High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

612 posts / 0 new
Last post
eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

swift Said:

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 Said:
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.  

So that's two more lies in one paragraph by Kaseman. 

 

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

eyexer Said:

swift Said:

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 Said:
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.  

So that's two more lies in one paragraph by Kaseman. 

Hardwaterman says it does matter what Roger says or who he is.  Fluff doesn't matter, or integerty.

 

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

Goosefishmen Said:

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. 

you are right on.  for every law there is a loophole.  and it appears this is a pretty easy one to attain.

 

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

The permit is for the facility where the animals are contained, not for the ownership of the animal.  As the facility is permitted once and each time they buy a new animal a permit is not needed to own a new animal.  Anytime you transfer an animal to another facility, that facility must also be permitted. 

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

pber Said:
The permit is for the facility where the animals are contained, not for the ownership of the animal.  As the facility is permitted once and each time they buy a new animal a permit is not needed to own a new animal.  Anytime you transfer an animal to another facility, that facility must also be permitted. 

So as the thing is written, a person other than the purchaser of the animal has to shoot the elk.  So if I run a high fence operation I can sell the bull Billy Jo McMonigal for 3K.  But he can't shoot it, so he sells it back to me for $1.  Then he can shoot my bull for me, since I can't, but I'll let him keep the cape for shooting it for me since all I want is the meat. 

 

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

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.

What "taking"...you can still sell the dressed animals.

It is nice to see this for what it is though - about the money. But then it always was - every other arguement falls short to the holy dollar.

But the dollar will still be there, as will the ability to legally raise domesticated game animals and the ability sell them for meat.

Just a loss of the target shooters fees.

Patience Suchka.......

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







There is a set of defined options that come with this animal.  One of the options is that this animal is already killed in this manner for a FEE in the wild.  Just because this animal is considered domestic does not mean it shouldn’t be hunted on  a game preserve.  Hunting on a game preserve falls within the legal definition according the century code.  We certainly could hunt our cows if we wanted to but that is not normally considered an option of a cow, just as milking an elk is not an option.  And we do hunt domestic buffalo.

 

So anytime you reduce the economic value by taking of an option, I would consider that a takings. Anytime you take a whole business away I would say that is a taking.  These facilities have investments that are specific to this business which will be a major loss.

Unfortunately Montana ruled against these facilities as they considered it a "partial" takings, so therefore no compensation, none.  It took approximately 9 years of legal battles in Montana.  In fact the last court it went to the judges deliberated for almost 2 years.   They will tell you because Montana did it, it was right.  I disagree.  I believe this is setting a dangerous, dangerous precedent.  Montana's initiative also was worded a lot different than ours.  The wording of ours in and of itself could be very dangerous to the livestock industry.  Elk in Montana were not considered domestic.

Espringers is right.  It is about trying to force all of these places out of business without having to reimburse them.   Economic euthanasia.

 

Neither "property" nor the value of property is a physical thing. Property is a set of defined options...It is that set of options which has economic value...It is the options, and not the physical things, which are the "property" - economically as well as legally...But because the public tends to think of property as tangible, physical things, this opens the way politically for government confiscation of property by forcibly taking away options while leaving the physical objects untouched.  Thomas Sowell

 















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

you are exactly right and the effects could potentially reach in to the cattle business I believe.  That's why it will be defeated in Nov.  If you think the cattle industry isn't going to launch an all out assault on this your crazy. 

 

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

Hardwaterman Said:
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!!!!!!!!

Bull shit. I asked the EXACT same question that goosefishmen did on a HF frey thread Roger Kaseman started himself and it was HIS response that the Federal Lacey Act will make that "loophole" illegal as well. Go to  Nodak Outdoors and read it for yourself under the
Hot Topics section, you have to get to page 7 to get his response. He comments on how funny it is watching amatuers trying to interpret the law. 
 

 Either the person that collected 8000 signatures on his own is full of crap and simply lying, or Ron/hardwaterman is. That is not fluff. Roger is claiming one thing Ron is claiming the exact opposite. I for one tend to believe that someone that has invested as much of his time to collect this many signatures on his own would have checked into this and would know a little more than the FBO "expert".  To me the fact NOT ONE SPONSOR is coming on here to deny it says all that needs to be said. Espringers is dead on.
 
If you look at the Federal Lacey Act you will see that it is the state law and how it is written that is used in the determining wether there is a violation under the Federal Lacey Act. The state law opens the door to prosecution under the Lacey Act. This measure is specifically worded to allow just that and do EXACTLY as espringers said to close down all these operations raising these animals regardless of purpose. It is why it is included in the animal ag section of the NDCC. The definition of these animals as domestic in this section will have to be addressed as they can not have oposing definitions of the same animals in one section of the NDCC, so when they are reclassified as "big game" as this measure states and it is illegal to receive a fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal how can one sell a "big game animal" to be killed? The Federal Lacey Act will be used to enforce this intent of this measure. If what I'm stating is not true, why have NO sponsors came on here to deny it??????? You would think they would want to set the record straight. Factual truth, the basis all state law should be created under, to bad this one is not.

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

The lacey act as I understand it, refer to wild life or wild animals.  We are discussing domestic elk that are raised on a farm in a fence, I do not see how it applies.  The HF proposal does not address this as once someone has ownership of these animals they should no longer be considered "wild life" but rather domestic.  If you go out and take a wild elk, chase it in a fence and try to sell it - yes the lacey act would apply.

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusfd16usca3371.htm

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

Goosefishman, That is why this measure is being placed in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC. In this animal ag section these animals are defined as domestic animals. This measure defines them as "big game" if this measure is placed in this Sec. you can not have 2 opposing definitions of the same animals in one section of the NDCC so it will have to be addressed by the legislature. Once they are reclassified as "big game" they will no longer be considered domestic animals and the Federal Lacey Act will apply. That is the SOLE purpose of the measure being placed in the animal ag section of the NDCC. If this measure is not placed there but say in the G&F section 27 that does regulate "big game" there can remain the definition of domestic animals on these privately owned farmed elk in Sec 36 and the Lacey Act would not apply as you suggest. Espringers is correct when he describes the behind the back methodology of this group in accomplishing their agenda.

Remember, this is not conjecture on my part as Ron would like people to believe. Roger Kaseman spouted off and tipped their hand on a thread on Nodak Outdoors and now that the cat is out of the bag no one wants to fess up to the truth.

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

Goosefishmen Said:
The lacey act as I understand it, refer to wild life or wild animals.  We are discussing domestic elk that are raised on a farm in a fence, I do not see how it applies.  The HF proposal does not address this as once someone has ownership of these animals they should no longer be considered "wild life" but rather domestic.  If you go out and take a wild elk, chase it in a fence and try to sell it - yes the lacey act would apply.

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusfd16usca3371.htm

Hey I get what you are saying, one would think it is up front, common sense stuff. Like I said I asked the exact same question. To me if you legaly own an animal you should be able to sell it or shoot it as long as you are following all the regulations in place. But that is not the way these fellas think. And you have to start thinking like them to understand it. It seems that this group NDH for FC has taken a page out of the playbook of the HSUS in using these backdoor tactics to acheive their agendas. Now that's something ND hunters can be proud of.

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

While my posts are ill-timed; and I can not vote on this measure, I still cannot help but to throw in an opinion. I have read every post verbatim. The conclusions that have been drawn are as follows: Most HFH operations have below average acreage. Most Dakotans (including myself) would not pay for a HFH. If a landowner has above averge acreage; it is merely a fair chase pay hunt for deer and small game. Waterfowl is a Federal issue and no one wants to mess with the Feds. A Tame goose with two bumps on his beak; while a Trophy, isn't on anybody's to do list. Public access is approaching an all time high. Mountain Lion(they love elk and deer)  populations are also growing. They once shut down the Canadian border due to a mad cow scare. If you do not think that HFH is not already one of the most scrutinized and policed areas by the Governments...Well. Property taxes as well as most of the other regulations regarding this issue are open to the Public. Yet, while we Bitch slap everybody, your new neighbors who you cannot find in the registar are sneeking around in the dark and substinance farming "OUR" fair-game Animals. The next time I watch "Ice Road Truckers" ;  somebody will have a potload of immigrants. Guessing they will probably roadhunt there way there.

One step at a time...Be careful.

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

GST, I gave a direct example of your attempt to twist and deceive.  If you can't grasp it too bad.  The whole Lacey act tangent is another attempt to deceive people on the topic.  I'm so sorry to hear there is no longer cattle ranchers in Montana because they outlawed HFH.  Oh wait they still produce more cattle than ND.  And you have just as big a dog in the fight as Hardwaterman, so why should you be listened to anymore than him?  Because your a lobbiest for 1500 people in the state?  Your certainly not on the side of sportsman in the state of North Dakota.  You want NO more public land in ND.  You want to take away a landowners right to openly allow people to hunt on their land without being bothered.  You want to control who landowners can sell their land to.  You want to have access to CRP hay during nesting even though the rules were set when you signed them.  Then you want to blame the sportsman of the state when you don't get your way and boycott access to hunters.  Yea you have your head in the right spot.  I'd say you and yours are more of a threat to the hunting tradition than HSUS or PETA.  Atleast with them they don't claim to be on the side of the sportsman before they stab you in the back and twist the knife.  Nobody likes a bully.

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

Swift, I will only take the time to suggest you read the thread on Nodak Outdoors started by the sponsor Roger Kaseman that collected 8000 signatures himself where HE stated the Federal Lacey Act will be used to enforce this measures intent. Page 7.  It is not dishonest conjecture on my part, but simply pointing out what the primary sponsor of this measure has stated himself.

To be honest I'm surprised the edit function on Nodak has not been used by now.

So as I have suggested, if you can not show anywhere that I have been dishonest in what I have posted,to continue to suggest I have is rather childish and brings little value to the debate.

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

Roger Kasemans quote from Nodak Outdoors Entering the HF Frey thread page 7:
 
"The legislative attempt to legitimize High Fence Shooting Gallery Operations was a slight of hand magic trick to get around 350 years of legislative and legal precedent that placed wildlife in the public trust and charged government with management of that wildlife. Proof of the slight of hand is right here on this post. The Fair Chase Initiative isn’t law and some of you are scheming to get around the law using a bill of sale. I have an answer for that: The Lacey Act.

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…”

The Fair Chase Initiative will be a law and regulation of this state. Federal fine for breaking the law: $10,000.00.

It’s a blast watching amateurs interpret law. Like watching a falling down drink try to ride a unicycle. :rollin:"

This is the text from Roger Kasemans post on Nodak Outdoors in reply to my question how will this measure prevent one person from selling a live animal to another person, getting a bill of sale for that live animal, then that person shooting the animal he now owns. Notice the capitalization of the word " State" in his definition of how the Lacey Act works.

As this measure is written to become "State law" it is illegal to receive a fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal in or released from a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape. Considering Rogers description of what falls under the Lacey Act, explain to me how someone can sell an elk that will be killed for any purpose if this measure as worded becomes "State law"?

Now if this is not plain enough please tell me were I am wrong. As I said Roger spilt the beans and not one sponsor is coming on here to comment on his statements. That to me says more than enough.

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

I see the points being made, but I think the mess is going to start when you start looking at "Big Game", "Wild Game", and "Domestic Animals".  These definitions in relation to this bill could get a new law we don't want.

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

Roger Kaseman is an idiot that will ultimately kill this initiative with his words if you guys will let him.  I find it amusing that you demonize him in one breath then use his own words to defend your own deceptive arguements.  The guys that don't want this to go through should be happy that Kaseman is leading the charge.  He is like a firefighter running to the fire with a pail of gas.  If this measure passes, you can thank the level headed sponsors like R. Heggness and the combustible opponents like GST.

GST you could have dismissed the Lacey Act statements as rhetoric but you choose to take the mistruth of Kaseman and run with it to scare everyone else.  You know there is nothing in the Lacey Act that has anything to do with "livestock".  But you chose to use that as a threat toward the cattle ranchers when in reality there is no threat.  You are just as deceptive as Kaseman in regards to the Lacey Act.

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

It’s a blast watching amateurs interpret law. Like watching a falling down drink try to ride a unicycle. :rollin:

Where did you get your Law degree?

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

 

EyeKllr Said:

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.

What "taking"...you can still sell the dressed animals.

It is nice to see this for what it is though - about the money. But then it always was - every other arguement falls short to the holy dollar.

But the dollar will still be there, as will the ability to legally raise domesticated game animals and the ability sell them for meat.

Just a loss of the target shooters fees.

that was exactly my point.  the guys behind this don't just want to see HFH operations shut down.  they want to see everyone of these places that raise deer and elk for horns shut down and from what i've been told they have a couple of reasons for this.  but, by taking away a large part of their income, they are hoping they will accomplish that goal w/o the courts finding that compensation is due.  get it?

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

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

Goosefishmen Said:
I see the points being made, but I think the mess is going to start when you start looking at "Big Game", "Wild Game", and "Domestic Animals".  These definitions in relation to this bill could get a new law we don't want.

Now there is a man who knows what he is talking about. Swift take a chill pill and set down. 

 

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

 

swift Said:

It’s a blast watching amateurs interpret law. Like watching a falling down drink try to ride a unicycle. :rollin:

Where did you get your Law degree?

the quote u cited is kaseman's not gst's.  ask him where he got his law degree.  but, he doesn't need one b/c i can guarantee you that kaseman and his cronies had at least a few attorneys involved in drafting this measure.  i can also guarantee you that the plan is to use the lacey act to enforce this law if anyone tries to find a loophole like goosefisher was talking about earlier.  gst's concerns are legitimate b/c once this measure is passed and the contradicting definitions are cleared up and they decide to involve the lacey act in the enforcement of this measure to stop any loopholes like selling the animal first and letting the buyer kill it after he has a bill of sale, the ability to even raise these animals for slaughter could potentially be up for debate.  might be kind of a hard concept to wrap your head around... but, it is a very legitimate concern.

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

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

espringers post is very good if he can substantiate the PM's he has received.  This is the first time this line of thinking has been brought to the table.  If it is true it is bothersome.  But right now it is only hearsay.  Someone should ask some of the sponsors if this is the goal of the HFH initiative then post the answers. 

It has been said that there are far more deer and elk farmers that do not have the 'hunt" as part of their operation so it seems that shutting down the hunt operations would not do as claimed in espringers post.  Please clarify if I'm wrong.

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

I disagree.  The Lacey act is not about livestock.  There is precedent all over the country regarding farmed deer and elk.  This is nothing more than a smoke screen to scare the ranchers of ND.  Nowhere in the proposed law does it change the classification of farmed elk from "livestock"  to "wildgame" or "big game". 

My question was to Kaseman about his law degree as I said earlier he is not a smart man.

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

i ain't about to post any PM quotes or name any names out of respect.  initially, someone helped shed some light on this subject voluntarily and i wrote another friend who i knew had a "dog in the fight" so to speak.  noone speaks for everyone of course and i am sure everyone has their own motivation for supporting this measure.  for some, its obviously just ending the sale of the kill.  but, for some of the other supporters and guys involved in drafting this measure, i am led to believe they are motivated by more than just the sale of the kill.  which, in hindsight, given their professions, makes sense.  i don't doubt that they are sincere in their motivation and that they honestly believe that they are out to do good to the people of ND and the wild game population.  however, like i 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.

swift Said:
espringers post is very good if he can substantiate the PM's he has received.  This is the first time this line of thinking has been brought to the table.  If it is true it is bothersome.  But right now it is only hearsay.  Someone should ask some of the sponsors if this is the goal of the HFH initiative then post the answers. 

It has been said that there are far more deer and elk farmers that do not have the 'hunt" as part of their operation so it seems that shutting down the hunt operations would not do as claimed in espringers post.  Please clarify if I'm wrong.

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

Stizostedion vitreum's picture
Stizostedion vitreum
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/17/01

9 pages...this is interesting in itself.

What we do in life echoes for eternity.   Shadows and dust.

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

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.

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

 i've got conflicting info on whether or not some of these guys are going to be more vocal about their motivation and why they support this measure.  on one hand, i was told that once the signatures were gathered, we would see some honest debate about why these places need to be shut down.  on the other hand, someone else told me that he wouldn't be having that discussion and hopefully neither would anyone else b/c they have been told that verbalizing their "intent" could bring trouble when this gets litigated if said verbalization could be used to show the true intent was to shut down the raising of elk and deer altogether.  imho, unless you are listed as a supporter/signature gatherer on the petition, no harm could come from discussing this honestly.  in fact, it might help them gain some support from some fence sitters cause they might see that this isn't really about pushing ethical beliefs on others for them.  but, then again, the idea of taking something w/o compensation wouldn't sit well with a lot of people either.  i guess a guy will just have to wait and see how vocal they become or if they just sit back and watch this all unfold. 

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

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

swift Said:
GST you could have dismissed the Lacey Act statements as rhetoric but you choose to take the mistruth of Kaseman and run with it to scare everyone else.  You know there is nothing in the Lacey Act that has anything to do with "livestock".  But you chose to use that as a threat toward the cattle ranchers when in reality there is no threat.  You are just as deceptive as Kaseman in regards to the Lacey Act.

Swift Find ANY statement where I have said the Lacey Act has anything to do with livestock. If you can comprehend anything at all you should be able to realize I have stated the exact opposite. That it is the changing of the definition of these animals from Domestic livestock to big game as this measure intends to do in the NDCC that will bring the Lacey Act into the picture. That is why it is being placed in the animal ag section.  I don't know how many times I have said this in this thread alone. Christ almighty man your letting this personal issue you seem to have get in the way of any degree of common sense you may have.

The invite is still open to come to the NDSA convention and present your arguement that these typesof measures are of no concern to the livestock industry. If you want I can arrange a few minutes for your presentation if you would like!

swift Said:
espringers post is very good if he can substantiate the PM's he has received.  This is the first time this line of thinking has been brought to the table.clarify if I'm wrong.

Where the hell have you been????  Have you missed entirely what several people on here have said over the last couple of years?????

Swift if you do not believe Kaseman and the sponsors of this measure have not talked with any number of attorneys in regards to their master plan, you are even a bigger fool than your posts have you appear to be.

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

In order for this bill to include "farmed elk" the NDCC must be changed.  At this point, the bill is stated to do nothing to stop HF hunting "Big Game".     

So, WTF is this bill going to do again?  Well if they want to include farmed elk, they have to go after the "Domestic animal" list which includes alot more then we asked for in this law!  This is the part that should concern ranches and all animal ag as it is in the animal ag. section. 

So, to get their intent of the law, they change "Big Game" to "domestic animals", thus getting to farmed elk - and there you have it, a bad bill.

As stated today, farmed elk operations do not apply to this bill or the Lacey Act.

Business as normal:

Come Shoot Elk in Beatifull North Dakota for $5000
No permit required!

Almost forgot to do the math for those in the back row.

Wild life + Lacey Act = Big Game Law
Farmed elk + ND Law not equal Big Game
HF Bill + ND law = farmed elk hunt ok
HF Bill - Big Game = big problem
Domestic animal - gun shot = empty freezer!

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

Pages