High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

612 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Tim I never said they where not happy about this or watching, nor would anyone else. However them being happy about it and them actively supporting it with funding etc... are two very different issues. Hell they are happy about ecoli outbreaks because it means less meat and eggs will be eaten and that demand goes down after them. Is that to hard to understand?

There is every reason in the world to make sure that people understand this difference and pbers last post is a prime example of this. My cousins in northern LA went down to the Gulf and helped resource animals. They are as far from being PETA or HSUS supporters as they come. I am not the one unwilling to let it go! Mauser,pber and the like are the ones that brought it up, Mauser keeps posting stuff from 08 and at first made attempts to make it seem like this was a recent release. Now pber brings up old crap again!

To end the back and forth all that is needed is for them to acknowledge that HSUS is not involved with this. I will acknowledge that they want this for different reasons than those who support this in ND. Otherwise it will continue don't you think? 

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!

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

Good.  So everyone that is reading FBO and hopefully those on Nodak will understand that this initiative favors the HSUS agendas.  They can then separate their emotion and decide just how much THEY (their own opinion) want laws in North Dakota that welcome opportunity for future regulations.

I hope they also realize there is absolutely NO REASON to waste our legislative efforts in dealing with a law that is NOT NEEDED.  Instead, they will support their local wildlife clubs and fair chase clubs in developing more grass root type movements that poke fun at those who think they are trophy hunters when hunting canned animals.  Similar to how all the TV commercials cleverly attacked cigarettes.

I'll say it again, this law is not needed.  It solves nothing worthy of being solved.  It is an agenda by those who have a emotional imbalance and can't separate their love for developing more laws and regulations from simply allowing society to do what they do best.  No need for a law.  None.

Persuade those that believe they are almighty trophy hunters to believe they are merely domesticated livestock slaughterers.  Done deal.  No HSUS hangovers, no direct ticking off of landowners, no issues within the century code, etc.  And guess what, the same result.  Much better idea.


 

 

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

 

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

Tim i disagree that this is not needed and so have more than 12,000 people. Thus we will see come Nov. I am not going to change your mind, but I do take issue with your statements. Every time anything comes up, people bring up ticking of landowners, well guess what, it gets old just like the East vs West stuff does. You forget that many who sponsored this are landowners. Supporters of it like myself are Ag landowners. No change goes without a feather being ruffled, but this is not an issue that is going to cause massive uproar from landowners in my opinion. Most in my experince when making contacts this fall have little care if this gets passed in what it means as far as new restrictions to them. The reason being is that most do not see it as hunting, nor do they have any intention or desire to raise any of the species affected. None so far that have cattle operations have the so called concerns that have been laid out. I am not speaking for the entire state, just the 40+ people I have been in contact.

None of them I spoke with express any concern that it will lead to new Reg. They deal with changing Reg now and have more concern about the EPA,the green movement than this being a catalyst!

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

A NEW article from Tom Remmington  It is some what long but brings up some very good points.      

 

 

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

Ron,

What does your initiative accomplish?

What does my idea accomplish?

Same things except mine is much less taxing.  Not to mention beneficial to other realms of hunting and fair chase.  And has far less consequences and future consequences.  End of discussion.


 

 

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

 

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

That article is so good (especially the first part) that I am copying and pasting it.  Spot on.

N. Dakota Measure 2: Another Government Regulation Nobody Will Want
September 15, 2010

Marxists are alive everywhere in America today and finally Americans are getting very sick and tired of it. They are fed up with politics as usual and they want to see a return to smaller government and an embrace of the U.S. Constitution as it was written and intended. They want far less government intrusion into their lives. This revolution of sorts will be most brought to the forefront this November when voters take to the polls. We are already witnessing an attitude among voters they are fed up with the usual politics and too much regulation. Expect a sweeping reform that will put Marxist wanabees and good ole boy politics out of business. Enough is enough.

The people who live in North Dakota are no different than most states. People there want and enjoy their liberty and the freedoms granted them by God in their pursuit of happiness, life and liberty. If they are like the rest of us, the last thing they want to see on this November’s ballot is an initiative that is spelled out in big, bold letters that somebody else wants to further regulate your life and plunder your liberties.

That is the meat and potatoes of Measure 2, an effort by a group looking to place themselves above others in order to rule over them. This of course is part of the Marxist theory, one that strives to overturn the very principles that made this country great in order to force the citizens to become subjects while they decide what is best for you.

Measure 2, formulated for the second time by Hunters for Fair Chase, aims to run elk and deer ranchers out of business because they believe they have a copyright on “fair chase”, “ethics” and the humane treatment of animals.

For decades Americans have sat by while their God-given rights have been taken away. Slowly but surely this has happened. We need to accept a certain amount of the blame for our complacency that allowed such a thing to happen. It appears many Americans have been slapped across the face are are now fully aware that their lives as free humans are in the middle of being snatched away.

We now in this country have a Government or Government sponsored groups or individuals that are preparing to or have already succeeded in destroying free America. You as a parent, no longer can make decisions on how to raise your children. You will be forced into buying a Government run health plan, the first time in history. Our government now wants to dictate how much money you can earn while stealing most of what you make from you in order that they can continue their quest for total domination. The Government believes it knows how you should eat and will ban foods in order to control us. The Government will decide what drugs, if any, you can take or give to your children. The Government now decides what kind of car you will drive and the light bulbs you must use. The Government indoctrinates our children. Our kids are no longer taught how to add and subtract or about history, or how to dissect a frog. Instead they are brainwashed about our environment and all the evils of man.

Environmental groups, that rightfully can be described as agencies of our Government, have been very successful in stealing your rights. You lose property rights, you pay higher prices for gas, food, utilities, and virtually everything we do in our lives daily because of overreaching environmentalism.

The Endangered Species Act now destroys our heritage of hunting, fishing and trapping.

The list I have compiled is small. What is happening to free Americans is not small. When North Dakotans take to the polls in November they are going to be asked if they want to run good families out of business for the purpose of fulfilling the fantasies of a ragtag group of Marxists who believe they own the authority to foist their ideals onto free North Dakotans.

Hunting ethics are what I, as a free American, teach my children as they grow up. My neighbor should have no business telling me how to raise my kids. The Hunters for Fair Chase want to draw an imaginary ethics line in the sand and determine who can and cannot cross it. They believe themselves to be in a class above you, a class that is more intelligent than you and they decide where that ethics line gets drawn. They decide what is humane treatment of animals.

They think shooting any animal within a fenced in area is unethical and inhumane, whether that fenced in area is 100 square feet or 100 square miles. They decide that because you are not intelligent enough to make that decision on your own.

If it is unethical to enter a person’s private property and shoot an elk that belongs to the landowner, why is that unethical and walking into the forest and setting up a bait station, then sitting in a tree stand waiting to ambush the game, is not? Isn’t it then unethical to use artificial lures and calls to trick your target into an ambush? Isn’t it unethical to hunt with dogs? Isn’t it unethical to use a scope to sight and kill your game? Isn’t it unethical to use natural boundaries to corner and trap your game in order to increase a hunter’s odds at success? Isn’t it unethical to use clothing that masks you scent? Isn’t it unethical to use a GPS, compass, radio, etc.? Where does this imaginary line stop and why does the Hunters for Fair Chase get to decide?

This Measure isn’t about ethics. It’s about who gets to be in control. Who becomes or remains the ruling class and who becomes the subjects.

Hunters for Fair Chase are exercising their right to petition the citizens for a measure to change the law. It will be up to the voters to sort out truth from fiction and make a decision as to what is good for themselves and the communities they live in. I predict that the citizens of North Dakota, once they realize another Marxist group is looking to further crush their rights, will overwhelmingly reject a measure of this kind.

Tom Remington


 

 

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

 

 
Woodpecker's picture
Woodpecker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

Tim Sandstrom Said:
Ron,

What does your initiative accomplish?

One thing is obvious, it is dividing the outdoor people!!!!!

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

Well, I guess it depends what we are defining in terms of dividing.

I 100% agree that shooting pen raised animals is not fair chase.  I think most of us outdoor people feel the same.

Where I think it divides us is many believe we have enough darn laws on the books and believe it or not, the HF operations do have some purpose especially for those that want some meat.  And then there is the disabled hunters.  But the biggest thing I have is basically directly related to what the article says above.  We have enough on the books already.

Plus, I still think we let society take care of it in a different way.  The "yeah but we have 12,000 people" always gets tossed in our face.  Tis true but I really wonder how many of those 12,000 home and garden folks really put some critical thought down before signing their names?

There still is a chance the rest of the 634,000 people in North Dakota will put forth critical thought and not ink a decision just on emotion.

One thing is certain.  We sure are going to find out.
 


 

 

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

 

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

Stumbled upon another article while doing a Google search.  I'll post, you decide.

Hey, I like that, bobkat will really like my new slogan for FBO:  I'll Post, You Decide

Heh, heh.

Anyway, here's the article:
LIBERTY'S VOICE

THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION AND THE END OF FREEDOM IN AMERICA

by Scott Carpenter

Free association can create powerful private interests but it shouldn't, at least not in a just society, create powerful public interests. Indeed, an organization that moves from voluntary cooperation and education to reliance on the legislature to achieve its ends has overstepped its boundaries and become an enemy of what little liberty we have left on this continent.

I can name a dozen or more organizations of this nature right off the top of my head. Some of them are religious in nature, some political and some – like PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals – are just simply over the edge. But I never, not in a million years, thought any organization I belonged to would walk this path. At least not until I got my latest copy of Bugle magazine in the mail.

Bugle is, for those of you who are not familiar with it, the masthead of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. The RMEF is an organization whose primary goal is to secure critical habitat for wild free ranging elk and other animals. They do this – as such things should be accomplished – through the purchase of critical lands via voluntary contributions and through selling memberships to the organization itself. In short, it is a charitable association of people who see value in the existence of wild places and wild critters. It is – or at least was – a non coercive entity that purchased private lands and made them (at least in a sense) public and accessible to all creatures, both two legged and four.

But when I opened my latest issue of Bugle to the back page – to take in as I always do Dan Crockett's eloquent "Good hunting" column –, I was left to face the fact that, as an individual concerned with freedom first, I may be forced to cancel my membership with the RMEF.

Montana, Canned Hunts and I

For those of you "not in the know" there has been a lot of debate amongst the hunting community in past years – particularly in Bugle magazine and other mainstream hunting and fishing rags – over the issue of canned hunts. Canned hunts are a simple concept for simple people. They amount to little more than shooting fish in a barrel and, in my opinion, are strictly for those "hunters" lacking a degree of moral fibre.

Indeed, sportsman who are concerned with public perception see the practice of hunting animals in enclosures – regardless of size – as a black eye to the honest pursuit of wild game. In fact, the issue has been so hot that in some states and provinces various special interests have risen to "put an end" to the practice of shooting penned in animals.

A recent news release from the Montana Wildlife Federation tells the tale of how an issue of ethics has quickly been blown into an issue of law:

On November 7, sportsmen and sportswomen won a key victory when Montanans voted to control the reckless game farm industry and put an end to unethical "canned hunts" on game farms. The initiative passed by a 52-48 margin.

I-143 was a simple and straightforward effort to reform an industry which has, for too long, abused its relationships with traditional ranching and ethical hunting and in the process has put our wild free-ranging elk at risk. I-143 will amend state law to: 1) prohibit all new game farms in the state of Montana. 2) Existing game farms in Montana will continue to operate, but will be prohibited from charging fees for captive big game shooting operations. 3) Existing game farms will be prohibited from transferring their licenses to any other party. 4) I-143 also repeals provisions of the law concerning expansion of existing game farms.

The news release from the MWF continues by stating that:

Contrary to assertions made by game farmers in the weeks before the election, I-143 will not constitute a violation, or takings, of private property rights. Historical precedent and recent case law is clear: "No one has an absolute right to use his land in a way that may harm the public health or welfare, or that damages the quality of life of neighboring landowners, or of the community as a whole."

Indeed, this is true. In a society of laws based on the right of individuals to hold and enjoy property no one has the right to use that property to violate the equal rights of others. But the assertion that this law does not violate property rights – at least as a matter of reason – does not hold water.

« We have arrived at the conclusion that since we can reach a 50.1 to 49.9 victory via the vote we may have the moral authority to do whatever to whomever we please. In short, America has gone from a democracy tempered by the rule of law and the rights of men to a majority rule dictatorship. »

While penned hunts are certainly unethical from a "fair chase" point of view the fact remains that not everyone adheres to the same set of ethics, nor should they. And since owning, farming and killing elk in pens for pleasure does not directly infringe on the equal rights of others, banning its practice is indeed a violation of the property rights of those ranchers it serves precedence over. Only in rare cases where penned elk spread disease to neighbouring livestock or wildlife is there room for grievance. But this in and of itself is not sufficient reason to outlaw – regardless of how unethical it may seem – the practice of catering canned hunts.

The Elk Foundation and Crockett's Confusion...

I-143 passed into law almost undetected by my "bad law" radar and would have remained so if it weren't for Dan Crockett's most recent column in Bugle magazine. In it Crockett writes of the dying breaths of one of Montana's last elk hunting farms:

The buy/sell on the biggest elk farm in Montana is down to the last niggling details. Len Wallace, owner of the 6,000 acre Big Velvet Ranch, has had enough of Big Sky Country.

"I want to move back to America," says Wallace. "America," snipes Crockett, "presumably, is some place where the people have not decreed – by statewide ballot initiative – that they don't want elk farms or any hunts that target domestically raised native big game animals held in captivity."

Hmm. Actually Dan, rumour has it that America used to be a place where there was room enough for everyone. From Christians and atheists, hunters and vegetarians to potato farmers and even those despicable game ranchers. We used to tolerate one another out of respect for each individual's right to choose his or her own path in this world – regardless of how unethical we deemed that path to be.

Yet somehow, either through sheer stupidity or downright sloth we have arrived at the conclusion that since we can reach a 50.1 to 49.9 victory via the vote we may have the moral authority to do whatever to whomever we please. In short, America has gone from a democracy tempered by the rule of law and the rights of men to a majority rule dictatorship. But as history teaches us, having the majority on your side does not automatically make you right no matter how noble your cause may seem.

So, in adopting this position Bugle and the RMEF have moved from what once made America great to what rots her from the inside out. Indeed, the idea that men should be ruled by the tyranny of the majority flies in the face of the very concept of freedom itself. And if the RMEF and their friends at the Montana Wildlife Federation had simply let the debate roar or ponied up the cash to buy those hunt farms out without getting the state involved then they'd still have my time and my cash. But instead they took the lazy way out and sought reconciliation through the use of the blunt and all too often wielded sword of government. In the end they've lowered themselves to the same level as PETA and their ilk. How unfortunate. How terribly tragic.

Crockett and the Red Horde...

"The good news is," continues Crockett, "that the future owner of the Big Velvet Ranch (who already owns 11,000 adjoining acres) plans to tear down the game proof fences and restore the area to its natural state.... Who knows, maybe the new owner will let a "horde" of happy volunteers help lay those fences low... we could heap up a fine pyre of fence poles, light a raucous bonfire. Some of us might even use our unfilled elk tags as tinder. We might raise a toast to America – the land of the free."

It's ironic or perhaps appropriate that Mr. Crockett uses the term "horde" to describe his gang of "defencers." Perhaps he doesn't realize that as long as in America the "horde" rules, America the "land of the free" will always be a distant republican myth. At any rate, I won't be renewing my membership to the RMEF this year. Indeed, I'd rather be an unethical "canned hunter" than a member of Crockett's red defencing "horde" any day.

And I suspect this will be a hard pill for the hunting community and my local RMEF chapter to swallow. We've been so concerned with public perception and fuzzy wuzzy metaphors for so long that we've ultimately forgotten our roots. The truth is, public perception is far less important than remembering those few simple but profound words: that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I'm curious, I wonder what ever lead Mr. Crockett and crew to believe their vision of happiness was the right one?

Ultimately, it is this simple recipe for living that should not only protect people like Mr. Wallace but our treasured hunting heritage as well. Respecting our differences and agreeing to disagree is the American way – beating our ethical opponents into submission with the battered blade of the state is not.

In the end if we cannot understand this, if we cannot embrace the simple principle of liberty, then our beloved heritage is already lost.

As for Mr. Wallace, may you and your comrades forgive me and the others who did not know and I hope some day, for your sake and for mine, that you do find your America.
 


 

 

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

 

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

So your whole argument Tim is that you do not want additional Reg's well I tell you what, why not just simply disband the Leg in ND and every other state as well as the Fed Gov including the county and city level. Get it?

Then we will not need anyone to deal with the road issue out west, or flooding in the east for that matter. It will be up to the voters to decide if more regulations are to be had. Which is really what the purpose of a Republic is! By the way, your articles are old news, have been floated around before. The fact is that there are people who feel very different regarding this issue and that it is important that we police ourselves and since others seem to not want to, it has come to this. A huge philosophical difference in view Tim. One of them will be validated by the voters.

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:
So your whole argument Tim is that you do not want additional Reg's well I tell you what, why not just simply disband the Leg in ND and every other state as well as the Fed Gov including the county and city level. Get it?

Then we will not need anyone to deal with the road issue out west, or flooding in the east for that matter. It will be up to the voters to decide if more regulations are to be had. Which is really what the purpose of a Republic is! By the way, your articles are old news, have been floated around before. The fact is that there are people who feel very different regarding this issue and that it is important that we police ourselves and since others seem to not want to, it has come to this. A huge philosophical difference in view Tim. One of them will be validated by the voters.

Thats pretty week Ron September 15, 2010 is old.

 

Bowhuntin's picture
Bowhuntin
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/17/03

Tim Sandstrom Said:

I'll say it again, this law is not needed.  It solves nothing worthy of being solved.  It is an agenda by those who have a emotional imbalance and can't separate their love for developing more laws and regulations from simply allowing society to do what they do best.  No need for a law.  None.

LMAO! Emotional imbalance! hahahahaha! Truer words were never spoken! Bunch of self serving egotistical persons who want to dictate to everyone else what is right and wrong because they think we can't decide for ourselves!

Emotionally imbalanced? Perhaps! Probably worse problems than that though! 

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

I'll tell you what Ronnie.  It has become painfully clear that you are a paid mouthpiece for this organization.  There is no other explanation for somebody that would be that willing to talk in circles and out both sides for no other reason.  Some of your stances just defy any other form of reasoning.  So I guess continue your nonesensical diatribe cuz I'm really starting to enjoy the humor.  After all you alone could end all hope for the high fence initiative, lol. 

 

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

Tim Sandstrom Said:
Good.  So everyone that is reading FBO and hopefully those on Nodak will understand that this initiative favors the HSUS agendas.  They can then separate their emotion and decide just how much THEY (their own opinion) want laws in North Dakota that welcome opportunity for future regulations.

I hope they also realize there is absolutely NO REASON to waste our legislative efforts in dealing with a law that is NOT NEEDED.  Instead, they will support their local wildlife clubs and fair chase clubs in developing more grass root type movements that poke fun at those who think they are trophy hunters when hunting canned animals.  Similar to how all the TV commercials cleverly attacked cigarettes.

I'll say it again, this law is not needed.  It solves nothing worthy of being solved.  It is an agenda by those who have a emotional imbalance and can't separate their love for developing more laws and regulations from simply allowing society to do what they do best.  No need for a law.  None.

Persuade those that believe they are almighty trophy hunters to believe they are merely domesticated livestock slaughterers.  Done deal.  No HSUS hangovers, no direct ticking off of landowners, no issues within the century code, etc.  And guess what, the same result.  Much better idea.

Couldnt agree more.

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

mauserG33-40 Said:
Ron the Fair Chase/HSUS petition suporters says this is about the ethics of the HF operators,why should'n the ethics and the intergrity of the sponsors or lack of be questioned??  

  

gst, here is where mauser said it was a joint petition directly. He has also insinuated it in several posts. If this does not satisfy your "where did they say ...." question, probably nothing can.

Bowhuntin Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:

 emotional imbalance

At least the Pro High Fence crowd isn't resorting to name calling. Well, not in all of the last 5 posts anyway.

It's not that bad.

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

To Tim and gst,

Do you believe in regulating how the High Fence operations advertise and would support not allowing them to call it a hunt?

Would you go on record personnaly publicly denouncing the operations and stating your support of not allowing them to call it a hunt?

Would Fishingbuddy/TON network and the Stockmens Assoc. (I believe gst is a member/on the board) go on record publicly denouncing the operations and support not calling it a hunt?

I think that would be end of story and no more discussion needed. Advertise it as a shoot/slaughter/kill/whatever not a hunt. You can't sell beef as hogs or poultry as beef or hogs as corn. Why should High Fence be let off for false advertising.

It's not that bad.

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

sportsman | Said:

To Tim and gst,

Do you believe in regulating how the High Fence operations advertise and would support not allowing them to call it a hunt?

Would you go on record personnaly publicly denouncing the operations and stating your support of not allowing them to call it a hunt?

Would Fishingbuddy/TON network and the Stockmens Assoc. (I believe gst is a member/on the board) go on record publicly denouncing the operations and support not calling it a hunt?

I think that would be end of story and no more discussion needed. Advertise it as a shoot/slaughter/kill/whatever not a hunt. You can't sell beef as hogs or poultry as beef or hogs as corn. Why should High Fence be let off for false advertising.

those of us that don't Hunt high fence operations will never be able to fully understand why people do it.  but there are people that do it for a multitude of reasons.  I cannot fathom why the hell there are select individuals that feel they need to belittle this method down to the point to where they don't even want them to call it a hunt.  Call it whatever the hell they want to call it.  It's not going to change the fact that every tom dick and harry in this country realize that it's not normal hunting.  It would be alot like some looney going into the zoo and hunting.  we all know it's not technically hunting as we know it and we'll never understand.  But honestly, why should anybody care what it's called.  It's like when I go to the races.  There is always a couple guys that drive around and get in the way all night long.  They aren't racing, they're just driving around getting in the way.  Why should they be able to call it racing.  Racing is when you are actually keeping up with the pack.  But we all let them call it racing when quite honestly we all know that really isn't the case.   It's the same with high fence hunting.  We let them call it hunting to stroke their ego a little bit.  I know there is a tiny percentage that feels cheated by them calling it that but someday they'll grow up. 

 

hunternd's picture
hunternd
Offline
Joined: 5/19/04

Tim - Couldn't agree more with your post. We can debate the wording to death, do you think the fair chaisers are going to change their measure or motive? 

So after election day and for some reason this measure passes what have we accomplished??  We put 10-12 people out of business that  probably 95% of North Dakotans didn't know exist, and that does what?
 
It won't open more land for hunting - do you really think that putting someone out of business will make them open their land for hunting? And yes I did call it a business - becasue I can tell the difference between a wild elk and a pen raised one.

It won't save the ag industry or wildlife from a phantom disease. I'm pretty sure the ND Board of Animal Health has this area covered and uses actual scientific information.  If Hardwater thinks that the ag community is in his pocket he needs to ask some real landowners and livestock producers. I haven't seen any ag groups backing the measure yet??

Son in the end, what is gained by passing this measure?? Splitting the hunters? Gooood.

fatwillie's picture
fatwillie
Offline
Joined: 10/15/05

eyexer Said:
I'll tell you what Ronnie.  It has become painfully clear that you are a paid mouthpiece for this organization.  There is no other explanation for somebody that would be that willing to talk in circles and out both sides of his azz for no other reason.  Some of your stances just defy any other form of reasoning.  So I guess continue your nonesensical diatribe cuz I'm really starting to enjoy the humor.  After all you alone could end all hope for the high fence initiative, lol. 

And some wonder why others involved with this measure don't come on here and discuss this issue when this is the type of treatment someone gets? What good would it do?

I lived in MT when this issue was going on over there and all of this discussion sounds real familiar. The HFH crowd pitched the same talk in MT as what is going on now. The spin zone was alive and well in MT just like it is here. I will be curious to see if this passes. If I were a betting man I'm not sure on which side I would lay my green on here in ND. November will be here quickly and we will find out soon enough. Personally, I don't think the measure sponsors have done enough education/advertisement for this to pass. They will have to get to work over the next month and a half if they want to succeed. They will have my vote but at this point I don't think it's enough.  

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

fatwillie Said:

eyexer Said:
I'll tell you what Ronnie.  It has become painfully clear that you are a paid mouthpiece for this organization.  There is no other explanation for somebody that would be that willing to talk in circles and out both sides of his azz for no other reason.  Some of your stances just defy any other form of reasoning.  So I guess continue your nonesensical diatribe cuz I'm really starting to enjoy the humor.  After all you alone could end all hope for the high fence initiative, lol. 

And some wonder why others involved with this measure don't come on here and discuss this issue when this is the type of treatment someone gets? What good would it do?

I lived in MT when this issue was going on over there and all of this discussion sounds real familiar. The HFH crowd pitched the same talk in MT as what is going on now. The spin zone was alive and well in MT just like it is here. I will be curious to see if this passes. If I were a betting man I'm not sure on which side I would lay my green on here in ND. November will be here quickly and we will find out soon enough. Personally, I don't think the measure sponsors have done enough education/advertisement for this to pass. They will have to get to work over the next month and a half if they want to succeed. They will have my vote but at this point I don't think it's enough.  

I don't think there's much risk of it passing here.  There aren't nearly enough libtards living here like there are in western MT. 

 

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

eyexer Said:
those of us that don't Hunt high fence operations will never be able to fully understand why people do it.  but there are people that do it for a multitude of reasons.  I cannot fathom why the hell there are select individuals that feel they need to belittle this method down to the point to where they don't even want them to call it a hunt.  Call it whatever the hell they want to call it.  It's not going to change the fact that every tom dick and harry in this country realize that it's not normal hunting.  It would be alot like some looney going into the zoo and hunting.  we all know it's not technically hunting as we know it and we'll never understand.  But honestly, why should anybody care what it's called.  It's like when I go to the races.  There is always a couple guys that drive around and get in the way all night long.  They aren't racing, they're just driving around getting in the way.  Why should they be able to call it racing.  Racing is when you are actually keeping up with the pack.  But we all let them call it racing when quite honestly we all know that really isn't the case.   It's the same with high fence hunting.  We let them call it hunting to stroke their ego a little bit.  I know there is a tiny percentage that feels cheated by them calling it that but someday they'll grow up. 

I guess truth in advertising means something to some people. I can't sell scrap iron as beef or purposely (or accientally) mis-advertise the nutritional content of my food product. I think the High Fence operators should be held to the same standards as other businesses, truth in advertising.

It's not that bad.

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

sportsman | Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:
Ron the Fair Chase/HSUS petition suporters says this is about the ethics of the HF operators,why should'n the ethics and the intergrity of the sponsors or lack of be questioned??  

  

gst, here is where mauser said it was a joint petition directly. He has also insinuated it in several posts. If this does not satisfy your "where did they say ...." question, probably nothing can.

Bowhuntin Said:
egotistical dickheads

Bowhuntin Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:

 emotional imbalance

BringingTheRain Said:
More like weak minded foolish suckers.

At least the Pro High Fence crowd isn't resorting to name calling. Well, not in all of the last 5 posts anyway.

Sorry,  it is, what it is. It isnt all that hard to get people to sign something.

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

Sportsman, I have made it perfectly clear that although I personally do not believe HF would give me what I need to take from the experience to call it hunting, that is mine and mine only decision to make. As has been stated who knows what one has to take from an experience to call it hunting. I would imagine there are backpack bowhunters that hike 30 miles into the back mountians to shoot a mule deer far from civilization that in all likelyhood would not think sitting in a heated stand over a pile of corn waiting for a shot at a deer to be "hunting" , How many people would believe jumping out of a pickup and shooting a rooster on the ground in the ditch would be hunting????How many more examples would you like me to give where one individual may not consider sometning legal to be hunting based on their personal standards? So what happens to the hunting experience when that eliteist group of people that several on here have mentioned start to impose what they believe is and should be called hunting??? If you believe this is about the ability of an animal to "run away" you are a fool. The buffalo in a "fenced" advertised "hunt"can not "run away" any more than the elk or deer and they were purposely not included by the sponsors in this measure.  It is simply  a group of egotistical eliteists that feel the need to impose their standards onto everyone else.

As I have stated before, to me this ideology behinfd this measure is far more of a "threat" to the hunting heritage of an individual making personal choices to take what they need from the experience than any HF operation ever will be.

So the answer to your question(I like to answer ones that are asked of me) is no I would not support imposing my definition of what hunting is onto anyone else for any reason. And I highly doubt any ag org would as well as defining hunting is simply outside of most all ag orgs policy arenas.

As to someone claiming hsus is a sponsor, you have not shown an example. Many people have suggested,and links to sites and emails have been shared that prove unquestionably this measure is very important to HSUS so much so that they have sent their members alerts to have them "help" with this effort. So common sense would allow one to believe it is a mutual effort supported by both groups. The fact that alone does not bother you as a hunter says a bit.

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

Google advertising and read the definition. Then do the same for the definition of the word hunt.  While I am partial to number 4; it is number 1 that is the actual definition. If a hunter bags his HF elk and then wants to shoot a steer; if he or she is willing to continue their hunt, and the Landowner is willing to provide the service in an amicable agreement who is to judge. If the Landowner wants to close his quanset door and get compensated for his client to go on an exotic Rhode Island Red hunt, who would complain? The above post may be the best example yet; as to roll out of the truck and shoot a Pheasant in the ditch most likely is tresspassing if the adjacent land is fenced. Once again though the burden of proof is on the Landowner.

One step at a time...Be careful.

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

Every time anything comes up, people bring up ticking of landowners, well guess what, it gets old just like the East vs West stuff does. You forget that many who sponsored this are landowners. Supporters of it like myself are Ag landowners.

Many Ronnie?  Come on other than Dick Monson you have a couple of guys owning a few parcels of CRP for hunting.  I wonder if they post their land or if it's in PLOTS?  I still am searching LaMoure county and haven't yet found you to be a owner of any land.

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

Hardwaterman Said:
So your whole argument Tim is that you do not want additional Reg's well I tell you what, why not just simply disband the Leg in ND and every other state as well as the Fed Gov including the county and city level. Get it?

Then we will not need anyone to deal with the road issue out west, or flooding in the east for that matter. It will be up to the voters to decide if more regulations are to be had. Which is really what the purpose of a Republic is! By the way, your articles are old news, have been floated around before. The fact is that there are people who feel very different regarding this issue and that it is important that we police ourselves and since others seem to not want to, it has come to this. A huge philosophical difference in view Tim. One of them will be validated by the voters.

hard,

Stick to some practical thought.  I mean, sure, good job on spinning it to try and bend my arguments. I like your passion for the outdoors and agree with you most of the time but trying to spin it that I want the state legislature to disband is just a monster spin and nothing more than that.  In reality, I think the legislature is EXACTLY the place for such legislation to be brought up.  But it is not, the weapon of emotion is being used instead.

And you are right, voters will decide.  That is fine and dandy but I sure hope the voters educate themselves before making votes.  I think we both know many do not.  They vote based off heresy or what they were told at a home and garden show.  There's more to the big picture with this.  If I had an 18 year-old daughter and Kaseman got a hold of her and talked his talk my daughter would be voting off pure emotion.  Hence the whole issue I have with this initiative.  It will be passed not because of thought but because of emotion and ethics.  The consequences of it will simply be ignored as a result.


 

 

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

 

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

sportsman | Said:

To Tim and gst,

Do you believe in regulating how the High Fence operations advertise and would support not allowing them to call it a hunt?

Would you go on record personnaly publicly denouncing the operations and stating your support of not allowing them to call it a hunt?

Would Fishingbuddy/TON network and the Stockmens Assoc. (I believe gst is a member/on the board) go on record publicly denouncing the operations and support not calling it a hunt?

I think that would be end of story and no more discussion needed. Advertise it as a shoot/slaughter/kill/whatever not a hunt. You can't sell beef as hogs or poultry as beef or hogs as corn. Why should High Fence be let off for false advertising.

sportsman,

First off in regard to name calling.  Yep, totally uncalled for.  That's what that flag feature is for.  If you have an issue with something in a post (such as name calling) use the flag feature and I will gladly to what is necessary.  Wasn't around the computer last night because I have a life to attend to as well.  In fact, was finishing some demolition in a remodel job on a house I bought.

In regard to your post. I assume this is your first HF thread you've read.  I make that assumption because in every thread (this one included) I've made my opinion WELL KNOWN to folks that I do not see these HF operations as fair chase.  Furthermore, I have directly supported doing something to put strain on these operations trying to advocate their operations as "fair chase."  I don't think I can support putting some sort of law on the books to say "you can't call this a hunt".  To me, that's as bad as this initiative in the first place.  You'd open a whole new can of worms up.  Anyway,  I believe I could site you for plagiarism with using "shoot/slaughter/kill/whatever not a hunt" because I've used those words long before you have.

And to answer your last question, what more can I do?  I have repeatedly said I do not see these HF operations as fair chase.  Over and over and over again.  I'll repeat that, I've said they are not fair chase.  One last time?  I AGREE WITH EVERYONE THAT THINKS THESE OPERATIONS ARE NOT FAIR CHASE.  On a disclaimer note, you will personally have to ask the owners of FBO if they would sponsor a campgain.  My words are mine and mine only.  I am simply an employee of the site.

My belief on this standpoint would pretty much line me up as a supporter of this initiative wouldn't it?  But I'm not.  I don't like what they are doing, I don't think it is necessary and I think it sets a precedence we do not want to add any Vaseline too.  I simply believe the public needs to be educated about fair chase just like how the public was educated about cigarettes.  Like cigarettes somebody with power, influence and money got all hissy fitted up over a little cigarette smoke in a bar.  So instead of not going back to the bar they resorted to drawing up a law against something that is regulated, taxed and regulated even more.  Same is going on with this initiative and I think it has more issues than meets the eye.  I mean, what dang good is an initiative that needs to be tweaked if it gets passed?  The answer is because so the public whom signed off of emotion wouldn't be provoked to think about the big picture.

Just for the record and to allow you to catch my position one last time, I do not see these operations as fair chase.  I agree it is indeed false advertising but you have to be careful how you use that word.  "False" applies to us who believe in fair chase.  To others who do not know what fair chase is, they obviously don't see it as false.  So there in-lies the problem.  Educate the folks on what fair chase is.

I think this talk forum and all the others on this HF have done that.  I think articles in Dakota Country to whatever other magazine, tv spots, bill boards, websites, the sides of barns along I-94 by Jamestown, etc, etc, etc, etc, would accomplish that.  In other words, tools and means that are inexpensive not just on a tangible state but an intangible state as well.  No more excessive legislation, no unneeded rules, etc. 

Furthermore, and I think what I am about to say is maybe my best point yet, if we don't educate the people using these HF operations they are just going to move down the line to the next thing of doing pay hunting on non-high fence operations.  Basically, this initative strengthens pay hunting in other realms.  The HF are small by scale, very small.  Unless we educate people that do-it-yourself type hunting is more rewarding and a more self gratifying experience it really doesn't matter does it?  All you did was take a little tiny piece of the puzzle.  Or is that what this initiative is all about?  Taking that first piece of the puzzle and then working on dismantling the rest of the puzzle?  Intriguing thought isn't it?

But dang, this sure has been a page view getter.  So maybe I should join forces with the HF people so I can keep my page views rolling even more!

Speaking about sponsors.  My belief on fair chase is putting me in direct conflict with HF operations.  In fact, in a round about way I am against the operations from a hunting standpoint.  I'm fine with that and I'm sure I am offending landowners who enjoy selling their livestock as hunts.  I'm sorry, that's how I feel and I think it can't be ignored that most hunters in North Dakota feel the same.

I rest my case.  The floor is yours...


 

 

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

 

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

gst Said:
Sportsman, I have made it perfectly clear that although I personally do not believe HF would give me what I need to take from the experience to call it hunting, that is mine and mine only decision to make. As has been stated who knows what one has to take from an experience to call it hunting. I would imagine there are backpack bowhunters that hike 30 miles into the back mountians to shoot a mule deer far from civilization that in all likelyhood would not think sitting in a heated stand over a pile of corn waiting for a shot at a deer to be "hunting" , How many people would believe jumping out of a pickup and shooting a rooster on the ground in the ditch would be hunting????How many more examples would you like me to give where one individual may not consider sometning legal to be hunting based on their personal standards? So what happens to the hunting experience when that eliteist group of people that several on here have mentioned start to impose what they believe is and should be called hunting??? If you believe this is about the ability of an animal to "run away" you are a fool. The buffalo in a "fenced" advertised "hunt"can not "run away" any more than the elk or deer and they were purposely not included by the sponsors in this measure.  It is simply  a group of egotistical eliteists that feel the need to impose their standards onto everyone else.

As I have stated before, to me this ideology behinfd this measure is far more of a "threat" to the hunting heritage of an individual making personal choices to take what they need from the experience than any HF operation ever will be.

So the answer to your question(I like to answer ones that are asked of me) is no I would not support imposing my definition of what hunting is onto anyone else for any reason. And I highly doubt any ag org would as well as defining hunting is simply outside of most all ag orgs policy arenas.

As to someone claiming hsus is a sponsor, you have not shown an example. Many people have suggested,and links to sites and emails have been shared that prove unquestionably this measure is very important to HSUS so much so that they have sent their members alerts to have them "help" with this effort. So common sense would allow one to believe it is a mutual effort supported by both groups. The fact that alone does not bother you as a hunter says a bit.

Sportsman,

I touched a little on why I wouldn't go as far as telling someone what they can or cannot call a hunt.  I think gst does an EXCELLENT job of explaining why.  Therefore, I revert to his comments in explaining my own.

But just for that ONE LAST time () I will tell you I have no issue joining forces with whomever to say this isn't fair chase.  Yes, some argue bait is not fair chase but there is so much more surrounding that issue than with this one.  Many things can be called bait from an acorn tree, an apple tree, a bait plot left by the NDGF or a farmer, a garden, a bird feeder, to whatever.  But with fair chase and HF operations, it is simple.  There is a high fence put in place to keep the animal penned.  That is directly against fair chase and is cut and dry.

Therefore, I don't have a problem sticking my neck out for the ax on calling HF non-fair chase.  I said a long time ago on Mike McFeeley's show that if the HF would just stop trying to defend their operations as fair chase they'd have far less people calling for their heads.  Call it a "hunt" if you want to but don't try to tell us it is fair chase.

Okay, now you can have the floor...


 

 

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

 

 
bullheadmaster's picture
bullheadmaster
Offline
Joined: 11/29/02

So are you guys getting anywhere on this thread?  Round and round... round  and round....

Big J

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

Can I still practive jigging for gold fish in a fish tank if this passes?  I normally buy a few and practice in the house before ice fishing starts.   

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

Goosefishmen Said:
Can I still practive jigging for gold fish in a fish tank if this passes?  I normally buy a few and practice in the house before ice fishing starts.   

Ys, but you cannot sell your goldfish to someone else to catch.

Or wait, maybe you can if you have a bill of sale..

Oh wait, maybe the Lacey Act will kick in...

Don't worry, the legislature will fix it.


 

 

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

 

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

Tim I am beginning to really like your twisted logic! My comment about the Leg was done so tongue in cheek which I thought you would get! You did not! So lets move to your in your own words best yet!

The argument that this will increase more commercial hunting operations is bogus or that it will lock up more land etc.... The land being controlled under the HF Shooting operations will not open up, nor close up because of this. Inside the areas it is already closed off except to those who pay. Nothing changes. For those that will look to fee access, this measure will not increase or decrease that in any manner.

For those who think I am a paid speaker, I am not, nor will I be. I just happen to be someone that has decided not to allow BS to be passed off as fact. Read my response to Tim regarding the HSUS issue.

Same thing in regards to gst and property rights and why they are hypocritical in positions of one being more important that others! 

I know that those who have made up their minds will not change, but someone that opens and reads this thread or others will at least be given the opportunity to decide for themselves and not have bogus claims left unchallenged either way.

I do wonder how many who support canned shooting live in ND on the board, and how many are directly or indirectly connected to them, or run a fee access operation or are connected to a fee access operation. Knowing this might shed some light for others, but since it would not be in supporters of canned shooting to divulge this I am sure we will not know?

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

High Fence Hunt Bill Input Wanted

Postby RogerK » Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:44 am

I read the news story about State Senator Tim Mathern’s bill banning high fence hunting in Outdoor section of yesterday’s Bismarck Tribune.

In the European system, the crown owned all game and only the nobility could hunt that game, the common man be damned. I believe the high fence hunting and game ownership are anti-democratic and a giant step toward the antiquated European system of game management and ownership that our ancestors left behind when they came here to establish this country. I don’t believe that a human can attach a private property title to a wild game animal any more than one human can attach legal title to another human. There was a legal title to a slave, but it wasn’t a moral title. Rivers of blood spilled to make that point. You can no more own a game animal than you can hold title to the air we breath.

If you oppose game ownership and high fence hunting, I want to hear why.

If you support ownership of game animals and high fence hunting, state your arguments.

If you know of any legal precedent from any court that address either side of the issue, post it here.

I am going to testify in support of the bill so your ideas and comments might make it to the Natural Resources Committee of the North Dakota Legislature.

Roger Kaseman
Linton, North Dakota
lsrkbek@bektel.com

 

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=48953&p=382139#p382139

 

As far as convincing any legislators to our point of view last session, the legislators failed to do some basic math. You in the High Fence lobby have the money and the lobbyists, but you are the voting minority. The hunting associated sporting associations that testified in favor of the bill have the votes when and where it’s going to count. I spoke to several legislatures since the vote. Several approached me and told me of the pressure they received; threats to throw money at their opponent in the next election. That will tactic will fail in November.

 
Jamestown Public Forum, March 2008:   Roger stated that the Fair Chase Committee represented tens of thousands of sportsman. 

 

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

FICTION: 

Dakota Country, September 2010: 
“The vote was, House 72 yeas, 19 nays, 3 absent,” said Masching. “It passed the Senate 46-1, and that one was absent. What it says is that you can’t propagate, you can’t release, you can’t do what we’re trying to do with the elk and deer. They did that with feral swine. There were two infestations in the state, in the Turtle Mountains and the Badlands, and there were sportsman’s dollars sent there trying to eradicate them.”

“Hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Kaseman reiterated.

The feral swine were brought in from out of state for purposes of canned hunting, Kaseman explained,
and some escaped creating a safety hazard for people and other problems. A campaign was launched to locate them, and some likely remain in the wild.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FACT:

1) My agency has no regulatory authority over commercial hunting facilities.  The ND Board of Animal Health could better answer your question.

2)  The feral swine removal project in the badlands utilized a combination of funds from the USDA/Wildlife Services, USDA/Forest Service, and the ND Game & Fish Dept.  In the
Turtle Mountains, funds were used by USDA/Wildlife Services and ND Game & Fish Dept.  The funds utilized by the USDA agencies were not sportsman's dollars.  You will need to check with the ND Game & Fish Dept. for the amount of sportsman's dollars that were used for both projects.

3)  
No agencies were able to determine the origin of the feral swine in the badlands or the Turtle Mountains.  

I suggest you to contact the ND Board of Animal Health and the ND Game & Fish Dept. for further information.

Phil

Phil Mastrangelo
State Director
USDA/APHIS/Wildlife Services
2110 Miriam Circle, Suite A
Bismarck, ND  58501-2502
Phone:  701-250-4405
Fax:       701-250-4408
p.mastrangelo@aphis.usda.gov

 

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

On the Fair Chase Website Last Go Round:

This measure, when passed, will do only three things:

 1. Eliminate canned shooting of captive big-game species inside escape-proof fences for fees.

  2. Same for exotic non-native mammals, (read Russian Wild Boar, one of which was found in central North Dakota last year. He didn't parachute in here).

 3. Eliminate computer-controlled remotely fired weapons for canned shooting, (the infamous Texas-style computer shooting at game ranches).

The measure does not affect game ranching or bison in any way, nor commercial slaughter of big game species for meat and animal products, nor the sale of breeding stock, nor the sale of individual animals, nor the raising of any of them.

Dick Monson, Committee Member, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/10/the_skinny/main3154891.shtml

Remember all that outrage a couple years ago over "Internet hunting"? You know, those Web sites where you could log on, peer into the leafy wilderness through live web cam and, when an unsuspecting buck crossed the screen, click a mouse to drop him?

It turns out there weren't really Web "sites," the Wall Street Journal reports. More like one site, which was shut down almost soon as it opened. And, despite the fact that 33 states have outlawed the Internet hunting since 2005 and a bill to ban it nationally has been introduced into Congress, "nobody actually hunts over the Internet."

"Internet hunting would be wrong," said a Delaware representative who opposed his state's ban. "But there's a lot that would be wrong, if it were happening."

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Tim I am beginning to really like your twisted logic! My comment about the Leg was done so tongue in cheek which I thought you would get! You did not! So lets move to your in your own words best yet!

The argument that this will increase more commercial hunting operations is bogus or that it will lock up more land etc.... The land being controlled under the HF Shooting operations will not open up, nor close up because of this. Inside the areas it is already closed off except to those who pay. Nothing changes. For those that will look to fee access, this measure will not increase or decrease that in any manner.
 
Don't disagree nor did I ever say that.  What I said is you are treating the symptoms and not the disease.  Educate people what fair chase is.  Pure and simple.

For those who think I am a paid speaker, I am not, nor will I be. I just happen to be someone that has decided not to allow BS to be passed off as fact. Read my response to Tim regarding the HSUS issue.

Same thing in regards to gst and property rights and why they are hypocritical in positions of one being more important that others!

Hypocritical or just right?  Yes, some private property rights aren't really property rights at all (duh).  They have to go through a process.  But raising pen raised animals for slaughter of which are heavily regulated already.  Is that something we need to revoke??? 

I know that those who have made up their minds will not change, but someone that opens and reads this thread or others will at least be given the opportunity to decide for themselves and not have bogus claims left unchallenged either way.

I have sat at booth in sport shows, etc.  I have also been the guy walking down the walkway trying to not make eye contact with the booth people so they don't try to lure you in.  My question is, do you think people ripped from the walk ways are given "the opportunity to decide for themselves and not have bogus claims left unchallenged either way?"  I think the obvious answer is no.  Especially with stated signatures per minute or whatever someone was so proud of.  Way too much to talk about for the average citizen.  This should have been left with the legislature where people have time to adequently go through the process.  I have figured out why sponsors do not come on.  They would rather have people uninformed and make emotional choices instead.  Especially when running through a ballot on election day and the only thing they have on their mind is going to the resturaunt after an election day (seriously, some use it as a social event).

I do wonder how many who support canned shooting live in ND on the board, and how many are directly or indirectly connected to them, or run a fee access operation or are connected to a fee access operation. Knowing this might shed some light for others, but since it would not be in supporters of canned shooting to divulge this I am sure we will not know?

I imagine many are directly connected.  So what?  Anyone who has something on the table is going to stand for what they think is right.  Doesn't matter.

As far as fee access.  I would assume most realize the overwhelming number either do not allow hunting or charge a fee. Hence, why I said this unneeded law is going to absolutely nothing other than rip a right away.


 

 

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

 

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

Tim Sandstrom said,

Speaking about sponsors.  My belief on fair chase is putting me in direct conflict with HF operations.  In fact, in a round about way I am against the operations from a hunting standpoint.  I'm fine with that and I'm sure I am offending landowners who enjoy selling their livestock as hunts.  I'm sorry, that's how I feel and I think it can't be ignored that most hunters in North Dakota feel the same.

I rest my case.  The floor is yours...

Tim, I am not offended. When people call me wanting some information about my place I tell them up front what it is. I advize them if they are able bodied by all means go to the mountains.

Right now the Wall Street Journal has a reporter in ND. She visited with Roger Kaseman I believe on Monday afternoon. She spent Tuesday with Shawn Schafer President ND Deer Association. He took her to Willard Swankes place at Rhame. Willard had two fellas there about seventy years old. They told her without Willards place to go to they wouldn't be out hunting at all.

I hope the Wall Street piece turns out good. I don't believe she is a hunter but enjoyed the expanse, ruggedness and diverse types of animals at Swankes.

Some years back Willard Swankes son and Bill Mitzels son had an altercation on a section line next to Swankes land. Willards son was glassing a buck on Swanke land when a shot rang out. The buck was only superfically grazed and got away. The shot came from public land with only one trail in and out . Bill Mitzels son came driving out. The rest is history or should have been.

Bill Mitzel is also friends with Gary Masching, co-chair of the HFI. Bill Mitzel is doing a huge disservice to his magazine allowing it to be used as a launch pad for the HFI.

Again Tim I am not offended. I am perfectly content to take out people who are old, lame, smoke two packs a day or have had a triple heart by-pass.

One more thing, Jon Mitzel wrote a piece in Dakota Country about his health problems. He said no matter how bad his condition gets, he will never go to a high fence operation. What he did not tell the readers is how his health problems came about. "He fell out of a tree stand." Maybe someone should start an initiative to ban tree stands. They aren't "fair" to deer or humans. Let the nanny state decide.

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

They should outlaw BWW, I don't think it is ethical for people to sit in one spot, drink beer, and  watching sports.  They should have to get up and go to a frig.  By doing so, they would realize how drunk they are and would not get so fat.  In addition, those tall beers don't have a chance to get away, they are just trapped on the table until they are finished off.  Sometimes it is a long slow death.

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

Fritz,

I'm not sure what the need was to list Mitzel's hunting incident or his unfortunate fall from a tree stand.  I think it has little bearing.

In regard to your operation, those are reasons I can somewhat accept.  But even then, I think places with awesome habitat and controlled access can offer the same type of hunt to an elderly person or handicapped person.  Being said, it should still be someone's choice to participate or not participate.  In my eye, I won't call it a hunt by way of the definition of fair chase.  I just can't get my mind to change on that.

These crossroad topics are a buggar because I have one foot on one side and another on the other side.  Yet, most of my weight i leaning on the one foot.  Hence my disapproval for this measure.  Too many open ended issues with it and I think a simple education to the "able hunters" is all we need to make the ethics police happy.


 

 

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

 

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

Rummie if this comment is directed my way I want you to know I don't own,don't hunt in a HFoperation.   I have taken a few disabled vets to shoot some hogs behind a very large fenced area,I have taken several inter city kids to a bird shooting operation. 

Yes this HF Petition is known all over the country .  Many out of staters have read you posts on how you stated over and over there is a difference in the wording of the two petitions.  Let them make up their own minds of the intergity of  this group, that  you are now the spokesman for,  even through you are not a sponsore,and  make cliams you are not paid for it. 
.....................................................................................................................................................
"I do wonder how many who support canned shooting live in ND on the board, and how many are directly or indirectly connected to them, or run a fee access operation or are connected to a fee access operation. Knowing this might shed some light for others, but since it would not be in supporters of canned shooting to divulge this I am sure we will not know?"
........................................................................................................................................................
"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."    Wanye Pacelle  Prs.&CEO  HSUS
................................................................................................................

This is why hunters,shooters,livestock raisers,and landowners all over the country follow this FCI

 

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

Tim,


It is unfortunate that Jon Mitzel got hurt falling out of his tree stand.  It is equally unfortunate that Willard Swanke’s son is paralyzed from the waist down from an ATV accident. 


It is also most unfortunate that these 2 individuals had an altercation years ago on a section line.  Did this event contribute to a hard-line stance by Dakota Country Magazine?


The following is an article printed in Dakota Country Magazine, March 2007,  that unfortunately never should have been printed.  Is this journalism or is it hate speech?

 

                                                        High Fence Hunting
                                                             a TRAVESTY

 Is a 50-square mile fence different than a 5-square yard fence, where animals can't escape?
                                                               by Tony Dean

     

     The overwhelming public support, urban and rural, for a Fargo Sen. Tim Mathern’s bill to ban high-fence hunting should make it a slam dunk…but it won’t.  The property rights and alternative agriculture crowd, not satisfied with subsidies no other segments of society get, want more.  High-fencing reduces hunting to put-and-take with big antlers, while it shows no concern about the dangers of transmitting Chronic Wasting Disease.

     
      Valley City farmer Dick Monson had a good line for this thinking.  He called penned elk and deer, “leafy spurge on hooves."
   
    
     However, this will not be the first time a legislature totally misreads its constituency. 

    
     Consider the South Dakota legislature’s attempt one year ago to ban all abortions, even those resulting from incest or rape.  That measure passed by a large margin, and then had to face voters, who in no uncertain terms, told lawmakers they didn’t agree with them.  That left some numbed lawmakers to suggest that they should pass legislation that takes such decisions out of the hands of mere citizens.  

    
    Regardless of how the legislature handles it, a sow by any other name is still swine, and high-fence hunting is a blight upon the sport.  And you can call raising deer behind high fences “alternative agriculture,” if you like but even though you can also put earrings on a sow, but she’ll still be as ugly as Rodney Dangerfield’s evil twin sister.  More important, she will remain a swine.

   
     Moreover, I’m betting that the Farm Bureau will be right in the thick of the battle.  After all, they have an opinion on almost everything that has absolutely nothing to do with agriculture.  They’ll be shouting property rights loudly as they trample on anything that stands between them and control.  This is reality.  Fantasy is the Farm Bureau favoring anything, other than gun rights, that is good for hunting or conservation.

  
     It’s time to call a spade a damned shovel.  This is one hunter who’s growing tired of things like high fence hunts and hunting from an ATV, and that suggesting this is good for our hunting heritage.  And the truth is, it’s gotten me into a Hunter Thompson funk, which is why I’ve liberally used one of his favorite words, swine.

  
     Still, some insist there’s two sides to every story, except that it’s not my fault that the. GOP has taken such an illogical stance on property rights even though the Dems deserve most of the credit for the checks that show up regularly in rural mailboxes.

  
     Shooting a deer or elk within a pen isn’t sport.  It’s butchery masquerading as hunting.  It’s about as challenging as throwing a pass against the Minnesota Vikings secondary.  And it as thought-provoking as Brad Childress’s play calling.

  
     Unfortunately, some are saying that only nonhunters oppose high fence hunting and to side with them is unthinkable.  If you think that way, you have crossed the swine line.

  
   
If every hunter who wore his cap straight (though there are many who tilt them too far in either direction), would send a semi-threatening letter to their lawmaker, they’d finally understand how democracy…real democracy…works.

  
     Let me tell you who opposes high fence hunting.  The list includes conservationists, environmentalists, Repubilicans and Democrats, and hunters, real hunters.  Of course, there are also some do-gooders who oppose it too.

  
     Now look at the other side, comprised of mostly degenerates, property rights whackos, subsidy-sucking alternative farmers, and we lump them all together as swine.  And that’s the other side of the story. 

 

Footnote:  SB2254 which would have prohibited high-fence hunting, was defeated in the Senate on February 7, 44 to 3. 

 

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

Good post Fritz.  That Tony Dean is certainly no sportsman.

bdog's picture
bdog
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/3/07

Hardwaterman correct me if I am wrong. Didn't you post time after time about the evils of baiting when it was coming before the legislators in ND for the third time? Sighting all the evils of baiting and how the Minneasota powers to be thought the disease speading Mexican cattle fiasko would have been much worse if not for a ban of baiting in the 1000 lakes state?

Why is it that you think you know how everyone should or shouldn't hunt ? Are you previe to information that the rest of us don't have? Why not control your little area and decide in what manner you wish to hunt and let others decide for themselves how they wish to hunt.

I have never hunted HF for a fee although I have hunted TRNP and Jackson Hole's elk feeding station in the winter. But I really don't need folks like you and Roger telling me how I should or shouldn't hunt.

Please police yourself and leave me out of your opinion.

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

bdog, common sense vs self gratification!

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!

bdog's picture
bdog
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/3/07
bdog, common sense vs self gratification

Huh

That's all you got ?

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

All i need!

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!

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

bdog Said:

I have never hunted HF for a fee although I have hunted TRNP and Jackson Hole's elk feeding station in the winter.

You hunted in the Park? When was this?

It's not that bad.

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

Farnorth Said:
Good post Fritz.  That Tony Dean is certainly no sportsman.

Farnorth, While you may believe Tony Dean is a sportsman, and the simple fact he spent his life hunting and fishing would give that impression,  answer this, what are your standards for a true "sportsman"???

To me it is not someone that insults tens of  thousands of NDans that make their living from agriculture here in ND and the groups that represent them simply because they do not agree with you.
It is not someone that looks down on someone else for having a differing veiwpoint when it comes to hunting.
It is not someone that wishes to impose their standards regarding hunting onto everyone else.

So how many of your clients fit the discription this  true "sporstman" gave of being "property rights wackos" simply because while they may not agree with a HF operation, they do believe in the right of these people involved in a state defined animal ag venture to use the state definned privately owned animals in accordance with all state regulations. Or simply belong to an ag org. that advocates for agriculoture.

Oh well, apparently anyone that does not agree with his stance are simply to be refered to as "swine" any way. If you can read that article and not pick up on a hint of the egotistical ideology driving this measure, you aren't really trying.  

And NO ONE has answered the question if this is such a concern to ND hunters, why did the measure not collect enough sigs the first attempt, and why did the sponsors have to go to home and garden shows to get barely enough sigs this time. Apparentlly this is not as big an issue to hunters as what is being claimed. Even if Tony Dean claims it is.

Ron answer this simple question, which sponsors are telling the truth.

Roger Kaseman when he states the Federal Lacey Act will prevent someone from selling a live elk to someone that then shoots HIS animal he now owns as a result of this measure?
 
Or Gary Masching when he admits to telling signers of this measure these animals defined as privately owned domestic animals in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC are indeed not that at all, but in fact "wild game" protected unde article 11 Sec 27 of the same NDCC.

Or Jim Hegness when he told signers that these animals were wild animals "stolen" from the public.

If you can not directly answer this one single question, (I won't even ask you wether you believe state law should be based on factual truth) how can any credibility be given to your involvement in this debate.

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

Why would Bill Mitzel publish  a piece of trash like this? 

 

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

gst, very simple, do you have proof or hear say? We know what real proof is, not the statement of a canned shooting supporter claiming something was said.

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!

Pages