High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

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

Hardwaterman Said:
So your whole argument Tim is that you do not want additional Reg's well I tell you what, why not just simply disband the Leg in ND and every other state as well as the Fed Gov including the county and city level. Get it?

Then we will not need anyone to deal with the road issue out west, or flooding in the east for that matter. It will be up to the voters to decide if more regulations are to be had. Which is really what the purpose of a Republic is! By the way, your articles are old news, have been floated around before. The fact is that there are people who feel very different regarding this issue and that it is important that we police ourselves and since others seem to not want to, it has come to this. A huge philosophical difference in view Tim. One of them will be validated by the voters.

Thats pretty week Ron September 15, 2010 is old.

 

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

Tim Sandstrom Said:

I'll say it again, this law is not needed.  It solves nothing worthy of being solved.  It is an agenda by those who have a emotional imbalance and can't separate their love for developing more laws and regulations from simply allowing society to do what they do best.  No need for a law.  None.

LMAO! Emotional imbalance! hahahahaha! Truer words were never spoken! Bunch of self serving egotistical persons who want to dictate to everyone else what is right and wrong because they think we can't decide for ourselves!

Emotionally imbalanced? Perhaps! Probably worse problems than that though! 

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

I'll tell you what Ronnie.  It has become painfully clear that you are a paid mouthpiece for this organization.  There is no other explanation for somebody that would be that willing to talk in circles and out both sides for no other reason.  Some of your stances just defy any other form of reasoning.  So I guess continue your nonesensical diatribe cuz I'm really starting to enjoy the humor.  After all you alone could end all hope for the high fence initiative, lol. 

 

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

Tim Sandstrom Said:
Good.  So everyone that is reading FBO and hopefully those on Nodak will understand that this initiative favors the HSUS agendas.  They can then separate their emotion and decide just how much THEY (their own opinion) want laws in North Dakota that welcome opportunity for future regulations.

I hope they also realize there is absolutely NO REASON to waste our legislative efforts in dealing with a law that is NOT NEEDED.  Instead, they will support their local wildlife clubs and fair chase clubs in developing more grass root type movements that poke fun at those who think they are trophy hunters when hunting canned animals.  Similar to how all the TV commercials cleverly attacked cigarettes.

I'll say it again, this law is not needed.  It solves nothing worthy of being solved.  It is an agenda by those who have a emotional imbalance and can't separate their love for developing more laws and regulations from simply allowing society to do what they do best.  No need for a law.  None.

Persuade those that believe they are almighty trophy hunters to believe they are merely domesticated livestock slaughterers.  Done deal.  No HSUS hangovers, no direct ticking off of landowners, no issues within the century code, etc.  And guess what, the same result.  Much better idea.

Couldnt agree more.

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

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 where mauser said it was a joint petition directly. He has also insinuated it in several posts. If this does not satisfy your "where did they say ...." question, probably nothing can.

Bowhuntin Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:

 emotional imbalance

At least the Pro High Fence crowd isn't resorting to name calling. Well, not in all of the last 5 posts anyway.

It's not that bad.

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

To Tim and gst,

Do you believe in regulating how the High Fence operations advertise and would support not allowing them to call it a hunt?

Would you go on record personnaly publicly denouncing the operations and stating your support of not allowing them to call it a hunt?

Would Fishingbuddy/TON network and the Stockmens Assoc. (I believe gst is a member/on the board) go on record publicly denouncing the operations and support not calling it a hunt?

I think that would be end of story and no more discussion needed. Advertise it as a shoot/slaughter/kill/whatever not a hunt. You can't sell beef as hogs or poultry as beef or hogs as corn. Why should High Fence be let off for false advertising.

It's not that bad.

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

sportsman | Said:

To Tim and gst,

Do you believe in regulating how the High Fence operations advertise and would support not allowing them to call it a hunt?

Would you go on record personnaly publicly denouncing the operations and stating your support of not allowing them to call it a hunt?

Would Fishingbuddy/TON network and the Stockmens Assoc. (I believe gst is a member/on the board) go on record publicly denouncing the operations and support not calling it a hunt?

I think that would be end of story and no more discussion needed. Advertise it as a shoot/slaughter/kill/whatever not a hunt. You can't sell beef as hogs or poultry as beef or hogs as corn. Why should High Fence be let off for false advertising.

those of us that don't Hunt high fence operations will never be able to fully understand why people do it.  but there are people that do it for a multitude of reasons.  I cannot fathom why the hell there are select individuals that feel they need to belittle this method down to the point to where they don't even want them to call it a hunt.  Call it whatever the hell they want to call it.  It's not going to change the fact that every tom dick and harry in this country realize that it's not normal hunting.  It would be alot like some looney going into the zoo and hunting.  we all know it's not technically hunting as we know it and we'll never understand.  But honestly, why should anybody care what it's called.  It's like when I go to the races.  There is always a couple guys that drive around and get in the way all night long.  They aren't racing, they're just driving around getting in the way.  Why should they be able to call it racing.  Racing is when you are actually keeping up with the pack.  But we all let them call it racing when quite honestly we all know that really isn't the case.   It's the same with high fence hunting.  We let them call it hunting to stroke their ego a little bit.  I know there is a tiny percentage that feels cheated by them calling it that but someday they'll grow up. 

 

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

Tim - Couldn't agree more with your post. We can debate the wording to death, do you think the fair chaisers are going to change their measure or motive? 

So after election day and for some reason this measure passes what have we accomplished??  We put 10-12 people out of business that  probably 95% of North Dakotans didn't know exist, and that does what?
 
It won't open more land for hunting - do you really think that putting someone out of business will make them open their land for hunting? And yes I did call it a business - becasue I can tell the difference between a wild elk and a pen raised one.

It won't save the ag industry or wildlife from a phantom disease. I'm pretty sure the ND Board of Animal Health has this area covered and uses actual scientific information.  If Hardwater thinks that the ag community is in his pocket he needs to ask some real landowners and livestock producers. I haven't seen any ag groups backing the measure yet??

Son in the end, what is gained by passing this measure?? Splitting the hunters? Gooood.

fatwillie's picture
fatwillie
Offline
Joined: 10/15/05

eyexer Said:
I'll tell you what Ronnie.  It has become painfully clear that you are a paid mouthpiece for this organization.  There is no other explanation for somebody that would be that willing to talk in circles and out both sides of his azz for no other reason.  Some of your stances just defy any other form of reasoning.  So I guess continue your nonesensical diatribe cuz I'm really starting to enjoy the humor.  After all you alone could end all hope for the high fence initiative, lol. 

And some wonder why others involved with this measure don't come on here and discuss this issue when this is the type of treatment someone gets? What good would it do?

I lived in MT when this issue was going on over there and all of this discussion sounds real familiar. The HFH crowd pitched the same talk in MT as what is going on now. The spin zone was alive and well in MT just like it is here. I will be curious to see if this passes. If I were a betting man I'm not sure on which side I would lay my green on here in ND. November will be here quickly and we will find out soon enough. Personally, I don't think the measure sponsors have done enough education/advertisement for this to pass. They will have to get to work over the next month and a half if they want to succeed. They will have my vote but at this point I don't think it's enough.  

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

fatwillie Said:

eyexer Said:
I'll tell you what Ronnie.  It has become painfully clear that you are a paid mouthpiece for this organization.  There is no other explanation for somebody that would be that willing to talk in circles and out both sides of his azz for no other reason.  Some of your stances just defy any other form of reasoning.  So I guess continue your nonesensical diatribe cuz I'm really starting to enjoy the humor.  After all you alone could end all hope for the high fence initiative, lol. 

And some wonder why others involved with this measure don't come on here and discuss this issue when this is the type of treatment someone gets? What good would it do?

I lived in MT when this issue was going on over there and all of this discussion sounds real familiar. The HFH crowd pitched the same talk in MT as what is going on now. The spin zone was alive and well in MT just like it is here. I will be curious to see if this passes. If I were a betting man I'm not sure on which side I would lay my green on here in ND. November will be here quickly and we will find out soon enough. Personally, I don't think the measure sponsors have done enough education/advertisement for this to pass. They will have to get to work over the next month and a half if they want to succeed. They will have my vote but at this point I don't think it's enough.  

I don't think there's much risk of it passing here.  There aren't nearly enough libtards living here like there are in western MT. 

 

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

eyexer Said:
those of us that don't Hunt high fence operations will never be able to fully understand why people do it.  but there are people that do it for a multitude of reasons.  I cannot fathom why the hell there are select individuals that feel they need to belittle this method down to the point to where they don't even want them to call it a hunt.  Call it whatever the hell they want to call it.  It's not going to change the fact that every tom dick and harry in this country realize that it's not normal hunting.  It would be alot like some looney going into the zoo and hunting.  we all know it's not technically hunting as we know it and we'll never understand.  But honestly, why should anybody care what it's called.  It's like when I go to the races.  There is always a couple guys that drive around and get in the way all night long.  They aren't racing, they're just driving around getting in the way.  Why should they be able to call it racing.  Racing is when you are actually keeping up with the pack.  But we all let them call it racing when quite honestly we all know that really isn't the case.   It's the same with high fence hunting.  We let them call it hunting to stroke their ego a little bit.  I know there is a tiny percentage that feels cheated by them calling it that but someday they'll grow up. 

I guess truth in advertising means something to some people. I can't sell scrap iron as beef or purposely (or accientally) mis-advertise the nutritional content of my food product. I think the High Fence operators should be held to the same standards as other businesses, truth in advertising.

It's not that bad.

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

sportsman | Said:

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 where mauser said it was a joint petition directly. He has also insinuated it in several posts. If this does not satisfy your "where did they say ...." question, probably nothing can.

Bowhuntin Said:
egotistical dickheads

Bowhuntin Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:

 emotional imbalance

BringingTheRain Said:
More like weak minded foolish suckers.

At least the Pro High Fence crowd isn't resorting to name calling. Well, not in all of the last 5 posts anyway.

Sorry,  it is, what it is. It isnt all that hard to get people to sign something.

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

Sportsman, I have made it perfectly clear that although I personally do not believe HF would give me what I need to take from the experience to call it hunting, that is mine and mine only decision to make. As has been stated who knows what one has to take from an experience to call it hunting. I would imagine there are backpack bowhunters that hike 30 miles into the back mountians to shoot a mule deer far from civilization that in all likelyhood would not think sitting in a heated stand over a pile of corn waiting for a shot at a deer to be "hunting" , How many people would believe jumping out of a pickup and shooting a rooster on the ground in the ditch would be hunting????How many more examples would you like me to give where one individual may not consider sometning legal to be hunting based on their personal standards? So what happens to the hunting experience when that eliteist group of people that several on here have mentioned start to impose what they believe is and should be called hunting??? If you believe this is about the ability of an animal to "run away" you are a fool. The buffalo in a "fenced" advertised "hunt"can not "run away" any more than the elk or deer and they were purposely not included by the sponsors in this measure.  It is simply  a group of egotistical eliteists that feel the need to impose their standards onto everyone else.

As I have stated before, to me this ideology behinfd this measure is far more of a "threat" to the hunting heritage of an individual making personal choices to take what they need from the experience than any HF operation ever will be.

So the answer to your question(I like to answer ones that are asked of me) is no I would not support imposing my definition of what hunting is onto anyone else for any reason. And I highly doubt any ag org would as well as defining hunting is simply outside of most all ag orgs policy arenas.

As to someone claiming hsus is a sponsor, you have not shown an example. Many people have suggested,and links to sites and emails have been shared that prove unquestionably this measure is very important to HSUS so much so that they have sent their members alerts to have them "help" with this effort. So common sense would allow one to believe it is a mutual effort supported by both groups. The fact that alone does not bother you as a hunter says a bit.

PikePits's picture
PikePits
Offline
Joined: 10/16/09

Google advertising and read the definition. Then do the same for the definition of the word hunt.  While I am partial to number 4; it is number 1 that is the actual definition. If a hunter bags his HF elk and then wants to shoot a steer; if he or she is willing to continue their hunt, and the Landowner is willing to provide the service in an amicable agreement who is to judge. If the Landowner wants to close his quanset door and get compensated for his client to go on an exotic Rhode Island Red hunt, who would complain? The above post may be the best example yet; as to roll out of the truck and shoot a Pheasant in the ditch most likely is tresspassing if the adjacent land is fenced. Once again though the burden of proof is on the Landowner.

One step at a time...Be careful.

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

Every time anything comes up, people bring up ticking of landowners, well guess what, it gets old just like the East vs West stuff does. You forget that many who sponsored this are landowners. Supporters of it like myself are Ag landowners.

Many Ronnie?  Come on other than Dick Monson you have a couple of guys owning a few parcels of CRP for hunting.  I wonder if they post their land or if it's in PLOTS?  I still am searching LaMoure county and haven't yet found you to be a owner of any land.

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

Hardwaterman Said:
So your whole argument Tim is that you do not want additional Reg's well I tell you what, why not just simply disband the Leg in ND and every other state as well as the Fed Gov including the county and city level. Get it?

Then we will not need anyone to deal with the road issue out west, or flooding in the east for that matter. It will be up to the voters to decide if more regulations are to be had. Which is really what the purpose of a Republic is! By the way, your articles are old news, have been floated around before. The fact is that there are people who feel very different regarding this issue and that it is important that we police ourselves and since others seem to not want to, it has come to this. A huge philosophical difference in view Tim. One of them will be validated by the voters.

hard,

Stick to some practical thought.  I mean, sure, good job on spinning it to try and bend my arguments. I like your passion for the outdoors and agree with you most of the time but trying to spin it that I want the state legislature to disband is just a monster spin and nothing more than that.  In reality, I think the legislature is EXACTLY the place for such legislation to be brought up.  But it is not, the weapon of emotion is being used instead.

And you are right, voters will decide.  That is fine and dandy but I sure hope the voters educate themselves before making votes.  I think we both know many do not.  They vote based off heresy or what they were told at a home and garden show.  There's more to the big picture with this.  If I had an 18 year-old daughter and Kaseman got a hold of her and talked his talk my daughter would be voting off pure emotion.  Hence the whole issue I have with this initiative.  It will be passed not because of thought but because of emotion and ethics.  The consequences of it will simply be ignored as a result.


 

 

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

sportsman | Said:

To Tim and gst,

Do you believe in regulating how the High Fence operations advertise and would support not allowing them to call it a hunt?

Would you go on record personnaly publicly denouncing the operations and stating your support of not allowing them to call it a hunt?

Would Fishingbuddy/TON network and the Stockmens Assoc. (I believe gst is a member/on the board) go on record publicly denouncing the operations and support not calling it a hunt?

I think that would be end of story and no more discussion needed. Advertise it as a shoot/slaughter/kill/whatever not a hunt. You can't sell beef as hogs or poultry as beef or hogs as corn. Why should High Fence be let off for false advertising.

sportsman,

First off in regard to name calling.  Yep, totally uncalled for.  That's what that flag feature is for.  If you have an issue with something in a post (such as name calling) use the flag feature and I will gladly to what is necessary.  Wasn't around the computer last night because I have a life to attend to as well.  In fact, was finishing some demolition in a remodel job on a house I bought.

In regard to your post. I assume this is your first HF thread you've read.  I make that assumption because in every thread (this one included) I've made my opinion WELL KNOWN to folks that I do not see these HF operations as fair chase.  Furthermore, I have directly supported doing something to put strain on these operations trying to advocate their operations as "fair chase."  I don't think I can support putting some sort of law on the books to say "you can't call this a hunt".  To me, that's as bad as this initiative in the first place.  You'd open a whole new can of worms up.  Anyway,  I believe I could site you for plagiarism with using "shoot/slaughter/kill/whatever not a hunt" because I've used those words long before you have.

And to answer your last question, what more can I do?  I have repeatedly said I do not see these HF operations as fair chase.  Over and over and over again.  I'll repeat that, I've said they are not fair chase.  One last time?  I AGREE WITH EVERYONE THAT THINKS THESE OPERATIONS ARE NOT FAIR CHASE.  On a disclaimer note, you will personally have to ask the owners of FBO if they would sponsor a campgain.  My words are mine and mine only.  I am simply an employee of the site.

My belief on this standpoint would pretty much line me up as a supporter of this initiative wouldn't it?  But I'm not.  I don't like what they are doing, I don't think it is necessary and I think it sets a precedence we do not want to add any Vaseline too.  I simply believe the public needs to be educated about fair chase just like how the public was educated about cigarettes.  Like cigarettes somebody with power, influence and money got all hissy fitted up over a little cigarette smoke in a bar.  So instead of not going back to the bar they resorted to drawing up a law against something that is regulated, taxed and regulated even more.  Same is going on with this initiative and I think it has more issues than meets the eye.  I mean, what dang good is an initiative that needs to be tweaked if it gets passed?  The answer is because so the public whom signed off of emotion wouldn't be provoked to think about the big picture.

Just for the record and to allow you to catch my position one last time, I do not see these operations as fair chase.  I agree it is indeed false advertising but you have to be careful how you use that word.  "False" applies to us who believe in fair chase.  To others who do not know what fair chase is, they obviously don't see it as false.  So there in-lies the problem.  Educate the folks on what fair chase is.

I think this talk forum and all the others on this HF have done that.  I think articles in Dakota Country to whatever other magazine, tv spots, bill boards, websites, the sides of barns along I-94 by Jamestown, etc, etc, etc, etc, would accomplish that.  In other words, tools and means that are inexpensive not just on a tangible state but an intangible state as well.  No more excessive legislation, no unneeded rules, etc. 

Furthermore, and I think what I am about to say is maybe my best point yet, if we don't educate the people using these HF operations they are just going to move down the line to the next thing of doing pay hunting on non-high fence operations.  Basically, this initative strengthens pay hunting in other realms.  The HF are small by scale, very small.  Unless we educate people that do-it-yourself type hunting is more rewarding and a more self gratifying experience it really doesn't matter does it?  All you did was take a little tiny piece of the puzzle.  Or is that what this initiative is all about?  Taking that first piece of the puzzle and then working on dismantling the rest of the puzzle?  Intriguing thought isn't it?

But dang, this sure has been a page view getter.  So maybe I should join forces with the HF people so I can keep my page views rolling even more!

Speaking about sponsors.  My belief on fair chase is putting me in direct conflict with HF operations.  In fact, in a round about way I am against the operations from a hunting standpoint.  I'm fine with that and I'm sure I am offending landowners who enjoy selling their livestock as hunts.  I'm sorry, that's how I feel and I think it can't be ignored that most hunters in North Dakota feel the same.

I rest my case.  The floor is yours...


 

 

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:
Sportsman, I have made it perfectly clear that although I personally do not believe HF would give me what I need to take from the experience to call it hunting, that is mine and mine only decision to make. As has been stated who knows what one has to take from an experience to call it hunting. I would imagine there are backpack bowhunters that hike 30 miles into the back mountians to shoot a mule deer far from civilization that in all likelyhood would not think sitting in a heated stand over a pile of corn waiting for a shot at a deer to be "hunting" , How many people would believe jumping out of a pickup and shooting a rooster on the ground in the ditch would be hunting????How many more examples would you like me to give where one individual may not consider sometning legal to be hunting based on their personal standards? So what happens to the hunting experience when that eliteist group of people that several on here have mentioned start to impose what they believe is and should be called hunting??? If you believe this is about the ability of an animal to "run away" you are a fool. The buffalo in a "fenced" advertised "hunt"can not "run away" any more than the elk or deer and they were purposely not included by the sponsors in this measure.  It is simply  a group of egotistical eliteists that feel the need to impose their standards onto everyone else.

As I have stated before, to me this ideology behinfd this measure is far more of a "threat" to the hunting heritage of an individual making personal choices to take what they need from the experience than any HF operation ever will be.

So the answer to your question(I like to answer ones that are asked of me) is no I would not support imposing my definition of what hunting is onto anyone else for any reason. And I highly doubt any ag org would as well as defining hunting is simply outside of most all ag orgs policy arenas.

As to someone claiming hsus is a sponsor, you have not shown an example. Many people have suggested,and links to sites and emails have been shared that prove unquestionably this measure is very important to HSUS so much so that they have sent their members alerts to have them "help" with this effort. So common sense would allow one to believe it is a mutual effort supported by both groups. The fact that alone does not bother you as a hunter says a bit.

Sportsman,

I touched a little on why I wouldn't go as far as telling someone what they can or cannot call a hunt.  I think gst does an EXCELLENT job of explaining why.  Therefore, I revert to his comments in explaining my own.

But just for that ONE LAST time () I will tell you I have no issue joining forces with whomever to say this isn't fair chase.  Yes, some argue bait is not fair chase but there is so much more surrounding that issue than with this one.  Many things can be called bait from an acorn tree, an apple tree, a bait plot left by the NDGF or a farmer, a garden, a bird feeder, to whatever.  But with fair chase and HF operations, it is simple.  There is a high fence put in place to keep the animal penned.  That is directly against fair chase and is cut and dry.

Therefore, I don't have a problem sticking my neck out for the ax on calling HF non-fair chase.  I said a long time ago on Mike McFeeley's show that if the HF would just stop trying to defend their operations as fair chase they'd have far less people calling for their heads.  Call it a "hunt" if you want to but don't try to tell us it is fair chase.

Okay, now you can have the floor...


 

 

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

 

 
bullheadmaster's picture
bullheadmaster
Offline
Joined: 11/29/02

So are you guys getting anywhere on this thread?  Round and round... round  and round....

Big J

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

Can I still practive jigging for gold fish in a fish tank if this passes?  I normally buy a few and practice in the house before ice fishing starts.   

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

Goosefishmen Said:
Can I still practive jigging for gold fish in a fish tank if this passes?  I normally buy a few and practice in the house before ice fishing starts.   

Ys, but you cannot sell your goldfish to someone else to catch.

Or wait, maybe you can if you have a bill of sale..

Oh wait, maybe the Lacey Act will kick in...

Don't worry, the legislature will fix it.


 

 

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

 

 
Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Tim I am beginning to really like your twisted logic! My comment about the Leg was done so tongue in cheek which I thought you would get! You did not! So lets move to your in your own words best yet!

The argument that this will increase more commercial hunting operations is bogus or that it will lock up more land etc.... The land being controlled under the HF Shooting operations will not open up, nor close up because of this. Inside the areas it is already closed off except to those who pay. Nothing changes. For those that will look to fee access, this measure will not increase or decrease that in any manner.

For those who think I am a paid speaker, I am not, nor will I be. I just happen to be someone that has decided not to allow BS to be passed off as fact. Read my response to Tim regarding the HSUS issue.

Same thing in regards to gst and property rights and why they are hypocritical in positions of one being more important that others! 

I know that those who have made up their minds will not change, but someone that opens and reads this thread or others will at least be given the opportunity to decide for themselves and not have bogus claims left unchallenged either way.

I do wonder how many who support canned shooting live in ND on the board, and how many are directly or indirectly connected to them, or run a fee access operation or are connected to a fee access operation. Knowing this might shed some light for others, but since it would not be in supporters of canned shooting to divulge this I am sure we will not know?

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

High Fence Hunt Bill Input Wanted

Postby RogerK » Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:44 am

I read the news story about State Senator Tim Mathern’s bill banning high fence hunting in Outdoor section of yesterday’s Bismarck Tribune.

In the European system, the crown owned all game and only the nobility could hunt that game, the common man be damned. I believe the high fence hunting and game ownership are anti-democratic and a giant step toward the antiquated European system of game management and ownership that our ancestors left behind when they came here to establish this country. I don’t believe that a human can attach a private property title to a wild game animal any more than one human can attach legal title to another human. There was a legal title to a slave, but it wasn’t a moral title. Rivers of blood spilled to make that point. You can no more own a game animal than you can hold title to the air we breath.

If you oppose game ownership and high fence hunting, I want to hear why.

If you support ownership of game animals and high fence hunting, state your arguments.

If you know of any legal precedent from any court that address either side of the issue, post it here.

I am going to testify in support of the bill so your ideas and comments might make it to the Natural Resources Committee of the North Dakota Legislature.

Roger Kaseman
Linton, North Dakota
lsrkbek@bektel.com

 

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=48953&p=382139#p382139

 

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

 
Jamestown Public Forum, March 2008:   Roger stated that the Fair Chase Committee represented tens of thousands of sportsman. 

 

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

FICTION: 

Dakota Country, September 2010: 
“The vote was, House 72 yeas, 19 nays, 3 absent,” said Masching. “It passed the Senate 46-1, and that one was absent. What it says is that you can’t propagate, you can’t release, you can’t do what we’re trying to do with the elk and deer. They did that with feral swine. There were two infestations in the state, in the Turtle Mountains and the Badlands, and there were sportsman’s dollars sent there trying to eradicate them.”

“Hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Kaseman reiterated.

The feral swine were brought in from out of state for purposes of canned hunting, Kaseman explained,
and some escaped creating a safety hazard for people and other problems. A campaign was launched to locate them, and some likely remain in the wild.

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

FACT:

1) My agency has no regulatory authority over commercial hunting facilities.  The ND Board of Animal Health could better answer your question.

2)  The feral swine removal project in the badlands utilized a combination of funds from the USDA/Wildlife Services, USDA/Forest Service, and the ND Game & Fish Dept.  In the
Turtle Mountains, funds were used by USDA/Wildlife Services and ND Game & Fish Dept.  The funds utilized by the USDA agencies were not sportsman's dollars.  You will need to check with the ND Game & Fish Dept. for the amount of sportsman's dollars that were used for both projects.

3)  
No agencies were able to determine the origin of the feral swine in the badlands or the Turtle Mountains.  

I suggest you to contact the ND Board of Animal Health and the ND Game & Fish Dept. for further information.

Phil

Phil Mastrangelo
State Director
USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services
2110 Miriam Circle, Suite A
Bismarck, ND  58501-2502
Phone:  701-250-4405
Fax:       701-250-4408
p.mastrangelo@aphis.usda.gov

 

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

On the Fair Chase Website Last Go Round:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/10/the_skinny/main3154891.shtml

Remember all that outrage a couple years ago over "Internet hunting"? You know, those Web sites where you could log on, peer into the leafy wilderness through live web cam and, when an unsuspecting buck crossed the screen, click a mouse to drop him?

It turns out there weren't really Web "sites," the Wall Street Journal reports. More like one site, which was shut down almost soon as it opened. And, despite the fact that 33 states have outlawed the Internet hunting since 2005 and a bill to ban it nationally has been introduced into Congress, "nobody actually hunts over the Internet."

"Internet hunting would be wrong," said a Delaware representative who opposed his state's ban. "But there's a lot that would be wrong, if it were happening."

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Tim I am beginning to really like your twisted logic! My comment about the Leg was done so tongue in cheek which I thought you would get! You did not! So lets move to your in your own words best yet!

The argument that this will increase more commercial hunting operations is bogus or that it will lock up more land etc.... The land being controlled under the HF Shooting operations will not open up, nor close up because of this. Inside the areas it is already closed off except to those who pay. Nothing changes. For those that will look to fee access, this measure will not increase or decrease that in any manner.
 
Don't disagree nor did I ever say that.  What I said is you are treating the symptoms and not the disease.  Educate people what fair chase is.  Pure and simple.

For those who think I am a paid speaker, I am not, nor will I be. I just happen to be someone that has decided not to allow BS to be passed off as fact. Read my response to Tim regarding the HSUS issue.

Same thing in regards to gst and property rights and why they are hypocritical in positions of one being more important that others!

Hypocritical or just right?  Yes, some private property rights aren't really property rights at all (duh).  They have to go through a process.  But raising pen raised animals for slaughter of which are heavily regulated already.  Is that something we need to revoke??? 

I know that those who have made up their minds will not change, but someone that opens and reads this thread or others will at least be given the opportunity to decide for themselves and not have bogus claims left unchallenged either way.

I have sat at booth in sport shows, etc.  I have also been the guy walking down the walkway trying to not make eye contact with the booth people so they don't try to lure you in.  My question is, do you think people ripped from the walk ways are given "the opportunity to decide for themselves and not have bogus claims left unchallenged either way?"  I think the obvious answer is no.  Especially with stated signatures per minute or whatever someone was so proud of.  Way too much to talk about for the average citizen.  This should have been left with the legislature where people have time to adequently go through the process.  I have figured out why sponsors do not come on.  They would rather have people uninformed and make emotional choices instead.  Especially when running through a ballot on election day and the only thing they have on their mind is going to the resturaunt after an election day (seriously, some use it as a social event).

I do wonder how many who support canned shooting live in ND on the board, and how many are directly or indirectly connected to them, or run a fee access operation or are connected to a fee access operation. Knowing this might shed some light for others, but since it would not be in supporters of canned shooting to divulge this I am sure we will not know?

I imagine many are directly connected.  So what?  Anyone who has something on the table is going to stand for what they think is right.  Doesn't matter.

As far as fee access.  I would assume most realize the overwhelming number either do not allow hunting or charge a fee. Hence, why I said this unneeded law is going to absolutely nothing other than rip a right away.


 

 

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

 

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

Tim Sandstrom said,

Speaking about sponsors.  My belief on fair chase is putting me in direct conflict with HF operations.  In fact, in a round about way I am against the operations from a hunting standpoint.  I'm fine with that and I'm sure I am offending landowners who enjoy selling their livestock as hunts.  I'm sorry, that's how I feel and I think it can't be ignored that most hunters in North Dakota feel the same.

I rest my case.  The floor is yours...

Tim, I am not offended. When people call me wanting some information about my place I tell them up front what it is. I advize them if they are able bodied by all means go to the mountains.

Right now the Wall Street Journal has a reporter in ND. She visited with Roger Kaseman I believe on Monday afternoon. She spent Tuesday with Shawn Schafer President ND Deer Association. He took her to Willard Swankes place at Rhame. Willard had two fellas there about seventy years old. They told her without Willards place to go to they wouldn't be out hunting at all.

I hope the Wall Street piece turns out good. I don't believe she is a hunter but enjoyed the expanse, ruggedness and diverse types of animals at Swankes.

Some years back Willard Swankes son and Bill Mitzels son had an altercation on a section line next to Swankes land. Willards son was glassing a buck on Swanke land when a shot rang out. The buck was only superfically grazed and got away. The shot came from public land with only one trail in and out . Bill Mitzels son came driving out. The rest is history or should have been.

Bill Mitzel is also friends with Gary Masching, co-chair of the HFI. Bill Mitzel is doing a huge disservice to his magazine allowing it to be used as a launch pad for the HFI.

Again Tim I am not offended. I am perfectly content to take out people who are old, lame, smoke two packs a day or have had a triple heart by-pass.

One more thing, Jon Mitzel wrote a piece in Dakota Country about his health problems. He said no matter how bad his condition gets, he will never go to a high fence operation. What he did not tell the readers is how his health problems came about. "He fell out of a tree stand." Maybe someone should start an initiative to ban tree stands. They aren't "fair" to deer or humans. Let the nanny state decide.

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

They should outlaw BWW, I don't think it is ethical for people to sit in one spot, drink beer, and  watching sports.  They should have to get up and go to a frig.  By doing so, they would realize how drunk they are and would not get so fat.  In addition, those tall beers don't have a chance to get away, they are just trapped on the table until they are finished off.  Sometimes it is a long slow death.

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

Fritz,

I'm not sure what the need was to list Mitzel's hunting incident or his unfortunate fall from a tree stand.  I think it has little bearing.

In regard to your operation, those are reasons I can somewhat accept.  But even then, I think places with awesome habitat and controlled access can offer the same type of hunt to an elderly person or handicapped person.  Being said, it should still be someone's choice to participate or not participate.  In my eye, I won't call it a hunt by way of the definition of fair chase.  I just can't get my mind to change on that.

These crossroad topics are a buggar because I have one foot on one side and another on the other side.  Yet, most of my weight i leaning on the one foot.  Hence my disapproval for this measure.  Too many open ended issues with it and I think a simple education to the "able hunters" is all we need to make the ethics police happy.


 

 

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

 

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

Rummie if this comment is directed my way I want you to know I don't own,don't hunt in a HFoperation.   I have taken a few disabled vets to shoot some hogs behind a very large fenced area,I have taken several inter city kids to a bird shooting operation. 

Yes this HF Petition is known all over the country .  Many out of staters have read you posts on how you stated over and over there is a difference in the wording of the two petitions.  Let them make up their own minds of the intergity of  this group, that  you are now the spokesman for,  even through you are not a sponsore,and  make cliams you are not paid for it. 
.....................................................................................................................................................
"I do wonder how many who support canned shooting live in ND on the board, and how many are directly or indirectly connected to them, or run a fee access operation or are connected to a fee access operation. Knowing this might shed some light for others, but since it would not be in supporters of canned shooting to divulge this I am sure we will not know?"
........................................................................................................................................................
"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."    Wanye Pacelle  Prs.&CEO  HSUS
................................................................................................................

This is why hunters,shooters,livestock raisers,and landowners all over the country follow this FCI

 

Pages