High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

612 posts / 0 new
Last post
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