# Canned Hunts



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Anyone catch DeFord's piece on NPR this morning?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=12568999

Do a little research before you label him an "anti".


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

Dan speaks again!! Finally some life around here. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Canned hunts, or high fence killing operations put sportsmen in a bad light. Lay down with dogs, and you get fleas. We need to get rid of them in North Dakota also. 
Sorry, didn't mean to make dogs look bad.


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5149012

The hunt for hunters
Sportsman are finding their numbers are in decline
Posted: Wednesday January 11, 2006 10:18AM; Updated: Wednesday January 11, 2006 11:20AM

Frank Deford will periodically answer questions from SI.com users in his mailbag.

It is well known that hunting is one of our most popular participant sports, so what species of animal do you think hunters are looking for these days?

The answer is human beings.

No, hunters aren't actually trying to bag **** sapiens and throw them over their car hood. But what they desperately want is more people to join them out in the woods, guns locked and loaded. Fewer and fewer Americans are hunting these days. Most dramatically, younger people are not picking up the sport. If the trend continues, soon enough the American hunter will be as extinct as the passenger pigeon.

Hunters, you see, are getting caught in a crunch. On the one hand, more and more of the traditional gun-toting citizenry are leaving rural areas for the suburbs, where golf carts, video games and slot machines are more likely to be the avant garde choice tool of recreation. On the other hand, the people who live in metropolitan areas are buying second homes out in the pristine sticks and immediately erecting "NO HUNTING" signs up on their property.

It's sort of a modern version of all those old western movies in which the farmers and ranchers were at odds. Any update of the musical Oklahoma! will have a hoedown song that goes, "Oh, the hunters and the second-homers can be friends."

Hunters are particularly frustrated at the love affair citified folk have with deer. Nothing this side of gay marriage now divides this country so much as deer do. Many Americans absolutely adore deer. They are all darling little Bambis, who are so unnerved by inconsiderate humans that their big, soulful eyes are forever being caught in those headlights we always hear about. Hunters, meanwhile, pretty much see deer as big rats, lyme-disease carrying vermin, who happen to taste good once they get properly shot and become venison.

But as the deer reproduce prolifigately, their main predators, the hunters, are rapidly declining. Hunters are panicking. In some states, they're trying to get age limits lowered so tykes can take up hunting early and get it in their system. Hunters are even proselytizing women, our primordial gatherers, so that the whole family can go a-shooting. The family that slays together, stays together.

And the height of irony: Hunters are even feuding with the National Rifle Association tough guys and cozying up to the softies in the Sierra Club. The thing is, hunters think the NRA is more interested in protecting an urban citizen's right to have Saturday-night specials than in the sportsman's right to use shotguns, while the Sierra Club remains devoted to protecting wide-open spaces where men have the opportunity to do what's been in their genes forever.

Of course, hunters are not alone in decline. The latest U.S. government statistics suggest that we're doing less of everything -- bowling, golfing, skiing, playing tennis -- well, most anything that actually requires activity. Instead, we're going to more games and watching longer hours of them on television. We watch real good, we Americans do.

But if hunters are endangered, their fishing brethren are holding their own. At least 30 million Americans try to catch bass. Bass fishing is hot. Bass tournaments are on television. But then, there is no save-the-bass constituency. Bass aren't cute, like deer. Walt Disney never drew a baby bass. The poor, put-upon bass don't ever get their eyes


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

dosch said:


> Dan speaks again!! Finally some life around here. :beer:


Wow!! Dan and Ranger Compact came back the same day


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

g/o said:


> dosch said:
> 
> 
> > Dan speaks again!! Finally some life around here. :beer:
> ...


G/O are you saying Ranger is really his alter ego :lol:


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

I always enjoy Frank Deford. Usually agree with him too.


----------



## hagfan72 (Apr 15, 2007)

Well, this time he really screwed the pooch!! Lumping sportsmen in with the likes of Vick makes me furious!! Then he calls us-sportsmen- an oxymoron!!! What an a-hole!!


----------



## jackal_727 (Jul 12, 2007)

God I cant stand these liberal jerks. What is so wrong with a "canned hunt"? I dont do it, simply because I enjoy the fact that I may or may not kill something when I go hunting. Its being at one with the nature. Man vs Animal. Ok Im rambling, but you get my point. So what if the animals are tame and the hunters have to be hand fed their prize. As long as what they kill isnt being wasted, what is the difference between killing a deer or other big game from a few feet away, or killing a cow in a slaughter house? Either way its an animal dying by the hands of a human....so to speak.

Does anyone else agree with me or at least see where Im coming from?

Ps: Im not saying I would ever "internet hunt" a deer or something, but there is a part of me that thinks that it would be pretty cool to do in the off season on something like hog or coyote (or any other problem causing animal).


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

jackal,

You are not alone, but you will see that many on this site have a strong emotional opinion on this topic and when backed in a logical corner of debate will sink to calling names and other nonsense.

Comparing any kind of hunting, harvesting, killing, slaughtering of animals for human consumption, to fighting dogs is just absurd. You "true" hunters better run for cover cause siding with this type of nonsense is just what will eventually give the animal rights people the amunition they want. If that comparison is valid, do you really think you will be able to say "my kind of killing is humane, but yours isn't"?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Does anyone else agree with me or at least see where Im coming from?


The non hunting public will quickly become the anti hunting public if they ever witness a video of Bambi in a can. Nothing will destroy the sport faster, it is a rotten apple that must eliminated before it rots everything. Look at the number of states that have already outlawed high fence killing. Do not call it hunting, because you certainly don't have to search for the animal. It is the one with the feed bucket over his face. 
In some states they drug them first so they can be measured for trophy score. Then often the hunter doesn't have the patience to wait for the animal to recover so they prop him up and shoot him. Just how distasteful does it have to get before we clean up our own mess. If we don't do it, it will be done for us. Better we cut out the cancer than the general public has an election that cuts off the leg.
It's not worth arguing about the days of this type of hunt are numbered. It will be a nation wide ban within ten years. You can take that to the bank. It only takes two firing brain cells to see the writing on the wall. It's all over but the crying.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Plainsman many are to young to remember the CBS undercover program The Guns of Autumn. It showed the canned hunting industry in TX in the 70's and raised a great uproar across this nation. While not all accurate it never the less remains one of the pointed examples of why " canned hunts" are not going to be something the general public will embrace and support.

When we as sportsmen and hunters get lumped in with these types of activities all of us suffer and another portion of the non hunting public become anti hunters supporters. I do not expect people like 4590 to ever understand that, but the reality is that the farther the non hunting public gets from rural America and farming connections the faster support for ethical hunting will slip.

Jackal I would be you most likely where not even born when that program aired and cannot understand the affect it had and really was the start of the expansion of organizations like Greenpeace and PETA. It gave them the spring board they needed to begin to garner the financial support required to make the inroads they have made especially in places like CA. Where Mt Lions are now actually suffering from no hunting. the range for these animals continues to shrink and pushes them into contact with humans as their population continues to expand beyond a carrying capacity.

So 4950 how many Hereford or Angus cow or bull hunts have you sold? Seems you have a market in which there is really no competition? I would think a smart marketer like you would be jumping on that!

Oh I forgot, penned raised cattle have no salable market to someone who wants a real hunt! It is all about it either being a bison or elk or some exotic that makes the blood pump! Must really make the testosterone flow knowing you shot and killed a pen raised animal who has no chance of escape!


----------



## ND ELK Man (May 7, 2007)

Jackal,
I like your attitude and opinion on this subject, high fence shooting or hunting is a personal choice of the individual paying for an animal, it is going to end up dead no matter how you look at it and this idea that it makes all hunters look like so called slobs is a weak excuse. The people
hear more news stories about so called ethical hunters that get caught poaching or are over there limits when it comes to wild animals then they ever will when it comes to a high fence hunter harvesting an animal by a legal means provided by a person wanting to create another form of income from the resourses he has avalible to him.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Gilmore wrote

"Plainsman many are to young to remember the CBS undercover program The Guns of Autumn. It showed the canned hunting industry in TX in the 70's and raised a great uproar across this nation. While not all accurate it never the less remains one of the pointed examples of why " canned hunts" are not going to be something the general public will embrace and support"

"While not all accurated" is an understatement. I remmber it well and was not even close to the truth. I have never hunted behind a fence but there are some folks that do and it is legall so far. 
Some people have different choice of guns than I do. That is their right What bothers me is if the fences are outlawed it is just that much closer to all hunting being outlawed by poeple who don't hunt and by people who knows no difference in the tpyes of hunts.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

ND ELK Man said:


> Jackal,
> I like your attitude and opinion on this subject, high fence shooting or hunting is a personal choice of the individual paying for an animal, it is going to end up dead no matter how you look at it and this idea that it makes all hunters look like so called slobs is a weak excuse. The people
> hear more news stories about so called ethical hunters that get caught poaching or are over there limits when it comes to wild animals then they ever will when it comes to a high fence hunter harvesting an animal by a legal means provided by a person wanting to* create another form of income from the resourses he has avalible to him*.


That pretty much sums up your perspective. All about the Benjamin's baby!!! Lots of legal things in this country I don't agree with and high fenced hunting is at the top.

To drive along Hwy 283 in N. Texas is sickening! I've never seen so many high fences in my life as when I drove to San Antonio last month.

For 4590 to say so many resort to name calling on the site when presented with an argument...I say BS. You'll always see it one way and we'll see it another. You stand to make large amounts of money from your endeavors so trying to hold a discussion with you is fruiltess.

These 10 reasons as to why to attend a ND canned hunt outlines everything gone wrong with the sport and makes me question the sanity who would say this:

#10. *No over zealous game wardens*. You will not be stopped searched or questioned at our preserve. You will get a shipping manifest to prove ownership of your trophy.

#9. You can overcome the *time constraints of short, state imposed seasons*. Book your elk hunting trip early and have your pick from Oct 1 through Feb 15. We allow you to hunt with a bow or rifle, when, "Your little heart wants to!"

#8. Efficient use of time. *Don't use all three weeks of vacation on one elk hunting trip*. Hunt at KMO, your elk hunting outfitters, and still have time for other adventures.

#7. *AVAILABILITY, How long have you tried to get an elk license in a good unit*? Some of us will never get drawn. Come to KMO and get the trophy bull *you deserve*. (Deserve, are you kidding me???)

#6. No OVERCROWDING, you and your partners will be the only ones at our preserve, we do not book more than one party at a time.

#5. *TROPHY BULLS*, the only way you will take a small bull, is by your choice. We let you hunt. We have big bull elk.

#4. Health Concerns, our bulls are tested and retested. North Dakotas' elk are under one of the most stringent testing procedures in North America.

#3.*Improve and help the wild elk herd by taking hunting pressure off of a natural resource that has been pushed to it's limit*. (This is truly hilarious...ummm...let me see...that's the G&F job.)

#2. *You deserve success. Do you really want to hunt for a good number of years and never take a trophy elk. The success rate for a trophy elk in the wild is approx. 4% allowing 10 days of hunting, plus travel time. 96 hunters out of a hundred will go home with nothing*. (Do I really need to say anything???)

#1. *GOOD STEWARDSHIP*! Make good use of your time and money. When you compare costs of hunting in the wild and at KMO. there is not much difference, we may even cost less, but we guarantee a 100% success rate. Hunting at KMO will provide you with a great hunting experience. You will not feel, " fenced in". The elk have been in the preserve long enough to know where to hide and are experts at eluding your best elk hunting tactics. WE HAVE FUN! We enjoy being out there, helping you get your *TROPHY*.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> That is their right What bothers me is if the fences are outlawed it is just that much closer to all hunting being outlawed by poeple who don't hunt and by people who knows no difference in the tpyes of hunts.


There is two schools of thought on this. When it comes to firearms rights I like that people can have what the liberals call assault rifles, because they are that much further from my bolt actions. However, when the public observes someone shooting a wild animal (and they look at these a lot different than a cow) in a pen it will give hunting a big black eye. The public will not discern the difference between you and I with our rifles in the south 40 and the city boy shooting an elk between the wires of a fence while a fame farmer holds the bucket. 
For those who say it is legal, it will shortly be illegal. If we don't do it in North Dakota it will make no difference because it will happen nationally in less than ten years. Do we want to be last and labeled as the most backwards people in the nation.
For those who can't see the difference in this and fair chase I ask you why do Boon and Crocket require fair chase? Because it isn't sporting. These are not hunters, and we should ev3en lower ourselves to accepting it. If you can accept this, then you can accept many other things also. Shoot deer with full auto, big deal. Bait waterfowl, what's the problem. You will say the difference is because it's illegal. It became illegal because ethical sportsmen pushed to make it illegal. 
This doesn't endanger other hunting, rather it takes away an unethical form of hunting that gives PETA an excuse to attack us all. PETA wants to get rid of all hunting. You can bet they would just as soon they keep shooting Bambi in a barrel because it fills their coffers. 
The majority of America does not hunt, but a lot more of them vote than all hunters combined. How do you think Bambi in a Barrel high fence killing will do in a general referendum? That will come up in every state in the next ten years.
If your smart you will start dumping your animals now, because when the high fence killing is no longer legal Joe slob isn't going to pay squat for them.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Plainsman,

Exactly right.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

""If your smart you will start dumping your animals now, because when the high fence killing is no longer legal Joe slob isn't going to pay squat for them"

Another statement with no truth in it I don't have any animals and I don't have any fences. Taking lessons from Hillary pointing your fingure at someone to make a point!!! :******: :******:

I don't agree with canned hunts some poeple do!!! That is their right untill canned hunts are outlawed!!!

What facts do you have that they will be outlawed in 10 years? Or is this another guess??

When will canned hunts be voted on all over the country??


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Another statement with no truth in it I don't have any animals and I don't have any fences. Taking lessons from Hillary pointing your fingure at someone to make a point!!!


I never thought you had animals 280. It was just a blanket statement for anyone who did. 
I am very certain this practice will end. I guess I shouldn't worry, only the very stupid and the very greedy will get caught with animals they can't get rid of. I mean really, if you (any person) can't see what is about to happen nation wide your not exactly a genius, or your trying to make your last buck while you still can.

On the inside PETA will be cheering for the high fence operations. It helps them raise funds, and helps them paint all hunters as unethical slobs who don't understand anything about giving an animal a sporting chance. I don't understand why this doesn't turn everybody off when they not only pen the animal, but have them drugged up for some of these slobs. That "it's legal" defense will disappear shortly.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

*Jim Posewitz: *


> Quote:
> Tolerance of the lowest ethical standards, for the sake of unity, demeans us all.


Noted Helena author unveils book on the dangers of privatization, commercial hunting 
By DARYL GADBOW of the Missoulian 
Helena hunter and author Jim Posewitz tells the stories of the pioneers of America's public hunting and conservation legacy in his latest book, "Rifle in Hand: How Wild America Was Saved."

"To think straight on recreational quality, an historical perspective is essential."

-With hunting season drawing near, every hunter, says Helena's Jim Posewitz, should be armed with one essential item - a knowledge of history.

Hunters should be aware, says Posewitz, that the abundance of wildlife we enjoy today in Montana wasn't always the case.

By the late 1800s and early 1900s, wildlife populations across the country had been decimated by market and subsistence hunting.

"We make the assumption," says Posewitz, "that it was always like this. But Montana was just like everywhere else. We went through some very dark times."

It took a couple of monumental decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the dedicated conservation efforts of a group of visionary hunters, to restore wildlife populations to their current abundant levels. The court decisions and the conservationists' achievements were based on two fundamental principles of American democracy, according to Posewitz: *that wildlife belongs to all the people, and all people should have the opportunity to hunt. *

That history is chronicled in a new book, "Rifle in Hand: How Wild America Was Saved," the third in a trilogy of hunting books by Posewitz.

After retiring in 1993 from a distinguished 32-year career as a biologist for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Posewitz has been an unwavering advocate of America's wildlife and hunting heritage. He created Orion: The Hunters' Institute to address the issues of ethics and the conservation heritage of hunters. As executive director of Orion, he travels extensively around the country spreading that message in state hunter education programs and seminars for hunting/conservation groups.

His first book, "Beyond Fair Chase: The Ethic and Tradition of Hunting," has become the bible for proper ethical conduct by hunters. It is used as a textbook by hunter education programs in Montana and many other states, and has sold more than 400,000 copies.

His second book, "Inherit the Hunt: A Journey into the Heart of Hunting," explores the history of North American hunting and wildlife heritage, its democratic roots, and the increasing threats to that tradition by the privatization and commercialization of wildlife and hunting.

In "Rifle in Hand," Posewitz tells the stories of Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, Ding Darling, Aldo Leopold, and other hunters who were instrumental in preserving wildlife and wild lands, and laying the foundation for public hunting.

He wrote the book, Posewitz says, "to tell the story of how we got to where we are, and how this wonderful abundance came about. *It's called the North American model of wildlife conservation and it's unique. *The courts defined a public-trust relationship with fish and wildlife, and sport hunters developed a philosophy and initiated programs that resurrected waterfowl, upland birds, and big game from the ashes of commercial exploitation and habitat desecration. Because of this combination, we enjoy wildlife abundance that is the envy of the world."

*Those threats come through such practices as game farms, where people pay to "hunt" domestic animals; expensive fee hunting of public game fenced in on private land; and the proliferation of technological gadgets designed to make hunting easier and replace traditional hunting skills.* *Now, he says, the democratic principles of the North American wildlife model are once again threatened by strong forces of commercialization and privatization of wildlife. *

He likens the new threats to the market hunters who virtually exterminated the American bison in the late 1800s.

*"In a sense," Posewitz says, "the buffalo hunters are back. *So it's important to spend a little time figuring out how we came to this point in the nation's history, because it was a system that worked better than any system on earth, where wildlife was assigned not to privilege and not to property, but to the people."

To a large extent, he adds, we've forgotten that heritage and take it for granted.

"The vulnerability of the North American model is that it's so poorly understood by the people who are the trustees, in other words the state," says Posewitz. "The politicians, and fish and game managers, and fish and game commissioners are not like a regulator who can favor commercial interests. *In 30 years of working for a government agency, I never heard the words 'public trust.' " *

*When wildlife becomes a commodity, he says, it limits the opportunities for the public to hunt. *

*"When you limit the number of people who can participate, it creates the new royalty of the hunt," *says Posewitz.

Through his travels talking about hunting ethics and conservation with Orion, Posewitz says, he's found that hunters around the country are already feeling the affects of the growing commercialization of wildlife.

"They have a hard time finding arguments for their side," he says. "People are starting to feel this loss of opportunity going on nationwide."

The stories in "Rifle in Hand" provide a basis for hunters to lay claim to the North American model of wildlife conservation "that they grew up with, but lacked knowledge of how it happened and who the heroes were," he adds.

*The challenges to public hunting must be addressed with the same vigor shown by those hunters who came before us,* Posewitz says.

"Challenges to hunting are real," he writes in "Rifle in Hand." *"Honoring the principles of fair chase, maintaining the public trust in wildlife management, and protecting our vanishing wild places will be difficult.* However, they must be our agenda ... . We cannot leave it to someone else. *The question now is the same as it was in 1909. Are we capable of protecting the North American hunting heritage? Will we measure up to the expectation passed to us by history? The principles followed by Roosevelt, Darling, Leopold and thousands of others who saved wild North America are clearly visible. We must be as worthy."*

The way Posewitz has chosen to address the challenges is through educating hunters with stories of those pioneers of public hunting.

Wherever he goes to conduct hunting seminars for Orion, says Posewitz, he makes it a point to tell people about hunter/conservation heroes in their own state's history.

"The stories are so rich, and there are so many of them," he says. "I never fail to find them."

You can find some of the best of them in "Rifle in Hand."

Reporter Daryl Gadbow can be reached at 523-5264 or at [email protected]


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's the same fight today Dick. Sportsmen against the market hunters. It will all get down to out values. Which is more valuable, the dollar or the intrinsic value of an animal and the traditional values of our current society. I would guess the modern day average citizen has watched enough environmental programs on television to make the right choice. Bambi in a barrel is witnessing it's last days. It may also come to pass in the proverbial heart of market hunting in Texas also. 
By the way can I use that quote "Tolerance of the lowest ethical standards, for the sake of unity, demeans us all"? If you think about it that applies to so many things in life.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Well Taddy as you can see its not BS. I was just called stupid, brain dead, and immoral.

Be that as it may there is nothing new here. Plains and Dick cannot differentiate between wildlife and livestock. Plains likes to make predictions but he also predicted the ND legislature would shut down game preserves. His bill didn't get one vote in committee. He predicted Idaho and Oregon would shut down game farms, didn't happen. Can anyone say "lets blow smoke".

The discussion point I made was related to the opening article which compared preserve hunting to fighting dogs. As usual most here don't want to have a logical discussion, just blow off hot air. I suppose there is a logical reason why they didn't respond to this point - they realize I am right. I would bet we all agree that dog fights are just plain inhumane treatment of animals. However if you are going to agree that it is comparable to preserve hunting, then you can not argue for free chase hunting or any slaughter of livestock, as all of these involve the killing of animals for human consumption. Hunting, killing or slaughter of animals is a messy business, but if compared to dog fights, that is cruelty strictly for intertainment, and has no consumer or management value, then all forms of animal utilization are in trouble. Hello PETA! Wake up and smell the coffee fellas.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see where you want to go 4590, and I also agree that canned hunts are not as disgusting as dog fights. We agree.
Now, where I disagree is where you lower a wild animal to the designation of livestock. Livestock are animals that have seen thousands of years of domestication. We Europeans have only been on this continent for a few hundred years, which leaves deer and elk far from livestock. I know, I know, many want to call them alternative livestock. They use the term in hopes that it will enhance psychological acceptance. That dog wont hunt.
No one called you brain dead or stupid. What I said was people have to be stupid not to see the handwriting on the wall. Now, I have no idea whatsoever if you can see that handwriting or not. If you don't your going to loose your shirt, and you will have no one to blame but yourself. You may even see the handwriting, but your making so much money that you are in a state of denial. For whatever reason it would appear that your in it for the long grueling haul that will end in failure. I have absolutely no knowledge of your intelligence or lack thereof. Perhaps you misunderstood my point, perhaps you wanted to misunderstand my point, I have no idea about that either. If you did misinterpret intentionally that would really be a childish sympathy ploy.


----------



## jackal_727 (Jul 12, 2007)

Wow. A lot has happened in the past 24 hours.

Let me start by saying that I was "name calling" in regards to the people associating hunters with dog fighters and such. Not anyone here.

Next, I dont agree or disagree with canned hunts. Heres why.

PROS
-Its legal
-Its no different than a slaughter house
-Deer, elk, moose, etc are just another animal, just like a cow or pig. Society has just told people that no dont kill bambi, but that cow, chop his head off because he'll be a tasty option on the dollar menu.
-Not all canned hunts are the way they are perceived in this article. Some have animals from other parts of the world, allowing hunters to take game that they would otherwise never be able to.

CONS
-Ignorrant people think that killing helpless little animals is wrong, making us appear like murderers.
-Some canned hunts drug animals and have them shot point blank, giving the sport a bad image.
-Its not what hunting is all about.
-Allows people to lose sight of what we cherish about this way of life.

Anyways, the list could go on and on in either direction, but Im not a very fast typer and this is taking me long enough. But my point is simply this; its wrong to view canned hunts as wrong or evil, because this simply isnt true all the time. But we as hunters do need to keep in mind that we are responsible for sending the the type of message to the non hunting poeple of america that we as hunters love animals and nature, and not one depicting us destroying each animal one by one at point blank range, blind folded, with a cigarette hanging out of its mouth.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

As shooting high fenced game animals is presently legal here (ND), what might make it more ethically acceptable? 
If the fees were reduced to an amount more closely resembling the price of prime beef?
If the enclosures were sufficiently large enough to enable the animals to hide and have a real chance of evading the shooters?
It is legal for a landowner to acquire and own big game animals. How then, can we hope to legislate the manner in which those animals are dispatched?
Should only game animals that do not occur naturally in the area be those targeted for legislation? Or is naturally occuring wildlife to be lumped in with those animals acquired through trade or purchace? (I.E., if it's behind your fence, you can not profit from it's harvest by others than yourself)
Whether or not you agree with canned hunting operations, from the few questions asked above, you can see that legislating this issue is a very slippery slope indeed.
Even with my very limited understanding of the law, I can see that there is much more than the simple issue of fences and profit involved here. Even if some legislation is passed, it could, with the proper resources, be succesfully challenged, should all possibilities not be considered when it is witten. This is in itself why, the last time the issue came before the legislators of ND, it went no further than comittee.
My only real point is that those who oppose canned hunts in ND, must band together and find a way to do it right. Continuing with the same old rhetoric just isn't going to fly. The opposition is well informed, well funded, and is as dug in as any beef rancher out there. Don't view this thing as a pushover or you'll never see the results you seek.
Burl


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Plainsman do you consider poeple that have a hunting reserves that turn out birds to be shot a canned hunt?


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Plainsman,
Call me "stupid" if you want but like I said your track record of predictions leaves a little to be desired. FACT of the matter is the public has come to realize your arguements are full of exageration and out right lies. The last attempts to ban game farms have failed miserably.

However I am glad to see we agree on something.

I am also certain all the livestock producers will be impressed that you consider their "livestock" "LOWER" than the wild animals. Never mind the FACT that today "wild" elk and deer cannot begin to compare to their domestic counter parts in horn production. Elk producers cosistently have 100%+ calf crop, can the wild do that, or even close? Yes domestic livestock is much "lower" than wildlife, hope you remember that the next time you go town for a steak.

I also find it interesting that so often when you address this issue you have to comment on how much money I make. You have no clue how much money I make, and what does it matter anyway? I thought your concern was our image and hunting etics. Or is this debate also about something else - like envy. If making money makes an activity wrong, then our system is in big trouble.

Another FACT: deer, reindeer, and elk species have been domesticated for thousands of years.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Another FACT: deer, reindeer, and elk species have been domesticated for thousands of years.


European reindeer, but nothing North American. If you think so, I would be interested in your theory. Someone came a couple thousand years before Columbus domesticated elk, then went back to Europe right? :rollin:

As far as how much you make, I don't care, I was just guess at the motives people have for canned hunts.



> FACT of the matter is the public has come to realize your arguements are full of exageration and out right lies.


And you worry that I might have called you stupid? Which I didn't buy the way. I think you call my a liar because you don't want people to know what is going on. So call the messenger a liar right?

Do you think this struggle is over 4590? I wouldn't puff out my chest and crow just yet if I were you. Next year, the year after, five years from now, it matters little, but it will end within ten. We will see how far off my predictions are.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

4590 said:


> Plainsman,
> Call me "stupid" if you want but like I said your track record of predictions leaves a little to be desired. FACT of the matter is the public has come to realize your arguements are full of exageration and out right lies. The last attempts to ban game farms have failed miserably.
> 
> However I am glad to see we agree on something.
> ...


Horn production??? Are you serious? That's the whole problem. The craze over such madness is at the root of canned hunts.

Somebody is making money (not that it really matters)

300-330 SCI $ 3900.00

331-369 SCI $ 4500.00

370-385 SCI $ 6500.00

386-399 SCI $ 7500.00

400 SCI Plus Price on request


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

My approach to this has been from two fronts. One being that it is morally wrong to call any animal being harvested,killed or whatever term you want to use, a hunt in any way shape or forum. Beef cattle ranchers raise animals for breeding and slaughter. They make no bones about it. No attempt to glamorize it for something it is not.

The other side is most likely the one in which both ranchers and hunters have the most risk from in the short term and that is disease. It is the biggest concern for the G&F and even many who I know that raise elk domestically.

In response to Plainsmen about properly crafted laws, MT got it right and it has not been successfully challenged. The property rights of a single landowner do not outweigh the rights of all the people in regards to protection of the wild population of animals. It is why chemicals like DDT where banned. Even though the ban cost many farmers and ranchers a lot of money in controlling insects the overall good of the ban outweighed the property owners rights.

I do believe that it needs banning or at the very least a lot more oversight. If not then anyone who has a wetland or large slough should be able to drain it and let someone else worry about cleaning up the mess they make!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

> Do you think this struggle is over 4590? I wouldn't puff out my chest and crow just yet if I were you. Next year, the year after, five years from now, it matters little, but it will end within ten. We will see how far off my predictions are.


[/quote]

My bet is less than 3!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks Ron for pointing out the most important things that I lost sight of while debating with 4590. Disease is a very important concern, and these people do not have the right to risk such an important natural resource. Also, I can not condone anyone calling this hunting. It is an insult to every sportsman out there.

The motto for this should be you provide the lie, we provide the trophy.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) A proposed ballot initiative would ban private hunting preserves in North Dakota.

The preserves allow hunters to shoot game within a fenced area for a fee. North Dakota has more than 100 registered farms that advertise opportunities to hunt deer or elk.

Opponents of private hunting preserves say they're unethical, because animals don't have a chance to run away from hunters.

Secretary of State Al Jaeger must approve the petition for circulation before its backers may begin getting petition signatures. They need at least 12,844 signatures to put the idea on the ballot next year.

The Legislature defeated a proposal to prohibit game farms that charge hunters a fee to go on their property. Lawmakers decided a ban would infringe on landowners' property rights

Let the games begin!!!!


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

g/o if you ever quite farming you would make a good fight promoter


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Today ND domestic elk are CWD free, TB free, and Bruc. free. Probably cleaner than ND beef industry. This is after having domestic elk in the state for over 40 yrs. "Just a matter of time" right! Like I said, lies and exageration.

Yes, elk producers have concern about disease, thats why they test. The biggest concern however is that the disease will come from outside the fence. I see you guys are going forward with your initiated measure, this will do alot to address the disease issue.

By the way plains, we live in a representative republic, not a democracy. If the Montana legislature had any back bone, like I believe ND does, the initiative would have been overthrown. At any rate when the light of truth is shed on this issue the ND voters will get it right just like the legislature did.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If the Montana legislature had any back bone, like I believe ND does, the initiative would have been overthrown.


So you think the legislature overrules the people? I think they are our servants not our masters.



> Yes, elk producers have concern about disease, thats why they test.


The problem is this industry appears to attract get rich quick people that break rules to save money. Look at the guy in Idaho who didn't report escapes. However, we are talking about unethical to the point of sickening canned hunts, not raising elk. However, I do say it's just a matter of time before we have CWD. It's not a lie, it's just a fact that as years go on it will happen. Of course it will be the Game and Fish's fault right?


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

PM,

I read all your rants when you didn't get your way on this issue in the legislature. How they gave in to the money people, and the land owners.
Truth is your concept of how our government works is rather worped. You see the majority does not necessarily rule. EX. election of our current president. If the majority were allowed to make laws, and the majority of the wealth was in the hands of a minority, then all they would have to do is take it away and redistribute among the majority. 
Thus you have socialism. Thats why our founders put in a system of checks and balances. You claim to be conservative but hate to tell you sounds more like a closet socialist. You seem to always associate preserve hunting with the rich and weave in your contempt for them and what they do. Sounds like a socialist to me. Most rich people got there by working hard and making good choices.

I don't believe our legistature rules over us, but we do elect folks with values and ethics that will hopefully represent us. If you find your representatives don't seem to be voting your way maybe you should reexaming who you are associating with or maybe, do I dare say it, you are just plain wrong on an issue.


----------

