# Anti-Hunting Ballot Initiative Being Circulated for Signatur



## g/o

Anti-Hunting Ballot Initiative Being Circulated for Signatures in North Dakota!

Friday, January 29, 2010

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

North Dakota sportsmen should be aware that a group cleverly calling itself North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is circulating petitions for signatures to place an anti-hunting initiative on the 2010 General Election ballot. Make sure that you and your family and friends do not contribute to this misleading, anti-freedom effort by signing these petitions!

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

This initiative effort is supported by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a Washington D.C.-based lobbying organization that spends $120 million a year in an effort to end all hunting and animal agriculture in the United States. Here are just a few quotes from Wayne Pacelle who serves as President of HSUS:

"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." - as quoted by the Associated Press in Impassioned Agitator

"Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change." - Bozeman Daily Chronicle

"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States&#8230; We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." - quoted from a first hand account of a speech to an outdoor ethics conference in Florence, South Carolina in the magazine Full Cry

The proposed initiative would ban private big game hunting preserves in North Dakota, a long-standing tradition in the state. This violates basic American principles of private property rights and sportsmen deciding for themselves how and where to hunt. Hunting ethics should be decided by each individual hunter, not by politically-motivated laws supported by radical animal "rights" interest groups. Further, the group behind this initiative falsely advertises preserves as a very small pen or cage, when most preserves amount to thousands of acres.

This effort threatens to establish a precedent in that will allow Wayne Pacelle and others to further pursue their ultimate agenda of banning all hunting. These anti-hunting radicals are learning how to circumvent the standard policy-making system that has stymied them through the years and will be emboldened to further utilize deceptive 30-second sound bites to advance their radical agenda. Please work to inform your family, friends and fellow sportsmen in North Dakota that they should not sign these anti-freedom petitions now being circulated!

For more information, please go to http://www.ndpropertyrights.com/.


----------



## Dick Monson

Maybe posting the pro-hunting measure language would be helpful?

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, 2012.

View the ND Hunter for Fair Chase website at: http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/ I'd suggest scrolling through the FC site for the endorsement pages.

The measure is based on both hunting ethics and science. Also, reviewing the sponsor list one will note wildlife managers of merit with a combined experience of well over 100 years.

Canned kill of big game and exotics hides behind a "Property Rights" logo. Instead they bring a blighted image of hunting as well as escaped exotics, disease, and parasites. Gifts that will keep on giving to the next generations.

These are from the high fence feral pig disaster in the Turtle Mountains. Taxpayer costs so far exceeds $100,000 in ND.










Interestingly, the Feral Hog bill that passed in the last legislative session copied the Fair Chase measure. 

While you're at it google "Asian Louse", another treat headed for North Dakota courtesy Fallow deer in high fence. And yes, there are Fallow deer in North Dakota.
Drop me a pm if you are willing to circulate a petition.


----------



## g/o

Dick, Of course you will always be allowed to post your opinion on this site. I just found it interesting that the NRA would get involved in this. Apparently they are not one of your endorsements 

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5341


----------



## gst

Dick, now that you have finally decided to enter into this discussion on this site about this issue, perhaps you would care to answer questions. If this is truly about hunting ethics as you say it is, why did the proponents of this measure not include the game bird hunting preserves in the wording of this measure. Are they not doing exactly what this measure is designerd to ban from an ethical position ? They are raising birds in a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape to be release to be "hunted" and shot for a renumeration or fee. If this is truly about protecting the heritage of hunting as the sponsors claim, why were they not included in this ban. Or are you merely reserving the right to choose what you deem unethical while taking away that right from others thru this ban?

Please take the time as a sponsor to address this.


----------



## DG

Dick wrote,



> Interestingly, the Feral Hog bill that passed in the last legislative session copied the Fair Chase measure


Really Dick you shouldn't flatter yourself like this. Nebraska was the first to ban feral pig hunting. The reason. When Mossouri first began having trouble with feral swine they enlisted the sportsmen to help. Turns out the sportsmen liked it so much they began releasing them and some discontinued deer hunting.

Here is a list of the Fair Chase Endorsements

Jim Posewitz
Ted Kerasote

Dakota Country Magazine

Mule Deer Foundation

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society

Bernie Kuntz, Outdoor Columnist, Jamestown Sun

No. 1 You mean this Jim Posewitz:

Here is Posewitz partnering with some bad actors.

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

If you want to hear Posewitz voiceover click on:

Listen to our 60-second radio ad, "Tradition," featuring Montanan Jim Posewitz, a lifelong sportsman.

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

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

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

No.2 Ted Kerosote

I remember seeing an article on him having a fit over orientals butchering dogs. He's HSUS

No.3 Dakota Country magazine -editor Bill Mitzel enough said.

No.4 Mule Deer Foundation a federal creation.

No.5 Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. They got on board some years ago when they bought into the North American Wildlife Conservation Model. The Model was written by two Canuks. Dr. Valerius Geist from British Columbia has since moved on and is spreading fear about lions and tigers and bears and how they need spacious living places free of humans. Of coarse some of the tax monies to finance all this will employ him. The other author Shane Mahoney from New Brunswick Canada is now working for the Dallas Safari Club. That's Dallas Texas boyz. High Fence Home Central.

No.6 The North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society. It is an affiliate of the federally funded Wildlife Society. They cannot take your property or remove the options on anybodies property. But they can ask that citizens give up their freedoms and rights willingly. And they will always find someone like Kaseman or Monson who will eagerly give up their neighbors rights. The F/C committee is a front.

No.7 Bernie Kuntz is or was a spokes person for the Montana Game Fish and Parks.


----------



## KurtR

didnt this get beat once already hopefully the people on their high ethics horse get knocked off this time and quit pushing there agenda on everyone else. they are no different than the people who want to run yotes on sleds they just have a different PC agenda.


----------



## indsport

Just to keep the facts in line for the fourth or fifth time. The Wildlife Society, both at the national level and local level, are not and never have been federally funded. :bop: for the facts, go to http://joomla.wildlife.org/northdakota/ for information about the state chapter and to http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/TWS_990_2008.pdf for the latest tax return of the national office of the wildlife society and make up your own mind. The wildlife society is a non profit organization made up of wildlife biologists and managers. It includes members from any outdoor group you can think of, so if you belong to DU, PF, RMEF, Mule Deer foundation, or any entity that does wildlife management or wildlife research, some of their staff probably belongs to the wildlife society either state or national or both. In addition, wildlife society members are also members of the NRA (including some life members I know), Sportsmen against hunger, Gun Owners of America, Trout Unlimited, and multiple other groups.


----------



## DG

indsport,

Sen. Bill 2254 (Feb. 1, 2007) to ban high fence was sponsered by the the north dakota chapter of the wildlife society and north dakota wildlife federation. Six people testifed in favor of the ban. Mike McEnroe lobbyist for ndctws and David Alan Brandt soon to be pesident of ndwf. Both federal agents.

There are 30 sponsers of the HFI. Most are members of ndwf and ndctws. If you would like we can go through each sponser and show their affiliation. The fair chase committee is a front isn't it.


----------



## indsport

Wrong again...... :bop: :bop: oke: :bop: :bop: Legislation is not sponsored, it is introduced by a legislator and then testimony from any individual or group is allowed. Any individual or group testifies in favor or against a bill. Neither McEnroe or Brandt are "agents" unless you consider a wildlife manager or wildlife biologist an agent. Only law enforcement personnel at the state or federal level are classified as agents or game wardens or conservation officers. As to the fair chase initiative currently being circulated, the lists you show have *ENDORSED * the proposal and again :bop: :bop: :bop: *ARE NOT SPONSORS* of the initiative. The sponsors of the initiative are individuals including farmers (e.g. Dick Monson), retirees, and yes, I do agree, some work for natural resource agencies. They are not all members of the same groups.


----------



## Plainsman

KurtR said:


> didnt this get beat once already hopefully the people on their high ethics horse get knocked off this time and quit pushing there agenda on everyone else. they are no different than the people who want to run yotes on sleds they just have a different PC agenda.


Just a point here: I think you have it backwards Kurt. The people sponsoring the bill to stop high fence hunts I think have the ethics of supporting banning running over yotes with snow mobiles. I hope you don't consider that sporting.

As far as the NDWF and groups like them, they are the people who care about wildlife and hunting. These groups are made up of hunters. I have never met an animal rights type person at NDWF or DU or the RMEF. It just doesn't happen.

As I understand the NRA is getting many calls setting them straight. They need to ask themselves this question: Will they get more monetary and political clout from a dozen high fence operations or 10,000 sportsmen?


----------



## KurtR

no i dont consider it sporting to run yotes on the sled but where it is legal like in montana i dont look down on the people for doing if they so choose with in there legal rights. this is just more govt intursion into the peoples lives. HF is not hunting it is shooting a tame animal. Is it wrong if some one wants to shoot a cow the only diference is that the animals being shot are tame elk. Change it from hf hunting to hf shooting when advertised i would agree with that. I see nothing being gained from this other than giving the hsus a foot in the door. They are not looking to just stop the hf hunting they want it all stoped. i understan why people are aginst this but if you dont like it dont do it. Some people think that archery hunting is creul but we dont want to ban that. It is giving in the the pussifcation of the united states to start taking away rights like this. And to think that the non hunting public is so aware of this and want to ban it. they must also all think that a gun can be used to kill some one so we should ban all guns. If this was based off of some science like these tame animals are spreading disease so that is why we need to stop it i could get on board with that. but this is purely a ethics issue which should be left up to individual choice of the person.


----------



## Dick Monson

Jim, since you are spokesman for the ND Professional Guides and Outfitters, where does your group stand on the canned shooting initiated measure? The outfitters in Montana stood with the public and actively promoted banning canned shooting there. Will your organization do the same? One would think deer outfitters would be deeply concerned what problems canned shooting is bringing into North Dakota. 

Article I
NAME:

The name of this organization shall be: North Dakota Professional Guides and Outfitters Association, abbreviated NDPGOA.

Article II
PURPOSE:

To foster, expand and perpetuate hunting and fishing of all legal species of game animals (mammals, birds and fish). To cooperate with other hunting, fishing and outdoor groups in securing, maintaining, and promoting better hunting and fishing conditions. To cooperate with conservation agencies and observe game and fish laws regarding the conservation of all legal species of game animals.

Jim, ND PGOA has been very conscious of ethics. Does your group wrestle with the disease question, the invasive species that canned shooting introduces,the parasites that will decimate the deer herd? You have helped write the laws to that effect. Inquiring minds would like to know


----------



## KRAKMT

Montana banned hf elk hunting 51% to 49% if memory serves in 2000. Hyperbole aside it was the sportsman that voted to protect the public property(elk) over the private property rights. Since then we have not seen a humane society initiative to ban hunting, infact our legislature just passed an incentive for a horse slaughterhouse that should take their focus.
The penultimate question is whether wild Elk should be farmed. Montana said no. Wyoming said no I believe. Texas and other states have said yes.
We didn't address whether birds should not be farmed, and to date haven't addressed bison or cattle. Is there a difference,on a visceral level there is.


----------



## g/o

Dick, Sorry but I am not a spokesman for the Outfitters, as far as Montana Outfitters Association goes everything I read says's differently.

Farmers' Digest - November 2000 page 2
Organizations opposed to I-143 (and thus supporting game farming) include:
· Montana Stock Growers Association
· Montana Grain Growers Association
· Montana Bison Association
· Montana Guides and Outfitters Association
· Burlington-Northern Railroad
· Montana Farm Bureau Federation
· Montana Veterinary Medical Association
· Montana Trappers Association
· Montana Taxidermists Association
· Montana Game Bird Association
· Western Environmental Trade Association
· Montana Wool Growers
· Montana Agriculture Business Association
· Montana for Multiple Use
· Montana Chamber of Commerce
· Montana Pork Producers Council
· Montana Contractors Association
· Montana Farmers Union.
Groups supporting and promoting I-143 (and thus opposed to game farms) include:
1. Montana Wildlife Federation - promotes a plan for no roads in forested areas, has been against
timber harvesting, and has soured landowner/hunter relations. For more information see
http://www.montanawildlife.com
2. The National Wildlife Federation - proponents of "no roads in the forests" plan, wolf
reintroduction and logging restrictions. For more information see http://www.nwf.org
3. Fund for Animals - an animal rights activist group that has been trying to eliminate all types of
ranching and hunting for years. Visit http://www.fund.org
4. Defenders of Wildlife - supports wolf reintroduction and wants to prohibit logging in all forests.
See http://www.defenders.org
5. MADCOW - Montanans Against the Domestication and Commercialization of Wildlife, the main
group behind I-143.

Dick, Unlike you I am concerned about disease, apparently you are not. If all these so called diseases are such a threat then why not try and put and end to raising of cervids instead of just high fence hunting. Again if shooting elk and deer behind a fence is so disgusting to you then why are you willing to allow people to still shoot Bison? Oh that's right like you said last time you go after the bison people we are not. Seems awful phony to me Dick :eyeroll:


----------



## Dick Monson

Jim, I thought you were the president, my mistake since you are still listed as president on the website. So, where does your org stand on the issue of the Fair Chase measure? Has your group discussed it? You, individuyally, are implying you want a total ban on cervid farming? Because just disease spread by these facilities would be a narrow view when there are so many other negatives

Wouldn't exotics and parasites be important too?

Bovicola tibialis









Deer hunters across the contenient are going to love this little gift from canned shooting operations.


----------



## barebackjack

KurtR said:


> no i dont consider it sporting to run yotes on the sled but where it is legal like in montana i dont look down on the people for doing if they so choose with in there legal rights. this is just more govt intursion into the peoples lives. HF is not hunting it is shooting a tame animal. Is it wrong if some one wants to shoot a cow the only diference is that the animals being shot are tame elk. Change it from hf hunting to hf shooting when advertised i would agree with that. I see nothing being gained from this other than giving the hsus a foot in the door. They are not looking to just stop the hf hunting they want it all stoped. i understan why people are aginst this but if you dont like it dont do it. Some people think that archery hunting is creul but we dont want to ban that. It is giving in the the pussifcation of the united states to start taking away rights like this. *And to think that the non hunting public is so aware of this and want to ban it.* they must also all think that a gun can be used to kill some one so we should ban all guns. If this was based off of some science like these tame animals are spreading disease so that is why we need to stop it i could get on board with that. but this is purely a ethics issue which should be left up to individual choice of the person.


 :beer:

The non-hunting public wasnt largely aware of this practice until the anti-HF crowd started spewing their half-truths on the subject.

The HF initiative in ND is like a sinking ship (mostly because we just don't have enough transplanted yuppie Californians like MT does). Even a rat has enough sense to abandon a sinking ship.

If the persons behind the HF initiative would accept their defeat in this state, and give up, the issue would largely go away. It is THEY that have brought more negative light in recent years to the practice (and subsequently hunting in general) than the true, total anti groups have.


----------



## Plainsman

> no i dont consider it sporting to run yotes on the sled but where it is legal like in montana i dont look down on the people for doing if they so choose with in there legal rights. this is just more govt intursion into the peoples lives.


This nation started out with no laws, but they got busy making some real fast. Even the western United States was known to be lawless for many years. Something is either right or wrong and laws or lack thereof don't change that.



> HF is not hunting it is shooting a tame animal. Is it wrong if some one wants to shoot a cow the only diference is that the animals being shot are tame elk. Change it from hf hunting to hf shooting when advertised i would agree with that. I see nothing being gained from this other than giving the hsus a foot in the door.


HSUS is a bunch of emotional idiots just like PETA, but they do have brains. They must know that to endorse the high fence ban is the kiss of death here in North Dakota. I don't think HSUS or PETA want to see the high fence hunts end. It's one of their big the things they point to to get contributions. Most of the people in their hierarchy I don't think give a rat's behind about animals, they are in a business to raise money for themselves. How else could you explain all the dogs they found in dumpsters out east that PETA had killed. They are simply suckering the emotional for donations.



> They are not looking to just stop the hf hunting they want it all stoped.


No disagreement there. If they accomplished it what would the boys in the office do for salaries? Maybe we should ask them for a donation to a coyote tournament or something.   



> i understan why people are aginst this but if you dont like it dont do it.


I sometimes have mixed feelings about it. I sometimes think that the wantabee hunter inside the high fence might get in my way in the field. My hopes is they just stay home. Darn this thing gets the jitters when posts get long I guess I will use another post to continue.


----------



## Plainsman

> Some people think that archery hunting is creul but we dont want to ban that.


That isn't comparable though. You hunt with a bow to challenge yourself even further, while a high fence hunt is like you say shooting not hunting.



> It is giving in the the pussifcation of the united states to start taking away rights like this.


America is certainly going the way you speak of. Political correctness is one of my pet peeves. As for rights, I don't know about that. I have always learned that rights are something you don't have to pay for, and that if you need a permit or a license it's a privilege and not a right. I think those who raise wild game need a permit.



> If this was based off of some science like these tame animals are spreading disease so that is why we need to stop it i could get on board with that. but this is purely a ethics issue which should be left up to individual choice of the person.


Actually I am more concerned about the disease association than the ethics. Of course I think it's crazy to even want to shoot an animal in a pen, but there has been many disease problems. When animals get to be worth thousands of dollars the owners don't want to put them down if they are sick. That's why we see some being moved from one state to another in the dead of night. I think a fellow was arrested for transporting diseased deer from Minnesota to Tennessee just last year. When large amounts of money get involved honesty to often goes out the window.


----------



## DG

Dick Monson wrote,



> Jim, I thought you were the president, my mistake since you are still listed as president on the website. So, where does your org stand on the issue of the Fair Chase measure? Has your group discussed it?


So Dick where does your org stand? You are a card carrying member aren't you? You have discussed it with "your" group. So what did they think of your presentation?

http://www.times-online.com/content/view/82703/168

Paws to Consider... Identify your pet 
Wednesday, 09 April 2008

Have you been wondering about the hype associated with micro-chipping pet identification systems? Maybe you've heard the advertisements on the radio or read about pet identification in this column. The real message is that identifying your pet greatly increases the chances that you will be reunited with your dog or cat. Remember the dog from Grand Forks who was found in South Carolina, and because of the micro-chip I.D. the dog was returned to its family? 
The Sheyenne Valley Friends of Animals recently had a similar experience. A person living on a local farm called to say that two dogs showed up near her home, one had a collar but no tags and the other had no collar at all, and they were not in good shape. She had given them some food but had not confined them, hoping they would go home. After eight days, the SVFA was contacted again. The dogs were still returning to the farm. They were continuing to lose weight. At the conclusion of the weekend SVFA volunteers picked up the dogs and took them the Valley City Veterinary Hospital. KOVC broadcast descriptions of the dogs and the SVFA took pictures and "found dog" ads were placed in the VC Times Record. 
At the Valley City Vet Hospital, as part of the routine procedure, the dogs were "scanned," and one of them had a micro-chip I.D. After tracing the chip to a college in Minnesota, obtaining a telephone number that was no longer accurate, and contacting some local residents, the owners were found. The moral of this story: I.D. your pet. 
Having your cat or dog wear identification is important for minimizing the chances of theft or permanent loss. Visible tags with your phone number are a must but because the collar can slip off or the tags can be lost, also consider a microchip. Call Valley City Veterinary Hospital for an appointment. The one time cost is only $35. If your pet is missing, check with the local veterinary hospital, the police department, the sheriff's department, and the local radio station. These dogs were two of the lucky ones. Most lost pets are never recovered; most die. Please I.D. your pet through collars, tags, or micro-chip identification.
UPCOMING EVENT:
The SVFA will hold its April general membership meeting on Monday April 14, 2008, at 7:00p.m. in the Municipal Courtroom in the Valley City Police Department. Everyone, members and non-members, is welcome. Refreshments will be served, and the program will include: recent SVFA activities, a report on the 2008 Spay/Neuter Campaign, a preliminary report on a proposed Dog Park for Valley City and a (an informational) presentation by Dick Monson on the initiative to ban "canned hunting" in North Dakota. Join us. Take this opportunity to join SVFA, perhaps win a prize (a free microchip for your pet!), and learn more about animal related issues in our community.
CAN YOU GIVE A CAT A HOME?
We have a number of cats available for adoption. We have cats who like to play, cats who like to nap, polydactyl cats, calico cats, cats that tolerate dogs, cats that don't, cats with all claws, cats with some claws, and more. We have a variety


----------



## barebackjack

Plainsman said:


> Some people think that archery hunting is creul but we dont want to ban that.
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't comparable though. You hunt with a bow to challenge yourself even further, while a high fence hunt is like you say shooting not hunting.
Click to expand...

And some would say the same of those that find enjoyment at taking deer at extreme ranges. Its less "hunting", and more "shooting".

Challenge and ethics are two separate things.

Some would say the long range taking of game is also "unethical". Just as some think bowhunting is "unethical", just as some think HF is "unethical", and yet, just as some think big game rifle hunting is "unethical". From an ethical/unethical standpoint, they ARE comparable.

Aren't ethics funny that way?


----------



## Dick Monson

Dwight, you bet I speak to groups. And will until you are out of the canned shooting business. Lots of Federal Agents in those places.



> The non-hunting public wasnt largely aware of this practice until the anti-HF crowd started spewing their half-truths on the subject


You're not paying attention bbj. And what kind of defense is that anyway? Kind of like the 3 monkeys? The UND voter survey showed the public was very much aware.

A couple things the canned shooters didn't tell you . They also did a voter survey. They didn't publish it. Because they didn't get the results they wanted. Imagine that. They also spent $104,000 trying to get voters to not sign the petition. Ever wonder where the bulk on that money came from? Just good old local boys trying to make a living.

Illinois Deer Farmers Assoc
Address 1: 
9713 E 2150 North Road
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal:
Danville, IL 61834 
Date / Amount: 
06/18/2008 $1,500.00

Iowa Whitetail Deer Assoc
Address 1: 
5614 319th St
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal:
Clear Lake, IA 50428 
Date / Amount: 
03/28/2008 $10,000.00

Minnesota Deer Breeders Assoc
Address 1: 
1085 125th St NW
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal:
Rice, MN 56367 
Date / Amount: 
03/18/2008 $1,000.00

Missouri Whitetail Breeders A
Address 1: 
109 Glaize Holler Rd
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal:
Brumley, MO 65017 
Date / Amount: 
02/26/2008 $10,000.00

New York Deer & Elk Farmers
Address 1: 
5498 Barnum Rd
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal:
Akron, NY 14001 
Date / Amount: 
05/02/2008 $1,500.00

North American Deer Farmers
Address 1: 
1215 N 7th St Ste 104
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal:
Lake City, MN 55041 
Date / Amount: 
06/26/2008 $15,000.00

Pennsylvania Deer Farmers
Address 1: 
PO Box 5
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal:
New Tripoli, PA 18066 
Date / Amount: 
03/28/2008 $5,000.00

White Tail Dr Farmers of Ohio
Address 1: 
8839 E Lincoln Way
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal:
Orrville, OH 44667 
Date / Amount: 
05/15/2008 $20,000.00

Whitetails of Oklahoma Inc
Address 1: 
689 Whitetail Ridge
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal:
Skiatook, OK 74070 
Date / Amount: 
05/15/2008 $5,000.00

Whitetails of Wisconsin
Address 1: 
1223 18th Ave NW
City, State/Province, Zip/Postal:
Turtle Lake, ND 58575 
Date / Amount: 
02/26/2008 $15,000.00


----------



## AdamFisk

Like BBJ said, the ship is sinking. I don't know how the collecting signatures is going, but I would imagine it's not going as smoothly as the first round. I actually signed that thing at the Sportsmans Show in Fargo, before I really knew much about it. Since then I've had time to collect my own thoughts and hear out others, and won't be making that same mistake again. I agree with you boys, it's not hunting, and it MAY give fair chase hunters a bad rep, but the fallout from this thing isn't worth the fight IMO. I don't know who is spewing truths or lies on this debate, but I thought I heard or read somewhere that the HSUS actually was involved in helping get signatures. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if that's true, talk about getting in bed with the enemy man. Why why why why why?????????????

I'm not educated in the whole disease issue. If this is in fact a disease issue, you guys need to start making your arguements more loudly and clearly. I visited your site and didn't see much for disease info on it. Also, every thread on here or FB is mainly about ethics, with the occasional disease post thrown in. This leads me to believe that it is more of a "pushing your ethics on others" thing than it is a disease thing. Which, if thats the case, you will not garner any support from me or many others.


----------



## barebackjack

Dick Monson said:


> Dwight, you bet I speak to groups. And will until you are out of the canned shooting business. Lots of Federal Agents in those places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The non-hunting public wasnt largely aware of this practice until the anti-HF crowd started spewing their half-truths on the subject
> 
> 
> 
> You're not paying attention bbj. And what kind of defense is that anyway? Kind of like the 3 monkeys? The UND voter survey showed the public was very much aware.
Click to expand...

When was the survey?

Actually, I don't really care when the survey was. I give "independent" surveys about as much stock as I give your group of "sportsmen against high fence".....or whatever its called.

The fact is, nobody really gave a rats behind UNTIL your little initiatives, or should I say your crusade. This has only became an issue because you wanted it to become an issue. And it has only become an issue in large part due to the rhetoric and half truths spewed forth by your group. (You cant deny this, ive heard the crap your group blabs about firsthand. Half truths and innuendo).

These operations have been around a LONG time. Where were the true anti groups (PETA and HSUS.....you know, those groups that we "sportsmen" have to defend ourselves against by "policing ourselves") in the 80's when they were at their peak of power and influence? They sure as heck weren't attacking high fence. HSUS and PETA have nowhere near the influence they did 20 years ago. People in large part, have wised up and pegged these groups for what they are, wack jobs. You should take note, keep up this seemingly personal crusade of yours, and you may be pegged similarly.

Which brings me back to my original point.....its only an issue because YOU want it to be an issue. Face reality Dick, the state of ND doesn't want what you want. The vast majority of the non-hunting public in ND could care less.


----------



## DG

Dicky said,



> A couple things the canned shooters didn't tell you . They also did a voter survey. They didn't publish it. Because they didn't get the results they wanted. Imagine that. They also spent $104,000 trying to get voters to not sign the petition.


You really need to stop your dang lying. We never did a survey. And the survey your side did was a bunch of loaded questions. Remember I saw the survey just before you guys kicked me out of that meeting. (Even the legislators thought that story was funny when I told it.) Your people, north dakota wildlife federation, then sent the survey to Shawn Schafer (pres. of the deer growers) and asked him for his input. He sent it back saying do it over. That was the extent of his involvement. But that didn't stop your side from telling the public that one deer grower even helped write the survey. This whole iniative is built lie upon lie.



> Dwight, you bet I speak to groups. And will until you are out of the canned shooting business. Lots of Federal Agents in those places.


That's deranged


----------



## AdamFisk

gst said:


> Dick, now that you have finally decided to enter into this discussion on this site about this issue, perhaps you would care to answer questions. If this is truly about hunting ethics as you say it is, why did the proponents of this measure not include the game bird hunting preserves in the wording of this measure. Are they not doing exactly what this measure is designerd to ban from an ethical position ? They are raising birds in a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape to be release to be "hunted" and shot for a renumeration or fee. If this is truly about protecting the heritage of hunting as the sponsors claim, why were they not included in this ban. Or are you merely reserving the right to choose what you deem unethical while taking away that right from others thru this ban?
> 
> Please take the time as a sponsor to address this.


Maybe I can help answer this for you. This is a question I've been asking my self all day. I was informed today that I could actually take my dog out to a preserve within the next month or so and shoot some birds, for a fee of course. I didn't realize I could do that, or, maybe I did but never really put much thought into it. Now, I am actually entertaining this idea. It's been a looooonnnng winter and I think it would be fun and give me and my dog some much needed enjoyment before Spring hits. In my previouse post I said I would never participate in a big game canned shoot, but I just admitted that I would for birds. Why is that????

Maybe, like me, some of the people behind this HF deal find it relaxing, fun, and theraputic to go kill some birds during the "stir crazy" time of the year. I don't know about you guys, but my dog and I are itching to "hunt". Granted I know it's not fair chase hunting, but the dog doesn't. It's all the same to him. And for some damn reason, which I cant answer, I don't see it as near as bad as participating in a canned big game shoot.......Crazy I know.

Have fun trying to figure that one out. :rollin:


----------



## barebackjack

DG said:


> Dicky said,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A couple things the canned shooters didn't tell you . They also did a voter survey. They didn't publish it. Because they didn't get the results they wanted. Imagine that. They also spent $104,000 trying to get voters to not sign the petition.
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to stop your dang lying. We never did a survey. And the *survey your side did was a bunch of loaded questions.*
Click to expand...

I remember that survey.

It was about as impartial as Obamas view on capitalism or MSNBC's coverage of the last election!


----------



## DG

Adam Fisk wrote,



> I don't know who is spewing truths or lies on this debate, but I thought I heard or read somewhere that the HSUS actually was involved in helping get signatures.


Actually the elk growers had a little fun with the HSUS thing. Here is what happened.

This page is from the Humane Society of the United States based in Washington D.C., which appeared April 4th, 2008.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT PLEASE HELP BAN CANNED HUNTS IN NORTH DAKOTA

Dear Friend,
North Dakota voters have the opportunity to stop the trophy shooting of captive animals trapped behind fences--an in humane and unsportsmanlike practice opposed by hunters and non-hunters alike-- but only with your help . These "canned hunting" operations offer wealthy customers the opportunity to kill tame, captive animals for guarnteed trophies. GET INVOLVED IN STOPPING THIS UNETHICAL PRACTICE.

Both hunters and non-hunters condemn canned hunting, but it has not yet be outlawed in North Dakota. Be part of the team that puts this critical issue on the November statewide ballot! The campaign must collect 12,844 valid signatures by the end of July, and we need your help.

If you have volunteered to gather signatures already, thank you! If not, please sign up today. EMAIL KAREN at [email protected] or call 701-839-6210

Just a little of your time will help give North Dakotans the chance to vote to stop canned hunting this fall.

Adam Fisk, What the elk growers did was contact Karen T. in Minot N.D. and asked if we could participate in the high fence iniative, under an assumed name of course. She put us on her e-mail alerts and sent us their battle plans. That was when we learned of astro-turfing. That is when an article appears such as in the Bismarck Tribune and after reading it on-line you could post or read other peoples comments. Karen was Carebear.

But you can imagine our surprise when the fair chase committee sent e-mails to Karen and she pressed forward. Their messages and Karen's whole address book came right to us. The people in her address book are some interesting people. Some involved elsewhere to end all hunting, horse slaughter and animal agriculture. These are the people that Roger contacted and asked to help collect signatures because he knew that sportsmen weren't signing and he was going to have to look elsewhere.

Of course we couldn't go public with this because it would have meant giving up our source. When Karen pressed forward the e-mail became property of about 30 members. And if each one pressed forward it became property of even more. I have a forward button too!!!


----------



## barebackjack

DG said:


> TIME IS RUNNING OUT PLEASE HELP BAN CANNED HUNTS IN NORTH DAKOTA
> 
> Dear Friend,
> North Dakota voters have the opportunity to stop the trophy shooting of captive animals trapped behind fences--an in humane and unsportsmanlike practice opposed by hunters and non-hunters alike-- but only with your help . These "canned hunting" operations offer wealthy customers the opportunity to kill* tame*, captive animals for guarnteed trophies. GET INVOLVED IN STOPPING THIS UNETHICAL PRACTICE.


Theres a lie right there.

When they say tame, people immediately think of a "pet".


----------



## KurtR

I have never head anything about hf and wanting to ban it before 2 years ago. so this is looking to be a personal crusade more and more. and with that last little bit of info the ship is sinking fast on this scam.


----------



## blhunter3

barebackjack said:


> DG said:
> 
> 
> 
> TIME IS RUNNING OUT PLEASE HELP BAN CANNED HUNTS IN NORTH DAKOTA
> 
> Dear Friend,
> North Dakota voters have the opportunity to stop the trophy shooting of captive animals trapped behind fences--an in humane and unsportsmanlike practice opposed by hunters and non-hunters alike-- but only with your help . These "canned hunting" operations offer wealthy customers the opportunity to kill* tame*, captive animals for guarnteed trophies. GET INVOLVED IN STOPPING THIS UNETHICAL PRACTICE.
> 
> 
> 
> Theres a lie right there.
> 
> When they say tame, people immediately think of a "pet".
Click to expand...

That etho's for you, appeal to emotion and win someone's heart. Its also used very much in politics and PETA also uses it alot too. Its not a lie its "clever" wording. Do I like it no, but it works.


----------



## blhunter3

KurtR said:


> so this is looking to be a personal crusade more and more.


Isn't that what most bills are? Most start out as a personal crusade and end up being what alot of people either want or feel. Do I think that shooting penned in animals should be banned yes. But I don't like the fact that your telling a landowner what to do on THEIR land. Why can't a guy have his voice heard? You have just as much right to start your on proposal to do what ever you want to do. That's democracy for you.


----------



## gst

G/O brought up an interesting point I will be surprised if Dick or anyone will answer. If it is about disease, why not look to ban all raising of any captive cervid???????? Makes a person wonder what this groups next agenda might be.

Adam, wether it is a bird or a deer or an elk the thing to consider here is you have the CHOICE to make yourself wether you want to participate in this or not. You yourself indicated these game bird preserve hunts are not "fair chase", this groups very name, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase should be enough to wonder why then they did not include these game bird preserve hunts in their measure. This group of folks, NDH for FC want to take the ability to make that choice away from you and are using tactics very similar to HSUS to accomplish this. If I owned a bird preserve I would be a little leary of their next agenda.

Dick even you have to be beginning to realize not answering these questions and continueing your disingenuous propoganda is starting to look pretty bad.


----------



## feathersandpoo

I do find the battle of "ethics" here in particular to be a little ironic. Live together or die alone is what I always say.


----------



## Doogie

karmamt, I-143 was about game farms not hf hunting, You forgot the push in the legislature to ban hunting predators with dogs two years ago, the petition to ban Mountain lion hunting last year, and the petition being circulated to ban trapping in MT this year.


----------



## DG

Doogie wrote,



> karmamt, I-143 was about game farms not hf hunting, You forgot the push in the legislature to ban hunting predators with dogs two years ago, the petition to ban Mountain lion hunting last year, and the petition being circulated to ban trapping in MT this year.


Doogie you are absolutely right. There is an initiative in MT. called Footloose Montana. Part (3.2) says: There is No "Fair Chase" in Trapping: Trapping does not honor the hunters' ethical code of "fair chase", or the time-honored princples of quick and efficient kill. Tens of thousands of untended, unmonitored traps lure wild and domestic animals with bait. Trappers are not required to check their traps in any specific period of time.


----------



## g/o

Dick, Again I don't speak for the outfitters, we have not gotten involved in this. If we do we will publish a statement in the newspapers not on here. Unlike you and your group I personally am concerned about disease and yes parasites. However unlike you I have faith in the regulating the Ag dept. does as far as the testing that is done. As far as CWD or Bovicola tibialis if we are infected it will come from deer walking across the border not from something already here. Dick you are only concerned about one thing which you have proven with this statement


> Dwight, you bet I speak to groups. And will until you are out of the canned shooting business.


 Yep Dick your hatred of high fence hunting is what it's all about not disease.


----------



## tumblebuck

DG said:


> No.4 Mule Deer Foundation a federal creation.


Oh, really??? A _*FEDERAL*_ creation? As in gov't created?

Me thinks you better think again.


----------



## Dick Monson

In NE North Dakota an elk rancher illegally purchased CWD exposed elk, brought them into the state, got scared, and buried them on site. He violated every rule in the book. It took 9 months for a quarantine to be imposed. At Makoti a deer rancher had sick and dying deer inside his fence. When the warden and deputy served the warrant to search, the fence was cut in 2 places and the owner said his facility was vandalized. No tracks were found through the cuts in the fence. In the same file there are a bunch of cases where dead deer littered the ground inside the fence. The carcasses where too rotten to even be checked and the deaths had never been reported as required by law. It's public information on file for anyone to view at the NDGF or state Ag. Dept. The list of those regulatory violations is a thick book. You boys as sportsmen and taxpayers get to cover the costs of these violations. A $100,000 here, a $100,000 there. Nice of you to be so generous.

Shawn Schaffer, spokesman for canned shooting in ND, said in print, on the radio, and in public, that the Fair Chase measure would eliminate bison ranching. That was a lie.
He said it would eliminate commercial slaughter of cervids. That was a lie.
He said it would eliminate pheasant preserves. Another lie.
He said the NTL industry would work to fund the $200,000, taken from NDGF to subsidized HF, from another source in the 2009 session. That was lie. 
He said hunting inside escape proof fences is fair chase. Go figure.
The whole concept of canned shooting is based on a lie and selling a lie.

HSUS has the identical Fair Chase statement as Boone and Crockett. Look it up. Two years ago an HSUS regional rep contacted some people in ND and asked them to get involved in the measure. So did ND outdoor and conservation groups. And so did concerned ND hunters. There were some ND politicians who asked for the same thing. Anyone have to be stupid to think they were all HSUS dupes.

I didn't ask any petition circulator if they were HS or NRA or Lutheran or Catholic or Democrat or Republican or gay or straight or farmer or from town. The law concerning petition circulators is specific and was followed meticulously. If you are a ND citizen, you have equal standing. Period. Because it is a measure of the people. The Fair Chase committee did not take a cent of HSUS money nor any money from out of state orgs., unlike the opposition, which took $84,000 out-of-state. Canned shooting is an interconnected national cobweb.

http://web.apps.state.nd.us/sec/emspubl ... search.y=8

HSUS has a multimillion dollar budget. Does anyone seriously think that they would screw around with chump change if they were doing the measure? We spent $2500 and gas money. We missed the ballot by 100 signatures last time. If HSUS was running the show they'd have had the signatures in a week and plunked down hundreds of thousands for advertising.

Think about it.

Does anyone shoot pheasants in a net covered pen where they couldn't fly out? I doubt it. An escape proof fence make a little difference in fair chase.

When you look at some of the sponsors of the measure you see a number of professional wildlife managers, from respected departments and universities. When the former Director of North Dakota G & F and a former Department head of Wildlife and Fisheries at the University of Oregon are sponsors, it is impressive. When retired and active duty wildlife biologists are willing to stand up and put their balls on the table in public view it means something. They are fighting for you. Not to take for themselves. When the Wildlife Society is willing to put it's reputation out there, along with the ND REMF and the national Mule Deer Foundation, and others, it means something. They weren't duped the first time and they were willing to try the measure again.

The one guaranteed concept you can take from this whole discussion, is that canned shooting destroys wildlife and our heritage of hunting. It destroys the outdoors we value just like a cancer.


----------



## gst

Dick, the 2 examples you gave of disease issues were listed as elk and deer ranchers, not HFH operations. So will it be safe to say if you are using these as examples to further your agenda, you will be going after these non HF operations next?

Please look to the wording of your own measure and answer this one question. Are game bird preserves doing exactly what is described in the measure by receiving renumeration or a fee for releaseing birds to be killed from a man made enclosure deigned to prevent escape? If so apparently fair chase rules only apply to the forms of hunting your group chooses. It's nice of you to make that distinction for the rest of us. I wonder if the Boone & Crockett org. picks and chooses which forms of hunting fall under fair chase?


----------



## barebackjack

Dick Monson said:


> Shawn Schaffer, spokesman for canned shooting in ND, said in print, on the radio, and in public, that the Fair Chase measure would eliminate bison ranching. That was a lie.
> He said it would eliminate commercial slaughter of cervids. That was a lie.
> He said it would eliminate pheasant preserves. Another lie.


Not really Dick. Once the precedent is set, it would be much easier for another set of crusaders to come along and attack each and every one of those practices.

Its much like gun control. If they can eliminate one type of gun, another type will be that much easier to eliminate later on.



> The whole concept of canned shooting is based on a lie and selling a lie.


Sounds a lot like the arguments coming from the initiative group too.

Shall we count up the lies and half-truths of your group?

"They drug the animals"

"They are very small enclosures"

"The animals are diseased"

"The animals are tame"

"They (the operators) are unscrupulous people"

Shall I go on?


----------



## barebackjack

gst said:


> Dick, the 2 examples you gave of disease issues were listed as elk and deer ranchers, not HFH operations. So will it be safe to say if you are using these as examples to further your agenda, you will be going after these non HF operations next?


Ohhhh, but their not going after the cervid ranchers, no no no.

Even the initiative members must realize that eliminating the HF operations will put a severe dent in the number of cervid ranches.

But, their not after them. :roll:


----------



## DG

Dick said,



> In NE North Dakota an elk rancher illegally purchased CWD exposed elk, brought them into the state, got scared, and buried them on site. He violated every rule in the book. It took 9 months for a quarantine to be imposed. At Makoti a deer rancher had sick and dying deer inside his fence. When the warden and deputy served the warrant to search, the fence was cut in 2 places and the owner said his facility was vandalized. No tracks were found through the cuts in the fence. In the same file there are a bunch of cases where dead deer littered the ground inside the fence. The carcasses where too rotten to even be checked and the deaths had never been reported as required by law. It's public information on file for anyone to view at the NDGF or state Ag. Dept. The list of those regulatory violations is a thick book. You boys as sportsmen and taxpayers get to cover the costs of these violations. A $100,000 here, a $100,000 there. Nice of you to be so generous.


So how does your initiative address any of this, if you are even giving us the facts right? It would only negatively effect those hunting facilities that are doing things right.



> Shawn Schaffer, spokesman for canned shooting in ND, said in print, on the radio, and in public, that the Fair Chase measure would eliminate bison ranching. That was a lie.


Buffalo are listed as exotic mammal according to USDA.



> He said it would eliminate commercial slaughter of cervids. That was a lie.


More like on farm slaughter.



> He said it would eliminate pheasant preserves. Another lie.


You're reaching.



> He said the NTL industry would work to fund the $200,000, taken from NDGF to subsidized HF, from another source in the 2009 session. That was lie.


http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-200 ... HB1210.PDF



> HSUS has the identical Fair Chase statement as Boone and Crockett. Look it up. Two years ago an HSUS regional rep contacted some people in ND and asked them to get involved in the measure. So did ND outdoor and conservation groups. And so did concerned ND hunters. There were some ND politicians who asked for the same thing. Anyone have to be stupid to think they were all HSUS dupes.


David Pauli, regional director for the Humane Society of the United States, said he traveled to N.D. and met with an "official" witth the fair chase committee. The word "official" is usually synonymous with government. Being the chairman or co-chair would hardly make someone an "official."



> HSUS has a multimillion dollar budget. Does anyone seriously think that they would screw around with chump change if they were doing the measure? We spent $2500 and gas money. We missed the ballot by 100 signatures last time. If HSUS was running the show they'd have had the signatures in a week and plunked down hundreds of thousands for advertising.


There was three thousand names of loose leaf paper submitted. No notaries no top covers. Another thousand would have been discarded because of inadequate addresses. HSUS collected over 2000. Keep in mind we know who the HSUS collecters are because we have Karen T. address book.



> When you look at some of the sponsors of the measure you see a number of professional wildlife managers, from respected departments and universities. When the former Director of North Dakota G & F and a former Department head of Wildlife and Fisheries at the University of Oregon are sponsors, it is impressive. When retired and active duty wildlife biologists are willing to stand up and put their balls on the table in public view it means something. They are fighting for you. Not to take for themselves. When the Wildlife Society is willing to put it's reputation out there, along with the ND REMF and the national Mule Deer Foundation, and others, it means something. They weren't duped the first time and they were willing to try the measure again.


The former Director of North Dakota G/F you are referring to is Lloyd Jones. When you say putting his balls on the table you aren't kidding!!!

http://www.times-online.com/content/view/70241/60/

_Thursday, 10 January 2008

By Jay Stephenson
Valley City Times-Record

A ballot measure to ban 'canned hunts' in North Dakota continues to be debated as supporters try to gather enough signatures to put the measure on the 2008 election ballot.
Canned hunting is a practice that allows people to hunt exotic or native animals within private owned enclosures. The landowners usually charge a fee for people hunting on the property.
Locally, arguments in support of the proposed ban were renewed last week during Barnes County Wildlife Federation's membership drive.
Invoking former President Theodore Roosevelt, an avid North Dakota hunter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuse Coordinator Lloyd Jones said if canned hunting continues in North Dakota, it could be used as a political tool by animal rights groups to ban other hunts.
Supporters of game farms say the measure would take landowners' rights away, and that canned hunting benefits handicapped and elderly people who otherwise wouldn't be able to hunt. They also say it increases tourism in the state.
Under the proposal, violators could be charged with a misdemeanor, punishable by 20 days in jail and a $1,000. 
Barnes County Wildlife Federation Coordinator Perry Kapaun says some BCWF members are sponsoring the measure, but the group isn't officially part of the ballot initiative effort.
Kapaun, who supports the measure to ban canned hunts, says there would be an uphill battle against the Farm Bureau and other groups that he says have "more money" than canned hunt opponents.
"I'm not saying all game farms are bad, and there's only a few in North Dakota that actually kill," Kapaun said. "But a wild herd is public property, theirs and mine. Some of them don't police themselves. Their animals get out and they don't keep records."
Kapaun, not citing North Dakota specifically, says in some canned hunts, animals are drugged to make it easier for the participants.
"They're even doing now, in Texas, where you, a rich guy sitting in New York, can shoot an elk from your computer. Is that hunting?" said Kapaun.
North Dakota Elk Growers Vice President Ernie Mau says game farm opponents are using extreme examples to make their case. He says that he is against drugging animals or the hunting of them within small enclosures.
"We're under the Board of Animal Health and we've got rules," Mau said. "Our fences, our gates, it's all controlled."
Mau, who says 90 percent of hunters on his game farm come from out of state, adds that banning game farms would hurt the North Dakota economy.
"It's going to be a land rights issue, that I've got the right to do what I want on my own property as long as I'm paying taxes and not breaking any laws," he says.
In order for the ballot measure to make the 2008 election ballot, supporters will need 12,844 verified signatures_

Dick Monson, if you'll notice there was a misprint. It says, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuse Coordinator Lloyd Jones. It should say Refuge Coorinator. Mr. Jones can involve himself as a citizen of N.D in a states rights issue BUT he cannot involve his federal employer. That is a federal violation of the Hatch Act. We also caught him sending e-mails out of his federal office using federal computers working on his personal agenda while on the taxpayers clock. I have that e-mail where he gave a position for the USFWS. Was it the first e-mail or was there many more? He also spoke at the Jamestown Public Forum in march of 2008. He introduced himself as Lloyd Jones USFWS. Dick, is this ethical?

And what's with Perry Kapaun?


> "They're even doing now, in Texas, where you, a rich guy sitting in New York, can shoot an elk from your computer. Is that hunting?" said Kapaun.


Computer hunting doesn't exist, never did.



> Kapaun, not citing North Dakota specifically, says in some canned hunts, animals are drugged to make it easier for the participants


Without Lloyd Jones and his title, the paper would not have wasted newsprint on Perry Kapaun.


----------



## g/o

> He said it would eliminate pheasant preserves. Another lie.


In SB 2254 all non traditional livestock was listed, that would have included pheasants. It was later changed but the original intent was their.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is
created and enacted as follows:
Nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities - Fee shooting prohibited -
Penalty. After the effective date of this Act, the [b]shooting of nontraditional livestock or farmed
elk for a fee or other remuneration on a licensed nontraditional livestock [/b]or farmed elk facility is
prohibited. A person who willfully violates this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.


----------



## KurtR

so with this you cant shoot the "elk" but you can still pay the "access fee" to get on the land to shoot the elk. And why are elk more important than a pheasant or any other released birds.


----------



## swift

Pheasants and any other bird can fly out of the enclosure! Unless you are "hunting" in an aviary. The title of this thread is meant to draw ire. This is not an antihunting initiative it is an initiative to stop sport killing of domestic animals that cannot escape.


----------



## gst

swift, The sponsors claim it is about the "ethics" of "fair chase". Take the time to read the wording of the measure. These pheasants hunted at these game farms are being raised in, then released from, a man made encklosure designed to prevent escape. Then a fee is paid to shoot them. EXACTLY HOW THIS MEASURE IS WORDED. SO WHY DON'T THEY FALL UNDER IT'S PROTECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF FAIR CHASE HUNTING???????????????????????


----------



## KurtR

those pheasants might have a chance to fly away but in all reality they have about a 1 % chance to get away from the hunters and then a 0% chance to survie in the wild. When will some one start to complain that we shoot pdogs and dont eat them. there is no differnece of shooting a cow/elk/bison that has lived its whole life inside a pen. It is not like these animals were hearded from the wild inside the fence.


----------



## swift

That sounds good Kurt but your percentages are off a bit. One example. My brother inlaw shot a rooster pheasant this year that was banded by the Redfield chamber of commerce last year. That bird was bought from a Faulk county farm that raises pheasants then banded and released. He lived in the wild from Oct 7th 2008 until he was shot on my place in December 2009. So much for the 0% chance of survival. You still can't be serious that an elk in a pasture surrounded by a 12 foot fence has the same escapablity as a pheasant in a field with no netting over it.


----------



## barebackjack

DG said:


> http://www.times-online.com/content/view/70241/60/
> 
> _Thursday, 10 January 2008
> 
> By Jay Stephenson
> Valley City Times-Record
> 
> A ballot measure to ban 'canned hunts' in North Dakota continues to be debated as supporters try to gather enough signatures to put the measure on the 2008 election ballot.
> Canned hunting is a practice that allows people to hunt exotic or native animals within private owned enclosures. The landowners usually charge a fee for people hunting on the property.
> Locally, arguments in support of the proposed ban were renewed last week during Barnes County Wildlife Federation's membership drive.
> Invoking former President Theodore Roosevelt, an avid North Dakota hunter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuse Coordinator Lloyd Jones said if canned hunting continues in North Dakota, it could be used as a political tool by animal rights groups to ban other hunts.
> Supporters of game farms say the measure would take landowners' rights away, and that canned hunting benefits handicapped and elderly people who otherwise wouldn't be able to hunt. They also say it increases tourism in the state.
> Under the proposal, violators could be charged with a misdemeanor, punishable by 20 days in jail and a $1,000.
> Barnes County Wildlife Federation Coordinator Perry Kapaun says some BCWF members are sponsoring the measure, but the group isn't officially part of the ballot initiative effort.
> Kapaun, who supports the measure to ban canned hunts, says there would be an uphill battle against the Farm Bureau and other groups that he says have "more money" than canned hunt opponents.
> "I'm not saying all game farms are bad, and there's only a few in North Dakota that actually kill," Kapaun said. *"But a wild herd is public property, theirs and mine.* Some of them don't police themselves. Their animals get out and they don't keep records."
> Kapaun, not citing North Dakota specifically, says in some canned hunts, animals are drugged to make it easier for the participants.
> *"They're even doing now, in Texas, where you, a rich guy sitting in New York, can shoot an elk from your computer.* Is that hunting?" said Kapaun.
> North Dakota Elk Growers Vice President Ernie Mau says game farm opponents are using extreme examples to make their case. He says that he is against drugging animals or the hunting of them within small enclosures.
> "We're under the Board of Animal Health and we've got rules," Mau said. "Our fences, our gates, it's all controlled."
> Mau, who says 90 percent of hunters on his game farm come from out of state, adds that banning game farms would hurt the North Dakota economy.
> "It's going to be a land rights issue, that I've got the right to do what I want on my own property as long as I'm paying taxes and not breaking any laws," he says.
> In order for the ballot measure to make the 2008 election ballot, supporters will need 12,844 verified signatures_


The lies are never ending.

Since when were these wild herds?

The internet shooting got shut down before it even got started.


----------



## swift

One more thought. If the HFH side would concede to remove the word hunting from all advertising, and descriptions of what they do, as well as actively promote that what goes on inside the fences is shooting and not hunting I would support their side. My personal opinion is calling high fenced shooting "hunting" damages the integrity of fair chase hunting as well as the persona of hunting to the non-hunting as well as the hunting public in the US.


----------



## AdamFisk

swift said:


> One more thought. If the HFH side would concede to remove the word hunting from all advertising, and descriptions of what they do, as well as actively promote that what goes on inside the fences is shooting and not hunting I would support their side. My personal opinion is calling high fenced shooting "hunting" damages the integrity of fair chase hunting as well as the persona of hunting to the non-hunting as well as the hunting public in the US.


I would also like to think there is some "middle ground" here, but we all know how that goes when trying to figure it out. :lol: Nobody budges an inch!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On the flip side Swift, I could support your NDHFC side if you, or they, were looking for some sort of compromise, instead of an all out ban. But we all know that ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Dick Monson

gst, put some water in your squirt gun before you try to shoot.



> gst said:
> Take the time to read the wording of the measure. These pheasants hunted at these game farms are being raised in, then released from, a man made encklosure designed to prevent escape. Then a fee is paid to shoot them. EXACTLY HOW THIS MEASURE IS WORDED. SO WHY DON'T THEY FALL UNDER IT'S PROTECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF FAIR CHASE HUNTING???????????????????????


Game birds are not exotic mammals nor are they big game species.*The feathers would be the clue.* Take your own advice and read the measure if you are able.

Dwight, if the NTL folks had been actively policing themselves their problems would go away. USDA-APHIS has been calling for tighter monitering of NTL facilities to avoid these problems. But the NTL industry has fought that regulation tooth & nail. You might run a tight ship but there are plenty that don't. NTL needs to cut them loose. But you're so damn afraid of regulation for your own good, imposed by yourselves.

To the credit of the ND Professional Guides and Outfitters, they did exactly that by working to remove the rogues through legislation. The NTL industry should take the lesson from ND outfitters.

Let me give you an example. There was no prohibition against feral swine in ND, so the Board of Animal Health was forced to issue a permit for a feral swine facility, even though they knew problems would arise from it. The swine promtly escaped and established a wild population. Then the BOAH sponsored legislation to prohibit feral swine in ND. :rollin: That is insane. So now we have feral swine established and prohibited! If NTL would have eliminated exotics in-state in the first place we would not be blessed with russian wild boar in the Turtle Mountains.

And now NTL is making the same mistake with Fallow deer here in ND, which are the vector for the Asian louse, which in turn kills native deer. And there are canned shooting facilities offering Fallow deer in ND. g/o said the problems would walk in. I think the problems are already here.

Middle ground..... There was a chance in the senate bill in 2007. NTL folks could have asked for ammendments but they didin't. They only wanted to kill the bill. That is not middle ground.

The only way "middle ground" would work is if NTL folks wanted to sit down with sportsmen and get serious about regulation. And then draft a binding memorandum of understanding by an attorney with key legislators involved. Then implement it in law. We all might be surprised what happens,.... wouldn't that be a hoot.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Dick,

Your examples you used where CWD and the like were brought in. Both were illegal acts. So that is like saying if a business owner sets fire to his business because he needs the insurance money....that will make all business men criminal? Or if they don't pay taxes? All businessmen are this way? You can put any illegal act out there. Yes a very few do shady business.....many more don't.

Like I have always stated if the Fair Chase people wanted to get something done is go after the advertising. Many business's can't use certain words in advertising. Make is so they have to have High Fence or "Penned Animals" in advertising. Make it so they can't use the word "hunting" but have to say "shoot", "shooting preserve", etc.

Because to stand under the flag of "ethics" is very loose is a personal choice. Some people think it is unethical to consume alcohol, some people think it is unethical to hunt with firearms, some people think it is unethical to shoot yearling deer, some people think it is unethical to shoot hen ducks, some people think it is unethical to eat meat, some people think it is unethical to_________ (fill in the blank).

Another point is if people think it is unethical to shoot a pen raised elk, deer, etc. Then they should think it is unethical for what butchers do everyday.....kill a cow, pig, etc in an enclosure.

I know one of the reply's I will get is that well the pig or cow won't go on the wall of a persons home..... WHO CARES. If a person shoots a 400 class bull that was raised in a pen all of its life and puts it on his wall. If that person enjoyed what he did.....who cares if you don't agree with it.


----------



## gst

Dick, it was your group not me that wrote the measure. Your group included the words " or released from a man made enclosure". That opened the door to anything raised in a pen and released to be shot for a fee under an ethical arguement. So Dick, what your saying then is if something has feathers instead of fur, the "rules of fair chase" or "ethics" don't apply when hunting them????????? I thought this was all about ethics, not feathers or fur. You guys are so hell bent on tyring to claim you're protecting the "fair chase" aspect of hunting you are not looking at the damage you are doing by picking and choosing yourselves which forms of hunting or "ethics" to protect under it. If you do believe ALL forms of hunting should be done ethically following these fair chase rules, then upland bird preserves would have to be included in your ban based on your ethical arguement because of the drescription of the activities in your measure. If your NOT saying ALL hunting should be done ethically under fair chase rules and are simply picking which ones you believe should, you are nothing more than arrogant, elitist hypocrites. So which is it, should ALL forms of hunting fall under your "ethics" and "fair chase rules" or not???????

For once try a little honesty. the reason you did not include the game bird preserves or bison at this time is because you know there are hunters out there such as what Adam talked about that would never support a HF operation but would consider going to the bird preserves. As close as the last petition drive was you know you can not afford to drive these sportsman away, or have these bird preserves or bison ranchers become involved in fighting this measure. MOST folks on these sites are smart enough to realize that.

So here's a little water in the squirt gun for you. Does what is spelled out in your measure, by now you should know what I'm talking about, happen on these game bird preserves and is that in violation of what your group NDH for FC believe constitutes ethical fair chase hunting??? Please at least give a clear honest answer to this one question.


----------



## barebackjack

Chuck Smith said:


> I know one of the reply's I will get is that well the pig or cow won't go on the wall of a persons home..... WHO CARES. If a person shoots a 400 class bull that was raised in a pen all of its life and puts it on his wall. If that person enjoyed what he did.....who cares if you don't agree with it.


Theyll say a pig, cow, sheep, etc isnt wild, while failing to realize that these deer and elk arent wild either.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Chuck Smith wrote:
> I know one of the reply's I will get is that well the pig or cow won't go on the wall of a persons home..... WHO CARES. If a person shoots a 400 class bull that was raised in a pen all of its life and puts it on his wall. If that person enjoyed what he did.....who cares if you don't agree with it.
> 
> Theyll say a pig, cow, sheep, etc isnt wild, while failing to realize that these deer and elk arent wild either.


Yep....people fail to rationalize that these animals are not wild.


----------



## KurtR

swift said:


> One more thought. If the HFH side would concede to remove the word hunting from all advertising, and descriptions of what they do, as well as actively promote that what goes on inside the fences is shooting and not hunting I would support their side. My personal opinion is calling high fenced shooting "hunting" damages the integrity of fair chase hunting as well as the persona of hunting to the non-hunting as well as the hunting public in the US.


I said that in one of my earlier post that they should change the name from hunting to shooting. I could go for that because it is the truth about what is happening. I know that pen raised birds have more than a 0% chance but you get my point they are usally dumb and slow so the predators take care of them quite offten. How many birds did they release and how many got shot a year latter that would be intersting to find out. My question is if this gets killed again is this going to be a every year thing?


----------



## swift

They release three each year around Redfield.

I think if it goes to the ballot and is voted down it will be a dead issue. The big deal now is trying to prevent it from going to a vote of the citizens of ND.


----------



## DG

Dick Monson,

We have to start at the beginng. Remember the below presentation? 
*At the end of the question and answer discussion the last question was, "what must be done with these game farms." Geist replied, "they all must be shut down PERIOD." Geist said a lot of things. In the G/F Dakota Outdoor magazine he said beef from feedlots isn't good for human consumption. It's full of growth hormones and antibiotics. At the wildlife society meeting the day before he said the humane society isn't such a bad organization it is just a little misunderstood. *

_A FREE public presentation and discussion forum by Dr. Valerius Geist 
An internationally respected wildlife biologist, author and one of the world's leading experts in cervid (deer family) biology and management.

-The North American Wildlife Conservation Model- 
Why wildlife management in North America has been so successful. 
What are the threats to the future of hunting and wildlife conservation? 
Fee Hunting Captive Wildlife 
Canned Hunts Wildlife Diseases 
Feeding and Baiting Genetic Manipulation 
Commercialization of Hunting and Wildlife Resources

What can we do to insure that wildlife and hunting is maintained for future generations?

Where: Ramkota Inn 
800 South 3rd Street

Bismarck, North Dakota 58504 
Phone: 701-258-7700

When: Friday, 11 February 2005 
7-9 p.m.

Presentation to be followed by a question and answer discussion session and refreshments.

Who should attend: -Wildlife enthusiasts 
-Hunters -Government leaders 
-Legislators -Hunter education instructors 
-Wildlife biologist and managers 
-Media representatives For information contact: 
Mike McEnroe, North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Phone: 701-224-8335_

*Dick Monson, this was the first shot across the bow.*

Dick wrote,



> Dwight, if the NTL folks had been actively policing themselves their problems would go away. USDA-APHIS has been calling for tighter monitering of NTL facilities to avoid these problems. But the NTL industry has fought that regulation tooth & nail.


I don't have any idea what you are talking about can you give specifics?



> Middle ground..... There was a chance in the senate bill in 2007. NTL folks could have asked for ammendments but they didin't. They only wanted to kill the bill. That is not middle ground.


After your side was done testifying, our side wouldn't have even had to testify. As far as the Senators were concerned it was DOA.



> The only way "middle ground" would work is if NTL folks wanted to sit down with sportsmen and get serious about regulation. And then draft a binding memorandum of understanding by an attorney with key legislators involved. Then implement it in law. We all might be surprised what happens,.... wouldn't that be a hoot.


First you attack the hell out of us, then you want a meeting. You shouldn't use the term sportsmen so liberally. Real sportsmen don't partner with HSUS.


----------



## DG

Dick Monson said,



> Dwight, if the NTL folks had been actively policing themselves their problems would go away. USDA-APHIS has been calling for tighter monitering of NTL facilities to avoid these problems. But the NTL industry has fought that regulation tooth & nail.


These are the categories of non-traditional livestock. When you say USDA-APHIS has been calling for tighter monitering of NTL facilities to avoid these problems were they talking about hedgehogs, ground squirrels or what. You need to be more specific.

Category 1 includes turkeys, geese, and ducts morphologically distinguishable from wild turkeys, geese, ducts, pigeons, mules, donkeys, *****, ratites, chinchilla, guinea fowl, ferrets, ranch foxes, ranch mink, peafowl, all pheasants, quail chukar, hedgehog, and degus.

Category 2 includes all nondomestic ungulates, including all deer, (cervidae) and pronghorn, nondomestic cats, waterfowl, shorebirds, upland birds not listed in category 1, crows, wolverines, otters, martens, fishers, kit or swift foxes, badgers, coyotes, mink, red and gray fox, muskrats, beavers, weasels, opposums, prairie dogs, and other ground squirrels.

Category 3 includes all wild species of family suidae except swine considered domestic in North Dakota by BoAH, big cats including mountain lion, jaguar, leopard, lion, tiger, and cheetah, bears, wolves, and wolf-hybrids, venomous reptiles, primates, nondomestic sheep and hybrids and nondomestic goats and hybrids.


----------



## Longshot

DG said:


> You shouldn't use the term sportsmen so liberally. Real sportsmen don't partner with HSUS.


I would almost bet that HSUS loves the high fence hunting. They know it's a cancerous cyst on the back of hunting. It gives them good ammo to garner more members and monetary support. Do what you want on your land, but you are not hunters or sportsmen. If you think you are it is a desperate delusion. HF operations do nothing but exploit a public resource. I don't care how they obtained this "livestock" it wasn't meant to be that way. Our founding fathers despised the fact that where they came from the King or other royalty owned the game. That wanted nothing like that here and wildlife was never intended to be owned by anyone. Make all the excuses you want, but it doesn't change the truth. And by the way if you have forgotten, pheasant were introduced to North America. They all come from caught stock. Luckily it's a foreign species that we all enjoy.


----------



## gst

longshot, As it appears Dick isn't going to answer questions, perhaps you would. It seems you have a pretty clear opinion of what constitues a "sportsman" or a "hunter". The group NDH for FC believes this is based off ethics, and this is the basis for their measure and how it is written. So here is the question for you. In order to fall under your definition of being a hunter or a sportsman, should all forms of hunting for all species follow the fair chase rules that are being used as the basis of this measure?

As too how this "livestock" was obtained, in the 1800's many ranches were started by capturing horses and cattle that had been "wild" for several generations. The domesticated stock these "wild" animals originally came from can be traced back to it's wild origins. By your theory no animal would fall under the livestock catagory as all livestock have wild origins.

As to our founding fathers, their concerns were more along the lines of the "king" telling someone what they could do on "their" lands and the over regulation and taxing of these private lands, goods, and services. In the days of our founding fathers, market hunting was extensive. Someone with the ability would kill wildlife anyway possible to sell to those that did not have the ability to for a profit. I would guess that if our founding fathers would have had some enterprising fellow wanting to raise elk in a fence so someone could pay them to shoot them, they would have been more concerned with the "king" wanting to regulate and tax or ban their ability to do so then the ethics of shooting something inside a fence. I believe a Revolutionary War was fought over oppressive and over reaching govt interferring with privately held properties, business and the individuals right to use them without excessive govt control.


----------



## Maverick

My question is why do these business consider this hunting? Why do they market it as such?

*Def. of hunting...•hunt: the pursuit and killing or capture of wild animals regarded as a sport.*

People keep saying that if someone want to come a shoot a cow or bison in a farmers pasture that it is 100% legal! Can we consider cattle farmers as High Fence hunts?
No animals are wild and all are pen raised just like cattle. It's not hunting as our founding father came to know! Not even close!


----------



## Longshot

> As too how this "livestock" was obtained, in the 1800's many ranches were started by capturing horses and cattle that had been "wild" for several generations. The domesticated stock these "wild" animals originally came from can be traced back to it's wild origins. By your theory no animal would fall under the livestock catagory as all livestock have wild origins.


Where did these "wild" cattle and horses come from gst? They had already been domesticated at one time and not here originally. They were all domesticated prior to the forming of the Constitution and before our founding fathers were born. Here are a couple sites for you so that you no longer confuse cattle and horses as being native to North America.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/dterms/ ... cation.htm
http://www.bovinebazaar.com/history.htm



> Someone with the ability would kill wildlife anyway possible to sell to those that did not have the ability to for a profit.


Thanks for clarifying for us that those who use the HF operations have no ability to hunt.



> As to our founding fathers, their concerns were more along the lines of the "king" telling someone what they could do on "their" lands and the over regulation and taxing of these private lands, goods, and services.


In Europe the King owned the land and everything on it. It was prohibited to shoot the King's animals including wildlife. When it came to hunting, it did not come down to what you could do on your own land, but that the wildlife was to be owned by no single person or group. The people were to own wildlife regardless as to where it was located.

I believe Maverick gave you a good definition of hunting. A penned animal is no longer wild just like a felon in prison is no longer free. A bird can fly away and escape while a penned mammal cannot escape. It is not hunting it is shooting of livestock. If that's what you want to do I guess that is capitalism for you (yes I do support capitalism so don't try to twist my words). Like free speech you don't always like what the other guy has to say, I'm all for it. You have to take the good with the bad I guess and don't care to condone more government intervention.


----------



## gst

longshot, every form of livestock, wether native to the country it is in or not can be traced back to it's WILD origins. As a rancher I'm well aware of the origins of cattle and horses. That's the point I'm making. Take the raising of furbearers for example. The fox, mink, ect.... were all wild at the signing of the constitution here in the US. So under your reasoning should the "farming" of these "wild" animals be banned as well??? Under your reasoning of the constitutional time line even the raising of elk or buffalo for butchering purposes should then be banned as well?

You didn't answer the one question Dick and everyone else has been ducking as well. Should all forms of hunting, wether you are pursueing something with feathers or fur be conducted under the rules of fair chase that are being used as the basis for this measure?????

The measure states it is a class B misdemeanor to recieve a fee or renumeration for the killing of something being RELEASED from a man made enclosure. Regardless wether these nonwild pheasants have the ability to fly away or not they are being raised in a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape and someone is receiving a fee to kill them, and it is advertised as hunting. From the ETHICAL standard that is being used in this measure in regards to big game, I'm asking do these ethical standards carry over into the hunting of upland birds as well???? Yes or no. If you answer yes, then my question is from an ethical standpoint, which Dick claims is half of the basis of this measure, why were these bird preserves not incuded as well?????

As to mavericks defination, I'm not to familiar with the rules on these sites, when he said he was implementing some ignore feature I thought perhaps it meant I was to ignore his posts? :wink: Based on Mavericks description, how then can these bird preserves then fall under what is called hunting? The birds are hardly wild. So once again in theory shouldn't they have been have been included in this measure if it is to protect the heritage of hunting such as it's sponsors claim?


----------



## Longshot

gst I have gave you my opinion as to what fair chase is as I have before, you simply keep ignoring it. You also must not understand the concept of free movement also or the ability to escape. I would hate to see elk and deer experience the same fate as bison. I am giving MY opinion not those supporting the measure. I'm tired of government intervention and do not support the measure, but HF operations make me sick. You keep asking me what is considered hunting and fair chase. I have answered it, so now let us know your interpretation of the two. You only come on here and ask questions to try and twist people's words for your own good and I would guess that you also have a personal or monetary interest in HF operations also.

As I said before I am glad that you agree with me that those who use the service have no hunting ability. I guess there has to be an outlet for them also.


----------



## gst

longshot, I'm glad to hear you don't support this measure. My choice of "fair chase" hunting is done in the wild pursueing wild animals or birds. That is why I find it hard to accept that this group NDH for FC doesn't want to answer the question I asked in regards to upland birds being hunted under fair chase rules. If I missed where you said you believe wether it is feathers or fur this falls under the same considerations, I apologize.

As I said before, several times, outside of having a couple of friends involved, I have no personal or monetary interest in these operations. I've said they really wouldn't be my cup of tea, but that I believe one should have the ability to choose that for themselves. Given the right circumstances would I shoot an animal inside a fenced enclosure. possibly, but I would not personally consider it to be hunting as I do believe most other hunters would not as well. However over the years, I have met a couple of "hunters" that if they only had 3 or 4 days to hunt, even if it was in a 300 acres pasture, I'd give even money to the elk to "escape". So I guess it maybe relative to some, what constitutes hunting. That's my whole point, that I believe it should be left up to the individual to draw what they feel necessary out of the hunting experience, not have some group dictate what that should be.


----------



## Longshot

I don't support it due to government intrusion (which seems to be growing at an alarming rate), but I understand where the Fair Chase side is coming from. Shooting anything inside of an enclosure that prohibits the game from fleeing or leaving that parcel of land is NOT hunting in my opinion and that of the vast majority of hunters. I hope to never see one cent of my tax money going to any of these operations and in my view I hope they all go bankrupt. I will never spend one bit of money for this activity.

The HF operations claim that the non-hunter is uneducated about HF operations. I believe it to be their own doing. Some well-to-do individual with no hunting skills wants to shoot an elk. He pays for a HF shoot and goes home with a trophy. Mounts it on his wall and his friends and colleagues ask him about his "hunt". He tells them about his experience within an enclosure and how easy it was. This I believe generates more opposition to hunting without them having any knowledge of what real hunting is about. As you said these people now believe this is hunting while in reality it is not. HSUS I believe loves the HF operations. Their activities are a cash cow to them. It's a sad situation.

By the way I find their quote to be very misleading: 


> The proposed initiative would ban private big game hunting preserves in North Dakota, *a long-standing tradition in the state*.


Since when has this been a "long-standing tradition"? Freelance hunting has been the long-standing tradition in ND and for someone to state otherwise is flat out lying. I don't remember any HF operations around when I was younger and I am not that old (I will keep believing that when I am). So how do they justify this statement? I would guess only by some mind altering drugs. I would also be interested to see what percentage of their clientele is from ND.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

None of this would even be discussed if the livestock owners would simply slaughter there livestock the same way every other rancher does wether it be sold to a slaughter house or done on the farm itself. The real problem is the selling of the kill and advertising it as a "hunt". These ranchers want their cake and eat it too. They want to be protected because they call the animals livestock, but they also want to be able to market the kill by calling it a "hunt".

Like I've said before on this issue, I don't support the banning of these operations. However, I would support more regulations such as:

1. Double 10 foot high welded or woven steel fencing with a gap between fences.
2. Bi annual inspection of animals and facilities.
3. A minimum shooting pen size.
4. Non-transferable licenses only to existing operations that pass inspection.
5. Heavy fines and penalties including loss of licenses for any infractions.
6. Absolutely no interstate trafficking of live animals and or semen.
7. Banning the term "hunt" in the marketing of the slaughter of such livestock.
8. Make the rancher liable for any damages caused by his livestock or business practices.

This would be a good start anyway. 3 and 7 are more for the ethics people, while the rest are more for disease risks. Shouldn't be any reason a legitimate operation would not support these.


----------



## Longshot

HUNTNFISHND said:


> None of this would even be discussed if the livestock owners would simply slaughter there livestock the same way every other rancher does wether it be sold to a slaughter house or done on the farm itself. The real problem is the selling of the kill and advertising it as a "hunt". These ranchers want their cake and eat it too. They want to be protected because they call the animals livestock, but they also want to be able to market the kill by calling it a "hunt".
> 
> Like I've said before on this issue, I don't support the banning of these operations. However, I would support more regulations such as:
> 
> 1. Double 10 foot high welded or woven steel fencing with a gap between fences.
> 2. Bi annual inspection of animals and facilities.
> 3. A minimum shooting pen size.
> 4. Non-transferable licenses only to existing operations that pass inspection.
> 5. Heavy fines and penalties including loss of licenses for any infractions.
> 6. Absolutely no interstate trafficking of live animals and or semen.
> 7. Banning the term "hunt" in the marketing of the slaughter of such livestock.
> 8. Make the rancher liable for any damages caused by his livestock or business practices.
> 
> This would be a good start anyway. 3 and 7 are more for the ethics people, while the rest are more for disease risks. Shouldn't be any reason a legitimate operation would not support these.


In agreement here.


----------



## Maverick

Definition of "wild"....
•marked by extreme lack of restraint or control.

Are released pheasants actually restrained or controlled?

Definition of "release"
1. To set free from confinement, restraint, or bondage: 
2. To free from something that binds, fastens, or holds back
It seems to me as soon as you release a bird it is in the wild! Not a pen!



> None of this would even be discussed if the livestock owners would simply slaughter there livestock the same way every other rancher does wether it be sold to a slaughter house or done on the farm itself. The real problem is the selling of the kill and advertising it as a "hunt". These ranchers want their cake and eat it too. They want to be protected because they call the animals livestock, but they also want to be able to market the kill by calling it a "hunt".
> 
> Like I've said before on this issue, I don't support the banning of these operations. However, I would support more regulations such as:
> 
> 1. Double 10 foot high welded or woven steel fencing with a gap between fences.
> 2. Bi annual inspection of animals and facilities.
> 3. A minimum shooting pen size.
> 4. Non-transferable licenses only to existing operations that pass inspection.
> 5. Heavy fines and penalties including loss of licenses for any infractions.
> 6. Absolutely no interstate trafficking of live animals and or semen.
> 7. Banning the term "hunt" in the marketing of the slaughter of such livestock.
> 8. Make the rancher liable for any damages caused by his livestock or business practices.


Amen!!!


----------



## gst

Maverick, I thought you were suppose to be ignoring my posts! :wink:

Beings you aren't, answer this if you would,or anyone that supports this measure for that matter. Is Maverick, or anyone else actually suggesting then that because these pheasants (that the dogs catch as many as the hunters shoot), are actually released from a pen they have spent their entire lives in being fed by humans and becoming acustomed to humans into a small, often couple acre planting of corn or milo that this falls under "fair chase hunting" simply because of a Webster dictionary definition ?????????????????????? :eyeroll:


----------



## Maverick

You know after rereading my last post. I think that it is the High Fence operations that are running off of lies! No where does any of it pertain to hunting! Just killing! They hide behind tradition only to fill their pockets!


----------



## DG

Longshot wrote,



> I don't care how they obtained this "livestock" it wasn't meant to be that way.][/


Farm raised elk were aquired same as buffalo. According to the N.D. Century Code they are classified the same "Domestic Livestock." Longshot do you or do you not recognize buffalo hunting as hunting?


----------



## Longshot

> Farm raised elk were aquired same as buffalo. According to the N.D. Century Code they are classified the same "Domestic Livestock.


Sorry DG, but a poor decision doesn't make it right. The state shouldn't have done so and their classifying it broke the designation of wildlife to the people.

If the buffalo are confined than it's a shoot, not really a hunt and definitely not really fair chase. I think I have defined my opinion of fair chase enough now DG. If you can't understand it that's too bad. Tell us what your definition of hunting and fair chase is DG?


----------



## DG

Long Shot,

I do not recognize "fair chase" nor do I recognize fair chase rules, they are not law. But there are some who wish it was. Can you imagine the power they would wield?


----------



## Longshot

DG said:


> Long Shot,
> 
> I do not recognize "fair chase" nor do I recognize fair chase rules, they are not law. But there are some who wish it was. Can you imagine the power they would wield?


Sorry, I thought I was talking to a fellow hunter. If HF shooting is what you like that's fine, but it's not hunting. I just hope our wild heards stay healthy and hunting doesn't become a cash only sport for only those who can afford it. Have you ever been to NM during the fall. There are as many Texans hunting there as residents it seems. There's a reason for that and if you bring up HF to them you will get an earfull.


----------



## gst

DG makes a valid point. "fair chase" is not defined by law, it is a list of rules adopted by certain hunting orgs that must be followed if you want to be recognized by them. Nothing more. There are many things that are not acceptable under some groups "fair chase rules" that most hunters would have no problem with. One that comes to mind is the percentage letoff of compound bows. Are electronic predator calls allowed under fair chase rules? What about the electronic calls allowed during the spring snow goose hunt?

Long shot, are you suggesting that these farm raised elk that are classified by the state as domestic livestock were "stole" from the people? Not trying to twist your words, merely wondering what your position is.

When the elk industry lost the market of the velvet horns many producers sold off their herds and had folks come out and shoot their elk, even when the velvet market was there, excess cows were shot inside a fence and NO ONE said a word. This was happening almost thirty years ago. Perhaps, just perhaps it is less about the killing of an animal inside a fence, or even if it is called hunting, than the fact someone can kill a "trophy" without meeting someone elses standards of effort. Take the horns off these animals and no one would give a rip. It's the same reason why many of the same people that condemn HF condemn "road hunters", "roost busters" ect.... . Why is it some feel the need to condemn others for not meeting the standards they choose for themselves. Personally I enjoy the time I spend hunting with friends and family to much to worry about how some one else chooses to hunt or how they got their "trophy". Maybe those of us hunters that don't have a problem with things such as this are a little less egotistical about our own hunting. Sorry if we don't measure up.


----------



## DG

On page one Dick Monson wrote,



> I didn't ask any petition circulator if they were HS or NRA or Lutheran or Catholic or Democrat or Republican or gay or straight or farmer or from town. The law concerning petition circulators is specific and was followed meticulously. If you are a ND citizen, you have equal standing. Period.


What about Vegans? There is one who put her name out there. Alice Christianson of Fargo. When Rep. Rodney Froelich asked for 75,000 from the general fund last legislative session to do a feasability study for a horse slaughter facility she wrote a letter to the editor about how horses are draft animals who helped build this country and they deserve better. Going to a slaughter facility is a very scary experiance for them. She thinks unwanted horses should go to a sanctuary. She didn't say who would be burdened with the cost.

Vegatarians don't really bother anyone but Vegans are activists. They want to put a stop to anyone in animal agriculture.

http://hpr1.com/cuisine/article/holiday ... for_vegans

Holiday Gift Giving for Vegans
Last month's column focused on food for the holidays, reducing possible conflicts that can occur when vegans and non-vegans share a meal. This column broadens the focus to holiday gift giving, with the hope that non-vegans may read this.

Not all readers may know or understand that vegans avoid all animal-related products, not just in what they eat, but what they wear, and the charities that they support. They avoid these animal products out of compassion for animals, not wanting to contribute to the enormous suffering that animals endure. Vegans also avoid animal-based foods for health reasons, and vegans are interested in being environmentalists, leaving the softest carbon footprint that they can.

Gifts given by a vegan, or gifts being purchased for a vegan, will need to be thoughtful and well-chosen. Obviously, clothing items will not include anything made from wool, leather, fur, silk, or feathers (down coats); not even on the trim, which can be frustrating when catalogues don't mention a small leather trim detail.

A huge disappointment in the last year or two was learning that China uses real dog fur and labels it as faux fur, because they have so much surplus fur. American clothing stores weren't aware of this deception, nor were those who purchased the clothing articles. It's difficult to tell the difference. Fortunately, there is a wide array of textiles that are not animal-based, including exciting developments in sustainable clothing such as bamboo. And "pleather" makes a good substitute for leather.

Cosmetics, soap and bath products, hand lotions, shaving cream, etc. also require thoughtfulness in their purchases, due to the animal cruelty that many companies still engage in to test their products, despite the scientific development of non-animal alternatives to testing. A statement such as "This final product not tested on animals" doesn't mean anything; individual ingredients could have been tested on animals. 2009 Veggie Awards winners posted in Veg News magazine were: Aveda products, Bare Escentuals, and Kiss My Face. You can purchase cruelty-free gifts online by googling Vegan Essentials, Pangea Vegan Products, Vegan Unlimited and Cosmo's Vegan Shoppe. Organizations such as Leaping Bunny Program and NAVS offer extensive guides to shopping cruelty free.

If opting out of buying presents and making charitable contributions is of interest, then you may want to consider donations to animal sanctuaries. We have area organizations that provide shelter for pets and reduce the numbers of dogs and cats that are euthanized every year at the pound. These include F-M Humane Society shelter, Adopt a Pet, 4 Luv of Dog Rescue and Minn-Kota PAAWS (cat adoption and spay-neuter, vet services).

This is the time of year that churches encourage their parishioners to contribute to organizations that provide cows, goats, chickens and rabbits to Third World countries, to eliminate hunger. Vegans will not want to be a part of that, not only because of the animal cruelty involved, but also the environmental problems associated with animal agriculture. Fortunately there are forward thinking organizations such as Vegfam, Trees for Life, The Fruit Tree Planting Foundation, Women's Bean Project, Plenty International, Sustainable Harvest International, and Animal Aid, that provide life-giving gifts. As Dr. Albert Schweitzer said, "The thinking person must oppose all cruel customs no matter how deeply rooted in tradition and surrounded by a halo. When we have a choice, we must avoid bringing torment and injury into the life of another."

Dick Monson, Veganism is like a religion to them.

http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/let-20080426-c.htm

Dick, all-creatures is very much anti-hunting

Alice Christianson is a therapist. If you scroll down to North Dakota you will find her.

http://www.lauras-playground.com/gender_therapists.htm

Dick, The fair chase committee did contact HSUS. I found Alice C. in Karen T. address book. These are the people you guys asked to help collect signatures.


----------



## DG

Dick Monson,

Have you opened that link I posted concerning HB 1210.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-200 ... HB1210.PDF

Dick said,



> Dwight, if the NTL folks had been actively policing themselves their problems would go away. USDA-APHIS has been calling for tighter monitering of NTL facilities to avoid these problems. But the NTL industry has fought that regulation tooth & nail. You might run a tight ship but there are plenty that don't. NTL needs to cut them loose. But you're so damn afraid of regulation for your own good, imposed by yourselves.


Here you are all concerned about regulations but you were right here cheerleading for HB 1210 designed to cut all funding for regulation last winter. Rep. Hanson submitted HB 1210 at the request of a constituant in his district. (Jamestown)He doesn't have to disclose who drafted it.

Dick, The explanations for the 200,000 dollars you keep harping about should be right here.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-200 ... HB1210.PDF

Notice how the Representatives keep asking "are you opposed to farmed elk facilities?' And toward the end Rep. Boe says, "the real issue is when we came in, it's only a small group of people that are concerned about this." 
Rep. Lyle Hansons constituant or constituants who drafted the bill didn't bother to show. Rep. Hanson and Mike McEnroe federal biologist and current lobbyist for the wildlife society were the only two there in support of 1210. I guess that would constitute a "small" group of people.


----------



## DG

The Wildlife Society is having their annual meeting this coming weekend in Minot. Feb.10th-11th-12th

http://joomla.wildlife.org/NorthDakota/ ... winter.pdf

They don't have a keynote speaker like Jim Posewitz. Back in Feb.2006 Posewitz was at the wildlife society annual meeting in Williston talking about the commitment that was needed to pass the initiative (I-143) in Montana. Mike McEnroe is still trying to hard-sell the NAWCM. Look at those 4 names at the bottom. Mike McEnroe is the driver behind the initiative to ban high fence in N.D. To bad Terry Steinwand is there. Keith Trego is now a sponser of the initiative. Glen Sargent works at the USGS in Jamestown. He personally knows many of the federal employees who are sponsers of the measure. I've met Glen once. That was enough.

I have read the story of the north american model for wildlife conservation from end to end and listened to speakers such as Valerius Geist, who may have co-wrote it, give hour and half lectures. ZZZZZ. But there are a handful of listeners who still go ga ga!!!

The narrater below, Shane Mahoney may be a great guy and outdoor advocate but like most of us, he is takin' what their givin' cuz he's workin' for a livin'. Durring the 1990's there was foundations that made a lot of money in the stock market. They gave these profits to 501(c)3's such as the ones that employed Shane Mahoney. The money has since dried up and Shane Mahoney is now employed by the Dallas Safari Club.

*Session 4 - FROM IDEAS TO ACTION: NEXT STEPS FOR THE NORTH AMERICAN MODEL OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
Session Moderator - Kathy Baer
10:15 - 10:25 Introductory Comments
Mike McEnroe
10:25 - 11:00 VIDEO - "Opportunity for All - The story of the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation"
Produced by Conservation Visions and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Narrated by Shane Mahoney
11:00 - 12:00 Panel / Membership Discussion
Mike McEnroe, Terry Steinwand, Keith Trego, Glen Sargean*


----------



## Plainsman

> When the elk industry lost the market of the velvet horns


Wow, that's another whole story. Like I say, when money gets involved bad things happen. Elk were being darted in the back country of Yellowstone park, their horns cut off, and released only to bleed to death. The country was so big, and much so remote, that they could not stop it. Controlling the exploiters has always been a problem. Today, the modern market hunter has learned to exploit the hunter as much as the wildlife.


----------



## DG

The super bowl is over. I was kinda pulling for the colts but is good New Orleans won their first.

Plainsman, if you are going to post that hogwash on here you are going to have to give your source please.

I forgot to mention this posted on that wildlife society website:

http://joomla.wildlife.org/NorthDakota/ ... winter.pdf



> http://joomla.wildlife.org/NorthDakota/images/ND_TWS_Newsletters/2010-winter.pdf
> 
> The North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is again leading a petition drive to
> 
> place an initiated measure to ban the killing of big game or exotic mammals
> 
> behind a high fence. The group had an excellent article in Dakota Country
> 
> magazine last month. The Fair Chase website is very well done:
> 
> http://www.northdakotafairchase.com
> 
> Anyone interested in carrying a petition, please contact Mike McEnroe or the
> 
> website.


Here is what Dan Nelson said in Dakota Country rag mag.



> Some have tried to label those of us who stand behind the precept of fair chase as "outsiders" and "special-interest groups" and "government agencies". The last time this issue came up, some even accused fair-chasers of being shills for the antihunting movement.


The Wildlife Society is made up of people who come from "government agencies." Maybe Dan Nelson has never heard of the wildlife society. It should be obvious to anyone that the fair chase committee is a "front." Did they get into bed with HSUS?

David Pauli is a regional director for HSUS,

Pauli evidently writes a blog and in a post that was published on June 30, 2008, he said he traveled to Dickinson and Bismark, North Dakota where he met with an official of NDHFF. 
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.

The word "official" is usually synonymous with government official.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, if you are going to post that hogwash on here you are going to have to give your source please.


I thought that was common knowledge. Do you remember the semi famous bow hunter getting busted for shooting elk in Yellowstone?

Although it's been 20 years I'll see if I can dig that velvet poaching story up for you. I think it was in a government publication sort of like this one. http://fwp.mt.gov/enforcement/crimes/co ... ities.html



> As with so much other crime, money is often the motivation behind poaching. In the 1980s, most poachers were people shooting deer or elk for meat, or maybe someone taking advantage of an opportunity like seeing an elk in a field after the season had closed. But over the last 20 years, greed has driven a new breed of poachers to line their wallets with Montana's wildlife. And we're seeing record-book heads that can sell for $30,000 to $40,000 or even more.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, wondering what your angle here is? Are you trying to tie those that poach to HF as well?


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman, wondering what your angle here is? Are you trying to tie those that poach to HF as well?


Nope, my only point is when big money gets involved things get dirty. Well, maybe in that sense it does tie into the type of people who sneak valuable diseased animals to another state in the dark of night.


----------



## gst

If you think the involvement of money is when things get dirty, what is your opinion about the big buck contests where cash prizes are given out for the largest Boone & Crockett scored head?


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> If you think the involvement of money is when things get dirty, what is your opinion about the big buck contests where cash prizes are given out for the largest Boone & Crockett scored head?


A free rifle, free mount, or $500 hardly compares to people who could make $10,000 killing elk in Yellowstone, or shipping a diseased animal from Minnesota to Tennessee that is worth $10,000 to a Wall Street pansy that doesn't know which end of the rifle to point at the animal. However, there are those who think they have to win anyway they can. Your not supposed to use a snowmobile in some coyote tournaments, but it happens, and they win. Some people require thousands of dollars to sell their integrity, some will do it for $10. I sure hope this doesn't mean you turn the subject to coyote tournaments.  I'm certainly not going to bite on that one. Makes it even more tempting doesn't it?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> A free rifle, free mount, or $500 hardly compares to people who could make $10,000 killing elk in Yellowstone, or shipping a diseased animal from Minnesota to Tennessee that is worth $10,000 to a Wall Street pansy that doesn't know which end of the rifle to point at the animal. However, there are those who think they have to win anyway they can. Your not supposed to use a snowmobile in some coyote tournaments, but it happens, and they win. I sure hope this doesn't mean you turn the subject to coyote tournaments.  I'm certainly not going to bite on that one. Makes it even more tempting doesn't it?


Plainsman.....you don't have to bite...but it does raise question to when people who run down HF, guides, etc and say they hate commercilization of hunting it ruining it then participate in any form of tourney or contest. Because that is a small form of commercilization. Because like you stated once $$$ or prizes get involved.....people will bend or break rules to win. Using snowmobiles, shooting the animals out of the selected time frame, going out of selected area's, shooting multiple animals (contest in my area), etc.

Also look at just the record book things or people buying sheds or horns of legally taken game. You don't think that idiot in MN who poached that monster 8 was thinking this. He already killed a buck and a doe and never tagged them. My friend that is a CO in MN tells me of the "garage" bucks he hears about and busts every year. People shoot a buck early in the bow season....recover it and it is smaller. So they take it home with out tagging it....and keep hunting. Or have a spouse or child go buy a tag and then tag it and register it later. Shady things get done because our hunting society puts so much emphasis on "inches", "score", etc.

Some of these HF operations sell "experiences". Like I have talked about before with my brother. I won't go into it. But people who have read my replys before on this subject.

The thing is people for this measure can't use "ethics" because each person has there own ethical set of values. Like posted....Go after regulations.....ie kill pen size, animals per acre, double fences, strict guide lines, strict testing and check ups, strict fines for non compliance, etc. This will weed out the people who are shady and want to cut corners.


----------



## swift

Chuck Smith, EXCELLENT POST, I don't take part in any competition hunts or fishing tournaments because I feel competition is ruining hunting as I've known it. I miss the good ole days of hunting stories and one neighbor being happy for the other one that shot "the one". Instead of the contempt and lies, the intentional sabotaging of someone's stand site or hunting area. Just to best the next guy.


----------



## Plainsman

swift said:


> Chuck Smith, EXCELLENT POST, I don't take part in any competition hunts or fishing tournaments because I feel competition is ruining hunting as I've known it. I miss the good ole days of hunting stories and one neighbor being happy for the other one that shot "the one". Instead of the contempt and lies, the intentional sabotaging of someone's stand site or hunting area. Just to best the next guy.


I agree. I miss the old stories in Outdoor Life that were about families getting together for deer season. It was as much of a family reunion as a hunt. They were so real as I read them that I could nearly smell the smoke of the old kitchen wood stove, and bacon grease. They were all happy if uncle Bob got a bigger deer than they. They didn't feel sorry for themselves, but rather happy for others. The world has progressed alright, but we should have looked to see what direction we were going before engaging the clutch. Perhaps now is a time to start turning the clock back if we can.

I did take part for the first time ever in a coyote hunt last year. I have to admit I went more to meet people from nodakoutdoors than I did to compete.


----------



## gst

So what should one think then of a member of this group NDH for FC and a sponsor of an initiative based on following the ethics of "fair chase rules" promoting a big buck contest with cash prizes by his local wildlife club?


----------



## zogman

gst,

The comparisson you just gave is like take a pee off the Demers bridge in GF and then calling Oslo and telling them they will flood.  Get real................... :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> So what should one think then of a member of this group NDH for FC and a sponsor of an initiative based on following the ethics of "fair chase rules" promoting a big buck contest with cash prizes by his local wildlife club?


Thanks for being unreasonable, really. I think my parents, if they were alive, would call that "making mountains out of mole hills". You wouldn't be running down HSUS to hide your affiliation would you?  I'm starting to wonder about you gst. :rollin:


----------



## gst

I don't know, I'd bet from an "ethical follow the rules of fair chase" stand point there is far more stuff that happens that would not meet the standards of NDH for FC with people trying to get a buck for these contests, and yet here we have one of their members promoting these contests. Most of these contests are run so who ever is putting them on can make a little money, so could they be looked at as "commercializing" hunting? When it comes to taking a stance on ethics, it's kinda like being pregnant, it's hard to be just a little of either.


----------



## Plainsman

> here we have one of their members promoting these contests.


I have not followed this thread that close. Which member are you talking about?


----------



## gst

Plainsman, go to the wildlife clubs forum and check out the Barnes County Wildllife Club news letter and buck contest forum.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman, go to the wildlife clubs forum and check out the Barnes County Wildllife Club news letter and buck contest forum.


Is it on line? Perhaps even on here and I have not looked. Hmmm.

Edit: nope, didn't find it.


----------



## gst

Dick Monson, Barnes County Wildlife Club buck contest. $100 1st place. They do have the disclaimer only "legal" deer will be allowed, no HF ones either so I guess that makes it OK. :roll:


----------



## Longshot

gst, it's difficult to read anything you have to say with such a stretch.


----------



## gst

longshot, do you believe as some have alluded to that these contests result in some individuals breaking "fair chase rules" to get a buck to bring to the contest, or shine unfavorably on the hunting heritage? If you are going to have a contest, you are going to have SOMEONE breaking these rules thats involved with it. So if you are going to claim all hunting must be done following these ethical hunting rules to protect the heritage of hunting, why would you sponsor an activity that you know will intice someone to not follow them or cast a bad light on hunting in the publics eye?

Once you choose to take the ethical high road, you better understand the ditches alongside it are very steep.


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> longshot, do you believe as some have alluded to that these contests result in some individuals breaking "fair chase rules" to get a buck to bring to the contest, or shine unfavorably on the hunting heritage? If you are going to have a contest, you are going to have SOMEONE breaking these rules thats involved with it. So if you are going to claim all hunting must be done following these ethical hunting rules to protect the heritage of hunting, why would you sponsor an activity that you know will intice someone to not follow them or cast a bad light on hunting in the publics eye?
> 
> Once you choose to take the ethical high road, you better understand the ditches alongside it are very steep.


There are always some bad apples in every group unfortunately. I have not been to a big buck contest before, but would bet there is some truth to what you are saying. I just don't believe that this has much to do with HF operations. I hope every person that breaks the rules is punished severely. Those who break the rules I would categorize along with those of the HF operations that give hunting a black eye and do nothing but support those who seek to eliminate hunting in general. It is unfortunate that the law isn't harsher with those that break game laws. You are trying to claim that people supporting FC are in some way condoning breaking that same FC rules in other arenas. That is the stretch I am talking about gst. How can you jump to that conclusion?


----------



## gst

I'm not saying this has anything to do with HF nor am I saying they are supporting breaking the rules, they are supporting an activity (contests) that most everyone would agree entices some people to break the FC rules they champion, as well as giving hunting a "black eye" in some peoples (even some hunters) veiwpoint. For what purpose is this being done?

What this is about is the taking of the ethical high road by this group and it's members in the debate on HF and the steep ditches I was talking about once that was done.Chuck Smith mentions this in his post as well.


----------



## Maverick

> Those who break the rules I would categorize along with those of the HF operations that give hunting a black eye and do nothing but support those who seek to eliminate hunting in general. It is unfortunate that the law isn't harsher with those that break game laws.


Those who choose to break the law to harvest an animal are now poaching...not hunting! I agree Longshot....it is along the same lines!


----------



## Bob Kellam

Whapeton Daily News 
MONDAY FEBRUARY 8, 2010 Last modified: Monday, February 8, 2010 10:30 AM CST 
NRA-ILA being duped in North Dakota?

by Curt Wells

There's a scam going on in North Dakota and the National Rifle Association's (NRA) Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is being duped.

Either that or they don't bother to research issues before they take a stand.

Or, they're joined at the hip with the high-fence hunting lobby.

On Jan. 29, the NRA-ILA issued an alert warning North Dakota residents that an anti-hunting organization was gathering signatures for the purpose of placing an anti-hunting initiative on the ballot this fall. The alert went on to say the group responsible was cleverly calling itself North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.

The NRA-ILA press release then launched into a diatribe about the dangers of initiated measures.

True, such political maneuvering is a double-edged sword but it's curious that an American right as valued as voting would come under fire from the NRA.

Then came the real damage. It was claimed that the Humane Society of the United States, the world's largest anti-hunting organization, was supporting the initiated measure. That claim was followed by three quotes from Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS. The problem is those were long-standing quotes from debates of long ago and having nothing whatsoever to do with North Dakota.

Since they don't appear to care much about facts at the NRA-ILA offices, let's look at a few.

First, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is a group of dedicated outdoorsmen who are working to end the practice of high-fence hunting in North Dakota. They've been working hard to eliminate this stain on the face of hunting in North Dakota.

They took their cause to the legislature but failed, so they're going straight to the voter through initiated measure.

This group, and their cause, is endorsed by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Mule Deer Foundation, the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society (a group of wildlife management professionals), the late Tony Dean and a large portion of North Dakota's hunting community, including this hunter. Anti-hunters? Not even close.

If, as NRA-ILA claims, The Humane Society of the United States does, in fact, support the initiative it is certainly an unsolicited and unwelcome endorsement. I searched every nook and cranny of the HSUS Website and couldn't find a single word about the North Dakota initiative. It lists many other issues but nothing regarding any endorsement of the measure to ban high-fence hunting.

It could be true. If so it's strange move by HSUS. While they could take some satisfaction in duping the NRA-ILA, they could actually achieve a result counter to their overall goal. If their offensive and unwanted association with North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase causes enough doubt, the initiative will die and the hunting of captive animals will continue in North Dakota.

I seriously doubt that's what HSUS wants but the NRA-ILA is helping to bring this issue to that exact conclusion with their uninformed stance.

The press release says high-fence hunting is a long-standing tradition in North Dakota, which is pure bull. There's nothing whatsoever traditional about hunting animals wearing ear tags and being held in enclosures.

That's a ridiculous claim and says something about the high-fence lobby and the NRA-ILA for buying into it.

The NRA-ILA ends the press release by advising citizens not to allow "&#8230;Wayne Pacelle and others to further pursue their ultimate agenda of banning all hunting" by not signing the anti-freedom petition. Whew! That's some serious propagandizing!

Finally, they direct readers wanting more information to the website www.ndpropertyrights.com.

Suddenly, it makes sense. The NRA-ILA has also been duped by the high-fence/property rights lobby.

Private property rights are important but there are many laws and regulations that govern what a landowner can do with or on their property. We all live by those rules and no one has free reign to do whatever they please.

To be sure, there are many facets to this issue, but the end game is quite clear in my opinion. If you're a North Dakotan you either want your state to end up looking like Texas, with unrestricted baiting and rampant high-fence hunting preserves , or you don't.

Each hunter/voter has to make that clearly black-or-white decision. Just know that this is NOT an anti-hunting initiative. HSUS has nothing to do with it no matter what they, or the NRA-ILA wants you to believe. This initiated measure will, provided it makes it to the polls in the fall, help maintain the integrity of hunting in North Dakota.


----------



## gst

Is this meant as an unbiased piece of journalism?  Or is it an opinion written in a letter to the editor? The author suggests the NRA is now tied to HF??? The HSUS connection in the previous FAILED initiative is pretty well substantiated. They have simply learned from past mistakes and will not become involved until it is clear this will fail without their involvement.

What the author doesn't address, after mentioning the fact this was debated and failed in the legislature, is the risk of inviting the nonhunting public into regulating the various forms of hunting thru these measures. Nor did he mention what happened in Mt. following their successfula initiative with other forms of hunting coming under fire. What the author did do was allude to the fact that baiting will likely be the next initiated measure this group comes with. Mr. Kaseman has already approached other groups with a draft of this. So the question remains, once started where will they stop?


----------



## Doogie

DG said:


> Doogie you are absolutely right. There is an initiative in MT. called Footloose Montana. Part (3.2) says: There is No "Fair Chase" in Trapping: Trapping does not honor the hunters' ethical code of "fair chase", or the time-honored princples of quick and efficient kill. Tens of thousands of untended, unmonitored traps lure wild and domestic animals with bait. Trappers are not required to check their traps in any specific period of time.


your wrong there DG, Footloose Montana is the group pushing the initiative. I-160 is the actual name of the initiative. Wrong again about the trap check laws too, MT has a recommended 3 day trap check on all traps, MN has a 1 day check on all non body gripping traps and a 3 day check on body gripping traps, ND is the only state without a trap check law in the region. Every trapper strives for better sets and bait to minimize incidental catches. There are also laws requiring "dog proofing" certain types of traps.

Trapping is one of the main reasons people even came to this region, and now to give up that tradition and heritage because some one thinks mitt mitt should be able to run where ever it pleases, with out the fear of it being restrained for a few minutes. I don't think so, maybe we should outlaw driving cars too cause mitt mitt may run out in the road and be killed. You move to rural states, learn to deal with the recreation that others do around you or move back to the city, simple enough,don't go trying to change whats been going on for 100s of years in a area just because you don't like it.

But what do you expect from a bunch of bunny huggers trying to get sympathy and get the initiative on the ballot.They must of missed the message fur is green now http://www.furisgreen.com


----------



## Plainsman

We were perhaps twisting vines and trapping animals before we developed weapons to hunt them. You mentioned fur is green, and I find it hilarious that they think producing synthetics that produces pollution and destroys habitat is better. The best way to harvest income from rough rocky land is with herbivores, and if you don't eat them yourself, then let carnivores eat them and shoot the carnivore for fur. Even the bears, wolves, and eagles are no more natural than man hunting and trapping in his *"his"* ecosystem.


----------

