# Measure 2 Results



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

http://results.sos.nd.gov/resultsCTY.as ... 02&map=CTY

Gives the break down by county. Nip and tuck @ 8.47PM


----------



## NDJ (Jun 11, 2002)

Looks like Fargo and GF were the yes areas....rest of the state will say no.

No's should have it...55- 45


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

57-45 is nip and tuck? closer than I thought but the lies are coming to the top


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

from the Bismarck Tribune



> Roger Kaseman, chairman of North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, has spearheaded the campaign.
> 
> Kaseman said it is an ethical issue that casts a negative perception on hunting in North Dakota.
> 
> ...


----------



## SiouxperDave25 (Oct 6, 2002)

Kaseman said it best on 9/2/10.....How Sweet It Is!!!!!!!!!!

:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Measure 2.
> 
> How sweet it is!
> 
> ...


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Out spent my behind!

As of 11 PM measure 2 won in three counties, Sioux, Grand Forks, and Cass (big surprises on the last two :roll: ). And, barely won at that.

There are a lot of reasons Roger and friends measure lost, being "out spent" is not one of them.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Done deal according to the Herald this morning, Measure 2 went down. Good thing most ND folks can see through a smokescreen and have common sense. Monson & his crew of supporters can go cry in their beer with HSUS, PETA, and every other animal rights/anti-hunting group they aligned themselves with. Enjoy the company in the bed you are lying in this morning as you made it of your own free will, (just the same as ND roundly rejected you) and don't ever walk up to my farmstead to ask so much as directions to town...


----------



## north14 (Oct 1, 2004)

The citizens of North Dakota have spoken. Keep PETA and HSUS the hell out of our state!!!!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Measure 2 Fails



> North Dakota voters on Tuesday defeated a measure that would have banned shooting elk and deer inside high-fence enclosures.
> 
> With 434 of 505 precincts reporting, Initiated Measure No. 2 trailed by a margin of 111,639 to 86,728, or 56.28 percent to 43.72 percent.
> 
> ...


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

As much as I detest HF, the outcome was the correct one.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

What is surprising to me is Barnes County, and Stutsman County both went "NO". I thought these counties were Monson strongholds.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Thank you to everyone who helped by taking signs, writing letters, and supporting the elk/deer growers in their property rights by voting no.

I do not believe that Roger Kaseman acted on his own accord. There have been some that have overstepped their boundaries, and I sincerely hope that the elk/deer growers take them to task.

This has been a long, hard struggle and it has been TOO long for many of these families, going on almost 6 years; too much time and dollars have been spent on this fight.

Unfortunately this measure has divided communities, families, hunters, and landowners. It may take a long time for wounds to heal.

The one thing I did notice is that support came in BIG time for most of these families in their own counties. Dwight's county was an overwhelming 80%. That says a lot when your own backyard supports you.

Again thanks to everyone who supported protecting property rights!

Lynell Tagestad
Sister of Dwight Grosz, President of the Elk Growers


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

There were really no 'winners" in this issue. The operations that have invested their hard work and families future will simply be able to continue in what was and still is a legal use of their privately owned domestic animals and their property. There was a divide created within this states hunting community like never before. And HSUS gained a degree of legitimacy in a few more peoples eyes. There is now a few more people within this state that will believe HSUS is not a radical group out to end all hunting as well as animal ag thanks to 4 ND hunters that chose to do a statewide ad campaign for them as well as a group of other hunters that opened the door for them to come into our state.

The people that saw this and voted no can draw on the satisfaction that THIS time the people of ND told these groups no. We will see if anyone was listening.


----------



## Skavdog (Nov 13, 2008)

I am glad the vote went as it did...rights of farmers and ranchers were upheld as were the rights of a person to pursue a legal activity in a way in which they so choose...although it is a bit scary that some 90,000 people voted in favor of it...I would just suggest to those of the 90,000 who are hunters, just make sure you take your "vote yes on measure 2" button off your hunting jacket before you ask Joe farmer to hunt on his or her land. Let's hope this never comes up again.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

What? No concession speech from Kaseman on here? oke:

I wonder how he likes the ND voters now? 

ND sportsmen, farmers, and ranchers need to band together and get out and inform the general public of the true agenda of groups like HSUS.

Next time something like this happens in the state (and there will be a next time) we have to be better prepared. We cannot afford a close vote.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

I have followed this issue on this site for some time now and really respect the efforts of these sportsmans groups. I have a tough time looking at trophy whitetail bucks and elk without some high level of skepticism. Sportsman need to look at themselves first and figure out / ensure that high fence game animals are not allowed into B&C or P&Y record books. Groups like Safari, B&C, etc... should take the lead on having policies against hunters who have recorded a hunt at such a place from ever being in their record books. Maybe like Pete Rose and baseball, permanent ban on all entries for life !!!

Individual hunters should refuse to buy products from companies that advertise on TV shows that promote high fence hunts. Write the company, blast them on internet forums. Don't buy their boots, shells, guns, etc...

I think the decision was probably the right one for ND. The comment that there are only a dozen operations and that has not changed in 20 years says a lot. No one is getting into elk right now with the risk of CWD and the loss of velvet industry in China to Viagra. The demand for Buffalo hunts cannot be that great - let Krapp have his little place.

Texas is NOT ND. I lived on the Gulf Coast and the High Fence operations tend to be more exotic animals. Whether they cater to upscale restaurants or wallet hunters, it has become a real industry.

Farmers and ranchers in ND for the most part are pro-hunters and good people, but they realize property rights are key to their survival. Passing this legislation would have probably created an unnecessary riff between sportsman and landowners in ND.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

"Sportsman need to look at themselves first and figure out / ensure that high fence game animals are not allowed into B&C or P&Y record books. Groups like Safari, B&C, etc... should take the lead on having policies against hunters who have recorded a hunt at such a place from ever being in their record books. Maybe like Pete Rose and baseball, permanent ban on all entries for life !!!"

Groups like Safari(especially) and B&C and P&Y are half way to being as bad as HF in my book. All they do is promote "trophy" hunting. A TRUE SPORTSMAN knows that the real "trophy" is in the experience itself, not the size of the rack!!! They push "bigger is better", not that we as Americans really need to hear more of that! Special food plots, minerals for growing "trophy racks" and closing off land so "I" can grow "MY" deer is as pathetic as those who pay to shoot a "trophy" behind a fence.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

A very good post!
Instead of Measure 2, a measure against baiting wild deer would have been a better fight....nothing to do with property rights.
But then, measures that allow non-hunting public to vote on what's best for us is a slippery slope.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

NDT,

I don't know whether you've ever had the distinct pleasure of meeting Dick or some of the other folks who oppose high fence. I have. Regardless of how you personally feel on this issue, I can tell you Dick cozied up to none of the groups you mention and did this soley for what he felt was the best interests of ND Sportspersons, as a ND Sportsperson, a ND landowner and a ND producer. And, though you wouldn't even offer him directions to town, I can assure you he would drive 50 miles out of his way to assist you, GST, LT, BBJ in a time of need - that's the kind of guy _*he *_is.

SW,



spentwings said:


> nothing to do with property rights


_*Everything*_, and I mean _*EVERYTHING*_, has to do with property rights _*if you want it so*_. This one was colorable, but most of the time it's merely a red herring and makes for a great war cry to say no to _*ANYTHING *_you don't like.

I'm glad the vote is over - hopefully some (on both sides) will go back to kicking their dogs when they can't control their mean streaks rather than spew their nastiness here.


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

Anyone who supported this measure is suspect in my opinion.
It was an elitist attitude...'cause I don't like it I'm gonna end it, and cuz I can't do it up front I'll do it with Measure.'
Well I don't like HF either but with a big difference,,,I'd never go the measure route that involves the non-hunting public.
I wouldn't want to hunt with any supporters of this measure...no doubt I'd be told that my .243 isn't adequate for deer.

Thanks for taking my _*nothing to do with property rights *_out of context!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Some on this thread have shown their class (or lack thereof).

I congratulate Dick, Roger, and others on a hard-fought effort to outlaw a practice that is largely indefensible. The measure was defeated not by invoking concepts of property rights and fears of HSUS, PETA, and other groups gaining a foothold. I did not hear much good debate as to whether the practice of HF shooting was truly "hunting" or if it was ethical.

Therefore, I would offer that sportsmen need to take another approach. Instead of outlawing the practice, maybe we should outlaw how it is advertised. What if the legislature passed a bill prohibiting calling the practice "hunting"? That bill could also prohibit calling those animals within an enclosure "wildlife" in any advertising or promotional material. This way, the operation would need to describe their packages for what they truly are... shooting domesticated animals within an enclosure.

By simply prohibiting those businesses from using certain words like "wildlife" or "hunting" in their advertising, we could use societal pressure (and shame) to the advantage of sportsmen. It would not prohibit ranchers from shooting a hereford steer or other wildlife. However, it would prohibit ranchers from calling that steer "wildlife" or that practice "hunting". The same goes for pen-raised deer or elk.

This approach would not infringe on property rights. Those ranchers could still sell their penned elk or deer. They could even sell the privilege of shooting that penned elk or deer. They simply couldn't sell the privilege of "hunting" that penned elk or deer.

Think many people would brag to their buddies about shooting that monster buck at Ranch XYZ if their buddies visited the website and saw the practice clearly advertised for what it is? I don't think so.


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

BigDaddy said:


> Some on this thread have shown their class (or lack thereof).
> 
> I congratulate Dick, Roger, and others on a hard-fought effort to outlaw a practice that is largely indefensible. The measure was defeated not by invoking concepts of property rights and fears of HSUS, PETA, and other groups gaining a foothold. I did not hear much good debate as to whether the practice of HF shooting was truly "hunting" or if it was ethical.
> 
> ...


First of all Spentwings your .243 is just fine! Its not what you shoot, its how you shoot!

Back on track, *"Prohibit Businesses from using certain wrods"? * Which American Value is this oppisite of? 
INFRINGE Free Speech? There are some brain cogs are out of sync here! 
I have never heard anything as stupid as these quoted comments. Can't win here, so let's infringe there. 
What business supplies your livlihood Bigdaddy?*
I would like to Lobby at the Legislature to ban "words" so you loose money!*


----------



## spentwings (Apr 25, 2007)

BigDaddy said:


> Some on this thread have shown their class (or lack thereof).quote]
> 
> Very nice!
> A good post started with animosity,,,,makes me even more entrenched against you guys.
> ...


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

"I did not hear much good debate as to whether the practice of HF shooting was truly "hunting" or if it was ethical."

That is because there can be no "good" debate. Ethical is in each person's own mind. Is it really "ethical" to kill a deer in this day and age when we don't need the meat? Or is "ethical" just some thing people use to justify what they do and make it look good to others? I love to hunt and I eat ALMOST every thing I shoot. I don't do it because I can't buy beef or chicken, I do it because I like the taste of deer, fish, duck, ect. I don't need to say it is "ethical" to make myself or others feel better. I do it, I enjoy it, and it is legal, so I really don't care to sugar coat it for others to feel warm and fuzzy!

As far as HF shooting being hunting, COME ON MAN!!!! When they advertise 100% success rate, it can't be called HUNTING. Just like fishing isn't called CATCHING.

"By simply prohibiting those businesses from using certain words like "wildlife" or "hunting" in their advertising, we could use societal pressure (and shame) to the advantage of sportsmen. It would not prohibit ranchers from shooting a hereford steer or other wildlife. However, it would prohibit ranchers from calling that steer "wildlife" or that practice "hunting". The same goes for pen-raised deer or elk."

Really? Damn, I wish some one else would have thought of this before.......oh, wait, they did. Some time last year was the first I read about it. A good number of people have posted about changing the wording, it isn't a new idea. It isn't a BAD idea, just not a NEW one! :beer:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

BigDaddy said:


> Some on this thread have shown their class (or lack thereof).
> 
> I congratulate Dick, Roger, and others on a hard-fought effort to outlaw a practice that is largely indefensible. The measure was defeated not by invoking concepts of property rights and fears of HSUS, PETA, and other groups gaining a foothold. I did not hear much good debate as to whether the practice of HF shooting was truly "hunting" or if it was ethical.
> 
> ...


Or perhaps we can all just go hunting in the manner we enjoy and realize the experience is what we choose to take from it as individuals and not give two ****s about someone that may have shot something somewhere. :wink:


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Dan Bueide said:


> NDT,
> 
> I don't know whether you've ever had the distinct pleasure of meeting Dick or some of the other folks who oppose high fence. I have. Regardless of how you personally feel on this issue, I can tell you Dick cozied up to none of the groups you mention and did this soley for what he felt was the best interests of ND Sportspersons, as a ND Sportsperson, a ND landowner and a ND producer. And, though you wouldn't even offer him directions to town, I can assure you he would drive 50 miles out of his way to assist you, GST, LT, BBJ in a time of need - that's the kind of guy _*he *_is.
> 
> ...


Dan,I appreciate and respect your feelings, but clearly the fact of the matter is Monson and Kaseman acted of their own free will, knowingly allying themselves with these groups who are the mortal enemies of all hunters & gun owners. Because that was their "sole reason" (and who but they know w/o question if this was their sole reason? For sure they had a personal political agenda...) it doesn't let them off the hook.

I don't care if the Pope just canonized these guys, they are POS in my book and should be ostracized by all ND outdoors-people...


----------



## crna (Nov 7, 2002)

talked to many people who were very confused about how the ballot was worded. a no vote was thought to be a vote against high fence hunting. i am a hunter and was for the measure. HF is not hunting and yes it is an ethical argument. ethics is what guides us in society. it was turned into a property rights issue which is a joke. you can't do EVERYTHING or ANYTHING you want on your own property. Can't open a whore house on my block (stupid city is steppin on my rights  not saying it would have changed the outcome but just saying.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Again.....the property rights is not just the land it is done on.....but the actual animal it is property! It is saying what a person can and can't do with their herd. It is saying you can't sell your animal to certain group of people.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

No Chuck. It's saying you can't sell for a certain purpose. There is a difference.

The boys dissolved the effort Monday night as planned. Wouldn't be surprised if it comes back again though . Fair chase is an educational effort in progress.

When the legislature voted in '07 just 6% supported the bill. Three years later 43% of the voters backed it. Nice rate of return on interest. Think about it.

The SOS web site has a wealth of info on the demographics of the vote that has to be digested. Go inside on the links and take a look. http://results.sos.nd.gov/resultsSW.asp ... SW&map=CTY
You may notice that 7,000 more people voted on measure 2 than on measure 1. Measure 1 will lockbox millions of dollars of oil tax revenue, yet 7,000 more folks vote on 2? Hummmm. Yet only 47% of people voted, so was that max effort by opponents?

Opponents had spent probably a conservative $500,000 to kill the fair chase concept since the '07 session. They had the Stockmen's Asc., Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, NRA, the state and national deer and elk growers, a professional PR and ad firm, unlimited out of state money and 6.61% is the best they can do? Hummm.

Ask yourself what negatively affects your hunting?
1
2
3
4
Just curious. I think commercialization ranks right up there, but that's just me. Now that #2 went down the commercialization door is open, so grab your socks in the next legislative session. They're here all right.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Dick,

It is a lot easier to fool the people. You had the backing of the Humane Society and yet you still managed to fail. Now it sounds like you will be making a run again. I imagine next time it will be with more money from the Humane Society.

Dan Stated:


> I don't know whether you've ever had the distinct pleasure of meeting Dick or some of the other folks who oppose high fence. I have. Regardless of how you personally feel on this issue, I can tell you Dick cozied up to none of the groups you mention and did this soley for what he felt was the best interests of ND Sportspersons, as a ND Sportsperson, a ND landowner and a ND producer. And, though you wouldn't even offer him directions to town, I can assure you he would drive 50 miles out of his way to assist you, GST, LT, BBJ in a time of need - that's the kind of guy he is.


I wasn't going to say one more thing about this issue, but this bothered me. I have met Dick, and for me personally I wouldn't call it a pleasure. To me his character is not beyond reproach and don't try to make me feel guilty for feeling this way.

I heard him speak at the Jamestown Public Forum and put forth his half truths. I have pointed out downright lies on this forum, that he has not even tried to rebut. The fact is Dan why should I believe Mr. Monson is the kind of guy you state when that is not what I have witnessed personally from him in trying to further his agenda.

And one last thing, I believe that if this measure would have passed, this site would have been overtaken with celebrating, goading, and taunting by Mr. Monson and his jackals and hyenas.

So Dan, I wouldn't accept assistance from Mr. Monson if he offered it to me. Thanks but no thanks.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

LT said:


> Dick,
> 
> It is a lot easier to fool the people. You had the backing of the Humane Society and yet you still managed to fail. Now it sounds like you will be making a run again. I imagine next time it will be with more money from the Humane Society.
> 
> ...


Ive seen both Roger and Dick in action, in person. I have the same feeling as above. Perhaps he only assists those that agree with him.



> And one last thing, I believe that if this measure would have passed, this site would have been overtaken with celebrating, goading, and taunting by Mr. Monson and his jackals and hyenas.


You mean like the taunting that was done when the signatures were validated and the measure officially went on the ballot?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick Monson said:


> .
> 
> The boys dissolved the effort Monday night as planned. Wouldn't be surprised if it comes back again though . Fair chase is an educational effort in progress.
> 
> Opponents had spent probably a conservative $500,000 to kill the fair chase concept since the '07 session. They had the Stockmen's Asc., Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, NRA, the state and national deer and elk growers, a professional PR and ad firm, unlimited out of state money and 6.61% is the best they can do? Hummm.


Dick, what is the annual budget of the HSUS that came in supporting your measure?

"We gave it our best shot," Kaseman said Tuesday night. "We were out-spent. We didn't have the money to run a campaign. Where we ran campaigns, like in Cass County and Fargo and Grand Forks, we won. But we just didn't have it to carry over to Bismarck and Minot."

There are a couple of comments here that hunters need to consider. Kaseman admits this group targeted the areas with a higher percentage of nonhunters that could be swayed by their HSUS type tactics. And the second in command Dick claims they are not yet done. Dick if I remember right didn't you claim it would be up to the people of this state to make this call? They have, your measure was defeated. And I would venture a guess it was substantially greater than 6.61 % amongst the hunting community. Take out the populace centers were you spent all your monies and barely squeaked out a supporting vote and the rest of the state would have been pushing at the least a 10% margin. Take a look at the counties these 12 operations are in and see what the residents of these counties that are most aware of these operations existing voted. In our neighboring Renville county were one of these operations exist it was 70%some to 20% some percent opposed to your measure. That should tell you something if you are at all willing to listen.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick said,



> When the legislature voted in '07 just 6% supported the bill. Three years later 43% of the voters backed it. Nice rate of return on interest. Think about it.
> 
> The SOS web site has a wealth of info on the demographics of the vote that has to be digested. Go inside on the links and take a look. http://results.sos.nd.gov/resultsSW.asp ... SW&map=CTY


Actually Dick, Of the 3 out of 47, Only Senator Mathern supported SB 2254 in 2007. We asked (I believe his name was) Sen. Robinson and another from your area why they voted in favor of 2254. They said they knew it was going down anyway so they didn't want you and the NDWF on their azzess.

Below is a better SoS web link than the one you provided. Notice you did not carry your own county. I live in Oliver. It is not densely populated. Everybody knows me. They voted 80% in my favor. Think about it.

http://results.sos.nd.gov/resultsCTY.as ... 02&map=CTY


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

After reading this thread, I just really cant come up with anything to say. HAve we really sunk this low people??? Good people can agree to disagree, and the folks that I know who were involved in this thing are beyond reproach, having done more in a year to help the resource than most of the vitriol spitters on here will do in there lives. My dad used to say "if you dont have something good to say then dont say anything at all". Seems like a lesson many could use. Some of you I have met and hunted with. Shame on you.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Federal Agent tsodak said,



> After reading this thread, I just really cant come up with anything to say. HAve we really sunk this low people??? Good people can agree to disagree, and the folks that I know who were involved in this thing are beyond reproach, having done more in a year to help the resource than most of the vitriol spitters on here will do in there lives. My dad used to say "if you dont have something good to say then dont say anything at all". Seems like a lesson many could use. Some of you I have met and hunted with. Shame on you.


Helping the resource is one thing, Stealing peoples property without paying for it is another!!!!!!

Tom, you were there when Dr. Valerius Geist from communist East Germany said, "These game farms must all be shut down period." What did that mean to you?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

What resource are they helping with this measure? 
Are they helping to restore habitat? NO
Are they helping to get rid of predators? NO
Are they helping with NEsting conditions? NO
Are they helping for better wild herd population? No

Again what resource is this measure trying to help????

Dick you want me to list things that give hunters a bad eye...

1. Poaching
2. Tresspassing
3. Shooting from vehicles
4. Bickering between hunters about methods, use of certain weapons, etc
5. Ripping up roads and feilds
6. Driving around town with horns strapped to the hood
7. Leaving garbage out in the woods or field


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> By simply prohibiting those businesses from using certain words like "wildlife" or "hunting" in their advertising, we could use societal pressure (and shame) to the advantage of sportsmen. It would not prohibit ranchers from shooting a hereford steer or other wildlife. However, it would prohibit ranchers from calling that steer "wildlife" or that practice "hunting". The same goes for pen-raised deer or elk.
> 
> This approach would not infringe on property rights. Those ranchers could still sell their penned elk or deer. They could even sell the privilege of shooting that penned elk or deer. They simply couldn't sell the privilege of "hunting" that penned elk or deer.


This is my thought exactly. And it is not really an infringement on free speach. We have laws relating to "truth in advertizing". That is all such restrictions would encompass. Like said make them call it what it is. I believe The State of ND already considers/classifies "game" in HF operations as livestock. As I see it that gives ranchers the choice. They could either sell it as wildlife/game and follow the rules that accompany that classification or Livestock and follow that set of rules. The ranchers are the ones that wanted the state to classify it as livestock in order to get around G&F regulations. If they want livestock then they should represent it as livestock. Seems they want the best of both worlds.

Another option might be to require "plugging" of trophy size racks/antlers/horns from any HF operation. I believe "plugging" is done by many states with sheep horns. It provides a permanent record of legally taken game. If used for HF operations it would provide a permanent record of where those animals were taken from . Headgear could not transfer hands only to apply for record book status buy someone else at another time.

Zoning could also be an example. The G&F could review an areas game density and apply that same regulation to a HF operation in order to meet the definition of game. An example might be if an areas wild game population is 5-6 animals per sq mile a game farm could not exceed or only slightly exceed that density and still call it "game" or "hunting".

Someone mentioned B&C and P&Y eligability. By the rules of those organizations game taken in high fence operations is already ineligable. Of course that does not prevent someone from lying about where they shot an animal or from starting another "record" organization that would recognize them.

Unfortunately we as hunters are our own worst enemies in this battle. As long as we are willing to pay they problem will just get worse. Hunting in this country has traditionally been the common mans sport however it is slowly developing into the "Kings" sport where one day only the wealthy or elete will have opportunity.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, I noticed once again that the BCWC is hosting their buck contest. Was curious what Dr. Valerious Giest and Jim Poesiwitz have to say about paying people including kids cash prizes for the killing of a buck that scores more than anyone elses?

Now before anyone gets their shorts in a bunch, I pay my admission at the door and go to these contests, occassionally even bring a head with, and have on occassion even got some money back. So it is not some condemnation of buck contests. Just kinda curious why such an ethically pure person such as Dick would support an org. that is clearly placing a monetary value on the hunting experience.


----------



## frosty (Dec 6, 2002)

gst said:


> Dick, I noticed once again that the BCWC is hosting their buck contest. Was curious what Dr. Valerious Giest and Jim Poesiwitz have to say about paying people including kids cash prizes for the killing of a buck that scores more than anyone elses?
> 
> Now before anyone gets their shorts in a bunch, I pay my admission at the door and go to these contests, occassionally even bring a head with, and have on occassion even got some money back. So it is not some condemnation of buck contests. Just kinda curious why such an ethically pure person such as Dick would support an org. that is clearly placing a monetary value on the hunting experience.


GST, aren't you tired of trying to stir the pot yet? A little bit of professionalism wouldn't hurt you in the least.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

frosty, I tell you what you get the likes of Dick and Jim and those other eliteist "sportsmen" that believe they know what is best for all other hunters in this state to come on here and publically state they will listen to the voters of ND and drop this issue and I'll gladly quit" stirring the pot" . The reality is Dick has already alluded to this issue not being resolved or done, he continues to "stir the pot" by posting articles concerning CWD that happen outside of ND to lay the ground work for round 3 of their HF assault down the road.

They claimed a need for their ban based on ethics. It was a HUGE part of their arguement. If you are going to claim ethical superiority, you had better make sure ALL YOUR ethics meet the highest standards. This group NDH for FC repeatedly used the teachings and quotes of Dr. Valerius Giest in their arguements against HF. So I am merely asking what their champion and guru of hunting ethics, Dr. Giest would say of one of their own supporting rewarding the killing of a big game animal with cash prizes based on an antler score. Is this what the "hunting heritage" they claim they are trying to save all about?

Like I said I'm not condemning buck contests, but if you are going to start setting ethical standards everyone else must follow and force your ethics onto others, you had better be sure yours are impecable. And I can assure there are sportsmen who do condemn these buck contests, so should their ethical standards be the norm and these contests be banned to "protect" the hunting heritage and image? Like I asked before, whose ethics get to be the law all others follow? ND said no to NDH for FC tell Dick and his group to let it rest.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> he continues to "stir the pot" by posting articles concerning CWD that happen outside of ND


Don't you think it's wise to let people know about this before it is in North Dakota?



> So I am merely asking what their champion and guru of hunting ethics, Dr. Giest would say of one of their own supporting rewarding the killing of a big game animal with cash prizes based on an antler score.


I'm not sure, but for myself I would be more concerned about how the animal was taken than how it was used after harvest.

This is an opportunity to tell all of you how I have looked at this from the beginning. I may as well tell everyone because telling you is like telling everyone, only not as accurate.

I think a lot has to do with timing. With a man like Obama running for office and us conservatives seeing him as a threat to freedom it was not a good time to bring anything questionable to a vote. With two years of a destructive president 2010 was even worse timing, and 2012 years will be worse yet. The first possible time to bring this to a vote as I seen it would have been 2014. 
Also no matter what people thought about Roger they should have realised that after the offensive and demonetization the first round he would be a lightning rod the second round. 
My concerns were far more than ethical.
1 The industrialization of what is now a sport will take this American tradition away from those who are not rich. We have seen what the exploiters have done to other natural resources and these are no different. These people don't care about your heritage they care about your dollars and nothing else.
2 Disease including CWD and I say that as a professional biologist, and a person who has observed human greed for 62 years. It WILL happen here in North Dakota and it will likely be introduced by a high fence operation. Baiting doesn't hold a candle to High Fence operations when it comes to the danger of disease transfer. 
3 Way down in third place is ethics. There are other concerns of course, but this pneumonia is knocking the snot out of me and I'm not thinking real good right now. Tired, tired, tired.

Some people made good points about disabled people. Most of these high fence operators strike me as money hungry at any cost. One lady I talked with convinced me she has a heart. I may go look at that operation to try form an opinion. I didn't care for the way this bill was written. I would like to see one that said something like: It is illegal for a non disabled hunter without a permit to hunt within a high fence, and they must hunt in a sedentary style within an enclosure that approximates a natural home range of the species being hunted. This in no way infringes on property rights. If they grow them here and ship them out of state to another high fence operation it's that states responsibility to do as they see fit. I would have stringent quarantine on animals coming into the state, but the states they would go to would be responsible for incoming animals to that state.

As you may notice my main concern is the future of hunting. That of course has many aspects including industrialization, disease, public perception, etc etc. Yes, I would like to see another shot at this, but from a different approach, including regulations for the disabled, and perhaps more. I need time to think, and time to rebuild trust if possible. One man on here told everyone what a jerk I was a the Jamestown meeting which I was not at. A number have violated the rules of spewing their mouth about what is in PM's. I was going to email the lady I was talking to, but after those experiences I don't dare be open with her in emails. What a shame that some of you destroyed trust.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Plainsman Stated:


> One man on here told everyone what a jerk I was a the Jamestown meeting which I was not at. A number have violated the rules of spewing their mouth about what is in PM's. I was going to email the lady I was talking to, but after those experiences I don't dare be open with her in emails. What a shame that some of you destroyed trust.


You know plainsman you keep repeating this about one man on here (I am sure you mean DG) telling everyone you were a jerk. Where has he said that? What happened is another wildlife biologist who attended the meeting was the jerk, not you. Someone at the meeting thought that perhaps he was you and accused him at the meeting of possibly being plainsman, but never has DG accused you of being that jerk at the meeting. I witnessed the other wildlife biologist being a jerk that night.

You sure seem fixated about something that you seem to be believe that was said about you. I wonder how you would react to someone slandering and libeling you and your business and then try to take that business away from you.

_1. Telling people that 200,000 of sportsman dollars were used to subsidize canned hunting facilities, when in reality that money was used to regulate all alternative livestock.
2. Telling people that high fence facilities brought the feral pigs into our state when in reality the source was never identified.
3. Telling people that you are "pasture killers."
4. Using pictures from your websites and putting them on their website into the "Hall of Shame." Using pictures from facilities that were not even hunting facilities. Using pictures of a pet deer (their autistic kid's pet) that was not even part of someone's deer that they have for sale. Using a google map picture of a facility that also was not a high fence hunting facility and stating that these were all shooter bulls in the pen, implying they were kept locked up in this area without hardly a blade of grass. (All facilities do have working/handling pens, which is what this was). Funny thing that facility does not even really do any business any longer. In fact, they never had "shooter" bulls. 
5. Stating as a FACT that this would get rid of internet hunting, the infamous Texas garm farm style of hunting (I was told by one lawyer that this alone could have been a reason to sue someone). 
_

I am sure the lady you were talking to in PMs is also the lady who told me that some of her last posts were removed from here. She said that she contacted someone on here about it.

And lastly talk about trust. I find that laughable, as you sent me PMs that I never revealed on here, but would have liked to. This after my IP address for California was revealed on here.

Plainsman also stated:


> Disease including CWD and I say that as a professional biologist, and a person who has observed human greed for 62 years. It WILL happen here in North Dakota and it will likely be introduced by a high fence operation. Baiting doesn't hold a candle to High Fence operations when it comes to the danger of disease transfer.


I thought it already has happened here twice actually, once brought in by a hunter who killed an animal in another state, and once recently where it walked across the border in SW ND (a wild deer). But if you ask Dick I think he already has alluded that this deer was exposed to game farm animals.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman I am not going to debate the measure all over again with you, I am simply going to answer the question you asked. It is important to tell the WHOLE story about CWD and how the regulations put in place to prevent it here in ND differ greatly in some cases and are FAR MORE stringent than those that are in place in many other states. Dick has never once mentioned this or the fact that the State Board of Animal Health and the State Vet regulate and moniter these animals and operations very closely and have for over 3 decades have kept the disease issue at bay, and given the publicity this measure has generated and the claims of the sponsors I would venture a guess they will be watched closer than ever before. You want to discuss the issue of disease here, Fine, but lets be open and honest about it and not try to use it to further a personal agenda such as what Dick is clearly trying to do.

There was an interveiw on the Trent Loos radio show on I believe KFYR with a Dr. Behm, a vet out of Minot. I have known Dr. Behm for a number of years and you will not find a more honest person or a vet more commited to protecting the health of not only domestic animals but preventing disease issues in the wild game as well. Nor will you find a more knowledgable vet in the field of animal health. Perhaps you should listen to it, find it in the archives. He has absolutely no connection to any HF operation and is a truly unbiased expert in regards to disease. That would be a good place to start a basis for a discussion. Honest, unbiased, factual information.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Retired federal agent Plainsman said,



> As you may notice my main concern is the future of hunting. That of course has many aspects including industrialization, disease, public perception, etc etc.


No.1 If your concern is industrialization, then look around. Did your grand parents have cell phones, internet or even electicity. It is called progress. No.2 If your concern is disease, then why not let our veternarians and Board of Animal Health hired by the people do their jobs. No.3 Public Perception, try telling persons who have been watching Walt Disney for the last 30 years that killing an animal for any reason is a good idea. It doesn't sell. You know that and so do the three humane society members who appeared in the vote yes ads aired on TV before the election.



> Yes, I would like to see another shot at this, but from a different approach, including regulations for the disabled, and perhaps more. I need time to think, and time to rebuild trust if possible.


How old are you now? You sit on this website 24/7. Now you want to rebuild trust? Who started this unjust war against the elk and deer growers? Have you ever considered just going hunting and fishing for the rest of your life?



> One man on here told everyone what a jerk I was a the Jamestown meeting which I was not at.


Again, how old are you now? 62? I have told you before. Federal Agent Glen Sargent argued for a full hour and a half after the Jamestown Public Forum back in March 2008 with Gene Guthmiller. Gene thought any man who liked to argue that much maybe could be Plainsman. You need to get over it.



> A number have violated the rules of spewing their mouth about what is in PM's. I was going to email the lady I was talking to, but after those experiences I don't dare be open with her in emails. What a shame that some of you destroyed trust.


TRUST????? Tell me something. Who coined the phrase?

"I'm with the federal government and I'm here to help."

We have a lot of very good employees who work for the federal government, but are they all good?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Just one note of semantics I have posted a number of times previously. A federal agent is an authorized law enforcement for the federal government (e.g. game warden) with enforcement powers. All the individuals listed so far on this thread as "federal agents" are in fact federal scientists (according to the various website lists for the respective agencies) without enforcement powers. If the definition of agent as used in this thread was even remotely accurate, then the mail man from the post office or an NRCS office worker is a federal agent. They are all civil service as opposed to law enforcement.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Apparently sarcasm doesn't come through very well on a keyboard.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

indsport said,



> A federal agent is an authorized law enforcement for the federal government (e.g. game warden) with enforcement powers. All the individuals listed so far on this thread as "federal agents" are in fact federal scientists (according to the various website lists for the respective agencies) without enforcement powers.


Federal Scientists????? Durring the fair chase folly, where was the science? Durring Senate Bill 2254 Feb.1st,2007 "federal scientist" and lobbyist for the wildlife society Mike McEnroe said, "do we want North Dakota to become known as a place where people come to kill animals?"

indsport, can you tell me where the science shines through in that statement? Actually it is in there. In todays society, after watching Walt Disney for 30 years, try telling persons that killing an animal for any reason is a good idea. How well do they receive it? Mike McEnroe knows the answer. So does Bruce Hanson, David Alan Brandt, Glen Sargent, Keith Trego, Jim Heggeness, H. Thomas Sklebar, Erik Fritzel, Lloyd Jones.

All members of the wildlife society and wildlife federation.

Remember it was Lloyd Jones who said, "85 percent of the public do not hunt but will determine the future of hunting."

indsport, define fair chase in federal law and these gentlemen will control what the public "hears" "sees" "reads" and "thinks" about your outdoor activities. If they have to partner with the Humane Society of the United States to fund their wars of aggression they will.

Measure Two was a litmus test.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> All members of the wildlife society and wildlife federation.


There you go again, spouting things of which you know nothing.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Most all members at one time of the wildlife society and/or wildlife federation.

Now you happy plainsman. No comment on the rest of it?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> No comment on the rest of it?


Nothing to be gained at this time. It would be simply arguing to argue. I do think you misunderstand what the Wildlife Federation is. I am not a member of either organization, but it's easy to google.

The Wildlife Federation states:


> Our History and Heritage What started as a cartoonist's dream has turned into the largest grassroots conservation organization in the country. Today the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) boasts over 4 million supporters and 47 state affiliates. NWF continues to be the voice of conservation for diverse constituencies that include hunters, anglers, gardeners, bird watchers, scientists, outdoor enthusiasts, and families raising the next generation of habitat stewards.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Federal Agent Plainsmans quote from NWF says,



> The Wildlife Federation states: Our History and Heritage What started as a cartoonist's dream has turned into the largest grassroots conservation organization in the country. Today the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) boasts over 4 million supporters and 47 state affiliates. NWF continues to be the voice of conservation for diverse constituencies that include hunters, anglers, gardeners, bird watchers, scientists, outdoor enthusiasts, and families raising the next generation of habitat stewards.


They forgot to include beery pickers, fern feelers and tree huggers.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Plainsman stated:


> The Wildlife Federation states: Our History and Heritage What started as a cartoonist's dream has turned into the largest grassroots conservation organization in the country. Today the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) boasts over 4 million supporters and 47 state affiliates. NWF continues to be the voice of conservation for diverse constituencies that include hunters, anglers, gardeners, bird watchers, scientists, outdoor enthusiasts, and families raising the next generation of habitat stewards.


So is this a sportsman organization?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

As I understand it. I remember back in the 1960 when our small town (350 people) started their wildlife club. Some small clubs joined the state organization, and some joined the national. I don't know how much it has changed, but at that time they were purely a sportsman's group. I did notice looking at their site that they are becoming invaded with some pseudo environmental things. I hope this isn't one more group in the process of going off the liberal deep end. Even the ELCA church has lost it's mind in this regard.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

The National Wildlife Federation is an umbrella organization for all the state federations. The state federations are made up mostly of sportsmen and wildlife clubs. In North Dakota and most states west of the Mississippi, they are all hunting and fishing clubs, no fern feelers or berry pickers among them but we can't account for some hunters being fern feelers or berry pickers in addition to hunting. . For North Dakota, they are almost entirely hunters and fisherman (sportsmen and women). For the Stutsman County Club, to which Plainsman referred, it was organized on 8 March 1915 and is likely the oldest sportsmens club in the state founded out of concern for hunting and fishing (and you guessed it, commercialization of wildlife). As to the national federation positions and policies, the north dakota state federation has had some sharp words of disagreement with the national federation. The state and the national office don't always get along. As to the Wildlife Society, yep, individuals employed by local, state, federal employees as well as non profit groups including Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, National Parks Service, State Park employees, State Board of Animal Health, a number of veterinarians, etc. etc. etc. belong to the Wildlife Society, all of whom mostly belong to other groups like stockmen's associations, Rocky Mountain Elk foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, local wildlife clubs, garden clubs, native prairie organizations, American Veterinary association, rotary, elks, eagles, shriners, chambers of commerce, etc. etc. etc. The Wildlife Society never has been restricted to just federal employees and is open to all people that actually work in natural resources. So if you want to quibble about who belongs, you probably already know someone and are your friends and who works for one of the above organizations. Ask them what other groups they belong to.

Last post trying to convince the unconvinceable. No reply necessary.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

LT Stated:


> 5. Stating as a FACT that this would get rid of internet hunting, the infamous Texas garm farm style of hunting (I was told by one lawyer that this alone could have been a reason to sue someone).


Seems like this lie has been spread about quite a bit. http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/north- ... s-1-and-2/

Flamemeister Stated: 
Addendum: It utterly escapes me how high-fence wildlife-execution setups teach anything about hunting or hunting safety that just "going hunting" won't. There is quite a distinction between "killing wild animals" and "hunting." *A friend of some status in the Barnes County Wildlife Federation told me that there are even setups where a rifle with a video camera mounted is used to off penned deer and elk remotely. *So now execs at their desk can do a little "hunting" during coffee break or instead of browsing porno.


----------



## utahhunter1 (May 3, 2009)

So the way im hearing this is unless I can pay you thousands of dollars, or be a disabled vet/have some kind of handicap I am not allowed to hunt any of these operations. So thats probably about 70 to 80 percent of hunters. Fair enough? So you go out and make money off people who pay you so you they can shoot your farm animals. The more money you make the more land you can buy up and close off. The more land and money these operations accumulate the more power and legistative control they gain untill more and more portions of the U.S. end up like Texas. Eventually most of the wildlife herds will be privatly owned rather than publicly owned. Is this the future of hunting we really want. Once we head down this road there is really no going back.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

indsport,

Here is the list,

American Fisheries Society-
North Dakota Chapter
American Foundation for Wildlife
Audubon Dakota
Badlands Conservation Alliance
Barnes County Wildlife Club
Beulah Chamber of Commerce
Birding Drives Dakota
Bismarck-Mandan Bird Club-ND
Bismarck-Mandan Rifle & Pistol
Association
Bison Lodge
Buffalo Valley Archers
Cass County Wildlife Club
Coteau Lodge
Dakota Birding
Dakota Zoo
Delta Waterfowl Foundation (National)
Dickinson Convention & Visitors Bureau
Ducks Unlimited-North Dakota Chapter
Elm River Wildlife Club
F-M Walleyes Unlimited Inc.
Garrison Sportsmen's Club
Grand Cities Bird Club
Grand Forks Co. Wildlife Federation
Grand Forks County Prairie Partners
Great Plainers Trout and Salmon Club
Huntin' Shak Bed & Breakfast
Kindred Wildlife Club
Lake Ashtabula Land Owners & Users
Association
Maah Daah Hey Trail Lodge
McCreary Place
Minot Rifle and Pistol Club
National Wild Turkey Fed-North Dakota
Chapter
North Dakota Birding Society
North Dakota Bowhunters Association
North Dakota Fur Hunters & Trappers
Association
North Dakota Game & Fish Dept
North Dakota Natural Resources Trust
North Dakota Wildlife Federation
Pheasants Forever-
Sakakawea Chapter #335
Pipestem Creek
Red River Area Sportsman's Club
River Keepers
Rutland Sportsman Club
Senior Gosling Goose Lodge
Souris River Basin Longbeards
Stutsman County Wildlife Club
Tewauken Rod and Gun Club
The Nature Conservancy-North Dakota
Chapter
The Wildlife Society-North Dakota
Chapter
United Sportsmen of North Dakota
Wahpeton Breckenridge Area Chamber
of Commerce
World's Largest Sandhill Crane
Foundation

indsport, Ask about any person who belongs to one of these organizations, what it is that they as a group belong to, and they can't answer it. I visited with members of the Beulah Chamber of Commerce about how they felt the North Dakota Wildlife Federation was doing representing them. They didn't know the NDWF was speaking for or representing them. Beulah is a coal mining town.

http://www.ndwf.org/OurIssues/Globalwar ... fault.aspx

indsport, look they even have Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth on that site.

The Wildlife Society and the North Dakota Wildlife federation are not grass roots sportsmens organizations as much as they are central government advocacy groups.

The real endangered specie is a working man.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The Wildlife Society and the North Dakota Wildlife federation are not grass roots sportsmens organizations as much as they are central government advocacy groups.


Oh, my gosh look out for the black helicopters. The Societies are professional organizations who's direction is dictated by data. The Wildlife Federation is grass roots. I will admit that all organizations need to be watched less they go astray. Then their members need to take action. 
I will say this. Look at the age of the members. When I started as a biologist we all hunted and fished. The talk around the lunch table was hunt, hunt, hunt, and most saved their annual leave for the fall seasons. Around 1980 Universities started turning out the type that think they need a cause. I blame that on our colleges. As for myself I have always known I worked for the taxpayer, and because of the tax on firearms I always felt I worked for hunters in particular. Unfortunately many today think they work for the round eyed, cut furry little critters. 
I understand your concern, and I have a huge advantage because I know some of the people. All that I can tell you is look at the age of these people and ask if they are of the old school mentality or the new. Many of the younger people do understand that they work for the taxpayer, but many isn't all and it should be all.

We all have suspicions LT. I remember how happy a local sport shop was when they passed laws in 1968 that we could no longer order firearms through catalogues. They were happy because now we had to purchase from them. I often wonder if CWD hit North Dakota if some operations wouldn't be happy. I know that sounds radical, but some people are radical.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Plainsman Stated:


> We all have suspicions LT.


Plainsman also Stated:


> The Societies are professional organizations who's direction is dictated by data.


Not sure what suspicions you are talking about. But this is quite the data being given to these wildlife groups.

And I repeat:

LT Stated:



> 5. Stating as a FACT that this would get rid of internet hunting, the infamous Texas garm farm style of hunting (I was told by one lawyer that this alone could have been a reason to sue someone).


Seems like this lie has been spread about quite a bit. http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/north- ... s-1-and-2/

Flamemeister Stated:
Addendum: It utterly escapes me how high-fence wildlife-execution setups teach anything about hunting or hunting safety that just "going hunting" won't. There is quite a distinction between "killing wild animals" and "hunting." *A friend of some status in the Barnes County Wildlife Federation told me that there are even setups where a rifle with a video camera mounted is used to off penned deer and elk remotely.* So now execs at their desk can do a little "hunting" during coffee break or instead of browsing porno.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Federal Agent Plainsman said,



> Oh, my gosh look out for the black helicopters. The Societies are professional organizations who's direction is dictated by data. The Wildlife Federation is grass roots. I will admit that all organizations need to be watched less they go astray. Then their members need to take action.


In 2006 they did not arrive in black helicopters. They arrived at the Elks Lodge in Bismarck driving pick-ups. It was a sham meeting held for the purpose of "keeping" the high fence issue in "front" of the people. Nothing professional, no science involved. These men should have been watched more closely by the membership of the organizations they claimed to represent. They have now proven that they cannot be entrusted with power because they will abuse it. How many lies did they tell? Should the sportsmen who belong to these organizations now shun the conspirators who partnered with the Humane Society? That is the question.

Here they are:

http://huntersforhighfencehunting.com/t ... initiative


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

DG, Thanks for the link, I found it interesting while watching the Jamestown meeting videos. Roger stated the legislature was deaf and didn't hear the people and they voted 44-3 on SB 2254. Interesting the measure went down 50-3, I think the legislature acted on how the people of ND felt.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Should the sportsmen who belong to these organizations now shun the conspirators who partnered with the Humane Society?


You state that as fact, but I still do not believe that it's accurate. One person talked with that group the first year. It's my bet that this year they were hoping HSUS would simply stay away.

Why did those guys ask you to leave? I didn't see that part. I know if I had been them and someone I didn't know was filming me I would be highly suspicious of their motives. I have heard the stories. Do you think you could walk into the legislature in session, not identify yourself, and film everything without any questions. I'll just ask people to put themselves in the place of these guys in your film and ask would it make you nervous or not?

You talk about disinformation DG, but continue to call me a federal agent. That is not correct, and I never have been. That's not sarcasm as someone suggested, it's clearly untrue and purposely misleading. Why do you continue when it's clear to everyone now that it's not accurate? You do this then wonder why I don't take you at your word? Seriously?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Retired Federal Agent Plainsman said,



> Why did those guys ask you to leave? I didn't see that part. I know if I had been them and someone I didn't know was filming me I would be highly suspicious of their motives. I have heard the stories. Do you think you could walk into the legislature in session, not identify yourself, and film everything without any questions. I'll just ask people to put themselves in the place of these guys in your film and ask would it make you nervous or not?


They asked me to leave because they didn't want any witness's. A public meeting can be filmed. So tell me was this a public meeting? My local sheriff read this article in my home town paper and he said looks like it to him. I asked Roger Roseveit at the G/F he said thinks so. I asked mike Donahue the night before and he said yep.

I went to the legislature durring SB 2254 and testified to this event. G/O was there. More than one thought it was good to watch the 4 fair chasers and 2 federal agents who testified in favor of SB 2254 shaking their heads and groaning that I reported on them. All wildlife society and wildlife federation.

The arcticle in question,

Prairie Adventures
By Patricia Stockdill
Hazen Star

A Unified Voice

The North Dakota Legislature may not convene for several months, but one organization wants hunters and other outdoor interests to be ready when the first gavel falls.

Controversy and contentiousness have been the norm in recent legislative sessions when it comes to hunting and wildlife-related issues. The North Dakota Wildlife Federation and other hunting and conservation-related organizations want to be prepared to weigh in on those issues in 2007. The Federation sponsored an April meeting of organizations with representatives from Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, United Sportsmen of North Dakota, North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society, and wildlife clubs from Barnes and Cass counties. The North Dakota Bowhunters Association is also involved.

North Dakota Wildlife Federation Executive Director Shawn McKenna says other interested individuals, clubs, and organizations are also invited to participate. It is important for sportsmen and sportswomen to have a unified front, he says, and get involved with issues. North Dakota has several organizations and the variety and number of issues facing hunting and natural resources is equally numerous.

This is not the first attempt to unite sportsmen across the state. A similar effort failed several years ago. Indeed, in past years, wildlife interests have not always worked together.

The April gathering was an indication that interest exists to identify issues and common solutions. "The more support we have the more effective we can be," McKenna says. A relatively small number of lobbyists represent hunters and wildlife-related natural resources issues. Lobbyists from the Wildlife Federation, Cass County Wildlife Club, North Dakota Bowhunters Association, and The Wildlife Society roamed the halls in recent legislative sessions.

Several issues face sportsmen, including high fence (canned) hunting, McKenna says. High fence hunting has earned the ire of the antihunting community as well as many hunters because it is contrary to the basis of fair chase.

Another issue involves dealing with an ever-increasing elk population within Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Concerns over the transmittal of diseases such as chronic wasting disease have shut down the park's ability to export its overabundant live elk. Hunting is not allowed within park boundaries and unless animals are culled, the herd will continue to grow.

Other issues are sure to arise as the groups meet, including the changing North Dakota landscape as millions of acres of land enrolled in the Federal Farm Bill Conservation Reserve Program are set to expire in the next few years.

Organizations participating in the informal discussions will retain the status of their individual groups, McKenna says. "We're just trying to get together to work towards a common goal," he says. The effort is gaining interest, he says.

With the legislative session only nine months away, the Wildlife Federation and other organizations are planning to meet face-to-face again in June to continue exploring their goals and options. The meeting is slated for 10 a.m. at the Elks Club, 900 S. Washington St., Bismarck.

More information about the North Dakota Wildlife Federation is available at their Web site (www.ndwf.org) or telephone toll-free (888-827-2557). McKenna's email address is [email protected].


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DG, I want to take you serious, but you continue disinformation. That tells me there is no use talking and that if the opportunity comes again I may as well go with it again. I have stated how I feel about these things as honest as I can and I hope that people can see that, but you refuse to reciprocate.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> We all have suspicions LT. I remember how happy a local sport shop was when they passed laws in 1968 that we could no longer order firearms through catalogues. They were happy because now we had to purchase from them. I often wonder if CWD hit North Dakota if some operations wouldn't be happy. I know that sounds radical, but some people are radical.


So plainsman whose agendas do you think would be furthered if CWD were to "hit North Dakota" ? Who on this site is not talking factual truthes about this disease but using rhetoric and inflamatory stories not related to what is happening here in ND to keep the pot stirred regarding their agendas? The people spoke and yet this group will not let it alone. They claim the legislature was not listening to the people of ND. But when they put it in front of the people they did the same thing the legislature did and voted it down. And yet it still will not be dropped. Shawn Mckenna claims sportsmen must be united????? This group and their measure has done more to split the hunting community than anything.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So plainsman whose agendas do you think would be furthered if CWD were to "hit North Dakota" ?


I think we would all loose. Maybe people keep it up because there are people willing to keep arguing. I think the reality is though that this is never going away.

You know I wasn't even going to get in on this debate this year. It didn't interest me until I heard the other side start talking HSUS again. Most of my debate was because that was stretched beyond reality. As far as things that were said by the other side I only have the word of their opposition on that. Who am I to believe? The only things that I am sure are untrue came from the high fence supporters. Perhaps there were some from the other side, but like I said I only have you guys telling me that. What would you think if you were in my shoes?


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Plainsman Stated:


> You know I wasn't even going to get in on this debate this year. It didn't interest me until I heard the other side start talking HSUS again. Most of my debate was because that was stretched beyond reality. As far as things that were said by the other side I only have the word of their opposition on that. Who am I to believe? The only things that I am sure are untrue came from the high fence supporters. Perhaps there were some from the other side, but like I said I only have you guys telling me that. What would you think if you were in my shoes?


So you are sure the only things that are untrue came from High Fence Supporters? Can you point out exactly what were some of these lies?

I have pointed out many statements made by Dick that were not true, but for some reason you seem to just skip over those or claim "dementia."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman stated:


> Perhaps there were some from the other side, but like I said I only have you guys telling me that.


LT stated:


> I have pointed out many statements made by Dick that were not true, but for some reason you seem to just skip over those or claim "dementia."


What did I just tell you? Until you can understand English it is of no use talking with you.

I stated many times the things I knew to be untrue. For example once again I was not at the Jamestown meeting acting like a jerk. One of a few examples. 
Which side are you guys on. Have you ever heard of let a sleeping dog lay? If your representing someone I would suggest they get someone who doesn't keep the dog up.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Plainsman Stated:


> I stated many times the things I knew to be untrue. For example once again I was not at the Jamestown meeting acting like a jerk. One of a few examples.


And what did I tell you -- "no one ever said that you were at the Jamestown Meeting acting like a jerk." You claimed it was someone on here, and I have asked you to show me that example, but you can't because it did NOT happen. And even if that was the case, how would that affect a statewide vote on Measure 2. I think you give yourself way too much credit.

And you know that I do not represent any organization. I just happened to attend that particular meeting because I was asked to, never had any intention of becoming involved in this issue, but after witnessing a few federal wildlife biologists acting like jerks and superior beings and witnessing Kaseman and Dick in action, I couldn't stand by and not say anything.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> but you can't because it did NOT happen


That's funny your brother admitted to the mistake just a couple days ago on this form. He said he admitted it last year. Maybe he did and I forgot.

Anyway, it isn't nice of me to keep suckering you into kicking the dog when it's so easy.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

LT, who am I to believe. I remember Glen as a child growing up down the street from our house, and as an adult, and I have never heard him use such language in private much less public. I can only go by what I know. Don't ask me to have faith in you because I reserve that for God.

No disrespect or anything, but you guys are beating a dead horse and I have better things to do. I suppose you will come up with something outrageous to keep me playing, but I hope I can resist.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

What happened to my last post and DGs? I guess I don't really need to ask, as this isn't the first time this has happened. :eyeroll:


----------



## GSPMIKE (May 28, 2010)

*Wow, hope you all have your waders on, poop is getting deep.

Its probably not this easy, but what the heck, if people want to pay big $$ for a buck on the wall and are proud of it. Let them. expecially if someone rasing the deer can be happy and wealthy managing a healthy deer herd. :thumb: People make a buck (no pun intended) on more debatable issues than this. I realize this is a hot topics area but what a bunch of kids.

I see both sides, to each their own I guess. :beer: *

My self, I have more importaint things to spend my money on, if I had the extra money I cant say I would try a canned hunt. I didnt shoot a deer this year and had a blast doing it. I spent time with my family, ate delicious meals, drank copious amounts of wiskey and listen to my grandpa and uncles tell great stories about my grandpas 59 years of hunting deer. By far the best year of chaising whitetails. :beer:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Thought I would check back in and see what happened to the postings and sure enough, DG is still clueless. "Ask about any person who belongs to one of these organizations, what it is that they as a group belong to, and they can't answer it." I visited with members of the Beulah Chamber of Commerce about how they felt the North Dakota Wildlife Federation was doing representing them. They didn't know the NDWF was speaking for or representing them. Beulah is a coal mining town."

I couldn't figure out the list at all and it is flat wrong. 90% of the organizations on the list do NOT belong to NDWF (including the Beulah Chamber of Commerce) and are not represented by the federation. No wonder Beulah is confused as are any others that may have been approached about the list. Membership in NDWF is made up of affiliate wildlife clubs, and at least 99% of the members of those clubs are not government employees. I am reposting this fact just so those slow readers can read it again.

As to the Wildlife Society, I never said it was a grassroots organization. Please reread and understand my previous post.

Ah well, back to hunting pheasants and predators. I will check back in a couple of weeks.


----------

