High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

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

A very good post Tm.somday you will make ND a fine senator.  This statement says it all and would  remove a lot of dought in voters mines.

"Ha ha.  If this is wrong, well, I guess gst could be the next president of the United States.  But in his defense, what are you (we) suppose to do?  Not take Kaseman seriously when he says the Lacey Act will be used?  I'm with gst on this, if the sponsors don't want to come on and completely deny that.  Then uffda, that says something in my mind."

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

I would like to challege any and all of the people on the above site to come forward and either deny Kaseman's statment when he says the Lacey Act will be used  or back him up.  Llody Jones, you had plenty to say at the Jamestown forum,Gary Masching you have had a lot to say during the signature gathering,good chance to clear up some other questions,  Or does Kaseman speak for all of you as he stated in Jamestown Forum he is the lighting rod,all thing go throught him.

 

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

if I am spinning it how does this bill out law HF hunting of Elk?????????????

It doesn't!!!

 

It outlaws hunting domestic elk and deer specifically.  That is how it outlaws HF hunting of elk. 

NDCC 36-01-00.1.
"Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.

In the ND Century code, section 20.1-01-02. Definitions.

5. "Big game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and antelope


Swift,

Under this bill is out laws "big game", per NDCC, farmer elk are domestic animals not big game.    I repeat this doesn't not ban the killing of farmed elk in a pen.  I win! 

We agree Lacey act does not apply, I agree 100%, but you not agree this does not apply to farmed elk per NDCC

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

pber,
I do not support this measure because the only victims of a crime are the people that have HF operations.  I do not agree with putting them out of business.  I would support a measure to remove the word hunting from what they advertise.  I would also support a moratorium on any new HFH permits to be given.  I believe the HFH operators entered into a business that was legal at the time and should not be closed down.  I do think they should look at the writing on the wall and change their marketing as an attempt of good faith. 

1. I don't believe landowners rights are absolute so while this is a part of the arguement it is not the end all be all of the arguement.
2. I believe in democracy in the USA and don't think people should be attacked for taking place in the legislative processes, unless they are an elected official.
3 I do think nearly all laws have an ethical basis to them.
4. I think people should not have to fear losing all they have, do to an arbitrary change in the law.  By arbitrary I mean a victimless law that causes no tangible harm to another person.

I hope this helps clear up where I'm coming from and why I don't support this law.

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

pber Said:
Okay, I had asked sponsor Dick Monson 2 years ago if big game species included farmed elk?  At the time he told me yes it did, but I am not going to tell you how at this time.  Well he still has not told me how. 

Wouldn't it have just been simpler to use the terms farmed elk, privately owned deer, alternative livestock like they did in Senate Bill 2254 when it went before the legislature?  Why did they change it?

Swift, you stated, I believe, in a previous post that you could not vote for this measure because of the wording.  What in the wording bothers you, because you seem to be pretty convinced that the wording is sound.  I have not had time to look through the old posts, so if you did not say this, I would still like to know your reasons for not voting for it.

pber, you are right on!
The wording does not ban farmed elk hunts, as they are not "Big Game", but rather domestic animals per the NDCC. Thus this bill does not apply.

Let me spell it out for others  - farmed elk are DOMESTICE ANIMALS - NOT BIG GAME
The bill bans BIG GAME!  *Grin*

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

Oh and here's a question I think goose is trying to raise.  If the Lacey Act is indeed not able to stop the bill of sale.  Then just what the hell good is his bill, law, measure or whatever we want to call it?  Other than, well, I guess about 40,000 posts and a million page views for FBO's sponsors!!! 

I expect my 10% in the mail by tomorrow afternoon!!  You could at least mail me a FBO hat or t-shirt..................

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

Goose,
You have a good point but as your definition of big game states deer and elk are big game.  That does not make them wild game.   Yes there can be domestic big game.  So I believe that this law would prevent the killing of Elk behind a fence for a fee to kill.  As it has been said there are always loopholes but the intent of the law usually closes those loopholes rather quickly.

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

swift Said:
Goose,
You have a good point but as your definition of big game states deer and elk are big game.  That does not make them wild game.   Yes there can be domestic big game.  So I believe that this law would prevent the killing of Elk behind a fence for a fee to kill.  As it has been said there are always loopholes but the intent of the law usually closes those loopholes rather quickly.

 "fee to kill"   Do you pay a fee for a pemit to kill,ducks,geese,rabbits and ect?

This could be the first step to ending all killing in ND

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

“"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States… We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." – Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990.

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

 

Starhunter's picture
Starhunter
Offline
Joined: 5/28/02

Goosefishmen Said:

if I am spinning it how does this bill out law HF hunting of Elk?????????????

It doesn't!!!

 

It outlaws hunting domestic elk and deer specifically.  That is how it outlaws HF hunting of elk. 

NDCC 36-01-00.1.
"Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.

In the ND Century code, section 20.1-01-02. Definitions.

5. "Big game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and antelope


Swift,

Under this bill is out laws "big game", per NDCC, farmer elk are domestic animals not big game.    I repeat this doesn't not ban the killing of farmed elk in a pen.  I win! 

We agree Lacey act does not apply, I agree 100%, but you not agree this does not apply to farmed elk per NDCC

Wrong!!!

The new law states "A privately owned big game speices"

It doesn't matter that NDCC 36-01-00.1. states that an elk can be a domestic animal on a farm.  An elk is still a big game "species" whether it is domesticated or wild.

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

One Step Further:

North Dakota Century Code:

"Species" includes any subspecies of wildlife and any other group of wildlife of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.

"Wildlife" means any member of the animal kingdom including any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof. Wildlife does not include domestic animals as defined by section 36-01-00.1 or birds or animals held in private ownership.

We now have privately owned big game species which are wildlife that does NOT include privately owned animals.  

Does it cancel each other out?  Hmmm.

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

Tim - I am jammed up with some S.C. brief deadlines and haven't really followed the debate until checking in just now and haven't read all the posts,    I want to hunt this weekend so I have been grinding away to get done.   I don't know enough about the Lacey Act to comment much on it.    I am not sure how it would apply here, if it would.    I sense is that FWS won't get involved in HF cases unless there is some sort of interstate trafficing of wildlife or wildlife parts.   Such as, I have been told of a couple NDGF investigations where games farms baited wild deer into their pens and captured them for breeding stock.    I don't know if there were charges or what the whole story was.   But say someone did something like that and those animals ended up being transported across state lines I suppose it is possible the feds would have an interest?   I don't know what standard the FWS uses to get involved and investigate Lacey cases.

As far as the measure, it will ban the shooting for a fee of privately owned elk and deer.  As a posted a few weeks ago the legislature could clear up any confusion, if there is any, of definitions in the Title 36 statutes.    I am not sure if there is any need to do that or not.    Privately owned big game animals includes deer and elk regardless of whether they are also called something else in Title 36.   Let's say the legislature doesn't act if this passes and every thing else in the statutes stays the same.   A HF operator charged with allowing a HF hunt for a fees would have to convince a judge or jury that they thought the law allowed them to offer HF hunts of deer and elk even though  they are privately owned big game because another statute also called them something else but that other statute or definition had not mentioned or had anything to do with selling hunts, just permitting for BOAH purposes.  It's a pretty weak defense.    I didn't look back,  does espringers have take on this issue?  He may have studied it more than I. 

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

Starhunter Said:

Goosefishmen Said:

if I am spinning it how does this bill out law HF hunting of Elk?????????????

It doesn't!!!

 

It outlaws hunting domestic elk and deer specifically.  That is how it outlaws HF hunting of elk. 

NDCC 36-01-00.1.
"Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,
farmed elk, llama, alpaca, or swine.

In the ND Century code, section 20.1-01-02. Definitions.

5. "Big game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and antelope


Swift,

Under this bill is out laws "big game", per NDCC, farmer elk are domestic animals not big game.    I repeat this doesn't not ban the killing of farmed elk in a pen.  I win! 

We agree Lacey act does not apply, I agree 100%, but you not agree this does not apply to farmed elk per NDCC

Wrong!!!

The new law states "A privately owned big game speices"

It doesn't matter that NDCC 36-01-00.1. states that an elk can be a domestic animal on a farm.  An elk is still a big game "species" whether it is domesticated or wild.

remember cattle were wild once too

 

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

Ladd Said:
Tim - I am jammed up with some S.C. brief deadlines and haven't really followed the debate until checking in just now and haven't read all the posts,    I want to hunt this weekend so I have been grinding away to get done.   I don't know enough about the Lacey Act to comment much on it.    I am not sure how it would apply here, if it would.    I sense is that FWS won't get involved in HF cases unless there is some sort of interstate trafficing of wildlife or wildlife parts.   Such as, I have been told of a couple NDGF investigations where games farms baited wild deer into their pens and captured them for breeding stock.    I don't know if there were charges or what the whole story was.   But say someone did something like that and those animals ended up being transported across state lines I suppose it is possible the feds would have an interest?   I don't know what standard the FWS uses to get involved and investigate Lacey cases.

As far as the measure, it will ban the shooting for a fee of privately owned elk and deer.  As a posted a few weeks ago the legislature could clear up any confusion, if there is any, of definitions in the Title 36 statutes.    I am not sure if there is any need to do that or not.    Privately owned big game animals includes deer and elk regardless of whether they are also called something else in Title 36.   Let's say the legislature doesn't act if this passes and every thing else in the statutes stays the same.   A HF operator charged with allowing a HF hunt for a fees would have to convince a judge or jury that they thought the law allowed them to offer HF hunts of deer and elk even though  they are privately owned big game because another statute also called them something else but that other statute or definition had not mentioned or had anything to do with selling hunts, just permitting for BOAH purposes.  It's a pretty weak defense.    I didn't look back,  does espringers have take on this issue?  He may have studied it more than I. 

So let's say the legislature takes it up and attempts to clarify some issues.  Can they say "this thing is a disaster how it's written, it will clog the court system" and then squash the whole thing?  Do they have that authority?  Or can they after the fact pass new laws that allow it or creates a loophole to allow it?

 

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

These paragraphs are from the Game and Fish Section of the Century Code Title 20.1

Species" includes any subspecies of wildlife and any other group of wildlife of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.

"Wildlife" means any member of the animal kingdom including any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof. Wildlife does not include domestic animals as defined by section 36-01-00.1 or birds or animals held in private ownership.

There is no such thing as a privately owned big game species. Pay attention, words mean things. The word "species" is not defined In the Livestock Section 36.01.
It is defined in the Game and Fish section 20.1 as wildlife.

Big Game is defined in the Game and Fish Section 20.1 as deer moose elk bighorn sheep mountain goats and antelope

The measure thus says "privately owned big game wildlife".... Oxymoron

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

It takes a 2/3 of each house to change a measure.     Fritz -  I am afraid your construction won't fly.    Only if meanings in statutes are ambigious will the courts use statutes in other chapters of the code.     Everyone knows that deer and elk are "big game species"    so there is no reason to go to 20.1 or other chapters for help.    For those of you that really want to get into the weeds on this word meaning stuff and the process courts will use to interpred the law here is the link.   Have a nut:

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t01c02.pdf

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

Thanks to all for the good discussion.  I learned a lot from all on this issue.  I hope I didn't offend anyone or get under any skin, as that was not my intent in this discussion.  I do not believe I will ever go to a high fence operation/operate one nor will I vote for this bill.  I feel I have a better understanding of the bill thanks to those that shared their facts and opinions.

I am done - on this issue.  Thanks again fo the good talk!

*Tim cut off my funding to get views for FBO ads.

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

So theres a difference between the domestic elk on a high fence hunting ranch vs. the domestic elk in a elk farm(non hunting ranch)??

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

Section 3372 of the Lacey act makes it unlawful for any person, “to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law; or to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law…”


Statute in Full:

§ 3371. Definitions

For the purposes of this chapter:

(a) The term “fish or wildlife” means any wild animal, whether alive or dead, including without limitation any wild mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate, whether or not bred, hatched, or born in captivity, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof.

Okay I'll warn you up front this is a bit of a long post.
Swift, simply because you can not comprehend something does make it a lie!

The wording of this measure does not make it illegal to receive a fee or renumeration for the killing or a "farmed elk" or "nontraditional livestock" but rather clearly states "big game" There are any number of ways this measure could have been worded to CLEARLY define ONLY the practice of HFHUNTING would be made illegal, but the sponsors chose to not do so. Now it appears they are willing to sit back and let the likes of swift, ron  and others do their dirty work for them instead of coming on this site to truthfully explain their measure and their intent as to how it will be carried out in the NDCC.

One little slip of the tongue by the sponsor that collected 8000 signatures on his own let a little light into the workings of this group. Apparently the egotistical nature got the better of him. The common sense in me tells me that anyone that is going to commit enough of their life and time to collecting 8000 signatures of the 13000 some required and enduring two separate collection attempts is going to have done a little homework into the legal abilities of the measure he has created. More so perhaps than the likes of swift or ron.

Please look in Sec. 3372 of the Federal Lacey Act. It CLEARLY makes deference to ANY STATE law violation regarding wildlife ( for the purpose of this discussion) as to when the Act maybe applicable. Section 3371 CLEARY states that wildlife means ANY wild animal WETHER ALIVE OR DEAD falls under the definition including any RAISED IN CAPTIVITY.  This measure as worded makes it illegal to receive a fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal in or released from a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape.  Regardless of what swift claims these "big game animals" as defined in this measure will fall under the broader definition of wildlife held within the Lacey Act, to not understand that is somewhat ridiculous. 

This "State law" as mentioned in what the Lacey Act can enforce on a Federal level will open the door for it to be used to enforce the intent of this measure which as espringers states is to ultimately end the raising of these animals in captivity all together by taking away the ability to sell them if they are to be killed. The State already prevents them from being transported out of the state, so if the growers of these animals can not sell them for slaughter, what will they then do with them.

Perhaps ladd could tell us if there can be two diametrically opposite definitions of the very same animal in one section of the NDCC? Perhaps the legislature can indeed deal with defining these long held, once commonly defined domestic animals(farmed elk) into two separte definitions within the animal ag section of the NDCC. The livestock industry is waiting to here how this will be implemented into the NDCC. But this in all likelyhood opens the door to a lawsuit wereby the intent of the measure itself would be determined by a judicial ruling. At the very least this measure will likely end the ability of someone to shoot a privately owned elk by an individual if there is a renumeration paid wether for hunting or butchering. 

Tim When I was refering to FBO experts, somehow you were not who I was thiking of when I made the comment!  Just kidding as I'm sure you realize.  As to the next president, dealing with crap like this every day, not hardly!!

People would be hard pressed to say I have not advocated these sponsors coming on these websites and setting the record straight with factual truthes. In the creating of state law, it would seem the prudent thing to do instead of letting people like myself ramble on if what I am suggesting could happen not be the true driving force behind their measure. Now that this is on the ballot one would think the sponsors, if they believe in the factual truth being the basis for state law would be jumping all over themselves to set the record straight.

If the sponsors come on here and factually prove I am wrong and explain the reason this is in the animal ag section of the NDCC is other than what I and others have suggested, I will be the first to admit it.
 

If Gary Masching can come on here and make an valid factual arguement why these animals clearly defined as privately owned domestic animals in one sec. of the NDCC are actually not that but rather wild game belongiong to the public as defined in another separate section, I would be the first to appologize for suggesting he was being untruthful when he made that statement to the public.

If Dick Monson were to come on here with factual proof that the CWD infected deer in SW ND was indeed infected from a HF operation like he claimed, I would be the first to appologize for suggesting that insinuation was less than factual.

If Roger Kaseman were to come on here with proof that these animals were indeed "stolen" from the public in direct violation with existing state law I would be the first to appologize for claiming this statement was disingenuous.

If Roger Kaseman were to come on here and state he lied on Nodak Outdoors and that carrying out the intent of this law will not involve the Federal Lacey Act, I would be the first to admit I was indeed wrong.

As this has turned more into a childish personal vendetta as it seems to often times happen here,  than a worthwhile debate on creation of a possible new state law, I will probably simply wait until any of the above things happen to reply much more .

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

 From Ladds link:
1-02-07. Particular controls general.

Whenever a general provision in a statute is inconflict with a special provision in the same or in another statute, the two must be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both provisions, but if the conflict between the two provisions is irreconcilable the special provision must prevail and must be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is enacted later and it is themanifest legislative intent that such general provision shall prevail.

1-02-08. Conflicting provisions found in the same statute.

Except as otherwise provided in section 1-02-07, whenever, in the same statute, several clauses are irreconcilable,the clause last in order of date or position shall prevail.

Espringers or ladd, does this mean that if there are conflicting definitions in the same staute the latter by date takes precedent?

Or in other words if this measure is put in Sec 36.1 defining these animals as domestic animals and farmed elk has a irreconsilable conflicting definition of them as big game included at a later date, the definition last in order of date, "big game" shall prevail ?


Starhunter's picture
Starhunter
Offline
Joined: 5/28/02

Fritz the Cat Said:
These paragraphs are from the Game and Fish Section of the Century Code Title 20.1

Species" includes any subspecies of wildlife and any other group of wildlife of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.

"Wildlife" means any member of the animal kingdom including any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof. Wildlife does not include domestic animals as defined by section 36-01-00.1 or birds or animals held in private ownership.

There is no such thing as a privately owned big game species. Pay attention, words mean things. The word "species" is not defined In the Livestock Section 36.01.
It is defined in the Game and Fish section 20.1 as wildlife.

Big Game is defined in the Game and Fish Section 20.1 as deer moose elk bighorn sheep mountain goats and antelope

The measure thus says "privately owned big game wildlife".... Oxymoron

The word species is not used to identify the animals in Section 36.01 because the animals are specifically identified, this does not mean that  there is no such thing as a privately owned big game species. 

A domesticated elk  becomes a game species once it becomes the object of  hunting.  An elk that is used for breeding or the harvesting of antlers would be considered farm elk as it is not being used as hunting game, but that status could change.  

The fact that the Game and Fish differentiates between an elk that is considered wildlife and that of which is domesticated has no bearing on the language used in the law. 

A wild elk, (wildlife) & (big game), can become a domesticated elk, (farm elk), and then become big game once it is hunted within an enclosure.

The measure as it is written does not conflict with any of the definitions.  

ggenthusiast's picture
ggenthusiast
Offline
Joined: 9/11/02

Elk behind a fence make me sick. I will vote to ban it. MT has done so, along with the banning of trail cams during season. MT cares about fair chase. I feel that since big game can be turned into "farmed elk", farmed elk can become big game the moment they are advertized for the purpose of hunting. I don't give a damn if it gets some group's foot in the door to ban all hunting, because we as sportsman only need fair chase sportsman on our side. Ethical hunters will always have a strong case to manage wildlife populations.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

Starhunter Said:
The word species is not used to identify the animals in Section 36.01 because the animals are specifically identified, this does not mean that  there is no such thing as a privately owned big game species. 

A domesticated elk  becomes a game species once it becomes the object of  hunting.  An elk that is used for breeding or the harvesting of antlers would be considered farm elk as it is not being used as hunting game, but that status could change.  

The fact that the Game and Fish differentiates between an elk that is considered wildlife and that of which is domesticated has no bearing on the language used in the law. 

A wild elk, (wildlife) & (big game), can become a domesticated elk, (farm elk), and then become big game once it is hunted within an enclosure.

The measure as it is written does not conflict with any of the definitions.  

I believe there is a law that prevents a wild elk from ever becoming a domesticated elk kept in an enclosure by a private individual here in ND.

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

I am not sure the whole  pecking order of things the courts look at, but all things being equal a later in time law would have more weight in interpretation than an older statute if there is a conflict in need of resolve.   

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

mauserG33-40 Said:

swift Said:
Goose,
You have a good point but as your definition of big game states deer and elk are big game.  That does not make them wild game.   Yes there can be domestic big game.  So I believe that this law would prevent the killing of Elk behind a fence for a fee to kill.  As it has been said there are always loopholes but the intent of the law usually closes those loopholes rather quickly.

 "fee to kill"   Do you pay a fee for a pemit to kill,ducks,geese,rabbits and ect?

This could be the first step to ending all killing in ND

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

“"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States… We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." – Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990.

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

So when one argument is laid to rest...or rather discounted...

You offer the same tripe....it is a key to ban all hunting...pacelle this and that...

Still trying to confuse everyone with smoke - nothing in the bill will effect or could be stepped into a total ban on hunting...

Typical.

Patience Suchka.......

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

Tim Sandstrom Said:

swift Said:

what really bothers me is... if you desire a true taking, than be up front about it.  if you are hoping that a persons livelihood will come to an end by your measure, then you need to put that issue on the table and be honest so that the voters can have an honest discussion about it.



I couldn't agree more with that statement.

espringers,  I would never expect to see PM's as they are private.  That is why I suggested people ask the sponsors in a public forum of their intentions.  But you cannot disagree, this, as it stands now is just hearsay.

I think gst, pber, mauser, etc have asked many, many times for people (sponsors) to comment.

The cursor still blinks with no text to be seen...

Thats a joke if ever I read one.....

Come here and be hounded, berated and ridiculed by the same posters whom the mod seems to favor...

Yeah...sure.

Patience Suchka.......

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

EyeKllr Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:

swift Said:

what really bothers me is... if you desire a true taking, than be up front about it.  if you are hoping that a persons livelihood will come to an end by your measure, then you need to put that issue on the table and be honest so that the voters can have an honest discussion about it.



I couldn't agree more with that statement.

espringers,  I would never expect to see PM's as they are private.  That is why I suggested people ask the sponsors in a public forum of their intentions.  But you cannot disagree, this, as it stands now is just hearsay.

I think gst, pber, mauser, etc have asked many, many times for people (sponsors) to comment.

The cursor still blinks with no text to be seen...

Thats a joke if ever I read one.....

Come here and be hounded, berated and ridiculed by the same posters whom the mod seems to favor...

Yeah...sure.

Whats the deal with you thinking that you and the few people that support this bill are getting picked on all the time?? Pretty lame.

Its a debate, people go back and forth.

Starhunter's picture
Starhunter
Offline
Joined: 5/28/02

gst Said:

Starhunter Said:
The word species is not used to identify the animals in Section 36.01 because the animals are specifically identified, this does not mean that  there is no such thing as a privately owned big game species. 

A domesticated elk  becomes a game species once it becomes the object of  hunting.  An elk that is used for breeding or the harvesting of antlers would be considered farm elk as it is not being used as hunting game, but that status could change.  

The fact that the Game and Fish differentiates between an elk that is considered wildlife and that of which is domesticated has no bearing on the language used in the law. 

A wild elk, (wildlife) & (big game), can become a domesticated elk, (farm elk), and then become big game once it is hunted within an enclosure.

The measure as it is written does not conflict with any of the definitions.  

I believe there is a law that prevents a wild elk from ever becoming a domesticated elk kept in an enclosure by a private individual here in ND.

I certainly understand that gst, I was just trying to create an understandable analogy that taught how an elks status changes as the use or intended use of the elk changes.  Terminology is as quick to change as the use of the elk, but that does not effect the intent and wording of the measure.

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

North Dakota Century Code:

"Farmed elk" means mammals of the elk family (cervus elaphus), except red deer,
confined in a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape and:
a. Raised for fiber, meat, or animal byproducts;
b. Raised for breeding, exhibition, or harvest; or
c. Maintained for any other purpose.

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

Again at least the pro canned shooters are trying desperately to side track the issue.

So lets settle the issue of property rights now. Those  who oppose this bill because of property rights or make that claim as one of the reasons. Tell us right now why it is fine to take away a landowners right to sell his land to whomever they want! Keeping in mind who this benefits and who it as pber keeps talking about taking!

Now let's deal with the hearsay BS as well. HSUS is not a sponsor,nor where they involved in the signature gathering for THIS bill. Have been told by the people of the Fair Chase they want no help and will take no help from them.

Next is all the BS about the Lacy act, I stated before that the Lacy Act issue is settled law and as has been demonstrated by swift when and where it is applied.

Then we have the issue of the Fed Humane Slaughter Act, another scare tactic being used to oppose this. Claims that there are hidden triggers etc... that will come if this passes.
Again more BS!

Then there are all the ways being posted as to why this bill will not work. From ownership loopholes etc....

Going back a ways LADD put it out exactly what and how thing work regarding these types of issues. Putting it simply the Leg will be charged with creating the rules and regulations of implementing the intent of this bill. So they will have the things tried and found not lawful from MT and other states to draw upon. No loopholes and if they miss one it will have to be fixed next session.

Then there is the most favorite which is to attack those who are sponsors. Mauser,gst etc.. have all chimed in about truth, but do not hesitate to use half truths themselves.

So the truth is that this bill's intent is to ban canned shooting of animals being advertised as hunts. The bill is not vague,nor unclear as to intent. Farming of elk,just as beef cattle or sheep can and will continue with no affect on them from this bill.

So like it or not it boils down to will the voting public look at this as wrong or right and it will be judged by that.

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

Ron, I am not sure where anyone has said that HSUS is a sponsor, but they sure have been involved in signature collecting last go round and this go round.  We know they collected approximately 2000 signatures last go round and that the Karen mentioned in the alert below was involved from the start with petition packages made up.  I  personally talked to Karen after it was reported by an individual that he had called the number in this alert and asked her how she became involved.  She told them that Roger had called her.  I then talked to her after this hit the Nodak board and flat out asked her, If Roger had called her, and she stated, "Why does it matter who called who first?" 

It is also well documented that Roger met with David Pauli, Regional HSUS director.  He actually states on Nodak that he met with Mr. Pauli. 

Here is the alert that went out last time via email (which was also posted on their National Website with links to the Fair Chase website): 

Time is Running Out!
Please Help Ban Canned Hunts in North Dakota

Dear Friend,

North Dakota voters have the opportunity to stop the trophy shooting of captive animals trapped behind fences -- an inhumane and unsportsmanlike practice opposed by hunters and non-hunters alike -- but only with your help. These "canned hunting" operations offer wealthy customers the opportunity to kill tame, captive animals for guaranteed trophies. Get involved today in stopping this unethical practice.

Both hunters and non-hunters condemn canned hunting, but it has not yet been outlawed in North Dakota. Be part of the team that puts this critical issue on the November statewide ballot! The campaign must collect 12,844 valid signatures by the end of July, and we need your help.

If you have volunteered to gather signatures already, thank you! If not, please sign up today. Email Karen at

rthunsh@srt.com

or call 701-839-6210.

Just a little of your time will help give North Dakotans the chance to vote to stop canned hunting this fall.

Sincerely,

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States

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




I believe there is definitely a reason they chose to use the term “big game species” rather than using the Century Code definition of these animals, farmed elk.  When SB 2254 was introduced in 2007 before the legislators, the bill read farmed elk and alternative livestock.  Why has the wording been changed for the initiated measures?



I believe the intent of this measure is to cripple this industry, possibly shut down the whole industry at some point, without providing any form of compensation.  There is a group of these sponsors that are behind this, not all. 


After the first initiated measure failed in 2008, another bill was introduced to the legislators, HB 1210 (http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-text/JAFL0100.pdf) which tried to take ALL federal and state funding away for regulation of the big game and farmed elk industry (Notice it does use the term farmed elk in this bill).  Mind you it was only for big game and  farmed elk, not any of the other alternative livestock who also receive funding as does any industry for regulation.   I find it ironic that these very same people who supported HB 1210 bill to take away funding for regulation used the argument that these facilities did not have enough regulation as part of their reasons to support the first initiated measure in 2007/2008.


I believe that the intent of this current measure (and last measure) is to do exactly what the Montana Wildlife Federation lawyer said in the oral arguments of Buhmann v. Montana.  The oral arguments used to be on line at this link:  http://audiovideo1.law.umt.edu:8080/Buhmann, et. al. v. Montana9-13-06


(http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=52197&p=420312#p...)


It was very lengthy but at about the hour mark you got to see the the Montana Wildlife Federation lawyer speak. The judge asks him if this was about disease then why were these farms allowed to exist. The lawyer basically says that yes they were allowed to still have their animals, but that was the only way they could do this without it being a TAKINGS.  Instead it is a partial takings and no compensation is required.


Roger Kaseman has stated many times that they are following Montana’s lead. 

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

EyeKllr Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:

swift Said:
Goose,
You have a good point but as your definition of big game states deer and elk are big game.  That does not make them wild game.   Yes there can be domestic big game.  So I believe that this law would prevent the killing of Elk behind a fence for a fee to kill.  As it has been said there are always loopholes but the intent of the law usually closes those loopholes rather quickly.

 "fee to kill"   Do you pay a fee for a pemit to kill,ducks,geese,rabbits and ect?

This could be the first step to ending all killing in ND

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

“"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States… We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." – Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990.

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

So when one argument is laid to rest...or rather discounted...

You offer the same tripe....it is a key to ban all hunting...pacelle this and that...

Still trying to confuse everyone with smoke - nothing in the bill will effect or could be stepped into a total ban on hunting...

Typical.

Take the blinders off if you dont think that this will give a foot in the door and that they will claim this as a win through the antis media you are crazy.

 Adn

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

pber, HSUS is not part of the petition drive, nor a sponsor of THIS bill!

Now tell is which property rights are OK and which are not?

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!

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

Hardwaterman said,

pber, HSUS is not part of the petition drive, nor a sponsor of THIS bill!

Ron,

Over on nodak, former federal employee, Plainsman likes to down play the HSUS involvement same as you. Plainsman was a sponser of fair chase one, he is not a sponser of fair chase two. Ron, I know you read nodak. Here is part of my exchange with him on nodak:

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85231&p=685146

DG said,

Let's talk about why you are not a sponser this time. You admitted somewhere that there was in fact people on the fair chase committee durring fair chase one partnering with members of the Humane Society. What did you know and when did you know it?

On fair chase two you have a sponser who could be an animal rights activist. Her name is Janine Jacob. She works with Gary Masching.

http://www.nd.gov/docr/parole/offices/bismarckdist.html

Parole and Probation: Bismarck District Office
103 South 3rd St. Suite 5
Bismarck, ND 58501
Phone: 701-328-9700
Fax: 701-328-9705

Name Office Phone Cell Phone
Miller, LuAnn K. 
Bachmeier, Sharon E. 
Blotsky, Penny K. 
Carkuff, James W. 
Eckert, Michael L. 
Hagen, Kevin W. 
Johnson, Duane M. 
Masching, Gary O.
Jacob, Janine 
Ferderer, Darin M. 
Schuchard, Rick A. 
Soupir, Tony M. 
Weigel, Brian L. 
Schlinger, Corey P. 
Anderson, Adam C.
Plainsman, look at this,

http://www.featherlitend.com/events/

Circle Diamond Ranch Supply Aids Pets Displaced by Hurricanes

Circle Diamond Ranch Supply has donated the use of a trailer to transport pets displaced by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Some of the animals wil be brought back to be sheltered in North Dakota.

Sue Buchholz, CDHS shelter director, and volunteer, Janine Jacob, are going to Alabama to help with rescue and care of the displaced pets.

Anyone who wishes to make a donation to help with the trip can send a donation to:
Central Dakota Humane Society CDHS.NET
2090 37th Street
Mandan, ND 58554

Plainsman, Ok you are thinking big deal. She likes dogs and cats. However, she wasn't the only one to travel to hurricane Katrina.

This is from the Washington DC based HSUS website:

http://www.animalsheltering.org/resourc ... ppers.html

Karen Thunshell of Minot was also there. You don't suppose Karen Thunshell and Janine Jacob know each other?

Karen and her girlfriends collected 2000 signatures durring fair chase one. They again collected for fair chase two. Karen is into the horse slaughter ban. It is a scary experiance for the horse to be hauled to a slaughter house, mixed with other aggressive horses and confined in the buildings at the slaughter house. On the flip side Karen says hunters need to hunt fair chase. The farmed elk should be taken to a slaughter house. She doesn't care that it is a contradiction. The end justifies the means.

Stop the human expliotation of all animals. There is something in this measure for many radicals.

The fair chase committee is a coalition of elitist fair chasers, animal rights advocates and fedgov employees.

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

Goosefishmen Said:
Thanks to all for the good discussion.  I learned a lot from all on this issue.  I hope I didn't offend anyone or get under any skin, as that was not my intent in this discussion.  I do not believe I will ever go to a high fence operation/operate one nor will I vote for this bill.  I feel I have a better understanding of the bill thanks to those that shared their facts and opinions.

I am done - on this issue.  Thanks again fo the good talk!

*Tim cut off my funding to get views for FBO ads.

Quite honestly, I don'[t think I understand a dang thing!  Way too many title this, NDCC this and NDGF that!

Someday, yes, I will get you a shirt.  First I have other obligations and need to get some ordered.  I don't think we have any left after the sport show!


 

 

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

 

 
Starhunter's picture
Starhunter
Offline
Joined: 5/28/02

pber Said:
North Dakota Century Code:

"Farmed elk" means mammals of the elk family (cervus elaphus), except red deer,
confined in a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape and:
a. Raised for fiber, meat, or animal byproducts;
b. Raised for breeding, exhibition, or harvest; or
c. Maintained for any other purpose.

That is correct; and the minute you take that "farmed elk" that was raised for harvest and offer it as a target of hunting it becomes game and since it is an elk it is a big game species.       

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

David Pauli, HSUS Regional Director, who Roger met with, oversaw the Katrina rescue operation which Karen Thunshelle (the citizen coordinator here in ND for HSUS) and Janine Jacobs, present sponsor of the measure, helped with. 

Dave Pauli has been rescuing wild and domestic animals for 26 years. His career as a wildlife rehabilitator, urban wildlife consultant, director of both animal control and humane society shelters, and, for the last 15 years, as a Regional Director for The Humane Society of the United States has given him unique opportunities to help animals under the best and worst conditions. Dave responded to and led animal rescue teams to large disasters like The Red River Floods of North Dakota/Minnesota and many hurricanes such as Opal, Ivan, Charlie, and now Katrina and Rita. He was also first responder to the Idaho gubernatorial-declared disaster of Ligertown, where 26 loose African lions negatively impacted a small community for 10 days. He specializes in field capture, volume live trapping, and remote chemical capture of feral animals. Dave lives in Montana with his wife, two daughters, and a wide variety of companion animals.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/katrinas-animal-rescue/meet-the-...

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

Eye,

You've been treated well throughout the years.  I enjoy your takes on issues.  But to think I favor someone over the other is not fair.  I can't help it that my opinion tends to agree with the folks I mentioned.  However, two of those mentioned have had some serious talks by me on how they present their posts.  You are aggressive by nature yourself and I've continued to allow you to post freely.  Well, maybe not freely as I've asked you (like I have asked several others) to be mindful of the words used to convey one's posts.

So I respectfully disagree I give anyone any preference over the others.  My problem in the past was I understood some of the other people's humor more (those that post here more often).  The problem with that is new posters hadn't had a time to be acclimated with how someone tends to communicate.  So I had to start paying attention to that.  I admit my flaw in that regard.

Now, if there is anything on this site you find I am being preferential too, please flag it (that goes for everyone).  That is what that feature is there for.  It gives you ALL MODERATION POWER.  No more excuses, is how I look at 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

 

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Again at least the pro canned shooters are trying desperately to side track the issue.

So lets settle the issue of property rights now. Those  who oppose this bill because of property rights or make that claim as one of the reasons. Tell us right now why it is fine to take away a landowners right to sell his land to whomever they want! Keeping in mind who this benefits and who it as pber keeps talking about taking!

Now let's deal with the hearsay BS as well. HSUS is not a sponsor,nor where they involved in the signature gathering for THIS bill. Have been told by the people of the Fair Chase they want no help and will take no help from them.

Next is all the BS about the Lacy act, I stated before that the Lacy Act issue is settled law and as has been demonstrated by swift when and where it is applied.

Then we have the issue of the Fed Humane Slaughter Act, another scare tactic being used to oppose this. Claims that there are hidden triggers etc... that will come if this passes.
Again more BS!

Then there are all the ways being posted as to why this bill will not work. From ownership loopholes etc....

Going back a ways LADD put it out exactly what and how thing work regarding these types of issues. Putting it simply the Leg will be charged with creating the rules and regulations of implementing the intent of this bill. So they will have the things tried and found not lawful from MT and other states to draw upon. No loopholes and if they miss one it will have to be fixed next session.

Then there is the most favorite which is to attack those who are sponsors. Mauser,gst etc.. have all chimed in about truth, but do not hesitate to use half truths themselves.

So the truth is that this bill's intent is to ban canned shooting of animals being advertised as hunts. The bill is not vague,nor unclear as to intent. Farming of elk,just as beef cattle or sheep can and will continue with no affect on them from this bill.

So like it or not it boils down to will the voting public look at this as wrong or right and it will be judged by that.

"Now let's deal with the hearsay BS as well. HSUS is not a sponsor,nor where they involved in the signature gathering for THIS bill. Have been told by the people of the Fair Chase they want no help and will take no help from them."
 

And who told you they were not invovled with HSUS,Kaseman or Masching HA HA HA you want to buy  some  ocean font property in Fargo???  Who were" the  people of the Fair Chase" that told you this?   You said "Now lets dael with the hearsay",try something new and answer not spin.  Who told you they were not involv with the HSUS?

 

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

EyeKllr Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:

swift Said:

what really bothers me is... if you desire a true taking, than be up front about it.  if you are hoping that a persons livelihood will come to an end by your measure, then you need to put that issue on the table and be honest so that the voters can have an honest discussion about it.



I couldn't agree more with that statement.

espringers,  I would never expect to see PM's as they are private.  That is why I suggested people ask the sponsors in a public forum of their intentions.  But you cannot disagree, this, as it stands now is just hearsay.

I think gst, pber, mauser, etc have asked many, many times for people (sponsors) to comment.

The cursor still blinks with no text to be seen...

Thats a joke if ever I read one.....

Come here and be hounded, berated and ridiculed by the same posters whom the mod seems to favor...

Yeah...sure.

The words of a desperate loser.  Time to face up to the fact what the FC group is upto.  You comment about Tim was uncalled for,untrue,and just plain disrespectfull.
 

 

swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: 1/23/02
Section 3371 CLEARY states that wildlife means ANY wild animal WETHER ALIVE OR DEAD falls under the definition including any RAISED IN CAPTIVITY.  This measure as worded makes it illegal to receive a fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal in or released from a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape.  Regardless of what swift claims these "big game animals" as defined in this measure will fall under the broader definition of wildlife held within the Lacey Act, to not understand that is somewhat ridiculous

There you go again with the deception.  I knew you would spin the raised in captivity statement in the Lacey Act.  This is what is meant by "raised in captivity"...

It is a violation of the Lacey act to aquire a wild animal, i.e. pick up a fawn, trap a pregnant doe, or any other WILD animal, fawn out that pregnant doe in captivity and then sell it.  No matter how you want to spin it into a conspiracy theory is your own problem.  I comprehend the wording and the definitions in the Lacey Act.  I realize farmed elk are not wild and do not fall under the lacey act no matter how you wish to spin it.  Maybe you should comprehend a little better.  You asked for specifics and you got them.

I think Ladd has the expertise and has explained that the intent of the law will supercede any conspiracy and close any loopholes.

Now what are some real reasons people shouldn't vote for this measure?  I stated mine above  Lets hear yours?

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

Pber raises a good question in my view.  Who does fund the enforcement of game farm reg's right now?   That bill, HB 1210, I believe was the one that changed the funding of the BOAH.   Before last session about $200,000 was taken from GF license revenues and given to the BOAH to regulate capitive wildlife.    I believe the hunting groups objected to having license fees used for such purposes, and argued license fees should go to PLOTS and such.    Since that changed, is the $200,000 being paid by the livestock industry?  Taxpayers? Or is there no funding for enforcement?   Does anyone know?   I  know this is off-topic but I am just wondering how that works if anyone knows.....Thanks  

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

Man this going to be exciting come vote time.


 

 

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

 

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

Ladd,

I believe the money was moved from the right hip pocket to the left.  It sounds like it now comes from the general fund.  It is my understanding that originally when the animals were moved under the BoAH the 200,000 included payment of services of the BoAH veterinarian as the G&F did not have their own veterinarian. 

The regulation money was for all alternative livestock which includes the following animals:  Turkeys, geese, and ducks morphologically distinguishable from wild turkeys, geese, ducks, pigeons, mules, donkeys, asses, ratites, chinchilla,
Guinea fowl, ferrets, ranch foxes, ranch mink, peafowl, all pheasants, quail, chukar, hedgehog, and degus, all nondomestic ungulates, including all deer (cervidae) and pronghorn, nondomestic cats not listed in category 3, waterfowl, shorebirds, upland game birds not listed in category 1, crows, wolverines, otters, martens, fishers, kit or swift foxes, badgers, coyotes, mink, red and gray fox, muskrats, beavers, weasels, opossums, prairie dogs, and other ground squirrels.  All wild species of the family suidae except swine considered domestic in North Dakota by the board of animal health. Big cats, including mountain lion, jaguar, leopard, lion, tiger, and
cheetah, Bears, Wolves and wolf-hybrids, Venomous reptiles, Primates, Nondomestic sheep and hybrids and nondomestic goats and hybrids,  Arachnids, Amphibians., Invertebrates, Nonvenomous reptiles, Tropical freshwater and saltwater fish, Gerbils, Guinea pigs, Hamsters.

You can read more here: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-status/house/HB1210.PDF

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

Okay, swift can not seem to understand that it was not me that stated the Lacey Act will be used in the enforcement of this measure, but sponsor Roger Kaseman that stated it. That was clearly pointed out for him. Yet he still wants to pawn this statement off onto me. I am merely questioning if indeed as this sponsor suggested this will be the case and how it will play out if what ROGER KASEMAN stated about the Lacey Act is true in regards to this measure. If it is indeed true, espringers suggestion that the sponsors having a motive far beyond simply ending "HFH" but rather putting ALL of these operations out of business may indeed be the case. Their refusal to come on here and set the record straight is lending more and more credibility to what espringers has said.

I believe the citizens of this state should have the ability to question the sponsors of a measure as to how this measure, potential law, will be implemented and enforced. And that these sponsors should be held to a standard of truth when answering these questions. One would certainly think that if mistruthes were being bantied about in regards to a measure that many have devoted the better part of 4 years to getting passed they would be on this site making sure that these untruthes were corrected. Instead it seems as if the sponsors are sitting back using these sites as a weapon like Tim suggested and the tools they are using are the likes of swift and hardwaterman/ron. One might begin to think it was a conspiracy!!

Call me crazy but for some reason I believe someone that spent enough time of his life on this measure to have collected 8000 signatures by himself will have done a bit more legal research than the likes of swift and ron.

Ladd the intent of asking my questions is to try and get to the nuts and bolts of how this will be implemented. So based on what you say if this measure passes and is placed in the section or statue 36.1 that currently contains a definition of these animals as domestic animals, and the legislature that created and supports that definition can not come to terms with how this will be handled, the later definition, the one in this measure defining these animals as big game will take precedence? Or even if there is a decision by the legislature but a lawsuit is filed, the later definition takes precedence? Would this possibly explain why this measure was included in this section 36.1?

Ladd as you understand the Lacey Act, if there is a state law that makes receiving a fee or renumeration for the killing of a "big game animal" or "wildlife" as stated in the Lacey act,  inside a fence or released from an enclosure could the Lacey act be used in enforcing this "state law" at theFederal level ?

You asked the question if espringers had weighed in on this as he may have more insight into this and the answer is yes he has. Please read his take on this and let us know what you think.

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

For anyone interested and wanting to take the time, here is the testimony from SB 2254 with attachments from everyone that testified for and against.  

http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-2007/bill-status/senate/SB2254.pdf

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

A big game animal or wildlife is a spin.  A big game animal is not wildlife.  Maybe ladd can answer if the Lacey Act addresses "Big game" animals or if it addresses "Wildlife".

I have quoted you using the Lacey act as an arguement against this measure.  I know Roger Kaseman brought it up and he is wrong too.  He likely used the same deception to aid his side as you are to aid yours.  You need to address the truths that Kaseman has presented, (if there are any), not run with the lies that he has started.  By using Kasemans lie that the Lacey Act will be the basis of enforcement and then extrapolating that lie out to include the nonHFH deer and elk producers you are using the same deceptive tale.  Why can't you understand that?

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

Mauser, wait,watch and learn!

Your question will be answered!

But in the mean time do you have anything regarding this bill?

Now how about the issue of all property rights? Care to explain away that issue or are you going to concede that you are only concerned about a property right where you have a direct interest in net  loss or gain?

 

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!

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Mauser, wait,watch and learn!

Your question will be answered!

But in the mean time do you have anything regarding this bill?

Now how about the issue of all property rights? Care to explain away that issue or are you going to concede that you are only concerned about a property right where you have a direct interest in net  loss or gain?

 

Would you tell me where this property is?

 "that you are only concerned about a property right where you have a direct interest in net  loss or gain?"

 

ggenthusiast's picture
ggenthusiast
Offline
Joined: 9/11/02

Why not just ban the entire practice of pen-raising any big game species which resides in the State of ND?  Of course, zoos would be the only exception.

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

ggenthusiast Said:
Why not just ban the entire practice of pen-raising any big game species which resides in the State of ND?  Of course, zoos would be the only exception.

And the park.  Oh wait, they are wild.  And that's why people line up on the fence trying to shoot them as they go back in.

Joking folks....kinda.


 

 

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

 

 

Pages