# Interesting forum about a state saturated with HF slaughter.



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

I was picking around the net to find a state in the USA that does not allow a person to sell a farm raised elk or deer for meat and am not having any luck. How about you GST....didn't think so. Anyway I came across a forum where the first poster asked about hunting public land in texas. What followed was about what I expected. The general consensus is that sure there is public land but it is way overcrowded so you better get your checkbook out or settle for shooting hogs.

Interesting forum I thought.

http://shootersforum.com/showthread.htm?t=3453


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I didn't read the entire thread,but thefirst threepages basically said that while it may be difficult to get on private lad, there are several public areas of land avalible to hunt on. Whilethey may have more pressure, if one does a little homework you can still find areas to shoot deer. One fella had no problem shooting several does. One fellasaid that during the week the pressure slacks off. I don't lnow, but it kinda sounds a bit like opening weekend of deer hunting here in ND.

Texas has a lot of public hunting land

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But good luck having success if you have not hunted the area before. Most is in E. TX and for the first two weeks it is very crowded! But after that most folks go back to the city and there is not a lot of pressure especially during the week.

I have taken a relatively nice 8 point a few years ago on Public Land here and I saw a real shooter this past year but just could not get a shot at him.

Oh yea, like I said, I only read the first three pages, but I didn't recall seeing anyone mention HF.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

*Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) offers a variety of hunting opportunities through two public hunting systems. The $48 Annual Public Hunting Permit provides nearly year-round hunting on approximately 1.2 million acres of land. The increasingly popular dove hunting areas are offered through this system. The Public Hunt Drawing System provides opportunities to apply for a wide variety of supervised, drawn hunts including special drawings for both adults and youth hunters.*



> Texas has a lot of public hunting land


96% of land in Texas is private. I guess 4% is "a lot of public land" for someone that believes there shouldn't be ANY public land and works hard to prevent any more land from becoming public. I'm sure you would like to hav a PUBLIC HUNT DRAWING to get on land but for most it is not the best way.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> *
> 96% of land in Texas is private. I guess 4% is "a lot of public land" for someone that believes there shouldn't be ANY public land*


*

Swift, please show where I have EVER stated there should be no public lands. Once again you seem to want to make any claims to prove a personal point without holdinng yourself to a standard of truth.*


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

GST, what is your opinion on privat land being sold to the public? What is your organizations opinion? Oh wait you have said it many times NO NET LOSS OF PRIVATE LAND. Go ahead and twist your way out of this one too. You cannot add public land without losing private land. ND is 95% private land, seems there are some parallels to Texas.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Heres another thing. Even though im not a fan of what "hunting" is in Texas for the most part, to tell people the whole state is HF is a lie. Sure there are quite a few, but MOST are still not high fenced. Hunting as whole is FAR different in TX than it is here, high fence or not.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

barebackjack said:


> Heres another thing. Even though im not a fan of what "hunting" is in Texas for the most part, to tell people the whole state is HF is a lie. Sure there are quite a few, but MOST are still not high fenced. Hunting as whole is FAR different in TX than it is here, high fence or not.


Who told anyone the whole state is hf? What it sounds like to me is that the majority of the 96% of private texas land is some soert of fee hunting; wether it is hf slaughter or lease land. I know it doesn't sound possible but what would stop that from happening here? At least without high fences the deer could run across a persons land to the area of public land that has 1 hunter per acre. Sarcasm there gst if u couldn't figure that out.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Leadfed, Don't expect a legit response. There were 1 million+ licensed hunters in Texas last year. There are 261million+ acres of land in Texas and they boast 1 million acres of public access. That is the wish of the AG orgs here in ND. 95% of ND is held in private title. When someone wants to donate land or sell land to NDGF to be made public the AG orgs have a standing DO NOT ALLOW, vote as admitted by GST. As GST preaches they look out for their own. If money is to be made they will support it regardless of the harm that may come to the non-ag members of the state. It's too bad for them that there are more voters that don't belong to the SA or FU or FB. As we sportsman should respect those that allow us to hunt. Respect is a two way street.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

swift said:


> Leadfed, Don't expect a legit response. There were 1 million+ licensed hunters in Texas last year. There are 261million+ acres of land in Texas and they boast 1 million acres of public access. That is the wish of the AG orgs here in ND. 95% of ND is held in private title. When someone wants to donate land or sell land to NDGF to be made public the AG orgs have a standing DO NOT ALLOW, vote as admitted by GST. As GST preaches they look out for their own. If money is to be made they will support it regardless of the harm that may come to the non-ag members of the state. It's too bad for them that there are more voters that don't belong to the SA or FU or FB. As we sportsman should respect those that allow us to hunt. Respect is a two way street.


Ya I know. Just funny how "pro-sportsman" he is when it is used for his benefit isn't it. Be interesting how many "pro-sportsman" posts we hear from him when this is all over and he doesn't have anything invested.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Funny how leadfed just joined and has not posted any thing other than about HF slaughter. Wonder who it is hiding behind that user name


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

KurtR said:


> Funny how leadfed just joined and has not posted any thing other than about HF slaughter. Wonder who it is hiding behind that user name


What the hell difference does that make? I guarantee you wouldn't know me from Adam. Great addition to the topic at hand though.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

KurtR said:


> Funny how leadfed just joined and has not posted any thing other than about HF slaughter. Wonder who it is hiding behind that user name


KurtR, I thought you were brighter than that. You can say the same thing about some of the HF people here. I hope you don't believe being active on a website forum is what defines you as a hunter or in any way a prerequisite in your mind.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

leadfed said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how leadfed just joined and has not posted any thing other than about HF slaughter. Wonder who it is hiding behind that user name
> ...


the differenece it makes is that i have a hunch that you are already on here under a different name and now you are using the interweb to hide who you really are. The topic at hand that is great there is only ten other posts that you could have just said this on. Or maybe this is one of the hsus people helping out with this animal rights bill.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

KurtR said:


> leadfed said:
> 
> 
> > KurtR said:
> ...


Haha....u just give me gps coordinates to your favorite hunting grounds and I will show you what kind of hsus member I really am. Nope, what I think is that you get scared whenever someone shines any light what so ever on the true reasons this measure should pass so you respond with idiotic replies like the ones above. Either that or you escaped from the short bus at a railroad crossing and I should just take it easy on ya...which wouldn't suprise me in the least bit by the way.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

HSUS is now actively supporting this measure with a minimum of 100,000 that is being poured into TV ads. They have been caught in the past last go round with this petition posting as hunters on the Bismarck forum and on a site called Snowflakes in Hell and were ratted out; it is called "astroturfing."

Here are comments about this subject:

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/08 ... roturfing/

http://www.ussportsmen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2097

_Sportsmen: Beware of Anti's "Astroturfing"
9/3/09

Anti-hunters have begun using a new tactic to advance their agenda: "astroturfing." This term is used to describe incidents where an internet user claims to be someone or something they are not for the purpose of posting comments onto online forums, news stories, and blogs. The anti's often will do this on pro-sportsmen forums and news sites, acting as hunters, trying to create divisions within the community.

A recent example appears to have taken place in North Dakota as a commenter to a Bismarck Tribune story was found to be using a computer registered to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the largest anti hunting group in the U.S.

The news story dealt with a petition in North Dakota to ban preserve hunting in the state. In the comments section, a person named "Will" appeared to pose as a hunter and stated, " Any real hunter wouldn't have an issue with this - hunting is supposed to be a sport, what sport or skill is it, to kill an animal that is raised for you to kill? Growing up I remember the thrill of the chase. The chase mind you, that doesn't involve fences. Anyone who thinks this will snowball is an idiot - it's practices like this that give hunters a bad name."

Another commenter noted that they had seen the exact same post by "Will" over at a pro- sportsman blog where he had been exposed by the blog's administrator after discovering that the IP address used by "Will" was registered to HSUS.

These efforts are becoming more frequent as increasing numbers of people communicate online. Sportsmen should be aware that the anti's are taking advantage of this to attack certain forms of hunting and divide the community. This is particularly detrimental as some media and others look to forums to gauge a particular group's thoughts on a subject. This in turn will make it more difficult for sportsmen to stand together as the anti's move forward with its larger agenda to ban all hunting._


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Haha....u just give me gps coordinates to your favorite hunting grounds and I will show you what kind of hsus member I really am. Nope, what I think is that you get scared whenever someone shines any light what so ever on the true reasons this measure should pass so you respond with idiotic replies like the ones above. Either that or you escaped from the short bus at a railroad crossing and I should just take it easy on ya...which wouldn't suprise me in the least bit by the way.[/quote]

Easy to talk tough when you are hiding behind your little computer. Maybe you can come on down to mobridge some time and i can show you what happens when people talk **** about me riding on the short bus. Quit hiding behind that name and be a man a put you real name on here big talker. At least the other guys on here are not afraid to put there name behind what they have to say and i dont agree but give them respect for not hiding behind the computer screen. Or maybe you could try to offer some thing in one of the forums that involve the outdoors but then agin you use your other login for that dont you.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift, once again, please post where I have ever said as you claim I did there should be no private lands. If you can not show where I have stated something you have claimed I have you are simply lying.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

KurtR said:


> Haha....u just give me gps coordinates to your favorite hunting grounds and I will show you what kind of hsus member I really am. Nope, what I think is that you get scared whenever someone shines any light what so ever on the true reasons this measure should pass so you respond with idiotic replies like the ones above. Either that or you escaped from the short bus at a railroad crossing and I should just take it easy on ya...which wouldn't suprise me in the least bit by the way.


Easy to talk tough when you are hiding behind your little computer. Maybe you can come on down to mobridge some time and i can show you what happens when people talk &$#* about me riding on the short bus. Quit hiding behind that name and be a man a put you real name on here big talker. At least the other guys on here are not afraid to put there name behind what they have to say and i dont agree but give them respect for not hiding behind the computer screen. Or maybe you could try to offer some thing in one of the forums that involve the outdoors but then agin you use your other login for that dont you.[/quote]

Hahah, hit a nerve there eh bud? What is posting my name on here going to do to my credibility when no one will know who the hell I am? Makes no sense to me at all. I'm just another guy on here who thinks cornering an elk in the corner of a really high fence and then hanging it on your wall like you are some amazing hunter should be outlawed to protect the heritage of this state.... maybe you sodakians think different? Stick to the topic and keep that blood pressure down buddy....oh yea, don't forget to look both ways for cars :wink:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Answer the questions GST what is so hard about answering the questions? Questions questions questions seems your guilty if you wont answer the questions atleast thats the way you put it. Actions speak louder than words. Did you ever say you and your orgs advise the govenor to vote no on all potential land sales from private to public? Actions again speak louder than words.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift the fact that ag orgs have a no net gain policy on lands being taken out of private ownership does not translate to me statinng there whould be NO public lands as you claimed I have. Either provide proof where I have said there should be NO private lands here in ND or you have lied. I can save you the time of trying to find where I have said this because I never have. For you to claim I have is a LIE.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

leadfed said:


> KurtR said:
> 
> 
> > Haha....u just give me gps coordinates to your favorite hunting grounds and I will show you what kind of hsus member I really am. Nope, what I think is that you get scared whenever someone shines any light what so ever on the true reasons this measure should pass so you respond with idiotic replies like the ones above. Either that or you escaped from the short bus at a railroad crossing and I should just take it easy on ya...which wouldn't suprise me in the least bit by the way.
> ...


Hahah, hit a nerve there eh bud? What is posting my name on here going to do to my credibility when no one will know who the hell I am? Makes no sense to me at all. I'm just another guy on here who thinks cornering an elk in the corner of a really high fence and then hanging it on your wall like you are some amazing hunter should be outlawed to protect the heritage of this state.... maybe you sodakians think different? Stick to the topic and keep that blood pressure down buddy....oh yea, don't forget to look both ways for cars :wink:[/quote]

Looks like you are just jealous that your job as gas station attendant wont aford you the options that other people have. Why do you think you are above people and should be able to make a decision for them. I guess not surprising coming from a group that should just be sportsman for obama. More liberal laws more letting the govt have control. If a liberal does not like some thing they ban it if a conservative does not like some thing they just dont do it. This is not harming any one or any thing just wasting more tax money when it goes to court and enforcing this. Make regulations tougher change the way that they advertise but dont take away some ones buisness. But hey at least you can look at the pictures of big deer and elk probally have wifi at the gas station there.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Actions GST actions, Read my post again, I never claimed you said that, I claimed you "believe" that and your actions against sportsman give me enough insight to make that opinion. No LIE here. Just another attempt to twist what was written to avoid another embarassing stance you have taken. Want to answer the question yet?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

Kurt said
Looks like you are just jealous that your job as gas station attendant wont aford you the options that other people have. Why do you think you are above people and should be able to make a decision for them. I guess not surprising coming from a group that should just be sportsman for obama. More liberal laws more letting the govt have control. If a liberal does not like some thing they ban it if a conservative does not like some thing they just dont do it. This is not harming any one or any thing just wasting more tax money when it goes to court and enforcing this. Make regulations tougher change the way that they advertise but dont take away some ones buisness. But hey at least you can look at the pictures of big deer and elk probally have wifi at the gas station there.[/quote]

You are proving my "short bus theory" with every post...keep going. You know the assumption rule right? All they do is make an *** out of you and me but in this case its safe to say you're the only one proving that addage. I'm not going to even get into a cock off with you cause I don't get in em to loose and I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings. With that said, my stance here is pure and simple (even for you to understand but I'm not sure about that any more). That stance is that I think high fence slaughter is a huge risk to the future of hunting in ND. If you don't think so just go try to do the type of hunting you do in the dakotas down in texas. Protecting and preserving a heritage is what it comes down to. Sure, it is not a big deal right now with the 12 operations the state currently has but looking to the future I see a potential catastrophe for the sportsman of ND.

Anyway, better get back to my gas pump now :wink: .


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

damn you are good you can tell the future and pump gas quite a racket you have going


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

KurtR said:


> damn you are good you can tell the future and pump gas quite a racket you have going


Hahaha...no kidding eh? Amazing what you get for going to college for 8 years and having a Doctorate


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Oh GST,,,,, I'm waiting for the answer to the question. I supppose your still trying to come up with a clever twist to make it look like the sportsman of ND are out of line asking to have a place to go.

We know your orgs opinion I'd like to know your personal opinion. And why. And the hard part I'd like it succinct and honest.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Actually swift I didn't realize you had asked a question, my apologizes. I merely thought you were making a claim I had said something I had not. If you would please present it again I will do my best to answer it.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> Oct 25th
> GST, what is your opinion on private land being sold to the public? What is your organizations opinion?


You must of missed it because it's been there.

never made any claims you said anything with words just actions.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Swift, You already know the NDSA'as policy, if not I've explained it breifly in another thread. My personal opinion is that each siuation involving private land being turned into public land should be examined ion it's merits. The process we now have does just that.Personally I support public lands and the ability to use and enjoy them. Personally I supported the last land sale to the public domain in the Missouri river con fluence. But As I do not live there and can not have as direct a knowledge I defer to those that do. As the process is suppose to input was made from the groups on the panel and the govenor made his decision in this case it was to allow the sale to proceed and this private land will soon if not already be public land. Ag orgs understand this is a changing issue and there have been and will continue to be discussion about the policies relating to this. Hopefully the sportsmen that end up involved in these discussions will do so with an understanding of the all the orgs involved, the consequences of uncontrolled sales and the needs of the people of the entire state, not just farmers/ranchers or hunters to be considered.

Hopefully that has answered your question and provided you a bit of information so you can discontinue inferring things that are simply not true.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Nicely put GST, It would be nice if the Ag orgs and Sportsman could see eye to eye. With the change in your demeanor maybe it can happen. I am not the only person that feels the Ag orgs have taken an anti-sportsman/hunter agenda.

I will disagree that the current system works though. The current system strips landowner rights and is inherently one sided. Each case should be looked at on a case by case basis and the decision should be made on the merits. Until the Ag orgs repeal their standing NO votes they have no credibility in the process. Like you said you personally supported the last transaction but your org did not. There really was no reason to oppose except they have a prejudice view of the land sales.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Personally I supported the last land sale to the public domain in the Missouri river con fluence.


I share Swifts opinion. I might add that I hear a lot about landowner rights, but it's hard to take serious when fellow landowners tell a neighbor who they can and can not sell to. On one hand some are pro landowner rights only to turn around and dump on landowners. Wouldn't you be ticked if you were forced to sell any of your land for $100 less per acre? Heck I would like to find some cheap land, but I wouldn't want to tell someone they couldn't sell at a higher price just so I could get my hooks into it. It's a complex issue, and evident that I don't have the answer, but I have a lot of information that just doesn't line up.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Thought this was apropos for this thread as well.

Gabe, these are your direct words from another Nodak thread: 


> I simply asked Plainsman that question to see if somehow magically the same person who is not a hunter one day because they do something he does not agree with is suddenly a hunter the next when he does what plainsman does agree with. Anyone is entitled to their OPNION of what is hunting and who is a hunter, but when you move to pass legislation to limit ones ability to make these choices themselves, and have the nations leading antihunting group spending thousands of dollars advertising to support your agenda, it is probably NOT in the best interests of hunting.


Just for fun, I changed a couple of your HUNTING words to show how you magically talk out of both sides of your mouth :thumb: :wink: .

I simply asked Plainsman that question to see if somehow magically the same person who is not a LANDOWNER WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS one day because they do something he does not agree with is suddenly a LANDOWER WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS the next when he does what plainsman does agree with. Anyone is entitled to their OPNION of what is a LANDOWNER WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS and who is a LANDOWNER, but when you move to pass legislation ERRRR RESOLUTION to limit ones ability to make these choices themselves, and have the nations leading CATTLEMEN'S Group spending thousands of dollars advertising to support your agenda ERRRR RESOLUTION, it is probably NOT in the best interests of A LANDOWNER WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

bioman, answer one simple question, do you believe any nonprofit organization as well as any corporations should be able to purchase and own land uncontrolled here in ND?

I apologize for contniueing with the supporters attempts to side track the discussion away from the intent and consequences of this measure and their opening the door to HSUS, but it seems there are a number of other threads :wink: so I thought one simple question might not be to out of line on this one.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

> bioman, answer one simple question, do you believe any nonprofit organization as well as any corporations should be able to purchase and own land uncontrolled here in ND?


I already answered this question Gabe. But DO please feel free to educate me using your biased North Dakota Stockmen Association's perspective.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

bioman, I apologize for missing your answer to this question. If you would please answer it again.



gst said:


> bioman, answer one simple question, do you believe any nonprofit organization as well as any corporations should be able to purchase and own land uncontrolled here in ND?.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Gabe, since you have this really bad habit of changing the question(s) when the answer isn't to your liking , I have reposted your exact question with my response.

Gabe asked:



> what is really to be gained by opening the door to allowing uncrontrol land purchases by these orgs


Bioman responded:

In the most succinct terms Gabe, the RIGHT of the property owner to sell to whom ever he or she chooses .


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I apologize for not following exactly which question you were refering to. Before we can discuss the effects, we should probably define where it is you are coming from, so please answer the question I have asked below. Then answer this one if you would. Do you believe there is no potential serious problems with allowing ANY nonprofit or corporation to buy and own land uncontroled here in ND?



gst said:


> bioman, answer one simple question, do you believe any nonprofit organization as well as any corporations should be able to purchase and own land uncontrolled here in ND?.


[/quote]


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

> I apologize for not following exactly which question you were refering to. Before we can discuss the effects, we should probably define where it is you are coming from, so please answer the question I have asked below. Then answer this one if you would. Do you believe there is no potential serious problems with allowing ANY nonprofit or corporation to buy and own land uncontroled here in ND?


I have to hand it to you Gabe, you consistently change the question when the answer doesn't support your bias.

Since you evidently don't like my answer to your ORIGINAL question, please enlighten me on your biased North Dakota Stockmen's Association view errr agenda errr resolution on private property transfer of ownership to a conservation org or corporation.

I eagerly await your response :thumb:.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

bioman, before I can relate to you the NDSA policy and why that policy was developed, I am simply asking you a question so as to be able to understand the logic behind your questions and position. So if you would, please answer this one question.



gst said:


> bioman, answer one simple question, do you believe any nonprofit organization as well as any corporations should be able to purchase and own land uncontrolled here in ND?.


[/quote][/quote]


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Gabe, do you notice a pattern here ? You asked the question yesterday, and I answered :bop: .

So I will employ your tactic and answer a question with a question: Why doesn't a private landowner have the right to sell his or her property to whomever they choose? AGAIN, I eagerly await your strongly BIASED reprisal of the North Dakota Stockmen's Association view/agenda/resolution :thumb: .


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> bioman, before I can relate to you the NDSA policy and why that policy was developed, I am simply asking you a question so as to be able to understand the logic behind your questions and position. So if you would, please answer this one question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/quote][/quote]

Leadfed said

Im sure bioman will answer when he gets a chance but id like to chime in if I may. My answer to your question is no I don't think they should be allowed to uncontrollably buy and own land in ND. Now a question for you. Do you think it is a property rights issue to be allowed to sell your land to whoever you want? Example....what if your beloved hsus offered your neighbor mega bucks to buy his land and with that$ $$ he could coast on with the rest of his life living like a king. I bet you would be opposed to this. Well a lot of people would say it is his right to sell to whoever he wants too.

On the other hand you say its alright to purchase and uncontrollably put up high fences and charge people to shoot tame elk in them because its a "property rights" issue. Do I sense some hypocrisy? But hey gst whatever is best for you we should all buy into I guess :shake:

See there needs to be some sort of comprise because that sir is what society is about. Ill say it here for the first time. If they decided to grandfather the current high fence ops in and not allow any more I could live with that. I wish they would all go away but I could live with that compromise......could you?


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

Gst, once again your questions get answered and you dodge ours.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

lead fed, glad to hear you do not believe it should be an uncontrolled free for all when it comes to entities outside the private individual buying and owning land here in ND. So now how do you propose to handle determining who gets to buy land here in ND and who does not?

As to your question regarding the grand fathering in of operations, and wether I would support it or not, it would depend entirely on how the intended law was written. Now back to the reality of what we have here today, as you said this law does not do that. Nor does this law provide any sort of compensation to producers that simply did what the state was encouraging with grants, low interests loans ect... in fact the sponsors of this law purposely worded and have refused to answer questions in an attempt to get around the courts determining this is a takings.

bioman I believe there are archives of extensive discussion regarding this issue and what you have asked on this site for you to reference if indeed your are concerned with an answer to your question.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

But gst you didn't answer my question. Do you think it is a property rights issue to be able to sell your land to whoever you want? Because if not you are being very hypocritical. On one hand you say it is a property rights issue to be able to run high fence slaughter operations but on the other hand you say its not OK to sell your land to whoever you want to. Something doesn't add up here and I think it is obvious that you have no comprimise and fine with anything that benefits you and you only.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> o you think it is a property rights issue to be able to sell your land to whoever you want? Because if not you are being very hypocritical


This is another problem with guys like you. You forget to apply the difference between farming/ranching and hunting. Hunting is something we all love no matter which side of this debate you are on, but for the Ag people it is their life and their income. The selling of land in ND is properly regulated by the government. You guys keep complaining that you cannot sell your land to DU and that there is a hypocrisy there. There in fact is not. You cannot sell your land to DU, Cargill, Joe Blow Hogs Inc, etc because they are corporate entities. These laws are here to protect family farms and in the long run they are a hell of a good thing for hunters. If Cargill, ADM, Huge Cattle operations, etc are allowed to start buying land up in ND you can kiss it goodbye. That land will be closed to public hunting, only employees MAY be allowed to hunt there, with a lot of employers banning firearms on their property that probably wouldn't be an option either. If groups like DU are allowed to buy land then the Governor would probably be legally bound to allow groups like HSUS, PETA, or others to purchase land here. The government is not allowed to play favorites, pick out who they do business with, or look out for sportsmen. Not to mention the fact that DU does not have the greatest track record when it comes to passing or selling their land on. What I have read on it, it usually goes to big money donors, including outfitters.

DU, and other hunting interests need to realize this and start looking at programs like Delta has. Programs where you compensate the landowner while using their land for their interests.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

leadfed, yes the sale of property is a "property rights" issue, kinda common sense.In regards to the sale of land to non profits and corps, the state legislature looked at and considered the negatives of allowing unregulated land sales and believed the consequences far out weighed the benefit. They implemented laws to protect NDans from these consequences. However these laws do not ban the sale of land to nonprofits, simply provide a means to regulate it. So this "property right" of selling your land is not being BANNED, merely regulated. Some sales are allowed some are not. Much like myself and others have compared zoning laws which regulate who you can sell your land to thru the regulation of what the property may legally be used for. This measure two is designed to BAN a property right that is legally defined and already heavily regulated, there in lies the difference.


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

gst said:


> leadfed, yes the sale of property is a "property rights" issue, kinda common sense.In regards to the sale of land to non profits and corps, the state legislature looked at and considered the negatives of allowing unregulated land sales and believed the consequences far out weighed the benefit. They implemented laws to protect NDans from these consequences. However these laws do not ban the sale of land to nonprofits, simply provide a means to regulate it. So this "property right" of selling your land is not being BANNED, merely regulated. Some sales are allowed some are not. Much like myself and others have compared zoning laws which regulate who you can sell your land to thru the regulation of what the property may legally be used for. This measure two is designed to BAN a property right that is legally defined and already heavily regulated, there in lies the difference.


Leadfed said,

Ya it is common sense gst, I just wanted you to say its a property rights issue because I have heard on hear so many times that this is a "PROPERTY RIGHTS" issue. Sure the legislature looked at it and decided the consequences far out weighed the benefit. BUT, does the group you represent have the same ideology as the state legislature when it comes to the sale of land being regulated....I doubt it. I believe but am not 100% sure that one of the main reasons they regulate land sales to non profits is because the land they buy is then not taxed and it takes money away from the counties. Is that the main reason groups like NDSA like the idea of regulating land sales? I'm sure thats part of it because you benefit from those tax monies. However, I think even more so your group supports it becasue these companies are willing to pay large $$$ for these lands and that would raise your land taxes, another benefit for you. Also most of the land they is taken out of production right, so you loose a chance at maybe renting this land for your cattle....another benefit for you.

As I stated earlier, I agree with regulating the sales of land due to a number of reasons a lot of which were mentioned by TK above. The point is if one of your main selling points of banning high fence hunting is a property rights issue how can you then think it is wrong for a landowner to sell to whoever he or she wants to and for the highest price? It seems like a double standard to me and makes it even more obvious that all you and your group is doing is looking out for themselves and not even a little bit for the sportsman like you so often claim. What would really benefit us, the sportsman, is to get rid of high fence slaughter so the antis can't use that against us all the while protecting a heritage that has been around a lot longer than fences.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

And you are accomplishing all this by inviting groups like HSUS into the state in your attempt to protect thsi long standing hunting heritage???????

leadfed, does the ND Wildlife Society enact policy that benefits ranchers??? Does the ND Wildlife Federation implement practices and policies designed to ensure the livlihood of ranchers? Of course not and noone really would expect them to. But yet you are making some assumption that the ND STOCKMANS Association should implement and inact policy that ensures sportsmen have a few more ducks to shoot even though it may very well negatively affect their livilhoods. Like I said, common sense, it seems to be lacking in your assumptions.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

GST, in fairness does the NDSF enact policy to disrupt the cattle industry? Do they make policy that makes things difficult for ranchers? The NDSA has made policy to directly make things difficult on the sportsman of ND. They have shown disregard for the wildlife such as their CRP stance. They have tried to manipulate the contracts they signed to use CRP at their whim. They then threaten the sportsman with boycotts and lockouts due to a NWF stance they didn't agree with, eventhough the state chapter took the side of the NDSA.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift I have been down this road of the CRP debate with you before and am not about to waste my time going there once again, so feel free to make whatever claims you have in the past. If people are concerned enough about them they can go back thru and see where they have been addressed repeatedly in other threads from the past.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I figured as much. You have no defense and know the NDSA are anti-sportsman and anti wildlife as you policies show. The idea that an organization would look out for themselves and not take offense when questioned to the point of advocating boycotts and sportsman lockouts I guess is too much to ask from the NDSA. The above stated policies and opinions of your organization do as much or more to drive a wedge between ranchers and sportsman than any measure that has ever been initiated.

Since your idea that the SA should look out for themselves without concern for nonranchers it is no wonder you have the elitist stances that you do.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Here is an analogy for you GST,

lets say the AMA took the same stance as your org and decided that since healthcare is a business and we make our livlihoods from selling our knowledge we would make a policy that we refuse to see any patients that do not pay for those services up front. If the AMA decided that insurers are too costly and we would only see patients on a cash for service system. There would be hundreds of millions of people that would not get healthcare. But we decided the heck with them it's about our ability to make a living. How would that go over? That is exactly the stance the SA has taken in regards to usage of land.


----------

