# Fair Chase Petition Drive Begans Today



## Dick Monson

ND Hunters for Fair Chase is starting the Fair Chase measure petition drive today, Sept 5th. We need interested individuals to circulate petitions, each of which has only 38 signature slots. If you are willing or interested please pm me your complete contact info, name address, tel. #, and email. Thank you in advance.  Dick Monson-Sec.-ND Hunters for Fair Chase


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzzzzz


----------



## R y a n

Hey Guys

If you haven't had a chance to contact Dick and pick one of these up.... make sure you don't forget. Let's try and get all the signatures we can for this measure to make a point...

Even if you only get one to circulate to your family members that should be more than sufficient!

Ryan


----------



## Dak

Ryan,

Excellent point. A petition doesn't have to be full to be turned in. I take one hunting with me and get folks I run into the opportunity to sign.


----------



## Turner

Where can you find a petition to sign in Fargo?


----------



## Dick Monson

In Fargo stop by Custom Gun Works, 401 University Dr N, In VC stop by Northwestern Industrys (Leon's). Both stores are worth the trip just too look around and talk to the pros.

Anyplace else, pm me and set you up to sign. One petiton is only 38 names--take it to a foot :beer: ball game.


----------



## Neanderthal

I totally disagree with this petition, although a agree that high fence-penned hunting is not hunting, it's shooting. The reason I don't like this petition is that I strongly believe in freedom and owner's rights on their own land. As long as they are not infringing on other's rights they should be able to do anything they want on their own property, IMO. What's next? Are these people circulating petitions going to think they can tell me what I can-cannot due in my own home? Think about it! It's a very slippery slope, IMO.


----------



## MRN

Wow. The ND Century Code is full of about a zillion things you can't legally do in your own home. But aside from all those illegal things..... uhh..... I can't even figure out what slope you're talking about.

M.


----------



## taddy1340

MRN said:


> Wow. The ND Century Code is full of about a zillion things you can't legally do in your own home. But aside from all those illegal things..... uhh..... I can't even figure out what slope you're talking about.
> 
> M.


Exactly...


----------



## Plainsman

Neanderthal

MRN is right. You can't grow pot in your home, you can't run a brothel (not in North Dakota anyway) and there are dozens of other things you can't do. The same with land. Just look at last week they turned down the guys who wanted to grow hemp. 
Please give this some thought Neanderthal and apply your own standards if you want to. Does high fence shooting infringe on others rights? I think it does. Endangering our wild herds infringes on my right to healthy animal populations to hunt, and my grandchildren after me. It endangers hunting by putting us all in the same light when viewed by the ignorant portion of our society. If you give it some thought there are other reasons to end this "hunting travesty".


----------



## always_outdoors

1. I can't spray DDT on my property because if it leaches out, I can potentially effect our ND wildlife populations. I see this issue as the same thing. If one infected animal leaches out, then we have the potential to effect our ND wildlife populations.

2. If a disease is leaked into our ND wildlife populations, it won't be the high fence outfitter that will pay for all problems it creates. It will be placed on the backs of our ND Game and Fish and our Department of Ag. which means OUR TAX DOLLARS. Why take the risk when it isn't neccessary?

3. 17 other states have banned high fence hunting

4. High fence hunting promotes "pay to play" operations and we have all seen the increase of it here in ND which effects all of us and the NR's that come here to freelance hunt.

5. High fence operators tell the legislature it is a domesticated animal, but tell clients they are wild trophy animals. Which one is it?

6. High fence hunting is what PETA and other animal rights activitists use to teach the other 90% of our country's population (who do not hunt) how terrible hunting is. They are using this type of hunting against us.

Those are just off the top of my head, I am sure there are more.


----------



## MRN

Plainsman said:


> MRN is right.


Ha! First time this year.... with 28 days left to spare. I gotta show my wife.

M.


----------



## angus 1

I don't agreee with the high fenced hunting . But I've said it before that ownership of private property is the cornstone of a free society, so I will not be signing the petition. Landowner Rights. What will be next? Cattle , Bison . Don't tell me it can't happen because it will , just look at the slaughter horse market. Those sideing with the petition are doing nothing more than giving into a animal rights issue.


----------



## Plainsman

angus 1 said:


> I don't agreee with the high fenced hunting . But I've said it before that ownership of private property is the cornstone of a free society, so I will not be signing the petition. Landowner Rights. What will be next? Cattle , Bison . Don't tell me it can't happen because it will , just look at the slaughter horse market. Those sideing with the petition are doing nothing more than giving into a animal rights issue.


Angus1, do you think growing pot on a farm is a landowner issue? Do you think that owning land gives you rights to do anything you please? I am sure you don't, I'm just trying to get you to look at it from another perspective. I know the high fence operators would like landowners to think it's a landowner issue, but it clearly is not. They would like to pull as many other people into this fight as possible. The truth however, is that it is not hunting, it is not hunters sticking together, it is not a landowner issue. Many will say we need to stick together, and they are right, but high fence operators are not one of us, anymore than a fellow with a rifle shooting up a mailboxes is a sportsman. He is a vandal with a gun.

We often hear that we must police our own if our sport is to survive. Then when the time comes everyone backs down. So, how about spotlighting deer. You say that it isn't legal so it's ok to stop it. At one time everything was legal, now many things are not. We had never heard of internet hunting. It was legal. Is it legal now? I don't think so. This is what this measure will do. It will make it illegal just like internet hunting. We are not the first state to do this, but I hope we are not so pig headed and money worshiping hat we are the last to do it.


----------



## angus 1

Pot is an illegal drug , so of course you cant grow it on your property. An Elk or Bison or even a Whitetail are Legal so why can't you raise them on your owen property to "kill" We do it with cattle. Owning the land certainly doesnt give you the right to do what ever you want . You must follow the laws. Why is it ok to raise phesants to "kill" . Just as an elk rancher raises his elk to kill. . I just believe you are giving in to the animal rights groups . I totally disagree with high fenced hunting because it is not hunting and to me morally wrong. But we can not legislate morals. If we could abortion would be illegal .To me , us landowners are losing rights more and more all the time. We can no longer drain sloughs to make them productive. We have never been granted our right as landowners not to have to post. The average person doesn't even have to ask permission to walk on someone elses land, because it is their right. What about the landowners rights? Yes he has the right to post but is costs to do so and that's not really right either. We could argue this in many different angles and my angle is Landowner rights, even though I disapprove of the fenced hunting.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Angus great post.

I agree that this will be taking away landowner rights. In previous posts people talk about growing pot, brothels, etc. THOSE ARE ILLEGAL. Growing deer or animals is not.

Now I am in favor of making these operations have restrictions on advertising. Many other aspects of advertising are restricted. Example: In real estate you can't use certain words to depict a home...(starter home, low income, anything to decribe race or religion, etc). Why can't they do this for these operations. Call a spade a spade.....they are killing operations. make it so they can't use the words hunt, heritage, trophy hunts, etc. This law would pass so much easier and would not give the hunting community a black eye. Because it is not hunting. This is hunters fighting against landowners. Think about it....some landowners might not agree with High Fenced hunting but they don't want rights taken away.

People also use the disease aspect. Many of these operations go through strict health checks of there animals. Tighten them if you are afraid. Make it they can only have X number of animals per acre. Don't take away there lively hoods. Because what will be next is pheasant farms. Just wait and see.


----------



## angus 1

I agree


----------



## Plainsman

> THOSE ARE ILLEGAL. Growing deer or animals is not.


We are not trying to make growing deer illegal, we are trying to make putting them in tiny corals and letting some unscrupulous person shoot them as a trophy, and brag about what a great hunter he is illegal. In some situations not only are the animals in small containments, but they have been drugged so that you still have a chance even if you don't know which end of the gun to point at the critter. What next a little KY so you can insert the weapon before you pull the trigger if you're a really bad shot? Stand up for something guys. It's wrong to accept it simply because these guys own ground. Would you be willing to accept anything else too, simply because the guy doing it owns some land. I'm really disappointed to hear that. Would you expect policemen to think it's ok for a fellow policeman to do something immoral? I doubt it. Somewhere someone has to have the decency to draw the line.

So are you saying that we should never make any new laws. Of course you are, I didn't need to ask the question. Society should all of a sudden come to a standstill. Look at the wetland issue angus1 brought up. Why should you be able to drain a wetland and flood those downstream. Look at Devils Lake, and upstream they still drain. Do they care about homeowners in Devils Lake. The answer is easy, no, they care only about themselves.

Again I will tell you that at one time there were no laws. Then humanity became civilized and each year we have new laws. I can't believe that not everyone understands this simple concept. I think some of you are trying hard not to understand.



> Many of these operations go through strict health checks of there animals.


And many of them cheat. The more money involved the more they cheat. Some cross elk with red stag, and when they escape they fail to follow the rules and inform the controlling government agency. Disease is a concern, but not the reason for this measure. The reason like angus1 said is morals. Where angus1 is wrong is we can legislate morals. If we couldn't murder would still be legal, rape, incest, you name it, many laws are based on morals.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Like I mentioned in other posts....

Make the drugging illegal. Make it so if people want to have these operations that they need X number of acres to hold these shoots. Make the breeding or cross breeding more strict or illegal. Make each pen be double fenced. Make it that you can only have X number of animals per acre. Make a law against the operations from advertising a certain way.

Because what this is doing is pitting Landowner vs Hunters. This is what groups like PETA want. This is a win situation for them no matter how it turns out. Think about it. If the landowners win it is a black eye on hunter-landowner relations. If the hunters win it is takes away killing of some animal....then they can go after pheasant farms....then hunting seasons or baiting practices (bears) or hunting with the use of dogs (bears, deer, then birds). Just wait and see. especially if mrs. clinton gets into office.

I really don't care if a guy shoots the animal in the pen and then tells everyone he is the greatest hunter in the world. WHO CARES.


----------



## Plainsman

I don't know if PETA will like to see penned hunts end. After all it is one of their biggest money makers. People see drugged animals shot, PETA says they are working against it, people then donate money. Who knows what PETA thinks, it's hard to predict an insane mind.

If we win hunters and landowners win. As a hunter I don't want people seeing people hunt this way and think I do. Do landowners want anyone thinking that they condone this? Hunters are not the only ones getting a black eye from high fence hunts. It certainly tarnishes my view of a landowner who is willing to accept this simply because a person owns land. Does owning land exempt a person from moral obligations?

You are right that there will be other attacks. The more things we do wrong the sooner those attacks will come. Or I should say the sooner there will be public support to end many forms of hunting. What ever happened to the idea of policing your own before society does it for you? Get rid of the cancer before it spreads.


----------



## Turner

I have been really looking at this, and in the past I was very much for banning these high fence hunting operations. By no means do I support what they have to offer, however, I really do not agree with it being banned. Like Chuck Smith and Angus 1 have stated, let's not turn this into a land owner vs. hunter debate, instead we need to stick together and look at coming up with stricter rules and regulations along with enforcing them to the fullest. 
As long as these operations breed their animals and not take them from the wild, report vaccinations annually, have sufficient fencing, put an acre/animal limit, no drugging or restraining, and the animals are killed in the most humane manner, are just a few of the regulations that I can think of. If any of the rules and regulations are violated, the owner will forfeit their license to own or operate a high fence preserve. 
Instead of banning these operations and by putting stringent rules and regulations out there for them to follow and enforcing them we would be showing the anti's that we are not divided, we are only policing ourselves and our privilege that we have to hunt.

Ok, I am going to go put my Kevlar jacket and helmet on now and prepare to get blasted by Plainsman.
:sniper:


----------



## Plainsman

> Ok, I am going to go put my Kevlar jacket and helmet on now and prepare to get blasted by Plainsman.


No, I'm not going to do that. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I just get frustrated when those involved in the business are clearly misleading.



> let's not turn this into a land owner vs. hunter debate,


OK, pay close attention. Who is making this a landowner vs. hunter debate? Not me, I have said over and over this isn't a landowner rights issue, it's a moral issue. I am simply disappointed that landowners would support someone simply because they own land. I have compared it to other vocations. I even compared it to priests in one post. Would you respect a catholic that supported a child molesting priest simply because he was catholic? So why do landowners support this travesty of hunting simply because the high fence operator owns land? I don't understand it, but I got to get me an acre.
Furthermore, I can't understand why any true outdoorsman would support high fence shooting. Is it a kiss up to get in good with landowners? Oh well, people say one thing on here, but the polls say otherwise.


----------



## 4590

Whos misleading who??????????

I think every elk producer that has responded to this issue has answered questions factually. I have seen nothing misleading. They call it "hunting" and certainly that is their right under the First Ammendment. What they do fits the definition of hunting in NDCC, which is also protected. If you don't like it, change the NDCC.

HOWEVER promoters of the initiative have compared game farmers to pimps of prostitution, priest molesting children, illegal drug producers, and no doubt many other crimes against humanity. They have also equated these hunts to dog fights and other inhumane treatment of animals. All to support their OPINION that this activity is "immoral".

They continue to emphasize they are not against the raising of cervids for meat and fiber. Yet won't answer a simple question regarding whether someone could go to an elk ranch and purchase and slaughter an animal for meat. (provided the price meats their criteria of what represents meat price) Yet if you read the many comments by most of them you will see clearly a strong disdain for the game farm industry and underlying desire to eliminate IT.

TELL ME WHO IS MISLEADING WHO?????

So, I suspect everyone is dying to know, since the petition has been out there for 3 months, and that was the basis for starting this thread, how many signatures have you got?


----------



## always_outdoors

> TELL ME WHO IS MISLEADING WHO?????


Oh please 4590. You tell legislators they are domesticated animals, but put "trophy hunts elk" on your wepage. Tell me, if they are a domesticated animal, what is the fat percentage or calving ease?

You don't grow animals for meat, you grow them for horns. Much different than the bison, cattle, swine, and sheep producers in this state.

First you screamed land owner rights, then you tried to spin the issue to get bison producers on your side.

You mislead the entire outdoor industry into thinking what you provide is a "hunt" until you are in front of a legislator where you cry and cry about how you have domesticated animals.

Who is misleading who? You are and you know it. The story has never changed from the sponsors on this measure, but you and your counterparts have twisted and spun the issue so much you don't know if you are coming or going. uke:


----------



## KEN W

4590 said:


> Whos misleading who??????????


You are.....as live2hunt clearly states..... also in the other thread you say....."this will shut down game farming"......now that is clearly misleading and self-serving.You can raise all the elk you want.That isn't part of this measure is it??????It only says you can't sell those bulls and call it hunting.

If this measure passes.....will you still raise and sell elk for meat?????I would think so or you aren't much of a rancher. They will be no different than buffalo ranches.


----------



## People

Just to make this clear.

Let us say I have land and raise Elk.

Currently

1. Can I sell a bull to a person?
2. Can they shoot it?
3. Can they have it mounted if they decide to?
4. Do they need a "hunting license" or some kind of tag so every one knows it was not poached?

Now if the law passes and high fence hunts are not OK any more.

1. Can I sell a bull to a person?
2. Can they shoot it?
3. Can they have it mounted if they decide to?
4. Do they need a "hunting license" or some kind of tag so every one knows it was not poached?

I am sure there are more questions that need to be asked but I am in a hurry and can not think of any others.

Thank you.


----------



## Turner

Live2hunt
What is it that you really have an issue with? From your last post the only thing that I can come up with is that they are using the word HUNT in their advertising. If they would change that to killing, culling, shooting, or bagging would that change your views. Let's put a minimum of 5,000 acre limit on these preserves and limit the number animals they can have depending on the acres that are owned, not rented or leased but owned by the operation. As long as the animals are killed ethically and can not be entered in any official record book, Pope& Young or Boone & Crocket, give them their own record books. I don't have the right answers to how they should be controlled just some ideas but that is the direction we need to go, not banning them. If you don't like them don't support them or hunt there, I don't. 
How does this truly hurt any one, if any of you are looking at saving the world or society how about going after:
Car manufactures- no reason cars have to go faster than the speed limits, speed kills
Tobacco CO-kills the user and the people around the second hand smoke
Alcohol Co- wouldn't have any drunken driving deaths
Just to name a few.

Plainsman
If you are comparing this type of operation to a priest molesting a child, I understand that is your opinion, however, I feel you have a wire loose some where. Just like any other criminal, if they are convicted they are punished (not enough) for the laws that they have broken, I don't think you will find any one that supports them, put quite a few that will forgive them.


----------



## Plainsman

> If you are comparing this type of operation to a priest molesting a child, I understand that is your opinion, however, I feel you have a wire loose some where.


My wire isn't loose, your simply not understanding what you read.

This is simple, but people still don't understand. Lets do this step by step for those who are missing it. I said "Would you respect a catholic that supported a child molesting priest simply because he was catholic?"
What this is talking about is: I am questioning why landowners support people simply because they are landowners. I ask would a catholic support a child molesting priest simply because he is catholic. I think the answer to that would be no, so why are landowners supportive of the bad apples in their midst? This had nothing to do with comparing the priest to the high fence operator, it is questioning blind support. 
So it's frustrating. Are people failing at grade school comprehension, or attempting to mislead others? This isn't the first misunderstanding whether intentional or a failure to grasp a concept I don't know.

I would guess it is purposeful misleading to garner sympathy for the high fence operators. They want to be able to whine "that nasty plainsman compared me to a child molester". Clearly that's not true.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Plainsman....

I know what you are getting at. I can't speak for landowners.....But if someone is doing something illegal they won't support them and want them weeded out. But if operations are doing it legal and following all the guidelines set. Then they will support them.

The point is you are trying to put all of these operations into the same category of the bad ones. It is just like saying all (insert race, creed, ethnic origin, etc) are bad. It is false.

You keep saying in both threads that the bad ones will cheat no matter what. That is true in every aspect in life. But if you have more enforcement and more strict guidelines it will keep many from trying to toe that line between good and bad. It will also keep many from trying to get into the game to make a quick buck.

Like I stated before:
-Make them have x number of animals per acre.
- Double fenced pens
- X number of acres for the shooting enclosure.
- More health checks
- Strict advertising laws (use of words like hunting, trophy, etc)
- Make the ranchers and all help take education classes for health and saftey issues. They need X number of hour per year. (continuing education classes)
- No drugging of animals

Then these have to be enforced. You see this is policing. If people have to jump through hoops to do this many will just give up or not get into the game. Then only the good operations will be up and running.


----------



## Plainsman

> Then only the good operations will be up and running.


But you see I don't think there is such a thing as a good operation when they shoot an animal in an enclosure.

Thanks for understanding what I was getting at when I talked about the priest. I never know when these misunderstandings occur if I am talking to someone who can't understand, or understands and hopes there are a lot of dumb people that will not understand. Frustrating. How can we debate if we can't understand what the other person is saying?


----------



## cwoparson

> But you see I don't think there is such a thing as a good operation when they shoot an animal in an enclosure.


So what do you say to the person that says they don't believe there is such a thing as a good priest? Do you try to convince him those things can be cleaned up or do you sign his petition to ban Catholic churches? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it. But when ridiculous analogies are used things can come full circle in a hurry. Not a jab Plainsman, just an observation.


----------



## Plainsman

cwoparson, you present yourself well, and I don't take your opinion as a jab. I complement you and chuck on your civility, I just don't agree with you on high fence killing. Your both gentleman and none of us will convince the other. I see this as we are not trying to convince each other as much as we are trying to convince the fence riders who read our posts. I wish you both the best in everything except this debate. 

Once again cwoparson I was not comparing the priests to the high fence operations, it was a comparison of blind support simply because of a single connection. Therefore, banning priests has no bearing on my perception of high fence killing. It has a bearing on the feeling of unquestionable loyalty we have towards people who have any likeness to ourselves.


----------



## 4590

Live2hunt,

All the info is on the web if you did a little research. Elk are very easy calvers if managed properly. We typically averaged 95 to 105% calf crop. There is all manner of husbandry info out there if you really want to know.

Planis,

I understand exactly what you are trying to say. My point is you are misleading by using extreme examples to try and paint the game farm industry in as bad a light as possible. It is obviously to serve your purpose. My point is comparing our industry to these extreme examples of crimes against humanity is similar to comparing child abuse to breaking the speed limit. They are worlds apart in behavior and detriment to society. Game farmers are a hard working business people that have invested thousands of dollars and countless hours of labor in an industry they love. They were given incentives by the state of ND. They do not deserve to portrayed as criminals.

We all know you continue to uphold the idea this measure is not intended to destroy the game farm industry. However if one reads enough of your posts, and those of others in your corner, it is obvious your intention is to elliminate this industry. That is why the discussion continues to digress to rediculous discussions about disease, genetics, transporting, and other issues not directly addressed by this measure. '

People,
The answers to your questions are yes, yes, yes, no. If the measure passed the answers are all up for grabs. They will tell you this will not affect slaughter, but if you read the measure carefully, the only things that is CLEAR, is that nothing is clear.


----------



## Plainsman

> My point is you are misleading by using extreme examples to try and paint the game farm industry in as bad a light as possible.


Have you really paid attention to what I write. Just today I explained two or three times that I was not comparing high fence operations to anything. I made comparisons of land owners blind loyalty akin to a catholic supporting a child molesting priest because he was catholic. That said I by no means think a catholic would do that, so please don't misconstrue that statement. It's simply an analogy.



> My point is comparing our industry to these extreme examples of crimes against humanity is similar to comparing child abuse to breaking the speed limit.


Again, read my post.



> They do not deserve to portrayed as criminals.


They are not criminals unless the law passes and they ignore it.



> We all know you continue to uphold the idea this measure is not intended to destroy the game farm industry. However if one reads enough of your posts, and those of others in your corner, it is obvious your intention is to elliminate this industry.


My hopes would be that after the high fence killing operations are outlawed that the producers will take heed and be more careful about disease. I think they have much less incentive to disregard current regulations because a meat animal is not worth the extreme value of some trophies. I think there was an elk on ebay that went for $75,000. If the owner had found a day after the sale that the bull was infected do you think there would have been a temptation to hide him, ship him, or pass him off as healthy to a "killer"?


----------



## 4590

Its all rhetoric. High price - high temptation.

Here are the facts: ND has had domestic elk for 40 yrs, through high price and low. Today no CWD, no TB, no bangs, sorry your point is only rhetoric.


----------



## Plainsman

We have to look at this from a high fence operation, not a producer operation or the historic perspective of a single state. Also, there have been no highs in meat production that we see in the killing pens of today.

On a national basis we have CWD around high fence operations. We have illegal transportation of animals from infected areas. We have animals hybridized with non native species allowed to escape and remain unreported until discovered. We have known infected animals scheduled to be destroyed and oh no they escaped over night. They got through the fence with side cutters right? 

But, but, that's all beside the point this is about the act of killing in enclosures.

Exactly high price high risk of violations. A bank robber may not risk ten years in prison for $25,000 but will risk it for a couple million. This is common sense. Now don't go off the deep end and say I am comparing elk meat producers with bank robbers.

Again this is beside the point. The point is about unsportsman, unethical, distateful etc etc etc means of killing.

I know I am beating a dead horse by saying the same things over and over. I know I am not going to convince you 4590 or any high fence operators, but I look at this as an opportunity to keep the ball rolling. The more people read this the better chances the measure has of success. The more often people misrepresent what I say the more credability I have, and the greater chance this measure has of success. Thanks for the help.


----------



## angus 1

Plainsman said:


> My hopes would be that after the high fence killing operations are outlawed that the producers will take heed and be more careful about disease. I think they have much less incentive to disregard current regulations because a meat animal is not worth the extreme value of some trophies. I think there was an elk on ebay that went for $75,000. If the owner had found a day after the sale that the bull was infected do you think there would have been a temptation to hide him, ship him, or pass him off as healthy to a "killer"?
Click to expand...

Not all elk ranchers are as bad as your imaginary friend is . How does this law affect Bison Ranchers? I've seen ads where you can go and kill your own bison if you want . What's the differance between Bison or Elk , or for that matter deer and cattle? Do you realize this opens the door for the animal rights groups to then start going after the trapping industry . How will this law affect a live trap ? Isn't that a "small pen" where the animal cant get away as you have explained. Now how about the hog / turkey / chicken industry where the word "confinement " has been coming up lately? Do you also support shutting down those ranchers ? All these have one thing in common , They are killing operations and not hunting. Just as the gun laws if we give in to one law they will push for more.


----------



## Plainsman

Angus1, I think your reading a lot more into this than really exists. What you are talking about in regards to animal rights they are trying to ban already. I have not, do not, nor will ever support their radical agenda. I look at high fence operations and PETA types as opposing radicals. Ninety nine percent of us are in the middle.

Buffalo I have gone into much detail about in the past, and many times, please use the search option. I would add that wild buffalo are nearly as dumb as penned buffalo so I'm personally not thrilled with either but if it trips your trigger.

Trappers we should all support. They are one of us, high fence operations are not. If animals were held in a one acre pen and trappers starved them for a week, then went in and set traps with bait it would be comparable to the high fence operations. I don't know anyone who traps this way. If they did I wouldn't support them either and would perhaps try do something about that also.


----------



## angus 1

Like I said before I don't agree with fenced hunting , but I wont budge on landowners rights. Buffalo ,Cattle , hogs , turkeys and such will be next if we give in. We can live with fenced killing , none of us want to live with infriged rights.


----------



## Plainsman

> but I wont budge on landowners rights.


What would you think if these people owned no land. If they were from Fargo, but leased 40 acres around small town North Dakota? This is in no way a landowners rights measure. If someone convinced you of that they had to twist the truth. 
On the other hand what kind of actions are you willing to accept if a person owns land, and what would you not accept? I know you have limitations angus1, we all do. I'm just trying to get you to look inward to see the fault of your reasoning. I'm sure you don't really believe landowners should have more rights than other Americans.


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> But, but, that's all beside the point this is about the act of killing in enclosures.
> ...
> Again this is beside the point. The point is about unsportsman, unethical, distateful etc etc etc means of killing.


Is killing a pig in a pen unethical? I don't buy the ethics argument. Now, the CWD that worries me.


----------



## Turner

IMO, the key to this fight is that you have to prove this is a disease spreading concern not a moral and ethics battle. You are going to try and convince a non-sportsman that it is more humane to kill an animal with a bow and sharpened stick and let them run off suffocate or bleed to death over a 1/2 hour vs having a pig or a cow walk down a ramp and take a metal rod that is air driven to the brain and then flip them over, slit their throat and let them bleed out? Just saying I think you are going about this in the wrong manner.

Plainsman, 
If you want to use a moral or ethical stand to get your point across on this issue be prepared to face the same long battles as the religious groups have on trying to ban abortion.


----------



## Plainsman

walker said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, but, that's all beside the point this is about the act of killing in enclosures.
> ...
> Again this is beside the point. The point is about unsportsman, unethical, distateful etc etc etc means of killing.
> 
> 
> 
> Is killing a pig in a pen unethical? I don't buy the ethics argument. Now, the CWD that worries me.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, the disease issue worries me also. I worry much more about the high fence killing operations than the meat operations. With the value of trophies the temptations are ten times what a meat producer faces. There is a great difference in mentality of the two producers.

As for killing pigs in pens I see a great difference in true domestication over hundreds, even thousands of years compared to native wild species that people want to call domesticated. Calling a horse a cow doesn't make it so. There are wild pigs that still exist in the world, but old _Sus scrofa_ just isn't the same as he once was. Humanity didn't claw it's way to the top of the food chain for lettuce, but I have shot pigs in pens and none of us look forward to that or think it's sport do we? I love meat, and there is only one way to get it. It don't grow on a vine.

Turner, not only am I going to have to keep working on nonhunters about archery hunting, but I am going to have to work on you. Most of my bow kills the animal has only lasted seconds, not minutes and certainly not portions of an hour. Not every cow goes down in the chute perfectly either, but must we talk about that?
As far as disease or ethics I am concerned about both. I have voiced my opinion of the disease factor, but I don't often talk about what I think of those who shoot animals in pens or raise them for this purpose. I can't find a polite way to express such complete disgust.


----------



## Turner

Plainsman, 
All I am saying is you are trying to push your morals, ethics and beliefs on to a group to stop what they believe is ok in their mind. Hmm, doesn't that sound a little like PETA vs. the hunters and the outdoorsmen? You better step back and look at this in a different light otherwise you are just fueling the antis and spitting the group that needs to hang together otherwise we will swing alone, words I see you live by. Get together your facts and figures on all the disease cases that have been caught and all the operations that drug, starve, restrain, and use minimal acres to run their operation and show the agencies all different outcomes if this gets out of hand and what it could cost the state or the public to get this cleaned up. I will say this again, I do not support the game farms or high fence hunting on any level. I am an outdoorsmen, hunter, and fisherman from now until the day I die and will defend my privilege to do so. 
Your archery skills are great and I am sure you shoot year round as I do to make sure your skills are fine tuned to make that ethical and quick kill when the time arises.


----------



## Plainsman

> All I am saying is you are trying to push your morals, ethics and beliefs on to a group to stop what they believe is ok in their mind.


I understand, but that is done all the time. Most of our laws are based on someone getting fed up with things they do not approve of. Our nation when first formed based the laws of this nation following religious moral beliefs.



> Hmm, doesn't that sound a little like PETA vs. the hunters and the outdoorsmen?


As much as I hate PETA it's paranoid to make that comparison. It's time to show the public that sportsmen and women have integrity and limitations. We have outlawed spotlighting deer, because we lacked tolerance for that unsporting practice. We hunters need to be making sound sensible decisions before wacko's like PETA convince the nonhunting portion of our society to take away even more.

Would you feel better if we made it against the law to shoot an animal.  Then these guys who want to raise animals to be shot in their pens could raise all they want, but the guy who pays them gets a $25,000 fine and a year in jail. Do you think they would sell any? That totally leaves the ( already nonexistent) landowner issue out of it.



> You better step back and look at this in a different light otherwise you are just fueling the antis and spitting the group that needs to hang together otherwise we will swing alone, words I see you live by.


Yup for the past 40 years I have said hang together or hang alone. It was only fitting that I use it as one of my signature lines.

With that said I do believe in sticking together, but these high fence killing operations are in no way one of us. They have attached themselves to us much like a leech attaches to your leg. I don't want either of them tainting my blood with anticoagulant or tainting public perception of hunter integrity or true sportsmen like yourself.

Watch for telltale language. Some people are genuinely concerned, some are fearful (must be bad walking around frightened of shadows all their lives) and others have invested interests. Some will make comparisons to PETA, others will mention the slippery slope (if they are not frightened themselves they are trying to frighten others), some will try to make it a landowner issue, others will try brush it aside as not serious, and still others will point to small segments of our society and say this is the only way they can hunt. None are valid arguments, but it's tough to tell the motives of the poster. If I could tell, I could address these issues better. As we talk more we will expose more of these hidden agendas.

This decision will be made by guys like angus1, turner, Chuck, DAK, love2hunt, Dick, and others, but not including the high fence operators themselves. When they come on here isn't their the self serving motivations glaringly obvious? Remember a fellow on here who was angry because a high fence operator had been arrested in Tennessee for transporting an animal from a known infected area to Tennessee? It's against the law right? Where is that guy now? From what I learned while in Tennessee a few weeks ago I would guess the answer has a high likely hood of being ----- out on bail. I think Tennessee is very close to being right behind all the others who are outlawing this killing practice.


----------



## Dick Monson

For those wondering about the disease issue just connect the dots. Factual info from USGS, 2006. You will note most outbreaks in the wild of CWD are adjacent to contaminated game farms. The closest to ND was just across the stateline at Ashely. Those few outbreaks that are not, are suspected of being from purchased animals that were released into the wild for private hunting. Those states have prohibited further importation of any live cervids. Cats out of the bag though because those states were not proactive like the ND measure and now bear the cost of containment.










It seems disingenious for people to say they would not participate in canned shooting themselves, (running their ethics up the public flagpole) and then adding a qualifer...BUT... on their position. You support Fair Chase Hunting or not. Period. There are no ammendments on an initiated measure. It is yes or no at the ballot box.

Missing in the fence hanger arguements is the aspect of *exotics* which the measure also prohibits. Canada has allowed wild boar canned shooting. Some of these have escaped and populated portions of the Turtle Mts where they are causing enviromental damage. The clean up is going to come from taxpayers and hunting license monies, not from game ranchers which caused the problem. Nip it in the bud now whether pigs or cervids. Bird hunters who have no interest in this issue will get soaked just like deer and elk hunters for the cost.

The canned shooting opperations (apx one dozen) in ND meet the minimum standards of regulation. Hardly comforting or deserving of bragging rights. They will never self impose tougher regulatory standards like inspections, audits, double fencing, etc. It's this measure or nothing.

The sole purpose of canned shooting is "selling the act of killing an artifical trophy". It is obscene in the public eye and no more related to hunting than picking a jug of milk out of the frig.

There is no possible way to equate canned shooting to slaughtering a domestic animal for meat or another usefull purpose, or to compare it to harvesting surplus wildlife in fair chase hunting. The only purpose of canned shooting is an artifical trophy killed in containment.

We still need your help. If you are willing to circulate a petiton, PM me or email me at [email protected]


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,
Top breeding stock, especially bulls, of both beef and bison have been known to sell for tens of thousands of dollars. BIG TEMPTATION to break the rules right? There have been recent outbreaks of TB in both ND and MN in beef herds. So what are we to do. Wring our hands and start an initiative I guess.

Oh I forgot, this is not about disease or what a rancher can sell his stock for. Its about ethics. Right!


----------



## 4590

Dick,

Thanks for posting the CWD map again along with your spin as to what it proves. I suggest if anyone has questions about the spread and current situation with CWD they do some research on the web or even call Dr. Keller and the NDBOAH and get a professionals insight as to the topic as we have hashed it at length.

This post does prove my point that Dick is intent on ending the game farm industry, not just fenced hunting as the initiative does nothing to address the CWD issue.


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,

You have made the point numerous times that the high price of trophy bulls is an incentive to break the rules. I would understand that to mean shortcuts in disease monitoring, inventory reporting, etc. However your reasoning again is hugely flawed. You see a producer that has stock that is valuable, is going to take whatever measure necessasry to maintain his disease status. He is going to maintain his inventories in order to remain in good standing with NDBOAH and also qualify him to sell animals to other states. You see the type producer you like to portray will not have markets available to him and thus his stock are basically going to be meat price.

You can try to protray an industry according to youR worped sense of human nature but it doesn't reflect reality. I once had animalS approve to go to New Mexico. It was only because I had impeccable inventory records and herd health records that we got the approval. So you see the premium quality animals can bring is a huge incentive to do things right, NOT AS YOU SUGGEST.


----------



## walker

Good points raised, but here is where I stand.

I will not support Fair Chase legislation in any form. Here is why.

1) There are many legitimate reasons to restrict private property rights, but the reason to do so should be a clear and convincing public benefit. "Fair Chase" does not rise to that level in my book. The burden of proving such a benefit should fall on those who would restrict those rights.
2) Shooting an animal is an ethical form of slaughter. I make no distinction whether the animal was 10 feet away or 100 yards, skittish or not, domestic or wild.

I would suport strong regulatory legislation that was targeted at disease prevention. Here is why.

1) A scientific approach can be applied. This would allow a reasoned and measured form of dealing with the problem, which btw may even include an out right ban on captive stock of certain species, genera or family(cervids come to mind). Making law through emotion is a bad recipe (I know it is often done this way, and I still think it is a bad recipe).
2) It can be applied on a per disease basis. 
3) The economic impact of those private citizens that are impacted by the law through no fault of their own can be mitigated as it should be in a just society. I believe *just* Eminent Domain applies here.


----------



## TPR

Walker well said I've been brewing about this all day and have a very long winded response, I apologize in advance but this last post I agree with whole heartedly.


----------



## TPR

We are not trying to make growing deer illegal, we are trying to make putting them in tiny corals and letting some unscrupulous person shoot them as a trophy, and brag about what a great hunter he is illegal. " Plainsman"

Why does it matter so much to you what anyone says about anything they do. Integrity will never be legislated, so if someone wants to brag about some accomplishment what difference does it make, you don't think it's such a bad thing to brag about never having a deer you shot with a bow lasting more than seconds (even though we all know that you probably have had one or two make it past that by a little)
I sense the problem here has to do with jealousy and envy as much as anything. 
How small is too small, I've seen deer in a piece of bush about a ½ acre that didn't want to come out. Me and my son went in and drove them out to my wife. It was like shooting fish in a barrel the only thing that would have saved them was her not shooting; not "hunting". We did nothing illegal but you seem to think that the size of the area we were in must have devalued that situation for her.

Watch for telltale language. Some people are genuinely concerned, some are fearful (must be bad walking around frightened of shadows all their lives) and others have invested interests. Some will make comparisons to PETA, others will mention the slippery slope (if they are not frightened themselves they are trying to frighten others), some will try to make it a landowner issue, others will try brush it aside as not serious, and still others will point to small segments of our society and say this is the only way they can hunt. None are valid arguments, but it's tough to tell the motives of the poster. If I could tell, I could address these issues better. As we talk more we will expose more of these hidden agendas. "Plainsman"

And some will tell you that if you don't support this measure that you are not a hunter, you're immoral, unethical, non-complaint with our hunting heritage and will be the downfall of hunting as we know it. Opinion each and all and I don't see your staff and tablets from God making your word any more valid than the rest of ours.

Hidden Agenda I love that statement but only the pro-ranching side does any spinning

For those wondering about the disease issue just connect the dots. Factual info from USGS, 2006. You will note most outbreaks in the wild of CWD are adjacent to contaminated game farms." Dick Monson"

Except all of the ones in Wyoming the ones at the White Sands Missile Base in New Mexico and the ones outside of Madison Wisconsin. The ones associated with infected ranches can all be traced back to Govt' run facilities that regularly held and released diseased animals in there facilities and then took those diseased animals and traded them to Zoos and ranches knowingly spreading the disease yet not informing anyone of there exposure to the disease. Again game farms do not create disease they may be able to facility its spread but the disease was not created by a game farm. The only thing that gets you now is that game farms can do something about it but it is too late for the Govt. to take back those infected animals that they released into the wild.

The closest to ND was just across the stateline at Ashely. Those few outbreaks that are not, are suspected of being from purchased animals that were released into the wild for private hunting. "Dick Monson"

Where did you come up with that? Spin or reality I wait for the documentation. I suspect I will be waiting a while.

It seems disingenuous for people to say they would not participate in canned shooting themselves, (running their ethics up the public flagpole) and then adding a qualifier...BUT... on their position. You support Fair Chase Hunting or not. Period! There are no amendments on an initiated measure. It is yes or no at the ballot box. "Dick Monson"

You can support Fair Chase and Support Game Farms it's easy and it's already set up. Boone and Crocket and Pope and Young both lay out the ground work for Fair Chase and I'm sure that each one of you knows the guidelines. As for farm raised animals the SCI has a category for that which does not infringe on any other trophy classifications if that's what's important to you. Nothing done on a legal game farm does anything to restrict, hinder or diminish what is done in a fair chase situation. So as you know from a previous post I've been to a game farm and harvested a 350 inch bull, doesn't make SCI, I've also been hunting public and private land for almost 30 years, and I've harvested a near book Mountain Goat and a barely book Whitetail, and a very nice antelope that would go pretty far in the book (those are my most note worthy trophies), along with numerous other personal trophies. Oh boy now I've done it bragging about what a great hunter I am. I guess this makes me unscrupulous, but it does prove that you can support Fair Chase and at the same time support private ranchers making a living at raising and selling trophy game animals. I'm still a hunter as well.

You are right about the yes or no at the ballot box and I hope that never comes back to bite you like this is coming back on legitimate game farmers. Each person on the side of supporting this measure should look into there life and see if something they do or enjoy in there life is something that only a minority of people do or approve of (i.e. Hunting, Live a non-conventional life style, ect.). If you do, what would the rest of the world think if the &#8230;home of the free and land of the brave were to go out and wantonly destroy the freedoms of the little guy that this country was built on? I don't know if you have noticed but there is know where else to go to live free, this is it. If you like to control all aspects of someone else's life move to China and join the "Party" you don't even have to go to a ballot.

The canned shooting opperations (apx one dozen) in ND meet the minimum standards of regulation. Hardly comforting or deserving of bragging rights. They will never self impose tougher regulatory standards like inspections, audits, double fencing, etc. It's this measure or nothing. "Dick Monson"

As opposed to all the other regulations laid down for other industries and of course those industries do at least five times what's required, if there is a problem with regulation that isn't the ranchers fault.

The sole purpose of canned shooting is "selling the act of killing an artifical trophy". It is obscene in the public eye and no more related to hunting than picking a jug of milk out of the frig.

Interesting analogy most people think milk comes from the store not a farm and most of them would say "SO WHAT" and to them they would be right!
One man's "artificial trophy" is another man's fulfilled dream, who are you to take that away from anyone. 
There is no possible way to equate canned shooting to slaughtering a domestic animal for meat or another useful purpose, or to compare it to harvesting surplus wildlife in fair chase hunting. The only purpose of canned shooting is an artificial trophy killed in containment.

That is your opinion not fact or biblical text. Some of us think otherwise (my opinion). I don't believe that either is right or wrong they are just different and should both be honoured. The idea that you are so knowledgeable and all righteous to even make that comment speaks a lot to how you must view other people's opinion, life experiences and worth.

It only says you can't sell those bulls and call it hunting. "Ken W"

No Ken that is not what it says if that was what this was about then I think the industry would probably come to you and work out something that worked for both sides.

Buffalo I have gone into much detail about in the past, and many times, please use the search option. I would add that wild buffalo are nearly as dumb as penned buffalo so I'm personally not thrilled with either but if it trips your trigger. "Plainsmen"

Again this shows how utterly ridiculous this is. Plainsmen the fountain of all wisdom again has proclaimed the truth by stating that the buffalo need not apply to this measure because simply put "They don't meet with what I (Plainsmen) consider a decent huntable game animal". I guess then it isn't with embarrassment that we have wantonly exterminated the Great Auk, Passenger Pigeon and Carolina Parakeet because by all accounts they were as dumb as "penned buffalo" and it really didn't trip your trigger.

This idea of the greater the value the more risks you would take. I think you are dead wrong about that. The more legitimate money there is in the industry the more the industry will do too protect it from things like disease, escaped animals and animal cruelty. If I had the opportunity to sell one of those bulls for as much money as you say they are worth I would be doing everything in my power to protect it from harm.

Finally, the trophy part of the animal has value and shouldn't be ignored just because you don't want someone to brag about it. It is no different than the horns on a Texas Longhorn, they have value and just because you don't think a rich Texan should have them on the grill of his Cadillac doesn't make you right.


----------



## Plainsman

TPR having shot penned animals I can see where you are upset with us. Do you also own a high fence operations? No insinuation, I'm just curious. The sarcasm in your post indicates your anger and I thought perhaps you had a vested interest. You surely appear to have more interest than the common sportsman.


----------



## TPR

No I don't own a high fenced operation there wouldn't be much need to go to one if I owned one.

I also don't believe I have more interest than the common sportsmen because that is what I am, maybe I've just been sucked into this mire because I care about truth honesty integrity and the rights of people to live without some special interest group trying to force there views on them. Especially by the means used here. To think I got on the computer and Googled "Fair Chase" to try and track down a score sheet for a buddy only to uncover this site is beyond imagination. I have stated before and in this post how I feel and backed it with what I hope are accurate facts yet the sponsors of this bill continue to use an "I know better" approach to argueing there side. Until someone on your side of the fence can articulate to me why these operations are immoral and unethical I will continue to question your logic, reasoning and facts and even if someone on your side can articulate this to me and convince me to change my ways I will continue to demand facts not rhetoric innuendo opinion and hearsay.

I apologize if I've come across a little harsh but I find it frustrating what is going on here.

I do look forward to any comments you have about what I've written


----------



## ND ELK Man

Plainsman you must be kiding if you think this is not as property rights issue, you are wanting to take away a person right to have hunts on his property behind a fence plain and simple and yes these are hunts just a different form of hunting. You seem to think that it is no big deal to want to take away a persons right to choose these hunts and a persons right to put up a fence for the sole purpose of a shooting farm, so if you think this is not a rights issue think again.


----------



## Plainsman

Thank you for the explanation TPR. I thought the sarcasm in your post indicated anger. What I seen as sarcasm was the comment that I was bragging when I told Turner I had to convince him about archery because my bow shot deer only lived for seconds. You took that as bragging which made me think we have two different mindsets, or your angry. I have nothing to do with how fast deer die, it attests to the lethality of archery equipment.
The other statement that I must be jealous because you have a 350 class animal also indicated resentment. Again it appeared to me as sarcasm, but after your explanation it is apparently simply because we think differently. I guarantee you I am not jealous, in the same fashion I am not jealous of those who have cancer. A cow outside the fence would be more of a trophy to me than a 450 class bull inside the fence.
My purpose is not to offend you TPR, so I will refrain from telling you how high fence hunting makes me feel. Your last posts deserves my respect, so lets just leave it here.


----------



## angus 1

Don't get to worked up. Plainsman has been against farmers, ranchers and landowners making money on alot of issues not only this one.

If Plainsman can compair fenced killing to growing pot and prostitution . Why cant I compair having a picnic lunch on a lawn in town and having a stranger hunt my unposted property with out permission?


----------



## Plainsman

angus 1 said:


> Don't get to worked up. Plainsman has been against farmers, ranchers and landowners making money on alot of issues not only this one.
> 
> If Plainsman can compair fenced killing to growing pot and prostitution . Why cant I compair having a picnic lunch on a lawn in town and having a stranger hunt my unposted property with out permission?


angus1 I didn't expect that of you. You know very well, and I have explained this many times the comparisons your accusing me of was not of high fence operations, but of laws we have implemented that were based on morals.

Also, I am not against landowners making money. I am against them getting it from taxpayers for nothing more than being landowners. I am pleased to pay for conservation practices because that benefits all of society. I am not happy being taxed for support prices, because that benefits only one person.

On both counts you have misrepresented me. Attack me for what I am if you must, but I have enough enemies without creating more from imagination.

Oh, by the way, you know I have sympathized with you for the problems you have with hunters coming on your posted land. I have fully supported your position, if not on here in PM's to you. Please acknowledge that. Have your forgotten our personal and friendly conversations? What happened?

From: Plainsman 
To: angus 1 
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:50 am 
Subject: Re: Fishing 
I agree completely angus. Perhaps the right thing to do is set a limit of $100,000. This is chump change to the big guys, but it will sure help out the small fellow. I am completely for fellows like you. I must admit that half the things I say on hear about farmers are things I hear and not how I feel. If I say I heard someone say it farmers will not take it serious. However, if I say it myself then they know there are people out there not happy. I don't do it to hurt their feelings, I do it to alert them. They must know what is happening behind the scenes. 
You have no idea how much I valued your offer. Even though I doubt I will ever get time to hunt on your land the offer is still worth more than I can tell you. I wish you the very best angus. 
My grandson is here now so I must cut this short.

Later.


----------



## angus 1

Just trying to rattle your cage a little ,  no harm intented. We can agree that once again we disagree :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

Thanks angus1. I have always respected you, and am sorry I misinterpreted your post, you sure did sucker me. I wouldn't have been so upset if I didn't value your opinion so much. There are many on here that I argue with that would perhaps be surprised if they knew how much I do respect them. Thanks again angus1, whew I am relieved.


----------



## angus 1

Plainsman. As you and I have talked before you know I see both sides and try not to take cheap shots but this one got away from me . Any way I have not deer hunted in 5 years I do have a muzzleloader buck tag and I'm trying to get out of work so I can go !! I'm actually a little pumped up. Been watching a 170 class for about a month now, he's got one thing going for him .......... I'm a bad shot!!


----------



## Turner

Plainsman wrote:
angus1 I didn't expect that of you. You know very well, and I have explained this many times the comparisons your accusing me of was not of high fence operations, but of laws we have implemented that were based on morals.

You have said this many times about how our nation and its laws have been founded on morals. That was many, many years in the past when this nation was founded on the beliefs of one Christian faith. Morals and ethics can be used to keep us on the right track but not used as a primary means of setting laws. I respect that you have morals and ethics, unfortunately many do not, but do not stand on your soap box and preach that your morals and ethics are what the rest of society should follow. I need hard proven facts and figures to show me that these game farms, if monitored correctly, can pose a threat to me and the way I hunt (free ranging animals mind you) and at this stage in the game I haven't seen enough.


----------



## Plainsman

angus 1 said:


> Plainsman. As you and I have talked before you know I see both sides and try not to take cheap shots but this one got away from me . Any way I have not deer hunted in 5 years I do have a muzzleloader buck tag and I'm trying to get out of work so I can go !! I'm actually a little pumped up. Been watching a 170 class for about a month now, he's got one thing going for him .......... I'm a bad shot!!


I'm happy to hear your out hunting again and haven't let those squatters with guns (trespassers) dampen your enthusiasm. If you get that nice buck I sure hope you post a picture. 
As far as bad hunters a friend and I did score one this fall. A pickup with four guys, two in the front, and two in the back, was driving one row belts in CRP. The guys in back were with the rifles ready as they drove through the field along the belt. We called the warden. He was close, and he got them.


----------



## Plainsman

> but do not stand on your soap box and preach that your morals and ethics are what the rest of society should follow.


That's the way a democracy works Turner. Someone at last says enough is enough and he presents his ideas to society. I guess that is getting on the soapbox. Someone has to do it or we would still be in the dark ages burning witches. In the end society as a whole will tell me if I am right and you are wrong, or you are right and I am wrong. If one has strong enough convictions they reject societies view and continue the struggle. So please don't tell me in a free nation that I can't do this. It's counter productive.


----------



## 4590

TPR,
Thanks again for taking the time to post here. I don't know what your occupation is but you are an excellent communicator, and not just because I agree with your viewpoint.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Plainsman and everyone that is going to sign this petition I just want to know one thing.....

If High Fenced operations are monitored very strictly on disease, advertising, number of acres (killing pens), number of animals per acre (holding and raising pens), how the animals are killed (no drugging), etc....

*HOW DOES THIS HURT SOCIETY?* (not angry just want people to read this question.)

Someone please answer this with out spinning it out of control.

Edit: Please don't say the ones that will cheat the laws.....because every law out there gets cheated.


----------



## Plainsman

> I apologize if I've come across a little harsh but I find it frustrating what is going on here.


I apologize for missing that, and not acknowledging it. I appreciate your concern, and I hope you understand that much of our disagreements will cause a lot of frustrations for all sides. It is a new direction taking place through out the nation and it will have it's birth pains.

Many hunters fear that it will empower the likes of PETA. Some on here said they gave money to this initiative in Montana. I am left wondering if they gave enough to be real support, or if they gave just enough to give the impression which would be the kiss of death in that state and ours. I would guess this type of hunting serves the purpose of garnering financial support for then.

I think much of America unfamiliar with the heritage of rural states will think hunters will do anything for a trophy, and that landowners will do anything for money. The primary reason I don't see this as a landowner issue is that I think it gives us both a black eye. I am optimistic this measure will easily pass, but if it doesn't then it's time to put the restriction on the hunter. Rich guys will happily pay a "trophy" fee and a fine, but would they be willing to sit behind bars? Like my father used to say when he was alive: "there is more than one way to skin a cat".


----------



## Plainsman

Chuck the restrictions that are already in place are often being violated. Further restrictions like more gun laws will not solve anything.

How will it hurt anyone? First off all anti-hunters are few, but they are loud. We are in a constant struggle to continue our hunting heritage, it's just that a very few people are doing so much in this fight and 98% don't even know their in a fight. What the fight is over is the opinion of the non hunter. People like PETA paint us as heartless brutes, while we paint ourselves as sportsmen and women who enjoy the outdoors, care about the animals and the habitat they dwell in. Who is going to win this fight is anybodies guess, but we hunters (this applies to farmers also) need to put on the best face we can to non hunters Jane and John Doe that we can.

How you see this activity is determined by the sense of fairness within you. They say by the age of five our personalities are mostly formed. If you're an adult this partially innate / partially learned sense of fairness is already formed and I can do little to change your mind. If you don't see this in the same light as spotlighting, or shooting a tied up animal there is nothing I can say to change your mind, because the connection is invisible to you. This debate carries on not because we can convince each other, but in the hopes we can convince others.


----------



## Turner

What you are saying is that banning these operations is our only choice; you say that stricter laws and enforcing them will not work? By doing so, you are opening this up to set a benchmark for the antis. You just said further restrictions like more gun laws will not solve anything, then let's ban guns. Look at the problems we have with in our sport that we love and want to defend; poaching problems, and the problems we have with guiding operations. What are we doing to solve those problems? Wait, I know, 1. The offender gets caught 2. They go to court 3. They get a slap on the wrist or plea bargain their way out of it 4. The following year we read about the same person or operation again and the process starts all over, imagine that. If we can't handle these problems with more restrictions and laws or here's a thought, let's use the laws we have on the books and enforce them to the fullest. This is only showing the antis that banning the sport that you and I both love is the only option. If you don't think the antis will take the same game plan that you are running with right now and use it against the rest of us, you are wrong. That is why I am saying if you want to get this pushed through you need hard facts and figures on how and why this is hurting our society and way of life, not just hurting your definition of hunting and fair chase. Do you think it is only us hunters and outdoorsmen that believe in fair chase laws that are signing these petitions to ban this way of hunting, think again, you are building the foundation of the gallows that we will all swing from.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Plainsman......

I ask you to just look at it from this angle....first try not to think that all operations are bad ( I know you think all are wrong..but try). Now if violations are being broken they need to be punished. Stricter laws and enforcement.

Now if the operations are running good, healthy, clean kills, all the saftey percautions, not advertising as "hunts", and everything else....

HOW ARE THEY HURTING SOCIETY?
_____________

Now for some of the other comments...

People shooting deer or other game (not all) by spotlight is illegal, shooting an wild animal that is tied up (other than by traps) is illegal.

Now again if you restrict the advertising....they can't use words like hunting, heritage, or trophy, etc. You would be separating these operations from the Hunting community.

My whole thing is that people are going about this the wrong way.

It is easier to tighten laws than to ban or abolish an industry. By tightening the laws many will get out of the game.


----------



## Plainsman

I will do as you request and give things some thought so am not responding right now except for one question:

You said:


> shooting an wild animal that is tied up (other than by traps) is illegal.


My question is: do you not see a penned animal and a tied animal as the same?

You see, it is the restriction of the animal with no chance that I see as repugnant. It's like going into a boxing ring, but before you step into the ring you hire someone to tie up your opponents feet and legs. He can't fight back or run.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Plainsman.......

Tied up animal is different than a penned animal. But that all depends on the pen size. IMO

Here is my problem with the penned operations. These operations can have a kill pen the size of a city lot (1 acre) or it could be 1000 acres. The one that bothers me is the one's the size of a city lot.

You see if the kill pen is 160 acres. That is a lot of room to roam and evade (to a certain extent) the would be shooter. Now a city lot the animal can be killed just by walking into the pen. You see the difference.

That is why I am all for guidelines of X number of acres on killing pens, x number of animals per acre (holding pens), strict health checks, double fenced enclosures, advertising laws (I AM HUGE SUPPORTER OF THIS), no drugging policies, and strict safety guidelines (handling animals and for shooters safety)

As to your boxer example.....your opponent is still inside a ring.... oke:


----------



## Plainsman

Chuck, it's all perception. In a 160 acre pen I could shoot the animal on the far side without taking a step. I think if you want a pen that is unrestrictive we have to look at that from the animals point of view not the hunters point of view. 
A wild animal can run anywhere they want within their home territory. I have seen bucks in heated chase run far beyond their home range. I don't think producers are willing to have pens that size, but if they are: Go to Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado, and in each of those ten states radio ten bull elk and monitor them for one year. Average the 12 month home range for each animal and apply that to the requirements of a shooting pen. It isn't easily achievable, but some Texas ranches may qualify. Then I would qualify them as "free range shoots". To qualify as "unrestricted free range hunts" would require more. It would require no radio tag on the animals to locate them, no drugs, no tethering within the pen, no sawing off one leg, no frontal lobotomies, etc. This may all sound funny, but nothing these people do would surprise me.


----------



## 4590

All the hype about losing our hunting rights is just like so many other liberals arguements - create a crisis when none exists - in order to get their way.
How many states have baned hunting? How many states have had a hunting ban even proposed? In ND hunting rights are protected by the constitution! I am quite confident that we will loose our guns long before we loose our hunting rights.

Chuck,
They will never answer your question, because they can't. Its all based on fear mongering and conjecture. This might happen, that group will do whatever, it just goes on and on. When backed in a corner on the ethics issue they go back to disease, escapes, and whatever, but of course these issues are not addressed by the iniatitive. Then the last arguement is its just plain immoral and you should agree with me just because I developed my morals by the age of 5 and if you don't have the same fuzzy feelings I have for domestic animals in a pen, there is something wrong with your head.[/b]


----------



## cwoparson

> Go to Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado, and in each of those ten states radio ten bull elk and monitor them for one year


Kind of apples to oranges isn't it. After all your talking about a animal in states that they must migrate due to weather conditions. Give them favorable weather and food and they will stay put in a small area all year.

I once chased this nice buck for a full season in a 200 acre area and never did get a shot at him. I knew he was there but he simply evaded me. Guess I could have put up one of those elevated stands and shot him with his head in a feeder bucket but I was hunting fair chase in a very small area and he won.


----------



## Plainsman

Cwoparson, I have heard stories like that also. One day I talked with a fellow who had hunted an elk on a 40 acre small rise in between North Rider mountain and Muddy Pass in Colorado (less than 400 yards from my camp). He hunted that elk for five days, then told his buddies and they went in together and got him. That by far is the exception, and not the rule. I know one guy that said he hunted a deer for a week in a 100 acre area and he knew he was there but could never see him to get a shot. I have news for him. He didn't see him because he was over by me two miles away and I already had my buck. I was just praying he would make it through the season so I would have a chance next year. 
Your right about their not needing to migrate in North Dakota. Summer range on a herd that I am familiar with in Montana covered only about 240 square miles. It was an oblong area about 20 X 12 miles from water at the Missouri to arid mountain tops east of there. Mountain tops, but only 1000 ft. above the Missouri. Even those in Theodore Roosevelt National Park roam beyond the 100 square miles or so in the park. I don't think you can afford a pen that wouldn't be like tying up the animal. What's the old cliché, "shooting fish in a barrel"?


----------



## buckseye

I don't know people but to me it looks like the folks who sell penned wild animals probably will always be able to do so. They must simply add or omit several words and they will not be as offensive to whoever is offended by this, shouldn't be to much to ask of them.

Things like this just are not a problem until someone makes them a problem. Is this similar to the smell of Dairy operations being offensive to most people. Somethings we just have to live with in this life and freedom as limited as it is becoming is one of them. Others freedoms have to be as important to us as our own.


----------



## walker

Plainsman said:


> That's the way a democracy works Turner. Someone at last says enough is enough and he presents his ideas to society. I guess that is getting on the soapbox.


This is very true. We all have an obligation to speak our mind in a free society, and I respect your right to do so.



Plainsman said:


> In the end society as a whole will tell me if I am right and you are wrong, or you are right and I am wrong. If one has strong enough convictions they reject societies view and continue the struggle.


Majority opinions do not make something right. Individual rights are eroded one small law at a time. I would be very confident in saying that our forefathers would be stunned at the collection of laws we have governing our daily lives. Yes, we need laws. Even unpopular ones, but as I have said "fair chase" laws in my mind don't even come close to the level of justifying infringing property rights. Think about it. If this law is passed a man can be put in jail for using his property in a way that does nothing more then offend someone.


----------



## cwoparson

> I would be very confident in saying that our forefathers would be stunned at the collection of laws we have governing our daily lives.


You got that right. This country was not founded as a democracy where majority rules but as a Republic where all the people are protected, especially the minority. Petition driven laws turns a Republic on it's head by taking over the job the elected representatives are elected to do. If they don't perform up to expectations then vote them out of office. Only Wyoming has the sense to not allow ballot initiatives which only clogs the courts with ridiculously laws someone thought was needed. Odd how those that swear by the constitution as being the foundation of our society will ignore it when it doesn't meet their means.


----------



## 4590

CWO,

GREAT POINT. I have tried to make this point before as well, but you nailed it. I am not sure our rep. system is working all that well either, I think term limits would be a great step forward. I don't think carrier politicians was what our founders had in mind either. But think of the caos we would have if we allowed initiatied measures on a national level. The national elections ballot would be hundreds of pages long. We would certainly have rule by the people but I'm also sure minorities, like hunters, farmers, gun owners, ND's in general would come out on the short end.


----------



## Plainsman

In a republic often you don't elect anyone you have a direct voice. Much like a national referendum. I realize that in today's population that would be near impossible, but that is the way a republic is set up to work. Wyoming is certainly leaving the door open for no way to counteract corrupt politics. The peoples voice is the only way to overcome corruption. Wyoming is poorer for this oversight.

If a measure passes it is a good indication that those who were elected were not representing the people, but a pet or corrupt portion of the people they were elected to represent. Nothing is more purely American than the voice of the people.


----------



## cwoparson

Plainsman, in my opinion you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. If people put in as much energy in electing good representatives as they do for these petitions then you would be properly represented. Most of todays politicians depend on people thinking just like you described.

If your state of North Dakota had a influx of liberal minded people moving in, and I hesitate to use the word liberal but that is where most of the anti hunting crown resides, what do you think would happen to the hunting you so cherish. Think that couldn't happen then just take a hard look at Oregon and Washington state. When the high dollar home owners in California discovered what they could sell their homes for and what they could buy in those states they flooded to those areas. Now those two states have been turned on their head compared to what they were years ago.

If that were to happen to North Dakota and it may very well slowly be happening now, then who is going to protect your hunting sport. A petition initiative drive to stop goose hunting in your state would be stopped by who? Certainly not you as a minority hunter. The majority which would mostly be city dwellers would rule and you would lose. The only one to stop it would be a elected official that believes in the constitution and what the founding fathers stood for and that is a Republic that protected your minority rights.

I've seen cougar hunts stopped by petition measures. I've seen Black Bear and dove hunting stopped by petition measures. You're supporting the very method that will be you children's doom that you proclaim to be protecting.

There are people on this forum that are supporting and pushing for Ron Paul, someone I don't support at the moment. But Paul has one thing right and that is if we don't move back to constitutional rule we are going to lose the United States. You may have a heart burning desire to stop high fence hunting which may or may not have merit but your chosen method to accomplish that desire is the very thing that in the end will cause you to have nothing. No, I think Wyoming got it right all along.


----------



## Plainsman

We will just have to agree to disagree. I don't remember the quote exactly, or the author, but it goes something like a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Nothing trumps the will of the people. A politician who votes against the will of the people misrepresents the people, and violates his oath of office.


----------



## 4590

Good article by Tom Remington of www.blackbearblog.com

Continued Efforts To Legislate Ideals
This past summer, I began a mild debate on a fledgling group in North Dakota whose bent is to outlaw "shooting captive deer, elk and other exotic mammals behind escape-proof fences". If you would like to catch up on previous articles, you can find them here, here, here and here.

This group calls itself the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase. There will always be the debate about ethics and no two people can ever agree completely on what is ethical and what isn't ethical when it comes to hunting or killing for that matter. What happens is when you have a group of individuals who believe they can set the standards on ethics, it creates a myriad of problems, most of which when combined will create far greater problems than anything they are tying to change.

I would like to take material from the NDHFC website to show a point. This is a quote this group uses as the keystone for their efforts.

"Voluntary adherence to an ethical code elevates the self-respect of the sportsman, but it should not be forgotten that voluntary disregard of the code degenerates and depraves him." Aldo Leopold, "A Sand County Almanac", 1949. Oxford University Press, New York.

I am left to wonder if anyone in this group recognizes the word "voluntary"? Is there a difference between seeking the voluntary adherence to an ethical code and forcing those to comply with someone else's? I'll repeat myself and say that ethics is difficult to define and is very personal. I'll also rightly admit that the best way to teach or promote an ethical adherence is by example. Nothing will be taught by forcing some to have to follow the beliefs of others. This isn't what this country was founded on.

And this is where I will get the argument that groups such as this have the right to bring initiatives to the voting booths and let the voters decide. I have never said anyone didn't. The problems are varied and just as equally as these groups have a right to campaign the citizens of North Dakota into believing their "brave new world" is the answer, I have the right to present reasons why to the contrary.

I have no issue with the NDHFC group and their perspective on what they deem to be fair chase and ethics. If an individual wants to conform to those same imposed ethical standards, they certainly are free to do so. I just don't believe legislating it is the way to promote it. Once again from the website.

"We base our support of hunting on sound science and ethical behavior applied in the interest of wild game, not based on the economic and ethical expedience of those engaged in the practice of high fence killing. Shooting tame deer, elk and exotic mammals inside escape proof fences is unethical and a poor example for our children and grandchildren."

I believe it is safe to say that nearly every state fish and game department, hunting club, etc. base their support of hunting on sound science and ethical behavior. This is why each state has rules. These rules are to promote and protect the scientific management of our game animals and to promote public safety.

They show no support and therefore no regard for aspects of the state's economy that they have taken upon themselves to deem as negligible. Those who, as free Americans, chose to engage in the industry of ranching animals such as deer, elk, etc., are now in danger of losing everything because a group wants power over them. I wonder how members of this group would feel if their livelihood was being taken away by the same means by others who want power over them?

Does the practice of hunting behind fences or the so-called "innocent slaughter" of these domestic animals set a poor example for our children and grandchildren? What do you say to the millions of ranchers across American who have "slaughtered" their animals for centuries? Now our farmers and anyone who has killed a head of cattle, sheep, goat, elk or deer is some kind of unethical monster that needs to be disbarred from our society? Is this group also in the practice of legislating how parents are to raise their children? Evidently they don't feel that any of the rest of us know how to sit down with our children and explain about the realities of life. Instead we should disregard the rights of others, trample all over their property rights and put ranchers out on the street. This sets a far greater example to our children and grandchildren than explaining the truths behind ranching.

One has to question the content that the NDHFC puts up on their website. Here's what they say about those who run elk ranches.

"The Elk pictured above isn't wild and will never be wild. When this bull grows "trophy quality" antlers, something the owner will guarantee by feeding the bull supplements that stimulate antler growth, the Elk will be a target for a so-called "hunter" for something the High Fence Industry mislabels a "hunt". The practice of shooting these tame domestic animals inside escape proof fences is what we oppose and seek to ban with this initiative."

It is one thing to suggest to the public that someone paying a fee to shoot and kill an animal to take home and eat is unethical but I think that unless the laws that govern elk ranching in North Dakota are far different than other states, ranchers are not allowed under law to feed their animals illegal supplements for the sole purpose of growing antlers. Ranchers are smart and know their business. They know how to yield big antlers strictly from breeding practices. This false accusation that elk ranchers beef their animals up on steroids and other illegal drugs has gone on for some time. I would presume that if the NDHFC has proof of this accusation, they should make it public, otherwise they should remove this statement from their website.

This debate is far from over. The citizens of North Dakota will have to make the decision, providing NDHFC can get enough signatures to get their initiative on the November 2008 ballot. Unfortunately, the information the voters get won't be all facts. Perhaps millions of dollars will be spent to accomplish what? I can tell you one thing it will accomplish. If this initiative were to pass, the likes of the Humane Society of the United States, PETA and tons of other animal rights groups will be foaming at the mouth to get into North Dakota and continue the onslaught to end hunting once and for all. If you don't believe me, talk to people in other states who are dealing with similar issues or you can continue to bury your head in the sand.

I would like to know what a group like NDHFC would answer someone who asks this: HSUS, PETA, et. al. view all hunting and killing of animals as unethical. I assume you will not support these groups when they come to North Dakota to put a stop to your hunting or to some other group that wants to put an end to you or your friends' businesses. If not, how can you justifiably do the same as these groups in forcing your ethics onto others and at the same time running somebody out of business? Isn't this the epitome of hypocrisy?

I would like to leave readers with this statement that was made in an article in the Dickinson Press yesterday by Mitch Feininger, who, according to the article, supports the initiative and is a hunter.

"I have never been to one of these operations because I feel they are immoral and unethical," he said. "One does not need to participate in something they consider immoral or unethical to consider it wrong."

I don't think it is illegal to visit an elk or deer hunting ranch nor do I think a visit is immoral. I'm assuming Feininger believes actually participating in a hunt of this kind as being immoral and unethical. It is too bad that people will blindly cast a ballot simply by what one group has told them. I am sure most ranch owners would welcome a visitor.

Tom Remington


----------



## Dick Monson

> I am sure most ranch owners would welcome a visitor.


I don't think so, at least not for the canned shooting portion of the business. Right now the ND Elk Growers are running TV ads listing the their economic benefit to the state, their quality of meat products, the safety of their testing procedures, and the medical pluses of ingesting antler products (????????). *But they forgot to run the film of the canned shooting business.*
Which is odd.........because that is the only part of their business addressed by the Fair Chase Measure. Maybe it will come in the next series of ads?


----------



## Turner

Plainsman and Dick Monson, 
Let's take your morals and ethics out of the picture and just answer these two questions that you have been asked numerous times and have avoided them
. 
1.Can you please list five game farms that have had violations in North America and what were the violations? (not going to give you the freebee of the guy who let his deer run out of the pen before they could be tested either)

2.Can you list 3 ways that these game farms hurt society if they are monitored and have restrictions placed on them?

Should we start to list all the game violations that the free range hunters and guides have committed in the last year? That list is very long and I would have to say these violations would fall into your and my unethical categories along with every anti-hunting organization out there.

If you guys can't answer these two questions with facts to back them up I will have to put you both in the same category as Al Gore and his Global Warming Scam.


----------



## 4590

Sorry Dick,

Wrong again! You're estasblishing a pretty good track record.
I believe every hunting preserve in the state would welcome a visit from anyone interested in this issue or that just wants to see some great elk. Of course they can't drop everything every time someone wants a tour, but I am sure someone with legitimate interest would be welcome and arrangements could be made. I have done countless tours of our operation, all for free.

I guess if they really wanted to counter your rhetoric, they could run pictures of cwd and TB diseased wild animals, along with footage of poaching, and wounding of wildlife. They could talk about the fair chase hunters that are shot every year because of carelessness. Then state that these things don't happen, and the harvest is much more humane on a game preserve.


----------



## Turner

Going to move this one to the top in case you haven't seen it Plainsman. I am still waiting for answers with facts to two simple questions.


----------



## swift

Turner and 4590, the article posted by Mr Remington is written very poorly and shows his inablilty to get the facts right. I am not going to argue the high fence point with you or Mr Remington but I will point out his major problem with the article.

Mr Remington has chosen to put the word ethics in place of the word morals. Nearly all the laws of the country as well as the world have been made based on ethics. Nearly every professional may be sanctioned for a breach of ethics. Morals cannot be legislated.

You guys and Mr Remington admitting that high fenced hunting is construed as unethical by many you are feeding the arguement that it should be banned.

Maybe you guys should consult a liberal arts professor to learn to debate your topic without doing harm to it.


----------



## cwoparson

ethics = (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of *morals* and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; *moral* philosophy.

Sounds like Mr Remington understands the definition of the words after all.


----------



## Turner

swift said:


> Maybe you guys should consult a liberal arts professor to learn to debate your topic without doing harm to it.


Thank you for saying this Swift, this has been my argument the whole time with Plainsman. He has stated these operations should be shut down due to immoral and unethical behavior. I am saying that his argument is the same as PETA and all the other Antis that disapprove of hunting all together.

I am not debating to keep the game farms open, I am debating on his approach he's taking to close them. 
If this gets banned due to how some one views this as moral or not you better believe our free range hunting will be attacked next. Take a look at all the free range hunting violations and the escalating numbers of the violations each year and you tell me if these actions are moral or not.


----------



## djleye

So, Turner, What would be the way you would approach it. Do you believe that high fence hunts should take place or do you want them to go away? If indeed you want them to go away, what method would you use to approach the subject since you don't like the one that is being used???


----------



## Plainsman

Turner, check back into related posts. Your questions are not new. They have been answered to the best of their ability by two or three people on two or three different occassions. It's just the same old questions over and over and over. Use the search option. Thanks.
At least I think that is right. Maybe you should restate the questions, I might have missed something.


----------



## Turner

If I had the correct answer or tactic to ban them I sure would give it out. I do have some ideas on how we can place limits and restrictions on them. I think the foundation of this measure to shut them down should be based on FACTS and how this hurts our free range hunting rights and society, not based on how some one views this as immoral or unethical. Right now, IMO, the only thing I have seen Plainsman and the others put up on this site can be used against you and I on our free range hunting style due to the immoral acts of the so called hunters I mean poachers. Plainsman doesn't like the word hunt or hunter to be used when talking about these game farms. Well I don't like it when the media uses the word hunter when they talk about poachers.

We need to set strict rules and regulation that these game farms need to follow. It's no different than the rules and regulations that you and I have to follow as we hunt free range animals. If they are not followed, we punish the violator, same as we do the violators and poachers on our side of the fence.


----------



## norstar

I've seen the question asked on this forum many times but I haven't seen the answer. Plainsman I defy you to show me where one of you has posted why these operations are unethical or immoral other than you stating something like _It's obvious when you see it._


----------



## Turner

Plainsman said:


> Turner, check back into related posts. Your questions are not new. They have been answered to the best of their ability by two or three people on two or three different occassions. It's just the same old questions over and over and over. Use the search option. Thanks.
> At least I think that is right. Maybe you should restate the questions, I might have missed something.


You are dang right you missed something, I asked you to provide me with the answers to two questions that I asked and to provide me with facts on backing them up, not the answer, "use the seach key". If you feel this strongly on this measure and are willing to get others involved I would think it would be in your best interest to follow through. I don't think I am the only one out there that would like these answers from you. Because I do not support or lobby to ban these game farms I have been referred to as a fence sitter, that is fine, but show me why I should drop to either side other than the reason "I don't believe this is moral or ethical, or It's not the way I hunt nor should any one else".


----------



## Plainsman

I don't understand your anger. I was not being impolite Turner, I'm just busy. Again I ask what were your questions? If your question lends itself to facts I will spend some time looking. The whole responsibility does not fall on me however, others can look also. 
As I did not draft this bill, there are things I do not know. It was however drafted by an attorney and passed the test at the attorney generals office.


----------



## norstar

Sorry Turner I may have led this line of questioning in a different direction, didn't mean to do that I still haven't seen the answer to the moral and ethical line but your questions are as yet unanswered as well just so they aren't lost here they are again.

1.Can you please list five game farms that have had violations in North America and what were the violations? (not going to give you the freebee of the guy who let his deer run out of the pen before they could be tested either)

2.Can you list 3 ways that these game farms hurt society if they are monitored and have restrictions placed on them?


----------



## Plainsman

As for number one please do use the search engine. Violations of this type have been addressed often. Including the elk and red stag cross in Idaho that escaped, the arrests in Tennessee of a game farm operator bringing in animals from a known infected area, etc etc.

As far as question number two, this depends on your line of thinking. As I find it repugnant shooting animals in an enclosure it's all the reason I need. Secondly much of society finds this practice repugnant, and I would guess scratch their head when hunters support high fence shooting. Thirdly it is a great fund raiser for the animal rights groups like PETA. They love to show video of some of these operations and the contributions roll in. I have a few of those videos. As a fourth point it also reflects on farmers. People who are upset by these practices often think we are all guilty by association.

Turner, you appear very angry, and I see we have a new poster that appears to be a recruit. Most new people start off low key. I will not be drawn into a whiz match, so I will waste no more of my time. Later when people are seriously interested perhaps I will rejoin the discussion.


----------



## swift

CW, here's what I found on the topic of ethics vs. morals.

"The dictionary defines morals as "principles of right and wrong conduct."

Ethics are defined as a "system of morally correct conduct."

So I suppose you could say that morals are the principles you live by, and ethics are the system by which you put those principles into action."
This definiton was taken from Robin Wood tutorials.

With this definition morals are personal decisions and ethics the laws set forth to enforce conduct.


----------



## Turner

I am not angry. I should have done this instead when I said Dang right you missed something  because you avoid giving a straight answers when asked.

I am glad to see that you provided a couple examples of violations and how you think this hurts our society. However, the first question I had asked for 5 examples you provided me with 2 the second question I asked for 3 you gave me only 1 that could be backed with facts.

So answer me this, why can't we impose rules and regulations for these game farms to follow to prevent these voilations and keep them in check. Have them pay a license fee to operate? The money raised by the licenses will help fund and add to our already existing Game and Fish departments to audit and check regulations.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

I would like to ask some of the high fence operators a question. If somebody offered you a bunch of money to come out shoot one of your animals with a .22 would you except it? How about a BB gun? Maybe bludgeon it to death with a baseball bat?

Where do you guys draw the line? Is it anything goes as long as you get your money?


----------



## 4590

Obviously facts are not always forth coming on one side of this debate.

Here is the final results from testing of Idaho elk herd:

PRESS RELEASE

1/25/07

CONTACT: Roy Sterns 208. 739.1362

Kristy Sternes 208. 866. 0927

Black Canyon Elk Ranch-Emmett, Idaho

The world's most respected lab, located in New Zealand, concerning elk/red deer genetics has just released results from the one suspect domestic elk cow from Dr Rex Rammell's herd regarding her genetics. The cow elk was not among the elk which escaped from Rammell's elk ranch. The New Zealand lab ran a DNA test which uses thirteen markers determining that the cow elk is pure elk with no red deer genes.

Roy and Kristy Sterns of Black Canyon Elk Ranch near Emmett purchased the animal for meat from Dr Rammell after the Idaho State Dept of Agriculture (ISDA) required the animal be slaughtered. ISDA transported the animal to a slaughter facility in Idaho. At the plant, both a private practice veterinarian and ISDA took DNA samples from the animal.

The independent veterinarian airmailed the sample to the Genomnz Lab in New Zealand. The results came back last night that the cow elk is pure elk.

Ten years ago, when the animal was purchased by Dr Rammell, she was given a certification of genetic purity by a Colorado lab as having no red deer genes. All of her offspring born on Dr Rammell's ranch have been tested as pure elk with no red deer genes.

ISDA sent the cow elk blood to a Canadian lab which uses a test with just four protein markers. This is not a DNA test and not as scientifically sensitive as the New Zealand G3 test. The Canadian lab ran the tests twice showing a possible suspect red deer gene. This test goes back two generations for the red deer gene. This required a DNA test by a premiere lab which goes back three or more generations.

All the genetic and disease results are now back regarding Dr Rammell's entire domestic elk herd, both those that escaped and those who were placed under quarantine. Every animal was checked for brucellosis and tuberculosis and elk that were slaughtered had their brains tested for chronic wasting disease (CWD). All test results have come back negative, proving once again that the domestic elk industry in Idaho is not spreading any disease nor harming wild elk genetics.
End of quote.

In regard to the Tenn. supposed arrests, details have been difficult to obtain. The shipment seemingly had appropiate health papers for delivery to their destination. If not I would never defend them as no livestock producer wants imports without proper testing. However Minn. (origin of several) is no more a "known infected area" than is ND.

I am not going to say there aren't any violations of game farm regulations, but lets at least try and find some that are legitimate. In most states the laws are enforced diligently. In ND there is a $5000 fine per occurance for livestock health violations. That is a pretty good incentive to follow the rules. Game farmers strongly encourage enforcement of and compliance to the regs. For one reason it affects their ability to sell to other states and greatly influences the value of their herd.

The two questions asked have no bearing on this initiative because we all know the sponsors are only concerned with "ethics". RIGHT!!


----------



## 4590

HUNTFISH,
Every fenced hunting operation I have been exposed to has similar restrictions on weapons to what you see in the state proclamation. They require adequate firepower or bow power to make a clean humane kill. So to answer your question on the .22 and baseball bat the answer is NO. Most operators have more respect for the animals than most hunters. That is why if you wound an animal you are not allowed to shoot again. The animal must be retrieved and not allowed to suffer.


----------



## Ref

4590,

How can you use the words "humane kill" while the animal is still inside a fence?


----------



## cwoparson

Swift, I pulled mine from the "On Line Dictionary" which was the first of 1,200,000 hits. Didn't bother with the others. But as you yourself said "Morals cannot be legislated" so how can you legislate a system of standards for something that can not be legislated? Kind of messy huh.

1.
a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values: "An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain" Gregg Easterbrook.

2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession



> How can you use the words "humane kill" while the animal is still inside a fence?


What?


----------



## 4590

Ref,

Are you actually a ref?

You're obviously not a livestock producer or a hunter, as no one would have to explain what a humane kill is.


----------



## Ref

Yes I am actually a ref. My background is trying to keep things fair....as in fair chase. In my opinion, if the animal is inside a fence...then it is not fair. That to me is an inhumane killing.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Plainsman....

You still have not answered my question....

You have to look at it that shooting an animal inside a pen is not immoral or unethical.

If the industry is monitored and regulated. Also it needs strict rules enforced. Advertising restriction, no drugging, x number of acres for a kill pen, x number of acres per animal holding pens, safety precautions, health checks on animals, a procedure model each ranch has to follow for caring and killing of animals, etc.
*
HOW DOES IT HURT SOCIETY?* (again not angry but would like this answered)

People please don't start to spin this and say that many of these places are in violation. Look at hunting...many laws are broken every year. Look at society many laws are broken.


----------



## KEN W

4590 said:


> HUNTFISH,
> Every fenced hunting operation I have been exposed to has similar restrictions on weapons to what you see in the state proclamation. They require adequate firepower or bow power to make a clean humane kill. So to answer your question on the .22 and baseball bat the answer is NO. Most operators have more respect for the animals than most hunters. That is why if you wound an animal you are not allowed to shoot again. The animal must be retrieved and not allowed to suffer.


I distinctly remember a High Fenced whitetail operation selling hunts on ebay last year.I think they were in wisc. somewhere.They had prices listed on certain animals with pictures.....they clearly said you could use any weapon you desired.....including clubs,rifles,bows,knives,spears or even a HAND GRENADE.IT SAID THAT RIGHT IN THEIR AD.So don't sit and claim there aren't operations like that.There are.Anyone on here last year probably remembers that.


----------



## 4590

Ref,
I have officiated many years myself. Enjoy it very much.

This issue has many agruements. Obviously there are two sides. However of all the debates, humane killing, is one you don't have a leg to stand on. To state that what happens on the farm, in the butcher shop, or out in the field of fair chase, is more humane than killing an animal on a hunting preserve is just plain rediculous. Bad call ref!!!!


----------



## 4590

Ken,

If you could post such an add here that would be great. I have found alot of stuff posted here can not be documented.

However lets assume you are accurate in your recollection. Can you not accept a little tongue in cheek humor when you see it. First of all, how in the world are you going to get close enough to a deer to hit it with a bat. Not to mention the danger to clients as well and liability issue would be huge. Use a gernade?? What would be the point if the client paid the "big bucks" as you say for a trophy and blew it up. Seem a little rediculous???
I would not run an add like that, but most operations have a standard for weaponry, and I would bet the one you refer to has them as well.


----------



## KEN W

I am accurate and it no longer is on ebay.I'm not going to search for it since the ad wouldn't be there anyway.I know a lot of us saw it and made :eyeroll: comments about it.

The hand grenade comment really made us outraged about this kind of thing and really painted your industry with a huge black eye.

Another one I remember is the Jimmy Houston controversy a year or so ago.It was sick.....he was hunting deer in a fenced in farm and it showed the owners chasing deer past his "stand."The video also showed them proping up a sickly buck for a client to shoot......another big black eye for your industry.Those things you can never shout down no matter how loud or persistant you are.

I was kind of ambivalent about this issue but those kinds of things pushed me across the fence.We have no place for that and the easiest way to stop it is to outlaw it completely.They called it hunting.

4509......do you sell live bulls to out-of-state places as trophies for some yahoo to shoot in a pen for $5-10,000?If you do.?Do you follow up how the animal is killed?Are you fussy to who you sell to?Or does $$$$$ win out?

I have no problem with me coming to your ranch and buying an elk just to eat.But to stop the kind of thing above.....you could shoot it.


----------



## Turner

Any body that has deer hunted (rifle) in North Dakota had better not spout off about fair chase issues. I would be safe to bet that over 90% of the rifle hunters in ND has at one point in their hunting career has jumped in their pickup and tried to beat that deer to section line, you call that fair chase? I would not believe you if you told me different.

How many of you have shot a deer and not found them, yet turned around and continued hunting for another one? You were given one tag for one deer, you shot it and drew blood. But yet you say, "ah, it wasn't a good hit, they'll survive. I have heard on this site that birds you knock down and cannot find should count in your bag limit, some thing just does not add up to me. You want to talk about ethics, let's look at your free range style of hunting before you start judging others.

In Africa if you draw blood on that animal and it is not found you WILL PAY 100% of that tag and we are talking thousands of dollars, no if's and's or but's about that.

Remember the saying Those who live in glass houses should walk around naked, or something like that.


----------



## Dick Monson

The video Ken refers to is found at:
http://www.real-hunters.com/bellar-trial-video.cfm

There are many situations where hunters act in a unethical manner. If it breaks the law call it in to RAP. Canned shooting is not compareable because it is not hunting, it is only the act of buying the kill for an artifical trophy. Payment is graded on the score of the antlers. It is the sole reason these animals are raised for killing.

A big thank you is due Missouri Valley Shooting Sports as well as North Dakota Hunters Ed Assoc. for also stepping up to help on the petiton drive. Apparently they believe ethics are important, but then after all they teach it to our future hunters.


----------



## Ref

I haven't responded sooner because I just got home from officiating a high school game.

Believe me, I know how domesticated animals get to the dinner table and I have hunted for 45 years.

To me it is inhumane to kill an animal that thinks it is wild and can get away, but is in a fence and has no chance. No matter how many times your "stalk" fails, eventually you can push that animal into a corner in which it cannot escape. I don't care if you have a one acre pen or a thousand acre pen...the animal can not get away.

I really believe that the money that is made in this type of operation is the only reason that you can't agree with my position.


----------



## KEN W

My bet is if that Jimmy Houston video were shown in a TV commercial supporting this measure it would win in a landslide.


----------



## omegax

Hunting is defined by the chase, not by the kill. Is the guy in charge of killing cows at the slaughterhouse "hunting" cows? Obviously this is hyperbole, but it illustrates my point. Hunting exists for the sport of the chase, and for the purpose of culling the wild herd. Neither of these things are satisfied by high-fence hunting.


----------



## Dick Monson

> My bet is if that Jimmy Houston video were shown in a TV commercial supporting this measure it would win in a landslide.


Interesting point Ken and well taken. *But we have to get the measure on **the ballot first* and that requires 13000 valid signatures. The first hurdle is getting 200 people to collect 76 signatures each. Two days ago a gentleman filled his first petition in 40 minutes. No turn downs by anyone he asked. It will be easy if we can spread the labor: contact [email protected]

The ND Elk Growers are running a tv commercial now championing the quality and safety of ND elk. They just forgot mention canned shooting or show footage of shooting inside the fence. One would think if they oppose the canned shooting measure, they would mention how their industry depends on it?


----------



## 4590

ref,

There are many beef every day that think they are wild and want to get away, but in the kill chute they meet their demise and end up in the cooler. They have a term for guys like you "vegetarian". And a good share of them belong to PETA.


----------



## Ref

My, My, My you get hostile when you don't have a good response to my thread! Trying to get me to go in another direction by calling me a vegetarian????? Belonging to PETA??????? in order to sidestep my statements?

We're not talking about domesticated animals. This thread is about the fenced-in "hunts", as you call them, for animals that can't get away.

I'll say it again...I REALLY believe that the money made from these operations are the only reason that you can't agree with my position.


----------



## 4590

ref
I am not hostile at all. I just think it curious that anyone in this debate would try to make an issue of humane treatment of animals on a game farm. Farmed elk ARE considered domestic animals in ND. Certainly we all know in most cases preserve hunts are a clean kill and animals don't get away to suffer indefinitely. ACTUALLY shooting an elk in any penned situation is the most humane method as their temperament doesn't lend well to running them through a narrow ally and kill chute at a butcher shop, plus the fact that many slaughter houses are not set up to handle them live. I know wounding animals is reality in fair chase and I for one accept it for what it is. I just think someone making your point is likely disgusted by all killing of animals and likely a vegetarian and PETA member. Killing any animal is messy business but I've not seen many of them give up voluntarily.


----------



## Ref

I'm sure that you can say it is a clean kill because the animal has no chance to get away. That is the basis of this whole debate. In my opinion, to sell it as a hunt is not true.

Your lumping the ideals of an inhumane hunt to a vegetarian or PETA shows that you know nothing about the individual making the statement.

For the third time, is it true that the only reason that you are in this business is for the money and therefore cannot agree with my position?

I'm off to ref another game.


----------



## 4590

ref,

I will type really slow and maybe you can follow this. Humane treatment of animals depicts care, husbandry, management, and harvest in such a manner as to allow for the least amount of trauma and suffering in the process. You can not possibly believe that typical slaughter, or harvest in a preserve, can cause more trauma or suffering than fair chase chasing, hunting, wounding and the rests that goes along with it. If you do, you are either out of touch with reality, or are not a hunter and likely an animal rights type person opposed to killing of all animals.


----------



## Ref

4590,

Again, your sarcasm depicts someone who is losing the battle. Try to shift the focus away from the INHUMANE killing of an animal that is being chased and eventually knows that it can't get away.

For the fourth time, you haven't addressed my statement about game farms like yours are strictly in it for the money. You want to make sure that your client gets what he/she is paying for. That is why you have the fence. Eventually the client will kill an animal and you get paid. Tell me where I am wrong.


----------



## cwoparson

Ref, your reasoning is not only apples to oranges but completely outside the box. A animal reacts to instinct and not reasoning as humans do. It reacts to escape from what instincts tell it that is danger. Should it run into a fence it looks for another escape route. Same if it runs into a box canyon, edge of a cliff, or a roaring river. That animal has no idea or available thought process that tell that animal what a hunter is about to do. It is pure instinct and nothing else. The humane or inhumane treatment of a animal is the method chosen to dispatch that animal to minimize the least amount of suffering at death.

As to whether game farms are in the business for the money, of course it is for the money. When did any business ever go into operation for your pleasure. You think that store you bought your ammo from, those neat little camouflage boots or that nice new rifle was in the business for your pleasure and had no thought about making a living? I guess your dentist is worried about your teeth so much that he has no concern about the money he makes every time you visit him.


----------



## 4590

We have to cut ref some slack, as you see sports officialls are unique. They are one group of people who really don't do it for the money. They do it for love of the game and realize someone has to do it so the kids can have the opportunity to play.



> game farms like yours are strictly in it for the money. You want to make sure that your client gets what he/she is paying for. That is why you have the fence. Eventually the client will kill an animal and you get paid. Tell me where I am wrong.


This would describe every livestock producer in the country. So is making a profit what makes an industry inhumane or unethical???


----------



## 4590

Found this on www.aish.com. The tone of the agruement sounds amazingly familiar. This is the type of issues this initiative is opening the door to. Next will be a measure to ban catch and release. The man makes a compelling arguement, I bet he could get a lot of people to sign a petition. One more arguement could be: catch and release is much more inhumane than hunting because we don't traumatize, wound and then release back into the wild, at least not most of the time. Well I guess in fair chase we do.

by Jeff Jacoby Finding gratification in the suffering of another isn't sport. It's sadism.

Email this Print this

I'm not a vegetarian. I eat meat, fish, and fowl. I don't oppose experimenting on animals when necessary for medical research. I like zoos. I have no moral objection to wearing fur or leather. I think it's okay to keep pet dogs on a leash and birds in a cage. And while I admire the work of the American Humane Association, I am no supporter of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) or its fanatic agenda.

But I do think sport fishing is cruel.

I have no quarrel with the man who takes a salmon out of the water and eats it for dinner.

By sport fishing I mean catch-and-release fishing -- fishing for fun and adventure, not for food. I have no quarrel with the man who takes a salmon or trout out of the water and eats it for dinner, even if he greatly enjoys the taking. What appalls me is fishing for its own sake. I don't doubt that it can be thrilling to drag a fish through the water by a barbed hook in its mouth, or that there is pleasure in making it struggle frantically, or that it is exciting to force a wild creature to exhaust itself in a desperate bid to get free. I don't deny the allure of it all. But finding gratification in the suffering of another isn't sport. It's sadism.

One of PETA's billboards shows a dog with a barbed hook through its lip, and asks: "If you wouldn't do this to a dog, why do it to a fish?" PETA's analogies are frequently tasteless and morally repugnant, but this one is exactly right. No one would throw Fido a Milk-Bone with a hook hidden inside and then, when the barb had pierced his mouth and he was trying violently to shake it loose, drag him to a place where he couldn't breathe. Anyone who did such a thing would be condemned for his brutality. Is it any less brutal to do it to a fish?

Writing a few years ago in Orion, a magazine about nature and culture, essayist and avid outdoorsman Ted Kerasote opened a piece about the ethics of catch-and-release fishing with a quote from a fellow outdoorsman, "the philosopher, mountaineer, and former angler Jack Turner."

"Imagine using worms and flies to catch mountain bluebirds or pine grosbeaks," Turner told him, "or maybe eagles and ospreys, and hauling them around on 50 feet of line while they tried to get away. Then when you landed them, you'd release them. No one would tolerate that sort of thing with birds. But we will for fish because they're underwater and out of sight."

I can hear the indignant reply of countless anglers: Fish are different! Unlike dogs and birds and other advanced animals, fish don't feel pain. The hook doesn't hurt them.

But there is mounting evidence that fish do feel pain. A team of marine biologists at Edinburgh's Roslin Institute make the case in a paper just published by the Royal Society, one of Britain's leading scientific institutes. Their experiments with rainbow trout prove the presence of pain receptors in fish, and show that fish undergoing a "potentially painful experience" react with "profound behavioral and physiological changes . . . over a prolonged period comparable to those observed in higher mammals."

Other studies have demonstrated the agitated responses of fish to painful conditions, from rapid respiration to color changes to the secretion of stress hormones. Does this mean that a fish feels pain in just the way we do, or that its small brain can "understand" the painful event? No. It does mean that the ordeal of being hooked through the mouth, yanked at the end of a fishing line, and prevented from breathing each time its body leaves the water is intensely unpleasant and distressing. To put a fish through that ordeal in order to eat fresh fish is one thing. But to do it for fun?

Sport fishing is clearly more cruel than hunting.

Anglers tell themselves that catch-and-release fishing is more humane and nature-friendly than catching fish and killing them. That strikes me as a conscience-salving fib. Hurting an animal for enjoyment is never nature-friendly, even if the animal doesn't die. Sport fishing is clearly more cruel than hunting. Hunters don't torment their prey or force it to engage in frenzied combat. They aim to kill the animal, as quickly and painlessly as possible. But how many sport fisherman want a quick kill? Where's the excitement in that?

"We angle because we like the fight," Kerasote writes. "Otherwise all of us would be using hookless [flies] and not one angler in 10,000 does. The hook allows us to control and exert power over fish, over one of the most beautiful and seductive forms of nature, and then, because we're nice to the fish, releasing them 'unharmed,' we can receive both psychic dispensation and blessing. Needless to say, if you think about this relationship carefully, it's not a comforting one, for it is a game of dominance followed by cathartic pardons, which . . . is one of the hallmarks of an abusive relationship." (His essay in Orion, by the way, was titled "Catch and Deny.")

I'm not blind to the beauty of fishing, to the peace many find in it, to the connection it affords to the water and the surrounding landscape. But any sport that depends for its enjoyability on forcing an animal to fight for its life is wrong. Wrong for what it does to the fish. Even more wrong for what it does to the fisherman.


----------



## Ref

cwoparson & 4590,

We are not going to change eachothers mind. Everytime you don't agree with a differing opinion, you get sarcastic, or you say it's comparing apples to oranges. I will continue to believe that what you are doing is totally wrong, and also wrong are the clients that pay to kill your "wild" animals that don't have a chance to escape. You say it is only an animal instinct to escape. Put yourself in that animals place. It runs into a fence, turns and runs into another fence, tries to escape and runs into another fence until the client gets close enough to kill it......wow! This is really what you support? I guess if the money is good enough, some guys will support anything.

I hope that the great people of ND get the chance to decide. I believe in the democratic process. If the general public decides that this is okay, I can live with that. But even if they do, my mind will not be changed about how I feel.


----------



## cwoparson

> We are not going to change eachothers mind. Everytime you don't agree with a differing opinion, you get sarcastic, or you say it's comparing apples to oranges.


It would seem you are having as much of a problem with understanding what sarcasm is as you have with inhumane. No one was sarcastic with you except to have a different opinion but I guess you are the only one that can do that without being labeled sarcastic.



> I will continue to believe that what you are doing is totally wrong, and also wrong are the clients that pay to kill your "wild" animals that don't have a chance to escape.


That is your right and a valid position in this debate. Don't forget the opposite side has the same right also.



> You say it is only an animal instinct to escape. Put yourself in that animals place. It runs into a fence, turns and runs into another fence, tries to escape and runs into another fence until the client gets close enough to kill it......wow! This is really what you support?


Now you're showing ignorance on the subject. Do you really think that is how most game farms are run? Do you really think most game farms have their animals in such a small enclosure that you can run then down from one side to the other? You've been listening to to many of the made up stories from people that haven't a clue what they are talking about. Why be a sheep and follow the herd when you can easily check things out for yourself. I've never hunted one and probable never will but I have been two different operations just to see how they do operate. It is not what you are being led to believe.



> I hope that the great people of ND get the chance to decide. I believe in the democratic process. If the general public decides that this is okay, I can live with that. But even if they do, my mind will not be changed about how I feel.


Dangerous thing to do here but I'm going to assume you meant "if they do not, my mind will not be changed about how I feel" and again that is absolutely your right. If this measure doesn't make the ballot or if it does make the ballot and doesn't pass then it is going to be interesting to read all the crying that will go on about the sneaking underhanded lies that were used for defeat. It is already showing up in some of the posts here if you read closely.


----------



## 4590

Ref,
Since you have a strong opinion, and seem to think you know what you are talking about, I will make you an offer. Next September you come to the preserve I have been involved with. We will both put up $5000, about the price of an average bull hunt, and we will have someone nuetral hold the cash. You can enter the preserve, unarmed of course, and spend the whole day looking for bulls. All you have to do at the end of the day is tell me the exact number of bulls in the preserve and you get the cash, or a free hunt if you prefer. However if you get it wrong, I keep your cash. Should be a piece of cake to bounce them off the fence and get a head count. Shoot, you would probably only need an hour or so.


----------



## Ref

Cwoparson & 4590,

I am quite aware of the definitions of the words used in the previous posts. I believe it is the two of you that need to be told what the true words of inhumane mean. I hope that the people of ND get the chance to also tell you in their vote. I'll wait until that vote is taken and when you lose, don't worry, I've got enough class not to come knocking on your door and say "I told you so".

4590, I wouldn't come close to anything that resembles your fenced-in slaughter of game animals.

I know that you'll respond with your sarcasm and twisted words because that's all I read in your threads.

I'm patient...I'll wait for society to speak next.


----------



## 4590

Ref,
Sorry to hear you won't accept my offer. You just seemed so sure of yourself and I think you would really enjoy the day in the field. I know we would sure enjoy spending you money. Your comments clearly indicately how little you know about this issue and the facilities in queston. Case in point your use of the term "game animals", which is clearly defined in the NDCC and obviously does not apply to farmed cervids. If you truly believe it is inhumane to kill domestic livestock by any means that allows for a swift demise, then hope you know every livestock producer in this state will disagree with you. I really think most people can see who is twisting terms here, and you still seem like an animal rights advocate to me.


----------



## KEN W

4590.....you know making accusations like belonging to PETA or being a Vegetarian really means you clearly don't know what you are talking about.Ref has been the most ardent hunter and fisherman I have ever known.He has been hunting for over 40 years.Can you say the same?

As for the $5,000 wager.......you must have a lot of money to be able to back that up.....Ref doesn't gamble,never has on anything or anywhere that I know of.So your offer won't get you anywhere even if Ref knows he has a sure win.He would rather throw the $5,000 into the church collection plate this morning than wager it with you.


----------



## Ref

4590,

I guess that you are not advertising your operation as a hunt? If you are only raising farmed cervids then this bill shouldn't affect you. Let your client come to your farm, pick out the bull elk he wants, kill the bull elk like you would a steer, collect the $5000 and the client gets the horns and the meat. I don't have a problem with that. You can make all the money that you want in this manner.

I am sure of my opinions about your operation.

Also, don't slide the focus of my differing opinion over to make it look like I don't like any farming or ranching operations in the state. You are good at twisting what I say.


----------



## Dak

Ref,

Couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## 4590

Ref,

I believe I have a convert. No matter how it is advertised, the transaction you just described would not be legal if the measure passed. Appreciate your support. HOpe you wil withdrew your signature from the petition.

I wasnt twisting anything. What we do is no more inhumane than any other livestock producer.


----------



## 4590

KenW,

Actually I have hunted for 40 yrs. This fall I shot a whitetail buck, two does, and and antelope buck with the bow, and a whitetail buck with the gun. Do I qualify for anything?

Ref seems pretty capable of answering for himself, although you sound like you think he would have lost the 5K. I was not accusing him of anything, but when someone calls harvesting livestock or hunting, inhumane, makes me very suspiscious.


----------



## Ref

4590,

I'm pretty sure that I'm not on your side so don't get your hopes up :wink:


----------



## Dick Monson

> kill the bull elk like you would a steer


Possibly Ref meant you, 4590, could kill the animal, and you could do so and then sell it. The case law supporting the fair chase measure would not support the scenario of the client shooting the elk for $5000 or any other price above the going rate of meat. If the farm operator killed the animal and then sold the meat and products he could charge any client any price he wished. But it would be dead first. Which of course sets the price for the meat, but disallows the price of the "kill".

In Montana the above action was maintained by prosecution.


----------



## Ref

Thanks Dick, that's what I meant.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

Dick Monson said:


> If the farm operator killed the animal and then sold the meat and products he could charge any client any price he wished. But it would be dead first. Which of course sets the price for the meat, but disallows the price of the "kill".


And that is exactly what these places are selling, the "kill". If these were trully domesticated animals raised for agricultural purposes they would have a market for their meat and by products. As it stands now the only real market is in the "kill". uke:


----------



## 4590

ref,

Sure good to see you can speak for yourself without influence from others. Must be a great official. Sad to say you actually swerved into the absurdity of this whole issue. The proponents are now splitting hairs over who pulls the trigger as to whether it is "ethical" or not. So Dick who is going to go out into the preserve with the producer and the client to make sure the producer is the one who actually pulls the trigger?

The fact of the matter is I may have been a little rough on ref, but I think he is typical of most common sense people. When the issue is broken down they realize how rediculous it is and would actually support the producer, as he did, until coached by someone with a redical agenda.


----------



## 4590

Dick,
As far as meat price. So now the game farm police are going to determine what a bull elk and by products are worth?? Does that seem a little intrusive to livestock producers. Watch out you beef producers if you sell a breeding bull for too much money the ND sportsmen may get up in arms as it could be considered a trophy and the transaction considered unethical. By the way a good elk head mount can sell for $5000 by itself with no consideration put on the "kill". I suppose your next issue will be to ban the sale of antlers as well.


----------



## Ref

4590,

Nice try to minimize my opinion about your high fence slaughter. Your unending sarcasm continues to amaze me. It seems to be your main defense of your operation. Cut other people down with the sarcasm because you can't justify your operation. :eyeroll:

Your comment asking Dick who is going to come out to see if the client or the producer pulls the trigger....you, the producer can't be trusted to follow the laws? It looks like you are losing the battle of integrity as well as the high fence hunting. The more you post...the worse you look.

You're right. I'm a common sense type of guy. That's why I'm against your operation.


----------



## angus 1

Has anyone asked the North Dakota Stockman Assocation where they stand on this . They are normally for the landowner BUT I do believe they have frowned on Elk farms in the past. How about Farm Bureau, or Farmers Union? Where these three stand will make a huge differance on the out come.


----------



## KEN W

4590.....how is the enforcement of this law any different than any others?????

Do you take the game warden along when you hunt to make sure you follow the law?

Does the highway patrol officer ride with you when you drive????

That argument is totaly rediculous!!!! :eyeroll:

It wouldn't be any different than the stings they are doing to get rid of bad G/O operations.If you took along an officer of the law posing as a client and you broke the law.....your outfit might just be closed down.Would it be worth it to get shut down to let him pull the trigger?????


----------



## ND ELK Man

Angus 1, The ND Stockmans is in support of our industry, ND Farm Bureau is also in support of us as well with policy in place regarding High fence hunting, Farmers Union chose to defeat a high fence policy by 74 to 80 vote but do have a policy in place in regards to Deer and Elk farming operations.


----------



## Dick Monson

Angus, those are thoughtfull questions. In the past in other states farm organizations have stood aside, as what farm org. in their right mind would publicly support canned shooting? The only issue here is canned shooting of captive big game species and exotic mammals inside enclousers. Who would support putting live rabbits in shooting galleries at the ND State Fair?

One portion of the measure that gets little attention is the exotics shooting which is just as important. There have already been escapes in ND of exotics. And north of us on the Canadian side Russian boar have gotten into the wild from game farms, crossed with domestic pigs, and have spread into the Turttle Mnts. A task force of Fedral and State Departments is being formed to erradicte that population.

Sportsmen and taxpayers are going to pay for the cleanup, not the canned shooting operations that caused it. If it can even be cleaned up. But then they never pay for the clean up of the problems they cause, nor be willing to be proactive to avert those problems.


----------



## 4590

ref,
OK I will change my approach,
You said:


> If you are only raising farmed cervids then this bill shouldn't affect you. Let your client come to your farm, pick out the bull elk he wants, kill the bull elk like you would a steer, collect the $5000 and the client gets the horns and the meat. I don't have a problem with that. You can make all the money that you want in this manner.


That is in reality exactly what we do described in your own words.

Do you understand that what you described would be illegal under the proposed measure?

What in this statement would you change to more accurately reflect your opinion on this topic?

Can you explain how it is ethical for a producer to shoot his own animal and sell it but unethical for a client to shoot the same animal for the same price?

If selling the "kill" is the issue, who or how will it be determined what is fair market value of a farm raised bull? Meat price? Antler price? Breeding price?

Should the same criteria apply to a bison hunt if the producer charges more than fair market price for the meat? Or a preserve pheasant hunt?

How is killing an animal on a preserve less humane than fair chase killing or killing an animal for slaughter?

Do you understand that farm raised cervids are classified differently and thus regulated differently than wild game animals in ND?

Your description of a hunting preserve, with animals running into fences, is inaccurate. Would you at least be willing to visit one of the preserves in ND and see for your self how they operate?

These questions address several of the points you have made. I am sorry for my sarcasm and I am not trying to minimize your opinion. I am only asking for substantive support for your comments.


----------



## 4590

Kenw,

You are right, that was as poor analogy, as I have always suggested the laws be adhered to. However my point was to show the absurdity of calling it unethical and thus illegal for a client to kill an animal as opposed to the producer killing the same animal for the same price. That is what was suggested by ref and Dick.


----------



## djleye

> How is killing an animal on a preserve less humane than fair chase killing or killing an animal for slaughter?


   A fence and not being able to get away for a high fence hunt vs a free range hunt comes to mind!!


----------



## 4590

Angus 1,

To answer your question and Dick's, of which he already knows the answer but once again chose to spin the truth, all ag groups in the state have been very supportive of the game farm industry. Most including those mentioned and ND LAND and the ND Ag Coalition have passed resolutions supporting not only the industry but opposing any restriction on high fence hunting. Not too mention the fact this proposal go 0 votes in the natural resource com. last session.


----------



## angus 1

Ok so, what can you guys do for me. I'm up in the air about this. I totally agree with landowner rights and you will have a hard time convincing me otherwise. Yet I don't agree with high fenced hunting because its not hunting and yet how does it really harm me . I would never take part in a fenced hunt . I'm stuck between the two but am more on the rights of the landowner . Who on either side can convice me one way or the other with facts. By facts I mean where can I read about studies on the affects of having and not having. I want to read about what happened to the elk producers in other states when they were shut down. Are these game animals considered domestic , just as livestock? What will this bill outlaw ? If passed what will happen to the animals that are now " penned" ? I just want facts .


----------



## Ref

4590,

Read what I wrote again. I did not say that the producer would "shoot" the animal. I said kill the elk like you(producer) would a steer. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but I don't think that you "harvest" your cattle like you do your game animals.

Take the entire image of hunting out of the picture. Treat these animals like you do the farm animals.

My point was that you can raise an elk herd or a deer herd inside your enclosure. Have your client pick the one he wants. Round it up like my pheasant farmer does with the steer that I buy from him every year. Arrange for the butcher to take care of it. Your client gets the meat and the horns for whatever price that you think is fair.


----------



## KEN W

Ref said:


> 4590,
> 
> Read what I wrote again. I did not say that the producer would "shoot" the animal. I said kill the elk like you(producer) would a steer. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but I don't think that you "harvest" your cattle like you do your game animals.
> 
> Take the entire image of hunting out of the picture. Treat these animals like you do the farm animals.
> 
> My point was that you can raise an elk herd or a deer herd inside your enclosure. Have your client pick the one he wants. Round it up like my pheasant farmer does with the steer that I buy from him every year. Arrange for the butcher to take care of it. Your client gets the meat and the horns for whatever price that you think is fair.


that is about as plain as it can be made....if penned elk and deer are domestic animals why aren't they treated like cattle or hogs or turkeys or chickens.Process them the same.....we don't hunt them.Farmed cervids shouldn't be either....I think that is what this is all about.Just treat them like tha cow or bison that are proccessed at a meat locker.


----------



## Chuck Smith

The thing I am reading in most of theses post talks about the word "HUNT" or "HARVEST". Take those words away from the high fence operations. If you keep referring to these operations as HUNTS and HARVESTING you will are confusing the subject.

Like I have mentioned over and over take these words away. Then the general public will not confuse hunting with what these high fence operations are.....killing or shooting ranches.

Now everyone is comparing shooting an elk like shooting a steer to be butchered. Well I would bet if anyone walked up to a beef rancher and offered him $5000 to shoot a steer he would say have at it. He would let one out of the cattle yard and say shoot it.

Another problem is people see these animals as wild or think they act like the wild ones do.....THEY DON'T. Think about it....you take a pen raised buck and a wild one. What would happen if the pen raised one winded you....nothing. The wild one.....GONE.

So like I keep mentioning over and over.....regulate the operations, restrict advertising, make some stricter operating rules and enforce! I have listed many and many ways to restrict or regulate i won't do it again in this post.

Also people mention the Jimmy Houston video and the drugged deer. Yes those were sick. But like I have mentioned before.....regulate size of kill enclosures, no drugging policies, etc.

Good day to all.


----------



## 4590

Angus1,

If you search my posts over the last couple years, you will read responses to about every arguement presented. I am not sure there is much more to say. I have based my points on facts regarding the cervid industry. The opposition, however, continues to present speculation as to what if a perfectly legal legitimate industry that has been in the state for 40 yrs with no ill affects if allowed to continue.

So if I may ask you some questions:

Is it right to take away the livelihood of a livestock producer on the grounds he is using termilology you don't agree with?

Is it right to outlaw a practice as unethical in one industry(cervids), and allow it in another(bison, pheasants, beef)?

Is it right to outlaw a livestock producers livelihood, with no compensation, after he has been subsidized by the state as an incentive to diversify and start his new business?

Does it makes sense to have a law that states: if the producer kills the animal and doesn't charge too much, its legal, but if a client kills the animal OR the charge is too much, its a violation?

As property owner are you ready for other initiatives that will allow the general public to dictate how you manage your property on issues that have little or no affect on them?


----------



## 4590

Angus,

A few more questions. Did you notice the last post by ref? He is trying to make a point about how you should "kill" an elk as you would a steer? Is it possible he doesn't realize that 99% of the time if a beef producer is going to butcher his own steer he will shoot it? Do you think he is serious about taking a bull elk with full head dress to the butcher to be slaughtered? As a livestock producer do you really want the general public mico-managing your operation in this manner?


----------



## Savage260

First off let me say the only thing I know about this measure is what I have read on here. I have read every post on this thread, and probably will again just to set it in my mind. I am open minded and willing to admit I am wrong when you prove your point to me, but I really don't see what the big deal is here. I consider myself a "hunter" and a "sportsman" I would sell all my equipment before I would ever pay to hunt. It seems that this whole arguement is over terms. Is this hunting or killing? does it really matter? Is using freeze dried doe urine to attract an unwitting buck really all that different? How about rattling, or throwing out a pile of corn in the snow? I would have to say from the deer, ducks, and geese, I have shot(admittedly I am quite new to hunting) that those animals never had a chance to get away either. I "tricked" them into coming close to me, then I shot them. These wild animals react to instinct not logical thought processes. Is paying a guide to take you directly to an elk in the wild, set you up for a shot and help you process and pack the meat out all that different? I really don't see it. I have not read much for posts from people who oppose these "hunts" or "kill operations" that have had any real data or facts to support their opinions. Sure there are some bad apples in this business, but there are also a lot of crooked cops in the world, but that doesn't mean I am one, does it? Just stating that these operations are unethical, or immoral doesn't hold water. Are you willing to throw away all the clothes you have that are manufactured by kids in sweat shops? It is unethical and immoral to wear them, or to drive a vehicle that pollutes the wilderness you hunt. I have no agenda for or against, but you guys that are for banning these operations need to build yourselves a more stable platform from which to preach.


----------



## Plainsman

Ah someone who's mind isn't set in stone.

OK, lets not get tied up in legal or illegal. You know what I mean? Some will argue that it is OK because it is legal. I have stated that things have to change some time, many things like beating your wife was legal a few years ago, do you think that should have continued? 
With that out of the way let me ask you this question. Should we be allowed to spotlight deer? Should we be allowed to net game fish, should we be able to use a howitzer for deer? I know this is all ridiculous, but my point is things come up and society adapts to them. Up pops high fence shooting. Now it is up to society and sportsmen to say this is sporting or it isn't. After all we have told society for many years now that we hunt for the sport. Were we all liars? Not me. 
Years ago sportsmen and women stepped up to the plate and outlawed market hunting. A hunting situation that was not for sport but purely for money. Can you see the relationship?
We are either sportsmen or we are not. We either oppose or condone high fence hunting. Sorry guys, I don't think there is any fence sitting on this one. This affects us as citizens, and more closely as sportsmen. People are watching to see what we are made of. Will we turn out back like they do during a mugging in New York, or will we continue to police those who jeopardize societies opinion of us. Or will we let them think we will do anything for a trophy, even a pseudo trophy. Will farmers step up to the plate and help so that society does not see them as people who will do anything for a dollar. 
This isn't about 99.9% of landowners. This isn't about meat producers. This isn't about livestock production. This is only about fair chase. This is about ending a very unsporting practice. People can rationalize as much as they like, but it is what it is. Like shooting fish in a barrel. 
If this is hard for you to understand I will give you an example. To make my point I will have to use hyperbole, so please don't take this as literal. Lets say we were hunted by another species. Would you rather be free with a chance to escape, or would you rather be confined in a space much smaller than your normal area of travel, and hunted. Of course you would trust this other species because they fed and cared for you. Your fear wouldn't be that great because of the care you received. Perhaps they would set a table with a nice rare ribeye and a glass of wine and hide the hunter behind the big screen TV. Funny, but not.


----------



## Dick Monson

laite319, using your logic slavery in one country should make it fine everywhere else? Every method of taking wildlife that is now illegal, was once legal in this country. Most major professional wildlife manager orgs. have resolutions against canned shooting or game ranching because of the danger to the public property of wildlife. If you pull up the NDCWS webpage you can read their position paper.

Angus, send me your email and I will send you every shred of USGS info I have. [email protected]


----------



## Savage260

Mr. Monson, Where did that statement come from? Using what logic I have that made no sense. Shooting an animal, which we do any way,in a manner which is legal, even though you don't agree with it, is the equivalent to owning slaves???? As I said, I am not for, but I don't have to be against. If you are trying to convince others to jump on your side of the fence you need to work on your approach. 
What is the public property of wildlife?

Plainsman, that was pretty good. Although I don't agree with your stance that we as hunters and sportsmen will get a black eye for these "hunts". People can see things for what they are. Although I do agree common sense is on the decline. If a guy wants to pay to shoot a huge elk and tell all his friends how he stalked it for days, and a cougar almost ate him while he was gutting it, that is his lie, and he can tell it the way he wants to. It doesn't shed any light on you or me. As I said in every profession there are bad apples, people don't think every one is bad because of it. I do understand what you are talking about the unsporting practice, but honestly is it any different than if you put it in a chute and killed them in a slaughter house?


----------



## 4590

laite319,
You seem like a common sense guy, and next you will probably be acused of having some connection to the cervid industry. So just to make the point, I have no clue who you are.

You persceptions are exactly right. Notice when the proponents of the measure talk about ethics and morals they use examples of abuse of our fellow man, ie. slavery, beating your wife, prostitution. Do these apply to harvesting livestock in a pen - I don't think so.

When talking about hunting ethics they use examples that describe activities that affect the states wildlife, ie, spotlighting, using a howizter, neting game fish, market hunting. We have no dispute the public has a say in how its wildlife are harvested. Do they have the right to dictate how livestock are harvested, that is the question?

Do you suppose wildlife management officials could be concerned about game farms because they are competition? Every person that goes to a hunting preserve is one less that buys a big game lisence - in many states that is big bucks. We offer many things they can't - disease free animals, safer hunting environment, bigger trophies, handicap provisions, etc.

Plainsmans hyperbole is just plain rediculous. Every livestock producer gives his animals the best care possible realizing they will eventually be harvested. Do his animals "think" I would rather be shot in a large hunting preserve or in the kill chute? You see it continues to be obvious these people cannot seperate the FACT these are domestic livestock, private property raised for a specific purpose or market, not wildlife owned by the public.


----------



## Plainsman

4590


> Plainsmans hyperbole is just plain rediculous.


Plainsman


> I know this is all ridiculous, but my point is things come up and society adapts to them.


Plainsman


> To make my point I will have to use hyperbole, so please don't take this as literal.


I think I already explained this, so please don't take things out of context to make points with people who are on the fence. That's dishonest, or not very intelligent. Should we forget the sarcasm your throwing at ref, and the silly cheap shots you just took? Lets do that shall we? I think I will take another break until another neutral person has some questions.


----------



## KEN W

4590 said:


> Plainsmans hyperbole is just plain rediculous.


You mean like ridiculous this one from you??????
"So Dick who is going to go out into the preserve with the producer and the client to make sure the producer is the one who actually pulls the trigger?"

All depends on whose chair you are sitting in doesn't it????


----------



## barebackjack

This is the wrong fight gentlemen.

The anti's are using this as an anti-hunting example because it is the weakest facet of the industry. When taken as a whole very few american "sportsmen" utilize this type of hunting. It is a dominoe effect, they will attack and abolish this, than move on.....whats next, bear baiting, ALL baiting (how many of you bait deer?), the banning of scents and calls because it plays on a bucks "emotions" and instincts during the rut (im being sarcastic now, but you get the point).

Sometimes, you need to put aside your personal opinions to help a "cause", and wether you like "canned hunts" or not, they are still grouped in with your "fair-chase" hunts.

I personaly do not agree with gun-hunting deer, does this mean I would ever support a movement to abolish it,.....hell no!

I personaly do not agree with high-fence hunting, its not for me, I dont consider it "hunting" (although I dont consider what alot of deer hunters in ND call "hunting" as hunting either). What I do agree with is freedom. It is that landowners freedom to raise a legal animal on his land, and do what he wants with it. Wether it gets shot in the pasture, or ran into a chute and shot in the head. I agree that if a person wants to spend the bucks to shoot one of these animals, it is his freedom to do so.

Where do you all stand on the banning of "assault" weapons (I use that term VERY loosely)? For all you part-time coyote hunters who use AR-15's and such,......where do you stand? I personaly dont feel the need to ever own one, and feel they are not the best choice for hunting, but would I EVER support a bill to ban them.....again.....hell no! This fair-chase measure is EXACTLY the same thing. Attack the weakest link first, divide and conquer.

Who are YOU to tell someone else what you believe is right and wrong?

Do you honestly think the anti's attack will end when "canned-hunts" are abolished?
I dont think it will, and in supporting them (which you are doing), YOU, the sportmen, the hunters, have helped them to set the precedence.

I would like to say another thing. I hear so much negative talk about the operators of these facilities. "Doped up animals", "shoddy management", etc etc.
You are only hearing the negatives on the news people. The news doesnt report positive stories.
For every operation running "doped up diseased animals" there are many many more who are running legitimate, serious businesses. Not all are like this, and to call it that is wrong. These guys are more worried about wild stock bringing disease into their herds, do you honestly think a sound manager would jeapordize his herd with sick animals? NO! Are there less than competant managers out there, im sure there are, there are in every business. How many times have you heard about farmers getting busted milking and cheating the government, how many times have you heard about farmers and pesticide/chemical violations, alot, but to group all farmers in this category is also wrong. To group all of these ranchers into that stereotype is wrong. Its like saying all NR's are a**holes, or all deer gun-hunters cant hunt and are slobs, all guides are lawless villians. You only hear the bad, you dont hear about the good ones that have gone 10+ years running a straight up outfit.

Some of you need to stand back and look at the big picture. Wether you like it or not, you should seiously re-evaluate just exactly why you are opposing it, and, SERIOUSLY evaluate the repurcussions of joining up with the anti's in fighting this. 
Put your personal feelings aside for just a moment and ask yourself, 
do you really want to give these people (the anti movement) an inch?


----------



## Chuck Smith

Bareback,

Great post. The one thing you forgot to mention is trapping would be next. They get enough fire from the anti's. If high fenced hunting gets banned trapping will be next. Just wait and see. 
________

Also every post I have read is people talking like these animals are wild....they are not. They are domesticated. They get fed by people. They don't have to search for food during the winter. You have to get that out of your minds.

I still would like someone answer the question that I have asked over and over.....

If the industry gets tighter regulations and strict advertising regulations (all like I mentioned before)....*HOW IS IT HURTING SOCIETY? *

I know what plainsman has been saying about how things have changed...prositution, drug use, drunk driving, etc. all were considered legal or not looked down upon...but now things have changed. But those hurt society. How is high fenced hunting hurting society if regulated properly?


----------



## 4590

Barebackjack,
Your common sense post is great logic and thus no doubt, "dishonest, not very intelligent, and a sarcastic silly cheap shot".

Great Job!!


----------



## Turner

Well said Barebackjack.


----------



## Plainsman

> I still would like someone answer the question that I have asked over and over.....


Go back and read Chuck it has been answered on a couple of different threads over and over. I wasn't ignoring you, I just got sick of two three posts and twenty PM's answering the same question.



> If high fenced hunting gets banned trapping will be next. Just wait and see.


No need to wait and see, since the antihunters have been after trapping since the late 1960's that hardly counts as prophecy.


----------



## Ref

In my opinion, hunting and being a hunter is a part of society. Every time that PETA or the all-powerful national media shows canned hunts or high-fenced hunts as unethical, they call it hunting and I get a black eye. When they do that, they are harming me and all hunters. We all agree that we, as hunters, do not want to be lumped with poachers, yet that is what the media does. I look at high-fenced operations the same way.

I do not want to be lumped with the clients of high-fence or canned hunts. I still believe that high-fenced operations are hurting the huge majority of hunters.


----------



## barebackjack

Ref said:


> In my opinion, hunting and being a hunter is a part of society. Every time that PETA or the all-powerful national media shows canned hunts or high-fenced hunts as unethical, they call it hunting and I get a black eye. When they do that, they are harming me and all hunters. We all agree that we, as hunters, do not want to be lumped with poachers, yet that is what the media does. I look at high-fenced operations the same way.
> 
> I do not want to be lumped with the clients of high-fence or canned hunts. I still believe that high-fenced operations are hurting the huge majority of hunters.


They also call "assault weapons" assault weapons....even though if I came at you with a fork it would technically be an "assault weapon". I completely understand where you are coming from, you dont want to be STEREOTYPED......but at the same time YOU are STEREOTYPING the operators of these facilites as money grubbing, disease spreading, unethical slobs. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black isnt it?

Think of the ramifications of this. First goes "high-fence hunting", next could be trapping as Chuck mentioned, baiting, decoys, scents, semi-automatic weapons, scopes, and before you know it, its all gone. Than where is your hunting as a part of society? Its no longer a part of it. And with hunting will go the right of the free citizen to keep and bear arms, youll no longer be able to protect yourself.


----------



## Ref

Whoa.........Please show me in any of my posts where I said that the operators were money grubbing, disease spreading, unethical slobs? That's not my style and I think that even 4590 would agree with me on that.

I don't agree with the scare tactics about hunting being demolished because we, as hunters stand up against these operators that give all of us a bad name.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Plainsman..... I must be missing something. The only answer I have seen from you (on this thread) was that you find shooting animals in enclosures repugnant. But never do you mention how it hurts society. I might be missing something. But I just re-read all your posts (on this thread).

Ref....You make a valid point. But take away the word "hunting" from these operations and then you should not be lumped in with this group. I agree the media calls poachers hunters and it lumps the hunting public in this group. But again if you get into a conversation you just say...no they are not hunters...they broke the law they cheated...they are poachers. Just like all drivers are not speeders....speeders are the ones that are breaking the law.

Please tell me how it is hurting society....anyone. Other than personal beliefs. Now I don't agree with some religions out there but do I think they hurt society....NO. I don't agree with some farming practices.....do they hurt society....NO. I don't agree with the way some people do business....does it hurt society...NO. So just because I don't agree with these things does not give me enough merit to try to ban or get rid of them. *Now some of these examples are extreme* but true.....that is why I keep posing the question.....how do these operations hurt society?


----------



## barebackjack

Ref said:


> I don't agree with the scare tactics about hunting being demolished because we, as hunters stand up against these operators that give all of us a bad name.


And thats what scares me the most. That people such as yourself, even though acting under the best of intentions, principles, and personal ethics, are inadvertantly aiding the people who will stop at nothing to take all of your rights as a "sportsmen" away. Dont kid yourself, that is their ultimate goal. And they will never stop until it has been accomplished. If they fail at it this time, they will pick on something else, and once they achieve a victory, they will achieve more and more, until we, the sportsmen, have nothing left for them to attack. It may not be during our lifetime, but with the way society is changing, it will happen. It will be our children, and their children that will have to fight the big fights, their voice will be from few and will be weak, the anti's voice will be strong.

You may not stereotype these operators, but one only has to read several posts by members from "your view" to realize that this is the general consensus about the operators of these operations. People that do not want to be stereotyped with "poachers and canned-hunt hunters", but at the same time have no problem stereotyping all "high-fence" operations.


----------



## Ref

Barebackjack,

You have a valid point in that hunting numbers across the country seems to be declining. Although there are tons of posts about every time a guy wants to hunt, someone else is already there. It just seems like there are more hunters out there than less. I'm not looking for anyone to post up numbers compared to 10 or 20 years ago. I'm just making a statement.

I think that the high-fenced operators are linked together because they use the same style of harvesting their animals. They turn a client out into their enclosure and let him/her kill and animal. I've never thought of 4590 or the other operators that they ran their operation below board other than what I have stated as my opinion about fair chase vs a high-fenced operation.


----------



## barebackjack

Ref said:


> Barebackjack,
> 
> You have a valid point in that hunting numbers across the country seems to be declining. Although there are tons of posts about every time a guy wants to hunt, someone else is already there. It just seems like there are more hunters out there than less. I'm not looking for anyone to post up numbers compared to 10 or 20 years ago. I'm just making a statement.
> quote]
> 
> I think its just a matter of fewer places to hunt. Land that was available to the average joe 10-20 years ago no longer is. Urban sprawl, and many other reasons are partly to blame for this. I also believe in places like ND, there probably isnt a huge decline in hunter numbers, but across the board (again, the big picture) there most definatly is. Each generation is more and more urbanized, which equates to fewer hunters, and most definatly fewer serious hunters who will be less likely to fight for hunting rights.
> How many hunters will be left in another 10-20 years? How many voices will not be heard in the next big battle with the anti's?
> 
> Give these people an inch, and they wont take a mile, theyll take it all.


----------



## 4590

Chuck and bareback,

Please be careful, you are making way too much sense and there maybe people reading this site who are still on the fence. Sorry, plainsman, couldn't resist.


----------



## djleye

> Each generation is more and more urbanized, which equates to fewer hunters, and most definatly fewer serious hunters who will be less likely to fight for hunting rights.
> How many hunters will be left in another 10-20 years?


Are these the guys that are doing the high fence stuff?? Just a thought.


----------



## Chuck Smith

djleye......

Will high fence shooting spark an interest in people to try and start to hunt? Just another thought?


----------



## barebackjack

djleye said:


> Each generation is more and more urbanized, which equates to fewer hunters, and most definatly fewer serious hunters who will be less likely to fight for hunting rights.
> How many hunters will be left in another 10-20 years?
> 
> 
> 
> Are these the guys that are doing the high fence stuff?? Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point. These are they guys that will carry on the fight. What if in 20 years the fight isnt high-fence vs. fair-chase,.......what if its the use of scopes, or certain types of rifles, or baiting, these are the guys that will fight this. There will be fewer of them, and the anti's will have had set precedence with abolishing "high-fence" hunting, and possibly other things, so it will be harder to stop the windfall.


----------



## djleye

BBJ, I am not arguing this with you guys, I just threw out a question. It seems to me that there are already enough arguing and none will change their minds (on either side), so I refuse to beat my head against the wall. Sorry, I won't take the bait. I bang my head against enough walls every day!!!


----------



## Chuck Smith

djleye......

I was not trying to start anything.....but like I mentioned high fence operations could spark an interest in someone to get them out and hunt.

It did with my brother. I have shared the story over and over. He is in a wheelchair and has cerebral palsy. We thought he could not hunt. In the previous years all he did was sit in the vehicle and watch or wait for us to return. So one day while talking with a teacher that moved into our school district he mentioned that he new a guy who had a high fence operation and that this operation would help us with my brother. So we decided to give it a shot. Well we found out that it could work with him. Us holding the gun and him pulling the trigger. He shot a 500 + lbs Russian boar. The owner of the operation sold it to us for 1/4 of the price.

Ever since that day he has been hunting big game with us during our regular seasons. He even has more bucks on the wall than I do.

You see this high fenced operation helped us realize what we could do and now my brother is a life long hunter.


----------



## jdpete75

I hope this measure applies to pen raised pheasant hunting preserves. :-?


----------

