High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

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

pber Said:

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?

Just guessing, if he wants his paycheck I am sure he will meet with David.

 

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

Tim Sandstrom Said:

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. 
 

Tim,

Please tell me you have read the measure.  It specifically EXCLUDES operations such as the TRNP elk.  The "volunteers" are unpaid government employees performing a management cull.   Period, end of frigging story.

“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

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

Hmm.  The edit function doesn't seem to work tonight for me.  Sorry Tim, I think I pulled an older post out of yours.

To GST, pber, and several others.  Quite honestly, I haven't completely made up my mind on which way to vote as I too have issues with some of the same things some of you bring up.  The problem is...I ABSOLUTELY frigging despise what HFH and outfitters do in ND.  At the same time, Kaseman is a very poor example of how to lead an initiated measure.
 
Yet, not many of you are any frigging better than Kaseman with your discussion of the pros and cons of HFH. 

Guess I will return to the sidelines now.  Especially since not much "truth" is available here in regard to a few questions I asked.

Sure was a lot of opining going on though.

“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

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

Allen Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:

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.
 

Tim,

Please tell me you have read the measure.  It specifically EXCLUDES operations such as the TRNP elk.  The "volunteers" are unpaid government employees performing a management cull.   Period, end of frigging story.

Allen, So it is "ethical"  because they are not paid and volunteer's?  Gonna be a real challenge isn't it when they track the Elk by radio collars.  

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

aba Said:
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. 

Ok, gotta comment on this one.  You missed the point in my question of where I don't know of any, pber answered it.  I never said NOBODY never got onto land of HFH operations, I said I am unaware of any that can and do.  Again, I never said a fact.

And yes, laws and those who propose laws should be truthful in their quest for laws or changes in them.  Only problem though is that as an on-the-fencer who leans toward voting yes, I see just as much deceit and BS on both sides.

OK. back to the sidelines.

“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,

Let me ask you this, do you think that initiated measures should be used to take legal businesses away from people without any form of compensation with a simple majority vote?

Do you think that personal grievances with another should be part of initiated measures? 

The following incident happened to one of the elk growers.  He found out that someone he knows signed the petition.  When he asked the person why he signed he was told, "Because you make too much money."

Is this a precedent we want to set in our country?

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

Allen Said:
Hmm.  The edit function doesn't seem to work tonight for me.  Sorry Tim, I think I pulled an older post out of yours.

To GST, pber, and several others.  Quite honestly, I haven't completely made up my mind on which way to vote as I too have issues with some of the same things some of you bring up.  The problem is...I ABSOLUTELY frigging despise what HFH and outfitters do in ND.  At the same time, Kaseman is a very poor example of how to lead an initiated measure.
 
Yet, not many of you are any frigging better than Kaseman with your discussion of the pros and cons of HFH. 

Guess I will return to the sidelines now.  Especially since not much "truth" is available here in regard to a few questions I asked.

Sure was a lot of opining going on though.

The truth is there Allen you just can't handle it.  

 

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

To GST, pber, and several others.  Quite honestly, I haven't completely made up my mind on which way to vote as I too have issues with some of the same things some of you bring up.  The problem is...I ABSOLUTELY frigging despise what HFH and outfitters do in ND. 



So Allen what has the HFH and outfitters done to hurt you?

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

Whoa...

Dont be jumping on Allen for having his own right to form his opinion...

And dont dare ask anyone to have to justify their own opinion - thats their right.

I think some of you need to learn to respect others or take a hike.

Enough with the bullcrap already.

Patience Suchka.......

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

Allen Said:
Hmm.  The edit function doesn't seem to work tonight for me.  Sorry Tim, I think I pulled an older post out of yours.

To GST, pber, and several others.  Quite honestly, I haven't completely made up my mind on which way to vote as I too have issues with some of the same things some of you bring up.  The problem is...I ABSOLUTELY frigging despise what HFH and outfitters do in ND.  At the same time, Kaseman is a very poor example of how to lead an initiated measure.
 
Yet, not many of you are any frigging better than Kaseman with your discussion of the pros and cons of HFH. 

Guess I will return to the sidelines now.  Especially since not much "truth" is available here in regard to a few questions I asked.

Sure was a lot of opining going on though.

Thats funny. why dont you answer the questions yourself. oh wait, that would be an opinion too i guess.

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

EyeKllr Said:
Whoa...

Dont be jumping on Allen for having his own right to form his opinion...

And dont dare ask anyone to have to justify their own opinion - thats their right.

I think some of you need to learn to respect others or take a hike.

Enough with the bullshit already.

What are you talking about? Just because the majority of people don't agree with him doesn't mean anyone's jumping on him. Lol. He can ask questions and have an opinion, but no one else can?? Please.... The only disrespectful or bs comment ive read, is the one you just wrote. "And dont dare ask anyone to have to justify their own opinion".....thats politics....thats how it works.

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

Allen Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:

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. 
 

Tim,

Please tell me you have read the measure.  It specifically EXCLUDES operations such as the TRNP elk.  The "volunteers" are unpaid government employees performing a management cull.   Period, end of frigging story.

This is the only post with a personal attact and really uncalled for.
Allen are you saying the government employees are unpaid for this culling program?
I know and most others this is not the "end of frigging story"

 

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

2nd amendment right to bear arms,  end of friggen story !!!!!   That sure works like that in govt just one of many examples that show there is never a end to friggen stroy with politics.  Slippery slope and this is just one step closer to the slide getting steeper and steeper

 Adn

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

mauserG33-40 Said:

Allen Said:

 

Tim,

Please tell me you have read the measure.  It specifically EXCLUDES operations such as the TRNP elk.  The "volunteers" are unpaid government employees performing a management cull.   Period, end of frigging story.

This is the only post with a personal attact and really uncalled for.
Allen are you saying the government employees are unpaid for this culling program?
I know and most others this is not the "end of frigging story"

Mauser, No, the below is a personal attack that was uncalled for even if it isn't against me.  Sorry guy, just helping you with your reading comprehension skills.  

mauserG33-40 Said:

Just guessing, if he wants his paycheck I am sure he will meet with David.

p.s.  The volunteers are volunteer federal employees, it's been mentioned in a number of newspaper articles as to that's the only reason they get to "hunt" in the park.  And there are something like 5 team leaders who are paid temp federal employees.  I've seen the job ad, it pays around $22 an hour in case you are interested.  Although they may filled them already.

“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

Allen Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:

Allen Said:

 

Tim,

Please tell me you have read the measure.  It specifically EXCLUDES operations such as the TRNP elk.  The "volunteers" are unpaid government employees performing a management cull.   Period, end of frigging story.

This is the only post with a personal attact and really uncalled for.
Allen are you saying the government employees are unpaid for this culling program?
I know and most others this is not the "end of frigging story"

Mauser, No you flipping idiot.   The below is a personal attack that was uncalled for, even if it wasn't against me.  Oh and by the way, my calling you an idiot isn't so much of a personal attack as it is just an observation of your reading comprehension.

mauserG33-40 Said:

Just guessing, if he wants his paycheck I am sure he will meet with David.

p.s.  The volunteers are volunteer federal employees, it's been mentioned in a number of newspaper articles as to that's the only reason they get to "hunt" in the park.  And there are something like 5 team leaders are paid temp federal employees.  I've seen the job ad, it pays around $22 an hour in case you are interested.  Although they may filled them already.

No Allen the last thing I would want to be would be is government employee.

 

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

Allen now tell me if my reading skills are bad but you called this a "hunt" and these guys get $22 an hour to guide?  

p.s.  The volunteers are volunteer federal employees, it's been mentioned in a number of newspaper articles as to that's the only reason they get to "hunt" in the park.  And there are something like 5 team leaders who are paid temp federal employees.  I've seen the job ad, it pays around $22 an hour in case you are interested.  Although they may filled them already.

 

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

Allen Said:
Hmm.  The edit function doesn't seem to work tonight for me.  Sorry Tim, I think I pulled an older post out of yours.

To GST, pber, and several others.  Quite honestly, I haven't completely made up my mind on which way to vote as I too have issues with some of the same things some of you bring up.  The problem is...I ABSOLUTELY frigging despise what HFH and outfitters do in ND.  At the same time, Kaseman is a very poor example of how to lead an initiated measure.
 
Yet, not many of you are any frigging better than Kaseman with your discussion of the pros and cons of HFH. 

Guess I will return to the sidelines now.  Especially since not much "truth" is available here in regard to a few questions I asked.

Sure was a lot of opining going on though.

Allen,  much like others you have now come on here and accused someone of lying without giving specific examples and yet  then comment about this being nothing more than personal attacks. You asked questions, I and others answered them all directly, unlike many supporters and sponsors that have been asked many unanswered questions. Simply because you do not like the answers given to your questions does not mean they have not been answered truthfully. As to " a lot of opining" how your first question was asked how could it be answered directly with any thing other than an opinion?

So point out what answers to your questions do not have "much truth" or please apologize for the "personal attack" on others character.  . And while your at it, could you answer if you believe the statement made by Gary Masching regarding these animals and art. 11 sec. 27 is true.

Also realize it is not a govt official that is doing the "management" in the Park, but rather volanteer "average joes" so there is indeed room to argue that these are not "govt officials" like you claim that are "managing"  but rather the same people that are banned from otherwise taking part in a "canned hunt"  by this measure that are "culling" in this instance . At least the animals in these HF operations do not have a radio collar  However even though some of the animals that may be shot in the Park do have radio collars, they  also do  not have large antlers as it is only cows being shot so I can understand why the sponsors of this measure do not have a problem with it!

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

Allen Said:
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.

Does it really matter Allen?  I don't think so or am I using not enough thought?  I mean, the animal is off limits because of the park to the hunters (now limited...zero bull elk though).  Only way they are okay to shoot is if they come out of the park.  Only way to do that is to escape a high fence enclosure that have no natural exits.  Only exits where holes form.  Holes, by the way, I don't understand how they get there.  Simply by elk working on them with their horns or do we have hole cutters out there?

Anyway, I think it is very VERY clear it is their animals.  How do I come to that distinction?  Well, they cannot ship them anywhere else because of the disease issue.  So obviously, if they are held to that standard they should also be held to the standard of strict laws the HF operations are.  That is, severely fined if animals get loose.  But they aren't, hence the hypocrisy and why I think the disease issue is often more times than not used as a play on litigation and handcuffing.  If it was an issue so important, there would never be animals moving in and out of the park.  Right??

Again, I should just shut up because I think the simplest way to deal with the park elk is to allow them natural exits to and from the park (like ggenthusiast has repeatedly stated in other threads).  But we cannot do that because of disease issues and yet, the elk still roam in and out and EVERYONE knows it.  Pretty evident when people line up on it as if they are on a firing line.

P.S.  Just leave the park the way it is people.  I'd rather see the public shoot the animals than to have everything sealed off.  I'm afraid there is probably already a play in hand with HSUS on the park.  They are eagerly watching this measure.  Once it passes, they will use it against the park hunt.  Idiots if you ask me, they'll shut it down just so the public couldn't do anything.  They don't seem to care about the sharpshooter style.  In other words, that don't give a crap about the public.  And that right there is why we must fear anything they want to back.


 

 

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

Allen Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:

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. 
 

Tim,

Please tell me you have read the measure.  It specifically EXCLUDES operations such as the TRNP elk.  The "volunteers" are unpaid government employees performing a management cull.   Period, end of frigging story.

So what Allen?  You don't think this hurts the future of similar plans on other parks?  You don't think this knocks a leg off all the hard work the state, the feds and even Mr. Dorgan?  It does, common sense says so.

And funny isn't it.  The only way TRNP is excluded is because of a play on words such as "volunteers" and "unpaid government employees."  Whatever, the same play on words will be used against it in the future.  I despise play on words.


 

 

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

Allen Said:

Guess I will return to the sidelines now.  Especially since not much "truth" is available here in regard to a few questions I asked.

Sure was a lot of opining going on though.

Allen,

I seriously took some thought and shaped my answers to your questions with the best facts I have available to me.  Plus pure opinion thought not driven by my likes and dislikes.

I take it since I did not receive a comment back at them that you must have been somewhat okay with my answers.  Or maybe you missed them all together.  I don't know and it really doesn't matter.

Opposite to a few on here who are kinda on "my side" I absolutely (like you) despise people who shoot HF animals and call themselves a hunter, or that the caged animal offered a "challenging and rewarding hunt.  I hate it, absolutely hate it.  That's why I repeatedly say we are attacking the wrong dang people.  We must attack the people that think they are actually shooting a trophy.  Sounds like Roger could be a dang good leader at doing a smear campaign on such a thing.  And dare I say, I would support something like that.  And yes, in a round about way I guess I can be linked to the support of shutting down HF operations.  But I'm doing it a different way, yet in what I think is the right way (by not taking away private property rights).  I think the HF folks would be much better off if they just stopped trying to spin their operations are "fair chase" and the game is totally wild.  That is so false it isn't funny.  Exception is if there is monster acreage.  Then that's a different story and I guess I am somewhat concerned with that type of operation because then we certainly do enter into a factual scenario where legitmate concern over hunting access is alive and well.

But I don't like this measure for many reasons.  None more than private property.  As gst said to Eyekllr, it is not possible to turn back time.  Bison, elk, etc have been domesticated.  I still dislike the whole concept of white tail deer and other exotic game being domesticated but I guess that might be a whole different topic.  Elk and bison though had other reasons for being turned into livestock.  They actually had a value to them from the horns to the meat.  Obviously the high fence measure folks agree because they aren't pushing to stop the raising of bison or elk as livestock.  They are just stopping the killing of it where money is exchanged.

To me, that is wrong.  I personally know people who have paid to shoot and elk and have it packaged up.  It was a change of pace from going out and putting a bullet in a cows head.  They didn't do it for the horns, they did it for the meat.  This initiative will stop the landowner from having that ability (except bison...oh the hypocrisy shows up yet again!!!!).

But anyway, you and I are not opposite each other on a lot of things in relation to this measure.  I just hate the play on words and the disease issue.  This measure is the door for the banning of baiting and banning of other things in North Dakota.  It just gives momentum that I don't think is good for us in North Dakota.  Do I want certain rues and regulations placed on baiting?  Yes I do.  100% dang right I do.  But the play people use is so soaked in hypocrisy that it drives me nuts.  And this is why I won't be casting a yes vote on this measure.

So I hope this helps answer your questions more.  I thought I did an okay shortened version of doing it but apparently it wasn't enough.  Just another Tim book to add to his many previous posts!  Ha ha!


 

 

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

 

 
swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: 1/23/02
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.

Isn't the big fence around the property suppose to keep wild animals out as much as it's suppose to keep the tame ones in?   If your "hunting" in a HF operation I would venture to guess that you didn't harvest much, other than livestock.  This talking out of both sides of your mouth is where your attempt for deception comes from.   All of Allens points were very well put.  You should admit they are legitimate instead of continuing with your "answer me one question" bit that you always through out.   It is nice that you've gone away from the old montra of the landowners will post everything if you don't agree with us 100% bit you use to rely on all the time.

As I stated in another post I have decided to oppose the initiative and as I"ve talked to my voting relatives in ND I have told them why.  I oppose because the crime that will be committed if passed is a victimless crime based on one persons view pitted against another persons view.  I also don't like the wording and would support a ban on the use of the word "hunting" attached to the HF industry.  I could also support a moritorium on any new HF operations that want to spring up.

But reading the posts from GST and eyekiller it makes it hard to continue that way.  No adult likes a bully and the authoritarian stance you guys have taken is very off-putting.  I understand the hate coming from DG and pber as they are operators being attacked so they are fighting back, but you guys without a dog in the fight need to learn to make you points better without being demeaning and condecending.  The side that can make their points without sounding arrogant and egotistical will get through to the most voters.

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

Swift, I am NOT an operator, and please show me the hate coming from me?

I think I have asked some pretty legitimate questions --  Do we want to use initiated measures to take away legal businesses without any form of compensation with a simple majority vote? 

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





Allen Stated:  Kaseman is a poor example of how to lead an initiated measure.







I believe HSUS would disagree with you.  He got the measure on the ballot.  Doesn’t matter how it got there, it got there. 

 


















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

pber Said:
Swift, I am NOT an operator, and please show me the hate coming from me?

I think I have asked some pretty legitimate questions --  Do we want to use initiated measures to take away legal businesses without any form of compensation with a simple majority vote? 

Swift I too am not a HFO,but pber has asked this question several times will you answer it?  Do we want to use initiated measures to take away legal businesses without any form of compensation with a simple majority vote? 

 

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08
Swift Stated:  Isn't the big fence around the property suppose to keep wild animals out as much as it's suppose to keep the tame ones in?   If your "hunting" in a HF operation I would venture to guess that you didn't harvest much, other than livestock.  This talking out of both sides of your mouth is where your attempt for deception comes from. 

It was stated by gst and myself that we know operators that allow people to hunt on their property that is not fenced in, as many do not fence their whole facility.  What deception?

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

This is an email I just received from Phil Mastrangelo regarding the feral pigs in our state that were removed:

Here are answers to your three questions:

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

Dakota Country September 2010:  There were two infestations of feral pigs in the state, and there were sportsman's dollars sent there trying to eradicate them.  "Hundreds of thousands of dollars," Kaseman reiterated.   The feral pigs 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.  


swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: 1/23/02

It was stated by gst and myself that we know operators that allow people to hunt on their property that is not fenced in, as many do not fence their whole facility.  What deception?



You guys are hunting land owned by someone that runs a HFH operation.  You are not hunting on that operation within the fences.  The statement by Allen was pointed toward the acres behind the fences.  Your and GST's attempt to twist that to land owned outside the fences is deceptive.

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08
Allen Stated:  I can't think of a single HFH or guiding operation that allows fair chasers access to any of their land.  Can you?

Swift, the question was asked of ANY land?  So again where is the deception.  I just answered his question. 


swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: 1/23/02

Now to the question of pbers.  YES, in our country if you undertake a profession that is found to be distasteful, or potentially dangerous to the public,  and the public chooses to address that profession through an initiated measure, the will of the people should prevail. 

DISCLAIMER....  NOWHERE AM I LINKING THE ABOVE STATEMENT WITH HFH.  obviously 13000+ North Dakotans are though.

At some point in time everything was legal.  Then as civilizations evolved so has the need for new laws.
example.  At one time land was not owned by anybody.  Then all land was owned by the Kings and aristocrats,  now all land is owned by private/public entities.  The laws evolve as the world evolves.  Taking away the common voters rights to intiate a measure and have the opportunity to have that measure become law is the backbone of our republic. 

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

It has been said we can not turn back time on game animals that have gone to domesticated livestock status...

But isnt banning HFH doing just that by cutting out the opportunity to hunt domesticated game animals - and by virtue of eliminating the venue we are taking away the worth of said domesticated game animals....

A round about way to right a wrong.....

Patience Suchka.......

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

swift, as you have been told before if you expect to be given any credibility if you acuse someone of being disingenuous you had better give specific in context complete examples. You accused me of lying once in regards to my debate in this measure and when asked a couple of weeks ago to provide proof you did not. 

As a citizen of this state, I do have a"dog in this fight". I have a legitimate concern when laws are based on lies and rhetoric  as this measure clearly has been.
As a livestock producer I have a "dog in this hunt" in regards to how this measure is being placed in the NDCC as well as furthering agendas here in the state of anti hunting anti animal ag groups such as HSUS.
As a hunter I have a "dog in this fight" when people try to impose their ethics having nothing to do with the management of wild game on to others based soley on a small group of elitist egotistical ideologies that will unquestionably give anti hunting groups a foot in the door here in our state. .

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

swift Said:Isn't the big fence around the property suppose to keep wild animals out as much as it's suppose to keep the tame ones in?   If your "hunting" in a HF operation I would venture to guess that you didn't harvest much, other than livestock.  This talking out of both sides of your mouth is where your attempt for deception comes from. All of Allens points were very well put. You should admit they are legitimate instead of continuing with your "answer me one question" bit that you always through out.   It is nice that you've gone away from the old montra of the landowners will post everything if you don't agree with us 100% bit you use to rely on all the time.

As I stated in another post I have decided to oppose the initiative and as I"ve talked to my voting relatives in ND I have told them why.  I oppose because the crime that will be committed if passed is a victimless crime based on one persons view pitted against another persons view.  I also don't like the wording and would support a ban on the use of the word "hunting" attached to the HF industry.  I could also support a moritorium on any new HF operations that want to spring up.

But reading the posts from GST and eyekiller it makes it hard to continue that way.  No adult likes a bully and the authoritarian stance you guys have taken is very off-putting.  I understand the hate coming from DG and pber as they are operators being attacked so they are fighting back, but you guys without a dog in the fight need to learn to make you points better without being demeaning and condecending.  The side that can make their points without sounding arrogant and egotistical will get through to the most voters.

Really, because it seem to me after looking back at every single page of this discussion, Allen hasn't made ANY points. Rather, he just assumes every one else is a liar (even though he cant point out what they are lying about). He asked questions, got answers, and didn't like them. Probably made too much sense I suppose.

What hate? Really?.. is everyone here an adult or not?

"demeaning" and "condescending" are words commonly used by people on the losing end of a debate. I think its a man's nature,  when they're in the minority, to try and draw attention away from the points that are being made

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

EyeKllr Said:

It has been said we can not turn back time on game animals that have gone to domesticated livestock status...

But isnt banning HFH doing just that by cutting out the opportunity to hunt domesticated game animals - and by virtue of eliminating the venue we are taking away the worth of said domesticated game animals....

A round about way to right a wrong.....

Cattle were wild at one time too.

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

I think they were domesticated in Europe, India, and Africa.

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

I understand that domestication started early and originated overseas.

I am just saying would this law not turn back time by taking away the market for domesticated game animals - and the prolification of same for canned hunts.

Patience Suchka.......

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

Here is a thought, some may even consider it a fact:

HF operations will help give hunters in the state of ND a greater chance to hunt more deer/elf!

-Fewer people appling for state liseases - instead just go to a HFH operation rather than hitting up plots and public land.

-More animals on less land, high fences will keep wild animals off private land and force them onto public land.  Sure you can not hunt that private land, but the wild animals can not be on it as well - infact high fences are a greater benefit than a posted sign that lets animals in but not hunters. 

For those that want to do the math:

X fenced acres * 0 wild animals inside = 0 lost opportunities. 
(X total acres - X fenced acres) * X number wild animals = Greater number wild animals per acres available

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

bait_em_up_bob's picture
bait_em_up_bob
Offline
Joined: 8/19/10

Goosefishmen Said:

Here is a thought, some may even consider it a fact:

HF operations will help give hunters in the state of ND a greater chance to hunt more deer/elf!

-Fewer people appling for state liseases - instead just go to a HFH operation rather than hitting up plots and public land.

-More animals on less land, high fences will keep wild animals off private land and force them onto public land.  Sure you can not hunt that private land, but the wild animals can not be on it as well - infact high fences are a greater benefit than a posted sign that lets animals in but not hunters. 

For those that want to do the math:

X fenced acres * 0 wild animals inside = 0 lost opportunities. 
(X total acres - X fenced acres) * X number wild animals = Greater number wild animals per acres available

Is there a season on elves? 

Don't Pee On My Leg And Tell Me It's Raining

 

 

 

 

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

yes, opens after December 25 up north.

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

Tacoman's picture
Tacoman
Offline
Joined: 2/13/06

You know what outfitters like the most?  When you drive down the section line by one of there stands on leased land during rifle season. 

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

EyeKllr Said:
I understand that domestication started early and originated overseas.

I am just saying would this law not turn back time by taking away the market for domesticated game animals - and the prolification of same for canned hunts.

i actually have an even bigger problem w/ this train of thought... i've had a few PM's with individuals who are sort of involved in this push to ban HFH or at least are connected to the folks who are pushing this and it turns out that the ultimate goal of a lot of these people is to actually shut down the places that raise these animals as livestock. 

it seems the train of thought is that, if they can remove the biggest cash cow (pun intended) from the pocket books of the folks raising these animals, then hopefully they will have to close up shop altogether.  however, if they do it thru the backdoor, w/ a measure like this that only bans the sale of the kill, they can avoid having a court rule that it is a true "taking" and then get to avoid the discussion of compensating these places for their loss.  see the state of montana and the court cases that followed for an example on this logic and legal reasoning. 

in my opinion, stooping to this level is lower than any of the other things i've so far found dispicable with this initiated measure... if your ultimate goal is a "taking", then be up front about it.  that way voters can have an honest conversation about whether or not they actually want to see these places shut down all together and whether or not they would support the measure if it meant the state would have to compensate the owners for their loss.  don't stoop so low as to seek what amounts to a taking w/o being willing to pay compensation.  i find this motivation and train of thought far worse than the holier than thou ethics police that feel to shout "i don't like it!  let's outlaw it!".  at least they aren't wolves in sheep's clothing.

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

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

espringers Said:

EyeKllr Said:
I understand that domestication started early and originated overseas.

I am just saying would this law not turn back time by taking away the market for domesticated game animals - and the prolification of same for canned hunts.

i actually have an even bigger problem w/ this train of thought... i've had a few PM's with individuals who are sort of involved in this push to ban HFH or at least are connected to the folks who are pushing this and it turns out that the ultimate goal of a lot of these people is to actually shut down the places that raise these animals as livestock. 

it seems the train of thought is that, if they can remove the biggest cash cow (pun intended) from the pocket books of the folks raising these animals, then hopefully they will have to close up shop altogether.  however, if they do it thru the backdoor, w/ a measure like this that only bans the sale of the kill, they can avoid having a court rule that it is a true "taking" and then get to avoid the discussion of compensating these places for their loss.  see the state of montana and the court cases that followed for an example on this logic and legal reasoning. 

in my opinion, stooping to this level is lower than any of the other things i've so far found dispicable with this initiated measure... if your ultimate goal is a "taking", then be up front about it.  that way voters can have an honest conversation about whether or not they actually want to see these places shut down all together and whether or not they would support the measure if it meant the state would have to compensate the owners for their loss.  don't stoop so low as to seek what amounts to a taking w/o being willing to pay compensation.  i find this motivation and train of thought far worse than the holier than thou ethics police that feel to shout "i don't like it!  let's outlaw it!".  at least they aren't wolves in sheep's clothing.

Yes espringers seeing the true colors of this ethical group is rather revolting

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

What will this lynch mob attack next pork produces,beef or bison producers.  

 

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

So Mauser I am back, had some issues to deal with. First I was wrong in that the wording has not changed. I did however have to do some looking as to why I thought it changed and in reality it was simply a clarification as to what it means.

In ND you cannot own a live elk unless you have a permit from the state to do so. So the only way to take possession of an elk is when it is dead or is shipped out of state or to a meat packing plant or to another person holding a permit.

So the reason for the term FEE Killing is to close this loop hole. It still allows for anyone to buy elk from a farmer but the elk needs to be killed by someone other than the buyer.

All of this side BS is entertaining and allows for some lively talking points but that is all they are. The voters are being asked this fall if shooting of a penned animal  as hunting is right or wrong. All the other stuff is simply fluff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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!

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

i actually have an even bigger problem w/ this train of thought... i've had a few PM's with individuals who are sort of involved in this push to ban HFH or at least are connected to the folks who are pushing this and it turns out that the ultimate goal of a lot of these people is to actually shut down the places that raise these animals as livestock. 

it seems the train of thought is that, if they can remove the biggest cash cow (pun intended) from the pocket books of the folks raising these animals, then hopefully they will have to close up shop altogether.  however, if they do it thru the backdoor, w/ a measure like this that only bans the sale of the kill, they can avoid having a court rule that it is a true "taking" and then get to avoid the discussion of compensating these places for their loss.  see the state of montana and the court cases that followed for an example on this logic and legal reasoning. 

in my opinion, stooping to this level is lower than any of the other things i've so far found dispicable with this initiated measure... if your ultimate goal is a "taking", then be up front about it.  that way voters can have an honest conversation about whether or not they actually want to see these places shut down all together and whether or not they would support the measure if it meant the state would have to compensate the owners for their loss.  don't stoop so low as to seek what amounts to a taking w/o being willing to pay compensation.  i find this motivation and train of thought far worse than the holier than thou ethics police that feel to shout "i don't like it!  let's outlaw it!".  at least they aren't wolves in sheep's clothing.

Maybe it is just me seeing a loop hole here, but can they sell the animal to the shooter and let him shoot it for free?  I can legally shoot an elk I own, doesn't say I can't. 

So they no longer sell elk "hunts", but rather elk that you can shoot yourself on their land for free?

If you can't shoot an exotic animal you own or any animal you own that would be an even bigger debate.

As the law is written, and I just read it again, I see your point esp as to what their real goal is in the end of a long legal mess.

In fact, it would allow you to tax deduct it as a farm expense for your elk operation you started (not wild game at this point, but farm elk).  Thus allowing rich out of staters to tax deduct the trip as a business trip for their elk farm that consists of the one elk they just bought and shot, resulting in a complete depreciation in one year!  So this bill is trying to help rich out of staters pay less taxes!?     *Grin*

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

y Ron you stated you could not support the measure the first time do to the wording.Do you support it now is that just more of YOUR Fluff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

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

Hardwaterman Said:
So Mauser I am back, had some issues to deal with. First I was wrong in that the wording has not changed. I did however have to do some looking as to why I thought it changed and in reality it was simply a clarification as to what it means.

In ND you cannot own a live elk unless you have a permit from the state to do so. So the only way to take possession of an elk is when it is dead or is shipped out of state or to a meat packing plant or to another person holding a permit.

So the reason for the term FEE Killing is to close this loop hole. It still allows for anyone to buy elk from a farmer but the elk needs to be killed by someone other than the buyer.

All of this side BS is entertaining and allows for some lively talking points but that is all they are. The voters are being asked this fall if shooting of a penned animal  as hunting is right or wrong. All the other stuff is simply fluff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, I missed your post before I posted my BS.   If I get a permit to buy an elk, how is it against the law for me to shoot it myself?  So if I understand you correctly, and I admit I have no knowledge to base anything, all you need is a permit to purchase the animal and than you can shoot it after you buy it?  No place in the bill does it say it is against the law to shoot an exotic/wild animal for free, or shoot a farmed elk you own.

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

mauser as I said, I got the clarification I needed, I bought into the BS the last time that it would prevent people who farm elk from selling them for meat or to anyone. The term fee killing as I said is now clear. If you own the elk you can kill it,sell it to a person with a permit, or ship it to market or out of state.

Nothing more than that!!!!!!!!!!!

Goose, there are no restrictions now nor will there be on you killing an elk you own. Owning the elk live however requires a state issued permit.

So again all the fluff, is gone Mauser, the intent is clear, not vague, nor does it trigger anything with the Lacy act,Fed Humane Slaughter Act, nor does it matter who Roger is, nor for that matter who you are.

The people will be asked if canned shooting is right or wrong and if they say wrong the Leg Rules will enact the process and procedures required to implement the law.

So if you have an emu,elk or zebra for that matter and someone want the meat or horns, you will be allowed to sell them the carcass, the only thing is the buyer will not be the one who gets to kill the animal!

So a 400 class bull elk will still be able to be sold to someone so there is NO TAKING!!!!!!!!

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!

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Goose, there are no restrictions now nor will there be on you killing an elk you own. Owning the elk live however requires a state issued permit.

*Elk Hunts in North Dakota*
Come shoot an elk for $5000 dollors in beautifull North Dakota

Permit required and available upon arrival at the "farm"

I think that pretty much gives everyone the loop hole they are looking for in the measure, so really it will only require you to get a permit to shoot elk in North Dakota.  Requires a little paper work, but should keep the operation going until the "fair chase group" tries to pass another stupid law. 

Your right they will not be "TAKING", they will be buying a 400 class elk with a permit and shooting. 

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

goose, you are funny in your regards to a loophole! gotta love the imagination!

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

It is my understanding a permit is needed to transfer an animal live off a facility, but not to sell the animal to another person who never moves the animal live.

Pages