# Does Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation support high fence hunting?



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

The RMEF supports high fence operations! They do most of their hunting and trapping behind high fence! High fence seems to suit their needs just fine! What's the big deal?


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Autry said:


> The RMEF supports high fence operations! They do most of their hunting and trapping behind high fence! High fence seems to suit their needs just fine! What's the big deal?


Get a #$%^&* clue:
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PubsTV ... unting.htm

Snip -

It's anyone's guess what Chief Joseph would have made of changing wild elk into livestock then charging people to "hunt" them. But it might not have been too far from what Chief Beaver, head of the Bigstone Cree Band, said a few years ago: "What the hell is game farming? Now they want to put the animals on reservations?"

As I write this in mid-September, most of Rammell's elk are still on the loose and widely scattered. No one knows what may come of it. The whole mess leaves me heartsick and mightily glad that Montana's voters rose up in 2000 to pass an initiative banning new game farms and all hunts that target domestically raised native big game inside high fences. Wyoming's legislature did the same thing back in 1975. Maybe this train wreck can serve as a catalyst for hunter-conservationists in Idaho and all across elk country to press their own legislatures to do the same-and if need be take matters into their own hands with a citizen's initiative. There may be no better time to strike a blow for real freedom.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

MRN said:


> Autry said:
> 
> 
> > The RMEF supports high fence operations! They do most of their hunting and trapping behind high fence! High fence seems to suit their needs just fine! What's the big deal?
> ...


Rammell's elk will improve the genetics of the inbred wild elk in that area!


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Dick Monson said:


> > Tennessee Man Faces Felony Charges for Importing Elk
> > posted September 24, 2007
> >
> > A Tennessee man is being held in the McCracken County jail today facing six felony counts of illegally importing elk and deer into Kentucky ...
> ...


That could be just an ugly rumor started by the fish police!


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

MRN said:


> Autry said:
> 
> 
> > The RMEF supports high fence operations! They do most of their hunting and trapping behind high fence! High fence seems to suit their needs just fine! What's the big deal?
> ...


Many of the elk relocated by the RMEF have been captive raised animals from Elk Island National Park and Land Between the Lakes.

Now-a-days the RMEF does not restock elk, they have been infiltrated by PETA. The RMEF is now in the food plot business.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Now-a-days the RMEF does not restock elk, they have been infiltrated by PETA.


That is interesting. I am waiting for my call to be returned from the national headquarters. I am going to ask their public relations to address that on this thread. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I just got the call back from RMEF. I guess they think it's to silly to bother with. He did assure me that they have not been infiltrated. He also said they are not into food plots, but they do spend a lot on habitat improvement. That's good. Many animals besides elk benefit from improved habitat. Once again it's the hunters putting their money where there mouth is. RMEF, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and the list goes on and on. 
I think I will join them $35 dollars isn't that much, and they do a lot of good work. It's hard to justify elk hunting and not supporting them. Sorry for getting off subject.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Autry said:


> The RMEF supports high fence operations! They do most of their hunting and trapping behind high fence! High fence seems to suit their needs just fine! What's the big deal?


Really? From the RMEF website.

http://www.rmef.org/AboutUs/PositionSta ... arming.htm



> The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:
> 
> Believes that raising captive elk, red deer and other Cervids on private game farms in states with wild, free-ranging elk populations poses serious risks to the health and viability of those wild elk herds due to the potential of disease transmission and genetic pollution from hybridization with escaped exotic game-farm animals.
> 
> Supports the enactment of game farm regulatory legislation, at both the state and federal level, crafted to protect the health and viability of wild free-ranging elk populations.


Mr. Autry perhaps you should get your facts straight before you you post them on a forum.

I think I'll rejoin RMEF again too.

huntin1


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I just got the call back from RMEF. I guess they think it's to silly to bother with. He did assure me that they have not been infiltrated. He also said they are not into food plots, but they do spend a lot on habitat improvement. That's good. Many animals besides elk benefit from improved habitat. Once again it's the hunters putting their money where there mouth is. RMEF, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and the list goes on and on.
> I think I will join them $35 dollars isn't that much, and they do a lot of good work. It's hard to justify elk hunting and not supporting them. Sorry for getting off subject.


The RMEF will not come on here and try to defend themselves because what I have posted is true.

The RMEF worked with PETA in Montana on I-143.

The RMEF spent in excess of $50,000.00 trying to help PETA pass I-143.

The RMEF has not restocked any elk in years but they will still take your money so write them a big check so they can continue to pay those six figure salaries and plant those food plots!


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

huntin1 said:


> Autry said:
> 
> 
> > The RMEF supports high fence operations! They do most of their hunting and trapping behind high fence! High fence seems to suit their needs just fine! What's the big deal?
> ...


Ask RMEF about EINP in Alberta Canada and LBL in Kentucky. The RMEF has taken hundreds of elk from high fence enclosures in the past and those high fence enclosures seem to suit the RMEF's needs just fine then but now that the RMEF no longer restocks elk, well you get the picture.

Please do join the RMEF because since they stopped restocking elk, very few people are willing to donate to the RMEF and they still have to pay those six figure salaries somehow. Maybe PETA could help the RMEF now since the RMEF has helped PETA in the past.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Autry said:


> The RMEF worked with PETA in Montana on I-143.
> 
> The RMEF spent in excess of $50,000.00 trying to help PETA pass I-143.
> 
> The RMEF has not restocked any elk in years but they will still take your money so write them a big check so they can continue to pay those six figure salaries and plant those food plots!


Proof?

Let's see something other than statements from an unknown guest who won't even include his location in his profile.

huntin1


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

For at least the past five years, the RMEF has been working together with PETA. They have compromised their principals out of greed for power and money.

Since the RMEF no longer supports the relocation of elk and since the RMEF has joined forces with PETA, the RMEF will never again be the organization that they once were!

***************************

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/ ... 302elk.htm

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the end of freedom in America

By Scott Carpenter
web posted March 4, 2002

Free association can create powerful private interests but it shouldn't - at least not in a just society - create powerful public interests. Indeed, an organization that moves from voluntary cooperation and education to reliance on the legislature to achieve its ends has overstepped its boundaries and become an enemy of what little liberty we have left on this continent.

I can name a dozen or more organizations of this nature right off the top of my head. Some of them are religious in nature, some political and some - like PeTA - are just simply over the edge. But I never - not in a million years - thought any organization I belonged to would walk this path. At least not until I got my latest copy of 'Bugle' magazine in the mail.

Bugle is - for those of you who are not familiar with it - the masthead of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The RMEF is an organization whose primary goal is to secure critical habitat for wild free ranging elk and other animals. They do this - as such things should be accomplished - through the purchase of critical lands via voluntary contributions and through selling memberships to the organization itself. In short - it is a charitable association of people who see value in the existence of wild places and wild critters. It is - or at least was - a noncoercive entity that purchased private lands and made them (at least in a sense) public and accessible to all creatures - both two legged and four.

But when I opened my latest issue of Bugle to the back page - to take in as I always do Dan Crockett's eloquent 'Good hunting' column - I was left to face the fact that as an individual concerned with freedom first I may be forced to cancel my membership with the RMEF.

Montana, Canned Hunts and I-143

For those of you 'not in the know' there has been a lot of debate amongst the hunting community in past years - particularly in Bugle magazine and other mainstream hunting and fishing rags - over the issue of canned hunts.

Canned hunts are a simple concept for simple people. They amount to little more than shooting fish in a barrel and, in my opinion, are strictly for those 'hunters' lacking a degree of moral fiber.

Indeed, sportsman who are concerned with public perception see the practice of hunting animals in enclosures - regardless of size - as a black eye to the honest pursuit of wild game. In fact, the issue has been so hot that in some states and provinces various special interests have risen to 'put and end' to the practice of shooting penned in animals.

A recent news release from the Montana Wildlife Federation tells the tale of how an issue of ethics has quickly been blown into an issue of law:

"On November 7 sportsmen and sportswomen won a key victory when Montanans voted to control the reckless game farm industry and put an end to unethical "canned hunts" on game farms. The initiative passed by a 52-48 margin."

"I-143 was a simple and straightforward effort to reform an industry which has, for too long, abused its relationships with traditional ranching and ethical hunting and in the process has put our wild free-ranging elk at risk. I-143 will amend state law to: 1) prohibit all new game farms in the state of Montana. 2) Existing game farms in Montana will continue to operate, but will be prohibited from charging fees for captive big game shooting operations. 3) Existing game farms will be prohibited from transferring their licenses to any other party. 4) I-143 also repeals provisions of the law concerning expansion of existing game farms."

The news release from the MWF continues by stating that: "Contrary to assertions made by game farmers in the weeks before the election, I-143 will not constitute a violation, or takings, of private property rights.

Historical precedent and recent case law is clear: "No one has an absolute right to use his land in a way that may harm the public health or welfare, or that damages the quality of life of neighboring landowners, or of the community as a whole."

Indeed, this is true. In a society of laws based on the right of individuals to hold and enjoy property no one has the right to use that property to violate the equal rights of others. But the assertion that this law does not violate property rights - at least as a matter of reason - does not hold water.

While penned hunts are certainly unethical from a 'fair chase' point of view the fact remains that not everyone adheres to the same set of ethics - nor should they. And since owning, farming and killing elk in pens for pleasure does not directly infringe on the equal rights of others banning its practice is indeed a violation of the property rights of those ranchers it serves precedence over. Only in rare cases where penned elk spread disease to neighboring livestock or wildlife is there room for grievance. But this in and of itself is not sufficient reason to outlaw - regardless of how unethical it may seem - the practice of catering canned hunts.

The Elk Foundation and Crockett's Confusion...

I-143 passed into law almost undetected by my 'bad law' radar and would have remained so if it weren't for Dan Crockett's most recent column in Bugle magazine. In it Crockett writes of the dying breaths of one of Montana's last elk hunting farms:

"The buy/sell on the biggest elk farm in Montana is down to the last niggling details. Len Wallace, owner of the 6,000 acre Big Velvet Ranch, has had enough of Big Sky Country."

"'I want to move back to America,' says Wallace. America," snipes Crockett, "presumably, is some place where the people have not decreed - by statewide ballot initiative - that they don't want elk farms or any hunts that target domestically raised native big game animals held in captivity."

Hmm. Actually Dan, rumor has it that America used to be a place where there was room enough for everyone. From Christians and atheists, hunters and vegetarians to potato farmers and even those despicable game ranchers. We used to tolerate one another out of respect for each individual's right to choose his or her own path in this world - regardless of how unethical we deemed that path to be.

Yet somehow, either through sheer stupidity or downright sloth we have arrived at the conclusion that since we can reach a 50.1 to 49.9 victory via the vote we may have the moral authority to do whatever to whomever we please. In short, America has gone from a democracy tempered by the rule of law and the rights of men to a majority rules dictatorship. But as history teaches us: having the majority on your side does not automatically make you right no matter how noble your cause may seem.

So, in adopting this position Bugle and the RMEF have moved from what once made America great to what rots her from the inside out. Indeed, the idea that men should be ruled by the tyranny of the majority flies in the face of the very concept of freedom itself. And if the RMEF and their friends at the Montana Wildlife Federation had simply let the debate roar or ponied up the cash to buy those hunt farms out without getting the state involved then they'd still have my time and my cash. But instead they took the lazy way out and sought reconciliation through the use of the blunt and all too often wielded sword of government. In the end they've lowered themselves to the same level as PETA and their ilk. How unfortunate. How terribly tragic.

Crockett and the Red Horde....

"The good news is,"continues Crockett, "that the future owner of the Big Velvet Ranch (Who already owns 11,000 adjoining acres) plans to tear down the game proof fences and restore the area to its natural state.... Who knows, maybe the new owner will let a horde of happy volunteers help lay those fences low... we could heap up a fine pyre of fence poles, light a raucous bonfire. Some of us might even use our unfilled elk tags as tinder. We might raise a toast to America - the land of the free."

It's ironic or perhaps appropriate that Mr. Crockett uses the term 'horde' to describe his gang of 'defencers'. Perhaps he doesn't realize that as long as America the 'horde' rules, America the 'land of the free' will always be a distant republican myth. At any rate, I won't be renewing my membership to the RMEF this year. Indeed, I'd rather be an unethical 'canned hunter' than a member of Crockett's red defencing 'horde' any day.

And I suspect this will be a hard pill for the hunting community and my local RMEF chapter to swallow. We've been so concerned with public perception and fuzzy wuzzy metaphors for so long that we've ultimately forgotten our roots. The truth is: public perception is far less important than remembering those few simple but profound words: that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I'm curious - I wonder what ever lead Mr. Crockett and crew to believe their vision of happiness was the right one?

Ultimately, it is this simple recipe for living that should not only protect people like Mr. Wallace but our treasured hunting heritage as well. Respecting our differences and agreeing to disagree is the American way - beating our ethical opponents into submission with the battered blade of the state is not. In the end if we cannot understand this - if we cannot embrace the simple principle of liberty - then our beloved heritage is already lost.

As for Mr. Wallace, may you and your comrades forgive me and the others who did not know and I hope some day - for your sake and for mine - that you do find your America.

Scott Carpenter is a freelance writer and firearms dealer living in Dawson Creek, British Columbia. His articles and columns have appeared in BC Outdoors, Western Sportsman, Big Buck Magazine, Laissez Faire City Times, Le Quebecois Libre, Ether Zone, Enter Stage Right and the Sierra Times. He can be reached for comment at [email protected].


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

What does the future hold for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation?

As a young boy, born and raised in the hills of west TN, I can remember daydreaming about what my future might be like. Having a love of animals and the outdoors and also having a healthy imagination, I spent countless hours doing just that. I think that the high paid officials with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) are now doing some daydreaming of their own about their future or maybe, in their case, it's more like a nightmare.

The RMEF was once a thriving organization that seemed to have no difficulty in raising hundreds of thousands of dollars through donations and fund raisers for their cause but nowadays it appears that the tide has shifted and they have now lost their momentum.

Has the RMEF fallen on hard times? It seems as though they have. Many of the wild elk herds like Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming and Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado have for decades harbored several different diseases such as Tuberculosis, Brucellosis and even Chronic Wasting Disease. Government Wildlife Agencies have done very little to solve these disease problems and therefore the diseases continue to spread to other areas affecting both wildlife and livestock.

Due to many of the wild herds of elk being diseased and unsafe for restoration projects, the RMEF has suffered a major set-back. Even the captive herds managed by Government Agencies in the U.S. and Canada do not meet disease testing and monitoring regulations for safe importation. These government run game farms like Elk Island National Park (EINP) in Alberta Canada and Land Between the Lakes (LBL) in Kentucky have failed to properly test and monitor their animals for disease and therefore cannot meet the state and federal regulations for interstate movement.

The RMEF, according to RMEF spokesman David Ledford in KY, has placed itself on a self imposed moratorium due to the fear of spreading disease. Since the RMEF has supposedly stopped financing the relocation and transportation of elk, it appears that most people are very reluctant now to make those sizeable donations that the RMEF had grown accustom to. Rather than help finance the high salaries of the top management personnel of the RMEF, many donators have decide that their money would be better spent elsewhere. After all, why would anyone want to donate to an organization that no longer accomplishes the objective that was the driving force of the RMEF and that was to restore elk to areas that they once had inhabited. By RMEF's own admission, they no longer support the relocation or transportation of elk for fear of spreading disease.

During the RMEF's more productive years, when donations exceeded all expectations and their growth seem to be unlimited, this conservation group seem to have lost sight of what was right and wrong and became so powerful that they were able to influenced legislation that robbed land owners of their property rights. The RMEF took a stand against farmers and ranchers and literally put some of these hard working Americans out of business with no regard for the hardships that they placed on these families.

The RMEF took a stand against farmers and ranchers who raise elk in captivity but yet they have no problem accepting elk that have been raised in captivity by government agencies even when those elk do not meet state or federal disease testing and monitoring regulations for safe importation. As you can see, this makes no sense at all.

The RMEF's existence has been dependant on donations but now that there are no elk that meets the state and federal disease testing and monitoring regulations for importation, none that is except the ones raised by farmers and ranchers, the RMEF may have a difficult time trying to survive.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

And this is proof that RMEF supports PETA?

All I see are statements made by RMEF's Dan Crockett reaffirming their stance on game farming.

huntin1


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

huntin1 said:


> Let's see something other than statements from an unknown guest who won't even include his location in his profile.


I can help you with that.



> For more information on our elk and buffalo, call David Autry at 731-845-5671 , Toll Free 1-888-886-5671or e-mail him at [email protected]
> 
> To view these beautiful and magnificent animals, contact the ranch for an appointment and directions. H & A Ranch is located at 411 Redbud Lake Road in Lexington, TN 38351.


http://www.autryfarms.com/


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

from:
http://www.autryfarms.com/[/quote]

"and velvet antler which is used world wide to make medicine."

Medicine? MEDICINE?? PHHHTTTTT.

It's called Whangtoosoft - and I doubt elk velevt helps. Stick to viagra Autry.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

huntin1 said:


> And this is proof that RMEF supports PETA?
> 
> All I see are statements made by RMEF's Dan Crockett reaffirming their stance on game farming.
> 
> huntin1


Ask RMEF

RMEF has already admitted that they spent $50,000.00 to help PETA pass I-143


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

huntin1 said:


> And this is proof that RMEF supports PETA?
> 
> All I see are statements made by RMEF's Dan Crockett reaffirming their stance on game farming.
> 
> huntin1


Huntin1,

Do you belong to PETA?

You seem to have the same agend as PETA!


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

MRN said:


> from:
> http://www.autryfarms.com/


"and velvet antler which is used world wide to make medicine."

Medicine? MEDICINE?? PHHHTTTTT.

[/quote]

It does wonders for arthritis!


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

OK autry, now I know where you are coming from. Nuf said.

Laffin!

huntin1


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Velvet Antler: Science Substantiates New Hope for Arthritis Suffers

by P. S. McNeary

Velvet Antler

For more than 2000 years, a remarkable natural remedy called velvet antler has been prized by healers in various cultures around the world.

In China, Korea, Japan and Russia, velvet antler has reportedly been used to prevent, heal and relieve ailments and injuries. Today, a vast body of research conducted in those countries is now revealing an impressive array of reported abilities of velvet antler to reduce inflammation, influence body metabolism, support immune function, protect damaged tissues and affect blood, liver and kidney function and more. In fact, laboratory analyses now show that velvet contains an amazingly comprehensive nutritional profile including collagen, amino acids, essential fatty acids, minerals, trace minerals, and other functional proteins, all vital components for human metabolic function.

Remarkably, velvet has gone virtually unnoticed by western nutritional supplement marketers until now.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Robert A. Langager said:


> huntin1 said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see something other than statements from an unknown guest who won't even include his location in his profile.
> ...


----------



## faithsdave (Jan 8, 2004)

Doubtful


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

TN Wildlife Resource Agency - Elk Importation

High Risk Elk Restoration Projects by State Wildlife Agencies and the RMEF

In 2000, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) began an elk restoration project for Tennessee similar to what a few other eastern states had done in order to bring elk back to areas that they had once inhabited. Over the next three years, elk were imported in from Land Between the Lakes (LBL) in Kentucky and Elk Island in Alberta, Canada. These elk were imported into Tennessee without meeting the Tennessee Department of Agricultures rules and regulations for importation regarding tuberculosis (TB). State regulations require elk to be obtained from a herd that has had a whole herd TB test or the animals to be imported must have two negative TB tests performed at least 90 days apart before entry into the state. These elk were imported without a whole herd TB test and only one individual TB test.

The elk that were imported from Elk Island and LBL did not meet Tennessee Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) monitoring requirements either, but still they were allowed to be imported. In researching this situation, I learned that the Kentucky State Veterinarian had issued a signed letter stating that he had viewed the herd at LBL and was confident the herd did not have CWD. This is absolutely amazing as no live animal test has been approved and yet this veterinarian can diagnose CWD infected animals by sight alone.

CWD has been diagnosed in at least three wild mule deer about 100 miles from Elk Island, www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fw/diseases/cwd/index.html, and since there is nose to nose contact at the fence line plus animals commonly come and go over the fence, http://www.booneandcrockettclub.com/...2-143E8B3F170C, the Elk Island herd in Alberta, Canada, is unsafe for relocation and restoration. The elk at LBL originated from the Elk Island herd, plus the LBL herd has not been properly monitored for CWD since their relocation to Kentucky. These factors also make the LBL herd unsafe.

When the general public learned of what had transpired and criticized TWRA, officials responded by saying that the elk that they had imported met more rigid requirements than the elk that had been imported by farmers. While there is a little truth to this, it is very misleading because the more rigid requirements that TWRA were referring to was the TWRA imported elk were checked for fleas, ticks and chiggers. Aint that a hoot!

As time went on, CWD became more of a concern for Tennessee and other states so most if not all of the elk restorations projects around the country were stopped due to the fear of possibly spreading CWD to areas that were assumed to be CWD free. This fear of CWD ceased in late 2006 when TWRA and the RMEF learned of the proposed new USDA CWD program which would preempt state rules and regulations and put a stop to these high risk elk restoration projects that do not meet CWD monitoring requirements. If adopted as written, the new USDA CWD rules and regulations would prevent states from simply issuing a waiver to their state wildlife agencies allowing them to import these high-risk elk that do not meet import requirements.

In the fall of 2006, TWRAs fear shifted from the possible spread of CWD to the possible spread of Federal Government rules preventing them from obtaining these cheap elk from places like Elk Island and Land Between the Lakes that cant meet the import regulations in regard to disease issues such as TB and CWD.

TWRA is currently making an aggressive attempt to obtain these cheap unsafe elk before the USDA can finalize their new CWD program that will preempt state rules and regulations. TWRA and a few others that can only see dollar signs have pressured the Tennessee Commissioner of Agriculture into signing a waiver which will allow TWRA and the RMEF to import these high risk elk that do not meet Tennessees rules and regulations. It seems that greed outweighs common sense because since TWRA and the RMEF developed a scheme that will generate somewhere between $200,000 and $400,000 in the sale of four elk bulls during the 2008 Tennessee hunting season, TWRA is willing to bend or break any rule and jeopardize our wild deer herd plus our livestock with the possibility of TB and CWD just to line their coffers with surplus cash.

This situation will not only affect Tennessee, but also could affect any or all of the surrounding states if TB, CWD or other diseases are imported with these elk.

It is time that state wildlife agencies are held accountable for their actions and it is also time for them to have to meet the same rules and regulations that farmers have had to meet for years. If there are any variances in the rules and regulations for these state wildlife agencies, they should be held to more rigid standards and not less rigid standards than the farmers who import the same species. After all, state wildlife agencies will release their imported animals into the wild to roam wherever they please over a large unrestricted area where they will come in contact with other wildlife and livestock. So, the possibility of the spread of disease is much greater from these animals than the ones imported by farmers who keep their animals confined behind a high fence with little or no contact to other animals except those owned by that farmer.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Dr. Luterbach,

As of about noon yesterday, the USDA officials had not approved the request to allow the movement of elk from Elk Island into the U.S. As we both know, these elk do not meet the USDA protocol for importation into the U.S. for several reasons in regard to disease issues and other things. Also they do not meet individual state importations regulations, even though a waiver has been signed and issued from one of the receiving states, Tennessee.

This attempt to import elk, that clearly does not meet the safe import regulations that have been put into place by the authorities to ensure the safe interstate movement of healthy animals and to reduce the possibility of spreading diseases such as TB and CWD, has gotten the attention of several thousand concerned individuals plus the attention of the U.S. Cervid Industry because of the negative publicity developed since this risky importation attempt has been made public.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider your position on exporting these elk that are under your charge, due to their not meeting all of the required regulations. We are seeking an injunction to prevent these elk from being imported and we would hope that you would stop this exportation attempt from Canada and not put these elk through the stress of being handled, loaded and hauled away from your facility only to have the animals rejected before they reach their destination due to the injunction and then have to be put down or hauled back to your high fenced enclosure. For the safety and welfare of these elk, we would hope that you would withdraw from this importation attempt.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Elk Reintroduction in Trouble  USDA hasnt approved importation

by Richard Simms

Posted February 8, 2007

The plan to reintroduce additional Rocky Mountain Elk into Tennessee could be on the endangered list, at least for this year.

"Were hearing noises that the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture may not approve the importation permit," according to Ron Fox, Asst. Director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, "We dont have a denial, but we dont have an approval either."

TWRA had expected to import an additional 140 or 150 elk from Elk Island Park in Canada. "The folks at Elk Island are ready to send them our way," said Fox. "The animals have all been worked up. Theyve been given shots and check-ups. Were still making plans and if we get approval well load up and get them quickly."

However there has been concerted opposition to the additional reintroduction, mostly from businesses that raise and sell exotic wild animals, including elk. Their primary concern is that introduced animals might bring in Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD).

There are about 250 elk from past reintroductions already in and around the Royal Blue Wildlife Management Area northwest of Knoxville. TWRA has made tentative plans to hold the first quota hunt in that area in 2008. The initial idea is to draw for a total of five permits for bull elk.

Fox says if they arent allowed to import additional elk this year it would be a setback, however the hunt could still go on. He says calculations by wildlife biologists show that harvesting five bulls would not hurt the herd.

"Wed just feel a lot better if we could give that population a shot in the arm," said Fox. "Of course we expect to get an additional 40 elk from the Land Between the Lakes herd regardless of what happens with the Elk Island animals."

He says a definite answer on the importation permit from the USDA might come soon.

"I think well have a clear answer by Monday, Maybe tomorrow (Friday)."

The Tennessee Wildlife Federation has been working hard to help TWRA bring in additional elk. Executive Director Mike Butler said "You know people told us in the late 1990s that elk would never make it back to the wild in Tennessee. In fact, the first efforts to bring elk to Land Between the Lakes were a grand failure. That failure reinforced a lesson I learned playing football -- never quit. Perseverance and patience were what made the elk project happen in the first place and it will be what will allow this last leg to be successful, no matter how long it may take there will be more elk released into the wild of Tennessee."


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

From USDA

This is in response to your emails. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has carefully evaluated Tennessees request to import a herd of elk from Canadas Elk Island. The situation was complex and required careful scrutiny by our staff, as well as discussion with animal health officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Our regulations state that certain criteria must be met before animals can be imported, and by mutual agreement with the CFIA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has requirements for the importation of cervids from Canada. In this case, CFIA could not certify that the herd of origin is tuberculosis negative, according to the provisions of the CFIA captive ungulate program. In addition, the elk did not meet requirements for continuous records of animal identification from time of birth until export. Therefore, at this time, APHIS cannot approve the importation of these animals.

APHIS has the responsibility to protect the heath of our nations agriculture and natural resources. We appreciate your understanding as we examined this situation.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Thank You to USDA

To all USDA personnel involved with the Elk Island importation request from TWRA, thank you for denying TWRAs request for the importation of elk that clearly do not meet the USDA protocol.

The U.S. cervid industry approves of your decision and appreciates the fact that a state wildlife agency was held to the same regulations that the U.S. cervid industry has been held to.

The U.S. cervid industry is aware of TWRAs appeal of your denial on their importation request and we hope that the USDA does not waver on your previous decision.

TWRAs appeal refers to the amount of time and money that TWRA has invested in this project in hopes that it will influence your decision but while TWRAs investment may be significant, it does not justify putting Tennessees livestock and wildlife at risk for disease. It would be like comparing a grain of sand to the whole state of Tennessee. TWRAs investment on these unsafe elk is insignificant when compared to the health risk of Tennessees livestock and wildlife by allowing animals to be imported that do not meet regulations.

TWRAs appeal tries to imply that while these elk at Elk Island do not meet the USDA protocol that this state wildlife agency, TWRA, should be given special treatment. The U.S. cervid industry would be against any special treatment for this state wildlife agency and we feel there is no reason for unfair double standards. Our position on this issue is: Either these Elk Island elk come into compliance and meet ALL of the USDA protocol or THE USDA SHOULD NOT ALLOW THESE UNSAFE ELK TO BE IMPORTED INTO THE U.S.

While the USDA only addressed two areas that the Elk Island herd did not meet the USDA protocol, there are actually a few other areas where the U.S. cervid industry feels this herd does not qualify for importation into the U.S.

1. This is a wild herd and wild animals are not eligible for import under this protocol.

2. While this may be a captive herd, it is not a captive farmed herd.

3. Animals from a herd where TB or Brucellosis has EVER been diagnosed are not eligible for import under this protocol.

Please refer to my previous emails, listed below, for the details on these three areas of disqualification!

The U.S. cervid industry supports the ideal of having one set of regulations that are for all to follow and we hope that the USDA will hold firm on your previous decision and not allow unsafe risky animals to be imported into the U.S. that do not meet ALL areas of the USDA protocol.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

State Wont Receive Elk This Year

by Bob Hodge

[email protected]

February 25, 2007

There will be no new elk on Royal Blue or Sundquist wildlife management areas this year. USDA has denied Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agencys appeal of an earlier decision barring elk from Elk Island National Park in Canada from coming to Tennessee.

A thumbs down to the appeal was expected by TWRA. Elk Island, located in Alberta, had 140 elk ready for transport to Tennessee, but will release them back into the wild.

"We will get more elk, just not this year," said Greg Wathen, chief of wildlife for TWRA. "We still believe Elk Island is the safest place for us to get elk."

TWRA has also nixed plans to get about 30 elk from Land Between the Lakes in Kentucky. The technicality USDA cited that would stop elk coming in from Elk Island would likely be used to stop those from LBL as well.

Since 1937 Elk Island has provided over 2,700 elk for restoration projects around the world. Wathen said the elk that were supposed to come to Tennessee had all tested negative for brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis and 50 of them had been outfitted with radio tracking collars.

"We feel like Elk Island has the safest wild herd in North America," Wathen said. "The USDA rules are for captive elk and they really dont fit wild animals very well."

Wathen said TWRA will be out the approximately $100,000 already spent on the relocation project.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

The RMEF certainly does not believe in fair chase as they have proved over and over again by trapping captive raised elk that were raised behind high fence in places like EINP and LBL. Those elk certainly had no chance of escape especially when they used helicopters, four wheel drive vehicles and bait.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

This thread is about the high fence issue and since the RMEF is very much a part of the high fence issue because they have in the past relied on captive raised elk, raised behind high fence, for their source of elk to be relocated, it was only fitting to bring the RMEF into the discussion.

It is hard to bring up the RMEF without mention of PETA since they both seem to have the same agenda and have worked hand in hand to help promote the passage of laws that steal the private property rights from hard working American Ranchers much the same as a few misinformed individuals are now trying to do in ND. You few are playing right into the hands of PETA with their divide and conquer plan and you don't even realize what you are doing to the hunting heritage.

It is misinformed, selfish people like yourselves that is causing a decline in the hunter numbers.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Autry said:


> This thread is about the high fence issue and since the RMEF is very much a part of the high fence issue because they have in the past relied on captive raised elk, raised behind high fence, for their source of elk to be relocated, it was only fitting to bring the RMEF into the discussion.
> 
> It is hard to bring up the RMEF without mention of PETA since they both seem to have the same agenda and have worked hand in hand to help promote the passage of laws that steal the private property rights from hard working American Ranchers much the same as a few misinformed individuals are now trying to do in ND. You few are playing right into the hands of PETA with their divide and conquer plan and *you don't even realize what you are doing to the hunting heritage.
> 
> It is misinformed, selfish people like yourselves that is causing a decline in the hunter numbers*.


Mr. Autry, people like you are the ones who are destroying our hunting heritage. People like you who own and operate game farms and high fenced game killing areas. (I won't call them hunting operations because I don't believe that it comes anywhere close to hunting.) Our hunting heritage was formed around WILD free ranging animals and time spent pursuing them, not driving to a "ranch", picking the animal you want and shooting it.

It is not the RMEF and sportsmen who want to hunt WILD animals that are destroying our hunting heritage. It is people like you who are willing to sell game animals to the highest bidder. And it is people like you who are responsible for declining numbers of hunters. It is people like you who are going to be responsible for turning the hunting situation here, into what it is in Europe, where only the rich can afford to hunt.

But then, that is exactly what you want, isn't it? The more money you make, the happier you are. :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

huntin1,

It's people like you who help PETA succeed.

You and your few followers have the same agenda as PETA and you are willing to stoop to any level to steal the private property rights of hard working American Ranchers just to force your narrow minded ideas on everyone who is willing to give in to your overbearing demands but the people of ND are smart enough to see through your corruption and will not stand for a dictator to tell them they must give up their private property rights just to satisfy you and the few who have been brainwashed into following you.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Actually Autry it is people like you who help PETA succeed.

There are many fence sitters out there who are undecided about hunting, many who think that hunting is OK, they just don't take part. These people are extremely turned off by high fenced shoots and game farming however.

I do speak from experience, my wife is one of them. She does not hunt, even though she comes from a family of hunters, is married to a hunter, and does not care that I choose to hunt. She is however, decidedly against those of you who operate game farms and sell high fenced "hunts" to the highest bidder.

It is people like you who in their greed alienate many fence sitting non-hunters and turn them towards PETA in an effort to shut you down.

Some of the comments that you have directed towards me are bordering on insults, but take your best shot, I am certain that I've been insulted by better men than you.

Your argument is laughable. You pull PETA into this, and call me narrow-minded, overbearing and corrupt all in a pitifull attempt to make people see things your way.

huntin1


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> do speak from experience, my wife is one of them. She does not hunt, even though she comes from a family of hunters, is married to a hunter, and does not care that I choose to hunt. She is however, decidedly against those of you who operate game farms and sell high fenced "hunts" to the highest bidder.


Huntin 1, You are exactly right, your wife is among many who feel that way. However the problem you are going to run into is that many people in this state are not going to stand by and let a few put an industry out of business. The majority of the people I have talked to feel this way. They would never go to a game farm and shoot an Elk or Deer. However they are not going to tell someone else they cannot.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

huntin1 your wife is probable decidedly against game farms because of you and what you have expressed in her presence. My wife being neither a hunter or shooter who also doesn't like to be around guns is decidedly against trophy game hunting because I don't like killing any animal just for the head or cape for a trophy and have expressed that to her. Whether or not she cares if I hunt or shoot doesn't matter because she knows I would do it anyway. 
I just don't buy this theory that there are all these fence sitters out there. They are simply against hunting or they are for it. Those that don't have a opinion one way or the other most likely never give it any thought as their lives never come in contact with hunting one way or the other unless it comes up in a Disney movie or in a ballot box and I suspect they check anything against hunting good or bad. My wife does love to fish though.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

cwoparson said:


> huntin1 your wife is probable decidedly against game farms because of you and what you have expressed in her presence.


Actually, no. When the discussion came up I had not yet expressed any opinion. In fact, when I gave her my opinion she said that she had assumed that since I liked to hunt so much, that I would be in favor of game farms and fenced shooting areas.

g/o,

You may be right, but I will still vote to do away with high fenced shooting areas and game farms.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> steal the private property rights


Just to keep things realistic does anyone have the information on this. I was looking in William F. Sigler's book Wildlife Law Enforcement, but I can't find much. He did state that ownership of wildlife is a privilege and not a right. Also, I have been told the easy way to tell if something is a right or a privilege is if you need a license or a permit. You don't need a license for free speech, or freedom of religion etc, but you do need a license for driving a vehicle. Privileges can be removed at anytime, with or without compensation. 
As I understand it even with a hunting license and a tagged animal you do not have exclusive rights. You are held to the guidelines as described by the state in transportation, storage, etc.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

In some states you must have a permit issued by the state to purchase a gun despite it being a constitutional right.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Huntin1,

Maybe we should push for an initiative to allow all of the residents in the U.S. to vote on whether or not to allow hunting period and just forget the fence. If that happens, you may not be to happy with the results.

Think about this, is an animal any less dead regardless of which side of the fence he was on?

Why do you demand to force everyone into the same mold?

You are still pushing the same agenda as PETA and I suspect that the few you have following you are more interesting in promoting PETA than they are in promoting hunting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson said:


> In some states you must have a permit issued by the state to purchase a gun despite it being a constitutional right.


That isn't right in my opinion. I hope they are not able to deny the permit? Sorry, I am getting off subject. Sorry, lets forget this distraction. 
If anyone has knowledge of the rights issue I would still be interested.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Autry said:


> State Wont Receive Elk This Year
> 
> by Bob Hodge
> 
> ...


This is the only thing in the latest set of goofiness in this thread that makes any sense. The Elk Island they refer to is Elk Island National Park - one of the oldest in Canada. It is very well managed and fenced to the Nth degree. These be fresh, clean, wild elk, whereas yours be smelly dirty contaminated sick farm elk. If the RMEF was getting these, they be doing really good for everyone involved.

M.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

MRN,

Fortunatlely for all of us it is not you who is making decisions regarding disease risk and whether of not animals should be transported accross country lines much less state lines.

You have no clue what determines disease risk. The issue with EINP is not TB or Bangs it is CWD. YOu are typical of someone who would accept the movement of elk from an enclosed herd that does not have sufficient testing to establish the disease risk to qualify for movement. Yet you would have a fit about a shipment of elk that came from a state where a positive case was found several years prior. Of course the reason the state FOUND a positive case is because the elk were being tested. You see anyone can say a herd is "fresh, clean, wild", but it is only testing that can establish the FACT they are clean.

I maintain when it comes to disease issues you have no clue what you are talking about.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Autry these people may be wrong or misguided in their view of pushing the high fence measure with the excuse they are using and their actions may give PETA ammunition to play with, but that doesn't mean they are promoting PETA.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't want to get into debate, but let me point out something I think people are missing. When condemning RMEF for using high fence elk lets not forget they were using these elk for the noblest or reasons, the restoration of a species into habitat they had been eradicated from, not killing them. This measure would still allow this type of activity and more.

I just thought that this should be put into the proper perspective. Without proper perspective this debate will just keep going in circles. Hopefully everyone wants to get to the correct answer, and I hope this helps.

Coparson, thank you for the left handed complement. It's kind of like saying "for a fat lady you don't sweat much".  It doesn't sound great, but it is a complement of sorts. It also indicates you are a person who is putting thought into this and trying to understand other people. No matter which side of the "high fence" you fall on I appreciate that.

For everyone's information when I called the RMEF the other day Dan Crockett was not in, but my call was returned by Mark Amrstrong. They do not support high fence hunting. Their current emphasis is habitat improvement. That is the two points I got from our conversation, other than they are not infiltrated with PETA. In the case of PETA I guess it would just fall in line with the old cliché "even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn". Something like that anyway.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Plainsman,

INTERESTING perspective. I know you don't want back into the debate but must clarify your statement.

So if a game farm brought CWD into ND while persueing his LEGAL occupation as a game rancher, that would be horrible. But if RMEF brought CWD into Tenn. from Canada, you would excuse it because they "did it for the noblest of reasons"?

Here is the essence of the RMEF/PETA debate. RMEF is the enemy of Game farmers. PETA is the enemy of game farms and hunters. When the two gang up as they did in Mont. it would the same if the US said to Iran lets ally and go against Russia. We will both benefit from their defeat. BUT you would have to always be looking over your shoulder on the battle field because your arch enemy Iran is probably looking for an oportunity to shoot you in the back. Would the US be considered supporting Iran, well in a way yes. But one wrong move and you are pushing up daisies.

Side bar: I have gone to numerous RMEF banquets. I would say 99% of the people attending have no clue what the agenda of the leadership is. They also have no clue that some of their money may go to sponsors efforts to take away the rights of property owners. At one banquet I mentioned this fact to several of my neighbors and everyone said if that is the case I am going to get my membership $$ back. I also attended a banquet last fall where a local game rancher was allowed to have a large display of mounts and antlers from his ranch. Point is the membership of RMEF is not necessarily on the same page as the leadership. Problem is, as with many organizations, the membership is not informed about all the activities the org. is up to.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

4590 said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> INTERESTING perspective. I know you don't want back into the debate but must clarify your statement.
> 
> ...


4590,

Let me get this right...You go on record stating we are supporting PETA indirectly through RMEF and RMEF is a enemy of game farmers...and YET you've attended/supported their banquets. Or did you just go to tell all the others about the poor operation of RMEF?

From the outside it looks like you supported RMEF...therefore...you must be a PETA supporter as well. (At least that is using your mindset of connecting the dots.) So are you the US or Iran in this situation. Those RMEF tickets can't be cheap!

I hope you're also chastizing your friends/fellow elk owners for supporting PETA as you and your "buddies" are doing to people on here for citing RMEF!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But if RMEF brought CWD into Tenn. from Canada, you would excuse it because they "did it for the noblest of reasons"?


Absolutely not, I would hold their feet to the fire. However, I think that is why they stopped their reintroduction. I commend them for that. Good intentions does not supercede common sense. I expect them to act responsibly just like you do. 
I will not address any of your other issues, only that the captive elk were used for release not pen shooting, and they have stopped because of their concern for CWD. 
My only intention was to point out the difference in how the elk were used, release, vs killing in the pen. I'm not going to go any further than point out that difference. I will not get into a non productive argument.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

MRN said:


> Autry said:
> 
> 
> > State Wont Receive Elk This Year
> ...


MRN,

What a joke!

If I were you, I would remove the above statement before anyone else has a good laugh.

Here are the facts about the elk at EINP:

The EINP herd has a history of TB and Brucellosis!

CWD has been diagnosed about 100 miles from this herd in wild deer!

These are not wild elk, the CFIA identifies this herd as a captive herd!

This herd does not qualify for movement within Canada!

This herd does not qualify for importation into the U.S. for at least four different reasons, all disease related.

When the USDA stopped these elk from being imported a few months ago, these elk were released because no one nowhere wanted to risk taking these risky and unsafe elk.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

cwoparson said:


> Autry these people may be wrong or misguided in their view of pushing the high fence measure with the excuse they are using and their actions may give PETA ammunition to play with, but that doesn't mean they are promoting PETA.


At least two of the thirty are PETA supporters.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I don't want to get into debate, but let me point out something I think people are missing. When condemning RMEF for using high fence elk lets not forget they were using these elk for the noblest or reasons, the restoration of a species into habitat they had been eradicated from, not killing them. This measure would still allow this type of activity and more.
> 
> I just thought that this should be put into the proper perspective. Without proper perspective this debate will just keep going in circles. Hopefully everyone wants to get to the correct answer, and I hope this helps.
> 
> ...


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I don't want to get into debate, but let me point out something I think people are missing. When condemning RMEF for using high fence elk lets not forget they were using these elk for the noblest or reasons, the restoration of a species into habitat they had been eradicated from, not killing them. This measure would still allow this type of activity and more.
> 
> I just thought that this should be put into the proper perspective. Without proper perspective this debate will just keep going in circles. Hopefully everyone wants to get to the correct answer, and I hope this helps.
> 
> For everyone's information when I called the RMEF the other day Dan Crockett was not in, but my call was returned by Mark Amrstrong. They do not support high fence hunting. Their current emphasis is habitat improvement. That is the two points I got from our conversation, other than they are not infiltrated with PETA. In the case of PETA I guess it would just fall in line with the old cliché "even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn". Something like that anyway.


Noblest of causes?

The RMEF was helping the TWRA elk restoration project for a get rich quick scheme for both the RMEF and TWRA. This restoration project was started to generate revenue. These two groups had devised a scheme whereby both groups would benefit greatly by elk hunts being raffled off and by their own estimates, each elk hunt raffled off would generate $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 per elk. This project had nothing to do about restoring the species, it was a money making deal and they were willing to jeopardize the health of TN's wildlife and livestock with unsafe and risky elk just to line their pockets.

Also, many of the EINP elk were in fact killed! They started out trapping 250 to 300 elk and by the time they were done, only 140 some odd elk had survived the rough treatment of these so called wildlife experts.

Proper perspective?

No one is going to get the proper perspective from the information that you are posting!

RMEF no longer supports high fencing?

The RMEF no longer supports high fencing because they have been infiltrated by PETA! The RMEF is attracted to PETA's money and has lost interest in restocking elk, since there are no elk for the RMEF to restock that meets safe import regulations in regard to disease issues except those raised in the private sector by farmers and ranchers. The management personnel at the RMEF should stop looking for handouts and get a real job.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> > But if RMEF brought CWD into Tenn. from Canada, you would excuse it because they "did it for the noblest of reasons"?
> 
> 
> Absolutely not, I would hold their feet to the fire. However, I think that is why they stopped their reintroduction. I commend them for that. Good intentions does not supercede common sense. I expect them to act responsibly just like you do.
> ...


With a high percentage of the elk killed in trapping and moving the EINP elk and with a high percentage of the EINP elk dieing in transit from stress and injuries, and with many of the EINP elk slated for slaughter through raffled hunts once they were to be released, how exactly is this better than the elk that are humanely shot at a high fenced enclosure where the animal has been born and raised and properly cared for until harvest?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Autry said:


> Proper perspective?
> 
> No one is going to get the proper perspective from the information that you are posting!


And we're going to get it with the self-serving lies and innuendo that you have been posting? :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

4590 said:


> MRN,
> 
> Fortunatlely for all of us it is not you who is making decisions regarding disease risk and whether of not animals should be transported accross country lines much less state lines.
> 
> ...


The truly sad part is that the prevention of CWD in ND involves folks who would put animals in a pen or enclosure for other goofballs to shoot for a fake hunting tale. That is what truly scares folks.

just the Facts:
- only elk in Alberta with CWD = a farmed elk.
- only deer in central Alberta with CWD = farmed deer.
- wild deer with CWD = next to Sask Border.
- Sask CWD problem = started with farmed elk imported from USA
- Elk Island National Park = clean, wild elk
- your elk = farmed elk in USA.

All of Alberta/Sask's problems with CWD come from the Farmed Elk/Deer in the US.

The fact: You don't know that any of your Elk may have CWD or not. You MAY only find that out when the animal is killed, and someone does the test properly.

Just the facts.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> From the outside it looks like you supported RMEF...therefore...you must be a PETA supporter as well. (At least that is using your mindset of connecting the dots.) So are you the US or Iran in this situation. Those RMEF tickets can't be cheap!


Well you're not connecting dots in that statement. You're adding your own dots to make a different statement. Why do some of you feel the need to make this stuff up and try to slander someone with cheap shots instead of just addressing the context of the statement. Ethics is not just connected with hunting you know.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

cwoparson said:


> > From the outside it looks like you supported RMEF...therefore...you must be a PETA supporter as well. (At least that is using your mindset of connecting the dots.) So are you the US or Iran in this situation. Those RMEF tickets can't be cheap!
> 
> 
> Well you're not connecting dots in that statement. You're adding your own dots to make a different statement. Why do some of you feel the need to make this stuff up and try to slander someone with cheap shots instead of just addressing the context of the statement. Ethics is not just connected with hunting you know.


How is that making anything up? He said he attended the banquets...therefore that translating into giving $$$/i.e.supported RMEF. He claimed RMEF is in bed with PETA. He also said we (opposers of high fenced shoots) supported PETA because of support/citing RMEF. If you can't see the correlation, wel... :roll:

Here's the reality...supporters that wish to ban these unethical hunts have no financial gain...i.e. alterior motives. Many of the recently joined elk farmers have thousands of dollars to lose and understandably to a degree, it's blinding them. Many mask this argument with statements that it will ruin hunting in America. The reality is many of the newly joined "guests" stand to make a lot of money from high fenced hunts. And, you stand to lose a lot if the measure passes. Geez...I'm sure you can be very objective.

As far as taking cheap shots, give me a break! Reread the posts and look at the facts. Good job only cutting and pasting. You may want to include the first part of my post!

cwoparson,

Are you in anyway affiliated with a high fenced operation? Just curious to know your background.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> If you can't see the correlation


No, because there is none. You know as well as I do that PETA wants to stop all hunting so you know also as well as I do that PETA is happy to see this petition to ban high fence hunting. Does that mean you support PETA? Certainly not and I feel certain 4590 doesn't either so why try to paint that picture.



> Are you in anyway affiliated with a high fenced operation? Just curious to know your background.


Curious in what way? I think I already know the answer to that. Not that it is any of your business but no, I am not affiliated in any way with a high fence operation. I have never been to one and have no plans to do so. How someone chooses to legally spend their money and time to hunt is none of my business and certainly is none of your's.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

cwoparson said:


> > If you can't see the correlation
> 
> 
> No, because there is none. You know as well as I do that PETA wants to stop all hunting so you know also as well as I do that PETA is happy to see this petition to ban high fence hunting. Does that mean you support PETA? Certainly not and I feel certain 4590 doesn't either so why try to paint that picture.
> ...


CWO....

This is the last time I'm going to try to explain this to you. Go back and read my original post. You'll see that I quoted 4590. In his post, he stated the RMEF/PETA "were in bed together" in the cited Montana case. He further used the analogy of US/Iran vs. Russia in a war. If you are unable to follow...he's inferring the RMEF and PETA (directly or indirectly) teamed together in the Montana case and the "alleged" effort will only hurt in the long run. Still with me??? It's an inference (along with previous posts) that RMEF is a bad org. because of said "alleged" relations with PETA.

My observation was that it's IRONIC for one to bad mouth RMEF for involvement with PETA in one paragraph and then claim he attended RMEF banquets in the next. NOW...stick with me here...still following?...

You should have caught my point in my first post that it's absurd for those of your side to say how bad the RMEF is for the cause and how we don't truly know the intentions of the org, etc. only to have one of their own (4590) attending RMEF-sanctioned banquets? Attending banquets = supporting RMEF financially....THEREFORE UNDER HIS ORGININAL THEORY HE TOO IS SUPPORTING PETA. Do you see now???

Yes, I doubt he supports PETA, but that's what he other posts infer about supporters of this measure...."They're with PETA because of citing RMEF" The reality is neither side is with PETA!

I'm done with you...I don't want to take away from progressive discussion. If you have issues send me a pm.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> My observation was that it's IRONIC for one to bad mouth RMEF for involvement with PETA in one paragraph and then claim he attended RMEF banquets in the next. NOW...stick with me here...still following?...


Actually I didn't need to read any more than this because you assumed he attended banquets after he knew involvements with PETA. But you don't know that to be the case though do you. Yes you assumed it because that is what you wanted to assume. Either way it doesn't matter because it doesn't prove he is a supporter of PETA any more than you or I. You're supporting this petition and though I haven't ask them I'm confident PETA supports it also. So by your reasoning I guess I must assume that you support PETA and that would also mean I have to find your stance ironic. Now isn't that ridiculous? Thank you for making your last post as the last time you would attempt to explain your muddy assumptions and are done with me. I feel so relieved. If you want to send a PM to me then be my guest but anything put to me in public will be responded to in public. Good night.


----------



## bowhunter04 (Nov 7, 2003)

Autry,
I'm curious, which two of thirty are PETA supporters? Could you post their names and your reference for this information?

Thanks


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I think Autry is getting dizzy from all the spinning he is doing on this topic.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

So if PETA decided to get involved with a habitat restoration project and one of the various hunting organizations decided to get involved in the same project that means they are in bed together? Thats quite an assumption. I'm not a member of PETA and never will be but I also recognize that dispite my dislike for their stance on hunting they also do SOME good things that every person with a trace of humanity would support. If they want to do something that is of mutual benefit so be it. It wouldn't be the first or last time enemys worked together on a common project. Admittedly the project in question, but not necessarily the cooperative effort was wrong for all the reasons submitted.

I oppose high fence hunting. I believe it degrades the public image of the hunt. It provides a artificial and false sense of achievement. I raises the cost of hunting for ALL hunters. It reduces the value of game to a commodity and puts an artificial monetary value on it. finally it provides increased risk of health hazards to the captive animals, wild animals in close proximity and in some cases humans.

The biggest reason you hear for high fence hunting is that it provides opportunity for those that don't have the time or ability. That may be true but there are just as many of us that don't hunt game farms that also don't have the time or ability either but we manage to hunt anyway because we choose our priorities and make our sacrifices. If some rich wall street broker feels it's more important to make money that take ten days off to hunt wild elk that is his choice. He is not alone or unique. The rest of us all have to make a similar choice.

Don't get me wrong I understand the draw for ranchers to partake in this type of a business and can understand their fight to keep it. Just like the lawyer right to chase ambulances. It's legal but that doesn't make it right.


----------



## Raghorn (Aug 30, 2007)

> If some rich wall street broker feels it's more important to make money that take ten days off to hunt wild elk that is his choice. He is not alone or unique. The rest of us all have to make a similar choice.
> 
> Don't get me wrong I understand the draw for ranchers to partake in this type of a business and can understand their fight to keep it. Just like the lawyer right to chase ambulances. It's legal but that doesn't make it right.


Right on! If ya don't like it DON'T DO IT! I don't use tobacco but I don't want it outlawed because evidently some folks enjoy it! :sniper:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Got behind in this this thread in two places.

Show me where PETA was involved in I-43? Did I miss some proof somewhere in all these posts of that accusation, other than a canned shooters golden word?

And I was wondering if Raghorn, who is prohibited from selling canned shoots in Montana because of the successfull initiated measure there, now sells into North Dakota? Must be the closest market, Montana is out, Wyoming is out, Utah is out, maybe Idaho?

Anyway I'll wait patiently for the answer about PETA.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

MRN said:


> 4590 said:
> 
> 
> > MRN,
> ...


Wild cervids with CWD in Alberta Canada by far out number captive cervids with CWD!

Captive cervids are allowed to be shipped across state lines because they have been monitored for CWD for five years or longer with no CWD positives and yet because of the severe disease problem in wild free roaming cervids, they can not be shipped anywhere!

The real disease threat is from wild free roaming cervids!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Autry said:


> Wild cervids with CWD in Alberta Canada by far out number captive cervids with CWD!
> 
> Captive cervids are allowed to be shipped across state lines because they have been monitored for CWD for five years or longer with no CWD positives and yet because of the severe disease problem in wild free roaming cervids, they can not be shipped anywhere!
> 
> The real disease threat is from wild free roaming cervids!


Nice... cherry picking certain comments to attempt to prove some kind of twisted logic...

while refusing to address other questions posed recently in this thread...

Still dizzy from all the spinning?

Ryan


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Autry, your arguement is not truthfull. 


> The real disease threat is from wild free roaming cervids!


Connect the dots. The wild infections almost always appear next to an infected game farm. There are only a few that do not, and those probably came from animals purchased and moved, since there a zero instance in the rest of the continent. USGS CWD map, 2006:


----------



## Raghorn (Aug 30, 2007)

I guess I just don't buy into this whole cwd hype bs. They haven't found it here in the wild herds and WY has tons of it and have never had game farms so like you say Dick... "connect the dots". Hysteria is the worst enemy we sportsmen have and you guys are spreading it like wildfire (or trying to) just like they did here in MT. I am fully aware as to where and HOW cwd started and it wasn't on a game farm, it was in a research facility in CO! My uncle was with the CoF&W atthat time and he had his theory as to WHY it was started.

And by the way Dick, you must have me confused with someone else because I don't have any animals to sell to ND or anywhere. This is the kind of misinformation that I am talking about!

When you guys get this thing out to the media and start with your campaign, I can just imagine the ammo you will provide the anti's.

As T.J. Smith, owner of Superior Archery in Billings said to the Gazette about the "choose your weapon" measure here last year; "It all boils down to ethics, and that's something you can't regulate, I hate to see hunters against hunters. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) loves this kind of stuff." _Published on Wednesday, October 18, 2006_

That's MY *****! As far as peta supporting the RMEF on the initiative here, I wouldn't doubt that for a minute and I was a founding member of RMEF but no longer! I think the USHumane Society is far mor dangerous in this however. If you need a support group, I KNOW they will kick in with you!

Happy hunting, for however long we still get to... :sniper:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I hate to see hunters against hunters.


I wholeheartedly agree, but this is hunters against shooters of penned animals. In a direct comparison I don't like it when hunters are blamed for shot up road signs. It isn't hunters it's vandals with guns. Likewise we hunters are not against real hunters of any kind.
Also, the topic title should be changed. I spoke with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation office in Montana, and they do not support high fence hunting.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

R y a n said:


> Autry said:
> 
> 
> > Wild cervids with CWD in Alberta Canada by far out number captive cervids with CWD!
> ...


*I just posted the facts!*


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Autry said he had the connection with PETA involvement, it keeps getting repeated by so many in your camp, so lay out the proof. Where is the proof?

Nor did I tell you that CWD orininated in private game ranches, only that they have been DOCUMENTED to spread it across all of North America. With their high standard of ethics and regulation. (which law enforcement calls smuggleing and poaching) again documented.

While you and I may argue insignifigantly as lay people, it has to open the eyes of the public when natural resource managers come down so hard on this industry. There is no question that scientists object strongly to this practice. And that position is peer reviewed, not for private gain, but public benefit.


----------



## Rod (Feb 20, 2003)

This thread has sidetracked into a number of semi-related but different issues so let us get back to the heading on the original posting. *The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation does not support high fence hunting*. No amount of spin, farfetched analogies or misplaced supposition changes this fact. Our mission is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat. We envision a future where elk roam in wild places across our continent, challenging and inspiring generations of hunters and other conservationists to preserve that legacy and pass it on to those who follow.

Rod Gilmore
North Dakota Regional Director
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
[email protected]


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Dick Monson said:


> Autry, your arguement is not truthfull.
> 
> 
> > The real disease threat is from wild free roaming cervids!
> ...


*
I have connected the dots and they all lead back to the reckless actions of a state wildlife agency, the one in Colorado. This state wildlife agency spread CWD to zoos, game farmers and even to wild areas that previously had no CWD. All CWD found in privately owned captive herds that can be traced back to a source, traces back to the state wildlife agency in Colorado!*


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> Also, the topic title should be changed. I spoke with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation office in Montana, and they do not support high fence hunting.


************************************************
The RMEF supported High Fencing when it suited their needs with pen raised elk from EINP and LBL for their restoration projects but now that they have been infiltrated by PETA, they no longer restock elk anywhere and therefore have no need for high fence operations!


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Rod said:


> This thread has sidetracked into a number of semi-related but different issues so let us get back to the heading on the original posting. *The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation does not support high fence hunting*. No amount of spin, farfetched analogies or misplaced supposition changes this fact. Our mission is to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat. We envision a future where elk roam in wild places across our continent, challenging and inspiring generations of hunters and other conservationists to preserve that legacy and pass it on to those who follow.
> Rod Gilmore
> North Dakota Regional Director
> Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
> [email protected]


If we are to believe that there is any truth to what you have posted, why has the RMEF not restock any elk in years?

The answer is that PETA has taken control of the RMEF and does not want elk harassed and trapped only to have then relocated to another area where some hunter will only shoot them and hang them on their wall!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Autry said:


> The answer is that ..... and RMEF and does not want elk harassed and trapped only to have then relocated to another area where some hunter will only shoot them and hang them on their wall!


Doesn't that sound like a goal of a high fence shooting operation?

Ironic... :eyeroll:

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> Also, the topic title should be changed. I spoke with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation office in Montana, and they do not support high fence hunting.


I've changed it.

Ryan


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Dick Monson said:


> Anyway I'll wait patiently for the answer about PETA.


Don't hold your breath Dick. I asked for proof way back. Never did see any evidence, just alot of spin and assumptions. :eyeroll:

But then that's a classic tactic, if you don't have proof just dance around the question.

huntin1


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

More bad news for RMEF

************************

Layoffs made at Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

MISSOULA, Mont. (AP) -- The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has laid off 15 employees and says it will not fill eight other vacant positions.

It's the third time since 2001 that the conservation organization has laid off part of its Missoula work force. The first time, 33 jobs were affected; the second time, four.

The latest cutbacks were part of a realignment and will help the foundation "balance our mission with the reality of the marketplace," interim President and CEO Walker S. "Buddy" Smith Jr. told the Missoulian newspaper in a story Friday.

The foundation seeks to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat, its Web site says.

Smith said that much of the federal funding for foundation projects has dried up in the past three to four years.

"The money just hasn't been coming in," he said. "This is an effort to get ahead of the curve, and make sure we can fulfill our mission. Our obligation to our members and volunteers is to invest every nickel we can on the ground."

Between the layoffs late last week and vacancies that weren't filled, Smith said, virtually every department at the foundation was affected. One of the 15 people laid off was rehired in a different job, in field operations, he added.

After the layoffs, Smith said, the elk foundation will have 121 full-time-equivalent positions nationwide. The bulk of them work at the $14 million international headquarters in Missoula into which the foundation moved in November 2005.

"The cuts are painful, granted," Smith said. "It hurts when it affects the lives of families. But it brings us to a point where we can live within our means, and put money on the ground for our mission."

Smith said two employees were laid off last Thursday, and the rest of the cuts were announced last Friday.

"As a whole, everyone took the high road," Smith said. "These are dedicated, professional people who understand we need to do the best we can with the money we have."

Those laid off were given a severance package, Smith said, the value of which was determined by their position and length of service.


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

I notice that, all the way through this thread, you appear to be meticulous about NOT using the term "High fence HUNTING". You alway refer to it as "high fence operations" or somesuch.

Given the stated position of the REMF is against high fence hunts, I have inferred that what you object to is NOT hunting, but possibly something else; perhaps using stock from a game farming operation to re-introduce elk to places where they don't currently exist.

It also seems that you may be involved with one of these "elk farms" in the Land Between the Lakes. If so, are you mad because of lost business with REMF?

Or do you believe that their sole purpose should be stocking elk, rather than working on habitat? I don't do any research on elk (or any other mammal, for that matter), but what I've seen with birds, primarily waterfowl, leads me to believe that stocking without doing habitat work may well be worse than useless. If that habitat will support X birds, putting 2X out only leads to predators getting fat that first year.

On the whole REMF/PETA business, it reminds me of a deal that Ducks Unlimited got into a few years back. The made a deal with a company to be the "official" brand of DU. Trouble was that the company was owned by Sara Lee, and they had made payments to PETA. It looked like this was going to be big trouble for DU, until somebody pointed out that the company (Jimmy Dean Beef Jerky) was, just maybe, one whose product would not appeal to the average PETA member. In other words it was a tempest in a tea pot.


----------



## Autry (Sep 4, 2007)

Skip OK,

Do a little research!

The Land Betwen the Lakes game farm, that you mentioned, is a government run game farm stocked with RMEF elk.

With no healthy elk, that meets state or federal import regulations, for their restoration projects and with their flood of donations drying up to just barely a trickle and with their known association with PETA, the RMEF may soon find themselves on the endangered species list!


----------

