# Measure 2 needs to be rejected



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

In the Bismarck Tribune. Letter to the editor.

What's the real agenda of Measure 2, the captive-hunting initiative on the November ballot? Is it simply about abolishing hunting of farmed elk and deer? One of the big question marks out there amongst the public is, "people own domestic elk and deer?"
They were purchased from the federal government back in the 1920s, same time as buffalo.

The measure: A person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape.

The measure does not say farmed elk, bison or deer. It does not say hunting, owner or on-farm slaughter. If it were passed in November, it would have to go to court to decipher its code. It is written so vaguely, a judge could interpret it broadly. It could have far more ramifications than what the public is being told or what votes would even allow.
Language like this would never make it out of a legislative committee. It would be amended to say what it means.

The proponents of the measure do not want the government to take physical possession of the animal because then, the owner would have to be compensated.

This isn't about the ethics of hunting in a high fence as much as it is a stripping away of options and economic value on property with no compensation. Take away the option of how these animals are sold and make them worth as much as an unwanted horse. Force every elk and deer grower out of business -- that's the real agenda.

Please vote no on Measure 2.

(Dwight Grosz is president of the North Dakota Elk Growers.)

Everyone should take the link below to Facebook, meet Dwight Grosz.






Give it to some young people who Facebook and share it around.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Good job Dwight! You have the support of your family and friends.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Jamestown Public Forum, 2 years ago:


----------



## LeDoux79 (Oct 20, 2010)

You go a head and pass measure 2 and see how that works out for you. I am a land owner, I own many quarters of land. I paid for them. I pay the taxes and I work this land. If the good people of North Dakota feel that they want to tell me what I can and can not do on my land - a very simple thing is going to happen. I will be the only person hunting on it. Others will follow this idea and if you think it is hard to find a place to hunt, you just wait until Jo Rancher shuts down every hunting chance you could have had. The only hunting will be on public lands - have fun with that!

So think about those hunting relationships you have now and think about how they will be in the future when if Measure 2 passes.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

I agree LeDoux. This measure is going to divide landowners, hunters, and our state!! There was no need for this to even be brought to our state. Roger Kaseman has repeatedly admitted that the majority of people he talked with never even knew these facilities existed. They were harming no one. Now someone comes here from California, collects 8350 signatures based on lies and mistruths. This would not have been on the ballot except for him. No one else cared enough to even collect signatures, other than Roger, Dick, Gary, and a couple others with HSUS.

I for one will be posting my land tight if this passes. Signs will be going up, no hunting due to measure 2.


----------



## Skavdog (Nov 13, 2008)

I agree...reject this measure...if a farmer/rancher/landowner wants to go through the legalities of owning/operating a big game ranch, pheasant preserve or whatever hunting operation they choose, they should be allowed the right to do so as long as it's 1) operated according to established guidelines and legal 2) not infringing on the hunting rights or methods of anyone else and 3) in an area where it would not infringe on the public in general. I own no land, have never paid to hunt behind a fenced in area and more than likey never will...but dont take away that opportunity for someone else. And hopefully the citizens of North Dakota wont' take away the right of a landowner to legally do with their property (whether that be land or livestock) what they want.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Threats, threats, and more threats. You only have the right to do what is legal on your land. If this measure passes it will not be legal period. Just like making meth or whatever you think you should be able to do. Go ahead and threaten but just remember the voters will remember how they are treated next time an AG related issue comes up. You want to defeat this measure then lobby against it. If you want to anger the voter and turn them against you threaten them. LT where is the land you have now that is not posted in ND or California? I would bet any land you control now is posted tight anyway, same goes for you Ladoux79. As much as you don't want to be told what to do we don't want to be threatened!


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Swift,

How wrong you are. We presently own land that we allow people in North Dakota to hunt on. I don't have land in California, have never stepped foot in California. Only because some moderator reavealed my personal information on this board does anyone even know that I had any connection to California. That IP address was for a remote VPN connection that I had with a California hospital that I worked for out of my home.

But I can post my land if I want to, that is my right, and I can tell you if a property right is taken away from us it will be posted. This is not about I can do anything on my land. This is about how someone legally uses their animals already. Bison are already hunted in this manner, domestic animals are already killed in any manmade enclosure that prevents escape, wild animals are already killed by paying a fee. So why the heck should someone be able to take away the right of the elk and deer grower to dispose of their animal in the same manner.

These game farms provide a lot of income for the state, for the communities -- the taxidermist, the butcher, hotels, restaurants, tourism, sporting goods, etc. They provide a means for handicapped, elderly, and the sick and dying to enjoy an experience that they may never be otherwise able to enjoy.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

High Fence Hunting Debate:

http://huntersforhighfencehunting.com/j ... blic-forum


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

LT, what is the percentage of handicapped elderly folks that buy big bulls from your brother? I think that is an overused excuse. And please tell me are you excercising your right to post your land at this time? A simple yes or no should suffice.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

LT,



> They provide a means for handicapped, elderly, and the sick and dying to enjoy an experience that they may never be otherwise able to enjoy.


So how many handicapped, elderly, sick and dying people do you guys cater to each year? I would be interested in what percent of the high fence income is generated by this select group. But, of course, you will never tell us that.

Jim


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

I have stated a few times that approximately 85% of his clients are elderly, handicapped, disabled, sick, dying. There are people with cancers of all types, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, missing limbs, other orthopedic issues (braces), back problems, and just plain elderly who have a difficult time walking and other elderly-related issues.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

LT,



> I have stated a few times that approximately 85% of his clients are elderly, handicapped, disabled, sick, dying. There are people with cancers of all types, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, missing limbs, other orthopedic issues (braces), back problems, and just plain elderly who have a difficult time walking and other elderly-related issues.


I have really hard time trying to believe your statement.

Jim


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Jim,

I am over there all the time and get to meet the people. Believe what you want Jim. Yesterday I met an 89-year-old man who had difficulty walking, a man with a leg brace, and another man with some breathing issues and overweight. None of them were what I would call rich. All were driving just plain jane vehicles and were all very nice down to earth people who actually, believe it or not, took the meat.

The origin of the High Fence Initiative. Land Tawney, Regional Director for the National Wildlife Federation, met with a few men in 2006 before SB 2254. Land then resigned and started Sportsman for Obama.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

I am sick of this BS about old ,disabled ,and so on. What about the twist of fate hunt? Let say you have a young person that is sick and does not have long to live. Bring him to a High fence operation and he kills a big bull Elk. Take his picture, but you make sure you can not see the fence in the back ground. Or, take him on a real hunt. He hunts a few days, gets out smarted by some wild Elk, and never even sees one. Now,take a picture of him sitting on the side of a hill with his dad with some great back ground. I wonder what picture would mean more to him? 
One thing I would like to know about these HF operations in ND are the size of the fenced shooting areas. Not the size of the ranch but the size of the fenced areas that the animals are killed in? Does anyone know of the 12 or so in ND the size? I read on of the high Fence proaganda deals that said "most of these are thousands of acres". I would have to say BS. A section of land is 640 acres, one square mile.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

I wonder what none hunters think when they see some guy posing in the middle of about a pile of 50 geese? Bet that gives hunting a black eye


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

1.Wonder if he shares his jerky?
2.That guy saved some tundra.
3.Well,he did not shoot those in a cage.
4.I heard snow geese are hard to hunt,must have some skills to get that many. Not like those guys paying thousands of $ to shoot Elk and deer that are fenced in.


----------



## gunattic (Jan 9, 2005)

This is a measure that has vehement support coming from both sides, and each side seems to believe theirs is the correct one. It's an emotional one for sure. I struggle with high fence shooting but I'm also a land owner, I don't raise any animals on the land. Here's a crazy thing... I've read some posts now of just the few who have said their land will be posted solid if this passes.. and up until I read those posts, I thought I was the only one thinking this.. so, maybe I have, as a land owner decided to vote for the land/livestock owners, and now, I can't believe I'm the only land owner thinking this way... so, I'm just saying, that the thoughts of posting up the land solid is a thought that more than just these few you're hearing from are thinking. Is that crazy, but it really is a property rights issue, elk, deer, buffalo, whatever.. they're just animals/livestock and if a rancher owns them, they are his property. No one should be dictating what he does with them. And, as a land owner, whether I do end up posting up my land solid or not, know that I've had those thoughts, so, that issue really is something for those in favor of measure 2 to consider. Just letting you know.
It's really too bad that this is even something we're having to vote on.. should have left it alone. Maybe It would have gone away.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Drakekiller said,



> One thing I would like to know about these HF operations in ND are the size of the fenced shooting areas. Not the size of the ranch but the size of the fenced areas that the animals are killed in? Does anyone know of the 12 or so in ND the size? I read on of the high Fence proaganda deals that said "most of these are thousands of acres". I would have to say BS. A section of land is 640 acres, one square mile.


Kevin, When you called the Board of Animal Health wanting personal information about the elk growers such as where they live, how many animals does each have, how many acres do they each own, how many acres are fenced, what did they tell you?
To what mischeivious end were you planning to use that information?

Kevin, I know about the phone call you made to the Board of Animal Health, yours Rogers and Dicks. Again what did they tell you about trying to dig up personal information on someone from a government agency to use toward your negative ends?

I already know the answer but why don't you explain your motives to everyone else.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

DG?
When I am interested in a issue, I like to know the facts. So I go to the source to get them. So for example if HF operators are saying "most of these operations are thousands of acres" I can say true are false, and have the facts to back it up. I am a little busy at the moment,but will respond more when get a little more time. 
Kevin Hayer


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Dr. Susan Keller

According to the Freedom of information Act please answer the following.

1) Number of licensed Elk High fence shooting operation in the state of N.D

2) Number of High fence Whitetail deer operations in the state of N.D

3) In the last ten years, how many of these operations have had Elk or Whitetail Deer escape, and names of operators.

4) Number of Elk and Whitetail deer that have escaped that have not been recovered, and the names of operators that have not recovered escaped animals.

5) Names of operators that have violations and what the violation was, and out come of violation.

6) Names of operators that have been shut down by the BOAH if any.

7) It is my understanding that there are 12 High Fence Operations. Name of operations and size of enclosure of these operations.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Mr. Hayer,

The North Dakota State Board of Animal Health regulates all individuals who possess cervids, regardless of why they have them. Our regulations are not dependent upon the purpose of the facility, so we do not keep track of which operations are "shooting operations" or "high fence operations". We have a total of 103 cervid facilities. This includes 4 zoos, 72 elk-only facilities, 16 deer-only facilities and 11 elk and deer facilities. Deer species include whitetail, mule deer, fallow deer and reindeer.

We have had 23 incidents of escape reported involving 248 animals between August of 2002 and July of 2010. Prior to August of 2002, there are no escapes listed in our database, but it is possible that could be additional information in producer files, which can be made available in our office. The producers involved were: Tim Snyder, Darrell Mangel, Jim Johnston, Richard Bring, Tim Snyder, John Reiss, Orlan Mertz, Jim Johnston, Chester Reich, John Stip, Orville Erickson, Tom Schumacher, Scott Whittmayer, Gerald Lansberger, Wade Lischefske, MHA/Three Affiliated Tribes, Lee Monson, Stacy Staven, Dennis Huber, Rick Hoistad, Tim Dvirnak, Quentin Mertz, and Darwin Haugaard.

Of the above mentioned escapes, 201 animals were either recovered or destroyed. Producers who have animals who have not been recovered are: Tim Snyder (5 deer), Richard Bring (1 elk), Tim Snyder (4 deer), Orlan Mertz (26 elk), Gerald Landsberger (7 deer), MHA/Three Affiliated Tribes (3 elk), Darwin Haugaard (1 deer, just reported last week). Some escapes occur due to violations of rules, but an escape in and of itself is not a violation. Failure to maintain a fence which meets the requirements set forth in rule is a violation; however, escapes may occur without there being a rule violations. For example, a recent escape occurred after a tree fell on a fence during a storm. Fence inspection reports show no other fencing problems other than where the tree had knocked the fence over, and the fence was promptly repaired.

We have had violations of our rules and varying actions have been taken as a result. I do not have a compiled list of violations. Information regarding violations is kept in each producer file. If you have a question regarding whether a particular producer has had any violations, or a particular type of violation, you may come to our office and request to review the file. There are many rules that must be followed which are listed in NDAC 48-12-01.1 (deer) and 48-14 (elk). These rules are available online at http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acd ... tle48.html

Historically, I believe that there have been a few producers who have had their license revoked. In my tenure at the Board, we have had a few producers who were required to slaughter (and test) animals and who are not eligible to apply for a cervid license or approval in the future. Those I can recall are MHA Buffalo Enterprises/Three Affiliated Tribes (elk), Carlton and Shane Heck (elk) and Orlan and Ted Mertz (elk). Prior to that, I know of at least two other producers, Todd Thompson (whitetail) and Tim Snyder (whitetail). This may not be a complete list; this is only from my recollection.

In response to your question about "high-fence operations", I am assuming you mean "shooting operations". As I mentioned, we regulate all facilities the same and do not keep track of the purpose of the animals. If you would like to request information about particular facilities, you will need to provide me with the name of the owners. I will certainly provide any information that is not exempt from North Dakota's open records laws.

If you wish to come to our office to review any files, please call to schedule an appointment. Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Beth W. Carlson, DVM

Deputy State Veterinarian

State Board of Animal Health

Bismarck, ND

701-328-2654


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Very good Kevin Hayer,

201 were either recovered or killed. Generally they hang around trying to get back in. They are herd orientated. The one major bad incident was Orlan Mertz. He had purchased them from several different herds. His perimeter fence did pass inspection. However, he had them locked in a corral, he left the yard leaving the main gate open. They got out of the corral and walked up the main driveway and out. Human error. They didn't stick together because they were not raised together.

Carlton and Shane Heck are father and son. The son wanted elk the dad did not. It turned bad. The elk were neglected. They were quarentined. Dakota Country reported 112 dead ones found in a pit. The truth was 12. The president at the time of the ND Elk Growers went over there on his own nickle and hauled the remaining elk to a slaughter facility.

So what do you think should be done about the operators who have made every effort to manage correctly. Do you think they should all be shut down period?


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

From the NRA/ILA website,,,,,,

NORTH DAKOTA: Vote NO on the North Dakota Anti-Hunting Ballot Initiative: Initiated Statutory Measure No. 2! Don't Allow Radical Animal "Rights" Interests to Infiltrate North Dakota! North Dakota sportsmen should be aware that a group cleverly calling itself North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase (NDHFC) has collected enough signatures to place an anti-hunting initiative on the 2010 General Election ballot. Make sure that you and your family and friends vote NO on November 2.

Initiatives pertaining to hunting laws, by their very nature, politicize the state's wildlife management policies. This is contrary to the North American Model of Wildlife Management that has made North Dakota's wildlife populations and rich ecosystems the envy of the world. Laws related to hunting and wildlife management strategies should be firmly rooted in science, not driven by a wealthy few who can produce the most emotionally-appealing 30-second television commercial during an initiative campaign. For this reason, NRA has always opposed "ballot box" wildlife management.

This initiative effort is supported by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a Washington D.C.-based lobbying organization that spends $120 million a year in an effort to end all hunting and animal agriculture in the United States. Misinformed supporters of the initiative and NDHFC have claimed that HSUS has not been involved in the initiative or its predecessor in 2008, but one needs only to visit the HSUS website to find, "In North Dakota, HSUS members and supporters helped to gather signatures to place a measure on the ballot to halt the captive shooting of wildlife behind escape proof fences. Unfortunately the measure was not approved, but we will continue working to end the egregious practice of captive hunting." Here are just a few quotes from Wayne Pacelle who serves as President of HSUS:

* Interviewer: "About fishing ... do you avoid campaigning against it because there isn't a ground-swell movement in our culture to eliminate it?"
Pacelle: "That is correct. We're out to minimize suffering wherever it can be done, and wherever our limited resources can be utilized most effectively -- abusive forms of hunting for now, all hunting eventually." Bloodties: Nature, Culture, and the Hunt
* "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." - (Associated Press)
* "Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change." - (Bozeman Daily Chronicle)
* "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States&#8230; We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." - (Full Cry)

The proposed initiative would ban private big game hunting preserves in North Dakota. This violates basic American principles of private property rights and sportsmen deciding for themselves how and where to hunt. Hunting ethics should be decided by each individual hunter, not by politically-motivated laws supported by radical animal "rights" interest groups. Further, the group behind this initiative falsely advertises preserves as very small pens or cages, when most preserves amount to thousands of acres.

This effort threatens to establish a precedent that will allow Wayne Pacelle and others to further pursue their ultimate agenda of banning all hunting. These anti-hunting radicals are learning how to circumvent the standard policy-making system that has stymied them through the years and will be emboldened to further utilize deceptive 30-second sound bites to advance their radical agenda. Please work to inform your family, friends and fellow sportsmen in North Dakota that they should vote No on Initiated Statutory Measure No. 2 this November 2.


----------



## gunattic (Jan 9, 2005)

I think this needs to posted under it's own heading on the forum... would someone?



Hunter_58346 said:


> From the NRA/ILA website,,,,,,
> 
> NORTH DAKOTA: Vote NO on the North Dakota Anti-Hunting Ballot Initiative: Initiated Statutory Measure No. 2! Don't Allow Radical Animal "Rights" Interests to Infiltrate North Dakota! North Dakota sportsmen should be aware that a group cleverly calling itself North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase (NDHFC) has collected enough signatures to place an anti-hunting initiative on the 2010 General Election ballot. Make sure that you and your family and friends vote NO on November 2.
> 
> ...


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Wayne Pacelle said in the interview,



> "Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change." - (Bozeman Daily Chronicle)


Durring Senate Bill 2254 to ban high fence at the ND Capitol Feb.1, 2007 Dick Monson testified. He said, "this is like putting two dogs in a barrel and charging admission to watch them fight."

Coincidence or Collusion?


----------



## Skavdog (Nov 13, 2008)

Seems to me those against HF hunting have many concerns and some are certainly valid, but from reading posts from this stream and others, it becomes clearer by the post that what many opponents are upset with is the "type of hunting" that someone else is participating in. 
As Drakekiller stated in an earlier post... in his "twist of fate" argument. He leads us to believe that a person would be truly more happy with his life if he was in a picture with his Dad sitting on a hillside after a wild elk hunt without a kill than he would be with a picture of himself standing next to an elk that he had killed inside a fenced area. Maybe so...but more importantly here...maybe not. 
How can one person make a claim like that concerning the thoughts/feelings of any other person? Perhaps to a good proportion of hunters out there, myself included, a wild elk hunt with no kill might be the ultimate experience. But,to someone else, the High Fence hunt with the kill is.
In an argument like that, one could say a Deer killed with a Crossbow (and I have no qualms with those who use a Crossbow) could not possibly have the same meaning to any hunter as a Deer killed with a Long bow...therefore Crossbow hunting should not be an option for anyone? I dont think so.
I think it is a mistake to judge what someone might seem as a valuable or an enriched experience based on what you feel is more valuable or enriching to you...And it seems that is what those who want to ban HF hunting are in effect doing. To say one person could not be fullfilled or satisfied, or even more satisfied or more fullfilled, by killing an animal in a fenced hunt is stepping over the bounds of personal rights and personal choice.... As I have stated before, I have never hunted in a fenced in area nor will I probably ever do so, to me that is just not something I think I would enjoy, but for me to say someone else shouldn't be affored the right to pursue an activity that will provide them with their own personal sense of joy and accomplishment is certainly not for me or anyone else to determine.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Skavdog, you eloquently wrote what I have said all along I believe is as important to the hunting heritage as anything. :thumb: . Thanks.


----------

