# NRA Takes Position.



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Anti-Hunting Ballot Initiative Being Circulated for Signatures!

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 is circulating petitions for signatures to place an anti-hunting initiative on the 2008 General Election ballot. Make sure that you and your family and friends do not contribute to this misleading, anti-freedom effort by signing these petitions!

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. Here are just a few quotes from Wayne Pacelle who serves as President of HSUS:

"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." - as quoted by the Associated Press in Impassioned Agitator

"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. We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." - quoted from a first hand account of a speech to an outdoor ethics conference in Florence, South Carolina in the magazine Full Cry

The proposed initiative would ban private big game hunting preserves in North Dakota, a long-standing tradition in the state. 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.

This effort threatens to establish a precedent in that will allow Wayne Pacelle and others to further pursue their ultimate agenda of banning all hunting. Please work to inform your family, friends and fellow sportsmen in North Dakota that they should not sign these anti-freedom petitions now being circulated!

For more information, please go to www.ndpropertyrights.com.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

NRA Takes Position.

I missed something. The subject line says NRA, but the article is quotes from North Dakota Property Rights isn't it? What am I missing? Maybe I am goofed up on the acronym. NRA = National Rifle Association??????? or is there a state group with that acronym?


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Here is a copy of the article taken directly from the NRA website, includes copywrite info at the bottom.

Here is the link: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4104

So you guys have two big allies, NRA and SCI, with statements against your initiative. I guess you still have the HSUS on you side.

Anti-Hunting Ballot Initiative Being Circulated for Signatures in North Dakota!

Monday, July 28, 2008

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 is circulating petitions for signatures to place an anti-hunting initiative on the 2008 General Election ballot. Make sure that you and your family and friends do not contribute to this misleading, anti-freedom effort by signing these petitions!

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. Here are just a few quotes from Wayne Pacelle who serves as President of HSUS:

"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." - as quoted by the Associated Press in Impassioned Agitator

"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." - quoted from a first hand account of a speech to an outdoor ethics conference in Florence, South Carolina in the magazine Full Cry

The proposed initiative would ban private big game hunting preserves in North Dakota, a long-standing tradition in the state. 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.

This effort threatens to establish a precedent in that will allow Wayne Pacelle and others to further pursue their ultimate agenda of banning all hunting. Please work to inform your family, friends and fellow sportsmen in North Dakota that they should not sign these anti-freedom petitions now being circulated!

For more information, please go to www.ndpropertyrights.com.

Copyright 2008, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes. 
Contact Us | Privacy & Security Policy


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks for the heads up. I have been a member of the NRA for many years. I just sent them an email telling them the wool has been pulled over their eyes. It's not very smart of them not to get the whole story before jumping on the bandwagon. It's part of the reason the NRA has been demonized by people so successful in the past. That's to bad too. Poor judgement on their part I guess. They must look under their bed for monsters before they can sleep.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

What makes you think they don't have the whole story. You're right though, the wool certainly has been jerked over someones eyes. Tell you what I'll do. You get the NRA to retract their story with an apology and stating that Plainsman of North Dakota set them straight where they now can see the light and I'll come to ND and gather signatures for you. :lol: Stop with the excuses for everything pleaseeeeee.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> It's part of the reason the NRA has been demonized by people so successful in the past. That's to bad too. Poor judgement on their part I guess. They must look under their bed for monsters before they can sleep.


Plainsman, I agree 100% I have been a member for a few years now, and I think they can be just as radical and wacked out as the other side. Almost seems like you have to choose the lesser of the 2 evils from time to time.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Since the NRA calls this an anti-hunting measure right on their website,one must then conclude that the NRA also thinks that shooting penned animals is hunting.

Wow are they that stupid or just naive???

Even Boone and Crockett doesn't call this hunting.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Hunting ethics should be decided by each individual hunter, not by politically-motivated laws supported by radical animal "rights" interest groups.


I couldn't agree more!!!!


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Wow are they that stupid or just naive???


Neither Ken. Like in the gun rights battle, they see the humane society the same as the liberal gun grabbers, it is all or nothing for if it is chipped away it won't be long and it will just be. I understand their stance and will support it.

Any dissection, in their perspective, of the hunters/gun owners will not be good in the overall 2nd amendment stability.

Remember I am not a high fence supporter, do not see it as hunting but will not dictate as to how fellow citizens operate in the confines of their property. As long as it is not endangering others or the wild herd.

In good conscience I could not sign the petition.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> NRA Takes Position.
> 
> I missed something. The subject line says NRA, but the article is quotes from North Dakota Property Rights isn't it? What am I missing? Maybe I am goofed up on the acronym. NRA = National Rifle Association??????? or is there a state group with that acronym?


My bad. Sorry I wasn't clearer.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

4CurlRedleg said:


> North Dakota sportsmen should be aware that a group cleverly calling itself North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is circulating petitions for signatures to place an anti-hunting initiative on the 2008 General Election ballot.
> 
> The proposed initiative would ban private big game hunting preserves in North Dakota, a long-standing tradition in the state.


First of all, it is not hunting to begin with so this is not anti-hunting legislation.

Secondly, since when did big game hunting preserves become a long standing tradition in this state. That is certainly not the big game hunting tradition that I grew up with and still enjoy today.

Thirdly, now I know why I have never waisted a penny on the NRA. The NRA and SCI have done nothing to help the tradition of hunting by supporting high fenced killing!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> [First of all, it is not hunting to begin with so this is not anti-hunting legislation.
> 
> Secondly, since when did big game hunting preserves become a long standing tradition in this state. That is certainly not the big game hunting tradition that I grew up with and still enjoy today.
> 
> Thirdly, now I know why I have never waisted a penny on the NRA. The NRA and SCI have done nothing to help the tradition of hunting by supporting high fenced killing!


I don't know......you really think these operations don't call what they offer hunting?????They all seem to call it hunting.Why else can they offer animals for $5,000 and up a pop.

The NRA saying this is an anti-hunting measure right on their website means they see these operations as hunting.I agree.....I'm glad they aren't getting any money from me either.

4CurlRedleg.....I haven't signed them either.Basically like you say.If someone is stupid enough to pay that kind of money to shoot penned reared animals and call it a hunt,I could care less.There is no cure for stupidity. :eyeroll:

When it affects the wild animals I hunt,then I take notice.

You will never see me at one of those places unless I am crippled and in a wheel chair and probably not even then.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

KEN W said:


> I don't know......you really think these operations don't call what they offer hunting?????They all seem to call it hunting.Why else can they offer animals for $5,000 and up a pop.


Ken,

Yes, they call it hunting, but it is not. It is high fenced killing. I call it like I see it.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> Thirdly, now I know why I have never waisted a penny on the NRA.


This sentence alone speaks volumes. . Apparently you have never seen the benefit the NRA provides sportsmen, shooters and libertarians. I for one have redoubled my support to the NRA in this political climate.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> Yes, they call it hunting, but it is not. It is high fenced killing. I call it like I see it.


I suspect HSUS calls hunting no fence killing.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Walker, I will not give up on the NRA, but they often choose their fights foolishly. I am deeply disappointed that HSUS became involved with this initiative. Now I am nearly as disappointed that the NRA became involved with this initiative. I have two reasons for that. First I don't agree with them, but secondly if it comes to a vote it will pass. I really don't want it to look like HSUS defeated the NRA, but they will crow about it. Once HSUS was involved we should have all flooded their site and told them to shove off. If that was unstoppable, then it's a shame NRA was stupid enough to become involved in a sure loss. 
I have often been disappointed in NRA tactics. I remember them on TV one night when congress was going to pass another of their anti firearms bill. I don't remember which firearm it was aimed at, but I remember the NRA representative (it may have been Wayne LaPierre himself I don't remember) showing the media that the same thing could be done with a semiautomatic handgun. He did not alleviate the public fear of the firearm in question, he gave them another target. Now they choose to further discredit themselves by calling this an anti-hunting measure.

I am more disappointed in their self destructive actions than I am their opposition. It's a shame.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

As I have said in the past, I support game ranches because shooting an animal is a humane form of slaughter. I draw no moral distinction between a pig in a pen or a mule deer in the badlands.

What exactly "hunting" is should be decided by the individual. Opponents of game ranches always compare the extremes, but never admit that there are all forms of "hunting". Many hunters laugh at people who go to Saskatchewan to take the buck of a lifetime over a permanent stand over permanent bait. Then there are some people who think a 400 yard shot is hunting while others think the only real challenge is a bow. I embrace them all as hunters. I welcome them to stand with me and the NRA against the real antihunters that are absolutely set on taking our rights away.

As can be seen by reading the article the NRA is at least drawing part of their conclusion based on the fact that HSUS supports the measure. Clearly, we all know that HSUS is as anti-hunting as they come. They certainly are not supporting this measure because they want to form an alliance with other hunters. No, they know that chipping away at hunting rights of any kind will weaken all of us. Those they stand with now in support of this bill will be the ones they(HSUS) will look to take rights from next.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> Walker, I will not give up on the NRA, ... First I don't agree with them


Disagreeing with the NRA on issues is certainly a legitimate part of being a member of the organization.



Plainsman said:


> ..., but secondly if it comes to a vote it will pass. I really don't want it to look like HSUS defeated the NRA, but they will crow about it.


If the NRA displayed fear of failure I would most likely not be a member. It is their principled *unwavering *stance on issues that keeps me donating and active.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Clearly, we all know that HSUS is as anti-hunting as they come.


I agree, I have no respect for them whatsoever. Even though they support the initiative that I do I would not give them the time of day.

It's an ugly position to be in. I hope some day if science supports eliminating baiting, if they are right about disease spread, if you and all our fellow sportsmen say "yes lets stop it" that HSUS doesn't come along and agree with you. You will not be able to control that, they will claim victory. 
That's just one scenario, but many others exist where you may find yourself on the same side as some very unsavory people. It's a tough spot, and one I do not like. Look at the lead shot issue. Many anti hunting groups supported the elimination of lead shot. foolishly the NRA fought that also. I seen with my own eyes the damage done to waterfowl. Today we all know the problems lead shot caused. If it came up as an initiative today and HSUS supported it what would you do? Ask yourself this question seriously, and give me an honest answer, not just an answer to win a debate. Doing what's best for our hunting heritage is more important than winning an argument between hunters don't you agree?


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> It's an ugly position to be in.


I don't mean to imply that the NRA is opposing the issue purely because HSUS coincidentally supports it. There is more to it. I can see the association they are making. That is why I stated my reasons for supporting game ranches. I completely reject the ethics argument. HSUS absolutely has taken the position of moral superiority. They believe they know what the "right" thing to do is, and they want us all to do what it is they believe in.



Plainsman said:


> Ask yourself this question seriously, and give me an honest answer, not just an answer to win a debate.


I certainly agree we need robust and enforced game laws. I also know that these will not always be popular or agreed upon. I'm okay with that. I don't see the high fence hunting issue in this light at all.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

HUNTNFISHND said:


> 4CurlRedleg said:
> 
> 
> > The proposed initiative would ban private big game hunting preserves in North Dakota, a long-standing tradition in the state.
> ...


I don't know how old you are but shooting preserves of "all sorts" have been around for decades in this state.

It truly is a shame you feel so poorly about the NRA, if it wasn't for them your gun rights would be long gone. Fact. Assuming of course you are a gun owner and enjoy the liberties afforded you.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

One thing this whole initiative is doing is opening the door to pheasant preserves. Which most of the people say they don't have a problem with. See the anti's won't see a difference between the two.

That is one of the main reasons why I am not for this bill. Plus many others I have stated.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> I am more disappointed in their self destructive actions than I am their opposition. It's a shame.


The same can be said of those who have sided with HSUS, wether it be willingly or unwittingly.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

barebackjack said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > I am more disappointed in their self destructive actions than I am their opposition. It's a shame.
> ...


We didn't do either. We started the initiative (well at least someone in our group did) they seen it and jumped in. I hope you can understand the difference.
If some day they agree with you what will you do give up, drop it, jump off a bridge? I doubt it.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

If the legislature was proposing something I agreed with I would continue to support it even if HSUS agreed with it. However if a ballot initiative was being circulated and was supported by HSUS I would not sign it even if I agreed with it. There is a difference but I suppose you can't see that.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Once HSUS was involved we should have all flooded their site and told them to shove off.


Plainsman, that is exactly what you should have done, instead Roger embraced them and welcomed the HSUS support.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> > Once HSUS was involved we should have all flooded their site and told them to shove off.
> 
> 
> Plainsman, that is exactly what you should have done, instead Roger embraced them and welcomed the HSUS support.


I wanted to, but I was afraid I might be accused of contacting them. After all it would have been a contact. I did not want my name associated with HSUS. Not in any way. We all have different ideas I guess. 
Maybe telling them to get that off their site would still be a good idea. I would like to tell them that endorsing the initiative is nearly a death sentence for it in North Dakota. It would make little difference if people could understand they jumped in I didn't go to them. I am sure people understand, but they want to deny it.

Every time I hear that I am in bed with HSUS I only reaffirms my belief there is a lot of dishonesty going on behind closed fences. I hope others pick up on it also.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

g/o said:


> > Once HSUS was involved we should have all flooded their site and told them to shove off.
> 
> 
> Plainsman, that is exactly what you should have done, instead Roger embraced them and welcomed the HSUS support.


Exactamundo. :beer:



Plainsman said:


> Every time I hear that I am in bed with HSUS I only reaffirms my belief there is a lot of dishonesty going on behind closed fences. I hope others pick up on it also.


Yes there is Plainsman, and your side is just as guilty as your opposition.


----------

