# Results of Inaction Are Clear



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Failure to act against canned shooting operations will lead to repercussions. *Take a lesson North Dakota. *The cost to Pennsylvania is going to be enormous. North Dakota is facing the same issue with escaped Canadian wild boars in the Turtle Mountain escarpment. Your license money and tax money is going to go into a task force to control these pigs (good luck) from canned shooting farms. And you wanted more PLOTS and programs of public benefit?

Captive boars ruled wildlife  
Jan 08, 2008 (The Morning Call - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that captive boars at fenced hunting preserves are wildlife, a decision that could force the state Game Commission to regulate pay-to-hunt operations.

The court's 4-1 ruling, issued Dec. 27, refutes the commission's longstanding assertion that boars and other animals kept behind fences at hunting preserves are personal property -- not wildlife -- and therefore not subject to provisions of the state Game and Wildlife Code.

The commission contends boars and other exotic species fall under the purview of the state Department of Agriculture, which regulates domestic livestock and deer and elk farms.

Although the court did not say exactly how pay-to-hunt operations should be regulated, the decision could have a significant impact on the commission, which may have to develop and enforce rules for the businesses -- even as it struggles with a funding crisis that is hampering existing wildlife management efforts.

Commission spokesman Jerry Feaser said the court's ruling makes wild boars a protected species, because there is no established hunting season for them. All animals without a designated hunting or trapping season are considered protected under the Game Code.

Feaser said the court's decision is particularly problematic because wild boars are not native to Pennsylvania and have been listed as invasive by the Pennsylvania Invasive Species Council.

Captive boars have escaped from fenced hunting preserves in several areas of the state. Commission officials believe breeding populations of the animals exist in Bedford and Cambria counties.

Up until now, people have been allowed to shoot any wild pigs they encountered, but doing so would now be a Game Code violation -- which Feaser said is ironic considering an ongoing effort by state and federal officials to eradicate the animals.

"This could be a real interesting situation," Feaser said. "[Wild boars] are not native to Pennsylvania and pose significant threats to wildlife, wildlife habitat and humans. Their rooting and wallowing certainly are a concern when it comes to habitat, and the potential disease they can spread could be devastating for Pennsylvania's pork industry and humans."

Carl Roe, the commission's executive director, issued a statement Friday saying the agency will devise regulations that would allow the killing of free-ranging wild boars during certain hunting seasons. A draft of those regulations should be ready for preliminary consideration at the commission's Jan. 29 business meeting, Roe said.

A decision about how to handle the hunting of wild board inside fenced preserves is on hold pending further court action, Feaser said.

An ongoing dispute The Supreme Court's ruling stems from a 2004 lawsuit brought against the commission by Humane Society Police Officer Johanna Seeton, a board member of the Pennsylvania Legislative Animal Network.

Seeton's Commonwealth Court suit alleged that the commission failed to enforce numerous Game Code violations at Tioga Boar Hunting Preserve. The 1,500-acre preserve, near Tioga along the New York border, is among several Pennsylvania businesses that let customers hunt such prey as boar, elk, ram and buffalo. Boar are the most popular quarry at Tioga, but hunters there can also can pursue deer, sheep, goat, turkey, buffalo or elk.

Commonwealth Court sided with the commission's argument that it had no jurisdiction over animals at Tioga, prompting Seeton's appeal to the Supreme Court.

"We reject the commission's attempt to identify wild boar as 'domestic' by reclassifying it without any authority, legal or taxonomical, as a member of the supposed 'pig family,' " Justice Max Baer wrote in his majority opinion. "Thus, wild boar necessarily are 'wild animals' under the Game and Wildlife Code."

Baer's opinion also said it expected the commission to consider whether any of the other species hunted at Tioga also are subject to game regulations.

The case will now be sent back to Commonwealth Court, which will consider the Supreme Court decision.

Seeton's attorney, Gordon Einhorn of Thomas, Thomas and Hafer in Harrisburg, said it is likely Commonwealth Court will issue an order forcing the Game Commission to enforce the Game and Wildlife Code at Tioga -- and perhaps other high-fence hunting operations.

Feaser said commission officials will wait for additional guidance from the court before deciding how to proceed.

A layer of oversight Seeton praised the Supreme Court's decision and called it a step toward her goal of an end to what some refer to as "canned" hunts. "The Game Commission will hopefully phase out wild boars in Pennsylvania," she said. "They're not indigenous to the state, and I don't think they'll consider them fair chase if they're in an enclosed area."

The ruling also was praised by the anti-hunting Humane Society of the United States, which assisted Seeton with her legal battle against the commission.

"Shooting animals trapped behind a fence for a trophy is inhumane and not sport, and should not be tolerated in Pennsylvania," Jonathan Lovvorn, the Humane Society's vice president of animal protection litigation, said in a news release.

Mike Gee, vice president and manager of the Tioga hunting preserve, said he is not overly worried about having the Game Commission issue regulations for his business.

"I'm sure they probably won't all be acceptable, but I guess they'll be as fair as we can deal with," he said. "Sometimes there's not a lot of options."

The Humane Society says 23 states have at least a partial ban on fenced-in hunts for mammals.

"There have been several attempts [in Pennsylvania] to do this, and so far, they haven't gone anywhere," said Einhorn, who noted the Supreme Court ruling is not likely to end high-fence hunting in Pennsylvania.

Despite that, the Humane Society believes oversight from the Game Commission could help avoid some of the worst practices allegedly used by some pay-to-hunt operations, such as drugging, disabling or tethering animals before they are shot. Einhorn said he doesn't have any evidence of any of those practices being used at Tioga.

Uncertain outcome Feaser, the commission spokesman, said the agency doesn't know exactly how many fenced hunting operations exist in Pennsylvania because they aren't currently regulated. Depending on what Commonwealth Court decides, Feaser said, the commission may have to develop and enforce a whole new set of regulations for pay-to-hunt operations.

Feaser said it's also possible the matter could be settled by the Legislature through an amendment to the Game and Wildlife Code.

"Whether the General Assembly will get involved remains to be seen," said Rep. Ed Staback, chairman of the House Game and Fisheries Committee. "If it's just boars, that's one thing. But if it's going to be regulating all hunting behind fences, that could be something totally different."

Staback, D-Lackawanna, is an avid hunter who has mixed feelings about the ethics of high-fence hunting operations.

"I never had a problem with them, as long as the fair chase theory applied," Staback said. "Do I agree with hunting a wall-hanger buck in a one-acre enclosure? No. Do I agree with shooting an animal that has been drugged? No. Nor do I agree with taking an animal that has been tied or chained. That is not hunting, in any sense of the word, and that kind of hunting should be banned.

"But sport hunting in a preserve where fair chase is the rule on 500, 600 or 700 acres, that's a horse of another color, and that kind of hunting I don't have a problem with."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check it out.
http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/index.htm


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> A layer of oversight Seeton praised the Supreme Court's decision and called it a step toward her goal of an end to what some refer to as "canned" hunts.





> The ruling also was praised by the *anti-hunting Humane Society of the United States*, which assisted Seeton with her legal battle against the commission.


Yes, by all means do check it out. Really check it out without emotional blinders in place. Talk about a dog and fleas in the same bed.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

So the anti-hunting orgs are responsible for escaped wild boar around the country? :bartime:

January 17, 2008 / NDGF Release
Officials Resume Work to Remove Wild Pigs
The recent findings of feral pigs in western and north central North Dakota have prompted state and federal agencies to take eradication measures to make sure these unwanted animals don't establish a permanent population in the state.

Greg Link, North Dakota Game and Fish Department assistant chief of wildlife, said a task force made up of the Game and Fish Department, North Dakota Department of Agriculture's Board of Animal Health, Wildlife Services and Veterinary Services, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the University of North Dakota is taking aggressive action to eliminate their presence from the state due to threat to domestic livestock, agricultural crops, public safety, natural habitat, and wildlife because of their potential to transmit diseases and destructive nature.

In summer 2007, state and federal agencies became aware of two separate bands of feral pigs in North Dakota: one in the western badlands southwest of Grassy Butte, and another in the Turtle Mountains in and around the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation.

North Dakota state veterinarian Dr. Susan Keller said the Board of Animal Health had issued an eradication order on both groups of pigs. "Feral swine threaten domestic swine and other livestock production because they are often associated with diseases such as brucellosis, pseudorabies and classical swine fever," Dr. Keller said.

Aside from their potential to transmit diseases, Link said rooting and wallowing behaviors lead to soil erosion and degradation of water quality, they compete with native wildlife for food, destroy wildlife habitat, reduce species diversity, and prey on ground-nesting birds and small and young mammals.

Feral pigs can be stray domestic pigs, introduced Eurasian wild boars, or varied hybrids of each. "They are very hardy and resilient, and very prolific," Link added. "They often split into separate groups once their numbers reach a certain threshold. That is why it is imperative immediate action is taken."

Other states with a similar problem, Link said, have warned agencies in North Dakota to eliminate feral pigs immediately or risk having a long-term problem with an uncontrollable population.

The multi-agency task force quickly worked to locate and eradicate pigs found on the national grasslands in the badlands this summer.
"This effort, believed to be successful, was completed by summer's end," said Sheila McNee, range program manager for the U.S. Forest Service's Dakota Prairie Grasslands. "Follow-up monitoring will determine if the effort in that area is fully completed."

Assessment and monitoring activities were initiated on the Turtle Mountain pigs this fall. However, because of the terrain, dense vegetation, heavy foliage, food availability, mixed private/public/tribal land ownership, and conflict with fall hunting seasons, the eradication effort in the Turtle Mountains was pushed back until additional contact and coordination with landowners and tribal officials were completed. It was also believed the pigs would likely be easier to locate and more susceptible to trapping efforts during winter months when natural food availability is reduced.

Wildlife Services state director Phil Mastrangelo, whose agency is spearheading removal efforts in the state, said eradication efforts in the Turtle Mountains started in January. "In addition to contacting private landowners, permission is being sought from the tribal authorities to work inside the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation," he added. "Pig removal activities include ground and air reconnaissance, trapping, as well as shooting by agency sharpshooters.

"Pigs are intelligent creatures," Mastrangelo added. "Sensing increased threat, they can quickly shift behavior to thwart removal efforts, often becoming more nocturnal and secretive as activity increases."

Because of disease concerns, blood and tissue samples will be taken from pigs to test for diseases and determine genetic background. The task force has established a database to record pig sightings. The public is asked to report any sighting of wild pigs in this area, or other parts of the state, to the Game and Fish Department at 328-6351.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Escaped wild boars my butt. It's been proven that feral hogs will start reverting back to looking like their ancestors in as little as 3 generations. Most states have a unregulated status on hogs with no limit and open season year round. Now the state Game Commission will have to divert funds for regulation on pigs which are more of a pest than anything and that money could have benefited other wildlife. Like I said, take of the blinders but apparently that is not possible with some. You may have a agenda to stop canned hunts but the anti hunting organizations have their own agenda so if you want to get in bed with them then don't cry when their agenda slams into you down the pike. What are you going to blame next on canned hunting, the price of oil.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

The feral pigs need to be taken care of. But like many smart people as your self know that if a person really wanted to he could bend saying that the high oil prices are the exact reason for canned hunts.

I by now way shape or form believe that but there are so many dumb people out there that would believe that.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Best remedy for feral pigs I know of is vacuum packing to keep them from getting freezer burns.

If you're in a state that doesn't want wild pigs running around then yes you have to act aggressively and get them out. They will spread fast but to blame them on escaped pigs from hunting preserves when it is just as likely they are some of farmer Johns hogs that got out of their pens. This canned hunt is the devil of all mentality is just ludicrous.

Your last point is sad but true.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

While I must admit I wouldn't mind sticking one with a Slick Trick, I hope they don't proliferate!!
Actually, I was thinking that canned hunts are the reason the Vikings cannot win, I never thought to blame high oil prices on 'em!!!!! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> They will spread fast but to blame them on escaped pigs from hunting preserves when it is just as likely they are some of farmer Johns hogs that got out of their pens.


I have not given enough attention to the western escape to know that much, but I do know that the pigs in the Pembina hills escaped from a canned hunt operation in Manitoba. This operation was just across the border, and some bow hunters I know missed out on their annual pig sticking because these pigs escaped shortly before they arrived. Two weeks later they showed up a dozen miles south in the Pembina valley. It was a fun free for all until they got smarter. I don't know if they have got them all yet. So no, they didn't escape from farmer John.

There are two sides to this coin cwoparson. I fully realize that farmer John may loose some animals once in a while. However, why is it you think canned hunts never loose animals? The simple truth is they both do. My problem is I don't know to many common old farmer John's who raise Russian Wild Boar.

Blind loyalty to canned hunts is as obviously silly as those who blamed canned hunts for everything. Thinking that outlawing canned hunts will give the anti-hunters more power is like looking under your bed for monsters every night.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman your last comment ...."Thinking that outlawing canned hunts will give the anti-hunters more power is like looking under your bed for monsters every night."

Is false.....Because the Anti's think canned hunts is hunting. So yes if you outlaw canned hunts it is a win for the Anti's.

Now with the escaped animals......Wouldn't double fencing or other things like this help prevent some of this happening. That would mean tighter restrictions on canned operations. Also the ferral hogs in other states are not russian boars. They are just pigs that got away.

Another little aspect on the escape of animals.....Do most people know that the beloved pheasant that many chase every year was a domesticated bird that escaped from captivity. Something to think about.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman your last comment ...."Thinking that outlawing canned hunts will give the anti-hunters more power is like looking under your bed for monsters every night."
> 
> Is false.....Because the Anti's think canned hunts is hunting. So yes if you outlaw canned hunts it is a win for the Anti's.


I would say it will be a loss for the Anti's because they think it is hunting, and they try make everyone else think it's hunting. The truth is just the opposite of your premise. The Anti's love to portray all of us as canned or pen hunters. Get rid of this black eye and we will take away one weapon from their arsenal.



> Wouldn't double fencing or other things like this help prevent some of this happening.


It hasn't helped where it has been required.

I notice a problem that exists on all these internet sites. People only read half of what your write, or they hope others only read half. *Where did I say these Russian Wild Boar escaped from???? *Yes, they were Russian Wild Boar. I don't know if it was full blood, or F1 generation.



> Another little aspect on the escape of animals.....Do most people know that the beloved pheasant that many chase every year was a domesticated bird that escaped from captivity. Something to think about.


Well, think about it a little more. The ring neck pheasant was brought from China by a game and fish agency for release in the United States, it was not an escape. Most people consider that a success story, unlike the carp that was also brought in as a game fish and released by a game and fish agency. Most game and fish releases have been success stories, while most private escapes/releases have been dismal failures and problems for years to come. The clean up should be Department of Agriculture not a wildlife agency.


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

Actually, the first release of pheasants in the US was by a private individual in the Willamette Valley of Oregon in 1881.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

tumblebuck said:


> Actually, the first release of pheasants in the US was by a private individual in the Willamette Valley of Oregon in 1881.


Well I guess I can't believe everything I read in game and fish magazines.  I thought AI had it pegged in the early 1900's. About 20 years ago I tried to tie that date down, but evidently didn't do a good job. I was looking for the date after reading an article in a muzzleloader magazine. A native American had wrote an article about how his great great grand-father survived by playing dead by a water hole for three days until a pheasant walked close enough for him to capture. The date was supposedly early 1800's.

The problems I was thinking of are the fish and reptiles people have released in Florida. Then we get to the plants like leafy spurge. That was brough into North Dakota, by our ag people, mixed with broom grass sead.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman good points.

One thing that us as Midwestern People have to realize is that people on the coasts (NY and CA) that have no clue as to what hunting is or how it is apart of our heritage are the ones we need to be worried about. These are the same people that are estatic when they see a cow. These are the people the anti's are targeting. These are the ones that the anti's are trying to brainwash. These are the ones that they are telling that all hunting is like what you see on those videos (the ones with the drugged animals, or the one with the deer hitting the fence, etc.). They portray hunters as malicious and do what ever it takes just for a "Kill".

That is why if they can ban canned "hunts" it is a win for the anti's. Because the Anti's will say look we are stopping one form of Hunting. Yes the real hunters out there know it is not hunting, it is shooting. But to the people who don't know any better it is in their eyes a form of hunting.

--------- side bar if you will--------------------

The pheasant if you look further back in history was brought to the US by Chinese and other immigrants that worked on the rail roads. (the Chinese introduced it to the Europeans.) Some escaped or were released. Then some settlers shot and ate the birds and considered them good table fair and a worthy game bird. So in turn the wildlife agencies, helped by private individuals, brought and introduced them to the country side. Great success story.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Then we get to the plants like leafy spurge. That was brough into North Dakota, by our ag people, mixed with broom grass sead.


Spurge started as an ornamental. People thought it was "pretty".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

barebackjack said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Then we get to the plants like leafy spurge. That was brough into North Dakota, by our ag people, mixed with broom grass sead.
> ...


No, it didn't start as an ornamental. Many years ago they didn't have good seed cleaning techniques. _Bromus inermis _seed was brought in from the Ukrain. Tons of it went to our agricuture colleges. At the University of Nebraska seed was sent home with students to plant that summer and they were to estimate tons per acre. You can trace the seed sent home with 14 students to the counties they lived in. They are now the big problem areas in Nebraska. I don't know how much was sent home with students in North Dakota. 
The spurge we have here is the Ukrainian strain while in the eastern United States it came in ships ballast much like the zebra muscle came to the great lakes. 
Today we are more careful in the United States. That is why the _Aphthona_ species (_A. nigriscutus, A. flava, A. czwalinae, A. lacertosa and A. cyparissiae_) were all tested in secure greenhouses for many years before release. I think there are 19 other species of _Euphorbiaceous_ (two of which are rare) that we needed to test against to make sure our native species were not destroyed. 
Canada did nothing, but reaped the harvest of hard work by our Department of Agriculture Entomologists working in Europe. They have only one species of _Euphorbiaceae_ and released eight years before we did. Like the 49th parallel would protect us against flee beetle invasion.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Well, when I took weed management in college it was stated as first being introduced into N. America as an ornamental. How it spread is most likely through dirty seed.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

barebackjack said:


> Well, when I took weed management in college it was stated as first being introduced into N. America as an ornamental. How it spread is most likely through dirty seed.


I would guess that was a professor that didn't want to admit the big screw up by Department of Agriculture and the Agricultural colleges. That's not surprising a lot of government is afflicted with that. I suppose there is a chance he didn't know the full story.

They are a lot more careful today. I personally know and worked with the Entomologist that introduced the flea beetles to North America. He worked on them in a greenhouse in Rome for 16 years before bringing them to Montana and working many more years before releasing them. Canada was much less careful.

I should have mentioned the spurge in the ballast was western European variety.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

To get back on the subject on hand, Question for Plainsman or Dick Monson.
Where in the article from the game and fish does it say these escaped from a shooting preserve/game farm in Canada????? Or is this just some more of your propaganda????????????????


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Chuck Smith said:


> One thing that us as Midwestern People have to realize is that people on the coasts (NY and CA) that have no clue as to what hunting is or how it is apart of our heritage are the ones we need to be worried about. These are the same people that are estatic when they see a cow. These are the people the anti's are targeting. These are the ones that the anti's are trying to brainwash. These are the ones that they are telling that all hunting is like what you see on those videos (the ones with the drugged animals, or the one with the deer hitting the fence, etc.). They portray hunters as malicious and do what ever it takes just for a "Kill".
> 
> That is why if they can ban canned "hunts" it is a win for the anti's. Because the Anti's will say look we are stopping one form of Hunting. Yes the real hunters out there know it is not hunting, it is shooting. But to the people who don't know any better it is in their eyes a form of hunting.


Chuck,

I see it a little differently. I think if we ban canned shooting it is a win for hunting and a loss for the anti's. Think about it, they will not be able to show a canned shoot and call it hunting. What will they use to spread their propaganda?

We need to eliminate the problem. If you have gangrene in your foot would you rather die a slow death or cut off the foot and live?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o, I didn't read it in an article. The guys I talked to who went to hunt in Manitoba didn't have anything to hunt because the hogs had escaped through a fence after a storm downed tree crushed the fence to the ground. The next year the same guys were in the Pembina gorge shooting pigs with their bows. The locals really wanted to get rid of them. They hunted in the gorge for two years. I don't know if they stopped because of no pigs now, or they just lost interest after shooting a couple. I have heard nothing for a year now.

I'm not familiar with the game and fish article, or the escape out west. Do you have information on that?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, The press release is posted here by Dick Monson. Here is what Gregg Link said:

[quoteFeral pigs can be stray domestic pigs, introduced Eurasian wild boars, or varied hybrids of each. "They are very hardy and resilient, and very prolific," Link added. "They often split into separate groups once their numbers reach a certain threshold. That is why it is imperative immediate action is taken." [/quote]

Now you are he said she said about this being caused by escape from a game farm. I only want to know where is this written, other that from your propaganda ?????????????????????????????????? Show me the beef????????? Is that to much to ask????????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, the article that Dick posted. Yes I read that.



> Is that to much to ask????????


In this case it is, since I have no idea if it is written anywhere. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I do however have faith in things I have heard directly (not passed down three times), and the dead pigs that I seen from Pembina. I don't expect you to give it the same credibility I do. After all you don't know these people, or me. That doesn't make it propaganda.

By the way g/o seeing that you have never met an outfitter, or canned hunt provider, (no matter how many violations they have(that includes game violations and child molesting doesn't it?)) that you didn't like, and have gone to great lengths to defend on this site, it's not you that I am trying to convince.

There is a extremely simple test of logic one can use to ascertain who lost these hogs g/o. I might add that not only is it simple, but statistically it should yield a very high confidence level. It goes like this. As of late we have a hog problem. Farmers have had hogs since when in North Dakota? My grandfather had them in the 1880's. So why is the problem now? Why wasn't it before? Do I need to explain any further?

There is another test. I love to hunt, so why would I want canned hunts gone? Your getting paid to represent the outfitters association aren't you? One might ask themselves what is Plainsman's motivation? Then they might also ask themselves what is g/o's motivation. Hey, I don't blame you for trying to earn your salary, I just want people to know what motivates each of us.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, Boy one asks you a simple question and you go on a tyrant.
Maybe Dick Monson can shed some light on this, all I want to see is where the game and fish said that these hogs escaped from a game farm/hunting preserve.

Now to the rest of your childish remarks, first of all I have never defended an outfitter who has broken the law. In fact I have condemned many time on this site various one's. However I still believe a man is innocent until proven guilty unlike yourself. I hate to bust your bubble but where to you get the idea that I'm on the payroll of the outfitters association ?????? I've never received one red cent from them.

So please Plainsman show where the game and fish says these hogs escaped from a game farm ?/


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Tirade, tirade g/o, not tyrant. That's what you want to be.  It wasn't a tirade go, I was just trying to counter that doubt you were throwing in there about how legitimate these posts were.

My mistake, I had heard you were now a lobbyist for the ND guides association. I thought you might receive some compensation for that. I didn't realize you were doing it out of the goodness of your heart.

Didn't that guy from Streeter have a dozen violations when you were still sticking up for him? What was it about him and that 14 year old girl again?

I don't think the game and fish would have the guts to take a stand and say where these hogs came from. Hoven would have a fit over that. He bows to where the money comes from. Wildlife and natural resources are of little value other than money to the business type.

Like you said, back to the subject. I think it is clear to everyone who wants to look at this objectively what is really happening. To those with no vested interest, which is nearly everyone we understand exactly what happened. The question isn't did it happen, the question is what are we going to do about it. For starters agriculture should pay for the clean up rather than the game and fish budget being raided by what canned hunt operations to clean up their mess. After all they want to call domestic livestock. That is out of one side of their mouth while talking about what great trophies they are out of the other side of their mouth. They can't be both, so pick one. The sportsmen are being shafted both ways if the game and fish has to clean up the mess.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, Sorry to have typed the wrong word and I'm glad someone set you straight on this. I guess I don't do to bad of a job typing with one hand.

Another simple question for you. Why is it that you keep saying I defend Sheldon and the others why that isn't true and you know it? I'm an outfitter and damn proud of it, just because we have some bad ones does not mean we all are.

Plainsman, the way it looks to me the game and fish will not bearing all the expense.



> Greg Link, North Dakota Game and Fish Department assistant chief of wildlife, said a task force made up of the Game and Fish Department, North Dakota Department of Agriculture's Board of Animal Health, Wildlife Services and Veterinary Services, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the University of North Dakota is taking aggressive action to eliminate their presence from the state due to threat to domestic livestock, agricultural crops, public safety, natural habitat, and wildlife because of their potential to transmit diseases and destructive nature.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good, that's better, but the game and fish shouldn't have to pay any of it. They should run DNA on these animals and find where they came from. That person should have insurance and pay every penny. The problems were not caused by sportsmen or the North Dakota tax payer.

That's true g/o, and in many cases you didn't come right out and defend people, but rather than admit they were bad people you point the finger at someone else. To me that is the same as defending them when you deflect the accusation from the violator to someone else. Always an excuse.



> It was in this bill that if you are caught guiding illegally all the clients will be individual counts. This why these guys had so many charges against them.





> Didn't say that did I Dick? Lets look at a few thing here Dick, you continually take cheap shots and run down NDPGOA which I'm associated with. In a previous post you condemn Todd, Sheldon, and the Mertz's and say how they should have known better. Yet again you say nothing of the local Valley City area violators.


The subject evidently wasn't the Valley City violators why should he mention them? Deflection????



> Well Dick guess what we disagree again. I don't think we need to turn the east wing of the Game &Fish into the the Bruce Burkett enforcement center.





> Sheldon Schlecht faces a bond of $250 for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department infraction, which is the least severe of fish and game violations.


Article from newpaper:


> The pheasant and waterfowl carcasses all had been breasted, said Dick Knapp, game warden supervisor in Jamestown. Knapp put the number of birds at three or four pickup loads, or about 1,000.


Your resonse g/o:


> Intersting case, PLOTS is private land leased by the game and fish. The owner doesn't want to press charges, so what right does the game and fish have? Should be interesting to see how this all plays out


Always deflecting g/o, and to me that looks much like defending. When Sheldon gets in trouble you ask how about the guy in Valley City. If your not trying to deflect or defend why bring Valley City up. Time after time after time this happens. After a fellow like Sheldon has a dozen violations maybe I am jumping to conclusions to see a pattern there.

But now this whole thing is being sidetracked. Again, why should anyone other than the landowner pay for the mess? It's time for personal responsibility. We teach our children that.

Perhaps Dick's post was all that was needed. We already know where we all stand, we just need information now.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> However, why is it you think canned hunts never loose animals?


I never said that nor did I ever imply that now did I. You have a bad habit of trying to twist things into a different direction and then trying to pass it off as fact.



> My problem is I don't know to many common old farmer John's who raise Russian Wild Boar.


Neither do I but please point put where I missed the *Russian* part of the escaped wild boars. You're the one that brought up Russian boars. Other than hearsay where is your information that escaped Canadian wild boars in the Turtle Mountain escarpment are Russian wild boars?



> Blind loyalty to canned hunts is as obviously silly as those who blamed canned hunts for everything.


You would be hard pressed to find anyone that has exhibited blind loyalty canned hunts but I assure you as you truly know it is easy to find the latter on here.



> Thinking that outlawing canned hunts will give the anti-hunters more power is like looking under your bed for monsters every night.


Better start checking under your bed at night then.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, I never deflected on any of these statements go back and read the entire thread. I will answer the rest of your petty accusations by pm we've tied this up enough


----------



## Reddbecca (Dec 29, 2007)

Why am I getting the feeling that g/o is uglyman in another disguise?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Reddbecca said:


> Why am I getting the feeling that g/o is uglyman in another disguise?


You couldn't be any farther off base if your tried.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Other than hearsay where is your information that escaped Canadian wild boars in the Turtle Mountain escarpment are Russian wild boars?


No one said there were wild boar in the Turtle Mountains, so I would ask the readers to go back and see where your trying to mislead them cwoparson. I have no idea what's in the Turtle Mountains.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> > No one said there were wild boar in the Turtle Mountains, so I would ask the readers to go back and see where your trying to mislead them cwoparson. I have no idea what's in the Turtle Mountains.


Very first paragraph in the first post of this thread. "North Dakota is facing the same issue with escaped Canadian wild boars in the Turtle Mountain escarpment." Who's misleading?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> > Other than hearsay where is your information that escaped Canadian wild boars in the Turtle Mountain escarpment are Russian wild boars?
> 
> 
> No one said there were wild boar in the Turtle Mountains, so I would ask the readers to go back and see where your trying to mislead them cwoparson. I have no idea what's in the Turtle Mountains.


OK, I am looking, but I don't find "Russian Wild Boar" like you mentioned the first time. I'll keep looking, but I don't see it now. I thought that was your complaint, the Russian Wild Boar part. Am I wrong about that? I could be, maybe that wasn't your point.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> There are two sides to this coin cwoparson. I fully realize that farmer John may loose some animals once in a while. However, why is it you think canned hunts never loose animals? The simple truth is they both do. My problem is I don't know to many common old farmer John's who raise Russian Wild Boar.


Plainsman I'm getting worried about you. The first person to use the words Russian Wild Boar was you in the above quote after I made the comment that the wild hogs could just as easily be from farmer John. Then 19 posts later I asked you "Other than hearsay where is your information that escaped Canadian wild boars in the Turtle Mountain escarpment are Russian wild boars?" So, I didn't bring up or inject the words Russian Wild Boars. You did that.

My complaint was the same it has always been on this type of subject and that is hunters and hunting groups getting into bed with anti hunting nuts to accomplish their agenda.

Think maybe you ought to put off the honey do's for a spell and go do some shooting? That's my plan despite the cold.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, I see the problem cwoparson. You know little about the geography of North Dakota. Please go back and read again. I was speaking about the Pembina Hills. I don't know anything about the pigs in the Turtle Mountains or the western escape. You see the Pembina Hills and the Turtle Mountains are not the same thing. I was getting so confused, I couldn't figure out what you were talking about.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Talk about desperation. The subject was wild hogs and Turtle Mountains Plainsman. Has nothing to do with Pembina Hills or any other place you want to imagine we should read from your mind, because you certainly didn't mention them on here. No one has to know anything about the geography of North Dakota to follow along on what Dick Monson posted. Now all you're doing is pulling excuses out of the air to cover your obvious blunder of injecting something that did not exist, and obviously still don't realize you are the one that did so.

I think GO was right, when he said in a round about way, if you can't answer the question then throw out propaganda and change directions of the talk. You are right about one thing, you are very confused but not to worry because after your last excuse you probable have everyone confused. This is now to the point it is ridiculous so like GO, if you want to discuses this further just PM me and I'll be happy to respond. Have a nice day.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> > They will spread fast but to blame them on escaped pigs from hunting preserves when it is just as likely they are some of farmer Johns hogs that got out of their pens.
> 
> 
> I have not given enough attention to the western escape to know that much, but I do know that the pigs in the Pembina hills escaped from a canned hunt operation in Manitoba. This operation was just across the border, and some bow hunters I know missed out on their annual pig sticking because these pigs escaped shortly before they arrived. Two weeks later they showed up a dozen miles south in the Pembina valley. It was a fun free for all until they got smarter. I don't know if they have got them all yet. So no, they didn't escape from farmer John.
> ...


I never talked about the Turtle Mountains, but I did talk about the Pembina Hills. I talked about the Pembina Hills, because it was something I knew about. Unlike you cwoparson I don't talk about things that I have no idea about. I hope people can put this together and understand why I was confused. I was confused because you made it that way.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Well I guess there was confusion all the way around as I was never talking about Pembina Hills since that was not the topic being discussed but I did talk about Turtle Mountains in the first post. Maybe we just confused each other.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes, I don't like it, but as I grow older I loose track of where I am at in conversations. That and my organizational skills are suffering.

People often ask where something is written as if the written word makes it so. It's off topic, but I would like to take this opportunity to explain something, and that is the difference between scientific literature and gray literature. 
Scientific publications are edited by two existing professionals within department. They are then sent to a professional journal who picks two or three qualified professionals who edit and comment on scientific integrity. The journal returns them and after changes, or accepted challenges they are published. Grey literature is like North Dakota Outdoor, Outdoor Life etc. In most cases the things many people want to see have no more weight than the word of John Doe. 
It isn't proof they are really looking for, but a means to insinuate the opposition is wrong. It is not proof that either person is right or wrong. I hope I didn't bore you. No pun intended.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The incident contained at Grassy Butte last summer (12 adults and 15 piglets) was a domestic escape according to a natural resource communication. The Canadain escape that has filtered into the Turtle Mountains was a canned shoot operation on the north side of the border according to a verbal communication from a natural resource communication there. A little DNA testing would settle the question.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> according to a verbal communication from a natural resource communication there


Well that must make it gospel Dick, I'm glad you believe everything you hear in the coffee shop. Lets see Dick we have gone from taking away all our license money and raiding the PLOTS fund. To well I heard from a friend who heard it from a friend. 
:spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam: :spam:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

g/o, he, unlike some, is a man of merit who I will not name for his protection. Your fellow commerializers have an ingrained instinct you cannot control. When a respected natural resource manager has the courage to speak against your position, your fellows run to a politican in your pocket and get a cork pounded in both ends of the speaker because he is a governmental empolyee with a career at risk. Nice try. Go Fish somewhere else.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dick, do you know anyone with access to skulls? I have looked at a skull from the Pembina Valley at a taxidermy shop. Although the domestic pig is a direct descendent of the Eurasian wild pig domestication has resulted in some morphological characteristics that will identify them even though they are still the same species (Sus scrofa). I need to get access to a mammology book. If I remember there are some elongated bones in the wild variety along with a difference in dental formula. Domestic pig is Dental Formula : 3.1.4.3 / 3.1.4.3 = 44 but I have to get my hands on the wild pig dental formula.

I would like to have a look at them. Unlike the poor natural resource guy who has a political knife to the throat of his career I am retired after 35 ½ years, and I was a biologist. What are they going to do shoot me?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> When a respected natural resource manager has the courage to speak against your position, your fellows run to a politican in your pocket and get a cork pounded in both ends of the speaker because he is a governmental empolyee with a career at risk


Dick, you have just as many and probably more politicians in your pockets than we do. "IF" what you say is true I'm sure it would be documented, so it should be no problem to release the facts. My guess is we do not have facts to support anything you or your "Deep Throat" resource manager has to say. When the game and fish issues a statement that these piggies escapes from a game farm then I will acknowledge that what your saying is true. Until then it is nothing more than hearsay  :lol: :x  :-?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Sounds good to me, we'll let the chips fall either way. Plainsman you'd have to request info on the skulls or other evidence. I know a fellow on the task force but don't know if they'd do that research. They do want these pigs dead, the quicker the better.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dick, ask your contact if he minds me contacting him. I would like to go out there and shoot a couple or be along when someone else kills them. I would like to get my hands on any part of the animal that will give me the morphological characters I need to make an identification. 
You can bet the information you received from a natural resource person was correct, and I can appreciate the pressure he is under to keep mum about anything he knows. A sure sign he knows there is dirty work afoot. This reflects on the MO high fence operations use. That is why you are questioned who he is. They want to get to him.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

From a past Doug L article



> _*Recently, a picture of a wild boar taken near Stanley was making the rounds. Because of past experiences, such photos send up a caution flag, but I knew the source personally and I had reason to believe it was factual. Even so, I made a couple of local contacts and confirmed the story.*_


g/o

not saying that this critter escaped from a game farm but..... how many swine farmers do you know that raise wild boar? I remember seeing the picture of this critter and it sure as heck did not look like any domestic pig I have ever seen.

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Nice try Bob, but when a male piggie in the wild get shot it's referred to commonly as a wild boar. Again this does not mean it escaped from a game farm. I don't raise wild pheasants, but when they are released the game and they then become classified as wild. How many people call a skid steer loader a "Bobcat" and list goes on and on. Dick in his first post made it sound as if the sky was falling because of these piggies. I know you are trying to get an initiative measure through, more power to you. I'm just calling you guys on your deception.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

g/o: Just a question for you.

If a high fence hunting operation (domesticated animal farm when talking to legislators) were to have an infected breed (let's just say CWD for the example) and these animals escaped from the fence (wind storm let's say). Who should be liable for the cleanup?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Live2hunt.....

That is one thing that can be taken care of with insurance. Make sure all high fenced operations have insurance and are bonded. They do it with other industries. Look at contractors, plumbers, electricians, etc.

You see this cost of insurance and a bond would help keep some people from going into this type of business. Also it would be there to take care of the clean up if animals escaped.

Because if a person has a cow leave its fenced area the owner is reliable for its damage.....have it be damage to neighbors crops, yard, car, etc. Insurance pays for it all.

I had a client (insurance) ask about just an elk farm, not a high fence operation. The cost was huge for insurance. So needless to say he is still selling beef.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck, your absolutely right, all game farms should have a good insurance policy. It should be good enough to pay millions when escaped animals have CWD. Cleanup will not be cheap. 
When they have escapes that they do not report, like the elk farm in Idaho, there should also be criminal charges that are enforced. There is no excuse for what that character did. He belongs behind bars. He only thought about his profit and cared nothing for the resource or fellow sportsmen.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

Agree 100%. Like I have mentioned earlier it is easer to get these types of laws in place instead of outlawing an industry.

Think about it the "good" operations (I know you don't think any are good) but are doing things on the up and up will vote for stricter laws and regulations, mandatory insurance, and enforcement.

But these "good" operations and people around them will never be in favor of a ban. Then landowners who are in favor of landowner rights would not want a ban (because it is telling landowners what they can and can't do on their land) but would vote for enforcement or things regulating the "High Fence" operations like I mentioned in many posts on this subject.

Just my two pennies.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> Then landowners who are in favor of landowner rights would not want a ban (because it is telling landowners what they can and can't do on their land)


Why does this keep coming up? This isn't about landowner rights!!

Chuck: I agree, but do all of our high fence hunting operations have insurance?

Also, what happens if those escaped animals infect our wild animal herd. There is no amount of money that will cover a CWD outbreak or a new strain of elk because now it has a line of red deer in it.

I can't spray DDT on my property because it can leach into the groundwater and contaminate a natural resource. Why is high fence hunting any different? If the animals escape they could leach into the wild herds and contaminate them. If they are portrayed to the 90% that doesn't hunt they are contaminating our way of hunting.

Are we really going to claim "property rights" when there is a possibility of contamination of our hunting heritage and our natural wildlife populations? Geeze, I guess I am not willing to risk that because some banker with deep pockets wants some trophy elk on his wall in New York.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck: I agree, but do all of our high fence hunting operations have insurance?


If it is not a law the state and voters should make it one. Make it have a minimum like of $500,000 or something.

---------- my opinion --------------------------

The landowners rights issue keeps coming up because it is an issue. It is telling a farmer how he can and can't manage his "domesticated herd"

It is like telling a farmer that he can't go out and shoot a steer.

Or if the farmer sells a steer to a guy. That guy can't go out and shoot the steer.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> The landowners rights issue keeps coming up because it is an issue. It is telling a farmer how he can and can't manage his "domesticated herd"
> 
> It is like telling a farmer that he can't go out and shoot a steer.
> 
> Or if the farmer sells a steer to a guy. That guy can't go out and shoot the steer.


Well said.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> t is telling a farmer how he can and can't manage his "domesticated herd"


domesticated: according to Webster's dictionary....to train or adapt to live with and be of use to human beings.

Point 1
Sheep, swine, cows, bison, chickens, horses. They fall right into that category don't they? either we use them for work or we raise them on the value of their meat.

Elk and Deer. The measure written allows these producers to sell meat. What it doesn't allow is selling hunts. We all know that these operations don't care about loin eye, depth of rib, or weight gain on their calves. They only care about horn size. Now is that really a domesticated animal??

Point 2
According to the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, elk and deer are not domesticated animals, they are considered wildlife.

So your issue is non-existant. These are not domesticated animals. They are a wildlife species. They don't even fall into the domesticated definition, so how can this be a landowner rights issue? It can't Chuck.

Show me how they fit the definition. Just because they are on some land and the guy feeding them is wearing a cowboy hat?? Does that make them domesticated?

Chuck: Are you willing to risk a contamination?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Live, As one of the sponsors of this measure I would think you would be better informed. Or maybe Dick is not telling the truth. This measure is not about disease control it's about ethics. So why do you guys always bring up CWD? The Elk farmers "if" your measure would pass will still be raising Elk. You will still have a chance of them breaking out. So tell me why do you keep bringing it up when it has nothing to do with it. Or is like landowner rights.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Livs:
I don't know where they fall for the USDA. I would like to know if Elk or deer can be classified as domestic.



> Are we really going to claim "property rights" when there is a possibility of contamination of our hunting heritage and our natural wildlife populations?


If you are worried about this have strict laws in place for testing. Have animals tested every month or something like this. Have that the animals can't be cross bred with red stags, etc.

----- some food for thought------------

If people are worried about an outbreak of some sort getting into our wild populations of animals.....*WHY NOT SHUT DOWN POULTRY BUSINESS? * It is the domesticated birds that are having the bird flu.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Concluding that high fence hunting should be banned based on escaped hogs makes no logical sense. If you are that concerned about any species escaping into the wild then any ownership of that species should be outlawed. The fact that they are shot with rifles behind fences is completely unrelated to their escaping.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

live2hunt said:


> Show me how they fit the definition. Just because they are on some land and the guy feeding them is wearing a cowboy hat?? Does that make them domesticated?


Your definition is completely arbitrary. Reindeer are domesticated, and in russia there are some, albeit feeble, attempts at domesticating moose. Domestication is nothing more then finding and/or breeding triats that allow you to pen the animal first, and then to exagerate the "value" traits you want. Heck, Bison are no more domesticated then lions, they just happen to already have enough traits to allows us to treat them like "domestic" animals.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Chuck Smith said:


> Like I have mentioned earlier it is easer to get these types of laws in place instead of outlawing an industry.


I agre also. Enact laws to solve specific problems, but don't ban based on some notion or moral "superiority".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Then landowners who are in favor of landowner rights would not want a ban (because it is telling landowners what they can and can't do on their land)


We do that already. They really frown on growing pot. Landowners do not have rights that transcend the wishes of the nation or state as a whole. If they had complete unquestionable rights then they would be sovereign. They are not. In some cases they care controlled by law, and in other cases they must meet certain standards to qualify for government programs. We are all subject to the demands of society. If we were not I wouldn't have to worry about the second amendment freedoms being lost. That's how a democracy or a republic works. This landowner rights idea is just smoke and mirrors.

Domestic animals are those that have been bred in captivity for many generations. Most of these animals have been bred for a couple thousand years. No North America indigenous species qualifies as a domestic animal yet. They eventually could be, but it will take time. Simply because some politician wants to keep people happy and let them call their animals domestic doesn't make it so. Hillary might call a muzzleloader with a thumb hole stock an assault weapon, but I will argue with her.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> > Then landowners who are in favor of landowner rights would not want a ban (because it is telling landowners what they can and can't do on their land)
> 
> 
> We do that already. They really frown on growing pot. Landowners do not have rights that transcend the wishes of the nation or state as a whole. If they had complete unquestionable rights then they would be sovereign. They are not. In some cases they care controlled by law, and in other cases they must meet certain standards to qualify for government programs.


This does not mean that anything the majority wants is moral or just. Hardly. In fact, the bill of rights is really all about protecting individual rights that may not be in vogue with the majority.



Plainsman said:


> Domestic animals are those that have been bred in captivity for many generations. Most of these animals have been bred for a couple thousand years. No North America indigenous species qualifies as a domestic animal yet.


Define captivity, and define how long it takes to be domestic. You really can't. The behavior and characteristic of the animal is more the criteria of whether something is "domestic". There are certainly some animals that have been breed to exagerate a characteristic to the point the animal could not survive in the wild, but this really the exception.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Define captivity, and define how long it takes to be domestic. You really can't. The behavior and characteristic of the animal is more the criteria of whether something is "domestic". There are certainly some animals that have been breed to exagerate a characteristic to the point the animal could not survive in the wild, but this really the exception.


I agree with that. Only one thing you can be sure of, just because someone wants to call them domestic doesn't mean they are there yet, and that is what is happening now. There is no criteria with how long captive breeding must occur before animals are domestic. We can say it isn't instant like many would like us to believe. Caught today domestic tomorrow isn't believable.

People who say this isn't a disease issue are correct. The big issue is on ethical hunting. Disease control is simply a fringe benefit. As I see killing of captive animals as unethical, I also trust these operations less. My reasoning follows that if they are willing to do one unethical thing for profit they may be willing to do a second. Lets face it the more an animal is worth the greater is the temptation to overlook things. If a $1000 animal gets sick a person may put it down. If a $20,000 animal gets sick the owner will look for alternatives and they may choose some that are not legal if they think they can get away with it. Maybe only one out of ten think this way, but we have seen it already. The Wisconsin game and fish was going to put down a group of animals, but when they came the fence had mysteriously developed holes. It only takes one time.

I don't like canned hunts for a number of reasons. It's hard to say for me which is the most important aspect. Ethics or disease. I don't worry as much about either on farms who raise them for the meat. Landowners do have rights, but so does society. As a state we must decide if one outweighs the other. Whatever the people decide I can live with, but the people of this state deserve to make the decision. I just don't trust politicians to do the right thing.

One thing I do not understand. What is it that frightens people of the democratic process? Do they not trust their fellow North Dakotans? Is it that politicians can be bought, but the entire populace can not? I don't understand the illogical fear. Perhaps it is because deep down many frightened people already know the answer to: are canned hunts ethical.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> Only one thing you can be sure of, just because someone wants to call them domestic doesn't mean they are there yet, and that is what is happening now. There is no criteria with how long captive breeding must occur before animals are domestic.


If we really can not define it then the conclusion to be drawn is that bringing up the notion of domestication is a red herring. It is a non-issue.



Plainsman said:


> The big issue is on ethical hunting. ... As I see killing of captive animals as unethical, I also trust these operations less. My reasoning follows that if they are willing to do one unethical thing for profit they may be willing to do a second.


You said below that you don't have an ethical issue with farm animals being killed in pens. There is really no difference other then your arbitrary feeling. Based on this conclusion you then brand them "unethical" and capable of all kinds of nefarious deeds. To be honest that is scary. A person does something you don't like. You then by extrapolation brand them a person capable of almost anything bad.



Plainsman said:


> One thing I do not understand. What is it that frightens people of the democratic process? ...


Yes, we should be afraid of the democratic process. This is why we have courts that reign in laws that are voted in by "well meaning" people. That is why we have a constitution to put limits on arbitrary laws that majorities pass. A fundamental principal of justice is that a law is not a good law just because the majority support it.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> One thing I do not understand. What is it that frightens people of the democratic process? Do they not trust their fellow North Dakotans? Is it that politicians can be bought, but the entire populace can not? I don't understand the illogical fear.


It is really very simple. Like it or not most politicians/law makers are better informed on these matters than the general public. Whether those politicians act in a manner that benefits the public is a different subject. But the public is easily fooled with twisted words and half truths and by the time they realize the truth they have already pulled the lever in the voting booth. Take for example, and this is just an example and nothing more but the post on General Vo Nguyen Giap in the political forum. It was read, it was bought into, and it was posted without verification. The poster now knows it was untrue information but it is to late, the lever has been pulled. Voter initiatives are not what they appear to be. A few can fool the majority to pass laws that in the end only benefit those few that started the process. Ballot initiatives stopped mountain lion hunting in California. There has now been more deaths and mauling by mountain lions in that state in the last 15 years than the 200 years preceding the ban.

Want to read something funny. HSUS now has jumped into the arena with a "Stop Canned Hunts" campaign. This is from their web site. ""Fair chase"-a concept central to the philosophy of many in the hunting community-doesn't exist in canned hunts. The self-described ethical hunting community (including groups like Boone & Crockett, Pope & Young, and the Izaak Walton League) is becoming increasingly vocal in its opposition to canned hunting." You will note they simply couldn't control themselves and their real disdain of you guys without at least one little slur of "self-described ethical hunting community". They have even picked up on the words "fair chase" as if they really give a rats *** since their goal is to shut down all hunting. Yep, pull that lever.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You said below that you don't have an ethical issue with farm animals being killed in pens.


I looked back, and I think the only thing I said was I didn't have an issue with these animals being raised for meat. I suppose you haul them to the processor, and they get killed with an air hammer, or a rifle there.



> Yes, we should be afraid of the democratic process. This is why we have courts that reign in laws that are voted in by "well meaning" people. That is why we have a constitution to put limits on arbitrary laws that majorities pass. A fundamental principal of justice is that a law is not a good law just because the majority support it.


Well, the courts are part of our process. However if canned hunts get banned we both know there is little chance that it would be unconstitutional. 
I might add that is an odd attitude coming from an American citizen. I take pride in our democratic process. It may not be perfect, but it's the best in the world.



> Want to read something funny. HSUS now has jumped into the arena with a "Stop Canned Hunts" campaign.


Well you know what they say: even a blind pig finds an occasional acorn.



> You will note they simply couldn't control themselves and their real disdain of you guys without at least one little slur of "self-described ethical hunting community". They have even picked up on the words "fair chase" as if they really give a rats a$$ since their goal is to shut down all hunting.


Yep, picked up on their jerk remark about self described. Your right they do want to stop all hunting, and the canned hunts are a vehicle for them to turn the public against us. Most blind pigs can find that acorn.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

g/o wrote:


> Live, As one of the sponsors of this measure I would think you would be better informed. Or maybe Dick is not telling the truth. This measure is not about disease control it's about ethics.


As a sponsor on this measure it is about more than just ethics. I have listed why I oppose high fence hunting on other threads. You have seen them, so don't try and spin it.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> the canned hunts are a vehicle for them to turn the public against us


It wasn't before but it is now. How does that old saying go, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Took a long time for this country to realize the foolishness of that thinking.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> As a sponsor on this measure it is about more than just ethics.


That is interesting Live, So if you are so concerned about disease control,why are you not shutting down the Elk industry?? Simple question, will we have less chance of escape when they are only raised for meat?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman wrote:



> Yep, picked up on their jerk remark about self described. Your right they do want to stop all hunting, and the canned hunts are a vehicle for them to turn the public against us. Most blind pigs can find that acorn.


This is what scares me the most about banning canned hunts. Because it is a vehicle that will start to gain momentum. That is why I am in favor of more restriction and enforcement.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

g/o: for the last time, answer the question and quit trying to spin it!!!

The disease issue is just ONE concern I have. I have many concerns about this industry. Ethics, the heritage of hunting in ND, pay to play hunting in ND, the black eye it gives us real hunters, the leverage it gives the anti's, the promotion of pay to play in ND, the fact that they are called domesticated on one end and trophy animals on the other. Which one is it?

I asked a much simpler question, but once again, as always you have failed to answer the question. You just keep spinning and spinning. In how many posts have you called me out??? And I have never once dodged the question. But you don't want to answer any from anyone else? How convenient. Your credibility on this issue has lost all value and is not worth replying to now.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> That is why I am in favor of more restriction and enforcement.


more enforcement means more money out of taxpayers pockets because it will either fall on our GnF shoulders or our State Department of Ag. And we are going to pay for that how? fairy dust and unicorn horns?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> more enforcement means more money out of taxpayers pockets because it will either fall on our GnF shoulders or our State Department of Ag. And we are going to pay for that how? fairy dust and unicorn horns?


Are these places required to be licensed? State license fees will help regulate. Look at other industries........Real Estate, Insurance, etc. The state requires a license and with that fee money goes into enforcement and a board that regulates these industries.

Then people are worried about clean up......require insurance!

Also Fine the operations that are found in violation....these fees can go towards enforcement too. Just like game and fish fines.... part of that goes to the state for more enforcement.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Chuck, last weekend in Bismarck Jim Posewitz said, "Eclusive use has put more hunters out of business than PETA ever will". People need to think about that. What else is canned shooting but exclusive use?

The reasonable suggestions you have made to protect public wildlife by tightening regulations will never happen. That industry would fight it tooth and nail, as they did last session.

The ethical abyss of canned shooting (forget the word hunting), the spread of disease, genetic pollution, and regulatory and game law violations, all documented, are dependent on selling the kill. Remove the ability to sell the kill (Fair Chase Hunting Initiated Measure), and the monetary incentive is erased. People are unlikely to cheat if they are selling venision jerky versus a $20,000 artifical trophy, and the arguement of the anti-hunters is removed.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> : for the last time, answer the question





> I asked a much simpler question, but once again, as always you have failed to answer the question


Hey Live where did you ask me a question???


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

This is a little off topic.....



> Chuck, last weekend in Bismarck Jim Posewitz said, "Exclusive use has put more hunters out of business than PETA ever will"


Dick lets break down "Exclusive use"....

- If a farmer is posting his land because his kids are now at the hunting age and wants to keep it for them.....isnt this Exclusive use?

- A farmer sells the land for a lease......isnt this Exclusive use? (I dont agree but it is happening)

- A farmer now posts his land because he wants to know who is on his property.......isnt this Exclusive use?

- Is it more people buying land for rec use........isnt this Exclusive use?

- Access to land (other states not ND with the trespass law).....isnt this Exclusive use?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This is what scares me the most about banning canned hunts. Because it is a vehicle that will start to gain momentum.


Good Morning Chuck. I think your fears will prove unfounded. As you notice my signature line says "hang together or hang alone". These high fence shooting operations are not one of us. That also relates to the second part of my signature. Keeping high fence hunts doesn't give me the feeling of unity, it gives me the feeling of dropping to the bottom of the barrel of ethics.

I have watched this crazy PETA group for years. They always portray hunters in the poorest light possible. Since we can view videos on the internet they have used canned shooting to make us hunters all look bad. They like to portray us as a bunch of uneducated Neanderthals with absolutely no ethics. I don't look at shutting down high fence shoots as breaking that stick together mentality, rather I see it as unlocking that ball and chain when our heads are sinking below water.

State after state this unethical shooting will cease to exist. Some of these operations will go from state to state until there are no more rocks to hide under. The sooner this happens the better. I keep getting PM's from people that say they would stop hunting before they would go to a high fence operation.

Pay hunting of all kinds will reduce the number of hunters within our ranks. As the prices increase more hunters that don't have the salaries to support their sport will drop out. There will be a direct relationship between the cost of hunting, and the number of hunters who still hunt. When those numbers are reduced sufficiently to have little political clout then PETA and organizations like them will get their way. Rising costs and lowering ethics will end hunting in the not to distant future. We must search for every avenue to stop this, or mitigate, or at minimum slow the cancerous advance.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman......good post.

This is where you and I come at a crossroads. You see I don't see someone shooting a raised animal in a pen as unethical. Because this animal was raised to be harvested. Just like a steer is raised to be killed and butchered. I myself won't go to one of these operations but I don't look down on people who do. I don't consider them unethical.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck your a gentleman about these things, so you and I will just have to agree to disagree. When this is all over and which ever way it goes it will still be pleasant talking with you.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

Anti's look at killing animals in high fenced hunts the same way they look at killing animals in slaughter houses and in the wild by hunters, inhumane and unethical. What does it matter if an individual goes to a cattle ranch and shoots a cow that he wants to eat or if an individual goes to an elk farm and shoots a bull he wants to hang on the wall? As long as both animals are shot and killed in a quick and humane way and no meat goes to waste. If an individual wants to brag to friends and family about a high fenced shoot, whoop-d-ding-dong. If that is not the type of hunt you would go on THEN DON'T, but do not ridicule others for doing it. You don't think antis look at the use of decoys, camouflage, calls and scents as unfair, unethical and possibly a contradiction of what we call fair chase. 
If you do not think your argument on ethics on these high fenced shooting farms will not be used the same way against us that free range hunt you are sadly mistaken. 
How many free range animals are shoot and never recovered but go off and die, because some unskilled "hunter" took a shot they are not capable of doing because they hunt once a year? If you want to talk about ethics and hunting let us start evaluating each hunter's skill level before we allow them to shot an animal. If they can not deliver a killing shot or know where, to shoot an animal because it's quartering away, on a 30 degree incline, with a 25mph right to left wind, and they take the shot any way and the animal is wounded and is never recovered, that my fellow hunters would be called an unethical hunter. 
If you want to ban the high fenced operations DROP THE ETHICS AND MORALS argument and go after good hard facts of disease and the possible effects it could have on wildlife and possibly on the domestic livestock we really depend on.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > As you notice my signature line says "hang together or hang alone". These high fence shooting operations are not one of us.


Plainsman, I didn't think that you were that naive. You honestly think the antis separate us free range hunters from the shooters that use the high fence operations because us free range hunters allow the animals a chance to run away?
You sitting up in the air in your treestand in your camo clothing out of the animals eyesight is no more "ethical" to them as you say an animal shot behind a fence is "ethical" to you.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Turner said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > > As you notice my signature line says "hang together or hang alone". These high fence shooting operations are not one of us.
> ...


Naive is thinking I worry about what PETA thinks.  Naive is thinking that our sport hinges on PETA. Our sport hinges on who can convince John and Jane Doe public. Will we convince the public that we are ethical hunters, or will PETA convince the public that we are all like high fence shooters. 
There is a big difference between anti-hunters and non-hunters. The shift in what society will accept lies in the hands of the non-hunters. We all posses an innate understanding of what is fair and what is not. Most people, even many who support the high fence shooting, can see that shooting a penned animal is much like shooting a tied up animal This doesn't set well with society as a whole. Society accepts me sitting in a tree stand in camo, but a vote will tell us if society will accept high fence shooting. Most people distinguish between shooting a poor dumb cow, and a majestic wild animal. Most people see a vast difference, and we better realize it. If you don't see the difference don't buy a deer license buy a cow and shoot it. That will leave more wild animals for hunters who truly respect them. 
If hunting is to survive we must keep the expense at a point affordable by many. We also must weed the current and, upcoming yet to be seen unethical hunting practices.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> There is a big difference between anti-hunters and non-hunters.


You are correct there, antis will fight tooth and nail to abolish our hunting heritage all together, non-hunters will do little to nothing to help us hunters because they do not hunt and do not have a reason to. The non-hunters could be easily persuaded to side with the antis because they have nothing to lose.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Turner said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > There is a big difference between anti-hunters and non-hunters.
> ...


I guess I am more optimistic about the average person than that. At least I hope when they make decisions at the ballot box they put some thought into it. They should ask themselves, will I ever have children that may want to hunt? They should also ask, how will this affect the economy, and will it affect me? The fight has been going on for some time, and evidently many people listen to both sides. I think the last poll indicated 70 percent of people approved of hunting. If memory serves me 70 percent did not approve of high fence shooting nationally, or within our own state.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

Yes, that is true, you hope they think things through before they vote.
Have them look at your views on what you think is ethical hunting. An animal shot in a free range environment with a high power rifle from a distance BillyBob shouldn't be shooting from because he only picks up his rifle once a year to do that family tradition deer hunt. He hits the animal (hopefully not is cousin) high and in the guts and the animal wonders off and bleeds for 4 days before he dies. Then BillyBob decides to try his luck with his archery equipment because he has shot it two more times this year than his rifle. He sticks his deer and barely hits one lung with an arrow and broadhead that he bought 5 years ago and never re-sharpened. Go ahead Plainsman, tell the non-hunters how this animal dies, I will do it for you. This deer dies from bleeding out and slowly suffocates for two days due to the lack of shooting skills and proper equipment this hunter had. How would a non hunter react to those explanations of the deer talked about above and how do you think a non-hunter would vote looking at it from that point of view? If you are putting stock into the non-hunting uneducated about hunting crowd to help us out, that scares me. 
The ones on this site that are totally against high fence hunting preserves because they use the word hunt in their advertising and THEY don't think it is an ethical way to hunt nor do they want to be thrown into the same smelting pot as those who use them and call themselves hunters. Well, THEY better look at a different way to attack this, instead of abolishing it lets do the following that has been suggested many times before. More laws and enforce the ones that are on the books, licensing fees and insurance to cover any liability, are a couple that have been brought up. How about making each preserve host so many charitable hunts a year for kids and adults that are not physically capable of going out into the wild and hunt. How many biologist and game and fish graduates leave college and can't find work in what they went to school for (right in this great state of ND)? Start up a new branch of the Game and Fish (state and federal) to create jobs and monitor this business, it would be a win-win for quite a few. Some of you need to get rid of the mentality that, if we can't control it ban it, way of thinking.

Just for the record for any new readers that have just tuned in, that way of hunting is not the way I do things and I do not associate myself with the owners of any preserves. I did however talk to a fellow archer who went to Africa last year and hunted on a 5,000 acre high fenced preserve and said it was just as hard if not harder than hunting caribou in Alaska in a free range environment. He said the animals were as wild as wild can be and presented themselves a very hard target, even when hunting water holes as we do antelope here in ND.

P.S. I know my first paragraph was a little inflated, but to get my point across it had to be done.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

There are some good points from all above. I find it too easy to press my points without stepping back to listen, maybe others do that too.

Tighter regulation would solve some problems, but would not solve the negitive public perception of canned shooting (ethics). Better fencing, regulation, record keeping, bonding, insurance, inspection and enforcement would correct many current faults. That will not happen.

Understand that APHIS (Animal Plant Helth Inspection Service) regulates these operations under USDA authority. For years they have attempted to tighten regulations and State Ag Depts under pressure from the game farmers have fought off those proposed regulations. Political pressure. I sat through a meeting with the Board Of Animal Health that was dead set against new tighter regulations.

Ask yourself, who would pay, because it would be expensive. ND sportsmen already subsidize canned shooting because $250,000 is robbed from NDGF every 2 years in part for NDBOAH. Why don't the game farmers pay this instead? Seems fair to me. In addition tax payer money has funded start-up grants for these operations that are destroying public property of wildlife.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

Dick Monson said:


> Ask yourself, who would pay, because it would be expensive. ND sportsmen already subsidize canned shooting because $250,000 is robbed from NDGF every 2 years in part for NDBOAH. Why don't the game farmers pay this instead? Seems fair to me. In addition tax payer money has funded start-up grants for these operations that are destroying public property of wildlife.


Any subsidized payments to business make me cringe. Make this a valid point, if these game farmers want to stay in business tell them this is what you have to come up with or you can not stay in business. Have them each pay a certain % based on some type of criteria of their business, # of animals, gross revenue, total # of acres used... If this is so profitable they will pay the fees and taxes to make this work. And then enforce the laws and fine the ones that break the laws no exceptions or breaks for any one.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Great points Turner.

I think its a much wiser decision to err on the side of caution with these people (the anti's).
To think that they will stop at fenced hunting operations is naive. They will do away with that, the precedence will be set, and a giant sh*tslide will occur, at the expense of other types or methods of hunting. This is the MAIN numero uno reason I am against banning this type of "hunting".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> An animal shot in a free range environment with a high power rifle from a distance BillyBob shouldn't be shooting from because he only picks up his rifle once a year to do that family tradition deer hunt.


OK, now your confusing me. What have all the slob hunters to do with high fence shooting? Are you saying because of all the other bad things we should accept high fence shooting too, because there is nothing we can do about it? Or are you saying there are all these other things I should be concerned with? I am concerned with high fence shooting. I understand why all these other things peeve you, but then do something about them. I am doing something about the things I don't think are ethical.



> To think that they will stop at fenced hunting operations is naive. They will do away with that, the precedence will be set, and a giant sh*tslide will occur, at the expense of other types or methods of hunting. This is the MAIN numero uno reason I am against banning this type of "hunting".


Thar sure tis a lot of that thar naivety aaaa goin on lately.  Lets come up with a different way to insinuate people aren't playing with a full deck. That phrase is getting old.

If high fence shooting continues do you really think that makes your hunting style safer? Maybe they will believe your outdoor writing buddy and think traditional muzzleloaders are bad.  I think they will go after all hunting with everything they have no matter what. I also can't understand accepting something like high fence hunting because your afraid someone will come after you. That's simply and old song sung over and over when there really is no good reason to protect unethical hunting. If I watch my neighbor beat his wife senseless every night should I not report him because if I do he will call the township board and ask to outlaw open fires so I can't roast hot dogs anymore????


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I might add that is an odd attitude coming from an American citizen. I take pride in our democratic process. It may not be perfect, but it's the best in the world.


Our system is the best in the world by a long shot. But the observation that the majority can exert a form of tyranny is hardly new or odd. The self-righteous whims of "superior" ethics are a particularly sad ingrediant to the mix.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Walker if you look at my posts over the years you will see that the term ethics is one of my pet peeves. I normally relate the term to self-righteous jerks myself. My experience in life has been that as soon as some character starts spouting ethics it's time to move on. Some of the people I am familiar with can talk your ear off all night on ethics, and they give me a huge pain. Most of the time they are not the most ethical people themselves, they are just impressed with themselves. Usually they are the only ones impressed. 
With that said I sure would like a different term to represent how I feel about canned shooting. However, it doesn't change how I feel about canned shooting. Until I became familiar with canned shoots I didn't think I would ever complain about another persons method of hunting. I always think we should stick together to form a united wall against the anti-hunters. Then I realize these people that have canned shoots are not sportsmen, they are businessmen. They are not one of us, but they are making us look bad. I don't want the image of hunters to suffer for the benefit of profit. To me hunting is a way of life, worthy of respect, and suffers when related to business and profit.

If you notice my signature line it expresses my view. It comes from my mother, and I heard it back in the 1950's. I heard it many times and witnessed many times what she was getting at. My attitude and my feelings towards canned hunts created great conflict in my mind for a long time. My conflict ended when I put things into proper perspective. For a long time I considered them legitimate hunting, then one day I realized the people who run them don't care about hunters, they care about money, and they are not one of us. My conflict ended at that point.

I still don't like it when people talk about ethics. I don't like to use the term myself, but that is what I have to live with for now. I cringe every time I type it. I guess I see canned shoots as beyond ethics. Worse. Ethics is nit picking in comparison. As a person who has perused animals in the hunt for 50 years I am appalled by canned shoots.

We hunters confuse the non-hunters. It's hard for them to understand how we can enjoy the hunt, yet when we run across an injured animal we will care for it as if it had been a long and loyal pet. I suppose my parents would be in trouble with social services today letting me have a rifle at the ripe old age of seven. I grew up in the country a ways from town. My best friends were my old bolt action Marlin, my dog, and my two pet raccoons. I love to hunt, but I also love animals to much to rob them of dignity. I would not think of shooting one tied up, or penned up. I am loyal to true hunters and animals. No person can tell me they are a sportsman and support canned hunts. In my mind you can't be both.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> Then I realize these people that have canned shoots are not sportsmen, they are businessmen.


Maybe they are sportsmen who happen to be businessmen. Really, I sense an attempt to demonize people who don't deserve it. If they were "just" businessmen; then being a businessman is not a bad thing. The vast majority of businessmen are fine outstanding citizens.



> I am loyal to true hunters and animals.No person can tell me they are a sportsman and support canned hunts. In my mind you can't be both.


Out of all you said in your well articulated response this stuck out the most to me, because I think it says volumes about your mindset. We disagree very fundamentally, but of course that is fine. You'll speak your mind and I'll speak mine.

I'll restate my position for clarity.

I believe shooting an animal is an ethical form of slaughter. I support any person who chooses to shoot domestic livestock or game animals as long as it is done in an efficient manner, and those individuals abide by all laws. I make no distinction between free range or in captivity. I support hunters in the east who choose to hunt in food plots from permanent stands just as much as I support the hardcore backpack hunter in the Rockies. I support the person who chooses to go to a high fence enclosure to shoot an animal just as much as the person who stalks the big northern swamps with very low deer densities. I support the person who chooses to use a guide for every step of the hunt except for pulling the trigger as much as the Do-It-Yourselfer who sweats blood on his DIY caribou hunt in Alaska.

That is who I support. I think they are ALL true sportsmen as long as they abide by the law.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> I think they will go after all hunting with everything they have no matter what.


I think your absolutly right. But I personaly feel we need to fight them tooth and nail every inch of the way and not give them a single victory.

It scares me in this day and age that the abolishment of ANY form or practice in hunting CAN set a precedence and fuel their fire. Id just rather not take that chance.
I dont agree with "high fence hunting" and would NEVER do it myself, but I do support the producers, and am of the thought process to not give antis one single inch, no matter what. I think further regulation, or something, not abolishment is a much safer road for ALL of us to take on this issue, in the long run.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

GREAT to see alot of new fresh debate. Looks like Jim Posewitz fired up the troops again.

Monson,


> ND sportsmen already subsidize canned shooting because $250,000 is robbed from NDGF every 2 years in part for NDBOAH.


This has got to be the lamest point in this discussion. It really shows either how poorly informed Dick is, or more likely how he just loves to spin to make his point. If you are in doubt just call the state vets office and ask what the 250K is used for( thats per biennium so 125K per year). Contrary to their description here, they are good people and will answer your questions directly. The FACT is that money goes to NDBOAH to provide veterinary services to your good old g/f. If you just look at their website, you will see they have many biologists but no veterinarians. There are times when they need that expertise and that is the reason for the funding. It is a bargain for g/f, probably why they never bother to hire a vet, even though they could easily afford it with their multiple millions in reserves. To suggest that money benefits game farmers is just rediculous. It is for services provided to g/f. Services provided to game farmers would come out of the NDBOAH budget just like for any other livestock in the state, as they are not wildlife but domestic livestock.

Monson,


> People are unlikely to cheat if they are selling venision jerky versus a $20,000 artifical trophy, and the arguement of the anti-hunters is removed


Again a rediculous statement. Ask yourself, is there more or less incentive to prevent escape, disease, and whatever, if the livestock is worth 5K or $500. Spin away, Dick!

Yep alot of new material here??!!!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

*4590 said:*


> The FACT is that money goes to NDBOAH to provide veterinary services to your good old g/f. If you just look at their website, you will see they have many biologists but no veterinarians.





> It is a bargain for g/f, probably why they never bother to hire a vet, even though they could easily afford it with their multiple millions in reserves.


  4590, insert foot:

*Erika Butler, D.V.M.
Wildlife Veterinarian
North Dakota Game and Fish Department*

The documented smuggling and poaching cases were not transporting animals to the jerky factory. They were headed for the kill pastures of canned shooting pens. Counterfitters don't print $1.00 bills.
--------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Dick Monson said:


> The documented smuggling and poaching cases were not transporting animals to the jerky factory. They were headed for the kill pastures of canned shooting pens. Counterfitters don't print $1.00 bills.
> --------------------------------------------------------------


I missed something I think. Why would a poacher take there ill gotten gain to a game farm?


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Dick,

SORRY, I am not above admitting when I am wrong. I am glad to see they finally hired a vet. Its long over due. The expertise of a veterinarian is a great asset to the dept. HOWEVER my point is still valid. If anyone wants to know what the funds are used for, simply call the state vets office and ask. You will find they are for services provided to g/f by the state vets office. They have nothing to do with game farms under dept. of ag.

Criminal activity, like smuggling and poaching, is a law enforcement issue. This iniative will do little stop it. Honest business people and producers, who have invested thousands of dollars in their operations, and have livestock that are valueable, have plenty of incentive to do things right. Of course if you are looking at society from the bottom up, all you see is the criminal element.

Anyway I thought this was about hunting ethics, sorry my bad.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

No problem 45, had to kid you a bit.

*Walker said:*


> I missed something I think. Why would a poacher take there ill gotten gain to a game farm?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Live trapping wild (poached) record book trophy bucks, (esp from northern climates like Canada for body mass in the mounts) and smuggling them to canned shooting operations has been common place across the country. Documented. Smuggling elk across national and state lines with false vet health certificates and false bills of lading. Documented. If you want the info pm me your email. Got hours of interesting reading on the cases.

Consider that a record book animal is worth many tens of thousands of dollars in a canned shoot--no questions asked--and really if you paid that much would you want a tag in the ear of your wall hanger? It is selling the kill that drives the activity. Which the Fair Chase Hunting Measure would prevent.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> If you want the info pm me your email. Got hours of interesting reading on the cases.


Why don't you just link the information on here? Or is there a problem?


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

The arguement that hunting preserves promote poaching and smuggling makes no sense. The game farm industry is now producing larger and many more numerous trophies than can be found in the wild. For the client who wants a "record" book type head, he can certainly find what he wants at a hunting preserve. He can enjoy his hunt totally legal and safe. Any good taxidermist can fix an eartag whole. So why would anyone take a chance on smuggling if they are better and cheaper doing it legitmate?

I am not aware of any poaching or smuggling to a preserve in ND. I can buy all the good bulls I want for alot less than Dick is suggesting.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Dick Monson said:


> *Walker said:*
> 
> 
> > I missed something I think. Why would a poacher take there ill gotten gain to a game farm?
> ...


Ah, I was thinking dead.



Dick Monson said:


> ... If you want the info pm me your email. Got hours of interesting reading on the cases.


Will do ...


----------

