# Initiated measure addresses fair chase hunting in the state



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

*Initiated measure addresses fair chase hunting in the state*

Stefanie Briggs The Dickinson Press
Published Sunday, November 25, 2007

A new grassroots initiative committee called the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase may not have been around for a year, but the reason for the group is steeped in tradition.

Fish and Wildlife Services Refuge Manager Lloyd Jones said he has been discussing the issue of fair chase in hunting operations for close to 30 years, and now there seems to be more public attention to it. Jones is a former North Dakota Game and Fish Department director.

"Hunting is a tradition," Jones said. "It's an activity where you get to be outdoors and be with other people enjoying the pursuit of wild animals."

The pursuit part is what Jones and others who support the initiative's Fair Chase Hunting Measure are discussion when it comes to hunting operations with man-made enclosures on animals, usually a high fence.

The initiative committee's Web site states its objective is "to place a measure on the November 2008 ballot that enacts a law that prohibits shooting captive deer, elk and other exotic mammals behind escape-proof fences, because the practice is both mercenary and unethical."

The wording of the initiative ballot language prepared by the secretary of state and attorney general is: "This initiated measure would add a new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code effective Nov. 1, 2010, providing that a person, other than an authorized government employee or agent, is guilty of a crime if the person obtains payment for the killing or attempted killing of privately owned big game species or exotic mammals in or released from a man-made enclosure."

Petitions are currently circulating around the state in support of this measure. Right now, the initiative committee needs more than 12,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

"We started up at the end of this last legislative session," committee Chairman Roger Kaseman said. "About six or seven of us got together in Jamestown and met to get filed with the secretary of state and become an official organization."

A retired law enforcement officer living in Linton, Kaseman refers to the initiative group as a hybrid, with members scattered all around the state. He just recently put up a Web site for people to learn more about the group.

"We're a child of the Internet," he added. "A lot of what we do and how we communicate is by e-mail."

In support of the measure and initiative is Dickinson electrician Mitch Feininger, who like Jones, Kaseman and other supporters, actively hunts.

"I'm an avid hunter and I feel that a hunter has all the tools necessary with modern technology such as optics or accuracy of modern firearms and archery equipment that such a practice (as canned hunting) tips the scale too far to the hunter's advantage as to make it a&#8230;guaranteed successful harvest," Feininger said of fenced-in hunting operations.

Hunting is not hunting, but merely killing when the animal does not have a chance to use it's instincts to outsmart its hunter, he added.

For Kaseman it's a question of ethics.

"No ranch is big enough to give an animal a fair chase," he added. "We must continue to hold to the code of ethics created by the founders of the North American Model of Game Management and Conservation."

The model details that all wildlife belongs to North Americans and how that wildlife should be sustained perpetually.

If you raise the animal as livestock, it should be slaughtered as livestock, Feininger added.

"Hunting is the pursuit of free-ranging animals," he said. "When a once free-ranging animal becomes domesticated, it becomes livestock. Livestock was never meant to be hunted."

The initiative is working toward not allowing people to pay to shoot animals in a manmade enclosure, Jones said.

The bottom line for hunting operations is to make money, Kaseman added.

"People involved in agri-business have a reflex action against what we are talking about," he said. "This is one of our biggest campaign issues."

This practice is the keystone of commercialized hunting, which excludes many, if not most, native North Dakota blue-collar sportsmen, Feininger added.

"We cannot afford to pay for hunting access while hunting is the main reason we live here," he said. "North Dakota stands to lose a large number of residents if hunting continues to become more commercialized, which prices the average residents out."

The legislators are the wind sock in an airport blowing wherever the agri-business blows, Kaseman added.

Current Game and Fish Director Terry Steinwand understands both sides to this issue and said the department is remaining neutral at this time.

"I personally don't like canned hunts, but it's legal as long as it doesn't affect the public's ability to harvest or access resources," Steinwand said. "If it does affect it, then we will take a stance on it."

Steinwand is an active hunter. He is an advocate of fair chase and private property rights. Infringement on private rights is one of many things those who operate enclosed hunting preserves have issue with.

"You have to look at the big picture," he said. "Does it impact North Dakota hunters who utilize the resource that's rightfully theirs?"

Steinwand hasn't spoken with many private property owners about the initiative, but he anticipates more comments and questions as times goes on.

Jones' support directly lies in what preserves the quality of hunting experiences for future generations.

"I don't think this kind of hunting experience is good for the future of hunting," he said. "We already having a real challenge to make sure hunting is viewed as a good recreational activity. We want to keep hunting as a wholesome, recreational and traditional activity."

Feininger proposes one scenario with future hunters in mind.

"If a youth hunter was introduced to hunting in this setting, he or she would not develop the skills to harvest game in a natural setting and could become frustrated with limited success, which is often the case in fair chase hunting, and eventually give up hunting," he added.

Feininger has not been interested in going to see or participate in one of these operations he opposes.

"I have never been to one of these operations because I feel they are immoral and unethical," he said. "One does not need to participate in something they consider immoral or unethical to consider it wrong."

To learn more about the initiative you can go to its Web site:http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petition Circulators, we need the tally of your signatures to date. If you haven't sent that number to Gary, pm it to me now, or email me at [email protected] For anyone who wishes to help this effort please do the same. Dick


----------



## Neanderthal (Oct 30, 2007)

Although I do not support high fence hunting or whatever people choose to call shooting planted, penned animals, I do believe there is one point that every article that I have read has not had the guts to mention. Please remember that I am a blue collar hunter, don't own any land and live paycheck to paycheck. This is the United States of America! IMO, when anyone OWNS land they have the right to do any darn thing they want on it, as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights. This is the same thing as someone trying to tell me what I can do in my house, IMO.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Neander, not trying to pick a fight, just trying to explain a few things.

Every member of the Fair Chase Committee is a diehard ND hunter. We are from all walks of life across the state. I am a farmer and land owner myself. We aren't opposed nor is the initiated measure opposed to selling captive game for meat or live sale. We do oppose "selling the act of the kill" inside an escape proof enclosure. All hunters are tarnished by this act in the public eye.

And down the road we will pay a price as hunters if we don't shut it down. Because eventually the nonhunting public will shut it down and they may shut down a lot more at the same time. And then hunters are going to howl because they didn't move to preempt that action. Canned shooting is no different than dog fighting, something else people used to do on their "own property, at their own home".

Check us out at: http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/index.htm


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Dick,

You cleared up alot for us. Fact is Dick is very much opposed to the game farm industry. You don't have to read many of his posts to figure that out. It is his goal to destroy the game farm industry in ND.

Comparing preserve hunts to dog fighting again? Well there is some "new rhetoric". Dog fights is inhumave treatment of animals. If preserve hunts is inhumane to animals so is free chase hunting and more so. Slaughtering any domestic animal would also be considered abusive. What crowd does that put you in, Dick, how do you like the company you keep.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Some great editorials in November issue of Dakota Country magazine concerning the initiative. Hope everyone got a chance to read them.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

4590 said:


> Comparing preserve hunts to dog fighting again? Well there is some "new rhetoric". Dog fights is inhumave treatment of animals. If preserve hunts is inhumane to animals so is free chase hunting and more so. Slaughtering any domestic animal would also be considered abusive. What crowd does that put you in, Dick, how do you like the company you keep.


I see this as trying to make the point that just because it happens on your property, it doesn't give you the right to do it. Neanderthal said


> IMO, when anyone OWNS land they have the right to do any darn thing they want on it, as long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights. This is the same thing as someone trying to tell me what I can do in my house, IMO.


 Dog fighting occurs on personal property and "doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights" so by Neanderthal's thinking the law shouldn't step in. Ask Mike Vick how that turned out for him. The reality is you can't do anything you want just because it's your propery. We all know that.... :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

4590.....Dick is clearly saying the measure WILL NOT change your ability to raise and sell meat.Just don't call it hunting and charge some yahoo $5,-10,000 to do it.

You don't seem to understand that.Don't keep saying it will close down game farms.....with FARMS being the operative word here.You can still raise them and sell them just the same as cattle or buffalo.You don't operate a preserve do you?You don't call it that do you?It is a FARM.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> 4590.....Dick is clearly saying the measure WILL NOT change your ability to raise and sell meat.Just don't call it hunting and charge some yahoo $5,-10,000 to do it.


Let me pose a question. According to this initiative, if I go to a game farm and purchase a elk, do I then have the right to kill that elk on that farm property, butcher it and take it home with me or do I have to load that elk up and take it somewhere else to be killed.


----------



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

cwoparson said:


> > 4590.....Dick is clearly saying the measure WILL NOT change your ability to raise and sell meat.Just don't call it hunting and charge some yahoo $5,-10,000 to do it.
> 
> 
> Let me pose a question. According to this initiative, if I go to a game farm and purchase a elk, do I then have the right to kill that elk on that farm property, butcher it and take it home with me or do I have to load that elk up and take it somewhere else to be killed.


Let me ask you a question then. Does anyone who purchases said elk need a North Dakota HUNTING license to kill that elk?

Don't come here trying to pass off the TAME SLAUGHTER of FARM ELK as a wild hunting opportunity. If you need to have in possession a valid North Dakota elk license, that is HUNTING.

If you don't, then you shouldn't THEN be allowed to call your operations hunts. Hunts require a valid state purchased license.

Quit trying to confuse the two..

Maybe we need to start an additional initiated measure to demand and enforce terminology limitations on the definition of hunting vs slaughter shooting?

Ryan


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I would say that charging someone BY THE POUND similar to what it would cost at a butcher shop or grocery store is a whole lot different than you paying that $5,000 and up fee.So there is a difference.

I don't know where you live but today's Forum had an article in it about a deer farm in NW Minn.They raise whitetails in a 100 acre fenced area.....and do not charge a "Hunters Fee" to kill one.It sounds like they collect urine from does in heat to sell and sell frozen semen for breeding purposes.

I don't know much about how the law works,but this seems like it's OK if this measure was law.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Neither of the activities listed in todays Forum article would be prohibited, selling urine or sperm sticks, or live animals for that matter. If someone wanted that animal for meat, have the game farm owner kill it on site before money is exchanged. The key would be the price, (no trophy fee).

Cows are advertised at $300 and bulls at $1200 and up in local papers. Obviously the cows are going for cull price for meat, and bulls for trophy fees. I am not a fan of big game ranching, but the Fair Chase Measure is not about game ranching either, only "selling the act of the kill".

Anyone could still buy all the elk and deer meat they wanted, the buyer just couldn't shoot it himself. If he is truely only after meat it wouldn't matter.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The Fargo Forum article stated that the measuring stick for white tails is going to be a 250+ BC score. Think about that. The only place for those trophy deer are canned shooting operations somewhere else. Why not raise trophy walleyes to 20lbs in a water tank for the wall too? Spread the cheer for the trophy room.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think all game farm (other than birds or buffalo) pose a disease risk. Most of the raisers know it and monitor, but not very good. When the price starts hitting $5,000 to $10,000 this risk grows exponentially. If a meat raiser gets an infected animal the chances are he will not risk infecting the wild herd or another ranchers herd for the paltry price of $300 or $400, but make that a few thousand and the temptation to get your money out of the animal makes many people ignore what should be done. This is the great difference that separates those who are growing animals for meat and those who are growing them for pen shooting.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

R y a n said:


> cwoparson said:
> 
> 
> > > 4590.....Dick is clearly saying the measure WILL NOT change your ability to raise and sell meat.Just don't call it hunting and charge some yahoo $5,-10,000 to do it.
> ...


What's your problem Mr. Ryan?? I ask a simply question about how I would be able to dispose of a animal should I buy one at a game farm. I did not mentioned hunting at all and you jump out of the bushes blabbering some off the wall nonsense. My question was aimed as to whether I would have to call a North Dakota government official to come out and kill the animal for me or could I do it. Your question and follow up rant was just being a jerk. Get a life.



> Maybe we need to start an additional initiated measure to demand and enforce terminology limitations on the definition of hunting vs slaughter shooting?


You might start by first just simply sticking to the question being asked for a change.



> Anyone could still buy all the elk and deer meat they wanted, the buyer just couldn't shoot it himself. If he is truely only after meat it wouldn't matter.


Dick, it would matter if I wanted to do my own butchering which I can do if I purchase a beef cow from a rancher and save the cost of paying for that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Cwoparson

Let me try get around the problem you perceive. Let the rancher shoot it. Don't pay him $5000 for meat. Let the rancher sell the antlers to the oriental market for their version of Viagra. Or donate the antlers to boy scouts like the Wildlife Refuge in Jackson Hole, Wyoming did until they found out how valuable they were.

If any loopholes exist the people who do high fence hunts will cheat the system. I can't expect less of them.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I think instead of banning the so called hunts you need to change the terminology.

Like Ryan mentioned. You can't place ad's saying words like hunting, sporting, heritage, fair chase, free range, etc.

You simply call a spade a spade......enclosed shooting, fenced in shooting, etc.

Then the public should be able to determine that this is not hunting. But shooting.

I also think that they should have the strict health checks on the animals for disease control. (I think they are already in place.)

I think this would be easier to pass this type of legislation and will not tar the image of hunting like people are afraid of. Plus you would not be limiting peoples lively hood or taking away experiences from others (the client).

Because here is what I fear......you close down the big game operations and then next will be the pheasant. This will all be done with out the help of PETA or other organizations like them. This is hunters shutting down these places. Then PETA will go after other things. Look who has a chance at becoming the President.....Hilary! So instead of closing down the big game operations, just make them have strict advertising laws.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Plainsman, the last five years I've only taken two elk on hunts. But I do like elk meat very much. If I could purchase a cow elk for the $300 that Dick says they go for or even higher if the price is right then I would jump at the opportunity to slaughter and butcher one for my freezer. I certainly wouldn't pay no $5,000 for some trophy meat animal and I'm not interested in hunting on a game farm though that operation doesn't bother me. I'd much rather do my own butchering and packaging but I darn sure would not want to have to load that animal alive in the back of my truck and drive it across the state line just to butcher it. So again I ask the question where does this initiative come down on this. Does anyone know or would it just be a guess on their part.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plus you would not be limiting peoples lively hood or taking away experiences from others (the client).


I don't understand that argument. There are some people in existence who have no scruples at all and will do anything for money. Restricting them takes away from their lively hood too, but we do it. As far as taking away the experience from the client I have no problem with that. We stopped internet hunting, where some guy sitting in his New York penthouse shoots a deer in Texas with the click of his computer mouse. What's the difference???? I am not trying to be a smart aleck here, I am serious, what's the difference?

coparson, I think I understand why you have the questions you do. Would you have a problem laying out $2 or $3 a pound and the owner shoots and loads the animal for you? There are ways around this that still prevents pseodo trophy hunting. I don't see it restricting the sale of meat. I also agree with you that as easy as butchering is I wouldn't pay anyone either.

oops, forgot to quote above.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

This is simple and as plainsmen said above.

I don't shoot the steer that I get fom the 4-H kid down the road, but I do help quarter it and take it home to process.

If elk and deer are domesticated animals, why are they grown specifically for horn development and not size, loin eye, fat, calving ease, etc.. like bison, cattle, sheep, and pigs are????


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

What I mean for the client is that game farms serve a purpose. Look at the handicap hunts. Many take place on game farms.

I know many say they have special needs hunts in parks and what not. But you can't use a laser sight in those hunts, some you can't shoot from vehicles, some you are limited by weapons, etc. Look into them...trust me I have. On game farms you are not limited at all.

I have first hand knowledge of these things. My twin brother is in a wheel chair. He does get to go deer hunting with us. But an elk hunt is out of the question. So he is right now saving up his money to go to a game farm and shoot an elk. This is what he wants to do. He sees the hunting shows and wants and elk. I have been talking with a few farms and they are more than willing to help out in anyway possible. They are even going to give him a discounted fee.

You see these place serve a purpose.

I happy internet hunting was derailed. But this is comparing apples to oranges. The internet hunting is a guy never steps foot in the state, does not get to eat the meat, does not get to experience the sounds of the moment, etc. In most game farm situations the client does do all of these things. A HUGE difference between internet hunting and game farm hunting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I happy internet hunting was derailed. But this is comparing apples to oranges. The internet hunting is a guy never steps foot in the state, does not get to eat the meat, does not get to experience the sounds of the moment, etc. In most game farm situations the client does do all of these things. A HUGE difference between internet hunting and game farm hunting.


Sorry to disagree, I don't see any difference. The internet hunter could have the meat if he wanted to. The only sound he missed was the high fence operator going here boy, corn, corn, the rattle of the food bucket, here boy.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Two or three dollars a pound might be alright but if I can get it cheaper I'd just as soon do that. Problem I see at the moment and the way I read it is according to the proposal the owner can not shoot that animal if he is paid for it even if he is a 4-H kid. The proposal does say *anyone*, not customer, owner or client. So who can besides a government official? No one has been able to answer that yet and I'm not sure any of you can.

Just for everyone's information this internet hunting thing is just a myth. It never existed. There was one web site that came up with the idea and it was immediately shut down. No one ever performed such a hunt. There were 33 states that immediately passed laws forbidding internet hunting, something there never was. Imagine that. :lol:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman that same sound of shovels and corn could be heard in a majority of hunting TV shows you see that take place in Texas. They shovel corn and feed on the trails and then the animals come and then they shoot. Why do you think most of the shots are with the animals head down and feeding!

Again we see different sides.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck Smith said:


> Plainsman that same sound of shovels and corn could be heard in a majority of hunting TV shows you see that take place in Texas. They shovel corn and feed on the trails and then the animals come and then they shoot. Why do you think most of the shots are with the animals head down and feeding!
> 
> Again we see different sides.


I don't care to do that either, but I wasn't knocking the corn. I know what you mean about Texas. I waited years to get the hunting channel and all it is is advertisements for outfitters and products. What a disappointment.

It's about the enclosure really. Would anyone respect someone that went into the woods and shot a deer that someone else had tied up for him? Even if the rope is 1/4 mile long? I can't see this as an outdoor experience even for the handicap people. A rose still smells like a rose if you can run the 100 yard dash in under 10 seconds or your in a wheelchair.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman.....what you are talking about in that last post is opinion, ethics and morals. These are all personal and each person perception is different.

To some that high fenced shooting (see I am not calling it hunting) is an experience. The game farm is the only way they can experience that experience. Some might only be able to shoot an elk in an enclosed structure.

I myself will never shoot an animal in an enclosure. But it is needed for others.

IMO this measure to shut down these operations is a waste. It would be easier and better fit to change the way they operate.

- Make it so they can't advertise a certain way....can't use the words hunts, trophy hunts, trophy animals, etc.

- Then try to pass it so if they want hold a shooting on the property they need to have X number of acres.

- Make the health check of the animals more frequent or more strict.

- Make sure the pen enclosures (the housing pens) be double fenced. This will help with animal escape.

You see this way you are not taking away anything just managing it better. Also if the rules are more strict it would get rid of the slob outfits. Because what will be happening is pitting Landowners vs Hunters. Even if the landowners don't agree with penned shooting of animals they will agree with landowner rights. This is what PETA wants. This is a battle in there favor that they are not even fighting.

Someone said it in a post I read earlier....that hunters need to police themselves.....Then police it not exterminate it. Because to get rid of it is not policing.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

> On game farms you are not limited at all.


Chuck,

Your statement above is a great reason to support this initiative in my opinion.
:beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck, I respect you and angus1 so we will just have to agree to disagree.

Keep one thing in mind. Stricter gun control does not control crime, and stricter regulations on high fence hunts will do nothing to control those who intend to cheat anyway. It will just make them more careful and harder to catch.

If landowners support these people simply because they are landowners, then my opinion of landowners has taken a big plunge. I don't respect people who support someone simply because they are in the same vocation as they are. That leaves doors wide open for abuse. To me this is akin to catholics supporting priests who abuse children simply because they are catholic. What's more important, your integrity, or your loyalty to those who don't deserve it.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Keep one thing in mind. Stricter gun control does not control crime, and stricter regulations on high fence hunts will do nothing to control those who intend to cheat anyway. It will just make them more careful and harder to catch.


Be careful now. Remember that slippery slope that was discussed. If gun controls don't work then the only obvious solution is to ban guns because people are going to cheat and kill anyway. There's that word again, ban. The reason gun controls don't work is because the laws already on the books are not enforced. But what you have already decided is people are automatically going to cheat on stricter regulations, and in truth you really don't know that, so the only solution is a ban. That thin veil that everyone is behind is getting thinner and thinner.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gun bans through out history have not worked, but banning some things has worked. Banning guns in Germany got a few million people sent to the gas chamber without the ability to put up a fight. Banning cigarettes in restaurants has been good. It's hard to hide a pasture full of trophy elk. I think banning high fence killing will work. I'm sure there will be a few big bulls still shot as hunts, but it will be against the law, and with any luck the majority will be caught and prosecuted.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman....or anyone against high fenced operations

My question to you is if a high fenced operation does everything right....What I mean:
- has lots of acres for the shooting pen
- Only has X number of animals per acre (disease control)
- double fenced so no escapee's 
- gets health checks all the time
- does not use the words hunting, trophy, etc in advertising 
- is ahead of the industry with health, feed, care and education for his animals and operation
- Has strict saftey guidelines in place and enforces them
- does not drug his animals
- kills them fast and humane

What or who is that operation hurting? Why does that operation need to be shut down?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think it hurts every hunters image who lives in the shadow of this travesty of hunting. When I talk to an anti-hunter, I shouldn't have to be ashamed of a portion of my hunting fraternity. I shouldn't have to hang my head in shame when non-hunters talk about the morality of hunting.

I know you will not misunderstand this Chuck, but for those with comprehension problems my following comment is about situations not comparing high fence operations. Having high fence killings and having non-hunters compare it to real hunting is like being the brother of the village idiot and everyone talks to you reeeaaall slowwww. We either end these operations now, or a larger portion of our hunting heritage will be destroyed along with them in the not to distant future. Get rid of this bad apple now before society throws out the whole barrel. They are not one of us, there is no need for a feeling of "lets stick together".

This is my feeling towards high fence operations, and more and more each day I find people agree with me. These operations will end. State after state they have taken away these menace to hunting. Very soon it will be nation wide. It's only a matter of time, and a very short time. The faster it happens the less impact it will have on traditional hunting.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Again Plainsman you take the word "Hunting and Heritage" away from these places. You call them as we see them....shooting farms or killing farms. So the anti's or non-hunters can't say this is hunting.....because it is not.

Because what I get from most of the people on this subject that are against it is that they don't like that they are compared to hunting. Then like I have stated take that word away. Every industry has laws about advertising or restrictions. Make this industry do so as well.

Because if you ban these types of places you are taking away oppurtunities from people. You are taking away an oppurtunity for the rancher to make a living. You are taking an oppurtunity for some person to have an experience of harvesting an animal. The one time kill could turn them into a lifetime hunter. What I mean is that they could shoot the penned animal then want to get into it like the rest of us....start to do it with out the fences.

Like I stated last time this topic came up. My twin brother lee (the one in a wheelchair) got his first kill at a high fenced ranch. he shot a russian boar. Now after that experience we started to work at figuring out ways to get him to hunt with us......because found out that we could make things work.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Take our the word hunting, and don't include native wildlife, excluding bison. Lets face it bison will never roam the great plains in the millions again. That would be more acceptable, however the act is still being done, and I find it repugnant. Not something I can know is happening, and turn my back on it.

I have talked with people that say if you see a mugging in New York you should ignore it and mind your own business. I would be in trouble there also. I could not watch a 20 year old jerk beat up an 80 year old woman and take her belongings without stepping in. Same here, I can not tolerate the intolerable without attempting to do something about it. If I fail I can live with that, but I can not live with not trying.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So if the high fence operations just had exotic game....then it is ok?

I give you lots of credit ,and many on this site, that do sign petitions and talk to legislators and try to get things passed. Even if I don't agree with it at least you are using the system that is in place to make change. Many people will just talk about what is wrong or what they think is wrong and do nothing about it.

I am glad we could keep this discussion civil and it is a good debate. It is snowing outside so I think I need to be out hunting something (and it is not in a pen :wink: ).

Take care.
Chuck


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks Chuck, and I hope you have a wonderful day hunting.

If it was all exotics I still wouldn't like it because it still reflects on hunting. It however doesn't give me that sick to the gut feeling perhaps because I see them more as out of place and more domestic.

Long ago I once read a story about cannibals on some islands. On one island they were constantly terrorized by another island who's people hunted them. On another island their children were captured and fattened like cattle. To the non-hunter I woulds ask which island would you rather be on, the one that you were hunted on. but had a chance to escape, or the one you were penned up and fattened until ready for the kill. I don't remember the book, but it was morbid and perhaps formed some of my outlook on high fence killing. 
When my father had a heart attack I took care of the farm for a couple of years. I was only in the seventh grade. I would rather eat wild deer than butcher a calf I cared for. I could raise them today, but I would buy a neighbors calf for my table and sell mine to my neighbor. 
As you may already have surmised the kill is not the climax of the hunt for me.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Plainsman,

Hope you continue to make posts like the previous. You are leaving little doubt about how radical your views are. The cannibal thing ranks right up there with the time you wanted to introduce my daughter to some pervert as an example of how you had the corner on morality - something about knowing it when you see it. Your unwillingnes to butcher a farm raised beef, puts you mighty close to joining PETA.

However I am impressed that you referred to a "pen of trophy bulls". Maybe we are wearing you down.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

I am sorry, I guess the direct quote was a "pasture full of trophy elk".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

but I would buy a neighbors calf for my table and sell mine to my neighbor.



> Your unwillingnes to butcher a farm raised beef, puts you mighty close to joining PETA.


I am not unwilling to butcher a farm raised beef. I would rather trade my neighbor and butcher his than one I had cared for. I remember getting sort of attached to things I take care of and would feel a little like a traitor killing and butchering an animal I had cared for. Show me a rancher that would rather kill an animal he cared for before one he had no previous contact with and I will show you someone with a mental problem.



> "pen of trophy bulls".





> I am sorry, I guess the direct quote was a "pasture full of trophy elk".


Ever hear of Sigmund Freud????


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

My point is I have been blasted on this sight for referring to farm raised animals as "trophies". I am glad you can at least admit to the quality of animals we are offering for sale.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There is no doubt in my mind that the antler mass makes these score as trophies. However, a true trophy is in the mind of the hunter. A hard come by 5X5 might be more of a trophy to someone than the 6X6 he shot at the trail head. Your animals appear as trophies, but even a imperial from a pen would not be a true trophy on my wall. 
One thing captured animals can not do is maintain the genetic diversity of wild herds. At some places in the mountains a few thousand elk come into contact. Then you throw in the fact that a young male may travel a couple hundred miles and you find that over a ten year period tens of thousands of elk have spread their diversity over hundreds of thousands of square miles. 
Captured herd breeders control genetic for horn mass. What looks healthy in the short term may be bery damaging over a few hundred hears. In a couple thousand years when elk have become truely domesticated they would be a danger introducing their genetics back into a wild herd. Much like ducks in China that have been domesticated for so long. They would know nothing of migration, little of feeding themselves, they drop eggs everywhere and don't have the brains to nest, and this is just some of the problems. 
When true domestication occurs it will be no different than shooting a pig in a pen and thinking your the mighty hunter. Of course by that time there will perhaps be no firearms, no privately owned land, and we will have digressed to the world liberals want.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Plainsman,
Once again you are in error. The "wild" herds you speak of have also been genetically modified from their true wild state. Hunters taking out the biggest and best trophies each year, has contributed to the species being bred down instead of the original survival of the fittest. In some areas you can't even find a 5X5 anymore. By selective breeding, the elk industry has proven the genetic potential within the species that is seldome seen in the wild anymore. I believe the industry is actually preserving the genetic potential that is being lost in the wild. It is also taking some of the pressure off the wild herds by taking some of the trophy hunters out the market.

2000 years from now I will be in the presence of my Lord. If this world lasts that long I seriously doubt if He will be too concerned if elk drop their eggs and nest or not.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> By selective breeding, the elk industry has proven the genetic potential within the species that is seldome seen in the wild anymore.


I wanted to make sure you could not edit this statement. It is proof that you judge an animals worth only by antler growth. You also state:



> Once again you are in error. The "wild" herds you speak of have also been genetically modified from their true wild state.


And some people accuse me of having a PETA mentality???? Elk have been hunted by man for tens of thousands of years. I think the oldest human remains in North America are around 33,000 years (that I am aware of anyway, I'm not an Anthropologist). In an environmental sense you can not separate man from the wild as antihunters do. We are as much an intricate part of the wild ecosystem as any other predator. Antihunters, and even some hunters can not grasp that concept. It is iriputably so.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

So do most hunters. Why do you suppose you have a B&C book that you so revere anyway. I would however dispute your numbers. Scripture clearly indicates that the fear of man was put in the animal kingdom after the flood. Before that it would not have been considered "hunting" as you say they had no fear of man.

My point is you claim our selective breeding will have a detrimental affect on the species, even though they are not part of the wild herds. Yet you don't want to own up to the fact that because of trophy hunting in the wild there has been a detioration in the genetic base because hunters continue to take out the biggest and best breeders.

Again the very fact that we are discussing this topic proves that the intent is to end the game farm industry as the initiative does nothing to address the genetics issue.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think we are carrying on a conversation far beyond the scope of the measure. Genetics certainly would have nothing to do with it. Also, they would only be a danger if they escaped. I don't know which of us side-railed the topic, but it was interesting. 
Genetic variation and adaptation are interesting topics. For example when you breed for maximum antler grown I would guess you have no idea what is happening to the elk adaptation to arid climate conditions and the function of their kidneys and ability to retain water. This is why they don't taste so good on dry years, to much crud in the meat.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

For all of you that oppose these operations due to the "sporting" factor.

Do you not realize that after high-fence has gone the way of the Dodo, due to it not being fair to the animal, some anti hunting group is going to come after something else they feel is not fair, scopes, in-line muzzleloaders, compound bows, etc etc.

Do I feel in-line muzzleloaders are fair to use in a muzzleloader season....no, do I support their abolishment, no.

I feel gun hunting big game is unchallenging and not "sporting". Does this mean I should go ahead and chastize it.....no.

I feel baiting is something used by rookie hunters who are just out to see lots of game and shoot it.........

The list goes on and on.

But I, unlike some of you realize to each his own. No matter what you do, the media, and general populace in coming years are going to look down on hunting more and more. (Just look at where society is going).

Chuck has it right, stop calling it HUNTING! Problem solved. Establish a public difference between "shooting preserves", and "hunting".

You all are aiding the antis in their fight to abolish hunting in this country. Thank you.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> You all are aiding the antis in their fight to abolish hunting in this country. Thank you.


Obviously you forgot to put "In my opinion" :roll:


----------

