North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner

Fair Chase

67K views 252 replies 26 participants last post by  gst 
#1 ·
Secretary of State approved the Fair Chase Measure today.

13,860 people signed the petition.

13,860 peopla can't be wrong.

Measure 2.

How sweet it is!

Dwight, how do you like me now?

Roger Kaseman
 
#5 ·
KurtR said:
Just like any other liberal dont like some thing lets ban it and try and f'up hunting and the outdoors in the long run.
Weak argument......I really could care less if some yahoo wants to pay 1,000's of dollars to shoot a domesticated animal.But Canned Shooting has no more to do with hunting than shooting someone's cow in a pasture.So lets not call it hunting.

Is there really anyone who thinks banning this practice will affect the future of hunting?????? :eyeroll: :eyeroll:
 
#6 ·
Ken,

Let me ask you this. Because you think that it MAY affect the future of hunting in North Dakota, do you think that it is your right to take someone's legal business away from them without compensating them? Is this the way we want government to work? Do we want initiative processes used in this manner, especially when it becomes a personal vendetta!
 
#7 ·
Ken can speak for himself, but I will weigh in on this topic.

I will say from the top that I agree with the Fair Chase Measure. However, Roger's comment to Dwight at the top of this page is not needed. Roger, this is not the place to air your personal conflicts with people from the opposite side of the Fair Chase Measure. It would be nice if you deleted that line from your post because it only fuels the fire and makes it harder to have an objective approach to an answer.

The iniative process is doing exactly as it was intended to do. The people of ND will now decide if high fence, canned shooting should be allowed in the state.

One more thing.....I have followed the threads and comments about this issue for a long time. It ALWAYS get personal, and gets off topic. I will not be caught in this web.
 
#8 ·
Ref said:
It would be nice if you deleted that line from your post because it only fuels the fire and makes it harder to have an objective approach to an answer..
I would imagine a few of the sponsors probably agree with you on that, at least 1 or 2 of them that hang around here anyways, I don't know......Either way, deleting the comment now won't do any good, as it's already posted on Fishing Buddy and posted in another thread on this site.

It just reinforces the fact that this has been turned into a "personal vendetta", and comments such as the one above may cause a person to reconsider whether or not this Roger Kaseman guy is the best guy to have creating laws for ND.
 
#9 ·
Weak argument......I really could care less if some yahoo wants to pay 1,000's of dollars to shoot a domesticated animal.But Canned Shooting has no more to do with hunting than shooting someone's cow in a pasture.So lets not call it hunting.

Is there really anyone who thinks banning this practice will affect the future of hunting??????
Ken....and others. If you could care less if someone will pay the $$$ then why ban the business? If you are worried about people calling it "hunting" then make restrictions on advertising. Other business and industries have to adhere to strict advertising laws....why not this one?

Then if you think that banning this practice has no affect on hunting.....then why ban it?
 
#11 ·
Blhunter,

Most states that have bans or restrictions have made those BEFORE game farms were established and promoted by the state. Montana is the only one as far as I know that used an initiated process to get rid of high fence hunting and the transfer of their business to another party, even willing it to their children, without any form of compensation to the businesses.

Now, from what I am hearing, their are attempts in Montana to use the initiated process to ban other forms of hunting. Initiated measures are loved by the antis as their means to step by step take away forms of hunting.

Do we really want to use the initiated measure to take away businesses without compensation? Do we really want to use initiated measures to take away forms of hunting or to take away forms of agriculture?

I believe we will have Mr. Kaseman to thank for creating the "mold" in how to go about using the initiated measure to accomplish just that. When one person can collect approximately 8500 signatures by themselves, I have to wonder where we are headed with the creation of laws!
 
#13 ·
Because penned in shooting is what the anti's have started focusing in their attacks towards it.

There have been other states who banned it and nothing bad has happened to them, has it?
So making it illegal to advertise penned shooting or high fence operators from using the word "hunting" will make it so anti's can't call it "hunting". So hunting will not have anything to worry about. When an anti starts to spout off about High fence operations calling it hunting...anyone can just point to it and say....it is not hunting show me where in the advertising it is hunting? Agruement is over! It is like if I said that brown soda in a glass is pepsi....you tell me it is coke. I have an a leg to stand on. But if you have an open can of coke sitting right there. I really don't have a leg to stand on in the arguement. The old saying if it walks like and duck, quack likes a duck.....must be a duck. If you call it penned shooting, they advertise it as shooting, all it is is shooting.
 
#14 ·
I bet less than 100 citizens in ND that actualy hunt in ND. Most just sit there untill something comes past them they can shoot or they walk up to something they can shoot. In any case either way is not really hunting.
 
#15 ·
I fully understand what your saying about my arguement, but both sides of this arguement have good and bad points, so much so that I believe that neither side is right and neither side is wrong.

The hunter in me wants this passed because shooting an animal in a pen isn't hunting, its stricly shooting. If you want meat go to a store.

The future land in me doesn't want this passed because I dislike the fact someone is controlling what you are doing on your land.

If all they did was change the advertising to "penned in hunts", I would approve of that, but I think its way to late to meet somewhere in the middle.
 
#16 ·
I fully understand what your saying about my arguement, but both sides of this arguement have good and bad points, so much so that I believe that neither side is right and neither side is wrong.

The hunter in me wants this passed because shooting an animal in a pen isn't hunting, its stricly shooting. If you want meat go to a store.

The future land in me doesn't want this passed because I dislike the fact someone is controlling what you are doing on your land.

If all they did was change the advertising to "penned in hunts", I would approve of that, but I think its way to late to meet somewhere in the middle.
Good post... and that is where lies the problem. To let you know it is alot easier to change advertising than it is to ban an industry.

This ban will also hurt or get rid of elk farming.....unless the law is written different than what I have seen. Because what I have read is that this "ban" will make it unlawful to kill animals in an enclosure if it is done by someone other than the owner. Or you can't sell the animal to be shot by someone else in an enclosure.....So now the owner of Elk farms will now have to become butchers. Because they cant sell the elk to a butcher or processer who will kill them in an enclosure (kill Chute). Or the animals will have to be killed then shipped to processing. Which will cost more $$$.
 
#23 ·
Chuck I really don't know the answer to that, but I do believe there aremore people raising elk that are not involved in the HF deal than are. But remember selling "hunts" for buffalo within a fence are not included in this measure as apparently shooting a buffalo behind a fence and calling it and advertising it as hunting is not an ethical concern to these protectors of hunnting! :roll:

Bl, One thing to consider is the fact this law (claiming these animals are "big game")will be included in Sec 36 of the NDCC. This Section currently defines these animals as "domestic animals and farmed elk" there will have to be a reclassificaion of these animals if this measure is to be effective. If these animals are reclassified as "big game" if this measure passes they will then fall under the juristiction of the Federal Lacey Act which prohibits the sale of big game animals in accordance with state law. This state law is written to specifically make it illegal for an individual to receive a fee or renumeration for the killing of a "big game animal" raised or released from a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape (no mention of hunting) which the Federal Lacey Act will include the sale of these now classified "big game animals" even for butcher purposes. Roger Kaseman even hinted to this in the HF Frey thread himself. Now that it is on the ballot perhaps someone will come forth with a little honesty about why this is included in the agriculture Sec. of the NDCC rather than the G&F Sec. that regulates "big game". :wink: Yeah right
 
#24 ·
There are exactly 64 elk growers, 15 deer growers and 10 who raise both. Some are quite small and only have a few animals. Each and everyone of them perform some sort of cull, harvest or sale of excess animals for meat, food and/or fiber. Anyone can go to their local area farmer and pick out a nice healthy animal. Some people perfer to go this route instead of buying over the counter from a slaughterhouse.

In Canada this option has been taken from the people. They cannot do an on farm slaughter. No sheep no pigs no beef. It is banned. The law says the animal "must" go through an approved kill facility.

This measure should not be planted into the Livestock section of the NDCC. It could prove to be a virus someday down the road.
 
#25 ·
So help me understand what you're saying gst. If this measure passes the livestock will be re named to "big game", therfore, renaming all elk raised in a pasture, be it for canned shooting or meat? Furthermore, once they are all renamed to "big game", the Lacey Act will prohibit an elk farmer from legalling selling a cow elk to somebody for butcher????

So more than the 12 HF operations in the state will be affected by this? You can basically add the approx 100 families on the above list to people affected by this initiative, is that correct?
 
#26 ·
Time out Please

Now that the issue will be on the ballot you are not going to change the minds of most whether for or against.

Please leave it go till after the vote then the winning team (not the correct words) can come back and go

Nana nana boo boo :poke: :bop: and start this up all over again :puke:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top