AR "black guns", our SKS's, our AK clones, our "sniper rifles", our high capacity magazines, we better get rid of "expansive cop killer" bullets too. You know, to put an end to the "black eye" and show the real anti-gun people we're capable of policing ourselves. You know, because those are time and time again the first items the true anti's come after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Leadfed said,
> 
> Are we talking about weapons now or shooting an elk in the corner of a high fence? Cause if we are we should start a new topic.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but the same principle absolutely applies to both topics.


----------



## TK33

> it is a good service that the "hunters" right here in good old ND are doing to try to put an end to this black eye we have


Who exactly is the service for? Who exactly decides this? When are your ethics not my ethics and vice versa? The ultimate question, where does this end? BBJ posted some trapping facts, some people in those states thought trapping was fine, others didn't, see what happens when people play God with ethics?


> I find that kind of response from adults disappointing


Yeah, kind of like when someone calls someone that disagrees with them obamaboy or something. :roll: 


> That's why I endure the ridicule from my fellow hunters which I try do something for at every opportunity.


You truly are a martyr. :rollin: 


> but why is it farmers and ranchers stick together when some are clearly wrong?


Because this measure is not just going after what you perceive it as going after. Some maybe wrong but this measure could have consequences that effect most if not all. I don't know what it will take for people like you, jhegg, Gilmore, leadfed, and others to realize that not everyone who is against this are in favor of HF Shooting. Some of us realize the unintended.

Even the mostly liberal editorials from the Fargo Forum won't support this, that surprised me. I thought for sure they were on board with this. Really puts this measure into perspective.


----------



## Plainsman

> Nice try, but the same principle absolutely applies to both topics.


Not in the least. No one is killing people with those firearms in North Dakota. I notice you also fall for the anti trick of calling them assault rifles. 
Then there is that second amendment thing in the constitution of the United States. Find the high fence operation in the constitution and I'll back off right now. Shame on you for bringing up firearms and giving people like PETA anymore ideas. It indicates to me your ego is more interested in winning an argument than our firearms rights. Leave firearms out of it.


----------



## Savage260

Savage260 and barebackjack,
Since you are both from Devils Lake HF crowd, I can understand your comments.
Jim

No, Jim, I really don't think you are capable of understanding. Your blinders are on so tightly you can't see the tip of your own nose. You are a zealot, yes, full of zeal. Just like the ones from the bible. Your cause is "holy" to you and you think you are a better person for it. That is a load of BS, but just like any other zealot, religious or otherwise, you believe it. I never even knew ND had HF operations until I started reading about it on this site. As a matter of fact I was never opposed to #2 until Plainsman ruined it for me with your elitist type thinking. There is no "HF crowd" around DL as Hunter 58346 pointed out, just ordinary people who are intelligent enough to not step in the bull $hit you folks are throwing. Jim, when I met you in Fargo you seemed like a pretty good guy, and a lot of people say you are, but after reading your idiotic post about Devils Lake I have lost a lot of respect for you.

I am just an ordinary guy, hunter, and sportsman. I don't belive I am better than any one who doesn't share my views or methods. After reading a post by Plainsman where I learned if I didn't back the FC crowd I was not a TRUE SPORTSMAN, I understood that you folks see yourself as champions of justice, and the only REAL and TRUE voice of ND hunters and sportmen. I can almost see the red S and your flowing cape :rollin:

I am against HF operations selling "Hunts" but I am not against their operation. My blood pressure doesn't go up when some one talks about their "trophy", and cry because they paid for it when I got mine a different, NOT BETTER, just different way. I also don't see taking 600-800+yd shots at game animals to be SPORTSMAN like, but I won't tell you not to do it. I hope I never push my views on any one else the way you elitists are trying to push yours on the rest of the state. It is direspectful, tasteless, and just plain WRONG. 
This "black eye" you folks think is real is public perception, and it will be there no matter what you try to ban. It will always be there until hunting is gone for good. As far as the real or perceived HSUS affiliations, the connection is there, doesn't matter if you like it or not. You are accepting them(money to sway votes), and they are using you as a vehicle to kill our hunting heritage. You can't deny or cover that up.

TK33, thanks for showing how these "champions" are really no better than the rest of us! :thumb:


----------



## Savage260

Shame on you for bringing up firearms and giving people like PETA anymore ideas. It indicates to me your ego is more interested in winning an argument than our firearms rights. Leave firearms out of it.

Oh, so bringing up things like #2 doesn't give PETA and HSUS any ideas? Again, it is ok if the elitists do it. :eyeroll:

BBJ's arguement is 100% VALID. No one is killing people with high fences, or pen raised animals either. WHAT IS YOUR POINT???

It is the same "black eye" arguement the elitists are using, so why can't we lesser folk use it?

PETA and HSUS are probably reading this right now lauging their a$$es off because the elitists are doing all the work for them. DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Simple game plan, but it seems to be working for them!


----------



## gst

Plainsman, do you happen to recall a conversation where it was poinnted out to you that our state constitution does indeed address the property rights issue. I believe you even admitted this was a property right as a result of that conversation. You are missing the point. That point being the prudent way to protect something is not to side with and invite in the very people aiming to end what you are protecting just to gain a degree of personal satisfaction.

I do not think it prudent for the hen to invite the fox into the chicken coop with the belief he will keep the racoon from eating the eggs.


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> Nice try, but the same principle absolutely applies to both topics.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the least. No one is killing people with those firearms in North Dakota. I notice you also fall for the anti trick of calling them assault rifles.
> Then there is that second amendment thing in the constitution of the United States. Find the high fence operation in the constitution and I'll back off right now. Shame on you for bringing up firearms and giving people like PETA anymore ideas. It indicates to me your ego is more interested in winning an argument than our firearms rights. Leave firearms out of it.
Click to expand...

You dont see the correlation because you choose not to.

They are PRECISELY the same principle. Siding with the true enemy in the hopes to alleviate pressure from said enemy. Who is it bringing up ideas and giving groups like PETA anymore ideas? Who has HSUS in the hip pocket right now (or is it the other way around?).

Talk about ego! Take a look in the mirror man.

And perhaps you didn't see the "" surrounding "assault rifles"???


----------



## TK33

> Like many of you those who voted for Obama I think had to be stupid or looking for a free meal. However, simply because they are dumb in one area doesn't make them dumb in all areas. Do any of you agree on all subjects with all of your friends. If you do start looking for the one who is controlling you


Or maybe people who voted for Obama knew that McCain's economic advisor was an idiot named Phil Gramms, ironically from Texas, the same guy who pushed for a bunch of the fiscal, financial, commodity, and lending things you love to rip on liberals for. He was in a lot of Barney Franks and Clinton's works, what does that matter I guess. Or maybe people who voted for Obama were tired of the same old, I don't know. You have guys like me completely figured out, I have a job, then I have a side job, I work no less than 70 hours every week all year long. My spare time I spend hunting and fishing, usually with my son, but you know me Plainsman, just waiting for that handout. :down:

I don't agree with my friends on everything, we generally respect each other's opinions and move on. Like here, there is a guy who is not on the same side as me but I would still recommend anyone to his business. I hope that doesn't make me dumb in some areas or not smart in others.

What a lot of people who oppose this don't need is someone telling them what is good for them, we have all seen where that gets us. Now this measure has entered an unchartered and dangerous ground. You continuously bring up how many years you have been hunting and how it is all going to hell in a handbasket. Once again I ask the question: Has it ever occurred to any of you guys that maybe pushing laws and legislation around without looking at full consequences has had at least a little part in the demise of the hunting heritage here??????????????


----------



## Plainsman

Guys the reason firearms and high fence is different for me is because people with AR's are one of us, but high fence shooters are not hunters. They are not one of us.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Guys the reason firearms and high fence is different for me is because people with AR's are one of us, but high fence shooters are not hunters. They are not one of us.


This attitude right here is the whole basis behind this measure. Someone is not "one of us".  Do we all have to be in your elitist group confined to your elitist parameters to be considered hunters??? How ARROGANT is this ideology? But it is what is driving this whole measure. Everyone must conform to our standards to be considered " one of us". That is the most egotistical arrogant statement made defending this measure I have heard yet. But it is the most clear peek into the ideologies of the people sponsoring this measure and many of it's supporters. Perhaps this is why many hunters do not support this measure and the ideologies behind it. They believe this "one of us" should be determined by the "one" not the "us" . Thanks for the black and white elitist veiw into what is driving this measure. :eyeroll: + This division from these elitist attitudes is what will be used by groups like HSUS to segment hunters and gain incremental victories. Just as the anti gun folks try to do. But the sponsors and some supporters of this measure either can not understand that or are so consumed in everyone becoming "one of us" they do not care.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

gst, skunks are animals same as a dog in that they are warm blooded etc.... but the reason one is cast out is that it carry's and spreads rabies,sprays horrid smelling liquid from there glands etc.. The point is that promoting or protecting a skunk is the same as promoting canned shooting as hunting and calling the skunk a dog. You want to claim property rights violation but in the same breath support the loss of rights by other landowners. Much like the skunk, HFS can go unoticed but once discovered it needs to be dispatched before it can spread any more disease than it already has!

So do not imply that canned shooting is the same or even close to our second amendment rights. I do not see anywhere in the Constitution the RIGHT TO SHOOT AN ANIMAL INSIDE A CAGED AREA AND PRETEND IT IS HUNTING, I do however see the right to bear arm though!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

> Or maybe people who voted for Obama knew that McCain's economic advisor was an idiot named Phil Gramms


Ahhhh, so your saying you made the right decision because Obama's economic advisers are doing a better job? I'm just jabbing you a little TK, because your so sure of yourself, just like you were so sure of yourself about Obama. I was simply trying to shock you enough to think things through again.

You know I wasn't even going to get into these debates this year, but when the HSUS thing came up I just had to say something. The other thing is I find so much hypocrisy. People say how many nonresidents there should be, but they should not judge high fence shooting. People say baiting is bad, but those same people will support high fence shooting. We even have people who think crossbows are cheating, but somehow locking an animal in an escape proof fence and shooting it is sporting. I just don't get it. OK, now you can all jump on that last statement, but if I have to interpret it for you what I don't get is the double standards.

The odd thing is we all have different standards and I have seen many hunting methods condemned. Look at the poor guys who shoot over water and how they get accused of being roost busters right away. I would guess that many of the accusers don't have the expertise to judge what is a roost vs what is an evening emergent and responding waterfowl feeding behavior. I feel sorry for those guys, and it's the same people who are the first to jump all over them. Myself I am always disturbed by the more holy than thou traditional archers condemning compounds. Last year I did 80% of my hunting with a longbow, but would never condemn a compound shooter. We all have different priorities and when a large enough percentage of us come to the same opinion changes will occurr.


----------



## gst

Ron what is the group HSUS that NDH for FC opened the door to supporting your causes view on shooting these skunks? :wink:

What is being compared here is not the right itself, but how you best go about protecting it. Apparently some either do not comprehend that or simply do and realize their answers do not help their cause.

Plainsman, do you believe all people must conform to your standards to be considered hunters or as you say, "one of us" ?


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, do you believe all people must conform to your standards to be considered hunters or as you say, "one of us" ?


Absolutely not, but I have noticed many on here who will vote no say that they don't consider high fence shooting hunting. Well, if it isn't hunting then those doing the shooting are not hunters. Since most of us on this site are hunters the facts then follow that those doing the shooting are not one of us. Simple sequential logic.

Also I have noticed that there is a core group on this site. Some spend most of their time in waterfowl, some in deer hunting, and other in the predator hunting threads. Then there are those who come here only to protect special interests. I would also consider them as "not one of us". For example I have never seen some of the people in the measure 2 threads in the rifle form, the deer form, the waterfowl forms, or anywhere else on the site. One has to ask if they are protecting hunting or their wallet.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Or maybe people who voted for Obama knew that McCain's economic advisor was an idiot named Phil Gramms
> 
> 
> 
> We all have different priorities and when a large enough percentage of us come to the same opinion changes will occurr.
Click to expand...

Plainsman after reading that post you made that includes the above sentence, why then are you condemning people for not being "one of us" to defend your position on HF? The last sentence of your post is why so many hunters are opposing this measure and why opening the door to HSUS thru this measure is a bad idea. You want people to stop and think, think about what your last sentence implies may happen when the nonhunting public can be used to determine issues relating to hunting. If you do not see the inmplications you are either blind or unwilling to consider the negatives of this measure because you are more concerned over a handful of people not being "one of us". Are the vast majority of people you want voting on huting issues thru these initiated measures "one of us" ???? How many of these people beig asked to vote on this measure have that "expertises" on any hunting issue you claim is needed to determine waterfowl hunting techniques before condemning others? I'm not just "jabbing" you here, I am kicking you right in the *** to get you to wake the hell up. And I think many hunters here in ND would do the same.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

How to best protect it? Come on gst, that is the most out of touch statement you have made so far! You are not trying to protect hunting, you are trying to protect canned shooting being paraded around as hunting by you and your groups.

We in ND made it illegal to chase animals with vehicles because of ethics, we made it illegal to shoot ducks,geese,deer, and upland from inside vehicles because of ethics. We made use of spotlights for hunting illegal, and the list goes on and on all done to protect hunting overall because of the poor image it displays to the public both hunters and non hunters. Canned shooting is like the use of a spot light. Effective in taking your game, but not fair chase.

I feel much better about actual sportsmen and non hunters chosing ways to protect our hunting heritage than any of the groups who are opposing this.


----------



## spentwings

Personally I like skunks!
There's nothing like skunk scent early in the morning.
What really smells here is measure 2 and the lame arguments on both sides.
Do I think HF operators or the majority of ND land owners are sportsman friendly,,,no,, but then why should they be?
Do I think the rest of us wish they were,,,but of course. This thing is property rights, not calling a skunk a dog.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Plainsman, do you believe all people must conform to your standards to be considered hunters or as you say, "one of us" ?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not, but I have noticed many on here who will vote no say that they don't consider high fence shooting hunting. Well, if it isn't hunting then those doing the shooting are not hunters. Since most of us on this site are hunters the facts then follow that those doing the shooting are not one of us. Simple sequential logic.
> 
> Also I have noticed that there is a core group on this site. Some spend most of their time in waterfowl, some in deer hunting, and other in the predator hunting threads. Then there are those who come here only to protect special interests. I would also consider them as "not one of us". For example I have never seen some of the people in the measure 2 threads in the rifle form, the deer form, the waterfowl forms, or anywhere else on the site. One has to ask if they are protecting hunting or their wallet.
Click to expand...

So why then are you considering people that may dooneactivity to not behunters? What is this same person uses a long bow to shot a big horn sheep after paying a guide $20,0000 dollars, is that very same person then magically a "hunter" in your opinion?

Now you are determining who is "one of us " and a "hunter" in your eyes simply because of how or what they post about on a website?????? You are questioning someones commitment to protecting hunting that you do not even know ofr have even met simply of this?? I have made it perfectly clear from the beginnning my position comes from the very core of protecting hunting thru not allowing elitist arrogant "I know better than anyone what hunting should be and what people are one of us" groups from taking that ability to deteermine this themselves away from others is as big a threat to the heritage of hunting as anything. And yet you make the assumption my comments are designed to line my pockets simply because I don't post in other forums. What an arrogant ***.

Your "I've been hunting since you have been in diapers so I know what is best and can determine who is a hunter and who is not one of us" provides a clear insight into what is driving this measure.


----------



## gst

Ron Gilmore said:


> How to best protect it? Come on gst, that is the most out of touch statement you have made so far! You are not trying to protect hunting, you are trying to protect canned shooting being paraded around as hunting by you and your groups.
> 
> We in ND made it illegal to chase animals with vehicles because of ethics, we made it illegal to shoot ducks,geese,deer, and upland from inside vehicles because of ethics. We made use of spotlights for hunting illegal, and the list goes on and on all done to protect hunting overall because of the poor image it displays to the public both hunters and non hunters. Canned shooting is like the use of a spot light. Effective in taking your game, but not fair chase.
> 
> I feel much better about actual sportsmen and non hunters chosing ways to protect our hunting heritage than any of the groups who are opposing this.


Ron . Back when you could chase down a deer ina pickup legally here in ND how many deer were there? Back when you could spot light deer legaly here in ND how may deer were there? These laws are as much meant to manage wildgame populations as they are ethically based. This measure has nothing to do with managing populations of wild game regardless of the lies sponsors tell people that these domestic farmed elk are wild game.


----------



## Plainsman

> why then are you condemning people for not being "one of us" to defend your position on HF?


Well in these debates I see many people say that high fence shooting is not hunting, but they will vote no anyway. So if it isn't hunting the guys doing the shooting are not hunters right? So since most of us on here are hunters it follows in logic sequence that they are not one of us.
Many people say they would be ok with it if the didn't advertise it as hunting. Well the high fence people will not do that so they have chosen this path of all or nothing. If it wasn't held up as a "real hunt" I doubt we would all be here debating. Take them to a slaughter house - great, sell your meat- good, raise your elk and have them regularly inspected - thank you, take measures to make sure your animals don't mix with wild animals - good for you, I support that. Your a rancher not a hunting, and I am a hunter and not a rancher, but I often support ranchers. I am disspointed however in how often this is a once way street.

To those ranchers who do support hunting you have my gratitude. I hope you have some idea of how appreciative we hunters are. I hope and pray for your success and happiness. God Bless.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> why then are you condemning people for not being "one of us" to defend your position on HF?
> 
> 
> 
> . Your a rancher not a hunting, and I am a hunter and not a rancher, but I often support ranchers. I am disspointed however in how often this is a once way street.
Click to expand...

So to be clear here are you saying simply because someone does something you do not do they are not a hunter/hunting? 
Plainsman you never answered the question, can someone shoot a deer in a fence, then go and pay a guide $20,000 dollars to shoot a big horn sheep in the wild and where does he then fall in your he is /is not a hunter rule book?


----------



## spentwings

Plainsman said:


> why then are you condemning people for not being "one of us" to defend your position on HF?
> 
> 
> 
> Well in these debates I see many people say that high fence shooting is not hunting, but they will vote no anyway. So if it isn't hunting the guys doing the shooting are not hunters right? So since most of us on here are hunters it follows in logic sequence that they are not one of us.
> Many people say they would be ok with it if the didn't advertise it as hunting. Well the high fence people will not do that so they have chosen this path of all or nothing. If it wasn't held up as a "real hunt" I doubt we would all be here debating. Take them to a slaughter house - great, sell your meat- good, raise your elk and have them regularly inspected - thank you, take measures to make sure your animals don't mix with wild animals - good for you, I support that. Your a rancher not a hunting, and I am a hunter and not a rancher, but I often support ranchers. I am disspointed however in how often this is a once way street.
> 
> To those ranchers who do support hunting you have my gratitude. I hope you have some idea of how appreciative we hunters are. I hope and pray for your success and happiness. God Bless.
Click to expand...

The best post I've seen on either side.


----------



## eliptiabeht

Plainsman said:


> I am disspointed however in how often this is a once way street.


There is a comment that you need to look back at so many of your posts and really really really think about!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## spentwings

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why then are you condemning people for not being "one of us" to defend your position on HF?
> 
> 
> 
> . Your a rancher not a hunting, and I am a hunter and not a rancher, but I often support ranchers. I am disspointed however in how often this is a once way street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So to be clear here are you saying simply because someone does something you do not do they are not a hunter/hunting?
> Plainsman you never answered the question, can someone shoot a deer in a fence, then go and pay a guide $20,000 dollars to shoot a big horn sheep in the wild and where does he then fall in your he is /is not a hunter rule book?
Click to expand...

Since I'm here at the moment, I'll answer if I may,,,apples and oranges my friend. A ridiculous comparison.


----------



## Plainsman

eliptiabeht said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am disspointed however in how often this is a once way street.
> 
> 
> 
> There is a comment that you need to look back at so many of your posts and really really really think about!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'm dense eliptiabeht so you will need to explain that. I will take no offense, so let me have it straight so I understand.


----------



## gst

spent wings, Plainsman is making a determination of who is a hunter based on what they do, shoot an animal behind a fence you are not a hunter in his opinion, I am merely seeing if that same person then goes on a 20 day trip into the wilds of BC with a guide and shoots a world class big horn sheep is that person then magically a hunter in Plainsman eyes? There is no comaprison being made of the two different "hunts", just a question how this person that beleives he knows what determines wether someone is a hunter makes this determination for himself and thru this measure for others.


----------



## spentwings

gst...I believe in property rights. 
But I definitely agree with Plainsman,,,HF isn't hunting and if you wouldn't promote it as such,
animosity against HF wouldn't be as strong. 
I have no dog in this fight,,,there's nothing intrinsically wrong with HF...and the spin on both sides makes me laugh.


----------



## gst

spent wings, I have stated many times on this site and FBO I believe HFH would not give me what I need to take from the experiece to call it hunting. That is MY personal choice which is amazingly no so different from many supporters of this measure. I simply do not believe you, I or NDH for FC has the right to make that determination for others.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> spent wings, Plainsman is making a determination of who is a hunter based on what they do, shoot an animal behind a fence you are not a hunter in his opinion, I am merely seeing if that same person then goes on a 20 day trip into the wilds of BC with a guide and shoots a world class big horn sheep is that person then magically a hunter in Plainsman eyes? There is no comaprison being made of the two different "hunts", just a question how this person that beleives he knows what determines wether someone is a hunter makes this determination for himself and thru this measure for others.


Leadfed said

Absofrickenlutely gst. You know why? Because when he or she gets there the sheep are not in a fence! That is what a hunt is, when the animal has an" out" so to say. Haha, nice choice of hunts too, you picked one of the toughest most demanding hunts in N america. Why don't you check success rates on that sheep hunt in the wilds of BC. Ill bet that old steak dinner its not 100% :wink: 
There is no hunt involved gst if it is a guarentee. You shoot at a monster elk in a high fence and miss, you laugh, either shoot again cause he probably isn't scared of gunshots or you chase him to the other side of the fence. My god guy, you are just sounding funny now.


----------



## spentwings

gst....I'm not sure if I understood your post.
Supporters of Measure 2 picked the wrong fight. Imposing one's ethics on another is B.S.
I don't call HF hunting,,,but so what. Again, # 2 is B.S.,,, and in a perverse way I'm your ally.

Leadfed...thanks for that clarification. :iroll:


----------



## eliptiabeht

Plainsman said:


> For example I have never seen some of the people in the measure 2 threads in the rifle form, the deer form, the waterfowl forms, or anywhere else on the site. One has to ask if they are protecting hunting or their wallet.


Maybe you are talking about leadfed??? He joined Oct. 18th 2010 and every single post is in correlation to the HF issue. Maybe it's ok for him to join as he is in agreement with you so he is a real hunter and not all about his wallet??

I can pretty well gaurantee you there are some people that are every bit as ethical and every bit as real of a hunter as those on the other side of this issue!!


----------



## gst

spentwings said:


> gst....I'm not sure if I understood your post.
> Supporters of Measure 2 picked the wrong fight. Imposing one's ethics on another is B.S.
> I don't call HF hunting,,,but so what. Again, # 2 is B.S.,,, and in a perverse way I'm your ally.
> 
> Leadfed...thanks for that clarification. :iroll:


Spentwings, That is what I have argued all along that each individul must be able to determine on their own what they must take from the experience to call it hunting for themselves. Someone else can not make that determination for others. I simply asked Plainsman that question to see if somehow magically the same person who is not a hunter one day because they do something he does not agree with is suddenly a hunter the next when he does what plainsman does agree with. Anyone is entitled to their OPNION of what is hunting and who is a hunter, but when you move to pass legislation to limit ones ability to make these choices themselves, and have the nations leading antihunting group spending thousands of dollars advertising to support your agenda, it is probably NOT in the best interests of hunting.


----------



## spentwings

eliptiabeht said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example I have never seen some of the people in the measure 2 threads in the rifle form, the deer form, the waterfowl forms, or anywhere else on the site. One has to ask if they are protecting hunting or their wallet.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you are talking about leadfed??? He joined Oct. 18th 2010 and every single post is in correlation to the HF issue. Maybe it's ok for him to join as he is in agreement with you so he is a real hunter and not all about his wallet??
> 
> I can pretty well gaurantee you there are some people that are every bit as ethical and every bit as real of a hunter as those on the other side of this issue!!
Click to expand...

You have 19 posts...at least in the archives...most con measure 2.
Yeah know,,,tequila Hispanifies the brain.

gst...like I said,,,measure 2 stinks and I hope it's defeated.I


----------



## crna

I guess i don't understand the argument about the fact that measure 2 infringes on land owners property rights. We have many laws and regulations on what you can or cannot do on your own property. I can't open a brothel down the street. We have covenants in every neighborhood in town that describes what you can or cannot build or have on YOUR property. Just the same, a rancher/landowner must abide by the same NDGF regulations that i must follow. You can't harvest as many deer or pheasants, etc. as you want. As much as the argument against this measure pushes for the issue of property rights --- It's not! This is about ethics. This is a society that is governed and influenced by ethics. Ethics guide as everyday and are not only applicable to property rights but to every other aspect in society.


----------



## eliptiabeht

spentwings said:


> eliptiabeht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example I have never seen some of the people in the measure 2 threads in the rifle form, the deer form, the waterfowl forms, or anywhere else on the site. One has to ask if they are protecting hunting or their wallet.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you are talking about leadfed??? He joined Oct. 18th 2010 and every single post is in correlation to the HF issue. Maybe it's ok for him to join as he is in agreement with you so he is a real hunter and not all about his wallet??
> 
> I can pretty well gaurantee you there are some people that are every bit as ethical and every bit as real of a hunter as those on the other side of this issue!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> tequila Hispanifies the brain.
Click to expand...

 :beer:


----------



## spentwings

crna said:


> I guess i don't understand the argument about the fact that measure 2 infringes on land owners property rights. We have many laws and regulations on what you can or cannot do on your own property. I can't open a brothel down the street. We have covenants in every neighborhood in town that describes what you can or cannot build or have on YOUR property. Just the same, a rancher/landowner must abide by the same NDGF regulations that i must follow. You can't harvest as many deer or pheasants, etc. as you want. As much as the argument against this measure pushes for the issue of property rights --- It's not! This is about ethics. This is a society that is governed and influenced by ethics. Ethics guide as everyday and are not only applicable to property rights but to every other aspect in society.


You're so wrong!
Maybe your hunting ethics and mine,,,but then HF isn't hunting.
Measure 2 is nothing more than political correctness that spilled over into a sport we love.


----------



## leadfed

spentwings said:


> crna said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess i don't understand the argument about the fact that measure 2 infringes on land owners property rights. We have many laws and regulations on what you can or cannot do on your own property. I can't open a brothel down the street. We have covenants in every neighborhood in town that describes what you can or cannot build or have on YOUR property. Just the same, a rancher/landowner must abide by the same NDGF regulations that i must follow. You can't harvest as many deer or pheasants, etc. as you want. As much as the argument against this measure pushes for the issue of property rights --- It's not! This is about ethics. This is a society that is governed and influenced by ethics. Ethics guide as everyday and are not only applicable to property rights but to every other aspect in society.
> 
> 
> 
> You're so wrong!
> Maybe your hunting ethics and mine,,,but then HF isn't hunting.
> Measure 2 is nothing more than political correctness that spilled over into a sport we love.
Click to expand...

Leadfed said,

If 50 % of private land in ND was high fenced would that affect the average sportsman in ND if he/she didn't have "ins" to a good hunting area as a lot of normal sportsmen don't? Take in mind these wouldn't be flat pastures and fields but areas more than likely where deer congregate. A lot of people will say, come on there is no way 50% of the prime deer/elk habitat will ever be high fenced. But the old addage of never say never comes into play and maybe it ends up being more than 50% some day. Im not worried about the near future folks as I am smart enough to know it probably wont get to that point in my life time. My kids or grand kids or nephews and nieces though....well im not so sure. Don't forget these can be HIGH dollar operations with lots of revenue. And we all know money talks in a lot of peoples eyes.

Just something to think about


----------



## spentwings

Supply and demand?
There aren't enough HF killers in the world that would require 50% of prime ND.
My deer hunting would cease to exist if national grasslands were closed to hunting,,,a more likely scenario than what you suggest.
You, like the alarmists on the other side...are just that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## leadfed

spentwings said:


> Supply and demand?
> There aren't enough HF killers in the world that would require 50% of prime ND.
> My deer hunting would cease to exist if national grasslands were closed to hunting,,,a more likely scenario than what you suggest.
> You, like the alarmists on the other side...are just that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


Tell that to all the texans that have to hunt belly button to ******* with every other tom dick and harry on public land. And then ask them why they have to hunt like that?


----------



## Savage260

If 50 % of private land in ND was high fenced would that affect the average sportsman in ND if he/she didn't have "ins" to a good hunting area as a lot of normal sportsmen don't? Take in mind these wouldn't be flat pastures and fields but areas more than likely where deer congregate. A lot of people will say, come on there is no way 50% of the prime deer/elk habitat will ever be high fenced. But the old addage of never say never comes into play and maybe it ends up being more than 50% some day. Im not worried about the near future folks as I am smart enough to know it probably wont get to that point in my life time. My kids or grand kids or nephews and nieces though....well im not so sure. Don't forget these can be HIGH dollar operations with lots of revenue. And we all know money talks in a lot of peoples eyes.

So we go from what 3-10(I don't have any idea how many there are) maybe HF operations in ND to 50% of private land? YEA........NO. Not even in the distant future. And what is the difference if all the private land is posted and we "normal sportsmen" dont have an IN? We won't hunt in an HF enclosure, but we also won't pay for land access, so we are screwed either way in this future you speak of.....correct?

This is all about "if you don't do it my way, you are not as good as I am". Plain and simple.


----------



## TK33

> Ahhhh, so your saying you made the right decision because Obama's economic advisers are doing a better job? I'm just jabbing you a little TK, because your so sure of yourself, just like you were so sure of yourself about Obama. I was simply trying to shock you enough to think things through again.


Nice try but no, I am saying there are other reasons people choose things and that not everything is as black and white as you make them seem. I have noticed in another thread on measure 2 that you have acknowledged at least a little that this could have real negative financial effects on people who don't have anything to do with HF shooting. That is where I started to have a problem with this, then enter HSUS's involvement, that in turn opens the ugly doors, and then enter in a bunch of people trying to say or dictate who is or isn't an ethical sportsmen. No one is willing to acknowledge that this could lead to more trouble, no one is willing to acknowledge the difference between livestock and wildlife, is all we hear is things like "nothing we can do about it" or "do you think they wouldn't be here anyways". Well guess what they are here, they had an occasional ad on KFGO, now they are on TV, now there is money flowing in, and money from some unsavory characters in the NDHFFC war chest. Once again all just coincidences I guess.

Still no one answers this:


> Has it ever occurred to any of you guys that maybe pushing laws and legislation around without looking at full consequences has had at least a little part in the demise of the hunting heritage here??????????????


----------



## Plainsman

TK I see the HSUS argument as simply finding a boogie man to fill the bill for fear mongering. I see no validity in it what so ever. I see it as deceptive, and turning the argument from the real subject. That people are sick of unsportsmanlike activities and will punish all of us for the sickness of a few. Worry not the sky is not falling.


----------



## barebackjack

gst said:


> spent wings, Plainsman is making a determination of who is a hunter based on what they do, shoot an animal behind a fence you are not a hunter in his opinion, I am merely seeing if that same person then goes on a 20 day trip into the wilds of BC with a guide and shoots a world class big horn sheep is that person then magically a hunter in Plainsman eyes? There is no comaprison being made of the two different "hunts", just a question how this person that beleives he knows what determines wether someone is a hunter makes this determination for himself and thru this measure for others.


Yes. Apparently someone who shoots a pen raised animal is not a hunter, but someone, by his own admission, that talks about shooting deer at 800+ yards is?

Let me ask you Plainsman, how much skill as a hunter is called into play getting a deer within a half mile of you? Ill grant you, skills as a shooter come into play, but is getting a deer at a half mile really hunting? Are you really hunting, or are you just shooting?

If a HF user shoots his elk at a half mile is he hunting? Either way, the animal never knew what was coming so the "fairness" of the whole situation is really thrown out the window, at least from the animals standpoint.

I'm sure Plainsman will disagree, and im sure jhegg will come on and ask me what my connection to HF is now.


----------



## Savage260

BBJ, I have asked the same thing of the "long range slaughter"(kinda like "HF slaugher" since it isn't hunting, it is "shooting"). It is not fair chase "hunting" it is killing an animal at long range. Not very sportsman like, and definately not "fair chase". But since it comes from the elitist camp it is ok. If one of us supposed "HF" guys did it, things would be different. If it was "fair" there would be no weapons, just us vs animal skill against skill alone. Sportsman like.

Our hunting is more "fair" than HF shooting, so maybe the measure should be "more fair than the other option chase"?

The "ethics" thing is just our way of justifying what we do to those that don't like or don't understand what we do. Some feel the need to justify and others don't. I don't. I love to hunt and I don't need to make any one feel better, or justify to any one to make me feel better about it. Most people attempt to justify things when they feel badly about what they have done.


----------



## barebackjack

Savage, maybe you and I should start an initiated measure to ban shooting deer past a quarter mile?!

I bet HSUS would help out! Of course, we wouldn't ASK for their help. :wink: :lol:


----------



## Savage260

A quarter mile? Holy hell! I can't hit any thing past 150yds. The last buck I shot was 17yds. And yes, it was with a rifle, and the distance was measured with a LRF, and I had 2 witnesses, so don't get jealous, or try to call me a liar! :wink:

BBJ, NO THANKS! I won't have any thing to do with HSUS. Not even if they want to pay for my TV ads!


----------



## TK33

> That people are sick of unsportsmanlike activities and will punish all of us for the sickness of a few. Worry not the sky is not falling.


This is an oxymoron. On one hand you say we could all be punished for the acts of a few, on the other hand you say the HSUS threat is not real. Either our hunting rights are being threatened or they are not. Anytime HSUS is in the mix we are threatened.

I see and HSUS sponsored commercial, I don't like it, period. As I have said before I base this on the fact that the best way the wack job groups will succeed here in ND is to pervert the laws that are put on the books. The other way is to wittle away at practices, methods, technological items, or whatever else they can use their high dollar lawyers to twist up.

You are still comparing privately owned livestock, pen raised, herded cervids to wildlife, a public resource. Not too mention the threat to non HF cervid or other non traditional ranching.


----------



## DG

Retired Federal Agent Plainsman said,



> Also I have noticed that there is a core group on this site. Some spend most of their time in waterfowl, some in deer hunting, and other in the predator hunting threads. Then there are those who come here only to protect special interests. I would also consider them as "not one of us". For example I have never seen some of the people in the measure 2 threads in the rifle form, the deer form, the waterfowl forms, or anywhere else on the site. One has to ask if they are protecting hunting or their wallet.


I think it is important for sportsmen to have a site like this or the better one (FBO) to exchange ideas and information. 
However I don't believe a site like this should be used as a propaganda mill by federal agents using screen names posing as sportsmen. I am talking to you Bruce. How old are you now? 63? Look at how you write?



> I would also consider them as "not one of us".


Bruce, This isn't your old school yard in Sheyenne ND.

My video is going strong on Facebook. Lots of positive responses.






Bruce, no name calling, no lying, no deflecting, no spinning, no heaping on negative attacks.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> TK I see the HSUS argument as simply finding a boogie man to fill the bill for fear mongering. I see no validity in it what so ever. I see it as deceptive, and turning the argument from the real subject. That people are sick of unsportsmanlike activities and will punish all of us for the sickness of a few. Worry not the sky is not falling.


Any hunter that believes concerns over HSUS being here in ND because of the group NDH forFC is simple "fear mongering" and that they are a "boogieman" is one of two things. 
1. a fool that apparently knows little about HSUS
2. someone so selfish in pushing a persopnal agenda onto tothers they are willing to over look the fact HSUS is the leading most effective anti hunting org in the nation

You can not deny what HSUS is and now because of an elitist group of "hunters"  NDH for FC, this anti hunting group is running ads here in ND. Thanks guys your doing a get job protecting hunting. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

Well, that was sort of my finale assessment. I had not planned on debating this measure at all this year, but when gst involved me --- well here I am. I doubt there are any minds to be changed at this point, and to keep hammering would only cause bad feelings with some people.
Sorry gst, but that's the way I see it. Landowner rights, HSUS, etc all smoke and mirrors to shaft hunters for the benefit of a few dollars. I will only ask people to look at the practice, ask why people would defend it, and follow the money. Then ask yourself which group actually is concerned about hunting and which is concerned about business.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Then ask yourself which group actually is concerned about hunting and which is concerned about business.


Plainsman I believe that question is EXACTLY what people are asking about the group NDH for FC regarding their concern about hunting, given the measure they are sponsoring has brought HSUS the most effective national ANTIHUNTING group into our state with their millions of dollars to spend on ads supporting NDH for FC parrallel agenda in this measure which ultimately contribute to their ultimate agenda which is ending ALL forms of hunting. Once again Thanks to this group who is so concerned about hunting for giving HSUS a platform here in ND. :eyeroll:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then ask yourself which group actually is concerned about hunting and which is concerned about business.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman I believe that question is EXACTLY what people are asking about the group NDH for FC regarding their concern about hunting, given the measure they are sponsoring has brought HSUS the most effective national ANTIHUNTING group into our state with their millions of dollars to spend on ads supporting NDH for FC parrallel agenda in this measure which ultimately contribute to their ultimate agenda which is ending ALL forms of hunting. Once again Thanks to this group who is so concerned about hunting for giving HSUS a platform here in ND. :eyeroll:
Click to expand...

Leadfed said,

GST, I would have loved to talk to you before this measure was initiated to see how pro sportsman you were then. You make me sick with all your pro sportsman talk when it is so evident you don't really give a **** about them. You are just acting like it right now to push your agenda and when this is over its back to the same for you. Oh sure, you might let the occasional guy shoot a few geese On your land to make it feel like you are doing the sportsman a great service but that issuch small fries compared to what we are dealing with here.. In the grand scheme of things you know as much as I do that high fence slaughter is NOT GOOD for the sportsman in ANY WAY what so ever.

As far as your constant banter about the antis, it is a risk vs reward issue. And right now outlawing high fence slaughter is a much better reward for for the sportsman than the risk we are taking with the antis....plain and simple.


----------



## bioman

Hey Leadfed, Gabe and his minions at the North Dakota Stockmen's Association are exceptionally supportive of sportsmen and hunting in ND. Don't believe me? The following resolutions are verbatim from the North Dakota Stockmen's Association Ag Policy and Environmental Issues Committee:

CRP - 9 (AP)
WHEREAS, CRP has had an impact on producers and communities; and

WHEREAS, proper management of CRP is critical.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NDSA's position concerning CRP is as follows:

_*OPPOSE
1. The expansion of CRP in North Dakota.
2. Any attempts to make perpetual easements a part of CRP.
3. Any added benefits for haying and grazing that would unfairly subsidize contract holders.
4. Whole-farm enrollment in CRP.*_
SUPPORT
1. The control of weeds and insects.
2. Targeting CRP to highly erodible land.
3. The following guidelines for haying and grazing due to disaster declaration:
a. Guidelines be established in advance so producers can respond accordingly or get the best quality forage possible.
b. Only livestock producers from eligible counties may hay CRP.
c. Non-eligible counties may allow haying and grazing by producers in eligible counties.
d. CRP hay cannot be sold.
e. Uncut portions that must be left in blocks cannot exceed 25 percent.
f. Hay must be removed from CRP by November 1.
g. Payment reductions should be reflective of the forage value.
h. Owners holding CRP contracts should not be allowed to charge additional fees for the right to harvest CRP acres.

CLEAN WATER RESTORATION ACT - 9 (AP)
WHEREAS, pending Clean Water Restoration Act legislation does not address the water stewardship of the ranching industry or the desirability of local and state control; and

_*WHEREAS, the removal of the word "navigable" from the definition of "waters of the United States" would allow the federal government to override state and local jurisdiction over land and water management.
*_
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NDSA opposes any change to the definition of the "waters of the United States" in reference to the Clean Water Act of 1972.

CLEAN WATER - 8 (AP)
WHEREAS, the NDSA believes that clean water is essential to the health and well-being of the nation; and

WHEREAS, federal regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and animal feeding operations (APOs) may force unnecessary and costly restrictions on animal agriculture; and

WHEREAS, voluntary, incentive-based conservation is a proven, effective method.

_*THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NDSA supports a voluntary, incentive-based and locally controlled approach to clean water.*_

The list goes on and on and on :bop:


----------



## gst

bioman, NDSA actually stands for North Dakota Stockmans Association, NOT North Dakota Sportsman Association. I know it is a relatively hard concept to follow, but one might assume that the policies of a stockmans association are designed more towards the inhancement of the cattle industry and the livlihoods of those involved in that indusrtry. I believe most have the ability to understand that. It is not our responsibility of duty to make sure people like you or leadfed or ron have one more place to shoot a duck or that there are a few more ducks to shoot. What you do not seem to comprehend is that there is an eceptionally high percentage of the NDSA members that probably spend far more time hunting and giving more back to conservation and wildlife than you or others like you ever will.

leadfed, i am simply one individual on an internet site that you have never met. You have no idea of my commitment to wildlife and conservation and yet you are foolish enough to assume you do.

It has become obvious that to continue this "debate" is a waste of time I could be using to haul hay! :wink:


----------



## leadfed

Gst said

leadfed, i am simply one individual on an internet site that you have never met. You have no idea of my commitment to wildlife and conservation and yet you are foolish enough to assume you do.

But how on target is that assumption gabe :wink:

Gst said

It has become obvious that to continue this "debate" is a waste of time I could be using to haul hay! :wink:[/quote]

Holy smokes you finally figured it out!!!!!bravo :thumb:


----------



## Chuck Smith

I love it how people think that CRP was put in place for wild life....

It was put in place to take marginal land out of production in hopes of driving the price of crops up. Also giving subsidies to the people on marginal land to no put it into production. The wild life benefits from it was just an unforseen bonus. So the CRP program was all AG based. So why wouldn't the NDSA make or want regulations for CRP to help them an AG organization. This way they can use the marginal land or grasses from it for feed.


----------



## bioman

> bioman, NDSA actually stands for North Dakota Stockmans Association, NOT North Dakota Sportsman Association. I know it is a relatively hard concept to follow, but one might assume that the policies of a stockmans association are designed more towards the inhancement of the cattle industry and the livlihoods of those involved in that indusrtry. I believe most have the ability to understand that. It is not our responsibility of duty to make sure people like you or leadfed or ron have one more place to shoot a duck or that there are a few more ducks to shoot. What you do not seem to comprehend is that there is an eceptionally high percentage of the NDSA members that probably spend far more time hunting and giving more back to conservation and wildlife than you or others like you ever will


Very interesting comment coming from you, of all people Gabe. See the highlighted text below. Speaks volumes about your mentality and bias. And it sure as heck offers a very dire contrast to your overt and highly biased opinions and non-stop rants about other people's positions driving issues.

FARM POLICY CONFLICTS - 8 (AP)
WHEREAS, many of the current federal farm policies, conservation programs and legislative actions are being influenced by wildlife and conservation organizations that are putting wildlife production and hunting opportunities ahead of food production and ag producers' livelihood; and

WHEREAS, these policies may require producers to choose between participating in farm or conservation programs and their property rights.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NDSA opposes legislation or policy that requires landowners to forfeit any of their property rights, such as controlling access as a part of any state or federal programs or actions.

_*BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the NDSA supports the right of the producers to voluntarily close their private lands to public access as a means to bring awareness and change of these restrictive policies being advocated by these wildlife organizations.*_


----------



## bioman

> I love it how people think that CRP was put in place for wild life....
> 
> It was put in place to take marginal land out of production in hopes of driving the price of crops up. Also giving subsidies to the people on marginal land to no put it into production. The wild life benefits from it was just an unforseen bonus. So the CRP program was all AG based. So why wouldn't the NDSA make or want regulations for CRP to help them an AG organization. This way they can use the marginal land or grasses from it for feed.


Chuck, I am going to pull some of Gabe's direct language about sportsman's groups opinions and attitudes driving landowner opposition. I simply used that as an example of Gabe's innate ability to talk incessantly and simultaneously out of both sides of his mouth.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Bioman...

I take it you are in favor of Measure 2....

So when people call these animals as wild or compare them to wild game ....isnt that talking out of both side of the mouth when in fact these animals are domestic and classified as domestic? Isn't people for this measure talking out of both side of their mouths when they say canned shooting or these HF operations are not hunting......yet they say it is giving hunting a black eye? How can it when it is not hunting....it is like saying steriods in baseball is giving basketball a black eye. Aren't people for this measure talking out of both sides of there mouths when they say it is unethical to kill any animal in an enclosure yet don't care if a cow, hog, chicken, etc are killed in an enclosure? I could go on and on.


----------



## leadfed

Chuck Smith said:


> Bioman...
> 
> I take it you are in favor of Measure 2....
> 
> So when people call these animals as wild or compare them to wild game ....isnt that talking out of both side of the mouth when in fact these animals are domestic and classified as domestic? Isn't people for this measure talking out of both side of their mouths when they say canned shooting or these HF operations are not hunting......yet they say it is giving hunting a black eye? How can it when it is not hunting....it is like saying steriods in baseball is giving basketball a black eye. Aren't people for this measure talking out of both sides of there mouths when they say it is unethical to kill any animal in an enclosure yet don't care if a cow, hog, chicken, etc are killed in an enclosure? I could go on and on.


Leadfed sais

Well I think it has more to do the fact that the majority of everyone in the world thinks of and elk or a deer as a wild animal. However, the majority of everyone in the world thinks of a cow, hog, chicken, etc. As a barnyard animal. You can paint a pig purple but its still a damn pig is what im getting at. Let's face it, the percentage of hunters in the usa is very small. Therefore the non hunting community has the potential to cause a lot of harm to the hunting community. So why not keep our image as clean as possible and outlaw this black eye called high fence slaughter. You say they are domestic animals right? Well I am not gonna argue that nor have I ever but the problem is I would bet 98% of the us population looks at this animals as wild and THAT'S why it gives hunting a black eye.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Leadfed...

But it is not hunting.....simple distinction. If someone you are talking with calls this practice hunting.....you can just simply state....it is not hunting it is done in an enclosure with the animal having no means of escape. Hunting is when an animal can escape. It is like the example you gave....you can paint a pig purple...yet it is still a pig. So when some claims that the purple creature is something it is not....you state the fact that it is a pig and not the other creature......Simple. So no black eye.

Yet this divide that is getting created between hunters is a black eye on the hunting community. And this black eye has been created by a "hunters' worried about a false black eye.


----------



## leadfed

Chuck Smith said:


> Leadfed...
> 
> But it is not hunting.....simple distinction. If someone you are talking with calls this practice hunting.....you can just simply state....it is not hunting it is done in an enclosure with the animal having no means of escape. Hunting is when an animal can escape. It is like the example you gave....you can paint a pig purple...yet it is still a pig. So when some claims that the purple creature is something it is not....you state the fact that it is a pig and not the other creature......Simple. So no black eye.
> 
> Yet this divide that is getting created between hunters is a black eye on the hunting community. And this black eye has been created by a "hunters' worried about a false black eye.


Leadfed said,

Ok Ok, so I want you to go to peta and HSUS and just kindly let them know that shooting animals in a high fence is not hunting so they should just relax and get off our back. Also I want you to go tell all these operations under no circumstance are they supposed to call their operations "hunting" operations. Then I want you to make sure everyone of the people that is paying thousands of dollars for one of these "hunts" that in fact they are not hunting, they are simply killing an animal and they can do it for a lot more if its a sheep, hog, cow, donkey, chicken, emu, etc. If its that easy well I might buy in.


----------



## gst

bioman said:


> I love it how people think that CRP was put in place for wild life....
> 
> It was put in place to take marginal land out of production in hopes of driving the price of crops up. Also giving subsidies to the people on marginal land to no put it into production. The wild life benefits from it was just an unforseen bonus. So the CRP program was all AG based. So why wouldn't the NDSA make or want regulations for CRP to help them an AG organization. This way they can use the marginal land or grasses from it for feed.
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck, I am going to pull some of Gabe's direct language about sportsman's groups opinions and attitudes driving landowner opposition. I simply used that as an example of Gabe's innate ability to talk incessantly and simultaneously out of both sides of his mouth.
Click to expand...

bioman,would you post the entire ccontent of the statement and the thread from which it came?


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> Chuck Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leadfed...
> 
> But it is not hunting.....simple distinction. If someone you are talking with calls this practice hunting.....you can just simply state....it is not hunting it is done in an enclosure with the animal having no means of escape. Hunting is when an animal can escape. It is like the example you gave....you can paint a pig purple...yet it is still a pig. So when some claims that the purple creature is something it is not....you state the fact that it is a pig and not the other creature......Simple. So no black eye.
> 
> Yet this divide that is getting created between hunters is a black eye on the hunting community. And this black eye has been created by a "hunters' worried about a false black eye.
> 
> 
> 
> Leadfed said,
> 
> Ok Ok, so I want you to go to peta and HSUS and just kindly let them know that shooting animals in a high fence is not hunting so they should just relax and get off our back. Also I want you to go tell all these operations under no circumstance are they supposed to call their operations "hunting" operations. Then I want you to make sure everyone of the people that is paying thousands of dollars for one of these "hunts" that in fact they are not hunting, they are simply killing an animal and they can do it for a lot more if its a sheep, hog, cow, donkey, chicken, emu, etc. If its that easy well I might buy in.
Click to expand...

 So are you now claiming the HSUS threat to hunting is not simply "scare tactics" ?


----------



## Hunter_58346

North Dakota
Vote NO on 2: Anti-hunting Ballot Initiative

Don't Allow Radical Animal "Rights" Interests to Infiltrate North Dakota!

North Dakota sportsmen should be aware that a group cleverly calling itself North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase has collected enough signatures to place an anti-hunting initiative on the 2010 General Election ballot.

Make sure that you and your family and friends vote NO on November 2.

Initiatives pertaining to hunting laws, by their very nature, politicize the state's wildlife management policies. This is contrary to the North American Model of Wildlife Management that has made North Dakota's wildlife populations and rich ecosystems the envy of the world. Laws related to hunting and wildlife management strategies should be firmly rooted in science, not driven by a wealthy few who can produce the most emotionally-appealing 30-second television commercial during an initiative campaign. For this reason, NRA has always opposed "ballot box" wildlife management.

This initiative effort is supported by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a Washington D.C.-based lobbying organization that spends $120 million a year in an effort to end all hunting and animal agriculture in the United States. It threatens to establish a precedent that will allow HSUS and other extremists to further pursue their ultimate agenda of banning all hunting. These anti-hunting radicals are learning how to circumvent the standard policy-making system that has stymied them through the years and will be emboldened to further utilize deceptive 30-second sound bites to advance their fanatical agenda.

Please work to inform your family, friends and fellow sportsmen in North Dakota that they should vote NO on November 2!

Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683 
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy


----------



## NDeaglei

TRUE Ethical Hunters see the value of having private herds in America. Without them the American Bison would be gone.It was Ranchers in SD and Montana had the foresight to breed bison, from these herds the comeback of the American Bison was secured.
The greenies should actually study history.

*True Smart Ethical Hunters* should *VOTE NO* on measure 2.


----------



## Ref

The Fair Chase group is 100% RIGHT :beer:

True, ethical hunters will VOTE YES ON MEASURE 2


----------



## LT

http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/p ... liability/

There's no two ways about it: The Humane Society of the United States, with $160-million-plus in the bank, is capable of self-funding just about any political ballot initiative it should choose. But despite its goliath political stature and its "can steamroll" attitude, we're starting to see signs that HSUS's coattails aren't what they used to be.

Exhibit "A": Roger Kaseman is running a ballot initiative campaign in North Dakota this year whose goal is to ban hunting in fenced-in areas (including enormous, multi-thousand-acre ranches). That sounds like the perfect campaign for HSUS to get involved in: Relatively few people will actually participate in it, it's easy to spin the issue toward "cruelty to animals," and HSUS is rich enough to monopolize North Dakota's few media markets.

But here's what Kaseman is telling The Minot Daily News about HSUS's involvement-or lack thereof-in his campaign:

_The money is there for the asking but our group voted 100 percent in favor of not taking any money from the Humane Society of the United States. They stepped up and offered but we haven't had anything to do with them at all._

One-hundred percent in favor of not involving HSUS? That's a strong sentiment. Especially since HSUS "stepped up and offered" Lord-knows-how-much money.


----------



## Plainsman

> One-hundred percent in favor of not involving HSUS? That's a strong sentiment. Especially since HSUS "stepped up and offered" Lord-knows-how-much money.


Now that's character isn't it?


----------



## gst

Plainsman, character would have been not accepting monies from PETA people like they promised they would not.


----------



## Plainsman

> like you promised you would not.


I got money from PETA? Wow, how much? Enough to buy a new gun I hope. How do I get control of it? Can I have it now?


----------



## DG

Retired Federal Agent Plainsman said,



> got money from PETA? Wow, how much? Enough to buy a new gun I hope. How do I get control of it? Can I have it now?


Bruce, Yes you can have it now. But instead of a new gun your reward should be ostracism.

ostracize defined:

banish (to cast a ballot) shut out of the community.

If the vote was on fishingbuddy, how do you think you would fare?


----------



## gst

Plainsman I apologize for the type o I meant to say what is correctly posted. Would you answer the questions regarding domestication that were asked in that thread.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman I apologize for the type o I meant to say what is correctly posted. Would you answer the questions regarding domestication that were asked in that thread.


Sorry, I don't find a question from you about domestication.

I see domestication two ways. There is the legal form you talk about and that is needed for loans etc. Then there is the biological/physiological forms of domestication which I look at as true domestication. The legal form I don't think applies to hunting in anyway. It's because of the biological form and the wildness retention that I think applies to the ethics of hunting within an escape proof enclosure. 
Of course our political system can make an overnight snap of the fingers decision and call them domesticated. Most animals that can be domesticated already have been. Those that remain are the species with innate wildness that inhibits any easy or fast way towards true domestication. Actual domestication of an animal can not be accomplished by political laws, it only comes with patience and years.


----------



## gst

Plainsman are is the questions I posed to you in the domestication thread.

Plainsman, the definition of "domesticated" in the laws that govern us is clearly spelled out in regards to these animals. You want to disregard that law and yet you expect others to accept the one you are proposing. Do you believe that an individual should pick and choose which laws they will follow?

Reindeer have been domesticated for several centuries by various cultures, so should we be able to raise reindeer for the purposes HF operations do? This measure says no. Do you believe that buffalo are domesticated? They have been domesticated for barely a century. Buffalo can live for 20 plus years, so have only been domesticated for a handful of generations. This measure says HF operations can raise them for the purpose they do of hunting. So by your theory should buffalo be considered doemstic or wild and should they be allowed to be hunted in a fence as either?

Are cats and dogs "domesticated" ? Most would believe so as they have been for multiple centuries and generations. How many generations does it take for a feral cat to revert back to its "wild" state or a pack of dogs to revert bacck????? . Are swine "domesticated"? Most would believe so as they have been for many centuries and generations. How many generations does it take for feral swine to revert back to their "wild" state? I can promise you I could take a sow directly out of a farrowing crate, turn her loose in the wilds of a Florida swamp and the very next generations of piglets would be "wild". Do you see where the danger lies in simply following your qualified scientifically based answers to the animal ag industry. Perhaps someone like Dave Brandt with the supportof HSUS starts an initiated measure that states any animal that exists in a "wild" state can not be used for domestic purposes. It passes and becomes law. HSUS then argues in the courts that hogs are indeed existing in a "wild" state and so begins the slippery slope of groups that believe a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy to determining what you an I can use animals for. Wether it is fro animal ag purposes or hunting. And now this measure has invited such a group into ND all in the name of "protecting" hunting.


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> Plainsman are is the questions I posed to you in the domestication thread.
> 
> Plainsman, the definition of "domesticated" in the laws that govern us is clearly spelled out in regards to these animals. You want to disregard that law and yet you expect others to accept the one you are proposing. Do you believe that an individual should pick and choose which laws they will follow?
> 
> Reindeer have been domesticated for several centuries by various cultures, so should we be able to raise reindeer for the purposes HF operations do? This measure says no. Do you believe that buffalo are domesticated? They have been domesticated for barely a century. Buffalo can live for 20 plus years, so have only been domesticated for a handful of generations. This measure says HF operations can raise them for the purpose they do of hunting. So by your theory should buffalo be considered doemstic or wild and should they be allowed to be hunted in a fence as either?
> 
> Are cats and dogs "domesticated" ? Most would believe so as they have been for multiple centuries and generations. How many generations does it take for a feral cat to revert back to its "wild" state or a pack of dogs to revert bacck????? . Are swine "domesticated"? Most would believe so as they have been for many centuries and generations. How many generations does it take for feral swine to revert back to their "wild" state? I can promise you I could take a sow directly out of a farrowing crate, turn her loose in the wilds of a Florida swamp and the very next generations of piglets would be "wild". Do you see where the danger lies in simply following your qualified scientifically based answers to the animal ag industry. Perhaps someone like Dave Brandt with the supportof HSUS starts an initiated measure that states any animal that exists in a "wild" state can not be used for domestic purposes. It passes and becomes law. HSUS then argues in the courts that hogs are indeed existing in a "wild" state and so begins the slippery slope of groups that believe a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy to determining what you an I can use animals for. Wether it is fro animal ag purposes or hunting. And now this measure has invited such a group into ND all in the name of "protecting" hunting.


Leadfed said,

Go to bismarck and walk the streets asking random people if they think a deer or elk is a domesticated animal or a wild animal. Then ask them if a cow, pig, horse, etc. is a domesticated animal or a wild animal. What I am getting at is that I don't care if the "law" says these pen raised elk and deer are domesticated. What matters is that the general public sees them as such and always will. These are the people who in the end will decide on issues like this and other anti hunting measure if they ever show up. High fence slaughter is black eye for the sportsman so by removing it we are doing the sportsman a favor.

So maybe what you want now is to change the train of thought of the general public and start teaching young children that elk and deer should now be considered farm animals? I can just see it, charlottes web reprinted with deer and elk going to the county fair. :wink:


----------



## gst

lead fed What I would like to see children being taught is that it is important for them to learn how to think on their own so they can make decisions for themselves without some group or the govt having to tell them what choices they should make! :wink:


----------



## gst

So if you do not "care" if the law that defines these animals as domestic does just that, how can you expect anyone else to care what laws you want created. You and plainsman seem to think that laws you do not like don't apply, yet laws you want should apply to everyone else. :roll:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> lead fed What I would like to see children being taught is that it is important for them to learn how to think on their own so they can make decisions for themselves without some group or the govt having to tell them what choices they should make! :wink:


Leadfed said,

LOL, ya right! It's called democracy buddy and children learn about that at a very young age. I doubt you will see any group or govt agency going into the voting booth with anyone on tuesday and telling them what box to check. :lol: All we can do is show them all angles and let them pick what they think is the best choice. How do you do that, you have debates like this. Nope, what you want to see is children forced to learn that what is good for you and your group is the only option. :wink:


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> So if you do not "care" if the law that defines these animals as domestic does just that, how can you expect anyone else to care what laws you want created. You and plainsman seem to think that laws you do not like don't apply, yet laws you want should apply to everyone else. :roll:


Ummm, I think you are scrambling now. What you just said makes no sense, I could almost hear you studdering :lol:


----------



## gst

leadfed said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> . What I am getting at is that I don't care if the "law" says these pen raised elk and deer are domesticated.
> 
> Not "studdering" at all. I must say debatinng something with you is as valuable as debating something with Ron so you will have to carry on with a one sided debate on your own.
Click to expand...


----------



## leadfed

gst said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gst said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> . What I am getting at is that I don't care if the "law" says these pen raised elk and deer are domesticated.
> 
> Not "studdering" at all. I must say debatinng something with you is as valuable as debating something with Ron so you will have to carry on with a one sided debate on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Taking your ball and going home gst? You and I both knew we weren't going to change each others mind. Hell, no one is even reading this but a few people anyway, look at the view numbers on these topics...probably mostly you and I :wink:

You're right though I think we've beat our heads together long enough. If you knew me you would be supprised how much I support ranching. It's part of life in ND and needs to be protected too. I'm just saying there has to be some sort of compromise.

Anyway, i have to say I've enjoyed the debate even though at times I felt like I was debating with a mud fence :wink: Also, from what I've seen I don't think you have anything to worry about. No animosity from my side what so ever. Enjoy that fat check from selling those calves this year, good prices right now. :wink:

Later


----------



## gst

leadfed, thanks and regardless of what you may believe, remember one thing, most all ranchers are "sportsmen" as well. Many tend to forget that fact when debating these issues. And perhaps if you actuallky knew me you would realize and see firsthand my commitment to conservation on our operation. Something these internet sites do not provisde and yet people still seem to think they know someone well enough to make assumptions.


----------



## Plainsman

leadfed, gst, it will be over soon. Wish you both the best. If the doctor doesn't stick me in the hospital tomorrow I'm going hunting Tuesday.


----------



## Eric Hustad

So FBO is the a better website DG? Nice. Hopefully when this is done you stay there.
I give the NO campaign credit for using the PETA angle in their advertisements as I suppose some people might fall for it. The fact is they will support any ban of hunting and so why wouldnt they be involved in getting this passed? Common sense should tell a person this but it still is a good angle to work. I dont know how a person decides that they are going to start a business where they charge money to kill animals in a fenced area. I know one gentleman was on tv and I think they went that way because of hard times but it seems like a risky venture to go into. The majority of the pop doesnt hunt and yet you think they will be ok with rich people shooting animals in a fenced area?

All that being said I am also struggling with telling business owners what they can and cant do because people dont like their business. I don't agree with this form of shooting but it is legal and we have to be careful on possible ramifications on this. At the end of the day it will be the nonhunting public that decides this and it be interesting to see how it goes.


----------



## LT

Eric Said:


> At the end of the day it will be the nonhunting public that decides this and it be interesting to see how it goes.


And herein lies the problem. The way this measure is written many cannot understand what it means, but it sure sounds bad enough. And pretty sad when people get to vote to take someone's business away because of jealousy and personal grievances.

1. We have heard people placed a yes vote because they thought it was to save endangered species.

2. We have heard about people voting for it because they think my brother makes too much money. He was actually told to his face that very thing.

3. I talked to someone who felt my brother has a good job and doesn't need the income from his game ranch, wondering why my brother has knocked himself out working so hard, wondering what his goals in life are, telling me my brother should be like him, working a 9-5 job. He was telling me all this over the phone and I could tell he had a few drinks too many, as he usually does. What a goal to aspire to.


----------



## Eric Hustad

LT I can appreciate where you are coming from and like I said before it is a hard issue with private property issue. One of my thoughts here is that your brother went into a business that a lot people are critical of. If you take a step back and look at from the eyes of a person who doesn't hunt, has no idea what it is, and is asked whether or not it is right to have an animal hunted in an area with a fence how do you think they would vote? While I am pro-business an owner of this type of operation has to know that it is a business that a majority probably don't support making it risky and this is something that could happen. Like I have said before I am torn on the issue because I give credit to those who have the guts to start up a business and work hard at it. On the other hand it is a business I don't agree with so does that mean it should be done away with?? Its tough either way....


----------



## gst

Eric many of these operators went into a business that was being strongly promoted by the state itself with incentives to go into it at a time when there were not a lot of industries in ag that were profitable. Alternative ag. Thru perserverance these operators were able to find a niche to keep going when others failed. (ostrich/emus ect...) This niche by the way was little known by the majority of the citizens of ND and most had no concerns over it till this group with these two measure attempts came along.Most people taht are not in the antihunting camp only have found this questionable becasue a group of hunters are doing their best to get them to think that way to acheive their agenda. Now these operators are possibly going to be forced out of business with no form of compensation and the people behind this measure are doing their best to keep this from being considered a "takings" by the courts when it ultimately ends up there.

One other thing to remember is that this very group and some people that are critical of this industry are also critical of mine which is raising cattle and want to end it as well. So should I have not chosen to go into ranching to support and raise my family?


----------



## zogman

gst,

state incentives??? words for my (taxpayer) money. oke:


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> This niche by the way was little known by the majority of the citizens of ND and most had no concerns over it till this group with these two measure attempts came along.


Most people didn't think anything of it until they learned that they existed in ND. It was no concern to them because they didn't think it affected them and was an out of state issue. In learning that it was here in their own back yard they now oppose it and more so publicly than before. As you have alluded to, I believe these operations would have been more than happy to be unknown to people of ND and believe the majority of the HF users are out of state.


----------



## gst

zogman, hard to believe you were a supporter of HF in the early days!!! 

long shot yep must have been a HUGE problem threatening the very existance of hunting when no one even knew it existed prior to the sponsors going out and telling their lies regarding this industry and their measure. The citizens of this state were so offended by this that they didn;t even collect enough signatures the first tiimwe around. Perhaps it is a bigger issue in a handful of peoples egos than it was in the publics concern.


----------



## frosty

"didn;t even collect enough signatures the first tiimwe around"

LIE


----------



## Dick Monson

All over but the shouting now. Be sure to vote. It matters. By this time tomorrow we'll know how it shakes out.


----------



## gst

frosty there were not enough valid signatures to put this measure on the ballot in the first attempt. I suppose given the disingenuous nature of this whole measure and those involved with it you could claim these bogus signatures were valid though :roll:


----------



## frosty

gst said:


> frosty there were not enough valid signatures to put this measure on the ballot in the first attempt. I suppose given the disingenuous nature of this whole measure and those involved with it you could claim these bogus signatures were valid though :roll:


LIE


----------



## gst

frosty if you would please explain how this measure did not get put on the ballot the first time around if the sponsors collected enough valid signatures?


----------



## Savage260

"All over but the shouting now. Be sure to vote. It matters. By this time tomorrow we'll know how it shakes out."

Yea, and after #2 goes down the toilet(pun intended) again, how long will it be before the propaganda begins again? As I said before, the only person(other than the folks that are pro #2 on here) that I have heard is voting yes is a guy I work with. He has NEVER HUNTED A DAY IN HIS LIFE!!! The elitists have fooled him into thinking the HF operations are all the size of a Wal-mart parking lot. He is a hsus, democrat, obama supporter all the way. Thankfully he is on YOUR side now!!!


----------



## LT

http://norcalcazadora.blogspot.com/2010 ... folks.html

North Dakota Measure 2: Watch your step, folks - it's slippery out there

A couple of days ago, I got this treat in my inbox - a link to an ad paid for by HSUS about Measure 2 in North Dakota. The HSUS says the ad features "licensed North Dakota hunters" - none of them named in the ad itself - who support a ballot measure that would effectively ban high-fence hunting in that state.

Now, whether or not these are real hunters or actors who got licenses would be fun to debate, but that's not my concern here. Nor am I about to launch into a lecture about the perils of hunters jumping into bed with HSUS, as amusing as that would be.

My concern is a disconnect I see among some hunters - embodied in Measure 2 - and how that can be exploited in the future, both in North Dakota and elsewhere. Follow me here for a little bit:

My understanding is that Measure 2 was proposed by hunters, and I get the sense that there are a fair number of hunters nationwide - or at least a very vocal group of hunters - who oppose high-fence hunting for deer, elk and exotic species. The biggest complaint is that it's not "fair chase" because the animals can never truly escape, and they're at least semi-domesticated - accustomed to human presence, which stacks the odds against them.

At its most hyperbolic, this loathing centers on an image cited by the hunters in this ad: You look at a bunch of penned animals, you pick one, it's released and you shoot it. That's pretty distasteful, especially coupled with the notion that it's some rich guy paying for a petting-zoo hunt so he can mount a head on his wall and pretend he worked for it. Don't we all hate that guy?

Personally, I've seen only one high-fence ranch, and it's not like that at all. It's 1,000 acres in brutally steep terrain, and you can have a hunt ranging from pretty damn easy to really strenuous. But animals are not released from a pen for your shooting pleasure. And honestly, I have no idea whether the norm is closer to what I've seen or the petting-zoo ranch.

How do I feel about high-fence ranches? First, I kinda have a knee-jerk Libertarian response: If you don't like it, don't do it. With more thought, I'm fine with standards about the size of the land and the treatment of the animals. And I'm definitely OK with all the record-keeping organizations putting an asterisk next to trophies killed inside fences.

The reality is that in our society, we have decided it's OK to kill animals and eat them and mount their heads and whatever else we want to do, and so long as our methods of killing don't cause extended suffering, the rest is window dressing.

But let me get to the meat of it (pun intended): I see precious little difference between high-fence ranches and clubs where you can hunt planted birds, and this is where I see a HUGE disconnect among hunters: Many who oppose high-fence ranches will support planted-bird clubs.

Why do I think they're similar when there's no fence confining the planted birds? Well, because these birds are raised in pens, they have no survival skills and if they're not shot promptly by hunters, chances are they'll be hawk food in days. Hell, these birds have less of a chance of a full and free life than do the animals at high-fence ranches - at least the one I've been to.

And if we're honest, we'll all admit hunters like both types of clubs or ranches for the same reason: For a set investment of time and money, they have much higher odds of success. The only difference is with planted-bird clubs, many hunters need such facilities to keep their hunting dogs happy and sharp. I certainly see a lot of that here in California, where our wild pheasant population is pretty anemic.

Now it's time to tie a bow on this, which requires that we look at the meat of Measure 2:

Now it's time to tie a bow on this, which requires that we look at the meat of Measure 2:

A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape.

Did you catch that phrase? Or released from. Why, my goodness, this law would apply to clubs that plant pen-raised birds if it weren't for that other phrase: Big game species or exotic mammals.

Folks, do you have any idea what that last phrase is, "big game species or exotic mammals"?

I bet you're familiar with it, because it's election season, and it's a favored whipping boy in American politics.

It's called a loophole. Maybe you thought loopholes looked really creepy or insidious, but I spent ten years covering politics for major newspapers in in three states - Virginia, Minnesota and California - and I can tell you that this is exactly what a loophole looks like. And here's why it matters:

Let's say North Dakota voters pass Measure 2. A couple years down the road, someone - no names named, here - is going to want to get rid of that loophole. Here's how the campaign ads (or testimony before the Legislature) will probably go:

In 2010, North Dakota voters wisely decided to make it illegal to hunt animals raised in or released from pens, but unfortunately, there was a loophole in the law: It applies only to big game species. Why don't other species deserve that same protection? Help us make North Dakota law more humane - extend these protections to all animals.

(Cue the weepy music.)

Perhaps you disdain slippery-slope scenarios, but they are reality in politics. Hey, in California, we legalized medical marijuana in 1996, and on Tuesday, we've got the why-not-legalize-it-all-the-way proposition on our ballot.

Here's the funny thing: I don't have a dog in this fight. I've hunted planted birds, and I'm no longer interested in it because I find the odds unfulfilling. I may do it again if it means a chance to acquire meat we need and keep my shooting sharp, but generally I'm declining these invitations.

Same goes for high fence hunting. I've kinda done it - I hunted pigs in an insecure perimeter of a high-fence ranch (in other words, they could get in and out at will), and I killed a Corsican sheep inside secure boundaries because we were planning a feast and needed more meat. But now, with four years of hunting under my belt, I crave more challenge. I want to know odds are high that I will fail because it makes success all the more sweet.

But I really don't care if other people want to hunt this way, or "shoot," as it's called at some bird clubs to dismiss any illusion of challenge. I don't care that people want and are willing to pay for different levels of challenge.

Personally, I think challenge is a spectrum, and I'm loathe to decide which hunter gets to say, "Anything easier than this is illegal; anything harder than this is OK." Good Lord, what if Tred Barta were calling these shots? Most of us would have empty freezers!

Mostly, I'm bothered by hypocrisy. "It's OK to kill birds this way, but not deer" - as if birds' lives have less value. Or their lives are less valuable because their deaths help keep our dogs sharp.

All I've got to say is this: If you're a North Dakotan, please examine your values closely before you vote; this is no time for a knee-jerk reaction. And if you live in another state, it wouldn't hurt to do the same honest self-assessment. You never know when something like this will appear on your ballot.

All right, now. You know how I feel.


----------



## LT

http://www.facesofag.com/audio_files/DTTSeg1.mp3

http://www.facesofag.com/audio_files/DTTSeg2.mp3

Trent Loos interviewing Minot veterinarian, Dr. Russell Beam, who called in to rebutt statements made by someone representing the mule deer foundation. Dr. Beam stated that the operators are not slipshod and the animals are well cared for not diseased.


----------



## Savage260

Sounds pretty good LT, but I am sure the #2 elitists will look at your "But now, with four years of hunting under my belt, I crave more challenge." comment and decide you don't have the experience needed to make a decision on things like THEY do. They will tell you you don't know what is good for all sportsmen because you don't think like THEY do, you don't hunt like THEY do, and you don't push THEIR agenda. Good call on the loophole though, I have not seen any one point that out quite so plainly.


----------



## Dick Monson

> Good call on the loophole though, I have not seen any one point that out quite so plainly.


"released from" was added because of the elk plinkers in Montana who thought they could circumvent the law by trailering the animals outside the fence.  So now you understand it plainly.

Get out and vote folks. Can't ***** if you don't vote.


----------



## Eric Hustad

GST I am not saying anything about ranching cattle and I don't want to get into the twisting of words that never ends on this. I am sure there are people who oppose ranching cattle as they dont eat meat etc. I was simply saying when you start a business where animals are hunted in a fenced area it brings out a lot of protest etc. Like I have said before over and over the average person doesn't hunt and could care less about those that do and this all comes down to how they perceive this. So when a person says I think I will start a business where animals are shot in area they cant escape you are asking for trouble. I see both sides of the issue and its really tough, again it will come down to those who don't hunt or own fence operations. I'm just glad to be done with all the campaign commercials


----------



## DG

Dick said,



> "released from" was added because of the elk plinkers in Montana who thought they could circumvent the law by trailering the animals outside the fence. So now you understand it plainly.


You are such a liar. It is illegal to open the gate and let a farmed elk out. If one does get out the farmer/rancher has x amount of time to get it back in. Lots of rules and regs.

In Montana after I-143 passed the farmer/rancher didn't have to haul them anywhere. Elk cows sold for $300. The authorities stood down and said go ahead shoot all the cows you want. Just don't try to shoot a bull.

Destroy the factory, that is what this is all about.


----------



## Plainsman

> You are such a liar


That's the DG we have all come to know. How are we to feel sympathetic? :eyeroll:


----------



## Dick Monson

Dwight, you of all people, should know that the elk plinkers in Montana did that very thing. Trailered them outside the fence. Might be illegal now in ND, but that doesn't say it can't be changed by a hostile group.

The wording of measure 2 is preempting that circumvention. Everybody needs to vote.


----------



## DG

Dick,

What's an elk plinker?

Trailered them where?

Do you have a newspaper arcticle to substantiate another of your claims?

There was 92 elk producers in Montana before I-143. Today there are 12 left.

Destroy the factory.


----------



## gst

Not trying to stir the pot, but while the topic is "hot" I am assuming those of you that supported measure 2 because of your beliefs these animals were "stole" from the public have written your Senators and Congressmen about the Park Services deal with Ted Turner where he cares for a number of Park Bison on his private ranch and in return receives a percentage of the calf crop to keep for his own. Funny we haven't even seen a thread regarding this from those who were so concerned earlier.


----------



## LT

*Article from Recent Ag Week *

_Buffalo Sale: Custer State Park in South Dakota plans to sell 177 buffalo at its annual November auction. The park herd of around 1300 was rounded up in September to be counted, branded, and vaccinated. Some animals are culled each year and sold so the herd doesn't get too big. More than half the buffalo being sold November 20 were calves. Nineteen park burros also will be sold. Last year's auction of 233 buffalo netted 173,690. _


----------



## jakeculp

Hi fence hunting is wrong in so many different ways. Where is the natural aspect of things. Lets all grow trophies and lose reality. Can't believe any tru hunters would actually want to have fences 10 ft tall wherever they hunt. I like to be able to range for miles myself. So you folks that want fences move to Texas. Stop trying to change hunting and make it easier that is part of hunting. Otherwise lets just call it killing ya wimps!!! :withstupid:


----------

