High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

612 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07

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

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

Man this going to be exciting come vote time.


 

 

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

 

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

Ladd,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mauser, wait,watch and learn!

Your question will be answered!

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

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

 

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

Hardwaterman Said:
Mauser, wait,watch and learn!

Your question will be answered!

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

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

 

Would you tell me where this property is?

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

 

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

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

I say to hell with that pot o' gold.

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

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

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

Joking folks....kinda.


 

 

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

 

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

Tim Sandstrom Said:

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

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

Joking folks....kinda.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

mauserG33-40 Said:
The words of a desperate loser.  Time to face up to the fact what the FC group is upto.  You comment about Tim was uncalled for,untrue,and just plain disrespectfull.
 

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

It's not that bad.

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

sportsman | Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:
The words of a desperate loser.  Time to face up to the fact what the FC group is upto.  You comment about Tim was uncalled for,untrue,and just plain disrespectfull.
 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mauserG33-40 Said:

sportsman | Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:
The words of a desperate loser.  Time to face up to the fact what the FC group is upto.  You comment about Tim was uncalled for,untrue,and just plain disrespectfull.
 

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

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

Eyekllr had neither. What does your post even reference?

It's not that bad.

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

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

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

sportsman | Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:

sportsman | Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:
The words of a desperate loser.  Time to face up to the fact what the FC group is upto.  You comment about Tim was uncalled for,untrue,and just plain disrespectfull.
 

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

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

Eyekllr had neither. What does your post even reference?

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

 

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

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

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

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

It's not that bad.

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

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

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

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

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

mauserG33-40 Said:

EyeKllr Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:

swift Said:

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



I couldn't agree more with that statement.

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

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

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

Thats a joke if ever I read one.....

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

Yeah...sure.

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

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

However, since you brought it up....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patience Suchka.......

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

KurtR Said:

EyeKllr Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typical.

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

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

All the propaganda on the planet has not changed that.

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

But that is another story.

Patience Suchka.......

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

Ron,

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

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

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

 

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

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

It's not that bad.

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

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

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages