# IDAHO GETS IT RIGHT AS WELL!!!



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Idaho gets it right on elk hunting preserves as well!!!

On Thursday the Senate Agriculture Committee in Idaho shot down three bills that would have stripped the rights of Americans to run a good, clean, viable business of elk ranching. Another bill would have stopped allowing individuals to pay elk ranchers to enter their property and harvest an elk. A fourth bill was passed along to the full Senate that will require elk ranchers to get licensed.

This debate has been full of distorted facts in an attempt to persuade the Senate and the voters of Idaho that the wild elk population is in danger because of elk farms. The Idaho Elk Breeders Association did an excellent job in getting the right information to the legislators so their decisions could be based on fact not fiction.

The issue of hunting on elk ranches remains a passionate one because we are talking ethics. I, nor anyone else, should be in the business of trying to legislate ethics. Would we as Americans attempt to legislate that all citizens go to church on Sunday because it is morally good? Or on the other end, would we ban individuals from attending church because some didn't believe in what they did?

Many of us have sat idly by while places like New York City have lobbied for legislation to force restaurants to prepare and serve "healthy" foods. We have sat idly by as "big brother" has told businesses they can't allow smoking in their privately owned property. These are only a few of the things that for whatever reason, people in this country are beginning to believe they have a right to do. It's time to stop this nonsense. Idaho has taken an important and courageous step toward that end.

The Idaho Mountain Express ran an editorial yesterday titled, "Sportsmen One, Girlie Gunners One". Girlie Gunners are what the editor calls anyone who would enter a game ranch and shoot an animal. For one thing, it is abominable that the editors want to call many handicap people "girlie gunners", who would never have the experience of sampling what many of us more fortunate do.

Shooting big game in a virtual corral isn't sport. It's a sanitized convenience for urban couch potatoes seeking a synthetic manly thrill without the discomfort of the hardships of the trail.

A girlie editor then I guess would have to be one who sits behind the sanitized convenience of a desk in a padded swivel office chair seeking the manly thrill of writing an opinion piece without first experiencing the discomfort of the hardships of hitting the trail and discovering the truth.

The editor finishes his "girlie" editorial by asking what they believe to be a rhetorical question.

What does the future hold? Will some fly fishermen of tomorrow plead for the comfort of making their trout catches in a warm state hatchery-or from a couch-rather than casting for hours in a cold stream as true anglers have for ages?

Wake up girlie editor. The future is here. Many of you casting stones at the sinners who dare defy what you believe to be the will of God and enter a hunting preserve, pick up your fly rods and head on down to the nearest stream to fish. I guess I should mention that this stream doesn't naturally produce cutthroat trout but because you don't have time to experience the "discomfort of the hardships of the trail", you lobbied the fish and game department to keep that "glorified hatchery" full of "farm raised" trout for your convenience, all the while your children are sitting at home playing video games, one of which is probably a fishing one.

Tell me, what's the difference? Would it be different if fishermen used guns to shoot the fish? Very few fishermen - and hey, while we're at it, let's not call them fishermen because real fishermen wouldn't yank domestic trout out of the water like that - bother to take the time to go to where the native, wild cutthroat trout are. They don't experience the hours of pursuing the trout that lie undisturbed in the remoteness of the wilderness waterways. They don't expend the effort to beat through the briers and the bramble, ripping their clothing and tearing through layers of skin in order to use that fly they worked hours on to tie, to finally land that ghostly, illusive trophy trout.

I think that none of this would be an issue if elk lived in the water and elk hunters harvested their game with a fly rod. Out of sight, out of mind.

Americans on Thursday one the first round. There are still politicians who understand rights and care to know the difference between fact and fiction. Unfortunately, there are still people who believe the American way is to force their wills onto others.

Tom Remington


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

:roll: :roll:

huntin1


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

4590, what color is the sky in your world?


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Just leave the gate open the wolves that are in Idaho stop the spread of any elk health problems. They have no problem killing behind a fence or out in the open. F&G have a way of contolling the big game numbers and anything else that runs on four legs. BRING ON THE WOLVES


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I, nor anyone else, should be in the business of trying to legislate ethics. Would we as Americans attempt to legislate that all citizens go to church on Sunday because it is morally good? Or on the other end, would we ban individuals from attending church because some didn't believe in what they did?


I think most of our laws in this nation were made on a moral basis. Your premise isn't to wise. Without moral basis it is anything goes. Do you have a five or six year old daughter or niece or something? I work part time law enforcement, I know a couple of 35, 40 year old guys that would like to date them. After all it's only a moral issue. 
:eyeroll:


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Plainsman,

You are right that most of our laws have basis in morality. That morality for most Americans has a Biblical origin. Show me a Biblical basis for your supposed morality against fenced hunting and I will listen.

The comments I posted are those of Tom Remington. He is author of the Black Bear Blog. You might do well to check him out.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Why do you want to shoot something in a pen?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

4590 wants people to shoot things in pens so he can make money off of it - nothing more, nothing less. As far as he is concerned - the hell with any ethical considerations.

Jim


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Why not just have a petting zoo, you wouldn't have to replace the animals shot in corner where they can't get away and you can still charge for it?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

4590 said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> You are right that most of our laws have basis in morality. That morality for most Americans has a Biblical origin. Show me a Biblical basis for your supposed morality against fenced hunting and I will listen.
> 
> The comments I posted are those of Tom Remington. He is author of the Black Bear Blog. You might do well to check him out.


Like you said, "most" not all have a Biblical basis. Also, being based upon Biblical morality is not the test. The majority makes the laws, and your thumbing your nose will only make you more enemies. Keep up the arrogance and your day will come sooner. Nice play, I love it when you think you have it made and mouth off. Keep it up ----- please.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Does this 4590 have a gun? I don't know the whole story but some of the things he has said causes concern.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Plainsman,

When your position lacks substance, you attack the opponent. Good debating skills. I am not arrogant or thumbing my nose at anyone. I recall reading on this site how Idaho was going to outlaw hunting preserves along with ND. I just thought most of the readership would like to know the truth since NO one else had bothered to give the report.

By the way our laws are not made by the majority. We are in a representative republic. OUr laws are made by a majority of elected efficials. Accept in recent history when laws are being made by some courts.

Anyway nice dodge of the question. Would still like to know the basis for your "morality". YOur finding a date for my daughter comment was very crude and has no place in this discussion. By the way you're the one who is trying to make this a moral issue. It is simply a preference issue, if you don't like it don't do it.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

http://www.idahostatesman.com/106/story/71517.html

Well written article!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think you have to much money in your eyes to see the moral issue of canned hunts. You said


> "I, nor anyone else, should be in the business of trying to legislate ethics."


 I have no idea if you had kids or not, but I made the radical statement in the hopes that something might soak in. I see it did, but you still are blind to anything else. No, that's not right, I think you know exactly what I am talking about. You stay here and play this game in the hope to convince a few. I will waste no more of my time trying to teach you something you already know.
The majority does make the laws 4590, they do it through people that are supposed to represent them. The representatives are not representing their constituents this time, they are representing money. 
Canned hunts are repugnant . I don't like them because when they call them hunts they blemish us all, and I don't like feeling ashamed. We don't police ourselves to well when there is money to be made. Each of us I suppose have a level we are willing to sink to for profit. 
Idaho didn't get it right, they proved that they have a legislator that puts money above all else. The last article you posted - wouldn't it be interesting to know if she has relatives in the business, got money to write a pro elk ranch article, or what her connection is? Oh, ya, there it is:



> Judy Boyle is a cattle rancher and lifelong hunter. She served two years as a substitute in the Idaho Senate and was a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee.


No bias there.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

If you was to go to one of these pen shoots or are they a zoo shoot How far do you sight your scope in for 20 yards? Or does 4590 tie them up out to 50 Yards? I don't know what the laws are behind a fence. I always thought is was rather unethical to corner an animal in a fence and then shoot. What does it cost to corner one?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> YOur finding a date for my daughter comment was very crude and has no place in this discussion.


I thought about that overnight 4590 trying to decide if you truly do not understand what I was doing. If you don't then perhaps others also didn't understand it. So I will explain myself:

First you stated


> "I, nor anyone else, should be in the business of trying to legislate ethics."


That is a very broad statement and one that I don't think you believed yourself for a moment. So I set out to prove my premise. I decided I needed a radical statement that would make you react. Radical was not good enough it had to be one you would vehemently appose to bring you out. So not having any idea if you had children or not (I still don't, you may just be going for the sympathy pitch) I threw in nieces, or something (anything neighbor, neighbors niece etc.). You see the statement you made would exclude any behavior, so by using a repugnant example I succeeded in getting you to object to a specific behavior. I think you better go back and reexamine your tolerance levels. Evidently as I suspected you do have limits. I'll even go a step further and wager that if your honest with yourself you can think of laws you would currently implement based on your moral values. Don't even try tell me this isn't true. 
There are people who judge other people by their behavior every day. There are judgmental people and liars. Those who brag about their tolerance are dishonest with us and themselves. There are laws passed every day in this nation, most based on restricting behavior or implementing tolerance of behavior. I judge high fence operations and make no bones about it. They are disgusting. That is the right of every individual in society, and you can not restrict it with pseudotolerant psyco babble, ie *"I, nor anyone else, should be in the business of trying to legislate ethics"*


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

4590, I'm with ya but you ain't gonna change anybody's mind around here.

Thanks for posting the results.

Didn't someone post somewhere on this site that Idaho does 
things right, insinuating that ND should follow??


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Poor analogy of stream trout and fenced in elk. Better to use a fish pond and fenced elk.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

A pond with a seining net is a lot like shooting elk behind a fence


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ever hear the old cliche "like shooting fish in a barrel"?


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

The failed proposed legislation is a mixed blessing to sportsmen. On one hand, it got some of the landowners rights people to come to the aid of the fenced elk shooting operators. On the positive side, more sportsmen have been educated on this subject, and hopefully fewer folks will be participating in these so-called hunts.
Taking away a completely legal, if not ethically sound, way of making a living was never going to happen in ND. The vast majority of our legislators are farmers, and the right to do business as they please, is, and always has been right at the top of their list of priorities. Idaho's legislation probably failed for many of the same reasons.
The key to stopping this stuff, is closing the state borders to game animal commerce. The problem is that the U.S. can't even do that with Canadian cattle, despite the continuing evidence of Mad Cow Disease in their country. The threat of spreading CWD to a species that most people have nothing whatever to do with, just doesn't ring the bell. More's the pity. Burl


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

WE CAN LEGISLATE ETHICS AND WE DO!!!!!

EXAMPLE # 1

Prostitution is illeagel in ND.......Why?

Any more examples anyone?


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

4590 said:


> Idaho gets it right on elk hunting preserves as well!!!
> Wake up girlie editor. The future is here. Many of you casting stones at the sinners who dare defy what you believe to be the will of God and enter a hunting preserve, pick up your fly rods and head on down to the nearest stream to fish. I guess I should mention that this stream doesn't naturally produce cutthroat trout but because you don't have time to experience the "discomfort of the hardships of the trail", you lobbied the fish and game department to keep that "glorified hatchery" full of "farm raised" trout for your convenience, all the while your children are sitting at home playing video games, one of which is probably a fishing one.
> 
> Tell me, what's the difference? Would it be different if fishermen used guns to shoot the fish?
> ...


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

rowdie with prositution being illeagel in ND, Do you folks in ND feel prositution is unethical or is it just illeagel? I just don't think you can 
legislated ethics. There is power above that can and will take care of what is right and what is wrong. In the end it will be completely clear.


----------



## Whelen35 (Mar 9, 2004)

How many of you haved hunted a high fence operation? I have not, but I think a hog hunt would be fun. 280 and plainsman, have either of you done the high fence thing? I would like to hear from some people who have. Some of the ranches in texas have some very large areas to hunt in. How large of an area untill it is considered a hunt. I have a piece of land that is like a loop of land created by the river. If you drive it, the deer don't want to swim the river, and the deer get bottle necked up in the narrow area. It is only 75/A now there is no fence, but I am useing the river to help contain them in the area. Is this not hunting? Most of us use the lay of the land and cover to help "contain" the game we hunt I know that they can go the wrong way, but if an area is large enough, it would still be a challanging hunt.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Whelen35
I have not done a high fence hunt, however I have observed conditions in many of them including Texas. In Texas these containments can run from 20 acres to thousands of acres. The large ones are hard to look at as a high fence hunt.
I think a high fence operation is one in which the area an animal is contained in is smaller than the average home range for that species. In a open hunt deer often are pushed beyond their home range and are more susceptible because they do not know the escape routs. Put a deer inside four square miles and I would say it is nearly natural. 
Your situation with the river is much different. They don't want to swim the river, but pushed I am sure they would. It also depends on how many people contain them within your 75 acres. Just a few people and I am sure they will break back against you and escape. Push them as hard as you wish and they aren't going through a ten foot fence. Also, they perhaps don't run up to you when you bang on the side of a feed bucket. 
I don't see this as landowner rights Whelen which is the only reason I can see you willing to give them a break. They are a bad apple in the barrel of hunters and landowners.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

280IM

Why do you think that states make things like prostitution illeagel???

You seriously don't think ethics has ANY weight in the discussion about making certain activities illeagel?? Remember, all the laws on the book were passed at some point in time, they just didn't spring out thin air. So by your statements, out of all of the laws on the books, not one is to legislate ethical behavior.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

AS for hunting behind a fence the one thing that really turns me off is the fact the you change the natural behavior of the animal. Elk can be domesticated very easly. I have been by and been on a lot of these so called HUNTING farms and about all of them have to feed the animals. I have never shot anything on any of them. This type of harvesting is killing not hunting.

There is a set of laws that legislates ethical behavoir you can find them in the Bible The government can pass a law that will punish you for not doing what is ethically right but it can not make you be ethical. you either you have ethics or you don't


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

280IM

I think people are misunderstanding you. Correct me if I am wrong. I think what you are saying is that society can pass laws and make things illegal, but it does not change a persons heart (ethics). Two people may follow the law, and one does so because of his decency (ethical ) and the other could be a real jerk and care nothing about morals or anything else, but he follows the law out of fear of punishment. Therefore we can pass laws and make things illegal and still not change the inner ethics, morals, or principles of people.

Some people are arguing a philosophical premise, not a hunting regulation.


----------

