# Why oppose the initiative to ban "high fence" hunt



## jhegg

Hi!

My name is Jim Heggeness. I live in Fargo, ND and am one of the sponsors of the initiative to ban "high fence" hunting in ND. I do not consider these opportunities as "hunting" opportunities. I only see them as ways to shoot a captive animal - not even in the same league as hunting. I see you have supported the right of landowners to provide "high fence" hunting opportunities as they wish.

My question to you is this:

Do you support this type of activity only from a financial position, or do you support it as an ethical method for harvesting wild game?

I am posting this as a thread in nodakoutdoors.com. I hope you will be able to provide your comment there as well. Again, I do not seek your justification for you opinion, I am only interested in why you have that opinion.

Thanks to all for your responses.

Jim Heggeness


----------



## g/o

> Do you support this type of activity only from a financial position, or do you support it as an ethical method for harvesting wild game?


Really no sense to try and explain anything to you or ones feeling towards this to you Jim. You and other still consider this wild game, it's not.


----------



## Ref

g/o,

Don't you think that the guys that are doing the shooting inside these high fences think that they are shooting a wild elk? YES, they do! I've watched videos on the outdoor channels about guys shooting inside a high fence operation. Look at their emotions after they shoot the animal. They are acting like they just shot a wild animal. It looks like a wild elk, it craps like a wild elk, it leaves footprints like a wild elk, the owner/operator tries to make it look like the terrain where the shooting takes place look like wild elk country.........

The ONLY people that think of these animals as domestic are the owner/operators so they can justify the operation.


----------



## jhegg

cwoparson,

Quote:
People who haven't a clue about hunting and could care less will be asked to pass a law controlling hunting. Since it is nothing to them but a little check box on a ballot, they will pick one with no thought behind their decision. All that will accomplish in the end is to open Pandora's box for anti hunters to use the same excuse to ban all hunting.

I see what you are driving at. However, our argument is against classifying these types of activities as "hunting". Is your concern about shooting animals in a fenced in enclosure and calling this hunting? That is my concern. I do not believe these activities should be classifyed as hunting. That is what this measure is all about.

I am going to post my response in the forum I started concerning this issue. You can respond to me here (pm) or there.

Jim


----------



## jhegg

g/o,
If you do *not *consider it *wild game*, why do you insist on calling it *hunting*?
Jim


----------



## g/o

I didn't call it hunting, I have always referred to at as shooting because I know how the elite feel towards this.


----------



## jhegg

g/o.
OK, then it is shooting. Why throw in the words like "trophy", etc. and charge accordingly? If you sell a yearling steer, is it worth more per pound than a 6-8 year old bull that will not be used for breeding purposes? I doubt it. If you are not trying to capitalize on the "hunting" experience, why is a less desirable mature male meat animal selling for so much more that a good eating age meat animal?
Jim


----------



## 4590

Jim,

I wish everyone in ND would read some of you guys logic on this site. So now it is wrong for a "hunter" to feel some excitement and emotion when they harvest an animal on a fenced hunt. So now you guys are the emotion police as well. Go figure. Maybe just maybe, and since I am sure you wouldn't know since you've never been to a hunting preserve and observed a hunt, the client actually have a great time and enjoy themselves and a great deal of excitement when they harvest their trophy.

AGAIN g/o is right, these animals are not wildlife. The clients know exactly what they are involved in, the harvest of a domestically raised animal.

Ref,
You sound like quite an authority on this subject. Question, how is someone supposed to react when they harvest a big bull on a hunting preserve?? How does the owner/operator make his facility "look like wild elk country". You guys take issue because you think the hunt is too easy and now someone takes issue if the terrain is to rugged so as to make it "wild elk country" and more difficult. The logic here just amazes me!!!


----------



## Ref

4590,

You always switch to sarcasm when you can't defend an issue. I used perfect logic. If you think that a person is supposed to get excited about shooting an animal inside a fence, then our sport is in big trouble. I'm glad all the people that signed the petition don't agree with you.


----------



## jhegg

cwoparson,

The issue to me is what we want to call hunting and what image that reflects on those who do not partake of our sport. I do not consider shooting an animal inside a fence as an ethical hunting opportunity. The people that run these operations are trying to use the image of hunting to make money.

I have no objection to someone making money. I do have a great objection to someone demeaning what I consider a great tradition to fill their pocketbooks with money.

If they would sell their wares as "shooting" an animal for meat, I would have no objection to that. However, the animals are generally not sold as "meat" animals, but as "trophy" animals. Would you go into a store and pay top dollar for a steak from a 4-8 year old bull? I don't think so. Yet, that is what these "livestock" ranchers would have you believe.

We all have our line drawn in the sand. This issue crosses that line for me.

4590,

I would not experience any "excitement" from shooting an animal inside of a fence. When we lived on the farm, I always experienced some negative feelings whenever we "harvested" our livestock for our own use, but it had to be done. Your attempt to turn that into a positive "emotion and excitement" hunting issue is just plain sick. But, you obviously don't care what you have to do to make money. The rest of us are concerned about ethics.

Jim


----------



## g/o

Jim, Again you need a little education here. In the spring out here on the farm we have sales. On these sale we sell bulls, these bulls bring big buck$$ much more than those little yearling's do. So when selling an Elk some want to pay more for horns than meat. Big deal, it is his choice not yours. You guys have a problem and that is you want everything your way. You despise Outfitters and Guides,and want to limit the number and time for non resident hunters. Everybody is in your way and don't do things like you want it done. This is just the tip of the iceberg. next on your agenda is baiting. Then comes the pheasant boys, you already tried that once but got caught.


----------



## jhegg

g/o,

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect those big dollar bulls are sold more for their balls than for their meat. I don't know of anyone that shoots trophy animals for their balls.

Jim


----------



## LT

Jim, I do not think that you are really after our opinion here as we have expressed it many times before. Let me ask you some questions.

1. Do you think that it is good that HSUS was asked to get involved?

https://community.hsus.org/humane/notic ... d=22083277

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/0 ... -you-done/

2. Do you believe that an initiated measure is a good thing when it involves property rights? Do you think that it is right that anything can be said to a potential signer of the petition? Do you think that it is right that sponsors cannot back out even though they may be responsible for what other sponsors say?

3. Do you believe it is ethical to kill bison for their trophy value in a high fence?

4. Do you believe that animals in a fence are only killed for their trophy value? Do you believe that animals killed in the wild are only killed for their meat?

5. Do you believe that the terminology on the initiative is sound? Do you believe that "big game species" includes farmed elk according to the Century Code?

6. Is your picture included on the fair chase member site? I see people who are not sponsors, and it leads me to wonder why it says that this represents a cross section of the fair chase committee when there are pictures of some who are not part of the committee.

http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/Fai ... mbers_.htm

7. Do you believe that this measure will do away with internet hunting in North Dakota? Do you believe that internet hunting exists? Do you believe that internet hunting is the infamous Texas-style of garm farm hunting?


----------



## jhegg

LT,

To answer to your questions:

#1. I don't care if HSUS or the NWF or MAD or whoever are involved. People will vote their feelings. I think they should be given the opportunity to do so.

#2. So do you think the "property rights" issue should trump all other laws and ethical considerations? Should I be allowed to dump toxic waste on my property? Should I be allowed to run a brothel on my property? I don't think so.

#3. No, I personnaly do not think it is proper to kill any animal in a high fence arena for its trophy value. In fact, I do not consider any animal in a high fence arena to have any trophy value.

#4 Most animals in a high fence arena are shot for their so-called "trophy" value. If not, why the sliding scale based on horn size?

#5. Yes, I think the terminology on the initiative is sound.

*6. As far as I know, my picture is not on the fair chase member site. Please explain to me how in the hell having a picture on a site determines whether that


> represents a cross section of the fair chase committee


 or not.

#7. I am not sure what you mean when you refer to "internet hunting" Explain it further and I will give you an answer.

Now, answer me this: Do you have any financial interests that may be affected by this petition?

Jim


----------



## LT

_This measure, when passed, will do only three things:

　1. Eliminate canned shooting of captive big-game species inside escape-proof fences for fees.

　2. Same for exotic non-native mammals, (read Russian Wild Boar, one of which was found in central North Dakota last year. He didn't parachute in here).

　3. Eliminate computer-controlled remotely fired weapons for canned shooting, (the infamous Texas-style computer shooting at game ranches).

The measure does not affect game ranching or bison in any way, nor commercial slaughter of big game species for meat and animal products, nor the sale of breeding stock, nor the sale of individual animals, nor the raising of any of them.

Dick Monson, Committee Member, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase._

http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/inititiative.htm

_The following pictures represent a cross section of the Fair Chase Committee. Based on these pictures, the people serving on the committee would be dishonorably discharged from the ranks of any animal rights group.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Decide for yourselves._

http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/Fai ... mbers_.htm

To answer your question Jim, NO I HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN FINANCIALLY FROM THIS.


----------



## jhegg

LT,

After reading your last post, I can't tell which side of the fence you are on. Which is it? What iron are you putting in this fire?

Jim

ps: Even if I didn't ask for it, I would still be interested in your opinion. I think I stated mine.


----------



## DG

On April 19 Jim H. said to G/O

OK, then it is shooting. Why throw in words like "trophy", etc. and charge accordingly? If you sell a yearling steer, is it worth more per pound than a 6-8 year old bull that will not be used for breeding purposes?

Jim, hold it right there. You are comparing apples and oranges. How about a yearling steer and a breeding bull. I have seen angus bulls bring 15,000 dollars. The agreement is between the buyer and the seller. It's called free enterprize.

Your answer to LT April 20 arouses some suspicion about your intentions. Answer No.7.....You said, Answer me this: Do you have any financial interest that may be affected by this petition?

That statement is cause for alot of red flags, alarms, bells and whistles.

The word "ethics" does not appear in this whole thread!!! This isn't really about ethics is it?


----------



## cwoparson

> 3. Eliminate computer-controlled remotely fired weapons for canned shooting, (the infamous Texas-style computer shooting at game ranches).


This is the biggest joke and lie of them all. It never existed. There was never a hunt of this type done. One man in Texas posted on the internet he wanted to start this operation. He was immediately shut down. No hunt ever took place. Even state legislatures got into the scam by proposing bills to outlaw something that never existed. Yet people who know better, know it is a lie, will purposely throw it out as if fact. Not only knows it is false but puts the word ranch in plural to mislead people into thinking this was something wide spread. When they do this I know anything else that person says is not trustworthy. Is there any wonder those against the initiative question what the supporters say and especially the particular committee member that promotes such a lie?



> Do you have any financial interest that may be affected by this petition?


That works both ways. A large land owner near a high fence operation may stand to make some money by charging a trespass fee on his property except the game ranch is a direct competitor.


----------



## jhegg

DG,

You said I said:



> OK, then it is shooting. Why throw in words like "trophy", etc. and charge accordingly? If you sell a yearling steer, is it worth more per pound than a 6-8 year old bull that will not be used for breeding purposes?


 This is true. Then you said:



> Jim, hold it right there. You are comparing apples and oranges. How about a yearling steer and a breeding bull. I have seen angus bulls bring 15,000 dollars. The agreement is between the buyer and the seller. It's called free enterprize.


 Well, what is the seller selling? Meat or balls (genetics)? I also said


> If you are not trying to capitalize on the "hunting" experience, why is a less desirable mature male meat animal selling for so much more that a good eating age meat animal?


So...if you want to buy a bull for his balls (genetics), I doubt you will go out in the pasture and shoot him.



> Your answer to LT April 20 arouses some suspicion about your intentions. Answer No.7.....You said, Answer me this: Do you have any financial interest that may be affected by this petition?
> 
> That statement is cause for alot of red flags, alarms, bells and whistles.
> 
> The word "ethics" does not appear in this whole thread!!! This isn't really about ethics is it?


How do you figure my comments do not address ethics?

Jim


----------



## g/o

> So when selling an Elk some want to pay more for horns than meat. Big deal, it is his choice not yours. You guys have a problem and that is you want everything your way. You despise Outfitters and Guides,and want to limit the number and time for non resident hunters. Everybody is in your way and don't do things like you want it done.


Jim I gave you this answer apparently you only read what you wanted to.



> Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect those big dollar bulls are sold more for their balls than for their meat. I don't know of anyone that shoots trophy animals for their balls.


So Jimbo you are asking us questions, how about answering a few so we know where you are coming from.

Why is it ethical to shoot bison in a high fence and not a Elk?

You compare this to a toxic waste dump or a house of prostitution. yet both of those would be a disease issue and this is not hardly a comparison is it?

What is it that bothers you about this? Have you ever visited one of these places? Kind of hard to condemn this if you've never taken the time to visit a game farm. Or is it what really bothers you guys is that some rich dude (heaven forbid) come out and pays some farmer big bucks to shoot one of these. Big deal


----------



## jhegg

Jim,



> Quote:
> So when selling an Elk some want to pay more for horns than meat. Big deal, it is his choice not yours. You guys have a problem and that is you want everything your way. You despise Outfitters and Guides,and want to limit the number and time for non resident hunters. Everybody is in your way and don't do things like you want it done.


Wow! Your plate is full! (of $hit that is). We are talking about the ethics of hunting and you are talking about trashing those very same ethics to provide yourself with some additional income. I think you have made your point. Namely that ethics have no business standing in the way of you making a profit. Let the voters decide!

Jim


----------



## g/o

> Wow! Your plate is full! (of $hit that is).


Nice answer as usual Jim, I see like always you refuse to answer anything someone throws out at you.


----------



## jhegg

g/o,

Just for you:


> So Jimbo you are asking us questions, how about answering a few so we know where you are coming from.
> 
> Why is it ethical to shoot bison in a high fence and not a Elk?


I don't think it is. However, this issue is not addressed in the petition - so what is your complaint here?



> You compare this to a toxic waste dump or a house of prostitution. yet both of those would be a disease issue and this is not hardly a comparison is it?


You see prostitution as only a disease issue. Actually, I would expect nothing less from you. Would you then consider prostitution OK if there were no disease issues present? Just another way to add to your income - right? Nonetheless, I consider it an ethical issue.



> What is it that bothers you about this? Have you ever visited one of these places? Kind of hard to condemn this if you've never taken the time to visit a game farm. Or is it what really bothers you guys is that some rich dude (heaven forbid) come out and pays some farmer big bucks to shoot one of these. Big deal


What bothers me about it is that you and your kind have prostituted the entire theme of fair chase hunting to make a buck. Does that answer your questions?

Jim
_________________
The baiting issue was dreamed up by city hunters that never get out into the country except when they hunt and they think farmers just get in the way.


----------



## cwoparson

> What bothers me about it is that you and your kind have prostituted the entire theme of fair chase hunting to make a buck. Does that answer your questions?


You opened this thread by saying you only wanted to understand why someone had the opinion they had. Well it didn't take long for this thread to degrade and go down hill. What were you looking for, a sudden sound of trumpets and a revelation of truth and conviction? If you didn't really want to hear the opinions of others then why ask for them, and then turn around and start that same old moronic prostitution crap again?

BTW, posting an answer to a PM you initiated or answering a PM's returned answer you initiated in a open forum, not only violates forum rules, it is also not ethical.


----------



## g/o

[/quote]BTW, posting an answer to a PM you initiated or answering a PM's returned answer you initiated in a open forum, not only violates forum rules, it is also not ethical


> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> Great answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## jhegg

g/o.
Glad to see you are in hog heaven!

cwo,
Sorry I let slip your true feelings. Chris can ban me if he wants to.

Regarding


> a sudden sound of trumpets and a revelation of truth and conviction?


 I know I won't get that from you. I do find it amusing; however, that you are now employing the ethics card.

Regarding


> that same old moronic prostitution crap again?


, what can I say? Hunting has a well defined ethic (fair chase) behind it. You and your bedfellows have chosen to ignore it while pursuing the almighty dollar. I think the word prostitution (as defined in the Merriam-Websters online dictionary - read definition #2) accurately describes high fence "hunting" activities.



> prostituted
> One entry found.
> 
> prostitute[1,transitive verb]
> 
> Main Entry:
> 1pros·ti·tute Listen to the pronunciation of 1prostitute
> Pronunciation:
> \ˈpräs-tə-ˌtüt, -ˌtyüt\
> Function:
> transitive verb
> Inflected Form(s):
> pros·ti·tut·ed; pros·ti·tut·ing
> Etymology:
> Latin prostitutus, past participle of prostituere, from pro- before + statuere to station - more at pro-, statute
> Date:
> 1530
> 
> 1 : to offer indiscriminately for sexual intercourse especially for money 2 : to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes : debase <prostitute one's talents>
> - pros·ti·tu·tor Listen to the pronunciation of prostitutor \-ˌtü-tər, -ˌtyü-\ noun


----------



## 4590

ref,


> If you think that a person is supposed to get excited about shooting an animal inside a fence, then our sport is in big trouble.


It really has little to do with what I think, I know for a FACT these people experience a great deal of excitement when they harvest an animal. Sorry if you can't accept that.

Jim,



> When we lived on the farm, I always experienced some negative feelings whenever we "harvested" our livestock for our own use, but it had to be done. Your attempt to turn that into a positive "emotion and excitement" hunting issue is just plain sick.


I will not try and tell you that as a producer I have no attatchment to the livestock we raised. But like you we realize it is a business. But what is really "sick" is you trying to tell someone, who is involved with a clean, wholesome, activity, that is not affecting anyone else and is the most humane way to harvest that animal, they should not experience fun and excitement while doing it.


----------



## jhegg

4590,



> But what is really "sick" is you trying to tell someone, who is involved with a clean, wholesome, activity, that is not affecting anyone else and is the most humane way to harvest that animal, they should not experience fun and excitement while doing it.


A "clean, wholesome, activity'?

Shooting an animal in a high fence arena and calling it a "hunting" experience is anything but a clean wholesome activity.

Jim


----------



## cwoparson

> I do find it amusing; however, that you are now employing the ethics card.


There is no such thing as a ethics card anymore than there is a racial card. Those are simply terms used by those that do what they tell others not to do and then try to dance off the stage.

As for my true feelings as you put it, I said nothing to you in the PM that I haven't said on the forum. Actually it was repeated comments that you should have read from me many times. Your feeble attempt to insinuate that I was hiding something did not go unnoticed.



> You and your bedfellows have chosen to ignore it while pursuing the almighty dollar.


Almighty dollar? Please explain this elusive almighty dollar I've never seen. Especially since I no connection to the game farm business, which I know you are already aware of. I guess Chris should turn off the Google adds since a few flash by that he doesn't agree with and are contrary to a hunting and fishing forum. Otherwise he might be accused by you that he is just letting the almighty dollar cloud his mind.



> I think the word prostitution (as defined in the Merriam-Websters online dictionary - read definition #2) accurately describes high fence "hunting" activities.


You sure you want to use that description. Careful now, it is just as easily used to describe you and your position. "2 : to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes". Yep, when I look at some of the stuff on the Fair Chase web site and hear some of the rhetoric spewed on here, I would have to say prostitution is in full play with your position. But not to worry. I don't intend to drop to that level of -- well you get the picture.

The more I think about it, the more I believe you didn't want to understand anything about anyones opinion. I suspect your only real reason for starting this thread was because no one was discussing the issue here as of late and you just wanted to stir the pot. Well, you've stirred the pot. Feel better now?


----------



## Ref

4590,

You can twist the words all you want, but the fact that there are people out there that get excited about shooting an animal inside a fence is exactly why our sport is in big trouble. That's why there are so many people willing to sign the petition.


----------



## Hunter_58346

Main Entry: situation ethics 
Function: noun 
Date: 1955 
: a system of ethics by which acts are judged within their contexts instead of by categorical principles -called also situational ethics

The thing that sets most North Dakotans apart is our resistance to being told what we can or can't do. Like it or not what people are legally doing with/on their own land, it's basically none of anothers business. What is un-ethical to one individual may be just fine for another. 
How can you tell a landowner that, let's say, made $20,000 this year from his animals, that next year you can't. All because that my friends and I have decided what you are doing is un-ethical. As long as they have customers willing to write the check, they will continue to make money. Who cares what their customers are feeling when they pull the trigger? Who are we to tell what they can and can't do with their property? Because one group finds it immoral it should be the same for everyone?
I am not saying that I am in fovor of the practice or against it. I just dont like being told what I can and can't legally do.


----------



## DG

The old slippery slope. Horse slaughter, farmed elk, pigs and now dogs. In the Legislatative Bill Forum right under Hot Topics is a very interesting article posted by eaglerock 815. PETA and HSUS take over Dallas. Down toward the bottom of the article this jumped off the page.

The Bill of Rights also is equally clear that people must be properly compensated if any level of government seizes or destroys their property for any reason: "No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to pubilic use without adequate compensation being made..."

The animal rights whacko's are everywhere. We must surround ourselves.


----------



## HOTWING

Simple. Its the land owners rights. stop trying to tell people what they should or shouldnt do. Also, I dont think that fence hunting is equal to a fair chase hunt, however I also dont think using a four wheeler to haul around crap or to get you from point a to point b is a fair chase hunt either.


----------



## KEN W

HOTWING said:


> Simple. Its the land owners rights. stop trying to tell people what they should or shouldnt do. Also, I dont think that fence hunting is equal to a fair chase hunt, however I also dont think using a four wheeler to haul around crap or to get you from point a to point b is a fair chase hunt either.


Just try and start a new "Bunny Ranch" and see how far owners rights get you. :eyeroll:


----------



## DG

Ken, What have you got against ranching rabbits?


----------



## KEN W

DG are you kidding or don't you really know what the "Bunny Ranch" is?


----------



## g/o

> Just try and start a new "Bunny Ranch" and see how far owners rights get you.


Say Ken simple question, is prostitution legal in ND?


----------



## People

What is hunting?


----------



## FlashBoomSplash

[/quote]What is hunting?



> Hunting is the practice of pursuing animals for food, recreation, trade or for their products. In modern use, the term refers to regulated and legal hunting, as distinguished from poaching, which is the killing, trapping or capture of animals contrary to law.


----------



## People

FlashBoomSplash Thank you for your answer.

So why does this not count as hunting?


----------



## KEN W

g/o said:


> Just try and start a new "Bunny Ranch" and see how far owners rights get you.
> 
> 
> 
> Say Ken simple question, is prostitution legal in ND?
Click to expand...

It was at one time.....land owner rights didn't stop it from becoming illegal did it?It won't stop high fence hunting from becomning illegal either.


----------



## LT

So when did landowners ever own this particular "Bunny?"


----------



## KEN W

When the Railroad was going across ND.


----------



## LT

So your saying these particular "Bunnies" were their property, they could buy and sell them, breed them, and raise more "Bunnies? I spose they kept inventory too?


----------



## DG

Yes Ken W. I do know what a bunny ranch is. Same as a chicken ranch or mustang ranch. I never get tired of you guys using this approach. It was Jim Posewits who coined it. But I don't think Jim thought anyone would be stupid enough to repeat it at a senate subcommittee hearing. Durring Senate Bill 2254, Sen. Connie Triplett asked Shawn Mckenna," In the area of property rights, can you give me a good reason for taking these ranchers property." Shawn replied, " We understand this bill will negatively affect some peoples livelyhoods, however, when they banned prostitution it negatively affected their livelyhoods also."

Ken let me tell you, you could have heard a pin drop. When Sen. Triplett was done, Shawn Mckenna's face was so red it was purple.


----------



## g/o

Thanks Ken, thats what I thought,


----------



## rowdie

Why don't the people who run these operations want the people to vote on it??? Let the people of ND decide if this activity is what they want happening in their state!


----------



## Matt Jones

jhegg said:


> Do you support this type of activity only from a financial position, or do you support it as an ethical method for harvesting wild game?


I guess I'm not hardline one way or the other on this issue. It isn't an issue that I've really concerned myself with.

Personally, of course I think this is a shameful type of "hunting" and is detrimental to how people view the sport.

On the other hand, I look at landowner's rights and it doesn't seem to make sense. It's not illegal to shoot livestock and "harvest" them, and in a lot of ways this is really no different then a farmer raising cattle and killing them for market.

I opposed smoking bans for the same reasons...that being that private landowners should be allowed to decide what type of legal activities occurr on their property.

The last time I checked, no one wants to see it illegal for farmers to raise animals for slaughter...which is what this technically is.

I do however have a problem with them calling it hunting. Ideally, I'd like to see a law passed that would allow high fence operations, but they would not be able to call it hunting. In essence, make it illegal for them to market it as hunting in any way shape or form. They could not use the word hunting or any variations (hunt, hunts, etc.) in any promotions or advertising for their operation. Make them call it what it is, shooting, killing, or slaughtering. I think labeling it as hunting is a case of false advertising by the definition of the very word they are using to promote their business.

This would hopefully help the public view this activity for what it is, and not confuse it with actual hunting.

Because I think at the root of the issue, is hunter's being upset over something being false marketed as the sport they proudly cherish.


----------



## Matt Jones

KEN W said:


> g/o said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just try and start a new "Bunny Ranch" and see how far owners rights get you.
> 
> 
> 
> Say Ken simple question, is prostitution legal in ND?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was at one time.....land owner rights didn't stop it from becoming illegal did it?It won't stop high fence hunting from becomning illegal either.
Click to expand...

I actually think prostitution should be legal. When you look at where it is legal (Vegas), it isn't a problem like it is in areas where it is illegal.

By making it illegal it certainly didn't stop it from happening...it just made it worse in most ways IMO.


----------



## Matt Jones

I also think that in order to ban high fence hunts, that you'd also need to ban game farm bird hunts.

I know there's a slight difference, but if this is being done from a public image standpoint I don't see how it won't look hypocritical to not allow the shooting of tame big game animals but to allow the shooting of tame birds.

Just my :2cents:


----------



## frosty

Pretty simple actually. It's called fair chase. Birds have the ability to fly away and escape, big game animals do not. Hence the name of the action -- Fair Chase Initiative.

I've never hunted a bird preserve, nor will I, but to me there is a difference as I explained above.


----------



## Matt Jones

I've already admitted that I can see a difference, as an informed hunter...but...

...Don't you think it's a little hypocritical to want to ban high fence operations because it gives hunting a black eye because the non-hunting public can't discern between it and real/sport hunting...

...but then expect the very same non-hunting public to be able to discern that releasing tame birds to be shot is somehow "fair chase?"

Am I the only that thinks there might be a little contradiction in that logic?

I know a group that had 50 pheasants released last weekend at the game farm in GF. They shot 47 of them. So 3 out of 50 got a way...so yes, there is a chance but let's be honest, is it really that big of a chance? No one I know goes to a game farm to 'hunt' they go there to shoot. Or to train their dog...with the expectation that they will get lots of practice (i.e. they know they're going to be 'shooting').

The other arguments against high fence operations apply to pen-raised birds as well. It's been proven that they spread disease to wild birds.


----------



## woodpecker

Matt Jones said:


> I don't see how it won't look hypocritical to not allow the shooting of tame big game animals but to allow the shooting of tame birds.
> Just my :2cents:


Also don't forget about the buffs!! Still no logical answers to that one?? uke:


----------



## cwoparson

> Pretty simple actually. It's called fair chase. Birds have the ability to fly away and escape, big game animals do not. Hence the name of the action -- Fair Chase Initiative.


Matt is correct on this. Pen raised birds since they are raised around humans and dogs have lost the fear a wild bird will have. Consequently they will hold tight to cover longer than a wild bird, usually don't try run on the ground to escape as easily as a wild bird and when they flush it is usually vertically higher and for a shorter horizontal distance. The net result is few birds escape the hunter and dog. So do they have the ability to fly away? yes they do but they don't have the instinct to do so. All because they were pen raised. Still think that is what you consider fair chase?


----------



## TPR

Mr. Matt Jones you are a breath of fresh air on this site. The whole idea of fair chase vs. hunting behind an enclosure drives me nuts. SCI has been around for as long as I can remember and they have always had Fair Chase and Estate categories nothing new there and I would doubt anyone would suggest that SCI should be outlawed because they support High Fence Hunting.

I tend to agree with you if it is a matter of semantics then deal with that I think there may have been an easier step than to try and outlaw an existing legal act. However I suspect that opportunity has long passed.

As for ethics I think that pheasant hunting preserves are a great place to start when deciding what is ethical. I have been to a hunting preserve and harvested a nice even 6X6 bull that went a little over 350 (my reasons for going to this preserve is posted in another thread) and in my opinion the animals where treated in the most ethical and moral manner possible. There was I believe 1600 acres of meadow and bush, and they were cared for in every way. Was I going to get my elk? Yes there was no question unless I couldn't shot or walk (yes we had to walk). Was I guaranteed an elk? Yes I was I would just have to pay for my lodging if I didn't pull the trigger. Was it ethical? Yes in every sense of the word. Nothing I did or the rancher or any of his staff was in any way unethical. Every step of the way I was accompanied by a guide and we never were near the fence. The only time I was allowed to shot was at the guide's discretion and the animals where never put in a compromising position that could harm them in any way.

Now let's look at a pheasant hunting preserve. The animals are rounded up usually the night before they are to be released, captured by hand and stuffed in a crate I wonder what went through the birds mind. After maybe 12 hours in the crate with no food or water they are released into an area that is completely foreign to them and are subjected to probably the only ethical part of the day and that would be the hopefully quick and meaningful dispatch at the hunter's gun. The unlucky ones that make it past the hunters and dogs have a wonderful future in front of them. From the PF website 60% of released bird will be dead in the first week and 25% won't last a month, the reasons for this; starvation and predators. So tell me how one is OK and the other isn't; which is the more ethical of the two. Is one species more deserving of a particular law than the other? And the buffalo scenario, I see Plainsmen is still the resident authority on that topic.

My conclusion is that those that are for this ridiculous initiative are misinformed self indulging ego maniacs that have little regard for anything other than themselves. In spite of their continued cries that this will only apply to elk and deer there continued drivel of ethics would lead me to believe that they will eventually move on and make their ruling on how these other establishments should operate.

According to their rules!

When I pulled the trigger I was excited!


----------



## g/o

> ..Don't you think it's a little hypocritical to want to ban high fence operations because it gives hunting a black eye because the non-hunting public can't discern between it and real/sport hunting...
> 
> ...but then expect the very same non-hunting public to be able to discern that releasing tame birds to be shot is somehow "fair chase?"
> 
> Am I the only that thinks there might be a little contradiction in that logic?


Of course Matt it's hypocritical, but that doesn't matter to these guys it's political. They know damn well to put Bison,Elk,Deer, and birds together they will never get this accomplished. So they go after the weaker one which is the Elk and Deer people. The Bison and Bird industry has way to much clout and these guys know they would not stand a chance.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

Just stop calling it hunting and this will all go away. Shooting, slaughter, harvest, culling, but not hunting. Whether is birds or elk.

Charge whatever you want, but do not call it hunting and certainly do not market it as hunting. Because it is not.

It's like floppin' a g-ball down for a hooker and telling your buddies I met my life partner.


----------



## LT

> Just stop calling it hunting and this will all go away. Shooting, slaughter, harvest, culling, but not hunting. Whether is birds or elk.
> 
> Charge whatever you want, but do not call it hunting and certainly do not market it as hunting. Because it is not.


Just continue to believe that if it was called harvesting it would go away. Once HSUS comes for your hunting privileges, do you believe that when you call it Fair Chase hunting they will go away.

The tactics being used by Fair Chase are taken right out of the pages of the HSUS manual; internet hunting, Michael Vick fighting dogs, divide and conquer, first the elk and deer, divide and conquer the hunters themselves.



> HSUS Knows Anti-Hunting Agenda Will Tarnish "Mainsteam" Reputation
> 
> (Columbus) - The Humane Society of the United States is trying to dodge the
> spotlight that is illuminating its anti-hunting agenda.
> 
> The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA), the nation's premier sportsmen's advocacy
> organization, exposed the group's agenda when it called on Microsoft to end an
> enormous fundraising project that will finance HSUS campaigns to ban hunting.
> 
> In the wake of controversy over Microsoft's donation to the animal rights group,
> HSUS Executive Vice President for External Affairs Michael Markarian made claims
> that his group has no agenda to eliminate hunting. He all but said such a stance
> would be unpopular as he highlighted his organization's healthy membership base and
> said, "you don't build that type of support unless you have a mainstream mission."
> 
> The Humane Society of the United States tries to market itself as a 'mainstream'
> organization to which every dog and cat owner should belong, but the USSA won't let
> HSUS hid the anti-hunting skeletons in its closet. Here are some recent examples of
> the Humane Society of the United States' anti-hunting position:
> 
> • Led a 2006 ballot campaign to ban dove hunting in Michigan (contributing $1.6
> million to the effort);
> • Successfully lobbied for the cancellation of the 2006 New Jersey black bear hunt;
> • Opposes hunting on National Wildlife Refuges and is a plaintiff in an ongoing
> federal lawsuit to ban hunting on federal lands;
> • Took the lead in a 1994 ballot campaign to ban cougar hunting and bear hunting in
> Oregon, and has opposed recent efforts to allow hunting to control these wildlife
> populations;
> • The organization's Wildlife Land Trust Program permanently bans hunting and
> trapping on properties that come under its control.
> 
> A recent decree from HSUS President Wayne Pacelle spells out which aspects of the
> traditional lifestyle are next on the organization's hit list.
> 
> Pacelle referenced HSUS opposition to hunter recruitment campaigns that encourage
> newcomers and children to participate in outdoor sports. He also highlighted the
> organization's efforts to eliminate legal bear hunting practices and hunting with
> hounds.
> 
> "The Humane Society of the United States invests millions of dollars in efforts to
> ban hunting and trapping, and it's time that companies like Microsoft stop adding to
> the warchest," said USSA President Bud Pidgeon.
> 
> The USSA and American sportsmen have sounded off to Microsoft urging the company to
> end its relationship with HSUS.
> 
> On June 5, Microsoft brushed aside thousands of calls, letters and faxes it received
> from sportsmen and issued a statement that it "will continue its affiliation with
> the Humane Society of the United States." It went on to express excitement with the
> partnership and tells sportsmen that it does "not plan to make changes in our
> relationships."
> 
> Sportsmen have been protesting the relationship since the USSA last week informed
> the conservation community of the software giant's $100,000 commitment to the
> anti-hunting group. The HSUS is also to be part of a pilot fundraising venture that
> will generate uncapped donations.
> 
> Sportsmen should continue to contact Microsoft and demand that its financial support
> of HSUS be terminated. Contact Bill Gates, Chairman, Microsoft, 1 Microsoft Way,
> Redmond, WA 98052. Phone: (425) 882-8080. Fax: (425) 936-7329.
> 
> The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen's
> organization that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the
> courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education
> programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance and its work,
> call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen.org.


The Humane Society of the United States tries to market itself as a 'mainstream' organization to which every dog and cat owner should belong.

The North Dakota Supporters of Fair Chase are marketing themselves as a 'grassroots' movement to end canned hunting to which every ethical hunter should belong.

https://community.hsus.org/humane/notic ... d=22083277


----------



## g/o

4-curl, I own and operate a licensed Shooting Preserve. My signs do not say hunting preserve, I'm licensed as a Shooting Preserve. Yesterday Ron called in on Big Eddy and complained about the same thing. Really petty thing when you listen to that the only complaint is that some call it hunting. We should hold some more elections so everything is PC. Just my opinion.


----------



## djleye

> It's like floppin' a g-ball down for a hooker and telling your buddies I met my life partner.


Now that there is funny!!!!! :lol:


----------



## frosty

cwoparson said:


> Pretty simple actually. It's called fair chase. Birds have the ability to fly away and escape, big game animals do not. Hence the name of the action -- Fair Chase Initiative.
> 
> 
> 
> Matt is correct on this. Pen raised birds since they are raised around humans and dogs have lost the fear a wild bird will have. Consequently they will hold tight to cover longer than a wild bird, usually don't try run on the ground to escape as easily as a wild bird and when they flush it is usually vertically higher and for a shorter horizontal distance. The net result is few birds escape the hunter and dog. So do they have the ability to fly away? yes they do but they don't have the instinct to do so. All because they were pen raised. Still think that is what you consider fair chase?
Click to expand...

No, it's not what I would consider fair chase. That is why I said I have nor do I have any desire to ever go to one. All that I was saying was very simple. Birds have wings (with or without wild instincts) while elk or deer do not.


----------



## cwoparson

> That is why I said I have nor do I have any desire to ever go to one.


Then like a lot of others you are forming your opinion without knowledge. Do you like a tender cooked Filet Mignon steak? Probable so. Did you decide you liked it before eating one? Probable not.


----------



## Chuck Smith

This still just gets me.

A lot of people are against High Fenced operations because they think or consider the game as "wild". The animals are not.

Another issue they have with is using words like hunting, trophy, heritage, etc. They think the non hunting public will confuse the two things....fair chase and high fenced. Well easy solution......Regulate the advertising of these operations. Make it illegal for them to use those words. In many professions there are regulations regarding advertising. Just pass a law that limits the words that can be used. This will not infringe on any rights.

Then if disease or welfare of the animals is concerned....Regulate that. 
Here are some ideas:
1. Continuing education that the ranchers and ranch hands have to attend every year. (safety issues, management of herds, etc.)
2. Make every rancher and ranch hand have a license. Then see above.
3. Make every ranch carry insurance (liability if things escape)
4. Have animals tested more than they are. Then have this regulated by the $$ it cost to get a license.
5. Double fences
6. Only a certain # of animals per pen.

I have many many more.

You see this will regulate its self. But this measure that is proposed only wants to eliminate.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

g/o said:


> 4-curl, I own and operate a licensed Shooting Preserve. My signs do not say hunting preserve, I'm licensed as a Shooting Preserve. Yesterday Ron called in on Big Eddy and complained about the same thing. Really petty thing when you listen to that the only complaint is that some call it hunting.


Not petty. Separate the two and let them tank or thrive on their own. Retail sales of tamies is just that, market it as such and survive on your own, not on the backs as fair chase hunters.

I don't have a problem with the operation as long it is safe and forthright, just keep it out of my back pocket. If either one of the democrats get the Whitehouse and they retain the majorities we will see an azzload of fecal matter coming down the pike. I would just as soon not have this industry tied to hunting as a whole.

It is not a division of the hunting community, it is considered by most in the industry as a property rights issue or a livestock issue, neither has anything to do with hunting. Agreed?

g/o, in what capacity does this trade contribute to the economics of wildlife in NoDak?? Not trying to be a smartass just trying to sort this out.


----------



## g/o

4curl, They contribute nothing because it is not wildlife, again these are farm raised animals. They should be stated as such and they should be licensed and regulated, same as the bird preserves are. I don't believe in my opinion they should be put out of business because someone does not think it is fair chase. I feel the voters will agree this fall and will defeat this measure, with the same enthusiasm as the legislature did. I happen to believe in the legislature, apparently these guys do not.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

g/o said:


> 4curl, They contribute nothing because it is not wildlife, again these are farm raised animals. They should be stated as such and they should be licensed and regulated, same as the bird preserves are.


Thanx g/o for that.

Separate them, they are very distinguishable.


----------



## Burly1

After reading, and carefully considering what I have read here, and in other threads, I have decided that I can not support the initiated measure, as written, that would ban high fence elk and deer hunting, because;

The HSUS is supportive of the measure. The HSUS is vehemently opposed to the practice of hunting in any and all of it's forms. Any victory of legislation which they support, will be used against law abiding hunters everywhere. Of this you can be very sure. This falls under the old 'give 'em an inch' theory.

Landowner rights along with those of legal, licensed businessmen and their clients will be infringed upon.

The animals in question are legally acquired and owned. Their slaughter, whether by a bullet or other method is no more traumatic to the animal in question than being squeezed into a chute and killed by a lethal injection. Captive deer and elk are no more wild than a holstien cow ( and most lead better lives).

The entire debate boils down to nothing more than a disagreement over the language used by the high fence ranching community. Nobody seems to have a problem with fishing for and catching stocked fish. Should calling that 'sport fishing' be considered an abomination as well? I just can't buy the language argument at all. If I want to call a horse a cow, I will, and it won't hurt anybody. Calling high fence shooting 'hunting' doesn't hurt a soul. Only the feelings of those who feel they are above such practice, and would have others follow 'their' moral judgements. There are a great many more things that occur in the ranks of hunters that throw a black shadow over the credibility of our sport. Primarily those in our ranks who care little for laws or boundaries. Those are the lawbreakers, not legally licensed game ranchers.

Ethics my ***. The overwhelming majority of proponents of this measure have absolutely no problem using the latest technology at their disposal to take game animals wherever and whenever they can. If you want to take on ethics, then go back to simple self bows and muzzleloading rifles using round balls, black powder and basic sights. Yeah, I know there are those who do, but I'd bet they can be counted with only a couple of fingers. Glass houses, you see. On this basis I discard the ethics argument without looking back.

High fence 'hunting' is not my cup of tea, nor is it likely to become so in the forseeable future. But I will not support legislation to stop something that is in essence, perfecly legal, and is forced on no one.

Oh, and I really don't think this initiated measure is going to be the slam dunk that many would have us believe. Time will certainly tell.

Read, think, consider and decide. You owe it to yourself to make an informed decision.

Burl


----------



## rooster cogburn

I have been reading these threads for months now regarding the high fence measure and have yet to join the discussion. What Burl just posted is exactly the way I feel as well as many others whom I have talked to who oppose this measure. Couldn't have been put any better Burl :beer:


----------



## Turner

well said Burl. :beer:


----------



## Ref

The bottom line with me is that the animal has absolutely no chance to get away. It can use it's great sense of smell, vision, hearing, speed or anything else, it is still fenced-in and eventually will be shot. There is something wrong with that. Some of you may argue that it is still "legal"...... BUT IT IS STILL WRONG.


----------



## DG

Found this in an NRA magazine article dated Oct. of 2007.

HSUS Runs From Its Leader's Own Words

During a recent legistlative effort to ban the importation of polar bear trophies ("ILA Report, "September), the Humane Soceity of the United States (HSUS) tried to run away from the positions of its own executive director, long-time anti-hunting activist Wayne Pacelle. 
NRA-ILA provided U.S. House members a page of Pacelle's extreme quotes to show HSUS's true agenda, including this one:
"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States...We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."

HSUS claimed Pacelle had never given an interview to _Full Cry_ 
[/i]magazine, where the quote appeared. NRA-ILA contacted the magazine for a copy for the orginal article and found the quote was from a first-hand account of a speech Pacelle gave to an outdoor ethics conference in South Carolina. HSUS then tried to claim Pacelle made the comment before he worked for them. What they failed to mention was that Pacelle, at the time, was Director of the Fund For Animals, which has since merged with HSUS.
HSUS's Clinton-like evasions failed to sway House members, who recognized HSUS's radical agenda and defeated the trophy importation ban.


----------



## Matt Jones

Ref said:


> The bottom line with me is that the animal has absolutely no chance to get away.


Neither does a cow. But I bet that doesn't stop you from eating hamburger or makes you want to pass regulations to shut down the cattle industry.

That's the way I look at this. You have farmers raising livestock for slaughter and sale. The difference is that the farmer isn't killing them, someone else is paying to do so.

Do I think it's unethical to market it under the guise that it's hunting? Certainly. So IMO that's what should be the effort here, to stop people from promoting it as something it's not. Because let's be honest, that's what everyone who is against it really has a problem with.

I personally don't have any problems with raising animals for slaughter. I doubt any hunters do. I also don't have any problems with landowners doing what they want on their land as long as it's legal. If something is harmful to their neighbors or the public, then there should be discussions on whether it should be made illegal. To me this doesn't qualify under those specifications.

I have no problem with passing regulations in regards to this issue as to what terms can be used to market their business. I have no problem with these establishments being called shooting preserves. As long as the words hunting and trophy aren't used in selling their services, I don't see a problem. If regulations are met like double fences and anything else that is necessary to stop the spread of disease to wild animals, I don't see the harm.

I see that as being a better way to deal with this...not a ban.


----------



## .308w

Burl and Matt,

You guys are right on. Those two post are the best one's I've read on this topic. Great Job.


----------



## Ref

Matt,

I have a friend that owns an elk farm. He does not let shooters come in and slaughter them and let them think that they were hunting. I have eaten elk steaks many times from that farm. I enjoyed eating them every time. These elk were raised as domestic animals and butchered the same as a cow. I have no problem with any elk farmer doing that. I don't think that the measure has any problem with that.

It is still wrong for shooter to walk inside a pen, pretend that he is hunting and take that animal. I have read most of the posts concerning this issue and nobody has convinced that this kind of killing is okay.


----------



## LT

Now this is what I do not understand. We have been told that the reason Bison are not included in this measure is because there is a market for the meat, so therefore you can still hunt one as a trophy. We have been told that this is not the case for elk.

Taken from an old thread:



> That has been discussed earlier. Refer back to previous threads. Bison actually have a true meat commodity to them. Their meat is now sold next to beef on the supermarket store, as a viable alternative to beef. In other words, there actually are livestock farmers who treat a bison as a true livestock in small feedlots for purposes of slaughter for meat.


Today on News and Views with Ed Schultz, Mr. Kaseman was interviewed and he stated that this measure would only affect the farms doing hunts but not the ones raising it for MEAT.


----------



## Burly1

Ref,
I understand what you are saying. But I need a little clarification. You say it is wrong. Why? I'm not baiting you here. If you have a legitimate point that I may have not considered, I would like to know what it is.
The animal is kept in a pasture, whatever size it may be. fed and watered well, with the eventual purpose of slaughter. Now, please explain to me why you feel that is any different from a steer that is raised for slaughter. The way the animal is killed surely makes no difference. Steers are driven into a trailer, taken to a slaughter house, crowded into a chute, and dealt a death blow to the skull by way of a pneumatic hammer.
The elk, or deer is calmly feeding in a pasture, and is most usually taken with a single well placed shot to the heart or lungs. How is this less humane? 
If you have another explanation for your views, I really would like to consider it. My point, is that if it's not something you like, nobody is forcing you to participate. If you feel that your personal morality supercedes the legal rights of others, then you are certainly entitled to persue whatever legal means you can to change things. There are certainly those present who would love to have you sign their petition. If you are not willing to take those steps, the best thing for you would be to just get over it. 
As far as calling it hunting.....well.....tomato, tomahto. The elk could care less.
Burl


----------



## Matt Jones

Ref said:


> I have a friend that owns an elk farm. He does not let shooters come in and slaughter them and let them think that they were hunting. I have eaten elk steaks many times from that farm. I enjoyed eating them every time. These elk were raised as domestic animals and butchered the same as a cow. I have no problem with any elk farmer doing that. I don't think that the measure has any problem with that.


That's great. I agree that he should be able to dictate what happens on his property as long as he's not breaking the law or hurting anyone.


Ref said:


> It is still wrong for shooter to walk inside a pen, pretend that he is hunting and take that animal. I have read most of the posts concerning this issue and nobody has convinced that this kind of killing is okay.


Yeah, it's not my cup of tea either which is why you won't see me doing it. I just think it's a slippery slope when you start passing laws based on ethics, which is what this is. If a group got together and tried to pass a law to make church attendance mandatory because they thought it'd be ethically good for society, how would you feel about that?

I understand that there a lot of laws in place for the greater good of all of us. I'm not saying there shouldn't be. But I don't see how this really affects anyone other than that some are repulsed by it.


----------



## LT

Posted by Tom Remington on April 24, 2008

Roger Kaseman heads up a group of elitist hunters in North Dakota who believe they are the only ones on earth who understand what hunting and hunting heritage is and should be. As such they are attempting to get a citizen's initiative on this coming November's ballot that would outlaw preserve hunting.

There have been debates ongoing in North Dakota over this measure and recently Kasemen was quoted in the In-Forum News saying that hunting in any enclosure for any game animal is unethical and is "bastardizing the hunting heritage".

"By allowing these operations, we're basically bastardizing the hunting heritage," he said. "I don't care how they spin it &#8230; If you put a deer or elk in an escape-proof fence, that's not hunting."

To bastardize something means to corrupt it, reduce its quality or to lower in character. Kaseman says high-fence preserve hunting is doing just that. It's difficult to argue with his opinion because it is his opinion and that of a handful of others like him. They believe that enclosure hunting is ruining the heritage of hunting. Certainly this group is entitled to their opinions and they have a right in a free society to petition the people to enact new laws. Why pick on a handful of ranchers trying to make a living in their almighty attempt to govern the lands of North Dakota?

If we go back in history and examine hunting, we will find that hunting was a necessary means of survival and a difficult task at that. Man used anything he could get his hands on for a weapon, i.e. rocks, sticks, etc. Since that time we can just as easily say that man has been "bastardizing" hunting heritage by someone's standards of ethics and definition or ideals of what hunting heritage is supposed to be. Many can argue that when hunting became a sport, hunting heritage became bastardize, after all, true hunting heritage was a necessary part of survival. We reduced the quality of hunting considerably when we made it a sport and not part of survival. By Kaseman's standards perhaps we should return hunting back to its rightful heritage.

And what have we as a society done with hunting since the days that sticks were made pointed with sharp pieces of flint and shale? That's easy. Take a look around. It's all right there in front of us to see but for people like Kaseman and his following, they choose only to set aside preserve hunting as the one thing that is "bastardizing the hunting heritage". Surely there are more legitimate bastardizations his group could spend their time on.

Trampling on the rights of legitimate land owners and businessmen will do more to rip apart that one important element to assure the continuation of the sport. For without access to the lands of private individuals, hunting becomes diminished greatly. Some argue there is always public land to fall back on but in places where that is the only land to hunt on, interest is dwindling fast.

I believe it is one of the most selfish and self righteous things a group calling themselves a pro hunting group can do. They spit in the faces of the landowner because they think preserve hunting is unethical, all the while the vast majority of them practice the bastardization of hunting.

Personally, I resent their actions and condemn the reasons they use for taking the steps they have. I respect the rancher who is making every attempt at running a legitimate business. I am grateful for the generosity of all landowners that grant permission for hunters to access their land. When Kaseman and his ilk try strong arm tactics that fly in the face of landowners, this affects me and millions of other hunters nationwide who give countless hours and energy into creating hunter/landowner relations. They are destroying those efforts.

To bastardize means to reduce in quality and lower in character. The North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase have placed themselves above everyone else and are doing far more to bastardize hunting heritage than a handful of Americans trying to realize part of the American dream.

Tom Remington
Comment on Blog
"...Note the wording - if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape.

This does not indicate which party does the killing or attempted killing - that is totally ambiguous. This law would prohibit a wild-game rancher (e.g., elk) from personally harvesting and selling any meat..."

(Among other things)


----------



## frosty

cwoparson said:


> That is why I said I have nor do I have any desire to ever go to one.
> 
> 
> 
> Then like a lot of others you are forming your opinion without knowledge. Do you like a tender cooked Filet Mignon steak? Probable so. Did you decide you liked it before eating one? Probable not.
Click to expand...

Without knowledge? Are you kidding me? Please tell me what knowledge it takes to educate myself about a 160 acre killing operation that has a 10-12 foot fence around the perimeter. Pretty self explanitory. I like beef for a lot of reasons -- one being the way I know they are respectfully slaughted and cared for. Not chased around a pen until they are dizzy and then shot by a so-called-sportsmen for $10-15,000 depending on their antler size. Some of my ranching friends have way too much respect to treat their beef the way you treat your farmed elk.


----------



## Ref

I guess I really do care about what people think about me. I want to be someone that people respect. I think respect is a very important word. I want people to respect me for who I am and how I act and how I try to treat everyone and everything in a fair manner. I know that you can't buy repsect, you have to earn it.

I want people to respect that I am a hunter and that I respect the animals that I pursue. If I go into a pen to shoot an animal that can't get away, I have shown that I have no respect for that animal. That is why canned, high-fence operations are wrong.

When other people see how these animals are shot inside a pen and that the owners are trying to make it look like hunting, then it reflects directly on me, a hunter. I don't like being associated with that group. Those guys just gave me a black eye. That is why I am willing to stick my neck out on boards like this to try and change that.

BTW, I do respect the posters on this board who disagree with me, yet try to convince me in a clean, discussional manner. I do not respect the posters that try to bully, use sarcasm, bad language, or any other negative means to get me to change my mind.

There are posters on this subject on both sides of the fence (no pun intended) that have done a lot of homework on this issue. But I am still going to tell you that I have to go with my heart and my gut feeling that shooting an animal inside a fence is wrong.

Ref


----------



## cwoparson

Well frosty I see you're using a 160 acre parcel figure as a pen size. I don't know where you got that figure, do you? I've now seen it from a few square feet to well over 2,000 acres. Now again, all I'm saying is you have formed your opinion without actual personal knowledge. It's as simple as that whether you like it or not. You yourself as much as admitted so. You're making a prejudiced assumptions on something you only have second hand information about. Your opinion is not based on personal knowledge but second or third hand information at best. People have a habit of doing that all the time so no need to get upset about it. You have a right to your opinion as everyone does but don't attempt to pass it off knowledgeable fact. You also don't have the right to characterize the people who have hunted these places as to if they are sportsmen or not. Neither you nor I have any knowledge about these people. At least I know I don't.

Like a few others you're awful quick with the words you and your when talking about farmed elk. Since I have no connection or ties to the business, once again you spoke without personal knowledge and made a prejudiced assumption.

As to the ranching friends and the way the treat their beef, well I have to admit I've never ordered a Big Mac with ever once a thought about the way the cow was killed. One thing I can assure you of though, is that cow had no way of escape and I assure you it didn't have 160 acres to attempt to hide in. I have to assume you have never been around slaughter pens very much or you wouldn't be using the word respect and beef slaughter in the same sentence. I can also assure you that a full grown Elk can hide inside 160 acres and never be found if it doesn't want to be found. Only thing to get dizzy would be the person looking for it.


----------



## HOTWING

If somebody were to harvest a big bull elk on one of these "preserves", and it was bigger than the one Joe shot on his $5,000.00 guided Colorado elk hunt, Joe woulod be upset. All this hoop-la over banning fence hunting is purely emotional. I agree that its not fair chase, however, I also believe that it should be up to the individual to decide if this is something he or she feels comfortable doing. If you do feel comfortable, fine. If you dont, fine. DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I CAN, OR CANNOT DO, ON MY OWN LAND. (If its legal. Last time I checked shooting a game animal that I purchased is legal.)


----------



## frosty

"I can also assure you that a full grown Elk can hide inside 160 acres and never be found if it doesn't want to be found. Only thing to get dizzy would be the person looking for it."

:withstupid:


----------



## 4590

frosty, "I'm with stupid" , you said it not me. In the right kind of cover, a couple of dozen elk could allude you on 160 acres. YOur comment really shows the fact that you have now clue what your talking about. I offered someone here a free hunt or $5000 if they could just give me an exact head count on a several hundred acre preserve. Of course they declined. Many of you proponents have never been to a preserve and are only commenting from emotion.

In regard to the "just don't call it hunting or trophy" comments. Tom Remington does a great job of addressing this issue. First of all you cannot convince me that would solve this issue. It has been admitted by measure sponsors here that there objective is to destroy the cervid industry in ND. Semmantics is just a smoke screne. Furthermore whose definition of hunting are you going to use. Some will say just has to be fair chase. Does that apply to bird preserves? As Tom said original hunters did so for survival, so is SPORT hunting true hunting. Is hunting with the aid of dogs hunting? Is baiting hunting? Is shooting a deer at 800 yds hunting? The list goes on. According to the definition of hunting described in the NDCC, preserve hunting is protected by law.

I keep hearing "don't call them trophies". Again what makes a trophy a trophy. Is it something the hunter does or is it the quality of the animal? Some say a trophy is related to the effort espended by the hunter, yet if the animal harvested doesn't make a certain standard its not considered a trophy. If a high scoring animal is harvested fair chase with little effort, lets say just plain dumb luck, is it any less of a trophy? In my opinion a trophy is determined by what has become a competitive drive amongst hunters to get large antlers. You "fair chase" hunters are who have created the demand for large antlered animals that the game farmers are selling. Ask yourself if it weren't for the B/C and P/Y books, would there be the demand we see today for "trophies"? Even though preserve hunters realize they can't be in any "book", most just want a beautiful mount they can enjoy and admire one of Gods great creations.

Bottom line, semmantics won't solve this issue. Every poster on this site would right a different deffinition of "hunting and trophy".

Ref

"I have to go with my heart and my gut feeling"

When you make a call, do you make it before or after you actually see the action? Maybe you should visit a preserve.[/quote]


----------



## Burly1

Ref,
That's a truly well thought out reply, and I have to respect the feelings that you have. My next question is whether or not you feel strongly enough to attempt to infringe on the rights of others who don't agree with your views. 
This thread is, after all, about whether or not we will support the initiated measure to ban high fence hunting in ND.
I ask you to consider ALL the people who use this venue to take elk or deer. Remember, there are those, whatever the percentage is, who have no chance of taking a game animal in a fair chase situation. They must utilize these operations, or are out of the game entirely. To them it is 'hunting', or as close as they'll ever get. I believe these folks truly need venues like these. 
Yes you'll find bad apples in every barrel, but I believe that the percentage of those in high fence operations are much lower than the 'sportsmen' who choose to violate game laws in our state as a matter of course, as they go about their 'free range' hunts. Indescriminate shooting. Chasing with vehicles. Wounded game left to die. Deer not tagged because they were shot badly, or simply too small. These types are the real 'black eye' that we should seek to eliminate if we want to clean up are sport.
Animals on 'game ranches' are generally taken while standing calmly. Handled immediately. There is no waste. It is a business, and as such, the animals and clients are treated in a professional manner. 
Consider that some of these operations are providing very necessary income to their owners. Is it up to you or me to take this away from them? The initiative does not provide an economically acceptable alternative. It would simply put them out of business.
At one time, not too long ago, I opposed the Safari Club, and it's acceptance of caged hunting. My views were overcome, when I realized that the club supports hunting in ALL of it's forms. That, I have come to believe, is the only way for us to save hunting in it's entirety. Band together, or die alone.
I would urge you to seek out and really talk to a game rancher, or two. Find out how their operation is run and how the animals are treated. It may, even if it doesn't change your mind, give you a more informed outlook on the entire picture.
Burl


----------



## cwoparson

> But I am still going to tell you that I have to go with my heart and my gut feeling that shooting an animal inside a fence is wrong


.

Ref, you are perfectly right in going by your heart and gut feelings. Thats what ethics are all about, personal feelings. Somewhere along the line someone or something instilled in you your personal ethics. I myself have never understood how someone can go to Africa and shoot a elephant just to say they did. Or shoot a a Zebra for crying out loud. It's just a small horse in my mind. Climbing a mountain to shoot a goat just for the head mount. All these things are wrong to me. But those are my personal ethics where as others don't share those views. I guess where we differ is despite my feelings of certain types of hunting being wrong to me, I also don't believe I have a right to dictate to others my personal standards/ethics.

If I were voting in ND, which I cannot because I'm not a resident there, I would vote no for two reasons and neither is endorsement for or against high fence hunting. One as I mentioned is I don't have a right to dictate my personal ethics on others, and two because I see this as setting a bad precedence for anti hunters to use in all states which will affect us all.


----------



## Ref

Burly & cwoparson,

I have had some indirect experience with a high-fence operation. A couple of years ago, I helped a young man in our school who has cerebral paulsy go to a high-fence operation. This young man was only expected to live to age 14. I actually contacted Buckmasters after watching a couple of their shows on TV about handicapped kids harvesting a deer. After all the paperwork and interviews were finished, Buckmasters lined up a high-fence operation in Wisconsin for this young man to go to. He is in a motorized wheelchair. His step-dad rigged up a trigger mechanism using a bicycle handbrake. He shot a 9 point buck. He and his parents stopped in my driveway at 10:00 one night on his way home to show me the buck. This young man is now 18 years old and is about to graduate this spring. He has since taken animals in a fair chase situation.

I also know another man from our church that is pretty much paralyzed from the neck down from a vehicle accident. He also is in a motorized wheelchair. He shoots a deer in a fair chase situation almost every year.

I know that there are probably individuals out there that will benefit from a high-fence operation, but the two guys that I spoke of were also successful in a fair chase hunt. I don't have any stats, but I would be willing to bet that a very high percentage of the clients that use a high-fence operation are not handicapped to this extent. So, because I have seen how extremely handicapped people can still be successful in a fair chase hunting, I believe that most other people can be successfull also.

I don't think that there is compromise in the measure. If there was room for compromise, I could live with extremely handicapped individuals using these operations. But since there is no compromise, I have to side with the hunters in favor of the measure.

The idea that if it's legal it must be okay, doesn't fly with me either.

I know that cwoparson is not from ND, and most of the guys that post on these threads who are not in favor of the measure do not have an affiliation with a high-fence operation, I'm wondering why there haven't been more of the owner/operators defending their operations.


----------



## LT

WORDING OF THE INITIATIVE:

Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited - Penalty - Exception.　 A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape.　This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.

SECTION 2.　 EFFECTIVE DATE.　 This Act becomes effective on November 1, 2010.

MR. MONSON'S INTERPRETATION BELOW:

This measure, when passed, will do only three things:

1. Eliminate canned shooting of captive big-game species inside escape-proof fences for fees. 
2. Same for exotic non-native mammals, (read Russian Wild Boar, one of which was found in central North Dakota last year. He didn't parachute in here).
3. Eliminate computer-controlled remotely fired weapons for canned shooting, (the infamous Texas-style computer shooting at game ranches).

The measure does not affect game ranching or bison in any way, nor commercial slaughter of big game species for meat and animal products, nor the sale of breeding stock, nor the sale of individual animals, nor the raising of any of them.

Dick Monson, Committee Member, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.

Can anyone who is for this measure honestly tell me that they believe ANY MAN-MADE ENCLOSURE does not include a squeeze chute or a slaughter house?

How does a fee for the killing or attempted killing not include SLAUGHTERING YOUR ANIMAL.

Who are the persons that are talked about in the measure? Could it be the butcher, the farmer himself?

In Montana the measure there included not being able to transfer your alternative livestock license to another person, not even to will it to a family member, as well as not allowing any new licenses. This was their way of getting rid of these operations, even though some still exist.

In North Dakota, farmed elk are classified as livestock. So instead this measure will eliminate the slaughter of these animals and force them out of business this way; just different wording but the same result.

I believe the agenda here is not about the ethics of high fence hunting, but the closure of game farms without having to compensate them as they will still own their animals, but not the options that go with them.


----------



## cwoparson

With all due respect, someone paralyzed from the neck down and in a motorized wheel chair is not going to be able to abide to the fair chase as outlined by those supporting the measure. It just isn't possible. Do you think it may have been better to have said at the time the young boy expecting not to get past his 14th birthday that he may live longer so lets just wait and see. Don't think so and apparently you didn't but it sounds like it was a win win deal for the boy wouldn't you think. Sure there are laws and special consideration for the handicapped but in truth that is special conditions for a special group outside the limits of fair chase. So who decides to adjust those fair chase limits and for whom?

Not sure how one gets the notion that the defense of high fence hunting is solely the participation of the handicapped. Yes it has been mentioned as one of the benefits but there are many other legitimate reasons for their operation. That is legitimate, not legal. Don't confuse the two. Point is there are many many legitimate reason people choose to use these operations.

I wonder how everyone would feel if since animals on game ranches are checked for disease in greater numbers than the wild and were considered safer to consume, that since hunter accidents are probable zero, that animals are never left to suffer from a bad shot, and animals were normally taken in a more humane manner because inappropriate firearms and shots are not allowed, I wonder how everyone would feel if a petition were circulated to allow hunting only on game ranches? After all it is about ethics right? Or is it public safety this week? Or free access rights? Or is it really all about something we haven't been told about?


----------



## Ref

cwoparson,

You lost me in your answer to my post. I don't understand how these guys "are not able to abide by fair chase". Both of the guys that I talked about harvested a wild deer that was not inside a high fence. If they can do it, so can anybody else, especially the non-handicapped. And, yes, it was a win/win deal for the young man. That is why I said that I could live with an extremely handicapped person using the operations that you support, not the rest of the clients.

The fact that the very high percentage of clients think that they need the guarantee in order to harvest an animal that can't get away is the reason that it gives all hunters of fair chase a black eye. I've stated my reasons in a previous post of why I'm against the high fence operations. I'm not going to go through that again.


----------



## cwoparson

Point is the fellow in the motorized wheel chair did not go out and scout the territory he was to hunt. He did not search for trails, scrapes, and rubs. Then build a ground blind or on opening morning still hunt or stalk the area he thought he might spot a deer. He did not field dress the deer and drag it back to his truck and drive it home. All these things are done for him by someone else. Most likely he was in a stand over looking a feeder or food plot. Maybe even shooting out the window of a vehicle. All these things he is allowed to do under special rules for the handicapped, which by the way I am for as they are needed. I am not in anyway saying these exceptions are not right, but I've seen a few posts on here that said exactly that. But it is rules made up for those outside the fair chase guide lines some on here want everyone to abide by. He could not and can not do a fair chase hunt as supported by those of this initiative.

Incidentally if you consider sitting in a elevated stand over looking a food plot or a bait pile as fair chase then you and I have a different opinion on what fair chase is. There is no difference in this and a high fence operation. Unless of course you are saying the animal has no chance to escape after it is shot. The animal is pulled within rifle range, you pick the one you want and you shoot it. In a open range the wounded animal has a chance to escape and die a lingering death not found. In a high fence he will be found. Now which one is most ethical?

As to the guaranteed kill inside a high fence operation I think you will find that is not correct. Sure a few will advertise that way and these are the operators that need to be monitored and their operations checked out. What you normally find in these operations is they will guarantee you a very high probable percentage of taking the game you want. If you by chance do not make a kill then you are not charged for the animal. You still pay costs for accommodation's such as food and lodging if you used that at their facility, and transportation and guide fees but you won't pay for the animal itself.

The black eye hunters are receiving from high fence operations is self inflicted. A simple visit to a couple of these operations, not to hunt but just to talk and look around would go a long ways to clearing up the misinformation that is being put out. The two I visited were friendly and actually went out of their way just to show me around and let me see how they operated. When you've done that, then you have the knowledge to support what you are saying instead of just hearsay.


----------



## Ref

cwopaarson,

I understand you point now. I guess you and I are going to disagree with the definition of fair chase. I can't say what the fair chase defintion is for everyone that supports the measure, but I can say what it is to me. I consider being in a stand, using high powered rifles, better technology or hunting on the edge of a field that a farmer havested for normal farming practices and many more examples being part of fair chase. I do agree with you that hunting over a bait pile or a food plot specifically planted to bring in animals is something that I will not do.

My basic idea of fair chase is having the animal have a chance to get away. It has nothing to do with scouting, dressing out an animal or dragging it back to the truck. Inside a fence, the animal can be pushed until they will eventually run out of room. I know that some of you have stated that some of the operations are so big, that this will not happen, but I'm lumping all fenced operations in one category. You might not think that is right but fenced is still fenced. If some of these operations are really that big, then why fence it? The whole idea of a fence is to keep the animal in there so it can eventually be shot.


----------



## LT

*Ref Wrote:*



> I have a friend that owns an elk farm. He does not let shooters come in and slaughter them and let them think that they were hunting. I have eaten elk steaks many times from that farm. I enjoyed eating them every time. These elk were raised as domestic animals and butchered the same as a cow. I have no problem with any elk farmer doing that. I don't think that the measure has any problem with that.


Ref, why does your friend have a fence around his facility then?

You really believe the wording of this measure will not affect the slaughter of his animals? The measure states specifically ANY MAN-MADE ENCLOSURE.

I am having a hard time understanding why people who are for this measure seem to think the wording on it is sound and are so willing to believe Mr. Monson and company that this will in no way affect the slaughtering of these animals or buffalo, when in the same breath these people will also tell you that it will do away with internet hunting, that the reason the measure does not include buffalo is because they are not in the definition of big game in the century code, but yet if you look at the century code it also does not include farmed elk in big game species, and on and on.

Why are you all so willing to believe that this will not in any way affect slaughter. Is it because you are so blinded by your ethics of what you call a hunt that you are willing to turn a blind eye while this will take a business away from your fellow North Dakotans, your neighbors, it will affect banking businesses that have loaned these people money, it will affect tourism here, etc. Or maybe there are other reasons, some that just cannot stand another making a buck, hatred of the landowner, jealousy, ego, or some other unknown.

Why would the so-called "TRUE" hunter be willing to align themselves with the likes of HSUS in putting the slam dunk on this industry?


----------



## muskat

How many have read the North American Wildlife Conservation Model seven pillars? I encourage everyone to take a few minutes and read the following articles.

There was a time in the not so distant past that certain game animals were nearing extinction. It was the work of the great conservationists of the late 1800's and early 1900's that allows us to enjoy the wonderful opportunities we have today.

http://www.huntright.org/heritage/Aldri ... Model.aspx

http://www.rmef.org/Hunting/HuntersCons ... /Model.htm

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PubsTV ... AModel.htm


----------



## Ref

My friend raises elk to sell for genetics and to butcher for himself and friends. He raises and slaughters them just like domestic cattle. The measure would not affect his business.

I don't think that my ego is out of wack. I also believe that my ethics are pretty sound. You start throwing words around like hatred of landowners and jealousy. Neither is true. I'm not going to allow you to get me into a name calling debate with you. Again, I already stated my reasons for my position, I'm not going to go through them again.


----------



## LT

So does your friend that sells his animals for genetics, only sell them to clients who do not have high-fence hunting facilities?

I am not trying to get in a name calling match with you, Ref. You have a right to your opinion.

But there are some here who have an agenda, which is what I am trying to understand when I see quotes like this.

"Pasture Killers, High Fence Mob, Sludge Operations."

"Contrary to the Fair Chase opponent's INTENTIONAL DISINFORMATION, this measure preserves our hunting heritage. The measure does not affect the bison industry in any way. It will probably bring the bison producers more customers."

"The primary spread of Chronic Wasting Disease has come from game farm operations moving diseased animals under lax or no regulation."

"Eliminate computer-controlled remotely fired weapons for canned shooting, (the infamous Texas-style computer shooting at game ranches)."

"When this bull grows "trophy quality" antlers, something the owner will guarantee by feeding the bull supplements that stimulate antler growth."

"And yes, so there is no doubt or even equivocation, I want to shut these operations down. California did it. Idaho is working on it. Montana did it. So have TWENTY other states."

"As far as convincing any legislators to our point of view last session, the legislators failed to do some basic math. You in the High Fence lobby have the money and the LOBBYISTS, but you are the voting minority. The hunting associated sporting associations that testified in favor of the bill have the votes when and where it's going to count. I spoke to several legislatures since the vote. Several approached me and told me of the pressure they received; THREATS to throw money at their opponent in the next election. That will tactic will fail in November."


----------



## Ref

LT,

I have no idea who my friend sells his animals to.

Name calling is not my style.

You don't want us to lump all operators in the same pot, yet you lump all supporters of the measure into the same pot with those that have blasted you with names that you don't appreciate. I'm not in favor of tactics used by those that blasted you.


----------



## jhegg

cwo,



> I wonder how everyone would feel if since animals on game ranches are checked for disease in greater numbers than the wild and were considered safer to consume, that since hunter accidents are probable zero, that animals are never left to suffer from a bad shot, and animals were normally taken in a more humane manner because inappropriate firearms and shots are not allowed, I wonder how everyone would feel if a petition were circulated to allow hunting only on game ranches? After all it is about ethics right? Or is it public safety this week? Or free access rights? Or is it really all about something we haven't been told about?


It is all about ethics. It is also very obvious from your statement that you are not able to comprehend the meaning of ethics when it comes to hunting. Thus, any discussion of hunting ethics with you is bound to result in failure. It would be like trying to describe the color red to a blind person. They would have no basis to understand what you are saying.

Jim


----------



## cwoparson

jhegg,



> It is all about ethics.


Bull****. If it were all about ethics then the question I put out is more ethical and humane than any form of fair chase. I certainly wouldn't endorse the stupid question I asked any more than I would endorse the present stupid initiative. The point was to show just how ridiculous the use of ethics for this initiative is. With your childish asinine remark you just proved that point. Since you haven't a clue what a A rhetorical question is, I'd stay away from the word comprehension if I were you. :eyeroll:


----------



## jhegg

cwo,



> The point was to show just how ridiculous the use of ethics for this initiative is.


You missed your point - try again.

Jim


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

Swearing, name calling, demeaning banter, better clean it up don't you think cwo.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

4CurlRedleg said:


> Swearing, name calling, demeaning banter, better clean it up don't you think cwo.


I see that Gohon (oops did I just say that?) is slipping back into his old ways.


----------



## cwoparson

Thats twice you've made that accusation. Problem is is as usual you don't know what your talking about. Lets see, one guy was accused of being from a state he wasn't from. Another fella was accused of being someone he wasn't and I guess now I'm also someone else. Sorry Robert, although I've gone back and reads a few of his posts, I'm not him. Feel free to believe what you wish as it was clear to me his posts also made points which I see also irritated you. Seems you fellas get mighty offensive when you can't counter a point or someone disagrees with your view. Reading through old posts it is very clear when that happens you start looking for a way to get rid of them. I've even received a few PM's warning of that very thing. Now isn't that something.

Where is the swearing, name calling and demeaning banter? Oh I get it. You were talking about jehgg's saying talking to me was like explaining the color red to a blind person and a discussion with me was bound to be a failure. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## LT

*Ref Wrote:*



> My friend raises elk to sell for genetics and to butcher for himself and friends. He raises and slaughters them just like domestic cattle. The measure would not affect his business."


Ref, your absolutely sure it would not affect the slaughter of his animals. I for one and many others do not agree with you, even people who have had it looked at by legal counsel do not agree with you.

I have seen it asked here by one gentleman why do the owners of these operations not want the people to vote on this?

If this was your business would you gamble it away on this measure? Now we are asking the voters of North Dakota through an initiated measure to do the gambling for them. Voters that can be told anything by the sponsors of this measure. I have been told by one elk rancher that he was at the sportmen's show in Bismarck where he witnessed Mr. Roger Kaseman telling women, "We are trying to stop people from building high fences that are escape proof, who put elk in them, and have people pay to shoot them, and call it hunting." When this gentleman told Mr. Kaseman, "Roger, how about a little truth in labeling? #1: You can't stop somebody from building a high fence on their property, #2: The law says it has to be escape proof, #3. Why did you not tell them they are privately owned? " Mr. Kaseman stated, "I can say anything I want." One of the women looked at the gentleman with a puzzled look and said, "Well, where do you get these animals from?"

This gentleman told me he had been standing there and watching while these women were listening to Mr. Kaseman and not one of them read what they were signing. This gentleman then talked to the Secretary of State's legal department who informed him, indeed the sponsors can say anything as it is the responsibility of the people in the end to read what they are signing.

I have also heard from other people that had been at these sportsmen's shows that they were telling people they take animals from the wild and put them in fences and shoot them, they put them in pens this big, and with chopping movements of the hands were showing pens about the size of a small square.

Ref, maybe I did lump supporters all in one pot, and I guess there are those that think they have good intentions, but if this gets on the ballot and voted in, it will then go to court and do you believe the HSUS and Wildlife Federation lawyers will see it the same as you and have the same good intentions you do? What is to stop them from going back on this and saying this measure includes slaughter. Do you believe lawyers would not do that?

And when I see the conversation like the above and a moderator jumping on someone with an opposing opinion who had done nothing more or less than the other person, I know that there is an agenda on this board. I have also been accused of being someone I am not, someone from out of state, told that I know only 10% of what is going on by some of the moderators. I have been reprimanded on this board for posting a PM that was contained in an article on the internet, but when Jhegg posted a PM and when Roger Kaseman posted a PM from a member that was banned from this board and could not have even written that PM, not one word is said. Looks to me like if you are not for this measure on this board, you are on the outside of the fence looking in and that is where they would like to keep us.


----------



## LT

Ref, now I would like to ask you another question that none of the sponsors seem to be able to answer for me - Does big game species include farmed elk according to the Century Code? I have shown many times how they are not included, now could you show me how they are.

The night of the Jamestown meeting/public forum, a paper was handed out by the elk/deer growers stating that the measure will ban the harvesting of deer, elk, bison, and other game on certain private lands. This is about the only thing the whole night that the elk/deer growers got questioned on. The Fair Chase supporters were upset about this.

Here is how the conversation went for that:

A gentleman stands up and asks the panel for the deer/elk growers, "Have you read the measure that the opposition brought here tonight?"

Wayne Laaveg answers, "Yes."

Gentleman asks, "Did it say that it included bison?"

Mr. Laaveg (President of the Elk Growers), "It says big game species, it does not say bison, it does not say elk, and it does not say deer."

Gentleman says, "Okay, so it does not say bison, I am just asking."

Someone from the audience asks, "Why doesn't it include bison?"

Mr. Monson takes the microphone and says, "Under the ND Century Code, bison are not defined as big game species."

Someone from the audience, "But they are hunted behind high fences."

Mr. Monson, "There are a lot of things hunted behind a high fence."

Someone from the audience, "Well, then why pick on elk and deer?"

David Brandt, sponsor, (Wildlife Biologist, Northern Prairie Research Center, Jamestown), reading from the century code, "Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison, farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.

Someone from the audience, "So farmed elk are with bison?"

David Brandt, "Under domestic animal."

Someone from the audience, "Then if you are getting the farmed elk from there then why not bison?"

Glen Sargeant, (Research Wildlife Biologist, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown), "If I am understanding this correctly bison are not big game species UNDER THE LAW, but that elk are CLEARLY DEFINED as big game species UNDER THE LAW, in other words the measure specifically excludes bison because they are not classified as big game animals.

Moderator, "Please stand up and address who you are, I know who you are."

Mr. Sargeant, "I am Glen Sargeant, and I guess I would like to see that we actually talk about the facts of the issue and not exaggerate and include things that are not included here. "

Moderator, "And you do what?"

Mr. Sargeant, "I am just a sportsmen here in Jamestown, ND."

Moderator, "And you work out at the&#8230;"

Mr. Sargent, "I have a PhD in Wildlife Ecology, (or could be biology, not clear on the tape)."

Moderator, "There you go, I guess that is what I wanted to address, so the people do not think he is just talking off the wall."


----------



## bioman

LT,

Since you are one of the most outspoken on this issue, even going as far as taping meetings (which is definitely within your rights), what is your affiliation? What is your name? Do you own a elk or deer ranch? Do you allow shooting on your ranch? What do you stand lose? What do you stand to gain?


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ref,

Nice post and Thanks for helping out the child with cerebral palsy.

My twin brother has cerebral palsy as well. He harvested his first animal on a high fenced hunt and with that it opened our eyes to the possiblility of taking him out with us on fair chase. Needless to say he has more animals on the wall than I do. But with out the high fenced hunt we would have never thought it was possible.

So that is one major factor in why I am against the fair chase bill. Because high fenced operations are an avenue for people to try something and have success and then want to do it again. Just like your first example and with my brother. They tried it and now they are hunting fair chase. Take away that first experience they might have never had the other ones.


----------



## Ref

Chuck,

As I said before, if there was a possibility of a compromise, I would be in favor of handicapped people being able to use these operations, but if there is no compromise, I still have to go with the supporters of the measure, because I saw first hand that handicapped people can still hunt fair chase and be successful.


----------



## DG

Bioman

Are you a biologist?


----------



## LT

> Since you are one of the most outspoken on this issue, even going as far as taping meetings (which is definitely within your rights), what is your affiliation? What is your name? Do you own a elk or deer ranch? Do you allow shooting on your ranch? What do you stand lose? What do you stand to gain?


I am not sure why anytime I and some of the other opposition point out the faulty wording of this measure, we are asked questions like the above. I would think that people for and against this measure should be concerned about a poorly written measure. If you are truly wanting to shut down high-fence hunting of deer/elk operations, then why all the vague terminology.

I am not the one trying to push this measure forward and when I see people involved and/or retired with federal/state positions, many of them from the same area/office, all doing similar type work, it makes me go hmmmm!

And for the last time, I am not an elk/deer grower!!! I have nothing to financially gain from this!!!

What do I stand to lose -- more of my property rights as a North Dakota landowner and now with the union of HSUS and Fair Chase no one knows what the real agenda is here.

As far as taping the meeting, I thought that was what the meeting/forum was about, to get the Fair Chase word out to the public. Guess it did not go their way as people can talk back, so it's back to writing more articles in the paper.


----------



## bioman

DG:

I am a Certified Wildlife Biologist. What it the nature of your inquiry?

LT:

You are one of the most outspoken on this issue, and your posts have significant vitriol, why not state your name if you are a person of conviction and honor? 
I am an out of stater with no dog in this fight. However, based on your posts and the seething anger, I have a hard time believing property rights aren't your only dog in this fight.


----------



## DG

Bioman,

I believe you went to college at UND in Grand Forks.

Are you familiar with the NPWRC (Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center) in Jamestown North Dakota?

Just wondering if you are originally from N.D.


----------



## R y a n

LT said:


> Since you are one of the most outspoken on this issue, even going as far as taping meetings (which is definitely within your rights), what is your affiliation? What is your name? Do you own a elk or deer ranch? Do you allow shooting on your ranch? What do you stand lose? What do you stand to gain?
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why anytime I and some of the other opposition point out the faulty wording of this measure, we are asked questions like the above. I would think that people for and against this measure should be concerned about a poorly written measure. If you are truly wanting to shut down high-fence hunting of deer/elk operations, then why all the vague terminology.
> 
> I am not the one trying to push this measure forward and when I see people involved and/or retired with federal/state positions, many of them from the same area/office, all doing similar type work, it makes me go hmmmm!
> 
> And for the last time, I am not an elk/deer grower!!! I have nothing to financially gain from this!!!
> 
> What do I stand to lose -- more of my property rights as a North Dakota landowner and now with the union of HSUS and Fair Chase no one knows what the real agenda is here.
> 
> As far as taping the meeting, I thought that was what the meeting/forum was about, to get the Fair Chase word out to the public. Guess it did not go their way as people can talk back, so it's back to writing more articles in the paper.
Click to expand...

Riiggghhhtttt

We believe you. You just spend umpteen hours a day on here going to bat for them, posting replies at all hours of the day for weeks on end..

simply because you have a "vested interest" in property rights.

What kind of fools do you take us for?

Just curious.

Ryan


----------



## Chuck Smith

One thing people keep asking each side is what the other has to gain??
Ask what each side could lose if passes or does not pass:

If it passes:

Ranchers (Both for and against this measure): 
- some freedoms to use there land in a legal way.
- Loss of income off there land in a legal way.

Outdoorsmen (Both for and against this measure):
- Possibly losing more access to land
- Giving Anti's a feather in the cap for further there goals of stopping hunting all together.
- Oppurtunity to harvest animals in this way. (Handicap and others)

If it does not pass:
Ranchers.....Nothing.
Outdoorsmen.....nothing.

Now remember the outdoorsman loses nothing if this is just an ethic's issue. Because nothing has changed.


----------



## bioman

DG,

You are correct, I did attend UND and graduated with a biology degree.

I am very familiar with the research center and its mission.

I am not from ND originally as I was born in Minnesota, but I spent the formative years in ND. I moved to Colorado in 1994.

-Ryan


----------



## Maverick

> My twin brother has cerebral palsy as well. He harvested his first animal on a high fenced hunt and with that it opened our eyes to the possiblility of taking him out with us on fair chase.


Now I have to ask you why your eyes were closed to begin with. From that sentence I read that it made it easier for you, not your brother(seeing as your brother is already capable of making a shot) . It showed you that you could take him out and put him into a fair chase ( this I understand), but I have to ask why it took that high fence hunt to show you he could hunt fair chase? I know of thousand of situation that could be comparable to a high fence situation with the same amount of control over a hunt. I don't know of a farmer that would have turned you down to shoot one off his front yard if you asked for your brother.

and this statement is completely false.....


> If it does not pass:
> Ranchers.....Nothing.
> Outdoorsmen.....nothing.
> 
> Now remember the outdoorsman loses nothing if this is just an ethic's issue. Because nothing has changed.


Rethink that statement a little. I am not trying to be cocky here as I really think that statement could do more harm if that's the way people think.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Maverick....

Good question.

We had to get specialized equipment that the rancher told us about. He also showed us the gunsmith to help us. See we never thought that it could be done. Now we know.

Now the thing about losing nothing.....

Think about it. If this is an ethics issue.....how do your personal ethics get infringed upon? Your personal ethics. If you don't take part in it then your ethics don't get infringed upon. Because you are setting the standard for your self. Just like people think it is unethical to use a bow, use bait, long range shooting, using inline muzzleloader, etc. If you don't do it your ethics are not hurt.

That is one problem I have with this measure is that everyone is saying it has to do with ethics.......*ETHICS ARE A PERSONAL THING*!


----------



## bioman

LT wrote:


> As far as taping the meeting, I thought that was what the meeting/forum was about, to get the Fair Chase word out to the public. Guess it did not go their way as people can talk back, so it's back to writing more articles in the paper.


I would ask that you elaborate on that statement. Have you penned letters to the editor? Please post them to the site. I, amongst others, would like to learn more about your bias.

-Ryan


----------



## Maverick

> We had to get specialized equipment that the rancher told us about. He also showed us the gunsmith to help us. See we never thought that it could be done. Now we know.


Could YOU have done some research to find out these very same things or am I reading that you were dependant upon the rancher to tell you how he should hunt? I guess I am just confused still as to why you never did it yourself? Using the high fence for a trial run just seems like the easy way of doing it? Now I am NOT calling you lazy, but it's just how I see it. I just see it as being more momentus if he were to do it as You DID it. FAIR CHASE!



> Now the thing about losing nothing.....
> 
> Think about it. If this is an ethics issue.....how do your personal ethics get infringed upon? Your personal ethics. If you don't take part in it then your ethics don't get infringed upon. Because you are setting the standard for your self. Just like people think it is unethical to use a bow, use bait, long range shooting, using inline muzzleloader, etc. If you don't do it your ethics are not hurt.
> 
> That is one problem I have with this measure is that everyone is saying it has to do with ethics.......ETHICS ARE A PERSONAL THING!


If you think this 100% about ethics and ethics only then you are missing some of the intent. Atleast the intent I am seeing in this bill.

One word....Preventative
What we are trying to prevent ...You think about it seeing as you never took a chance to think over my original post. I wasn't talking all Ethics!

I will admit though if you are seeing it from an ETHICS and ETHICS only, then I can see your point. :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith

Maverick......

With my brother. He harvested his first animal over 18 years ago. Technology for the handicap have made large advances in the past decade, in all faces (hunting, personal mobility, fishing, etc). More groups are out there to help, more specialized equipment, etc. When he first started we took him to a gun smith and they made equipment just for him. It cost big $$$. Now things are very different. Also the oppurnities for him are greater. He went on a park turkey hunt. He hunted in a state park that they had a special draw for handicap hunters. 18 years ago this was not available. Hunting from vehicle permits were almost impossible to get. The be able to use the specialized equipment permits were and are almost impossible to get. Look at some of your game laws. Mechanical aiming, use of lights (laser sights), mechanical firing devices, etc. Many of these they have restrictions. I know they do in MN.

You see strides have been made. But still not enough. Now you can use this in the argument of the handicap don't need these places. I see that. But to take away an opportunity for someone to learn as we did is wrong... IMHO.

Now on the ethics....

That is what I am getting at. Many say it is ethics. Then others say it is not ethics.

The reason why others say ethics is because if you say other reasons they can be taken care of with stricter rules and enforcement. Which all could be paid for by raising the cost to have such operations.

Some of the problems are disease....Then have stricter rules for testing, fencing, animals per acre, double fences, insurance so if animals escape (Clean up), etc.

Some say the animals are getting cruel treatment (the drugging video). Make rules that say such that you can't drug the animals.

Some say the word "hunting" is being used. Well restrict the way advertising is conducted. That is simple. Look at other industries. I know in real estate there are many restricitons on words.

You see what I am getting at. Strict rules and laws would eliminate alot of the fears. But people keep hammering on ethics. And I have to repeat...ethics are a person choice.

Maverick....good discussion. :beer:


----------



## Maverick

> Technology for the handicap have made large advances in the past decade, in all faces (hunting, personal mobility, fishing, etc).


With the advances in hunting, for your brother, it has made hunting easier for your brother. Now take all the advances we have today and do you think he could complete his first hunt ( if it were tomorrow not 18 years ago) with out the high fences? I know I have seen lot's of pic's of fair chase hunting by special needs people!

2 things to keep on your mind. Things I already know you know.

1) Our state is already full of deer (Yes some counties more than others), but I have a real problem with one farmer complaining about how many deer are on his land eating his crops/cattle feed ect. while his neighbor is raising them.

WHY do we NEED more deer in the state if they are a problem already.

2) We (our state) have the fastest growing Elk herd in the nation, and are thinking about hiring sharp shooter to take care of the problem.

Again WHY do we NEED more Elk when they are already a problem.

You see we already have ample amounts of opportunity (deer more than elk) for a hunt for your brother. What we really need (in your brother's case) is more coordination for special needs hunts. Like I said before, I don't know of a single farmer that would say "NO" to you if you were asking for your brother.

I guess I am see more to this subject than ETHICS. It's kind of Like the word CHANGE coming out of the mouth of our politicians. If that's all we are seeing as people than we are being one track minded. There is WAY more to it than just ETHICS!



> Maverick....good discussion.


Agreed 100%! :beer:


----------



## DG

Bioman,

Is the USGS (United States Geological Survey) there also? Is it part of the NPWRC? How does that work?


----------



## Chuck Smith

Maverick...

I agree 100% with you that the technology now is out there. But my main issue is that this bill will take away the opportunity for someone to try something in a controlled situation. Then they can work out the bugs that need to be worked out for them to have success in the "Fair Chase" world.

You see my brother is a part of a group of handicap hunters. I have talked to all of them in the past years. I have asked them how they first got started. 90% of them stated it was at a game farm or high fenced operation. Now this is about 40 people I have talked with. Now many don't go to them but they have worked out the bugs they needed to in order for them to have success in the "fair chase" world. And what I mean by success is mobility issues, sighting issues, gun movement, etc. Not the kill.

Here is one thing I challenge any of you out there that think it is easy for a handicap hunter to get the permits or assistance that they need. Call your state G&F and tell them you have a friend, relative, etc. that wants to hunt and is handicap. Now he has mobility issues and needs a permit to shoot from a vehicle or ATV. He need to have a mechanical rest. This rests can move with a joy stick. He needs assistance with the sighting. Like a laser sight. ONe that projects a beam of light on the target. Then he also needs a mechanical trigger or release that is electronic in nature. Now see how much red tape you have to go through.

Here is a check list:
1. Shoot from a vehicle permit
2. Mechanical moving rest
3. Laser sight
4. electronic firing mechanism.

Then on top of all this......find a place that they can hunt in. It is not like the non handicap hunters. Remember mobility, sight lines, concealment, etc. It is more difficult than I can explain typing.

One way to look at it is like this.....take a daily function like going to the bathroom. Now look at your bathroom and tell me if a wheel chair can fit in there and if there is room for it to turn around and the person to get on the thrown.

Like I have stated it has taken us about 15 years to figure all this out. Some people don't have 15 years!

Again I am not saying Handicap people need these places. But it is an outlet available to them as well as anyone else. I just don't like see opportunity's taken away from anyone. Especially if it is based on ethics. Which many have stated this is the issue they have. They think it is unethical to shoot an animal in a pen.

Now if it is disease or other issues. That is fine if you are for this measure.


----------



## Maverick

Well either way you see it or I see, I know one thing!

You are one hell of a brother for doing what you do for/with him! :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

Chuck, I am not even going to talk about the measure. What I want to talk about if I may get off subject for a moment is equipment for the handicap hunter. I like to play inventor, and some of these problems are easily solved. If there are handicapped hunters out there that want ideas please pm me. 
For example, you don't need a electronic firing devise if you can bite. It only requires that you drill and tap the trigger guard to match the threads of a camera release. You can get one of the squeeze (or bite) bulb type from three to 50 feet long. Screw it into your trigger guard, squeeze the bulb and the shot is off. 
I think there would be a lot of satisfaction in helping out these guys. I am confident that I could put you within 20 yards of a buck from a nice blind out in the open, on public land, and fair chase. No problem. I'm not joking, the offer stands of help if you need it.


----------



## LT

> What kind of fools do you take us for?


Ryan, do you really want me to answer that?

Bioman,

I have never written articles for or to any papers; what I meant was that the public forum did not go favorably for the Fair Chase committee, so now they have had to resort back to articles in the paper, i.e. the Grand Forks Herald endorsement.

Apparently my posts have raised a stir over my identity. Sorry, if I feel that I would like to remain anonymous, as this is what a "wise" Fair Chase moderator told me once when I asked for the names of the sponsors:



> The list is the first page of the petition. It has always been available. Why do you want to know? A little blackmail maybe? When I see people ask for names it is a sure sign nothing good is afoot.


Plainsman,

Got your PM and don't feel slighted if I do not answer you. I know the feeling about forgetting things and thought I would remind you of this quote by you taken from another thread:



> Forward that PM if possible would you. I would like the ip address off of it. Copy and past if it can't be forwarded. Maybe that will work.


----------



## R y a n

LT said:


> What kind of fools do you take us for?
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan, do you really want me to answer that?
> 
> Apparently my posts have raised a stir over my identity. Sorry, if I feel that I would like to remain anonymous, as this is what a "wise" Fair Chase moderator told me once when I asked for the names of the sponsors:
Click to expand...

Yes LT I do want you to answer that. Do you feel Berkeley (or UCSF)gives you a feeling of moral or intellectual superiority? Just curious?

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman

You are blatantly breaking the rules LT. We have talked about that on here before, and you just quoted me from a private message twice. Of course I ask some people for an IP address if someone is harassing them. I can't remember if I sent that to you or angus1. I think I sent it to angus1 when he said he was getting threats. There is nothing wrong with forwarding a PM to a moderator. Posting a PM has been addressed a number of times recently. 
This is why I have not been debating with people. I assumed that I was going to have to enforce rules and I didn't want anyone crying that I was picking on them because we disagree. Everyone who posts pm's has been told not to. Why do you ignore that rule.


----------



## LT

Explain to me how I have quoted you from a private message twice; those are quotes by you taken from other threads on this board.


----------



## Plainsman

LT said:


> Explain to me how I have quoted you from a private message twice; those are quotes by you taken from other threads on this board.[/quote
> 
> Good. It's been so long since I posted here I don't remember. Carry on. I had sent a near identical PM to angus1 when he was having trouble, and thought it was a forwarded PM. At least I think it was angus1. I better check since I was wrong once already.
> 
> I do see people looking to cause trouble when they start asking names, and where they work. Many people on both sides of this debate have found that out the hard way. I respect your anonymity.


----------



## cwoparson

> Yes LT I do want you to answer that. Do you feel Berkeley (or UCSF)gives you a feeling of moral or intellectual superiority?


When someone asks the question "just how stupid do you think we are", They usually have just answered their own question. Not to mention that person is being asked to publicly break forum rules if that person decides to answer honestly. Almost sounds like that was the intent so there would be a excuse to pull the plug. If it isn't 9494 it's LT you're challenging as to their education or intelligence. Enough already.


----------



## Plainsman

LT, I had to leave for a meeting so rushed my post to you. I wanted to say you did nothing wrong, and I regret jumping down you throat on those two quotes. I couldn't find them, but a reliable source told me I had posted them in a hog farm thread or something like that.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

R y a n said:


> Yes LT I do want you to answer that. Do you feel Berkeley (or UCSF)gives you a feeling of moral or intellectual superiority? Just curious?
> 
> Ryan


Everyone here has stated there position and clearly no one is changing the minds of others. 
But here is another example of a moderator trying his damnedest to call out yet another poster in an open forum hoping he gets ****** enough to lose his cool so he can be run off. Ryan it's time to turn the corner and start acting like the men your trying to debate with. 
I disagree with LT but I have not seen where he has broken any forum rules but is consistently getting hammered by multiple moderators. 
Keep running folks off and you'll have it all to yourselves boys. Keeping the forum clean is one thing but this crap is asinine.

Between the pubescent posters at the top of the forum and the nazis at the bottom it is getting hard to visit here. That is why many used to be members who helped get this site rolling are long gone.

Somewhere in this clusterfudge there was a terrific discussion by Chuck and Mav.


----------



## Burly1

4Curl, 
You have driven that sixteen ALL the way home!

Burl


----------



## Plainsman

4curl, I noticed you mentioned multiple moderators. Please don't blame anyone else, that was totally my screw up. When it looks like someone is blatantly ignoring rules we normally alert other moderators so it is watched closely. I did that not remembering I had posted those comments that were quoted on open form. It's no ones screw up but mine, and I certainly don't want someone else blamed for my goof. Thanks.

If your reading this for the first time and it doesn't make sense that is because one post is removed.


----------



## KEN W

Plainsman said:


> 4curl,If your reading this for the first time and it doesn't make sense that is because one post is removed.


Yes,I removed the one I made as it was in error as Plainsman points out.


----------



## bioman

LT:

You tape a meeting and post quotes on this website naming federal scientists. I ask you, for what reason? You obviously have an issue with this petition and it isn't property rights. 
Anyone can sit behind an alias and write venonmous posts. So if you are a person of conviction and honor, be a man and state your name. I think most will actually find respect for your opinion. However, your continued ploys about both naming people and calling out people that attended a meeting, while choosing to be anonymous says a heck of a lot about your character.

DG:

To answer your question, the USGS is an agency under the Department of the Interior (just like the USFWS). The USGS Biological Resources Division has numerous research centers located throughout the U.S. The Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center is one of these and located in Jamestown.


----------

