# Northland Outdoors/High Fence



## Dick Monson

Truer words never spoken.

http://www.northlandoutdoors.com/index_ ... erty_id=10


----------



## KEN W

Good article.....this statement is so true.....

"A friend says, "Nobody is more pathetic or less skilled than the group of people who hunt game farms and sit in tree stands over bait or food plots."

It basically is why I don't watch outdoor TV shows filmed in Texas anymore. :eyeroll:


----------



## hunter9494

in Texas, it is almost the exclusive way to hunt, or i should say shoot.
put out the feeder in September and shoot 'em up in Nov. 
just pitiful. :eyeroll:


----------



## g/o

From Bernie Kuntz article



> I should point out that the game farm industry of South Africa often has high fences surrounding individual property. But the property is several square miles of brushy, rough country and most of the time the hunter doesn't even know there is a fence around.


Hmmm several square mile of brushy rough country? Lets see 1200 acres in the badlands would equal the same don't you think?

Like I've said several times first it's the high fence, then baiting as we are seeing to take place now. Next will be the pheasants.


----------



## Plainsman

> several square miles of brushy, rough country





> Lets see 1200 acres in the badlands would equal the same don't you think?


 

Ahhhhh, no.


----------



## cwoparson

Well there it is. First it was a fence. Now it is also tree stands. Oh, also baiting. The door is open folks. Anybody want to throw anything else in?


----------



## g/o

Plainsman I would expect that from you, same as I would expect Bernie Kuntz. Being Kuntz was an information specialist from Montana FWP I would expect he would show his bias on these subjects. So I take him with a grain of salt, it's just same old ethics thing I'm a better person than you attitude.


----------



## Plainsman

You would expect it from me?? What math ability? Several, meaning three or more. 1200 acres meaning less than two square miles. Doesn't look equal to me.

I have heard the fences in Africa can be a conglomerate of by eight or ten farms and include dozens of square miles.

In all seriousness though g/o, I don't think there would be much of a comparison. Also, Africa is their business so it really has no relationship.


----------



## Savage260

Ok, some one please tell me why I am a loser for putting some corn on the ground, but when I hunt right by the corn field I am a "real hunter"? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. A corn field, or bean field, what ever, is just a glorified bait pile. If any one can tell me how it isn't I would really appreciate it.


----------



## 4590

Plainsman wrote:



> I base it on simply an innate sense of fair play (chase) with the animals we pursue. After all it isn't like the pioneer days when we hunted out of necessity rather than sport. Today we tell the general public that we are sport hunters. What sport would it be to play basketball against a team guaranteed to loose?


So you have an innate sense of "fair play" which allows you to take a deer at 800 yards that has no sense that you even exist that far away, but the same sense says foul play to baiting or fenced hunting. I think you have proven the point very well this is simply an issue of preference not ethics. Ethics and morals are based on a Higher Law than simple preference. Now this discussion has evolved to the number of acres or the size of the bait pile. If it were as black and white as an "ethical " issue should be, then a fence is a fence and any game animal eating anything is at a disadvantage and should not be shot.


----------



## Dick Monson

> Montana has banned "behind the fence shooting operations," and I understand that North Dakota is considering similar legislation. Ban it, I say, and do real hunters a favor! Wayne Pacelle, a slick Yale law graduate who is vehemently anti-hunting and runs The Humane Society of the United States, has come out in opposition to high-fence shooting. Pacelle, who used to be with Fund for Animals, depicts this sort of debauchery as hunting, and his organization gets a lot of mileage out of it in fund-raising efforts.


The point being that animal-rights orgs can raise millions $$$$$ for their cause, while the sportsmens orgs raise zip to defend hunting before the public jury. Canned shooters hide behind the skirts of public hunting. Wayne Pacelle can show endless video tape of canned shooting to a disgusted public audience and fair chase hunters will suffer in the end for allowing themselves to be associated with canned shooting. Cut the cancer out.


----------



## Plainsman

> So you have an innate sense of "fair play" which allows you to take a deer at 800 yards that has no sense that you even exist that far away,


Isn't that the whole point when archery hunting? I shoot deer at five, ten, and fifteen yards that have no idea I exist. People shoot them with flintlock rifles at 50 yards, and the deer have no idea they are there. Do you wave a red flag, blow a whistle, and jump up and down before you shoot penned animals?



> The point being that animal-rights orgs can raise millions $$$$$ for their cause, while the sportsmens orgs raise zip to defend hunting before the public jury.


That is exactly what I have been trying to tell people also. It is extremely simple to understand, yet we keep hearing the slippery slope theory which is simply a scare tactic to keep people from voting against the captive killing. I keep asking myself why. That's why I wonder what the link is between these people and the industry. I can't bring myself to believe that people can't understand the cancerous effect captive killing is having on sport hunting.


----------



## cwoparson

> yet we keep hearing the slippery slope theory which is simply a scare tactic to keep people from voting against the captive killing. I keep asking myself why. That's why I wonder what the link is between these people and the industry.


That's because you think it is a scare tactic. I and others think it is a reality and that is the only really scary thing about it. If you have to continue to ask yourself why, then in my opinion it is so you can continue to to use the line "there must be a link between people and the industry", which is totally false and nothing more than a scare tactic in and of itself. Just go back and read some of the posts. Some are already peeking out of the shadows and throwing out tree stands, food plots, and baiting as unethical or not sportsman like. It's coming home to roost now and there is no way to dodge it. The box has been opened.

Can you honestly tell laite319 that what he does when hunting is not now being questioned as unethical and he has not now been accused as not being a real hunter? It is no longer a theory is it.

I'll tell you what I wonder about. It is why most on your side of the debate don't understand why a lot of us are not supporting high fence hunting when we say we are against the petition. How many times must that be explained? It's who you are getting in bed with and the method you have chosen to accomplish your agenda. That in itself in my opinion will do more damage to hunting than high fence hunted ever could have. One doesn't have to live in ND to understand your actions will have a far reaching affect to other states. That's where I'm coming from and I have absolutely no ties to the industry.


----------



## Dick Monson

The author of the linked article in the first post is Bernnie Kuntz, a well respected outdoor writer and Information Director for Montana GFP. The theme of his article is the Texas Model of wildlife management. That is the inclusion of exclusive access, private ownership, private breeding, private management (mismangement) and private sale of public wildlife. The Texas Model kills public hunting. Like a nail through the head.

All aspects of the Texas Model are seeping into North Dakota. Canned shooting is but one of them, but in the long run, the most detrimental to public wildlife and public hunting. It is the single biggest fundraising cause for animal rights groups. To take a neutral position or a no position on this fair chase measure only supports the animal rights groups, who have a far larger agenda than eliminating canned shooting and a no position supports the Texas Model.

The fair chase measure supports public hunting and public wildlife. (vote yes)
The Texas Model (canned shooting) does not support public hunting. (vote no)
Simple concept.
To pass the measure we need people to circulate petitions. It takes less time to fill a petition than to scout one corn field for ducks. Which you will not be doing in the future if the Texas Model wins out in ND.


----------



## barebackjack

The very first paragraph of the article states:

"For real hunters, it isn't even a consideration, however you might find it alarming to know there are people out there who would shoot a penned up big game animal for a fee, then proudly display the mounted head."

A "penned up big game animal".....there they go distorting the truth again. It should read "penned up livestock".

I especially like the negative references to baiting. Hmmmm, looks like the door is opening.

Mr. Kuntz sounds like he has a little of the "holier than thou" attitude.


----------



## blhunter3

Livestock is the term used to refer (singularly or plurally) to a domesticated animal intentionally reared in an agricultural setting to make produce such as food or fibre, or for its labour.


----------



## elkman

Whether you kill a wild or domestic animal from five feet or one mile or inside or outside a fence I'm sure the animal didn't care about your ethics or morals while you were doing it. Whether you used a bow or gun the animal didn't care. Whether you dressed in camo or hunter orange or dressed like Howdy Duty made no difference to the animal. It has lost its life for your ethical hunting pleasure or eating pleasure.

The only ethics or morals here was the domestic or wild animal harvested in the most humane way? Bottom line here is whether harvesting a wild or domestic animal inside or outside the fence was the method you used humane to the animal. Hunting methods produce a humane death for animals either inside or outside a fence whether wild or domestic. True ethics would only be interested in an animal's most humane harvesting.

Do you think a slaughter house is more humane than on farm slaughter? I think not because you removed the stress of moving that animal to the slaughter house. I think the animal eating in a field or pen experienced the least amount of fear before being killed for food.

All the rest of this conversation on fair chase and high fence is just ear wash for your agenda.
:eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

A "penned up big game animal".....there they go distorting the truth again. It should read "penned up livestock".

Until an animal is truly domesticated they are not livestock no matter what the state wants to call them. I would rather deal with reality than a political correct term in an agriculture state. It took perhaps thousands of years to domesticate the wild dog. It takes longer for some species, less time for other species. Some animals are never truly domesticated. I would guess buffalo would domesticate quickly, while a coyote would take a very long time. I would guess any of the carnivore would take longer than herbivore.

From the founding fathers point of view, and from a wildlife advocate point of view I don't think any operations should be able to call native North American species livestock. They should never be able to operate without strict guidelines and a permit system. The slippery slope that has occurred is when someone was allowed to keep wildlife captive for the first time. It never should have happened.


----------



## cwoparson

> Livestock is the term used to refer (singularly or plurally) to a domesticated animal intentionally reared in an agricultural setting to make produce such as food or fibre, or for its labour.


Nice quote but you left out this part farther down the page.

http://www.answers.com/topic/livestock

"The term "livestock" is nebulous and may be defined narrowly or broadly.

On a broader view, livestock refers to any breed or population of animal kept by humans for a useful, commercial purpose. This can mean domestic animals, semi-domestic animals, or captive wild animals. Semi-domesticated refers to animals which are only lightly domesticated or of disputed status. These populations may also be in the process of domestication."


----------



## LT

*Quote:



Until an animal is truly domesticated they are not livestock no matter what the state wants to call them. I would rather deal with reality than a political correct term in an agriculture state. It took perhaps thousands of years to domesticate the wild dog. It takes longer for some species, less time for other species. Some animals are never truly domesticated. I would guess buffalo would domesticate quickly, while a coyote would take a very long time. I would guess any of the carnivore would take longer than herbivore.

From the founding fathers point of view, and from a wildlife advocate point of view I don't think any operations should be able to call native North American species livestock. They should never be able to operate without strict guidelines and a permit system. The slippery slope that has occurred is when someone was allowed to keep wildlife captive for the first time. It never should have happened.

Click to expand...

I guess the Buffalo growers are next. *


----------



## Plainsman

> I guess the Buffalo growers are next.


I know why you guys keep saying that. You want their support. That would be silly of them. Why would they kick a sleeping dog?


----------



## LT

Yep, and that is why you do not want them on the initiative, DIVIDE AND CONQUER, one step at a time.


----------



## antler333

I am going to side with ElkMan on this one. As someone who kills elk and deer for a living making USDA game meat. I can guarantee that when we kill, the critters are aware of a pending problem. Are they aware at 800 yards with hi-power scope? At 10 yards with a bow? Inside a fence or outside? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? The creature is dead. Meat for the table in all cases. Seems to me killing a contented creature, close or far, fenced or not, is more "humane" than ever killing up close and personal. So why attack a fellow hunter just because of his perceived ethics or morals are just a tad different than yours. The critters dont care ...they are dead. All you guys are 99% on the same wave length compared to the HSUS.

The manner in which the hunt is conducted, so long as done "humanely", is rather immaterial. The end result is the same. However, the hunting industry wheel (of fortune) as a whole becomes weaker with each spoke that is out-lawed in a foolish moralistic reformation. Magnums, scopes, compound bows, hollow points, bait piles, fences, all these could easily be eliminated under the guise of "humane ethics". It is an insidious ploy, people. The ballot initiative process is the tyranny of the majority, it knowns NO CONTROLS. Hunting is already a minority.

Either killing is OK or it is not. However, THE HUMANE SOCIETY DOES NOT WANT ANY ANIMAL KILLED, for any reason. The ND fenced hunting initiative is the first domino. Picking on one weaker segment of the industry and getting hunting fools to enlist is incredibly ingenious. Shame on you dupes for falling for HSUS tricks.

Mr. Monson is wrong about HSUS raising millions $$$ on canned hunt issues, it ain't that modivating to people. However Millions $$$ are coming from that CA slaughter house video. It is also foolish comparing SD to Texas. Last time I checked, Texas had virtually NO federal lands AND has had a private hunting tradition since its founding, fenced and not fenced. The opposite is the case for ND. ND is NOT going the way of Texas. Dont anyone be an HSUS dupe. Shame on you for abandoning your firearm brethren.

As a meat eater, to also paraphrase Ben Franklin WE DO NEED TO HANG TOGETHER GUYS, LEST WE SURELY HANG SEPARATELY. The founding fathers created a whole new country with individual safeguards, but all had different opinions (or even ethics). So Who was qualified to judge? So who is so self-rightous to condemn his compatriot?

Are you really ready to pull the hangmans lever on your fellow hunter?


----------



## DG

Dick Monson, so let me understand this. The Jamestown meeting was March 10. You are not bragging about your success so we can assume that you lost. The Bernie Kuntz article came out in The Jamestown Sun on March 14. Who called him and asked him to post this? On the Northland Outdoors website, click on the Home Scroll to the bottom look to the right and tell me what you see? Tne people have grown weary of being force fed this foul gruel. Most of us can see higher than the rim of the bowl!


----------



## hunter9494

the first time i witnessed a Texas high fence big game hunt, i almost uke: my guts out.

if you grew up "learning" how to hunt, as i did, it would just make you sick to your stomach. it is truly embarrassing and over the top for most real hunters, but most Texans just don't know any better. :eyeroll:


----------



## Dick Monson

DG, please explain this:


> On the Northland Outdoors website, click on the Home Scroll to the bottom look to the right and tell me what you see?


 I'm missing something here.


----------



## DG

networking


----------



## Plainsman

LT said:


> Yep, and that is why you do not want them on the initiative, DIVIDE AND CONQUER, one step at a time.


Did you notice the part where I mentioned that Bison might be the most easily domesticated?
Do you think society (in this case farmers) are willing to let Bison run free like deer and elk? Can you imagine the crop damage that would occur with a hundred bison running through a corn field?
How about genetic diversity? I am concerned with how few bison were left when we finally decided to stop the massacre. Because of the hundreds of bison ranches there is a chance over the years to build more genetic diversity back into the species. 
I not only have a tolerance of bison ranches, but wish them all the best. Maybe you should do a search of just my posts before you speak without knowledge. 
As far as the bison hunts have you read about the old bison hunts? They often shot hundreds from one position. 
I have found bison interesting for many years. My grandfather was one of the first people into North Dakota. Below is his buffalo coat which I still have. I don't remember the year they were taken, somewhere in the 1870's I think. The collar and cuffs are river otter. I suppose gramps was one of the guys who shot a few. 









I have talked with bison ranchers. I don't think they have a problem with me, but I can assure you I don't have a problem with them. If any of them want any reassurance they are welcome to PM me. The best thing they can do in this battle is simply stay out of it, and not draw attention to themselves. They have something to gain from this also. With the deer and elk captive shooting gone, the anti hunters will turn away from that battle for a while. They will come back, they always do, but then I for one will be willing to stand with the bison ranchers against them.


----------



## g/o

Bob Kellam posted this on open form, this pretty much sums up these guys. The National Wildlife Federation, or in ND. The NDWD could care less about the livelihood of farmers and ranchers only themselves.



> The National Wildlife Federation successfully sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture to lengthen the "do not disturb" time zone.
> 
> "By Aug. 1 (the new date when birds are considered done nesting and farmers can use CRP land) the grasses are so matured and dried out that they're no longer much good," said Brady producer Rollie Schlepp, a Montana Farmers Union officer.
> 
> Montana farmers and ranchers say extending the time CRP land is prohibited from being grazed by livestock or hayed basically renders the forage useless.
> 
> "That later date will result in lower quality fodder and forage available to ranchers in northeast Montana," said Outlook rancher Gordon Stoner, a Montana Grain Growers Association officer.
> 
> But Tom France of Missoula, regional director of the National Wildlife Federation, said he filed the lawsuit a few years ago "because we felt the FSA went too far in shaving the key conservation aspects from the program in order to create more production opportunities for farmers."
> 
> Biologists key on Aug. 1 date
> 
> Wildlife biologists in northern tier states, including Montana and the Dakotas, recognize Aug. 1 as the time when upland birds and some water fowl stop nesting, France said.
> 
> "Pheasant hens are persistent and sometimes re-nest in mid to late July, trying to lay another hatch if their first is hailed out or eaten by predators," France said. "By Aug. 1 most chicks and ducklings are off nests and able to move out of the way of hay mowers."


When the CRP is all gone and hunting sucks, make sure you thank the NWF


----------



## djleye

> ND is NOT going the way of Texas.


Really?? Where do you live Antler??


----------



## Plainsman

CRP was never designed to supplement hay or grazing. It was a program to take highly erodible land out of production and protect it. The grass was just a huge temptation and farmers put pressure on the government to let them hay and graze it. It became a have your cake and eat it too situation. Maybe instead of being angry about the extended do not disturb time they should be thankful for getting to hay and graze land that they were paid to take out of production. Don't like it, don't sign up.


----------



## g/o

> Don't like it, don't sign up.


Plainsman, my point exactly, that is why farmers and ranchers are not signing up. So when the CRP is gone they can thank groups like the NWF


----------



## mike2766

First, I will state that I hunt in excess of 100 days a year and I approach this subject as a tax paying, voting North Dakota hunter.

Dick,
You need to ask Bernie Kuntz who it was that forwarded the cause of banning high fence operations in Montana. You should also ask him who forwarded the cause of posting the entire state of Montana. As a Montana property owner I have had extensive conversations with the lawyer for Montana Wildlife and Parks and he told me these law changes were forwarded by the Montana Outfitters Association. They intended to eliminate competition (my words, not his). I'm not here to knock outfitters, however, I don't ever want to see any states' outfitters with more political clout that the taxpaying sportsmen.
You believe Wayne Pacelle might use canned hunt video to attack hunting? Dick, pull your head out of the sand. Wayne will be just as happy using any video of any fair chase hunt to further his cause. If you think Wayne will stop with canned hunting you are more naive than I thought.

"Canned Shooting - A race to the Bottom"?????? You guys are free falling to the bottom. And you are aligning yourselves with Wayne Pacelle? You are in bed with the devil himself.

Dick, many in attendance believe you and your supporters lost big time in Jamestown. There are a lot of rational voters out there.

Several years ago the NRA was condemned for supporting private ownership of "assault weapons" ( a term coined by the media). And while I am sure many NRA leaders could care less about the "black rifles", they were intelligent enough to realize that such a ban would open a door that would be impossible to close. Because they knew that standing right behind that guy that wanted to ban the assault rifle was another guy that wants to ban all semiautomatic weapons. And right behind him is another guy that wants to ban all repeating weapons. It never ends.
One must appreciate the wisdon of the NRA leadership.

Plainsman,
The North Dakota Legislature made Buffalo and Elk domestic animals years ago. Check the Century Code.

laite319,
"corn pile or picked corn field"????? Right on. Common sense right there.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, The North Dakota Legislature made Buffalo and Elk domestic animals years ago. Check the Century Code.


That has to be the funniest thing I have read in years. Because a politician says an animal is domesticated it automatically becomes domesticated? That is very comparable to a joke I get a kick out of.

Bob grills ribeye every Friday in a Catholic neighborhood and it drives his neighbors nuts. Finally they get him to join the Catholic church and after months of study the priest shakes holy water on Bob and says "you were born a Lutheran now your a Catholic.
The following Friday the neighbors think they smell ribeye again. One of them looks out the window and there is Bob in the backyard with a ribeye on the grill. He is shaking sauce on it and saying "you were born a cow, now your a salmon".

You could get the president to declare an elk a domestic animal, but the reality is it will take generations for them to be domestic in the scientific sense of the word. Do you think our ancestors gathered in a cave and said wolf you are now a dog?



> You should also ask him who forwarded the cause of posting the entire state of Montana. As a Montana property owner I have had extensive conversations with the lawyer for Montana Wildlife and Parks and he told me these law changes were forwarded by the Montana Outfitters Association. They intended to eliminate competition (my words, not his).


I think you nailed it right on the head with that, and the assault weapon ban.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Plainsman your last post is why the issue is so cloudy.

People look at these pen raised elk as wild. When they are not. I am not calling the domesticated like a dog, cat, or a cow. But they are domesticated and farm raised. They get feed like cows or are sent to pasture like cows. They hit the feeders like cows.

In my opinion they are like cows. They are domesticated. And if a person wants to pay the rancher X number of dollars to shoot that animal. Then more power to that rancher. Just as long as the animal is not drugged, is dispatched in a fast humane way, and safety of all taking part of the shoot do it is a safe manner.


----------



## MRN

Wow - do you think we'll see "polled Elk" any time soon? How about a "short horn"?

M.


----------



## Dick Monson

Mike, I'll stick with Jim Posewitz and the other peer reviewed natural resource managers that call for an end to canned shooting. The authority of trained scientists speakes volumes when they say ban the can. What canned shooting operators can't get their head around is that society does not apporve of the activity. Read the letters to the editor in the last issue of National Geographic. Fair chase hunters need to seperate themselves from canned shooting.

Corporate hog farms came under hard public critisism for using farrowing crates. They were smart enough to quit crates before even more stringent legislation was passed. Farmers, hunters and gun owners need to take the same tak with canned shooting. Cut'er loose.


----------



## Plainsman

Good point Dick, this isn't just for hunters. The black eye also goes to farmers. Hunters and farmers both need to get rid of the captive killing. It is seen by the public with the same jaundiced eye as dog fights. That's not what hunting is about, and it's not what farming or ranching is about.

It is not my intention to play poet, but I would like to ask every hunter out there:

"How is it you see hunting? Do you clearly see the thread of societal tolerance that it hangs by, or is your vision obscured by the glint of shinny coin? Even though some hunters grasp the thread lightly it is sufficient to support us all, but will it also bear the weight of heavy and various parasites upon our heal?

Ag support faces these same dangers.


----------



## mike2766

Dick,

You can stick by Jim Posewitz or any of your other favorite "peer reviewed" natural science managers. I too know many and have worked with many. I know several that would not be considered conservationists, but rather, preservationists.

This measure has been forwarded nationally by the National Wildlife Federation. The same group that just a few years ago attempted to have the prairie dog placed on the endangered species list. Ask any rational thinking North Dakotan if that made sense. These are the people you are supporting. What do they sound like to you?

And society doesn't object just to canned hunting. They object to all hunting. And the reason they object is because they have been exposed to a constant, unending stream of propaganda from people like Wayne Pacelle, and now from a small group of anti's right here in North Dakota.

Farrowing Crates?? Most large operations still use them.

Plainsman,

The legislature did make elk domestic. These are the same legislators that would not support your bill in the last legislative session. These are the same legislators that have enough common sense to see the can of worms you guys are trying to open here.

And just how many generations does it take to label an animal domestic? You don't know that any more than I because domestic is just a term. I know many "domestic" animals that are not tame, if tame is your definition of domestic. Domestic to me and most animal scientists means born and raised in captivity and privately owned.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash

Hunting is what it is. This fee shooting of any kind is bad for our reputations. If allowed to continue the whole industry will suffer. As it stands hunters are a key component for managing wildlife populations everywhere. Not only do we harvest animals but we use the bounty in our everyday lives. We also give money through our license fees to increase the quality of wildlife habitat for everyone to enjoy. When hunting moves entirely to a business it will all end. When people charge money to shoot anything there is not really a need to harvest animals anymore which will result in our demise. Right now we provide a service to everyone at our own expense if the service is no longer needed we won't be either.

I tried to stay out of this as long as possible but I can't believe anyone would support this. If the land owner doesn't like it to bad it's like anything else in life there is rules. Maybe they will have to get a real job or raise cattle they already have the fence. So there it's not a question about ethics at all it's a question about our need in society.


----------



## elkman

Ranchers feed the free loading wildlife not the city folks or the hunters. A cattle rancher feeds his cattle the forage his land produces or he sells hay by the ton. Every deer that lives on the ranchers land eats about one ton a year that the rancher could have fed his our own animals or sold. That is a loss of $80. a head for every free loading public owned wildlife on his property.

The day I can't recover that money from a hunter by a trespass fee is the day my land is closed to hunting. Yes the wild animals are public wildlife but they are on the ranchers land. Should the rancher not recover that loss the public wildlife cause? How much money do hunters and city folks really give to wildlife? Money which really goes to the DNR in the form of a license fee and not the man who really produced that wildlife.

For the privilege of letting a hunter go on his private property he gets cut fences, trash thrown on the ground, off road travel and jerks who insist on driving in the mud. All forms of ethical hunters exist.

The one I love the most is that the rancher might have diversified into alternative livestock ( elk and deer private owned livestock) and now has to put up with guys who want to hunt the wild animals on his land but also want to put him out of business because they don't like to see the animals they hunt being domestic and in a fence. I'm not seeing much benefit to helping the hunter. Don't let any Wildlife Federation people hunt my land. FYI Yes I do raise domestic elk and deer, and public wildlife.


----------



## Plainsman

> That is a loss of $80. a head for every free loading public owned wildlife on his property.


Deer are browsers not grazers. They do not eat measurable amounts of your grass, they eat the brush, forbs, and all manners of broad leaf plants that grows on your land and hinders the growth of grass. You may see them with their muzzle down in the grass, but that's not what they are eating. They will eat alfalfa, but they will starve to death on it. 
What do you feed your deer? I doubt it's western wheatgrass, blue grama, green needle grass, or any of the other natives.



> For the privilege of letting a hunter go on his private property he gets cut fences, trash thrown on the ground, off road travel and jerks who insist on driving in the mud. All forms of ethical hunters exist.


Montana did a study and found that those types of accusations about hunters, and accusations hunters made about landowners were both highly exaggerated.

I have a question. Do you lease government land? How much do you pay per acre. I know many areas are under $3 per animal unit month, and the ranchers get more than 20 acres for that $3. That's a real bargain. Are any of those freeloading animals on that public land? Maybe the cattle should move off and leave it for the deer. Would you like to start that whiz match with the public and not the in pocket politicians.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash

Elkman :eyeroll:

You have it backwards. You are not providing a service for the hunters. The hunters are providing a service to you. If you want to post it and keep everyone off go a head. But you dont have anymore rights than the rest of us you can only take the animals off your land that you have a permit for. It comes with the territory you want to make your living producing cattle fine but dont complain about the wildlife if you dont let anyone hunt.

This is the exact crap I was talking about. It would be like making a pest control guy pay you to get rid of the rats around your house. :roll:


----------



## Chuck Smith

Elkman. They are correct.

If you are having a problem with animals eating your crops or food source for your cattle or domesticated elk herd. Then charging a fee will mean less hunters and that will mean less animals killed. I have no sympathy for you in that situation.

Now the trash aspect and people disrespecting your land.....That is wrong.

I don't like the banning of high fence operations at all. Because they are telling ranchers how to manage their domestic herd. IMO.


----------



## elkman

Either way it's the ranchers forage and it cost something.

Guess someone should tell the 100 plus wild whitetail there going to starve to death eating in the alfalfa field every night till morning. But they do switch back and forth between the grain fields and alfalfa fields. Funny thing is I feed my own domestic whitetail 2nd cutting alfalfa and they seem to do fine. So much for the expert theory on what they eat.

Guess my kid was just funning me on fixing the fence after this hunting season, four wires cut right in the middle of two posts. Wind I guess then.
I just love studies done by smart people.

He also found seven deer shot but not retrieved, guess the hunters just couldn't find them. It is a river bottom so lots of willows.

Sorry to bust your bubble but I don't lease government land, what I have I own. Thats why I believe in property rights. I own the domestic elk and deer and the land and the food the wild deer eat. Again the city guy or the hunter DIDN'T FEED THEM RANCHERS DID.

But thanks for the information but just about everthing you stated was in direct conflict with my experience on whitetail deer and what they eat and how the people treat and respect my land.


----------



## elkman

While I was writing the last post I see Chuck and FlashBoomSplash made comments. I see I was not clear in my writing. Like all ranchers we accept the fact we share our property with wildlife. As ranchers we feel we know how many wild animals we can allow on our land before our income goes down caused by overgrazing from wildlife.

My point is hunters should share in that cost of wildlife production on private land. You give money to the DNR but object to giving money to the rancher who provides the habitat and food for wildlife to live. The hunter is the one benefitting from good ranch management of wildlife so pay something for that service.

Chuck if a rancher manages his land to produce quality trophy whitetail so they get some age on them and reach their genetic potential I have found many will hunt that property for a trespass fee and a chance at 150 BC and above buck. A trespass fee is a reasonable request from the rancher for the service he provided wildlife and the hunter raising that animal. If not you can always hunt public land.

FlashBoomSplash
I'm sorry but I feel you have it wrong. A rancher establishes habitat for wildlife so it will prosper out of his own pocket for the betterment of wildlife and his land. The 100 plus wild deer eat about eight thousand a year of forage. Ranchers do provide a service to the hunter by helping and feeding that wildlife. You really think you bare no cost in wildlife production on private property and should be allowed on private property for free? That is why they have public land hunting places. You want quality animals go to a rancher and give him the $100. trespass fee and pay your fair share in that production cost of that quality wildlife animal.

Many ranchers I know just open their land up in a effort to harvest all deer from that property. Problem solved. Just a livestock rancher opinion.


----------



## Plainsman

> Guess someone should tell the 100 plus wild whitetail there going to starve to death eating in the alfalfa field every night till morning.


They love it and eat it like pigs, but I think there was an article in the Game and Fish publication about their system doesn't use it well.



> Guess my kid was just funning me on fixing the fence after this hunting season,


No there are slobs out there to be sure. I have replanted a pine tree four times. Snowmobilers keep running over it in my yard. However, it is often exaggerated by people in conflict with one another.



> I don't lease government land


Good, those guys are getting bargain basement leases.

With your disdain for people I would guess you still expect support from the public? There are slobs out there, but then there are hunters that do respect things. If your having a big problem with people disrespecting your land you may want to contemplate possible reasons why. There may be some correctable measures you can take.


----------



## elkman

Plainsman,
There were probably 100 snowmobilers that didn't run over your tree but like all of us we remember the ones that did. Like you I didn't give the 100 guys that were ethical hunters any credit for their good ethics in hunting on my land and will do so now.

My distain for people as you put it is for the slob hunters that left the deer, not the respectful ethical hunter of which most were. We did get the DNR on two we caught that were trespassing and poaching. The fence was cut on a trespass also. Good deer hunting spots brings out the slobs hunters I guess.

Gee I hope the public has no problem with my wanting ethics in hunting on private land and for them to treat it like their own. I would expect they would support good hunting ethics and fair play and my land and think they do.


----------



## Plainsman

> There were probably 100 snowmobilers that didn't run over your tree but like all of us we remember the ones that did. Like you I didn't give the 100 guys that were ethical hunters any credit for their good ethics in hunting on my land and will do so now.


Agree, and thanks. I should also explain that deer can use alfalfa, but starve on it exclusively. It usually happens in bad winters when they get into stored hay, and can not find supplemental brows in deep snow. I think it was back in the late 1950's or early 1960's that some deer winter killed under these conditions.

My origian point was the difference between cattle and deer.

Dr. Woods writes:


> http://www.americaoutdoors.com/shooting/features/tfg/whitetail_wheaties_2.html
> White-tailed deer and beef cattle have totally different nutritional requirements, Dr. Woods points out. Nor do they like the same types of greenery. When foods are plentiful, he says, whitetails are very picky about what they'll eat.





> Gee I hope the public has no problem with my wanting ethics in hunting on private land and for them to treat it like their own.


That should be expected. I am very careful on private land. If I hunt someone's land you can bet I would like to hunt it next year also. If not me I don't want them turning someone down because of me.

I was trying to find some information on alfalfa and deer nutrition. I run across many other interesting things from many states. I'll keep looking, but here is some of the interesting things I found:

Because captive cervids have been strongly implicated in the dispersion of CWD and TB, monitoring of captive cervid operations to protect free-ranging deer.

Continue to insist to the BOAH a temporary moratorium or ban on live
importation of farmed white-tailed, mule deer, and elk.

Promote a federal buy-out of established captive cervid herds by working with the congressional delegation for funds for a buyout and prohibit the establishment of new captive herds.

Guiding and fee hunting for a number of species is rapidly expanding throughout the state. This activity is affecting deer distributions during the hunting season, aggravating access issues for deer hunters, and reducing the effectiveness of hunting as a population management tool.

Deer baiting is expanding throughout the state. Baiting by paid hunting operations and private individuals is altering deer movements and seasonal concentrations. Baiting is affecting deer distributions during the hunting season, aggravating access issues for deer hunters, and reducing the effectiveness of hunting as a population management tool. Additionally, baiting and supplemental feeding can create situations where disease transmission can become problematic


----------



## elkman

Plainsman quote "I should also explain that deer can use alfalfa, but starve on it exclusively. It usually happens in bad winters when they get into stored hay, and can not find supplemental brows in deep snow. I think it was back in the late 1950's or early 1960's that some deer winter killed under these conditions. "

I believe I read the cause of death was the animals were starving and when fed good quality hay had no way for their system to utilize it as they had no stomach bacteria to break down the food (fiber). This caused diarrhea and bloating which caused their death. It wasn't that alfalfa itself caused their death, just the fact the animals couldn't digest it. Any new food to their system would have caused the same response.

If cattle get into a fresh alfalfa field some will die from bloat the cause is the same, no stomach bacteria to break down the fiber.


----------



## Plainsman

If I remember it was bacteria and digestion. I didn't remember the sequence if they never had the ability to fully utilize alfalfa, or if all bacteria was lost due to the beginning of starvation. I do remember a Game and Fish publication talking about deer in alfalfa hay and still starving. It's hard to remember 40 to 50 years back. 
I still have this nagging idea at the back of my head that I read somewhere that they required other browse with alfalfa, but I can't wrap my mind around what it is I am thinking about.

Here is a quote from a Texas biologists that supports my original point:


> Rufus Stephens, Texas Parks and Wildlife biologist for Kendall and Comal Counties, says, "Don't feed the deer!" He reminds everyone, "Feeding a wild animal is not good for the animal, its habitat or the landscape. If you want to help the deer, it is best to maintain their natural food-native plants. When you see a deer "eating grass," it is really eating clover or some other broad-leafed plant that grows naturally among the grasses. These plants, called forbs, are the deer's favorite and most nutritious food. Deer also browse on shrubs and small trees that we sometimes clear as undesirable underbrush. Keep these and the deer will have their natural food to eat."


----------



## FlashBoomSplash

Elkman

I have a question do other ranchers allow hunting around you.


----------



## elkman

The ranch east of us doesn't allow any hunting. South of us only friends and family. North of us is not good deer habitat so no interest there. West of us is owned by out of State interests with no one there to ask. That is the problem area as all locals trespass there even though it's posted.
We allow fishing and duck and goose hunting at no charge as we don't supply extra habitat or food to these animals. Been catching some great brown trout 20 plus inches this week. So what is the reason for the question FlashBoomSplash?


----------



## FlashBoomSplash

I was just wondering. I sorry for any problems slob hunters may have caused you.

I just worry about the future of hunting. I wonder what makes people change there ways. Hunting used to be a good paying job now we pay. It is something how times change for the worst in almost all aspects of life.


----------



## LT

*Plainsman Wrote:




I have talked with bison ranchers. I don't think they have a problem with me, but I can assure you I don't have a problem with them. If any of them want any reassurance they are welcome to PM me. The best thing they can do in this battle is simply stay out of it, and not draw attention to themselves. They have something to gain from this also. With the deer and elk captive shooting gone, the anti hunters will turn away from that battle for a while. They will come back, they always do, but then I for one will be willing to stand with the bison ranchers against them.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe they do not have a problem with you, but the two that I sat next to the night of the meeting in Jamestown sure had a problem with your initiative you are supporting. The one even got up and asked the crowd if Mr. Monson, Kaseman and Jones sounded more like politicians and if they really cared about ethics? He then asked for a show of hands from the crowd, and I am sure you know how that turned out!

I bet they feel very reassured that you will be willing to stand with them when the antihunters come after them. Actually they lose with this initiative as well because it will give the antihunters an inch and then they are going to go for the mile. The best defense is a good offense; why they would want to sit on the sidelines and let this happen is beyond me.*


----------



## Chuck Smith

Elkman,

If you are managing the wild heard correctly and not letting the population get out of control good for you. In my area it is the opposite and the farmers want the DNR to come in and pay for damaged crops and feed. But yet they don't let anyone hunt accept 6 family members and they only shoot bucks. They blame the DNR for poor management. But yet they could take up to 5 deer on the land per person with one buck. So that is where I am coming from.

I have no problem with just allowing family to hunt but when they don't manage the herd correctly don't complain. The tools are there to manage a heard.

Also if you want to charge a fee that is your right. I have no problem with that. But don't complain if it gets out of control and more feed and crops get damaged.

I understand that you want some money for producing and protecting good habitat. But again why would the Game and Fish pay you to produce good habitat for the public. Then you go and charge the public a fee?

If you want a small business loan to take care of these extra costs that are being incurred then get one. Because that is what you are doing by charging a fee. You are running a small business. I know I could not get goverment money for free for my business.

But we are getting off topic.


----------



## elkman

Chucks quote
I understand that you want some money for producing and protecting good habitat. But again why would the Game and Fish pay you to produce good habitat for the public. Then you go and charge the public a fee?

If you want a small business loan to take care of these extra costs that are being incurred then get one. Because that is what you are doing by charging a fee. You are running a small business. I know I could not get goverment money for free for my business.

First of all Chuck the DNR doesn't pay me nothing and I don't expect it from them but I do expect it from the hunters. Don't need a loan. You are right that is what I'm doing running a small business. You see a ranchers office and business is his land and like you we have to make a profit on our business or we go out of business. It seemed only right to charge the public because they are the ones recieving the benifit.

Hunters I'll give you a little hint what makes me and other ranchers allow free hunting. I'm going to use two of the fellows on these posts. I don't mean to single you out and mean no harm. I do respect your views. 
One is Plainsman I don't agree with his stance on high fence and wouldn't allow him to hunt on my land. I do respect his hunting ethics. If I didn't know his stance on high fence he would be my first choice to allow hunting privileges because he walks the talk. In other words he does respect the fact he is on someone else's land and has received a privilege from the land owner to hunt on his land. I'll bet he does what I suggest hunters do for hunting consideration in this post.

The other is FlashBoomSplash and I think you truly believe the statement you made about "you are doing me a service by harvesting the wildlife on my land." But I'll be honest if you said that to me while asking to go hunting you would be down the road to the next ranch asking if you could hunt there as you would not be welcome on mine. I think you are truly interested in the future of hunting and meant no harm but it was a major turn off for me as the land owner as was the one I should get a real job if I don't like it. You get your food from farmers who work 16 hours a day to maintain their life style. What a great thing to say.

What always gets a hunter top consideration is that he came asking for hunting permission in June or so and not the day before hunting opens. What gets a free hunt is the man who comes around in June or so asking to go hunting and asks if he can be of any help to me on the ranch in trade for hunting consideration.

FlashBoomSplash you asked why things were changing in hunting. Like we posted before the slob hunter is the one we remember. He is one of the many causes of your hunting access problems.

I'm from a state that stopped high fences and in my opinion took my property rights in my livestock and hunters were with this group against high fences. My first response was to shut down hunting on my land. My thoughts were if I couldn't harvest my domestic animals on my property which I owned no one was going to harvest wild ones either. As you said the animals have to be harvested. I then started the trespass fee for wild animals.

You guys don't seem to get the fact that a ranchers land is his office, his business and source of income for our families. In a way you forced us to find ways to make the land pay us an income in less traditional ways.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Elkman... Very nice post.

I agree lots of hunters are closing access because of the way they act. Many act like the land owner owes them something or they are doing the land owner a favor. Many are also show disrespect for the land by leaving trash, shell casings, leaving gates open, destroying fences, going off road, etc. Many also come off rude and arrogant. Many disturb the landowner at bad times of the year or during busy times of the day.

I am one who asks for permission a minimum of a month a head of time. If not sooner. I also ask if I can help out in anyway. I also share my game with them. I send x-mas cards, easter cards, happy halloween cards, etc.

Then this bill they are trying to pass is another way to close some acres. Just like you mentioned above. It is telling you how you can manage your domestic herd.

Both sides are using scare tactics to a certain extent. I hope that if the bill does pass that it does not close access or gives the anti's more momentum. Then if it does not pass....I hope it is not the end of free lance hunting as we know it or disease will run rampant in our wild herds. But all scare tactics have some truth to them. So that is why everyone states a slippery slope. Because it could be.


----------



## tsodak

A B#[email protected]#$tardized quote....

"When the interests of wild animals run contrary to those of livestock, the wild always loses."

Listening to these discussions always makes me want to puke. Dick has nothing to gain by this, and sets himself up to be brutalized by a hundred folks who hide behind a screen name. I have nothing to say to Dick directly but Thanks, and many of them.

Apparently people in this country today believe that they are going to live forever, and that what is theirs today is always going to be. Despite many peoples best efforts, the ideals behind stewardship of the land are dying a death at the hands of private proprty rights without responsibility.

Mine Mine Mine

Piss on 'em...

If you want to shoot a cow, come shoot a holstein. If you want to raise and market elk meat, take it to a butcher and have it killed, or shoot it yourself and do the same. But dont try to glorify the act of killing a penned animal as some noble thing, which is what hunting has to be to me to survive. Noble.

Anyone who can defend this practice is beyond the pall to me.

Tom Jones


----------



## barebackjack

tsodak said:


> A B#[email protected]#$tardized quote....
> 
> "When the interests of wild animals run contrary to those of livestock, the wild always loses."
> 
> Listening to these discussions always makes me want to puke. Dick has nothing to gain by this, and sets himself up to be brutalized by a hundred folks who hide behind a screen name. I have nothing to say to Dick directly but Thanks, and many of them.
> 
> Apparently people in this country today believe that they are going to live forever, and that what is theirs today is always going to be. Despite many peoples best efforts, the ideals behind stewardship of the land are dying a death at the hands of private proprty rights without responsibility.
> 
> Mine Mine Mine
> 
> Piss on 'em...
> 
> If you want to shoot a cow, come shoot a holstein. If you want to raise and market elk meat, take it to a butcher and have it killed, or shoot it yourself and do the same. But dont try to glorify the act of killing a penned animal as some noble thing, which is what hunting has to be to me to survive. Noble.
> 
> Anyone who can defend this practice is beyond the pall to me.
> 
> Tom Jones


An idealistic view. And sadly, ideals rarely survive the real world.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash

> The other is FlashBoomSplash and I think you truly believe the statement you made about you "are doing me a service by harvesting the wildlife on my land." But I'll be honest if you said that to me while asking to go hunting you would be down the road to the next ranch asking if you could hunt there as you would not be welcome on mine. I think you are truly interested in the future of hunting and meant no harm but it was a major turn off for me as the land owner.


As hunters we are providing a service to all land owners. You said it yourself.



> Ranchers feed the free loading wildlife not the city folks or the hunters. A cattle rancher feeds his cattle the forage his land produces or he sells hay by the ton. Every deer that lives on the ranchers land eats about one ton a year that the rancher could have fed his our own animals or sold. That is a loss of $80. a head for every free loading public owned wildlife on his property.


We are not charging you anything. To take care of your problem.

All I am saying is people who charge for "shooting" in fences or out of fences are going to destroy hunting. I dont want to shoot a deer on "quality" land that isnt exposed to all predators. I want to hunt animals that are smart educated and hard to find. The easier the hunt the less I want to do it. And after the pay for blood places ruin hunting we will all have to pay hire taxes because the government will have to hire sharpshooters to cut down on the heard sizes.

Don't get me wrong by all means post your land. I am not against posting but the day I have to pay a land owner to shoot is the day I hang it up. Luckily there is plenty of public land around that I wont have to worry about it. I would rather not harvest an animal that I was hunting than pay someone to shoot an animal at a shooting reserve.


----------



## cwoparson

> I would rather not harvest an animal that I was hunting than pay someone to shoot an animal at a shooting reserve.


Wasn't aware that a land owner charging a access fee was running a hunting preserve. Isn't that really what it is all about though? Something for nothing at another's expense. BTW, that public land is not free. Everyone is paying for it in one way or another.

Fellow that owns about 2000 acres across from me has two guys that lease the land for Deer hunting. Don't know how much he charges them. I hunt that same land for small game such as rabbits, squirrel, and birds. Nice stocked pond I take some good bass out of every year. Do I pay him a lease fee? No I don't. My charge is to keep the coyotes thinned out and to chase any trespassers off the land as I have full view of his property. There is more than one way besides out of pocket money to get permission from land owners to hunt their land if you're willing to work for it.


----------



## elkman

cwoparson,
Glad to see someone was reading with understanding. I gave other options other than trespass fee payment which would get free hunting. But it looked like it fell on deaf ears. That wanting it for free was what I was talking about, there is a resentment to pay the rancher anything no matter what the rancher costs for wildlife on his property are. Like I said that is why there is public land to hunt on.

FBS 
The wild public owned animals on private property are just as wild and smart as anywhere. They got the same predators and hunting pressure so what are you talking about? Charging a trespass fee doesn't make them fenced in. One of the bow hunters hunted a 160 plus buck for two weeks and never got him. He would see him about every other day and try a set up on him. The buck was smarter than the hunter and lived to pass his genetics on to the next generation. By the way that out of state hunter helped me put in some new windows so got free hunting. He will be welcome back any time. Like cwoparson said help a rancher and you will be helped back.


----------



## Plainsman

> An idealistic view. And sadly, ideals rarely survive the real world.


Yes, that is sad. It's even more sad that we accept that defeatist attitude so readily.



> I'm not seeing much benefit to helping the hunter.





> You see a ranchers office and business is his land and like you we have to make a profit on our business or we go out of business. It seemed only right to charge the public because they are the ones recieving the benifit.





> Hunters I'll give you a little hint what makes me and other ranchers allow free hunting. I'm going to use two of the fellows on these posts. I don't mean to single you out and mean no harm. I do respect your views.


Same here elkman, and now let me give you my perspective. I have grown to respect your views also. Not from your first post, but from the following ones.

I wonder when we die if it will flash before our eyes the thousands of people we owe. You know for the shirt upon our back, the cash in our wallet, the food in our stomach etc. I would bet that thousands, no tens of thousands of people support each of us. Man is not a loner, and has relied upon one another in a social atmosphere since our beginning. One man hunts, while another traps, while another builds a lodge and one maintains a fire.

As a retired wildlife biologist I owe every taxpayer in America. Because of the 11% excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment the federal and state biologists owe those people, and the animals benefited greatly. Far more from that excise tax than from the drivel of anti hunters. A farmer owes every person that buys their commodities, and every person with a full stomach owes them. Today there is a mentality that no one owes anyone anything when the truth is we all owe.

If you don't own land or a business that will provide a tax shelter and work for a salary you pay the lions share of taxes in this nation. As an individual that is. My children owe their education to the taxpayer, the farmer owes much of his living through ag programs to that taxpayer, the teacher is paid through taxes, the policeman, the fireman and on and on. In tern they all pay taxes and render services.

Our founding fathers made animals the property of all people. That's why pay to hunt goes against the foundation of this nations. Post it if you want, don't let on some, let on who you want, but don't ask for more money to hunt. It is an individual asking money from people he already owes to hunt and animal they already own. This perhaps bursts some bubbles, but it is the reality of the situation.

I am disappointed when turned down to hunt, but it's fine if they save it for friends, or for family, or they already have many people on their land. I don't like it if they are impolite about it. I don't like it if they ask for money. Any landowner that lets me hunt I feel as if he is the salt of the earth. There is not enough I can do to repay that kindness. I may not pay him, but if he needs help, I will help. I remember all farmers because of him when agricultural measures come to the voting both (not captured killing). Most of all I will remember him and his family in my prayers. May God bless them.


----------



## tsodak

Man, I just looked at the date and I have been on here for six years... I congradulate those of you who still ahev the energy to fight for what is right. I get tired of howling at the moon and being slapped by the moon for making noise.

And the argument is always the same. Miners and builders, builders and miners.

If a group of people who profess to be hunters and fishermen and love the outdoors cannot get get behind an issue like this,really, what hope is there??? We ahev fallen to far, become to invested in the "me first" ideal, and will never sacrifice anything of ourselves for the public good.

Idealistic??? I'll take that. Ideal may not stand up to reality, but when people actually have them they sure help shape it.

I just wish a few more people had them and would stand up for them.

At least I wish the builders would....


----------



## huntin1

elkman and others,

Do you accept government subsidies? Do you file for a fuel tax rebate as a benefit to your operation? Why are you entitled to these payments and where do they come from?

Are we not all, in effect paying you to help keep your operation afloat through these subsidies?

Why is it that the old time farmers/ranchers recognized and accepted this, but the newer ones, for the most part, don't?

I have no problem what-so-ever helping out around the farm/ranch in exchange for hunting privilage and have done so on numerous occasions. The sad fact is most guys lately do not want help with fencing etc. they want cash.

I hold that I am already helping out with cash through these subsidies and tax rebates which come from my tax dollars. Why should I have to pony up more?

huntin1


----------



## Savage260

elkman, I have not read all the posts on this thread, but yours have caught my eye. It seems you are in pain. How much the animals owe you for eating, how hard you work to provide us all with food, the broken fences, and all the other things I don't remember right off hand. I have a job that I love, but if it was that painful for me I would quit and do some thing else.

Maybe you can push all the wild deer off your land, build higher fences, then you wouldn't have to worry about them or the hunters.


----------



## DG

Tom Jones, do you remember this? I believe you were there.Sport Hunting at a Crossroads
What is the future of wildlife conservation in
North Dakota and North America?

A FREE public presentation and discussion forum by Dr. Valerius Geist
An internationally respected wildlife biologist, author and one of the world's leading experts in cervid (deer family) biology and management.

-The North American Wildlife Conservation Model-
Why wildlife management in North America has been so successful.
What are the threats to the future of hunting and wildlife conservation?
Fee Hunting	Captive Wildlife
Canned Hunts	Wildlife Diseases
Feeding and Baiting	Genetic Manipulation
Commercialization of Hunting and Wildlife Resources

What can we do to insure that wildlife and hunting is maintained for future generations?

Where: Ramkota Inn
800 South 3rd Street

Bismarck, North Dakota 58504 
Phone: 701-258-7700

When: Friday, 11 February 2005
7-9 p.m.

Presentation to be followed by a question and answer discussion session and refreshments.

Who should attend: -Wildlife enthusiasts
-Hunters -Government leaders
-Legislators -Hunter education instructors
-Wildlife biologist and managers
-Media representatives
-General public -Guides and outfitters
-Deer and elk producers -Tourism interests
-Chambers of commerce -Business leaders
-Outdoor recreationists 
-Anyone who has a stake in wildlife and hunting in North Dakota

Sponsors:
North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society
North Dakota Wildlife Federation Lewis and Clark Wildlife Club
Northern Badlands Chapter of The Mule Deer Foundation

For information contact:
Mike McEnroe, North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Phone: 701-224-8335

Tom, the wildlife society, the wildlife federation, and the mule deer foundation are all federally funded steering committees. As 501 {C} 3's non profit non governmental organizations they can also accept money from individual and or rich donors such as foundations. All this paid for activism, is destabilizing and eroding our freedoms, our private property rights, our states rights, and our constitution. The environmentalist new approach to the public trust doctrine is simply another unfortunate effort to create instability in private property rights, in harmony with modern efforts to eviscerate the eminent domain clause.

Tom, there is no environmental movement nor a wildlife conservationist movement, which doesn't operate in the interest of money, in the direction indicated by money, and for the period of time permitted by money, and all this without the idealist in its ranks having the slightest suspicion of the fact.


----------



## tsodak

What was that!!!!!!!!

A black helicopter just went befind the butte.... Quick Jed, we better go!!!!!

Yes I was there. :withstupid: This is the dumbest turn a thread has taken in a long time, and now I am getting sucked in yet again. I just wish I had been able to grab a little of that free money they had in the big pot for everyone at the last meeting I attended of the NDCTWS.


----------



## Plainsman

> Tom, the wildlife society, the wildlife federation, and the mule deer foundation are all federally funded steering committees.


That is outright false. Societies are professional organizations, and run on the membership fees. A steering committee, what the heck is that? Members go to these meetings to keep themselves current. Presentations are made on the newest scientific findings. Guest speakers like PhD Valerius Geist are brought in for their point of view. When the meeting was at the Seven Seas the current president of the deer ranchers was also brought in for his point of view but you handily disregarded that. Why?? If your up on the Wildlife Society you should have known that.

I was a member of the Wildlife Society, and I was at PhD Valerius Geist's presentation. He talked about wildlife beginning back to the Magna carta. He talked about how the beginnings of constitutional law was when wildlife started to come under the control of the populous and not the aristocracy. He compared the European wildlife system to the North American wildlife system. What our framers of this nation built is degrading back towards the early European aristocracy system.

I also listened to the fellow who was a deer rancher. Over and over I thought he based his values on money. His value system and mine which is science and public service mix like oil and water. I value a buck as much as the next guy, but I don't base my values on it. God, family, country, job responsibilities---------------I don't know, but for myself I think I have to go a long way down the list to find money.

Does the wildlife society get involved? They sometimes issue letters of opinion. I think it was back in about 1977 they wrote a letter warning that they thought if drainage continued Devils Lake would experience flooding in the near future. Some self serving people at that time said these people are foolish, Devils Lake is a huge lake and they were just draining thousands of small ponds into it.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash

elkman, cwoparson

Maybe I wasnt clear enouph. If you charge people to harvest animals off your property than the numbers on your property dont need reduced and when the numbers dont need reduced society doesnt need hunters.

GET IT.


----------



## g/o

> If a group of people who profess to be hunters and fishermen and love the outdoors cannot get get behind an issue like this,really, what hope is there??? We ahev fallen to far, become to invested in the "me first" ideal, and will never sacrifice anything of ourselves for the public good.


Tsodak,

Problem here is that this measure is about ethics nothing more nothing less. The group you support feels that no one should be allowed to shoot an Elk or Deer in an enclosed area no matter of the size. This is all it's about, that your group feels they are better than other people. On the other hand people like myself can not see why it is ethical to shoot a bison in an enclosed area and not a deer. It gets to be the same old argument I'm better than you are.


----------



## tsodak

GO, you should know by now that there can be no end to this argument, and yet you persist. I admire that, even though I have to wonder if what you just wrote drives it from some deep insecurity or what.

I dont care what you do in your house. I dont care what you do on your place. As long as you are not harming anyone else or doing something that has long term negative consequences for the reasource I could give a rip. But this time you are. Nobody is going to like me saying this, but I think the bison should be on this petition. Anyone, and I mean anyone who participates in this, and worse yet lets it be filmed, is going to eventually take away my right to pursue this activity that I love, or my childrens or my grandchildren's. If you can't see the parallels between the slaughterhouse video in CA which led to the recall for no health reason of over 200$ million in beef anf the upnorth outdoors video of some guy walking out to a hay feeder (literally) and pumping six rounds from a pistol into a bull Bison, reloading and letting rip again you are both deluding yourself and endangering me and the noble activity I love.

These people are not better than you G/O. They dont think so, do you? They do however have a different perspective, and a willingness to stick there necks out there and build something rather than just mine it.

I guess I just can't understand why you defend this by saying it is onl;y about ethics???? Duh, of course its about ethics. So was the video of the slaughter plants. There was a time where that kind of treatment would have raised no eyebrows. For better or worse those days are no more, and while you may choose to stick your head in the sand and wonder what is all over your tongue, I cannot.

Out,

Tom (who along with the supporters of this project is willing to make his name public.)


----------



## tsodak

Plainsman is right, although I did not dignify it with that response. Your statement is an outright lie. These organizations are no more federally funded than the Farmers UNion, Farm Bureau, Guides Association, NRA or Safari Club INternational.

Shame on you.


----------



## LT

*Plainsman wrote:



That is outright false. Societies are professional organizations, and run on the membership fees. A steering committee, what the heck is that?

Click to expand...

Go to this site: www.teaming.com/about

Here you will find the following information:

The Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee
A national steering committee of thirteen conservation organizations provides national leadership for the Teaming with Wildlife initiative, setting national strategy and supporting the activities of state coalitions.

American Fisheries Society 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
Association of Zoos and Aquariums 
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 
Izaak Walton League of America 
National Audubon Society 
National Wild Turkey Federation 
National Wildlife Federation 
The Nature Conservancy 
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 
The Wildlife Society 
Wildlife Conservation Society 
Wildlife Management Institute

*


----------



## g/o

> If you can't see the parallels between the slaughterhouse video in CA which led to the recall for no health reason of over 200$ million in beef anf the upnorth outdoors video of some guy walking out to a hay feeder (literally) and pumping six rounds from a pistol into a bull Bison, reloading and letting rip again you are both deluding yourself and endangering me and the noble activity I love.


Tsodak,

Did they recall all the beef in the country because one slaughterhouse? No, same goes for the guy pumping six rounds into the bison. Are we to punish everyone in this country because of a few bad apples? This is where we disagree we need to regulate this not get rid of it.


----------



## .308w

I wish angus would come back and speak his mind on this.


----------



## LT

*tsodak wrote:



Tom (who along with the supporters of this project is willing to make his name public.)

Click to expand...

As the original 30 sponsers of the initiative, I would think that it is in their best interest to let everyone know who they are, but you make it sound like all the supporters of this initiative are revealing their names. How about Plainsman, who is he. For all you know he could be some paid lobbyist.

*


----------



## tsodak

And why arent you???

I know plainsman, dont worry bout him.

Tom


----------



## barebackjack

tsodak said:


> Anyone, and I mean anyone who participates in this, and worse yet lets it be filmed, is going to eventually take away my right to pursue this activity that I love, or my childrens or my grandchildren's.


I disagree.

Anyone who participates in the abolishment of ANY hunting related practice, and indirectly orients themselves with anti-hunting organizations, are the ones who are going to eventually take away MY right to pursue this activity that I love.


----------



## Bob Kellam

> I disagree.
> 
> Anyone who participates in the abolishment of ANY hunting related practice, and indirectly orients themselves with anti-hunting organizations, are the ones who are going to eventually take away MY right to pursue this activity that I love.


BBJ

Have any of the states that have already banned high fence shooting had any "anti hunting organizations" further erode any other types of hunting within those states?

Bob


----------



## Plainsman

> Go to this site: www.teaming.com/about


Got it. I see what you mean by a steering committee now. I like it. It's as it should be with Fish and Wildlife professionals making suggestions on management. Who would you have do it? I'll tell you a serious story about a man who thought he should do it. I will not mention the town.

In a small restaurant a man told me this: Do you know how fox get rid of flees? I said no. He said you should if your a wildlife guy. He said " I seen it with my own eyes" (a sure sign the bs is going to get deep). A fox holds a long stick in his mouth and backs into the water real slow. When the flees all get out on the stick he drops it and runs. This guy seriously believed it so much he said he seen it with his own eyes. He believed it so much he laid his credibility on the line. He also thought guys like him should run the game and fish. I don't agree.


----------



## LT

*tsodak wrote:




And why arent you???

I know plainsman, dont worry bout him.

Click to expand...

I think those on here who want to know who I am probably know that already.

Oh, but I do worry about plainsman. For one so active on this site and living in Jamestown, wondering why he did not attend the Jamestown meeting?

I am worried about Mr. Kaseman too. After the Jamestown debacle, I think they may have left him in Jamestown in an enclosure he can't escape from.

*


----------



## elkman

Have any of the states that have already banned high fence shooting had any "anti hunting organizations" further erode any other types of hunting within those states?

You don't really think these types of organizations would play that card now do you. This is a long term agenda and they are working on the weakest links now. Not to worry they will get to other things in good time. Remember I told you guys about the video the National Humane Society had produced on bow hunting. You don't think they really forgot they had that on their agenda, it's just not time for them to do it yet.

I have seen three that want to be introduced with the iniatitive process in Montana but they are from hunting organization.

One wants to basiclly erode private property rights and force the land owner to allow free hunting and not allow him to lease his property to outfitters or private people. Good for hunting I guess but not so good for the guy who owns the land. I don't want to go back to 50 years ago when anyone could go on your land hunting and only had to leave if you asked his to do so.

The other wants to enforce the fact that wildlife are owned by the citizens and as such they have a right to them as I read it. They just want to put some teeth into that ownership to force land owners property rights to take a second place to wildlife.

The other wants to have non profit groups have loteries on lands they own weekly and also allow them to spend 18 plus % of their donations on wildlife habitat.

I may be reading these wrong but that is how I see them now. I just saw them about 20 min. ago. What you see happening here will hapen in your state land owners. I believe we will see many uses of the iniatitive process and we are not going to like it when the agenda comes out in the future.


----------



## Savage260

> I don't want to go back to 50 years ago when anyone could go on your land hunting and only had to leave if you asked his to do so.


WHY????? You probably have enough land that I could hunt for days and days and you would never know I was there. As long as people don't interfere with your operation, what is the harm??? Then you wouldn't have to complain about the wild animals eating on your land and not paying for it. Is it the power trip you like? Having people grovel at your feet and beg for the opportunity to hunt his royal majesty's land?? then if you don't like them you can banish them from quality hunting lands based on nothing more than your personal opinion? Should those of us who will never be able to own land(or be lucky enough to have it given, willed, granted, passed down, what ever) not have the same opportunity to hunt? My tax dollars pay you, your tax dollars pay me, so we are even, your door should be open until I prove myself unworthy.


----------



## .308w

Dude , don't be running the landowners down. I think this may come back to haunt us hunters. You said " As long as people don't interfere with your operatiion, what is the harm?" This measure is doing just that . If these landowners get ****** I'm screwed and won't have a place to hunt. Rising gas prices, food prices and so on I cant afford to drive to go hunt if the landowner where I hunt now gets mad because of this . I really wish you guys would just leave them alone I have a feeling this won't be good for us little guys. Why can't things be like the good old days, everyone just mind their own business.


----------



## Plainsman

> wondering why he did not attend the Jamestown meeting?


 A family member with surgery, and a brand new grandson also. I man has to have priorities. We took care of grandkids for a day during the surgery, then headed to another town to spend a couple days with the new little boy. That's what this is all about, the future of hunting for those kids, not just royalty like Europe.


----------



## elkman

laite319
WHY????? You probably have enough land that I could hunt for days and days and you would never know I was there. As long as people don't interfere with your operation, what is the harm??? your door should be open until I prove myself unworthy.[/quote]

Young fellow I can't tell if your "unworthy" or not. But I can tell you the hunting community has proven it's not worth finding the good hunters from the bad, there are just too many bad guys and all it does is cost the land owner money. What we land owners have had proven to us many times is some of you are not and that is the fact of it. Thats your problem right now in getting hunting access, who do we trust and at what price to us. When your not trustworthy you harmed the Hunting community and our operation and cost us money and work. Your going to tell me you would put up with that for the sake of I owe it to you and give everyone a chance cause most of us are nice guys. Ya right.

When I left the land open to anyone who wanted to hunt One jerk shot holes in the water system. Why??? you tell me. They should of had no gripe with me they had a place to hunt without the land owner even bothering them. The real hunting community just has a few to many jerks in it and it shouldn't be my problem. It is the hunting community problem and you should figure out how to fix it not the land owner.

Story time
One time long ago I went down to see a guy doing circles with his car in the alfalfa field just ripping the ground up. Why????? I asked him what he was doing? He said just having fun. I asked him to leave and he did. I took his number down and called some cop friends of mine and they gave me his city address. That Sunday morning I was in his yard with my truck. When he came to see what was going on in his yard I waived and dropped the truck in first gear. Left some nice tire track in his yard and figured we were even. This is a true story.

I can tell you after almost 70 years on this fine earth I've seen changes from the hunting community. Your land owner relationships problems were caused by your slob hunter plain and simple in my opinion.

Got to edit this one more point to make. I charge the trespass fee to people I don't know. It's another way to clear out the slob hunter. He doesn't seem to be the guy who would pay in the first place. My damage problems are way down. Like we all said before you can get free hunting by helping the rancher also. I love to see guys having fun hunting but then don't want it to cost my business money and the land is my business.

The other post is right, kick me in the teeth too many times and there goes another hunting spot. Good hunting guys.


----------



## Savage260

> Dude , don't be running the landowners down. I think this may come back to haunt us hunters. You said " As long as people don't interfere with your operatiion, what is the harm?" This measure is doing just that .


Dude, I am definately not in support of this measure. I will not support it one bit. I will also never hunt a high fence operation, nor will I ever pay a land owner to hunt animals that don't belong to him while he runs a business that my dollars help keep afloat. I am one of the "little guys" you talk about. I have said in other threads that the people in support of this should mind their own business and not try to force their views on this on others.

I am angered by the whining and complaining I hear about animals ruining crops, and similar crap. If you don't like it, let people hunt. If not stop crying.

You say you charge a "tresspass fee" to hunt, but if I know you or help on your ranch you will let me hunt. How do you know the guys you let on for the "fee" are not slob hunters? Wait, I thought you started charging people because of the cost the wild deer are causing you and you are trying to recoup losses? I am lost in the maze, which is it?

I feel sorry about all the jackass hunters and idiots that have caused you and every other land owner problems, but not much the rest of us can do.


----------



## Plainsman

That Sunday morning I was in his yard with my truck. When he came to see what was going on in his yard I waived and dropped the truck in first gear. Left some nice tire track in his yard and figured we were even. This is a true story.

That makes you part of the problem. How many people seen you do that and think all landowners are like that? What did the home owner tell all his neighbors? Do you think he told them the truth? How many of those people in turn were disrespectful of private property when they hunt, hike, or access land for any reason? How many of them work in stores that you frequent and are not as helpful as they could be? The list goes on and on, and you did not handle the situation correctly. How many landowners suffered disrespect because of your action?

A person doing something like spinning around in your alfalfa must have been a kid. Why would you go punish destroy his parents private property instead of talk to them about their kid? :eyeroll:

It's to late now, but maybe this will make others think.


----------



## elkman

laite319
You say you charge a "tresspass fee" to hunt, but if I know you or help on your ranch you will let me hunt. How do you know the guys you let on for the "fee" are not slob hunters? Wait, I thought you started charging people because of the cost the wild deer are causing you and you are trying to recoup losses? I am lost in the maze, which is it?

Our family lost our high fence domestic harvesting operation of elk and deer from an initiative. We had a 2000 acre pen as they call it. I'll just say it was a large money loss to my sons and family and ranch income. You may or may not feel I was screwed by the iniative but I do feel that way. These animals are now worthless to me money wise but I raise them for fun. I love watching any elk or deer wild or penned. 51% of the voting public put us in that position. Hunters were for the initiative in my State.

My position then changed on free hunting as I do have a finiacial interest in the wildlife which you city folks don't have as you don't own land. I charge a trespass fee for both reasons laite319.

The hunter has to come to ask for permission so I know who is on the ranch. He doesn't have to kiss my a$$ as you said laite319. In fairness to others that may be down there hunting I limit the number so the hunting experience is like I want it. I know you would hate to be run over with hunters while hunting as I would. Also when you ask I can take down your car licence number so if a problem is found I have some idea who I don't want back.

Laite319 As far as your interest in how I got my land I came to Montana many years ago at 19 years old. Worked hard and bought land. I will admit land was only $50. an acre. That same land is now over $3,000. an acre. That 1000 acres ranch next store wants to sell, it's two million if your interested. You get gravel rights with that. Guess I could sell mine for homes etc but I elected to keep it in farming and for wildlife for future generations. It's a real world out there and money does make it happen. I can't get over the resentment a trespass fee has caused. I'm going to charge a trespass fee and many hunters are going to pay it to have a well managed wild herd and a good hunting area for themselves and children. I believe they are getting a benifit and they must also, we are only talking about $100. bucks here boys for a buck and doe. I don't think I'm getting rich on this.

Lets get off this subject and back to the high fence subject. This rancher thinks the only thing this initiative does is drive the wedge between rancher and hunter. Also the high fence harvesting was the most humane way to harvest these domestic elk and deer period. Thanks for letting me spout off but I'm going back to working the ground, it's my real job, way too old to find a new job. Good hunting boys.


----------



## elkman

A person doing something like spinning around in your alfalfa must have been a kid. Why would you go punish destroy his parents private property instead of talk to them about their kid? :eyeroll:

Plainsman,
It was a dumb thing to do your right but I was about 28 years old and he was in his late 30's or early 40's. It was his home and in my mind at that time it seemed fair. Wouldn't do it now but at the time it seemed like the right thing to do. You never done a stupid thing I take it or you just don't ever talk about it? Good hunting and GODS blessings.


----------



## DG

tsodak, So then you admit that you attend wildlife society meetings. These meetings are not open to the public. Only bologists, ecologists, and wildlife managers are allowed to attend. What is your occupation? It seems a person can't swing a dead cat on this site without hitting one. My hero's are Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. They were farmers and miners and builders and builders and miners. Geist is an underminer.


----------



## Plainsman

elkman said:


> A person doing something like spinning around in your alfalfa must have been a kid. Why would you go punish destroy his parents private property instead of talk to them about their kid? :eyeroll:
> 
> Plainsman,
> It was a dumb thing to do your right but I was about 28 years old and he was in his late 30's or early 40's. It was his home and in my mind at that time it seemed fair. Wouldn't do it now but at the time it seemed like the right thing to do. You never done a stupid thing I take it or you just don't ever talk about it? Good hunting and GODS blessings.


You bet I have done dumb things, and your right, I'm not going to tell you. That guy at 30 to 40 needed some 2X4 therapy alright. We all get tempted to do those things, but find the control not to. You should have taken the jerk to court and made him come out and hand seed, then water for a couple of months. 
I understand your frustration. I don't know if it is because I am getting old or is the world really getting more me, me, me, all the time. Is it to late that we can all start to respect each other. There are some things I can not respect. The truth be told my problem is more with the guy pulling the trigger at a captive killing operation than the guy raising the elk. However, some of those operations are worse than others. I think the initiative is the only way to stop it. Freedom depends on individuals not endangering the freedom of others. These captive killing operations endanger hunting. There are those that do not agree, but still, that's the way I see it.
I am sorry you have had such a rotten experience with hunters. To bad the law didn't get a bite at some of them. We have gone through childhood learning not to squeal on little Johnny, but were not kids anymore. Hunters need to start turning the rotten apples in. I think some are not hunters. When I hunted Montana the first time the sheriff and deputies were stopping hunters in the Gravely range and checking license. They wanted to make sure we really were hunters. A group called Earth First had issued a statement to members, and their target was Montana. They said go on government land and shoot cattle. They said that accomplished two things. Get rid of cattle on government land and blame hunters. What a bunch of nut jobs.


----------



## elkman

Plainsman,
Thanks for the understanding of my ill spent youth.

You know the last time I went to court on a slob road hunter it didn't go well, so I kind of mind my own business for the families sake. The guy had shot a bird from the road. I took his licence number down and called the DNR. They issued a ticket for shooting from the road and leaving the bird. As we aproached court time he started calling on the phone and threatened the women in my family. If I answered he would not talk. Someone, we assume him tossed a rock threw my picture window while we were not home. The judge believed he was the man but could only fine him for DNR violations and got money for the DNR and the city court costs. But guess what, no money for the window. Another loss from a slob hunter. If you look for slob hunters you will see them. I hate bird road hunters with a passion. 
Good hunting boys.


----------



## .308w

Latie319,

I'm not a landowner. Never have been and never will be. I'm just a nobody .


----------



## tsodak

Yes Mr. McCoy, I will stipulate to the fact that on the date in question I was in fact an attendee at said meeting.

:beer:

I dont care who you are. They way he wrote dat der is just plain funny.

Actually, and I am not 100% certain on this because I dont think it has ever been an issue, but anyone who is willing to pay the registration fee, which I do pay out of my own pocket by the way, is eligible to sit in on the information sessions, forums, and scientific paper presentations. The only things you can't normally do are attend the business meeting, which makes sense because it is limited to voting members. And you can be a member unless you work in a field relavent to the group in question. Normally you must be approved for membership by the group as a whole.

Still chuckling over that.

Your honor, I OBJECT!!!!!!!


----------



## elkman

It seems you look down on the people that used a domestic elk and deer harvesting facility. I can't tell you what clients use the harvest facilities in North Dakota. But on ours the clients mostly fell into three categories.

Our clients were old people mostly with health problems but still wanted to harvest an animal in a hunting fashion. Most had hunted in many state with outfitters and guides in their younger days. Their most common comment was they just wanted to harvest an elk before they died.

Sports figures that could not hunt as they were working every day during the legal hunting season.

The largest group were handicap. They could never hunt in the real world but liked to hunt in some fashion. I remember one man who had a gun holder made in his hunting wheel chair and aimed and fired with his mouth. He did this harvest all by himself. I was very impressed with his determination.

We gave free hunts to terminally ill kids and I know the deer and elk industry still works with Childwish which does the same. I understand Childwish has been able to grant some 4300 wishes with the help of the domestic elk and deer industry.

All these good things are taken away when you take away high fence harvest facilities from these people who would never be able to hunt in the real world. The public really doesn't know the full story on the positive value of these high fence harvest facilities.

I would hope you would vote in favor of the high fence facilities.

Thanks and good hunting


----------



## Savage260

> Latie319,
> 
> I'm not a landowner. Never have been and never will be. I'm just a nobody .


308w, I never said you were, but thanks for clearing that up. I think I forgot to address part of that post to Elkman, sorry about that.



> Our family lost our high fence domestic harvesting operation of elk and deer from an initiative.


Elkman, I am very sorry about this. That is the reason I have posted against this measure quite a few times. I don't agree with shutting these operations down, but I also do not agree with charging $100(is that per person per day?)to hunt. I am glad I live where I do, some people beg you to shoot deer here.(does anyway) Also, I do not care where or how you got your land. I included that part of my post for the benefit of some people who have never worked the land, just got ownership from a death in the family. Now all the sudden they have owners rights and have a strong connection with the land, that is once they found out they could make money off of it without working.


----------



## elkman

Laite319
You can split that up and that is what some do. Dad harvests a nice buck kid shoots a fat doe. They can go till they have the limit, one day or whatever.

I see where you feel some ranchers get to much government money. I feel that way also. I got rancher friends that get 250 thousand for themselves, their wife, hell maybe even their dog I don't know. Two month vacations in a warmer climate. I'm very old school on that one, I earn my way. When it came time to build ponds on the ranch there were many goverment handouts I could have but I took none of them, just built them myself. Just the way I am. But most ranchers work very hard and do earn their living. I know I feel I have a real job already. I guess if I took that government money I wouldn't need to get a trespass fee. Have a good one laite319 and thanks for the good thought on high fence.


----------



## elkman

plainsman,
I noticed you posted about Earth First. I was at some public logging meeting and saw a guy with a Earth First t-shirt. I thought to myself boy was he going to get the crap kicked out of him. Lots of loggers were there. He walked by and on the back of the t-shirt it said we'll log the rest of the planets later. :lol:


----------



## Plainsman

elkman said:


> plainsman,
> I noticed you posted about Earth First. I was at some public logging meeting and saw a guy with a Earth First t-shirt. I thought to myself boy was he going to get the crap kicked out of him. Lots of loggers were there. He walked by and on the back of the t-shirt it said we'll log the rest of the planets later. :lol:


I have seen that T-Shirt myself.



> I got rancher friends that get 250 thousand for themselves, their wife, hell maybe even their dog I don't know. Two month vacations in a warmer climate. I'm very old school on that one, I earn my way. When it came time to build ponds on the ranch there were many goverment handouts I could have but I took none of them, just built them myself. Just the way I am.


I think the high fence idea is the only thing that stands between us. From many of the things you say I am sure I would be proud to know you.


----------



## LT

*Plainsman wrote:




That's what this is all about, the future of hunting for those kids, not just royalty like Europe.

Click to expand...

What? So because YOU THINK only the rich are going to be able to hunt in the future we are going to take property rights away?

Right now the rich can do a lot of things that most of can't do, not just hunt!!! They can also support initiatives like this by donating lots of money to different activist groups.

Go to this site for an example of this regarding the National Wildlife Federation: http://www.activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/139

Another interesting link: http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/ba ... rth_Dakota

The supporters of this initiative should be very proud; could we get a list of who they are?*


----------



## Plainsman

> The supporters of this initiative should be very proud; could we get a list of who they are?


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. Also LT, why would someone at the other end of this nation be so interested in North Dakota?


----------



## LT

*Plainsman wrote:



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.

Click to expand...

Never crossed my mind. I do have ethics. In fact, when I see people asking for names, asking questions, etc., I see them as just trying to educate themselves on an issue/subject. I guess I need to start educating myself on blackmail; maybe you can educate me on that.

GEESH.

*


----------



## LT

*Plainsman wrote:




Also LT, why would someone at the other end of this nation be so interested in North Dakota?

Click to expand...

Precedence.*


----------



## DG

LT, Thank you for posting www.activistcash.com No one can deny that is the same Sen. Barak Obama listed as a director. While he was there he helped funnel 50 million dollars to a host of anti-Second Amendment groups. Millions more were given to the national wildlife federation. The north dakota wildlife federation is an affiliate. Why are these foundations funding both sides of the conflict? Like owning both horses in a two horse race. Members of the north dakota wildlife federation need to seriously ask themselves two questions. Do we belong to a grassroots sportsmens organization or do we belong to a controlled opposition group? There are many good National Rifle Association members out there. It is your duty to take these misguided individuals by the hand and steer them away from this darkness. Steering committees. So much mischief.


----------



## Plainsman

Also on the list:



> American Corn Growers Association
> Dakota Resource Council
> Mothers Against Drunk Driving
> Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy


I don't know, it just looks like a list of everyone that gets money. Good groups and bad. I belong to the NRA, I think the NRA Institute for Legislative Action is money well spent. The second amendment is my top priority. I don't like Obama, but I couldn't find where his influence was in the activist cash.com. Maybe I didn't look good enough. If it is what does that mean? 
You know an overactive imagination can make mountains out of mole hills.


----------



## Turner

Let the HSUS get a foot hold in our state just like you are doing with your your ego and ethics and look what could happen. Some of you have no clue on what they can do if you keep these doors open.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=3681

Friday, March 14, 2008

One of the efforts promoted by the anti-hunting "animal rights" extremists at The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is calling for an end to state-run Pheasant Stocking Programs. These programs provide game birds for hunting opportunities, but in Illinois, the program is under attack! NRA has been told that the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has been instructed by Governor Rod Blagojevich's (D) Administration, that due to budget cuts, it will have to close down pheasant propagation sites, thus putting an end to IDNR's Controlled Pheasant Hunts. This, in spite of the fact that the program is heavily funded by fees paid by hunters, themselves. These Hunts are often the only opportunity for hunters in Illinois to take part in harvesting pheasant. Governor Blagojevich masquerades as a supporter of hunters and law-abiding gun owners, while consistently promoting anti-hunting and anti-gun efforts. It is no wonder he is highly regarded by HSUS. NRA has always held that anti-gun zealots first target certain guns, then target hunters, and this effort is more confirmation of such tactics.

While the Illinois General Assembly continues what seems to be a never-ending struggle over the Illinois budget, several Town Hall Meetings have been scheduled throughout the state to allow citizens to offer their input on budget-related issues. Below, you will find a listing of the dates, times, and locations of events we encourage hunters to attend, to make sure their opposition to ending these Controlled Pheasant Hunts is understood. Please make plans to attend one near you, and bring your fellow hunters and supporters of hunting along.


----------



## Plainsman

> and this effort is more confirmation of such tactics.


I am confused about how you would know that. Did a supporter tell you that, or is it just a manifestation from imagination? What you imply is that supporters made a conscious decision to use this tactic to go further. That's not close to true. It would be nice to see factual things, not reports of more black helicopters.

No matter what happens next fall the anti hunters will always be after us. If the measure fails they will point out the failures of hunters to control even the most unethical. Some think the measure endangers hunting while I am many more think it will save some of it for a while longer. Whatever you believe put your effort into saving hunting for the future. Some of us are to old, but our children and grandchildren should be able to enjoy the resource as we have.


----------



## elkman

Plainsman quote
I am confused about how you would know that. Did a supporter tell you that, or is it just a manifestation from imagination? What you imply is that supporters made a conscious decision to use this tactic to go further. That's not close to true. It would be nice to see factual things, not reports of more black helicopters.

No matter what happens next fall the anti hunters will always be after us. If the measure fails they will point out the failures of hunters to control even the most unethical.

Plainsman,
Now I'm confused. Most things stated on this thread are only personal opinion. If you state the high fence operations will take away hunting is it not just a manifestation of your imagination or just your opinion? You have no proof either. It would be nice to see factual things, not reports of more black helicopters. When you guys say something which is not substantiated we are to believe it because your group said it. Those that oppose your group are just using their imagination or fear tactics. That man pointed out how the agenda can change from these anti type people. It is that slippery slope theory we should all be worried about.

I personally believe your statement that high fence operations were the most unethical to be just your opinion, nothing more nothing less. We will just have to agree to disagree which I believe you and I have no problem doing. I stand by my posts that the method of "on farm slaughter" for these elk and deer is the most humane death for this type of animal and there is nothing unethical in making sure animals raised for food are slaughtered humanely.

We as ranchers were encouraged to diversify our ranching operations by our State as I believe yours did. Our State encouraged ranchers to go into elk and deer production. Ranchers spent thousands setting up these operations in fence costs (sixteen thousand a mile). One of the most expensive costs was to make quality handling facilities and quarantine facilities, most were in the fifteen thousand range. Most of these things are not needed to produce cattle so are now a waste of money.

When the Wildlife Federation did their initiative our State just sat by and watched. Many groups have been in filtered by anti people. I say this because the past president of the Montana Wildlife Federation stated in a Rule making meeting he was a vegetarian and a bow hunter and that he represented the hunters of Montana. I don't believe you can be both at the same time.
Please vote for the high fence facilities. Either way this turns out, good hunting boys.


----------



## Plainsman

> We will just have to agree to disagree which I believe you and I have no problem doing.


Yes, and I appreciate that.



> If you state the high fence operations will take away hunting is it not just a manifestation of your imagination or just your opinion?


Yes of course it's my opinion. It is formed this way: If I think it isn't ethical I would guess those that don't like hunting think it is even more unethical. If anti hunting groups tell people that hunting is this way then it endangers other forms of hunting. Things like that can not be tied down either way. That was my point about the


> and this effort is more confirmation of such tactics.


 That is a statement of fact which I know is not correct.



> I stand by my posts that the method of "on farm slaughter" for these elk and deer is the most humane death


 I'm not arguing if the death is inhumane. The death has nothing to do with it. The pursuit with no chance of escape is far more unethical than night lighting. At least they can run then. It's sort of like the difference in hunting a coyote or a collie.

The pheasant thing has been shot down here many times. They can fly. If you cut off their wings and turned them loose in a pen then I would be against that.



> Our State encouraged ranchers to go into elk and deer production.


Did they encourage captive killing, or just production, I don't know?



> Many groups have been in filtered by anti people.


I believe that. I see it more and more. I don't appreciate it when a friend and I are talking about hunting and someone sits down next to us and says they find hunting talk offensive. Then hit the road because no one asked for the company. Man they are arrogant.

I appreciate that you talk in a manner that is not irritating elkman. Thank you. Some things I say are opinion, I don't intend to present some things as facts. Some things I do. For example I know the Wildlife Society is professional, I know the people of this measure are not anti hunters, etc. People who say otherwise don't know what they are talking about or intentionally deceive.


----------



## LT

North Dakota Century Code states, dog, cat, bison, "farmed elk" are domesticated animals. Good reading at this link: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/56-199 ... VD0100.pdf

North Dakota Century Code states big game includes deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats and antelope. http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t201c01.pdf

My understanding of all of this is that "big game" does not include "farmed elk" or bison. In the initiative it states big game species. Not seeing the word species used in the century code.

domesticated animal = bison, farmed elk
"big game" = elk
big game species = ?????

Interesting article: http://2mdh.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_archive.html

Happy Hunting!!!


----------



## elkman

Quote: 
Our State encouraged ranchers to go into elk and deer production.

Did they encourage captive killing, or just production, I don't know?

Plainsman,
In fact they did encourage captive killing as the State helped write the rules to make the on farm slaughter of elk and deer legal under the Federal meat laws.

We also made rules to protect the domestic raised elk and deer and the wild elk and deer from disease exchange by making some of the most strigent health testing ever done on our elk and deer livestock. We also addressed the thieft of wildlife by requireing three forms of identification per animal. One of which was put on by a state Vet.

Our Industry made a rule that every elk had to be purity tested to protect the wild herd from hybrids. I believe this industry has acted very responcable with our wildlife resorce protection.

I also appreciate your tone when we exchange our ideas. Some could learn on this post from our exchange. After all we are only exchanging ideas.

Good hunting and good night. Vote for the high fence industry.


----------



## elkman

Plainsman quote.
I'm not arguing if the death is inhumane. The death has nothing to do with it. The pursuit with no chance of escape is far more unethical than night lighting. At least they can run then. It's sort of like the difference in hunting a coyote or a collie.

Plainsman, How do you get this thing to quote like you do?

Plainsman,
The humane treatment of these animals has everything to do with this discussion or at least it should have. I slaughter/harvest my Angus steer, sheep or pig on the ranch. It has no change of escape and it shouldn't have that option. Only its humane slaughter is of any ethical moral importance.

When you raise a domestic elk or deer for human consumption it is far more ethical to slaughter/harvest it with the use of on farm slaughter and the same slaughter ethics dictate it has no change for escape. It also should have no chance of escape because a clean kill is what is morally important. There is nothing unethical done when slaughtering ranch raised animals even if you use the best type of wild hunting tactics to harvest that animal humanely.

I have never felt comfortable with the term hunting on these types of slaughter facilities. But we are only playing with semantics with these words here. Not ethics or morals. You are applying your high moral hunting code on domestic elk and deer animals which were raised for slaughter. You should feel that the best hunting tactics should make for the most humane kill of that animal. You don't seem to feel the pig, sheep or domestic cow is harmed by on farm slaughter or should have fair chase.

Just a rancher with a common sense opinion on this subject.
Good hunting boys. A vote for high fence is a vote for common sense and property rights.


----------



## LT

Previously I posted:

domesticated animal = bison, farmed elk 
"big game" = elk 
big game species = ????? 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found a description for species and wildlife in the Century Code:
http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t201c01.pdf

Century Code 36-01-00.1: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/56-199 ... VD0100.pdf

46. "Species" includes any subspecies of WILDLIFE and any other group of WILDLIFE of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.

54. "Wildlife" means any member of the animal kingdom including any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead part or parts thereof. Wildlife DOES NOT INCLUDE domestic animals as defined by section 36-01-00.1 or birds or animals held in private ownership.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Game Species = Deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats and antelope that are wildlife.

Big Game Species does not equal farmed elk.


----------



## Plainsman

Good morning elkman, I sent you a PM.


----------



## LT

So if bison are not included in this initiative because under North Dakota Century Code they are not "big game" then by this reasoning "farmed elk" and deer that are privately owned are not included as well, since they are not included in the definition of big game species by the North Dakota Century Code.

privately owned big game species = privately owned wildlife


----------



## DG

Dick Monson, I don't know how much you paid Germolus but it was probably too much!!


----------



## Dick Monson

DG, then you have nothing to worry about. You get what you pay for in legal work.


----------



## franchi

FPP


----------



## Burly1

I would urge anyone who has not chosen to publicly comment on this forum, to read, analyze and consider what you read here very carefully. Try to get a take on the historical impact of ranching big game animals in this country. Internet resources are there. if you are truly concerned, use them. 
Discard nothing in your search to make a decision on whether or not to support this proposed initiative.
We are looking at an issue that would possibly change law abiding business men and women into potential criminals. The proposed initiative would change the legal rights of law abiding men and women in the state of North Dakota. Such decisions should never be taken lightly, or without careful consideration of all the facts available to you. 
It's all about rights. The issues are much more complex than it would seem at first glance, and the outcome will affect a great deal more than high fence hunting for big game.
Personally, and after a lot of consideration, if I was a sponsor/cheerleader for the initiative to ban high fence hunting, I would be genuinely concerned that my actions would fuel the fires of those who seek to abolish all hunting at every level. Yes, and to the point that I would withdraw my support of such an initiative as authored.
Just my two cents. Add a dollar-five, and you can get the cheap cup of coffee to go.
Burl


----------



## elkman

The critics of the High fence domestic elk and deer industry want you to believe that penned domestic elk and deer will cause health issues to the wild herds of wildlife. Let us use a common sense approach on these statements to see if they ring true.

1)	The domestic elk and deer raised as livestock are under the most stringent disease testing in the United States. In fact they are the most disease tested livestock on this planet. These testing protocols were put in place to protect the wild wildlife herds. Private owned elk and deer found to have a disease were eliminated. Private owned elk and deer herds became healthier than wild herds because of this stringent testing. Would the most disease tested animals on the planet which are proven healthy by testing present wild wildlife with a disease issue? Prior to 1992 when no testing of private owned elk and deer was done this statement was true but now it is totally false.

2)	If a domestic herd were to get sick it would be the only place a disease could be treated or eliminated. A wild herd has no possible care the wildlife health people could supply these sick animals and the disease would just run its course. This has been the case with CWD which has been present for forty years in Colorado and has spread outward. Wild animals in many states have diseases right now and the only thing wildlife people can do is watch it spread.

3)	Diseases like CWD are spreading in wild wildlife but have been almost eliminated in the domestic private owned herds from dead animal testing. A domestic elk or deer owner is required to have all dead
animals CWD tested. There is no live test for CWD at the present time.

4)	Brucellosis is on the rise in many states. Montana and Idaho have brucellosis in their wild herds but have never had brucellosis on the private owned domestic elk and deer ranches. Testing both wild and domestic elk and deer in Montana and Idaho has proven this statement.

A vote for high fence operations is a vote for private property rights and common sense.


----------



## huntin1

elkman said:


> I have never felt comfortable with the term hunting on these types of slaughter facilities. But we are only playing with semantics with these words here. Not ethics or morals. You are applying your high moral hunting code on domestic elk and deer animals which were raised for slaughter. You should feel that the best hunting tactics should make for the most humane kill of that animal. You don't seem to feel the pig, sheep or domestic cow is harmed by on farm slaughter or should have fair chase.


So why do most insist on calling this hunting. I have been involved in slaughtering domestic animals on the farm. My Grandfather would slaughter 2 pigs and a steer every fall, and every fall it was up to us grandkids to help out with the slaughtering and butchering. Typically they were herded into a small livestock trailer and shot with a 22 at point blank range, then tied to the farmhand, lifted, skinned and dressed. Nobody called it hunting and no one ever got their picture taken with the "trophy" pig or steer. If you want to slaughter deer and elk in this manner go ahead, but don't turn them loose to be chased around a fenced enclosure until someone shoots them and then call it a hunting experience one day and an on the farm slaughter of domestic animals the next.

huntin1


----------



## elkman

huntin1[/quote]

You have the mindset that the domestic elk and deer perceive that they are going to be harvested and will run away like wild elk and deer. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The hunter's moral code wants the animal to have a chance of escape. This has never been allowed for a domestic animal raised for slaughter and food as it wouldn't allow for the humane death of that animal. To expect fair chase for a livestock animal raised for food just because it's wild relatives has it is unrealistic. Just because your using hunting methods to harvest a domestic raised elk or deer humanely doesn't mean it requires fair chase. It only requires humane harvest.

People want their picture with the buffalo they kill. People want their picture with the elk and deer they kill. I have even had a guy want his picture with the Angus steer he killed. Who cares why they want their picture taken.

You also believe elk and deer will respond like cattle and pigs and be herded into the trailer with great ease. This is not the case and shooting that animal in the open is the most humane treatment of that animal. When rounded up there is a good chance their other herd members will hurt themselves in any round up like you would do for cattle. These animals require a total different set of slaughter methods than that of cattle or pigs. Humane treatment is one of the rancher's goals. The other is the most profit for the animal he raises whether cattle, pigs or elk or deer.


----------



## Burly1

I have to agree with Huntin1. It's not hunting. It's shooting, plain and simple. The people who write the big checks for that 400 class bull can call it whatever they want. I really don't care. I know better. I think that you would be hard pressed to find one of these elk producers that honestly believed that they were providing a REAL hunting experience. The possible exception would be those clients who lacked the physical ability to participate in a hunt in genuine elk habitat. To them, it's going to be as real as anything they'll ever have. I would have a hard time denying them the experience, even though I personally deplore the practice.
Most of the high fence ranchers look at the whole thing as a business. The difference is that they are ranching a critter that is generally thought of as a wild animal. Most of these critters would be hard pressed to make it through a winter without feeding from a ranchers bunk. There have been so many generations that have been bred in captivity, that most have little in common with wild elk, other than genetics and the instinct to eat and reproduce. Although skittish, most can easily be approached within 100 yards without spooking. 
This is where I don't see the logic in trying to shut down this whole system. Better, I think, to regulate them as closely as we can, to assure that what Elkman says is happening, regarding health and welfare issues, is indeed the case. 
I remember a discussion where someone said that you can't legislate morality. They were wrong. We have done so on a regular basis, since laws were first legislated in the colonies. If morality, and the difference of opinion over what something is called, is the issue, I must question the value of effort expended. There are so many more threats to us as gun owners and sportsmen that truly deserve action. This issue, while closer to home than many, seems much less dire and I fail to see the point.
I can't help but see this as another attempt to lessen outfitter/restricted hunting lands in our state. And that battle, I am sad to say, has already been lost. It is simply another fact of life. Better to use our legislative bodies to regulate the industry as closely and carefully as possible, to ensure, at the very least, the resource is not harmed.
So there's about a penny's worth of something to think about, maybe more, maybe less. I still think it all needs to be carefully considered.
Burl


----------



## Dick Monson

There are 8 months before the vote on canned shooting. There might be a tad more information forthcoming before the vote that would help undecided folks to make up their minds.

Respectfully, I would also ask voters to consider this:

The best health regulations are as good as the lowest level of compliance.



> 1) The domestic elk and deer raised as livestock are under the most stringent disease testing in the United States. In fact they are the most disease tested livestock on this planet. These testing protocols were put in place to protect the wild wildlife herds. Private owned elk and deer found to have a disease were eliminated. Private owned elk and deer herds became healthier than wild herds because of this stringent testing. Would the most disease tested animals on the planet which are proven healthy by testing present wild wildlife with a disease issue? Prior to 1992 when no testing of private owned elk and deer was done this statement was true but now it is totally false.


Please note the years after 1992 when testing was implemented.



> Chronic Wasting Disease Timeline - Anatomy of a Killer
> Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Game Farm Audit Results
> 
> 1967-Deer begin dying from a mystery disease at Foothills Wildlife Research Facility, Fort Collins, Colorado.
> 
> 1980 the illness is identified as chronic wasting disease. (CWD)
> 
> 1981-First wild elk with CWD found in Larimar County, Colorado. Disease begins spreading into the northeast corner of the state.
> 
> 1986-An elk in southeastern Wyoming is the first wild animal to test CWD positive there. By 2001 10% of Wyoming deer have CWD.
> 
> *(testing implemented in 1992)*
> 
> 1996-Saskatchewan game farm is found to be infected with CWD.
> 
> 1997-South Dakota game farm tests positive for CWD. Within a year two more farms are infested.
> 
> 1998-Game farm in Cherry County, Nebraska has CWD. First in the state.
> 
> 1998-Second Saskatchewan game farm has CWD.
> 
> 1998-June-A game farm in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma reports outbreak of CWD.
> 
> 1999-Animals from a game farm near Philipsburg, Montana test CWD positive.
> 
> 1999-Wisconsin begins testing deer for CWD, fearing game farm have imported CWD exposed elk.
> 
> March 2000 to July 2001-CWD concerns cause Saskatchewan game officials to slaughter 4,600 elk at 29 game farms.
> 
> Fall 2000-Nebraska's first wild mule deer with CWD is killed by a hunter in Kimball County.
> 
> April 2001-Saskatchewan confirms first wild mule deer with CWD near Lloyd Minster. Two more positive tests follow.
> 
> September 2001-The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture declares a CWD emergency., begins creating a plan to eradicate it in game farm and in the wild.
> 
> October 2001-Eleven Colorado game farms placed under CWD quarantine. 450 elk from these game farms had been shipped to game farms in 15 states.
> 
> December 2001-Game farm in Anthony, Kansas reports states first case of CWD from an elk purchased from one of the now quarantined Colorado farms.
> 
> December 2001-Game farm in Sioux County, Nebraska is CWD infected. Its whitetails test 43% positive.
> 
> February 2002-South Dakota reports first case of CWD in wild deer.
> 
> March 2002-Colorado finishes slaughtering 1,600 game farm elk from the 2001 quarantine.
> 
> March 2002-Wisconsin reports three deer taken during 2001 season were CWD positive.
> 
> April 2002-Wisconsin shoots 506 deer in the infected area and tests them for CWD. 14 are CWD positive.
> 
> May 2002-Wisconsin prepares to eradicate 15,000 deer in a 287 square mile area to stop the spread of CWD.
> 
> May 2002- Two more cases of chronic wasting disease have been found inside an elk ranch in southwestern Routt County, Colorado
> 
> May 23, 2002-Four more deer near Mount Horeb, Wi. tested positive for CWD. One of the deer was killed outside of the eradication zone, so the zone will be expanded by 74 square miles. The tests initially came back negative, but additional tests of the lymph nodes were done, and those tests showed infection. That suggests that the deer were in the earlier stages of infection, than those whose brain stems show infection.
> 
> June 17, 2002-A total of 262 deer were killed in the first week in an effort to kill 25,000 deer. There are three more 1 week hunts planned before bow season opens. Landowners shot 170 deer and sharpshooters killed 92.
> 
> June 21,2002-A mule deer from white Sands Missile Range, Albuquerque, New Mexico has tested positive for CWD. It is the first case verified in this state. Game officials are banning the importation of deer and elk.
> 
> June26, 2002-The Wisconsin State Natural Resources board voted 6-1 in favor of a number of measures they hope will stop the spread of CWD. The most controversial is the banning of feeding and baiting deer until June 2004.
> 
> August 3, 2002-6 more cases of CWD have been found in the 261 deer tested from the special hunt June 8 to June 14 in Wisconsin. Two of the deer killed were near the boundary of the current zone so the DNR is going to extend the zone by 13 square miles to 374 square miles. The next special hunt is Aug. 10 to 16.
> 
> August 31, 2002-Seven more deer out of 336 that were shot in the special season in July tested positive. Another 15 square miles was added to the eradication zone. Minnesota found its first CWD case in an elk that was part of a farm raised herd in Aitkin County. Minnesota plans to immediately kill and test wild deer in the vicinity of the elk farm.
> 
> October 15, 2002-Out of 669 deer tested on Wisconsin game farms only one has tested positive for CWD. A panel of experts at UW Madison has determined that by leaving the disease alone will only fan its distribution. They also say that hunters should not use the test for CWD to judge the safety of the venison. They say the risk for contracting CWD from eating infected venison is very low.
> 
> October 18, 2002- 9 more wild deer tested and 1 doe on a second game farm tested positive for CWD. That brings the total to 40 deer that have tested positive in the eradication zone west of Madison. Wardens want to inspect 590 deer farms by the end of the year, by checking fences and in some cases checking the financial records of the sales and purchases of deer.
> 
> November 3, 2002- Wildlife officials have confirmed the first known case of CWD in deer in Illinois. A deer was shot Oct. 23 just east of Roscoe near the Wisconsin border.
> 
> November 5, 2002- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will spend about $500,000 to commission a study whether CWD can jump from deer to other species.
> 
> December 4, 2002-CWD has been discovered for the first time in a wild deer outside the eradication zone. A 3 year old buck shot in Grant County during the gun hunt tested positive for the disease. The testing was done by a private diagnostic lab from test kits available through sporting goods stores.
> 
> December 7, 2002-Early results have shown that CWD has not spread beyond an area near Mount Horeb. The DNR has tested 662 deer shot in the 10 county zone that surrounds the eradication zone. None has tested positive.
> 
> December 13, 2002-All 118 deer on a deer farm in Walworth County were killed by federal sharpshooters. All of the deer will be tested for CWD. A deer tested positive on Sept. 30 for the disease so a decision was made to test the rest of the deer. The oldest deer on the farm were about 15 years old.
> 
> December 14, 2002-A deer that escaped from the Walworth County farm and roamed freely for at least six months has tested positive. The deer was shot by sharpshooters on Oct. 22. It is the first escaped deer in Wisconsin to test positive. So far no wild deer have tested positive for the disease outside of the eradication zone.
> 
> December 22, 2002-The states latest round of testing revealed no new cases of CWD in the wild. 5,045 deer have been tested from outside the quarantine area and none were infected. The state will be testing a total of 37, 938 deer from this falls hunt. Meanwhile Illinois has reported a total of four positives, all in counties bordering Wisconsin.
> 
> December 29,2002-73 more deer were tested and none were positive. The small number of deer tested was due to the holidays.
> 
> January 4, 2003-7, 785 deer have been tested so far. 50 have tested positive and they are from Dane and Iowa counties. So far it looks like the disease hasn't spread beyond the eradication zone. A private lab has reported that 3 deer it examined tested positive, however state official's have disputed the accuracy of the lab's tests.
> 
> January 8, 2003- State officials decided Tuesday to allow baiting in the hot zone, to extend the season to March 31, and to bring in government sharpshooters. So far only 8,000 of the estimated 30,000 deer in that area have been killed. The 8,000 deer killed is equivalent to a yearly fawn crop in the area. Wildlife biologists say that 10,000 to 12,000 deer must be harvested to get the density down to 20 to 25 deer per square mile. The agency is considering paying a bounty to landowners for every deer killed, but funding and liability issues may scuttle that.
> 
> January 9, 2003-Stanley Hall , owner of Buckhorn Flats game farm is going to court to block the state from killing the animals. The first captive animal to test positive came from the game farm. Hall said he retained some of the brain tissue and had it tested at a Wyoming lab, which found no evidence of the disease. Calls to the DNR were not returned yet. State law allows for a second test if the initial test is positive. The DNR killed all 118 deer on the game farm of James Hirschboek after one deer tested positive. The Hirschboek farm came under suspicion after authorities traced his purchase of deer from Hall.
> 
> January 11, 2003- Five infected deer were found outside the hot zone, 1 in Richland County and 4 in western Iowa County. The new cases were still inside the management zone, which extends 40 miles beyond the area where the disease was first detected. The deer in Richland County was killed 16 miles from the hot zone boundary and the Iowa County deer were up to 12 miles from the boundary. So far 9,064 deer have been tested.
> 
> January 18, 2003- State agencies have spent about $11.5 million on CWD in Wisconsin. The estimate includes the salaries of wildlife experts who have devoted their time to the problem. That figure means the state has spent the equivalent of $209,000 for each of the 55 deer that tested positive. $1.1 million was spent last fall to collect thousand of deer heads from hunters across the state, and about $1.6 million was spent disposing of the deer. A big bulk of the upfront costs were to get the project started.
> 
> February 2, 2003-3 more deer test positive in the hot zone. 1,390 new samples were analyzed last week. So far 13,977 deer have been tested which is 36% of the deer that will be tested. 2.21% of the deer in the hot zone have tested positive. In the broader 10 county management zone 5 deer have tested positive an incidence of 0.9%.
> 
> February 8, 2003-With 16, 119 or 41% of the results in the DNR said that no new cases were found in the last week.
> February 15, 2003-With 18,838 deer tested there were no new cases of CWD.
> 
> March 9, 2003-With 26,232 deer tested 62 have been infected. 33 from Dane County, 27 from Iowa County, 1 from Richland County and 1 from Sauk County. Wisconsin's eradication initiative is the biggest in the country. The testing of almost 40,000 deer is the most comprehensive of any state. the incidence rate in the hot zone is 1.9%.
> March 15, 2003-Two new cases of CWD were found out of 2,055 more deer tested. The two deer that tested positive came out of Dane County. A total of 64 deer have tested positive. 28,287 deer have been tested.
> 
> March 20, 2003-Wisconsin-436 deer have escaped from farms to wild. State finds violations, lax record keeping at many sites, report says. A state inspection of private deer farms, prompted by the discovery of chronic wasting disease, found that 436 white-tailed deer escaped into the wild, officials said Tuesday.
> 
> Chronic Wasting Disease Game Farms Inspected:
> A summary of the findings of the Department of Natural Resources' inspection of 550 private white-tailed deer farms in the state: The deer farms contained at least 16,070 deer, but the DNR believes there are more deer in captivity than that because large deer farms are unable to accurately count their deer. 671 deer had escaped from game farms, including 436 that were never found. 24 farmers were unlicensed. One had been operating illegally since 1999 after he was denied a license because his deer fence did not meet minimum specifications. Records maintained by operators ranged from "meticulous documentation to relying on memory." At least 227 farms conducted various portions of their deer farm business with cash.
> 
> Over the last three years, 1,222 deer died on farms for various reasons. Disease testing was not performed nor required on the majority of deer.
> 
> Farmers reported doing business with people in 22 other states and one Canadian province.
> 
> The Department of Natural Resources found that captive deer have escaped from one-third of the state's 550 deer farms over the lifetime of the operations. The agency also uncovered hundreds of violations and has sought a total of 60 citations or charges against deer farm operators. These and other findings come as state officials say they are still no closer to understanding how the fatal deer disease got to Wisconsin.
> 
> March 24,2003-16 new cases were found in the latest round of testing. 2,574 deer were analyzed this week. A total of 80 deer have been found to be infected. All of the infected deer were from the eradication zone.
> 
> March 26, 2003-CWD has been found in a farm raised elk in Manitowoc County marking the first time in Wi. that it has been found in an animal other than a deer. The 6 year old female elk, one of 20 imported by a Valders elk farmer from Stearns County, Minn. tested positive after dying in a fight with another elk. One elk died earlier and was not tested. The remaining 18 elk were killed for testing. 6 game farms imported elk from Minn. and all are quarantined since Sept. when the Minn. game farm had an elk that tested positive.
> 
> March 30, 2003-14 more deer test positive bringing the total to 94. All were killed within the three county eradication zone. The DNR figures about 2% of the deer in that area are infected. The illness which jeopardizes the state's $1 billion hunting industry was discovered near Mt. Horeb in February 2002.
> 
> April 5, 2003-36 new cases were found in the latest round of testing. 2655 samples were tested this week. That brings the total to 130 infected deer out of 35,196 deer tested. 40,002 deer will be tested for the last season..
> 
> April 19, 2003-49 more deer were found with CWD, all within the hot zone. That brings the total number of infected deer to 190 or about 2% of the deer tested in that area. 39,012 of the 40,111 deer have been tested. Of the diseased deer, 99 were in Iowa County, 89 were in Dane County, 1 in each in Richland and Sauk Counties.
> 
> May 3, 2003-With all 41, 046 deer tested there have been 207 positive cases, all within the zone. Dane county had 97 cases, Iowa county had 107 cases, 2 cases in Sauk county and 1 case in Richland county.
> 
> May 14, 2003-Six wild fawns that were killed last fall have tested positive for CWD, state officials announced last week. The fawns were 5 to 6 months old. Officials had previously believed CWD didn't begin to appear in white-tailed deer until the animal was at least 16 months old.
> 
> The six fawns were shot in Wisconsin's 411-square-mile CWD eradication zone, where 4,200 fawns less than a year old were tested for CWD last fall.
> For more information, visit www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/news/on/index.htm#art4.
> 
> July 2, 2003-To fight the spread of CWD, the DNR wants to create a special zone in and near Beloit, where hunters and sharpshooters will try to wipe out the deer population. Covering 25 square miles, the area lies along the Wisconsin-Illinois border and within 4 1/2 miles of where a deer in northern Illinois tested positive for the disease. None of the 308 deer killed last season in Rock County tested positive.
> August 12, 2003-A sickly deer shot in a village park in Fontana on the west end of Lake Geneva has tested positive for CWD the DNR reported Monday.
> 
> August 16, 2003-The Dnr will test between 20,00 and 25,00 deer in selected counties this year, compared to 41,000 deer in all 72 counties. They will be using a rapid test so hunters will know in a matter of weeks instead of months to see if the deer they shot tests positive.
> 
> December 3, 2003-Every deer in the herd reduction zone and intensive harvest zone is being tested. 11, 500 samples have been collected and 2,100 have been tested since the archery season began in Sept. Of those 18 tested positive bringing the total of infected deer to 226.
> 
> December 5, 2003-A 4th deer from a Portage county hunting preserve has tested positive for CWD. A 5 1/2 year old deer shot at Buckhorn Flats game farm in Almond tested positive.
> 
> The farms owner told the agency that the deer was born on the farm. Sixteen herds in Wisconsin are quarantined over the disease. Six other herds are linked to this case. Two received animals from a positive herd in Minnesota and seven other are in the state's eradication zone.
> 
> January 12, 2004-CWD has spread into Kenosha County for the first time after a yearling buck tested positive after it was shot last fall. So far they have tested 85% of the 14,290 deer that were sampled from the 2003 season. Of that, 57 tested positive.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I would add that with the outbreak of CWD in West Virginia and New York State 2 years ago, *13 years after testing was implemented*, the 300+ New York residents who comsumed the infected meat are now the subject of the largest CJD study in this country. DM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Fair Chase Measure does not prevent game farmers from selling their animals, alive or dead. It only prohibits selling the act of the kill. As a farmer myself I can only say that every single prohibited activity (and there are many) in my industry was legal before it was prohibited for the good of society. They were neccessary prohibitions that were overdue.

Respectfully, this measure defends and supports public hunting and public ownership of wildlife. Canned shooting does not support public hunting or public ownership of wildlife. It is an educational process.


----------



## cwoparson

Impressive list except there is so much redundant material it is impossible for the unknowing to not think the world has gone into a epidemic downfall. But that is the intent isn't it. A lot of that material is just a repeat on continued testing of the same area and if you really pay attention and read everything you will see many cases where there was no confirmed disease found but action was taken just as a precautionary measure by some game bureaucrat. I like the way the word outbreak is used to describe one or maybe two animals. Scary scary scary.

Funny thing though, nothing in that list had a thing to do with fair chase or ethics. Might that be because in truth there is no absolute way to test the wild herds like the farm herds are tested. If there were then it just might be that CWD is by far a more dangerous threat to the fair chase hunter than the game farm hunter.

Here's an example of how you are blowing this out of proportion and using that scare tactic that your opposition is always accused of using.



> Colorado Division of Wildlife
> Fall 2004 CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE UPDATE #4
> 2004 Submission and Testing as of January 3, 2005
> Fall 2004 Hunting Seasons Submission Numbers
> Test results are final for the period August 28, 2004 through December
> 20, 2005
> Between August 28, 2004 (opening of archery deer and elk season) and
> January 5, 2005, when all heads
> through the end of regular rifle seasons and some late seasons would be
> expected to have been submitted;
> hunters submitted 12,460 deer, elk, and moose heads for CWD testing.
> This compares to 15,700 deer, elk, and
> moose heads submitted by hunters during the same time period in 2003.
> The species breakdown for this time
> period is: 5,517 deer (5,327 mule deer and 190 white-tailed deer), 6,842
> elk, and 101 moose. The 2003 breakdown
> for the same time period was 7,305 deer (6,984 mule deer and 327
> white-tailed deer); 8,287 elk, and 102 moose.
> Most of the decrease in submissions (2,396 of 3,240) are deer (1,627
> fewer - 61.7% decrease) and elk (769 fewer -
> 61.7% decrease) from the northeastern portion of the state. This area
> changed from mandatory to voluntary
> submission in 2004. Submissions were down slightly in the remainder of
> the state for elk (by 9.6% - 676 fewer) and
> deer (by 3.6% -167 fewer).
> CWD has been detected in 135 animals (112 mule deer, 3 white-tailed
> deer, and 20 elk), including 31 mule deer
> and 14 elk from outside the established area in northeastern Colorado.
> Locations of 2004 Cases


135 animals out of 12,460 submitted. What is that, about .01% or there abouts.


----------



## .308w

I'm a little confused, If they are allowed to keep these animal just not let people kill them where does the disease issue come in?


----------



## Plainsman

> I like the way the word outbreak is used to describe one or maybe two animals. Scary scary scary.


Not scary, correct usage of the word. Sorry for being picky, but I didn't want anyone to be mislead into thinking the statements were wrong and simply scare tactics as implied.

In terms of disease one animal is an outbreak. Compare it to a prison with 5000 inmates. If one gets out it is a jail break. A herd of 100 animals with an animal infected with CWD is an outbreak. The word is used much different than an epidemic which I think your confusing it with. Outbreaks may refer to an epidemic which often leads to the words inappropriately being interchanged. In most situations it usually means more than one.

Wikipedia and Center for Disease Control. 


> Outbreak is a classification used in epidemiology to describe a small, localized group of people or organisms infected with a disease.


----------



## Burly1

Would not allowing interstate commerce without testing of each and every animal satisfy the concern over disease? Is it feasable economically? 
Burl


----------



## Dick Monson

Point being health regulations are meaningless without compliance. As you can see above, their compliance is lip service if the industry is "self regulating". Done deal. The incentive to cheat the system is selling the act of the kill, which is the only aspect prohibited by the measure.


----------



## elkman

Thank you Dick for pointing out I was not clear in my post.

As disease issues were used in the past for another reason to close down the industry in Montana and I saw some on this website I addressed this issue with my own personal information for the public.
All elk and deer movement interstate must have at the least two TB tests, three types of brucellosis tests and be in a state run CWD program for five years.

The elk and deer industry evolved as disease issues were found to be a problem in this type of new domestic animal being raised. I of course can only tell you what the industry did in Montana. I'm sure other State responded in the same responsible manor as the Montana elk and deer producer.

When the Montana industry and Montana State health authorities found out the domestic buffalo, elk and deer had slipped through the cracks for mandatory health testing and could have TB or Brucellosis State officials wanted these animals tested. In 1991 the industry was informed of this health issue problem. The state and the industry met to find out if these animals were manageable and what the industry had to do to allow the State and the industry the ability to handle these animals. Handling facilities were made mandatory for the handling of this livestock by the State of Montana. By 1992 all testing requirements were in place for TB and brucellosis and testing began. I believe two or three ranchers were found to have TB but no brucellosis has been found on any Montana ranch even though it is in the wild herds. These farms with TB were depopulated or a five year testing program cleared them of any disease and no new cases of TB have been found to this date in Montana. This proves testing does work.

In late 1999 as the disease CWD was starting to be identified as a elk and deer health issue in both wild and domestic elk and deer Montana Department of health checked the Phippsburg farm as a trace forward ranch that could be infected with CWD. It was found the Philipsburg ranch was infected with CWD from a South Dakota ranch. This Montana man had bought animals from a South Dakota ranch which had later tested positive for CWD. Both ranches were depopulated of elk and deer.

The Industry and the State and other interested parties wanted a CWD testing program put in place in Montana to protect wildlife and domestic elk and deer from CWD infection. CWD testing was started in early 2000 in Montana and not another case of CWD has been found. As stated all animals that die from any cause over 12 months of age must be tested for CWD. There is at this time only a test for CWD when the animal is dead.

The Montana elk and deer industry had been infected from the purchase of animals from out of State from infected areas before the disease problem was identified on the South Dakota ranch. But as stated the domestic elk and deer health problem has been on a steady decline Nation wide due to testing and depopulation of private herds found to be sick. This health testing will and in some State has already made the domestic herds healthier than the wild herds of that State.

Thank you and good hunting


----------



## 4590

Once again Tom Remington of "Black Bear Blog" has a common sense opinion that nails the disease issue.



> Protecting Wild Elk
> A child who cannot be expected to have the reasoning capabilities of full-grown adults, will cover their eyes with their hands and believe that because they can't see, they can't be seen. When adults do the equivalent, the results can be disastrous.
> 
> Are we to believe that diseases that affect elk and the rest of our ungulate species can only be spread in one direction? It seems that forever, the discussions about the prospect of diseases such as chronic wasting disease and brucellosis being spread are always from the domestic populations out to the wild ones. And why is that? Simple really. Someone told people that that is how it happens. We accept that theory and move on without any further discussions it seems.
> 
> This is eerily similar to the debate on global warming. Those who insist on keeping their hands over their eyes say that global warming is settled science. They don't want to talk about it anymore because they are afraid of hearing something they don't like.
> 
> For those who may not know, chronic wasting disease is far from settled science. As a matter of fact there is only one theory, never proven by science, that has been attached to any discussions on chronic wasting disease. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people that I talk to believe that CWD is caused by animals congregating in pens and that it is spread through one animal "kissing" another. Kissing is a term that has been used to describe when two animals touch in and around the nose/mouth/head area and fluids are exchanged.
> 
> The finger is always pointed at the domestic cervid ranches as the cause of CWD and the danger that might exist with our wild elk herds. Of course this finger pointing is the result of the ongoing campaign to convince people that the ranches is where it all starts.
> 
> Covering up your eyes will not change facts and will put all elk, whether domesticated or wild, at greater risk because we don't want to hear about other ideas, facts, studies and research. Doing so is dangerous and doesn't allow science to move ahead in a rapid and prudent manner.
> 
> Because someone is saying that domestic elk just one day out of the blue becomes infected with CWD, we have to make sure these animals never get out of their pens or the wild populations will be in danger. Most people don't realize the continuing spread of CWD is being done throughout the wild populations in some states and is not showing up in domestic herds. Is that because we have built double fencing around the elk herds so their noses can't touch? No. It is because the ranchers are learning how to test and prevent the spread of the disease. Not all fish and game departments can say the same thing.
> 
> In many cases reasonable steps have been taken with domestic elk ranches to detect and control CWD. Compare that with the efforts that many fish and game departments have put forth and it becomes troubling. Fish and game departments are still importing known diseased elk into their states from others. Very little testing of harvested deer and elk during the hunting seasons is being done, yet all the attention is being put on domestic cervid ranches to stop spreading the diseases.
> 
> Ranchers understand perhaps more than anybody else the importance of maintaining disease-free livestock. After all their entire livelihoods often depend on it. They've stepped up to the plate to test for and stop the exporting and importing of diseased animals. What has your state's fish and game done to stop the spread of CWD in your state?
> 
> Oregon cervidae ranchers are facing opposition from several directions. Some want to run these people out of business because they fear disease. CWD has not been found in Oregon but some believe the natural progression of the spreading will eventually bring it there. By focusing all the attention on ending elk ranching, what is being done to ensure the wild herds aren't being put in danger other than from these ranches?
> 
> The Baker City Herald in Oregon has a short article today that is actually quite misleading to the majority of people who are basically ignorant about disease and ranching. The first thing the article does is lead the reader to believe that because elk ranching contributes less money to the Oregon economy than the wild elk population brings into the state, it is somehow expendable.
> 
> Why has our society reached a point where if you are in the minority you are not worthy of equal treatment?
> 
> The article then goes on to explain how the domestic elk ranch is a threat to wild elk.
> 
> Trouble is, those elk ranches pose a potential threat to the valuable herds of wild elk.
> 
> Domestic elk can spread fatal diseases to their wild cousins - notably chronic wasting disease and bovine tuberculosis. This has happened in other states but not, fortunately, in Oregon.
> 
> To the average reader, this statement will lead you to believe that the diseases only come from the ranches and without these ranches, Oregon would be free from the threat of CWD or brucellosis.
> 
> Oregon is proposing to require double fencing around elk ranches to stop escapes and prevent a wild elk from touching noses with a domestic elk. The Baker City Herald says this is a reasonable solution.
> 
> This seems to us a reasonable precaution. Domestic elk don't have to escape a fence to spread disease - nose-to-nose contact through a fence can transmit germs, too.
> 
> When I visited Idaho last spring, I spoke with several elk ranchers and we talked about fencing. As a matter of fact, I did an article about the fencing and explained quite a bit about it.
> 
> The fencing, I was told, costs between $25,000 and $50,000 per running mile depending on terrain. I guess because some feel the domestic elk industry is expendable, this is a reasonable cost for the rancher to incur and for what reason?
> 
> R.A. Forrest of StopCWD.org in studies researched indicates that while contact between domestic and wild elk is possible, the chances of transmitting the disease is unlikely.
> 
> While nose-to-nose contact is possible between wild elk and domestic elk, the seemingly transitory nature of exposure would be in contravention of the perceived intensive exposure necessary to infect older animals as determined by Miller (1998).
> 
> Furthermore, Forrest's research seems to indicate that ingestion is the likely cause of the spread of CWD and not nose to nose contact.
> 
> Baker City Herald suggests that if there are less costly options that adequately protect the wild elk, they should be used. I couldn't agree more. The problem is that when officials have already made up their minds as to what causes and spreads CWD, what are we to do.
> 
> People shouldn't take me wrong in this discussion. There is nothing I want more than to find ways to stop the spread of CWD to all ungulates, wild and domestic. We can't do this when we think like the global warming alarmists. The science isn't closed. As a matter of fact it's not been discussed much at all.
> 
> Even studies from years ago suggest that transmitting CWD via nose-to-nose is difficult and unlikely. Ranchers have done remarkably well to care for their livestock. Testing is ongoing and the presence of disease is non-existent. On the same token, my fear is that while officials and others focus their time and energy in a direction where there is little or no real threat of disease, it will creep in the back door because we didn't pay close enough attention.
> 
> I think it is safe to conclude that one of the best ways of controlling the spread of disease is to control the movement of diseased animals. Recently the state of Idaho imported known diseased elk from Wyoming to be slaughtered. Until science has determined all the ways this disease is spread, we have to stop these kinds of irresponsible and hypocritical events from occurring.
> 
> If, as Forrest indicates, CWD is spread through ingestion of infected food supplies, we should also be focusing our attention on better tracking possible diseased hay and preventing grazing in areas known to have been part of an endemic area.
> 
> Further, we can't allow hunters transporting game from one state to the other and more testing of wild harvested game should be done. There are states now that do no testing at all and CWD is all around them, yet states like Maine where the nearest cases of CWD showed up in an isolated place in New York, do extensive testing and have stopped all importation of wild ungulates, dead or alive, into the state, including anyone passing through.
> 
> CWD is an unsolved mystery. Running ranchers out of business in hopes it will help will do nothing to stop the spread of disease. Actually, these disease-free ranches may be our best friends years down the road. We should work with them and not against them, while focusing our energies to stop the spread of the disease via reasonable methods we have control over. We need to expand our research of the disease to first be able to discover how it is formed and then exactly how it is spread and stop the guessing. Then we can move toward finding a cure.
> 
> Tom Remington


Of course the issue is not disease right Dick??????????


----------



## 4590

This has been a great "ethical" debate:

We've debated what size of a grain pile is "ethical" for baiting.

We've debated how large of a fenced area should be "ethical" for hunting.

We've debated why its ethical to hunt a bison in a fence but not an elk or deer.

We've debated whether law abiding business people should have the freedom to call their business "hunting".

We've debated whether its a property rights issue to allow livestock producers to harvest their production in any humane way they choose.

We've debated whether a cervid livestock producer should be able to sell his stock for market price or one that is palletable to few radicle "sportsman".

We've debated whether we have a disease crisis, even though we've had cervid production for 40 yrs in ND and no disease.

And on and on it goes, none of it holds water, but as they say, unfortunately, if you throw manure against the fence enough some will eventually stick.


----------



## cwoparson

> A herd of 100 animals with an animal infected with CWD is an outbreak. The word is used much different than an epidemic which I think your confusing it with.


No, I'm not confusing the two words at all. The word outbreak was used to describe one state where the actual number was one whitetail deer out of a herd of a couple thousand. After 5 years no other deer tested positive from that herd. In another case it was actually 4 deer that was positive out of the states entire population. Even in Colorado, a state with headline news of CWD had only 135 animals out of over 12,000 test as positive in the 2004 hunting season. Hardly a outbreak in layman terms and again these animals were from the wild, not a game farm where to my understanding testing is a ongoing program. Not just two or three weeks of a hunting season a year.

Used in the context of a sudden appearance, yes it is a outbreak by definition but used in the context as attempted by that post no, it is not a outbreak but more appropriately as you described, an epidemic scare tactic that does not exist.

No one is saying that CWD is not a serious matter that deserves attention but that post was a attempted scare tactic plain and simple. Some of those lines are the same herd, same animals. Just different reports with different dates of testing and.

Comparing jailbreak as having the same meaning as outbreak? About the only thing in comparison is they are both nouns.


----------



## R y a n

Dick Monson said:


> Point being health regulations are meaningless without compliance. As you can see above, their compliance is lip service if the industry is "self regulating". Done deal. The incentive to cheat the system is selling the act of the kill, *which is the only aspect prohibited by the measure*.


These last few posts have been lengthy but they still don't address the obvious as stated by Dick above. Are you simply trying to overwhelm readers of this thread with a deluge of words to turn them off?

To restate Dick's words, the issue is quite simple:

*Selling the act of the kill* is what this issue is ultimately, bottom line about.

The question to me is... which part of your "industry" are you High Fence proponents trying to protect?

As I stated in an earlier thread:



> I would have no problem with High Fence Proponents calling their animals livestock, *as long as you are advertising that you are killing domesticated ranch cervids (ex. deer, elk) for slaughter. *
> 
> If you'd agree that a mandate declaring that those words be used in advertising the "hunts", I'm fine with you conducting slaughter business.
> 
> Just to be clear (above).. If you say:
> 
> *"Come harvest a domestic elk for slaughter within the confines of our high fence enclosure. You may shoot it if you wish, but our livestock is sold based on a combination of weight and antler size. Prices may vary. Success Guranteed to slaughter elk of your choice."*


Allow the state of North Dakota to mandate by law that _*all*_ advertising *must* say the above, *and* that the words "hunt, wild, and ranch" be left out of any ads, and see where the debate then heads. At least it would be the start of a good faith effort on your side's part to compromise, and show that you are serious about representing your industry fairly.

Sound like a deal? How many people on your side would agree to that?

What do you say *elkman*? *4590*?

If you are truly serious about protecting your domestic meat industry, are you are willing to label the activity for what it is? If so, then you should have no problem with adding proper informative labels to your practices, and removing those deceptive misinformative half truths. (you know... wild, hunt, ranch)

Ryan


----------



## redlabel

I'm starting to understand the fallacy of this attempt and while I understand the threat it represents, I am also beginning to understand why it will not pass.

The proponents of this would have us join them and be against selling the act of the kill as wrong. They would ask us to understand that it is unethical and against the rules of fair chase. Then once they have us in agreement with them and we ask them what about the bison, they will tell us that the measure is only about deer and elk and while the activity is exactly the same with bison they are not concerned with that. That's the part I don't understand, and the point when I no longer consider them credible in their attempted mission.

I do not engage in high fenced hunting but I see no need to try to abolish a legal business that a group of people have been successful at. Their problem may be that they have worked hard and become too successful at what they do for some. They should be commended for that in a free enterprise society rather than have some group of zealots remove the opportunity from them.

I'm also against this because my dogs and I do frequent game preserves g before and after the hunting season. Our last trip was three weeks ago and my springer, setter, and I had a great day. I'm afraid that if this measure is successful the game farms would be next on the agenda.


----------



## LT

Lets revisit the terminology of this initiative:

_SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited (the wording of the ballot title may be changed by the Secretary of State) 
- Penalty - Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other renumeration 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. If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective on November 1, 2010. 
_

Now lets take a look again at the Century Code definititions:

"Domestic Animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison, farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.

"Big Game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats and animals.

"Species" includes any subspecies of WILDLIFE and any other group of WILDLIFE of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.

"Wildlife" means any member of the animal kingdom including any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead part or parts thereof. Wildlife DOES NOT INCLUDE domestic animals as defined by section 36-01-00.1 or birds or animals held in private ownership.

Now lets do the math:

big game + species = big game subspecies of wildlife

privately owned + big game + species = privately owned wildlife

privately owned wildlife = oxymoron

Big game does not include bison just as big game species does not include farmed elk or privately owned deer

This initiative if pushed forward will be doing away with something that does not exist according to the North Dakota Century Code.

Now ask yourself why you would want to push an initiative forward that will be challenged. Because the proponents care not one way or the other about the wording as it applies to accuracy, but only as it applies to appealing to the public. This is about getting this in front of the people, getting them worked up. This is about dividing the bison rancher from the elk/deer grower. This is about forcing the elk/game ranchers into the fight of their lives, costing them thousands of dollars, costing them time away from work and their families, causing them mental anguish, this in the hopes of breaking them financially and mentally.

They know with the wording as it stands this will appeal to the general public, rather than just saying farmed elk or privately owned deer. They then have a chance of getting this up for a vote, getting it voted in, and prolonging the fight.

I as a taxpayer do not want to waste my dollars on this poorly written initiative. I say vote it down, make them rewrite it if they truly care about ethics.

This is supposedly all about ETHICS, and apparently some find it okay to use any UNETHICAL TACTIC to justify the means of their ethical cause. I find this MORE REPULSIVE than any hunt in an enclosure.

uke: [/quote]


----------



## Plainsman

> We've debated what size of a grain pile is "ethical" for baiting.


It's a good negotiating point, or are you going to be stubborn and loose it all? As I have stated I at this time don't have an opinion. I will base my opinion on science and not emotions. I understand that disease is a problem. I think it is only a problem when large numbers of deer come to large bait piles. So that individuals could continue to use this practice I in one post mentioned perhaps limiting the size of the bait pile. Maybe five gallons would be reasonable. I'm not sure. I think small bait piles would eliminate the disease problem. I will talk with the Game and Fish biologists and ask.

I guess I would consider negotiating an open mind. What is the path you choose? Like the captive killing will you be so stubborn that you never give in until the public takes action and all forms of baiting our outlawed. Your industry has you in the mess your in right now and some people have learned nothing. When the legislature failed to take action the captive killing industry flipped off the public. That was arrogant and a very stupid move on their part. Now the public wants these unethical practices gone period.

I see the baiting debate as the captive killing industry now playing Russian rollet with the hunting publics personal practices. I would surmise that it is because they are running huge bait piles to pull deer away from their neighbors where people might be able to hunt for free, or at least don't pay them. After all the big picture is the struggle of society trying to retain it's ownership of wildlife while a few individuals do their best to exploit the public by tying up access.



> The word outbreak was used to describe one state where the actual number was one whitetail deer out of a herd of a couple thousand. Even in Colorado, a state with headline news of CWD had only 135 animals


So did the disease break out in those state or not? That is my only point. A single animal in a state that has never had it is an outbreak in that state. I think to say that it is scary is simply a scare tactic in itself. That's why I was being picky. Also, the debate has again turned to disease. It is a concern, but the measure is based on ethics. Shoot them in a pen, shoot them tied up, shoot them with a spotlight, shoot them with their head in the feed pail, it's all the same.



> Comparing jailbreak as having the same meaning as outbreak? About the only thing in comparison is they are both nouns.


Not being a jerk, but I guess people see things in a different perspective. I look at an outbreak in the verbal sense, as a disease erupting. I guess I looked at it as an action and not a tangible object, but does that change anything? This is way off subject, so if you want me to understand PM me. I don't want to bore everyone else with my struggle to understand. Do you mean the presence of a disease organism itself?


----------



## 4590

LT,
Believe me your are exactly right, and the term "man made enclosure" is open for interpretation. But when questioned on these issues they just hide under the guise that our lawyer said so. If passed this will definitely cause a long legal battle, and again will be costly to producers and is part of the goal.

I love it when they say we spin and mislead and yet they continue to use terms like "captive wildlife". What does thay represent to you? Some thing captured, right??

We know this initiative is not about disease, yet more often than not when Monson posts it has to do with disease. I am not trying to cloud the issue. Everyone really needs to read the Tom Remington piece. He makes it very clear that people like Dick are trying to connect the dots on an issue where the scientific community is not even in agreement.

Dick continues to TRY to make the point the industry is not willing to self regulate. Yet our track record in ND is 40 yrs without a disease "outbreak". FACT is ND cervid producers self regulated by VOLUNTARILY with cooperation from BOAH to implement mandatory serveilance of CWD 3 yrs before ND G/F started doing any testing. The cervid producers strongly encouraged the department to begin testing when we did, but thought it not necessary. Bottom line is they didn't want the attention to CWD to affect license sales. So tell me who has given in to the incentive of the all mighty dollar. Again, incentive in the cervid industry is to be in compliance and tested up if you want to open the markets and get what your animals are worth, not to cheat as Diok would suggest. If spreading CWD were really his concern, he would be fighting to ban the import of all wild carcasses to ND, still the only source of a CWD positive animal in ND.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash

Did anybody watch last week's web cast on the G&F website. They talked about ND elk populations and hunting. One thing the fella talked about was the growing number of elk farmers. He said when wild elk find these operations they tend to stick around the outside of the fence. And in the end the wild elk would be put down by the game and fish. So thats one bad thing about elk farming I dont think was mentioned.

On the other hand I am not against farming of deer or elk I am just against them being shot by someone other than the owner of the herd. I said it a couple of times but I will say it again the selling of any type of killing will end hunting.


----------



## Plainsman

> "captive wildlife" What does thay represent to you? Some thing captured, right??


Yes that's what it represents to me. 
I think the term I use is "captive killing". Your fence by compliance should not allow escape right? If that is so, then the animal is captive right? If you shoot an animal in that enclosure you are shooting a captive animal right? So the term captive killing is correct.



> CWD were really his concern, he would be fighting to ban the import of all wild carcasses to ND


I think if you shoot an animal in a state that has CWD that the meat must be processed in that state, and have no bone content. The skull must also be processed by a taxidermist in the state taken. This is the way I read the current regulations. Does everyone agree? I hunt out of state, and I think the regulation is reasonable.



> Everyone really needs to read the Tom Remington piece.


I wonder what good old Tom's motive is? How can any true sportsman support captive killing?

I'll tell you what 4590 if you want me to support you here is the way I will do it. Agree that any person who violates regulations faces not only fines, but prison time. If were serious about disease control we have to put some teeth into the regulations to stop the cheaters. Also, have state biologists put radios on wild deer and elk. Track them for a year and establish area of range. Then build a fence that size for your animals. They would still be captive, but that would simulate free animals. Anything less is Bambi in a barrel.


----------



## cwoparson

> I wonder what good old Tom's motive is? How can any true sportsman support captive killing?


Again the motive and non true sportsman label. That's just plain sad and wrong.

(edited 11:15 AM by poster)

I think it is sad and wrong because without knowing someone they are instantly labeled just because they may not agree with ones position. I never heard of Tom Remington until this subject hit the airwaves. Checking out his blog I came to realize he is a very good friend of the hunter and sportsman. I think enough of his writings I have him as a daily feed on my computer. Here is his answer to a critique that accused him of promoting high fence hunting.



> "You don't know anything about me. As a matter of fact, I don't rattle antlers. Why? My personal ethics tells me, as was taught to me by my father, that luring a deer into an opening while rattling antlers isn't right.
> 
> I've never paid anyone in my life to hunt and hope the day never comes when I HAVE to. I have never hunted with or hired the services of a guide. I have hunted big game since I was old enough to follow my father around in the woods. I have shot my share, none of which have ever occurred while sitting in a tree stand, blind, rattling antlers, blowing deer calls, putting out scents, wearing scent-lok clothing&#8230;&#8230;shall I continue?"


What is his motive? I think protecting the future of hunting would top the list. Is he a sportsman? How can anyone say no with his personal ethics as described above. As a matter of fact I suspect his ethics would put some of us to shame.


----------



## elkman

How can any true sportsman support captive killing?

As a rancher and as a sportsman I support humane captive killing of any domestic animals raised for food. Any domestic animal cattle, pig, elk or deer raised for food has been killed, Bambi in a barrel as you put it. People should support humane captive killing as the meat market is full of animals that have been captive killed for eating pleasure. Quite frankly many domestic animals are slaughtered in a less humane method of slaughter than that of domestic elk and deer killed on elk and deer ranches. On farm slaughter is the most humane method of killing any domestic animal raised for food.

The high fence fair chase people state they are only interested in this one issue (fair chase and selling a captive killing fee) in North Dakota. Just look at the progression of that same thinking in Oregon. They stopped high fence killing years ago but now are using the disease card tactic to force the elk and deer producer to double fence with a new initiative. Everyone knows this is very costly to the rancher and is just a way to force him out of business. One agenda turns into another and on and on it goes.

Whose ethics are the right ethics? Are they yours, mine or the other guys? Informed voters will make this decision and information about this issue is being presented so that they can make that informed vote.

Montana people who wrote the fair chase, hunter heritage initiative were just as adamant it was about the ethics of this type of slaughter. The same people that wrote the initiative that took away Montana domestic ranchers method of "killing for a fee" but when questioned by the Montana Supreme court stated that they wanted to ruin the industry by the removal of the money from this part of the industry in an effort to put the industry out of business. They stated they felt this would avoid a takings issue. One of the judges asked so you conspired to put these people out of business with this imitative by ruining their business? The answer was yes. A court decision has not been given yet and it's been 16 months. The Montana domestic elk and deer industry people have been in court for almost eight years now.

Ethics and fairness are more than just words they are how you treat other people and animals. Good hunting boys.


----------



## R y a n

Elkman and 4590 it would appear you are avoiding answering this thread...

I'll repeat it.



Dick Monson said:


> Point being health regulations are meaningless without compliance. As you can see above, their compliance is lip service if the industry is "self regulating". Done deal. The incentive to cheat the system is selling the act of the kill, *which is the only aspect prohibited by the measure*.


These last few posts have been lengthy but they still don't address the obvious as stated by Dick above. Are you simply trying to overwhelm readers of this thread with a deluge of words to turn them off?

To restate Dick's words, the issue is quite simple:

*Selling the act of the kill* is what this issue is ultimately, bottom line about.

The question to me is... which part of your "industry" are you High Fence proponents trying to protect?

As I stated in an earlier thread:



> I would have no problem with High Fence Proponents calling their animals livestock, *as long as you are advertising that you are killing domesticated ranch cervids (ex. deer, elk) for slaughter. *
> 
> If you'd agree that a mandate declaring that those words be used in advertising the "hunts", I'm fine with you conducting slaughter business.
> 
> Just to be clear (above).. If you say:
> 
> *"Come harvest a domestic elk for slaughter within the confines of our high fence enclosure. You may shoot it if you wish, but our livestock is sold based on a combination of weight and antler size. Prices may vary. Success Guranteed to slaughter elk of your choice."*


Allow the state of North Dakota to mandate by law that _*all*_ advertising *must* say the above, *and* that the words "hunt, wild, and ranch" be left out of any ads, and see where the debate then heads. At least it would be the start of a good faith effort on your side's part to compromise, and show that you are serious about representing your industry fairly.

Sound like a deal? How many people on your side would agree to that?

What do you say *elkman*? *4590*?

If you are truly serious about protecting your domestic meat slaughter industry, are you are willing to label the activity for what it is? If so, then you should have no problem with adding proper informative labels to your practices, and removing those deceptive misinformative half truths. (you know... wild, hunt, ranch)

Ryan


----------



## LT

Anyone that got sucked into Dick's CWD fever swamp needs to return their horses by 1:00, as the merry-go-round needs them back.


----------



## LT

Ryan Wrote:


> If you are truly serious about protecting your domestic meat slaughter industry, are you are willing to label the activity for what it is? If so, then you should have no problem with adding proper informative labels to your practices, and removing those deceptive misinformative half truths. (you know... wild, hunt, ranch)


Here I go getting sucked in too. The operator I know would not have a problem with relabeling and that even was asked at the Jamestown meeting. The response from the Fair Chase Supporters was there is NO COMPROMISE.


----------



## R y a n

LT said:


> Ryan Wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are truly serious about protecting your domestic meat slaughter industry, are you are willing to label the activity for what it is? If so, then you should have no problem with adding proper informative labels to your practices, and removing those deceptive misinformative half truths. (you know... wild, hunt, ranch)
> 
> 
> 
> Here I go getting sucked in too. The operator I know would not have a problem with relabeling and that even was asked at the Jamestown meeting. The response from the Fair Chase Supporters was there is NO COMPROMISE.
Click to expand...

That is a broad generalization that they're fine with "relabeling" .... *to what extent? To the extent that I propose above?* I don't believe they would allow it to go that far.

You see, I'm just trying to ensure that if they are serious about truth in advertising, that they eliminate deceptive words, and ensure that they are having people come to their property to participate in domestic animal slaughter that is simply carried out in a different way. I would allow no watering down of my terminology above, and I would stipulate one additional requirement.

In order to ensure that we maintain a distinction between harvesting of a domestic slaughtered livestock compared to the harvesting of a true wild elk, we should also mandate that *both an ear and antler tag *must remain on the elk antler post slaughter, and may never be removed, even upon mounting of the head. In that way true sportsman could differentiate their fair chase wild hunted elk from those who need to spend money to kill a tamed slaughtered one?

Hmmm that sounds like another fine requirement.

Think all of those paying clients would agree to come pay BIG $$$ if their precious trophy had to wear a lifetime domesticated tag on it's antlers?

There is simply no way people will be willing to pay thousands to shoot a tamed domestic elk, that was clearly denoted as a domestic livestock.

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman

> The high fence fair chase people state they are only interested in this one issue (fair chase and selling a captive killing fee) in North Dakota. Just look at the progression of that same thinking in Oregon. They stopped high fence killing years ago but now are using the disease card tactic to force the elk and deer producer to double fence with a new initiative. Everyone knows this is very costly to the rancher and is just a way to force him out of business. One agenda turns into another and on and on it goes.


I would guess the double fence was a reaction to escapes. How many escapes have already occurred in North Dakota?



> In order to ensure that we maintain a distinction between harvesting of a domestic slaughtered livestock compared to the harvesting of a true wild elk, we should also mandate that *both an ear and antler tag *must remain on the elk antler post slaughter, and may never be removed, even upon mounting of the head.


Excellent, excellent idea. One of the things that endangers hunting is these people passing these animals off as hunting trophies. When people find out how these animals were taken it makes all hunters look unethical. They talk about landowner rights, then reap the harvest of social intolerance without hiding behind hunters. Let them endanger the landowner freedom, not hide behind the pretense of hunting, and endanger us. Captive killing operations want us for our money, our support, and to hide behind us. They are not us. Stand apart from hunters, and don't put us in the line of fire of public disgust. You want to be called one of us, but many of us do not want to be associated with you. The relationship is not symbiotic, it is parasitic. It is a one way relationship with no benefits for the hunting community.


----------



## elkman

Ryan I have answered this question before in print and by my actions. but will do it one more time for you as you must have missed my comments on this. THIS CODE WAS IN EVERY ROOM OF MY HARVEST/SLAUGHTER FACILITY. I wrote it for my harvest operation in 1999. I think it answers your question on where I stood on this issue. I'M SURE THE CLIENTS KNEW THEY WERE KILLING DOMESTIC RAISED ANIMALS.

ETHICS
ELK/EXOTICS Treated Humanely In COMMERCIAL SLAUGHTER

Critics of the industry have convinced the public to believe agricultural private raised domestic elk/exotics used for ON FARM SLAUGHTER should have the same chance of survival as a wild elk by adding fair chase. This nonsense is much like demanding private raised agricultural cattle to have fair chase in their slaughter. The only ETHICAL DEMAND for the agricultural on farm harvesting facilities is that the animal is dispatched humanely. On farm SLAUGHTER/HUNTING does this with the least amount of stress on the animal. This code of ethics for agricultural harvesting facilities will put the emphasis on humanely harvesting animals WHERE IT BELONGS, not on knee jerk emotionalism where most of the public has been led by critics of the elk and deer industry. 
ETHICS CODE FOR AGRICULTURAL ELK / EXOTICS HUNTING/HARVESTING FACILITIES
HARVEST AREA:
1) ACREAGE, TERRAIN OR COVER MUST BE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW ANIMALS TO FEEL SECURE.
2) ADEQUATE FOOD, WATER, AND COVER MUST BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES.
3) PURSUIT WILL MIRROR THE BEST QUALITY IMAGE OF HUNTING ETHICS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL RULES. SCI SCORES MEAN THE ANIMAL WAS KILLED IN A FENCED AREA. A HUMANE DISPATCH IS THE GOAL ON ALL HUNTING/	HARVESTING PRESERVES.
WEAPONS:
1)	ALL TRADITIONAL RIFLES AND ARCHERY EQUIPMENT THAT THE ETHICAL HUNTING COMMUNITY HAS PROVEN TO HUMANELY DISPATCH AN ANIMAL. 
ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS:
1)	ALL PARTICIPANTS WILL DEMONSTRATE ADEQUATE ACCURACY WITH THEIR WEAPON TO THEIR GUIDE PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PRESERVE TO INSURE A HUMANE KILL. 
HUMANE HARVEST POLICY:
1)	NO MOVING SHOTS AS A CONSTANT HUMANE HARVEST IS NOT ASSURED.
2)	NO SHOTS THAT WILL NOT PRODUCE A HUMANE KILL. NO HEAD OR NECK SHOTS ALLOWED. THE ONLY ALLOWED SHOT IS THE HEART AND LUNG AREA.
3)	LESS THAN OPTIMUM HITS WILL BE BACKED UP BY THE GUIDE.
4)	THE HUNTING PARTICIPANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO DISPLAY THE HIGHEST HUNTING ETHICS FROM SCI SO AS TO PRODUCE THE MOST HUMANE DISPATCH OF THE ANIMAL.
5)	CLIENTS WHO DO NOT WANT THEIR MEAT WILL PAY FOR PROCESSING, THIS MEAT CAN THEN BE DONATED TO CHARITY OR AS DIRECTED.
6)	ALCOHOL MAY BE ENJOYED IN THE LODGE AFTER THE HUNT/HARVEST. NO ALCOHOL WILL BE ALLOWED WHILE PARTICIPATING IN HUNTING/HARVESTING.
7)	CLIENTS WILL HAVE A GUIDE AT ALL TIMES TO INSURE THESE HIGH STANDARDS. 
COMPLIANCE:
1)	GUIDES MAY ALLOW SOME DEVIATION TO CODE AS LONG AS THE HUMANE HUNTING/HARVESTING OF THAT ANIMAL IS HELD TO THE HIGHEST HUMANE LEVEL. 
2)	HUNTERS/HARVESTERS WHO WILL NOT OR CANNOT COMPLY WITH THESE RULES WILL HAVE THEIR HUNT/HARVEST CANCELED.

Sure you can pick this apart for inconsistencies but it was a true effort by me to remove the conception of hunting of wild elk and deer and call it what it was, which was on farm harvest/slaughter done with the highest animal welfare and respect to that animal in my mind. The problem was the client always thought he was hunting as that is what he was doing in his mind. Sorry this was long but Ryan asked for it.

Good hunting boys.


----------



## LT

4590,

Do you remember this post to you from Dave Brandt, who I believe is the same Mr. Brandt, President of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, Wildlife Biologist at the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown, and one of the sponsers of the Fair Chase Initiative:



> Dave Brandt
> Supporting Member
> 
> Joined: 20 Jun 2003
> Posts: 70
> 
> Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I will try to answer a few of the questions posed here, but will not get into any pissing match.
> 
> -First Kim (4590), the wording was chosen for a reason. See Century Code definition below for Big Game, it covers what is needed without needing to specify both alternative livestock and farmed elk. No alterior motives.
> 
> 20.1-01-02. Definitions
> 5. "Big game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and antelope
> 
> That covers your Domestic animal questions as well. But I guess if someone wants to start up an operation that shoots dogs and cats, let them, I would guess they won't find it too profitable. They also are species that fall under the authority of the Game and Fish (as they should be, and once were) since they and taxpayers are ultimately the ones who are responsible for any clean up of escapees from, and also killing free roaming Wildlife that enter such high fences. The use of exotic mammals is to close a loophole that would allow things such as African Antelope, and other large animals like lions, monkeys and what have you from being the next trophy of choice at these places (yes you can even buy an opportunity to shoot a giraffe in Texas). Domestic saffari is one the favorite psuedonyms being used by this "industry" when they purchase exess animals from zoos and shoot them in an "escape proof fence" (great image for kids and non-hunters to equate with "hunting" don't you think?).


The definition of species according to the century code was left out of this discussion. I did not know my cockatiels, cats, dogs, and chinchilla fall under the authority of the Game and Fish. In fact if you call Game and Fish they will tell you they have no authority over cats and dogs, you need to call your local police department, just as I am sure if you asked about a cow or farmed elk, they would tell you to call BOAH.

If the sponsers KNOW that the wording on this initiative does not follow century code and still KNOWINGLY go forward with it, costing the taxpayers dollars, I think they need to be held accountable. That is just my two cents. :******:


----------



## cwoparson

Talk about lip service, where in Monsons post does it identify who reported the CWD findings found on the game ranches? For all any of us know it was the ranch owners themselves reporting their own testing results as probable required. The majority of that post was wild herds anyways which the ranchers had no control over. But boy it sure looked good all compiled together didn't it.

Starting to get dizzy around here and as far as truth in advertising goes that went out the window a long time ago with the name of this measure. Now it is the words hunt and ranch you don't want used. I thought it was just fair chase. Whats next?

As to ear tags and antler tags, how many of you personally know someone that has a mounted head that they brag about as being killed in the wild? That's what I thought.

Come to think of it, I don't even know anyone that has a mounted head of any kind. Now if you'll excuse me I got to go find those government tags I tore from my mattress. Wouldn't want the tag police arresting me. Get real people.


----------



## R y a n

Plainsman said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> You see, I'm just trying to ensure that if they are serious about truth in advertising, that they eliminate deceptive words, and ensure that they are having people come to their property to participate in domestic animal slaughter that is simply carried out in a different way. I would allow no watering down of my terminology above, and I would stipulate one additional requirement.
> 
> In order to ensure that we maintain a distinction between harvesting of a domestic slaughtered livestock compared to the harvesting of a true wild elk, we should also mandate that *both an ear and antler tag *must remain on the elk antler post slaughter, and may never be removed, even upon mounting of the head. In that way true sportsman could differentiate their fair chase wild hunted elk from those who need to spend money to kill a tamed slaughtered one?
> 
> Hmmm that sounds like another fine requirement.
> 
> Think all of those paying clients would agree to come pay BIG $$$ if their precious trophy had to wear a lifetime domesticated tag on it's antlers?
> 
> There is simply no way people will be willing to pay thousands to shoot a tamed domestic elk, that was clearly denoted as a domestic livestock.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent, excellent idea. One of the things that endangers hunting is these people passing these animals off as hunting trophies. When people find out how these animals were taken it makes all hunters look unethical. They talk about landowner rights, then reap the harvest of social intolerance without hiding behind hunters. Let them endanger the landowner freedom, not hide behind the pretense of hunting, and endanger us. Captive killing operations want us for our money, our support, and to hide behind us.
> 
> They are not us.
> 
> Stand apart from hunters, and don't put us in the line of fire of public disgust. You want to be called one of us, but many of us do not want to be associated with you.
> 
> The relationship is not symbiotic, it is parasitic.
> 
> It is a one way relationship with no benefits for the hunting community.
Click to expand...

Excellent point Plainsman!

*THIS* defines what is really going on...

The more I think about it, the more I believe mandatory lifetime ear and antler tags should be an essential requirement to any negotiation. Additionally make sure that every elk has to have a visible tattoo behind or inside the ear for permanent identification, and stipulate by law that any removal of those tags is subject to a $50,000 minimum fine.

We *need* an identifiable distinction between wild elk and domestic livestock ones.

I don't want to see someone bragging about their elk, or see a mounted head on the wall and have to wonder if it was taken as a free ranging wild animal, or was some part of a livestock trade.


----------



## 4590

elkman,

Great post, I don't think any cervid producer would a have a problem with what you did. Hats off!!!!!!!!!

Every hunter at a preserve knows exactly what he is paying for and has no problem with it.

LT,

There will be a whole host of issues for the courts to sort out if this passes. Issues Mont. has never had to address, because ND is different.

Here are just a few of the major ones I see coming if it were to pass:

First of all the wording of the measure is as you say, very suspect. As it stands it certainly could be applied to any type of slaughter in a "man made enclosure".

ND has an agriculture defamation bill. It has not been tested, but I think it is fair to assume the cervid industry has been defamed on this site enough to warrant a test. Theres certainly enough evidence on this site to make a case. The penalties could certainly make the sponsors of the initiative sweat a little.

I can see the cervid industry filing a law suit against the state on ND for giving them incentives to start a diversified ag business and then taking that business away. Certainly a takings by any definition. I know of one hunting preserve specifically that was given a PACE loan. Pretty strong signal from the state that we embrace this type of business.

How about a descrimination suit - elk and deer in a fence - illegal, bison in a fence - legal.

These are just a few legal issues I see coming, that Mont. never had to deal with, and will certainly be persued if the initiative were successful.

Not to mention issues of free speech - can't call it "hunting" (which no one can define, and preserve hunting certainly falls under the definition of the right protected by our constitutional amendment).

Free enterprise - can't sell your product for market value, someone other than buyer and seller determine the price. Tell the hunter he must label his antlers so EVERYONE knows it was farm raise.

Not sure what country some of these folks are from.


----------



## R y a n

cwoparson said:


> As to ear tags and antler tags, how many of you personally know someone that has a mounted head that they brag about as being killed in the wild? That's what I thought.
> 
> Come to think of it, I don't even know anyone that has a mounted head of any kind. Now if you'll excuse me I got to go find those government tags I tore from my mattress. Wouldn't want the tag police arresting me. Get real people.


I know several.

Thanks for asking. That is the problem. I don't want them in my club, as they played by a different set of rules.

Are we to take you as a credible and serious poster if you state you know of noone with a mounted head of any kind? Riiggghhhttttt.


----------



## 4590

Ryan,
Actually you are going at it backwards. The wild animals already require a tag, so they should be required to have the tag in plain view to indicate that animal was taken in the wild. Livestock only require a bill of sale and every preserve hunter gets one. Many domestic cervids have a tattoo in the ear already. Bottom line, do you really hear what you are saying. You want consumers to have to display something just so you don't have to wonder if they are "bragging" about a wild or domestic trophy. If you are wondering why not just ask them. I thought this was about ethics, you are all concerned someone will brag about a farm raised trophy, I think someone here is just a little jealous. Do you really think the non hunting public, who say you are so concerned about, really cares if an elk on the wall was taken on a farm or from the wild. According to your reasoning, if a rancher were to sell a bull with the horns on, just as your measure would indicate, and sold the meat for a price and the head for a price, and the buyer mounted the head and hung it on the wall, you still wouldn't be satisified because he may try to tell some one he shot it in the wild. REDICULOUS?????????????


----------



## cwoparson

> Are we to take you as a credible and serious poster if you state you know of noone with a mounted head of any kind? Riiggghhhttttt.


That is so stupid it doesn't even deserve a response. You're awful quick to cut people down Ryan. I don't know you either but that doesn't mean I can't spot a ******* when I see one.


----------



## R y a n

4590 said:


> Ryan,
> Actually you are going at it backwards. The wild animals already require a tag, so they should be required to have the tag in plain view to indicate that animal was taken in the wild. Livestock only require a bill of sale and every preserve hunter gets one. Many domestic cervids have a tattoo in the ear already. Bottom line, do you really hear what you are saying. You want consumers to have to display something just so you don't have to wonder if they are "bragging" about a wild or domestic trophy. If you are wondering why not just ask them. I thought this was about ethics, you are all concerned someone will brag about a farm raised trophy, I think someone here is just a little jealous. Do you really think the non hunting public, who say you are so concerned about, really cares if an elk on the wall was taken on a farm or from the wild. According to your reasoning, if a rancher were to sell a bull with the horns on, just as your measure would indicate, and sold the meat for a price and the head for a price, and the buyer mounted the head and hung it on the wall, you still wouldn't be satisified because he may try to tell some one he shot it in the wild. REDICULOUS?????????????


Kim

That is some nice spin. Actually the way I am looking at it, I want a mounted animal to be displayed in a manner it existed when it was alive. A wild elk taken free range has no man made tags attached to its body.

An domesticated livestock cervid is a farm managed animal identical to cattle as you have stated previously. Farm animals have ear tags identifying them. Those tags are artificially attached because the animal is artificially farmed. Therefore if you were to ask the average Joe which animal is more likely to be known for having an ear tag, I'd bet they'd relate it to livestock and indicate the farmed animal should have the tag.

I am simply looking to ensure that those livestock tags are left on the ear to denote the animal as originating from a slaughter operation. You insist on being treated like a slaughter operation, so lets make sure that we are consistent across the board. They may only require a bill of sale now, but I'm looking to amend that approach. I also realized that many domestic cervids had tattoos. It would just need to be mandated once the ear tag rule went into effect, as many "Big $$ "hunters" would remove the tags from their mounts ears, and the tattoo would be required to verify it was the same animal for purposes of levying a $50,000 fine.

Yep I hear what I am saying. I am saying that I want to keep the traditional ethics of my sport intact, and I want to create a distinction from those who wish to associate with me, proudly displaying some big game head that compared to me having to toil over with hard sweat equity and chance, they instead bought their way into the "club".

Sorry I want to make sure that animals taken in a fair chase manner hold a higher distinction amongst my fellow hunters. Real hunters don't need to buy their animals from a domestic slaughter operation.

The general public is lazy and will not make that distinction. Unless we as true sportsman implement measure to create an entirely distinct seperate slaughter industry not associated with true hunting, then we will be seen by the general public as condoning that type of activity. WE WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH DOMESTIC SLAUGHTER AND HIGH FENCE HUNTING THAT REPRESENTS GLUTTONY. Can I say that any clearer?

It's not ridiculous at all. It actually goes to the heart of the reason why the Average Joe Hunter will be voting the Fair Chase Measure into law this fall.

If you don't understand that logic, you really have no clue what it is ultimately about.

Ryan


----------



## R y a n

cwoparson said:


> Are we to take you as a credible and serious poster if you state you know of noone with a mounted head of any kind? Riiggghhhttttt.
> 
> 
> 
> That is so stupid it doesn't even deserve a response. You're awful quick to cut people down Ryan. I don't know you either but that doesn't mean I can't spot a @$$hole when I see one.
Click to expand...

Right cwoparson. I took your words and pointed out that your logic is suspect. If you made that statement, be prepared to back it up. Me pointing out your words to you is not cutting you down, nor does it make me an @$$hole. But you are right. Your words don't deserve a response. Let's keep the thread on topic.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> WE WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH DOMESTIC SLAUGHTER AND HIGH FENCE HUNTING THAT REPRESENTS GLUTTONY. Can I say that any clearer?


Ryan what do you think about when you see a bunch of deer hanging in a tree in people front yards, or the pictures of a ton of geese shot on a hood of a pick up, or when you come back to a hotel and see a pile of geese on a trailer or deer on the hood of a vehcile?

All of these are forms of gluttony in my book and give hunters a black eye.

I dont mind people showing off game harvested. But you also have to think about what others are thinking when they drive by. I will show anyone a buck I shot, but when I travel back home the deer you cant see unless you walk up to the pick up box. Same thing with the birds I harvest. If you want to see them they are in trailer or in the pick up box. I don't leave them on display.

Sorry I just saw this weekend about 150 geese on a trailer and they were left for two days on top of that trailer. To me that gives Hunters a bigger black eye than high fenced operations. This makes hunters look boastfull and arrogant. IMO


----------



## R y a n

Chuck Smith said:


> WE WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH DOMESTIC SLAUGHTER AND HIGH FENCE HUNTING THAT REPRESENTS GLUTTONY. Can I say that any clearer?
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan what do you think about when you see a bunch of deer hanging in a tree in people front yards, or the pictures of a ton of geese shot on a hood of a pick up, or when you come back to a hotel and see a pile of geese on a trailer or deer on the hood of a vehcile?
> 
> All of these are forms of gluttony in my book and give hunters a black eye.
> 
> I dont mind people showing off game harvested. But you also have to think about what others are thinking when they drive by. I will show anyone a buck I shot, but when I travel back home the deer you cant see unless you walk up to the pick up box. Same thing with the birds I harvest. If you want to see them they are in trailer or in the pick up box. I don't leave them on display.
> 
> Sorry I just saw this weekend about 150 geese on a trailer and they were left for two days on top of that trailer. To me that gives Hunters a bigger black eye than high fenced operations. This makes hunters look boastfull and arrogant. IMO
Click to expand...

I am in agreement with you, however this is a seperate yet similar issue, and deserves its own thread. Would you like to start a new thread that discusses that issue?

Let's keep this issue in focus and on topic. If we need to split this off we can.

Ryan


----------



## LT

*Ryan Wrote:




WE WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH DOMESTIC SLAUGHTER AND HIGH FENCE HUNTING THAT REPRESENTS GLUTTONY. Can I say that any clearer?

Click to expand...

IF THIS IS TRULY THE CASE, then WHY NOT bison??????????*


----------



## cwoparson

> Right cwoparson. I took your words and pointed out that your logic is suspect. If you made that statement, be prepared to back it up. Me pointing out your words to you is not cutting you down, nor does it make me an @$$hole. But you are right. Your words don't deserve a response. Let's keep the thread on topic.


You took it off topic, not I. Why would my logic be suspect just because I don't know anyone that has hung a trophy head? Please explain. I didn't say I never saw a trophy mount but none of my acquaintances or friends have trophy mounts. Again please explain why that is questionable. What do I need to back up? Your questioning what I say? How is that done? If you know several people with pen raised trophy head and do detest the action as you claim you do then I guess your ethics go out the window when it comes to who you want to associate with. You don't have the knowledge or right to ever question my credibility Ryan. Again Ryan, none of my acquaintances or friends have a trophy mount head. We are hunters that hunt for the sport and the meat. You may see a rack nailed to the barn door but you'll see no head mounts in any homes. You want to see this stay on topic then stop taking it off topic
.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Yes it is a little off topic but one thing that people who are for this measure keep saying is High Fence operations will be the end of hunting.I disagree.

Things like i mentioned in the post above make hunters look very poor compared to a high fence operation that is run correctly. (Large kill pen -1000+ acres, non drugged animals, etc.)


----------



## R y a n

LT said:


> *Ryan Wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH DOMESTIC SLAUGHTER AND HIGH FENCE HUNTING THAT REPRESENTS GLUTTONY. Can I say that any clearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF THIS IS TRULY THE CASE, then WHY NOT bison??????????*


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. We both know this isn't the case with elk. Bison for all intensive purposes are not an actively managed wild big game animal anymore. 80% of them live on farms as livestock, and the remaining 20% are mostly in National Parks where they are not hunted.

Remember this is ultimately about the act of the manner of the kill.

It truly is an apples to oranges comparison, even though you insist on trying to link the two....

Ryan


----------



## redlabel

R y a n said:


> LT said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ryan Wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH DOMESTIC SLAUGHTER AND HIGH FENCE HUNTING THAT REPRESENTS GLUTTONY. Can I say that any clearer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IF THIS IS TRULY THE CASE, then WHY NOT bison??????????*
> 
> 
> 
> 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. We both know this isn't the case with elk. Bison for all intensive purposes are not an actively managed wild big game animal anymore. 80% of them live on farms as livestock, and the remaining 20% are mostly in National Parks where they are not hunted.
> 
> Remember this is ultimately about the act of the manner of the kill.
> 
> It truly is an apples to oranges comparison, even though you insist on trying to link the two....
> 
> Ryan
Click to expand...

I've always thought the same about why not buffalo, so after the apples and oranges statement I did a quick google and used Elk Hunting in North Dakota and Buffalo Hunting in North Dakota.

The responses that came back sure looked about the same. One said, The ______ Ranch offering adventuresome and *authentic buffalo* hunting in a unique setting. One offered both Elk and Buffalo hunts in the same sentence which wouldn't make them apples and oranges at that place. I'm not sure what the true agenda is but it doesn't have any consistency to it.


----------



## R y a n

redlabel said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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. We both know this isn't the case with elk. Bison for all intensive purposes are not an actively managed wild big game animal anymore. 80% of them live on farms as livestock, and the remaining 20% are mostly in National Parks where they are not hunted.
> 
> Remember this is ultimately about the act of the manner of the kill.
> 
> It truly is an apples to oranges comparison, even though you insist on trying to link the two....
> 
> Ryan
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought the same about why not buffalo, so after the apples and oranges statement I did a quick google and used Elk Hunting in North Dakota and Buffalo Hunting in North Dakota.
> 
> The responses that came back sure looked about the same. One said, The ______ Ranch offering adventuresome and *authentic buffalo* hunting in a unique setting. One offered both Elk and Buffalo hunts in the same sentence which wouldn't make them apples and oranges at that place. I'm not sure what the true agenda is but it doesn't have any consistency to it.
Click to expand...

This is becoming a circular argument and might need to be spun off onto its own thread too...

I'm certain you can find fools willing to pay for an "authentic buffalo hunt", but lets not kid anyone. It is not a serious hunt, as the animals exist in herds standing out in the open on the prairie. Just because someone is willing to pay for an experience to shoot something unique to add to his wall, doesn't mean it should be treated equally. I think you understand my point.

The fact is that we have basically taken bison out of the wild. They are no longer considered wild big game, with independent free roaming herds in the wild. They have essentially become livestock.

That is why it is apples to oranges compared to elk or deer. There really is no fair chase issue with bison, because they don't exactly hide from view, nor do they present a chase, nor do they exist "on the range" except to be artificialy inserted from the feedlot over onto a piece of land for someone to have an excuse to go shoot the grazing animal where it stands with "authentic scenery" around.

I think most people intuitively know the difference.


----------



## Plainsman

> Every hunter at a preserve knows exactly what he is paying for and has no problem with it.


Those are not hunters that's why they have no problem.



> ND has an agriculture defamation bill. It has not been tested, but I think it is fair to assume the cervid industry has been defamed on this site enough to warrant a test. Theres certainly enough evidence on this site to make a case. The penalties could certainly make the sponsors of the initiative sweat a little.


Are there any other businesses that the first amendment doesn't apply to?



> Not to mention issues of free speech - can't call it "hunting"


Funny you brought free speech up, and I can't say shooting in a pen is unethical?



> preserve hunting certainly falls under the definition of the right protected by our constitutional amendment


That's just goofy.

Ryan, if people are worried about their rights, and no one has a right to tell a landowner what to do maybe we should control the hunters. Simply make it illegal for a hunter to pay to shoot an animal in North Dakota. I don't think there are any hunter defamation laws.

A defamation law, wow when are the Gestapo's coming. I see there is a meeting in the Seven Seas in Mandan with Dorgan or Contrad I don't remember which, and landowners want a permanent disaster bill. Sure thing a disaster every year. It will happen if they get that. Now I think landowner should think before defaming hunters. You want that and our support? Lucky for farmers I don't judge them all by the captive killing industry standards. Dump on us and want the public to support permanent disaster. Are there any other businesses guaranteed success or the government rescues them?


----------



## redlabel

R y a n said:


> redlabel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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. We both know this isn't the case with elk. Bison for all intensive purposes are not an actively managed wild big game animal anymore. 80% of them live on farms as livestock, and the remaining 20% are mostly in National Parks where they are not hunted.
> 
> Remember this is ultimately about the act of the manner of the kill.
> 
> It truly is an apples to oranges comparison, even though you insist on trying to link the two....
> 
> Ryan
> 
> 
> 
> I've always thought the same about why not buffalo, so after the apples and oranges statement I did a quick google and used Elk Hunting in North Dakota and Buffalo Hunting in North Dakota.
> 
> The responses that came back sure looked about the same. One said, The ______ Ranch offering adventuresome and *authentic buffalo* hunting in a unique setting. One offered both Elk and Buffalo hunts in the same sentence which wouldn't make them apples and oranges at that place. I'm not sure what the true agenda is but it doesn't have any consistency to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is becoming a circular argument and might need to be spun off onto its own thread too...
> 
> I'm certain you can find fools willing to pay for an "authentic buffalo hunt", but lets not kid anyone. It is not a serious hunt, as the animals exist in herds standing out in the open on the prairie. Just because someone is willing to pay for an experience to shoot something unique to add to his wall, doesn't mean it should be treated equally. I think you understand my point.
> 
> The fact is that we have basically taken bison out of the wild. They are no longer considered wild big game, with independent free roaming herds in the wild. They have essentially become livestock.
> 
> That is why it is apples to oranges compared to elk or deer. There really is no fair chase issue with bison, because they don't exactly hide from view, nor do they present a chase, nor do they exist "on the range" except to be artificialy inserted from the feedlot over onto a piece of land for someone to have an excuse to go shoot the grazing animal where it stands with "authentic scenery" around.
> 
> I think most people intuitively know the difference.
Click to expand...

My goodness it's hard to carry on a simple conversation when the other party insists on deviating from the original point one is trying to make. No wonder so many threads need to be split.

I was simply trying to point out that the ads are remarkably the same and therefore the experience would tend to be the same, much like an apple and an apple are the same, as opposed to your apples and oranges comment. I am making no judgement on whether or not the ad is accurate or if the hunt authentic. It is really not germaine to point I am trying to make.

Rather, the issue is, and I use your words from a previous post.

*Selling the act of the kill is what this issue is ultimately, bottom line about.*

So now, I would ask you or anyone connected with this measure, *if selling the act of the kill is the issue, why not Buffalo?* Or are they next, followed by the bird hunting preserves, followed by . . . . .


----------



## LT

[/b]Previously I posted:



> Lets revisit the terminology of this initiative:
> 
> SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:
> 
> Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited (the wording of the ballot title may be changed by the Secretary of State)
> - Penalty - Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other renumeration 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. If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective on November 1, 2010.
> 
> Now lets take a look again at the Century Code definititions:
> 
> "Domestic Animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison, farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.
> 
> "Big Game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats and animals.
> 
> "Species" includes any subspecies of WILDLIFE and any other group of WILDLIFE of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.
> 
> "Wildlife" means any member of the animal kingdom including any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead part or parts thereof. Wildlife DOES NOT INCLUDE domestic animals as defined by section 36-01-00.1 or birds or animals held in private ownership.
> 
> Now lets do the math:
> 
> big game + species = big game subspecies of wildlife
> 
> privately owned + big game + species = privately owned wildlife
> 
> privately owned wildlife = oxymoron
> 
> Big game does not include bison just as big game species does not include farmed elk or privately owned deer.


I would like to ask the sponsers of this measure does it or does it not include farmed elk/privately owned deer ACCORDING TO THE CENTURY CODE???


----------



## Plainsman

> So now, I would ask you or anyone connected with this measure, if selling the act of the kill is the issue, why not Buffalo? Or are they next, followed by the bird hunting preserves, followed by . . . . .


redlabel, that question has been asked and answered so many times that my first response is this person is simply trying to be aggravating. I'll assume that's not right, but do a search. I have answered it with very long posts in the past and don't want to spend a half hour doing it again. I would appreciate if you would do that search. Thank you.



> This initiative if pushed forward will be doing away with something that does not exist according to the North Dakota Century Code.


Good then there is nothing to worry about. No captive killing operations will be harmed, and hunters will not have the black eye that I worry about. Situation solved, and I can talk firearms which is much more interesting.


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,
I would never deny you the right to say anything you want and I expect the same right. That being able to call a hunt a hunt. There is no legal definition to the word "hunt". I stated preserve hunts certainly fall under the definition as put forth in the NDCC pertaining to the right to hunt in ND. HOwever ND does have a law to protect ag from defamation of their business. WE have seen people smeer ag products in the past and it has cost the producer $$$ even though the comments are entirely false. I think a case could be made that the cervid industry has been defamed and could certainly result in large $$$ losses to the industry, in fact it has been stated pretty clearly here - that is the intent. Law calls for upto triple damages be paid to the defamed party. Some thing to think about. You certainly have the right to say what you want but some "free" speech does have consequences. (yelling fire in a theater) Free speech that is groundless and damaging to others can hit your pocket book.


----------



## Plainsman

There is a big difference in defaming or slandering someone and taking the legal route to change things. I see your defame scenario as simply a threat. I am surprised you would threaten people when the ag bill is up for a vote, and some want a permanent disaster bill. Would it be defaming for me to call Conrads office and tell him if farmers get it them everyone should. Have you ever heard the old cliche "don't bite the hand that feeds you". 
Today's farming has become so convoluted that much of it is out of the farmers hands. If he is to survive some protection must be given by society. I for one am much more willing to help people who are pleasant, but not those who threaten. 
Is it defaming to say ethanol is a farce? Is it defaming to say shooting animals in pens is unethical. This is America not Russia. All you have managed to do is destroy my sympathy for you. I would guess a lot of sympathy from a lot of people just went away.



> WE have seen people smeer ag products in the past and it has cost the producer $$$ even though the comments are entirely false.


That sounds like a bill designed to shove genetic engineered crops down our throat whether we want them or not. Some people are afraid of these things, but your going to make them eat it right? I see Europe is fighting that right now.

There are many stupid laws in all states. I see Vintners Cellar in Fargo and Bismarck are threatened because they don't have a required amount of North Dakota ag products. For wine? I am sorry, but that is stupid. Then they need to sell a required percentage of North Dakota products. The problem is most people going into a store for wine don't want the North Dakota products. However, because of the brilliance of our legislature they may put people out of business. Any sympathy for them? Many of the ag laws are simply meant to hold North Dakota residence hostage.

If a grocery store wants to import milk from Minnesota they can't. Leevers was shut down from doing this. Good for the consumer, but not good for the North Dakota dairy. What happened to personal freedom? How about the consumer? It's ok to think about our farmers, but not only our farmers. I don't think this is a can of worms you want to open. Our political leaders should be thinking about all of us. Think about this: is there a federal law that says we can't import? On a national scale they think about the consumer.


----------



## barebackjack

R y a n said:


> It is not a serious hunt, as the animals exist in herds standing out in the open on the prairie.
> 
> The fact is that we have basically taken bison out of the wild. They are no longer considered wild big game, with independent free roaming herds in the wild. They have essentially become livestock.


Ummm, and where were the bison standing 150 years ago? In herds out in the open on the prairie perhaps?

If you dont consider bison wild anymore, why dont you consider farm raised elk the same? Just because they have members of their specie that are still wild doesnt mean they themselves are "wild". I mean, come one, farm raised elk with many generations in the pen are essentially....livestock.


----------



## Plainsman

> I mean, come one, farm raised elk with many generations in the pen are essentially....livestock.


So why don't these fine sportsmen and women who shoot captive elk pay to shoot cows?

Lest anyone misunderstand my post to 4590 I will explain. My theory is that everyone has a more comfortable life because of each other. The comfort we enjoy we perhaps owe to many thousands of people. We all owe each other, but at times many people forget that. Unfortunately all of us sometimes focus on what we don't have and forget to be thankful for what we do have.
In that light is why I asked 4590 why he would be threatening a person over their opinions while expecting support for the new farm bill. I posted that not only as a reminder of how the citizens of North Dakota support their farmers, but to expose the willingness of a small handful of people to damage that support for thousands of fellow landowners. 
There are many laws in this state that people tolerate for the good of their neighbors that may not stand exposure to the constitution. Not appreciating your neighbor isn't the way to maintain support. I appreciate landowners, and many of my posts are simply an effort to shock some into thinking and coming to a conclusion that will perhaps allow them to appreciate us. 
We are not long on this earth and should appreciate our time, and our neighbors. At the same time we owe those who follow us the same privileges we have enjoyed. When it comes to right or wrong there is no fence riding. Your either part of the solution or part of the problem, and apathy is part of the problem. We each develop a set of standards we live by. You know, things like don't kick a man when he is down, don't hit a woman, don't kick a friendly dog, don't bit the hand that feeds you, don't turn you back on the needy, don't shoot an animal helpless on ice, or with it's antlers tangled in a fence, or helpless to escape inside a fence, etc etc etc. 
I would guess money is at the root of this problem as it is with many. I have a hard time remembering the name of people, but I remember a song I like. The words go: It's just a piece of paper that says in God we trust, a little sure feels good, a lot is not enough, but your not the one I'll walk with in the end, you are not my God. Some country songs have a good message.


----------



## cwoparson

You know Plainsman what you just wrote could have just as easily been written by someone of the opposition with the same convictions using their opinion and it would apply to their position just as well as yours. They would be just as right in their opinion as you feel you are. Don't lose sight of the fact it is a two way street and both sides may very well be right. As you well know a true democratic society is one that lives under the umbrella of compromise for the benefit of all, not the cover of domination to benefit a few.


----------



## Plainsman

cwoparson said:


> You know Plainsman what you just wrote could have just as easily been written by someone of the opposition with the same convictions using their opinion and it would apply to their position just as well as yours. They would be just as right in their opinion as you feel you are. Don't lose sight of the fact it is a two way street and both sides may very well be right. As you well know a true democratic society is one that lives under the umbrella of compromise for the benefit of all, not the cover of domination to benefit a few.


That's so close to right I wasn't going to argue. However, some of it could have been written by the opposition and some could not. I don't think they would accept my values on when not to shoot animals. I do agree that they have a right to their opinion, but so do you, and so do I. I only hope that in the end I am more convincing.

My problem isn't the guy raising the elk or deer. My problem is the act of pulling the trigger on an animal that can not escape. Does anyone have a better solution to stop that? I'm willing to listen.

So CW can we agree on half a point for your post?


----------



## Turner

Pulling the trigger on an animal that is behind a fence and pulling the trigger on animal at 800yrds in a free range environment still results in the same thing, the animal dies. A portion of the non hunting public and all of the antis are against one thing, that end result, the animal's death. You (Plainsman) do not think it's ethical to shoot animals in a fenced in environment, but you say it's ethical to shoot animals at 800yrds, shoot them with an arrow (you know how they die), or leave an animal in snare or leg trap for a day or two before the trapper shows up with a club if the animal hasn't chewed their leg off&#8230; you know the end result. What you are doing by using the argument of ethics to ban a form of killing animals is the same argument the antis will and have been using against us free range hunters. Now you are going to counter their argument and say they can't use ethics against us free range hunters and trappers because we are playing fair before we killed that animal. It's almost like you want play tag with the antis and then call no tag backs. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

It's interesting how folks bring up the things they don't like, then ask why we are not doing something about that. Hey, I'm not going to do everything for you. I am focused on one thing right now. If there is something you don't like do something about it. What, is everyone supposed to do it for you?

Road hunters, baiters, long range, to short of a range, not a big enough gun, to big of a gun, yada yada yada. If you don't like something don't whine do something. From what I have seen so far some people use what they think is an unethical method to justify not doing anything about a truely unethical method. If you have a problem with something you know what you have to do or get off the pot.

We either police our ranks or society will do it for us. Believe me, I think we will be a lot easier on ourselves than the anti hunters will be on us. But no, some want to just sit and fiddle while Rome burns. Then one day they will wake up and ask what happened.


----------



## LT

Me thinks this site has CWD: www.northdakotafairchase.com


----------



## Plainsman

This is the first thing I see:



> "Voluntary adherence to an ethical code elevates the self-respect of the sportsman, but it should not be forgotten that voluntary disregard of the code degenerates and depraves him." Aldo Leopold, "A Sand County Almanac", 1949. Oxford University Press, New York.


So a nationally respected naturalist author is brain infected? I think you just helped me out. Thanks. By the way, have you ever read Sand County Almanac?


----------



## huntin1

I actually don't care how you kill the animal, use whatever means you deem appropriate. *BUT DON'T CALL IT HUNTING*

I said it in an earlier post, guys that are for high fence killing call it hunting one minute and on the farm slaughter of domestic livestock the next.

Elkman, in your written code you use the words "hunt", "hunter" and "hunting" in several places. Remove all references with hunting and call it what it is and your written code would pass in my opinion. Not that my opinion matters.

For me that is the crux of this issue, call it what it is, the slaughter of domestic livestock and find some way to permenantly mark the cape and antlers as a farm raised and slaughtered animal and I'll jump the fence and switch to your side.

In other words, regulate your own industry.

huntin1


----------



## cwoparson

huntin1 said:


> I actually don't care how you kill the animal, walk up to it and smack it between the eyes with a ball peen hammer if you want. *BUT DON'T CALL IT HUNTING*I


hunt·ing (hntng)
n.
1. The activity or sport of pursuing game.
2. The act of conducting a search for something: house hunting.

Just because you say so does not change what something is. Whether you like it or not, it is hunting.


----------



## huntin1

cwoparson said:


> huntin1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually don't care how you kill the animal, walk up to it and smack it between the eyes with a ball peen hammer if you want. *BUT DON'T CALL IT HUNTING*I
> 
> 
> 
> hunt·ing (hntng)
> n.
> 1. The activity or sport of pursuing game.
> 2. The act of conducting a search for something: house hunting.
> 
> Just because you say so does not change what something is. Whether you like it or not, it is hunting.
Click to expand...

Aaahh, but your side is claiming it is no longer game, it is domestically raised livestock. Raised for the purpose of slaughter.

huntin1


----------



## LT

Depending on the dictitionary, some also have the definition:

To pursue until caught or killed (no mention of game).


----------



## elkman

CW
You are right in the fact the people using a high fence facility are hunting, hunting by definition of the dictionary but just not the type of hunting as defined by fellows on this post who believe they have the moral ground with their type of hunt or harvest. Like I said in my post above, no matter if I called it commercial slaughter the client still felt he was hunting. It just shows there is a great many differences in people and their ethics.

I find the post that you can kill a animal with a hammer because he doesn't care how you kill the animal just don't call it hunting to be disturbing and does shows a lack of respect and humane treatment to that animal.

If this iniatitive truly is about the words hunting or slaughter this is a stupid arguement. There was no reason to hurt and cripple this industry if all you wanted was a word change in the advertizing of the product. I believe even if the elk and deer industry had called it ranch slaughter from the begining there still would be an initiative of some kind to force your will on a minority group which this elk and deer industry is.

Just my opinion. Good hunting boys.


----------



## huntin1

elkman said:


> I find the post that you can kill a animal with a hammer because he doesn't care how you kill the animal just don't call it hunting to be disturbing and does shows a lack of respect and humane treatment to that animal.


Alright so that wasn't the greatest example to use, I'll edit that part out. My point is you guys can't have it both ways. You either have high fence hunting operations or you are offering domestically raised livestock for slaughter.

Which is it?

huntin1


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,

My post was not meant to be a threat. If it made you uncomfortable, so be it. I simply stated the fact ND has an ag defamation law. Its sole purpose is to offer ag producers a means of recourse if their business is harmed by unfounded statements that are intended to do such harm. An example was the Allar scare some years that caused apple producers big bucks. I think we would all agree there have been many statements made on the site which would fall into this category. Since the cervid industry qualifies as livestock production, I am quite certain those sponsoring the initiative and attatch their name to any propaganda that hits the public, if this goes to a vote, will find the need for a lawyer. Call it a bad law if you wish, but fact is the ND legislature saw fit to protect producers from those who would unjustly try to destroy their business.


----------



## Plainsman

> unjustly


The key word being unjustly. I think if a person sticks to what he believes he is safe. Also, we are going through the proper procedures. It's something we don't like. I think we are entitled to that opinion.

You disappointed me more than made me uncomfortable. At one time I was sympathetic to your plight. I'm sure you will understand that has been destroyed. I still sympathise with those who are civilized.


----------



## LT

*Previously I asked:




I would like to ask the sponsers of this measure does it or does it not include farmed elk/privately owned deer ACCORDING TO THE CENTURY CODE???

Click to expand...

I do not know why this is so hard to answer when we are told that Bison are not included as they are not "big game" according to the century code. *


----------



## LT

_The proponents of high fence shooting operations offer up two arguments to support fencing deer, elk and exotics inside escape proof enclosures, shooting the animals, and calling it hunting.

The first argument the high fence operators invoke: They make money.

The second argument: Property rights, or as one high fence operator said, "It's my property and I'll do with it as I dammed well please."

That right is asserted based on supposition and is not based on fact or law. Society decides what people do with their property. If in doubt, ask Michael Vick. Vick fought dogs that were his private property. Vick and his cronies fought those dogs on private property that Michael Vick owned. You may write to Mister Vick in care of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. Perhaps Mr. Vick will take time out of his busy schedule to explain property rights to high fence operators in North Dakota._

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

How can this be compared to something illegal. Mr. Vick is sitting in jail BECAUSE HE DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL.

This should really appeal to HSUS and bring in LOTS of support from them.

http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/ba ... rth_Dakota


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,

I have been reading your posts for some time now and sympathy for the cervid industry has not been something that comes through very clearly. Having sympathy for a business you are trying to destroy seem pretty ironic.

I am not sure why you have reacted to my recent posts so strongly. I simply responded to a question regarding legal ramifications to this measure should it pass. You are nieve if you think producers will roll over and allow their business to be taken away with out a legal battle. I think the legal issues raised are valid and would be persued. I seriously doubt if proponents of the initiative have really considered they could in some way be incriminated for defamation, but seems raising the posibility did get a reaction, at least from you. If all the rhetoric that has been thrown at the industry can be backed with hard facts and science, then you should have no worries. BUT!!!!!!!!!!!

Prime example: the ND cervid industry has been implicated as a CWD carrying and spreading industry. FACT: after some 9 years of mandatory testing and literally thousands of samples submitted, still no CWD found. Sounds a little defamatory to me.


----------



## cwoparson

Using Michael Vick as a argument against property owners is one of the dumbest things put out even yet. But even more eye opening is all those posts that swear that this is only a North Dakota matter and it won't affect anyone else, yet court rulings from Montana are used as a base of support against property owners. Which side of the mouth will speak today?


----------



## Plainsman

> Having sympathy for a business you are trying to destroy seem pretty ironic.


I don't have sympathy for the business, I have sympathy for the families that will loose income. The fact is I have mixed feelings. I would guess some are good people that got sucked in for the big, fast, easy buck. Others may have simply enjoyed raising wild animals. Some may even feel uneasy about someone shooting those animals they raised. I don't know these people, and if you took 100 of them I suppose I would have varying thoughts about them. I would perhaps have about 100 different ideas about them, ranging from nice people to lowlifes, which may be about average for any group of 100 people. Then I would guess there are a few like the guy in Minnesota who sold the black bear family pet as a hunt.



> I am not sure why you have reacted to my recent posts so strongly.


For the same reason I didn't much like the class bully. If the law passes you will be trying to defend an illegal activity. I guess I better step up the effort. The more you say things like this the more I realize this practice has to end. It's worse than I thought.


----------



## cwoparson

> For the same reason I didn't much like the class bully. If the law passes you will by trying to defend an illegal activity.


Abortion was illegal until it was defended and became legal. I believe I've heard you say you are against abortion so if abortion becomes illegal again will you become a bully? Pretty strong word to use against someone just because they disagree with you. Especially since they are at present defending something that is legal. Seems to me these conversations are a lot more digestible and enjoyable when the group classifications and name calling is left out.


----------



## Plainsman

> Abortion was illegal until it was defended and became legal. I believe I've heard you say you are against abortion so if abortion becomes illegal again will you become a bully?


Sorry, I'm not following that. Maybe I haven't had enough caffeine yet. It is legal now, and I am not being a bully about it. If it became illegal why would I be pushy then? I would just sit back content.



> Seems to me these conversations are a lot more digestible and enjoyable when the group classifications and name calling is left out.


Agree, I just get my dander up when someone starts talking about suing over opinions. Threatening people has no place on open form. I will not even advocate that type of approach in PM's. Take it to a meeting, take it to an attorney, do it somewhere else. I feel like I have to put up with it, but don't ever do it to anyone else.

OK, CW lets try a different tact. People keep telling each other what the issue is. Some say it's an ethics issue, and others say it's a landowner rights issues, and still others say it's a disease issue. Do you agree that it's different issues for different people? If one is true, does it make the others invalid? No right or wrong answer, just trying to understand.


----------



## LT

_Within months of the passage of I-143, game farm operators began challenging the new laws by suing the State of Montana and Fish, Wildlife and Parks; eleven (11) cases to-date. Montana Wildlife Federation has intervened in each of the cases to defend the initiative, the will of the people (voters), and the interests of ethical, conservation minded hunters, wildlife enthusiasts, and in the interest of healthy, wild, free-ranging public wildlife. _

http://www.montanawildlife.com/newslett ... arming.doc

_A sportsmen's group called MADCOW - Montanans against the Domestication and Commercialization of Wildlife - drafted a ballot initiative, I-143, that if passed will effectively throttle the elk-ranching industry here.

The initiative was supported from the beginning by the Montana Wildlife Federation, Montana Bowhunters Association, and Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society, a group that represents professional wildlife biologists. MADCOW volunteers collected over 29,000 signatures on their petition to place I-143 on the ballot, almost 10,000 more than is required by law._

http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article ... e_id=10031

Here in North Dakota I believe the North Dakota Wildlife Federation is just using a new vehicle called the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.

http://www.ndwf.org/contactus.asp

The North Dakota Wildlife Federation is part of the National Wildlife Federation, which is part of a national steering committee.

http://www.teaming.com/about/

I find it interesting that the pictures are now gone from the fair chase site that were the EXACT same pictures that were on the site of www.real-hunters.com, and I believe this site is run by the National Wildlife Federation. This site is now down as was the fair chase site yesterday when I posted it had CWD. Now why would the Fair Chase site have the same pictures as a site run by the NWF?

It sounds like the same scenario as in Montana. They are using the guise of a "concerned" sportsmen group as the vehicle for the Wildlife Federation.

Ask yourself how many of the sponsers/supporters are members of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation and also biologists and ex-biologists that worked for the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Ask yourself how many of these same people are using this very same message forum?

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/staff/index.htm

Go through the list of sponsers, find out who they are.

The night of the Jamestown meeting we were told by one guy he was just a "concerned" sportsmen when the moderator asked him to identify himself. What he did not want us to know is that he works with the Wildlife Research Center in Jameston as a research wildlife biologist. And there were others who were also there. They never identified themselves, never drew attention to themselves, and they did not sit together.

We were told the night of the meeting that Mr. Lloyd Jones was retired game and fish, but what we were not told is that he is a refuge coordinator with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

I am not saying that federal employees cannot be involved in something they believe in like anyone else, but I start to ask myself WHY and WHAT is going on here. Is this REALLY about ethics? What is the REAL agenda?

By the way Plainsman, could you be Bruce Hanson, retired research biologist with the Wildlife Research Center in Jamestown?


----------



## Plainsman

> Here in North Dakota I believe the North Dakota Wildlife Federation is just using a new vehicle called the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.


I don't think so, but when they needed one last sponsor I stepped up to the plate. I hope one of the other guys will step in here and answer this. I really doubt that is true. I know three or four of the sponsors, and they are farmers, biologists, I think an attorney ------ but what does that have to do with it? The only binding link is we are all concerned hunters. If you want to know their concerns you will have to ask each of them.



> They never identified themselves, never drew attention to themselves, and they did not sit together.


Why would they sit together? They have friends beyond work you know. I can only speak for myself, but I would never identify myself by where I worked, because this is personal, and has nothing to do with work. Your just trying to find a back door for revenge. Look at the makeup of the measure sponsors, it's a variety of North Dakotans. All the rest just muddies the water.

If you noticed my last post I tried to change the tone of the debate. I believed it had become simply argumentative and not very productive. I have tried explain my thoughts, and simply been asked the same thing a few posts later. Example: how many times have I answered "how about buffalo". I finally got smart enough to save it in word and PM it to people.

The only reason I keep coming back to this thread is to try correct some of the incorrect remarks. I notice it is only pro, or anti here anymore. That serves no purpose to me, and only angers the pro captive killing operators. Maybe I am just beating my head on the wall. If no neutral people that I could convince are reading this anymore it's adios for me. It's no fun playing with angry people.


----------



## cwoparson

> If it became illegal why would I be pushy then? I would just sit back content.


Point is you would defend a legal law making something illegal. That would not make you a bully anymore than it would make someone a bully for defending high fence hunting if made illegal by a legal law.



> Some say it's an ethics issue, and others say it's a landowner rights issues, and still others say it's a disease issue. Do you agree that it's different issues for different people? If one is true, does it make the others invalid?


That's a loaded question with no real yes or no answer. Yes to the question it is true it is a different issue for different people. No, to the question if one is true does it make the other invalid. All of the different opinions/issues can be true. What it would boil down to is just how much infringement does one issue invade the other issue.

Here is what I'm seeing as a NR reading this forum. The supporters of this petition have posted about meetings taking place and how things are going. But several people that were also at these meetings have reported that the reports are exaggerated and in some cases certain actions did not take place. Example is, oh well the offer was after the meeting not during the meeting. I think you know what I'm talking about. So everything is not as rosy as some would like everyone to believe. I don't think anyone can put a lock on whether the bill if it gets on the ballot will or will not pass.

As a outside observer and looking at past experience, I feel safe in saying that if the bill is passed by the voters it will immediately be challenged and taken to court. Most likely a moratorium will be put in place and it will not even be allowed to become law if ever, until all court cases are ruled on. Then one has to ask the question as to who will be better equipped to go into court with lawyers and money? Will it be the sponsors of the bill or the industry they are trying to shut down? Remember what Yogi Berra said, "its not over till the fat lady sings".

I think those that think this issue will go away in several months are sadly mistaken.


----------



## Plainsman

I don't know anything about the meeting, but the other things you say are about right. Now what do we debate? That's good though, I have been missing the political and firearms forms. I think I have made all my thoughts clear. I hate to use old cliche's, but the horse has been dead for a long long time.


----------



## 4590

Plainsman,



> For the same reason I didn't much like the class bully


Bruce, so the ND cervid industry was just minding its own business, not harming anyone, and then the fair chase folks come along and decide we need to put these folks out of business, and WE are the bullies? Go figure!

I think if you were honest, you might admit that for the first time you realized this whole defamation issue might implicate you in a liability you had not expected. At the very least you may get stuck with some legal bills. No different than when you suggest that preserve owners can say good bye to their investment.

ND has legislation on the books to protect livestock producers from anyone who would try to destroy their business by defamation. The fact that I stated this is not bullying but only suggesting that producers will use every legal means to protect what is theirs. It is no different than the fair chase group using the initiative as a legal means (though I believe a very ill advised method), to get what they want.


----------



## FreeIndeed

The elk/deer industry has been intentionally defamed many, many times by those out collecting signatures at sports shows. A family member of mine has had a booth near the ND Hunters for Fair Chase twice now and has heard the bold lies told and witnessed the scare tactics used to gather signatures. I think the defamation suit potentail is quite real.


----------



## prairie hunter

Stated on the other thread.

Shooting penned big game is the equivalent of paying a prostitute for sex.


----------



## g/o

> Shooting penned big game is the equivalent of paying a prostitute for sex.


Not even close to the same thing, talking a human life versus an animal. You guys really need to come up with something better than that :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:    :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## prairie hunter

> Not even close to the same thing, talking a human life versus an animal. You guys really need to come up with something better than that


taking a human life :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: where did I say that??

I am talking about the John. Paying for something he cannot get otherwise    [/quote]


----------



## LT

All of this talk does not matter; what matters is the wording on this initiative is bad. You want fair chase, well what about fair chance. Lets make the playing field even and word the initiative correctly so people can make a decision based on the FACTS. Some are trying to put an industry out of business by using unethical means using the guise of describing what a hunt is or isn't. First they tried CWD, now its fair chase, what next. What is the agenda here?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Lets revisit the terminology of this initiative:

SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited (the wording of the ballot title may be changed by the Secretary of State) 
- Penalty - Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other renumeration 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. If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective on November 1, 2010.

Now lets take a look again at the Century Code definititions:

"Domestic Animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison, farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.

"Big Game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats and animals.

"Species" includes any subspecies of WILDLIFE and any other group of WILDLIFE of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.

"Wildlife" means any member of the animal kingdom including any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead part or parts thereof. Wildlife DOES NOT INCLUDE domestic animals as defined by section 36-01-00.1 or birds or animals held in private ownership.

Now lets do the math:

big game + species = big game subspecies of wildlife

privately owned + big game + species = privately owned wildlife

privately owned wildlife = oxymoron

Big game does not include bison just as big game species does not include farmed elk or privately owned deer

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This initiative if pushed forward will be doing away with something that does not exist according to the North Dakota Century Code.

Why would you want to push this initiative through with this wording, unless you felt that is the only way you could appeal to the voters. They are trying to FOOL the voters into passing this. Let's level the playing field here and use the correct terminology.

All this is going to do, if this goes through, is immediately get taken to court as they cannot legally enforce it, and then who knows where the battle will go from there. It is going to cost a lot of dollars on both sides, taxpayer dollars as well, AND I BELIEVE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT, CIRCUMVENT THE VOTERS TO GET THEIR WAY, GET IT INTO COURT, AND THEN FIGHT IT OUT USING THE BIG DOLLARS.

*NORTH DAKOTA SUPPORTER OF FAIR CHANCE*


----------



## LT

Dick Monson Wrote:



> DG, then you have nothing to worry about. You get what you pay for in legal work.


Yep, Mr. Munson just kept telling us all how sound the wording was, even the night of the Jamestown meeting we got to hear about the wording being ABSOLUTELY sound.

I believe this was all a very well thought out plan. I guess you do get what you pay for in legal work!


----------



## elkman

LT said:


> I believe this was all a very well thought out plan. I guess you do get what you pay for in legal work!


LT
You can believe this plan is well thought out. Remove any major source of income from any business and that business will fail. They learned this move from the Montana fair chase hunter, heritage initiative. It was admitted in court by the initiative sponcers that was the reason for the ban on captive killing. It would destroy the industry but would not be considered a takings as you left the elk or deer rancher with his animals and land.

Eighty five of the one hundred elk ranchers that were in business in Montana are now out of business from the initiative which ruined the business and made a livestock animal which was raised for food into just pets.

No one who cares about the humane harvesting of these animals can dispute that on farm harvesting of these animals is the most humane method of killing these animals.


----------



## LT

Elkman,

I believe we can look at what happened in Montana and learn from it. That is why I posted the previous post about the National Wildlife Federation's involvement. If I am correct, HSUS also contributed money to this fight. I have some info on this (but not in hand) and will be getting back later with that. Do you know anything about that?


----------



## elkman

LT,
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation gave sixty five thousand to the initiative but I don't believe the HSUS was a contributor at that time. The Wildlife Federation was a main source of money.


----------



## LT

One thing that has been mentioned time and time again is that there is no other market for elk, like OF COURSE there is for buffalo meat and that is why it is okay to hunt buffalo in a high fence. The elk industry, I believe, is starting to market more meat. The operation I know makes the BEST elk summer sausage. It is better than any beef I have tasted.

Another thing that is not true is that the majority of people that come to these farms only take the antlers/head. The operator I know has about 95-98% taking their meat, except for the ones that just cannot haul it back with them, and even then the meat never goes to waste, it is used by the operator or he gives it away.


----------



## .308w

So what would happen to these elk if this passes? A rancher can only eat so much , I've never heard of an elk packing plant? And if he did take it there would he have to shoot it himself? Perhaps the owner would just turn the elk loose since he really can't do anything with them , then would their be more elk tags?


----------



## LT

> Shooting penned big game is the equivalent of paying a prostitute for sex.


I think any of you that believe this should ask your wives or girlfriends if they would rather have you visit a prostitute or go on a high fence hunt.

Ask Senator Connie Triplett what she thought of this comparison last year at the legislative session.


----------



## g/o

> Ask Senator Connie Triplett what she thought of this comparison last year at the legislative session.


That was a classic :lol: :lol:


----------



## elkman

.308w said:


> So what would happen to these elk if this passes? A rancher can only eat so much , I've never heard of an elk packing plant? And if he did take it there would he have to shoot it himself? Perhaps the owner would just turn the elk loose since he really can't do anything with them , then would their be more elk tags?


.308w,
The elk industry people would eventually have to sell their animals at a loss like the Montana elk industry did after the initiative passed. The expense of feeding and care would continue on these animals till they were sold. The elk producer would be forced to sell at a loss to recover some of the money invested in this business.

Someone said on this thread there really isn't a established meat slaughter facilities much less a meat market at this time. In time a established meat market could have been made. This market would have given the consumer a more healthy heart smart meat for the public to consume.

This initiative if passed will kill this new thriving business and for what hunter ego or terms used that offend the hunting community. Was there no other way to handle this fair chase issue? As stated before the MORAL ETHICS of the Montana fair chase people were shown to be just what they were in Montana courts by their own statement. Remember Montana fair chase people said when questioned by the judge it was an attempt to kill the industry without a takings case for the elk industry. This was the agenda the fair chase people used to shut down the Montana industry and it looks like it is the same agenda to me in North Dakota.

The animals can never be left loose as the elk producer would be held liable if the animals were released.


----------



## jhegg

I haven't been here for as while. Coming back. what do I see? The entire page 6 of this forum is posted by the "game farm hunting :eyeroll: uke: industry - headed by our own independant g/o "g/o" himself. If I didn't feel like "puking" before, I sure do now!

Why is it that those who stand to make a profit by any means are disturbed when others say "that is not ethical"? Easy answer - they stand to lose money - and money gained by any means is OK. Hell - what is the definition of economical development to these people anyway? It is: Anyway I can make money is OK!

Jim Heggeness


----------



## LT

So Mr. Heggeness:

Do you think it is ethical to try to push this initiative through the way it is worded, just because YOU AND OTHERS do not think this is ethical??? Not everyone agrees on what is ethical, but at least let the voters make that decision on a level playing field based on facts, not just emotion.

I totally disagree with you that killing an elk/deer this way is unethical just as you can disagree with me that it is not, but at least lets not smear this industry and present this initiative in a manner that it deceives people as to what they will be voting on.

Some people thought that killing horses was unethical, so now you cannot slaughter them.

How about killing BISON in a high fence; do you not think that is unethical then?

Some people think that killing an animal is unethical.

Yes, people that have worked HARD and SPENT a lot of money on their industry that was introduced to them by their OWN STATE are going to get upset when someone is trying to take that away from them.


----------



## huntin1

LT said:


> One thing that has been mentioned time and time again is that there is no other market for elk, like OF COURSE there is for buffalo meat and that is why it is okay to hunt buffalo in a high fence. The elk industry, I believe, is starting to market more meat. The operation I know makes the BEST elk summer sausage. It is better than any beef I have tasted.


No other market for elk............hmmm, after a 30 second search:

Cabela's Smoked Meats



> Add the distinct flavor of the high country to a festive holiday meal with a sumptuous *Elk Roast.* Hickory smoked and bacon wrapped, these palate-pleasing roasts are sure to make your guest's eyes twinkle and tummies rumble. Not spiral sliced. 2-1/2 lbs.


If Cabela's markets it I am pretty sure others do as well, so your "no other markets" arguement is just spin.

Remember this from an earlier post?



huntin1 said:


> For me that is the crux of this issue, call it what it is, the slaughter of domestic livestock and find some way to permenantly mark the cape and antlers as a farm raised and slaughtered animal and I'll jump the fence and switch to your side.
> 
> In other words, regulate your own industry.


I meant what I said. Do the above and I'll switch sides.

As it is all I see is whining by those opposed to this measure.

huntin1


----------



## LT

*huntin1 wrote*



> Add the distinct flavor of the high country to a festive holiday meal with a sumptuous Elk Roast. Hickory smoked and bacon wrapped, these palate-pleasing roasts are sure to make your guest's eyes twinkle and tummies rumble. Not spiral sliced. 2-1/2 lbs.
> 
> If Cabela's markets it I am pretty sure others do as well, so your "no other markets" arguement is just spin.


Previously I said: One thing that has been mentioned time and time again is that there is no other market for elk. I was not talking about me saying there was no market.

I am not trying to spin anything. I noticed that SUPPORTERS of the initiative have said that there is no market for elk meat, that there is for buffalo and that is WHY IT IS OKAY TO SHOOT BUFFALO IN A HIGH FENCE.

You just made my point. The market is being DEVELOPED. My point being if it is okay to shoot BISON BEHIND HIGH FENCES BECAUSE THERE IS A MARKET FOR THE MEAT, THEN WHY NOT ELK. Everyone has been basically saying that these animals are just shot as a TROPHY. WRONG.


----------



## elkman

These hard working elk and deer families have invested in a business dream of raising elk and deer with their life savings and now a group of people try to take it away on their personal high ethical morals which they claim are better. I would bet if these same ethical moral people had their own family's life savings and a business in jeopardy of being stolen from just a difference of opinion on ethics wouldn't also try to fight the people that were trying to remove their business dream and way of life.

As a Montana man that was put out of the elk and deer business by this type of thinking I have nothing but moral outrage for the lack of true ethics shown by these people to their fellow man. True ethical people don't try to sneak into the back door to damage or elliminate an industry. Elk and deer people who were encouraged by their government to move into diversity of the family farm to compete in the farming market are now left out in the cold if this initiative passes.

True ethical people who believed the keeping of elk and deer was wrong should have advanced a ethical way to eliminate the industry with real issues and compensation not this emotional fair chase crap on animals that are raised for food and slaughtered humanely.

On farm slaughter is the most humane method of harvesting any livestock raised for consumption.


----------



## Dick Monson

There are hard working families in every walk of life. That trait isn't confined to game farming. Those who support pubilc wildlife and public hunting work as hard as anyone else.

It is stunning to hear how the Fair Chase Measure would put the industry out of business when the game farm industry said there were so few involved in it. ?????????? Now all of a sudden they are all dependent on canned kill? The numbers do not bear out that arguement.

Unethical backdoor manuver? That is why this industry switched to Dept. Of Ag oversight and redefined wildlife as domestic livestock.  Pretty smooth.



> On farm slaughter is the most humane method of harvesting any livestock raised for consumption.


There is no probition against on farm slaughter, just who pulls the trigger. This Fair Chase Measure only prohibits selling the act of the kill.


----------



## LT

Pretty smooth; WOW. What is smooth is trying to fool the voters. Mr. Munson, are they included or not included in big game species, just as BUFFALO are not included in big game. Why not JUST SAY this will eliminate the fee killing of FARMED ELK? Let the people make a decision based on facts.

This was not done in some SMOOTH way to deceive anyone when they were switched over to BOAH. It was done because these are domestic animals and privately owned JUST LIKE BISON, an industry you are now trying to destroy with backdoor maneuvering. An industry set up by the STATE. Why should they be classified as wildlife; wildlife is owned as a public domain; so you are saying these animals are OWNED by the public.

AGAIN, TELL ME WHY IT IS OKAY TO HUNT BISON IN A HIGH FENCE????

Your definition of SMOOTH is about like your definition of IMMEDIATELY.


----------



## LT

*Munson wrote:*



> There is no probition against on farm slaughter, just who pulls the trigger. This Fair Chase Measure only prohibits selling the act of the kill.


Am wondering why I would want to take your word for this as we were ASSURED previously by you that the wording was sound on this measure (as we now know it is not), we were told that someone immediately jumped up and offered free hunts but you then told us it happened the next day, and now you are trying to tell us that these privately owned domesticated animals were SMOOTHLY moved over to BOAH. I am supposed to take you for your word!! The rest of the wording on this measure is questionable at best.


----------



## jhegg

LT.
I looked up your posts and found that all are in opposition to any regulation of the method of killing by the so called "game farm" industry. As you know - or should know - I am not opposed to the legitiment raising of elk, deer, etc, for the meat. I am opposed to the "selling" of the same as "Trophy" animals under the guise of a legitimate hunt. Just what about my beliefs do you not understand?
Jim Heggeness

ps: My name is actually Jim Heggeness, I live in Fargo and work for American Crystal Sugar Co. What is your vocation? Who do you work for?


----------



## LT

So, your point is? I told you I can disagree with you just as you can disagree with me!! But you never answered me, "Do you think it is ethical to push this initiative forward, allow the voters to think that they are voting on wildlife captured and placed in a fence, and then come to find out that the initiative could not even be enforced?" What do you think the voters are going to feel about wasting their tax dollars on this?

I do not own an elk/deer farm. I am just someone concerned about our property rights, and VERY MUCH DISTURBED BY TACTICS USED AT THE JAMESTOWN MEETING AND HERE.

I also can say with all certainty I DO NOT WORK FOR PETA or HSUS which I am not sure I can say about you.

http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/ba ... tives.html


----------



## cwoparson

> I haven't been here for as while. Coming back. what do I see? The entire page 6 of this forum is posted by the "game farm hunting industry - headed by our own independant g/o "g/o" himself. If I didn't feel like "puking" before, I sure do now!


I see two post by G/O on page 6 prior to your little rant and all he said in one post was "That was classic". The other post was just two lines with not much of any content. Does this mean you're back to the G/O bashing of the past or just that you're going to puke a lot? Some things never change.


----------



## jhegg

LT.



> I also can say with all certainty I DO NOT WORK NOT FOR PETA or HSUS which I am not sure I can say about you.


What you see is what you get. I have no ties with PETA, HSUS. or any other protectionist organization.

I do have ties to what I feel are "fair chase" ethics regarding the hunting of wild game. Obviously, you do not. Yes. I think it is fair to allow the voting population of ND to express their opinion on this issue.

I poste dthis comment on a recent forum.


> OK. Let's limit canned hunting to those who are physically or mentally disabled. Any disagreement with that?
> Jim


 I recieved no comments on my post.

Elkman said:


> Humane treatment is one of the rancher's goals. The other is the most profit for the animal he raises whether cattle, pigs or elk or deer.


 I wonder which one is more important?

This issue is only about fair chase ethics. Those who disagree certainly state their opposition to fair chase ethics. Need anything else be said?

Jim Heggeness


----------



## jhegg

cwoparson,

Read my previous post.



> This issue is only about fair chase ethics. Those who disagree certainly state their opposition to fair chase ethics. Need anything else be said?


----------



## LT

Heggeness wrote:



> I poste dthis comment on a recent forum. Quote:
> OK. Let's limit canned hunting to those who are physically or mentally disabled. Any disagreement with that?
> Jim
> I recieved no comments on my post.


Could it be you received no comments because this is not what this about; this inititiative is about totally eliminating this form of hunting; NO COMPROMISE as was stated in the Jamestown meeting.

Previously I asked: "Do you think it is ethical to push this initiative forward, allow the voters to think that they are voting on wildlife captured and placed in a fence, and then findig out that the initiative could not even be enforced?" What do you think the voters are going to feel about wasting their tax dollars on this?

And your answer is "Yes. I think it is fair to allow the voting population of ND to express their opinion on this issue." THIS IS JUST TYPICAL.

I think it is fair to allow them to vote as well, but I do not think it is in any way fair to them or to the livestock owners to deceive them on what they are voting on and then require them to foot part of the bill to battle this out in court.


----------



## g/o

> I haven't been here for as while. Coming back. what do I see? The entire page 6 of this forum is posted by the "game farm hunting industry - headed by our own independant g/o "g/o" himself. If I didn't feel like "puking" before, I sure do now!
> 
> Why is it that those who stand to make a profit by any means are disturbed when others say "that is not ethical"? Easy answer - they stand to lose money - and money gained by any means is OK. Hell - what is the definition of economical development to these people anyway? It is: Anyway I can make money is OK!


Jim, were you at the hearing last session? Did you here what Sen. Connie Triplett said? You should have been there you would know how we appreciate people like her when people like yourself continually refer to us as johns or prostitutes. You really need to grow up Jim. You have another big problem in life it seems that you can't stand to see someone make any money. My outfitting business is just that a business like any other and I'm here to make money. So whats wrong with that. Because I do it on my land which you would not be allowed to hunt anyway, because of your attitude. I work hard at this 12 months out of the year, think it's easy come spend a day with me. Your friend Field Hunter did, he told me when we finished that day I should charge more because of the work I do. So if that is what you are referring to by anyway we can make well then I guess your correct.


----------



## elkman

Dick Monson said:


> There are hard working families in every walk of life. That trait isn't confined to game farming. Those who support pubilc wildlife and public hunting work as hard as anyone else.
> 
> Unethical backdoor manuver? That is why this industry switched to Dept. Of Ag oversight and redefined wildlife as domestic livestock.  Pretty smooth.
> 
> Wrong again Dick Monson on these two counts. Are other people trying to remove the other hard working families business and life style? NO.
> 
> Are other peoples jobs under attack from other people who wish to elliminate them because of supposed ethics, I don't think so.
> 
> We switched to Livestock health authorities because they were in charge of animal health for domestic livestock, not the DNR. The DNR did no health testing for our industry. The DNR was not in charge of animal movement between the states or livestock farms. We were livestock not captive wildlife as we did not have public caught wild animals only animals that looked like their relatives and were bought and paid for by the livestock rancher. It was the right move for a growing industry.
> 
> Good hunting boys.


----------



## LT

*Munson Wrote:*



> There is no probition against on farm slaughter, just who pulls the trigger. This Fair Chase Measure only prohibits selling the act of the kill.


If you are going to prohibit the selling the act of the kill on a game farm based on ethics, then how about prohibiting the act of the kill altogether. When you buy a license to shoot an animal isn't that selling the act of the kill.

According to the reasoning by some then prostitution would be okay as long as a license was sold to participate in this act, because prostitution is the same as selling the act of the kill on a game farm.

I guess if this is only based on ethics then lets ask the animal how they feel about this issue: Mr. Elk/Deer, would you rather be killed in a high fence or have a fair chase? Gee, neither.

How about asking someone if they would rather be raped in an enclosure or with fair chase?

How about asking someone if they would rather be killed in an enclosure or with fair chase?

I am one of the 80% that does not care about hunting one way or the other, so as far as I am concerned if you are going to outlaw hunting in a high fence because it is unethical, then you have to outlaw hunting. And then you should outlaw slaughtering animals because it is unethical to "fee kill" an animal in a man-made enclosure.

Hunting = Killing

Slaughter = Killing


----------



## Plainsman

> Mr. Elk/Deer, would you rather be killed in a high fence or have a fair chase?


That is not the correct analogy. Now the correct analogy would be if I wanted to be executed inside a high fence or hunted in the wild. It is the high fence mentality that made you dwell on the unquestionable outcome of the kill. A hunt does not guarantee a kill. An individual deer or elk has a very good chance in the wild. They are full time deer and elk. They know their home territory like we know our house, and they are physically fit for their territory. We are part time hunters, who do not know each tree, each canyon leading to a pass into the next valley etc. 
To fully grasp a comparative analogy one must be a hunter not an executioner.


----------



## cwoparson

> *California: Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act*
> Californians for Humane Farms is leading the charge to gather signatures to place the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act on the 2008 ballot. Many animals on industrial farms are confined in small cages or crates, and suffer tremendously. Breeding pigs are kept in gestation crates, unable to turn around for months on end; egg-laying hens are confined in battery cages, unable to spread their wings; and young calves are kept in crates so tiny, they are hardly able to move for their entire lives. The overcrowded conditions on factory farms have also been found to pollute the air, contaminate groundwater and threaten human health. The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act would provide basic protections requiring that animals who are confined in industrial farms are able to freely turn around and extend their limbs.
> 
> TAKE ACTION: Volunteer signature gatherers are working hard to collect the 650,000 signatures necessary to place this initiative on the ballot. The signatures must be submitted by February 2008, and we need your help to make this campaign a success. Visit humanecalifornia.org and sign up to volunteer.
> 
> *North Dakota: Prohibit Canned Hunting*
> A group called North Dakota Fair Chase is working to gather 20,000 signatures to place a measure on the 2008 ballot that will enact a law to prohibit shooting captive deer, elk and other exotic mammals behind escape proof fences.
> 
> Canned hunts involve the shooting of animals in a fenced enclosure for a fee. Canned hunt operators breed big game animals and exotic animals, hand rear the animals so they have no fear of people, and release them into a fenced enclosure to be shot and killed. "Fair chase"-a concept central to the philosophy of many in the hunting community-doesn't exist in canned hunts.
> 
> Visit www.northdakotafairchase.com to learn more about the initiative and how you can get involved.


The above is from the HSUS web site. They've got you on the same page where they want to get rid of your eggs, bacon, and hamburger meat. They just successfully got rid of lead bullets in California. Another small step to shutting down hunting completely in that state. I've said it before but when you lie with dogs you will get fleas. I've also said before it is not your personal ethics or intentions that are the problem, but the method you have chosen. And please don't throw out the scare tactic bs. There are better ways to accomplish reasonable goals than the one chosen.


----------



## cwoparson

> To fully grasp a comparative analogy one must be a hunter not an executioner


If that is the proper analogy then one would have to say the executioner is more ethical in his approach to the kill. After all, a hunter cannot guarantee a painless death where a executioner can. It still boils down to the final outcome which is the kill. :beer:


----------



## LT

Plainsman wrote:



> To fully grasp a comparative analogy one must be a hunter not an executioner.


If you have to be a hunter to fully grasp the analogy, then let me ask you how many people are actually going to grasp your analogy. How many people are hunters in the US?

I think more people will understand my analogy; more and more people are giving animals human traits.

I remember when my cousins would come up from California, they were amazed and even turned off by the fact that we got our milk directly from a cow; they got theirs from the grocery store. You want these same people to grasp your hunting analogy???


----------



## Plainsman

> They've got you on the same page


Thank you. The key word there is "they". A person has no control over who endorses them. They do have control over who they endorse. I do not endorse HSUS. Can any of you see the difference? If Larry Flint put the Pope on the front page of Hustler magazine would that mean the Pope approves of Hustler or Larry Flint? 
You know the more you guys say things like this the more transparent it becomes for everyone else. I'm not here to debate, I don't think I need to. I keep coming back to this to keep you guys talking. Thanks. 
So the kill is all of it? :eyeroll:


----------



## cwoparson

> So the kill is all of it?


I never said that, you did. You have a bad habit of bending straight lines just to serve your own purpose. As transparent as that method is it really serves no one. Not even yourself.

It is true one cannot have absolute control who endorses them but one has control over their actions that may bring those endorsements. Didn't you say that Jeremiah Wrights endorsement for Obama raises the question about the character of Obama? Obama responded pretty much the same as you did.


----------



## Plainsman

LT wrote:


> Mr. Elk/Deer, would you rather be killed in a high fence or have a fair chase?


Plainsman wrote:


> Now the correct analogy would be if I wanted to be executed inside a high fence or hunted in the wild.


LT wrote:


> more and more people are giving animals human traits.


Well for gosh sakes if you don't want an anthropomorphic answer don't ask an anthropomorphic question.


----------



## Plainsman

cwoparson said:


> So the kill is all of it?
> 
> 
> 
> I never said that, you did. You have a bad habit of bending straight lines just to serve your own purpose. As transparent as that method is it really serves no one. Not even yourself.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was in reference to you, but you have said.



> the executioner is more ethical in his approach to the kill.





> It still boils down to the final outcome which is the kill.


Others have said:



> If you are going to prohibit the selling the act of the kill





> Hunting = Killing





> farm harvesting of these animals is the most humane method of killing these animals.


And many more to numerous to take the time to search for.


----------



## cwoparson

> I didn't say it was in reference to you, but you have said.
> 
> Quote:
> the executioner is more ethical in his approach to the kill.
> 
> Quote:
> It still boils down to the final outcome which is the kill.


Now your using tactics I would only expect from a Democrat. Keep it in context and don't trim to spin to suit your own needs. What I said was "*If* that is the proper analogy then *one* would have to say the executioner is more ethical in his approach to the kill." Never said an executioner was more ethical. I said one would have to assume that using your analogy.

"It still boils down to the final outcome which is the kill", is also tagged to *your* analogy which now has gone from someone being a prostitute to being a executioner. The final result is the kill and you can call yourselves the ethical hands of God if you like but you are still killing a animal. If ethics is so important as you have constantly reminded everyone, then a humane kill should be of the highest priority. Using *your* analogy, an executioner is better equipped to deliver that than a hunter is.

I'll give you odds though I've never hunted on one, but I'll bet you won't find gut shot, ham shot, or deer with their jaws blown off running around inside a game ranch. You'll damn sure find then roaming around in the ethical hunting world though. You're sitting on a three legged pedestal sawing off another leg. The name labeling and holier than thou attitude is not only not necessary but it doesn't work.


----------



## LT

So tell me again why BISON are not included in selling the kill???

We have been told that it is because there is a market for their meat, but not for elk (which I know is slowly being developed).

We have been told it is because they are domesticated.

http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/

You guys really believe that elk are only killed for their trophy value? If you believe that then they obviously are only killed in the wild for their trophy value too. I would think there is more possibility of leaving the meat behind in the wild than there is on a game farm, as there is more access to a butcher.

I guess they hunt buffalo for meat only, anyway not according to this ad:

_There's nothing like hunting a big old trophy bull at The Bison Ranch at Coteau Ridge in east central North Dakota. For one thing, the animals are huge: our trophy hunts include mature bulls only! _

http://www.thebisonranch.com/bisnhunt.html

_Buffalo also may be marketed for recreational hunting. Some buffalo ranchers report charging between $1,500 and $3,500 to allow hunters to harvest mature bulls. _

http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/alt-ag/buffalo.htm


----------



## Plainsman

> So tell me again why BISON are not included in selling the kill???





> just as BUFFALO are not included in big game.





> WHY IT IS OKAY TO SHOOT BUFFALO IN A HIGH FENCE.





> How about killing BISON in a high fence





> why it is okay to hunt buffalo in a high fence.





> we are told that Bison are not included





> If you dont consider bison wild anymore, why dont you consider farm raised elk the same





> if selling the act of the kill is the issue, why not Buffalo?





> I've always thought the same about why not buffalo





> IF THIS IS TRULY THE CASE, then WHY NOT bison??????????





> How about a descrimination suit - elk and deer in a fence - illegal, bison in a fence - legal.


I only went back three pages on this thread. What makes everyone dislike the bison ranchers? If a guy raises corn the wheat farmer doesn't try to endanger his commodity. Is it just the old if I can't have it neither can they? If no one is bothering them why draw attention to them?

I don't have a problem with bison ranches.
I don't have a problem with bison ranches.
I don't have a problem with bison ranches.

Say, if there are any bison ranchers who view this give me a PM, I would like to tell you a story. Thanks.


----------



## LT

Plainsman wrote:



> The only reason I keep coming back to this thread is to try correct some of the incorrect remarks. I notice it is only pro, or anti here anymore. That serves no purpose to me, and only angers the pro captive killing operators. Maybe I am just beating my head on the wall. If no neutral people that I could convince are reading this anymore it's adios for me. It's no fun playing with angry people.


Why are you back here? I thought you did not like playing with angry people. Sounds just like a bully to me, when people get mad about being bullied and fight back then you run to the teacher. You think these guys are just supposed to sit back and not say a thing in their defense.

No one has said that they dislike the buffalo ranches. Why would the elk rancher dislike himself? Many of the elk ranchers also offer buffalo hunts.

The buffalo ranches need to worry just as much because this affects part of their industry, part of landowners property rights, part of everyone's property rights.

http://www.buffalofieldcampaign.org/med ... o0308.html

_Wyoming's elk slaughter, like the Montana bison slaughter, is a prime example of what happens when we, the people, allow the livestock industry control over wildlife. Even though feed rounds, where elk congregate in unnaturally large numbers, lead to much higher rates of brucellosis, Wyoming's livestock producers don't care because the feed grounds keep the elk congregated and away from our public lands and the public grass the greedy cattle barons want for their livestock. So instead of addressing the problem and closing the feed grounds, Wyoming has decided instead to capture and slaughter elk. As this footage reveals, it looks a lot like what Yellowstone is currently doing to the buffalo. According to Wyoming Game and Fish, 10 elk died from injuries sustained in the traps and 42 escaped the trap by busting through a gate. Go elk!

We've been hearing rumblings about Montana wanting to engage in a similar program with our elk. We make this footage available in order to give you a firsthand perspective of what this looks like on the ground and to get you inspired to come out strongly against such nefarious measures. Stay tuned for more information and actions you can take to oppose elk capture, test, and slaughter in Wyoming and Montana.

Another passage from this site:

Boycott the Beef/Cattle Industry

We call on you to join us in a Boycott, and urge you to participate indefinitely. We will join in solidarity for the last wild buffalo and Boycott the industry that is killing them and so much else: the beef/cattle industry. Our hope is that everyone who participates extends their Boycott further. Indefinitely.

Livestock producers cause more harm to this country's wildlife than nearly any other industry. "Beef, it's what's for dinner" is the very thing that is killing our wild buffalo, wild horses, prairie dogs, wolves, and the countless other plant and animal species that suffer to appease the fears and greed of livestock producers.

We are doing this because the beef/cattle industry - and those who keep them in business - are, knowingly or not, ultimately causing the death of the last wild buffalo, the prejudice against wolves, coyotes, badgers, wild horses, prairie dogs - the list is sickeningly long. Livestock production is resulting in the destruction of our sensitive lands and riparian areas of the West, the pollution of our waters, and the sickness of millions of people.

You have no problem with bison ranches = You have no problem with high fence hunting = This is not about ethics for you._


----------



## LT

Interesting read; sounds familiar.

_David Grider sends a copy of the February 13, 1991 letter canceling Hage's livestock grazing permit to Roy Elicker, attorney for the National Wildlife Federation.

March 10 1991: Elicker Speaks at Law Conference

Roy Elicker explains the National Wildlife Federation's policy on livestock grazing to eliminate the livestock industry on the federal lands. In this seminar he teaches participants how they can help accomplish this. Excerpts from this lecture follow:

"What everyone likes is the Big Victory. You load them cattle trucks for the last time and they go driving off into the sunset and they never come back.

But you can win a lot more victories that that ultimate one, you can win a lot more victories by making him (the rancher) pay for what he does out there and by making it so expensive in his operation and making so many changes for him to continue to run his cattle on the public lands that he goes broke, he can't do it, he has to come up with other ways to be a rancher.

When you get right down to it, the boots and the hat, boy for them guys, it's a way of life.

The ultimate picture is of course, the last cattle truck driving off into the sunset, but that's not how you win.

How you win is one at a time, one at a time, he goes out of business, he dies, you wait him out, and you win." - Roy Elicker_

http://stewards.us/hage_v_us/hage_v_us-timeline.htm


----------



## R y a n

Wow the spin on this thread has increased ten fold since I last reviewed the posts.

:eyeroll:

I think pretty much everything has been said here.

The writing is on the wall. Don't say that you didn't have enough forewarning of the tea leaves.


----------



## g/o

Thanks for posting LT interesting reading 
http://stewards.us/hage_v_us/hage_v_us-timeline.htm

Until you have dealt with a government agency, you don't realize how ruthless they are. Ask anyone who has ever had to deal with the IRS, you are guilty now prove you are innocent.


----------



## prairie hunter

Keep accurate records and all receipts and you should be fine.

Tips are taxable too.


----------



## g/o

prairie hunter said:


> Keep accurate records and all receipts and you should be fine.
> 
> Tips are taxable too.


Really I didn't know that I suppose next your going to tell me I need to report my income also :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## prairie hunter

It your industry please tell me more ...


----------



## LT

Well here is more spin for you Ryan.

_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

_Remember all that outrage a couple years ago over "Internet hunting"? You know, those Web sites where you could log on, peer into the leafy wilderness through live web cam and, when an unsuspecting buck crossed the screen, click a mouse to drop him?

It turns out there weren't really Web "sites," the Wall Street Journal reports. More like one site, which was shut down almost soon as it opened. And, despite the fact that 33 states have outlawed the Internet hunting since 2005 and a bill to ban it nationally has been introduced into Congress, "nobody actually hunts over the Internet."

"Internet hunting would be wrong," said a Delaware representative who opposed his state's ban. "But there's a lot that would be wrong, if it were happening." _

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/ ... 4891.shtml

_Although we were effective in putting a stop to the practice as soon as it appeared, the interstate nature of the worldwide web makes it possible that Internet hunting may yet take hold in other states. Therefore, federal legislation banning this practice is crucial to prevent the start-up of similar operations across the country.

The Computer-Assisted Remote Hunting Act (H.R. 2711/S. 2422) would prevent the operation of web sites that allow people to shoot live animals remotely._

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/int ... nting_2007

Now why is it necessary to state that this initiative will ban computer-controlled remotely fired weapons in a canned hunt and then allude to the fact that this is the INFAMOUS Texas-style computer shooting at game RANCHES.

Why not say this initiative will ban shooting of animals in a canned hunt with a bazooka or how about a howitzer.

How was this used on RANCHES, when only one site ever started up?

This does nothing to eliminate internet hunting of buffalo or wild animals; in order to eliminate internet hunting you would have to have a separate bill.


----------



## Plainsman

http://www.nwf-wcr.org/

I noticed there is talk about grazing so thought I would post this. Please be aware that only willing sellers no longer hold grazing rights.

I do have a question. A rancher who sells his ranch may sell a couple hundred thousand dollars of grazing rights along with it. Who did they originally buy the grazing rights from?


----------



## cwoparson

Plainsman said:


> http://www.nwf-wcr.org/
> 
> I noticed there is talk about grazing so thought I would post this. Please be aware that only willing sellers no longer hold grazing rights.
> 
> I do have a question. A rancher who sells his ranch may sell a couple hundred thousand dollars of grazing rights along with it. Who did they originally buy the grazing rights from?


I've never even thought about grazing rights before. Never had a need to. After reading the above link and question I started getting hot under the collar about what I saw as another giveaway program where someone is getting rich at my tax dollar expense. This is getting off topic and I don't want to press it here in this thread but I have a question. How does a rancher pay for his grazing rights? Is it monthly, quarterly, yearly, long term contract, lump sum, or maybe lifetime contract? As you can see my ignorance on this issue is total so I'm just trying to get the big picture.


----------



## Plainsman

As long as your hot under the collar let me blow a little oxygen on that smoldering ember. I don't have current figures, but I know that in the late 1980's the lease cost the rancher so little that the amount that the Forest Service took in only covered 1/2 of the expense of administering those lands. Don't you think they should at least break even?

I don't know how they pay, but grazing pressure is set by animal unit month. An animal unit month is a 1000 lb herbivore for one month which they normally consider one cow calf combination. I don't think the cost has gone up much, I think it's still under $3, but not sure. However, keep in mind that in some areas they get 20 or 30 acres for that $3.

How did I do CW? OK, I'll try harder. I don't think they ever paid the government (tax payer) for those grazing rights that are now worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'm not sure how these "grazing rights" originated, but I would like an explanation also.


----------



## cwoparson

Now I'm going to have to do some Google homework. Sounds like public land is about as public as the White House.


----------



## LT

Try the Bankhead-Jones Act.

http://bluebook.state.or.us/cultural/hi ... tory25.htm

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/ ... -crs-519:1

http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0023-9186(193710)4%3A4%3C434%3ATBFTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

Cannot get the above link to work but if you just cut and paste into your browser, it will work.


----------



## Plainsman

> The New Deal touched the lives of Oregonians in other ways. The Taylor Grazing Act in 1934 changed the free-for-all of livestock using the public domain. Henry Gerber and local ranchers in the Langell Valley of Klamath County were acutely aware of the need to allocate grazing rights. The Bonanza Grazing Unit, headed by Gerber, was the first organized in the United States under the Taylor Act. In time the law brought 152 million acres under the U.S. Grazing Service and called for local boards of landowners to allocate the animal units per month allowed in national forests or on lands administered by the General Land Office. In 1946 Congress merged the land office and the grazing service to create the Bureau of Land Management.


So it had been a free-for-all. How did it come about that they see it as rights? Who did they pay for those rights? How do the American taxpayers benefit from the bargain basement grazing fees?


----------



## LT

Looks like HSUS will be helping collect signatures.

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


----------



## Plainsman

LT said:


> Looks like HSUS will be helping collect signatures.
> 
> https://community.hsus.org/humane/notic ... d=22083277


Wow no kidding. That would kind of be like the American Civil Liberties Union helping you then. Have you ever talked to them?


----------



## LT

Definition of public land according to Blacks Law Dictionary:

Public lands comprise the general public domain; unappropriated lands; the lands not held back or reserved for any special governmental or public purpose. US. v Gareston, 42.4.22,24.

It is well settled that all land to which any claims or rights of others have attached DOES NOT FALL within the desigation of public land. Bardon v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 12 S.Ct.856, 145 U.S. 535, 538, 36 L.Ed.806.

"Public lands" are lands open to sale or other disposition under general laws, lands to which no claims or right of others have been attached.

Having various meanings under different statutes and circumstances, the term "public lands" generally refers to government lands that are open to public sale or other disposition under general laws and that are NOT HELD BACK OR RESERVED FOR A GOVERNMENTAL OR PUBLIC PURPOSE. The phrase "public lands" is synonymous with "public domain."

Ordinarily, word "fee" or "fee simple" is applied to an ESTATE OF LAND, but the term is applicable to any kind of hereditament, corporeal or incorporeal, and it is all the property in thing referred to or largest estate therein.

"Fee" signifies an ESTATE OF INHERITANCE, being the highest and most extensive interest which a man can have in a feud; and when the term used simply, without any adjunct, or in the form "fee simple," it imports an absolute inheritance clear of any condition, limitation or restriction to particular heirs.

The grant of a "fee" in land conveys to the grantee COMPLETE OWNERSHIP, immediately and forever, with the right of possession from boundary to boundary.

"In common speech the non-mineral portion of land, the portion which covers and envelopes the minerals, is called the 'surface' or the 'land,' and the proprietor of land who divests himself of title to the minerals which it contains is still spoken of as the 'owner' of the 'fee' or of the 'surface' or of the 'land'. In Laws 1897, providing that where the "fee to the surface" of any land is in any person and the right or title to any minerals therein is in another person, the right to such minerals shall be valued and listed separately from the FEE TO THE LAND.

*A private citizen has no enforceable right in public lands (AS OPPOSED TO PATENTED OR FEE LANDS).*

Some other links regarding leases:

http://www.ces.fau.edu/agro/dl/Grazing_ ... c_Land.pdf
http://ucanr.org/delivers/impactview.cfm?impactnum=594
http://www.stacyeder.com/financing/legal.htm

NOW GETTING BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POST, WHICH DID NOT ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT GRAZING, BUT THE BULLYING OF THE RANCHERS TO FORCE THEM OUT OF BUSINESS.

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court of Claims in a Final Decision and Finding of Fact determined that the Hages owned the vested water rights as well as the title to the FEE LANDS (inheritable right to use) defined as the adjudicated range appurtenant to the to Widow Smith Creek as a part of the Pine Creek Ranch Fifth Amendment of the Constitution "takings" case.

Bruce you posted this link: http://www.nwf-wcr.org/

_Agreements to retire grazing allotments are strictly voluntary. NWF contacts ranchers who hold leases on allotments that are on our priority list for retirement. If the rancher is interested, we negotiate a price.

We base the value for retiring the allotment on the amount of forage available on the allotment. Since ranchers routinely buy and sell grazing allotments, a market has been created. NWF typically pays a small premium over the price ranchers sell allotments to each other. _

DO YOU AGREE THAT IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO REIMBURSE OR BUY OUT THE RANCHERS LEASES, RATHER THAN BULLYING THEM OUT OF BUSINESS?????

IF SO, maybe you would agree that it would be better to buy the elk/deer ranchers out, rather than try to force them out of business!


----------



## LT

> Wow no kidding. That would kind of be like the American Civil Liberties Union helping you then. Have you ever talked to them?


Maybe you need to contact them since they deal mainly with 1st amendment rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, right to assembly, and right to PETITION.

Looks like you guys are taking any kind of help you can get.

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


----------



## Plainsman

> DO YOU AGREE THAT IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO REIMBURSE OR BUY OUT THE RANCHERS LEASES, RATHER THAN BULLYING THEM OUT OF BUSINESS?????


That depends on if ranchers are reasonable. If they want $5000 an animal I don't think the public (government ) should allow themselves to be ripped off. What's the price per pound today for cattle, bison , etc. What if they were paid twice that? Do they want to be reasonable, or are they looking for a windfall? Maybe they deserve help, maybe they don't. It all depends on their attitude.

As long as you brought the subject up I would still like to know why the ranchers started paying each other for something they don't own. It doesn't make much sense to me. I like to think there are privileges that the ranchers paid for, but when they speak of it as rights it sounds to me like the Sagebrush Rebellion, the Freemen, and posse comitotus. No one group should have more rights to public land than any other. Many organizations have tried in the past to buy grazing allotments, but were denied because they were not ranchers. Is everyone equal, or are western ranchers more equal? How do ranchers that don't get public land compete? They pay more in taxes on an acre of their pasture than is paid for ten to twenty acres of public grazing. A rancher in eastern North Dakota can not compete with a rancher out west. Ranching is tough business around our neck of the woods.

I have more important things that need attention so may not get back to this for a while.


----------



## LT

> As long as you brought the subject up I would still like to know why the ranchers started paying each other for something they don't own. It doesn't make much sense to me. I like to think there are privileges that the ranchers paid for, but when they speak of it as rights it sounds to me like the Sagebrush Rebellion, the Freemen, and posse comitotus.


One of the most important aspects of grazing leases is the land management that the lessee performs maintaining fences, water tanks, wells, improvements, etc. They are paying each other for improvements made I would imagine.

http://www.ces.fau.edu/agro/dl/Grazing_ ... c_Land.pdf

Usually when someone rents land they do not maintain the fences and make improvements; that is the responsibility of the owner. I would imagine that is why the grazing leases are cheaper than rent. Just a guess.

ANYWAY ENOUGH OF THAT, this thread is way off topic and you took it there and WHY IS THAT???

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


----------



## Plainsman

LT Wrote:


> David Grider sends a copy of the February 13, 1991 letter canceling Hage's livestock grazing permit to Roy Elicker, attorney for the National Wildlife Federation.


Plainsman engaged the subject.

Then LT Wrote:


> this thread is way off topic and you took it there and WHY IS THAT???


If a subject backfires don't blame me for starting it. I guessed that when you found yourself in that glass house you would want to stop throwing rocks.


----------



## cwoparson

> DO YOU AGREE THAT IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO REIMBURSE OR BUY OUT THE RANCHERS LEASES, RATHER THAN BULLYING THEM OUT OF BUSINESS?????


Not necessarily. If they were leasing that land for little to nothing and were making a profit from it, then with due notification the lease should be canceled and the land returned to public domain.



> F SO, maybe you would agree that it would be better to buy the elk/deer ranchers out, rather than try to force them out of business!


Again not necessarily. But, if the state encouraged and assisted these ranchers in setting up the elk/deer ranches they the state has a responsibility to assist. I would say something along the lines of profit lost on sell of the meat and maybe reimbursement for equipment that could not be sold or used for other use. I think that would only be fair but I don't believe the state should have to pay the price that a hunter might pay for a trophy hunt. In other words the state should reimburse the rancher for any net loss associated with closing down his operation after the liquidation of his animals on the fair market as live stock.

The subject of leased land may not be as far off topic as one might think. I've often seen advertisements from outfitters for guided hunts on 10,000 to 20,000 acres. I wonder how much of that land is actually leased grazing land someone is double profiting from?


----------



## Plainsman

> One of the most important aspects of grazing leases is the land management that the lessee performs maintaining fences, water tanks, wells, improvements, etc. They are paying each other for improvements made I would imagine.


Those are not improvements to the government, the people, or the habitat. They are simply things that are beneficial to the rancher. I wonder how much federal support he gets for those improvements. On waterholes perhaps about 100%. 
Lets see fence = benefit to rancher only
well = benefit to rancher only
water tanks = benefit to rancher only
water holes = benefit to rancher only and causing problems for wildlife species. 
Old data: bring in 26 million, spend 58 million to administer government land. Benefits mostly ranchers. Certainly doesn't benefit the taxpayer. Other bargain basement things from government land: Oil, gold, silver, uranium, copper, etc etc -----

I'm leaning more towards no by out. Our local hardware stores that can't make it don't get a buy out. I can't think of many businesses that do, and that's all a high fence shooting gallery is.


----------



## LT

Well, it sounds like Mr. Kaseman called HSUS from this post. We were told at the Jamestown meeting that in no way would they accept help from HSUS.

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/forum/sh ... hp?tid=180


----------



## Robert A. Langager

LT said:


> dewey curren ([email protected]il.com)


Hey Dewey,
Welcome back. You know, if you are going to be banned (280IM) and then come back (repeatedly), then you shouldn't post your name and email address for all to see.

What is with the obsession of those who are banned here? I don't get it, do you, Gohon? Yes, we know you are back too.

Robert


----------



## LT

> Hey Dewey,
> Welcome back. You know, if you are going to be banned (280IM) and then come back (repeatedly), then you shouldn't post your name and email address for all to see.
> 
> What is with the obsession of those who are banned here? I don't get it, do you, Gohon? Yes, we know you are back too.
> 
> Robert


I am not sure what you are talking about. I just posted a link to the Bismarck Tribune site where the above post was written.

So people were banned here for what reason? This is the first I have heard of this.

Why no comments on the HSUS support. I did find this talk about HSUS and Microsoft awhile back.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... s&start=40

Is it not okay for Microsoft to supposedly get in bed with HSUS but okay for Fair Chase to get in bed with HSUS? What is it with you guys that support Fair Chase; are you a bunch of Govenor Spitzers?

I suppose I will be banned from this board next.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

Ok, that makes more sense. The way the post read made it seem that you were Mr. Curren.


----------



## Turner

Plainsman, I see you have let the fox into the hen house to help take care of and protect the chickens, care to explain any of this?

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

I like how they are helping you collect signitures and they use the word WE, nice team you have joined.

The campaign must collect 12,844 valid signatures by the end of July, and we need your help.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, I see you have let the fox into the hen house to help take care of and protect the chickens, care to explain any of this?


  Please use search option.



> nice team you have joined.


 Actually I think you know better, and after reading my posts for years so do 99% of the people here.


----------



## g/o

> Time is Running Out!
> Please Help Ban Canned Hunts in North Dakota
> 
> Dear Friend,
> 
> North Dakota voters have the opportunity to stop the trophy shooting of captive animals trapped behind fences -- an inhumane and unsportsmanlike practice opposed by hunters and non-hunters alike -- but only with your help. These "canned hunting" operations offer wealthy customers the opportunity to kill tame, captive animals for guaranteed trophies. Get involved today in stopping this unethical practice.
> 
> Both hunters and non-hunters condemn canned hunting, but it has not yet been outlawed in North Dakota. Be part of the team that puts this critical issue on the November statewide ballot! The campaign must collect 12,844 valid signatures by the end of July, and we need your help.
> 
> If you have volunteered to gather signatures already, thank you! If not, please sign up today. Email Karen at [email protected] or call 701-839-6210.
> 
> Just a little of your time will help give North Dakotans the chance to vote to stop canned hunting this fall.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Wayne Pacelle
> President & CEO
> The Humane Society of the United States


Take the time and read it Plainsman and then tells how HSUS is not involved :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

Of course they are involved, but we are not part of them. If you as an outfitter were supported by the KKK would you have control over that. I would not call you a racist if they supported outfitters. If you were fighting a legal battle and John Doe sent you a $100 donation would you spend $200 to investigate if he was a KKK member? Don't even try tell me you would. I would suppose that is why HSUS is telling it's members to send donations directly, and not to HSUS because Roger would decline it.

Doesn't that make sense? People who try paint the picture that we are part of HSUS can not be trusted in anything else they say either. They are deceptive. This isn't rocket science, it is very clear if you look at it without an agenda of your own. Think about it with an open mind, then apply your own agenda if you must, but at least be honest with yourself (not meant towards you g/o, I and speaking in general).


----------



## Turner

Plainsman said:


> People who try paint the picture that we are part of HSUS can not be trusted in anything else they say either. They are deceptive. This isn't rocket science, it is very clear if you look at it without an agenda of your own. Think about it with an open mind, then apply your own agenda if you must, but at least be honest with yourself (not meant towards you g/o, I and speaking in general).


Who can not be trusted? You are trying to ban a form of killing animals that is done in a humane way (legal weapons) and your group is being backed financially by the HSUS and is giving them a stronger foothold on their ultimate goal, you are saying others can not be trusted, look in the mirror.

I have been on your side of the fence, and then I looked at this issue with an open mind, that is way I am on this side of the fence now. You have been asked several times to look at this with an open mind and explore other options such as regulations, limitations, and set standards that these operations should be held accountable to. If any preserve operates in a legal manner, they should have no problems with setting new and stricter regulations to keep their business and get rid of the operations that give their industry and the killing of animals for sport and food a black eye. I do not see were your group did any of this. You went straight for the banning and closer option and this was decided on ethics and they way these preserves word their advertising?

I do not have a hidden agenda, nor do I have ties to any of these shooting preserves.


----------



## FreeIndeed

Turner is right.

I doubt Roger would refuse a donation no matter where it came from.


----------



## g/o

> If you have volunteered to gather signatures already, thank you! If not, please sign up today. Email Karen at [email protected] or call 701-839-6210.


Plainsman, your analogy isn't even close or realistic. You guys are in bed with HSUS and thats all there is to it.


----------



## Plainsman

> You went straight for the banning and closer option


I see you lack all historical perspective. I did not talk with high fence operators, but people I know did. They were not interested in more regulation, they want no regulation. They thought they had the political clout to just laugh at people when they asked for tighter regs. See where they are now?


----------



## Plainsman

g/o said:


> If you have volunteered to gather signatures already, thank you! If not, please sign up today. Email Karen at [email protected] or call 701-839-6210.
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman, your analogy isn't even close or realistic. You guys are in bed with HSUS and thats all there is to it.
Click to expand...

I am willing to let those who read this decide if my analogy is correct or not.


----------



## LT

> I see you lack all historical perspective. I did not talk with high fence operators, but people I know did. They were not interested in more regulation, they want no regulation. They thought they had the political clout to just laugh at people when they asked for tighter regs. See where they are now?


Really, someone talked to them? At the Jamestown meeting it was asked of Mr. Roger Kaseman by a United Sportsmen member if they had sat down and talked with the elk/deer growers to come to some compromise before they aired their dirty laundry in a public forum; Mr. Kaseman responded no, and when asked why not, Mr. Kaseman replied, "Because there is NO COMPROMISE!" The gentleman then rolled his eyes and walked to the side of the room.


----------



## g/o

Plainsman, Done, just for you. It is going to be real interesting when all the signatures and money comes out on this measure. It's going to be fun connecting the dots from Fair Chase to HSUS.


----------



## Plainsman

LT maybe Roger didn't talk with them, but I know people who did. Your jumping on this without any background, or knowledge of what many other people have done. You don't have 10% of the picture. Unless of course your one of them, then you know exactly what I am talking about. I'm not going to get unprofessional and publicly start spouting names for you.


----------



## Plainsman

g/o said:


> Plainsman, Done, just for you. It is going to be real interesting when all the signatures and money comes out on this measure. It's going to be fun connecting the dots from Fair Chase to HSUS.


Thanks g/o. I don't want to wish you bad luck, but I sure hope their are no connecting dots. Well -------- I guess that's not wishing you bad luck. I'm sure we all hope there are no connecting dots.

I am sure some individuals that belong to HSUS will contribute. How could we stop them. It would be like saying left handed people with brown hair and blue eyes can not contribute. You understand that, right?


----------



## LT

Plainsman wrote: LT maybe Roger didn't talk with them, but I know people who did. Your jumping on this without any background, or knowledge of what many other people have done. You don't have 10% of the picture. Unless of course your one of them, then you know exactly what I am talking about. I'm not going to get unprofessional and publicly start spouting names for you.

Well can you prove it. I can back up what I say; it is on the tape.

The operator I know was NOT CONTACTED by anyone. This all the behind the scenes, someone said this, someone contacted this person, and they laughed in their face is just that, heresay. Did they have an actual meeting????


----------



## Chuck Smith

LT and other high fence operators on this forum....

Would you be in-favor of tighter restrictions involving testing, minimum acreage for kill pens, advertising restrictions, number of animals per acre restrictions,  insurance requirements, continuing education requirements (breeding, health updates, legal, etc), or other restrictions or laws you would like to see implemented to help regulate your industy?

I am not sure of all the restrictions and laws in-place so some might over lap. But would you mind if these things were implemented to help weed out the bad operations?


----------



## Plainsman

> Did they have an actual meeting????


Yup.

There have been multiple meetings. Some of the guys were in agreement with me, some were within their own organization and looking for tighter regs. They were shot down, and shut up. No I will not tell you who. There is no need for you to know unless of course you would like to harass them. One fellow disagrees with me a lot, and I still will not tell you who. It's called professionalism and courtesy.


----------



## g/o

Chuck, I agree with you 100%, they need regulations not put out of business. When the Elk and Deer people escape this measure (which they will) they better damn well have legislation next winter regulating these operations. If not the next time this happens then I for one will not feel one bit sorry for them.


----------



## Turner

Is Roger Kaseman the head of or the director of the Fair Chase group in ND? If so wouldn't he have been involved in any initial talks with these operations before this went public? These individuals that you speak of that sat down face to face with the owners of these operations, were they even part of the Fair Chase group here in ND, if so, why wasn't the notes and minutes from these in depth meetings given to Roger to look over? Your statements you are making Plainsman really don't hold water and it seems as if you are back peddling.


----------



## Chuck Smith

G/o...and others.

I am not for this measure at all. But again I can't do nothing about it because I am a NR. So I am looking at this from the outside.

I don't agree with putting anyone out of business. But if there are bad apples that is giving the industry a bad name...try to weed them out. Regulations will weed them out.

Also if you have been apart of this site you will read posts about how ND is losing population or an out migration is happening. Do you think cutting down a source of business will help the out migration? You are taking away jobs from people. Don't just think about the owner. Think about the farm hands they have hired.

Sorry a little off topic but it holds merit to anyone who wants to ban these operations. Just something to think about.


----------



## Plainsman

> Is Roger Kaseman the head of or the director of the Fair Chase group in ND?


Yes, he is chairman of the group.



> If so wouldn't he have been involved in any initial talks with these operations before this went public?


I don't think he was, but I don't know.



> These individuals that you speak of that sat down face to face with the owners of these operations, were they even part of the Fair Chase group here in ND


No.


----------



## LT

> There have been multiple meetings. Some of the guys were in agreement with me, some were within their own organization and looking for tighter regs. They were shot down, and shut up.


Name the organizations, I think you can at least give us that info. Were there any elk/deer growers at these meetings?


----------



## LT

> LT and other high fence operators on this forum....
> 
> Would you be in-favor of tighter restrictions involving testing, minimum acreage for kill pens, advertising restrictions, number of animals per acre restrictions, insurance requirements, continuing education requirements (breeding, health updates, legal, etc), or other restrictions or laws you would like to see implemented to help regulate your industy?


I am not a high fence operator, but I do know that they are heavily regulated already, and many of the regulations they have brought on themselves. Maybe someone with more knowledge on the regulations can answer that.

I wonder if HSUS cares about regulations?


----------



## Turner

Let me get this straight, a ND group was formed by "ethical" thinking sportsman that is chaired by an individual that has no clue that another group of people came into the state and negotiated, on the ND Fair Chase group's behalf, with these operations to set or enforce regulations to help keep them open and functioning? Does any one else see the problem here or am I just trying to be deceptive as Plainsman puts it?


----------



## Plainsman

> Name the organizations, I think you can at least give us that info. Were there any elk/deer growers at these meetings?


I don't know what they call their organization, but it was mostly elk and deer growers. Some good guys in the group who wanted more control, but the same old story. A few bad ones who thought the good ones wanted to trample their landowner rights. Look within LT, look within. You know what I mean. The good guys were outnumbered by people who wanted less control. Now because of them they all suffer.

One of the good guys in that crowd of people has posted on here in the past. He tried to get them on the straight and narrow, but failed. He opposes me now, but god bless him for his effort.


----------



## LT

> I don't know what they call their organization, but it was mostly elk and deer growers. Some good guys in the group who wanted more control, but the same old story. A few bad ones who thought the good ones wanted to trample their landowner rights. Look within LT, look within. You know what I mean. The good guys were outnumbered by people who wanted less control. Now because of them they all suffer.


Can you give me dates and locations of these meetings? What other organizations were at these meetings besides the elk/deer growers?


----------



## Chuck Smith

How is more regulations hurting land owners rights?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND

Wouldn't a ban on canned shooting be a regulation?

They can still raise them right?


----------



## Plainsman

HUNTNFISHND said:


> Wouldn't a ban on canned shooting be a regulation?
> 
> They can still raise them right?


That is correct, they can still raise them. It only stops them from selling them as a hunt. Many will try tell you otherwise, but the truth is we just don't see it as hunting, so ban that part of it. Montana did I think just last year. I noticed it in the regulations I got in the mail yesterday.



> Can you give me dates and locations of these meetings? What other organizations were at these meetings besides the elk/deer growers?


Sorry, I don't know. I only found out about this in the past couple of weeks. I have had a lot of PM's coming with information. I didn't realize that in the past there were people within the organization itself that wanted more regulations. What a predicament that causes in my mind. Good guys were trying their best to do it right, but evidently they were outnumbered by those who thought they could ride rough shod over everyone. What a shame.

I tell you what, those people internally that tried to do the right thing have a lot more impact on how I think than silly childish accusations that we are with HSUS. That will get you nowhere. Again I can speak for no one else, but that kind of talk just makes me more determined. False accusations do that to many people. Think about it. Things like that just backfire and fan the flames.

After someone says I am in bed with HSUS I will walk through hell itself to deliver those petitions to the attorney general.


----------



## LT

> didn't realize that in the past there were people within the organization itself that wanted more regulations.


So what were these more regulations that they wanted?


----------



## g/o

> I am not a high fence operator, but I do know that they are heavily regulated already, and many of the regulations they have brought on themselves. Maybe someone with more knowledge on the regulations can answer that.


They have regulation with raising them but they have nothing when it comes to the hunt, or shoot as some say. They need in my opinion some regulation to the size of area vs amount of animals in such area for shooting. I am sure we could find a bunch more also. If these people would have done this from the start they would not be where they are at today. Dickie Monson and the boys commonly refer to shooting in small pens, sells good to the voters.


----------



## Plainsman

> If these people would have done this from the start they would not be where they are at today.


That's true g/o, and if they had not been so arrogant and essentially flipped everyone off it would also have helped.

I do feel sorry for those who wanted to do the right thing, only to have the fools in their midst tell people to kiss off and they will do what they want. Cave man attitudes in a civilized world never pay off.


----------



## LT

> They have regulation with raising them but they have nothing when it comes to the hunt, or shoot as some say. They need in my opinion some regulation to the size of area vs amount of animals in such area for shooting. I am sure we could find a bunch more also. If these people would have done this from the start they would not be where they are at today. Dickie Monson and the boys commonly refer to shooting in small pens, sells good to the voters.


If regulations are put in place for sizes will this stop the Monsons and HSUS? Maybe there needs to be regulations in this regard, but I really question that it will stop them.

It seems that there is always a new issue, first it was CWD in Montana, now fair chase, internet hunting, and Michael Vick comparisons here.

Will 200 acres in the Badlands equal 200 acres in the Red River Valley?


----------



## Turner

Plainsman said:


> Can you give me dates and locations of these meetings? What other organizations were at these meetings besides the elk/deer growers?


Sorry, I don't know. I only found out about this in the past couple of weeks. I have had a lot of PM's coming with information. I didn't realize that in the past there were people within the organization itself that wanted more regulations. What a predicament that causes in my mind. Good guys were trying their best to do it right, but evidently they were outnumbered by those who thought they could ride rough shod over everyone. What a shame.
[/quote]

Plainsman, I thought you were a smart enough man not to wear blinders when attacking someone's livelihood. You are admitting you had no clue about what was said, at meetings you didn't know were going on, by a select few that were willing to abide by new rules and regulations to keep their farms open. This better cause a predicament in your mind. I am willing to bet there are more good guys out there than bad ones when it comes to these preserves in ND. Yet you are willing to fight for your ethics and to shut down these operations with out knowing the whole picture of what is going on with in a group, how do you sleep at night?


----------



## Plainsman

Turner, I don't think you know half of what is going on so don't be so fast to pass judgement. The people that wanted to do things right didn't accomplish it. Why? If majority rules and they couldn't accomplish it that means the majority are out of control. That's all I need to know.

If your that concerned then do something constructive to correct things. Go to the high fence operators and convince them to do the right thing. It's easy to be someone that does nothing, but critique those who get the job done.

Turner, lead, follow, or get out of the way. Sitting and complaining while others do is not part of the solution, it simply hinders the solution. If you don't like my solution you better hurry and come up with a better one. You are concerned about the good guys aren't you. Well, aren't you? Time to put up.

You know turner, it's smart remarks that nearly make me forget about the good guys. If your seriously concerned then get serious, drop the rediculous HSUS, and come up with something constructive. All that I have heard from you is ridicule. It's easy to complain, but harder to do something constructive isn't it?


----------



## cwoparson

> lead, follow, or get out of the way.


Once upon a time when the HSUS tribe wanted meat they would cover themselves with fair chase robes and mingle among the fair chasers. When they got close to the cliff they through off the robes and yelled at the top of their lungs cwd, cwd, and ethics, ethics, scaring the hell out of the old lead fair chase bull who in his role of leader blindly lunged over the cliff with his followers right behind. The HSUS tribe would quickly get out of the way and watch with anticipation of a great feast. True story as told to me by a old dieing and misguided fair chaser.


----------



## Plainsman

CWO, that was good, but it makes me think both of us are spending to much time on here. Don't worry about me, I'm not going over the cliff for those people. As you may have noticed I have a mind of my own, and your a lot more convincing than someone who wants me to eat tofu.

Seriously, the story was great, and I got the message. I read many of your posts other places and a great majority of the time I think we agree. Maybe two years ago I would have agreed with you on this also. The unwillingness to control themselves has caused the high fence people to bring this on themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves.

I often see where people say they would never consider shooting an animal in a pen themselves, but would allow others to do it. So why would they never do it themselves? It's clear isn't it? It's because they don't think it is ethical. If as a hunter they don't think it is ethical then what would a non hunter think? I'm not talking about an anti hunter, I am talking about a non biased non hunter. A person who sees something as unethical and does nothing about it is part of the problem.

When I challenged people to do something I was not being a smart ---- well you know. I was trying to fire them up though. I hear a lot of complaining, but where are the solution people? Chuck tries to encourage it, but it doesn't catch on. Everyone is an armchair quarterback.

I'll be more convinced when one of you guys try to do something positive. After Chucks comments I don't see a high fence operator come on and say lets do something together. Did I miss something?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Wouldn't a ban on canned shooting be a regulation?


Look at it like this.......I want to ban the sale of tickets to sporting events. I am not banning the sporting event but I am banning the sale of admission.

You may think that is a stretch but that is what you are doing.


----------



## LT

> I'll be more convinced when one of you guys try to do something positive. After Chucks comments I don't see a high fence operator come on and say lets do something together. Did I miss something?


I think that is because most of them are out working hard right now and not sitting here on a keyboard trying to convince anyone.


----------



## Plainsman

Chuck Smith said:


> Wouldn't a ban on canned shooting be a regulation?
> 
> 
> 
> Look at it like this.......I want to ban the sale of tickets to sporting events. I am not banning the sporting event but I am banning the sale of admission.
> 
> You may think that is a stretch but that is what you are doing.
Click to expand...

There has been some good discussin today, and maybe we all understand each other a little better when we can see the perspective of others.

In that light Chuck here is how I see the sporting event. Two people want to purchase tickets to a boxing match. In the first auditorium a man has put up a ring, and he has brought in two boxers. Each of these guys want to win, and have even chances of winning. These guys go at it and pound on each other until a winner emerges. At the beginning people are betting because no one really knows who will win. I'll sell you a ticket to that fight myself.

In the second auditorium, the event promoter has put up the same ring. He has also brought in two boxers, but one has his hands tied and no bets take place because there is no question which will win. Actually this isn't a boxing match it is a beating, but the man who's hands havn't been tied has paid the promoter for the priveledge of beating the other man, so the beating must go on.

Your right I would try prevent you from selling tickets to the second match. I would try prevent that because it isn't boxing and to beat a tied man isn't ethical.

That's my serious point of view. Again for all those who have told me they would never do a high fence hunt I have the same old question. Why not?


----------



## LT

Once A Politician Always A Politician
Former democrat governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus dressed up in costume yesterday in what was no doubt an orchestrated protest on the steps of the temporary Idaho capital in Boise, to announce his displeasure of what property rights haters and holier-than-thou purveyors call "canned hunts".

"Those people that believe in shooting animals through a fence after enticing them to the fence with a bucket of grain ought to turn the rifle around the other way," said Andrus, a Democratic former governor and U.S. Interior secretary.

When much of one's life is spent deceiving the public to get a vote, we can only expect the same no matter the occasion. I guess in reality if a person took a bucket of grain and went up to someone's fence holding livestock in order to entice the animal over to shoot it, maybe, as Andrus suggests, they should be shot. On the other hand, when someone stands up in front of people disbursing information that isn't remotely accurate in order to deceive and manipulate public opinion, in which direction should the rifle then be pointed?

At least if you think you have a legitimate reason to protest hunting on private preserves, be honest and inform the public with facts. But intelligent people understand that when truthful discourse is missing the only alternative is to fabricate information.

Sad.

Tom Remington


----------



## Turner

Plainsman said:


> That's my serious point of view. Again for all those who have told me they would never do a high fence hunt I have the same old question. Why not?


When I hunt, the killing of the animal is secondary. My venture out into the field or bush is just that, an adventure. When I bow hunt out west I attempt to spend one or two nights away form base camp and sleep under the stars. The reason I do not use these operations is because it doesn't fit the way I hunt.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Plainsman....

I like the boxer comparison....but I will add a twist.

The same two events. The first is the same as you said....



> In the first auditorium a man has put up a ring, and he has brought in two boxers. Each of these guys want to win, and have even chances of winning. These guys go at it and pound on each other until a winner emerges. At the beginning people are betting because no one really knows who will win. I'll sell you a ticket to that fight myself.


 (FAIR CHASE)

The second (here is the twist)....the boxers come in the same auditorium, same ring. But one is 6'5" tall 275 lbs. The second fighter is 5'4" 155lbs. But not hindered or tied up at all. (THIS IS FAIR CHASE)

The second is an example of one opponent is out matched. (High powered rifle with great optics, scent elimination systems, digital cameras to do your scouting, etc). Is it a fair fight???


----------



## Chuck Smith

Plainsman...

I too enjoy the experience more than the kill. So that is why these operations don't fit me.

To let you know I might go and use one of these operations to go shoot a russian boar. I would like a boar mount sometime in my life. And flying over to Russia and purchasing a hunt is out of the question financially right now for myself. So one of these operations could suit my fancy.

Also For those of you who have been following these discussions in all the threads. I have a twin brother with Cerebral Palsy. He is in a wheel chair. He will visit one of these operations and shoot an elk someday. Someday soon. I would hate to have this oppurtunity to be taken away from him. Now people will go on here and say he can do it Fair Chase. He can not for elk. Because of the laws in different states we would have to file for many, many, many permits. See many, many, many doctors to get these permits. Spend thousand and thousands of $$$ to get the equipment, guide, license applications, permits and doctor visits, etc. So it is easier and more cost effective to do a high fenced shoot. Trust me I have looked into all the options over and over. The high fenced option is the best.


----------



## Plainsman

LT said:


> I'll be more convinced when one of you guys try to do something positive. After Chucks comments I don't see a high fence operator come on and say lets do something together. Did I miss something?
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is because most of them are out working hard right now and not sitting here on a keyboard trying to convince anyone.
Click to expand...

I have been working since 1963. Now I am retired. What's your excuse for being on here all day? I mean that in a friendly way. 

Thank you to those who answered my question about why you don't use high fence shoots. Turner, if you seen one of my other posts about I can't talk right now Cabela's is here you understand that I feel just like you. Three years ago my son, one of his friends, and I had to find shelter in a small group of pine about six feet high to keep from being blown off the mountain top while we slept. We were waiting for the opening of season the next morning.

I am really enjoying talking with you fellows. The confrontational thing wasn't working for any of us. I don't know why the high fence operators didn't do something before it came to this. They had to see the writing on the wall. I think this will come about in the entire nations shortly. If it doesn't happen here this year it will happen nationally in the nest couple of years. The general public takes such a dim view of it. I am not surprised that HSUS supports it. I would guess even PETA would support it. That's not a problem for the Fair Chase group, but it will become a problem for all sportsmen if we don't shed the image.

I can not turn my back on something I think unethical simply because a group that I disagree with 99% of the time agrees with me today. Do any of you understand that? Honesty is our first step to problem solving. If you can not understand that, we will never solve anything through discussion. If you do understand then that honesty opens doors. If this would have happened a year ago things would be different today. Time is short, and sadly I think to short.


----------



## LT

*Plainsman Wrote:




Sorry, I don't know. I only found out about this in the past couple of weeks. I have had a lot of PM's coming with information. I didn't realize that in the past there were people within the organization itself that wanted more regulations. What a predicament that causes in my mind. Good guys were trying their best to do it right, but evidently they were outnumbered by those who thought they could ride rough shod over everyone. What a shame.

I tell you what, those people internally that tried to do the right thing have a lot more impact on how I think than silly childish accusations that we are with HSUS. That will get you nowhere. Again I can speak for no one else, but that kind of talk just makes me more determined. False accusations do that to many people. Think about it. Things like that just backfire and fan the flames.

After someone says I am in bed with HSUS I will walk through hell itself to deliver those petitions to the attorney general.

Click to expand...

I think that you should be able to find out from your sources when these meetings were held and what organizations attended, being you have such reliable sources. Why don't you get back to us with that info? I really would like to know.

"Silly childish accusations that we are with HSUS." ARE THEY??

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


----------



## Plainsman

> "Silly childish accusations that we are with HSUS." ARE THEY??


I assure you where I am concerned they are. I may have been the last guy on the Fair Chase bus, but I am very concerned about the future of hunting. My greatest fear is that cost will cut our numbers to where we will become politically insignificant.

Update 7:20 pm LT you can bet I don't like the HSUS thing either, and have been trying to find out exactly what happened. From what I know so far we have to be more careful who we talk to at these sport shows. People who volunteer to gather signatures are not always fellow hunters. I do not blame it on this person personally she did what she thought best. In a state like North Dakota however endorsement by anti hunting organizations doesn't do any good.

I talked with a friend today and his feelings were nearly identical. If any group wants to encourage members to help I have no problem, but I don't want groups who have an agenda I do not agree with to support as an organization. I also don't want them to think this is a feather in their hat. This is something that makes me feel great, it's something that I think has to be done.

I don't want any ball and chain on my total commitment to defending all hunting with everything I have got. To me sportsmen are the true conservationists who put their money where their mouth is. They provide habitat improvement, cull animals, and take no joy in starvation and disease caused death cheating a bullet. We are more humane than any other means of death in nature.


----------



## LT

*Plainsman Wrote:




Update 7:20 pm LT you can bet I don't like the HSUS thing either, and have been trying to find out exactly what happened. From what I know so far we have to be more careful who we talk to at these sport shows. People who volunteer to gather signatures are not always fellow hunters. I do not blame it on this person personally she did what she thought best. In a state like North Dakota however endorsement by anti hunting organizations doesn't do any good.

Click to expand...

Roger Kaseman Wrote on the Bismarck Tribune Site:




People are flocking to sign. Ask the Deer Growers and Elk Growers that set up a table in Fargo. They saw first hand. I personally have collected 2,000 signatures. We need 12,844.

And the landowner boogyman is just that, a boogyman. Landowners are just as anxious to sign. They recognize a dirty business when they see it.

You want to know who refused to sign? Members of Animal rights groups.

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Plainsman

> You want to know who refused to sign? Members of Animal rights groups.


I wonder what animal rights people think? On one hand I would think they would support the measure because it would outlaw unethical hunting. On the other hand it would get rid of their cash cow. What hunting practice could they put on their Internet site next to portray hunters as unethical? I don't know. I could be convinced of their reaction either way. I'll bet it confuses some about what to do.

Say LT is *Show Me *our old 280IM gone off the deep end. I see in one thread on the form (Bismarck paper) he says nodak supports sawed off shotguns and assault weapons, then on another thread he supports the removal of handguns from society. Has he lost it? Did you see that?


----------



## elkman

I don't believe for one minute that this debate would not be going on even if the elk and deer industry had used on farm slaughter or harvesting of elk or deer terminology verses hunting terminology. If not the fair chase issue something else. The agenda is to get rid of privatization of wildlife period.

This debate on this thread is between twelve guys with equal groups for and against the high fence harvesting issue . Not one of these fellows are going to change their mind in the stance they took.

I'm a little tired of the painting of the hunting sport as so ethical and high fence operations as unethical and full of bad apples. Look at your own mess.

Anyone who believes the hunting weapons we use today make for a fair chase for wildlife are deluding themselves. Weapons which can kill an animal at 800 yards or more are not fair chase, just good shooting.

One day at the local meat slaughter plant during hunting season when the wild animals were turned in to be butchered for food would be an eye opener for all you people that think hunting is ethical. There are so many bad apple hunters, bad shots, non lethal hits on those wild animals I don't know how anyone can think the people hunting are ethical.

No one ever said private owned animals harvested on these facilities would have fair chase in their slaughter only that they would be harvested humanely even if hunting methods were used to slaughter that animal.

Since neither long range shooting or ethical on farm slaughter offer the animals real fair chase maybe both should be made illegal and outlawed. For that matter let's help the Humane Society and start an initiative against bow hunting because it produces the least humane kill of all the hunting methods we use in this ethical sport. As a twenty five year bow hunter I have watched many lung hit animals die while drowning in their own blood. I'm sure many non hunters would find that death lacking ethically.

Why stop at just high fence hunting? Lets help these anti people get rid of all hunting because that is the door we opened with this initiative process. Boy the list could go on and on and I don't feel this is a scare tactic I believe this to be true. Divide and conquer.

Antis must love our stupidity.

_____________________________________________________________

YOU LAY DOWN WITH DOGS (HSUS) YOU WAKE UP WITH FLEAS (ANTI HUNTERS)


----------



## LT

The Following Groups and Individuals Endorse the North Dakota Fair Chase Measure

September 12, 2007: Barnes County Wildlife Federation.

April, 2008, The North Dakota Chapter of the Mule Deer Foundation.

April, 2008, the North Dakota Wildlife Society.

April, 2008, Bill Mitzel, Dakota Country Magazine.

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

A few days after North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase filed papers with the Secretary of State requesting authorization to circulate petitions to place the initiative on the ballot, the high fence operators accused members of the Fair Chase Committee of being animal rights activists. And if we were not animal rights activists, we were a front for animal rights groups with the ultimate goal of banning hunting in North Dakota.

Are we hunters, or are we the secretive conspiratorial front for animals rights groups that the high fence operators accuse us of being?

Do we want to ban all hunting in North Dakota?

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.

NOTE: What the high fence operators do behind their fences is not hunting. Do not insult real hunters by insinuating that killing an animal behind a fence is hunting.

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

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


----------



## huntin1

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

Yep, looks like a bunch of PETA members to me. :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------

