# Fair Chase Hunting Measure



## Dick Monson

This is the initiated measure filed August 15th with the Sec. of State. His office will respond in 5 to 7 days with a yea or nay, and then voter signature collection may begin. It will require 12,844 signatures to place the measure on the Nov.'08 ballot.

SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

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

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

The measure is very narrow in scope and well defined. It prohibits the activity of accecpting money for killing captive big game species and exotics. The onus is on the seller of the kill, not the buyer.

It does not affect game preserves or game farms. It does not prohibit sale of big game species breeding stock or other live mammals or the ownership of them. It does not prohibit commercial slaughter for meat products or other animal products. Bison are not affected. And birds are not affected. g/o is safe for one more day.

The beauty of the measure is that it is a straight up or down proposition. Right to the people for a yes or a no. There are no committee hearings, no conferance committee hearings, no bs ammendments, no lobbying, no elk jerky in the main hall, no midnight basement broom closet deals, and no veto. It is all out in the open for a vigorous debate as it should be. As one of the 30 ND sponsors on this measure I'd ask you work for it's passage.


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzz


----------



## g/o

> As one of the 30 ND sponsors


Would you list all 30 names Dick?


----------



## Horsager

There is nothing here to stop what already goes on at a high fence operation. The buyer will simply buy the animal well in advance. The the buyer will have the seller release said animal into whatever enclosure the seller has available, and the buyer will go and shoot said critter. If the buyer is unable for some reason to kill his own animal the original owner will buy the animal back.

I'm no fan of high fence hunting. What I like even less is telling someone what they can do on/with their own property.


----------



## tsodak

If people did not do such stupid $%&^ on there own property I would be inclined to agree with you, but when what you do will ong term affect me, then everyone in the form of government needs to step in.

WAY TO GO DICK!!!!!

Tom


----------



## Plainsman

> I'm no fan of high fence hunting. What I like even less is telling someone what they can do on/with their own property.


Try to think about this a little differently. Can a farmer grow pot, or poppies to produce heroin? It is their land, but it is not their Sovereign kingdom. We may be a democracy, but society may place whatever restrictions on landowners that the majority sees fit.


----------



## Dick Monson

g/o, the sponsor names are public information and are listed on every circulator petition. I'm not not going to take time to cut and paste each one, but anyone interested will have no problem veiwing the sponsor info. as they are required to be on each individual petition.


----------



## hunter9494

listen, the high fence exotic market here in Texas is huge and a bunch of bull**** in my opinion. what type of sport is it for a fat *** rich guy to ride out in an air conditioned truck, half snockered up and shoot a damn African game animal standing at the feed trough?

true, there is a market for everything and there are enough dumb ***** who will pay for a "fenced hunt", but dammit this hurts all hunting and legitimate fair chase hunting. really, this bull**** should be illegal, everywhere. it does nothing for the image of the legitimate hunter.

almost as bad as Texas deer hunting over a feeder, i never understood that crap either, set up at a feeder the deer regularly use and shoot one that walks in to feed as usual, just sickening!


----------



## Gohon

> Can a farmer grow pot, or poppies to produce heroin?


Every time this subject comes up, lines like the above are thrown out. This is not about a illegal substance. A substance that addicts people and causes crime. If your going to attempt to compare something to what you are against, at least find something that is comparable. Yes, society may place whatever restrictions on landowners they wish but somehow I suspect it is not a majority of society but a very small minority who's real goal is to force the land owner to give them for free what they now charge others.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for as you may get it. I think as more and more land owners watch whining cry babies who's real interest is for their own pleasure, get restriction after restriction placed upon them they will simply post and shut down their land to all but themselves. Hunting will become a thing of the past except for just the land owner and eventually the whiners will get that removed also. Blinders and tunnel vision seems to be the norm around here.

I'm with Horsager on this one. Like him I'm not a fan of high fence hunting either but you're going to keep pushing on this and pushing on the wrong end until it comes back to bite you all in the ***.


----------



## Springer

This was in the GF Herald today.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/ap/inde ... =D8R1T3CO0

Measure would ban 'captive hunting' of deer, elk
By DALE WETZEL Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press - Thursday, August 16, 2007
BISMARCK, N.D.

A proposed ballot initiative would prohibit private hunting preserves in North Dakota from taking paying customers to hunt deer, elk and other big game in fenced areas. Critics of the measure said it would violate landowners' property rights.

Secretary of State Al Jaeger said he was reviewing the proposal. It was submitted late Wednesday by hunting supporters who believe it is unethical to hunt within a fenced game preserve because the animal cannot run away.

Jaeger and Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem must draft a short description of the proposal, which is called its ballot title, before the measure's supporters may begin gathering petition signatures. At least 12,844 North Dakota voters must sign before the initiative may be put to a vote.

Paul Germolus, a Bismarck attorney representing the initiative committee, said in a letter to Jaeger that the measure "is designed to end the unethical practice of shooting exotic and native game animals trapped inside fenced enclosures."

"The pursuit of captive game animals does not equate to 'hunting' in any sense of the word," Germolus' letter says. "Rather, it is the mere shooting of killing of animals that lack any means of escape. More aptly described as 'canned shooting,' the practice defies long-standing principles of fair chance and ethical hunting."

Earlier this year, the North Dakota Legislature defeated a similar proposal to ban hunting within fenced preserves, concluding the move would step on the property rights of game farm operators.

Shawn Schafer, of Turtle Lake, said the measure's language would even prohibit ranchers from raising big game to be butchered and sold for the meat. Schafer and his brother, Clark, operate the Schafer Whitetail Ranch, and Shawn Schafer is president of the North Dakota Deer Ranchers group.

Game preserves offer ranchers the opportunity to use land that is often marginal for farming or raising traditional livestock, Schafer said. The Schafer ranch raises white-tailed deer, which the Schafers sell to a private hunting preserve in Missouri. The ranch does not offer hunts on the premises.

"This really, really infringes upon the private property rights of producers, the farmers and ranchers of this state," Schafer said. "We're able to take that land, fence it in, and offer a service to a customer who apparently must enjoy it. Customer satisfaction will regulate this market better than anything."

North Dakota has more than 100 registered deer and elk farms. About a dozen offer hunters the chance to hunt on their property for a fee.

Roger Kaseman, of Linton, who is chairman of the initiative campaign, said the measure would not prevent landowners from raising game to slaughter for food. "We are only talking here about shooting an animal behind a high fence," he said.

Allowing deer and elk to be shot in fenced areas goes against the hunting ethic of "fair chase" and could lower the public's regard for hunting in general, he said.

"You have somebody fly in, walk out into the pasture and shoot an animal trophy. This animal's been hand-raised, hand-fed," Kaseman said. "What kind of example does that give to our kids?"

Wayne Laaveg, of Park River, the president of the North Dakota Elk Growers, said the state itself has helped finance development of game preserves through grants and low-cost aid to operators. Laaveg raises elk for meat and to sell to hunting operations.

"For somebody else to come in and say, 'Well, we don't like it, so we're going to take it completely away from you, and if you go totally broke and get kicked off your land, well, tough luck' ... that is completely wrong," Laaveg said.

The proposed ballot measure is one of four that has been submitted to Jaeger's office in recent months.

Other proposed initiatives would cut North Dakota's income tax rates, require that the state school superintendent be a licensed teacher, and make it easier for a man or woman who is getting a divorce to get joint physical and legal custody of children.


----------



## Plainsman

You couldn't be more wrong Gohon. I have one relative with 22 sections that I can hunt. I have another with three farms, and a friend with 50,000 acres. I don't need anymore land to hunt, because I can't cover 10% of the land I have permission to hunt. 
The reason I am against canned hunts is because it sickens me. I put this practice right at the bottom of the barrel with many already illegal activities. You say it's ok if it is legal, and that is what we will change. If we followed your example we would still be living in a primitive world where nearly anything would be legal. 
So you don't like my example of heroin. How about wetland drainage? You can't just go drain anything you want to. If you live on the river you just can't clean your barn and dump it in the river. Gohon, you just think if a man has land he can do anything he likes. That 12th century European aristocrat attitude don't cut it in America today. 
As far as landowners cutting everyone off, that is a foolish threat to bring up. Luckily most landowners don't think that way. If they did who is there to care about them. This doesn't involve 99.9 percent of landowners. If every landowner had this attitude I would be telling my representatives in Washington to dump the entire farm support program and open the doors to import. 
Gohon, if you hear a knock on your door today it isn't a horde of companies beating their way to your doorstep to hire you for public relations.


----------



## Gohon

> Gohon, you just think if a man has land he can do anything he likes.


I never said any such thing and you know it. If you're going to decide what I think, at least try to be correct about it. Your comparison of growing heroin to fenced hunting is ridiculous and that was my point. Heroin is a danger and a threat to the public. Fenced hunting is not. Even your wetland drainage and dumping waste into a river doesn't make the cut. Again your trying to compare things that affect the entire population with something that affects no one but a hunter.

What I am talking about is your attempts to force your ethics on someone else. What is a high fence hunt? Is 2000 acres a fenced hunt or is it 2 acres? You never seem to make it clear what you're talking about except to say it makes me sick. Why is fenced hunting any more unethical than the guy that hunts over a feeder. Or the guy that plants a acre of clover and waits at the edge to ambush a deer while sitting in his nice heated and elevated stand. I don't consider any of that hunting but some do. Should I go around complaining all the time and try to get laws passed to stop them. By your reasoning I guess I should.

I don't do as much big game hunting as I once did but when I do it is still as I was raised. I scout the area, look for sign and take my chances that I read them right. No freaking pansy trail cameras, no high elevated stands, no planted ambush crops and no feeders. To me all the methods I just mentioned are unethical at worst and not a fair chase at best but I don't have the right to force my personal ethical standards on anyone else and neither do you. So you keep right on going with your attempts of using the law to benefit a few at the cost of others. Keep the controversy going and stay on that slippery slope if you wish. Good luck when you land at the bottom because you may find there is no bottom.

BTW, just curious...... is that 22 sections, three farms and additional 50,000 acres open to me and all my friends and the rest of the public any time we/they wish to use it? Or is it possible that since you have no lack of land to hunt it shades your view just a little.


----------



## always_outdoors

This is an excellent bill. :beer:

Shaefer should read the bill before spouting untruths to the newspaper.


----------



## 4590

Gohon,

Appreciate your perspective, even though you are wasting your time with this group. Even the examples you use are in the taking of public wildlife, and the public certainly has a right to determine how those animals are taken. What this group can't or won't accept is that they are dealing with not just privately owned land but also privately owned livestock.

Has anyone noticed that Germolus carefully chose the terms "captive game animals". So the rhetoric continues in hopes of duping the public. They have a fit that we call it "hunting", which has a varied definition, but they continue to avoid calling our animals -domestic livestock- which is what they are LEGALLY determined in ND Century Code. When one hears the term "captive game animal" most would think they are captured from the wild, which of course is again a LIE.

Once again Tom Remington of "Black Bear Blog" gets it right:

Proposed North Dakota Ballot Initiative Would Ban Growing, Hunting Game
Posted by Tom Remington on August 16, 2007 | Leave a Comment

People who seem to believe it is their God-given duty to cram their personal beliefs down the throats of others continues in this country with no end in sight. According to an article in the Bismark Tribune out of North Dakota, the Secretary of State, Al Jaeger, has received a proposed ballot initiative from some unidentified "hunting" group that wants to ban not only hunting on ranches but also to ban the growing of animals, such as deer and elk, on farms.

The ballot initiative will need to be written up with a brief description and then supporters will need to gather 12,844 signatures from registered North Dakota voters.

Roger Kaseman is chairman of the campaign to ban the hunting and ranching. The attorney, Paul Germolus representing the sponsors of the initiative says, the group is doing this because they don't think hunting on a ranch is ethical.

"The pursuit of captive game animals does not equate to 'hunting' in any sense of the word," Germolus' letter says. "Rather, it is the mere shooting of killing of animals that lack any means of escape. More aptly described as 'canned shooting,' the practice defies long-standing principles of fair chance and ethical hunting."

And there are probably some other people who feel the same way. I happen to think that the attitude of some lawyers isn't in the best interest of the American Bar Association but I don't feel it is my God-given responsibility to ban it. If a person doesn't think it is ethical to hunt that way, then stay home. Go do your thing. Nothing is being accomplished by stripping Americans of their right to run a business.

But this particular group, like many of the others, goes far beyond anything to do with hunting ethics. They want to ban the ranching itself.

Shawn Schafer, of Turtle Lake, said the measure's language would even prohibit ranchers from raising big game to be butchered and sold for the meat. Schafer and his brother, Clark, operate the Schafer Whitetail Ranch, and Shawn Schafer is president of the North Dakota Deer Ranchers group.

Game preserves offer ranchers the opportunity to use land that is often marginal for farming or raising traditional livestock, Schafer said. The Schafer ranch raises white-tailed deer, which the Schafers sell to a private hunting preserve in Missouri. The ranch does not offer hunts on the premises.

"This really, really infringes upon the private property rights of producers, the farmers and ranchers of this state," Schafer said. "We're able to take that land, fence it in, and offer a service to a customer who apparently must enjoy it. Customer satisfaction will regulate this market better than anything."

Earlier this year, the North Dakota Legislature defeated a proposed bill that would essentially accomplish the same thing as this ballot initiative is seeking. One of the reasons stems from the fact that the state has actively assisted farmers in their business quests to ranch game. That measure only garnered 3 votes in the Senate. Most Senators understood this is a huge property rights infringement.

People need to speak up. There is no good reason to pass such a proposal. This is simply a matter of a group of people wishing to force their values onto others while disregarding the Constitutional right of a landowner to conduct business on his land. I don't care if you don't think hunting in an enclosure is hunting or whether you think it's canned, unfair, unethical or anything else. Ethics can't be regulated, although it is people like this group in North Dakota, who think it should be. I hope they are prepared to have others regulate their lifestyles and businesses simply because someone else doesn't like it.

Hunting on ranches is having zero negative impact on the heritage of hunting. It's a non-issue. The only affect any of this is having is driving a wedge between sportsmen. This is something more than protecting hunting heritage and the good name of the sport. If it was, groups like this would be spending their time and money on real projects - education, recruitment, retention, public relations campaigns and landowner issues. These are valuable programs. Why worry about whether some rancher in North Dakota is trying to eke out a living by raising a few head of deer or elk.

I have said it a million times and I'm sure I'll say it a million more. I don't hunt ranches and have no plans in the future but with people like this who think they are doing good, ranches may be just the only thing left to hunt on. The reason is because many of these same people who want to stick their noses into other people's business are the same ones who post their own land. They are control freaks who feel it necessary that the world conform to their standards. As this trend continues, it won't be long before their actions will come back and haunt them. There will be no land left to hunt on and the so-called ethical people of this world will rule.

The good people of North Dakota should speak up now and hopefully this group will never obtain enough signatures to reach the ballot.

Tom Remington


----------



## Gohon

Just for the hell of it I looked up the Grand Forks Herald and this is what they showed.



> The text of a proposed North Dakota ballot initiative to restrict hunting preserves:
> 
> ___
> 
> Section 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:
> 
> Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited - Penalty - Exception. A person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other renumeration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.
> 
> Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective on Nov. 1, 2010.


Is that it? Is this whats being called a good bill? This had to of been written by a lawyer. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/ap/inde ... eck_return


----------



## Plainsman

> What I am talking about is your attempts to force your ethics on someone else.


Your doing the same. In your book I am supposed to accept this kind of thing going on . Every law this nation makes is forcing someone to do or not do something. Are you really suggesting we stop making laws? You darn right I will try force my hunting ethics on someone else when their ethics give me a black eye and endanger my sport. I have absolutely no problem with admitting that. My comparisons all work, because they are society restricting someone. This will be society putting another restriction on landowners. By the way it isn't just landowners, it is anyone who wants to do a high fence hunt operation. To me this has nothing to do with landowners, I would restrict anyone from doing it. The landowner rights cry is just a ploy to get support for unsavory behavior.



> Why is fenced hunting any more unethical than the guy that hunts over a feeder.


Do I really have to explain that? Come on, you know better. The deer coming into a feeder can escape if the hunter misses the first shot. The deer in a high fence can have dozens of shots taken until the slob hits him enough times to put him down. If you don't like hunting over feeders Gohon by all means try and stop it if you want to.



> To me all the methods I just mentioned are unethical at worst and not a fair chase at best but I don't have the right to force my personal ethical standards on anyone else and neither do you.


Sure I do, and so do you. What country is it you think you live in? So you think these hunting methods are unethical and your doing nothing about it. Ok, I will nominate you as Mr. tolerant, but you know how I feel about tolerance. 
Like someone else quoted somewhere about tolerance: 
"Tolerance of the lowest ethical standards, for the sake of unity, demeans us all". 
This is what your asking of me isn't it? Tolerance????????



> So you keep right on going with your attempts of using the law to benefit a few at the cost of others.


Lets get this shoe on the right foot. Very few people are benefiting from shooting Babmi in a barrel operations while they endanger the sport for thousands. Lets make it perfectly clear who the selfish are here.



> BTW, just curious...... is that 22 sections, three farms and additional 50,000 acres open to me and all my friends and the rest of the public any time we/they wish to use it? Or is it possible that since you have no lack of land to hunt it shades your view just a little.


That would be absolutely none of your business and has no bearing on this debate, but I will humor you. The 22 sections are posted, but open to many if they ask. The three farms are open after the first week - end of deer season, and the 50,000 acres are posted around the farmstead, and the many farmsteads that his hired men reside on. He also has about 20,000 acres in your state.



> When one hears the term "captive game animal" most would think they are captured from the wild, which of course is again a LIE.


Wow, what a mind. All animals came originally from the wild unless you believe in spontaneous generation. In the perspective of time the North American deer and elk were all recently captured from the wild. Domestication takes longer than this nation has existed.



> some unidentified "hunting" group that wants to ban not only hunting on ranches but also to ban the growing of animals, such as deer and elk, on farms.


Unlike you I will not become hysterical and call you a liar, but what I will say is that you have no idea what your talking about, and neither does Shawn Schafer whom you evidently have chosen to believe. In short order the public will know this is not the truth. That fact that the wildlife raisers are not telling the truth will hopefully give the public some insight into the credibility of these people. I think exposing falsehoods like this will be one more nail in their profit at any cost coffin.



> The good people of North Dakota should speak up now and hopefully this group will never obtain enough signatures to reach the ballot.


I would guess the old market hunters tried the same ploy. There are still some buffalo left, and the good people of the United States should let us kill the last ones. :eyeroll:


----------



## g/o

live2hunt said:


> This is an excellent bill. :beer:
> 
> Shaefer should read the bill before spouting untruths to the newspaper.


As one of the sponsor's one would expect you to feel as you do. Shaefer on the other has a huge investment and you have none.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Tough issue. On the one hand I believe telling people what to do on their own land is a slippery slope. Where would it stop if another group doesn't like something else and then more laws are passed. On the other hand this sort of business is what gives the antis an good reason for hunting to be stopped. If I didn't know better and didn't hunt I would be against hunting as well if I a canned hunt. The whole concept though is sickening what people will do for money. I guess there is a fine line to morals and being a whore.


----------



## NDTerminator

Same old crap. Those who are smug in the knowledge they know what is best for everyone else attempting to force their beliefs on others.

This is one of those things that really ****** me off, be it politics, religion, hunting, or how to live life in general.

I wouldn't support this for all the tea in China...


----------



## g/o

Looks like the who's who list from NoDak outdoors


----------



## 280IM

NDTerminator said:


> Same old crap. Those who are smug in the knowledge they know what is best for everyone else attempting to force their beliefs on others.
> 
> This is one of those things that really ticks me off, be it politics, religion, hunting, or how to live life in general.
> 
> I wouldn't support this for all the tea in China...


That pretty much says it all. That knowledge you refured to may not be all true,more of an opion with a lot of BS added!!!!


----------



## always_outdoors

g/o: This bill doesn't effect you. Why condone it?

You freelanced once. Would you prefer the boone and crocket buck you hunted on your own land or would you rather pay $1000 and go hunt it in an 80 acre pen? Which is more rewarding? Which one seems more ethical?

How about your kid? I know how you feel about kids and hunting. You even have a Youth PLOTS. So should we really teach kids that it is OK to go into pen and shoot an animal and still call it hunting? what values are we teaching them if we show them this is right?


----------



## Plainsman

g/o said:


> live2hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an excellent bill. :beer:
> 
> Shaefer should read the bill before spouting untruths to the newspaper.
> 
> 
> 
> As one of the sponsor's one would expect you to feel as you do. Shaefer on the other has a huge investment and you have none.
Click to expand...

So what you freely admit is that live2hunt bases his bias on ethics, and Shaefer bases his bias on money. I agree with you.

NDTerminator



> force their beliefs on others


I thought you were in law enforcement. If so, your whole career is enforcing the wishes of society upon the individual. That's what laws do, and our nation is based upon law.


----------



## jackal_727

Can we all comprimise perhaps, and say that small areas of land with feeders, and drugged up animals is, shall we say, immoral. But if the fenced hunting area is say a few thousand acres, and the fence is only used to keep the animals in, but not keep them from escaping certain individuals hunting them, then its not really that big of a deal.

Or maybe I'm just :stirpot:


----------



## jhegg

Hmmm...it seems that we have hit the nerve of ethics vs money right on the bullseye!
Jim


----------



## tb

Canned hunts are an abomination, disgusting.

To take it to another level, I don't think that using a guide is even hunting. It's just killing. When using a guide there are no long days spent scouting, years spent building a decent spread, trial and error when putting out the spread, etc. All you do is go out in the dark, sit down and wait for some local yokel to say "take 'em". Big deal.

Just so you know, so its set in stone, I feel the same way about guys that lease land. So you go to the same place each day and sit there, that's not hunting, that's pathetic. Pretty boring I would think.

Canned hunts make me sick. Makes wildlife sick too, where do you guys think CWD came from?


----------



## Gohon

> Your doing the same.


That's bull and you know it. I don't care if you accept my ethics or not. They are mine, not your's but don't force yours on me.



> In your book I am supposed to accept this kind of thing going on.


You don't have to accept anything. But you don't have the right to force me to accept what you don't want to accept.



> Every law this nation makes is forcing someone to do or not do something. Are you really suggesting we stop making laws?


True...... but what laws can you name that have stood up when they attempt to regulate morality which is what you want to do. We use to have a law that said slavery was good for everyone. We had a law that said women couldn't vote. We had one that didn't allow nationalized citizens to own land. So much for the law being right every time just because someone wanted one huh. They were bad laws....... just like this one will be. 


> You darn right I will try force my hunting ethics on someone else when their ethics give me a black eye and endanger my sport.


Your sport is in no way in danger because of this issue and never has been. What can you offer that supports such a statement. If you have a black eye it is self imposed.



> I have absolutely no problem with admitting that. My comparisons all work, because they are society restricting someone.


What you really mean is someone else but not you.



> To me this has nothing to do with landowners, I would restrict anyone from doing it. The landowner rights cry is just a ploy to get support for unsavory behavior.


You're simply bypassing the fact that someone owns that land. Not that it really matters to you.



> The deer coming into a feeder can escape if the hunter misses the first shot.


Talk about grasping for straws.



> The deer in a high fence can have dozens of shots taken until the slob hits him enough times to put him down.


Do you know that for a fact. Seriously is that just more around the campfire bs the good old boys spin or have you actually been to one of these hunts and observed it first hand. I don't know so I'll pass on the regurgitated water cooler tales.



> If you don't like hunting over feeders Gohon by all means try and stop it if you want to.


To do that I would fall right into the socialist views you hold so dear. Oh I know you will flare up and deny that but just step back and take a good look at what you are saying and you should if open minded realize your actions is right down the path of a socialist. Just because I don't like something doesn't give me the right to force someone else not to like it.



> That would be absolutely none of your business and has no bearing on this debate


Oh but it is my business and everyone else's. If that land is posted I want to know just how much and what kind of government dollars went into that land. What kind of payments and benefits is your friends receiving for that land. I may just have a case to force your landowner friend to open their land for public hunting.......... but it really won't be about landowners in my mind, just like you. I want to know if they have their land fenced to keep animals out of their crops and if it is fenced what animals were trapped inside when they fenced it. I also want to know who hunted that fenced property and if they shot game, did they give any of it to the land owner. Because you see Plainsman the word renumeration as used in this bill you like so much is just another word for compensation and if that animal had no way to escape the fenced area and was killed then your landowner friend by accepting a back strap or hindquarter broke the law according to this bill you are so hot for. I'm sure I could find a hot shot lawyer that could take this wonderful bill as broad as it is so far and really give you a black eye. Hey I'm starting to like this socialist stuff..... you should have turned me onto it sooner. Yes, the slippery slope gets slipperier.

What you are doing now in my opinion is simply allowing emotion to cloud your judgment. I don't have a dog in this fight as far as North Dakota is concerned but all of us have a stake in this if a presedense is set that can be use by anti-hunters. And in my opinion you people are handing it to them on a silver platter.


----------



## g/o

live2hunt said:


> g/o: This bill doesn't effect you. Why condone it?
> 
> You freelanced once. Would you prefer the boone and crocket buck you hunted on your own land or would you rather pay $1000 and go hunt it in an 80 acre pen? Which is more rewarding? Which one seems more ethical?
> 
> How about your kid? I know how you feel about kids and hunting. You even have a Youth PLOTS. So should we really teach kids that it is OK to go into pen and shoot an animal and still call it hunting? what values are we teaching them if we show them this is right?


Live, This is funny, you have hammered on me for not knowing what its like to freelance, now you admit I freelanced once? I have shot a [email protected] buck on my own property. I have also shot a pen raised Elk on my property. The Elk was 150 yd shot. The deer was 30yds so you tell me which was more of a challenge. Shooting a pen raised deer or elk is shooting not hunting no other than you so called ethical hunters have said that. I operate a licensed SHOOTING PRESERVE not a hunting preserve. Over the years I have shot cow,pigs and sheep on the farm how many others have. The bill does affect me big time I'm a citizen of this state and I'm tired of a bunch of do gooders slbcks telling me how to operate my business.

Jhegg, Your right,you hit a nerve with me when it comes to ethics and money. I can't see how I can ethically allow sponsors of this bill hunt at my place . Therefore I have to cancel them, I can't let money stand in the way.


----------



## always_outdoors

Once again a spin by you g/o. Show me where I said you never freelanced?? Show me the post!

I know you freelanced years ago, but as I have stated many times over in PM's to you. Freelancing NOW is much different than when you freelanced. It has changed.

You can't compare freelancing when you did it to now. You always try and do that. You seem to think free access is everywhere because when you freelanced it was. Now it isn't even though you keep thinking it is. I am not sure how many more times everyone can tell you that. Obviously not enough.



> The bill does affect me big time I'm a citizen of this state and I'm tired of a bunch of do gooders slbcks telling me how to operate my business.


Then get out of the business. That is what happens. My brother used to own a grocery store. Everyone in town had an idea of how HE should run the store. So were they slbcks too?

IMHO you run a business that is ruining this state and quite honestly gives hunting a black eye. I have every right to voice my opinion on this subject as I am citizen and taxpayer of this state as well.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

WATCH THE LANGUAGE ON THIS THREAD.

I'd appreciate it if the same people who basically repeat themselves every time this issue comes up to take a step back, and allow others to voice their opinion. Some of you obviously have polar opposites when it comes to your opinion on this issue, that means it's good to hear all angles on the issues. The problem is the same individuals argue with the same people with the same opinion on all similar threads. So please, let others voice their opinion and don't be so quick to jump all over it.


----------



## Plainsman

> True...... but what laws can you name that have stood up when they attempt to regulate morality which is what you want to do. We use to have a law that said slavery was good for everyone. We had a law that said women couldn't vote. We had one that didn't allow nationalized citizens to own land. So much for the law being right every time just because someone wanted one huh. They were bad laws.......


Your right and that's why were changing the way things are now. It's not right for a wild animal to be contained with no chance to escape. It's even worse that it cast a shadow over all sport hunting.



> What you really mean is someone else but not you.


What are you talking about Gohon? We are all restricted every day. The only reason this bill will not restrict me is because I would not sink to that level. I don't need a law to tell me what is right and what is wrong. Some people evidently do.



> You're simply bypassing the fact that someone owns that land.


It's not the deciding factor. Who says they have to own it? It could be leased. If they do own the land that doesn't make anything they do on it ok. It has no bearing on this.



> Do you know that for a fact. Seriously is that just more around the campfire bs the good old boys spin or have you actually been to one of these hunts and observed it first hand. I don't know so I'll pass on the regurgitated water cooler tales.


Nope, watched the undercover video of a couple. Seen a deer sick and drugged propped up against a tree. The deer falls down and some guys rush in to prop him up again. Then they get out of the picture for the killing shot.



> To do that I would fall right into the socialist views you hold so dear.


What have you been smoking today. Socialist views I hold so dear??? Try tell the liberals on the political form about my socialist views. That should be good for a laugh. As a matter of fact I invite everyone to go to the political form and observe my political views. Then please come on here and tell Gohon or I which one is off their rocker. You see Gohon there is a bit of a clash here. The clash is between my respect for the constitution and my conservative political views. The constitution says animals are property of the state. My conservative views are let the marketplace determine the business practices. But then prostitution much like selling wildlife would flourish. I guess the constitution should trump the marketplace when ethics are involved.



> then your landowner friend by accepting a back strap or hindquarter broke the law according to this bill you are so hot for.


Talk about grasping at straws. Besides my landowner friend hasn't eaten wild game in his life, and you say broke the law as if it's all over. Perhaps it is. Give it up Gohon, I don't like to see you desperate and grasping at the ludicrous.



> I don't have a dog in this fight as far as North Dakota is concerned but all of us have a stake in this if a presedense is set


You're a little behind the issue. The precedence has been set. State after state is eliminating this unethical form of what they would like to call hunting, and no legal opposition has been successful. What some of these people are doing now is trying to use North Dakota as a dumping ground for the animals they are stuck with. This should never have been allowed to begin, but better to end it now than never. Again I refer you back to your question "what law has stood up when they have tried to regulate morality". All of them.

It's odd that you say your trying to protect hunting, I'm doing the same thing. The practice of shooting fenced, drugged, and otherwise restricted animals is one of the things that gets so many contributions for the animal rights and other anti hunting groups. Unfortunately the general public observes things like this and they think that is hunting. If you can't see that your not being up front with me.

By the way, what do you think of baiting waterfow. Do you think the law that prohibits it will stand a legal challenge?


----------



## Plainsman

Chris Hustad said:


> WATCH THE LANGUAGE ON THIS THREAD.
> 
> I'd appreciate it if the same people who basically repeat themselves every time this issue comes up to take a step back, and allow others to voice their opinion. Some of you obviously have polar opposites when it comes to your opinion on this issue, that means it's good to hear all angles on the issues. The problem is the same individuals argue with the same people with the same opinion on all similar threads. So please, let others voice their opinion and don't be so quick to jump all over it.


Good idea.


----------



## MRN

Gohon said:


> True...... but what laws can you name that have stood up when they attempt to regulate morality which is what you want to do.


What?

What laws can you name that DON'T regulate morality? That's what laws do. They affect people's/group's choice of behavior.

M.


----------



## g/o

> IMHO you run a business that is ruining this state and quite honestly gives hunting a black eye. I have every right to voice my opinion on this subject as I am citizen and taxpayer of this state as well.


Wow, what more can I say!!! I think a large number of people in this state would argue with you on this point. If giving kids a place to hunt is ruining this state so be it.


----------



## Gohon

> What laws can you name that DON'T regulate morality? That's what laws do. They affect people's/group's choice of behavior.


Laws prevent objectable behavior with no choice. Morality guides favorable behavior with a choice.


----------



## bowhunter04

But who decides what objectable behaviors are? For many people, even the laws do not stop them from partaking in objectable behaviors. Everyone has different views of what is "objectable." The laws generally support the majority of the public's view on morality. I believe all laws are based on morality at the root.


----------



## 280IM

Plainsman said:


> Chris Hustad said:
> 
> 
> 
> WATCH THE LANGUAGE ON THIS THREAD.
> 
> I'd appreciate it if the same people who basically repeat themselves every time this issue comes up to take a step back, and allow others to voice their opinion. Some of you obviously have polar opposites when it comes to your opinion on this issue, that means it's good to hear all angles on the issues. The problem is the same individuals argue with the same people with the same opinion on all similar threads. So please, let others voice their opinion and don't be so quick to jump all over it.
> 
> 
> 
> Good idea.
Click to expand...

Ya several of these "slob hunters" you keep talking about have ads on this site, one I know and haved talked to him today. You are entittled to you opinion, but as a Mod I have lost a lot of respect for. Did God die and put you incharge?


----------



## bandman




----------



## MRN

Gohon said:


> What laws can you name that DON'T regulate morality? That's what laws do. They affect people's/group's choice of behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> Laws prevent objectable behavior with no choice.
Click to expand...

What?
What?????

Never mind - there is a reason for the ignore button.

M.


----------



## Gohon

bowhunter04, we're getting off the subject here but morality is one of those terms that simply isn't black and white. More often than not the word morality requires the explanation of the context it is to be used in. Maybe this explains it better. "Anthropologists used to claim that morality, like law, applied only within a society. They claimed that "morality" referred to that code of conduct that is put forward by a society. This account seems to fit best those societies that have no written language, where often no distinctions are made among morality, etiquette, law, and religion. But even for anthropologists "morality" does not often mean simply "code of conduct put forward by a society." Often, morality is distinguished *from* etiquette, law, and religion, all of which provide codes of conduct put forward by a society."

So if this bill came before the voters and was passed it would be safe to assume that the majority of the voters were city people, non hunters, and didn't have a clue what the bill was really about. Doesn't seem to affect me, must be ok because someone put it here so I'll just check this yes box. Thats what the backers of a lot of the bills count on when they want to get around the legislature. Morality will of had little if nothing to do with it.

Don't you find it ironic that when PETA or other organizations of that type say that hunting should be baned because it makes them sick to their stomach, that hunters are the lowest form of life and civilized nations don't kill animals for sport, that all of us and rightfully so, tell them to get a life and they are a bunch of tree hugging idiots. But on this subject the same cries are used to justify being against fenced hunting. All I've been trying to say is if you are against fenced hunting then get something with meat to it instead of this it makes me sick crap. That is not a reason to make a law. If it hurts hunting then show everyone how that is the case. If there is a problem with disease control then bring out the documents. From what I've seen of this particular bill, you could drive a truck through the loop holes and in my opinion it is a disaster that is ripe for the anti-hunters to grab a hold. Guess we shall see.


----------



## tb

""Ya several of these "slob hunters" you keep talking about have ads on this site, one I know and haved talked to him today. You are entittled to you opinion, but as a Mod I have lost a lot of respect for. Did God die and put you incharge?""

Let's have some disclosure here. Please explain.

Am I thinkin' the same ole, same ole: Money Talks????


----------



## 280IM

I explained to the man in charge, That all I need to explain.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

So what is your point 280? A mod on the site has a different view than you so you retaliate by trying to pull advertisers from the site? Are mods supposed to have no opinions? No, God is not dead, but Mr. Hustad did put Plainsman in charge. Last I checked, Mr. Hustad isn't quite dead yet either. Your tactics amaze me.


----------



## Plainsman

I will stay out of the debate for a while and let others voice their opinion. I just want to inject my definition of slob hunter here and maybe that will clear things up a bit. There are many types, but this definition is just for the high fence killer:

Slob hunter: A fellow who never shoots his rifle and is not proficient. As a matter of fact he rarely steps out of his office, and thinks the city park is a wilderness experience. He goes to a high fence operation and gut shoots a deer, gut shoots it again, it may run behind a feeder. Helpers prop it against a tree for him. He misses two more times. The animal is down and propped up again, the hunter is five yards and shoots it two more times. The hams are shot up an useless, but the antlers are fine. They drag it to a clump of trees outside the two acre enclosure for pictures. He returns to his private Leer jet and flies away. The cape and antlers are sent to the taxidermist for him. Someone hangs it in his office for him because he doesn't like to touch animals.

You may not consider this man a slob hunter, but he fits into my view of one.


----------



## g/o

Plainsman, Like always you've got it wrong. A slob hunter is the typical resident hunter who drives around and shoots deer out the window of the pickup. If they are real tuff guys they may get out and shoot from the road so they are not to break any laws. If the deer is not to far from the vehicle they may go and get it other wise they leave it lay. If they do happen to retrieve it some go out and toss them in the road ditches. These are the same guys who are opposed to high fence hunting, they are so much better than everyone else.


----------



## djleye

> These are the same guys who are opposed to high fence hunting, they are so much better than everyone else.


So, everyone that is opposed to high fence hunting is now a slob hunter that shoots deer out the window. :roll: You know better than that Jim.

ACtually I would say that both of those definitions are good examples of a slob hunter. I would also guess that both of you guys, PM and G/O, if cornered, would agree that both of those scenarios are slob hunters!! I would also guess that neither of you would want that person being what the anti or even the on-the-fence crowd want as a true hunting spokeperson.


----------



## 280IM

Plainsman said:


> I will stay out of the debate for a while and let others voice their opinion. I just want to inject my definition of slob hunter here and maybe that will clear things up a bit. There are many types, but this definition is just for the high fence killer:
> 
> Slob hunter: A fellow who never shoots his rifle and is not proficient. As a matter of fact he rarely steps out of his office, and thinks the city park is a wilderness experience. He goes to a high fence operation and gut shoots a deer, gut shoots it again, it may run behind a feeder. Helpers prop it against a tree for him. He misses two more times. The animal is down and propped up again, the hunter is five yards and shoots it two more times. The hams are shot up an useless, but the antlers are fine. They drag it to a clump of trees outside the two acre enclosure for pictures. He returns to his private Leer jet and flies away. The cape and antlers are sent to the taxidermist for him. Someone hangs it in his office for him because he doesn't like to touch animals.
> 
> You may not consider this man a slob hunter, but he fits into my view of one.


Plainsman I guess I have never meant the type of hunter you just discribed in person.

Do you know any by name?

I have taken several disabled vets from Columbia Vets Home down to a shooting persever in south Mo to shoot a hog. Are they slob hunters behind a fence? It sures hell wasn't a 2 acere pen.

We took a group of kids that are on the trap shooting team to a shooting persever West of the Lake to shoot PEN raiesed Churkers and Pheastants to give them an idea of the differents between a clay target and a live bird. Is this the start of them being "slob hunter"? The three of us that took them to the perseve paid for the birds as a reward for what they had done at the state trapshoot,the kids didn't pay TO HUNT!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman

As I said for now I am going to stand back and listen, I only offered my opinion of a slob hunter. I also agree with g/o's opinion of a slob hunter. However, I wouldn't agree that everyone who is for this bill is a slob hunter. I guess anyone not willing to pay a guide is a slob. So many of us have just been called slob hunters. I leave it up to you 280 to defend us. You will right?


----------



## always_outdoors

I was going to back out of this conversation, but I hate it when people use kids as a means of justifing something that is giving hunting a black eye.

280IM: I am certified shotgun instructor and we take our kids out for youth duck hunt, youth pheasant, and some of us take kids out for youth deer. I have 3 stands up for any kid to use for archery or rifle season on deer. All of those kids have had success in the field. And when the hunt is over we have taken the kids to the landowners and had them talk to those landowners and thank them for the access.


----------



## djleye

live2hunt said:


> I was going to back out of this conversation, but I hate it when people use kids as a means of justifing something that is giving hunting a black eye.
> 
> 280IM: I am certified shotgun instructor and we take our kids out for youth duck hunt, youth pheasant, and some of us take kids out for youth deer. I have 3 stands up for any kid to use for archery or rifle season on deer. All of those kids have had success in the field. And when the hunt is over we have taken the kids to the landowners and had them talk to those landowners and thank them for the access.


Good for you live!!!!!!! That is awesome. That is what being an outdoorsman is all about!!!!!


----------



## g/o

Live, You and djleye are both sponsors of the bill and agree that I give hunting a black eye because I'm an outfitter. Question for you when you go on hunting trips do you guys ever stay in houses owned by farmers or other people?



> So, everyone that is opposed to high fence hunting is now a slob hunter that shoots deer out the window. You know better than that Jim.


I didn't say that,but many of you are that way.



> I guess anyone not willing to pay a guide is a slob.


And another brilliant quote by one of your other brothers Dan,and Dan


----------



## g/o

> Good for you live!!!!!!! That is awesome. That is what being an outdoorsman is all about!!!!!


What do you do djleye?


----------



## 280IM

live2hunt said:


> I was going to back out of this conversation, but I hate it when people use kids as a means of justifing something that is giving hunting a black eye.
> 
> 280IM: I am certified shotgun instructor and we take our kids out for youth duck hunt, youth pheasant, and some of us take kids out for youth deer. I have 3 stands up for any kid to use for archery or rifle season on deer. All of those kids have had success in the field. And when the hunt is over we have taken the kids to the landowners and had them talk to those landowners and thank them for the access.


This maybe hard for you to believe hunt but there is no wild pheasant to hunt here. This was the only chance for several of these kids to walk a feild with a dog and hunt a pheasant!!! I was not using kids as a shield,I have stated I don't like canned hunts!!!! There are a couple of kids on the trap team I furnished them a shotgun or they would not have been able to be on the team. I was not giving hunting a bllack eye!!!!!!!!!


----------



## g/o

280, Live is referring to me, I am the one who gives hunting a gives hunting a black eye. According to him and djleye and the rest of the sponsors of this bill.


----------



## djleye

> Live, You and djleye are both sponsors of the bill and agree that I give hunting a black eye because I'm an outfitter. Question for you when you go on hunting trips do you guys ever stay in houses owned by farmers or other people?


Really Jim???? When did I say that? I musta missed it because I don't remember saying that.

You know damn well what I do Jim. I help out with and am the former president of the Delta Waterfowl chapter in the FM area that sposors a youth hunt every year. We also funnel a good amount of money into Delta national. I also take out a lot of neighbors and friends kids when I hunt. I also am working on getting my kids into hunting. This in addition to my other fatherly duties with my own kids.
Next question Jim. 
Keep badmouthing me and putting words into my mouth if it makes you feel better!!!!


----------



## 280IM

We also funnel a good amount of money into Delta national.

djleye I was just starting to like you but you funnel money into improving hunting!!! You will ruin hunting for generations to come,some poeple with think you are rich and take away their hunting rights. Be carefull the freelance mafia will be judging you!!!

I think what you are doing for kids is great. There is few things that make me feel anybetter than to see a kid kill a pheasant for the first time.

Here in Mo there is a youth Turkey and deer hunt which is fine it gives a chance for fathers to take thier kids. There is a lot more population here so land is limited but a lot of Federal ground.

BTW I hope your bill doesn't pass!!!
Nothing personal just don't like it.


----------



## Gohon

:lol: You people are starting to get funny now. Actually and not pointing any fingers at anyone in particular this is getting ridiculous. Just because someone is for this bill, it doesn't make them a slob hunter and just because someone is against the bill it doesn't make them a slob hunter either. Pointing out a instance that disabled vets and children were helped by going to a game farm is not using children to justify anything. It simply shows certain things can be beneficial under certain circumstances and in the end the children were the better. Slob hunters come in all shapes, sizes, color, and back ground. To say because someone chose to hunt a game preserve is a a slob hunter and they all gut shoot animals, are all rich fat cats flying around on jets is plain dumb. Ditto for those that say people against this bill are slob hunters and all of them shoot from the road. If I were voting on this bill I would be voting no. It has nothing to do with whether I am for or against this type hunting. But it has everything to do with the way the bill is written as I've seen it so far. A badly written bill in the end is worse than no bill at all.

Again I'll post what the GFH wrote as the text of the proposed bill. Is there more to the submitted bill? The sponsors claim this will not affect those that just raise game animals to be sold and don't have hunting on their property. But if you read the bill that is exactly what it does. Maybe you sponsors could explain to me how this bill affects only High fenced hunts and absolutely nothing else. As I'm reading it right now I have only two choices to come to. Either it is a very poorly written bill or it is a back door attempt to get a foot in the door to end any and all hunting in North Dakota where there is a fee involved, whether it be a lease, use of a G/O, fenced hunting, access fee or what ever. Can someone explain this to me?



> The text of a proposed North Dakota ballot initiative to restrict hunting preserves:
> ___
> 
> Section 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:
> 
> Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited - Penalty - Exception. A person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other renumeration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.
> 
> Section 2. Effective date. If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective on Nov. 1, 2010.


----------



## djleye

> Be carefull the freelance mafia will be judging you!!!


I am part of the freelancers...........So, Now just this morning I have been called Mafia and a Nazi, believe it or not, in an e-mail on this subject!!!!!
:wink:


----------



## g/o

Like always djleye you duck the questions. So if I was president of the Fargo Delta Chapter I would no longer be giving hunting a black eye? Thats all it takes?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

Just one question,

Why does Gohon and 280IM care what bills are passed in ND? :huh:


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

280IM said:


> I explained to the man in charge, That all I need to explain.


You didn't explain anything to me.

And I see my post asking others for an opinion went out the window since the same people with the same old same old were back right after. It would be nice if you same people wouldn't try to dominate EVERY thread.


----------



## djleye

g/o said:


> Like always djleye you duck the questions. So if I was president of the Fargo Delta Chapter I would no longer be giving hunting a black eye? Thats all it takes?


And again Jim.........Where did I say that you give hunting a black eye. Unless you started doing high fence hunts lately, I don't know where you are getting your information from. Please supply the quote where I said that you give hunting a black eye. I know that at 45 years of age I am getting up there but I just cannot remember saying that!!! :eyeroll: Show me the quote and I will apologize all over the place. Matter of fact I have stuck up for you on this forum to guys that haven't researched what you are about.
If you have a specific question for me, fire away. You asked what I do for hunting and waterfowl and I answered. If you don't like what I do..........Oh yea, too bad!!!


----------



## Plainsman

I would guess their will be phone calls and serious threats before this is over. There is money involved and people can get hurt. Already we have witnessed lies about what this bill will do. If they stoop that low, they will go further. Brace yourself for the onslaught.

Gohon, it appears you are easily confused. No where did I state that everyone who uses a canned hunt has their own jet etc. I was simply using the worst of the lot as an example. Are you confused, or trying to confuse others. Come on if we are to debate we must be honest with one another. 280 was not honest with us. 
I don't see in this bill what you do Gohon. Not at all. Just read it at face value, there are no hidden agenda's or ghosts in your closet. 
I want to stay away from this thread for a while so newer fellows and those we don't always hear from can make some comments. I just want you to understand what I was trying to get across describing a slob hunter. I'm happy for your realistic comment about not all high fence hunters are slobs, and not all people for this bill are slobs. That tells me we can get to understand each other. 
OK, I'm off my soapbox, so Gohon lets not you and I argue for the simple sake of arguing. We know each other stand, but I would like to know what others think. Take it away please.


----------



## R y a n

HUNTNFISHND said:


> Just one question,
> 
> Why does Gohon and 280IM care what bills are passed in ND? :huh:


Great question. I was wondering the same thing as I browsed the latest posts. Sometimes people just like to hear themselves talk and bluster.

This is a prime example.

This thread has turned into a couple of posters challenging each other back and forth about their "merits" in order to attempt at demeaning their character. It borders on disregarding the Terms Of Service.

Clean it up guys. I'm going to start taking out the Mod hat and deleting posts if we don't get back on topic very quickly.

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman

Thanks Ryan. Because I was involved with the debate it would have been hypocritical of me or at the least looked like I was doing things out of retaliation. I think some people choose not to understand, and trouble makers will be trouble makers. Some people don't know where the lines are and continue to be trouble makers for a long time. Some I have stood up for and said give them a chance. Some times I have been the only one, and that has come back to bite me.
Everyone should reacquaint themselves with the rules. In the event you don't take them serious now is the time to say your good buys to some people. I don't know why some people grow up to be bullies. Maybe that has been their road to success.
I'm looking forward to comments from some of you younger fellows.


----------



## Gohon

HUNTNFISHND & Ryan, if you had of read and paid attention to all the posts then you wouldn't need to ask that question. It has already been explained but just common sense says it needs no explanation and besides I wasn't aware that only people in ND were capable of forming opinions. laws set in one state have a habit of migrating into other states. Just for you two though this is from my previous post &#8230;&#8230;.. "I don't have a dog in this fight as far as North Dakota is concerned but all of us have a stake in this if a presedense is set."

Plainsman, no I'm not confused at all and yes you did associate everyone that uses these type of hunts as fat cat slob hunters. Now you say the lies are coming out but you don't identify the lies or counter them. How can there be a honest debate if you do not.

If you don't see what I see or am talking about then let me give you a example...... The bill says "A person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other renumeration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape." Take note of the words man-made enclosure and the word kill. Do you see the word hunt, hunted, or hunter. No you don't/ Now if I went to a rancher that raises elk for meat only, allows no hunting on his property, I bought that elk from his pen, carried it home in my trailer, put it in my pen, killed it and stuck it in my freezer, I and the rancher violate the letter of the law as written in this bill. I just killed a big game species that was confined in three different enclosures with no means of escape and the rancher contributed to that by accepting payment. There is no distinctions written in this bill between slaughter, hunted, or sport and if followed by the letter of the law which a court would be bound by, I and the rancher are guilty.

I really am not trying to argue with anyone but simply pointing out what I see. If I'm wrong them someone point it out but please explain. Don't just tell me I'm wrong and expect me to accept it. I've ask for clarification twice now and none of the sponsors seem to want to give that. Kind of leaves things in limbo doesn't it. Guess I'll just go sit in the corner and watch the cat fight or risk having Ryan delete my posts for spite and accuse me of just talk and bluster.


----------



## Jiffy

I like hunting..........


----------



## jhegg

Jiffy,
I like hunting too. However, shooting a penned up animal is not my idea of hunting. Apparently, those who don't support this bill are not bothered by that and are more than willing to throw ethics out the window in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
Jim


----------



## Plainsman

> having Ryan delete my posts for spite


That is out lf line and you know it. Ryan does not do that. He may get sick of the bickering, and that is why I have backed off. I will not take the bait. I am leaving it open for others. I suggest you cool your jets and do the same. I have thick skin when it comes to myself, but I will not tolerate you insinuating someone else isn't treating you fair. I have stood by you in the past, but your out of line now. 
We are very serious about name calling, nonconstructive innuendo, outright blackmail, and purposeful misleading to do damage. One fellow claiming his password doesn't work, and there was a second problem also that was just in some ones mind. You may notice we are missing one fellow already. Last time I was the only one sticking up for the guy and I regret it. I was a fool, but not twice. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.


----------



## Jiffy

jhegg said:


> Jiffy,
> I like hunting too. However, shooting a penned up animal is not my idea of hunting. Apparently, those who don't support this bill are not bothered by that and are more than willing to throw ethics out the window in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
> Jim


You don't have to try and explain that to me. Trust me on that! :wink: :beer:

I was just messing around.


----------



## R y a n

Gohon said:


> Guess I'll just go sit in the corner and watch the cat fight or risk having Ryan delete my posts for spite and accuse me of just talk and bluster.


Nice edit of your original post Gohon. What little credibility you had left on this forum has almost completely eroded away....

All I simply asked for was to respect Chris's wishes and allow others to voice their thoughts on this very important topic. Instead we continue on with you throwing lowballs out to the crowd...

Try listening for awhile and holding your tongue. I know it can be difficult for you. I promise the others have opinions too ... Let's allow those who actually hunt in the state to give us some new perspectives. Precedent has already been set in other states.. I hate to inform you.

You truly have no dog in this fight.

:eyeroll:

Ryan


----------



## Jiffy

Plainsman said:


> Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.


HEY, you should go tell old Bushy that is how it is suppose to go. Maybe he could write it on the back of his hand or something so he gets it right. :lol:


----------



## bandman

Jiffy said:


> I like hunting..........


I love lamp!


----------



## Turner

From what I see of this it comes down to two things Ethics and Money. What makes one change or reformat one's ethics or the way one thinks&#8230;Money is a good motivator for some.

The one's making the money on the canned hunts have clouded their idea of what a "hunt" is supposed to be, only because they have someone paying them a large sum of money for what they believe hunting is all about. Some outfitters have down this for so long I think they really think this is hunting.

The one's that oppose this are saying it isn't the ethical way or their way of hunting and are condemning the one's shooting and the one's providing them the somewhat tame animals trapped inside a fenced area to shoot. Most hunters aren't out for the kill, which is merely the bonus that is provided when all the hard work, planning and scouting come together.

Can any one tell me if any of the record books recognize trophy animals that are shot within a fenced in area? Look at all the publicity and recognition this young boy received a while ago for shooting the new "hogzilla". However once it was made known it was a canned hunt how the hype was taken away.

It's just a shame that the people that use these outfitters are never going to know what it is truly like to work, and earn your animal. I truly feel sorry for them and the individuals that are providing them the canned hunts, because they try and tell them this is just like the real thing.

Just for the record, I do not support canned hunts. I think the shooters are slobs and the outfitters are clouded by the all mighty dollar.


----------



## 4590

For what its worth, Gohon, I think your comments are very valid. You must remember most of he opposition here, even the moderator, are so emotional about this issue they cannot even listen to sound reason. That is what prompts Plains to give his description of someone who would hunt on a game preserve. He obviously has a real problem with "rich" folks.

Enough of that.

The terminology in this initiative is another obvious attempt at deception. 
The term "captive game animals" conjures up an idea in peoples minds that is not true. Most would understand that to mean animals captured from the wild and released in a fence to be shot for a fee. If the sponsors of this measure were straight forward, as it has been suggested, why didn't they use the legal terms set forth in NDCC. FARMED ELK is the legal term for what they are and its spelled out clearly that they are considered domestic animals. Deer are designated as NONTRADITIONAL LIVESTOCK. These are obviously the two species targeted with this bill. So if we are going to try and take away someones livelyhood why shroud the question with disingenious verbage and not call it what it is? Can it be possible that the sponsors of this bill are concerned that when people really understand the scope and ramifications of the measure they will vote against it?

NDCC TITLE 36
36-01-00.1. Definitions.
3. "Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison, farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.

So does this measure apply to "farmed elk". If so, and its immoral to shoot them in a preserve, why not all the others on the list? Many of these have wild counterparts.

Interesting that as the measure is proposed it would become a part of Title 36 which is the title that applies to the State Board of Animal Health in relation livestock issues. Who will enforce this measure if it passed? I am sure every livestock producer in the state will be interested to see how a public initiative can restrict the management and disposal of their production.


----------



## 4590

Gohon is also correct that this measure will have ramifications beyond ND. If not, why do we keep hearing about I-146 in Montana. Passage of a measure like this, that affects livestock producers in this way, can set a precident for producers in many states. For instance if the public doesn't like the idea of fire branding and castration of beef calves they could just have an initiative and outlaw it. It could also very well be interpreted that if voters in ND would vote to shut down hunting on preserves maybe the public is ready to vote down hunting all together.


----------



## Gohon

Ryan, your comment "Sometimes people just like to hear themselves talk and bluster" was aimed at 280 and myself. You can deny it if you wish but I know better. As to my credibility on this or any other forum, I could care less what you, and you in particular think about it. No Ryan, a Precedent of such a broad and sloppy bill such as this has never been set in another state. Those low balls as you call them were legitimate questions that no one will even attempt to answer. Plainsman, think what you wish. I've seen it and know it has been done before. I made no statement that I was being treated fair or unfair. Stop reading what you want to read and read what is written. Instead of you and Ryan charging back in with the same jabs as before why don't you show me where the scenario I posted was wrong? Why not explain how this bill as it is will affect no one but the high fence operator? I don't think you can and that's why neither will answer the questions I asked. Some people may be fooled into thinking this bill is all about high fence hunting, but we both know it is not. Personally I think it will fall flat on it's head because surely even ND doesn't have the morons in the legislature that would allow this to go forward. This old 'oh but we didn't mean for that to happen' at a later date will be to late and won't cut it for those that will really be affected. Like I said before, we'll see.


----------



## Dave Brandt

I will try to answer a few of the questions posed here, but will not get into any pissing match.

-First Kim (4590), the wording was chosen for a reason. See Century Code definition below for Big Game, it covers what is needed without needing to specify both alternative livestock and farmed elk. No alterior motives.

20.1-01-02. Definitions
5. "Big game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and antelope

That covers your Domestic animal questions as well. But I guess if someone wants to start up an operation that shoots dogs and cats, let them, I would guess they won't find it too profitable. They also are species that fall under the authority of the Game and Fish (as they should be, and once were) since they and taxpayers are ultimately the ones who are responsible for any clean up of escapees from, and also killing free roaming Wildlife that enter such high fences. The use of exotic mammals is to close a loophole that would allow things such as African Antelope, and other large animals like lions, monkeys and what have you from being the next trophy of choice at these places (yes you can even buy an opportunity to shoot a giraffe in Texas). Domestic saffari is one the favorite psuedonyms being used by this "industry" when they purchase exess animals from zoos and shoot them in an "escape proof fence" (great image for kids and non-hunters to equate with "hunting" don't you think?).

-Gohon, legal opinions were researched extensively by Paul (who I am quite confident is more versed in legal language than you are) and the private slaughter at these operations will not be affected. Remuneration, can't say I like the word either, but needed for legal reasons.

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

If you read the complete sentence you will should understand that ther are multiple conditions that must be met so no, not any guide, outfitter, or land lessor would be affected. The key here is killing in a fence, not hunting free roaming animals.

-Why would a group of people who at least personally believe themselves to be , and feel they represent at least some other hunters (one sponsor is even a past NDGF Director, and I believe Teddy Roosevelt held similar beliefs) who also think that the people of our state have the right to participate in the roots of Democracy, ever want to make any associations with words like hunting, hunt or hunter in this measure? It is not hunting, the animal is not hunted, and the shooter is not a hunter. It is simply calling it what it is.

-The title for an initiated measure is chosen by the Secretary of State and may not be anything like what has been put out to date. Should know next week.

-Gohon, if you want the meat, buy it from an Elk Rancher or have him put it down for you. I personally think that moving live wildlife around by any Joe Blow is not a good idea and apparently neither do most state wildlife agencies since that is why we are faced with our problem in TR. By the way Kim, Shawn Shaffer, etc... don't give me the testing BS. Surveliance for occurance of CWD (ie we test every animal "oh uh make that every dead animal") is not prevention. That does about as much good as diagnosing someones high blood pressure after they have a heart attack and die.

-No neither B&C or P&Y will not accept any animals killed inside a fence in their record books.

Seem complicated? Just trying to cover loopholes based on the experience of the 17 or so other states that have already done this and/or more to these operations. Sorry, but the last several Legislative sessions have taught some sportsman not to trust those that wish to commercialize North Dakota's wildlife and hunting heritage.

Keep up the debate boys, discussing opinions never hurts, but no need to get personal.


----------



## g/o

Dave, As one of the sponsors of this bill I have a question for you. Will it still be alright to shoot Bison in this state if this passes?


----------



## 4590

Dave,

Call it what you will, but I believe the use of the word "captive" is certainly be design. Why no reference to livestock as NDCC calls them.

You make reference to cleanup, and also a reference to disease and testing. This measure will only shut down a handful of hunting preserves but will do nothing to close the other 100+ operations, so what is the point, or is this just the first step. We have hashed the disease issue at length, doesn't hold water, there have been farmed elk in the state for 40yrs and today the herds are clean with a far better certainty than the wildlife.

You make a couple references to "wildlife", one in regard to transporting them, and the other in regard to hunting them. You obviously are unable to seperate them from livestock as several others on this site. NDCC distinctly exempts privately owned animals from the definition of "wildlife".

Maybe will never be an issue for dog or cat but how about shooting bison, or a bovine for that matter. Right away Dick said bison are exempt. But all the same agruements fit. They call them "hunts. They are in a fence, can't get away, some will mount them on the wall. If this truly is a "hunting heritage" issue then lets be consistant. Don't think the bison producers will be asleep for this one, or the bird farms for that matter.


----------



## 4590

Oh and can't resist one more comment. Elk producers, and deer producers I suspect, could really care less if their animals qualify for B&C. Fact is our animals have blown the top off the record books and continue to get better. It really wouldn't be fair anyway cause in the wild they kill all the big trophies or at least try to, while we breed with them.


----------



## Horsager

I haven't read all the posts but what's there to stop this scenario?

Elk rancher sells animal to someone, anyone. The new owner turns it loose on the rancher's property under the guise of wanting the meat to be as close to "free ranging elk" as is possible. Then the new owner gets close enough to put a bullet in "his" elk as that's the manner he's chosen to dispatch the animal previous to slaughter. Remember he's already bought and paid for the elk long in advance. Whatever registration agency there is for keeping track of who owns what critters has the elk as being under new ownership before the owner ever gets to the ranch to dispatch his animal previous to slaughter.

So the recap is: Elk rancher sells elk. Elk rancher turns elk out onto prairie to "finish" the animal (as cattle ranchers do only on corn/grain) free range. New owner shows up and rather than stressing the animal forcing it into a pen and filling the muscle tissue with lactic acid, the new owner decides to shoot the elk where it stands. In the event that the new owner is unsatisfied with his elk upon seeing it in person (and not being able to kill it in the alloted time period) the original elk rancher offers a full refund and buys the elk back.

How does the proposed measure stop this?


----------



## rowdie

Forcing your beliefs on others is the basis for many laws! Like PROSTITUTION! Every arguement you make for this activity, canned hunting, to be legal I can make the same arguement for the leagalization of prostitution.


----------



## Horsager

If rowdie's comment is directed at mine, believe me, I'm no fan of high fence hunting. I'm pointing out a "loophole" and wondering if the proposed measure covers the loophole or not.

If the comments were not directed at me I apologize for the confusion.


----------



## MRN

From USDA/FDA inter-agency working group on prion disease - July 1, 2007:



> CWD is an example of an uncontrolled expanding epidemic that threatens not only cervids but possibly other livestock. CWD also has elicited public health surveillance programs to monitor for scientific evidence of a prion disease in humans that consume venison. Therefore, some of the research needs are precautionary, but the risks to animal and human health from being caught unaware are high.


Breeders of captive game animals who fail to appreciate that CWD is an "uncontrolled expanding epidemic" are just as dangerous as the mall-ninjas at the gun range who constantly sweep you with their muzzle, finger on triggger, all the while proclaiming what an expert they are.

M.


----------



## rowdie

I'm making the comparrison between hunting and sex. There are laws that regulate both activites. Sex is legal, until you pay for it......WHY IS THAT???? Hmmmm, might have somthing to do with someone forcing thier values on others. I'm sure there were upset people when this law was passed. They could use the property rights arguement too.

(I'm sure there were many guys upset when they made illegal to use punt guns to harvest hundreds of geese to sell for profit too, but I'll just keep comparring hunting and sex.)

Horsager (I didn't direct it directly at you, but I'm obvioulsy for the law)... your loophole is interesting...but there are all kinds of looopholes in laws. Lets say I have a good spot to hunt, and its so good that somone wants to pay me to take them hunting there. I say wait, I have no guiding liscense, but I'll sell this specil pencil for $1000. I'll meet you at point x, and you follow me to where this special pencil is found. And it just so happens we stop by land that is open to hunting, and there are plenty of birds there, and I sell you the penil. Now if you brought your hunting stuff and so did I, well we might as well hunt it.


----------



## jackal_727

*Edited* and removed for not discussing thread topic. Please remember that personal attacks violate the Terms of Use here and may result in your removal.

The posted comments should have been sent via a personal PM instead of hijacking this thread.

I'll send you a PM to followup.


----------



## Dick Monson

I appreciate the interest most have shown here. Bison are exempt. They are neither a defined big game species nor an exotic non-native mammal. Attorney Germolus has worked both ag and wildlife law in the AGs office before he went private. I did ask him the question Horsager mentioned on loop holing the measure and he had an answer. Somebody's going to jail.

Which brings up 2 other points of the measure wording. This baby isn't a class B, it's class A misdemeanor.  And the canned shooting operations have 3 more seasons after the election before it goes into effect, ... before they are shut down. Plenty of time to sell off "inventory". Then we taxpayers wouldn't have to subsidize this industry anymore.

Hunters need to take a lesson from the corporations that produce commercial pork. Antis have hammered for years about the use of farrowing crates for sows. Too small to turn around in. This year the corporations pulled farrowing crates before the antis could write legislation that would have gone farther. Good move. Proactive. We need to do the same.


----------



## g/o

Dick, Thank You, for answering the Bison question. Apparently Dave didn't know or is not around. As one of the sponsors of this bill Dick, what is the difference between shooting a Bison in a high fence enclosure versus a farm raised Elk or Deer. This is about ethics right, Is it ethical to shoot a Bison but not a Deer or Elk? Thanks Dick :lol:


----------



## jhegg

g/o,

This law does not ban shooting bison in a high fence arena. Does that make it ethical? No, it doesn't. Neither does this law ban shooting cattle, pigs or chickens in a high fence arena. Those activities are not ethical either. However, most people would not be interested in doing that. There are plenty of slobs though, that are willing to pay big bucks to shoot what would be considered a trophy animal in the wild, in a high fence arena. The intent is to stop the proliferation of high fence hunting for the "trophy" type animals. 4590's comment states it better than I can


> Fact is our animals have blown the top off the record books and continue to get better.


4590,

You obviously do not want to see the forest through the trees.


> This measure will only shut down a handful of hunting preserves but will do nothing to close the other 100+ operations, so what is the point, or is this just the first step.


 You got the first part right! We want to shut down what you refer to as "hunting preserves". Why, because the act of shooting an animal in an enclosure and calling it hunting is repulsive to us. It is nothing more, nothing less.

This bill will not prevent anyone from raising any animals for slaughter, it just prevents anyone from legally accepting payment for shooting the specified animals in a high fence arena. I see you are trying to rally the livestock industry against this measure with your scare tactics. I find it interesting that you claim this measure will only shut down a "handful of _hunting preserves_" (italics mine), yet you try to scare all livestock producers into opposing this measure.

Well, we know what you are up to and I will certainly inform everyone I approach to sign this petition just what type of ignorant, misleading and outright untruthful statements you and your kind will make against this measure.

You guys bought off the legislature - lets see if you can buy off the whole state!

Jim Heggeness


----------



## g/o

jhegg, Thank You for answering the Bison question. I have a hard time understanding your logic. To me your ethic theory is kind of like being a little bit pregnant. As a sponsor of this petition I think you should do some checking and you will find that many more Bisoin are shot for trophy's than Elk or Deer in this state. I'm also glad to read that you referto the paraplegic and the elderly as slobs.

Now as a sponsor of this bill I'm totally amazed how misinformed you are. I would think that you would know that we haven't any hunting preserves in ND. Now I happen to own and operate a licensed SHOOTING PRESERVE which is regulated by the game and fish dept. The last I knew the number was 136, what it is now I could not tell you. Jim you made a statement to which you accuse of Kim of trying to scare livestock producers into opposing this measure. Another one of your sponsors, Dick Monson has already made the statement, which he said they are not coming after the bird guys for now. If you were a bison producer or bird producer why would you not join the fight against you guys?



> You guys bought off the legislature - lets see if you can buy off the whole state


Dang it Jim I was at the hearing, I didn't see you, or any money exchanging going on there. All I witnessed was your people getting there butts kicked :roll:


----------



## jhegg

G/o,
Get real! Do you really believe that the only people signing up for the "opportunity" to shoot an animal that would be considered trophy class in the wild are the "paraplegic and elderly"? Give me a break. If you keep on with this type of sniping, pretty soon you won't have any feet left to put your shoes on. By the way, most bison are killed for the meat, not the trophy value.



> Now as a sponsor of this bill I'm totally amazed how misinformed you are. I would think that you would know that we haven't any hunting preserves in ND. Now I happen to own and operate a licensed SHOOTING PRESERVE which is regulated by the game and fish dept. The last I knew the number was 136, what it is now I could not tell you. Jim you made a statement to which you accuse of Kim of trying to scare livestock producers into opposing this measure.


Your own private guru Kim is the one who referred to these operations as "shooting preserves". If you do not like the name, talk to Kim (4590) and straighten him out!



> Quote:
> You guys bought off the legislature - lets see if you can buy off the whole state
> 
> Dang it Jim I was at the hearing, I didn't see you, or any money exchanging going on there. All I witnessed was your people getting there butts kicked


OK, let's see who gets their butt kicked now!

Jim Heggeness


----------



## g/o

> By the way, most bison are killed for the meat, not the trophy value.


Oh by the way jhegg most of the Elk are killed for meat also, not the trophy value.



> Your own private guru Kim is the one who referred to these operations as "shooting preserves". If you do not like the name, talk to Kim (4590) and straighten him out!


Come on jhegg get it right for once :eyeroll: "shooting preserves is what I said and it's correct. You reffered to them as "hunting preserves"

No jhegg I do not believe that the "only" ones signing up for high fence hunts are the elderly and paraplegics but many of them do. I care not to deny this that opportunity, but you do. :eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm

4590 said:


> Dave,
> 
> Call it what you will, but I believe the use of the word "captive" is certainly be design. Why no reference to livestock as NDCC calls them.
> 
> You make reference to cleanup, and also a reference to disease and testing. This measure will only shut down a handful of *hunting preserves *but will do nothing to close the other 100+ operations, so what is the point, or is this just the first step. We have hashed the disease issue at length, doesn't hold water, there have been farmed elk in the state for 40yrs and today the herds are clean with a far better certainty than the wildlife.
> 
> You make a couple references to "wildlife", one in regard to transporting them, and the other in regard to hunting them. You obviously are unable to seperate them from livestock as several others on this site. NDCC distinctly exempts privately owned animals from the definition of "wildlife".
> 
> Maybe will never be an issue for dog or cat but how about shooting bison, or a bovine for that matter. Right away Dick said bison are exempt. But all the same agruements fit. They call them "hunts. They are in a fence, can't get away, some will mount them on the wall. If this truly is a "hunting heritage" issue then lets be consistant. Don't think the bison producers will be asleep for this one, or the bird farms for that matter.


G/O I think Jhegg was referring to this post and just wrote down the wrong thing in the heat of the discussion.
Just thought I would try to show what he was talking about in the post you questioned.


----------



## jhegg

g/o,

OOPS! For once you have it right! It was 4590 who referred to them as "hunting preserves". You did refer to them correctly as "shooting preserves" which is the correct terminology. It very appropriately describes the dispicable actions which occur on their premises!



> Oh by the way jhegg most of the Elk are killed for meat also, not the trophy value.


I suppose you have some sort of twisted explaination why someone would pay in excess of $10,000 for a "meat" animal.

Jim Heggeness


----------



## g/o

Geez Jhegg, we've had a lot of fun at my place over the years but this is the first time anyone has called them despicable. I'm very disappointed that as a sponsor of this petition you don't know that no license is required to harvest farm raised Elk or Deer. You seem to have a problem with anyone making a dollar. Now if someone wanted to pay me $5000.00 to shoot some pheasants I suppose should not take it. Yes Jim these are farm animals and not yours. By the way the majority of the Elk and Deer raisers in this state sell them for meat. There are way more people offering Bison hunts than Elk or Deer hunts. I keep forgetting it's ethical to shoot a Bison in a enclosed area but not an Elk or Deer. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Dick Monson

*g/o wrote:*


> Apparently Dave didn't know or is not around. As one of the sponsors of this bill Dick, what is the difference between shooting a Bison in a high fence enclosure versus a farm raised Elk or Deer. This is about ethics right, Is it ethical to shoot a Bison but not a Deer or Elk?


The measure was kept short so g/os could understand it. :rollin: :rollin: If you wish to address every wrong in the world feel free to write your own measure.

I appreciate and applaud 4590's posts. He is helping our cause greatly. Each word a deeper hole.


----------



## g/o

> The measure was kept short so g/os could understand it.


You should have made it shorter maybe then some of the sponsors could understand it. They are really having a hard time :roll: :lol:  :wink:


----------



## 4590

"Hunting" or "shooting", whatever, sorry for exercising my first amendment rights.

Dick,

Thanks for the encouragement. Seems you made the same comment last winter. Funny how the same points I am making were also made by others in the committee hearing last winter, you look alitte bewildered then too. Sorry if I am making too much sense.

Horsager, you scenario does make perfect sense. Germolus can make all the threats he wants, but the "short and simple" measure doesn't address. Reason is the only way to close the loop hole is to say producers can't sell their livestock, period. Of course that wouldn't fly.

MRN, good quote on CWD. Funny how disease also is not supposed to be part of this debate, cause its just an "ethical" question. I am sure the quote was in regard to wildlife, as that is where CWD continues to spread unchecked, of course you conveniently left that little detail out.


----------



## Bobm

g/o said:


> Geez Jhegg, we've had a lot of fun at my place over the years but this is the first time anyone has called them despicable. I'm very disappointed that as a sponsor of this petition you don't know that no license is required to harvest farm raised Elk or Deer. You seem to have a problem with anyone making a dollar. Now if someone wanted to pay me $5000.00 to shoot some pheasants I suppose should not take it. Yes Jim these are farm animals and not yours. By the way the majority of the Elk and Deer raisers in this state *sell them for meat*. There are way more people offering Bison hunts than Elk or Deer hunts. I keep forgetting it's ethical to shoot a Bison in a enclosed area but not an Elk or Deer. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


I dont blame you for wanting to sell pheasants for $5000.00 I might even get into it for that  .

but these are called hunts and sold as trophies not for meat

http://www.highadventureranch.com/prman ... .asp?id=28

Trophy elks hunts with 100% success ratios and you even get a price list :lol:

It makes a sham of true fair chase hunting.

G/O do you have a price list based on tail feather length
:beer: Just kidding


----------



## g/o

Like always Bobm you have a hard time comprehending. Again Like I tried to explain to jhegg, the majority of the Elk sold here go for meat. Yes Bobm some are sold for people to come and shoot, and in your mind that is wrong.

With all your Georgian wisdom answer me this question. Going to the same website you listed. Here is where they offer Bison hunts http://www.highadventureranch.com/bison.html . Now Bobm tell why its ethical to shoot a Bison and not a Elk at this place ?


----------



## Bobm

G/O I Agree there is no difference.

IF they want to sell the meat elk or bison thats fine with me, I just dont like it portrayed as hunting which it undeniably is by most of these operations.

Portray it as a meat operation and slaughter according to the same standards as they do in the meat packing industry ( which I work in daily) and I have no problem with it. With the one exception of not bringing animals across state lines to minimize the chance of CWD ect getting into wild animals on the other side of the fence.


----------



## g/o

You see Bobm here lies the problem. This initiative measure only goes after the Elk and Deer people. This is about ethics and not disease or anything else. It just goes to show how phony these guys are. Because they are afraid of the Bison industry they let them slide.


----------



## Bobm

G/O I'm sure you realize its the tactic of incrementalism, instead of getting the whole enchilata you nibble away at each part.

Personally I hope they are successful, but I'm not going to argue about it.

With any luck they will be and then the bison industry should be next, and if they didn't portray all this as hunting it never would of attracted any attention.

Their ads should read "come kill Freckles our tame bull elk, so you can brag to your buddies about what a great hunter you are". We will even call him for you using our famous elk calling sequence " Here freckles, here Freckles gooood boy come a little closer, good boy."

that would be truth in advertising :lol:


----------



## Dick Monson

g/o, your attempt to draw the bison industry into the fray to derail this measure is fruitless. They are not on the measure. Period. No sponsor to my knowledge wanted bison on any measure, now or in the future. Does that seem clear to you?



> It does not affect game preserves or game farms. It does not prohibit sale of big game species breeding stock or other live mammals or the ownership of them. It does not prohibit commercial slaughter for meat products or other animal products. Bison are not affected. And birds are not affected.


In the near future signature collection will begin which will open the next leg of the effort. Help is going to be needed.


----------



## g/o

Dick, I am not trying to draw the Bison industry in this. They will come on there own. The question I have asked you and others is, what is the ethical difference in shooting a Bison in an enclosed area versus a Deer or Elk? As you say this is about ethics and nothing more.


----------



## toolman

Wow-lots of hot OPINION here. Mine personally is that shooting an animal contained in a fence of any size should not be called hunting. Kinda makes me sick. I know my two children will be raised to respect the outdoors and not support that kind of garbage. I believe in fair chase. Dont believe in hunting over feeders either-sorry but how much challenge is it sitting over a bait pile waiting for a deer or bear to come eat its supper like a stray dog?!?! I very seldom even hunt from a tree stand because I like the challenge. If you dont like a challenge then drive to one of these preserves or to Texas and park your a** and test your shooting skills cause thats all your doing-SHOOTING! You aint HUNTING nothin!


----------



## 4590

I have another question, seems alot of mine go unanwered, but here goes.

When Shawn Schaffer stated this measure would prevent the slaughter of our livestock, it was stated he should get informed and know what he is talking about. Maybe he is right!

The measure says "A person (doesn't say owner) is guilty... if the person (doesn't say owner) obtains fees from another person (doesn't say hunter of course, could be the owner or other buyer) for the killing of privately owned big game species confined in any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape ( a kill chute would certainly qualify). So according to Mr. Germolus and Dick my butcher could do "hard time" for killing my elk at the butcher shop. Go figure!

So you beat up on Gohon for suggesting the measure was poorly written, and Shawn for not knowing what he was talking about. Well maybe the "short and simple" measure is a little too "short and simple". Again the difficulty is trying to take away a livestock producers right to dispose of HIS livestock and also discriminating against the producer so as not to get all livestock producers up in arms.


----------



## 4590

G/O great question but don't expect Dick or anyone else to answer it as they obviously can't.


----------



## angus 1

I don't really agree with the canned hunt thing. It just isn't right . But then again it isn't right to take away a landowners right to make a few bucks. Shouldn't he be able to raise elk, bison , deer ect and let someone come and harvest that animal? I said harvest, it certainly isn't hunting in my opinion. If a doctor from the east coast wants to pay Mr. Landowner $5000 to harvest an elk , so be it . Take the guys $$ and let him return to the east coast with what ever story he wants. Like I said I don't agree with it but I'll let them do it before I infringe on a property owners rights. Doesnt' the landowner have the right to choose , just like a woman.


----------



## ND ELK Man

Angus 1
The landowner has every right to do as he pleases on his property as long as it is not illegal or harmfull to others, High fence hunting and the production of Deer and Elk are neither of those two. From what I have read so far it's only problem is that it offends a few so they want to run this industry out business and take away income from the rural people and businesses, as well as out of State monies coming in and tax dollars.
I went into this to help my income and be able to provide for my family and as far as I'm concerned the welfare of the people is far more important than someones Sport of Hunting and what people think of them. These people were making the statements last winter that we producers can just go find somthing else to do or raise, well as far as I am concerned some of you can just go find yourself some other sport to participate in.


----------



## NDTerminator

Yes, I'm in law enforcement and enforce the law without bias. At the same time I'm a firm supporter of the Consitution and individual rights. These two things aren't mutually exclusive.

For some who don't quite grasp it, criminal law's (with the exception of those that are backed by an agenda such as this one) purpose is two fold; public safety and welfare. Neither is at issue in regard to this proposed measure.

I find it interesting that the spread of disease was purported to be a major reason for the need for the original failed measure. Now all pretense of this reason seems to have been dropped. It's now obvious that all this ever was, was an ethics issue.

I have a larger concern here. This is a classic "foot in the door" measure.
The sponsors see they went too far with the failed measure, so back off a bit in an attempt to get it passed. Once they do, it's much simpler to have it amended to be what they originally invisioned.

So being, next to be added to the list is buffalo. After that, another faction decides they don't like pheasant shooting preserves, so they are added. And so it goes.

Lastly, I would like to point out that those that support this, and more importantly, who seem obsessed with the issue to the extent that they have to try to force it on others with a ballot initiative, are working hand in hand with PETA and other animal rights groups to achieve *their *agenda.

I find it repugnant that those who would call themselves hunters and sportsmen would do this...


----------



## toolman

Elk Man
You are absolutely right-its your property and you should be able to do with it as you wish. And I respect that is your living and thats how you support your family-which should always come first. However it is in no way hunting. If you want to call hunting a sport thats fine-it is more than that to lots of folks in this great country of ours. But you telling people to find another sport is way out of line since what goes on in a fenced in animal shoot is far from that. 
Its how you choose to make your living and thats your choice. I as a hunter and outdoorsman dont want grouped with people that pay to shoot fenced in animals is all I'm saying. Just gives the antis more ammo to try to destroy our way of life. One good thing though is that maybe those operations keep rich slobs with no respect for the outdoors from getting hurt or lost in the woods-kinda makes you a babysitter of sorts. LOL-I just hope we dont fight too much among ourselves when we should be united against the tree hugging, bunny kissin, vegan left wing nuts out there!!!


----------



## Plainsman

It's good to see opinions from the other than regulars. Well, one side anyway. I hope many others see this as an opportunity to voice your opinion. Thanks for the opinions guys and to those who haven't posted please consider giving us your opinion.


----------



## Field Hunter

Just a dumb question.....why not the Bison...seems like the same thing to me? If you are going after the ethics of shooting a big game animal in an enclosed area why not go after everything? How can it be ok for one and not the other?

And....is this a first step towards going after the ENTIRE industry...birds included? Some on here sound like that is their adgenda.


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzz


----------



## ND ELK Man

The issue of disease has always been a good topic but I just can't seem to understand how a person can claim that fenced in animals are the major cause for the spreading of diseases when these animals are tested and vaccinated verses animals in the wild that do not go through the whole process that game farms do. We are required to follow a long list of requirments to import animals where as hunter harvested animals from known trouble spots are allowed to enter our state or travel through without any testing other than they have to be processed or boned out and I wonder how many enter without even that , because you sure don't hear about anyone getting caught and fined.
Just a Thought.


----------



## Eric Hustad

After reading some posts i can't help but wonder why not buffalo? Also toolman you make some great points and I can't help but wonder if the issue was put to a national vote do you think it would pass?? Hell yes as hunters are a minority I think most people would get upset by the notion of killing animals in a pen for profit. Look at the dogfighting thing: the guy can give a woman herpes and nobody cares, but kill dogs and people around the country are outraged. Finally Nd Elk Man I have said that I am wary about telling people what to do on their land etc, but you make it sound like this the only way to make a living and the people for this measure are going after rural folks. C'mon.....


----------



## Dick Monson

> The question I have asked you and others is, what is the ethical difference in shooting a Bison in an enclosed area versus a Deer or Elk?


I don't have an opinion on the ethics of shooting bison because I've never considered them wildlife. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't to some people. I think some bison producers are going to oppose the Fair Chase hunting measure because they also have cervids in fence. Some would oppose because they refer clients back and forth and it helps their business. There was no intention to change their minds because it won't happen.

If the elk/deer industry was seriously trying implement health safety, they would have put in place regulations with teeth for violations. Didn't happen. They would have funded unannounced inspection of facilities and audits of records with a check off. Didn't happen. They would have shut down the bad apple operations. Didn't happen.

The Animal Plant Health Inspection Service ( the Fed. Ag. Dept. that oversees this industry) has drafted new nationwide regulations that would have implemented these above mentioned changes, and the ND industry has fought these proposed changes tooth and nail. Documented. Go figure.


----------



## Dick Monson

I have a fair question for the ND fellows in this industry. How many game farm deer/elk are killed each year in ND? How many thousand are we talking? How many are live under fence, average?


----------



## toolman

I have seen a ton of people here ask- why is it ok to shoot fenced in bison but not deer or elk? Well in my OPINION its not ok. Lots of people like venison or bison meat cause its healthier-so why not just raise it like you do beef and then butcher it as such. I have no problem with people raising deer or elk or whatever on a farm, ranch, etc. for thier meat. Its very healthy-but if you gonna raise it for meat treat it the same as you would a beef and just butcher it not have some rich jacka** chase it around inside a fence shooting at it. I know when we butcher beef here in the fall we dont grab our guns and camo and go "hunting" them. We raised them for meat and treat them as such-could still make money doing that I believe Elk Man. Maybe I will see if I can get some dumb city slicker to come to my farm and hunt some cows. Very exciting "sport" by the sounds of things. uke:


----------



## 4590

Well Dick thanks for answering the bison question so clearly. Maybe this will help, they are not considered "wildlife" in NDCC, of course neither are farmed elk and deer. Clear up the ethical question alot.

Is anyone going to answer my butcher question. Probably had to run that one by Germolus.


----------



## Gohon

Sure seems to be a lot of throwing around of the word "pen" in this debate. That word alone conjures up impressions of of a place a animal can't even turn around in, let alone hide in. Some of these farms I've read about are 1500-2000 acres in size. That's almost 4 square miles in size. Ever try to find a animal in a 3-4 square mile pen. At best this term is misleading and at worst it is down right fraud.

I'd be interested in know just how many supporters of this bill have actually witnessed one of these hunts and not just the "oh I' read about them and I saw some film about them" that one supporter admitted to.

Here is something another writer put out on this bill that everyone needs to open their eyes to and I suspect he only touched the tip of the iceberg.



> "The bill is known as the "ban canned hunting" bill or the "high fence shooting" because those supporting it are insinuating to people that all animals shot at the deer/elk ranches are tied to a post and someone walks up, shoots them and then claims they spent many days in the woods hunting. The high fence part is mostly from the requirement that deer/elk ranchers must have a minimum height to their fences
> 
> Lets take a look at this bill,
> 
> First thing is what is "nontraditional livestock" in North Dakota Century Code?
> 
> It is defined in Title 36 Chapter 36-01: State Board of Animal Health
> 
> TITLE 36
> LIVESTOCK
> CHAPTER 36-01
> STATE BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH
> 36-01-00.1. Definitions. In this chapter unless the context or subject matter otherwise
> requires:
> 1. "Board" means the state board of animal health.
> 2. "Commissioner" means the agriculture commissioner.
> 3. "Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
> farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.
> 4. "Nontraditional livestock" means any wildlife held in a cage, fence, enclosure, or other manmade means of confinement that limits its movement within definite boundaries or an animal that is physically altered to limit movement and facilitate capture.
> 
> My interpretation of this says all pheasants, chukars, pigeons, ducks, deer, but not including elk are "non-typical livestock."
> 
> I was able to find the license requirements for non-traditional livestock:
> 
> 36-01-08.1. Nontraditional livestock license - Fee. The board of animal health may require a license for nontraditional livestock maintained within this state. The annual fee for a license for a bird species required to be licensed is seven dollars. The maximum amount of annual fees for bird species licenses to be paid by a person holding more than one bird species license is forty dollars. The annual fee for a license for any other species required to be licensed is fifteen dollars. The maximum amount of annual fees for nonbird species licenses to be paid by a person holding more than one nonbird species license is one hundred dollars.
> 
> As you can see by the second and third sentence:
> 
> The annual fee for a license for a bird species required to be licensed is seven dollars.
> 
> The maximum amount of annual fees for bird species licenses to be paid by a person holding more than one bird species license is forty dollars.
> 
> Now lets go back to the wording of the bill:
> 
> *After the effective date of this Act, the shooting of nontraditional livestock or farmed elk for a fee or other remuneration on a licensed nontraditional livestock or farmed elk facility is prohibited.*
> 
> So basically all bird preserves will be banned if there is any birds released to be shot. Of course if they wish to do it for free, that is okay.
> 
> ....for a fee or other remuneration.....
> 
> The part of the bill relating to bird preserves has not been publicized and most supporters have neglected to mention it. Why? They know there are a lot more people that participate in bird preserve shooting than participate in big game shooting. It's the old "divide & conquer."
> 
> I hear people say on various web boards that they don't care because only the rich folks participate in the big game shooting. When told this affects the bird preserves some will say they don't care because they don't do that either. I'll bet PETA is laughing."


----------



## always_outdoors

> Maybe this will help, they are not considered "wildlife" in NDCC, of course neither are farmed elk and deer. Clear up the ethical question alot.


This is where I laugh at those of you who have elk farms. When speaking to the legislature, they are "domesticated" animals, but when you sell the hunts to your clients, they are "big game" species.

Bison should be exempt because bison and cattle producers work to build a herd based on the meat....meaning they buy bulls to produce offspring that will have desired meat characteristics. Lenghth of the barrel, loin eye, etc.... We are being told on here by some they raise them for the meat, yet the reality is they are building upon the horns. Something they can't eat. Every deer and elk producer knows that body condition isn't as prudent as horns are. The horns sell the animal in most cases. Plain and simple.

Bison producers feed their animals similar to cattle in that they are in it for them to gain weight. Elk and deer producers are in it to produce antlers. But just like disease issues, marginal land bs, and private property rights, they are all great at the liberal spin.

I chose to sponsor this bill because disease issues, ethics, the ND hunting heritage, and the right of people to say what should or shouldn't happen in this state. The survey taken earlier this year supported the idea of this bill. 17 other states have created legislation and we have yet to see or hear "side effects" to the people or economy because of that legislation.

ND ELK grower, 4590: You guys can spin it as much as you want, but the reality is this is a needed bill and it is supported by facts and research.


----------



## jhegg

Gohon,
I see you put out a nice lengthly quote. Sorry to bother you about trivia, but who is the author and where did it come from?
Jim


----------



## R y a n

live2hunt said:


> Maybe this will help, they are not considered "wildlife" in NDCC, of course neither are farmed elk and deer. Clear up the ethical question alot.
> 
> 
> 
> This is where I laugh at those of you who have elk farms. When speaking to the legislature, they are "domesticated" animals, but when you sell the hunts to your clients, they are "big game" species.
> 
> Bison should be exempt because bison and cattle producers work to build a herd based on the meat....meaning they buy bulls to produce offspring that will have desired meat characteristics. Lenghth of the barrel, loin eye, etc.... We are being told on here by some they raise them for the meat, yet the reality is they are building upon the horns. Something they can't eat. Every deer and elk producer knows that body condition isn't as prudent as horns are. The horns sell the animal in most cases. Plain and simple.
> 
> Bison producers feed their animals similar to cattle in that they are in it for them to gain weight. Elk and deer producers are in it to produce antlers. But just like disease issues, marginal land bs, and private property rights, they are all great at the liberal spin.
> 
> I chose to sponsor this bill because disease issues, ethics, the ND hunting heritage, and the right of people to say what should or shouldn't happen in this state. The survey taken earlier this year supported the idea of this bill. 17 other states have created legislation and we have yet to see or hear "side effects" to the people or economy because of that legislation.
> 
> ND ELK grower, 4590: You guys can spin it as much as you want, but the reality is this is a needed bill and it is supported by facts and research.
Click to expand...

Great post L2H

My questions to follow up to this post...

To the Deer/Elk operations... similar to what Live2Hunt says... related to people coming to your operation to obtain meat vs participate in a horn hunt, can you tell me:

#1. How many clients sign up each year to come onto your property to shot doe deer or cow elk?

#2. What is your list price for shooting a bull/buck vs a doe/cow?

#3. How many actual "hunts" each year are for the female sex of each as a proportion of total hunts completed on your property?

Ryan


----------



## Dak

Dick,

I would have to agree with you on the Bison issue. I too have never considered them wildlife.

live2hunt:

I couldn't agree more with your statement below. Those are the same reasons I chose to sponsor this measure.

"I chose to sponsor this bill because disease issues, ethics, the ND hunting heritage, and the right of people to say what should or shouldn't happen in this state. The survey taken earlier this year supported the idea of this bill. 17 other states have created legislation and we have yet to see or hear "side effects" to the people or economy because of that legislation."

Ryan: Excellent questions. They have been asked and ignored before and probably will be this time as well.


----------



## Gohon

Jim, it's no bother. I should have included the source in the first place. It first appeared in the Grand Forks Herald concerning SB 2254 and I should have made that clear but it covers the present topic except the wording of the present bill was just rearranged to mean the same thing. Least ways I think it does. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.

http://2mdh.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html


----------



## Dick Monson

> Is anyone going to answer my butcher question. Probably had to run that one by Germolus.


Go back and read the first post.

Slaughter for commercial meat processing is not affected by the measure.

Now understand the differance between "form" versus "substance" because sure as baby rabbits some dude will try a weasel run after the measure passes. At that time he will run into the brickwall of substance instead of form.

Attorney Paul Germolus worked ag and wildlife law when he was an AAG. If 4590 has a question, he can get out his check book and give attorney Paul Germolus a call. He is in the phone book.


----------



## bowhunter04

I have a question about this topic. Is a license required by the state to "hunt" elk or deer inside a fenced in enclosure? By this I mean, is the shooter required to have a valid hunting license to harvest the animal?


----------



## Dan Bueide

> Lastly, I would like to point out that those that support this, and more importantly, who seem obsessed with the issue to the extent that they have to try to force it on others with a ballot initiative, are working hand in hand with PETA and other animal rights groups to achieve their agenda.
> 
> I find it repugnant that those who would call themselves hunters and sportsmen would do this...


NDT, do a "high fence hunting survey" or similar search on google and find out how the general population and even your hunting brothers and sisters feel about this. Anyone who thinks that just a "few" or the "PETA in disguise" people oppose these operations is fooling themselves.

Also, the fact that it is legal today has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate. The laws of every nation are filled with examples of illegal activites that were once legal. Something new comes along and grows to the point of materiality, and society either gives it a pass, regulates it or bans it. Sometimes society changes its mind as it understands the activity better or the activity's footprint expands or contracts - happens all the time.

Bob posted a USFWS survey on another thread that I think estimated roughly 10% of the public hunts. I personally believe high fence hunting is unethical, but as importantly, I strongly believe the 90% non-hunting population will eventually punish traditional hunters if it doesn't go away.

I don't get the "landowner's rights" angle. It's serves as a convenient lightning rod for those that oppose the measure, but when you think about it, virtually any issue could be spun that way. Would anyone seriously argue that narcotics laws should not apply to meth produced and consumed on private property? This measure is no more or less a "landowner's rights" issue than any of the other bazilion activites that society has, through its elected officials or through measures like this, deemed inappropriate regardless whether conducted on private land or elsewhere.


----------



## g/o

His excellency Has risen!!!! I agree Dan this petition is not about landowner rights, or is it about disease. It is about "ethics". Last winter when we were discussing high fence hunting you posted an example of a bison hunt. Again Dick has ducked the question as well as other so I'll ask you. What is the difference between the bison shoot which you referred to and an elk shoot?


----------



## Dak

"The High-Fence Factor

With no way to treat the disease, all wildlife managers can do to contain CWD is to curtail "accelerants" of the contagion. For cervids, the prime accelerants revolve around concentrating deer numbers beyond natural limits. The greater the overpopulation of a species, the greater the likelihood that disease will spread through its ranks.

Even in locales where wild deer have not exceeded the land's carrying capacity, human behavior can dangerously increase local deer densities. Take baiting, for instance. Ethical or not, researchers believe the practice can serve as a powerful CWD accelerant. "What you get," says Preston, "is an already high-density herd, all coming together to swap spit every night at the bait pile."

Arguably the most controversial means of concentrating cervids occurs within the so-called captive-deer industry. In some cases, popu-lation densities of fenced-in deer, elk, and other "farmed" cervids extrapolate out to 10,000 animals per square mile. Some 8,000 such businesses exist in the multiple states that allow them. Fawns are born in pens, raised to adulthood, then sold for a variety of purposes, from "Velvet Viagra" (an aphrodisiac harvested from antlers that was exported to South Korea until a farmed elk tested positive for CWD) to meat sold to restaurants and supermarkets.

But by far the greatest revenue for most of these operators comes from the lucrative sale of trophy animal "targets"-big bucks for big bucks. Top-class whitetails can go for up to $12,000, and in Texas some "hunts" have been documented in the $40,000 range. The marketing slogan for one establishment nicely sums up the hunting "ethic" at many such places: "We supply the trophy-you supply the lie."

There are some responsible, regulation-compliant proprietors in the captive-cervid industry, but officers like Wisconsin game warden Ron Preder have seen firsthand how farms that operate under the radar can contribute to the CWD problem. "We've been involved in this business long enough," he says, "to know that not everybody plays by the rules."

Take the curious case of Buckhorn Flats, a captive-cervid operation in Portage County, Wis., consisting of a 59-acre hunting preserve and a smaller breeding facility. On September 4, 2002, a hunter paid $4,000 to shoot a captive buck, which tested positive for CWD. When state authorities tried to trace its history to see what other captive herds might have been exposed, they were stymied by its lack of a -state-mandated ear tag as well as inadequate record keeping by the preserve's owner, Stanley Hall.

Hall, who did not respond to an interview request for this article, had a long history of trafficking captive deer. From 2000 to 2001 alone, he shipped at least 39 deer to seven other operations both across Wisconsin and out of state.

The state DNR involved 60 game wardens in tracing the trophy buck's movement. Ultimately, Buckhorn Flats and a handful of other Wisconsin game farms were put under quarantine, and Hall was ordered to depopulate all his deer. He chose to appeal the ruling, as was his right, and the legal battle continued for the next three and a half years.

During this period, Wisconsin passed legislation requiring that all captive-cervid hunting preserves in the state needed a minimum of 80 acres. In the spring of 2005, the DNR notified Hall that his 59-acre facility no longer qualified and he had to stop hosting hunts as of that fall.

By December 2005, Hall and his lawyers came to an agreement with state and federal agriculture officials. Hall, who would receive indemnification payments from the state and federal government for each animal killed, told authorities he had around 80 does and yearlings in his breeding area, and 40 or so bucks in his hunting preserve.

On January 12, 2006, several days before the deer were to be put down, Hall notified the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) that someone had cut a hole in the preserve fence and baited the outside area. The DATCP closed the breech and alerted the DNR, which, concerned that dozens of exposed bucks had escaped into the wild, dispatched sharpshooters to the scene. They found none of the purported 40 bucks still inside the preserve-and no sign of them outside, either.

"We even sent a plane up to look for them," says Preder. "One thing we didn't find was a pile of deer running around on the landscape. So what happened to them?"

Whatever might have become of those valuable bucks, there were still the does and yearlings in Hall's breeding pen. No hole had been cut in their fence. When the DATCP arrived for the scheduled cull several days later, they found three already dead and killed 76 more. When lab results came back, 60 of 79 deer tested positive.

According to their previously negotiated agreement, Hall was indemnified for his loss to the tune of $130,913, which worked out to a little over $1,700 per animal-a far cry from the $10,000 some hunters at Buckhorn Flats had said that they'd paid for trophy bucks.

Over a year after the mysterious hole in the fence appeared, the fate of the missing bucks is still uncertain. The local sheriff's department and the DATCP initiated criminal investigations but thus far have come to no definitive conclusion.

Most everyone agrees that there was no mass escape into the woods. "These were pen-raised deer, dumber than a box of rocks," says Preston. "It's also one of the most heavily hunted areas in Wisconsin, and not one of them was seen during the rest of the season."

The majority of those who've followed the case have a hypothesis. "The likeliest scenario is that these CWD-exposed bucks were sold and moved by horse trailer to other preserves," says Preston, adding that a buck's value as a trophy animal dwarfs even the most generous governmental buyout. "CWD is not being spread by law-abiding citizens-it's being spread by these midnight cowboys who would sell their mother's soul for a dollar."

Indeed, when it comes to controlling the disease, the short-term financial interests of the few seem to trump the long-term conservation ethics of the many. Drastically culling herds within hot zones; outlawing baiting and backyard deer feeding nationwide; requiring high, double fences around all captive-cervid facilities; clamping down on the interstate transport of both live deer and harvested carcasses: All such tactics could make a real impact on the disease's future course. But are any likely to become widely adopted?

Unfortunately, management strategies must be couched in "political and social realities, not biological ones," says Preston. "That's the world we live in. My commander in the National Guard always says, 'The answer is money. Now what is your f---ing question?' As long as there's a market where somebody will pay $20,000 to shoot a piece of livestock in a pen, there will be bad things happening to wildlife.""

The entire article can be read at:

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


----------



## R y a n

I'll ask my questions again... as I don't want them to get swept under the rug or buried further up in the thread.

*4590 & ND Elk Man can you please answer this below?*



live2hunt said:


> Maybe this will help, they are not considered "wildlife" in NDCC, of course neither are farmed elk and deer. Clear up the ethical question alot.
> 
> 
> 
> This is where I laugh at those of you who have elk farms. When speaking to the legislature, they are "domesticated" animals, but when you sell the hunts to your clients, they are "big game" species.
> 
> Bison should be exempt because bison and cattle producers work to build a herd based on the meat....meaning they buy bulls to produce offspring that will have desired meat characteristics. Lenghth of the barrel, loin eye, etc.... We are being told on here by some they raise them for the meat, yet the reality is they are building upon the horns. Something they can't eat. Every deer and elk producer knows that body condition isn't as prudent as horns are. The horns sell the animal in most cases. Plain and simple.
> 
> Bison producers feed their animals similar to cattle in that they are in it for them to gain weight. Elk and deer producers are in it to produce antlers. But just like disease issues, marginal land bs, and private property rights, they are all great at the liberal spin.
> 
> I chose to sponsor this bill because disease issues, ethics, the ND hunting heritage, and the right of people to say what should or shouldn't happen in this state. The survey taken earlier this year supported the idea of this bill. 17 other states have created legislation and we have yet to see or hear "side effects" to the people or economy because of that legislation.
> 
> ND ELK grower, 4590: You guys can spin it as much as you want, but the reality is this is a needed bill and it is supported by facts and research.
Click to expand...

Great post L2H

My questions to follow up to this post...

To the Deer/Elk operations... similar to what Live2Hunt says... related to people coming to your operation to obtain meat vs participate in a horn hunt, can you tell me:

#1. How many clients sign up each year to come onto your property to shot doe deer or cow elk?

#2. What is your list price for shooting a bull/buck vs a doe/cow?

#3. How many actual "hunts" each year are for the female sex of each as a proportion of total hunts completed on your property?

Ryan


----------



## 4590

Why does it matter what gender is shot in the preserve. Just like the bison - one is just as unethical as the other, right. I think some of you guys would be having a fit if farmers were getting $20 a bushel for wheat too. It really is all about the money isn't it.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

I have stayed out of this for a few days to see where it goes. The issue of disease is not a secondary matter at all, and by the end of this, will be the one that stock producers in this state are going to focus on the most. Written and verbal testimony given on a similar bill in Bismarck will be prominent I do believe.

Stock men have enjoyed the fact that ND is relatively healthy in respect to diseases our beef herds. Our cattle can move across state lines at less cost to the buyer or seller increasing the value of these animals. IF this makes it to the ballot, many of them will realize that it is in their long term benefit to ban this activity from a disease issue all the way to keeping PETA out of the business of meat production in this state.

Nation wide, ranchers are seen as being good stewards of the cattle they raise. People understand the terms slaughter for what it is. On the other hand, nation wide and as was the indication from the poll conducted in ND. Canned shooting arenas do not have the same support. Ranchers are not going to want the canned elk shooting producers to paint themselves as being in the livestock business and give them a black eye.

There are legitimate elk and deer producers in ND who raise these animals for slaughter. They work hard in opening up new markets for the meat and other products. They also will suffer down the road from the black eye that canned shooting arenas create.

In regards to ethics, we have laws that govern all sorts of behavior that most people find objectionable. Many of those laws restrict property rights, personal choice that does not cause harm to others etc..

Canned shooting does cause issues for others especially when it is represented as hunting. Maybe those who are working on this bill need to get a copy of the Guns of Autumn that aired back in the 70's and run it on some of the local TV stations. Maybe ND Elk and 4590 will pony up the money to show the good people of this state what they are trying to protect as a right!

Without a doubt much of this debate is going to center around ethics, but it is much deeper than that. ND does not need zebra shoots, or tiger shoots or canned elk or deer shoots, not until those promoting them can prove that there are people willing to do Holstein, or Angus shoots as well!

If you think elk and deer are somehow different, then stop and think about the fact that horse is a standard table fair in France, but our producers of horses in ND and all across this nation no longer have that market because of the publics perception of horses.

I do not want to loose my right to hunt or my kids right to be able to hunt because of the actions of a few people who want to sell trophy elk or deer as a


> *hunt!*


 Right now fair chase hunting is supported by the non hunting public. Canned shooting is not. I will help in preventing the lines between them from being blurred.

For those of you who are in the business of selling canned shoots. Why not start advertising them as elk or deer slaughters, because that is what you are claiming they are? Why do you need to bill it as hunting when it is not?

[/quote][/b]


----------



## 4590

Dick,

Good dodge, AGAIN. If you can find an excemption for slaughter in this wording, how about just quote it for us all. When it comes to making laws words do mean something. That is why I have been harping about using words already defined in NDCC to avoid confusion. The form and substance is balogna, when a law is passed it wil be interpreted according to what is says not what you or Germolus meant. Maybe YOU should go back and read it and see if my post isn't exactly what it says. So either your really not able to read and interpret what you sponsored or worse you know what it says but would just as soon the general public didn't figure that out.


----------



## R y a n

4590 said:


> Why does it matter what gender is shot in the preserve. Just like the bison - one is just as unethical as the other, right. I think some of you guys would be having a fit if farmers were getting $20 a bushel for wheat too. It really is all about the money isn't it.


The reason it matters Kim is because in the reply previous to my original it was stated that people were hunting them for the meat and not the horns. It stands to reason that if this were true then you'd have at least an equal number of hunters coming there to shoot cows/does. It would also stand to reason that this would be true because it would be cheaper to raise them/purchase them then something with a magnificent set of horns. We all know what the going rate for a fully antlered 6x6 bull elk costs to purchase and a 150+ class whitetail isn't cheap either. Therefore if true a meat hunt would likely involve does which are much more plentiful.

Correct?

So I was looking for meaningful statistics from you to back up the assertation that people aren't coming to those commercial entities for "horn hunting" but rather meat purchasing.

Thanks

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman

Good job Ryan, keep asking that question. I have a feeling it will never be answered because it will become abundantly clear what canned hunt operators are up to. Ron you made some good points, and I believe you captured the essence of this bill in your post.

I have nothing against animals raised for slaughter. Although raising all wild animals is a disease concern for me the people who raise them for slaughter don't present as much danger simply because the vast amounts of money paid for a trophy are an incentive to cheat the system. As was posted before about the man in Wisconsin. The day before his animals were to be destroyed they escaped?????? When pigs fly.

I see the Buffalo question keeps rising up. People are right it is just as repugnant as shooting deer and elk. So what's the difference. A couple I can think of includes: Buffalo numbers were so low years ago that we lost much of the genetic variability within the species. Wood Buffalo Park in Canada still supports a herd, but can only introduce new genetics from herds far from their area. Here in the United States we have a relatively wild herd in Yellowstone, but that's about all I am familiar with. If the species is going to continue to thrive the genetic pool will need to see as little inbreeding as possible. The more ranchers that raise them the better for the species. A few die now so that the species will thrive many years into the future. Society would not tolerate large animals like buffalo running wild and free like elk. They are animals of the prairie and would be tearing down fences and corn fields. Their days as wild animals throughout North America are over forever. They will thrive in small parks and ranches, and in a few hundred years become truly domestic. There are animals that lend themselves well to domestication, and there are animals that do not. there is a reason cows are domesticated, and the red stags of Europe are not. The opportunity has been their for tens of thousands of years, yet the red stag remains wild.


----------



## Dak

Excellent points Plainsman.


----------



## Gohon

> that people aren't coming to those commercial entities for "horn hunting" but rather meat purchasing.


I've gone back through the posts and I can't find where anyone made the statement quoted above. Maybe you could be so kind as to point out the post that contains that statement.


----------



## Dick Monson

*4590 said:*


> Good dodge, AGAIN. If you can find an excemption for slaughter in this wording, how about just quote it for us all.


There is no dodge, your arguement stands on air. You are simply trying, AGAIN, to attract opposition that is not affected by the measure. Read what is printed.

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

Nowhere does the measure say the sale of meat products is a violation. Only the act of killing for fee or remuneration. If unable or unwilling to ask for private legal opinion, then wait until the measure is approved for circulation and ask the AGs office for an opinion. No cost to you.

The precipice you stand on is getting narrower. Bison are exempt. Custom slaughter is exempt. Sale of breeding stock is exempt. Sale of individual animals is exempt. So now you can comfortably vote YES on the Fair Chase Hunting measure.


----------



## bowhunter04

Gohon:



> Oh by the way jhegg most of the Elk are killed for meat also, not the trophy value.


----------



## 4590

Dick,

I broke it down word by word for you, can't make it any more clear than that. Every butcher I ever used charges a kill fee. There is no exemption for slaughter, you can say its there, but I can read and its not there.

Ryan,

Of course I will answer. I have hunters come for meat and others come for horns. I have also sold just meat and just horns. Its a livestock operation, we sell animals and by products. Still doesn't make any dif. Your arguement is shooting both cows and bulls is unethical, right?


----------



## always_outdoors

> Your arguement is shooting both cows and bulls is unethical, right?


Some NY city banker comes out and shoots an elk while its head is stuck in a bucket of oats and you question whether that is ethical? And even after the idiot misses he has lots of other chances because the elk has no means of escape from its 80 acre pen. And yet you question us about ethics?

None of the hunting organizations such as Boone and Crocket acknowledge your animals...and yet you still question the ethics.

The sponsors and its supporters have time again provided clean and clear facts, research, and information that supports this bill. The high fence operations have twisted and spun almost every piece they could. First they cried "property rights" to try and spin so they could get the good, honest, hard working ND farmers/ranches on their side, then they cried about Bison to get those producers on their side. Yet another spin tactic.

The facts are backed by research and the survey has been taken. The people of ND don't want high fence hunting to occur in this state. Maybe it is time for you to listen to your neighbors, your family, and your friends instead of that NY city banker.

It is funny that sportsmen get questioned on ethics and beliefs when the reality is the opposition is making their call based on money and nothing else. Who has the ethics?


----------



## Plainsman

> I broke it down word by word for you, can't make it any more clear than that. Every butcher I ever used charges a kill fee.


Your joking right? You don't see a difference in a butcher charging you $50 to kill your animal, and some guy who thinks he is a great white hunter paying you $5000 to kill your animal? Kind of black and white to me. Talk about grasping at straws. If your going to twist facts, at least try to remain somewhat realistic.


----------



## g/o

> None of the hunting organizations such as Boone and Crocket acknowledge your animals...and yet you still question the ethics


Again Dan. these are FARM ELK, they don't go out and chase them with pickups into pens.



> Maybe it is time for you to listen to your neighbors, your family, and your friends instead of that NY city banker.


I'm sure his neighbors and friends support him. The comment about the NY city banker shows what this all about. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## always_outdoors

> I'm sure his neighbors and friends support him.


Don't count on it g/o. I have spoken to many farmer friends. They see it just like many of us here do. They have no issues with them on the land being sold to slaughter, but have lots of issues with them selling them as hunts.

Many have lots of concerns for the wild deer and elk herds here in ND as well. Just because you don't see them on this site, doesn't mean they are in your corner.


----------



## Gohon

bowhunter04, Saying "most of the Elk are killed for meat also, not the trophy value" is not the same as saying "that people aren't coming to those commercial entities for "horn hunting" but rather meat purchasing." It's a nice out of context play on words but not the same. One says all and one says most. So either someone is being very dishonest or that is not the quote they are referring to.

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

One rancher that raises deer for sale made this statement. "If my neighbor wanted to buy a cull animal to butcher we would have to let it go into the wild before we could kill it, or if I haul a load to the butcher and we unload them into his man made slaughter house that he built to prevent animals from escaping, we are in violation again".

Can anyone deny that rancher is wrong when reading the words of this bill. I don't see how.................


----------



## Gohon

> Kind of black and white to me.


Apparently not............ it's not about the why or cost of the fee but the simply fact any fee whether $50 or $5,000,000 is in violation as written.



> None of the hunting organizations such as Boone and Crocket acknowledge your animals...and yet you still question the ethics.


Doesn't that pretty much nullify the argument that people are paying high dollars for record horns?


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,

I am not joking! You are bent on taking away a mans livelyhood, so maybe you should carefully examine what you are supporting. What I am saying is the way the measure is written it doesn't distinguish between the two. I broke it down word by word to show this could easily apply to slaughter. Dick says there is an exemption, but it is not there.


----------



## 4590

Gohon,

I guess you and I are among the few on this site that can read. They are so used to twisting and spinning that cant accept it when something is spelled out for them in plane English. Comprende?


----------



## R y a n

Gohon said:


> bowhunter04, Saying "most of the Elk are killed for meat also, not the trophy value" is not the same as saying "that people aren't coming to those commercial entities for "horn hunting" but rather meat purchasing." It's a nice out of context play on words but not the same. One says all and one says most. So either someone is being very dishonest or that is not the quote they are referring to.


LMFAO .. Gohon you keep stooping to new lows to try and malign me.

*It is exactly the same as what I was trying to infer. *

I won't stoop to your level and flame you publically as a result of the personal attack. Expect a PM.

Ryan


----------



## Turner

4590 said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> I am not joking! You are bent on taking away a mans livelyhood, so maybe you should carefully examine what you are supporting. What I am saying is the way the measure is written it doesn't distinguish between the two. I broke it down word by word to show this could easily apply to slaughter. Dick says there is an exemption, but it is not there.


4590, not sure if I am reading into your post, but to me it says it all. This is a $$$ issue. Some outdoorsmen have had their ethics clouded by the almighty dollar and will do anything to justify the shooting of these animals. 
If B & C and P & Y will not accept these kills to go into their books doesn't that show you right there this isn't ethical?


----------



## Plainsman

> None of the hunting organizations such as Boone and Crocket acknowledge your animals...and yet you still question the ethics.
> 
> Doesn't that pretty much nullify the argument that people are paying high dollars for record horns?


Do you have some kind of a rule about ignoring logic or jumping to conclusions? Many of the high fence killers are nothing but slobs. Like the one outfit says: "we supply the trophy, you supply the lie". Remember the huge elk shot in the Bitterroot mountains that was posted here on this site? The picture was taken in the mountains, but it turns out the animal was shipped there, dead I would presume, since it was shot in a high fence operation in I think Ontario.

Just because they are not recognized by Boone and Crocket doesn't mean slobs are not trying to sneak in high fence shot animals. The Boone and Crocket people are becoming more skeptical and more careful to investigate every day. Still another black eye for hunters. It's not unlike people who see road signs shot up and say: those darn hunters. No, they aren't hunters, they are vandals that just happen to have firearms. Every true hunter should vote for this bill, or not complain when attacked by the PETA type.


----------



## Dick Monson

I will explain one more time. The measure exempts custom slaughter for meat processing. I specifically asked attorney Paul Germolus before the measure was submitted to the ND Secretary of States office, and he told me custom slaughter is exempt.

*So it's put up or shut up*. I will put up the money for a legal opinion from attorney Germolus. Anyone who questions the exemption will put up the same amount. Chris Hustad can hold the funds. Who ever is wrong will pay attorney Germolus. He charges a flat $125 hourly rate. Wether it takes him 15 minutes to answer or 40 hours of hard work, the loser will pay whatever he charges.

I say custom slaughter for meat processing is exempt. Any takers?


----------



## Gohon

Ryan, you made a statement that I cannot find. I ask for the post you got it from. You didn't and apparently won't provide it. That is your choice. If it does not exist and was fabricated I consider that dishonest and at the very least should be clarified. Thats not a personal attack Ryan......that's my ethics......... you've heard that word before haven't you. Now if that is enough to have me booted from this forum as you threatened in your PM then so be it. If you can't support your statements or at least explain your thoughts in a debate them maybe you shouldn't participate in them. The only person stooping to lows at this point is you by complaining that everyone won't except your word without question even when they know what you said is not correct.

If as you threatened in your PM that, that is to much to expect from Ryan and I had received the last warning from Ryan about being honest and out spoken and that Ryan was going to boot Gohon from the forum then do what you think you have to do. It doesn't change the fact your comment was not in context.......


----------



## Gohon

Plainsman, for Christs sakes........... stop reading things that aren't there. Someone , actually several someone's have made the comment that rich slobs are paying tens of thousands of dollars for trophy horns. I'm simply saying if Boone and Crocket won't acknowledge a animal shot at one of these places then that argument is moot. As for the "we supply the trophy, you supply the lie", it makes for a nice story but does anyone know just which place advertised that slogan and maybe I can go to a site and read it. And before anyone starts to cry I'm not saying it is not true. Don't be so quick to grab everything passing by that seems to support your position. Someday you may reach out and grab something you can't turn loose of.


----------



## R y a n

_*I apologize in advance to everyone for needing to post this on this thread. Please bear with me as I attempt to answer the allegations leveled against me, and the logic that was employed in some recent actions. This will be the last time I address this issue here publically and will take things to PM's if warranted. If anyone has thoughts on this, please feel free to PM me.

Ryan*_



Gohon said:


> Ryan, you made a statement that I cannot find. I ask for the post you got it from. You didn't and apparently won't provide it. That is your choice. If it does not exist and was fabricated I consider that dishonest and at the very least should be clarified. Now if that is enough to have me booted from this forum as you threatened in your PM then so be it. If you can't support your statements or at least explain your thoughts in a debate them maybe you shouldn't participate in them. The only person stooping to lows at this point is you by complaining that everyone won't except your word without question even when they know what you said is not correct.
> 
> If as you threatened in your PM that, that is to much to expect from Ryan and I had received the last warning from Ryan about being honest and out spoken and that Ryan was going to boot Gohon from the forum then do what you think you have to do. It doesn't change the fact your comment was not in context.......


Gohon

Since I'm certain you are still reading these replies ....

I think you have finally lost your mind. In a blind anger to try and defame me on every thread I post to, ... you have lost sight of reality. To answer your question... I did reply in my thread to you affirming that the quote(below) from bowhunter04 was the one I was referencing:


> bowhunter04 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Gohon:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh by the way jhegg most of the Elk are killed for meat also, not the trophy value
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

JHegg was told in a reply that *most* of the Elk are killed for meat. I was asking for numbers and statistics in specific reference to that quote. You couldn't find it. Bowhunter04 did for you. It wasn't that hard. I didn't make more out of it than what was there. I'm not even certain why you care about correcting me. It would appear that you had a goal of trying to catch me messing up somehow. Instead of bringing all of this nonsensical crap into this thread, I took it to PM's. You apparently want to make this more public. Your choice.

You stated:


> Now if that is enough to have me booted from this forum as you threatened in your PM then so be it. If you can't support your statements or at least explain your thoughts in a debate them maybe you shouldn't participate in them.


Gohon if you truly believe that one simple statement got you booted, you are naieve. We all know better than that. You know that many of the mods here have warned you about your tone and presentation of opinions was borderline attacking many times across a wide range of posts. No I'm _not_ talking about a strong opinion that is against the majority. I think a great healthy debate should contain comments from both sides. This has nothing to do with positional or political slant. Rather it was _*about the way* _you went about making a point and challenging others. Gohon there are many here with a myriad of strong viewpoints. They manage to present them to the masses, make their point strongly, and yet not make the recipients feel attacked on a personal level.

In trying to keep this off the thread, I took it offline to a PM. You apparently wanted to make this public (to try embarrassing me?) and bring it back out here. I'm not sure your motives, however know that everything I PM someone I will share with the other mods to be as fair and transparent as possible when needed. Just because I took it to PM didnt mean it wasn't anything I wouldn't share to the masses, however we try keeping this stuff from hijacking a thread. In the PM sent, I stated your conduct is keeping others from wanting to post to threads, and that the mods are getting tired of the type of behavior noted above, and that it will no longer be tolerated. This action had NOTHING to do with your take on this measure, but rather a continued long term pattern of abusive behavior towards me and others here. It has nothing to do with being honest and outspoken. We have many people of very differing viewpoints that do a wonderful job of expressing them in an appropriate manner. If you need to spin this to fit your behavior so be it. That was not the logic or criteria we used in coming to that decision. If you need to spin my story to imply you were only challenging the reference and context of my quote, that is ridiculous. Everyone else here could see exactly what I was getting at except you. Heck Bowhunter04 provided the referenced quote before I could even get back on to reply.

I warned you that others have recently been removed here due to their long term patterns of similar abusiveness, and that your recent actions have finally reached a cumulative level such that it has come time for a corrective measure if you did not immediately cool your jets. You did not heed my warning and instead sent me a nasty reply and then went about continuing with your status quo on the forum.

You must have thought I was kidding.

I wasn't.

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman

In support of Ryan let me add my view. Ryan was very fair, he gave a warning that he thought people were out of line. It was disregarded, and in a very disrespectful way. It should have stayed in PM's.

When we (those of us who post often and were posting most of the responses on this thread) were asked to step back and give others a chance I did that. I see that the opponents to this bill didn't miss a stroke or stop posting for even a short time. You know who you are. I know it's hard when you see what you consider gross errors. I would like to hear from people who generally stay away from debate. What are your views. You need not join in the debate, just give us a view and that's it. I would like to know how sportsmen view the practice of high fence hunts.

Now I will step back again and rejoin the debate later.


----------



## ND ELK Man

Mr Monson,
Your offer is very interesting, but I think going to Mr Germolus would be a mistake due to maybe a bias opinion. Would your offer stand if we went right to the Attorney General for his legal opinion and if I lose maybe I can trade him some farmed raised elk meat that was shot behind a man made enclosure, sounds like a win win to me$


----------



## faithsdave

Plainsman, and others, Here is my view. First, I would like to thank all the sponsors of this. I wish I would have been able to add my name to the list. Second, although not able to be a sponsor, I would love to be one of the first ones to sign my name to it. Something like this has been a long time coming.


----------



## NDTerminator

Ron, I don't put much stock in any surveys, as they are only as unbiased as they are written and/or presented. Im my experience, most, on any subject, tend to result in pretty much the results the surveyor is seeking.

Here's a question for those who have such strong opinions on this. Not counting pheasant preserves, how many of you have actually ever hunted on any high fence ranch? I'll make the question even easier. Discount partaking, how about just spending any time, any time at all, on a high fence ranch?

In other words, how many have any actually first hand knowledge, or is your opinion based on what you've heard second or third hand or read on the internet as written by "experts"?

That's my final word on this subject. As with most threads on the Hot Topics Forum, this is by & large a waste of time to post on. That's why I rarely bother...


----------



## Ref

I agree 100% that the high-fenced, so-called "hunts" should be banned. I don't care how big the enclosure is, eventually the animal can be pushed to a point where it will meet the fence.


----------



## always_outdoors

> Here's a question for those who have such strong opinions on this. Not counting pheasant preserves, how many of you have actually ever hunted on any high fence ranch? I'll make the question even easier. Discount partaking, how about just spending any time, any time at all, on a high fence ranch?


As a former county extension agent, I can attest that I have been on high fence hunting operations. I have been to some of their meetings and spoken with some individually. I have never nor would I partake in hunting on one.

I have also been on quite a few bison farms as well. Completely different mindset than those of elk or deer operations. The bison guys think like cattle producers.


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzzz


----------



## Maverick

Woodpecker...It's not what you say, but how you say it, that was the problem.

I, for one, think the Mods. have been doing a great job!!!


----------



## Plainsman

Woodpecker

I want to stay out of this for a while, but you deserve an answer. I didn't pull the trigger on these guys because I thought I would look vindictive. I would have though, and I liked them both. Why would I have done it? Because Ryan's integrity was called into question. Example: "Guess I'll just go sit in the corner and watch the cat fight or risk having Ryan delete my posts for spite". I don't know Ryan personally, never met the man. However, when he asks about canning someone he always has the right reasons, and he never wants to do it. Same with Robert Langager, I have nothing but respect for the man. I respected 280 and Gohon also, but they just fell into a stubborn streak and would not listen. I'm sure I could say all the moderators regret when someone is tossed. Most of the time. Otherwise example below:

A lot of things happen behind the scenes that you fellows are never aware of. Would you believe last year a fellow sent me a Trojan horse, a worm, and two virus? My Symantec caught them all, but a fellow in Alaska had his computer crash and lost a lot of his things. Only then was the guy banned. Nothing recently has been this bad, people just refused to step back for a while, cool down, and let others talk. 
Gohon's questions would have only been tough if you considered the canned hunt ban a landowner debate. Most of the supporters don't see it that way, and some are landowners.
I hope this will be the best outdoor site on the internet. I hope I can help, and I hope you will too. 
Sometimes people think we are bluffing when it comes to a threat of a ban. They think we are bluffing, because they know we like them. Sometimes I think a 30 day ban would be a good thing because it may keep us from loosing people. I don't know, just thinking out loud.


----------



## g/o

Plainsman, plain and simple. If what Gohon said was that offensive, they should have banned you along time ago. You continually bash people with facts that are not true. When challenged it's always the same old thing you always refer to money. You can call outfitters, Non Residents, farmers and who ever you want. You are never challenged on anything. You should be the one getting the boot not Gohon.


----------



## Jiffy

Oh brother........ :roll: I think anybody with half a brain knows better than that.

Oh quite the contraire g/o. I've challenged Plainsman quite a few times and I'm still around. Yes, I've had my fair share of warnings but the difference is I know where to draw the line. You and yes I mean "YOU" just need to know when to quit. Nobody is untouchable!

Besides anyone who hides behind a screen name gets ZERO respect in my book. Do you know anyone that does that? If you mean what you say you should put your name on it.

Lee E. McDonald


----------



## always_outdoors

Edited


----------



## Bob Kellam

Get this back on topic!!!! Enough Bickering!!!


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzz


----------



## Maverick

Again Woodpecker:



> It's not what you say, but how you say it, that was the problem.


It had *nothing* to do with there opposition. It had to deal with *HOW* they went about it. Had they chose to tame down their mouths when asked they would still be here. The choice was there, and they made it.

I have gotten emails from the Mods before, but did I choose to push the limits. No! I got over my ego and stopped posting. It's that easy. They chose not to.

Taylor Ells


----------



## Plainsman

Like Bob said lets stop bickering and get back on subject. We can't see the real discussion if we keep throwing sand in each others eyes. Soon someone else will be told to keep quiet. No disrespect intended.


----------



## g/o

I would like to clarify on what I meant by challenging Plainsman. What I am referring to is not be called on his slander by the moderators. Jiffy just like you, I've been called everything but a gentleman by you on this forum, yet you are never scolded in fact praised. You see banning Gohon and letting people like Jiffy and Plainsman continue to break the rules does not make much sense.


----------



## Jiffy

g/o, PM sent. I would suggest you do the same if you feel compelled to continue off topic.

Let's not clutter up this thread. Its a good one with lots of good input. I would hate to see it locked.

:beer:


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Ok,

Enough is enough. Put this thread back on topic now. If you want to continue the debate about the recent developments on the forum, please start another thread or PM me or the webmaster.

This has gone far enough and I am getting tired of having to check this thread every time there is a response to see what mayhem has broken out.

This applies to everyone.

Thanks,
Robert


----------



## Dick Monson

Well said Robert. If I was sarcastic, I owe appologies to all. Back to the real topic and I'm out for a couple days.

*Elkman wrote:*


> Your offer is very interesting, but I think going to Mr Germolus would be a mistake due to maybe a bias opinion. Would your offer stand if we went right to the Attorney General for his legal opinion and if I lose maybe I can trade him some farmed raised elk meat that was shot behind a man made enclosure, sounds like a win win to me$


Do it this way then. In a few days the SOS will approve the wording. At that time ask your local legislator for an AG's opinion that the Fair Chase Measure does not affect custom slaughter for meat processing. Please post the AG's answer. You saved us both money! And would you be so kind to tell us how many elk and deer are behind fence now, and how many are killed each year?

Back on the combine.. see you fellows.


----------



## 4590

Dick,

Elk and deer inventory numbers are available from the ND Dept. of AG, just a phone call away. I don't know if they can tell you how many are hunted each year, but while you are at it ask how many CWD submissions have been submitted in the last 9 yrs.


----------



## 4590

ND hunting ban has made it all the way to Maine. Check it out: www.blackbearblog.com
[/code]


----------



## ND ELK Man

Mr. Monson,
I can't really tell you the total numbers of animals that get harvested in our State because I simply don't know, and since these are private ownership businesses I don't really feel that it is my business asking my friends and neigbors how much money they made or how many animals were harvested at there farms, as I am sure you don't ask your neigbors how much wheat they sold and at what price.
I do think on an average there are about 8 hunting ranchs that I know of and they average 50 hunters a year and would guess to say that 1/3 of the animals taken are female, for the simple reason that some people want good quality meat, enjoy the ND scenery,and enjoy the outdoors. I think your idea that all the people that choose to go to a fenced hunt are slobs is a very unfair assumtion. Everyone has the right to choose how they want to spend there time and money, so if a family chooses to come to ND for the weekend and harvest some quality animals and be wined and dined I am all for it and since there ethics are different from others why should they be labeled as slobs because they chose to manage there time for what they had avaliable. Any one with a family knows you can't just up and take off for two weeks on a hunt, so if a person chooses to go to a hunting ranch for the weekend why should he not have that Right to do so.


----------



## R y a n

ND ELK Man said:


> Everyone has the right to choose how they want to spend there time and money, so if a family chooses to come to ND for the weekend and harvest some quality animals and be wined and dined I am all for it and since there ethics are different from others why should they be labeled as slobs because they chose to manage there time for what they had avaliable. Any one with a family knows you can't just up and take off for two weeks on a hunt, *so if a person chooses to go to a hunting ranch for the weekend why should he not have that Right to do so*.


And this is only possible inside a fenced in enclosure?

I'm not opposed to people coming to a hunting ranch for a weekend to hunt on the vast wide open prairie of North Dakota... just don't do it from inside a hunting arena with no escape!

All of the above can be achieved at many places across North Dakota at legitimate guiding operations who don't feel the need to contain the quarry from escaping....

To me ... when I think fondly of North Dakota and a "hunting ranch", I envision a gorgeous house sitting nestled in amongst miles of *open* prairie. North Dakota is about the open prairie at it's core. When a commercial operation comes into a new area and starts erecting prison fences for the animals, that very vision of those high grotesque looking walls destroys that pristine image for me.

Are you proud of that vision personally? I'm curious? Do you want ND to start looking like Texas?

Ryan


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzzz


----------



## FowlTalker6

Quoted on Black Bear Blog....... I believe that the cause being waged by those obsessed with fair chase will not stand up to the results that will come from it. It amazes me that those who are going to the time and expense in order to dictate their fair chase ethics on others, for the purpose of protecting their image, can't see that there are far bigger issues threatening hunting today than a few high-fence hunting ranches......

The author of the above quote hit the nail on the head IMO. To see the article see the website posted by 4590.

This has possible further ranging implications than what is talked about in these debates. This whole idea of forcing this on someone is a bad idea.

I am not, and never will be a proponent of 'High Fence' or 'Canned Hunts'.
But you will never find me trying to force my opionions or what I percieve to be appropriate ethics on to somebody else. I will offer my point of veiw, but i will never try to force my opinions and veiws on someone else. I am afraid that this will have far reaching affects, some of which is obvious, that few here have taken the time to think about. There are far more important and bigger issues dealing with hunting than this topic.

You don't have to condone High fence hunting, but don't try to force your beliefs on someone else. It will backfire and become more than you bargained for. And when that happens it will be to late to turn things around. Landowners and ranchers should be able to earn a buck on their land in anyway they want as long as it isn't hurting others. And just because you get worked up over it isn't an excuse in saying it hurts you in my book.

I will never use a High Fence operation myself, but, if that's what some people like then let them. No, I don't like the term hunting used in those situations either. But, that is a whole other issue.

This is a bad idea, and should have never been taken to this point. This is just an outright ban on a style of (I will use the term very loosely) so called 'hunting' and if pursued could possibly backfire. Mark my words on this guys!!!!
This has huge backfire possibilities and the end result of those backfires could possibly mean the end of ALL hunting in some form or another.

My :2cents


----------



## Eric Hustad

Fowltalker, good post and points. I can see where your coming from. Yesterday I was explaining this issue to my wife and she said "doesn't that give the type of hunting give your type a black eye?" I guess she was right in that people who don't hunt and see a fence hunt would think that's what it's all about which it isn't. We also talked about if this issue went to a nationwide vote fenced-hunting would be done. Now as a business owner myself I am leary of others telling people what to do. It can be easy for someone to take a cheap shot at people who take a risk, work hard, and start a business. However for me personally the fenced hunting is something I see as threatening fair-chase hunting and I would have to vote to stop it.


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzz


----------



## Eric Hustad

Terry she remebers the Troy Gentry thing and that is her impression of fenced-hunts. Now I hear you on a ban on hunting and have no doubt it would happen if it came to a vote. Now does fenced-hunting help or hurt a ban on hunting? That is my reasoning for being against the issue. I also saw on the news the other night that 17% of people in ND went hunting last year and 21% went fishing. That means that 83% didn't hunt and a good portion of those people could care less if there was hunting or not. We are the minority no doubt.


----------



## Maverick

Eric and Terry or anyone else for that matter,
Do you guys try to involve your wives when you go hunting? Not knowing your situations but in my experiences ( I come from a family of hunters. I am a 4th Generation of sportsmans in ND) I have seen nothing but postive things ( in 30 years of hunting) when the wife or significant other participates.
This last year I have had my GF go through her hunter safety,bought her a gun, taken her trap shooting, had her help with training a new dog and really got her invloved. All done with her high heels on (and a smile on her face)...if you know what I mean. I think we would make things clearer if we got them involved and showed them the enjoyment. We would be less of a minority. I just have questions when I hear that a wife of a hunter would vote for a total hunting ban. ( Not trying to offend anyone just questions.) We would be less of a minority if we got our family members involved. Which unfortunately is the opposite.

I know this is a little off topic. Sorry if I am taking it away from the original thread, but small things like this could help.


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzz


----------



## always_outdoors

4590: Curious as to why this would be listed as a reason for hunting at your preserve.



> #10. No over zealous game wardens. You will not be stopped searched or questioned at our preserve.


This is right from your website.

God forbid a warden to do his/her job. Seems like you are embarrassed by the work you do. Maybe the hunting isn't done so ethically or within the framework of our laws? Is this so you can have clients that have backgrounds that would otherwise not allow them to hunt or posess a firearm?


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

I've been away from this a few days and I'm amazed at what has been happening in this topic. What's a shame as this is a *very important issue*, and I hate to see good information get cluttered with attacks and senseless bickering.

As to bans, as Plainsman stated there's a lot that goes on outside of the public forum. I say it all the time if I had my way I would never have to ban anyone. I give people the benefit of the doubt, regardless of opinion, and I'm very lenient when it comes to second, third, etc. chances. But when I find that x amount of hours/month are spent cleaning up the mess of the same people time and time again it's time to let them go because it will never end. The toughest challenge to running websites is not all the technology challenges, it's the psychological challenges of managing thousands of personalities.

Most sites do not let moderators get involved in heated issues, but I'm not going to gag my moderators or anyone else for that matter of their opinion...especially in an important issue like this. That may put the forum in an odd position and it's easy to blame their opinion for how things are handled. I can't thank the moderators enough for their time spent here monitoring these issues, and I certainly trust their decisions when they need to be made on the spot.

A lot of people are watching this thread closely, and I'm only going to allow it to continue if people can discuss this with cool heads without attacks. This is the third time I've had to post up a warning, a new record here for allowing a thread to continue...and I'm not going to again.

So let's drop the minor stuff and get back on topic. Thanks.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Taylor I hear what your saying and my has hunted pheasants(grew up in Mott) and last fall she went duck hunting one morning so she isn't against hunting. I think sharing the experience is a great point. Anyway sorry for getting off topic......


----------



## 4590

I am not the author of that statement but will give you some reasoning as to its existance. I also think it has very little to do with this discussion. You have a concept of "who" would hunt on a game preserve that is very warped and one you hope will support your position. Fact is you would be very surprised if you knew the type of people they are. Believe me they don't fit your "slob" mentality.

First I will say there are many hard working, honorable game wardens out there that not only enforce the law but have a good deal of common sense. I would never want to nor could restrain them from doing their job, but that has little to do with preserves as they have little if any involvement with domestic livestock. I have had a couple sit in my yard and visit about elk ranching, one even suggested he would enjoy doing it himself. However there are a few that one could call over zealous. I will not name them but they are out there. I remember one in particular that confronted me as a young hunter and totally ruined my hunt as I went home thinking I would loose my gun and whatever. Bottom line I was not in violation and never heard any more about the incident.

That however is not the main point of the statement you quoted. If you have considered a big game license in many states, you have found the regulations to be very long and complicated. On the hunting preserve it is very simple and there is no reason to fear you may violate one of the many regs. There is no effort to attract anyone you described. Actually the opposite is true as many folks are intimidated by all the regs and dates and lottery points, etc. Because of this and the long wait to get drawn they prefer the simplicity of a hunting preserve.

I have tried to answer your questions and will continue to try. I have one for all you regular contributers here that are anti game farms. How many years have you elk hunted and how many elk have you actually killed? Also how many killed were bulls and cows?


----------



## redcloud

I have been reading this topic and it just makes me laugh. I read about hunting heritage and find it quite amusing. As a first american my grandfathers new what real hunting was. For them it was not a game. It was kill or go hungry. That is a true hunting heritage. You call yourselves sportsmen because you just hunt for fun. You just think hunting is a game. You want to make rules, one like it one way, and another his way. In the old days there were no rules. They used any advantage they could to get a kill. They also respected the wildlife and did not kill for pleasure, only necessity. Today no body is a real hunter.

Some of our reservations have elk and buffalo herds. They are a source of income. Makes no sense to stop that just because you can't figure out what a real hunter is.


----------



## Nick Roehl

Don't even start that @#$%. What about the over netting and fishing of walleyes that happens all the time and the spot lighting and poaching of deer on the res. Don't come here and talk to me about a true hunter. That's stuff isn't just done purely for survival. Give me a break. :******:


----------



## redcloud

Its called survival on the res. Come live with us for a while, you have no idea.


----------



## Dan Bueide

> I have one for all you regular contributers here that are anti game farms. How many years have you elk hunted


One



> and how many elk have you actually killed?


None



> Also how many killed were bulls and cows?


0/0

I didn't pull the trigger or even take the safety off on my one and only trip. But, it was a great/grueling seven day hunt over some the very ground where L&C ran into big trouble on their westward leg. Between that connection, seeing elk most days and making a total of one failed stalk, it was a great trip I will always cherish. An animal would have been icing only.

Couple of questions for you:

What is the maximum and minimum sized enclosure you have used for your sports to shoot an elk?

The national wild elk success rate is like 20%, right? What is the success rate of your sports?


----------



## Nick Roehl

If things are that bad for you there then move. I am far from rich and I do rely on the game I take. I eat deer, pheasant,dove,grouse, partridge and fish. And buy very little beef all year. But don't say that I'm not a real hunter because I do something that has been handed down through the generations in my family just as it was in yours. I gaurantee that my great grandfather wasn't out shooting pheasants in his nickers with a pipe having a jolly old time just for the hell of it.They struggled on the prairie and relyed on that game for survival just like your ancestors did.


----------



## 4590

We have only been involved with one hunting operation. Its 400+ acres. About half woods and very rough terrain.

Sucess rate I believe is 90%+.

Satisfaction rate is 100%.

Last numbers I say elk success rate is less than 10%, that may have been for bulls. If it takes you five to ten trips, even without a guide, you will spend more than a ranch hunt - still a bargain.

We have had clients come and shoot cows on our farm. They shot them out in the pasture, we helped them buther and quarter, they paid meat price and went home very happy. They got some great elk meat and saved some slaughter fees.

Wingmaster,

I kind of doubt your great grandfather survived on pheasants. They are after all non native birds and were transplanted here probably from a pheasant farm in China.


----------



## Plainsman

Wingmaster wrote:



> I gaurantee that my great grandfather wasn't out shooting pheasants


4590 wrote:



> I kind of doubt your great grandfather survived on pheasants. They are after all non native birds and were transplanted here probably from a pheasant farm in China.


Although I have no comment at this time I didn't want people to misunderstand each other. That is often the sourse of conflict.


----------



## huntin1

4590 said:


> Wingmaster,
> 
> I kind of doubt your great grandfather survived on pheasants. They are after all non native birds and were transplanted here probably from a pheasant farm in China.


That would depend on a number of things. My Grandfather who died in 1983, was born in 1901. Since the pheasant was introduced in *1881* I can see where my Great Grandfather would likely have hunted and ate them.



redcloud said:


> They also respected the wildlife and did not kill for pleasure, only necessity. and, Its called survival on the res. Come live with us for a while, you have no idea.


I'm calling BS too. Your ancestors certainly respected the wildlife. But I know way too many people on the res to buy into this now days. I have personally witnessed a carload of "first" americans stop on the road, shoot 4 - 5 deer that had been feeding in a field, then drive away laughing leaving them lay. Also have several friends who live up near the res who have seen this not once, but many times.

Yup, alotta respect there.

huntin1


----------



## Ron Gilmore

> Wingmaster,
> 
> I kind of doubt your great grandfather survived on pheasants. They are after all non native birds and were transplanted here probably from a pheasant farm in China.


Now that is funny because if my daughter where making the statement it would be accurate and I do believe Wingmasters statement is most likely dead on! It underscores the lack of depth in regards to the history of hunting many seem to have.

The back and forth will continue, but this issue boils down to two things. Canned shooting does give hunting as it is perceived by the non hunting public a black eye. It is why as hunters it is imperative that we stick together on many issues. This activity should never be allowed to be associated with hunting. The whys and where for have been covered and will be covered again.

Disease is another issue and by stopping the practice we help protect the states wildlife and cattle and sheep and pork producers as well.

You can nit pick and twist this a thousand ways, but canned shooting is not hunting and never has been and never will be no matter how much anyone tries to say otherwise.


----------



## Dak

Ron,

Well said.


----------



## 4590

Ron,

You know the disease issue is bogus. I have addressed this issue at length. For one thing this bill will do nothing to prevent disease in ND. But since you keep harping on it I will address it again.

ND has had domestic elk for forty years. Where is the disease?

ND deer and elk growers started testing for CWD many years before game and fish. To date they have tested literally thousands of heads. To date the only positive CWD case was a wild elk from Co brought here in the back of the pickup. If you are really concerned about disease, where is the measure to ban wild carcass imports. We know CWD is rampant among deer and elk in a number of other states. We know it can be transmitted by an infected carcass. Where is the out cry

We know many WY elk have brucelosis, where is the out cry.

We know deer in other states have TB, where is the outcry.

Elk and deer farmers do way more testing than any other livestock, at their own expense I might add. Most are TB accredited. Producers along with the BOAH have done a good job of keeping all livestock in ND clean. So either prove domestic deer and elk are a threat or give it up.

I suspect I know your motivation, they say if you say something enough people will begin to believe it even if its not true. From now on every time you point the disease finger at cervid producers, I will counter with the facts.


----------



## huntin1

woodpecker said:


> Medora and the TRNP both have the high grotesque looking walls imprisoning the animals, but that hasn't stopped them from being ND's largest tourist attraction! :roll: :roll:
> It also sounds like we North Dakotan's are trying to hunt inside those walls??


Woodpecker, have you ever been out there? And I don't mean just driving by on I-94, have you hunted in the area of TRNP? I've been hunting out there every fall since the early 80's the fences out there are only usefull to stop cattle from wandering into the park. Deer and elk aren't much affected by them, they come and go as they choose.

huntin1


----------



## MRN

Because the F&G has addressed the issue on behalf of the fine people of the state: 


> Ban On Movement of Animal Parts
> 08/27/03: Ban on importation of whole carcasses and carcass parts of white-tailed deer, mule deer and elk from areas within states or provinces with documented occurrences of CWD in wild populations and private game farms. Hunters may import the following parts: meat that is cut and wrapped (commercially or privately), quarters or other portions of meat with no part of spinal column or head attached, boned out meat, hides without heads attached, clean (no meat or tissue attached) skull plates with antlers attached, antlers with no meat or tissue attached, upper canine teeth (buglers, whistlers, or ivories), and finished taxidermy heads.


and:


> Game & Fish Department has conducted Target Surveillance of free-ranging cervids since 1996. Hunter-harvested deer and elk surveillance began in 2002. As of May 1, 2007, > 6600 white-tailed deer, >1300 mule deer, 115 elk, and 4 moose have been tested with no evidence of CWD.


but the pen-hunt brokers have been less successful, for example (2003):



> State and federal authorities have destroyed a herd of approximately 60 farmed, white-tailed deer in Sargent County, because the owner failed to meet state animal health requirements and is unable to account for missing animals.
> 
> "The owner of the animals has not complied with animal health regulations and mandatory surveillance requirements," said Dr. Larry Schuler, North Dakota state veterinarian. "The owner has also failed after numerous requests to submit a complete and accurate inventory of his animals."
> 
> Schuler said the owner's records do not account for approximately 30 animals, and the owner cannot determine if the animals died or escaped.


I can't find any record or statistics on how many "downer" animals have gone "missing" since 1993 (when manditory inventory began).

But, to return to scheduled programming:


> Eight (date?) states have banned canned hunts - one of the primary reasons for cervid imports - completely.


Does anyone have a good theory for how CWD got to Wisconsin in 2002/2003?

M.


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzzz


----------



## Plainsman

Woodpecker

I don't understand when you say the fence is an issue. Is it an issue because the animals are passing back and fourth, which means you agree with hunt1? Could you clarify your statement please?


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzzz


----------



## Ron Gilmore

4590 you have attempted to gloss over the disease issue by talking of testing. Yet you cannot dispute the fact that canned shooting arena areas all across this country have had outbreaks of diseases like CWD around them.

I am looking at this from a nation wide issue as well as exotics, and to be very frank the beef industry in particular. The beef industry in this nation suffered greatly from export restrictions caused by the findings of Mad Cow disease. The origins of which where traced back to food products. Now tell me, how much oversight is given to the supplements that producers of "TROPHY HORN RANCHERS" use to encourage better growth?

You are in an industry similar to prostitution, most people dislike it, most would never use it, but enough do to make people willing to be in it. We made penalties for it now we need to treat canned shooting like prostitution and make penalties for it as well and not only for the sellers, but the buyers to. *We need a canned hunting JOHN LAW as well!*


----------



## Dak

MRN,

Excellent post. Just curious about the source of the info. Thanks.


----------



## Dick Monson

There have been some real stinker cases in ND according to the investigative files. The worst ones received little press and no mention from the boys in canned shooting operations but the info will come forward. The industry has been lax in their regulation process and enforcement by NDBOAH.


----------



## 4590

I think NDBOAH and Dr. Keller would take issue with your term "lax". Talk is cheap, I say judge them by their record. ND has one of cleanest disease records around. Dick continues to refer to some noncompliant producers, but these are not pushed under the table, they are quarantined and tested.

We can hash out the disease issue again if you like, but if that is the main issue why is your measure not to eliminate elk and deer farms completely.

Ron it is not legal to put certain animal byproducts in any animal feed. If you think this is happening lets see some research. If this is such a lucrative business do honestly think a producer would risk getting CWD and loosing his entire herd?

CWD has been found around some game farms and also has been found where there are no game farms within hundreds of miles. There are still alot of questions about how the disease is spread. A lot of finger pointing, not to mention the origin in the CO DOW test facilities. Early on everyone made mistakes because they didn't know what they were dealing with. ND game farmers were proactive starting mandatory testing many years before the G/F. It paid off as our state has remained clean.

Yes ND has a ban on animal parts from "certain" states or regions that have had CWD. Does every one that hunts know if they are in a CWD zone. The disease keeps spreading so it is virtually impossible to know until after each hunting season where the disease will show up. Is the ban even being inforced. Do you ever hear of someone being checked or caught. I know of one case where several wild elk from CO were bought to our home town butcher, whole. No one even blinked at it.

Disease will always be an issue in both wild and domestic animals. It is, however, manageable in domestic herds. ND is a good example of that. Disease in wildlife is another story. It is very tough to control and is always on the move. If there is a "lax" in enforcement it is in regard to the import and export of wildlife carcasses.


----------



## dosch




----------



## Ref

The disease issue is only a part of this controversy. I'll let the rest of you hammer out the research etc. pertaining to whether diseases are controlable. The other part of the controversy IS CONTROLABLE. It is the unethical part of shooting an animal inside a fenced area. Anyone with a conscience can not call this "hunting".


----------



## Eric Hustad

I have a question as far as CWD. If there is an outbreak that happened because of a pen operation who pays to cover the costs of trying to contain it?


----------



## always_outdoors

> I have a question as far as CWD. If there is an outbreak that happened because of a pen operation who pays to cover the costs of trying to contain it?


ND Department of Ag, ND GnF, ND Department of Health, and possibly some Federal agencies.

In essense, it would be us taxpayers who would pay for it.

Just look at what happened in Idaho. Now the high fence operator is sueing the state for 1.3 million. Another chunk out of the taxpayers pocket if it holds up.


----------



## Eric Hustad

Thanks for the info.


----------



## always_outdoors

Eric: Here is an article for you.

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PubsTV ... unting.htm


----------



## MRN

Eric Hustad said:


> I have a question as far as CWD. If there is an outbreak that happened because of a pen operation who pays to cover the costs of trying to contain it?


The "because of" is very hard to establish with CWD and the long incubation periods. As we have seen, deniability is everything. But here's another version, talking about the W. Va. and Wisc examples:
http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/news/20 ... ature.html

Another, possibly bigger, cost will be borne by all of the hunters in the state, with trickle down to everyone else. I believe no one in their right mind would eat deer from an area with established CWD - ymmv. I hope we all are never faced with the decision between hunting or not, while looking at a map of North Dakota with regions of established CWD highlighted in red - trying to decide if its a reasonable risk or not. The pen-hunt brokers appear to believe we should all be eternally grateful we are not faced with such decisions right now.

M.


----------



## huntin1

woodpecker said:


> You bet I have!!!!!!! The fences are an issue. NDWF recommendation to the Park Service acknowledges that!


Well call me stupid then. I've read your other post above and I just don't get what you mean by the fences around TRNP being an issue. In all the years I've been hunting out there I've yet to see an elk or deer pay much attention to that fence. They move freely, into and out of the park at will.

It's kind of hard to tell from what you posted but I think the reference to the fence by NDWF pertains to the humans who would be havesting the animals.

Perhaps you know something I'm missing.

huntin1


----------



## redlabel

R y a n said:


> ND ELK Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has the right to choose how they want to spend there time and money, so if a family chooses to come to ND for the weekend and harvest some quality animals and be wined and dined I am all for it and since there ethics are different from others why should they be labeled as slobs because they chose to manage there time for what they had avaliable. Any one with a family knows you can't just up and take off for two weeks on a hunt, *so if a person chooses to go to a hunting ranch for the weekend why should he not have that Right to do so*.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is only possible inside a fenced in enclosure?
> 
> I'm not opposed to people coming to a hunting ranch for a weekend to hunt on the vast wide open prairie of North Dakota... just don't do it from inside a hunting arena with no escape!
> 
> All of the above can be achieved at many places across North Dakota at legitimate guiding operations who don't feel the need to contain the quarry from escaping....
> 
> To me ... when I think fondly of North Dakota and a "hunting ranch", I envision a gorgeous house sitting nestled in amongst miles of *open* prairie. North Dakota is about the open prairie at it's core. When a commercial operation comes into a new area and starts erecting prison fences for the animals, that very vision of those high grotesque looking walls destroys that pristine image for me.
> 
> Ryan
Click to expand...

Could someone point me to the vast wide open prairie, I've lived here all my life and haven't found it.

I think Teddy Roosevelt was able to think fondly of North Dakota and a "hunting ranch", but it seems it's been a while since anything was nestled in among miles of _*open*_ prairie in North Dakota.


----------



## redlabel

I am against this proposal for several reasons.

The main reason though, is that I enjoy taking my dogs and visiting a few of the bird hunting operations several times a years. I am concerned that this bill could lead to those operations being closed sometime as well. If not now maybe in the near future.

I am also opposed to this because the people owning these operations have an investment of time and money in a lawful activity and I don't think it is right to take that opportunity away.

Are they all really operations where you just shoot an animal in a pen. Don't they advertise that they have hundreds or thousands of acres to hunt on?

I know that 9 of the last 10 years I have shot my deer on the same 160 acres of CRP and it doesn't have any fences around it, high or low.


----------



## Dick Monson

I remember a fellow some years back that wasn't going to sign a petition, but did in the end.  So I hope people reserve an open mind until more information is forth coming. The election is 14 months off yet. And those are beautiful dogs.


----------



## Bobm

redlabel, this is what the almighty dollar brings to the hunters image

http://real-hunters.com/bellar-trial-video.cfm

http://real-hunters.com/full.swf


----------



## Dak

Dick,

Excellent letter in today's Bismarck paper.


----------



## redlabel

I have no doubt there are some poor and unlawful operators out there, as there are in every industry. If you think the reason to shut down a type of business is because some of it done illegally you are going to be a busy man.

The next time someone dies because they were driving drunk you better start your petition drive to outlaw bars, or better yet alcohol.

The next time you read about someone dying of lung cancer you better start your petition to outlaw growing tobacco.

You're going to be very busy outlawing activity to protect us from the bad or illegal operators everywhere. I shudder to think what you might want to do the next time you read about someone getting killed with a gun?

As I said before I'm against it because I like to go several times a year to bird shooting operations. My dogs love it and my setter doesn't know if the bird is wild or penraised when she points it. It's a short step to then outlaw this activity, if not by people like you, then by anti-hunting people. They will use your activity as a prcedent if you are successful.

I also said that I don't like the idea of changing the game to those that are engaging in a lawful acitivity. What I meant was someone who developed a business where one didn't exist and is complying with the laws and regulations for that industry. It is not against the law to make money in America just because you don't like what they do. That's why it is America.


----------



## Bobm

Redlable
1)there a distinct difference between pen raised and free vs penned.

Somehow I doubt that you go shoot those pheasants while they are still enclosed in a pen.

2)It was legal to market hunt game at one time and that was considered a legal respectable business, I'm certain the people making a buck at it made the exact same argument you just did.

Some things are obviously just wrong, and anyone that feels the "rules of fair chase" are meaningful would see this obvious distinction.

Hunting should never be commercialized.


----------



## bioman

Dak, thanks for posting that article, and Bobm thanks for posting that link, the video sure sheds light and facts on how this fringe industry has been infiltrated with some of the biggest scum walking this earth.

Ryan you won't get an answer from the likes of this ilk regarding the costs to "hunt" "domesticated livestock." The following are direct price quotes to "hunt" "domesticated livestock" on 4590's "hunting preserve:" 
300-330 SCI $ 3900.00
331-369 SCI $ 4500.00
370-385 SCI $ 6500.00
386-399 SCI $ 7500.00
400 SCI Plus Price on request

Interestingly enough, cow prices aren't even listed on the rate page. You have to "hunt' around to find that they cost $900.

The irony to the industry as whole, is no matter how they market this fringe industry, the elk ranchers err elk horn ranchers have been infiltrated with some of the biggest scum on earth, and they had no sense to police themselves. Of course, the minions will pound their chests and say look at our disease record. As more states ban these canned hunting operators, the worst of the worst will be attracted to those states that don't have regulations in place. Spend 15 minutes reviewing the link Bobm posted. The industry is blinded by its own greed. And why not, when you have idiots err sportsman paying up to $20,000 to shoot a tranquilized deer!

4590's "preserve" guarantees a 100-percent SUCCESS rate. I find it interesting that they state as the #1 reason to "hunt" on their preserve "&#8230; _the elk have been in the preserve long enough to know where to hide and are experts at eluding your best elk hunting tactics._" Does anybody find it ironic that the elk are "experts eluding your best elk hunting tactics", but they guarantee a 100-percent success rate? I guess the reason they can guarantee a 100-percent SUCCESS rate is because these animals have lost ALL fear of humans, but that isn't part of the marketing of these "hunts."

Don't lose sight of the biggest fact shadowing this industry, they have been and will continue to be infiltrated by some of the biggest scum walking the earth. As much as they try to spin the private landowner rights issue, the lure of the easy money and greed and the lengths these operators will go to get paid will always be a fatal flaw that can't be hid from the general public. Take the time to review the video link Bobm posted, absolutely sickening.

Interestingly enough, the hunting community has said enough, and will put the issue to vote and decide via a democratic process. As Dan B. pointed out, this isn't a taking, or "livelihood", or private landowner's rights issue, no matter how much this industry tries to spin the issue. Rather this is an industry that markets a despicable fringe activity to a fringe clientele, which the majority of the hunting public and even more of the general non-hunting public finds reprehensible. This industry does represent a direct attack on both the traditions of the sport, and more importantly the future of hunting, which already is in decline. Hopefully, the citizens of North Dakota will get it right and vote this fringe industry out of business.

Lastly, I have a question for you "elk ranchers," do your elk bulls have price tags on their antlers, so a buying "John" can determine the price of his shot via his scope? Or do your hunting "Johns" just shoot, and hope they don't get a bad case of buyer's remorse over the sticker shock?


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzzz


----------



## Plainsman

I have been through Rocky Mountain National park, and you can walk up to within ten yards of elk, and they ignore you. If you get off the main road ½ mile it is like night and day. Those elk see less people, and act like the elk outside the park. I would think they could simply create a no hunt corridor within the park and hunt the remaining population.
In Theodore Roosevelt Park there are places where they cross the fence often. I have never seen an elk when driving the tour route in Theodore Roosevelt Park. I am sure some people have, but I have never seen any.
I think if they hunt the park they should do it with Archery, and the hunters should carry GPS units and stay 1/4 mile from any fences so they are not corning elk against it. I know this is more of a management operation and less of a hunt, so we shouldn't view it as a hunt. They also should not be qualified for the Pope and Young records.

Elk in the parks are damaging habitat, and concentrated numbers are making them suseptible to disease. Populations beyond carrying capacity drive them unto private land and many complaints are reaching the Park Service, yet most private ranches don't want hunters. They are in a tight corner to manage the herds and the habitat.

I don't know if they could kill enough elk with archery only, so it should perhaps be a primative weapons hunt which would allow muzzleloaders too.

Primitive weapons
park emplyee could be present, but no guiding
GPS - stay away from fences.
Many of the permits need to be cow permits

Which leads to another question. Why do ranchers only want bull gratis tags? Don't cows eat their hay too? A dead cow doesn't produce a calf so if you want to manage a herd take more cows.

This should perhaps be split into a different thread. I'll consider that if the subject continues along this path.


----------



## toolman

Red Cloud, you wrote that in the old days there were no rules. That is true, and look what happened as a result. The bison were almost wiped out, gross overfishing and dam building destroyed many fisheries and we polluted the Great Lakes almost to the point of no return. I too have a Native American ancestry-apparently that term is no longer politically correct but I have never been accused of that anyhow-my Grandfather taught me respect for the land and all things living but unfortunately not all hunters respect the outdoors anymore. Thats why we have rules.
I also agree that in the old days it was survival and using any means to get a kill was necessary-but this is 2007 and if we were all permitted to do as we pleased there would be no game except in fences. If I had to chase an animal into a fence to kill it so my family did not starve then I would do it but there is just no excuse for that today. We should give the game we HARVEST every chance we can if we truly respect it-YOU should know this!!!


----------



## always_outdoors

> The main reason though, is that I enjoy taking my dogs and visiting a few of the bird hunting operations several times a years. I am concerned that this bill could lead to those operations being closed sometime as well.


When a bird hunting operation releases birds for its clients, there is no way to keep those birds on the land. They aren't tossing oats out to get the bird closer for the client. You can't run the bird to a corner so it can be shot at.

This is a "Fair Chase" bill. It needs to go to the public so they can decide on how they want to vote on this subject.


----------



## toolman

live2hunt

Excellent point!! There is a pheasant hunting outfit just out the road from my place and there is no fence. I guess if they want to compare that to high fence shooting that would require a fence, clipped wings, and probably a bait pile!


----------



## 4590

There is a difference between "guaranteed" hunt and "guaranteed success". Most huntings preserves guarantee means if the hunter doesn't take a trophy, he doesn't pay. We have had hunters that did not take an animal. Now I know that will bring on a bunch of jokes about their hunting abilities, but since I know none of you has every been to a hunting preserve, you have no idea how difficult it can be. To clarify, most don't "guarantee success" there is a difference.

The cost of the hunts keeps coming up as an issue. I got very few responses to my question on elk hunting amongst the readers here so I believe the success is very low. Most probably have never done it. If you had, with a 10% or less success rate on trophy bulls, you would know that the rates are very fair considering what it would cost you to get a comparable trophy by other means with several years of no success. Even if you guided yourself. Now if you "lowered" yourself to use the services of a professional guide or outfitter you would find the rates are also very comparable, in fact are probably a bargain, thats if you could get drawn for a tag in an area that could actually produce a trophy of that caliber. Oh and thats also if you are physically capable and are able to take off two weeks for a back country hunt.

You guys keep pointing at the big money hunting preserves are making and think that will atract a certain kind of people. Again you have now clue of the costs involved in fencing, breeding stock, feed, advertising, lodging and the list goes on.

Again I thought this measure was just about ethics.


----------



## always_outdoors

4590: You just keep posting. It is like your digging your own grave.

Let's see. I can hunt an eclosed area to shoot what you call "domesticated livestock" (well to us and to the legislature you call it that, but to your clients they are trophy animals) for less than what it might cost me for a free-lance hunt and you think that is an argueable issue?

And yet you still question the ethics? I think you really need to reflect before posting.

Even if I could pay $100 to shoot an elk in your enclosed pen, what reward is there? What was the satisfaction? So I broke a sweat going over that one hill to shoot a trophy elk, does that really mean it is a trophy?

I am sorry, not in my mind nor in the rest of the citizens here in ND. I would much rather scout on my own, learn the way of the land, and EARN my animal whether it was a 2x2 or an 8x8. That would be a trophy. Doesn't have to make a record book. It is still my trophy.

This needs to be voted on by the people of ND. And when this passes I hope you then could realize that what you are doing is wrong on many levels.


----------



## redlabel

live2hunt said:


> The main reason though, is that I enjoy taking my dogs and visiting a few of the bird hunting operations several times a years. I am concerned that this bill could lead to those operations being closed sometime as well.
> 
> 
> 
> When a bird hunting operation releases birds for its clients, there is no way to keep those birds on the land. They aren't tossing oats out to get the bird closer for the client. You can't run the bird to a corner so it can be shot at.
> 
> This is a "Fair Chase" bill. It needs to go to the public so they can decide on how they want to vote on this subject.
Click to expand...

You missed the point of the post. I was not comparing the operations in any way, shape, or form.

The point was, *that if these people are successful in shutting down the operations they are going after, it would be a very small step to then go after the bird hunting operations.* I enjoy using the bird hunting operations, so would not want to see them threatened.

While I don't personally use or necessarily agree with the fenced operations, they don't bother me, and as long as they run a legal operation I believe they should be left alone.

If it is a "Fair Chase" bill then you should include any and all types of baiting to be eliminated. Maybe deer stands should be eliminated. What part of sitting in a stand waiting for a deer to walk by is called "Fair Chase?"


----------



## Jiffy

Good post Live2hunt! :beer: :beer:


----------



## always_outdoors

redlabel I didn't miss your point.



> The point was, that if these people are successful in shutting down the operations they are going after, it would be a very small step to then go after the bird hunting operations.


These people? You make us sound like we are anti-hunters with that statement. I am one of THESE PEOPLE who sponsored the bill. I can assure you that I have no intentions of shutting down a bird hunting operation. And I have heard nothing from the other sponsors about it.

You are too paranoid. This is a bill for big game species. This is to ensure the ND hunting heritage. This teaches our youth that rewards aren't bought.

I hope you come on board with us redlabel. This is a good bill.


----------



## Turner

Quote from Live2hunt

This teaches our youth that rewards aren't bought.

Wow, this should go up as the Quote of the year :beer:

It is sad that a good portion or our youth believe that rewards are bought. Instant gratification, the now society, don't teach your kids how to scout, track, stalk a game animal within 10 yards or to just sit there and watch a group of animals interact and enjoy them for what they are. Just go out and buy one to shoot in a fenced in ranch because you don't have the time, or wait, you don't want to take the time to actually hunt or learn how to.

Hunting and fishing is not all about trophies and full bag limits, and if that is what you believe or are teaching our youth, get out of the woods, you don't belong there.


----------



## redlabel

live2hunt said:


> redlabel I didn't miss your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point was, that if these people are successful in shutting down the operations they are going after, it would be a very small step to then go after the bird hunting operations.
> 
> 
> 
> These people? You make us sound like we are anti-hunters with that statement. I am one of THESE PEOPLE who sponsored the bill. I can assure you that I have no intentions of shutting down a bird hunting operation. And I have heard nothing from the other sponsors about it.
> 
> You are too paranoid. This is a bill for big game species. This is to ensure the ND hunting heritage. This teaches our youth that rewards aren't bought.
> 
> I hope you come on board with us redlabel. This is a good bill.
Click to expand...

Again you miss my point becasue you insist on putting your own definition on my statement.

"these people" meant, the people trying to get an initiated measure on the November 8 ballot to prohibit fee hunting of certain captive game animals.
It definitely did not contain the words or the meaning anti-anything, especially hunting.

I would like to explain to you that if successful, the people trying to get an initiated measure on the November 8 ballot to prohibit fee hunting of certain captive game animals, will have an *"initiated measure "* on the election ballot, this is not a *bill*, good or bad. I do this so when you go out to collect signatures you know what they are being collected for should someone ask you. This is important, especially for one of the sponsors.


----------



## always_outdoors

You are assuming too much redlabel. Nobody has even mentioned going after bird operations. You assume this will make it easier or that this is a step towards gettting rid of bird operations. It isn't and doesn't.


----------



## Bobm

4590 said



> There is a difference between "guaranteed" hunt and *"guaranteed success".* Most huntings preserves guarantee means if the hunter doesn't take a trophy, he doesn't pay. We have had hunters that did not take an animal. Now I know that will bring on a bunch of jokes about their hunting abilities, but since I know none of you has every been to a hunting preserve, you have no idea how difficult it can be. To clarify, most don't "guarantee success" there is a difference.


yet with a short search Iimmediately found a ND operation that says in Bold letters on their web site



> Our *success rate for elk trophies is 100%.* We have a wide range of many larger *trophy bulls to choose from*.


http://www.swrbiggamehunts.com/elk.html



> to choose from


says it all,

I can hear it now Ok Mr. Hunter heres our list lets see... you can shoot dasher or prancer or Comet or Blitzen or how about Donner over here? 
No not Donner ?? well then how about Rudolf he has a fine rack and that red nose is unique :lol:

But the prices are reasonable for these "Trophies" :lol: :lol: :lol:



> GROSS SCORE TROPHY SIZE PRICE
> Cow Hunts $1,045
> Up to 325 $3,500
> 326 - 350 $4,000
> 351 - 375 $5,000
> 376 - 399 $6,000
> 400 - 420 $7,500
> 421 + Call for Prices


pretty funny stuff, in a sick twisted way

but hey if those prices strike you as a little steep dont forget



> Party Hunts or Combo Hunts receive 5% off.
> 
> Hunt price includes lodging and care of game!


----------



## redlabel

live2hunt said:


> You are assuming too much redlabel. Nobody has even mentioned going after bird operations. You assume this will make it easier or that this is a step towards gettting rid of bird operations. It isn't and doesn't.


I'm trying to converse with you but you just don't get it.

Go back and reread my first post about this. I said I was concerned, you think I assume. Go check with Webster and when you understand the difference come back and we can converse, otherwise I'm done trying.

Oh, and check out the difference between an initiated measure and a bill as well.


----------



## Plainsman

redlabel, I wouldn't want to get rid of the bird operations myself.

Look at it another way. If we get rid of the bad apples, there will be people less likely to try get at the whole enchilada. There are two aspects to this. The one that makes you concerned, and the other that should alleviate the concern you may now have about antihunting groups trying to get rid of the bird operations and all wild game operations. I choose to follow the later. Once the really bad stuff is gone, the rest is less of a target I think. Think about it.


----------



## 4590

redlabel,

So what plains is trying to tell you is that for now your kind of "unethical hunting" is ok by his standards. But another kind is terrible and must be done away with, even though the net result is someone paid, a farm raised bird/animal is dead, and someone had some fun doing it.


----------



## redlabel

Plainsmen:

Here's one thing I don't get. Why does it seem this is pointed at deer and elk and not buffalo? Or maybe I should ask, why is this unethical for deer and elk, but not for buffalo.

I don't have a dog in this fight as I do my elk hunting in Montana or Wyoming . I do seem to recall that in the first post the wording is something like, "birds are not affected, g/o is safe for one more day." It would seem that statement is made by a group with an agenda and a message.

If it is intended to be a Fair Chase why not go after more of slob hunters. You left a rather detailed message as to your idea of a slob hunter, why not expand that and go after the slobs that:

Drive around looking for a deer to shoot because they're to lazy to walk.
Drive around with an uncased gun looking to jump out and shoot a pheasant or ducks in the ditch. 
Use bait, be it for deer, bear, or other critters


----------



## Bobm

The obvious answer is there is a lot bigger market for "trophy" deer and elk

most normal people dont hunt Bison and dont really think of it as a challenge so there is no incentive for some lazy slob to want to mount a pen raised bison on the wall although I have no doubt someone does.

bison are more commonly reguarded as cattle

but a"trophy" elk can be bragged about and its all about ego, nothing else would justify those prices, a cow eats better than a bull.


----------



## Plainsman

> So what plains is trying to tell you is that for now your kind of "unethical hunting" is ok


Not at all. In my book it isn't the same. How high does a fence have to be to keep a bird within it's boundaries? I don't think you could afford to fence in a section of land with a fence that high.



> why is this unethical for deer and elk, but not for buffalo


These are all beating a dead horse, and I hope you don't mind going go back and read my posts. I talked about buffalo on this thread (I think).



> Drive around looking for a deer to shoot because they're to lazy to walk.


I understand, I don't like that either. I report everyone I see, if they get off the trail. If they don't I don't know how to tell a road hunter from someone just looking while going to their hunting site. One time I was angry watching this, but thankfully I seen the disabled sticker before I called the game warden. That incident taught me to make certain before I get angry and think they are slobs. There are other types of unethical hunting, but not as bad as high fence operations. Go for the worst first.



> Drive around with an uncased gun looking to jump out and shoot a pheasant or ducks in the ditch.


 I wouldn't want to start messing with gun laws. In North Dakota we don't need to have our firearms cased. I have no problem with that, and think it should stay that way. A slob hunter could have his gun cased or uncased, I don't see the connection. It doesn't take long to get a gun our of a case. Personally, I don't carry a firearm around out of a case. I don't want to damage the muzzle.



> Use bait, be it for deer, bear, or other critters


Bear hunting as I understand it isn't a spot and stalk type of hunt. You either use dogs, or bait. I don't pretend to be a knowledgably bear hunter. Baiting waterfowl is illegal, do you think deer should be the same? If you do go for it, but I think there are bigger fish to fry.

I don't understand why people bring all these other things up. I think if they are so passionate about them get a group to sponsor it, get the petitions, and get it on the ballot. Because one group is working to get high fence operations on the ballot does everyone expect them to do everything? If your concerned about something do something about it.

Bringing up these other hunting ethics is like bringing up helmets for motorcycles when the subject is seat belts for cars. They simply sidestep the issue at hand.


----------



## 4590

For all of you so desperate for another legal opinion here is one from Tom Remington's Blog. I am sure this is only the first of many, but what do you know maybe Shawn Schafer and I can read afterall.



> Language On N. Dakota Hunting Ban Initiative Troubling
> Posted by Tom Remington on August 27, 2007
> 
> A group calling themselves the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase are in the process of attempting to get a citizen's initiative on this November's ballot that they say is aimed to stop hunting behind fences. There has already been ample debate about the intent of the bill as sponsors are saying their intent is to stop the shooting of caged or drugged animals, yet their proposed bill will eliminate all hunting behind all fences.
> 
> There has also been discussion about how this proposed initiative would effect the elk and deer ranching industry in North Dakota. While sponsors claim the bill is not intended to do that, the wording of the proposal is being seen by some in the legal profession as a back door attempt to also shut down the domestic ranching of elk, deer and other exotics. If not a blatant attempt, it could very well happen anyway.
> 
> Here is the text of the proposed initiative.
> 
> BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
> 
> SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:
> 
> Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited - Penalty - Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.
> 
> SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act becomes effective on November 1, 2010
> 
> I sent a copy of the text to my legal resource to get an opinion on the bill's text. This is the response I got.
> 
> This language includes ANY big game or exotic species which is privately owned so yes, if an elk/deer rancher calls a butcher to kill one of their animals and pays the butcher for doing so, it would be against the law. It exempts a government trapper or Wildlife Services from killing such an animal inside a pen. It would even be unlawful for a vet to put down such an animal if it was severely injured. Animals can only be killed by government employees/agents for specific reasons: to reduce the population, control/prevent diseases or another action authorized by law.
> 
> I'm sure that this is not the first nor the last legal opinion that will be expressed during this debate. There are distinctly at least two separate issues at play here and the citizens of North Dakota need to know exactly what it is that they may be asked to sign a petition for or vote on. At this point in time, it is far from clear as to what the actual intent of the proposed bill is regardless of what the sponsors are saying.
> 
> For the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase to publicly promote their initiative as strictly and anti-hunting bill would be inaccurate. The last thing the state of North Dakota needs to do is pass a bill that is so unclear in its wording, thousands, perhaps millions of dollars will be spent battling it out in court.
> 
> Tom Remington


----------



## Plainsman

I'm not familiar with Tom Remington. Is he an attorney? I guess when I am talking about legal opinions I would be talking about an attorney. Otherwise you could get one from a 24 year old third grader. Really. Maybe Tom Remington is an attorney I don't know.


----------



## Dick Monson

Gary Larson, the famous cartoonist, drew one that fit's the bog comments perfectly. Two cavemen are sitting on a rock, one interviewing the other for a job. As he reads the submitted resume he says, "You can skin mammoths, that's good, and you can make spears, that's good, and you can start fires, that's good. Wait a minute&#8230;.all your references are baboons, that's not good".

Kim, get a real legal opinion, it won't cost you an elk. Well maybe. My offer still stands to pay the cost of Germolus' labor for the same if I am wrong, and you or anybody else can pay if I'm right. Just say the word.

redlabel, pm me a fax number that you can access.


----------



## 4590

Tom Remington is the author of "Black Bear Blog". Check it out, he has commentary on hunting and outdoor issues all over the nation.

Plainsman you will see that he is a right winger as you claim to be, however he will disagree with you on this issue as I believe most true conservatives will. If you bothered to read my post you would see that Tom sent the measure to his "legal resource". That is just another legal opinion. Like I said I am sure there will be more. My guess is the elk and deer farmers are working on it right now. As it stand the measure is poorly written and will cause much confusion and no doubt expensive litigation to determine what it actually means should it pass.


----------



## always_outdoors

4590 wrote:


> Tom Remington is the author of "Black Bear Blog".


Here is a great author with a background in wildlife biology.



> "There is an evil seed buried here," Posewitz said in a discussion of high-fence hunting. "By selling these facsimiles of real wild animals, these people degrade the whole reality of hunting. They strip away the concept that man the hunter is engaged in an important activity. Suddenly, what was wild is domestic, what was difficult to obtain is easy, what was once valuable is trivial. It is a tremendous threat on many levels."


 Jim Posewitz, retired wildlife biologist for the state of Montana.

I tried finding Tom Remmington's resume with the hope of finding some background in wildlife biology, agriculture, or something and couldn't find it on his site.


----------



## Dick Monson

From another thread:
*4590 wrote*


> I could get a legal opinion, as you suggest, and because I paid for it, it would no doubt support my position.


I believe custom slaughter is not affected by this measure. Kim says that is not so. An Attorney General's opinion will cost nothing and will be fair and balanced. *So do it.* Then you'll sleep better at night. If I am wrong I would gladly write out an appology and I'm sure Kim would do the same. So do it. Lay the matter to rest and do it.

The Fair Chase measure wasn't whipped up in 5 minutes at the Dairy Queen. Each birck of wording was inspected multiple times before it was cemented into the wall. :beer:


----------



## Dak

Not that it matters much but here is Mr. Remington's bio from his website:

"Tom Remington is a native Mainer who grew up in Bethel. In recent years he relocated to Largo, Florida and returns summers to his camp just outside Bethel. He has been married for 34 years&#8230;..to the same woman. He has two grown children and 6 grandchildren.

Tom co-owns all of his Internet businesses with his son Steve. He is the managing editor for U.S. Hunting Today and is the author of several blogs, including the Black Bear Blog, the Daily Bag Limit, Blogging the Maine Outdoors and the Black Fly Blog.

As part of the blogging community, Tom is vice president of Skinny Moose Media, the umbrella company of all Internet websites and businesses co-owned by he and his son. Skinny Moose Media provides audio, video and text media for readers in addition to an outdoor sports and recreation blog network.

A published author, Tom co-wrote a book with his son Steven called, "The Legend of Grey Ghost and Other Tales From the Maine Woods". He has written extensively on hunting, fishing and outdoor topics and has been published in many newspapers, magazines and online sites.

Tom is also available for public speaking engagements to cover a range of topics from storytelling, hunting, fishing, politics, blogging, website development and marketing, etc. Email Tom for more information about public speaking.
[email protected]"

A legal resource could be anything you want to call it ... a lawyer ... a first year law student ... a paralegal ... his wife ... who knows.


----------



## MRN

live2hunt said:


> Here is a great author with a background in wildlife biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There is an evil seed buried here," Posewitz said in a discussion of high-fence hunting. "By selling these facsimiles of real wild animals, these people degrade the whole reality of hunting. They strip away the concept that man the hunter is engaged in an important activity. Suddenly, what was wild is domestic, what was difficult to obtain is easy, what was once valuable is trivial. It is a tremendous threat on many levels."
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Posewitz, retired wildlife biologist for the state of Montana.
Click to expand...

Cool - I'm stealing it. It'll make a great signature line. Thanks.

M.


----------



## faithsdave

MRN, I second that :beer:


----------



## Drakekiller

Plea deals signed in largest game and fish prosecution in North Dakota

Aug 29, 2007 - 09:42:12 CDT 
By RICHARD HINTON 
Bismarck Tribune 
The owners and operators of Sheyenne Valley Lodge have signed plea agreements in a federal wildlife case involving migratory game bird violations, court documents show.

Theodore Mertz and Orlan Mertz made their initial court appearance Tuesday in Bismarck in a video conference hookup before U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Klein, who was in Fargo.

Although the two men and the corporation entered not-guilty pleas in Tuesday's preliminary hearing, plea-change and sentencing proceedings will be held Nov. 9 before U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland. The men and the corporation are presumed innocent until the change of plea, Klein said. At assistant U.S. attorney Cameron Hayden's request, the men were released on their own recognizance after Tuesday's hearing.

"I would have to say it's a far-reaching prosecution, probably the largest game and fish prosecution in the state of North Dakota on several levels," said Hayden.

The case also involves seven guides who worked at Sheyenne Valley Lodge, west of Goodrich in Sheridan County, and 94 hunters from across the United States. Federal authorities mailed ticket to the hunters, who are from 27 states including North Dakota, and have all paid their fines. Fines in the entire case total $120,000.

Theodore Mertz signed a plea agreement admitting to unlawful transportation of wildlife, a misdemeanor, and signed a plea agreement admitting to unlawful sale of wildlife as a partner of Sheyenne Valley Lodge, LLP. That count is a felony.

Orlan Mertz's plea agreement admits to unlawful transportation of wildlife.

In the plea agreements, the government will recommend that Theodore Mertz and Orlan Mertz each be sentenced to 18 months probation and loss of hunting privileges in North America for 18 months. Together, the men and the corporation will pay an $80,000 fine. Together, they also will pay $10,000 restitution to the federal government and forfeit two shotguns to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They also have agreed to a lifetime ban on guiding or outfitting in the United States.

Although federal prosecutors, the defendants and their lawyers have agreed to the plea arrangement, the final decision on the sentence lies with Hovland.

The felony count carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, a $250,000 fine and supervised release for a maximum of three years. The misdemeanors have a maximum penalty of one year in prison, a $100,000 fine and up to a year supervised release.

"Ted Mertz accepts responsibility as far as the charges are concerned, and he regrets the situation. He has entered into a plea agreement, which we think is fair, and Ted is anxious to put this behind him and move on," said Tim Purdon, who is representing Theodore Mertz and Sheyenne Valley Lodge.

Mike Hoffman, Orlan Mertz's attorney, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

Federal and state authorities served a federal search warrant in October 2005 after numerous citizen complaints and an undercover investigation. The violations took place between October 2004 and October 2005, court records said.

Guides regularly took clients on morning and evening hunts, even if the clients had limited in the morning, the court record said. The guides also were instructed to falsify records to cover up the excess number of ducks and geese brought back to the lodge.

Guides also pitched some ducks into dump pits, where authorities found carcasses in various states of decomposition and retrieved 94 waterfowl carcasses, including shovelers, gadwalls, mallards and pintails.

The guides also allowed clients to harvest their daily bag limit of waterfowl, court records show.

Hunters paid between $1,600 and $2,000 for a three-day upland game and waterfowl hunt at Sheyenne Valley Lodge, and most clients who flew into Bismarck would leave without taking their birds.

A $60,000 fine and restitution paid by Warren W. Anderson had been the largest ever for wildlife-related crimes in North Dakota. In a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for killing five hawks and for violating the Lacey Act by helping hunters transport an over-limit of pheasants out of state. All of the violations were committed in 2004.

Plea agreements, by their nature, are compromises, Hayden pointed out.

"There are many facts and factors taken into consideration. As far as from the government prospective, we look at the impact of the overall prosecution of the case," he explained.

(Reach outdoor writer Richard Hinton at 250-8256 or [email protected];bismarcktribune.com.)
_________________


----------



## Drakekiller

Orlan and Ted Mertz- Sheyenne Valley Lodge- High wire Elk and Deer. This is the same outfit where the G&F had to kill 32 wild whitetail deer because fences were not fixed after many requests by the G&F dept. It is also the same outfit that lost many Elk. One of their elk was killed in Lancaster, MN.


----------



## R y a n

Drakekiller said:


> Orlan and Ted Mertz- Sheyenne Valley Lodge- High wire Elk and Deer. This is the same outfit where the G&F had to kill 32 wild whitetail deer because fences were not fixed after many requests by the G&F dept. It is also the same outfit that lost many Elk. One of their elk was killed in Lancaster, MN.


Wow I didn't realize they were the same outfit...

Thanks for pointing this out...

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman

Woodpecker

I didn't go far enough back in the thread until today. Yes, I understand your position now. I was confused durring the TRNP issue.


----------



## MRN

Although Posewitz is good, we can go further back to Jose Ortega y Gasset to understand the essential philosophy:



> "It is not essential to the hunt that it be successful. On the contrary, if the hunter's efforts were always and inevitably successful it would not be the effort we call hunting, it would be something else. ... The beauty of hunting lies in the fact that it is always problematic. ... Doubtless, man opens this margin (ecological distance) to the beast deliberately and of his own free will. He could annihilate quickly and easily most animal species, or at least precisely those he delights in hunting. ... There is, then, in the hunt as a sport a supremely free renunciation by man of the supremacy of his humanity." (Ortega 1942: 57)
> 
> Ortega argues that most all the things that man does are the means to an end - man works, expends energy, to achieve or get something. He then says: "But in hunting as a sport this order of means and end is reversed. To the sportsman the death of the game is not what interests him; that is not his purpose. What interests him is everything that he had to do to achieve that death - that is, the hunt. (Ortega 1942: 110)


I stole these quotes from: http://www.centralflyway.org/About_Hunting_Article.html
If you poke around, it looks like Mike Johnson of the ND G&F plucked these out of Meditations on Hunting, and added his own commentary.

Although we certainly can't force these philosophies on anyone (just their behaviors  ), I feel pretty sorry for the sad-sacks who lack this perspective.

M.


----------



## mike2766

I continue to be amazed at how easily the Sportsmen of this country can be duped. The propaganda being disseminated regarding this issue is amazing. Preying on people emotions and calling it ethics, comparing high fence shooting operations to fair chase and suggesting it violates our hunting heritage. Really, I think we need to review the facts and use a little common sense.

The condemnation and proposed abolishment of high fence shooting operations is a nation wide initiative of the National Wildlife Federation. This is the same organization that, just a few years ago, petitioned the US Fish and Wildlife Service to put the prairie dog on the endangered species list. These are documentable facts. So who do you think has infiltrated the ranks of the Federation at the national level? Enough said.

The ND Game and Fish Dept. did not support the legislative bill to ban high fence shooting in the last legislative session. In fact, contrary to various propaganda pieces, the Game and Fish has not only been supportive of this industry, but has been intricately involved in the development and implimentation of high fence regulations in North Dakota.

High fence shooting is livestock production and marketing, not hunting. But hunters are being duped into thinking it is an unethical hunting method that makes them all look bad.

This is about livestock slaughter the same as killing a steer in a chute or a hog on the butcher floor. If you oppose one you have to oppose the other, and then you have to be a vagan.

You can condemn the commercialization of wildlife/hunting, but then you have to oppose outfitter/guides. You have to stop watching the outdoor channel. Maybe you even have to stop going to Cabelas. Where do you draw the line.

In 1973 animal rights groups attacked trapping in this country. And even though they intended to destroy the entire fur/leather industry, they started on the smallest, weakest segment of the industry. 
I am convinced that the movement to end high fence shooting is strongly supported by antihunters bent on ending all hunting in this country.
I think opponents of high fence shooting need to put their emotions aside for a moment and take a hard look at what is really happening.

Personally, I think hunting through an outfitter with a guide on privately controlled land for animals that have had little or no hunting pressure is basically on par with high fence shooting. There would be no challenge in it for me when the guide says "shoot that one". You become a shooter, not a hunter. Having a fence really didn't matter because the animal didn't know enough to try to get away anyway. You can see dozens of these hunts every day on the outdoor channel.
The bottom line is, if you don't like it, don't do it. But I think we need to be careful what we condenm.


----------



## north14

> The bottom line is, if you don't like it, don't do it. But I think we need to be careful what we condenm.


I think this is one of the best statements on this topic that I have read. This holds true for many issues that the hunting community argues over.


----------



## Dick Monson

Wow Mike. :eyeroll: 


> I continue to be amazed at how easily the Sportsmen of this country can be duped.


The canned shooting operators redefine wildlife as livestock, say they only offer slaughter opportunities but sell the service as a hunt, advertise the redefined livestock as wildlife, transmit CWD across the nation, introduce alien invasive species like Russian wild boar into the environment, provide a red flag for the anti-hunting crowd fund raisers, and use the high school debate tactic of poisoning the well by castigating wildlife clubs and organizations, and then you have the unmitigated gall to say "if you don't like don't do it." Unbelievable.

If this the best you can roll out, save your ad money, the Fair Chase measure is a slam dunk. And if you see any PETA tatoos on me you can take them off with a shop grinder.


----------



## Raghorn

I have to agree with Mike and North.... there will be no stopping this once the precedence is set.

You don't need a peta tattoo to be doing their bidding for them, one time at a gun show I saw a lady manning a booth for peta and she had her poodle with her.... in questioning her she had no idea that one of peta's missions was to take away her right to have foo foo! I didn't see any tattoos on her either :sniper:


----------



## 4590

Finally some common sense on this forum!! Very well said, Mike.

Monson, talk about "high school debate tactics", how about just keep it TRUTHFUL!

The NDCC defines "wildlife" and "domestic livestock". This is for regulatory reasons so as to avoid confusion and promote good management of both. It was done by the ND legislature.

You know good and well game farms are not responsible for the spread of CWD. Transporting of wild carcasses is the most likely cause. AGAIN, your measure is not designed to shut down the entire industry, RIGHT? Does nothing to stop interstate movement of cervids, RIGHT?

NWF - if the shoe fits, I guess you wear it.

The rest is just your same rhetoric.

I think we heard the "slam dunk" phrase going into the legislature as well.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

mike2766 said:


> High fence shooting is livestock production and marketing, not hunting.


Then why do they promote it as such? How many people are buying cattle this way?


----------



## 4590

If your only dispute is over the use of the term "hunting", then I suggest you get a bill in the next session to define it. Good luck though as you well know it means many different things and applies many different strategies.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Funny 4590, the reality is that the public do not like your actions and find it repugnant! This will ring loud and clear to you very soon!


----------



## Dak

Ya know, nothing new has been said on this for a long time. Both sides of this issue are a minority in the state. Everyone should sign the petitions and just let the people of the great state of North Dakota decide the issue.


----------



## always_outdoors

> Preying on people emotions and calling it ethics, comparing high fence shooting operations to fair chase and suggesting it violates our hunting heritage. Really, I think we need to review the facts and use a little common sense.


I believe it was Shafer playing on the emotions of the landowners after being asked about the measure and now we hear more of the high fence operators playing the emotional card.

It does violate my hunting heritage. This is not the way hunting should be portrayed. By anyone. Common sense says that killing an elk while his head is in a bucket of oats is not hunting. Is it for you Mike?



> The ND Game and Fish Dept. did not support the legislative bill to ban high fence shooting in the last legislative session. In fact, contrary to various propaganda pieces, the Game and Fish has not only been supportive of this industry, but has been intricately involved in the development and implimentation of high fence regulations in North Dakota.


They were forced to be involved because any escaped animals would be dealt with by them and the taxpayers money. As a govt entity that is supposed to be overseeing ND's wildlife population they should be intricately involved. Supportive might be stretching the truth though.



> High fence shooting is livestock production and marketing, not hunting. But hunters are being duped into thinking it is an unethical hunting method that makes them all look bad.


Once again Mike. I am a hunter here in ND. Hunting is just that, you hunt. What part of livestock production is some guy getting all dudded up in camouflage or blaze orange to go shoot an elk in a high fence enclosure? You say it isn't hunting, but yet that is how it is sold on the internet or through advertisement. These operations do look bad and I have every right to say it does. It frowns upon the very pillar of what hunting stands for.



> This is about livestock slaughter the same as killing a steer in a chute or a hog on the butcher floor. If you oppose one you have to oppose the other, and then you have to be a vagan.


Really? So now we are vagans? (did you mean Vegan?) I think you are now trying to play on people's emotions here Mike. Nice. You know you are in the wrong, so let's call people names now.

If this is a livestock slaughter how come the "killers" aren't killing them in a chute or on the buther floor. Why all the camouflage clothing, the $1500 rifle, the pictures on the Internet? Why would a high fence outfit need the slogan "We provide the animal, you provide the lie"



> You can condemn the commercialization of wildlife/hunting, but then you have to oppose outfitter/guides.


I thought you said they were livestock. Now you are calling them wildlife? Which one is it Mike?



> In 1973 animal rights groups attacked trapping in this country. And even though they intended to destroy the entire fur/leather industry, they started on the smallest, weakest segment of the industry.
> I am convinced that the movement to end high fence shooting is strongly supported by antihunters bent on ending all hunting in this country.
> I think opponents of high fence shooting need to put their emotions aside for a moment and take a hard look at what is really happening.


I heard this same arguement when steel shot came out. This is a small step to getting rid of waterfowl hunting. What it did was promote conservation of our waterfowl and protected our waterfowl populations.

Our waterfowl hunting is still here and still incredible.

This is a typical scapegoat used once again to prey on people's emotions.

Strongly supported by anti-hunters? Do you want to see pics of my goose hunts from this past weekend?

hard look at what is really happening? Can you not see the forest from the trees Mike? I see the picture real well. We have a change trying to take place here and it isn't for the better. More and more hunting opportunities are being taken away from the hunters here in ND and the hunters who come here from out of state. We also don't need an Idaho incident in this state to be paid by taxpayers money only for the state to be sued by the high fence operator after this mess is cleaned up.



> Having a fence really didn't matter because the animal didn't know enough to try to get away anyway.


I am not even sure what to say about this comment. It almost makes me want to puke. Didn't know enought to get away and these operations sell "hunts". That doesn't offend you? Wow. :eyeroll:


----------



## mike2766

live2hunt,

I have to say, Dan, that I am disappointed to learn that you have been so easily duped by all this emotional propaganda. I've always thought you were smarter than this.

This is not hunting, no matter what anyone wants to call it. I hunt a lot more days a year than you do and have done it for a lot more years than you have. I've never hunted with a guide, and I would never hunt deer or elk in an enclosure. But as a hunter I take no offense to an animal being humanely harvested that was raised for that purpose.

I have no vested interest in this industry and frankly, other than the fact that I support a livestock producers right to operate, I don't really care if high fence shooting is allowed or not. But I know all too well the gates that may be opened here. And if you don't think condemning animal harvest poses a risk to our future just keep your head in the sand.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

Mike, over 75% of all people in the US have a favorable view of hunting as it is defined by most people. That being of fair chase methods etc... Now cross over the threshold into canned shooting arenas and the opinions swing 180 degree's. Now it seems that you think banning canned shoots advertised as hunts will open the door to other restrictions? The polling data does not reflect that at all.

In many polls people are asked the difference between beef, or hogs or even elk being raised for slaughter and depending on the poll 80+% of the people saw it as part of Ag and what is needed to supply consumers with meat in stores and restaurants. So the US like the poll done in ND reflects a distaste for this activity to be billed and advertised as hunting. They also do not see these types of operations as Ag related either, in the same playing field as beef or hog operations. They are a cancer that is going to do damage to both livestock producers as well as hunter!

If this practice is not ill advised and unethical, those in the industry should not fear the ballot box and would not be making claims they have. Being this is a farm state after all, one would think they would be glad this issue is being put to a vote. But that is not the case because they know as well as you know if you think about it a bit that the act is not what they are advertising it to be and does not meet the fair chase threshold most of us use as well as the non hunting public!


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

mike2766 said:


> In fact, contrary to various propaganda pieces, the Game and Fish has not only been supportive of this industry, but has been intricately involved in the development and implimentation of high fence regulations in North Dakota.


I wasn't aware that the ND Game & Fish was supporting the high fence hunting industry. Do you have any statements or facts on this stance? I know so many employees and haven't ever met one that came off supportive, but that doesn't mean that the department policy states otherwise.


----------



## R y a n

Ron Gilmore said:


> If this practice is not ill advised and unethical, those in the industry should not fear the ballot box and would not be making claims they have. Being this is a farm state after all, one would think they would be glad this issue is being put to a vote. But that is not the case because they know as well as you know if you think about it a bit that the act is not what they are advertising it to be and does not meet the fair chase threshold most of us use as well as the non hunting public!


This is the most insightful and definitive comment of the entire thread.

Thanks for that perspective Ron...

Ryan


----------



## mike2766

Ron,

While a large percentage of the non-hunting american public may support slaughter of cattle and hogs, a far lesser number supports hunting in any form.

If you intend to site the NDWF survey regarding high fence shooting conducted last year ahead of the legislative then it is fairly obvious from where you are coming. That was the most biased, misleading collection of untruths ever put to paper. In fact upon trying to present that compilation of babble to a legislative committee, the NDWF representative was sent away with his tail between his legs. And this sir, is what the industry fears at the ballot box. The brainwashing of the residents of ND by the NDWF and other emotional predators. The same tactics used by the antihunting, animal rights crowd.

So what will be next in this witch hunt? Pheasant shooting preserves? Don't try to tell me these pen raised chickens have a chance to get away just because they can fly. Private trout ponds? Chummed every day, same time, same place. Where will you draw the line? Will the gun hunter sell out the bowhunters? Rifle hunters condemning muzzleloaders? Who will make the decision? Who's ethics should we apply?

I think we could take a lesson from the NRA. While 95% of american gun owners will probably never own an AR15 or a Mach 90 (assault weapons as coined by the media) the association vehemently supports the rights of gun owners to make this choice. Why? Because the NRA is well aware that sacrificing the weakest link threatens all. That by giving an inch, a mile will soon be lost.


----------



## ALLSUNND

mike2766 said:


> Ron,
> 
> While a large percentage of the non-hunting American public may support slaughter of cattle and hogs, a far lesser number supports hunting in any form.
> 
> If you intend to site the NDWF survey regarding high fence shooting conducted last year ahead of the legislative then it is fairly obvious from where you are coming. That was the most biased, misleading collection of untruths ever put to paper. In fact upon trying to present that compilation of babble to a legislative committee, the NDWF representative was sent away with his tail between his legs. And this sir, is what the industry fears at the ballot box. The brainwashing of the residents of ND by the NDWF and other emotional predators. The same tactics used by the anti hunting, animal rights crowd.
> 
> So what will be next in this witch hunt? Pheasant shooting preserves? Don't try to tell me these pen raised chickens have a chance to get away just because they can fly. Private trout ponds? Chummed every day, same time, same place. Where will you draw the line? Will the gun hunter sell out the bowhunters? Rifle hunters condemning muzzleloaders? Who will make the decision? Who's ethics should we apply?
> 
> I think we could take a lesson from the NRA. While 95% of American gun owners will probably never own an AR15 or a Mach 90 (assault weapons as coined by the media) the association vehemently supports the rights of gun owners to make this choice. Why? Because the NRA is well aware that sacrificing the weakest link threatens all. That by giving an inch, a mile will soon be lost.


 :beer: Now that is a definitive comment and accurate!!!!!!


----------



## always_outdoors

> I've always thought you were smarter than this.


Uncalled for Mike. Especially since we know each other. I didn't try to take cheap shots at you.

As for older, you are correct. As for time spent in the field. I think you would be surprised as to how much time I spend in the field. But it doesn't matter whether you are new to hunting or 30 years in the field hunting to know that this is a black eye to what you and I do in the fall.

This is not a livestock issue. If it was, the high fence operators wouldn't care about the measure because it still allows them to slaughter the animals for meat purposes. They are selling "hunts". They aren't selling livestock. They use one terminology while in front of legislators and one terminology in front of clients.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one Mike. I think the people of ND should make the decision though.


----------



## Dick Monson

> The ND Game and Fish Dept. did not support the legislative bill to ban high fence shooting in the last legislative session. In fact, contrary to various propaganda pieces, the Game and Fish has not only been supportive of this industry, but has been intricately involved in the development and implimentation of high fence regulations in North Dakota.


Mike, read the sponsor list. Former NDGF Director Lloyd Jones was one of the first sponsors. *And he does have an opinion* on canned shooting. A very strong opinion. Couple that with the professional wildlife and natural resouce management organizations who have position papers against canned shooting. No contest.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

mike2766 said:


> Ron,
> 
> While a large percentage of the non-hunting american public may support slaughter of cattle and hogs, a far lesser number supports hunting in any form.


Mike do a bit of searching and you will find that the figures that support hunting in fair chase manner is within a point of those that support livestock being raised for slaughter. These are national polls not the NDWF poll. Some of you guys need to do a bit of digging to really understand this and the issue at hand.

You point to the NRA and AR's and try and draw a comparison. They are apples and pears in comparison. I have said before that we would not have this issue being raised if those who are providing shooting arenas would have advertised them as such. They are instead trying to* pretend* that it is hunting. So they do not deserve our support, nor should we be circling the wagons in defense of the practice. Just like the NRA supported increased notification requirements for mentally ill people in preventing sale of firearms to those affected. Just as the NRA supports felons being banned from buying firearms etc....

You and others need to take the time and look at the polling data concerning hunting [fair chase style] live stock rearing for slaughter, and then look at the canned shooting portion. If that does not wake you up to the reality of what is what, then you best make your coffee stronger!!!!

By the way, I have yet to have any supporters of canned shooting arenas offer to sponsor viewing of the documentary *Guns of Autumn!* I would think they would be excited to put there profession out in the public for all to see!!!!


----------



## MRN

mike2766 said:


> This is not hunting, no matter what anyone wants to call it. I hunt a lot more days a year than you do and have done it for a lot more years than you have. I've never hunted with a guide, and I would never hunt deer or elk in an enclosure. But as a hunter I take no offense to an animal being humanely harvested that was raised for that purpose.
> 
> I have no vested interest in this industry and frankly, other than the fact that I support a livestock producers right to operate, I don't really care if high fence shooting is allowed or not. But I know all too well the gates that may be opened here. And if you don't think condemning animal harvest poses a risk to our future just keep your head in the sand.


Full disclosure - you raised what wild animals in a farm setting? Fox?

Me thinks you speak not from your mouth.

M.


----------



## jhegg

Mike,



> I think we could take a lesson from the NRA. While 95% of american gun owners will probably never own an AR15 or a Mach 90 (assault weapons as coined by the media) the association vehemently supports the rights of gun owners to make this choice. Why? Because the NRA is well aware that* sacrificing the weakest link *threatens all. That by giving an inch, a mile will soon be lost.


Calling the high fence operations the "weakest link" is not correct, they are a cancer.

Chris,
Have you come up with a spinning top emoticon yet?

Jim


----------



## g/o

> Have you come up with a spinning top emoticon yet?


They are getting one and it will have Dick Monsons face on it. Dick is the spinmeister on this site.


----------



## Plainsman

> Dick is the spinmeister on this site.


 :rollin: :rollin: Ya, right, when pigs fly. That was to funny not to comment. Talk about the media being the kings of misinformation. I think Dick has earned a very good reputation on this site. However, don't hold back on the spin, it helps a lot. Thank you.


----------



## g/o

Here is just an quick example of Dicks spin,



> The ND Game and Fish Dept. did not support the legislative bill to ban high fence shooting in the last legislative session.


This is a true statement the Game and Fish did not support the legislative bill last session.

Dick's spin on this;



> Mike, read the sponsor list. Former NDGF Director Lloyd Jones was one of the first sponsors.


I don't know about you guys but as far as I know Terry Steinwand is the current director of the Game and Fish. I also believe he was director last session not Lloyd Jones


----------



## always_outdoors

Here is one from g/o.



> If giving kids a place to hunt is ruining this state so be it.


Nowhere on this 9 pages has anyone brought up your youth PLOTS land, yet when questioned about your g/o business you bring in this phrase.

Spun



> A slob hunter is the typical resident hunter who drives around and shoots deer out the window of the pickup. If they are real tuff guys they may get out and shoot from the road so they are not to break any laws. If the deer is not to far from the vehicle they may go and get it other wise they leave it lay. If they do happen to retrieve it some go out and toss them in the road ditches. These are the same guys who are opposed to high fence hunting, they are so much better than everyone else.


Spun. Somehow you are saying that all the sponsors are slob hunters who only shoot animals from the road or just leave them lay.



> I'm also glad to read that you referto the paraplegic and the elderly as slobs.


Spun again by g/o. Nowhere did anyone say this either.



> This initiative measure only goes after the Elk and Deer people. This is about ethics and not disease or anything else. It just goes to show how phony these guys are. Because they are afraid of the Bison industry they let them slide.


Spun yet again. This has been told to you time and time again. They are not listed as a big game animal. They are treated like cattle, sold like cattle, and grown like cattle. They are livestock. Elk and deer ranchers tell legislators they are livestock, yet tell their clients they are big game.

Who is the spinmeister here? g/o gets a vote from me.


----------



## woodpecker

zzzzzzz


----------



## Plainsman

I don't know about you guys but as far as I know Terry Steinwand is the current director of the Game and Fish. I also believe he was director last session not Lloyd Jones

Well I think we should just leave this to everyone who reads this to decide. I am sure that when they do anyone with three firing brain synapses between their ears will realize that the Game and Fish as a state agency can't get into this whiz match. The governor would have their head if they did. Because they don't jump up an down to close down canned hunts doesn't mean they like them. If anyone else thinks like me they will see Lloyd Jones sponsoring this bill as an indicator of how wildlife professionals see this measure. Oh, by the way I am a retired wildlife professional and a sponsor of this bill myself. I am pro hunter, pro firearms, and the reason I give landowners such a hard time is to alarm the good guys about the bad apples in their barrel. There are a few out there I would do anything for. There are two often on this site, farmboy and angus1. Open minded and hearts of gold. 
With this information do you still dare insinuate that Dick is the spinmiester? No accusations, but the readers will each decide for themselves who the spinmiester is.


----------



## R y a n

Plainsman said:


> There are a few out there I would do anything for. There are two often on this site, farmboy and angus1. Open minded and hearts of gold.


You forgot about Dick and Ron? 

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman

Sorry, I guess that was a given. Sometimes we take the obvious (Dick's commitment to the future of our sport) for granted. You certainly are right about Dick and Ron, and I am sure there are others we are forgetting. When this measure passes we sportsmen of North Dakota will owe Dick a great debt for his unselfish dedication to the future of our sport.


----------



## g/o

Funny thing last night I was visiting with one of your supporters in this bill. This person and I were discussing it and of course we did not agree. The thing is your name came up and I gave my disqust of people like yourself and your childish feeling towards outfitters like myself. I mentioned the two comments you made which I have listed below. I'm glad you happen to bring it up. And I will still stand on my comment.

If giving kids a place to hunt is ruining this state so be it.

Live these are quotes posted by you directed towards me I believe. If not tell me who they were directed at and i will apologize.



> IMHO you run a business that is ruining this state and quite honestly gives hunting a black eye. I have every right to voice my opinion on this subject as I am citizen and taxpayer of this state as well.


here is another;



> but I hate it when people use kids as a means of justifying something that is giving hunting a black eye.


Now Live if you will go back and read you will also note that I clarified that I was not referring to the sponsors of this bill as being slob hunters.



> This initiative measure only goes after the Elk and Deer people. This is about ethics and not disease or anything else. It just goes to show how phony these guys are. Because they are afraid of the Bison industry they let them slide.


I will still stand by this statement and in many others this still is a question. Remember this initiative measure is only about fair chase.


----------



## Dak

Lots of rhetoric. I say let both sides make their pitch to the public and let voters decide.


----------



## Plainsman

Your right Dak, it's the same thing over and over and over. Are there any new ideas? Many of us have just kept repeating. It's a mixture of repeats and moma says "life is like a box of chocolates". Ug, what I wouldn't give for something besides fear and old clichés. I know there are some of you fellows out there with some good thoughts. Most guys just want to have a good time in other forms, and you know so do I, but we hear from stanch supporters, and stanch opponents not often the average guy. Have any of us convinced any of you either way?


----------



## always_outdoors

As for your quotes, you are spinning again. You know my background on promoting youth hunting and I know yours. Your first priority isn't to the youth hunting area, it is to your paying clients. Otherwise your name would be "promoteyouthhunting" instead of g/o.

Nobody on here questioned you about youth hunting, yet you played the card by the statement above.


----------



## g/o

> Nobody on here questioned you about youth hunting, yet you played the card by the statement above.


Live I didn't make these statements you did!!!!!



> but I hate it when people use kids as a means of justifying something that is giving hunting a black eye.





> Quote:
> If giving kids a place to hunt is ruining this state so be it.
> 
> Nowhere on this 9 pages has anyone brought up your youth PLOTS land, yet when questioned about your g/o business you bring in this phrase.


----------



## redlabel

live2hunt said:


> This initiative measure only goes after the Elk and Deer people. This is about ethics and not disease or anything else. It just goes to show how phony these guys are. Because they are afraid of the Bison industry they let them slide.
> 
> 
> 
> Spun yet again. This has been told to you time and time again. They are not listed as a big game animal. They are treated like cattle, sold like cattle, and grown like cattle. They are livestock. Elk and deer ranchers tell legislators they are livestock, yet tell their clients they are big game.
> 
> Who is the spinmeister here? g/o gets a vote from me.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in who is the spinmeister here as well, so out of curiosity I googled "Buffalo Hunting in North Dakota". I was surprised when it came back with 1,490,000 results. I checked a few out and they have offers of Buffalo "hunts". I don't want to get confused, but isn't a buffalo "hunt" a lot like a bison "hunt?"

One of them advertised three types of "hunts". Meat bull "hunts", cow "hunts", and Trophy Bull "hunts".

Now if these animals are treated like cattle, sold like cattle, and grown like cattle why are they called Buffalo Hunts?


----------



## Plainsman

red label, I can only speak for myself about the bison.

We saved the species from the brink of extinction, but we did not preserve it's place in the wild world. With the exception of Wood Buffalo park in Canada very few bison are truly wild and not inhibited by fences. A few do wonder from Yellowstone.
With these things in mind I am afraid I have given up on the bison as a wild game animal. Their time has passed into history and I am afraid their only chance is to eventually be truly domesticated. People who hunt them near Yellowstone have a hunt that my represent a hunt of the past, but the hunts that occur on modern ranches are no more than shooting cows. Bison are not the geniuses of the animal world, and I sometimes find myself wondering how much of a real hunt it would have been in the 1850's. With that in mind is a "hunt" for bison on four sections of land different than a hunt of 1850? I really don't know so that is a question. They certainly were easy to nearly eradicate with the old 45/70.
I think you have a problem getting an answer about bison, because people haven't formed opinions about bison hunts. Not strong enough to voice it anyway. It perhaps hinges on how the bison industry portrays themselves. The meat processing plant at New Rockford certainly makes me think of them much like beef ranchers. To my knowledge no where have "hunts" been carried out in small enclosures. I don't know red label, I'm still thinking and open to everyone's opinion on this. That's as honest as I can be, and I hope it gives you some perspective. Of my thoughts anyway. I know it may not be helpful, but it's the best I can do.


----------



## Dak

Plainsman,

Well put.


----------



## redlabel

Plainsman,

You've go me thinking.

What is the definition of a small enclosure.

A dog kennel
An enclosed pen
A corral
40 Acres
80 Acres
160 Acres
A section
3000-5000 Acres

A small enclosure can mean a lot of different things to many people and to some it could be anysize with a fence.

I don't have an answer, just a lot of questions.


----------



## Plainsman

Ya, I understand redlabel. I'm still thinking about many things also. Like deer for instance. I know a home range for a deer isn't much over three four sections during summer, and they perhaps move 30 miles for winter. Sometimes more, often less. However, I hear about people chasing deer for two three miles. When does a pen inhibit and when doesn't it? It would have to cross public access section lines and other geographic obstacles to be large enough. Elk, would require a township in size, or more.

Thanks for the sincere thought process. For a while it was just bickering, and I was very angry with myself for being caught up with that. I have thought about it for a couple days and think I will just try to explain my thought process on this. I would ask also that others give it the thought you have redlabel. 
We are not going to get anywhere with this if we get sidetracked with baiting, dogs for bear, etc. We will not get anywhere if we just keep using old cliche's, because life is not a box of chocolates it is very complex. 
Thanks again for your thoughtful questions and input. Not much in life is black and white and we need to use our gray matter to judge the gray areas.


----------



## Dick Monson

A little grist for the mill of the Fair Chase measure.

The Fall edition of ND Outdoors arrived in the mail today with an outstanding article on "The North American Model of Wildlife Management".
Those in the Cranberry Bog camp won't like this. The seven tenants of the model, not in order, with some quotes, are:

1 Allocating Wildlife by law. "Every citizen in good standing -regardless of wealth, social standing, or land ownership-is allowed to participate in harvest of wildlife within guidelines set by lawmakers."

2 Wildlife as Public Trust Resource. "And because wildlife is a public resource everyone has access to it, *and everyone has a say in how it is managed."*

3 Elimination of Markets for Wildlife. "*The elimination of trafficking dead animals is one of the most important policies of wildlife conservation."*

4 Wildlife Can Only be Killed for Legitimate Purposes. "&#8230;*seasons are designed to allow public access to surplus wildlife, but only in a manner that involves fair chase and allows for sustainable populations*."

5 Wildlife is Considered an International Resource. Nuff said.

6 Science is the Proper Tool for Developing Wildlife Management and Policy. *"It stands apart from political considerations and favors a hands-off policy by elected representatives."*

7 Democracy of Hunting. "&#8230; allows most every citizen to participate in hunting."

"The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, *of which NDGF is a **member*, approved a position statement in 2002 that recognizes and supports the NAMWC. *The statement outlines the first three components are in danger of being eroded by various actions that have lead to increasing privatization of wildlife*&#8230;. The keystone of the NAMWC is the principal that wildlife are owned by no one and held in trust for the benefit of all people by government."

*"The North Dakota Game and Fish Department strongly supports the AFWA's position and in the future will emphasize effort to promote and support the seven principals of the NAM."*

Honest to God I didn't set this up! Because that's how you spell *F-A-I-R C-H-A-S-E M-E-A-S-U-R-E.*


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,

I have to agree with you that life can seem pretty complex. However I have to disagree on the black and white issue. You see the important stuff in life is pretty much black and white. In fact it is pretty clearly laid out in a book that the pastor you mentioned could probably tell you about. I am also glad to hear you are actually thinking about this issue, for a while there I got the feeling your mind was pretty well made up and this whole issue was "black and white". Maybe the pastor you mentioned could help you give us a moral basis for your stance on this issue. As emphatic as your opinion is I am sure you will have some "authoritative" support for it besides, the antihunting crowd doesn't like it.


----------



## 4590

Dick,

Believe it or not I support every item you listed. Hate to keep repeating it but you just don't get the difference between "wildlife" and livestock. It is clearly defined in NDCC.

I am as strong a proponent of protecting "wildlife" as you are, probably more so. No one is disputing the items mentioned, they all support "wildlife". You see Dick it is perfectly clear that your underlying intent is to outlaw the ownership of native animal species. It really has little to do with ethics or disease or any thing else. Lets see if you have the intestinal fortitude to tell me if I am wrong.


----------



## Dick Monson

Since you asked 45, you're wrong again. Seem clear? Intentionally mislabeling wildlife as NTL to kill it for money (trafficking in wildlife) is a deception of the lowest order. A rose by any other name is still a rose, and would apply to wildlife also, wouldn't you agree?

Legalizing canned shooting only provides cover for endangering, poaching and smuggling the public property of wildlife as documented time and again.

A couple years ago Indiana DNR took public comments on the canned shooting proposal there:
http://www.in.gov/dnr/fencedhunting/fen ... ponses.pdf

On a side note the Fair Chase measure petition drive is off and running and we will all know if it makes the ballot by next Aug.5th.


----------



## frosty

Dick,

I couldn't agree with you more on the outdoors magazine I got last night too. "....but only in a manner that involves fair chase and allows for sustainable populations."

So here is where I'm puzzled. How can the game and fish be neutral on this measure if they try to live by the NA Model? It appears to be pretty clear that nothing in this model is even close to supporting high fence killing operations.


----------



## 4590

Dick,

Once again the spin comes out. "Intentionally mislabeling". What is that supposed to mean? What is it supposed to mean to someone trying to figure out this issue? NTL and farmed elk are different from "wildlife". The key is one is public ownership the other private. I know you won't accept that, but it is an undeniable fact. No one has mislabeled anything. Livestock and wildlife are managed differently. If not how about lets require that every big game animal harvested this fall be tested for CWD. (at the hunters expense of course) Then every other year lets require every deer and elk in the state be tested for TB. (absurd right) You, however, won't accept private ownership because you know when people understand it they will look at this as a private property issue. If I am wrong, as you say, lets see a statement by you endorsing private ownership of native big game species.



> to kill it for money


Newsflash - that is what livestock producers do.



> trafficking in wildlife)


Has nothing to do with livestock. Any farmed deer or elk that is transported, dead or alive, in ND must be accompanied with a NDBOAH manifest stating origination and destination.



> endangering, poaching and smuggling the public property of wildlife


We agree that these unlawful activities must be stopped. However blaming the game industry for it is just bogus. They are one of the most highly regulated livestock industries around. Elliminating private ownership will not stop poaching - only good law enforcement will.


----------



## Plainsman

> I am also glad to hear you are actually thinking about this issue


I never stop thinking about things 4590. My mind is made up about the fair chase measure, I am a sponsor. Still I keep think. If I seen things in black and white like you do 4590 I wouldn't give it any more consideration, and I wouldn't listen to opposing opinions. Even though I am a sponsor I am still willing to listen, because someone might have a new idea that gives me a slightly different perspective. 
So far it has only been fear (the anti hunting crowd will use it to go further). I don't believe that will happen. They anti hunting crowd keeps trying to get at us, and may some day, but this will not give them a handle on it. As a matter of fact it should set back their efforts considerably. Then there is "my daddy told me" clichés that we all get caught up in from time to time, but do they really mean anything? Not in this case. And lastly (on a related thread) there has been a couple I couldn't understand at all. I think someone was partying with Yukon Jack.

Can anyone add something that we have not already covered? Please. There must be some ideas that us regulars have not thought of. I for one would sure value some perspective from others.


----------



## bowhunter04

I personally believe that the "they are livestock" defense is a joke. As long as these animals are sold for "hunts" the antis and non-hunting community will lump hunting and high-fenced "hunts" together. This will lead to a negative image of hunting in the long run. Commercial slaughter is one thing and I'm perfectly fine with that. I think this measure gets rid of the link that joins canned shoots and hunting. You may perceive high-fenced "hunts" as slaughtering livestock but I can tell you my wife's non-hunting friends view them as "trapped animals." It doesn't matter how we (hunters and owners) perceive these animals. What matters is how the majority of voters see them. I don't think they see these animals as livestock. This, in turn, reflects badly on the hunting community. That's why I will vote for this measure.


----------



## R y a n

bowhunter04 said:


> I personally believe that the "they are livestock" defense is a joke. As long as these animals are sold for "hunts" the antis and non-hunting community will lump hunting and high-fenced "hunts" together. This will lead to a negative image of hunting in the long run. Commercial slaughter is one thing and I'm perfectly fine with that. I think this measure gets rid of the link that joins canned shoots and hunting. You may perceive high-fenced "hunts" as slaughtering livestock but I can tell you my wife's non-hunting friends view them as "trapped animals." It doesn't matter how we (hunters and owners) perceive these animals. What matters is how the majority of voters see them. I don't think they see these animals as livestock. This, in turn, reflects badly on the hunting community. That's why I will vote for this measure.


I hope you are paying attention to this logic 4590... this is precisely why my family will be voting for this measure also..

You can nitpic over the technical wording or legalese of how you try to justify your logic.. _*none*_ of that matters to what the general public's perception is..

The tradition of historical fair chase hunting is at stake. Your attempts at bastardizing that tradition by manipulating our precious pasttime for your commercial gain is astounding to the general public.

It's only a matter of time until election day. I sure hope you are checking into other forms of employment...

Ryan


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,

You dodged my question again regarding the basis of your moral ethics. Thats ok, we have been there before and you hedged so no surprise.

Mean while since you are in the thinking mode I have another question for you and all.

Is the proposed measure unconstitutional??????
We have been told the wording is researched and air tight. Yet it obviously includes slaughter of game farm animals and may actually violate our state constitution.

ND State Constitution has a provision to protect the "hunting" rights of its citizens. (Talk about fear mongering, why are you all worried about the non-hunting public anyway, its a constitutional right?)



> ND CONSTITUTION
> 
> ARTICLE XI
> 
> Section 27. Hunting, trapping, and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage and will be forever preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good.


Hunting is also difined in NDCC:



> 21. "Hunt" or "hunting" means shooting, shooting at, pursuing, taking, attempting to take, or killing any game animals and game birds; searching for or attempting to locate or flush any game animals and game birds; luring, calling or attempting to attract game animals and game birds.


As is stated in the proposed measure it will apply to privately owned "big game". "Big game" is defined in NDCC:



> Title 20.1-01-02 Definitions.





> 5. "Big Game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and antelope.


No mention of a fence anywhere in all this and since they use the terms game instead of wildlife would certainly apply to both fenced and free roaming "game".

As you can see in the NDCC "hunting" clearly applies to privately owned preserves that contain "game animals" as the language here also does not distinguish between private and public. Applying that definition to the ND Const. would indicate that preseve "hunting" is well protected and a right of ND citizens.


----------



## Plainsman

> You dodged my question again regarding the basis of your moral ethics. Thats ok, we have been there before and you hedged so no surprise.


I didn't duck it I simply didn't answer it. This debate is not about me, or about you. Who cares what the basis is for my moral ethics. This is just a diversionary tactic because you don't want to talk about the real subject. I think it's time for more of the new fellows to voice their opinion. We bicker so much that I am afraid we scare some people off. Let me assure them, I will not allow them to be attacked no matter which opinion they wish to express. Anybody?


----------



## 4590

I think most of us would agree that a good share of the loudest voices on this site are ant-guide/outfitters and game farms. They also have strong opinions about who should advertise hunting property for sale. This would include most of the moderators I suspect.

Anyone else find it ironic that everytime I open this page I see advertisements for "guaranteed" hunts, hunt ranches, guides and outfitters, and hunting property for sale?

Example:



> WE GUARANTEE CANADA ELK HUNTS AND DEER HUNTING NO SHOOT/NO PAY
> FOR 140-159 SCI GROSS BUCK OR A 6X6 ELK 300-350 SCI GROSS $3995 EACH,
> 
> LICENSE GUARANTEED • USE BOW OR RIFLE • ELDERLY & HANDICAPPED!


Just pulled this off one a few minutes ago.

Doesn't it seem a little hyprocritical that this site is such a strong proponent of "hunting heritage" and "fair chase", yet would allows such advertising.

I am still waiting for some one to tell me the 11 state that have outlawed hunting preserves, too. Guess rhetoric sounds good until you have to verify with some facts.


----------



## Raghorn

No cigar plainman, my metaphor wasn't about "secrets" i.e., the ol "let the cat out of the bag" idiom... *it was about you and 29 others making an illogical decision for the rest of us*. 
I thought THAT WAS the subject matter here! :sniper:


----------



## jhegg

Raghorn,
I see that you are the one that is confused.



> *it was about you and 29 others making an illogical decision for the rest of us. *


What we are doing is allowing who you call


> *the rest of us*


 to make there own decision.

Jim Heggeness


----------



## Dak

JHegg,

Exactly right. Of course, if Raghorn's location is Montana he's probably not a NoDak citizen and doesn't get a vote.


----------



## Plainsman

I do apologize to everyone for getting suckered off subject. It will not continue. Please carry on. It would be especially interesting to hear any new thoughts. I think I have expended mine.


----------



## TPR

Why is it unethical to "hunt", "harvest", "kill", "slaughter" an elk, deer, buffalo, hog, bovine, or chicken in a high fenced enclosure? Ethics to me means that the manner and treatment of the subject affected must be done in a way that limits the stress, pain, and discomfort to the subject as well as utilizing the subject in a respectful purposeful manner. If in this circumstance it is hunting an elk in an enclosure then as Plainsman says someone walking up to shoot it twice in the stomach and then get a couple of guys to prop it up so as to get a kill shot on video (and believe it or not there is a lot of video of a similar nature done by game wardens every year using mechanical deer decoys showing legitimate hunters attempting to kill a deer in an illegal manner outside high fence enclosures) and mutilating the animal rendering the animals carcass useless for consumption then I say that is unethical. However, if the animal is shot cleanly through the heart and lungs using an appropriate weapon, limiting the stress on the animal and maintaining the carcass, hide, and trophy for the specified purpose of the taking than I would say that is an ethical endeavour. Does the taking of this animal have the same feeling and sense of accomplishment as taking it during a solo pack horse do it yourself hunt in the back country of one of the western states I suspect not but is it wrong or unethical I also suspect not. I've pursued elk for many years and I've seen my share of unethical behavour in the field during this pursuit. To date I have shot 3 elk, my best is a bull that comes back to his shoulder blades, half again as wide as his body with a nice 6X6 frame. If I consider all the time, effort and money I've put into this pursuit I would say I am a head of the game. Great experiences in the field, some not so great like the time I witnessed 5 different groups of hunters converge on a known herd of elk containing only three legal bulls. The shooting started 15 minutes before legal shooting time on opening day, myself and two other hunters where the only ones that had asked for permission to be on this private land. When the shooting stopped two spikers and four cows had being wounded and all three of the legal bulls where killed. Multiple arguments ensued as to who should be allowed to tag the bulls while in the mean time myself and one of the other legal occupants tried our best to keep an eye on where the wounded animals went. Neither of us fired a shot as it was obvious this was going to be a dangerous place to be. That day I watched 13 unethical hunters kill and wound 9 animals, while I and another ethical hunter dispatched two of the six wounded animals. I even salvaged what I could from one of the animals against the advice of my new companion. All in all my experiences in the outdoors have been rewarding but I am haunted by some of my experiences. The effort I have put into the pursuit of elk is difficult to calculate. I have hunted many areas in the hopes of connecting with a big bull (is desiring a big bull ethical) all of which where scouted, explored and hunted with as much zeal and passion as my mind and body would allow. As for the money, I have calculated that in the past fifteen years I have spent well in excess of $25000 in this pursuit. All of what I have done in the field I would consider ethical and law abiding however I never was able to connect with the animal that I wanted to put on my wall in my den (perhaps I hunt for the wrong reasons). When I decided to look into pursuing my desires in a farmed setting I never once thought that what I was doing was unethical. I contacted many outfits I got references and prices. I checked out facilities and livestock and came to the conclusion that there are definitely ethical producers that could help me with my pursuit. I saw animals that where beautiful, healthy, well cared for put in a setting that yes was enclosed but in an area quite adequate for them that required a great deal of walking (no I didn't drive up to a bucket in an air conditioned truck). I was able to look over many animals including spikers, cows, and bulls from smaller than my largest to larger than anything that I thought possible. Yes all had a price on there head but all existed for that purpose none where trapped from the wild in fact the source herds for all these animals where govt fenced facilities that where overstocked and where sourced more than 25 years ago. The area inside the enclosure I was told was 1600 acres. I saw the fence both mornings entering both nights leaving and perhaps 3 other times. Not once where any of the animals hindered by the fence and never once would I have considered putting them in a compromising position like that. I made a selection as to which animal I wanted and which I could afford ($3500). I collected my trophy with a single shot had the carcass, hide, antlers and ivories preserved and delivered for a fee to my residence and I have enjoyed my time at that facility with fond memories as well as a beautiful heavy 6x6 bull hanging over my mantle in my den. If you have a problem with specific phrases such as "hunting preserve" or "guaranteed hunt" talk to these people and there associations. Perhaps you could come to an understanding. These operations could have been your greatest allies however now who knows. Most of these operators are hunters and farmers who I consider salt of the earth type people. Can there be bad apples I would say no more or less than exist in the hunting fraternity or bankers or fireman or nurses. As far as I'm concerned the operator of the facility I was at all of his staff and myself have our integrity and our morale and ethical foundations intact and I consider this action that the sponsors of this bill are taking as a direct insult to me and my hunting heritage. You may not approve of what I have done but you do not have the right to question my ethical and moral judgement.

I have placed my vote.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

So TPR using your logic I should be allowed to drag a cable between two pickups and shoot deer or roosters out the back of them just as long as the kill is clean and humane and they do not suffer?

Nice try!

I will give you some props for your well designed story which PR firm did it for you or you industry? Or is it as suspect a copy with modifications. I have seen very similar pieces put up on other boards with slight changes to this one.


----------



## Ref

TPR,

The stand that you took was while hunting wild elk was admirable. I think that EVERYONE on this site will agree with that. That doesn't mean a majority will agree with your next decision.

In our society, we are judged by one decision at a time. You are entitled to your opinion about your decision to shoot an elk inside a fence where the animal has no chance to get away, but if this ever gets to a vote of the people, you will be judged by society as to whether that decision is in the majority. Based on the informal poll on this site and other polls listed in this thread, your opinion (decision) is probably in the minority.


----------



## jhegg

TPR,
You didn't get prodded to provide testimony by 4590 - did you?
Jim


----------



## Dak

TPR,

The elk shoot you describe was wrong. Hopefully your testimony in that case led to convictions all around. You did turn them in didn't you?

Two quotes by Teddy Roosevelt are appropriate here:

"In a civilized and cultured country wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen. The excellent people who protest against all hunting, and consider sportsmen as enemies of wildlife, are ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine sportsman is by all odds the most important factor in keeping the larger and more valuable wild creatures from total extermination."

"We need, in the interest of the community at large, a rigid system of game-laws rigidly enforced, and it is not only admissible, but one may almost say necessary, to establish, under the control of the State, great national forests reserves which shall also be breeding-grounds and nurseries for wild game; but I should much regret to see grow up in this country a system of large private game-preserves kept for the enjoyment of the very rich. One of the chief attractions of the life of the wilderness is its rugged and stalwart democracy; there every man stands for what he actually is and can show himself to be."


----------



## frosty

"You may not approve of what I have done but you do not have the right to question my ethical and moral judgement."

Yes I do. Laws are made every legislative session that are based on ethics. A lot of people claim that you cannot legislate ethics, but look at our laws---dang near all of them are based on ethics.


----------



## 4590

Hey Ron,

Is that the best you can do? Compare a LOGICAL well written opinion to flushing wildlife with a cable between pickups. I know you are more intelligent than that. AGAIN you are comparing something, that we all agree is unethical in the harvest of wildlife, to the ETHICAL harvest of livestock. Apples and oranges. The public certainly has the right to define the ethical harvest of its wildlife. We all agree on that point. His point addresses the harvest of any animal by humane means. It hits the core of this debate. You cannot possibly condemn the harvest of game farm animals, by the same means used in any other hunting method, and call it unethical and expect the arguement to be considered logical. TPR made a very good logical point, but of course you can't accept it as it would shoot huge holes in your opinion. Anyway if the opinion is valid what difference does it make who wrote it. Do you think someone who has hunted on a game ranch isn't capable of good writting skills?

By the way I have no idea who TPR is!!!!! But it certainly was a well written opinion.


----------



## TPR

Of course I knew I would get a response so I have come back on this forum to answer the replies to my post. I'm not going to spend much more time here as it will just negatively reinforce some views I have on special interest groups and there treatment of any weaker targets they might single out plus it is harvest season and I have an antelope hunt to concern myself with. At the end I would also like to briefly make a comment on the buffalo issue and CWD. The incentive to post a response was the references to "slob hunters" and how that relates to the ethics of high fenced operations. I saw that as a personal insult to myself given my past post. Of course I realize it was an example of a worst case scenario but it was based on fiction. As none of you want to be stereotyped neither do I. I'm sure that if any of you knew me you would not consider me a "slob hunter". 
Ron I truly worry about you, upon reading your reply it took me at least 5 minutes to figure out what you were saying. Until you wrote that phrase I would not in my wildest dreams being able to come up with the truck and rope game. It makes me wonder if you don't have some demons. Also what it means is you missed the point in my first post. The killing is only part of it; the ethics of the sport we pursue has to come hand in hand with the way we treat our prey. Besides farming I work at a federal research institute. At this site there are experiments going on with animals ranging from mice, rats, rabbits, goats, sheep and cattle. Some of the procedures that are done on these animals I'm sure the animal doesn't want to have done to them however for the greater good it is deemed necessary. The ethical and morale issues faced by the researcher are that during these procedures the animals are treated in the most caring stressed reduced environment possible. It's the treatment not the situation that is important. If you think for a minute that I would do the truck and rope game you have missed the point of my post. Second; thank you for the compliment on my writing skills but considering it was one in the morning when I wrote it, the sentence structure, punctuation and lack of paragraphs I don't think I would be paying any PR company for that. As for copying where I come from that's called cheating and if you call someone a cheat a liar or a thief you better come with proof. If you have read similar posts else where then perhaps my position is more main stream than you think. Consider that as a nice try.

Ref I respect your position that not everyone would make the same decision that I did regarding going to a fenced facility. I judged my options the time and effort in the field, my health and age and the money that I have spent and it just made sense to me. Would I do it again, possibly more likely for a cow for meat rather than pay for a trophy but yes I would do it again. It might not be for everyone but neither is hunting in the wild. What can't be disputed was that the animals where treated humanely ethically and with respect. I also think it is important to remember that this site is not the end of the earth for the community at large on this issue and second I don't think that because one group has the minority of the votes on a topic means that they should be legislated out of existence, if that where the case I don't think gays and lesbians would be able to live the lives they do in North America.

Jim I don't know 4590 in fact I don't know any of you.

Dak as for the poaching, within 20 minutes of the incident there were enforcement officers on site prompted from a call that I made. I had all of there licence plate numbers and some of there names. After a day and a half of chasing a very sick wounded cow and dispatching her I was in contact again with the officers and was informed that the best case they had was on me for helping dispatch the two wounded animals because I was the only one that did not tag one of these animals. Because this officer was a smart aware person that also had a strong morale and ethical base he didn't pursue my actions but in the end only three weapon discharge violations and one wildlife harassment charge was laid. I told each one of the 13 people involved that I would very much like to meet them again in the bush to try and educate them on the errors of there ways.

As for TR's quotes that's fine I respect what he is saying but remember when and where they were made. The idea that "&#8230;animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen" is fair but I would also add by farmers and ranchers. If it wasn't for a concerned Indian farmer in Montana the plains buffalo wouldn't exist as we know them today. I have also always found that quote interesting in that he embellishes the statement by including the phrase "&#8230;larger and more *valuable* wild creatures from total extermination." I also agree with the second quote about strong game laws, State run, and national forest reserves. Short of some updating from time to time and a few tweaks the game laws in North America are nothing short of amazing. But why can't there be a parallel set of laws for the animals held by private land owners. These are not the aristocrats of Europe these are hard working individuals that now own land. The last sentence; "One of the chief attractions of the life of the wilderness is its rugged and stalwart democracy; there every man stands for what he actually is and can show himself to be." I believe that this includes respecting "every man's" opinions and there differences.

Frosty, I have pointed out how I feel that what I have done is ethical and morale. In some ways I agree with you that some laws are based on ethics and morality, but I still have not heard why what I did is in any way unethical or immoral. Please elaborate.

As for the buffalo issue, I found the reasoning for there exclusion from this issue fascinating. The one post was on about how there isn't a big market for them and there is no challenge in it so no one would want to mount it and brag about it and that "&#8230;bison are more commonly regarded as cattle." This would then make it appear that as long as we have basically exterminated these critters years ago (which is also part of our hunting heritage) and because the only real reason they exist is because of ranchers and the likes, then we'll consider them cattle. I sit here amazed!!! The buffalo should be wildlife management's poster child for big game species. As a collective society we wantonly hunted these beasts to the brink moved onto there range and now consider them cattle. We should be fighting tooth and nail to re-establish these animals somewhere on the prairie and should be canonizing (that means making them a saint) the ranchers that preserved these beasts for their fore thought and ethical and moral make up.

Finally, CWD. Many people must truly believe that diseases just spontaneously generate. There is no possible way that any disease was created by a game farm. The fact is that the origin (for lack of a better word) came from Wyoming. It was identified in a wildlife research facility in Ft. Collins. Its origins may have come from a species jump from sheep housed at the same facility; maybe it had always been there in the wild or from some other unknown source. The real issue is that once this disease was identified the animals housed at these facilities were traded to other facilities notably one at Sybille. From there they were *released back into the wild.* Later studies at these facilities found more cases. Someone on this thread asked where the CWD came from in Wisconsin. If you take a map of Wisconsin and put a pin in at the location of the University of Wisconsin at Madison and then start marking outbreaks on the map an amazing pattern shows up. The theory goes like this. UofW did work on CWD using mule deer supplied by Ft. Collins. When the animals died they were taken to the woods and disposed of outside the campus. That is one theory. Game farms don't create disease, they may have an ability to help it move but that is why there is such stringent testing done on these facilities. The wild population should be so safe.

Remember try to overwhelm them with facts not BS.

Gentlemen and Ladies thank you for your time and have a great hunting season.


----------



## Ron Gilmore

TPR you missed the point I was making and my reference to the dragging comes from listening to some of the old timers and methods used before they became illegal. It is however a practice still used today by many wildlife agency in locating nesting birds. It is that effective.

My point was as most fully understand is that method matters and placing an animal within the confines of a high fence area has the same chilling affect and same ethical level of disgust that you found in my post! That is the heart of the issue. Not the fact that you make a clean kill. 4590 tries to jump on this portion of your post to bolster his position. But we are talking methodology not the act of killing the animal.

So dig a bit deeper into your soul and ask yourself why, *really* you use such a place?

Does someone have a copy of the stages of a hunter and could they post it up! I think having that to look at might help TPR when he looks inward!


----------



## Dak

*The 5 Stages of a Hunter*

Hunters change through the years. Factors used to determine "successful hunting" change as well for each hunter. A hunter's age, role models, and his years of hunting experience affect his ideas of "success." Many hunters may fit into one of the following five groups. In 1975-1980, groups of over 1,000 hunters in Wisconsin were studied, surveyed, and written about by Professors Robert Jackson and Robert Norton, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. The results of their studies form a widely accepted theory of hunter behavior and development. Where are you now? Where would you like to be?

*SHOOTER STAGE*
The hunter talks about satisfaction with hunting being closely tied to being able to "get shooting." Often the beginning duck hunter will relate he had an excellent day if he got in a lot of shooting. The beginning deer hunter will talk about the number of shooting opportunities. Missing game means little to hunters in this phase. A beginning hunter wants to pull the trigger and test the capability of his firearm. A hunter in this stage may be a dangerous hunting partner.

*LIMITING OUT STAGE*
A hunter still talks about satisfaction gained from shooting. But what seems more important is measuring success through the killing of game and the number of birds or animals shot. Limiting out, or filling a tag, is the absolute measure. Do not let your desire to limit out be stronger than the need for safe behavior at all times.

*TROPHY STAGE*
Satisfaction is described in terms of selectivity of game. A duck hunter might take only greenheads. A deer hunter looks for one special deer. A hunter might travel far to find a real trophy animal. Shooting opportunity and skills become less important.

*METHOD STAGE*
This hunter has all the special equipment. Hunting has become one of the most important things in his life. Satisfaction comes from the method that enables the hunter to take game. Taking game is important, but second to how it is taken. This hunter will study long and hard how best to pick a blind site, lay out decoys, and call in waterfowl. A deer hunter will go one on one with a white-tailed deer, studying sign, tracking, and the life habits of the deer. Often, the hunter will handicap himself by hunting only with black powder firearms or bow and arrow. Bagging game, or limiting, still is understood as being a necessary part of the hunt during this phase.

*SPORTSMAN STAGE*
As a hunter ages and after many years of hunting, he "mellows out." Satisfaction now can be found in the total hunting experience. Being in the field, enjoying the company of friends and family, and seeing nature outweigh the need for taking game. Not all hunters go through all the stages, or go through them in that particular order. It is also possible for hunters who pursue several species of game to be in different stages with regard to each species. Some hunters feel that role models of good sportsmen, training, or reading books or magazines helped them pass more quickly through some stages. California Department of Fish and Game. "

California Hunter Education Manual". 1995 (revised edition). Sacramento, California. [p.8]


----------



## Dick Monson

I see the canned shooting boys are up to their standard tricks:



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


North Dakota hunters who give a damn about the public wildlife resources can get a Fair Chase petition from [email protected] It is a really simple task.
We need 200 people to get 100 signatures each. EVERYBODY knows 100 people. I've collected 80 signatures, most of them farmers, and had only 1 farmer turn me down. And there is 10 months to go.


----------



## 4590

Here is a very well written article on "fair chase".

http://ushuntingtoday.com/news/archives/32


----------



## njsimonson

Please note, the picture, post and subsequent replies to 4590's bow buck have been moved to the "Deer Hunting" forum under the heading "4590 Buck" - please keep this thread on topic.


----------



## 2labs

Some light reading to consider:
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_113901.asp
Tennessee Man Faces Felony Charges for Importing Elk
posted September 24, 2007

A Tennessee man is being held in the McCracken County jail today facing six felony counts of illegally importing elk and deer into Kentucky after a Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources conservation officer stopped his vehicle just west of Paducah Thursday night.

Sgt. Garry Clark arrested Timothy Cory Looper, 25, of Livingston, Tennessee, after a tip from a citizen alerted him to a vehicle towing a trailer loaded with deer through Ballard County. Clark also charged Looper with two misdemeanor counts for importing antelope without transportation permits.

Clark stopped the white Chevrolet pickup and cattle trailer on U.S. 60 and discovered five illegal bull elk, one axis buck deer, and two black buck antelope along with 12 exotic sheep. State law prohibits the importation of elk and deer. The antelope, while not members of the cervid (deer) family, are wildlife native to India and require a transportation permit before entering the state. The sheep are considered livestock.

Identification tags on four of the elk indicate their origin as a captive facility in Minnesota, a state where Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has been identified. CWD is a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE), the deer equivalent of Mad Cow Disease. Overwhelming evidence suggests CWD's rapid spread to 14 states is due to interstate transportation of infected animals.

Absent the availability of a live animal test for CWD, the 2006 Kentucky General Assembly enacted an importation ban for all cervids to protect Kentucky's elk and white-tailed deer herds.

Looper told officers that he picked up the animals at Hostetler Wildlife Farms in Miller, Missouri, and was transporting them to Wilderness Hunting Lodge in Monterey, Tennessee, a shooting preserve.

Clark was joined by Kentucky Fish and Wildlife officers Lt. Larry Ashford, Brad Lowe, and Tony Dunker, and wildlife biologists Tony Black and Pat Hahs, who assisted with impounding the vehicle, trailer and animals. The animals were immediately transported to Murray State University's Breathitt Veterinary Center in Hopkinsville where the elk and axis buck were euthanized. They will be disease tested.

"This is a prime example of why the legislature enacted an importation ban for all cervids," said Dr. Karen Alexy, wildlife division director for Kentucky Fish and Wildlife. "These elk came from a CWD positive state and any breech of their containment by traffic accident or otherwise could place Kentucky deer and elk at risk."

Deer and elk hunting, and watching, contribute nearly $750 million annually to Kentucky's economy and support about 10,500 jobs.

Each felony count carries a maximum penalty of $10,000 in fines and up to five years in jail.

"We encourage all citizens to be alert for vehicles or trailers transporting deer or elk in Kentucky and call us at 1-800-25-ALERT," said Alexy. "It could be one of the most significant contributions anyone could make toward protecting our herds."


----------



## Autry

2labs said:


> Some light reading to consider:
> http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_113901.asp
> Tennessee Man Faces Felony Charges for Importing Elk
> posted September 24, 2007
> 
> A Tennessee man is being held in the McCracken County jail today facing six felony counts of illegally importing elk and deer into Kentucky after a Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources conservation officer stopped his vehicle just west of Paducah Thursday night.
> 
> Sgt. Garry Clark arrested Timothy Cory Looper, 25, of Livingston, Tennessee, after a tip from a citizen alerted him to a vehicle towing a trailer loaded with deer through Ballard County. Clark also charged Looper with two misdemeanor counts for importing antelope without transportation permits.
> 
> Clark stopped the white Chevrolet pickup and cattle trailer on U.S. 60 and discovered five illegal bull elk, one axis buck deer, and two black buck antelope along with 12 exotic sheep. State law prohibits the importation of elk and deer. The antelope, while not members of the cervid (deer) family, are wildlife native to India and require a transportation permit before entering the state. The sheep are considered livestock.
> 
> Identification tags on four of the elk indicate their origin as a captive facility in Minnesota, a state where Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has been identified. CWD is a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE), the deer equivalent of Mad Cow Disease. Overwhelming evidence suggests CWD's rapid spread to 14 states is due to interstate transportation of infected animals.
> 
> Absent the availability of a live animal test for CWD, the 2006 Kentucky General Assembly enacted an importation ban for all cervids to protect Kentucky's elk and white-tailed deer herds.
> 
> Looper told officers that he picked up the animals at Hostetler Wildlife Farms in Miller, Missouri, and was transporting them to Wilderness Hunting Lodge in Monterey, Tennessee, a shooting preserve.
> 
> Clark was joined by Kentucky Fish and Wildlife officers Lt. Larry Ashford, Brad Lowe, and Tony Dunker, and wildlife biologists Tony Black and Pat Hahs, who assisted with impounding the vehicle, trailer and animals. The animals were immediately transported to Murray State University's Breathitt Veterinary Center in Hopkinsville where the elk and axis buck were euthanized. They will be disease tested.
> 
> "This is a prime example of why the legislature enacted an importation ban for all cervids," said Dr. Karen Alexy, wildlife division director for Kentucky Fish and Wildlife. "These elk came from a CWD positive state and any breech of their containment by traffic accident or otherwise could place Kentucky deer and elk at risk."
> 
> Deer and elk hunting, and watching, contribute nearly $750 million annually to Kentucky's economy and support about 10,500 jobs.
> 
> Each felony count carries a maximum penalty of $10,000 in fines and up to five years in jail.
> 
> "We encourage all citizens to be alert for vehicles or trailers transporting deer or elk in Kentucky and call us at 1-800-25-ALERT," said Alexy. "It could be one of the most significant contributions anyone could make toward protecting our herds."


Did you ever see the movie Deliverance?

It's best to just avoid KY altogether! The driver is lucky that he was not molested.


----------



## Plainsman

Autry
I think you need to start a different thread so this one can stay on topic.


----------



## cwoparson

Wasn't there a warning by some people that using ethics and fair chase as means to ban high fence elk hunting in North Dakota would open Pandora's box. Autry doesn't think hunting Bear over bait is a fair chase. I happen to agree also that it is not fair chase. So what is next. Will this lead to more non intended restrictions in the hunting community. Mechanical driven goose decoys banned or maybe electronic predator calls banned. That is what it has to do with this topic. It leads to the heart of the reason of the proposal. As Laurel would say to Hardy "Another fine mess you've got us in".


----------



## MRN

2labs said:


> Tennessee Man Faces Felony Charges for Importing Elk
> posted September 24, 2007
> 
> A Tennessee man is being held in the McCracken County jail today facing six felony counts of illegally importing elk and deer into Kentucky ...
> 
> Identification tags on four of the elk indicate their origin as a captive facility in Minnesota, a state where Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has been identified. (snip) Overwhelming evidence suggests CWD's rapid spread to 14 states is due to interstate transportation of infected animals.
> 
> Looper told officers that he picked up the animals at Hostetler Wildlife Farms in Miller, Missouri, and was transporting them to Wilderness Hunting Lodge in Monterey, Tennessee, a shooting preserve.


WOW!!!
He was illegally moving bull elk from a CWD area to a shooting preserve. Someone has got step-up and do something about this crap - this could just as easily been North Dakota. 

M.


----------



## jhegg

Autry,

Wake up and get back to page one. This is North Dakota. This is a thread relating to a petition drive to put a ban on high fence hunting operations in ND to a vote of ND residents.

It is *NOT* about bear baiting, buffalo shooting, corrupt wildlife agency officials, or any of the other items you guys are trying to spin into it. If you want to talk about those issues, start your own thread.

Jim


----------



## 4590

This is likely another example of media hype. If this situation In Kent. is going to be held out as an arguement to support the measure then its a valid part of the discussion.

I will start by saying if the transportation of these animals was illegal in Kent. then certainly they should be prosecuted. HOWEVER! The article doesn't say if the transporter had proper paper work to transport the animals to Tenn., which was the intended destination. ND allows the transport of animals through the state that may not be allowed to stay here, if it is only a pass through. We are not given enough details to know the whole story.

Just because a couple of elk came from Minn. is no reason to be alarmed. It is so easy for media to hype a situation and give a negative impression. Of course thats the reason for posting the article here. The FACT is, the positive CWD case on Minn was several yrs. ago and the source herds have eradicated and tested. End of story. If there were any other trace out positive animals the process would continue until there are no more trace animals. Thus the industry is clean again. It makes great hype to state that Minn is a state that has had CWD and these animal from Minn. may contaminate the country. Its just hyped hysteria. Yet no one even mentions the shipment of wild elk that was destined for Tenn. just a few months ago. These elk did not meet state and federal standards and yet F/W personal were determined to bring them in. The importation was eventually stopped but not with out a fight from the Tenn. elk producers.

So you tell me who really wants to stop the spread of disease. Is it the F/W that sees the potential to sell future big game licenses and are willing to risk CWD with elk from an untested source. Or the producers that sacrifice there herds to be tested when a problem arises and continue to test and monitor for disease with costly and time consuming testing.

I have said it before, the greatest threat to spread CWD is the transporting of wild cervid carcasses. At least that is what most research shows. However there is also some new research that may point to the possibility of an insect spreading the disease. That would really shoot a whole in the anti game farm arguement.


----------



## Dick Monson

> Tennessee Man Faces Felony Charges for Importing Elk
> posted September 24, 2007
> 
> A Tennessee man is being held in the McCracken County jail today facing six felony counts of illegally importing elk and deer into Kentucky ...
> 
> Identification tags on four of the elk indicate their origin as a captive facility in Minnesota, a state where Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has been identified. (snip) Overwhelming evidence suggests CWD's rapid spread to 14 states is due to interstate transportation of infected animals.
> 
> Looper told officers that he picked up the animals at Hostetler Wildlife Farms in Miller, Missouri, and was transporting them to Wilderness Hunting Lodge in Monterey, Tennessee, a shooting preserve.


This exact scenario occured in ND, except there were 12 elk exposed to CWD that were imported by a ND elk rancher. The animals ened up dead in a pit on his property, unreported, untested. :eyeroll: Fair Chase Initiated Measure petitions at [email protected]


----------



## MRN

Dick Monson said:


> This exact scenario occured in ND, except there were 12 elk exposed to CWD that were imported by a ND elk rancher. The animals ened up dead in a pit on his property, unreported, untested. :eyeroll: Fair Chase Initiated Measure petitions at fai[email protected]


No - how can that happen?
ALL the animals in ND are tested. All of this is overseen by some board and some vets. He's got to report them. It's the law. The "Rex Rammells" of North Dakota care more about preventing CWD than anyone, don't they, and they certainly follow the law, don't they???

M.


----------



## jhegg

> ALL the animals in ND are tested. All of this is overseen by some board and some vets. He's got to report them. It's the law. The "Rex Rammells" of North Dakota care more about preventing CWD than anyone, don't they, and they certainly follow the law, don't they???


Oh, but of course uke:


----------



## MRN

4590 said:


> - the greatest threat to spread CWD is the transporting of wild cervid carcasses. At least that is what most research shows. However there is also some new research that may point to the possibility of an insect spreading the disease.


Please post the references or citations to this "research". If its research, it's published. If its published I can retrieve it. So until you provide the citations I'll say:
1) BS
2) you're confused about hemorrhagic disease (its a viral disease, unrelated to CWD).


----------



## 4590

Mike Miller and the CO DOW has done numerous studies that indicate CWD can be spread from a dead carcass. Certainly there is greater potential from the lymph system and brain, but of course they are removed from all cervids that are transported. RIGHT!

I absolutely know the difference between EHD and CWD. There is new research that seems to indicate CWD could be spread by a vector. Problem is most have accepted the prion theory, and that is where most of funding for research has gone. There are still too many unanswered questions.

I will not defend someone who does not comply with regs set by NDBOAH. BUT, our track record is still impecable, even though Dick likes to hype a noncompliance situation. By the way that case did not involve a hunting preseve. Bottom line - ND is still CWD free and the only positive case was a WILD carcass brought in from CO. If you look at it strictly from a scientific perspective, the odds of CWD being brought in from wild cervids if huge compared to it coming in from game farms.

I will find you some research.


----------



## 4590

Here is the link to a research article by Mike Miller and others. Go to the results unless you enjoy reading all the details. Two of three deer esposed to a decomposed carcass of a CWD positive deer got the disease.

http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyre ... n_tran.pdf


----------



## 4590

Here is a summary of recent research indicating the possible spread of CWD by transmission of spiroplasma carried by ticks.

Spiroplasma spp. from transmissible spongiform encephalopathy brains or ticks induce spongiform encephalopathy in ruminants
Frank O. Bastian1, Dearl E. Sanders2, Will A. Forbes2, Sue D. Hagius1, Joel V. Walker1, William G. Henk3, Fred M. Enright1 and Philip H. Elzer1 
1 Department of Veterinary Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 111 Dalrymple Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA

2 Idlewild Research Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA

3 Department of Comparative Biomedical Sciences, Louisiana State University School of Veterinary Medicine, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

Correspondence 
Frank O. Bastian 
[email protected]

Received 10 January 2007 
Accepted 19 April 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spiroplasma, small motile wall-less bacteria, are linked by molecular and serological studies to the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), which include scrapie in sheep, chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans. In this study, two experiments were undertaken to determine the role of spiroplasma in the pathogenesis of TSE. In experiment 1, Spiroplasma mirum, a rabbit tick isolate that had previously been shown to experimentally induce spongiform encephalopathy in rodents, was inoculated intracranially (IC) into ruminants. S. mirum-inoculated deer manifested clinical signs of TSE after 1.5 to 5.5 months incubation. The deer, as well as sheep and goats, inoculated with S. mirum developed spongiform encephalopathy in a dose-dependent manner. In experiment 2, spiroplasma closely related to S. mirum were isolated from TSE-affected brains via passage in embryonated eggs, and propagated in cell-free M1D media. Spiroplasma spp. isolates from scrapie-affected sheep brain and from CWD-affected deer brain inoculated IC into sheep and goats induced spongiform encephalopathy closely resembling natural TSE in these animals. These data show spiroplasma to be consistently associated with TSE, and able experimentally to cause TSE in ruminant animal models, therein questioning the validity of studies that have concluded the prion, a miss-folded protease-resistant protein that builds up in TSE brains during the course of the disease, to be the sole causal agent. The spiroplasma infection models reported here will be important for investigating factors involved in the pathogenesis of TSE since ruminants are the natural hosts.

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

Abbreviations: CJD, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; CWD, chronic wasting disease; EM, electron microscopy; IC, intracranially; SMCA, suckling mouse cataract agent; TEM, transmission electron microscopy; TSE, transmissible spongiform encephalopathy

MRN,
By now you should know I am not the one on here spreading the BS.
Read em and weep.


----------



## Autry

MRN said:


> 2labs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tennessee Man Faces Felony Charges for Importing Elk
> posted September 24, 2007
> 
> A Tennessee man is being held in the McCracken County jail today facing six felony counts of illegally importing elk and deer into Kentucky ...
> 
> Identification tags on four of the elk indicate their origin as a captive facility in Minnesota, a state where Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has been identified. (snip) Overwhelming evidence suggests CWD's rapid spread to 14 states is due to interstate transportation of infected animals.
> 
> Looper told officers that he picked up the animals at Hostetler Wildlife Farms in Miller, Missouri, and was transporting them to Wilderness Hunting Lodge in Monterey, Tennessee, a shooting preserve.
> 
> 
> 
> WOW!!!
> He was illegally moving bull elk from a CWD area to a shooting preserve. Someone has got step-up and do something about this crap - this could just as easily been North Dakota.
> 
> M.
Click to expand...

The elk were completely legal in the originating state and the receiving state but the fish police in KY was having a slow day and decided to harrass the driver. The driver is lucky that he was not molested!


----------



## Autry

jhegg said:


> Autry,
> 
> Wake up and get back to page one. This is North Dakota. This is a thread relating to a petition drive to put a ban on high fence hunting operations in ND to a vote of ND residents.
> 
> It is *NOT* about bear baiting, buffalo shooting, corrupt wildlife agency officials, or any of the other items you guys are trying to spin into it. If you want to talk about those issues, start your own thread.
> 
> Jim


I find it hard to believe that you found 30 people in the state of ND that would be willing to steal the private property rights of hard working American Ranchers! Is ND still part of the United States?


----------



## R y a n

Ok Autry you've taken the RMEF point too far, and muddied the original talking points of this post. You've supplied so many articles, and posted so often without replies, that the original talking points are getting lost.

I've split your issue into another new thread. You can continue that line of logic over on it.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=44036

This thread is about discussing the merits of the current petition on the table.

Let's get back on topic.

Ryan


----------



## TPR

Great afternoon to look at what the radicals are doing.

It always seems that the only thing that stops a bully is a bigger bully that comes armed with facts.

Well done Autry. Facts will always reign.

There's a chinese saying something like ...the one that strikes first admits his argument has failed. I think by removing his posts you guys have just admitted your failures. All of what he was posting was the facts that dismiss your argument and reinforce the other side. I liked his ending so much I think I'll make a quote...

This thread is about the high fence issue and since the RMEF is very much a part of the high fence issue because they have in the past relied on captive raised elk, raised behind high fence, for their source of elk to be relocated, it was only fitting to bring the RMEF into the discussion.

It is hard to bring up the RMEF without mention of PETA since they both seem to have the same agenda and have worked hand in hand to help promote the passage of laws that steal the private property rights from hard working American Ranchers much the same as a few misinformed individuals are now trying to do in ND. You few are playing right into the hands of PETA with their divide and conquer plan and you don't even realize what you are doing to the hunting heritage.

*It is misinformed, selfish people like yourselves that is causing a decline in the hunter numbers.*


----------



## TPR

I think the most important post he made was the following. The important part is...

*The end of freedom in America*

*
----insert by ME--------------------------------------------------------------
That post is right here TPR

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=44036

Ryan*


----------



## R y a n

TPR said:


> I think by removing his posts you guys have just admitted your failures. All of what he was posting was the facts that dismiss your argument and reinforce the other side.
> 
> This thread is about the high fence issue and since the RMEF is very much a part of the high fence issue because they have in the past relied on captive raised elk, raised behind high fence, for their source of elk to be relocated, it was only fitting to bring the RMEF into the discussion.


I haven't removed his posts. I placed them into their own thread. They were facts about a side issue that although may relate to this issue.. are a diversionary tactic meant to cloud what the original intent of the thread is.

I have no dog in this fight as I am not a resident of North Dakota. As a Super Moderator on Nodak Outdoors, I'm here to ensure that the threads stay on track and adjust them appropriately when needed.

This thread is about the _*North Dakota initiated measure*_ to ban high fence hunting. It is not about high fence hunting. Maybe you should start your own thread titled "High Fence hunting talking points"?

It is extremely easy to make a parallel about an issue with a fact that has only a partial connection to the original issue if you spin it enough. One needs only look at the extreme lengths Autry made at trying to make a parallel to TWRA officers hunting over bait with donuts and comparing it to this thread for evidence of this fact.



TPR said:


> It is hard to bring up the RMEF without mention of PETA since they both seem to have the same agenda and have worked hand in hand to help promote the passage of laws that steal the private property rights from hard working American Ranchers much the same as a few misinformed individuals are now trying to do in ND.


Once again, it is interesting to see the desperation on trying to make correlations where none exist.

You guys must all have your own little side discussion going on how to confuse the general public and spin your agenda... your timing amongst all of you sure is coincidental....

Ryan


----------



## cwoparson

Don't know if he is a super moderator or not, what ever that is but moderator Plainsman did on several posts invite all new members to speak up on this issue. Don't know why that would be coincidental. What is interesting is every post by a dissenting opinion on this measure has been cordial and well written where as a large amount of supporting posts have been filed with name calling of people that don't agree with the measure or participate in these type of hunts. TPR you're right in you conclusions on how posts are handled in this topic. I agree with you that the removal of Autry's posts which were on topic in my opinion, to another thread appears to be nothing more than a means to remove any anything that appears to cast a shadow on the measure at hand.


----------



## jumpoff joe

Ok... I'm new here so be kind. I have been following this thread for a while and am now confused. The moderator states:



> This thread is about the _*North Dakota initiated measure*_ to ban high fence hunting. It is not about high fence hunting.


Is this about high fenced hunting or not?

I have one other question maybe somone would be so kind as to help me understand. How many high fenced hunting operations are there in ND? It sounds like they have taken over the state but I don't ebven know where any are located.

Also, how many animals do they kill per year on these ranches? I mean totally.

Thanks, 
Joe


----------



## R y a n

jumpoff joe said:


> Ok... I'm new here so be kind. I have been following this thread for a while and am now confused. The moderator states:
> 
> 
> 
> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about the _*North Dakota initiated measure*_ to ban high fence hunting. It is not about high fence hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this about high fenced hunting or not?
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe
Click to expand...

Hi Joe

Thanks for joining Nodak Outdoors.

Forgive me for asking.. but what spurred you to joining us at this time and having this be your first post on any topic? I find it once again very timely that we have another seemingly random new member on the forum who chooses this thread to start their posting career so to speak.

What's your name? Where are you from?

To answer your question... this thread is about the measure first and foremost. The measure does relate to an effort put forward by a group of North Dakota sportsmen to ban high fence shooting in North Dakota. (Note I did not say hunting)

I split off some posts that went off on a side tangent on trying to link several other side stories to the original issue. It was not my intent to stifle any kind of debate. In fact those posts were left up on this thread for some time. Only yesterday, when Autry had posted 5 large replies in a row, did the thread seem to have a feel for drifting off track from it's original intent.

I wasn't implying that the line of logic those posts were trying to discuss did not have merit in this thread. Rather they were large and deserved their own thread. If people started trying to rebut any of those articles and go down that path, it would have even further muddied the original thread.



cwoparson said:


> I agree with you that the removal of Autry's posts which were on topic in my opinion, to another thread appears to be nothing more than a means to remove any anything that appears to cast a shadow on the measure at hand.


As I mentioned before it is my goal to be fair and impartial in this issue. I'm not a resident of North Dakota, I own no high fence shooting operation, and I am not a sponsor of the measure. I was simply trying to keep the original thread on track. As you can imagine this is quite a challenge. There is passion on both sides, and everyone has points they are trying to get across. The goal in moderating is to ensure that something that is posted stays within enough context as to be a talking point. There have been other points made by both sides in the previous pages of this thread. All of the proponents of high fence shooting have made points here, and as long as they appear to not be trying to confuse people or overwhelm them with spam data they will be allowed to remain on the main thread. If however people start going off on side tangents, those threads will be split off to be discussed on the side.

I'd suggest that if you have a side point to make, to immediately start your own thread and make the point. If you start the thread, then it is your perrogative to decide the theme of it.

Thanks for listening to my lengthy thoughts...

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman

> Don't know if he is a super moderator or not, what ever that is but moderator Plainsman did on several posts invite all new members to speak up on this issue.


Yup, I did and that offer still stands. I think what Ryan is suspicious of is why some new fellows who have never been here all of a sudden show up. That's ok, but my original intent was for new members with say 100 posts who had shown interests in dogs, guns, fishing, etc. A person who comes on with their first post and hit this thread makes it look like they have been asked to come here.
My theory is they are in the business or have money invested and are not here as sportsmen or women, but as businessmen. However, that's ok with me also, we need to hear from all people. I am surprised that Canadians are interested in this. 
I was hot into the debate, but it's hard to debate and moderate. I decided to moderate. Carry on, and as Ryan said feel free to start a thread of your own. Normally this one would have been locked by now, but it is important and Ryan is trying his best to keep it on track. Thanks for your consideration on that.


----------



## jumpoff joe

R y a n said:


> What's your name? Where are you from?
> 
> To answer your question... this thread is about the measure first and foremost. The measure does relate to an effort put forward by a group of North Dakota sportsmen to ban high fence shooting in North Dakota. (Note I did not say hunting)


WOW.... are we paranoid Ryan? All that was ask was if this thread was about the high fenced measure and how many of these places exist in ND?

I learned about this issue on Fishing Buddy Outdoors back in August and have been following the comments since that time. My confusion came when posts were being removed that I thought were pertinent to the conversation at hand. Now I ask a simple question and get the book without a cover or even an answer to my question! (Ryan, maybe you should get into politics)

The reason I never posted before was because I didn't have a question to ask but was simply surveying what was being said about this issue.

The reason I choose to maintain my anonymity is due to the profile of my position.

FYI I will not waste my time or yours any further by asking or commenting, as sitting on the sidelines and watching seems to be the most productive.


----------



## 4590

Jumpoff,

Good luck getting any of your questions answered here. I have asked many throughout my posts and had very few if any answered. I can't even get the supporters to post the other 11 states, as has been suggested, that have outlawed preserve hunts. You would think that info would support their position. That is if its true.

On the contrary, when asked relevant questions, I have tried to supply factual accurate information when ever possible. (see recent posts on spread of CWD).

To answer your question on hunting preserves, I believe you can get an accurate answer by simply calling NDBOAH. I am aware of 7 or 8 high fence elk hunting operations. I am not sure how many if any deer hunting operations exist. For birds I have no clue. I do know a large percentage of bison ranches, whether regularly or occasionally, harvest animals in the fence.


----------



## Plainsman

> The reason I choose to maintain my anonymity is due to the profile of my position.


I understand that Jumpoff, for the most part I have done the same. Even though our constitution guarantees us freedom of speech it doesn't guarantee us freedom of retribution. Some companies don't recognize the first amendment. 
To avoid deletions or editing don't let the subject turn to 4590, Ryan, Jumpoff, or anyone else. Keep it on the measure. If you have personal beefs and don't want to PM that person, then PM Ryan, or myself, or one of the other moderators. Opinions of a personal nature belong in PM's'. How I treat you will not depend on your opinion of the high fence measure, but on how respectful you are. I may or may not agree with you, but I will value you as a person. I would like to agree with everyone, but you know how that goes.


----------



## g/o

4590, The last count I know of on bird preserves was 36, I'm sure it has changed but well under 50.


----------



## redlabel

R y a n said:


> This thread is about the _*North Dakota initiated measure*_ to ban high fence hunting. It is not about high fence hunting. Maybe you should start your own thread titled "High Fence hunting talking points"?


How can a North Dakota initiated measure to ban high fence hunting not be about high fence hunting? If there was no high fence hunting there would be no need to ban it. It would seem a thread about the measure would have to include the cause of the measure.


----------



## Autry

R y a n said:


> TPR said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think by removing his posts you guys have just admitted your failures. All of what he was posting was the facts that dismiss your argument and reinforce the other side.
> 
> This thread is about the high fence issue and since the RMEF is very much a part of the high fence issue because they have in the past relied on captive raised elk, raised behind high fence, for their source of elk to be relocated, it was only fitting to bring the RMEF into the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't removed his posts. I placed them into their own thread. They were facts about a side issue that although may relate to this issue.. are a diversionary tactic meant to cloud what the original intent of the thread is.
> 
> I have no dog in this fight as I am not a resident of North Dakota. As a Super Moderator on Nodak Outdoors, I'm here to ensure that the threads stay on track and adjust them appropriately when needed.
> 
> This thread is about the _*North Dakota initiated measure*_ to ban high fence hunting. It is not about high fence hunting. Maybe you should start your own thread titled "High Fence hunting talking points"?
> 
> It is extremely easy to make a parallel about an issue with a fact that has only a partial connection to the original issue if you spin it enough. One needs only look at the extreme lengths Autry made at trying to make a parallel to TWRA officers hunting over bait with donuts and comparing it to this thread for evidence of this fact.
> 
> 
> 
> TPR said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is hard to bring up the RMEF without mention of PETA since they both seem to have the same agenda and have worked hand in hand to help promote the passage of laws that steal the private property rights from hard working American Ranchers much the same as a few misinformed individuals are now trying to do in ND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, it is interesting to see the desperation on trying to make correlations where none exist.
> 
> Ryan
Click to expand...

There is no desperation on my part!

The RMEF admitted, after they got caught red handed, that they helped PETA in MT do the same thing that you guys in ND are now trying to do, encourage the voters to steal the private property rights of hard working American Ranchers. Shame on you!

The RMEF admitted, after they got caught red handed, that they helped PETA in MT by spending $50,000.00 to influence the voters with the PETA and RMEF propaganda. Shame on you!

You few guys in ND that are pushing this voter initiative that would steal private property rights from hard working American Ranchers, are NO BETTER THAN PETA who has done the same thing. Shame on you!


----------



## Autry

R y a n said:


> jumpoff joe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok... I'm new here so be kind. I have been following this thread for a while and am now confused. The moderator states:
> 
> 
> 
> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about the _*North Dakota initiated measure*_ to ban high fence hunting. It is not about high fence hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this about high fenced hunting or not?
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi Joe
> 
> Thanks for joining Nodak Outdoors.
> 
> Forgive me for asking.. but what spurred you to joining us at this time and having this be your first post on any topic? I find it once again very timely that we have another seemingly random new member on the forum who chooses this thread to start their posting career so to speak.
> 
> What's your name? Where are you from?
> 
> To answer your question... this thread is about the measure first and foremost. The measure does relate to an effort put forward by a group of North Dakota sportsmen to ban high fence shooting in North Dakota. (Note I did not say hunting)
> 
> I split off some posts that went off on a side tangent on trying to link several other side stories to the original issue. It was not my intent to stifle any kind of debate. In fact those posts were left up on this thread for some time. Only yesterday, when Autry had posted 5 large replies in a row, did the thread seem to have a feel for drifting off track from it's original intent.
> 
> I wasn't implying that the line of logic those posts were trying to discuss did not have merit in this thread. Rather they were large and deserved their own thread. If people started trying to rebut any of those articles and go down that path, it would have even further muddied the original thread.
> 
> 
> 
> cwoparson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you that the removal of Autry's posts which were on topic in my opinion, to another thread appears to be nothing more than a means to remove any anything that appears to cast a shadow on the measure at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I mentioned before it is my goal to be fair and impartial in this issue. I'm not a resident of North Dakota, I own no high fence shooting operation, and I am not a sponsor of the measure. I was simply trying to keep the original thread on track. As you can imagine this is quite a challenge. There is passion on both sides, and everyone has points they are trying to get across. The goal in moderating is to ensure that something that is posted stays within enough context as to be a talking point. There have been other points made by both sides in the previous pages of this thread. All of the proponents of high fence shooting have made points here, and as long as they appear to not be trying to confuse people or overwhelm them with spam data they will be allowed to remain on the main thread. If however people start going off on side tangents, those threads will be split off to be discussed on the side.
> 
> I'd suggest that if you have a side point to make, to immediately start your own thread and make the point. If you start the thread, then it is your perrogative to decide the theme of it.
> 
> Thanks for listening to my lengthy thoughts...
> 
> Ryan
Click to expand...

*The truth of the matter is when people started reading my post on this thread, the poll started changing because these people realized that they had been led astray by a handful of PETA supporters who pretend to be hunters.*


----------



## Autry

Exclusive Interview: Ted Nugent on High Fence Hunting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## rowdie

ITS NOT ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS! Its about unethical business. Many people feel it is unethical to sell canned hunts. Some feel its unethical to rasie, then sell the trophy buck hunts inside high fences. Other unethical trades are illeagal on privat property, like prostitution!

I can't believe anyone ever thought this up. Shooting animals in high fences, and calling it hunting?? :eyeroll:


----------



## 2labs

Ok for the record we all REALLY know why the sudden rash of post's.
http://www.deer-forums.com/discus/messa ... 1190587183

http://www.deer-forums.com/discus/messa ... 1191237494

In the military a diversionary tactic is used to draw the enemy away from the main assault&#8230;know thy enemy. Yes I say enemy because high fence "hunting" and I use that term lightly goes against every fiber in my body. Excuse me while I get the vomit out of my mouth....I would be curious to see the numbers on the poll regarding the ND residents only?


----------



## Plainsman

For those that don't want to take the time.



> Deer & Elk Farmers Discussion Forums » Announcements and News in the Industry » Hunting Preserves in North Dakota « Previous Next »
> 
> Author Message
> 
> Autry
> Member
> Username: Autry
> 
> Post Number: 439
> Registered: 11-2002
> Posted From: 4.226.147.8
> Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 01:57 pm:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 280im
> Member
> Username: 280im
> 
> Post Number: 1
> Registered: 09-2007
> Posted From: 216.106.26.196
> Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 01:05 pm:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This bill,if passed and the public is going to vote on it, will be just the beginning of the end for deer and elk farmers all over the nation. I was kicked off this site as was another out of state person for disagree with these camo wearing peta members. They are using peta and anti hunter tactics to get this bill passed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... p?p=336217
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please consider going to the link below and voting NO in the poll to show your support for Hunting Preserves in North Dakota. It only takes one minute.
> 
> http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... p?p=336217
> 
> 280im
> Member
> Username: 280im
> 
> Post Number: 5
> Registered: 09-2007
> Posted From: 216.106.26.196
> Posted on Sunday, September 23, 2007 - 11:39 am:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> That's great!!!!!!!!!! Take the time to contact your fellow producers and let them know thier opinions are needed!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Curious to see their new member on that forum. When will Dewey Curren (aka 280IM) let it go?


----------



## Autry

Post subject: PETA says Hunting Culture Tied to School Shootings

*edit:
scroll down 15 posts on the hot topics section here Autry..I posted this article weeks ago... catch up.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=30689

Ryan*
***************************************

You think your hunting rights are safe?

Just because you live in ND do you think groups like Peta can't cause you to lose your rights?

Any time you lose one shooting event wheather your like it or not, you are one step closer to losing all shooting and hunting rights!!!!!!!!

If you are asked to sign a petition to put fenced shooting on the ballot in Nov. stop and think is this going to lead to the lose of more of my shooting and hunting rights?

Don't be duped by camo wearing petitinors saying we just want high fence shooting stoped it will lead to more outlawing of shooting and hunting rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How many anti hunting groups members are there compared to the shooting and huntings members??


----------



## Autry

Anti hunting groups are taking note of a ND group of 30 sponsoring a bill to Outlaw High Fence Shooting and put ND game farms out of bussiness. Open the door and these types of groups will enter and the right to hunt will dissappear one piece at a time!!!!!!!!!

Quote: 
The True Nature of Sport Hunting

August 31, 2007 
To The Editor:

*edit:
Again Autry scroll down about 8 posts in the Hot Topics forum. I again already posted this one too... :roll:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=43243

Ryan*


----------



## Plainsman

> Anti hunting groups are taking note of a ND group of 30 sponsoring a bill to Outlaw High Fence Shooting and put ND game farms out of bussiness. Open the door and these types of groups will enter and the right to hunt will dissappear one piece at a time!!!!!!!!!


OK, I'm stupid or something, I read that three times and I can't find the part where they are "taking note of a ND group of 30". Did you delete it? Bold it for me please. Also, don't think I am being a smart &^%$, I am serious. 
As of late, I am trying to seriously consider everyones posts. At the same time rather than join the argument I am trying to make people back up claims with references. If we come to any understanding both sides need to deal from a foundation of reality. 
Also, Autry did you not get my PM? I would like some kind of response please, only if it is to acknowledge you received it.
Autry, today on a site for deer and elk farmers I see where you enlisted their votes on nodakoutdoors. That turns the polling on this site into something other than a polling of sportsmen. It now is a combination of sportsmen and producers. I am surprised we are still doing so well.

Also, I would like to add: if I miss asking for a reference from a person supporting the ban on high fence hunts PM me. I know I am looking myself for the eleven states that have done so to date. I know Montana has, but to be truthful I haven't looked real hard. I guess I will have to do that too.


----------



## R y a n

Plainsman said:


> Anti hunting groups are taking note of a ND group of 30 sponsoring a bill to Outlaw High Fence Shooting and put ND game farms out of bussiness. Open the door and these types of groups will enter and the right to hunt will dissappear one piece at a time!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'm stupid or something, I read that three times and I can't find the part where they are "taking note of a ND group of 30". Did you delete it? Bold it for me please. Also, don't think I am being a smart &^%$, I am serious.
Click to expand...

No Plainsman there is no quote from that article. I posted that thread awhile ago in Hot topics. It would appear that Autry is simply trying to install fear and hysteria here in hopes of confusing the membership. He'd love to keep trying to make comparisons and assumptions where none exist.

Autry do you not see how you are being perceived? You aren't helping the high fence shooting industry at all with your hysteria. However you are entertaining. I'm just sitting here curious to see as to what lengths you are willing to take your desperation to...

Ryan


----------



## always_outdoors

I get a kick out of all that has happened here in 10 pages.

First the sponsors were infringing on property rights..false

Second, we were all anti-hunting people, false

Third, we were called slob hunters, false (even accused to being deer road hunters which I can attest I have never done before)

Fourth, we were called PETA members, false

and now they are trying to separate the ND hunters with lies and untruths about what they do.

How much spinning can high fence operators do?

MEMBERS OF THIS SITE, this is your wake-up call right here. The sponsors on this measure have been truthful and forefront. As you can see by the many posts, there are quite a few reasons why this shouldn't happen in ND, yet many advocates for high fence hunting have spun and spun the issue to try and twist your mind (property rights, trying to include bison to get bison producers on their side, being likened by members of PETA, that we are slob hunters, that we are anti-hunters, that RMEF supports high fence, etc..)

The sponsors and supporters of this measure have provided facts and research valid to this issue. The opposition hasn't provided anything..Look through all 10 pages and you will see no facts or research warranted for what they call their hunting operation.

See you all at the voting booths... :thumb:


----------



## Autry

R y a n said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anti hunting groups are taking note of a ND group of 30 sponsoring a bill to Outlaw High Fence Shooting and put ND game farms out of bussiness. Open the door and these types of groups will enter and the right to hunt will dissappear one piece at a time!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'm stupid or something, I read that three times and I can't find the part where they are "taking note of a ND group of 30". Did you delete it? Bold it for me please. Also, don't think I am being a smart &^%$, I am serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Plainsman there is no quote from that article. I posted that thread awhile ago in Hot topics. It would appear that Autry is simply trying to install fear and hysteria here in hopes of confusing the membership. He'd love to keep trying to make comparisons and assumptions where none exist.
> 
> Ryan
Click to expand...

You seem to have a real need to delete some of the information that I post because it is a real threat to your private property rights stealing poll! You should be man enough to let the information stand instead of playing dirty to sway the vote.


----------



## Autry

rowdie said:


> ITS NOT ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS! Its about unethical business. Many people feel it is unethical to sell canned hunts. Some feel its unethical to rasie, then sell the trophy buck hunts inside high fences. Other unethical trades are illeagal on privat property, like prostitution!
> 
> I can't believe anyone ever thought this up. Shooting animals in high fences, and calling it hunting?? :eyeroll:


The majority of the public are against any type of hunting!


----------



## Autry

live2hunt said:


> I get a kick out of all that has happened here in 10 pages.
> 
> First the sponsors were infringing on property rights..false
> 
> Second, we were all anti-hunting people, false
> 
> Third, we were called slob hunters, false (even accused to being deer road hunters which I can attest I have never done before)
> 
> Fourth, we were called PETA members, false
> 
> and now they are trying to separate the ND hunters with lies and untruths about what they do.
> 
> How much spinning can high fence operators do?
> 
> MEMBERS OF THIS SITE, this is your wake-up call right here. The sponsors on this measure have been truthful and forefront. As you can see by the many posts, there are quite a few reasons why this shouldn't happen in ND, yet many advocates for high fence hunting have spun and spun the issue to try and twist your mind (property rights, trying to include bison to get bison producers on their side, being likened by members of PETA, that we are slob hunters, that we are anti-hunters, that RMEF supports high fence, etc..)
> 
> The sponsors and supporters of this measure have provided facts and research valid to this issue. The opposition hasn't provided anything..Look through all 10 pages and you will see no facts or research warranted for what they call their hunting operation.
> 
> See you all at the voting booths... :thumb:


*The thirty PETA supporters have not provided any proof that shows it necessary for the voters of ND to steal the private property rights of hard working ND Ranchers. All that you have provided is hype and misinformation. There is no truthful information posted here that supports your claims!*


----------



## Dak

This thread has rapidly devolved into something not even worth checking...


----------



## cwoparson

> Ok for the record we all REALLY know why the sudden rash of post's.
> http://www.deer-forums.com/discus/messa ... 1190587183
> http://www.deer-forums.com/discus/messa ... 1191237494


Stop being paranoid and get real. It is a public opinion poll, not a North Dakota resident opinion poll. If it bothers you what the general public might say then start another poll for residents only. In any public opinion poll members on both side of the issue will solicit people to vote on their side or even to pick up a petition form for signatures.



> First the sponsors were infringing on property rights..false
> Second, we were all anti-hunting people, false
> Third, we were called slob hunters, false (even accused to being deer road hunters which I can attest I have never done before)
> Fourth, we were called PETA members, false
> and now they are trying to separate the ND hunters with lies and untruths about what they do.


Unfortunately that is a two way street. Reading back through these posts those that have been against the high fence ban have been called slob hunters, lazy SOB's, fat rich slobs, and even prostitutes. Funny thing is everyone that has been against the ban with the exception of one person who is kind of irritating, has been polite and cordial and has provided facts of their own. In some cases even more so than the supporters. But on the other hand a lot of the supporters that posted are down right vile in their remarks to the point of being vulgar.



> How much spinning can high fence operators do?


Not any more than the supporters of the petition.

I think what a lot of the supporters of this petition are missing is in the minds of non supporters (some not all), it is not a question of whether high fence hunting is ethical or not. That is a private matter to them. It is not a question of property rights because the courts will surly become involved in that area. But it is a question of the method you are using. When you use the issue of ethics to pass laws you have dug a hole that cannot be filled back up. Don't confuse morality (rules or standards governing conduct of the masses) with ethics (rules or standards governing individual conduct). They are not the same.


----------



## Dick Monson

cwo, your assumption is incorrect that this issue is soley based on the lack of ethics in canned shooting. Of course there are none. g/o wished to frame the arguement in that context to purposely avoid the the other well documented issues of illeagl activity, disease, etc.

One of the most abused arguements is how well the game farmers document their animals.

Nice bull, huh?










A ND elk farmer called NDGF that this bull was harassing the fence, and the guy requested permission to haze it off with rifle fire. Permission was granted. The farmer called back shortly that he had hit the wild bull in the butt, and it was down. He wanted NDGF to kill it now. So they did.

The bull had an ear tag. It was the farmers own bull. He didn't even know it was out and couldn't recognize his own herd bull. :eyeroll:

When you review the independent audits of this industry from other states you realize what a shambles canned shooting operations are in.


----------



## MRN

> The bull had an ear tag. It was the farmers own bull. He didn't even know it was out and couldn't recognize his own herd bull.


Come on Dick, you gotta be making this sort of stuff up. 
Elk don't escape. Just doesn't happen. But when they do, the folks contain and recapture them quickly. Hey, they have blooming ear tags!

Guy is obviously the pride of the "cervid industry". Probably their spokesman....

M.


----------



## R y a n

NPR radio published the following last month. I'm surprised you didn't spotlight this article Autry? You knew about it...

*THIS* is why we need to ban canned shooting. *THIS* is why we need to make a distinction between this type of commercial bastardization known as high fence shooting and our cherished heritage of fair chase hunting. There is *no* room for compromise.

As you can see... they already make comparisons of the dog fighting with Mike Vick, the infamous "internet shooting" fiasco, and your canned shooting preserves.

We need to get rid of these operations from ruining public perception of our sport before its too late.

Ryan



> *Beyond Vick: Animal Cruelty for Sport*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12568999
> 
> There has been some muted protest that Michael Vick has been suspended too precipitously by the National Football League and unfairly stripped of his rich endorsements, before the indictments against him for dogfighting and dog-killing could be settled in court.
> 
> However, given the heinous charges against Vick, it is difficult to imagine any public company - yours, for example? - that would blithely keep such an employee till the government had gotten round to working things out with him.
> 
> The presumption of innocence may be one of the most hallowed tenets of our justice system. But let's face it, in an informed society - most especially where details are well publicized - citizens of good will _will _arrive at their own conclusions. Sometimes, of course, these assumptions will run wild. In sport, we have no further to look than the notorious Duke lacrosse case. But, then, as the presumption of innocence is a final safeguard, the presumption of shame is a precipitate reality that public figures must take into account when they choose to misbehave.
> 
> And Vick's infamy has at least put the spotlight on the loathsome business of dog-fighting. Who knew that the Humane Society estimates that there are as many as 40,000 Americans who fight dogs? And there are, too, other animal torture amusements in this country that, lacking a celebrity to spotlight them, actually remain legal in many states.
> 
> For example, are you familiar with something called "canned hunting?" This is fun for that greatest of oxymorons - sportsmen. These are hunters who go to what are called, yes, "shooting preserves." There, animals are conveniently penned in for paying customers with a "no-kill, no-pay" guarantee, so they can be "sure shot" at close range. Fish in a barrel. Many of the technically wild animals are actually semi-tame, used to humans who feed them. They see a truck approaching, they think it's the feed wagon, they come closer, and the paying sportsman blasts away.
> 
> Only about half our states have any restrictions against canned hunting. There are about 1,000 shooting preserves in the U.S. - 500 alone in the great state of Texas.
> 
> Or, if you're a sportsman too busy to actually leave your comfortable home to kill a defenseless animal, Internet hunting is just for you. It's easy. You go online and are connected to a shooting preserve that may be hundreds of miles away, where you see your prey before you. You zero in on the target on your computer screen and touch a button that activates a gun that blows away the unsuspecting, docile animal. The trophy head will be shipped to you, you brave, big-game hunter, for display on your wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In a 2005 photo, John Lockwood, owner of
> a real-time, online hunting and shooting Web site,
> demonstrates using the Internet to shoot targets
> on a Texas ranch. Many states have moved to ban
> Internet hunting, and Lockwood's Web site was
> subsequently shut down*.
> 
> Sixteen states have no strictures against Internet hunting. One of them is the great state of Georgia, where so many citizens have been upset that the accused dog-slaughterer Vick plays for their Atlanta Falcons.
> 
> I'm personally revulsed by Michael Vick, but the sad fact is that, in the animal-cruelty business, he shares company with a lot of other distinguished American sportsmen.


----------



## cwoparson

> As recently as last week, sportswriter and novelist *Frank Deford* delivered a scathing commentary on NPR decrying the hordes of knuckle-dragging internet hunters and comparing their viciousness to the alleged dog-fighting abuses of football star Michael Vick. Even the United States House of Representatives has taken up the cause, with one of the senior Republicans in Congress, the usually level-headed Tom Davis of Virginia, introducing HR 2711, The Computer Assisted Remote Hunting Act. "You just wonder," he declared, "who would do something like this?"
> 
> The answer is no one, actually.
> 
> Despite the nationwide hysteria (deliberately fanned by the *Humane Society* and other animal welfare groups) there's no evidence anywhere, that anyone has blown away herds of unsuspecting wildlife through an internet connection.


Frank Deford is the author of the article in the last post that thinks sportsmen and hunting is a oxymoron and makes such comments as "if you're a sportsman too busy to actually leave your comfortable home to kill a defenseless animal"  which is in line with his anti hunting and gun control position that he occasional slips into his commentaries when talking about baseball, football or basketball. He may know and be very knowledgeable in jock strap sports but knows nothing about hunting which is evident of the above article. Getting in bed with these people to attempt to prove a point is a very dangerous thing. John Lockwoods stupid internet hunting brain fart of a stunt went no where and was shut down but the antis really loved it.


----------



## R y a n

cwoparson said:


> Frank Deford is the author of the article in the last post that thinks sportsmen and hunting is a oxymoron and makes such comments as "if you're a sportsman too busy to actually leave your comfortable home to kill a defenseless animal"  which is in line with his anti hunting and gun control position that he occasional slips into his commentaries when talking about baseball, football or basketball. He may know and be very knowledgeable in jock strap sports but knows nothing about hunting which is evident of the above article. Getting in bed with these people to attempt to prove a point is a very dangerous thing. John Lockwoods stupid internet hunting brain fart of a stunt went no where and was shut down but the antis really loved it.


Please try to quote the entire sentence. He was speaking of INTERNET hunting. 


> Or, if you're a sportsman too busy to actually leave your comfortable home to kill a defenseless animal, *Internet hunting *is just for you.


He went on to compare your trapped animal shooting to that despicable practice of internet hunting.

We don't need our traditional methods of hunting lumped in with your high $$$ trophy shooting arenas.

You see... this is where some of the disconnect is. You believe we are part of you. You believe the "anti's" are trying to stop hunting, (which they are), but you are also trying to lump what you do as hunting. We don't want any more of a black eye that your industry is giving our hunting heritage.

We don't need to confuse any more Frank DeFord's of the world with what is hunting and what is big $$$ trophy slaughter. He appears already confused enough. We don't want to give him any more fodder to use against legitimate fair chase hunting practices.

Ryan


----------



## bowhunter04

Well said Ryan. I think that's the point that many who support the High-Fence initiative have been trying to make.


----------



## cwoparson

> Please try to quote the entire sentence. He was speaking of INTERNET hunting.


He framed his comments to internet hunting which never existed and still does not as far as I know. But he did not miss the chance to throw in a "defenseless animal" slap and a "animal-cruelty business" (hunting). He then tries to set himself apart by saying he is "revulsed by Michael Vick" (I guess he meant repulsed) but that is odd as he has consistently blasted the media for treating Vick unfairly. If you think he is not taking a shot at all hunting then you are missing the boat. All I'm saying is be careful who you take on as bedfellows in trying to make your point. It goes to your credibility what you choose as subject and who is chosen. To my way of thinking this stunt by Lockwood has nothing to do with any kind of hunting.



> but you are also trying to lump what you do as hunting. We don't want any more of a black eye that your industry is giving our hunting heritage.


That's mighty big of you since what I do is hunting and probable even more ethical than your standards. It is not my industry. I have never used a G/O nor have I ever hunted a game farm. But I do consider what and how people choose to do their legal hunting as their own business. It is precisely that kind of know it all attitude that gives the black eye and the recipient is not me.


----------



## R y a n

cwoparson said:


> Please try to quote the entire sentence. He was speaking of INTERNET hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> He framed his comments to internet hunting which never existed and still does not as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Yes he compared internet hunting being a form of "Unfair Chase" hunting you are correct. The fact that it was proposed as a viable "method" and chastized is the same way that we are chastizing your "method" of shooting.



cwoparson said:


> But he did not miss the chance to throw in a "defenseless animal" slap


Newsflash. THEY _are _defenseless when being hunted via the internet. The animal has no idea something is around. They playing field is non existant if the hunter is not present for the hunt. A well deserved slap indeed....



cwoparson said:


> and a "animal-cruelty business" (hunting).


The animal cruelty is also deserved. The animals were not humanely pursued. They were simply inanimate targets on the other end of a computer monitor game. Almost a similar comparison could be made of pursuing trapped animals in a fence for shooting purposes.



cwoparson said:


> If you think he is not taking a shot at all hunting then you are missing the boat. All I'm saying is be careful who you take on as bedfellows in trying to make your point.


No he was using the farce of high fence shooting being a legitimate form of hunting, and making a coorelation to that and internet shooting and Mike Vick dogfighting. Simple really. Can't you extrapolate or infer the same?



cwoparson said:


> It goes to your credibility what you choose as subject and who is chosen. To my way of thinking this stunt by Lockwood has nothing to do with any kind of hunting


My credibility is rock solid. You need to read more of my posts sir. To my way of thinking you are correct in your quote above. I'll take it further though.... _*To my way of thinking *_this "stunt" by the elk/deer growers allowing high fence shooting of captive trapped farm stock and calling that "ethical hunting" is a joke.

_*To my way of thinking*_, those high fence shooting operations calling them hunts is a joke. It is horn shooting of tame targets. Trying to lump regular hard working ethical fair chase hunters together with rich lazy urban slobs looking for another wall trophy is a joke. Trying to give the illusion that their commercial fake "ranches" are real working ranches is a joke. Them trying to bastardize what hunting truly is all about is a *joke*.

An apples to apples comparison indeed.

Have a nice day.

Ryan


----------



## cwoparson

You're grasping at straws. The John Lockwood fiasco has nothing to do with either type of hunting and was condemned by all sides. It's apples to oranges and you know it. The terms you are using are almost laughable. When you make a comment such as "THEY are defenseless when being hunted via the internet. The animal has no idea something is around." you then can no longer separate internet hunting from any hunting. Do you think geese with their feet down, wings cupped know there are hunters just a few yards away? You think they are thinking, hey maybe we can make it in a get a few bites before they shoot us? Of course not. All animals are defenseless in real terms when being hunted. Internet hunting was a stupid stunt of an idea that was condemned and shut down before it ever got started. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


----------



## always_outdoors

> Internet hunting was a stupid stunt of an idea that was condemned and shut down before it ever got started.


I wished this would have happened to high fence hunting in ND. I believe it was a stupid stunt by those who commercialize horns and call it hunting, yet when in front of legislators call it "domesticated livestock". Seems stupid to me that they try and talk out of two mouths doesn't it?



> It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


It has everything to do with it. high fence hunting, like internet hunting is wrong. It gives hunting a black eye. Plain and simple. uke:


----------



## R y a n

cwoparson said:


> but you are also trying to lump what you do as hunting. We don't want any more of a black eye that your industry is giving our hunting heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> That's mighty big of you since what I do is hunting and probable even more ethical than your standards. It is not my industry. I have never used a G/O nor have I ever hunted a game farm. But I do consider what and how people choose to do their legal hunting as their own business. It is precisely that kind of know it all attitude that gives the black eye and the recipient is not me.
Click to expand...

Right. So we are to believe that you randomly joined this site for the sole purpose of defending an industry out of the goodness of your heart? And your sole logic for standing up for them is to ensure that they are allowed to conduct "their legal business"? How ohh so honorable of you.

Nice edit to the post after I posted by the way....

If you are truly a fair chase hunter, and are indeed looking out for the long term viability of the sport, you need to consider the big picture a bit more. You need to look at how an article like I posted from NPR above is being interpreted by the common joe citizen. I will not allow the high fence industry to be in the same bed as me. They and their clients are not hunters. They are consumers or purchasers of horns. However you would like it rationalized, they are not around for the best interests of the sport, but rather their pocketbooks.

The difference between you and I, is that I look at the issue and what perceptions will be made in the minds of the common citizen. You can frame this within the narrow parameters of property rights or legalese to make your case. We are looking to change that legalese, as it threatens the original intent of fair chase hunting.

Step back and look at perceptions man... all the posters here so far..yours, mine, hunting, game farms, etc... look at the context of this thread...look within yourself and determine what your motivations are.

Ask yourself if supporting the stance you currently have is in the long term best interests of something you have a passion for.... or whether your view is skewed by other interests...

Ryan


----------



## cwoparson

> Right. So we are to believe that you randomly joined this site for the sole purpose of defending an industry out of the goodness of your heart? And your sole logic for standing up for them is to ensure that they are allowed to conduct "their legal business"? How ohh so honorable of you.


Now your just being a smart ***. If you had bothered to read any of my posts I made it perfectly clear I was defending no one. My one and only reason for being against your initiative is not in defense of the industry but the probable repercussions to the world of hunting from your actions. You really should pay attention. I would add that is about the 5th or 6th time I've seen a comment about the timing of someone joining this site. Is there a off season time that it is safe to join without being accused of some kind of motive as to the time you joined?



> Nice edit to the post after I posted by the way....


Go back and look at the times of my edit and your post. They are both posted at the exact same time. I had my browser open and doing the edit at the same time you posted. I would think as a moderator you would know that. You should know how that works. Again, pay attention instead of jumping to conclusions.



> If you are truly a fair chase hunter, and are indeed looking out for the long term viability of the sport, you need to consider the big picture a bit more.


I believe I am looking at the big picture. At the same time I believe your tunnel vision and blindness is preventing you from seeing the big picture. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## g/o

Dick Monson said:


> cwo, your assumption is incorrect that this issue is soley based on the lack of ethics in canned shooting. Of course there are none. g/o wished to frame the arguement in that context to purposely avoid the the other well documented issues of illeagl activity, disease, etc.





Dick Monson said:


> It does not affect game preserves or game farms. It does not prohibit sale of big game species breeding stock or other live mammals or the ownership of them. It does not prohibit commercial slaughter for meat products or other animal products. Bison are not affected. And birds are not affected. g/o is safe for one more day.


Dick Monson, May I remind you this is your quote from the first post on this. So please Dick tell me, if game farms are still allowed to operate in this state as you have said they will. How will this control the threat you seem to be concerned with disease. We have only a small hand full of High Fence operators in the state yet we have hundreds of Elk farmers. I will give you a good example one high fence operator buys his Elk and deer as needed. The total time they are on his place is maybe 2 months. Down the road from him we have several Elk farmers who have Elk 24/7. So tell me Dick how is this nothing but an ethics bill. Unless you are sneaking things in the fine print like you did last time. Remember Dick how you tried to include bird raisers also????????


----------



## Dick Monson

g/o, you mistruth again. No one from the sportsmen's orgs or any individual other than the sponsor of 2254 wrote that bill. And he explained very clearly that birds would not be included in the final of the 4 drafts.



> How will this control the threat you seem to be concerned with disease.


 Every road from game ranching leads directly or indirectly to canned shooting. We can agree on that as it is the only viable market. From the disease-gentic pollution aspect, remove that incentive to sell "shooters" and the incentive to cheat the regs is removed.

Remember that CWD exposed elk have been introduced in ND 7 times already. BOAH didn't catch some of these cases, the info came to NDGF from out of state agencies.

I find it interesting that so many in the industry profess to be lily white about canned shooting, yet the opposition from game ranching is universal. They protest too much if they are not involved. But I think they are. You sat through the hearings, didn't they testify that were possibly 28 involved? Of course Shawn Schafer said the year before that he thought there "were only 2 in ND".

As other states move forward with the same legislation the market will dry up for "shooter bucks and bulls". There is Federal legislation pending already.


----------



## g/o

Dick, Yes you are partly correct, and that is the bill was corrected after the 4th time. Tell me Dick had we not caught the screw up and the bill would have passed we would be the laughing stock right now. Again Dick this initiative measure the way I read it has nothing to do with game farms or disease. It only addresses the ethics involved at these places. No Dick I did not attend the full hearing I was over in the house killing the baiting bill. Thank you


----------



## Dick Monson

g/o, You need to read to bill again. Neither genetic pollution, disease, or ethics are mentioned, other than control by government officals. g/o if you wish to write your own measure then you can frame the arguements. Nice try though. I believe that all three are proven threats to public hunting, as has been documented time again.

Visited with a gentleman last night who is aware of a recent escaped white tailed buck. It is carrying a gene package of recessive white traits. Now it is in the wild at the start of breeding season. :eyeroll: So in the future there may some easier to see. Wonder what other recessive traits it has?

While you were killing the baiting bill, did you mention that moose in the Turtle Mountains are dying because of baiting? Maybe outfitters aren't into moose yet?


----------



## g/o

> Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited (the wording of the ballot title may be changed by the Secretary of State


Am I to assume Dick that all this measure is about ? Good then I hope we hear nothing from you anymore about disease or ethics. By the way Dick I didn't see you at the baiting hearing. To inform you we have more sportsman in this state than outfitters baiting. The whole concept of banning baiting is a joke unless you include "feeding" with it.


----------



## Dick Monson

g/o said:


> Good then I hope we hear nothing from you anymore about disease or ethics.


 Your hopes are dashed. Don't be shy.

*BALLOT TITLE *

This initiated measure would add a new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code effective November 1, 2010, providing that a person, other than an authorized government employee or agent, is guilty of a crime if the person obtains payment for the killing or attempted killing of privately owned big game species or exotic mammals in or released from a man-made enclosure.

*FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE *

IF MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED, IT IS NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING 
ADDED. IF MATERIAL IS OVERSTRUCK BY DASHES, THE MATERIAL IS BEING 
DELETED. IF NO MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED OR OVERSTRUCK, THE 
MEASURE CONTAINS ALL NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING ADDED.

*BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA: *

SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

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

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


----------



## R y a n

*Initiated measure addresses fair chase hunting in the state*
Stefanie Briggs The Dickinson Press
Published Sunday, November 25, 2007
http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/articl ... n=homepage

A new grassroots initiative committee called the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase may not have been around for a year, but the reason for the group is steeped in tradition.

Fish and Wildlife Services Refuge Manager Lloyd Jones said he has been discussing the issue of fair chase in hunting operations for close to 30 years, and now there seems to be more public attention to it. Jones is a former North Dakota Game and Fish Department director.

"Hunting is a tradition," Jones said. "It's an activity where you get to be outdoors and be with other people enjoying the pursuit of wild animals."

The pursuit part is what Jones and others who support the initiative's Fair Chase Hunting Measure are discussion when it comes to hunting operations with man-made enclosures on animals, usually a high fence.

The initiative committee's Web site states its objective is "to place a measure on the November 2008 ballot that enacts a law that prohibits shooting captive deer, elk and other exotic mammals behind escape-proof fences, because the practice is both mercenary and unethical."

The wording of the initiative ballot language prepared by the secretary of state and attorney general is: "This initiated measure would add a new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code effective Nov. 1, 2010, providing that a person, other than an authorized government employee or agent, is guilty of a crime if the person obtains payment for the killing or attempted killing of privately owned big game species or exotic mammals in or released from a man-made enclosure."

Petitions are currently circulating around the state in support of this measure. Right now, the initiative committee needs more than 12,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

"We started up at the end of this last legislative session," committee Chairman Roger Kaseman said. "About six or seven of us got together in Jamestown and met to get filed with the secretary of state and become an official organization."

A retired law enforcement officer living in Linton, Kaseman refers to the initiative group as a hybrid, with members scattered all around the state. He just recently put up a Web site for people to learn more about the group.

"We're a child of the Internet," he added. "A lot of what we do and how we communicate is by e-mail."

In support of the measure and initiative is Dickinson electrician Mitch Feininger, who like Jones, Kaseman and other supporters, actively hunts.

"I'm an avid hunter and I feel that a hunter has all the tools necessary with modern technology such as optics or accuracy of modern firearms and archery equipment that such a practice (as canned hunting) tips the scale too far to the hunter's advantage as to make it a&#8230;guaranteed successful harvest," Feininger said of fenced-in hunting operations.

Hunting is not hunting, but merely killing when the animal does not have a chance to use it's instincts to outsmart its hunter, he added.

For Kaseman it's a question of ethics.

"No ranch is big enough to give an animal a fair chase," he added. "We must continue to hold to the code of ethics created by the founders of the North American Model of Game Management and Conservation."

The model details that all wildlife belongs to North Americans and how that wildlife should be sustained perpetually.

If you raise the animal as livestock, it should be slaughtered as livestock, Feininger added.

"Hunting is the pursuit of free-ranging animals," he said. "When a once free-ranging animal becomes domesticated, it becomes livestock. Livestock was never meant to be hunted."

The initiative is working toward not allowing people to pay to shoot animals in a manmade enclosure, Jones said.

The bottom line for hunting operations is to make money, Kaseman added.

"People involved in agri-business have a reflex action against what we are talking about," he said. "This is one of our biggest campaign issues."

This practice is the keystone of commercialized hunting, which excludes many, if not most, native North Dakota blue-collar sportsmen, Feininger added.

"We cannot afford to pay for hunting access while hunting is the main reason we live here," he said. "North Dakota stands to lose a large number of residents if hunting continues to become more commercialized, which prices the average residents out."

The legislators are the wind sock in an airport blowing wherever the agri-business blows, Kaseman added.

Current Game and Fish Director Terry Steinwand understands both sides to this issue and said the department is remaining neutral at this time.

"I personally don't like canned hunts, but it's legal as long as it doesn't affect the public's ability to harvest or access resources," Steinwand said. "If it does affect it, then we will take a stance on it."

Steinwand is an active hunter. He is an advocate of fair chase and private property rights. Infringement on private rights is one of many things those who operate enclosed hunting preserves have issue with.

"You have to look at the big picture," he said. "Does it impact North Dakota hunters who utilize the resource that's rightfully theirs?"

Steinwand hasn't spoken with many private property owners about the initiative, but he anticipates more comments and questions as times goes on.

Jones' support directly lies in what preserves the quality of hunting experiences for future generations.

"I don't think this kind of hunting experience is good for the future of hunting," he said. "We already having a real challenge to make sure hunting is viewed as a good recreational activity. We want to keep hunting as a wholesome, recreational and traditional activity."

Feininger proposes one scenario with future hunters in mind.

"If a youth hunter was introduced to hunting in this setting, he or she would not develop the skills to harvest game in a natural setting and could become frustrated with limited success, which is often the case in fair chase hunting, and eventually give up hunting," he added.

Feininger has not been interested in going to see or participate in one of these operations he opposes.

"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."

To learn more about the initiative you can go to its Web site:

*http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/* 

.


----------



## mrmcgee

I don't unserstand how this affects the common hunter. If somebody wants to breed exotic animals on his land and sell the oppurtunity to kill them what's the problem. How does someone killing zebras on his land that he raised affect the deer hunters of the world. If a farmer breeds cattle and butchers and sells them then why can't a "farmer" breed exotics and sell the chance to not only get the meet or trophy but actually go out there and hunt it? I think the government has too much control over us as it is. This is just another way for the government to tell us what we can and cannot do. I don't see where it hurts anybody. Please explain to me what I am not understanding.


----------



## RustyQtr

https://community.hsus.org/humane/notic ... d=22083277


----------



## griffman

Here I was, minding my own business, trying to find a fair price quote for some possible vehicle maintenance. I was looking for (and still havent found) that website local to Bismarck for getting fair estimates, IDK, I saw it on a tv commercial.

Anyway, I come across this story in a google search.

http://www.burger.com/bufhunt.htm

One of the most pathetic stories I've ever read :eyeroll:


----------



## SiouxperDave25

It's sad to see that the Fair Chase group has jumped into bed with the HSUS.



> After Baker I kept going east to Dickinson and Bismarck ND where i met with an official of the Fair Chase hunting movement who are trying to pass a ballot initiative to ban "canned hunting" practices in North Dakota.


http://art4animals.blogspot.com/2008/06 ... ro_30.html

http://bismarcktribune.com/articles/200 ... 159903.txt


----------



## jhegg

SiouxperDave25 wrote:



> It's sad to see that the Fair Chase group has jumped into bed with the HSUS.


Yesy Dave, it is - especially since it hasn't happened. The article you referenced contained this quote:



> There is a strong agricultural and personal property rights lobby that is trying to derail the publics opportunity to decide if they want this unethical form of trophy shooting ( note not using hunting) in their state.


Notice how they describe canned hunts as


> ...this unethical form of trophy shooting ( note not using hunting)...


. It sounds more to me like they are also disagreeing with the unethical "trophy shooting" aspects that this bill addresses rather than hunting. They may agree with us on this issue - we didn't "jump into bed with them". Learn the difference!

Jim


----------



## cwoparson

Oh but you have jumped in bed with them. This is also in that article. "But we applaud the North Dakota hunters who aim to put the "hunt" back in hunting and the "wild" back in wildlife". Then they turn around and say this in another article. "As a matter of principle, The HSUS opposes the hunting of any living creature for *fun, trophy, or sport* because of the animal trauma, suffering, and death that result. A humane society should not condone the killing of any sentient creature in the name of *sport*." Wow, talk about talking out of both sides of the mouth. Sorry, but they absolutely do not agree with you but you can be assured they will use you and _using you they are_. What is unethical to them is hunting period.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/0 ... -director/


----------



## g/o

> Yesy Dave, it is - especially since it hasn't happened.


Come on Jim, you guys are meeting with the HSUS, they are actively out campaigning for you. Yes you have been from the start and still are very much involved with them.


----------



## Dick Monson

Lots of opinions:

http://www.boone-crockett.org/huntingEt ... tingEthics


----------



## KEN W

Right from the web site of B&C that Dick posted......

"The Boone and Crockett Club condemns the pursuit and killing of any big game animal kept in or released from captivity to be killed in an artificial or bogus "hunting" situation where the game lacks the equivalent chance to escape afforded free-ranging animals, virtually assuring the shooter a certain or unrealistically favorable chance of a kill."

So is B&C in bed with the USHS?????? :eyeroll:

I hardly think so!!!!


----------



## g/o

> After Baker I kept going east to Dickinson and Bismarck ND where i met with an official of the Fair Chase hunting movement who are trying to pass a ballot initiative to ban "canned hunting" practices in North Dakota. This is where ranchers or elk farmers put animals into small enclosures and those with more money than ethics can pay four or five thousand to shoot the tame elk, deer, zebra or exotic goat when the animal is not wild or cannot escape. We helped pass a ban on this egregious practice in Montana in 2005 and are supporting similar goals in Idaho and Colorado. There is a strong agricultural and personal property rights lobby that is trying to derail the publics opportunity to decide if they want this unethical form of trophy shooting ( note not using hunting) in their state. The signatures have to be in by the end of July so I stopped at shelters and activists homes along the way to encourage them to support the ballot initiative.


If he had said he was meeting with [email protected] officials then Ken I would say yes they were. But Ken, he said the met with an official from the Fair Chase, and he stopped at shelters and homes of activists to encourage them to support this. Yep sure looks to me like you're in deep dodo with them.

I hope you also took the time to read that the NWF which the NDWF is associated with shut down the haying and grazing of CRP.

You guys have done more to hurt farmer/rancher relations and hurt the sportsman of ND than any other group. You should be proud :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Ref

g/o, every farmer/rancher that I have talked to is in favor of the Fair Chase Measure. You see, they and their families are all hunters and have been for generations. They still continue to respect the animals that they hunt.

Your quote - "You guys have done more to hurt the farmer/rancher relations and hurt the sportsman of ND than any other group." That scare tactic isn't going to work.


----------



## g/o

Ref, I am a farmer and I understand whats going on. Funny the ones I talked to say things much differently. So maybe you should go talk too all these ranchers you know so well, and inform them you support shutting down the haying of CRP. Should get you a lot of access, I know how the rancher who was going to hay mine feels now.


----------



## Dak

What I think is interesting is that the HSUS, which I detest, seems to have a better understanding of fair chase hunting that canned shoot operators.


----------



## Ref

g/o, My post was simply a reponse that all farmers/ranchers do not agree with you. Where in my post did I say anything about shutting down the haying of CRP? My post was in response to your fair chase measure.


----------



## SiouxperDave25

Another interesting read:

http://ushuntingtoday.com/news/archives/512


----------



## g/o

Ref said:


> g/o, My post was simply a reponse that all farmers/ranchers do not agree with you. Where in my post did I say anything about shutting down the haying of CRP? My post was in response to your fair chase measure.


I wrote to Ken



> I hope you also took the time to read that the NWF which the NDWF is associated with shut down the haying and grazing of CRP.
> 
> You guys have done more to hurt farmer/rancher relations and hurt the sportsman of ND than any other group. You should be proud


----------



## Ref

g/o, I'm not going to quibble over the little stuff, but the way you wrote it, your post was directed to me. Ken was not mentioned at all.

I'm off for the night.


----------



## cwoparson

:lol: A person could get dizzy trying to follow this stuff sometimes. Ken makes statement. GO responds to Kens statement. Ref responds to GO's response to Kens statement. GO responds to Ref's response to his response to Kens statement. Now Ref thinks GO's response to his response to GO's original response to Kens statement was a direct response to Ref. Say good night Gracie..


----------



## Ref

I think it is pretty simple....go up six posts and see who g/o addressed the entire post to.


----------



## cwoparson

Okay, I did, actually it is 8 posts up counting your last post. Now you go up 10 posts where GO says "You guys have done more to hurt the farmer/rancher relations and hurt the sportsman of ND than any other group", which was in reference to to the 11th post up he had made to Kens 12th post up which you quoted as part of your 9th post up which he had to address you directly in the 8th post up. Now I'm getting dizzy again. :lol: Get it now? If you decide to count posts be sure to add one for this post so you can follow along. You're right though..it is pretty simple.

But seriously, off subject of fair chase but on the subject of haying and grazing on CRP, I don't see how one can argue that if a farmer discovered hunters had a hand directly or indirectly in stopping them from cutting hay or grazing their cattle on CRP during hard times, said farmers would be pretty steamed and hunters could very well be SOL getting permission to hunt on said farmers land. That is not a scare tactic. It is very likely what will/could happen.


----------



## Plainsman

[quote*]Ref*, I am a farmer and I understand whats going on. Funny the ones I talked to say things much differently. So maybe you should go talk too all these ranchers you know so well, and inform them you support shutting down the haying of CRP. Should get you a lot of access, I know how the rancher who was going to hay mine feels now.[/quote]

Yes, it is abundantly clear who said what. It is so clear that it looks like this subject is getting sidelined on purpose. If you want to talk about the CRP there is already a thread for you.
http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... highlight=

If you don't like what is being said don't read it, for heavens sake don't respond. Please respect the thread and don't attempt to derail it because you don't like it.


----------



## jhegg

g/o,



> Come on Jim, you guys are meeting with the HSUS, they are actively out campaigning for you. Yes you have been from the start and still are very much involved with them.


Well, since you are involved with the guiding industry, I can only assume that you are in bed with the likes of Schlect, Mertz and the other dirt bags in your industry.

Jim

ps: I hope that is not the case, but using your logic, it is!


----------



## KEN W

Doesn't change the fact that B&C agrees with banning canned hunts.So since the fair chase people are in bed with the HSUS then so must the B&C club.If you are going to make the association with one group then the same holds true for the other.


----------



## g/o

jhegg said:


> g/o,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Jim, you guys are meeting with the HSUS, they are actively out campaigning for you. Yes you have been from the start and still are very much involved with them.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, since you are involved with the guiding industry, I can only assume that you are in bed with the likes of Schlect, Mertz and the other dirt bags in your industry.
> 
> Jim
> 
> ps: I hope that is not the case, but using your logic, it is!
Click to expand...

Whats new Jim, you guys have been doing that for years. You have always lumped the guides and outfitters into one category.

I was not trying to side tract this thread, it is a fact however that the NDWF is supporting the ban on High Fence Shooting. The NDWF is affiliated with the NWF which banned the haying of CRP. I wanted to make sure Ken read it nothing more. I haven't found out if NDWF was one of the 6 states in the suit yet or not.


----------



## g/o

Ken, where in the B&C statement does it mention the ND measure? It doesn't does it, go back and read it again they don't recognize trophies from it. Now Ken go read whats on the HSUS website where they are openly endorsing the ND measure. Go and read where a member of HSUS met with and "official" of the ND High Fence measure. Nice try but no matter how you look at it you are with them.


----------



## Plainsman

I'm not going to get into the whiz match with you guys, but I would like to inject some logic. I'm not taking this off subject, but I want to use a totally disassociated example:
If the National Rifle Association promotes punishing criminals and so does Handgun Control Incorporated that certainly doesn't put the National Rifle Association in bed with a gun control group. I hope that can put an end to the totally illogical scare tactics.

The sad thing is even the people saying it know better. For the reader, you should be insulted. These people are counting on your lack of ability to think logically.

Ask yourself this simple question. Would a sportsman that wants to keep hunting going for generations join a anti hunting crowd and mislead you, or would someone who is making a buck of high fence operations or associates with high fence operations mislead you? Look in the forms at people who talk about dogs, rifles, shotguns, archery etc. Are the high fence operators there. Are the people that promote the measure there. Does this give you an idea who the hunting advocates are, and does it also give you an idea who is in it for the money? If you can figure this out you will know who is credible and who is trying to blow smoke up your rear.


----------



## jhegg

Plainsman,

That was a very elegant way to sidestep all the bs put up here and show everyones true colors. Again - nice post!

Jim


----------



## cwoparson

You don't and won't see Handgun Control coming out and saying we support a initiative of the NRA. You won't and don't see B&C coming out saying they support a initiative by Fair Chase. You do see HSUS publicly saying they support the Fair Chase initiative and encourage support by others. That is the association. That is not a scare tactic, that is a fact. What is so hard for some of you to understand that? All the excuses and the shouts of scare tactics in the world won't change that. I'd duck, weave and run for cover too if I were in your shoes. Is Fair Chase actually in bed with HSUS? I don't know but you are being used by HSUS whether you like it or not. Calling this bs won't fool anyone except yourselves. Might as well get use to it because HSUS will use you guys as a reference for their agenda for a very long time.


----------



## LT

> Look in the forms at people who talk about dogs, rifles, shotguns, archery etc. Are the high fence operators there. Are the people that promote the measure there. Does this give you an idea who the hunting advocates are, and does it also give you an idea who is in it for the money? If you can figure this out you will know who is credible and who is trying to blow smoke up your rear.


I guess Tom Remington is blowing smoke up everyone's rears too!!

You want to talk about credible --

1. From the North Dakota Fair Chase Website -- This will eliminate internet hunting. Please name what ranches in North Dakota or anywhere in the US that uses this method of hunting?

2. Fair Chase Hall of Shame -- Mr. Kaseman took pictures from the operator's websites without their permission and used them on the Fair Chase site, then placed captions under them -- Pretending they had a hunt, waiting in the fence for a shooter with a fat bank account, bankrupt image. Yep, I guess it is okay to take a legitimate businesses copyrighted pictures, place it on your site, and slam their business.

3. Kaseman on the Bismarck Tribunes forums - Corporate Welfare Grants, operators not using their own money to start their businesses, etc. I have asked him to name what operators received these welfare grants and did not use their own money. Of course, no answer.

4. From the Fair Chase website -- supplements to enhance antler growth. What "magic" bullet is this?

5. Kaseman insists he never contacted Karen, the HSUS rep here in ND, even though she told Mr. Curren that Roger asked her for help. I then contacted her as well after the story broke and asked her "yes or no, did Roger contact you?" Her answer, "What difference does it make who contacted who first?"

6. I have asked numerous times regarding does big game species include "farmed elk/privately owned deer to no avail. Dick even told someone on fishing buddy, Yes it does, but I am not telling how at this time! Then he was asked about whether it included slaughter. His response was to ask lawyer Germolus, but you might have to pay a fee.

And finally, I do not blame any of the operators for not posting here.


----------



## Plainsman

Perfect example, thank you LT. At this time you have 118 posts. I hit the read all posts by LT. Where are you in the deer hunting form? Where are you in the rifle form? Where are you in the fox and coyote form? Where are you in any of the bird hunting forms? Where are you in any of the fishing forms? I could only find you in the hot topics. Mostly high fence operations. Why is that?


----------



## LT

Well, for one thing I am not a hunter, so no you won't find me in those forums. I initially stated in one of my first posts that I was not a hunter, that I was one of the 80% that Mr. Lloyd Jones talked about at the Jamestown forum. One of the 80% that would decide the future of hunting. I only came here because of all the BS being spewed here by some of the people with an agenda and posts numbering in the 1000s.

So now credibility depends on the number of posts. Whatever! Some of us have better things to do.


----------



## cwoparson

Come on Plainsman you can do better than that. Someone has been around less than 4 months with only 118 posts and that is suppose to indicate something. Just for your information in your last 160 posts you haven't been in the the fishing forum, dog forum or bird hunting forums and only once in the Deer forum. Guess where most of your posts are at. Fun game but meaningless.


----------



## Plainsman

cwoparson said:


> Come on Plainsman you can do better than that. Someone has been around less than 4 months with only 118 posts and that is suppose to indicate something. Just for your information in your last 160 posts you haven't been in the the fishing forum, dog forum or bird hunting forums and only once in the Deer forum. Guess where most of your posts are at. Fun game but meaningless.


Your right, I can do a lot better. My point is he is only on the high fence form. Why? It doesn't have to do with the number of posts and you know it, you know it cwoparson, and that is smoke up the rear that I was talking about. Some people fish, some hunt, some shoot, some enjoy dogs, after all this is an outdoor site. People who never come here, but show up on the high fence thread have another reason for being here. If they don't hunt their reason isn't to defend hunting.

I know where most of my posts are at. They are in the political form. Know why? Because politics will determine how long I get to hunt, with what kind of gun I can hunt with, and even if I get to have a gun. Every responsible gun owner should be concerned with politics.

So let me ask you straight out cwo, who is more concerned about hunting and how long it lasts, LT or me? Don't try the smoke up my rear, you and I both know the answer. If you say your not sure you will give up your credability with everyone on here. The answer is a gimme with any person who has been on the site long enough to feel like they know us.



> Some of us have better things to do.


 Not me, I have an agenda. I want politicians who follow the constitution. I want my second amendment protected. I am here to help the less experienced with firearms, help the young with hunting question, and do anything I can to keep average Joe hunting for the next 100 years. Here is to the American hunter, and anyone who carries a firearm, or looses and arrow. :beer:


----------



## LT

Plainsman,

I am here because I believe in property rights and rights of people to make choices regarding hunting, the rights of my grandchildren. My choice is to not hunt, but I don't try to shove that down anyone else's throat. That is MY CHOICE. But for some reason, you and yours seem to think that we 80% are the ones that determine the future of hunting and so you guys are trying your darndest to make the 80% see this your way, and by Kaseman's own words on the Bismarck Forums 95% of the people he talks to do not know these operations exist, SO THUS THE HALL OF SHAME, to educate people. You guys are using HSUS tactics to show us how wrong you think this type of hunting is, and in the end I think you are going to cut your own throats.

Well, some people do have more important things to do -- Here is what Sgt. Thayer from Iraq has to say on this very subject:

Lets see what it takes to do a fair chase.....

It takes time. I've been deployed, on FTX, or in training for every hunting season for the last 5 years. Before joining the Army I worked full time for a company that only gave 5 days of leave a year. Most of my time was take up with obligations to my family, church, and school. On average I get 6 hours on 2 saturdays a year to hunt. That's not enough to ever stand a chance at fair chase hunting.

It takes land. In northern Ohio the public hunting lands look like Walmart parking lots. There are 397 hunters per game animal. There are 3 major hunt clubs that have leased over 90% of the farm lands in the Lorain, Erie, Cuyohogah tri-county area. Black River Hunt Club was accepting applications to the 27 year waiting list. I'm 35 and no male has made it past 58 in my family before dieing of cancer.

It takes experance. I inherited my guns after my dad died. I never hunted with him because by the time I was old enough he was on O2 with a lung removed. I learned to hunt by walking around stupid with a gun hoping something would work out because nobody showed me a thing.

It takes a willingnes to loose and shrug it off and call it part of the sport. I lost every year for 7 years straight on an estimated 27 hunts. There is a fine line between fishing and standing on a peir looking stupid. There is a fine line between hunting and just getting lost in the woods like a fool.

I wish I had all of the blessing that the high and mighty fair chase ethics committee has. For now I'm booked for my chance to shoot a goat in a pen. Please, do contact me when you care so much about your ethics to invite me to hunt with you. I can be reached at xxxxxxxxxx. Until then I'll be here defending your right to pass your judgement on me, from here at Q-West Base Camp Iraq.

Posted by: SGT Thayer, James E. | July 05, 2008 at 11:19 PM

This was a hot topic. Everyone hates the guy that goes on a canned hunt. Given the chance to offer a better option and support your own ideas, you take the easy route and shut the . up. I was hoping someone might be encouraging enough to invite me hunting. I guess I'll take your silence as an endorsment of my activities and be happy with that.

Posted by: SGT Thayer, James E. | July 07, 2008 at 08:12 PM

http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/news/200...-topi.html

And yet another from Sgt. Thayer:

SGT Thayer James E. wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:38 PM:

" Lets look at this as a spectrum. A fair chase hunt with no fence, no bait, on a purely wild animal is at one end of the spectrum. This is a legal and excepted practice. A farming operation that keeps animals in a pen until they slaughter them and deliver neat little packages to the grocery store is at the other end of the spectrum. Could someone please give me the definition of what happens in the middle as you travel from one end to the other that makes this wrong? I know that a "true hunter" wouldn't call this a hunt. That's fine. A farmer wouldn't call it a cattle for butcher operation either. I don't care what you call it. I want to know what in the middle ground is illegal if both ends are legal. I can shoot a goat in a 6 square foot slaughter pen and call it ranching. I can shoot a goat on the side of the Rocky Mountains and call it a hunt. What happens that causes shooting a goat in a 2,000 acre preserve to be matter of moral discussion? If you want to create a law against this how are you going to define your case? Farmers must let their livestock run free or hunters must trap their animals in little pens first? "


----------



## jhegg

LT,

You said


> I am here because I believe in property rights and rights of people to make choices regarding hunting.


We believe in property rights. But that does not give a landowner "carte blanche" to do whatever he wants to on his own land. For example, a landowner can not spray any chemical in any volume he wants on his crops. He can not open up a casino on his property. He can not hold a party and sell liquor to minors. There is a whole range of activities that a landowner can not legally do on his property.

We also believe in the rights of people to make choices regarding hunting. We don't want people to think hunting is shooting an animal in a pen so somebody can make a big profit on it. That is not hunting, it gives hunting a bad name and we do not want it here in ND. We are giving the people of ND a chance to vote on this issue. They will eventually decide it. I can only surmise that you do not want people to make up their own mind on this issue. Why don't you?

Jim


----------



## LT

> They will eventually decide it. I can only surmise that you do not want people to make up their own mind on this issue. Why don't you?


And I can only surmise you and yours do not want people to make up their own minds on this issue -- Internet hunting, sham hunts, small ethics, corporate welfare grants, bankrupt image, supplements to stimulate antler growth, "big game species," captive wildlife, pens, prostitution, Hall of Shame, fat bank accounts, rich, fat, and lazy, pasture killers, drugged animals, sludge operations, etc.

AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, the whole measure, whatever it means:

"A person (doesn't say owner) is guilty... if the person (doesn't say owner) obtains fees from another person (doesn't say hunter of course, could be the owner or other buyer) for the killing of privately owned big game species confined in any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape ( a kill chute would certainly qualify).


----------



## jhegg

Code:


And I can only surmise you and yours do not want people to make up their own minds on this issue

?????????

Excuse me? You think we want to put it up to a vote by the people of ND because we *don't* want them to make up their own minds on this issue?


----------



## cwoparson

> So let me ask you straight out cwo, who is more concerned about hunting and how long it lasts, LT or me? Don't try the smoke up my rear, you and I both know the answer. If you say your not sure you will give up your credibility with everyone on here.


This is nothing short of pure crap coming out of desperation. Don't talk to me about credibility with these kind of posts. It was predicted, even warned by many that the anti hunting crowd would be all over this and it is coming to pass. You can't admit that without admitting you were wrong about that so now you're trying to defend the indefensible. There is no smoke going up your *** but there is plenty of smoke coming from your side of the fence. This is not just about hunting Plainsman. Peoples rights and property is just as much at stake as hunting. Yes, I do know the honest answer. You'll have to speak for yourself. When you have a group like HSUS coming into your state and rallying the anti hunting crowd to get out and vote for your initiative then you better ask yourself why. It's not because they like you, it's because they see an opening to push their agenda of no hunting period.

BTW, that kid working at Burger King who cares less about hunting, you going to accept his vote or tell him no because he is not a hunter. Of course you won't tell him that. Most likely you'll say that is his right. But oh my, don't let someone speak out if they are critical of your goal. No rights there huh. You're not depending on the educated hunter. You're depending on the uneducated non hunter to get your initiative passed. And then you want to blast someone that is not a hunter but all to well understands what is going on? No, don't talk to me about credibility with the hypocrisy you just exhibited to me. I know you Plainsman and I've always found you to be more level headed in the past, but for some reason this issue seems to have planted a cancer in your thinking. That's to bad.



> But that does not give a landowner "carte blanche" to do whatever he wants to on his own land.


Doing what is legal, what is authorized by law and even financially supported by law on ones own land is not "Carte Blanche". You should know that.


----------



## Plainsman

> This is nothing short of pure crap coming out of desperation. Don't talk to me about credibility with these kind of posts. It was predicted, even warned by many that the anti hunting crowd would be all over this and it is coming to pass.


Warned? I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt the anti hunters would like it. The armchair ones anyway. Some may not like it because it will remove one reason for Jane Doe to give money to them. Animal rights groups like it when we restore wetlands also. Do you think we should stop because of that? Foolish.



> Peoples rights and property is just as much at stake as hunting.


When pigs fly. Just more smoke.



> And then you want to blast someone that is not a hunter but all to well understands what is going on?


I doubt that the non hunters are here for the good of hunting. They are here because they want to continue to line their pockets with unethical hunting.



> Doing what is legal, what is authorized by law


That's what we want to change. By your reasoning no laws would ever be made. We may get out of the caves with that thought process, but we would have remained uncivilized Neanderthals.

I think I have made my case, so I rest my case. Bye. 
Oh, by the way, when someone says I am in bed with HSUS they challenge my integrity. You can bet your last dollar I will challenge their credability and I do. I challenge the credability of anyone who even suggests I am in bed with HSUS. Let the readers judge us.


----------



## Dak

Even better...let the voters decide.


----------



## 4590

Maybe someone can tell us if there is actually going to be an initiative. I believe the proponents have about two weeks to collect their signatures. Are they any where near or is this about to be a moot point.


----------



## Chuck Smith

This is off topic but has been brought up...

Now if this initiative is creating a rift between land owners and ND hunters.

Just something to think about.

Because what I am going off of is a thing that happened in my area. A local vote came up on land splitting issues. Now county said one thing and the township disagreed. Well some of the township board collected signatures and put a vote out. So the township board won and created rules that over rode the county.

Anyway one land owner let anyone and everyone hunt disagreed with the township and after the vote everything changed. He did not let people who were on the township board (even if they voted in his favor) or any of the signatures that were collected hunt his land.

Just something to think about. I did not mean this as a scare tactic in anyway. Just food for thought.


----------



## LT

xxx


----------



## Leo Porcello

LT said:


> Well, some people do have more important things to do -- Here is what Sgt. Thayer from Iraq has to say on this very subject:
> 
> Lets see what it takes to do a fair chase.....
> 
> It takes time. I've been deployed, on FTX, or in training for every hunting season for the last 5 years. Before joining the Army I worked full time for a company that only gave 5 days of leave a year. Most of my time was take up with obligations to my family, church, and school. On average I get 6 hours on 2 saturdays a year to hunt. That's not enough to ever stand a chance at fair chase hunting.
> 
> It takes land. In northern Ohio the public hunting lands look like Walmart parking lots. There are 397 hunters per game animal. There are 3 major hunt clubs that have leased over 90% of the farm lands in the Lorain, Erie, Cuyohogah tri-county area. Black River Hunt Club was accepting applications to the 27 year waiting list. I'm 35 and no male has made it past 58 in my family before dieing of cancer.
> 
> It takes experance. I inherited my guns after my dad died. I never hunted with him because by the time I was old enough he was on O2 with a lung removed. I learned to hunt by walking around stupid with a gun hoping something would work out because nobody showed me a thing.
> 
> It takes a willingnes to loose and shrug it off and call it part of the sport. I lost every year for 7 years straight on an estimated 27 hunts. There is a fine line between fishing and standing on a peir looking stupid. There is a fine line between hunting and just getting lost in the woods like a fool.
> 
> I wish I had all of the blessing that the high and mighty fair chase ethics committee has. For now I'm booked for my chance to shoot a goat in a pen. Please, do contact me when you care so much about your ethics to invite me to hunt with you. I can be reached at xxxxxxxxxx. Until then I'll be here defending your right to pass your judgement on me, from here at Q-West Base Camp Iraq.
> 
> Posted by: SGT Thayer, James E. | July 05, 2008 at 11:19 PM
> 
> This was a hot topic. Everyone hates the guy that goes on a canned hunt. Given the chance to offer a better option and support your own ideas, you take the easy route and shut the . up. I was hoping someone might be encouraging enough to invite me hunting. I guess I'll take your silence as an endorsment of my activities and be happy with that.
> 
> Posted by: SGT Thayer, James E. | July 07, 2008 at 08:12 PM
> 
> http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/news/200...-topi.html
> 
> And yet another from Sgt. Thayer:
> 
> SGT Thayer James E. wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:38 PM:
> 
> " Lets look at this as a spectrum. A fair chase hunt with no fence, no bait, on a purely wild animal is at one end of the spectrum. This is a legal and excepted practice. A farming operation that keeps animals in a pen until they slaughter them and deliver neat little packages to the grocery store is at the other end of the spectrum. Could someone please give me the definition of what happens in the middle as you travel from one end to the other that makes this wrong? I know that a "true hunter" wouldn't call this a hunt. That's fine. A farmer wouldn't call it a cattle for butcher operation either. I don't care what you call it. I want to know what in the middle ground is illegal if both ends are legal. I can shoot a goat in a 6 square foot slaughter pen and call it ranching. I can shoot a goat on the side of the Rocky Mountains and call it a hunt. What happens that causes shooting a goat in a 2,000 acre preserve to be matter of moral discussion? If you want to create a law against this how are you going to define your case? Farmers must let their livestock run free or hunters must trap their animals in little pens first? "


Seriously NOBODY forced him to join AND missing hunting seasons is one of the many sacrifices we make. God I hate it when fellow military use serving our country as a reason for an invite to hunt and if they don't get it then oh well to the tactics they will use to hunt. Did his father have no one that he hunted with that could take him out to hunt so he wasn't "walking around stupid with a gun"?? I have served for over 17 years. I have missed seasons and I will gladly do it again. I did not and would not expect "invites" and further more would not use my service as an excuse to kill an animal by any means possible to make myself feel better. Hunting is hunting. It is not killing. I would gather this Sgt would go on a fenced hunt even if he did not deploy. He is only concerned on the story he can tell in the bar, not the true experiance of a true hunt which does not require a kill. Poor example for the need for fenced operations and even poorer example of why we serve!


----------



## LT

_The Republican-Democrat contests seem tame, though, next to the heated battle between supporters and opponents of what's become known as the "fair chase" initiative.

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

The initiative seeks to ban game farms that charge hunters a fee to hunt on their properties. North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase says it should be illegal to hunt fenced animals.

Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights argues that the measure is an effort by animal-rights groups to stop any hunting or raising of livestock for slaughter. The group sponsored its own booth at the fair to counter what it calls the misinformation of the initiative backers.

Shawn Schafer, who was manning the Commercial I booth for the property rights group Thursday, said he's been educating people and signing up those who want to get on the group's mailing list for more information.

"We are doing really good," Schafer said.

Kaseman, who has manned his booth with the help of occasional volunteers throughout the fair, said most people are willing to sign the measure petition.

"This has been a gold mine," he said of the fair. "The fair here will put us over the top."

It takes 12,844 signatures to get a statutory measure on the November ballot. The filing deadline is Aug. 5. _

http://www.minotdailynews.com/.....l?nav=5010

I am sure it was a gold mine. I was told at their booth that these animals were stolen.

As far as an incident and the police being called, the operator brought the police and fair board president himself as Mr. Kaseman had his pictures and website info downloaded from the web and had them hidden under a piece of cardboard. So if you were doing something that was okay, why did he have them hidden? The operator asked for his information and told him that he did not give him permission to use it in this manner. Of course Kaseman told him to sue him and even mugged for him with his pictures. He also told the operator that he hoped he would sue him so he could get free publicity.

But the best part is when the operator's wife got into it with Kaseman and was telling him that he was a liar and people were laughing, and Kaseman told the crowd, "What can I say, it is my ex-wife." Well that set her off, and she was screaming I would never marry someone like you. Then the police did step in and the operator told the police he would remove his wife. LOL


----------



## angus 1

OF course this was a gold mine. They thrive on uninformed people . I met with the State Fair Board along with a State Rep. We will be pushing the State Fair Board to not allow ANY petition drives during the state fair in the future. The ND State Fair is an Ag based event and the Board let this group of anti landowners / animal right freaks try and collect signatures to shut down the very people they say make the fair. Kasman made a fool of himself several times , but yes they will probably get the signatures they need but we will win in the end.


----------



## angus 1

By the way , an inside sourse, a close friend of Kasemans says there were NO death threats. hummmm? Just a thought.


----------



## KEN W

That's crap,what are you afraid of???

I'm not taking any side in any of the petitions......but how are all those uninformed people supposed to get information if no one provides it.The state fair is a perfect place for people to get information from both sides of an issue.


----------



## MSG Rude

Leo Porcello said:


> LT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, some people do have more important things to do -- Here is what Sgt. Thayer from Iraq has to say on this very subject:
> 
> Lets see what it takes to do a fair chase.....
> 
> It takes time. I've been deployed, on FTX, or in training for every hunting season for the last 5 years. Before joining the Army I worked full time for a company that only gave 5 days of leave a year. Most of my time was take up with obligations to my family, church, and school. On average I get 6 hours on 2 saturdays a year to hunt. That's not enough to ever stand a chance at fair chase hunting.
> 
> It takes land. In northern Ohio the public hunting lands look like Walmart parking lots. There are 397 hunters per game animal. There are 3 major hunt clubs that have leased over 90% of the farm lands in the Lorain, Erie, Cuyohogah tri-county area. Black River Hunt Club was accepting applications to the 27 year waiting list. I'm 35 and no male has made it past 58 in my family before dieing of cancer.
> 
> It takes experance. I inherited my guns after my dad died. I never hunted with him because by the time I was old enough he was on O2 with a lung removed. I learned to hunt by walking around stupid with a gun hoping something would work out because nobody showed me a thing.
> 
> It takes a willingnes to loose and shrug it off and call it part of the sport. I lost every year for 7 years straight on an estimated 27 hunts. There is a fine line between fishing and standing on a peir looking stupid. There is a fine line between hunting and just getting lost in the woods like a fool.
> 
> I wish I had all of the blessing that the high and mighty fair chase ethics committee has. For now I'm booked for my chance to shoot a goat in a pen. Please, do contact me when you care so much about your ethics to invite me to hunt with you. I can be reached at xxxxxxxxxx. Until then I'll be here defending your right to pass your judgement on me, from here at Q-West Base Camp Iraq.
> 
> Posted by: SGT Thayer, James E. | July 05, 2008 at 11:19 PM
> 
> This was a hot topic. Everyone hates the guy that goes on a canned hunt. Given the chance to offer a better option and support your own ideas, you take the easy route and shut the . up. I was hoping someone might be encouraging enough to invite me hunting. I guess I'll take your silence as an endorsment of my activities and be happy with that.
> 
> Posted by: SGT Thayer, James E. | July 07, 2008 at 08:12 PM
> 
> http://fieldandstream.blogs.com/news/200...-topi.html
> 
> And yet another from Sgt. Thayer:
> 
> SGT Thayer James E. wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:38 PM:
> 
> " Lets look at this as a spectrum. A fair chase hunt with no fence, no bait, on a purely wild animal is at one end of the spectrum. This is a legal and excepted practice. A farming operation that keeps animals in a pen until they slaughter them and deliver neat little packages to the grocery store is at the other end of the spectrum. Could someone please give me the definition of what happens in the middle as you travel from one end to the other that makes this wrong? I know that a "true hunter" wouldn't call this a hunt. That's fine. A farmer wouldn't call it a cattle for butcher operation either. I don't care what you call it. I want to know what in the middle ground is illegal if both ends are legal. I can shoot a goat in a 6 square foot slaughter pen and call it ranching. I can shoot a goat on the side of the Rocky Mountains and call it a hunt. What happens that causes shooting a goat in a 2,000 acre preserve to be matter of moral discussion? If you want to create a law against this how are you going to define your case? Farmers must let their livestock run free or hunters must trap their animals in little pens first? "
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously NOBODY forced him to join AND missing hunting seasons is one of the many sacrifices we make. God I hate it when fellow military use serving our country as a reason for an invite to hunt and if they don't get it then oh well to the tactics they will use to hunt. Did his father have no one that he hunted with that could take him out to hunt so he wasn't "walking around stupid with a gun"?? I have served for over 17 years. I have missed seasons and I will gladly do it again. I did not and would not expect "invites" and further more would not use my service as an excuse to kill an animal by any means possible to make myself feel better. Hunting is hunting. It is not killing. I would gather this Sgt would go on a fenced hunt even if he did not deploy. He is only concerned on the story he can tell in the bar, not the true experiance of a true hunt which does not require a kill. Poor example for the need for fenced operations and even poorer example of why we serve!
Click to expand...

P.C.,

I am with you! I take serious offense to people that use thier sevice to country as an excuse for anything! My God! We made a choice to serve knowing what it intails and then to use that to play on heart strings for something as an excuse pizzes me off!

*I was Infantry for 10 years.* I did this while being stationed in a foreign country for over HALF of that time. Want to talk about deployments? It is pure B.S. Granted we miss out on things but come on, don't play it when you knew it!


----------



## cwoparson

I think both of you let the point fly completely over your heads. He was explaining why he chose to use a high fence hunt. In closing he commented if you feel so strong about morals and ethics on high fence hunting and was to invite him to a hunt then he would accept that as well. He ask for nothing. to cry he used his service as a excuse is plain silly. If you told him to by a new Lexis and he said he couldn't afford one on his service pay, is he using his service as a excuse or simply stating a fact?


----------



## MSG Rude

cwoparson said:


> I think both of you let the point fly completely over your heads. He was explaining why he chose to use a high fence hunt. In closing he commented if you feel so strong about morals and ethics on high fence hunting and was to invite him to a hunt then he would accept that as well. He ask for nothing. to cry he used his service as a excuse is plain silly. If you told him to by a new Lexis and he said he couldn't afford one on his service pay, is he using his service as a excuse or simply stating a fact?


cwoparson,

Have you ever been in the service? Don't ramble on with a bunch of B.S., just answer a very plain question please.


----------



## cwoparson

> Have you ever been in the service? Don't ramble on with a bunch of B.S


Now pray tell what difference does that make? But to answer your question sonny, yes. Take another look at my name..*cwo*parson. You're dismissed.


----------



## MSG Rude

Relax there big guy. See the PM I sent you and keep it civil. If you WERE a CWO then act like one.

The reason I asked you a very simple question like that was to try to get a better perspective of where you might be coming from.

Now I truly know where you are coming from.

Dismissed.


----------



## Leo Porcello

cwoparson said:


> I think both of you let the point fly completely over your heads. He was explaining why he chose to use a high fence hunt. In closing he commented if you feel so strong about morals and ethics on high fence hunting and was to invite him to a hunt then he would accept that as well. He ask for nothing. to cry he used his service as a excuse is plain silly. If you told him to by a new Lexis and he said he couldn't afford one on his service pay, is he using his service as a excuse or simply stating a fact?


Nothing flew over my head. He is using his military obligations as a poor excuse. He came in post 11 Sep so he knew full well what he was getting into. He knew he may miss Christmas, birth of his children and hunting seasons. I have served with some that have seen more than any one man should see and they were more than happy to just sit by a tree and in fact were more happy not to have to pull a trigger. They did not say well dam I only have 2 days so I better freaking kill something. By that whole post that guy is not a hunter from day one. He wants a guarentee kill. Nothing more and nothing less. Serving this great country does not mean open invites to hunt and when those invites don't come you sure as helll don't throw that in people's faces. uke:

Also with your Lexis comment which by the way it is a LEXUS I have seen E-2s driving Corvettes. It is all how you decide to spend and manage your money. Its like in the USAF you won't see E-8 or E-9 unless you have a degree. If I wanted to go to college I would have done that before joining and then came in as an Officer. My point being you know what it takes to make more money in the military whether it be getting promotions or deploying and getting family sep and tax free pay just like you know the sacrifices you make when you raise your hand and state the oath. You may sacrifice hunting or you may sacrifice it all.


----------



## cwoparson

You really do need to learn to get over yourself. In the civilian world you are going to learn real fast just how small the military world really was. Try to use that attitude out here and you'll find yourself knocked to your knees more than you like. No need to take my word for it, you'll find out.


----------



## Leo Porcello

First I will thank you for your service. We may disagree on this issue about High Fence Hunting but I do appreciate those who served before me. I am sincere with that!

Now I think I will do fine on the outside. I am pretty open minded. I can turn my military attitude on or off. You see the military taught me to adapt and to overcome. That may mean leading or following, openning my mouth or shutting it. On the outside I will learn my role and do it. You see you must have missed my point. I realize this world is not all about me where as the High Fence Hunting Sgt does not. That is the difference. You see I know what the outside is like as I have worked part time jobs (gas station, construction, fast food...) to put extra money in my pocket as an enlisted man's pay is not the greatest.

Once again THANK YOU for your service!


----------



## cwoparson

Actually Leo my comment about getting over yourself was not addressed to you. Sorry if you took it that way. As to seeing a E-2 driving a corvette, yep I've seen that also but they really wern't driving it much as all their money went to payments and their management experience was the learning curve that they shouldn't have bought the thing in the first place. Use to laugh at all the young officers in school at Pensacola doing the same thing. Funny to see all the used corvettes for sell on car lots. Now, back on the subject I simply did not see the guy using his service as an excuse to try to get a hunt from anyone. It appeared his comment to hunt with someone was a complete afterthought only after he explained why he had used a high fence operation. whether or not he is a hunter is your opinion and a different subject. Just because someone chooses a occupation that keeps them out of the field most of the time is no reason to condemn them if they find a way to accomplish both objectives and that is what he did.

I've always said I have never used one of these operations and never expected to but this thread made me realize I did just that, not once but twice. While stationed in another country for several years and wanting to hunt I discovered that if I got local police approval to transport a gun and paid a farmer for hunting privileges I could hunt wild boar and pheasants. I hunted both but does that make me less of a hunter? I don't think so. I simply to advantage of something I loved to by using what was available to me. I don't think anyone should be put down for taking advantage of what is available to them to hunt because of certain constraints.

I guess we each just saw two different things from his letter and will have to let it go at that. I'll give him kudos for standing up and being counted for what he chose to do.

Lexus..I knew that but my spell checker didn't. :wink:


----------



## MSG Rude

Leo Porcello said:


> First I will thank you for your service. We may disagree on this issue about High Fence Hunting but I do appreciate those who served before me. I am sincere with that!
> 
> Now I think I will do fine on the outside. I am pretty open minded. I can turn my military attitude on or off. You see the military taught me to adapt and to overcome. That may mean leading or following, openning my mouth or shutting it. On the outside I will learn my role and do it. You see you must have missed my point. I realize this world is not all about me where as the High Fence Hunting Sgt does not. That is the difference. You see I know what the outside is like as I have worked part time jobs (gas station, construction, fast food...) to put extra money in my pocket as an enlisted man's pay is not the greatest.
> 
> Once again THANK YOU for your service!


I have to agree. I too made my way from E-1 to E-8 and had to find other jobs to make ends meet. I bounced for many years. Worked at a gas station, delivering pizza, security, and many other jobs. I am humble enough to know that no job is beneath me.

I have also obtained three degrees to include a Masters since I joined and have a very succesful civilian position now too with a very well established company. I do not make excuses...I adapt like Leo and over come...not come over.

As far as the High Fence SGT. from above, I read it differently then you do. Guess we will have to leave it at that. I, like others, respect his service and evens yours, but I disagree with him and you venomously.


----------



## Hunter_58346

Captive hunting ban fails to get on ballot
Janell Cole, The Forum
Published Monday, August 11, 2008
· advertisement ·

BISMARCK - North Dakota voters will not be deciding a ban on "captive hunting" in November, Secretary of State Al Jaeger said Monday afternoon.

Jaeger said he had to disqualify 164 signatures turned in on last Tuesday's deadline, because the signatures were on incomplete petitions.

The sponsoring committee turned in what they said was an estimated 12,964 signatures. They needed 12,844 valid signatures. The secretary of state's staff tallied only 12,915 signatures. When 164 had to be disqualified, the measure no longer met the legal requirements to go on the ballot.

Every petition, at the time it is circulated for signatures, must contain a set of front pages with the measure's complete ballot language, a brief description of what the measure would do and a page showing the sponsoring committee's names.

Jaeger said seven petitions were missing the list of sponsors.

Al Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State 
RELATED CONTENT 
Janell Cole Archive 
The measure would have banned hunting of game in enclosed areas.


----------



## g/o

huh, thats surprising, I guess they didn't have near the support they bragged about. So I wonder whose fault it will be this time ?


----------



## LT

Captive hunting ban fails to get on N.D. ballot
Janell Cole , Grand Forks Herald
Published Tuesday, August 12, 2008

BISMARCK - There won't be a hunting measure on the November ballot in North Dakota.

Sponsors and opponents alike predicted the issue will be revived for a future election.

"There's no way we're going to let this slide," said the sponsors' chairman, Roger Kaseman, Linton, N.D.

Secretary of State Al Jaeger said Monday that he had to disqualify 164 signatures on the petitions that had been turned in last Tuesday because they were on incomplete petitions. That dropped the total signatures down to 12,751.

Sponsors needed 12,844.

Missing papers

Jaeger explained that each petition, while being circulated for signatures, needs several top pages containing the measure's complete ballot language, a brief description of what the measure would do and a list of everyone on the sponsoring committee. He said seven petitions were missing the list of sponsors.

"Somebody (collecting signatures) must have thought they didn't need it," he said.

The sponsoring group, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, will wait until after the Nov. 4 election and then regroup and try again, Kaseman said, even though any future effort would not be slated for another election until 2010.

The sponsors oppose the hunting of game animals enclosed in a fence, which they often refer to as "canned hunting," and their measure would have banned the practice.

Opponents of the measure, under the name Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights, defend their industry and refer to the practice as high-fence hunting.

Co-chairman Wayne Laaveg, Park River, N.D., who raises elk, said high-fence hunting is not the shooting of caged animals, as measure backers imply. The game animals are on acreage large enough to escape hunters.

Laaveg also said his group is willing to propose changes in the practice to satisfy the objections of the hunters' group.

"We're willing to compromise, but the other side said they absolutely weren't willing to compromise," he said.

Kaseman and Laaveg each accused the other group of spreading false information, and Kaseman said his group will pursue civil legal action against the property rights group for false advertising.

"They've been running ads against us, and the ads are outright deceptive and false," Kaseman said.

Countered Laaveg, "Roger Kaseman brought up a lot of misinformation that, to me, they're outright lies, to get people to sign."

Jaeger is still reviewing three other initiative petitions on income taxes, smoking and workers compensation.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/article ... ction=News


----------

