High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

612 posts / 0 new
Last post
mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

sportsman | Said:

Re: A high fence initiate sponsor response

on 2010-08-22 14:23:21
mauserG33-40 Said:
Ron the Fair Chase/HSUS petition suporters says this is about the ethics of the HF operators,why should'n the ethics and the intergrity of the sponsors or lack of be questioned??  

  

gst, here is an example of lies coming from your side. It is not listed as a joint petition but because mauser "thinks" it is, he spouts it off as a fact when it is not.

Most could draw thier own conclusion

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

rthunsh@srt.com

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

Read the 3rd Paragraff

 

Monday, June 30, 2008

Where's Dave? Director of HSUS NRRO

 
Eastern Montana Habitat for Hounds

Hello my animal artist friends... Where in the world have I been?

Well most my travels have been in Eastern Montana laying the groundwork for an exciting Habitat for Hounds project in August with the Eastern Montana Humane Society in Baker. The EMHS attempted to build a humane society building there last fall but ran out of funding, and energy before the project could be completed. The frame above has been sitting idle for months. My visit is jump starting the event to have a community ole fashioned barn raising in August to finish this building and get it ready to accept animals from around Eastern Montana. This will be the only Humane Society in the entire South Eastern portion of Montana.

There is much planning and networking to be done. The HSUS innovations section is offering a grant to help pay for the concrete work , utilities, extra floor drains for a total cash donation of about 12K. We are asking a state animal welfare group to issue a challenge grant and if they do... we should be locally able to raise the funds needed to give this community a modest but effective humane society. A few days ago the EMHS came to Billings to pick up my emergency animal shelter trailer to set up temporary housing for the animals already in their care. So we really are hoping everything comes together to push this project along the right path.

After Baker I kept going east to Dickinson and Bismarck ND where i met with an official of the Fair Chase hunting movement who are trying to pass a ballot initiative to ban "canned hunting" practices in North Dakota. This is where ranchers or elk farmers put animals into small enclosures and those with more money than ethics can pay four or five thousand to shoot the tame elk, deer, zebra or exotic goat when the animal is not wild or cannot escape. We helped pass a ban on this egregious practice in Montana in 2005 and are supporting similar goals in Idaho and Colorado. There is a strong agricultural and personal property rights lobby that is trying to derail the publics opportunity to decide if they want this unethical form of trophy shooting ( note not using hunting) in their state. The signatures have to be in by the end of July so I stopped at shelters and activists homes along the way to encourage them to support the ballot initiative.

Ahhhh but it is also spring...so when I travel my menagerie of orphaned and rehab critter care fall to my lovely bride of 19 years and my two daughters. Here Maggie, my eldest at 16, is helping to care for one of the many raccoons and other critters that pass through the Pauli home. This spring, so far we have handled or rescued, five raccoons, one fox with broken elbow, on Raven, more than Forty entrapped ducks and duckling (most are rescued and released immediately), one nighthawk ( a bird in the Whipper Will family), and a half dozen rattle or other native snakes. As we close in on July...we are hoping things slow down... but the first two weeks with fireworks, activity in the wild...we always see an increase of "orphaned baby everything's"

In my next Blog entry I will tell you about some exciting upcoming projects building fences for Prairie Dogs in South Dakota, Live-trapping Badgers and Wolverines for research projects, and my upcoming trip to D.C. for the Taking Action for Animals conference and to visit the infamous and not approved Pony Penning Days at Chincoteague Island , VA.
 

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

well I guess that pretty much nails down the lid on the coffin of "the HSUS isn't helping gather these signatures or financing this action".LMFAO.  They sure know how to talk out both sides of their azzes. Zero credibility with these guys.

 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

eyexer Said:
well I guess that pretty much nails down the lid on the coffin of "the HSUS isn't helping gather these signatures or financing this action".LMFAO.  They sure know how to talk out both sides of their azzes. Zero credibility with these guys.


   Zero.

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, stated:

“"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." – Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990.

http://www.maineguides.org/referendum/a ... otes.shtml

I am sure Wayne Pacelle meant every word of his statement

 

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

mauserG33-40 Said:

Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, stated:

“"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." – Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990.

http://www.maineguides.org/referendum/a ... otes.shtml

I am sure Wayne Pacelle meant every word of his statement

 

Of course he did.  And he's using the pawns in ND to carry out his dirty work unbeknown to them. 

 

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

eyexer Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:

Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, stated:

“"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." – Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990.

http://www.maineguides.org/referendum/a ... otes.shtml

I am sure Wayne Pacelle meant every word of his statement

 

Of course he did.  And he's using the pawns in ND to carry out his dirty work unbeknown to them. 

Yes pawns and maybe one big employee

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

you know, the HSUS is a non-profit.  The records are open to the public.  I think somebody should audit them.

 

Bowhuntin's picture
Bowhuntin
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/17/03

I for one hope the HSUS starts campaigning for this initiative. Bring their money and take this over for all I care, it would show everyone what this is really about. Eat the elephant one bite at a time, that's the agenda of the HSUS and Caseman and the rest of those pushing this have fallen into their trap.

Protect hunting for our grandchildren they say. How can they be so naive? If I started an initiated measure thinking it would save hunting, and the HSUS jumped in bed with me I'd take a second look at what I was doing in a hell of a hurry.

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

 

Measure is a Trojan Horse

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Facts are stubborn things and the fact is that Measure 2 or the captive-hunting initiative is the single greatest threat to property rights in North Dakota today.

If passed, Measure 2 would have far reaching consequences that will extend well beyond shutting down game farms. It would open the door to efforts that would seek to ban trapping, bow hunting and even some types of bird hunting. But beyond just limiting our cherished hunting freedoms, Measure 2 shreds the rights of landowners and has the potential to devastate our state's livestock industry. If that's not enough, Measure 2 is a trial lawyer's dream: it would roll out the welcome mat to out-of-state animal rights groups as they tie up North Dakota in legal knots, litigating case after case in pursuit of imposing their radical agenda upon our state. And if there is one thing we know about animal rights groups, it is that they are never content until they impose their world-view on everyone. Because of this, Measure 2 opens the door to laws that will limit on-the farm slaughter, cripple our state's private meat industry and eliminate diversified livestock operations such as bison and elk farms.

Of course, proponents say that their goal is to simply shut down game farms. To our opponents, we say our farms provide a legal service for countless outdoor enthusiasts. These farms serve a growing demand that pumps hundreds of thousands of dollars into our state's rural economy and farm families have been able to supplement their incomes by operating game farms. And contrary to what the other side may tell you, game farms are not a new phenomenon -- they've been operating in our state for decades as allowed under state law and supervised by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the state Department of Agriculture.

The typical private North Dakota game farm averages between 600 and 1,200 acres. That said, our animals roam freely within the ranch. They are raised in a safe environment that is in accordance with state law. The North Dakota State Board of Animal Health closely -- and sensibly -- regulates the industry, regularly inspecting the farms to ensure animal safety. And while game farms comply with state law they must also comply with the laws of a free market that demand that those who use these ranches are provided a challenging and enjoyable experience. Because of this, ranch operators must offer good terrain, a challenging layout and a balanced animal population. Those who use game farms are provided a quality experience but they are not guaranteed to harvest an animal. In fact, many leave empty handed.

Game farms do not just serve those from urban areas who don't normally have access to hunting land. They also provide opportunities for youth hunters who are just beginning to hunt and opportunities for the elderly and the physically challenged -- including disabled veterans -- that they would not be able to otherwise enjoy.

Measure 2 is a Trojan Horse. It is poorly written and leaves much room for interpretation. Some who are supportive of Measure 2 view it as a stepping-stone to placing more restrictions on hunting and ranching. How do we know this? Because we have seen it in other states where similar laws have been passed. The only certainty with Measure 2 is that it will open the door to more laws that will take away the citizen's freedom to choose where they hunt, the landowner's right to decide how they use their land and the rancher's right to decide what livestock to raise.

Measure 2 may sound good to some, but it is far from good policy. It would create a law in search of a problem that does not exist. It would empower out-of-state animal rights extremists. And it would detrimentally affect our state's way of life.

Protect your property rights. Vote no on Measure 2.

(Shawn Schafer is co-chair of Citizens to Preserve ND Property Rights and president of the North Dakota Deer Ranchers Association.)

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/article_98c75138-b5e3-11df-b4fb-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story

Captive hunting is sham hunting

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Many North Dakotans are unaware of the commercial shooting operations across the state, operations that pen deer and elk inside escape-proof pastures for the sole purpose of offering the animals up as targets to rich out-of-state shooters who engage in what can only be called a sham hunt. The out-of-state shooter picks the size of the animal off the Internet before traveling to the operator's pasture where the client shoots the animal. The fee paid is based on antler size. No hunting is involved since the animal is fenced in. These operations are nothing more that shooting galleries with live targets.

North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is a grassroots organization of hunters dedicated to preserving our hunting heritage, a heritage based on the fair chase of free-ranging deer and elk. We oppose the corrupt image of hunting that the atrocious practice of shooting deer and elk inside escape-proof fences presents to the public.

In the wild, we spot, stalk and, with a little luck, take a deer that we are obligated by law to tag.

By law, the shooting gallery operator is obligated to tag his target animals with an ear tag at birth. The hunt is over before the baby deer or elk gets to his feet for the first time.

The practice of shooting deer and elk fenced inside a pasture creates a bankrupt image of hunting and hunters. That image is why members of the Fair Chase committee spent the last year collected signatures for an initiated measure that will outlaw the practice of penning deer and elk and offering them up as targets to rich out of state clients. If we do not end this practice, the high fence or game farm industry will grow into a monster that will bring shame on the citizens of this state. The North Dakota high-fence shooting industry is in its infancy. A look at states with long experience with these operations shows us what we can expect if we do not end this practice.

Artificial insemination. Already happening. At least one North Dakota operator advertises trophy quality bucks, the product of artificial insemination.

Whitetail Deer registry, up and running. The North American Deer Registry records pedigrees used to track antler producing genetics so shooting gallery operators can breed for antler size so they can charge a higher fee for their targets.

Cloning. Texas A & M University has cloned more than 300 whitetail bucks. Cloning allows a client can shoot the same buck several times.

Embryo transplants are coming, not to improve a food product, but to manipulate genetics for larger antlers.

Crossbreeding for larger antlers.

Inbreeding for the same purpose.

Shooting gallery operators manipulate genetics for profit the way a corrupt Wall Street banker manipulates investments; anything goes.

North Dakota high fence, shooting-gallery operators peddle the myth that they offer "wild" deer and elk for their clients' shooting pleasure inside pastures enclosed with an escape proof fence. They claim they do fair chase "hunts" inside their fence. Look at their websites. Read their advertising. They offer a 100 percent guarantee of success. The moment you see a 100 percent guarantee of success on any sort of hunt, you know it's a scam. The fence is the scam.

High-fence operators can't offer fair chase hunts. If the high-fence operator did offer a fair chase hunt, he could not offer a 100 percent guarantee of success. The animal might get way. The high-fence operator would have to deliver on his 100 percent guarantee; no trophy deer, no pay. Zero income will not impress the banker that holds the mortgage on the buck.

The 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal said, "The virtue of hunting is not in possessing game, but in pursing it."

Pascal sums up the difference between a shooting-gallery or high-fence operation and the legitimate fair chase hunting of free ranging deer supported by North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase. The moment you fence a deer or elk behind wire and start to feed it, the animal loses its fear of man and stops being wild. It is the wild in wildlife outside the fence we are trying to protect with an initiated measure.

(Roger Kaseman of Bismarck is the chairman of the sponsoring committee which put Measure 2 or the captive-hunting initiative on the ballot. He is also chairman of North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.)

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

Ah, just what ND needs, a judge to determine the fate of hunters in our state. 

 

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

eyexer Said:
Ah, just what ND needs, a judge to determine the fate of hunters in our state. 

If #2 passes you will think Obama is the F&G?

 

Timbuk-2's picture
Timbuk-2
Offline
Joined: 9/3/10

How about eyexer's post that the issue has been put before the voters a couple of times?  That's a distortion, misrepresentation, and an out right lie.  As he later admitted when he was caught.

pigsticker's picture
pigsticker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/05

From Kasemens article:

"It is the wild in wildlife outside the fence we are trying to protect with an initiated measure."

What?
 


This is my BOOMSTICK!!!

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

pigsticker Said:

From Kasemens article:

"It is the wild in wildlife outside the fence we are trying to protect with an initiated measure."

What?
 

Maybe Hardwaterman or Jim Higgeness could come here and make this a little clearer and show us where this is located in the petition.  As Hardwaterman has stated the 2nd intiatted measure is worded much differently than the first.

 

EyeKllr's picture
EyeKllr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/27/06

pigsticker Said:

From Kasemens article:

"It is the wild in wildlife outside the fence we are trying to protect with an initiated measure."

What?
 

I.e. The wild - being protected from those who would have them, wild animals, relegated to common domestic livestock status with all that implies - pens, high fences and target shooters...

Pot stirring to stir the pot...

Either way the people of ND - the real owners of our wildlife get to vote now. Perhaps both sides can shut their holes and let the democratic system prevail.

Patience Suchka.......

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

Eyekllr,

Like I told you in another thread, be careful of the voters in the public.  I think you know what I'm talking about...


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08

Yes, by all means, lets use the democratic process to take people's legal businesses away without any form of compensation on a simple majority vote.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

EyeKllr Said:

pigsticker Said:

From Kasemens article:

"It is the wild in wildlife outside the fence we are trying to protect with an initiated measure."

What?
 

I.e. The wild - being protected from those who would have them, wild animals, relegated to common domestic livestock status with all that implies - pens, high fences and target shooters...

Pot stirring to stir the pot...

Either way the people of ND - the real owners of our wildlife get to vote now. Perhaps both sides can shut their holes and let the democratic system prevail.

i don't know how many times this has to be said b4 some folks get it and understand it.... this measure isn't going to shut down the raising of these animals.  just ends the sale of the kill.  your problem w/ wild animals being relegated to common domestic livestock will still be there.  and once again... these animals are decades and dozens of generations removed from being wild.  you can not put the lid back on that can of worms.  you may close your eyes, plug your ears, toss a penny in the pool and wish as hard as you want that deer, elk and bison were never domesticated.  But, that wish will never come true.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

EyeKllr Said:
Pot stirring to stir the pot...

Either way the people of ND - the real owners of our wildlife get to vote now. Perhaps both sides can shut their holes and let the democratic system prevail.

Answer one single question if you would. Should the laws created by this "democratic system" be based of factual truth?

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

gst Said:

Answer one single question if you would. Should the laws created by this "democratic system" be based of factual truth?

Does truth include the answers to any of the following?

- Did HFH operators and participants turn their backs on the Average Joe by tossing the tradition of fair chase out the window?

- Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?

- Has any HFH operation ever been associated with bringing CWD, or other disease, across state lines?

- Have HFH operations ever had animals escape that were never recovered?

- Do HFH operations that have animals escape ever pay the full cost of their removal by state or federal agents when that operation has been unsuccessful at recovering their non-traditional livestock?

Any truthful answers to the above would be appreciated.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03
I brought this over from a different forum:

Tuff Chick Said:
Not so good.  I helped my friend this weekend and saw nothing.  We camped at the Buffalo Gap and only 5 Elk were brought there to be hung.  Ollie said this is the worst year for elk. The only ones that I saw shot were the elk trying to get back into the park after feeding all night.  Hopefully since the weather is cooler that will help. 
Good Luck!

To me it seems absolutely hilarious, hypocritical, etc that the park is allowed to let caged elk roam freely in and out of the park.  In fact, the reason they cannot ship the elk to other places anymore is because of CWD and other disease concerns.  Yet, every single year you hear of people shooting them as they go back into the park.  Doesn't that seem weird?

Then of course this whole high fence thing.  Nobody can convince me there won't be issue soon arising about the park hunt.  This initiative (as mentioned above) opens the door for litigation.  The answer I hear is "oh but Tim, there isn't any money exchanged at hand."

Hence, it won't be shut down as a high fence operation.  The older I get the more I see the hypocrisy of the world.  Some of guilty of but man, this is something else. 

Guess there's nothing to really do but sit back and watch the show in November and maybe write some letters, do some blogging, etc to lobby against this.  Should be interesting regardless.
 


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03

gst Said:

Answer one single question if you would. Should the laws created by this "democratic system" be based of factual truth?

Does truth include the answers to any of the following?

- Did HFH operators and participants turn their backs on the Average Joe by tossing the tradition of fair chase out the window?

- Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?

- Has any HFH operation ever been associated with bringing CWD, or other disease, across state lines?

- Have HFH operations ever had animals escape that were never recovered?

- Do HFH operations that have animals escape ever pay the full cost of their removal by state or federal agents when that operation has been unsuccessful at recovering their non-traditional livestock?

Any truthful answers to the above would be appreciated.

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

- Did HFH operators and participants turn their backs on the Average Joe by tossing the tradition of fair chase out the window?

1.  In my opinion, yes.  I don't think the minimal acreage operations are fair chase.  I just don't.  But there are other things I don't think are fair chase and currently legal.  So where does that leave my opinion?  I leave it at that, my opinion.

- Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?

2.  Yeah, it sucks that pay hunting exists.  I'm not a fan of it out of principle but I have a hard time telling a landowner he or she cannot do what is within the law.  If someone wants to pay to get into a golf course, they must do so.  If someone wants to get into the North Dakota State Fair, they must.  I know people will scream at the examples but I think people get the point.

So my answer is no for two reasons.  First off, those type of landowners probably never let people on in the first place.  From there, it most likely went to elk operations where horns were sold to the Chinese.  Some were butchered.  Well, that whole thing went south with the creation of Viagra.  So they went into the high fence operations.  Same similar fate to bison (funny how they aren't attacked).  Anyway, I don't like it but I guess I cannot blame the landowner.  In my opinion (and I've said it a billion times), we must attack the customer and not the business.  Mock the customer that thinks he is an almighty hunter and soon there will be no more customers.  But nope, we want to do it via shoving laws down people's throats.  I swear people, that mentality will be the destruction of the country...after a civil war of course.

- Has any HFH operation ever been associated with bringing CWD, or other disease, across state lines?

3.  Oh I suppose you could play that card.  But I'd like to have an answer back.  Do domestic animals pose a much greater disease risk to wildlife?  We both know the answer to that.  Hence, my belief and backing of hypocrisy claims to the baiting bill that will most likely show up in a few months.  P.S.  I do believe the TB strains in Minnesota come from down south from domestic livestock.

- Have HFH operations ever had animals escape that were never recovered?

4.  Yes.  They have.  So does the National Park Service.  Do I like it?  Well, never really cared I guess with exception to disease but there are such strict rules in place that it seems rather minimal.  Again, I'll reiterate hypocrisy and give clear example to how the NPS elk roam in and out of the park fence.  Slippery slope when we compare the two as they are pretty darn similar.  I'm guessing the local private animals are more closely watched.  I wonder if the park elk wouldn't be more dangerous to the public.  A crying shame I have to say this because I'd rather just shut up and cut more holes in the fence and remove any need for a pen hunt in the park.  But, it is what it is.

- Do HFH operations that have animals escape ever pay the full cost of their removal by state or federal agents when that operation has been unsuccessful at recovering their non-traditional livestock?

5.  I don't know the answer.  I know a few operations have been completely dissolved after they had issues with animals.  But those operations with missing animals?  Probably would have to call the state to ask.  Good question though.

P.S.  I think they should be severely fined.


 

 

Kirsch's Outdoor Products | Fargo, ND | 701-261-9017 Garmin GPS Hunting Maps
Liebel's Guide Service | Williston, ND | 701-770-6746 liebelsguideservice.com
Jig-em-Up Guide Service | Grand Forks, ND | 701-739-9198 jig-em-up-guide-service.com

 

 
eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

Timbuk-2 Said:
How about eyexer's post that the issue has been put before the voters a couple of times?  That's a distortion, misrepresentation, and an out right lie.  As he later admitted when he was caught.

Your getting completely owned in this discussion and that's all you honestly can come up with?  LFMAO. 

 

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08




Does truth include the answers to any of the following?

- Did HFH operators and participants turn their backs on the Average Joe by tossing the tradition of fair chase out the window?




When has Fair Chase been defined?  Is there a Fair Chase law?  Maybe it was tossed out the window with technology. 





- Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?




No, it is the landowner's right to post his land.  By allowing someone to come in and take an animal, it may actually free up hunting on public land.





- Has any HFH operation ever been associated with bringing CWD, or other disease, across state lines?





Is this question limited to the 10 hunt facilities or all 79 facilities?  As far as I know there has never been a case of CWD in a game farm in ND. 





- Have HFH operations ever had animals escape that were never recovered? 





Again, does this just apply to the 10 hunt facilities or all 79 facilities. 








sportsman  |'s picture
sportsman |
Offline
Joined: 3/10/09

As of right now, I will not be voting for the measure (due to wording).

However, if anyone who claims it will open the door to shutting down other methods of hunting would like to explain exactly how, I would love to listen to it. Do you think they will only try an initiated measure if this passes? Or that they would never (or have never) think about following a states method of enacting laws? Those are extremely naive' in my opinion. Unless you are strictly talking about interpretting this law in the court system, in which case a rewrite to address that concern will most likely be attempted next time.

It's not that bad.

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

pber Said:


Does truth include the answers to any of the following?

- Did HFH operators and participants turn their backs on the Average Joe by tossing the tradition of fair chase out the window?



When has Fair Chase been defined?  Is there a Fair Chase law?  Maybe it was tossed out the window with technology.

Actually, there is a standing definition of it.  Try the B&C club for starters.  Go from there to most any other big game hunting club and you will find they too have adopted or adapted B&C's definition.

Try SCI for a start:  http://www.africahunting.com/content/2-sci-releases-standards-hunting-behind-high-fences-361/




- Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?



No, it is the landowner's right to post his land.  By allowing someone to come in and take an animal, it may actually free up hunting on public land.

I agree with the first part of your answer, but the second part is totally incorrect and as a landowner/outdoors woman you should know better.  Every acre that is currently under HFH or guide/outfitter control was at one time open to friends or family.  I now compete against those hunters for access to increasingly fewer acres of open to the Average Joe land.  So indirectly and directly HFH has served as an access limiting factor in ND.  I can't think of a single HFH or guiding operation that allows fair chasers access to any of their land.  Can you?




- Has any HFH operation ever been associated with bringing CWD, or other disease, across state lines?




Is this question limited to the 10 hunt facilities or all 79 facilities?  As far as I know there has never been a case of CWD in a game farm in ND. 

Neither, it's a general question.




- Have HFH operations ever had animals escape that were never recovered? 




Again, does this just apply to the 10 hunt facilities or all 79 facilities. 

Again, neither.  It's a generic question that gets at the willingness and ability of the general HFH enterprise to clean up after itself.  In this particular question though, feel free to limit your research to just ND operations.  I believe elk, deer, and russian boars have all been escapees at one point in ND.

 

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

sportsman | Said:
As of right now, I will not be voting for the measure (due to wording).

However, if anyone who claims it will open the door to shutting down other methods of hunting would like to explain exactly how, I would love to listen to it. Do you think they will only try an initiated measure if this passes? Or that they would never (or have never) think about following a states method of enacting laws? Those are extremely naive' in my opinion. Unless you are strictly talking about interpretting this law in the court system, in which case a rewrite to address that concern will most likely be attempted next time.

This should answer your question but I am sure it wont.

Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, stated:

“"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." – Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990.

http://www.maineguides.org/referendum/a ... otes.shtml

 

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

Tim.

In regard to your thoughts on #4, I don't believe anywhere in the law does the National Park Service lay claim to animals.  Rather they control activities and that is why you can smoke an elk that walks 2 inches outside of the fence.  It's not the NPS' animal.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08

Allen, My point is, do we want Fair Chase defined in federal law?  At the rate this is going, this is exactly what is going to happen and then Fair Chase can be used to define away hunting.

I actually do know an operator that allows hunting on his land that is not fenced.  A lot of operators do not totally fence all their land. 

So are you saying that by eliminating the high fence hunt facilities, all some 10 of them, there will be more acres for others to hunt?

Goosefishmen's picture
Goosefishmen
Offline
Joined: 5/7/09

How many cattle get out is this state every day?  Who pays when a truck overturns with cattle or hogs in it on the interstate and local officals help contain them?  Like most farmers or anybody for that matter, I am sure they have insurance to cover these issues when their animals damage other property or cause an issue. 

This bill really scares me, the general public is not as wise as they used to be and less understand what this could do to all hunting. 

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

whitetail addict's picture
whitetail addict
Offline
Joined: 7/21/03

+1

Goosefishmen Said:
How many cattle get out is this state every day?  Who pays when a truck overturns with cattle or hogs in it on the interstate and local officals help contain them?  Like most farmers or anybody for that matter, I am sure they have insurance to cover these issues when their animals damage other property or cause an issue. 

This bill really scares me, the general public is not as wise as they used to be and less understand what this could do to all hunting. 

Y'all call me a paranoid gun-nut now, but we all know who you're going to be running to for help when the zombies show up.
mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

whitetail addict Said:
+1

Goosefishmen Said:
How many cattle get out is this state every day?  Who pays when a truck overturns with cattle or hogs in it on the interstate and local officals help contain them?  Like most farmers or anybody for that matter, I am sure they have insurance to cover these issues when their animals damage other property or cause an issue. 

This bill really scares me, the general public is not as wise as they used to be and less understand what this could do to all hunting. 

You couldn't be more right, very good post.

 

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

pber Said:
Allen, My point is, do we want Fair Chase defined in federal law?  At the rate this is going, this is exactly what is going to happen and then Fair Chase can be used to define away hunting.

Personally, I think that is a bit of a stretch because the hunting public who is against HFH will not find themselves on the side of anything that restricts fair chase.  Sure, HSUS clowns will always have their own members to continue to work against all hunting, but they lose the fair chase crowd when it comes to that.

I actually do know an operator that allows hunting on his land that is not fenced.  A lot of operators do not totally fence all their land. 

As someone who is likely in more knowledge of all 10 HFH operations and maybe even more outfitter run pay-for-hunt operations, I am not totally surprised by the first sentence and of course, agree that not all fence in 100% if their property. 

So are you saying that by eliminating the high fence hunt facilities, all some 10 of them, there will be more acres for others to hunt?

To a certain extent, yes.  It may not be very many acres that we are speaking of, but you must admit that at one point in time someone else hunted those acres.  Even if it were only blood relatives.  And of course, on the track we are going it is reasonable to foresee that the number of acres is only likely to increase.  Regrettably, in this sense I lump HFH operations with pay-for-hunt operations.  Neither of which do I find very tasteful.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08

So who is the fair chase crowd -- the ones that agree that baiting is wrong, or maybe that trail cams are wrong, or maybe the ones that think shooting more than X number of yards is wrong?

Actually Allen HF operations have decreased. I would think that all land at one time had someone hunt there, even where your house sits Allen.

Are any of these reasons to take someone's legal business away from them without compensation using an initiated measure on a simple majority vote? What kind of precedent are we setting?

EyeKllr's picture
EyeKllr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/27/06

gst Said:

EyeKllr Said:
Pot stirring to stir the pot...

Either way the people of ND - the real owners of our wildlife get to vote now. Perhaps both sides can shut their holes and let the democratic system prevail.

Answer one single question if you would. Should the laws created by this "democratic system" be based of factual truth?

I would say yes of course.

So educate me on how it is wrong or decietful and I guarantee I will vote against it - I will even get people around me to vote against it.

I am being that open - no sarcasm intended.

And to another poster - I see where animals traditionally thought of as wild game animals have been bastardized into so much livestock - and I hate it. I despise it.......

Patience Suchka.......

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Allen Said:Does truth include the answers to any of the following?

- Did HFH operators and participants turn their backs on the Average Joe by tossing the tradition of fair chase out the window?

- Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?

- Has any HFH operation ever been associated with bringing CWD, or other disease, across state lines?

- Have HFH operations ever had animals escape that were never recovered?

- Do HFH operations that have animals escape ever pay the full cost of their removal by state or federal agents when that operation has been unsuccessful at recovering their non-traditional livestock?

Any truthful answers to the above would be appreciated.

First
The "average joe" here in ND has almost unlimited opportunities if they CHOOSE to hunt abiding by "fair chase" rules. You would be hard pressed to argue otherwise.  NO ONE is trying to take that CHOICE away from them, yet. . I can go to any area in this state and hunt any game animal without having to pay a dime. I highly doubt that I am that much more special than any other "average joe" here in ND so the answer to your question IMO that can only  BE answered by opinion rather than truthful fact is no one is taking the choice of "fair chase hunting" away from any "average joe" so they have not "turned their backs " on anyone.  Now from a factual perspective, the fact is "fair chase"is by your own admission only  a set of rules developed by hunting orgs to govern animals accepted into their record keeping system. While the ability of the owners of these animals to offer these privately owned animals in "hunting" situations is a part of state law.

Second
It is hard to seriously claim these HFH operations have taken any significant amount of land away from anyone, particularily when a major arguement of the FC group is the SMALL acrages these animals are held in. It is also a FACT that these are privately owned lands that are not "open" to the public unless the owner chooses to allow it by not posting them. Are you trying to claim a land owner should not have the right to control access to the lands they own if it is for a legal purpose you disagree with?????  As to a follow up question  you posed, I do know an operation that has other land that is not posted and open to public hunting for the "average joe"

Third
I do not know the answer to this,  but I'm sure the State Board of Animal Health could answer this for you.

Fourth
From a post by someone else on this thread, I believe so, if they posted factual information.

Fifth
I do not know the answer to this, but again, I would guess the SBoAH could answer this for you.

Now Allen if you would answer the two questions I have posed.
Do you believe the creation of state law should be  based on factual truth?
Do you believe the sponsors of any measure should be held to a standard of truth and fact?

While you are at it please answer if telling someone these animals in the HF operations that are clearly defined as privately owned domestic animals and farmed elk in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC   are "wild game" protected for the public use under article 11 Sec. 27 is the truth  as sponsor Gary Masching admits to telling people while gathering signatures in a Dakota Country article?

EyeKllr's picture
EyeKllr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/27/06

And I am about fair chase - no fences, no pens, no baiting and maybe on game camera's.

Whats wrong with wanting to keep at least one thing somewhat pure?

And no....I dont belong to any organizations other than the GOA - used to belong to the NRA but they are too into selling out. But thats another story.

Patience Suchka.......

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Allen Said
 Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?



No, it is the landowner's right to post his land.  By allowing someone to come in and take an animal, it may actually free up hunting on public land.

I agree with the first part of your answer, but the second part is totally incorrect and as a landowner/outdoors woman you should know better.  Every acre that is currently under HFH or guide/outfitter control was at one time open to friends or family.  I now compete against those hunters for access to increasingly fewer acres of open to the Average Joe land.  So indirectly and directly HFH has served as an access limiting factor in ND.  I can't think of a single HFH or guiding operation that allows fair chasers access to any of their land.  Can you?

How can you factually claim no "friends and family" "average joes" are not allowed to hunt on any of these HF or guiding operations????? Simply because you "can't think of a single" one does not make it a factually true blanket statement. I have personally hunted on land that is owned by friends that have a HF operation. Never paid a dime. Please do not try linking guiding and the leasing of land to the discussion regarding the measure to ban HF.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Allen Said:

Personally, I think that is a bit of a stretch because the hunting public who is against HFH will not find themselves on the side of anything that restricts fair chase.  Sure, HSUS clowns will always have their own members to continue to work against all hunting, but they lose the fair chase crowd when it comes to that.

BS!!!!  
So how do explain the banning of hunting predators with dogs, the banning of baiting, the banning of the use of trail cameras, ect............ by hunters themselves????

How many conversations have taken place on this site about any number of accepted fair chase activities and wether they are ethical or should be banned or allowed? How far is too far, what caliber is too light, running shots, bow let off ect............

There will ALWAYS be a small group of the "hunting public"  that believe THEIR ethics are superior and should be pushed onto everyone. For now they are called North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, next year perhaps it will be North Dakota Hunters to Ban Baiting.

whitetail addict's picture
whitetail addict
Offline
Joined: 7/21/03

gst gotta say i couldnt agree with you more!!!! kudos my friend

Y'all call me a paranoid gun-nut now, but we all know who you're going to be running to for help when the zombies show up.
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

EyeKllr Said:
And I am about fair chase - no fences, no pens, no baiting and maybe on game camera's.

Whats wrong with wanting to keep at least one thing somewhat pure?

And no....I dont belong to any organizations other than the GOA - used to belong to the NRA but they are too into selling out. But thats another story.

Eye killer, NO ONE is trying to take away your ability to remain as pure to what you need as an individual to take from the hunting experience what you must. Even if HF exists, even if baiting exists you can still make the choice to hunt how you wish. Even if it is running thru the woods naked with a pointed rock on a stick ! Well maybe you would need at least a loin cloth or something! 

To me that is the beauty of hunting it is soley an individual experience and choice what you want to take from the experience. When people believe they need to begin imposing their beliefs for that on other people to me it takes more away from the hunting experience than HFor baiting or cameras ever will.

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08

Montanans for Trap-Free Public Lands:  As a true grassroots group, we are composed of folks from all walks of life; citizens, and outdoor recreationists including hikers, skiers, ice-climbers, fishermen, hunters, campers, and horseback riders.

There is no “fair chase” in trapping.  Trapping does not honor the hunters’ ethical code of “fair chase,” or the time-honored principles of quick and efficient kill.  Tens of thousands of untended, unmonitored traps lure wild and domestic animals with bait.  Trappers are not required to check their traps in any specific period of time.

http://www.mttrapfree.org/index.html

aba's picture
aba
Offline
Joined: 12/16/01

Allen,  After reading your answer it easy to see which side you're on.  Your statement about all HF/outfitter land being closed to the average Joe is completely out of context.  All I can say is you really need to get a life.   After reading Roger Kaseman's letter in the Tribune I had to laugh, he mentioned 3 times about those " out of state hunter, and referred to them as "rich".   The chickens have come home to roost, this is the whole agenda like always them "out of state hunters'.  Check the names of the sponsors of this petition and you will find these are the same ones that always want more restrictions on out of state hunters.  So Allen let me ask you a question, Why is it that none of these guys customers are complaining?   You guy's make a big deal about this not being fair chase yet I'm not hearing any complaints against these guys in ND doing this. 

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Allen in case you don't have a list to check here you  go

http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/elections/docs/petition20090821.pdf

 

hunternd's picture
hunternd
Offline
Joined: 5/19/04

This has been interesting to watch over the years. The proponents have tried the disease issue, the "I don't like it and the legislature won't pass it " approach and not the "Fair Chase" approach.  So - where does a person go to get the official and ethical "Fair Chase" rules??  Maybe there's a rule book out there somewhere, I would like to find it to get the defined rules Or , will the ethics masters pass one law at a time until their defination of ethical and fair chase gets into law?? 

If you choose to be a pureist - great, if you want to pay a pheasant preserve to take your friends or kids hunting - great. Which will be the most rewarding??  Depends on the person.  I'll bet that we couldn't even agree on the use of high power scopes, rangefinders, trail cameras, or shooting a deer laing down???

The article in the Bismarck Tribune written by Roger Kaseman brings out several issues that aren't related to high fence and I believe will be their next areas of legislation.

1. Guides and outfitters, and private landowners that cater to "rich, out of state hunters"
2. Baiting and other methods that are viewed as "unacceptable" by the ethics masters.
3. The North American Model of Conservation
4. Common ag practices such as AI, genetic selection, keep in mind the fenced animals are not wild but domesticated?

This issue has the potential to go much deeper than the high fenced operations. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

EyeKllr Said:
I would say yes of course.
tic system" be based of factual truth?
So educate me on how it is wrong or decietful and I guarantee I will vote against it - I will even get people around me to vote against it.

I am being that open - no sarcasm intended.

And to another poster - I see where animals traditionally thought of as wild game animals have been bastardized into so much livestock - and I hate it. I despise it.......

The clock can not be turned back and these animals wether it is liked or not have been domesticated in the eyes of the state and are clearly defined as such in the NDCC. Yet a sponsor of this measure admits to telling the public they are defined as wild game and are included under art.11 sec 27 which they simply are not. This lie was admittedly told to help gather signatures to get this on the ballot. The sponsor Gary Masching stated that when people were told this they went out and got others to come back and sign this measure. So how many signatures were gathered  based on this fraudulent statement?

The sponsors claim it will not shut down other elk operations that raise their animals for sale for meat. Yet will not explain why this measure is put into the section of the Century Code reserved for animal agriculture and how if these animals are indeed reclassified as big game as this measure is worded how the Federal Lacey Act (which sponsor Roger Kaseman stated will be used in regards to this measure) will not make anyone receiving a fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal in violation of this state and federal laws?

Dick Monson, a sponsor, publically  stated that the CWD infected deer in SW ND had to have been infected by a HFH operation. Where is his factual proof to base this statement on?

People have came on this site and stated they had been told lies by the sponsors of this measure one being these animals were stolen from the wild. If these lies had not been told, would there have been enough signatures gathered to place this on the ballot??

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Allen Said:Does truth include the answers to any of the following?

- Did HFH operators and participants turn their backs on the Average Joe by tossing the tradition of fair chase out the window
No. People are paying to shoot domesticated livestock. Has nothing to do with fair chase.

- Did HFH operators and participants, either directly or indirectly, remove access from previously open lands to the Average Joe in the name of the almighty dollar?
No. How is this any different than Guided Outfitter hunts, where the land is posted and you have to pay a fee to hunt it?

- Has any HFH operation ever been associated with bringing CWD, or other disease, across state lines?
Dont know. Have Elk farms? HFH operations are more of a CWD risk than normal elk farms?

- Have HFH operations ever had animals escape that were never recovered?
Probably. Do cattle, chickens, turkeys, or the family dog ever get loose and run away from home?

- Do HFH operations that have animals escape ever pay the full cost of their removal by state or federal agents when that operation has been unsuccessful at recovering their non-traditional livestock?
For the few times ive ever heard of it happening, i dont think they have had to pay anything. I dont think it has cost the state very much considering these animals dont get loose very often and the g and f employees are gonna get there 40 hours in whether they're tracking these animals down or not. Maybe they should pass a law stating that the HFH operations have to pay for the costs?

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

sportsman | Said:
As of right now, I will not be voting for the measure (due to wording).

However, if anyone who claims it will open the door to shutting down other methods of hunting would like to explain exactly how, I would love to listen to it. Do you think they will only try an initiated measure if this passes? Or that they would never (or have never) think about following a states method of enacting laws? Those are extremely naive' in my opinion. Unless you are strictly talking about interpretting this law in the court system, in which case a rewrite to address that concern will most likely be attempted next time.

If I recall there has been numerous debates on how this bill could very easily be used to restrict other normal hunting issues.  All you have to do is read the info from the HSUS.  They will use whatever methods they can to impose their will on hunters.  I fully expect the use of Trail Cams to come under attack soon.  Also the baiting issue will rear it's ugly head very soon also.  There is nothing off the table when the HSUS is involved.  And whether you believe it or not, the HSUS is involved in this deal big time. 

 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

pber Said:
Allen, My point is, do we want Fair Chase defined in federal law?  At the rate this is going, this is exactly what is going to happen and then Fair Chase can be used to define away hunting.

I actually do know an operator that allows hunting on his land that is not fenced.  A lot of operators do not totally fence all their land. 

So are you saying that by eliminating the high fence hunt facilities, all some 10 of them, there will be more acres for others to hunt?

Lol, the land owners most definitely will charge a fee, if they let anyone on at all. Couldnt really blame them i guess since there business got shutdown because of some pee brained voters.

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08
Eyexer Stated:  I fully expect the use of Trail Cams to come under attack soon.  Also the baiting issue will rear it's ugly head very soon also.  There is nothing off the table when the HSUS is involved.  And whether you believe it or not, the HSUS is involved in this deal big time. 

Funny thing, Mr. Kaseman already was trying to get sponsors for a petition to ban baiting.  I also believe he has stated in Dakota Country that he does not like trail cams.  So I wonder if and when he sponsors and chairs any of these petitions he will collect another 8000 plus signatures by himself.  Will he meet with David Pauli, HSUS Regional Director again?

Pages