High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

612 posts / 0 new
Last post
KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

Phony Dean is such a fake it is not funny.  If you want to know what that guy did before he was advertising whore go to the race track in brookings and ask.  Oh ya thats right he bankrupted it and stiffed a whole bunch of people monoey.  Or ask what he did when he ran the one in Huron to the ground and stole a bunch of money from the racers there.  If you want to get the old timers fired up just bring his name up and they will tell you what kind of person he was.  That guy has as many people fooled in SD as Daschle did.  All it would have taken him to change his mind on HF was some cold hard cash.

 Adn

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

when this measure gets beat do you think this crowd will let it rest or do you think this will keep coming back year after year?

 

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



when this measure gets beat do you think this crowd will let it rest or do you think this will keep coming back year after year?

 

At Senate Bill 2254 in 2007 Mike McEnroe (lobbyist for the wildlife society and retired federal biologist for the USFWS)  compared this law to ban HFI to seat belt laws and smoking bans. The senators stopped him saying Mike this isn't the same thing. To answer your question:

Yes like seat belt laws they will keep coming. The answer: We need a law that the initiated measure needs a 2/3 majority to pass. In Montana it passed 51 to 49 percent. There was a snowstorm in eastern Montana the day of the election and some precincts had zero people show at the poll. Western Montana decided the issue.

Or, how about we move our western border west to Billings and our eastern border east about 20 miles.

Db's picture
Db
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 9/11/09

The other day I met with a number of business owners in our town. At the end of the meeting I ask how they plan to vote on measure #2.  No one knew what it was.  I explained and the consensus was to vote for this measure. As one said what next, Tigers. 
I then told them a week ago I had a visit from the public health concerning smoking in bars. As I am on the city council they requested my support to ban smoking in bars in this town.  I have never smoked and prefer going to bars that have ban smoking. I feel their cause is just and noble. The lady stated that once they ban smoking in PUBLIC places they plan to go after vehicles to protect the children.  I then ask if they plan to go to homes and she said no. I stated I would not support this ban.  Smoking is legal.  Bars are not owned by the PUBLIC but by private ownership. There is no doubt smoking is bad for your health.  I thing maybe drinking beer at the bar may be bad for my health.  Then again I come to reason and no it can not be so.  After discussion they felt the smoking cause was just but felt a group of peole had gone to far seeking government help in achieving their goals.  The statement made was when will it stop.  I then ask why they supported the ban on HFH.  The vote was again taken and the consensus was to defeat this measure.
To me HFH is about ones ethics.  It is what it is.  It seems to me the only ones calling it hunting are those against it.  I have an opinion about HFH based on my ethics.  However to me, this is not the issue.  Yes what next, Tigers?  Maybe but what next, banning the killing of your own steer in an enclose pen.  After all you can go to the supermarket and buy all you want without killing an animal. 
I have the same ability to reason as the next. I know the risk of second hand smoking and I can decide myself to this risk or not.  If enough will not go to a bar that allows smoking that business will either fail or change. We do not need the government to make that decision for us. I do trust that society can also reason and make their own decision and overall make the right decisions.  If the citizens of North Dakota do not support HFH it will take care of itself over time.  If it is an evil thing it will destory itself.  I do not need or ask for a group of people using the government to make those kinds of decision for me. I will work as hard to defeat this measure as those who work to approve it.  I can only ask that those against it will take the fight beyond their comments on this site.  db   

Db

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

db, well said.

Ron, everything I asked you has been admitted to in black and white print either on this site or Nodak by the person making the statement. Hardly what is considered heresay. You really can not answer a simple question can you.  

To those that are tired of this HF discussion, step up, speak up, if enough people had the balls to actually state while they don't believe in HF as hunting they really do not care if some rich SOB shoots something inside a fence and hangs it on their wall, maybe the sponsors wouldn't have bothered to bring forth this additional govt intrusion into individual decision making a SECOND time and we could all go back to argueing wether Savages are the most accurate out of the box rifle made or the best fence post ever created, or what caliber is to little to shoot a deer with. Or make a few more juvenile threads like the cleaning station one.

So if you truly believe state law should be created based on factual truth, ask yourself wether what the sponsors attempting to create state law have publically said is that or not. And if it is not step up and actually support your opinion if you do have one that will hold the creators of the laws that govern us to a standard of factual truth.

Or just quit clicking on the thread.

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

Kinda hard to tell Ron from Archimedes?

 

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

I have stated as well that HFH is not or will be "Fair Chase". To attempt to persecute one another in the court of public opinion; though is Democracy. Even if it means attacking the Live, Lame, or Deceased. Our constitution grants everyone under it's blanket the freedom of speech. It provides us the right to bear arms. The 5th amendment protects the accused based solely on their rights. I own no land, claim no affiliation, nor probably have any reason to post on the topic. However; I do value the outdoors and the privilages the Dakotas provide most everyone discussing this topic. While words can sometimes get twisted and misconstrued; and offenses can be taken, it still comes back every time to interpretation. Unfortunately, interpretation is trying to be "Defined" by legislation. Morals and Freedoms are starting to be lumped together with no clear definitions. Population continues to rise. The needs for access and hunting follow accordingly. To tell somebody that the apprecited value of their land has risen; therefore, there property taxes need increased should give that person the right to do what they see fit with their property. Ethics are probably best defined by those without an affiliation. Fair Chase and Public Hunting get lumped together; although for no apparent reason to me. Funding for this land is paid for through sales of liscences. It is a tax in it's own right. It also is an opportunity given to those who choose it. Most hunting operations require their clientele to be liscened; therefore, they are already paying a second tax for the public to enjoy with great opportunities and rewards. A Diplomatic approach would be to ascertain a camping fee as it is very tough to be the first person on a piece of state owned property. The ambitious should be rewarded. But to tell somebody that they cannot choose to do what they want with what they own is unconstitutional. People used to shoot each other over "Claims" and "Stakes" in the 1800's over a piece of gold. Nowadays we are forced to bring a pen to a gunfight with our own Government. Chivalry is most likely dead. My kids love Walleye and Venison; I'd die for them.

One step at a time...Be careful.

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

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85649

This is a link to a thread a sponsor and secretary of NDH for FC posted on Nodak as a "fact sheet" about their measure. Within this thread I have courteously asked the questions that have been being discussed on this site. Lets simply see if the sponsors of this measure will answer them. If they will not, what does this say about their measure and it's intent?

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

When Marxists Distort The U.S. Constitution For Personal Gain

September 20, 2010

Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

I have written and commented in the past about a group of neo-Marxists in North Dakota trying to foist their personal convictions on others through government regulation that cripples economic growth and robs Americans of their rights, granted by God, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I’m talking about Measure 2, a citizens’ initiative that aims to stop property owners from offering hunting opportunities on their ranches, most as a means to supplement their incomes. The end result will be that these ranchers, good Americans like all the rest of us, will, more than likely, be run out of business.

Behind this farce is a group called Hunters for Fair Chase. Roger Kaseman is the self-appointed leader of this group and last week he had an editorial published in the Grand Forks Herald (subscription).

The citizens of North Dakota will have to decide what they believe is in the best interest for all. When these folks go to the polls, they will have to ask themselves if regulating everything a property owner can do is what they would like to have happen to themselves. Once the truth is told to them, the outcome is certain. Measure 2 will be soundly defeated.

In Kaseman’s editorial, his attempt at persuading voters his Measure 2 is the tool that will insure his hunting and that of future generations, he opens by painting an inaccurate picture of reality on the ground but that’s what people do when they can’t support their agendas with truth.

But this isn’t the worst of the editorial. He reminds me very much of our present President, Barack Hussein Obama, who during his campaign stated that the Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution, got it all wrong. Obama was quoted as saying the Constitution and Bill of Rights is about what you can’t do.

Few people know the history behind the writing of the Constitution and that’s a shame. James Madison has been credited as the author of it. Madison was a mentor of Thomas Jefferson’s and they argued at length as to whether or not the Constitution, when originally written, should also contain the Bill of Rights. This is one reason the Bill of Rights came at a later date.

Thomas Jefferson believed that all free Americans understood, as he wrote in the Declaration of Independence, that our liberties come from God and nowhere else. Madison felt it necessary to make sure certain rights where in writing.

The problem President Obama and others, who believe it is their right to rule over others, have with the Constitution is that the authors of that document knew the people understood their God-given rights but they also knew from past experience that those in positions of authority want to take those rights away and thus the Constitution is about what government cannot do. It limits the power of government.

When you see life from the perspective that people need to be controlled, told what to do and how to do it, as Mr. Obama does, it is easy to see why he would think that the Framers’ words to limit government control were all wrong. What has been lost for people like Barack Obama is that all of our rights are granted to us by God; not by the President of the United States; not by the Congress; not by the governor of your state; and certainly not by your neighbor.

Roger Kaseman distorts the very Document that brought this country together and made it great, in order that he, can control the people. He twists the meaning in an attempt to convince people that you can’t have a right unless government grants it to you through legislation or a citizens’ initiative. Kaseman states the following:

First, they argue that the measure will interfere with their property rights. But ask them which article or section of the Constitution grants them the unfettered right to operate their shooting galleries as they see fit, and they can’t answer.

What court decision, state or federal, supports their claim to this right?

This kind of demented and backwards perspective is dishonest and dangerous to freedom-loving Americans. Obviously Roger Kaseman knows not from where his liberties come. He believes that none of us have liberties unless he and others like him, give them to us. Where have we seen this before?

One would have to ask if anyone should trust a person who thinks this way?

The second issue that Kaseman attempts to discredit is whether or not passing Measure 2 would result in “open[ing] the borders of North Dakota to radical animal rights groups, and that these groups will outlaw all hunting and all animal agriculture.”

To some degree, Mr. Kaseman is correct in that it wouldn’t suddenly open the door to allow actions to take place in North Dakota to outlaw hunting. It’s already taking place and Measure 2 is simply one more increment in getting the job done.

Read what he says as being the reasons this sort of thing won’t happen.

Think about that for a moment. This argument presumes North Dakotans are gullible enough to believe that should Measure 2 pass, animal rights groups will invade the state and impose a dictatorship that would outlaw hunting and animal agriculture.

That would require both a complicit Legislature and a compliant citizenry. But neither a complicit Legislature nor a compliant citizenry exist in this state. Never have.

No group could convince either the people or the Legislature to outlaw hunting and animal agriculture. But the high-fence operators argue that gullible North Dakotans would let just such laws be passed.

Kaseman radicalizes and embellishes his statement to try to persuade his readers but does he even realize it is the very things he claims won’t happen already have?

Those who hate America and everything it stands for learned a long time ago that you can’t yank the rug out from under us to steal our freedoms. After all, liberty and independence are the two items that insures that America will always be free and remain the greatest nation on earth. Try entering my house in order to take my guns away and you’ll have quite a fight on your hands. But work at taking my guns away one regulation at a time and with patience, it will happen. After all, what’s one more small regulation going to do?

Passing Measure 2 isn’t going to put an immediate end to hunting or ranching. But it is one more small step in that direction.

Americans got comfortable in their surroundings of independent liberties. It is in fact the complacency Kaseman says won’t happen that already has. This complacency exists today in every American to some degree and within our legislators to a higher degree, resulting in complicity that Kaseman says doesn’t exist.

One wonders if Mr. Kaseman is aware that North Dakota is a willing member and participant with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). This organization is now mostly run with environmentalists and pseudo-conservation groups like Defenders of Wildlife. AFWA promotes non consumptive wildlife management and utilizes money from Pittman-Robertson in order to fund non hunting programs. Pittman-Robertson money is used to fight to continue the listing of endangered species which is in turn used as a political tool to limit or end hunting opportunities. It would appear that North Dakota’s “complicity” has already resulted in limiting Mr. Kaseman’s and all other North Dakotans of their hunting, trapping and fishing opportunities. At the present rate, hunting will end in most states within 5-10 years. This isn’t an attempt at scaring people. It’s the truth and it is there to discover for those not “complacent” or “complicit”.

My advice to the voters of North Dakota is to not put stock in anything a man says who doesn’t understand the Constitution and from whom his rights are granted. Open your eyes and look around and ask yourself, how much of your life as a free American is limited, regulated and controlled by government. Do you want more of this? On the surface you may see passing Measure 2 as a good thing but how will you feel when the next measure comes along that directly affects you and robs you of your freedoms while stealing away your livelihood?

Remember, sometimes to preserve your rights puts you in a uncomfortable position.

Tom Remington

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2010/09/20/when-marxists-distort-the-u-...

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

Fact Sheet-ND Fair Chase Hunting Measure # 2

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1.
A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited – Penalty – Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act becomes effective on November 1, 2012.

North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase (NDHFC) is a non-profit group of North Dakota hunters who organized to protect North Dakota’s public hunting heritage from anti-hunting extremists and people who have profit-driven motives to destroy our constitutionally protected hunting heritage under Section 27 of the ND Constitution. Details about NDHFC can be found at:  http://northdakotafairchase.com/

NDHFC has never, nor will it ever, accept any money or solicit endorsements from any group that does not fully support the public’s right to hunt.

During the past year NDHFC volunteers gathered signatures across the state for an initiated measure that would enact a North Dakota state law to stop the despicable pay-to-play practice of “fee-killing” captive big game and exotic mammals caged in enclosures such as high fences or pens designed to prevent escape. That measure to prohibit fee-killing of captive big game species and exotic mammals will be on the November 2010 ballot and deserves a “yes” vote from anyone who values the traditions that have made the North Dakota outdoors the revered resource it is. This short video depicts what high fenced “hunting” is all about:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpbcZQ52lAs

Fair Chase is the gold standard of hunting ethics by which we are judged as sportsmen. The prestigious Boone & Crockett Club founded by Teddy Roosevelt articulates this concept well:  http://www.boone-crockett.org/huntingEthics/ethics_cannedshoot.asp?area=huntingEthics
Boone & Crockett supports our position as evidenced by their statements on Fair Chase and their condemnation of fee killing confined big game animals.

High fenced shooting provides anti-hunting groups with ready-made propaganda to mislead the non-hunting public about North Dakota’s ethical public hunting heritage in their misguided efforts to ban all public hunting. Radical animal rights groups use “fenced” or “canned hunts” to tarnish the image of all hunters in their efforts to get federal legislation enacted to limit or eliminate the public’s right to hunt. In a “fact sheet” entitled Why Sport Hunting is Cruel and Unnecessary, PETA rationalizes elimination of all hunting by using fenced hunts as an example of “sport hunting”:

Canned Cruelty
Most hunting occurs on private land, where laws that protect wildlife are often inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On private lands that are set up as for-profit hunting reserves or game ranches, hunters can pay to kill native and exotic species in “canned hunts.” These animals may be native to the area, raised elsewhere and brought in, or purchased from individuals who are trafficking in unwanted or surplus animals from zoos and circuses. They are hunted and killed for the sole purpose of providing hunters with a “trophy.”…
…Animals on canned-hunting ranches are often accustomed to humans and are usually unable to escape from the enclosures that they are confined to, which range in size from just a few yards to thousands of acres. Most of these ranches operate on a “no kill, no pay” policy, so it is in owners’ best interests to ensure that clients get what they came for. Owners do this by offering guides who are familiar with animals’ locations and habits, permitting the use of dogs, and supplying “feeding stations” that lure unsuspecting animals to food while hunters lie in wait….
 
http://www.peta2.com/takecharge/t_factsheet_hunting.asp

Nothing in this measure prevents hunting of elk in Theodore Roosevelt National Park or limits what a rancher can do with any livestock such as cattle or buffalo.

Instead, the measure is focused on keeping North Dakota from being an island state surrounded by other states that have already banned “fenced hunts” - thus making North Dakota ripe for further expansion of the high fenced industry. It is quite evident that out-of state commercial deer and elk groups see North Dakota as a prime market to expand pay to play high fenced shooting preserves as their home states restrict or ban them. To date, these out-of state money interests have reported to the North Dakota Secretary of State that they have spent $84,000 in their efforts to advertise against or obstruct the measure’s signature process in hopes the voters wouldn’t have a chance to exercise their right to decide what is best for our state. Their advertisements have been a “guise”, claiming that they are only interested in protecting “property rights”. No doubt these groups will spend tens of thousands of dollars more now that the measure is on the November ballot, all the while disguising their true motives from the voters. They may even fund, or continue to fund, in-state groups pretending to be property rights advocates. Note all 3 pages in the report below:
 http://web.apps.state.nd.us/sec/emspublic/gp/cfdisclosurerptsearchbyrpt.htm?cmd=DisplayReport&type=byRpt&filerSeqNo=2773&lastName=Citizens%20to%20Preserve%20Nort&filingDate=01/20/2009&reportNo=1&year=2008&filerType=MEA&reportType=Y&result=10&searchReportType=Y&offset=0&offset2=0
The reality is, however, the more high fenced shooting operations we have in our state the greater the risk of diseases infecting our wild deer and elk populations. Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), cervid strains of Bovine Tuberculosis, and new parasite infections like the Fallow Deer Louse have been scientifically linked to captive deer and elk facilities in other states before transferring into wild populations.
 http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/chronic_wasting_disease/index.jsp

The Fallow Deer Louse was first reported in Oregon and then spread across the West Coast of the US and Canada while decimating native deer populations. In one years time it jumped the Rockies from Washington State into Wyoming and South Dakota. It is now expanding into the upper watershed of the Little Missouri.
http://dailyrecordnews.com/news/article_1e881f93-de1c-5d6d-ad5d-a90ad619...

To date, Wisconsin alone has spent over twenty million dollars and has eradicated thousands of wild deer in their attempts to contain CWD transmission.
 http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lab/reports/06-13highlights.htm

In Montana, one of the many states that already banned high fence shooting, voters recognized that threat to public hunting and public wildlife and their voters acted through initiated measure to protect their wild deer and elk herds. None of the bans in these proactive states have been overturned in any court decision – including cases that alleged a property right infringement. NDHFC strongly supports the property rights of our citizens, both private property and public property. By voting yes on measure #2, voters will instill in law appropriate protections for public property in the traditions of President Teddy Roosevelt and many others before and after him.

There is no economic benefit pay-to play high fenced shooting offers our state that offsets the risk to the fifty million dollars public big game hunting generates for North Dakota every year.

A UND survey and also national polls have shown a vast majority of the public supports bans on high fenced shooting and numerous hunting organizations and outdoor publications have endorsed this North Dakota measure. Some of those include The Mule Deer Foundation; The North Dakota Wildlife Federation; The North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society; Dakota Country Magazine; and MuleyCrazy Magazine.

North Dakotans who care about protecting our proud hunting heritage have an opportunity to speak loudly by voting “yes” on this measure. The time to stop fee killing is now.

Already the North Dakota Game and Fish Department has had to kill numerous wild deer and elk exposed to fenced hunting operations and have had a number of other enforcement cases that show we are playing Russian roulette with North Dakota's hunting future.  http://www.northdakotafairchase.com/summary_of_correspondence_and_ca.html

Submitted by Dick Monson, Sec., ND Hunters for Fair Chase


 

 

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

 

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

Buffalo are livestock?

Someone better tell the state of Utah. Do you know they award once-in-a-lifetime permits to hunt them. And to think they are charging good money for people to hunt livestock.

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

The following are 8 questrions that have been brought up by several people on this site and others in regards to this measure. I courteously posed these questions to Dick Monson, sponsor and sec. of NDH for FC after he posted a "Fact sheet" thread on Nodak that Tikm has copied onto this site. . So far he nor any other sponsors have answered these questions even though he has posted in his thread beyond his "fact sheet". Why?

If the sponsors are truly interested in gettting the "FACTS" out there, why will they not answer 8 simple questions? I'm not interested in this measures supporters opinions, I want to get it straight from sponsors themselves so that the "facts" on thier position and this measure are made public so the citizens of this state may be as well informed as they can be before casting theit vote this Nov.

1. Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman on this site when asked if this measure will prevent someone from selling a live animal to another individual who then shoots the animal he now owns, stated this measure will allow the Federal Lacey Act to be used to make this a possible felony with a $10,000 dollar fine. Is this true and who has your group communicated with for a sponsor to be able to factually publically make this claim?

2. Are these animals defined in the state NDCC as privately owned domestic animals that can be used as collateral?

3.Why is this being placed in Sec 36.1 of the NDCC where there is currently a definition of these animals as privately owned domestic farmed elk, when the measure lists them as big game that is regulated in Sec 27 of the NDCC. And who advised your group as to putting it here?

4. If the intent is to protect hunnting from the "black eye" shooting an animal inside a fenced enclosure and calling it hunting gives hunting itself, why were buffalo purposely excluded from the measure when there are more operations advertising "canned" "fenced" buffalo "hunts" here in the state than there are deer hunting operations?

5.If your goal is to eliminate a disease risk here in the state from these elk and deer operations, to accomplish this do you have to eliminate all of these operations that raise deer or elk for any purposes from operating here in ND and is that the goal of the group NDH for FC?

6. You claim this measure does nothing to affect ranchers raising cattle or buffalo, what about the elk rancher raising elk for slaughter rather than a HF enterprise. Will these ranchers be able to continue the practice of selling an animal to an individual for a fee or renumeration that then shoots said aninmal on the premise and takes that animal to process it themselves as is currently allowed by law??

7. Do you believe raising legaly defined privately owned domestic animals in accordance with all appropriate state regulations is a property right?

8. And one just for fun, Your fellow sponsor Roger Kaseman claimed on this site this measure is about "bragging rights" and "hanging a head on the wall" . Is this the official position of NDH for FC?

Thanks in advance for directly answering each of these questions. Gabe Thompson Jr. Antler ND

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

answering those questions truthfully would destroy their chances at passage.

 

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

eyexer Said:
answering those questions truthfully would destroy their chances at passage.

Amen....... as you know one of their gun-ho supporters for months said the 2 bills were worded differently.  was unable to supprt the first but now can.  Truth ha ha ha  

 

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

I think gst's questions are more than simple enough for the sponsors to answer.  Quite frankly, they should be answered before any vote but that is the whole goal of the petition anyway.  Get the folks who are uneducated on the topic and roll with emotion.


 

 

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 eyexer made  it very clear and most of all truthfully.  You have to realize if a HF sponsors can say anything, you are not to ask why, just vote yes.   If the FC fact sheet is really a fact sheet they would answer.   The Fact is they have no facts just emotion and no back-bone to defend thier Fact Sheet. 


Tim Sandstrom Said:
I think gst's questions are more than simple enough for the sponsors to answer.  Quite frankly, they should be answered before any vote but that is the whole goal of the petitoin anyway.  Get the folks who are uneducated on the topic and roll with emotion.

eyexer Said:
answering those questions truthfully would destroy their chances at passage.

 

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

Tim do a search on this site. Jim H answered these questions or most of them. However when gst or others did not like the response they either asked the same question in a slightly different manner then tried to twist the answer into something else.

My favorite is the property rights issue one. The answer is yes they affect property rights but property rights are not absolute, and that there are many examples of restrictions. A prime example is sale of land in our state. A property right infringement however that supporters like gst seem to think is OK, but not this, one which the voters may think is OK!

So as I have said before the goal is not to derive an answer, but an attempt to bait sponsors to respond so they can twist it some more.

The bill is on the ballot, it is clear as to intent regardless of how others may try and paint it otherwise. The process for implementation is delegated to the Leg(Ladd and others covered this well)!

Dick posted as a sponsor, put forward the reason, agenda and the background. Pointed out how this is giving others who are fair chase hunters a black eye by showing how PETA exploits canned shooting by painting all with a broad brush. So as politely as I can Tim, it is time to take the blinders off, or simply admit you support canned shooting as hunting!!!!!!

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

It seems you  (Ron) are the only one that can find the answers to the questions that have been posted by Jim H, all you have to do do is copy and paste them IF they are there.

I think Tim is asking for the sponors to come forward and answer the questions is part of the procces to determine a vote made on facks not emotion

.

If you copy and paste the answers that you say are there that would clear up all the questions, if you can't or will not that clears up even more questions.

Maybe Ladd can find and copy and posts JIm H answeres?

Ron do you believe everything Dick Monson and Roger Kaseman say?  If you see the dates on a lot of Dicks sites he uses it is as You say "old crap".

 

MissedAgain's picture
MissedAgain
Offline
Joined: 9/22/06

1. I personally wouldn't hunt in HFH.
2. After talking to some ranchers about this, I agree with them.  Yes, this did make me look at the issue differently.
     A.  This is a property rights issue.  They have the property and they have the right. 
     B.  What is next, cattle, pigs, chickens or some other animal that someone doesn't agree with how it is raised and eventually brought to someone's table to consume? 
    C.  What is the difference in the way it was brought to the butcher?
3.  I won't be voting for this and informing other people who don't hunt both sides of the issue to make sure they understand it.

The ranchers and farmers are one of  the important stewards of the wildlife in ND and give the rest of us opportunities to enjoy the outdoors and it's bounty.  With out them we have little, I choose to support them and what they want.


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

I have stated this before and will state it again.  This thing will not pass because the Cattle Ranchers in this state feel threatened by this.  I don't think the supporters of this measure realize the size of the hammer the cattle industry swings in this state.  But they are about to find out. 

 

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

eyexer Said:
I have stated this before and will state it again.  This thing will not pass because the Cattle Ranchers in this state feel threatened by this.  I don't think the supporters of this measure realize the size of the hammer the cattle industry swings in this state.  But they are about to find out. 

I hope your right. Personally I think it will pass. The cities in this state are becoming more and more liberal every day. Cant even count how many people i know that went from being republican to democrat, within a year or two of going to college. The east side seems more farm country than cattle country. I'm afraid your average citizen whom doesn't hunt or doesn't ranch, will vote for this measure. As well as many many uninformed hunters.

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

BringingTheRain Said:

eyexer Said:
I have stated this before and will state it again.  This thing will not pass because the Cattle Ranchers in this state feel threatened by this.  I don't think the supporters of this measure realize the size of the hammer the cattle industry swings in this state.  But they are about to find out. 

I hope your right. Personally I think it will pass. The cities in this state are becoming more and more liberal every day. Cant even count how many people i know that went from being republican to democrat, within a year or two of going to college. The east side seems more farm country than cattle country. I'm afraid your average citizen whom doesn't hunt or doesn't ranch, will vote for this measure. As well as many many uninformed hunters.

90% of the voters aren't going to know what the measure even is.  I read somewhere than when faced with that situation the overwhelming majority of voters vote against new measures because they don't want to be responsible for voting something in when they don't know what they are voting for.  It's the safe thing to do and peoples natural reaction is to take the safe way. 

 

Db's picture
Db
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 9/11/09

My concern is that:  I have visit with a number of people. In fact several.  As with most measures they have no ideal what meaure two is.  When I tell them what it is their first thought is yes I will vote for this measure.  After I explain my thoughts the bulk if not all state they will not vote for this measure. 
What are we doing to get our information and the other side of the story out to the people? 
This is like cancer that needs to be stop when it first starts and not after it has taken a hold.  If we sit on our butts and just talk to ourselves it may pass. So now we argue about fair chase and not the fact this measure will be voted on in November.  We have lost site of our mission.  Fair chase,  Bring all your toyies back to when my grandfather homestead the farm (1895).  He might make a statement about fair chase. 
But we need to get back to the vote and defeat this measure.  Not because of what HFH is but to stop those who feel the need to protect society from ourselves.  To stop certain people from forcing their agenda (ethics) on me and society with the help of our government.  I do trust that society (you and me) can make our own decision and those decision will, with time, be right.  It does not matter if I believe HFH is good or bad.  It does not matter if I think all compound bows should be outlaw and only recurve bows allow.  What does matter is that a group of people have an agenda (whatever) and then use whatever means to force it on the rest of us.  Again what are we doing besides flapping our lips on this site.  I will continue to reach as many as I can.  I will take on the fight of fair chase tommorrow.  Today I need to do my part to defeat this bill. Give me some ideals on how to proceed. db

Db

pber's picture
pber
Offline
Joined: 5/19/08
sportsman  |'s picture
sportsman |
Offline
Joined: 3/10/09

pber, thanks for posting that link. It was very informative. I have some observations and a couple questions. So gst et al don't have to read the ramblings, I will just bold the questions.

I found out HSUS and the Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights both oppose internet hunting. Even though some on here have said they would agree it should be covered under property rights. How is agreeing with HSUS and further banning that form of hunting different than High Fence?

Game preserve owners are against and do not use any growth hormones on their animals. Who controls whether or not hormones are used? Is it an ethical or regulated issue?

"Wide open spaces providing the animal the ability to escape and good terrain with a challenging layout are all offered by these landowners."
If the animals can "escape" how can these places offer 100% success?

"Game preserves are highly regulated by the ND Board of Animal Health and fences are monitored with the same kind of diligence any rancher uses to keep tabs on his fences." I see cattle outside fences quite regularly. Is this the same diligence? Not that I knock a landowner who has a downed fence now and then or a calf or two get out but if High Fence opperations want to draw the parallel it will draw unneeded attention to ranchers.

"If passed, this measure will prevent game producers from sending their livestock to market for slaughter and sale. " How will it prevent this? Do you think the legislature will word it to prevent these animals from being slaughtered?

"The health of the game on hunting preserves is protected by the North Dakota Board of Animal Health." How EXACTLY does the NDBOAH protect the health of animals? How frequently is each facility inspected? Are they random or scheduled inspections?

Again, thanks for the information but unfortunately it raises more questions than answers. And due to the Pro High Fence groups belief in answering questions directly, I expect full direct answers to all my questions pouring in from several posters.

Thanks.

It's not that bad.

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

Sportsman,

On the same site note the following statement: 

How do you explain the ethics behind computer hunting and using growth hormones to increase the size of the game? Internet hunting is illegal in the United States and has never occurred on any North Dakota hunting ranch. We are not proponents of either of the two issues and do not condone the activities. These matters are simply not practiced in North Dakota.

Actually I would say it was more like Dick used internet hunting just as HSUS uses it:

Here is what Dick Monson stated on the Fair Chase Website two years ago.  Why is this no longer on their website.

This measure will eliminate computer-controlled remotely fired weapons for canned shooting, (the infamous Texas-style computer shooting at game ranches).

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/ ... 4891.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."

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


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

Sportsman, as the "internet" hunting and growth hormones questions were answered in the link you didn't apparently read far enough so I won't bother addressing them.

As to the fencing questions, there are if I am not mistaken specific guidelines that deer and elk fence must be built to. There are no such requirements in regards to fencing for cattle. It is simply left up to the individual. So this comparison doesn't hold much water.

As to this measure preventing the sale of an animal to someone that then kills and processes the animal he now owns, remember it was SPONSOR Roger Kaseman that claimed the Lacey Act would prevent this, you have to follow along here.

As to the BoAH inspections, you could simply ask them to get a direct factual answer. I do believe that ND has some of the strictist regulations regarding these animals of any state. That also would be easily checked out by contacting the BoAH.

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

No matter how many times you guys ask why is it the color green when everybody knows it is colored  purple. It changes absolutely nothing! YOU simply are looking for something to spin.

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

I was hoping there would be a rep from Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights who could answer the claims made on the website. Not direct me to the NDBOAH to request info.
"The health of the game on hunting preserves is protected by the North Dakota Board of Animal Health."

OK, how about ONE question gst and pber (since I really got one answer, redirected and some questions conveniently skipped). Since HSUS and Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights both opposed Internet Hunting, how is that any different than the Fair Chase guys and HSUS both opposing High Fence?

It's not that bad.

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

MissedAgain Said:

1. I personally wouldn't hunt in HFH.
2. After talking to some ranchers about this, I agree with them.  Yes, this did make me look at the issue differently.
     A.  This is a property rights issue.  They have the property and they have the right. 
     B.  What is next, cattle, pigs, chickens or some other animal that someone doesn't agree with how it is raised and eventually brought to someone's table to consume? 
    C.  What is the difference in the way it was brought to the butcher?
3.  I won't be voting for this and informing other people who don't hunt both sides of the issue to make sure they understand it.

The ranchers and farmers are one of  the important stewards of the wildlife in ND and give the rest of us opportunities to enjoy the outdoors and it's bounty.  With out them we have little, I choose to support them and what they want.

Chickens are already on the block.  Turkeys too.  And of course pigs already are very restricted (for good reasons when it comes to their waste).  But yeah, chickens are already under heavy attack.  Wiggle room...all they need.


 

 

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

Sportsman,

Internet hunting does not exist, but according to Dick this "Fair Chase law will eliminate internet hunting, the infamous Texas-style of hunting at game ranches"?  How do you ban an activity that is already non-existent ? 

Dick is using the same tactic as HSUS by trying to lump game farms in with an activity that is nonexistant.

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

eyexer Said:
I have stated this before and will state it again.  This thing will not pass because the Cattle Ranchers in this state feel threatened by this.  I don't think the supporters of this measure realize the size of the hammer the cattle industry swings in this state.  But they are about to find out. 

Years ago I would have been more confident in that.  But lets be honest, rural North Dakota is dying.  Kids are leaving the farm because there isn't enough room for everyone out there.  The economics of farming and the world market has created an environment where to be successful you must big big and sell a lot but sell it at a smaller profit.  So that requires more acres, big equipment or in other words, more input costs.  The result is more risk.  Look at this year, went from a bumper crop to most people cutting feed grade garbage.  Obviously folks pulled acres out with good quality but many are being docked hard and then having damage tagged on too boot.

But anyway, I am a walking example.  I am a farm kid turned city boy.  Did I want that life?  No, I will be honest, I wanted to take up the responsibility of continuing the third generation.  But it wasn't feasible.  As painful as it was for my dad he told me to stay away.  There are other factors like how the community is struggling with a school system, etc but for the most part it was pure economics.  Now with oil out there, unless you have oil money you basically are crap out of luck on playing against everyone.

Point being, there are a lot of kids like me (I'm not a kid anymore but was when I left).  Folks are leaving behind the farm and I think people my age are still greatly involved with the farm and with friends and family who still farm.  That makes us still understand rural life and rural America and keep our city folk emotion out of the way.  But in time, the generation freshly removed from the farm will create another generation and that generation won't understand like the previous did.  The result?  A big fight that rural America probably won't be able to win.

That there is why I have reservations on initiative type measures on the ballot box.  Many folks don't take the time to view it from both sides.  And when emotion is in the mix, it is a double dagger in the back.

So Ron, I see you are calling me a supporter of high fence hunting.  I made a big annoying intelligence insulting post about how I am not a supporter of high fence hunting defined or lumped in with fair chase.  I believe it is far from fair chase.  But I support property rights no matter how you want to say property rights don't exist.  They become less and less because the word "absolute" is used to persuade.


 

 

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

 

 
Db's picture
Db
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 9/11/09

People we need to focus on the issue of the vote.  People like sportsman love to divert us from that issue by discussion on other topics that our controversial.  Do not let him.  People want to hear about the measure and what it will do. Not about our bigotry.  It does not matter who the sponsor is or if internet hunting is an acceptable form of hunting at this point.  It is late in the game.  The focus needs to be on the vote and how to inform people so they can make a sound decision basic on their own ability to reason.  I believe and have found most people will vote no if given both sides of the story.  I do trust the people of ND.  Go back to page one and post #2 by beedogg.  It is what we need now.  Take up the fight again on other issues after the vote.  thanks  db

Db

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

Sportsman, I'm not a member of the Property rights group so I can not answer as one. I merely directed you to the BoAH so that you could get FACTUAL information from the org. responsible for dealing with the questions you asked.

The difference lies when one group may oppose something and may work to change what they are opposed to thru education and information rather than use tactics (lies and emotional rhetoric) fresh from the HSUS playbook in their attempt to ban something. If the group NDH for FC were working to educate and inform the public that HFH is not what is considered Fair Chase, and yet continueing to allow people to chose for themselves if they want to participate or not,  they more than likely would have had my support if they had did so with truthful, factual statements. Once the sponsors of this measure begin making disingenuous statements designed to illicite supoport for what will be come a new state law banning what I strongly believe should be an individual personal chooice, THAT is where the difference multiplied.

Sportsman, Ron,
Answer one simple question. Not 8, just one simple question. When SPONSOR Gary Masching told potential signers that these animals were "wild game" protected under art.11 Sec. 27 of the NDCC which deals with the "wild" big game animals here in ND avalible to the public to hunt, rather then them being privately owned domestic animals defined in Sec 36.1of the NDCC as he admits to doing  WAS HE TELLING THE TRUTH?  All it requires is a simple yes or no.

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

Hardwaterman Said:
No matter how many times you guys ask why is it the color green when everybody knows it is colored  purple. It changes absolutely nothing! YOU simply are looking for something to spin.

Once again Ron, same wording twice maybe you can understand  now.  Just copy and paste the answers to gst questions you say were answered.  If you can't you must be lieing.    
.................................................................................................................................................... 

It seems you  (Ron) are the only one that can find the answers to the questions that have been posted by Jim H, all you have to do do is copy and paste them IF they are there.

I think Tim is asking for the sponors to come forward and answer the questions is part of the procces to determine a vote made on facks not emotion

.

If you copy and paste the answers that you say are there that would clear up all the questions, if you can't or will not that clears up even more questions.

Maybe Ladd can find and copy and posts JIm H answeres?

Ron do you believe everything Dick Monson and Roger Kaseman say?  If you see the dates on a lot of Dicks sites he uses it is as You say "old crap".

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09
Ron Gilmore wrote:GO home with your ball gst, if something is purple and you are told it is purple, you can keep asking why it is green all you want and it changes nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ron Gilmore wrote:gst take your ball and go home! You have had them answered and simply do not like the response so you claim it was not answered. If you want to continue this then say I am not in agreement! !

The above are two posts by Ron on Nodak. And the following is my reply.

Ron all I am doing is questioning the intent and consequences of a potential state law and how the sponsors of this new law are going about acheiving their agenda. And also expecting the creation of law to be held to a standard of factual truth. By your insistance that I take my ball and go home, thus forfeit my right and duty to publically ask questions of an opposing nature when it comes to the creation of the laws that govern us, it be comes clear to see the mentality of the people behind wanting to take choices away from other people, that are sponsoring and supporting this measure.

It is becoming clear the sponsors and supporters of this measure do not want questions asked nor will they be answered.

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

sportsman | Said:
pber, thanks for posting that link. It was very informative. I have some observations and a couple questions. So gst et al don't have to read the ramblings, I will just bold the questions.

I found out HSUS and the Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights both oppose internet hunting. Even though some on here have said they would agree it should be covered under property rights. How is agreeing with HSUS and further banning that form of hunting different than High Fence?

Seriously sportsman?  Internet hunting is a different beast.  It is something never once thought of by man until technology made it possible.  But if you want to lump internet hunting into the same conversation as slaughter of domesticated livestock then I guess you can...and can make an argument.  But I think we both know it is a whole different item and is something very few people support.  There are many more things at play with this high fence stuff than just ethics.  Perhaps that is the best way for me to say this, internet hunting is almost all about ethics and high fence is more than just ethics (the consequences anyway).

Game preserve owners are against and do not use any growth hormones on their animals. Who controls whether or not hormones are used? Is it an ethical or regulated issue?

Good question and unfortunately I cannot answer.  Perhaps Fritz or anothr person who is in the high fence industry can answer it better.  I don't know if there is regulation on cloning or horomones.  I guess there isn't anything against artifical insemination because it is used commonly in the livestock industry.  Or maybe there is, I am not sure?  From an ethics standpoint I support the restriction of horomones but is it something that is legal or right to restrict?  Again, an open question and I don't think you'll be able to get a concrete answer.

"Wide open spaces providing the animal the ability to escape and good terrain with a challenging layout are all offered by these landowners."
If the animals can "escape" how can these places offer 100% success?

I don't believe these operations are fair chase.  I also think they'd be better off not claiming to be.  But I will say this, the large multi section operations like in Montana might be more of a fair chase situation.  Even though, like I said, these operations would be better off not claiming to be fair chase.

"Game preserves are highly regulated by the ND Board of Animal Health and fences are monitored with the same kind of diligence any rancher uses to keep tabs on his fences." I see cattle outside fences quite regularly. Is this the same diligence? Not that I knock a landowner who has a downed fence now and then or a calf or two get out but if High Fence opperations want to draw the parallel it will draw unneeded attention to ranchers.

Well, I think you are stretching it here.  They are more regulated than cattle or horses.  And if their animals are out they will be heavily fined.  Animals may all be terminated.  But as mentioned before, someone asked for examples.  That I cannot provide but I'm guessing the animal board of ND could.  I'd suggest contacting them.  Or again, maybe Fritz or someone can.  By the way, in my neck of the woods (New Town) we deal with cattle out of fences for months at a time.  That is not bull but it is a diffferent situation with the lands we live next to.  Different ideas on responsibility if you catch my drift.

"If passed, this measure will prevent game producers from sending their livestock to market for slaughter and sale. " How will it prevent this? Do you think the legislature will word it to prevent these animals from being slaughtered?

There is a restriction where the owner is not able to sell the animal.  I do not know the whole process of "slaughter" so I don't now if this law gets in the way of selling the animal to another person or what.  The way the initiative reads the animal cannot be killed by fee.  A play on words...probably.

"The health of the game on hunting preserves is protected by the North Dakota Board of Animal Health." How EXACTLY does the NDBOAH protect the health of animals? How frequently is each facility inspected? Are they random or scheduled inspections?

What issue do you have with that statement?  You want to know what exactly?  Well, I can't give that to you but I bet any cattle producer can or any high fence person.  You give vaccinations as required, etc.  Just like any cattle operation or horses owned by people they are held to animal cruelty stipulations.  If you don't feed or water them you will be in big trouble once it is reported.  I don't think we have the staff on hand to go around checking on every cattle, horse, sheep, goat or high fence operation.  My guess though, is the paperwork trail on the high fence operations is greater than those of "normal" livestock producers.

Again, perhaps calling the ND board would be best.  Or have Fritz or some other cattleman answer the question.  To me is seems pretty straight-forward and I'm not sure if "exactly" is really relevant or matters but I guess you must know.

Again, thanks for the information but unfortunately it raises more questions than answers. And due to the Pro High Fence groups belief in answering questions directly, I expect full direct answers to all my questions pouring in from several posters.

Thanks.


 

 

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,

I should make it evident I am not on the property rights group either.  I was merely answering as a normal joe just like you framed your questions.  As we both can see (and have been told) it is up to us to contact the BoAH and I suppose the Stockmans or whomever on the requirements of fencing for high fence operations.  That was  good point by pber and one I should have thought of.  Normal cattle producers pretty much do as they wish.  I guess that's why we have cattle running free weeks at a time where I grew up .


 

 

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 it is not OK for cattle to run at large, owner is responsible for damages and costs incurred to corral them. If I hit a cow or horse with my vehicle, the owner of the animal foots the repair costs and medical bills if nessasary. If an animal gets into another herd damages to that herd follow the same path.

So my question of you is who will foot the bill for damages to the animlas in the wild as a result of a geneticlly altered elk or deer bred to produce large antlers but carries genetics that will negatively impact the wild population? Will the producer of said animal stand the same liablity?

Maybe as you say Fritz can tell us that? One only needs to look at the G&F reports to know that these 'TAME" elk and deer are not being kept inside all the time.

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

hard,

I know but I'm here to tell you they are not held to the same standards as the high fence folks.

Will give you a jingle next year and you can come take a peek.

Oh and yeah, don't worry, the insurance man has been out plenty looking at crop damages.  But to be honest, for the longest time the nice neighbor mentality was used.  Not so much anymore.  It has become a common issue now a days.  You'd think the insurance man would start to say "hey" to his client.


 

 

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

 

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

Tim Sandstrom Said:

sportsman | Said:

I found out HSUS and the Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights both oppose internet hunting. Even though some on here have said they would agree it should be covered under property rights. How is agreeing with HSUS and further banning that form of hunting different than High Fence?

Seriously sportsman?  Internet hunting is a different beast.  It is something never once thought of by man until technology made it possible.  But if you want to lump internet hunting into the same conversation as slaughter of domesticated livestock then I guess you can...and can make an argument.  But I think we both know it is a whole different item and is something very few people support.  There are many more things at play with this high fence stuff than just ethics.  Perhaps that is the best way for me to say this, internet hunting is almost all about ethics and high fence is more than just ethics (the consequences anyway).

Tim, thanks for the response. However I don't think you can write this off as being different just because it involves "technology". I am not sure how long ago High Fence Shooting started in ND but it is fairly recent in the grand scheme of things. I believe the comparison is valid based on two arguements the HF supporters have made
1. If HSUS is for banning something we as sportsmen should band together to allow it. Just like bdog says, if you don't like internet hunting, don't do it.
2. It is a method of killing an animal called hunting that most sportsmen don't agree with and would not call hunting. Just like "High Fence Hunting". However, when I asked who would support mandating truth in their advertising and not calling it hunting, there was no support for that either.

I highly doubt we will have much success harassing and ridiculing the customers as you suggest Tim.

pber, can you provide a link or information that shows internet hunting is illegal in the US? All my research has shown the proposed bill died several years ago on the House floor.

It's not that bad.

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

It is pretty much as far as I know illegal in most states.  The bill probably died as there is no reason to make a bill for something that DOES NOT EXIST and is not happening. 

We might as well make a law that we can't use bazookas and grenades to hunt. 

As bdog said, if you are against this measure please help out.  Put out signs, talk to people, help educate them on what this measure could do to our livestock industry, write letters to the editor. 

Game farms have been in our state for decades and are utilized by the elderly and handicapped. Let’s not cripple our ag industry by placing a poorly worded measure into our livestock section of the North Dakota Century Code targeting the killing of an animal in or released from any manmade enclosure.  Please protect property rights and vote NO on measure #2.  

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

I am voting No on #2 and I wouldn't hunt HF, unless it's TRNP or a Buffalo hunt. I just believe in policing myself. I don't need another law messing with my freedom to decide for myself what's best for me.

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

bdog Said:
I am voting No on #2 and I wouldn't hunt HF, unless it's TRNP or a Buffalo hunt. I just believe in policing myself. I don't need another law messing with my freedom to decide for myself what's best for me.

Are you sure Hardwaterman and Roger Kaseman don't  know what is better and more ethical than you?   

 

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

sportsman | Said:

Tim, thanks for the response. However I don't think you can write this off as being different just because it involves "technology". I am not sure how long ago High Fence Shooting started in ND but it is fairly recent in the grand scheme of things. I believe the comparison is valid based on two arguements the HF supporters have made
1. If HSUS is for banning something we as sportsmen should band together to allow it. Just like bdog says, if you don't like internet hunting, don't do it.
2. It is a method of killing an animal called hunting that most sportsmen don't agree with and would not call hunting. Just like "High Fence Hunting". However, when I asked who would support mandating truth in their advertising and not calling it hunting, there was no support for that either.

I highly doubt we will have much success harassing and ridiculing the customers as you suggest Tim.

pber, can you provide a link or information that shows internet hunting is illegal in the US? All my research has shown the proposed bill died several years ago on the House floor.

I agree, in simple terms you are right, if you don't like it don't do it.  But it is more than that.  Internet hunting probably goes against some sort of interstate commerce law.  I don't know, I'm making that up but it seems like it could be.  Lets just pretend I never said anything about technology.  Instead focus solely on the last part of my paragraph.  This shooting with the internet was never a viable industry nor had any type of tangible property issues or business issues.  It is basically seen by everyone as wrong.

Here's some info for you:
 
As of August 2008, forty U.S. states had enacted laws or regulations to ban internet hunting.[4]  These bans were supported by a Humane Society campaign, and according to the organization, internet hunting is no longer being practiced.[3] Critics say Internet hunting never existed as a viable industry, making much of the legislation curtailing it "a testament to public alarm over Internet threats and the gilded life of legislation that nobody opposes".[5] Advocates see the legislation as a proactive measure that may yet curb the practice, which could easily spring up in states or other countries where it is not prohibited.

As for not thinking educating the public about fair chase would work.  Well, I very strongly disagree.  Heck, it is how our hunting and fishing traditions are defined.  It is how our NDGF rules and regs are created.  It is why Teddy Roosevelt and the Boone & Crockett club is praised.  The list goes on.  To tell me it won't work is telling me that everything else good in the name of fair chase hunting and fishing tradition is born from thin air.

It will work.  And already has.  That's why many don't see it as fair chase.  Some still are able to cling to it as being fair chase because of huge acre chunks and those who are elderly or disabled.  It gives them an opportunity.  I still don't accept it as fair chase in my opinion and most don't but I cannot 100% agree it is not fair chase (such circumstances).  Plus, the aspects of this law and wiggle room I believe exists.

Educate the public about fair chase and it will continue to progress our hunting and fishing heritages.  It has more than proven itself as effective and will continue to do so.  Perhaps the best example is North Dakota does not have a law or regulation against internet hunting.  Why?  Quite obviously no one believes in it and well, no law was created either.  Education works.

Laws are forceful.  Pure and simple.  We'll find out come November if others feel that way.

 


 

 

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

 

 
Db's picture
Db
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 9/11/09

thanks Tim. Teachng school those years. Putting up with school boards, parents, administrators, coaches.  I have began to write my memoirs and thought that teaching young minds was one positive part of it.  But then being told it did not work.  I was resolved to the fact the only good part of my life was drinking the same brand of beer since 1966.  Wew, thanks again db

Db

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

Pretty sure I said harassing and ridiculing would not work, nothing about teaching. But read/spin it how you want...

It's not that bad.

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

Pretty sure I said the same thing in the post you asked me to write (I went and checked...page 16 I specifically say educate).

I also answered why I wouldn't support putting in a law that said they couldn't call it hunting.  I do believe I also suggested reading gsts post why it wouldn't be wise.


 

 

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

 

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

db Said:

People we need to focus on the issue of the vote.  People like sportsman love to divert us from that issue by discussion on other topics that our controversial.  Do not let him.  People want to hear about the measure and what it will do. Not about our bigotry.  It does not matter who the sponsor is or if internet hunting is an acceptable form of hunting at this point.  It is late in the game.  The focus needs to be on the vote and how to inform people so they can make a sound decision basic on their own ability to reason.  I believe and have found most people will vote no if given both sides of the story.  I do trust the people of ND.  Go back to page one and post #2 by beedogg.  It is what we need now.  Take up the fight again on other issues after the vote.  thanks  db

db, it appears the sponsors are more than willing to let these people come on these sites and distract the discussion from what should be truthful facts regarding the formation of state law. It is appearing the comments made by espringers in regards to why they will not answer a handful of simple questions posed is spot on. It's funny how if you ask people if they believe state law should be based on factual truth most all will say yes, but in regards to this particular measure most supporters will not hold it or the sponsors to that standard.

I hope people will do as you say and move beyond these outdoor sites to provide a little truth in regards to this measure and educate people as to the driving force behind it.

Pages