# NRA Vote NO on Measure 2



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

http://www.nraila.org/grassrootsalerts/read.aspx

NORTH DAKOTA: Vote NO on the North Dakota Anti-Hunting Ballot Initiative: Initiated Statutory Measure No. 2! Don't Allow Radical Animal "Rights" Interests to Infiltrate North Dakota! North Dakota sportsmen should be aware that a group cleverly calling itself North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase (NDHFC) has collected enough signatures to place an anti-hunting initiative on the 2010 General Election ballot. Make sure that you and your family and friends vote NO on November 2.

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

This initiative effort is supported by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a Washington D.C.-based lobbying organization that spends $120 million a year in an effort to end all hunting and animal agriculture in the United States. Misinformed supporters of the initiative and NDHFC have claimed that HSUS has not been involved in the initiative or its predecessor in 2008, but one needs only to visit the HSUS website to find, "In North Dakota, HSUS members and supporters helped to gather signatures to place a measure on the ballot to halt the captive shooting of wildlife behind escape proof fences. Unfortunately the measure was not approved, but we will continue working to end the egregious practice of captive hunting." Here are just a few quotes from Wayne Pacelle who serves as President of HSUS:

* Interviewer: "About fishing ... do you avoid campaigning against it because there isn't a ground-swell movement in our culture to eliminate it?"
Pacelle: "That is correct. We're out to minimize suffering wherever it can be done, and wherever our limited resources can be utilized most effectively -- abusive forms of hunting for now, all hunting eventually." Bloodties: Nature, Culture, and the Hunt
* "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." - (Associated Press)
* "Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change." - (Bozeman Daily Chronicle)
* "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States&#8230; We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." - (Full Cry)

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

This effort threatens to establish a precedent that will allow Wayne Pacelle and others to further pursue their ultimate agenda of banning all hunting. These anti-hunting radicals are learning how to circumvent the standard policy-making system that has stymied them through the years and will be emboldened to further utilize deceptive 30-second sound bites to advance their radical agenda. Please work to inform your family, friends and fellow sportsmen in North Dakota that they should vote No on Initiated Statutory Measure No. 2 this November 2.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

LT,



> Don't Allow Radical Animal "Rights" Interests to Infiltrate North Dakota! North Dakota sportsmen should be aware that a group cleverly calling itself North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase (NDHFC) has collected enough signatures to place an anti-hunting initiative on the 2010 General Election ballot.


We are not an "anti-hunting" organization - as you well know. Every sponsor of this measure believes in "fair chase" hunting. None of them think shooting a big animal in an escape proof enclosure is hunting.



> Laws related to hunting and wildlife management strategies should be firmly rooted in science, not driven by a wealthy few who can produce the most emotionally-appealing 30-second television commercial during an initiative campaign.


Would you care to tell people how much of your funding comes from "wealthy out of state sources"?



> Further, the group behind this initiative falsely advertises preserves as very small pens or cages, when most preserves amount to thousands of acres.


This is absolute BS.



> This effort threatens to establish a precedent that will allow Wayne Pacelle and others to further pursue their ultimate agenda of banning all hunting. These anti-hunting radicals are learning how to circumvent the standard policy-making system that has stymied them through the years and will be emboldened to further utilize deceptive 30-second sound bites to advance their radical agenda. Please work to inform your family, friends and fellow sportsmen in North Dakota that they should vote No on Initiated Statutory Measure No. 2 this November 2.


HSUS will do what it will do, regardless of this measure. You know that as well as I do. I will do everything in my power to prevent any restrictions on our hunting rights. The only issue here is " is shooting a big game animal in an escape proof enclosure hunting"?

I don't think so. Neither did the overwhelming majority of people I talked to while collecting signatures for this petition. I think the ND voters will speak loud and clear on this measure. The 12 guys that do this lose!

Jim Heggeness


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg said:


> LT,
> HSUS will do what it will do, regardless of this measure. You know that as well as I do. I will do everything in my power to prevent any restrictions on our hunting rights. The only issue here is " is shooting a big game animal in an escape proof enclosure hunting"?
> 
> I don't think so. Neither did the overwhelming majority of people I talked to while collecting signatures for this petition. I think the ND voters will speak loud and clear on this measure. The 12 guys that do this lose!
> ...


The last sentence in this post sums up the attitudes of the most vocal sponsors about this whole deal. They do not seem to realize this is about the creation of law that affects real peoples livlihoods. It appears they look at this as a game where someone wins and someone loses. :eyeroll:

It appears Jim will do "everything in his power to prevent any restrictions" on "his" rights, butas a sponsor of this measure has no problem placing them on others. And he certainly does not give those people doing "everything in their power" to prevent restrictions being placed on their rights from asking questions and speaking out against those wanting to take those rights away much respect to do the same. :eyeroll:


----------



## leadfed (Oct 19, 2010)

Gst said
The last sentence in this post sums up the attitudes of the most vocal sponsors about this whole deal. They do not seem to realize this is about the creation of law that affects real peoples livlihoods. It appears they look at this as a game where someone wins and someone loses. :eyeroll:

*It appears Jim will do "everything in his power to prevent any restrictions" on "his" rights, butas a sponsor of this measure has no problem placing them on others.[/b**] And he certainly does not give those people doing "everything in their power" to prevent restrictions being placed on their rights from asking questions and speaking out against those wanting to take those rights away much respect to do the same. :eyeroll:[/quote]

Is that what Jim said gst or is that you twisting his words again? Heck, no one from either side should have to say anything at all on this issue. We could just give you all of our sign in info and you can run both sides of the debate for us as you obviously like to do already. Less and less credibility with every post gabe. :eyeroll:*


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg said:


> LT,
> HSUS will do what it will do, regardless of this measure. You know that as well as I do. I will do everything in my power to prevent any restrictions on our hunting rights. The only issue here is " is shooting a big game animal in an escape proof enclosure hunting"?
> 
> I don't think so. Neither did the overwhelming majority of people I talked to while collecting signatures for this petition. I think the ND voters will speak loud and clear on this measure. The 12 guys that do this lose!
> ...


Leadfed, I do not have to speak for Jim he summed it up clearly himself. Altough I would like to see where HSUS has pushed this issue in their attempts to end hunting here in ND prior to this group NDH for FC starting this measure for them.


----------



## Archimedes (Sep 17, 2010)

That NRA release cracks me up. What they're saying is the North American Wildlife Management Model fits with shooting capitiive animals and that is what has made ND hunting what it is. Good one!! Complete nonsense, but good comedy. Another good one is canned hunting fits with ND wildlife mangement policies....I wonder why the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Soceity, the professions that manage our wildliife, have endorsed the measure if canned hunting fits our state wildlife management policy?

The NRA opposing the measure doesn't matter one way or the other to me. But the guy that wrote that release should make sure he's on his meds before sending stuff out...........


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Archimedes I believe the NDG&F is the "profession that manages our wildlife" . Can you show anywhere they have "endorsed" this measure as you suggest?

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

And if your comprehension allows please explain where you draw the conclusions you posted from this article. From the portion I posted it appears that the writer is saying the formation of laws relating to huntinng and management of the states wildlife should not be left to political processes but should be based in sound science such as what he bellieves the NAMofWM is. Apparently it seems the author is in favor of what he believes is a successful management plan that has made ND the "envy of the world" . But then again I guess getting the whole factual story has never been a priority to the sponsors and supporters of this measure. Simply say what ever you believe to get it passed. :eyeroll: Perhaps this is the very reason the NRA opposes this sort of thing. :wink:


----------

