High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

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

gst Said:

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 in tends to do that will bring the Lacey Act into the picture. I don't know how many times I have said this in this thread alone.

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.  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.

Well swift there you  go you talk the talk..........now walk the walk   Need gas money to get to the convention it can be arranged.  Maybe Hardwaterman would ride with you.

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

GST you have continued to argue that this law if passed, because of the Lacey Act will have far reaching consequences on ranching in ND.   Keep hanging yourself with the rope.  Why didn't you tell Kaseman the lacey act has no bearing on this proposed legislation?  Because you saw it as a way to scare people.  Again you are no better than Roger Kaseman.  Read some of espringers posts, they are well written and thought out without the parental like preaching that comes from nearly everything you type.  YOU are hurting your cause.

Since you are the spokesman tell me how making it illegal to shoot an elk for profit within an enclosure has any bearing on the cattle industry.  And try to do it with some civility and tact.  Also try it with straight forward facts instead of conjecture and spins.

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

Well tomorrows Friday and it sounds like a nice weekend coming up.

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

 

 

 

 

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

You must of went to the same spin school as a few others.  This isn't hard to figure out.  If the law says you cannot sell a domestic elk or deer to be hunted in ND,  Not even Johnny Cochran could spin that to include domestic animals such as cattle, horses, buffalo or swine.  It is fair to ask the question but for gods sake look at it with both eyes open.

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

swift Said:

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. 
 

You must of went to the same spin school as a few others.  This isn't hard to figure out.  If the law says you cannot sell a domestic elk or deer to be hunted in ND,  Not even Johnny Cochran could spin that to include domestic animals such as cattle, horses, buffalo or swine.  It is fair to ask the question but for gods sake look at it with both eyes open.

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

It doesn't!!!

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08
Swift Stated:  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.

So are you agreeing that Kaseman told a lie?  Should laws be based on facts? 

I guarantee Mr. Kaseman would not have collected 8000 plus signatures if facts and only facts would have been used, not mistruths, half truths, omission of truth, lies, or scare tactics. 

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

I do agree with espringers and GST though that Kaseman let the cat out of the bag in this case and actually was telling the truth in this instance.  There is a reason that the term big game species was used and not farmed elk. 

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

you are being completely owned on this discussion and either you are too arrogant to realize it.  LFMAO

swift Said:
GST you have continued to argue that this law if passed, because of the Lacey Act will have far reaching consequences on ranching in ND.   Keep hanging yourself with the rope.  Why didn't you tell Kaseman the lacey act has no bearing on this proposed legislation?  Because you saw it as a way to scare people.  Again you are no better than Roger Kaseman.  Read some of espringers posts, they are well written and thought out without the parental like preaching that comes from nearly everything you type.  YOU are hurting your cause.

Since you are the spokesman tell me how making it illegal to shoot an elk for profit within an enclosure has any bearing on the cattle industry.  And try to do it with some civility and tact.  Also try it with straight forward facts instead of conjecture and spins.

 

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

espringers Said:
 

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?

All I get is they will still have the right to own game animals classified as domestic animals and do with them as they please....save sell phoney hunts and pen shoots.

They still have the ability to profit from meat sales and the sick joy of owning game animals as freaking livestock...

If there is a devaluation to owning bastardized game animals then so be it. But if it is all about the meat...then where is the devaluation.....

As I said before I make no bones about my distaste for game animals being reduced to common stock and I make no apologies if that offends anyone at all.

As an aside to everyone...

I worked for a time as a federal agent and in such capacity very closely with the US Fish and Wildlife Agency. I am telling you - Lacey does not apply in any capacity with regard to this bill. GST...Kasseman...are full of it.

Oh and I did get a laugh out of the banning cattle tall tale....hilarious.

Patience Suchka.......

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

pber Said:

Swift Stated:  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.

So are you agreeing that Kaseman told a lie?  Should laws be based on facts? 

I guarantee Mr. Kaseman would not have collected 8000 plus signatures if facts and only facts would have been used, not mistruths, half truths, omission of truth, lies, or scare tactics. 

And what about the counterpoints...such as no ranchers in MT and cattle raising being banned....

Those are easily cast about and pure grade A BS....

I guess one side using those same mistruths, scare tactics and lies is alright...

Kinda a liberal method of debate...in the abscence of fact.

Interesting.

Patience Suchka.......

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

pber, Absolutely I saying this is a lie.  I don't support Roger Kasemans initiative measure.  I don't support voting for it come ballot day.  But I also don't support the strong arm tactics coming from those opposed.  I don't agree with Kasemans idea but I agree he has the right as a US and ND citizen to excercise his right to government.

GST, Explain this post from Nodak on 9/03

GST says:
Bl, One thing to consider is the fact this law (claiming these animals are "big game")will be included in Sec 36 of the NDCC. This Section currently defines these animals as "domestic animals and farmed elk" there will have to be a reclassificaion of these animals if this measure is to be effective. If these animals are reclassified as "big game" if this measure passes they will then fall under the juristiction of the Federal Lacey Act which prohibits the sale of big game animals in accordance with state law.

Nobody is reclassifying these animals  except you in an attempt to make a veiled arguement based on deception. 

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…”



Where are the words BIG GAME used in the Lacey Act? 

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

Statute in Full:

§ 3371. Definitions

For the purposes of this chapter:

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

This is a proposed law affecting Domestic animals period.  NOTHING in the Lacey Act has anything to do with this attempted law.

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

It doesn't!!!

 

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

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

EyeKllr Said
And what about the counterpoints...such as no ranchers in MT and cattle raising being banned....

Those are easily cast about and pure grade A BS....

I guess one side using those same mistruths, scare tactics and lies is alright...

Kinda a liberal method of debate...in the abscence of fact.

Interesting.

Who said there are no ranchers in Mt or cattle being raised will be banned. ??????

Swift answer one question, Can there be opposing definitions of these animals in the same  Article and Section of the states Century Code?  For clarity, can they be defined as both "big game" and "domestic animals" in the same Section 36.1 of the NDCC? Yes or No.

If this measure passes, do you have any understanding of what will have to take place when it is placed in this section of the NDCC????

Once again, if I am wrong why is there only "resident FBO experts"  such as swift and ron that really have no "dog in the fight" claiming so. One would think the sponsors themselves would want to set the record straight.

swift's picture
swift
Offline
Joined: 1/23/02
GST says on Sept 03 at 9:28pm
The Federal Lacey Act can be used if a state law is applicable. The Federal Lacey Act prohibits the sale of "big game animals".

 

This is a Lie.  As I stated above "big game animals" are not referred to in the Lacey Act.

 by gst » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:35 pm

If these animals are classified as "big game" the Federal Lacey Act will trump state law and the sale of these newly calssified "big game animals" will be in violation of the Federal Lacey Act.

same lie told again to reiterate his point of deception.

Ron Read Rogers statement on page 7 of the other thread defining the Lacey Act and tell us how this measure as worded with these animals being classified in this potential state law as "big game" and someone receiving a "fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal in or released from a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape" will not allow the Federal Lacey Act to be interpreted when I pay someone a "fee or "renumeration" for an elk I slaughter/kill for meat without forcing that person to take this animal to a Federally inspected slaughter plant rather than simply killing it a pen and butchering it myself if they are even allowed to sell (receive a fee or renumeration) an animal intended to be killed that was raised in a man made enclosure???
 

Another fabrication of the truth to spin it as an attack on the non-hunting deer and elk producers.  Based on the deception of Big Game being the sticking point in the Lacey Act.  Which we now know it is not.

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

For the Last time B-I-G G-A-M-E does not show in the definitions in the LACEY ACT.  The only term that matters in the definition in the LACEY ACT is WILD.  Did I type that slow enough for you to understand?  Quit making your arguements based on a lie.  Because after all don't we want the truth to be an integral part of law making?

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

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...


 

 

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

 

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

Tim why on earth would any sponsor come on here to be abused and humiliated by those guys.  Jim H tried to answer questions but when they didn't like the answers they attacked him and his profession. 

They should set up a town hall debate regarding this issue and invite Kaseman and other sponsors.  Tell them to show up or risk losing any credibility they might have when only the opponents from the measure voice their side.  Having the voters listen to Kaseman should be enough to pull a few votes away.

I have to say respectful discourse has been given by more of the sponsors then the opponents with the exception of Kaseman.

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

swift Said:
Tim why on earth would any sponsor come on here to be abused and humiliated by those guys.  Jim H tried to answer questions but when they didn't like the answers they attacked him and his profession. 

They should set up a town hall debate regarding this issue and invite Kaseman and other sponsors.  Tell them to show up or risk losing any credibility they might have when only the opponents from the measure voice their side.  Having the voters listen to Kaseman should be enough to pull a few votes away.

I have to say respectful discourse has been given by more of the sponsors then the opponents with the exception of Kaseman.

I thought above you wanted them to come on?  I'm confused...

Like I've told you in PMs.  I have always respected your opinion.  You've been a great contributor to this site.  And while I understand your passion on this topic I don't agree with it.  Well, some of it anyway.

People are claiming Roger is not a smart or capable man.  I don't know, we have some pretty motivated people on this thread right now with backgrounds in attorney, years and years of shipping and selling livestock and folks who have been elected to protect their groups interests.  In other words, informed folks.  Roger would not go up against this with no brains.  I believe he is more than capable and more than intelligent enough to accomplish his goal (and his supporters goals...unfortunately, some are looking at this through emotion instead of the mind).

If Roger is incorrect, then, well, I will agree.  He must not be the brightest but my instincts tell me he has had plenty of console from educated, proven and motivated individuals.

From the start I couldn't figure out why all the legal play and why the law was going where it was.  There is a picture painted here and it sure isn't easy to wash off.  I think some explaining has to be done.  And if the sponsors fear being humiliated by a debate is it because they are incompetent or is it because they would rather use FBO and Nodak as a weapon?  How you might ask?  By having people say gst, etc are conspirators.  When, more and more, I believe it becomes rather obvious they are not.

But hey, I am just one of those FBO "experts" that gst was referring to.  I am not a livestock producer, I am not a HF supporter and I am the furthest thing from a scholar of law.  I wouldn't mind Ladd coming on and commenting on the last two pages of this thread.  Seems to me things are pretty nailed down when it comes to clean and clear posts.

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

I'm with goose but then I find myself going back to gst.  I don't know what is going to happen and that in itself is a terrible thing.  A law that will be passed off of voter emotion and the "I don't knows" of this law are ignored.  Not good, not good at all.  Regardless if the law was on HF or bottle rockets.  Just not something to be proud of.

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


 

 

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

 

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

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



Tim I can understand where goose was coming from but I think I cleared that up pretty well.  The law proposed, as stated many many times in many many topics,  is specific to farmed deer and Elk, and exotic livestock.  It purposefully leaves out Buffalo and birds and pigs.  It will not fall under the Lacey Act as there are no wild animals addressed in the measure.  If someday the G&F outlaw shooting bucks less than 4 points on one side it is unlikely there will be a slippery slope to outlawing the shooting of all bucks.  The sky isn't really falling in regards to this measure.  Except for  the operators that will be partially shut down if it passes.  If there really was to be no change in HFH regardless of this law then there wouldn't be a million posts concerning it. 

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

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

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

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

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08
Tim Stated:  And if the sponsors fear being humiliated by a debate is it because they are incompetent or is it because they would rather use FBO and Nodak as a weapon?

I find your statement interesting Tim, as this seems to be twist on how this all started.  Eleven of the original sponsors came from Nodak, and at the time seemed to be their weapon of choice.  It was even stated in the one of the Dickinson papers the last go round that they are a "child of the internet." 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

It doesn't!!!

 

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

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

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

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


Swift,

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

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

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

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

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

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Goosefishmen Said:

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

It doesn't!!!

 

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

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

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

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


Swift,

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

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

Wrong!!!

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

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

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

One Step Further:

North Dakota Century Code:

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

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

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

Does it cancel each other out?  Hmmm.

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

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

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

Pages