High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

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

Tim Sandstrom Said:

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.

Do the wild elk that are still breathing after getting throught the the Fair Chase fireing line then become  pen rasied ek that are now subject to being killed behind a fence if they are hand picked?? 

 

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

pber -  Thanks for the info.   I am not one who has particular concern about where the money comes from but I like general fund better than license fees.   No matter the position on the measure or game farms hopefully all can agree we need to ensure the BOAH has the funds to properly monitor what is out there and 200K doesn't seem out of line.

I really don't know enough about the Lacey Act or how the feds use it to comment.   In my cases I have chagred in state court that the FWS was interested in the issues dealt with a bunch of illegally taken or possessed waterfowl and I think they have been involved in some of the bigger outfitter cases.   I guess if i were interesting in researching that law I would go to Findlaw and search the federal circuit courts for cases appealed under the Lacey Act.   Reading those cases might provide some of the insights that reflect on issues being raised.   I am confident that any of the sponsors of this measure wouldn't have any pull oneway or the other on whether the U.S.  Attorney's Office would have in interest in HF/lacey cases.   So if someone is saying the feds with do this or that if the measure passes I wouldn't know how they would know that?   I can't seem get the USA's office to take drug and other cases I think they should take, I am not sure how others could get them interested in cases.

gst - I am not going to have the answers to your questions on why Title 36 was picked for the measure.   I speculated before that I suspect the Ag's office gave technical advice on suggested it, but I don't know for sure.   I think I know why the measure is drafted they way it is and placed where it is, but it is just my theory and I don't want to offer it because I could be  wrong......

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

mauserG33-40 Said:
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.
 

Maybe you should look at your own comments and slanderous posts over the last year on FBO before you start accusing others of being disrespectful.

It's not that bad.

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

sportsman | Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:
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.
 

Maybe you should look at your own comments and slanderous posts over the last year on FBO before you start accusing others of being disrespectful.

No capital letters or profanity!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

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

ladd, Can you answer the question in regards to which definition would be applicable if this is successfully placed in Sec. 36.1? The State Ag's office told me by state law they can not give advice on issues such as this to anyone outside of a state agency or entity. They suggested a private attorney would be able to answer these questions. Would you guess that someone like Kaseman and the sponsors have indeed contacted an attorney in regards to this measure prior to making a statement such as this? Is it out of line to believe the sponsors of a measure should answer all questions regarding the measure they are sponsoring?

swift Said:
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?

Swift where is your factual legal proof outside of your claim "a big game animal is not wildlife" that what Kaseman states is a lie??? Shouldn't the voters of this state know one way or another?

I really don't know how far you are going to get trying to convince anyone here "a big game animal is not wildlife" 
Although it would be interesting to watch that arguement being made in Federal court! 

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

mauserG33-40 Said:

sportsman | Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:
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.
 

Maybe you should look at your own comments and slanderous posts over the last year on FBO before you start accusing others of being disrespectful.

No capital letters or profanity!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eyekllr had neither. What does your post even reference?

It's not that bad.

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

I'm done on this topic.  Can't get someone that knows everything to learn anything I guess.

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

sportsman | Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:

sportsman | Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:
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.
 

Maybe you should look at your own comments and slanderous posts over the last year on FBO before you start accusing others of being disrespectful.

No capital letters or profanity!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eyekllr had neither. What does your post even reference?

I am not going to help you hijack this thread with your playground games.

 

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

mauserG33-40 Said:
I am not going to help you hijack this thread with your playground games.

The only playground games I am participating in is trying to stop a bully (you) from calling others names and then trying to blame someone else with an attempt at misdirection. You always want answers yet avoid answering them.

You say you are not associated with the hunts, you spew accusations and disparage  hard working North Dakotans professions and character, and you cannot even vote on this issue because you, like Wayne Pacelle of HSUS, are not a resident of the great state of North Dakota. If any of this is wrong, please correct me.

It's not that bad.

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

Mauser, how about  Clois Hetletved as one example in Kidder County as well as the land in McLean as well.

So if selling a canned shoot is all about property rights then why should the rightful owner of land not be able to sell his land for double market value just because of who is buying it?

So unless you or gst or anyone else who claims this is a property rights issue come out and support people like the Hetletved's your whine and claim is BS!

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, how about  Clois Hetletved as one example in Kidder County as well as the land in McLean as well.

So if selling a canned shoot is all about property rights then why should the rightful owner of land not be able to sell his land for double market value just because of who is buying it?

So unless you or gst or anyone else who claims this is a property rights issue come out and support people like the Hetletved's your whine and claim is BS!

Ron I don't know Clois Hetleved what does he have to do with High Fence Hunting on the Ballot thread? 

 

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07
Gst - Let me offer this, I don’t know if it will be helpful.    I think the context of these discussions have to be kept in the context of blogging.   The enjoyment of the back and forth and the offer of points of view.    What has to be cautioned, imho, is to place any legal reliance on what I or others say.   The reason being is this is just blogging.    For example, regarding the Lacey Act.    When we elect a new president and a new attorney general gets appointed federal prosecution policy changes.    As it does to some degree based on who is appointed to the post of ND U.S. Attorney.     The feds go in spurts on stuff.    15 years ago they were all hot on meth cases and took a lot of them.     Then that sort of faded out and they left a lot of the meth cases in state courts.   Now they only take really big meth cases, ones that get good PR.     A couple years ago Drew Wrigley came to the SA meeting and asked us to send him child porn cases. So for a while they took a lot of those.      Once in a while they seem to go on a kick on crimes on reservations, or gun violence stuff.    The point is; I don’t think anybody can say what federal prosecution policy will be on anything.    So if one of the sponsors is saying the Lacey Act matters to this measure I don’t know how they could know that.    Even if the fed law applied to a fact pattern regarding HF operations I would be surprised if the feds would have any interest in it unless there was something really egregious happening or the feds get political pressure from the Gov. or congressionals to do something.    That’s kind of how things work.     So, one can research the statute; read the caselaw; review the USA’s prosecution policy from Washington, etc.   and probably still not know whether the Lacey Act will ever apply to HF operations in ND.    My instincts tell me it would be a cold day in the desert before the feds would have any interest, if the law happened to apply, but I don’t know either.

Regarding the meaning of state laws.   Let’s say the attorney general is asked is issue an opinion regarding what means what in Title 36 if the measure passes.   It will likely happen if it passes.   The AG doesn’t just jot some thoughts down and send out a letter.   The request for an opinion gets sent to the proper department.   Staff attorneys review the history, caselaw, and other resources pertaining to the statutes involved.    Draft memo’s of the research get circulated between assistant Ag’s has they work the problem.    Eventually the opinion starts to take shape and it is sent to senior staff for comments and review.    Then the opinion get finalized and sent to the AG to sign or reject for further research or changes.    There is a lot of hours and research involved.    So for me to say that this or that will happen if the measure passes.     Well, I would be just fooling myself because I am not doing the research nor subjecting my reading of the law to the Socratic scrutiny it will go through.   The fact that I don’t see any conflicts with the measure and the other statutes needs to be thought of as more blogging than proper legal opinion.    I have no idea whether Mr. Kaseman is consulting with an attorney before he posts stuff.   I don’t think it matters one way or the other.  

We do agree that the sponsors should publicly provide their reasoning for this measure.   Whether they do that on FBO or other places…..
Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

You asked about the land I was referring to so I gave you the info now you ask what it has to do with the bill? TO put it as clearly as possible, current state law prohibits the sale of  Ag land to certain groups or Corp without approval of the Gov. As a result a rightful owner of property was denied by the Gov who followed the Advisory boards vote not to grant the sale of this property to DU.There are countless examples of this over the past couple years, this one in particular is of interest since the land was up for sale for a long time before DU made the offer. Nobody else was buying but they shut the sale down anyway.

Gst and others who are supporters of canned shooting also support the NO SALE!! Your group cannot without being hypocrites make the claim that this is a property rights issue and not support the owners right to sell his land for the most money he can get.

By the way anything new on THIS BILL and HSUS being a supporter in good standing with the committee and sponsors? Or are you going to keep trying to use two year old crap and pretend it is current?

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!

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

mauserG33-40 Said:

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.
 

Two things I have never been - but thanks for the inept insult.

However, since you brought it up....

Desparate definetly describes your argument and the tail chasing you and yours are doing at this point. As evidenced by the dog piling and circular arguments being played out daily. Lets face it - it is on the ballot and no amount of insults will change that.

It is where it should be - in the court of the peoples vote.

All your whining and berating wont change that, and if in fact you were so confident than the harranging on here would not be at the level it is.

As for Tim, I called it straight out - and truthfully. I wasn't aware being honest was disrespectful.

That said, how about you continue on with your whine and disparraging remark fest - it seems all you are capable of.

I myself will sit back and let ALL North Dakotans decide what they feel is right - after all the people have the right to have a say and end this - either way. Lets just hope you and the Roger types can both handle the outcome.

Patience Suchka.......

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

KurtR Said:

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.

Frankly I dont care what they say. Not that anything they do say cannot be rebutted with fact. And while we are discussing fact - those groups are not gaining footholds - the majority of Americans continue to support hunting - check the polls.

All the propaganda on the planet has not changed that.

Most people can distinguish a zealot nutjob with phoney facts from the real deal....or well maybe not...America did elect Obongo...

But that is another story.

Patience Suchka.......

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

Ron,

Frankly I don’t even know how you can compare the shutting down a sale of land based on an EXISTING law and taking away a person’s business that is following all EXISTING law using backdoor methods and questionable tactics with the intent of not compensating them for any of their losses. 

How can you use this to justify taking people’s businesses away that had the greenlight from our state to start a business that was promoted by this state.  These people have their blood, sweat, and tears in these businesses.  

They have kept their family farms viable, created jobs for their local communities.  I guarantee if this passes this is going to ruin some people’s lives.   It did in Montana!!

 

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

pber, were you up in arms about them taking the dancers out of the SIlver Dollar bar in Mandan? Legal at the time but then taken away from the owner. How about the smoking ban they are trying to get through? Legal now but who knows for how long. Even Mauser admitted on another thread that all smoking should be banned (not just public places).

It's not that bad.

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

Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pber you cannot dance or spin away from this one! PROPERTY RIGHTS is the championing sound we here! So step up or shut up about property rights because we all know the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!

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!

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

ladd, thanks for the information, although we occasionally disagree, it is nice to ask questions and get answers without the personal drama! It is how to me a debate should be. I understand where you are coming from in regards to this being contained to blogging from a legal standpoint. And I understand espringers comments on the probability that the sponsors have been told to becareful of what they commet to print as this will likely invariably end up in the courts. But I strongly believe the public has a right to know the ins and outs of something they are voting on to become law. I highly doubt you accept "well I didn't know" as a valid defense when it comes to the law!

That in itself is where many in ag have a problem with this mesure, we have watched this happen more than once in other states in regards to segments of the animal ag industry by anti groups using poorly written law to back door their agendas in. And remember as currently defined by state law, that is what this is, an animal ag industry. I do respect your opinion as someone involved in the legal profession, one would be a fool not to put credability to what you bring to the table in that regard, please consider the fact that someone directly involved in the animal ag industry could have insight into the lengths and methods these anti groups go to in order to acheive their agendas as well.

This is a poorly written measure whoose sponsors have unquestionably been less than factually truthful in presenting it to the public, To me thoose two statements are hard to deny uinless you are so blindly partisan you can not see. The sponsors seem to refuse to come on any public forum outside of a radio talk show where softball questions are lobbed by the host.  The public has provided several legitimate questions that are not being answered.
The more this measure is looked at, the poorer the basis for state law it seems to be.

My gut tells me that someone involved in this measure has done the research from a legal standpoint to have gotten a handle on what is POSSIBLE in regards to enforcement. Even if as you say it is only a remote possibility of the Feds taking a case, if the possibility is there as Roger claims it is of a felony conviction and a $10,0000 fine, or at the very least extensive lawyer feees that would acompany a court case, how many individuals are going to risk taking the chance? So in essence the simple possibility of penalty resulting from the Federal Lacey Act  is probably enough to accomplish their goal. How many activities do not happen just because one is afraid of the possible legal consequences?

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

So Ronnie, then you would be OK if Ted Turner's corp. would be allowed to buy land in ND also.  Funny last session you and Dick Monson were against outfitters advertising with Cabela's.  Now you want DU to be able to purchase land so why not let Cabela's buy land also?  They are both out of state corporations.

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

gst Said:
ladd, thanks for the information, although we occasionally disagree, it is nice to ask questions and get answers without the personal drama! It is how to me a debate should be. I understand where you are coming from in regards to this being contained to blogging from a legal standpoint. And I understand espringers comments on the probability that the sponsors have been told to becareful of what they commet to print as this will likely invariably end up in the courts. But I strongly believe the public has a right to know the ins and outs of something they are voting on to become law. I highly doubt you accept "well I didn't know" as a valid defense when it comes to the law!

That in itself is where many in ag have a problem with this mesure, we have watched this happen more than once in other states in regards to segments of the animal ag industry by anti groups using poorly written law to back door their agendas in. And remember as currently defined by state law, that is what this is, an animal ag industry. I do respect your opinion as someone involved in the legal profession, one would be a fool not to put credability to what you bring to the table in that regard, please consider the fact that someone directly involved in the animal ag industry could have insight into the lengths and methods these anti groups go to in order to acheive their agendas as well.

This is a poorly written measure whoose sponsors have unquestionably been less than factually truthful in presenting it to the public, To me thoose two statements are hard to deny uinless you are so blindly partisan you can not see. The sponsors seem to refuse to come on any public forum outside of a radio talk show where softball questions are lobbed by the host.  The public has provided several legitimate questions that are not being answered.
The more this measure is looked at, the poorer the basis for state law it seems to be.

My gut tells me that someone involved in this measure has done the research from a legal standpoint to have gotten a handle on what is POSSIBLE in regards to enforcement. Even if as you say it is only a remote possibility of the Feds taking a case, if the possibility is there as Roger claims it is of a felony conviction and a $10,0000 fine, or at the very least extensive lawyer feees that would acompany a court case, how many individuals are going to risk taking the chance? So in essence the simple possibility of penalty resulting from the Federal Lacey Act  is probably enough to accomplish their goal. How many activities do not happen just because one is afraid of the possible legal consequences?

I think in a nutshell what Ladd is saying is that if this law were to pass, there is no telling what could happen.  There would be a ton of "depends" or "it could" going on.  And all that could change from administration to administration, or even governor to governor.  So given that, it should be more concerning to all if this does pass.  We have no idea what could happen.  Way too much gray area.  Also, Ladd has to be really careful what he says on here because he could be held responsible for any legal advice he gives out.  So you have to somewhat read between the lines.  But he does put fourth some valuable information. 

 

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

aba, no more than I am OK with canned shooting!!!!!!!!!!!! But the point is that you cannot whine and hide behind property rights as a reason, to keep canned shooting and not support the landowner the right to sell to whomever they want!!! You cannot spin away from this! It is kind of like being a little bit pregnant! You either are or 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!

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pber you cannot dance or spin away from this one! PROPERTY RIGHTS is the championing sound we here! So step up or shut up about property rights because we all know the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Ronnie,  Any fool knows the difference is you are talking about an existing law that prohibits land sales,vs, passing a law to take away someones property. Oh I'm sorry Ronnie

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

eye, concerns about what happens if it does pass are no different than those who wonder if it does not pass and what will happen. That is a chicken crap excuse to say the least. We have a long history in ND of handling initiated measures in setting rules to keeping the Leg rules in place that follow the true intent of the measure and not allowing them to get used beyond the specific intent. I trust the Leg to act properly in this manner. Once the picture is clear they work well in crafting rules.

GST,Mauser,aba,and a host of others want people to by into this fear campaign they are running. Nothing short of that will stop this from passing. There is a greater chance in my opinion of winning the lottery than things gst is whining about coming true.

gst, why have you not addressed the property rights issue? Isn't that one of your biggest promotion gimmicks? Which property rights do you really care about anyway?

The good of the whole argument does not work, because that would mean this bill should pass. The good of the few does not work, because that would mean your position would then support the sale of land. Must be hard huh?

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!

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

aba, somewhere at some time they passed the law that restricts the sale of land. no frigging different than if this law gets passed. The restrictions on land sale where not drafted in our founding state Constitution so your claim and argument is simply Bull Crap and you know it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So stop the dance!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

aba Said:

Hardwaterman Said:
Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pber you cannot dance or spin away from this one! PROPERTY RIGHTS is the championing sound we here! So step up or shut up about property rights because we all know the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Ronnie,  Any fool knows the difference is you are talking about an existing law that prohibits land sales,vs, passing a law to take away someones property. Oh I'm sorry Ronnie

Its like saying the HSUS supported FC two years ago but not now with the samed worded bill, Ronnie who were the people from FC who told you there was no enveolvemnet of HSUS in this bill?   Oh thats right you said the bills were worded differently,you couldn't support the first but could the second one.

 

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

Hardwaterman Said:
eye, concerns about what happens if it does pass are no different than those who wonder if it does not pass and what will happen. That is a chicken crap excuse to say the least. We have a long history in ND of handling initiated measures in setting rules to keeping the Leg rules in place that follow the true intent of the measure and not allowing them to get used beyond the specific intent. I trust the Leg to act properly in this manner. Once the picture is clear they work well in crafting rules.

GST,Mauser,aba,and a host of others want people to by into this fear campaign they are running. Nothing short of that will stop this from passing. There is a greater chance in my opinion of winning the lottery than things gst is whining about coming true.

gst, why have you not addressed the property rights issue? Isn't that one of your biggest promotion gimmicks? Which property rights do you really care about anyway?

The good of the whole argument does not work, because that would mean this bill should pass. The good of the few does not work, because that would mean your position would then support the sale of land. Must be hard huh?

I haven't seen a valid concern about if it doesn't pass.  Maybe you can enlighten the class.

 

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

So it seems that your BS is exposed in regards to the truth about property rights! Mauser, I told you to be patient in regards to the HSUS issue. That will not change! I also admitted my error, something you are not capable or willing to do!

So now Mauser tell us where you actually stand on property rights? Oh and by the way,aba the denial of sale of the land I mentioned was to someone whom our current law allows for to be a buyer! Even more BS  wouldn't you say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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:
Are you that much of a putz? You asked about the land I was referring to so I gave you the info now you ask what it has to do with the bill? TO put it as clearly as possible, current state law prohibits the sale of  Ag land to certain groups or Corp without approval of the Gov. As a result a rightful owner of property was denied by the Gov who followed the Advisory boards vote not to grant the sale of this property to DU.There are countless examples of this over the past couple years, this one in particular is of interest since the land was up for sale for a long time before DU made the offer. Nobody else was buying but they shut the sale down anyway.

Gst and others who are supporters of canned shooting also support the NO SALE!! Your group cannot without being hypocrites make the claim that this is a property rights issue and not support the owners right to sell his land for the most money he can get.

By the way anything new on THIS BILL and HSUS being a supporter in good standing with the committee and sponsors? Or are you going to keep trying to use two year old crap and pretend it is current?

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


Karen collected 2000 signatures on the 2nd bill,you can get a copy of the signatures at the SS office.  And Yes Ron both bills are worded the same.  Same bill same support.

 

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

Hardwaterman Said:
aba, somewhere at some time they passed the law that restricts the sale of land. no frigging different than if this law gets passed. The restrictions on land sale where not drafted in our founding state Constitution so your claim and argument is simply Bull Crap and you know it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So stop the dance!!!!!!!!!!!!

No Ronnie, you stop the dancing .  Big difference you are comparing apples to oranges. Like I said any fool can see the difference. Sorry again I apologize Ronnie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

eye, my concern remains the same that HF shooting is a real threat to fair chase hunting. I base this on repeated polls done that show the non hunting public see this as not something they can support at almost the same levels that they currently support fair chase hunting roughly above 70%. Next is the issue regardless of current laws and rules in place about disease or non desired traits being accidentally introduced into the wild herd. These are animals after all and I grew up on a farm that had very good fencing but we still at times had animals get out. Storms ripping through tearing down a section of fence etc.... Once out, without radio collar tracking these animals especially whitetail deer will be hard to corral and get back into a fence.

During a storm last year a group of steers got out, and the owner had to hire a plane to find black cattle. They where scattered in every direction with some being over 15 miles from the pasture. So full containment without escapes are simply not anything they can claim.

Our neighbor back home raises elk that he sells to other breeders,for slaughter but is not running a shooting arena. I do not know the count exactly but I know at least 4 wild elk have had to be destroyed that have attempted to break into his herd. None so far because of his diligence have done so. He is attempting to protect his investment which is substantial and well run. I have no issues with the operation, but I am pointing out what really is going on and why disease or genetic contamination of our wild herd is a real possibility. If an elk got into his herd, there is more risk of outside contamination to his herd than the other way around. But for those who are breeding and importing animals to grow large antlers the risk of contamination is reversed.

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!

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

mauserG33-40 Said:

Hardwaterman Said:
Are you that much of a putz? You asked about the land I was referring to so I gave you the info now you ask what it has to do with the bill? TO put it as clearly as possible, current state law prohibits the sale of  Ag land to certain groups or Corp without approval of the Gov. As a result a rightful owner of property was denied by the Gov who followed the Advisory boards vote not to grant the sale of this property to DU.There are countless examples of this over the past couple years, this one in particular is of interest since the land was up for sale for a long time before DU made the offer. Nobody else was buying but they shut the sale down anyway.

Gst and others who are supporters of canned shooting also support the NO SALE!! Your group cannot without being hypocrites make the claim that this is a property rights issue and not support the owners right to sell his land for the most money he can get.

By the way anything new on THIS BILL and HSUS being a supporter in good standing with the committee and sponsors? Or are you going to keep trying to use two year old crap and pretend it is current?

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


Karen collected 2000 signatures on the 2nd bill,you can get a copy of the signatures at the SS office.  And Yes Ron both bills are worded the same.  Same bill same support.

Again mauser, this letter is from 2007 not 2010!!!!!!!!!!! So do you have anything like this for 2010?  If not stop lying about it!!!!!!!!!!!!

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!

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

No aba, I am not the one dancing! They are not apples and oranges or peaches for that matter, they both fall under property rights period but you and others like you see it as OK because it benefits you, deprives the seller from realizing the most from his efforts. if it is OK to do it there, then it certainly is OK to do it in regards to canned shooting.

So since you will not answer directly, I think we can assume you are only interested in property rights protection that have a benefit for you and also favor property rights restrictions that also benefit you!

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

OK Ronnie my postion on LOR first of all as of last week I now only own 3 acres with a house in the middle of it . It meets and I follow all the laws required to maintain it.

I just sold the last of my land in a state that now has very little if any restricions on who can own it.  The majority of the lawmakes of this state made that possilble.
I guess there are some Fed laws along with the State regarding wet lands.  Unlike you I can't comment much on the wetland thing as I know very little about it.
 
So really I think the laws in place seem to work for some but not others.  I do know that what ever the is law I always tried my best to follow.   Do I care if DU can't buy land not really,  I can see both sides.   Do I care if a land owner is denyed the right to sell there land to who he wants yes and no depends on the situtation. 

Comparing this to HFH operations the law allows the owner to do it then it is his right.

You need to compare apples to apples not apples to BS.

 

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

But Ronnie it is not a lie  the way to end all this is to have Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States


Make a statement saying the HSUS nolonger supports the FC petition I an sure there is someone in the FC camp who has his number.

Is the 2,000 signature that Karen collected this time around a lie?   

 

 

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

So prior to the law being passed on restricting sale of land, owners had the RIGHT TO SELL TO WHOMEVER, that right was restricted by the passage of a new law! So it is apples to apples!

Just so you know and others do not accuse me of being an advocate for Monsanto as an example, I understand why the law was created. Just as I understand why this law should be created.

Like it or not Dewey the fact remains the same that supporters of HFS oppose other landowner property rights and it is because they benefit from both support and denial of said rights. This makes them hypocrites when they try and use the property rights issue as a defense.

NOW back to your comment, I want to be perfectly clear then that if you find it valid that acts from the past which can be drug up and repeated like they are occurring now, then as a supporter of the measure, I can repost the pictures and story regarding the HFS operation that called the G&F about an elk trying to get into his herd. Was granted permission to harass the animal to drive it away. Then called said when attempting to scare it off he hit it in the butt and it was down so the G&F had to come and dispatch it. Only to find it had one of his ear tags in it and it was not a wild elk outside the fence but a domestic animal!

Or are you going to say that is not relevant and that past acts like that are not of importance?

So if you do not want that debacle to be the poster child of why HFS should end, then stop attempting to make claims that are not factual about HSUS and this bill today.

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

Ronnie the law to restick was resented and opened up the sale of the property where I had land

So prior to the law being passed on restricting sale of land, owners had the RIGHT TO SELL TO WHOMEVER, that right was restricted by the passage of a new law! So it is apples to apples!

Your threats don't scare anyone this is the tactis right out of the HSUS handbook.

Are the 2000 signatures collected by Karen a lie??

 

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

You keep speaking of this Karen as if she is a sponsor of the measure. That the sponsors solicited the help of HSUS. But again when was the date on this email?

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!

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

Hardwaterman Said:
eye, my concern remains the same that HF shooting is a real threat to fair chase hunting. I base this on repeated polls done that show the non hunting public see this as not something they can support at almost the same levels that they currently support fair chase hunting roughly above 70%. Next is the issue regardless of current laws and rules in place about disease or non desired traits being accidentally introduced into the wild herd. These are animals after all and I grew up on a farm that had very good fencing but we still at times had animals get out. Storms ripping through tearing down a section of fence etc.... Once out, without radio collar tracking these animals especially whitetail deer will be hard to corral and get back into a fence.

During a storm last year a group of steers got out, and the owner had to hire a plane to find black cattle. They where scattered in every direction with some being over 15 miles from the pasture. So full containment without escapes are simply not anything they can claim.

Our neighbor back home raises elk that he sells to other breeders,for slaughter but is not running a shooting arena. I do not know the count exactly but I know at least 4 wild elk have had to be destroyed that have attempted to break into his herd. None so far because of his diligence have done so. He is attempting to protect his investment which is substantial and well run. I have no issues with the operation, but I am pointing out what really is going on and why disease or genetic contamination of our wild herd is a real possibility. If an elk got into his herd, there is more risk of outside contamination to his herd than the other way around. But for those who are breeding and importing animals to grow large antlers the risk of contamination is reversed.

that argument has zero credibility.  before this initiative started there were no non-hunters in ND that even knew high fence hunting existed.  or at least not enough to matter.  you can't have a problem with something you don't know existed.  this is nothing more than a personal quest to end something that you and a select few have issues with.  nothing more nothing less.  these individuals have a problem with somebody shooting a trophy that is paid for.  they seem to think it belittles their shooting of a trophy under traditional hunting methods for some reason.  they can't stand the thought of somebody paying to shoot an animal in a pen so they can have their picture taken with it.  I personally don't see why anybody would want to do this but I obviously don't think like these individuals do.  they have the money to do it so who am I to say they shouldn't be allowed to do this.  I absolutely despise drinking and driving.  you don't see me out there trying to bring back prohibition.  so basically the fair chase people have created a controversy that never existed prior to their starting it. 

 

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

Hardwaterman,

You need to get a grip. I believe you are talking about the Anti-Corporate Farming Law that doesn't allow non-profits or 501(c)3's such as Ducks Unlimited to buy land or at least not be the highest bidder at a land auction. Here is a piece from some conservation groups:

  

Waters

 
 

Poll Shows Voters Want State to Dedicate Money, Expand Property Rights to Advance Conservation

 
 
 
 

BISMARCK, N.D.  — June 17, 2010 — A large majority of North Dakotans support conserving  the state’s best water, natural areas and wildlife habitat through dedicated state funding and by providing landowners the tools they need to conserve their property, according to a poll released today by Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Dakota and the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust.

Conducted by a bipartisan research team, the survey results clearly demonstrate that by a wide margin North Dakota voters support conservation and approve of expanding upon current efforts to better protect the state’s natural areas, water, and wildlife habitat. Specifically, voters favor dedicating state funding for conservation, allowing landowners to sell their property to non-profit conservation organizations, and permanent conservation easements.  

The poll found that 67 percent of voters support dedicating state funding for conservation. Voters are nearly twice as likely to strongly support setting aside state money to protect North Dakota’s lands and waters than to strongly oppose such an action. Support for dedicating state funding for conservation is not only deep but also broad, with voters from every region of the state and from a wide variety of demographic groups in the state backing the concept.

“The state is changing and it’s clear that a sizeable majority of North Dakotans agree that it’s time to preserve our best lands and waters, including by increasing state funding for conservation,”  said Keith Trego, executive director of the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust.

Genevieve Thompson, vice president and executive director of Audubon Dakota, agreed. “North Dakota residents love the outdoors. And they want to conserve their water, wetlands, wildlife habitat and native prairies.”

The poll also showed that an overwhelming majority of North Dakotans — 85 percent — support allowing landowners to sell their property to conservation organizations. Support is overwhelming even among voters who make a living from agriculture — 83 percent among those at least somewhat reliant on agriculture favor allowing landowners to sell their property to conservation organizations.

In addition, three-in-five North Dakota voters support allowing conservation organizations to use permanent easements as a strategy for conserving natural areas, water, and wildlife habitat in the state. More than 60 percent of voters support conservation easements, or voluntary land preservation agreements, that allow landowners to continue to own, work and maintain their property but ensure that the land is not developed.  

“There seems to be a disconnect between what North Dakotans want and the state allows, especially regarding laws that keep landowners from conserving their property with a permanent conservation easement or by selling it to a conservation group,” said Steve Adair, director of Ducks Unlimited’s Great Plains Office in Bismarck.

Peggy Ladner, director of The Nature Conservancy in North Dakota, said she hopes the results released today will prompt state leaders to step up and provide the tools needed to conserve North Dakota’s best lands and waters.  

“We’re hopeful that state lawmakers will recognize that this is both what the public wants and what is best for North Dakota,” she said. “By conserving key lands and waters, we protect the quality and quantity of our water supply, mitigate flooding, control erosion, preserve grazing lands and ensure the state remains a great place to live, work and explore.”

The telephone poll of 400 likely voters from throughout North Dakota was conducted between April 6 and April 8 by the bipartisan research team of Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican political and public affairs research firm, and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz and Associates, a Democratic research and public policy analysis firm. The poll’s margin of error for the full sample is 4.9 percent.

Contacts:
Chris Anderson, The Nature Conservancy, 612.331.0747, canderson@TNC.ORG
Becky Jones Mahlum, Ducks Unlimited, 701.355.3507, bjonesmahlum@ducks.org
Genevieve Thompson, Audubon Dakota, 701) 298-3373, gthompson@adubon.org
Keith Trego, North Dakota Natural Resources Trust, 223.8501, nrtkeith@btinet.net

Ronnie, results of polls will always favor the people who payed for the study or poll. Much like the HFH poll that taken back in 2006. Loaded questions lead likely voters to a predetermined answer.

If you will notice Keith Trego is listed here. Natural Resources Trust. Keith believes that a willing seller should be able to sell his property to the highest willing buyer, even if the buyer is someone like The Nature Conservancy, the riches non-profit in the United States. Keith believes if a property owner wants to preserve or conserve his land forever he should be able to sell to Ducks Unlimited. Keith trego believes a landowner should be able to sell his property to whomever he sees fit.

HOWEVER, Keith Trego is a sponser of the High Fence Initiative. He doesn't think an elk or deer rancher should be able to sell their property as they see fit. 

Property is defined as five things:
No.1 Possession
No.2 Use
No.3 Control
No.4 To the exclusion of others
No.5 Disposition

Ronnie, there are seven federal guys who are/were sponsers of the HFI.

  No.1 David Alan Brandt, federal biologist, northern plains wildlife research center or USGS in Jamestown. President of the Stutsman County wildlife federation and ND wildlife federation. Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society. Moderator on nodakoutddors

No.2 Lloyd A.Jones, director at Audubon for the USFWS. Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society.

No.3 Keith Trego, ND Natural Resources Trust. . Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society.

No.4 Erik Fritzell, Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society.

No.5 H. Thomas Sklebar, federal biologist, northern plains wildlife research center or USGS in Jamestown, director for the ND wildlife federation, Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society.

No.6 Jim Heggeness, former employee at northern plains wildlife research center or USGS in Jamestown.

No.7 Bruce Hanson, former federal biologist at northern plains wildlife research center or USGS in Jamestown, Member of the ND chapter of the wildlife society. Moderator on nodakoutddors

Ronnie, they do not want possession of the farmed elk because then they would have to compensate. It's only a partial taking. Take away use control to the exclusion of others and how they are sold. The elk and deer grower will be left with an animal that is worth as much as an unwanted horse. They have told you it is not a property right. Kaseman said at the Jamestown Public Forum, "We do not recognize property rights." The fella seated beside Kaseman was Lloyd Jones, Federal Agent.

Ronnie, as far as the HSUS connection, you are trying to put some distance between what happened in 2008 and now. Kaseman said at the Jamestown Public Forum that the fair chase committee wouls accept no help from HSUS. He lied.

Now the Fair Chase Committee is again promising that there is no involvement with HSUS in 2010.

Ronnie, can your brother, Rod Gilmore take that chance? He is the head of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in ND. He is also the head of or something with Farm Credit Services of Mandan. They loan money to farmers. How is all this going to look? What would the backlash be to Farm Credit Services if one of their directors got caught up in a Kaseman/HSUS scandal?

Is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in ND going to pull their endorsement of HFI?

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

Hardwaterman Said:
You keep speaking of this Karen as if she is a sponsor of the measure. That the sponsors solicited the help of HSUS. But again when was the date on this email?

So you are admitting there was involvement by the HSUS in the first petition drive but now you say there isn't?   The two bills are worded the same,you finally admitted that,and now the HSUS is not with Karen collectting 2000 signatures?  Ronnie how dumb do you think the voters are?  Who in the FC camp told you there was no involvemst by the HSUS?

Ronnie there are rumors in the rumor mill that the RMEF Chapter of ND will be with drawing there support of the FC I shortly?  Do you know anything about this or is it just a rumor?    I heard you could go to a bank in Mandan and use the rumor for colleral. 

 

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

One more time MAUSER what is the date of this e-mail? Simple to anwser?

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

Hardwater,

I see the RMEF is no longer on Kasemans site as an endorsement. Would you care to shed any light on this?

Ron, In 2008 Roger Kaseman and Dick Monson realized that sportsman were not signing fair chase one. To make the signatures they turned renegade. Check out where Dick Monson went. It's in the tenth line from the bottom.

 

http://www.times-online.com/content/view/82703/168


Paws to Consider... Identify your pet
Wednesday, 09 April 2008

Have you been wondering about the hype associated with micro-chipping pet identification systems? Maybe you’ve heard the advertisements on the radio or read about pet identification in this column. The real message is that identifying your pet greatly increases the chances that you will be reunited with your dog or cat. Remember the dog from Grand Forks who was found in South Carolina, and because of the micro-chip I.D. the dog was returned to its family?
The Sheyenne Valley Friends of Animals recently had a similar experience. A person living on a local farm called to say that two dogs showed up near her home, one had a collar but no tags and the other had no collar at all, and they were not in good shape. She had given them some food but had not confined them, hoping they would go home. After eight days, the SVFA was contacted again. The dogs were still returning to the farm. They were continuing to lose weight. At the conclusion of the weekend SVFA volunteers picked up the dogs and took them the Valley City Veterinary Hospital. KOVC broadcast descriptions of the dogs and the SVFA took pictures and “found dog” ads were placed in the VC Times Record.
At the Valley City Vet Hospital, as part of the routine procedure, the dogs were “scanned,” and one of them had a micro-chip I.D. After tracing the chip to a college in Minnesota, obtaining a telephone number that was no longer accurate, and contacting some local residents, the owners were found. The moral of this story: I.D. your pet.
Having your cat or dog wear identification is important for minimizing the chances of theft or permanent loss. Visible tags with your phone number are a must but because the collar can slip off or the tags can be lost, also consider a microchip. Call Valley City Veterinary Hospital for an appointment. The one time cost is only $35. If your pet is missing, check with the local veterinary hospital, the police department, the sheriff’s department, and the local radio station. These dogs were two of the lucky ones. Most lost pets are never recovered; most die. Please I.D. your pet through collars, tags, or micro-chip identification.
UPCOMING EVENT:
The SVFA will hold its April general membership meeting on Monday April 14, 2008, at 7:00p.m. in the Municipal Courtroom in the Valley City Police Department. Everyone, members and non-members, is welcome. Refreshments will be served, and the program will include: recent SVFA activities, a report on the 2008 Spay/Neuter Campaign, a preliminary report on a proposed Dog Park for Valley City and a (an informational) presentation by Dick Monson on the initiative to ban “canned hunting” in North Dakota. Join us. Take this opportunity to join SVFA, perhaps win a prize (a free microchip for your pet!), and learn more about animal related issues in our community.
CAN YOU GIVE A CAT A HOME?
We have a number of cats available for adoption. We have cats who like to play, cats who like to nap, polydactyl cats, calico cats, cats that tolerate dogs, cats that don’t, cats with all claws, cats with some claws, and more. We have a variety
 

The connection between Roger Kaseman and HSUS was easy. It was posted on the Washington DC HSUS website to help save elk and deer in ND. Call or e-mail Karen in Minot. We e-mailed her and asked to get involved. She sent us an info packet and put us on her e-mail alerts. Imagine our suprise when she forwarded Roger Kasemans correspondence.

Ron, I shared those e-mails with Jim Heggeness back in March of 2010. That is what kicked off the fair chase fray on Nodakoutdoors by Roger.

I also shared the e-mails with Bill Mitzel at his home back in March 2010. Bill Mitzel knows. Ron, In the near future if Roger and Dick are caught turning to HSUS to fund their smear and hate campaign, do you think Bill Mitzel, the Mule Deer Foundation and NDWF should be allowed to just walk away? You Know, Kaseman did it.

Or should they be shunned in the hunting community? Let's all make sure that HSUS monies are not involved.

BTW, when Brandon Mason was regional director of the MDF back in 2008. He was informed of Kasemans activities. He is now a sponser. But collected few signatures.

Again, let's all make sure HSUS monies are not used.

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

Haha, just when I thought this was off the top discussion page.

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

BringingTheRain Said:
Haha, just when I thought this was off the top discussion page.

I thought so too,but I do know this is the only page of endorsements from the FC site and there is one less,RMEF pulled there endorsement.

http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/endorsements.htm

When the ship starts taking on water some get off, others go down with the ship.

If you are a memmber of the RMEF you might want to know what is going on?

If you are a memmber do you vote as to who or what the organization endoerses?

 

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

Regardless of what RMEF does or does not do, why is it Mauser you are refusing to state what the date of the Email is from? 

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:
Regardless of what RMEF does or does not do, why is it Mauser you are refusing to state what the date of the Email is from? 

Ronnie I don't know the exact date,it was take from the HSUS,webb site,you can email Karen or call her at the the following   ". Email Karen at

rthunsh@srt.com

or call 701-839-6210.   While you are at it ask her how many signatures she gathered in both petition drives.     How many did you gather?

Maybe you can answer this why was it worth it to the RMEF to donate $50,000 to the Mt
effort the outlaw HFH but nothing to the ND FCI??  You are a member aren't you?

 

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

So in otherwords you are trying to pass of this email as new, when I can go back and pull up posts by you using other screen names using this from 2007! I think we have a clear picture now!

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,

What does it matter when the email/HSUS alert was from?  It happened, and Karen, HSUS Citizen coordinator, and other HSUS members contributed 2000 signatures last go round.  This go round they collected again.  Why is it Ron you sit here and pound away at the keyboard but you never collected one signature?  Did you already know that they would collect and that Roger would collect almost 8500?

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

Hardwaterman Said:
So in otherwords you are trying to pass of this email as new, when I can go back and pull up posts by you using other screen names using this from 2007! I think we have a clear picture now!

Ronnie my screen name is Mauser G33-40 it has never changed  you can ask Tim.  I never said what the date was I said I didn't know you keep that up.  Ronnie the FC group in my opion and many others is the FC and HSUS have been in bed from the begining along with many others not new.  Can you post where I said how old or how new this thing that has you so worked  up over.  I am not passing it off as new or old I have told you I don't know.  But I think the email speaks for it self. I know it is hard for you to understand just as it was hard for you to realize the wording is the same on both petitions.  Ronnie get a grip!!  The email I got from your brother this morning and it is new also had some bad news for the FC group care to comment?

 

Pages