Nodak Outdoors Hunting & Fishing Forums

[Longshot]

Thanks for the information DG. I will have to look into that some more.

[gst]

The problem with these issues, is most times no one wants to be honest about what is driving them. And this group North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is a perfect example. Their lack of a willingness to come on these outdoor/hunting sites with this issue, at the same time they are going to the nonhunting public thru other forms of media should make all hunters stop and ask why.

The thing about ethics is once a group of people not involved in the management of game animals are allowed to impose what they consider ethical, where does it stop. This group is all about "fair chase", but yet they pick and choose which types of "hunting" they want to include under this "fair chase" standard. Once the hunting community allows this to happen, where does it stop. As Plainsman aluded to it seems hunters are all too willing to sell each other out if they don't participate in a particular form of hunting, and justify it by claiming they are "protecting" hunting itself. Hardly a very good game plan if we are to keep these anti hunting groups from incrementaly picking away at these forms of taking animals that may not be as "popular or acceptable" as others.

Does anyone think this group NDH for FC or the anti hunting groups like HSUS or PETA will stop when they are successful with this one issue?
For people like this that want to impose their agendas onto someone else, there is always something else. These HF operations have been here in ND for years and the nonhunting public has really cared less. No one outside of this group and groups like HSUS have even mentioned them in a negative fashion. The fact that a group of "hunters" are willing to take the same path as anti hunting groups and give them a platform to further their agendas here in ND is beyond what I believe is in the best interest of all hunting.

[gst]

longshot, I too don't veiw these HF operations as what I consider "hunting". I've said all along, I veiw this as someone raising a form of livestock that someone is willing to pay a larger sum of money for. If I could find some putz to come and pay me 5 grand to shoot a steer in my pasture I'd let them. What is the difference, ANTLERS and the very scoring and record keeping thru the Boone and Crocket org. that these NDH for FC folks use as their bible as to why it should be banned. So rather than painting it in such a negative light and attemptig to ban it and opening the door to these anti hunting groups such as HSUS and PETA, why not "educate" the portion of the public that may have a concern rather than banning it under all these other pretenses.

But thats not the concern of this group, look at how they are going about it on their website. They claim that animals are shot in the guts or hind quarters and left to die so the "cape" isn't ruined. How long before a portion of the nonhunting public wonders if other "hunters" do this in the wild as well. There are several examples of this irresponsible rhetoric being used by this group just to accomplish their agenda and at what cost. And yet they claim to be "protectng hunting" ????

[Longshot]

That is the point. These HF operations have already opened the doors to these anti hunting groups such as HSUS and PETA. I believe that most people in the larger cities that don't hunt do think this is the norm when it comes to hunting. I don't think educating them is going to do anything. I believe it to be unethicalas many do and educating them doesn't change that.

[gst]

There is a certain percentage of the public that will always veiw the taking of any animals life as unethical, and this is the group we have to stand united against to protect our sport. There is another percentage of the public that can be educated as to what takes place in various forms of hunting and why they exist that will accept that when it is presented in a factual, truthful manner, and these are the people that need to be educated to protect our sport.

Please tell me where the line starts and stops. If killing an elk inside a fence is unethical, is killing a steer inside a fence unethical as well? What makes one acceptable and one not? Simply because one is called hunting and the other is not?? If it is not called "hunting" is killing this elk inside a fence then ethical and acceptable? Once this line is crossed, where will it stop. If you don't want one to be caled hunting, fine, work to get these operations to change how they advertise, ect...... But to ban the killing of these animals inside a fence is the first step down a slippery slope that as ranchers we are constantly fighting.

[Chuck Smith]

I have chimmed in on this before....

But what my take on this subject is most people are not liking these opertions calling it "hunting". Because most people don't care if they shoot or harvest a steer. This is the same thing....live stock being killed.

So to draw a clear line that these operations are not hunting. One should try to ban or keep HF opertions from using words like "hunting, heritage, sporting, etc. But instead make them advertise with "penned shooting, high fenced, non wild animals, domestic elk herd, etc."

Then a line is drawn. It is not hunting....it is shooting.

Other industry's have restrictions on words they can use in advertising. So can this industry.

If others don't think that this is what it boils down too is words.....look deeper. Because if you don't care a cow, pig, chicken, elk, deer, etc are killed in pens for restaurant business. Then why should you care someone pays to go shoot one in a pen.

[barebackjack]

[DG]

I see Dakota Country magazine did another high fence article in its Nov. issue. What's interesting is that Mike McEnroe finally stepped out in the open and spoke in the piece. Mike is a retired federal agent from the USFWS and is the lobbyist for the wildlife society. Everybody who is anybody knows the HF issue is his baby. For years Mike has been calling the plays from the sidelines but he is going to have to start quarterbacking this thing because co-chairs Kaseman and Masching have no credibility.

However on his first play he sent a mixed signal. In the article he said every two years 200,000 dollars of sportsmens money goes from the game and fish to the Board of Animal Health to regulate this industry. Not a big fat lie but one just the same. True, $200,000 goes from the g/f to the BoAH to regulate non-traditional livestock. Mike was talking about domestic elk and led unsuspecting people to believe the whole $200,000 goes to regulate deer/elk farms. So what is an NTL?

The original intent of using Game & Fish funding was to assist with funding all nontraditional species related activities conducted by the Board of Animal
Health. Some of the responsibilities were previously regulated by the Game & Fish. When this transfer of regulatory duties from G&F to BoAH happened there was money that came with it. Over the years it incrementally crept up to about $200,000.

According to the Century Code, the categories of nontraditional livestock include:

Category 1 includes turkeys, geese, and ducks morphologically distinguishable from wild turkeys, geese, ducks, pigeons, mules, donkeys, a$$es, ratites, chinchilla, guinea fowl, ferrets, ranch foxes, ranch mink, peafowl, all pheasants, quail chukar, hedgehog, and degus.

Category 2 includes all nondomestic ungulates, including all deer, (cervidae) and pronghorn, nondomestic cats, waterfowl, shorebirds, upland 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, opposums, prairie dogs, and other ground squirrels.

Category 3 includes all wild species of family suidae except swine considered domestic in North Dakota by BoAH, 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.

Now then, Mike McEnroe knows better. There was a house bill 1210 legislative session 2009 which was worded very poorly and stated the deer/elk growers would get no state or federal funding to pay for any regulation. It failed. Mike was the only one present who supported it. And his water boy who wasn't there.

Last year in an attempt to turn public opinion against the elk growers Dick Monson, sponsor and current sponsor, desperately tried to sell the hunting public on the idea that the whole 200,000 was being used to subsidize deer/elk farms.

He said on FBO: “and the fact that $200,000 of sportsman license money from the NDGF budget was appropriated to subsidize the ND canned shooting industry last legislative session. If it is private property, let them pay for it privately.”

This is his story at the Jamestown Public Forum: “Let the game ranches pay their own way as a private business, instead of using hunter license money. It seems unconscionable to me that the first 5000 deer licenses sold every year should subsidize the canned shooting industry.”

OK, HB 1210 failed but there was a meeting between the Office of Budget and Management, Board of Animal Health, and Game and Fish, and money was appropriated from the general fund directly to Board of Animal Health instead of to Game and Fish to pay for the regulation of deer/elk farms, which involved simply moving the money from the left hip pocket to the right. I do not know the dollar amount but I'm sure Mike does.

All this has been taken care of and now Mike McEnroe goes right back and repeats the same lie in Dakota Country magazine. At what point does this become harrassment or civil libel? By resorting to these types of tactics Mike and the wildlife society are giving our wildlife professionals a black eye.

fair chase/no traction

[barebackjack]

[gst]

longshot, when you say HF operators have already opened the door to groups like HSUS, it is no different than if you say ranchers or hog operations or turkey farms or even hunters pursueing wild game have already opened the door to groups like HSUS. These orgs. have an agenda to end the use of any animals by humans regardless of the industry particularily when the animals life is ended. This measure is actively giving them a voice here in ND. So please explain to me the difference.

I guess it is easier for this group to put their agenda across in a onesided magazine article that doesn't offer anyone a way to debate this issue than it is to come on sites like this where the very hunters this group claims to be speaking for can respond themselves.

[Dick Monson]

Gabe before you ask for a debate you should read the measure. "Hunting" isn't mentioned. Just so you know.
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.

And the venerable DG comes swinging his little popsicle stick accusing Mr. McEnroe of "hiding in the shadows". This from someone who will only use his initials. Self explanatory.

You boys do a great job for us. Many thanks.

[gst]

Dick nice to see you join the debate. My mentioning of this being called "hunting" was not about what was written in the measure ,but directed towards responding to more than one persons suggestion HF be called something other than hunting which wouldn't bother me much at all. If you are going to enter the debate, please read what is written.

I see you chose to post the measure. Thats a good first step in joining the debate!! Now if you will only answer some questions, any of the several that have been posed on this site and others. Lets start out with an easy one.

Number 1 question.If what you wrote in red is deisgned to follow your "fair chase rules" you believe real hunting is to be done under as the basis of this measure to "protect" the future of real hunting from the publics negative perception of these game farms, why were upland game preserves not included in this measure? What is done on these gamebird preserves is EXACTLY what you wrote in red. Birds are killed after obtaining fees or other renumeration from another person after being released from a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape. Apparently your group feels they are who gets to determine what is hunting "fair chase" and ethical, and the rest of us just have to go along I guess???

Number 2 question. Who determines what is an "exotic mammal"??? Pretty vaugue and inclusive wording! Some might believe the bison to be an "exotic mammal" to be included in this ban! Once again, this apparently falls under your groups all knowing determination and the rest of us just have to agree.

For some of us this debate is about getting the actual facts out there to be discussed, not just coming on these sites with inuendos, half truthes and cheap shots. So I'll just keep it to these TWO simple questions that have been asked repeatedly so you don't have too many to answer.

[DG]

Dick,

You are wrong. The word "hunting" is mentioned. You only listed Sec. 1 Don't forget Section 2, listed in an article submitted by you in Dakota Country October 2007 edition:

If approved by the voters, this measure becomes effective Nov. 1, 2010. This Fair Chase intiated measure has three main sections.

1. It prohibits canned shooting of big game species in escape proof fences for compensation.

2. It provides the same for exotic non-native mammals like Russian wild boar and foreign antelope, etc.

3. It prohibits the computer controlled remotely activated firing devices used in Texas style canned shooting. That is the personel computer canned "hunting" that has outraged the nation.

Dick, Making high fence hunting synonymous with computer hunting was very clever. Your federal handlers who wrote the measure are almost genius. Amost!!

You see, internet hunting doesn't exist, it never did. So why write a measure to ban something that doesn't exist? I wonder how many people were duped?

Last year when the HF folly was in high gear I was talking to a banker about this issue and asked where the banks are on it. Because if the property owner has his options removed on his property and their vested interest also, how would the operaters then repay the loan? He took it to the N.D. Bankers Association. Some of the members heard this measure was in part to ban internet hunting. Dick your lying propaganda was working. But not anymore.

Little popsicle stick eh??? More like tongue suppressor. Say AAHHHH

suppressor defined: to check the flow or discharge of.

fair chase/no traction

[DG]

Chuck Smith,

Your idea of not calling it hunting almost sounds reasonable. Almost, but no can do. On a Humane Society blogspot, they were talking about the moment elk deer buffalo owners fall for that one they (HSUS) will bring forth The Humane Slaughter Act. Check it out.

This is taken from an HSUS blogspot in 2007:

AN ADVOCATES HANDBOOK TO END CANNED HUNTING

Critics of this ballot measure (fair chase) raise questions of property rights. They claim that the animals are not taken from the wild, but instead raised in captivity, and are therefore not the property of the state.The animals at canned hunting areas are purchased or reared by the landowners and are raised like livestock. Since these animals are regulated like livestock, critics claim the issue of hunting is mute. They further argue that it is not within the power of the government to encroach upon the rights of the private landowners. It should be noted, however, that if the landowners want the "livestock" to be removed from the considerations of hunting, then the federal Humane Slaughter Act should apply to the taking of individual members from the canned hunting areas. Application of the Humane Slaughter Act would require the captive animals be "rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or by other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter."75 If enforced, this could effectively shut down canned hunting areas, as compliance with the Act would be virtually impossible.

Chuck Smith, Our mutual friend Dick says buffalo are not included in the measure and exotics according to him means russian boar. Check out USDA definitions.

http://origin-www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/PHVt-Humane_Handling.pdf

Exotic species
Exotic animals (voluntary inspection) are covered under 9 CFR 352.10. This section includes regulatory guidance that addresses humane handling during antemortem inspection and stunning practices to render the animals unconscious. 9 CFR Part 352.10 states that “Humane handling of an exotic animal during antemortem inspection shall be in accordance with the provisions contained in 9 CFR 313.2”, and 9 CFR Part 352.10 (a)(5) states that “Stunning to render the animals unconscious shall be in accordance with 313.15 or 313.16.”
Livestock specified by 9 CFR 352 include antelope, bison, buffalo, catalo (cattalo), and deer. Additionally, exotic animals are defined by 9 CFR 352.1(k) as any reindeer, elk, deer, antelope, water buffalo or bison.
If you have questions or concerns about repetitive noncompliances or egregious violations with exotic animal humane handling and slaughter, contact the DVMS. Although we cannot take action under the Rules of Practice, 9 CFR 500.3(b), these issues can be effectively addressed.

Chuck, clear as mud right?
Just got off the phone with the pres. of the N.D. Buffalo Assoc. He met the FC group once. Can't repeat here what he said.

[gst]

Dick, I told a little fib, I actually have one more question for you to answer. Under this measure will the owner of the deer or elk, or what ever else you choose to include in this ban, be able to shoot the animal themselves? You took the first step in joining this debate, please continue by answering these 3 questions if you would.

[laite319]

I am not exactly sure what good it would do, but I would like to hear the answers to the questions also. There are some decent points made there!

[gst]

Out of 20 some sponsors, you think one would come on here to answer any of the questions posed, but apparently not.

I did notice something on the wildlife clubs thread that was some what of a surprise to me. Dick Monson posted a flyer advertising their big buck contest where they are paying cash prizes for the biggest buck, the juniors are even elgible for the top cash prize. For someone so adamantly against the commercialization of hunting I was surprised Dick would support his club doing this. I guess he reserves the right to choose his own ethics while trying to impose his onto others. I wonder how some of the gurus of "fair chase hunting" he quotes in his comments would veiw these contests with their cash prizes.

[KEN W]

[jhegg]

I, Jim Heggeness, am a sponsor of the initiated measure banning high fence shooting of big game animals. I am a sponsor because I think calling these operations “hunting” is a prostitution of the very meaning of hunting as defined by fair chase rules.

DG and gst, under the cover of anonymity, have been trying on this website to confuse the issues involved from the get-go. They ask why a sponsor won’t answer the questions they pose. Well, here I am and here are some answers. These answers are mine and mine alone. Other sponsors can speak for themselves.

Rest assured; however, DG and gst already know the these answers. They are just blowing smoke and trying to confuse the issue. If anyone wants to discuss this with me further, send me a pm, and I will give you my phone number – then we can talk.

Questions asked by gst:

1. “longshot, when you say HF operators have already opened the door to groups like HSUS, it is no different than if you say ranchers or hog operations or turkey farms or even hunters pursueing wild game have already opened the door to groups like HSUS. These orgs. have an agenda to end the use of any animals by humans regardless of the industry particularily when the animals life is ended. This measure is actively giving them a voice here in ND. So please explain to me the difference.”
 Please explain how this measure enlists the support of HSUS. We, just like you, do not control what they (HSUS) do or do not support.

2. “…why were upland game preserves not included in this measure?”
 Why should they be? If you want them to be included, start your own measure.

3. “Who determines what is an "exotic mammal"???”
 You’re answer is here, but I’m sure you already knew that. Bison are not mentioned: http://www.associatedcontent.c.....tml?cat=17

4. “Under this measure will the owner of the deer or elk, or what ever else you choose to include in this ban, be able to shoot the animal themselves?”
 The prohibition is against collecting a monetary fee for shooting the animal, NOT for shooting the animal.

DG:
1. Dick, Making high fence hunting synonymous with computer hunting was very clever. Your federal handlers who wrote the measure are almost genius. Amost!! You see, internet hunting doesn't exist, it never did. So why write a measure to ban something that doesn't exist? I wonder how many people were duped?
 Exactly how is somebody being duped “by a measure to ban something that doesn't exist?” Let’s see here, I will initiate a measure making it illegal for anyone over 200 years old to drive a car. But wait, there is no law against it, so obviously (by your thinking anyway) I am duping ND residents. I think you better give it a rest!

2. To Chuck Smith: “Your idea of not calling it hunting almost sounds reasonable. Almost, but no can do. On a Humane Society blogspot, they were talking about the moment elk deer buffalo owners fall for that one they (HSUS) will bring forth The Humane Slaughter Act. Check it out.”
 Excellent b#llsh*t spin, we have to call high fence shooting “hunting” or else it would not be “humane”. Who’s sleeping with HSUS now?

[DG]

I have to admit No.3 had me scratching my head for a minute.

[quote]

3. “Who determines what is an "exotic mammal"???”
 You’re answer is here, but I’m sure you already knew that. Bison are not mentioned: http://www.associatedcontent.c.....tml?cat=17

The website you linked almost looked genuine. Written by Deborah Anderson dated August 21, 08. But it is old information. It was repealed:

http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/48-12-01.pdf

Here is the new link:

http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/48-12-01.1.pdf

There is no longer a 48-12-01-02 it is now 48-12-01.1-02

Part 4 Exempt animals. Farmed elk are exempt because they are regulated
as domestic animals under North Dakota Century Code section
36-01-00.1

While surfing for the truth I came across this same outdated material written by Deborah Anderson on the Animal Protection Institutes website:

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/b4a2_exotic_animals_state.php?s=nd

jhegg, How many bedpartners do you need?

[gst]

Ken W. No one is suggesting hunting for or shooting big deer is unethical. Dick and others have claimed HF is another way of commercializing hunting. I'm merely suggesting some may believe paying some one a cash prize for shooting an animal isn't far from it. I'm wondering what people such Aldo Leopold, Jim Posoewitz sp? and others this group has quoted under "fair chase" guidelines would think of these big buck contests????? Several hunters I know believe these big buck contests to be unethical and prostituting what the true meaning of hunting is. Should their ethics govern everyone???

jhegg, It is good too see you step up and let people know you are a sponsor. Now perhaps as such if you won't, could you have someone that actually speaks for ND Hunters for Fair Chase answer the questions for this group.
As to #1. The last time this measure was attempted one of the people on this site that was at that time a sponsor indicated that indeed the HSUS was in contact with a sponsor of the initiated measure. Wether this will happen this time in the attempt to gain enough signatures remains to be seen. While you may not be actively engaging HSUS as of yet, you are giving a sense of legitimacy to what their platform is to end all hunting one step at a time. This measure runs parrallel to EXACTLT what the HSUS is trying to do. Your agendas on this issue are one in the same.You are INVITING nonhunters to ban an activity by using a one sided aproach and mistruthes to achieve your agenda. How does this differ from HSUS's practices??
#2. If the wording of this measure Dick printed in red is the crux of why what happens in these activities must be banned, you cannot exclude gamebird preserves that do EXACTLY as the measure states and think you are "protecting the heritage of hunting". Your argument that one activity is a threat and must be banned while allowing the other to continue, show either your measure is not very well thought out, or this group is simply "picking" which activities they wish to ban based of personal preference rather than concern for the future of hunting itself. I have stated I have no personal problem with either and I have no desire to push my personal hunting ethics onto others so I have no need to start my own measure.

A couple more questions for you to answer if you would,
1.Will the owner of the animal be able to continue to sell live animals?
2. Do you believe that game bird preserves that do exactly what your measure states "is a prostitution of the very meaning of hunting as defined by fair chase rules" in regards to upland bird hunting??
3. Are Dick's insinuated "facts" presented on this site and others how your group is planning to inform the nonhunting public as to this issue???

Trying to confuse the issues???? In fact it is just the opposite. I have been calling for a representative of your group to come on these sites and start a thread dedicated to your measure to precisely discuss why you claim to be speaking for all hunters, why you think your group should be the one to dictate what ethical standards should be accepted, and how you are going about informing the nonhunting public about your measure. After quite some time at least you have admitted to being a sponsor, now if your group will only continue in this debate.

[KEN W]

A big buck contest or fishing tournamnet has nothing to do with HF hunting.Both are fair chase and no ethics involved.You are stretching to compare the 2.

And as I said.....I'm not opposed to HF hunting.If some yahoo with deep pockets wants to shoot pen raised livestock and pay big money to do it.Then call it hunting.....I could care less.Not my cup of tea.

[DG]

jhegg,

I'm having some trouble with that URL that you posted so I'll post what it says here:

http://www.associatedcontent.c.....tml?cat=17


North Dakota's Exotic Animal Laws
August 21, 2008 by Deborah Anderson Deborah Anderson Published Content: 1,202 Total Views: 1,133,422 Fans: 12 View Profile | Follow | Add to Favorites Single pageFont SizeRead comments (1) Share More topicsExotic Animal | Exotic Species | Exotic Birds | Chinchillas
North Dakota's Exotic Animal Laws explain in detail what it takes to legally possess a non-traditional pet. Two laws cover this subject and animals are categorized as a from category 1 to category 5. Individuals interested in an exotic pet in this state should become familiar with these laws and how they may or may not affect their decision.

North Dakota Administrative Code §48-12-01-02 states what animals are in the different categories. Category 1 includes turkeys, ducks, pigeons, geese, donkeys and mules. Category 2 includes emus, ostriches, chinchillas, ferrets, guinea fowls, ranch minks, ranch fox, peafowl, quail, pheasants not included in category 3, chukar and Russian lynx. Category 3 includes, deer, elk, reindeer, fallow deer, bighorn sheep, ring-necked pheasant, sichuan pheasant, Bohemian pheasant, Canadian lynx and raptors. Category 4 includes dangerous animals such as bears, lions, wolves, wolf hybrids, tigers, cats and primates. Category 5 includes any animals not listed in the previous categories, but require a certain license with requirements of issueing such license

jhegg, Look at the date that Deborah Anderson wrote this piece August 21, 08. At the time North Dakota Administrative Code §48-12-01-02 already had been repealed. Repealed effective Jan.1,07.

http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/pdf/48-12-01.pdf

Jhegg, Did you look at that Animal protection Institute URL,

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/b4a2_exotic_animals_state.php?s=nd

It has the same outdated material concerning N.D. law. What you don't know is the the animal protection institute was one of 26 anti-groups that supported I-143 in Montana. jhegg, you have bedfellows at API. Here is their positions:

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/facts.php?p=457&more=1

1. Countless wild animals are displaced by urban sprawl and habitat fragmentation, which sometimes lead to conflicts between people and wildlife.

2. Real or perceived conflicts between people and wildlife, coupled with human fear, biases, or a lack of knowledge about humane approaches to solving such conflicts, results in millions of animals being needlessly killed each year.

3. Some of the ways in which wild animals are abused or exploited by humans include sport and trophy hunting, commercial and recreational fur trapping, “nuisance” wildlife control, and lethal predator control.

4. Wild animals are also exploited in the exotic “pet” trade, the fur trade, and the entertainment industry.

5. Most Americans are opposed to the killing of wildlife in sport and trophy hunting, trapping, and the fur industry.

6. Using taxpayer money, the United States government subsidizes the egregious abuse of wildlife to benefit private or corporate interests, including commercial and recreational trapping on the National Wildlife Refuge System and the killing of native carnivores.

7. Each year, more than 2.5 million animals are killed by the federal government on public and private lands across the United States. Close to 100,000 of these animals are native carnivores, including wolves, coyotes, bears, foxes, and bobcats.

8. Methods that the U.S. government uses to kill wildlife include trapping, poisoning, aerial gunning, denning (killing coyote or fox pups in their dens), hounding, and shooting.

9. The “nuisance” wildlife control industry is lucrative, growing, and largely unregulated with little accountability or even basic humane animal care and treatment standards.

10. Most conflicts between humans and wild animals are actually “people problems” that can be resolved or prevented, often in a permanent, cost-efficient manner, by changing human behavior (such as prohibiting the intentional feeding of wildlife).

[gst]

Ken W you seem to be missing the point. No one is comparing contests to HF. It is the commercialization(involvement of money into hunting) that Dick has claimed is the problem, yet his wildlife club is paying people money if they shoot a large enough buck. I simply find that either ironic or hypocritical.

I apparently have the same attitude toward HF as yourself, not what I consider hunting but if someone else does that is their choice to make. My problem is with groups not related to the management of game animals pushing agendas and regulations based off of personal ethical choices they want to make while restricting others from having the same right. Or these groups pressuring the agencies in charge of managing game to do so based off their personal prefferences. Then when these individuals use half truthes and disingenuious statements to further their agendas, it makes it even harder not to oppose their actions.

jhegg, If your group is successful in getting enough signatures to have this on the ballot, have any of you stopped to think what HSUS will do here in the state? What will be your response when HSUS begins running ads stating HSUS and ND Hunters for Fair Chase have the same goals and are using your group in their ads??? What will be your response when HSUS twists statements and positions with ads directed toward the nonhunting public suggesting hunters themselves support their agendas??? What will be your response when HSUS sets up their booth at the state fair beside yours and claims both groups have the same agendas??? If you believe HSUS will not do thinkgs such as this to get the public to think hunters are supporting them you are mistaken so while as of now there may be no direct link to HSUS, if this moves forward I promise there will be and as a hunter, I find that very disturbing that you will overlook this simply to further a personal agenda.

[DG]

jhegg,

Being a sponser of the FC iniative is nothing to be proud of. You said:

[quote]I, Jim Heggeness, am a sponsor of the initiated measure banning high fence shooting of big game animals. I am a sponsor because I think calling these operations “hunting” is a prostitution of the very meaning of hunting as defined by fair chase rules.

I do not recognize fair chase nor do I recognize fair chase rules. It is not law!!! But there are those who wish it was. Can you imagine the power they would yield. It is whatever they say it is. In 2002 the feds tried to slip it in. Here is what the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance had to say:

Bill to Federalize Wildlife Management Fails in Senate Committee


Sportsmen's Voices Heard

October 8, 2002 (National)




(Columbus) – Legislation that could have jeopardized wildlife programs across the country by federalizing hunting laws received no action during today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Senate Bill 1655, the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act, purports to ban the hunting of exotic animals in enclosures. An amendment that was planned for the bill contained a backdoor attempt to define “fair chase” in federal law. The move would have introduced a dangerous precedent that ignores diverse hunting cultures existing in various states. It would have also opened the door for the federal government to begin regulating hunting and fishing, the jurisdiction of state governments.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and other organizations rallied sportsmen who flooded their Senators with messages opposing Senate Bill 1655. The Alliance issued calls to action and news releases urging hunter involvement. Sportsmen involvement appeared to have stopped the bill, as it saw no action and was not amended during its committee hearing.

Although the bill could still see action, it is unlikely given Congress’ focus on appropriations issues.

“Sportsmen realized the dangers that Senate Bill 1655 presented to the future of hunting,” said U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance President Bud Pidgeon. “They took immediate action on the issue and sent a clear message to their U.S. Senators. Sportsmen let their Senators know that they did not want this threatening legislation to impact their hunting heritage.”

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers nationally in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the organization, call (614) 888-4868 or visit www.ussportsmen.org.

[DG]

Hey Dick Monson I know you out there. Remember this:

[gst]

Dick, jhegg, I do have to give you credit for actually coming on these sites as one of the sponsors of this HSUS supported initiative. However it appears that you simply want to come on to state only what you want to have said, and not answer any questions regarding your positions or this measure. Nor does anyone seem willing to be the spokes person for the group ND Hunters for Fair Chase and explain what types of hunting they have chosen to include under their decree of what is ethical or discuss the consequences of their agendas.

It is hard to give an organization very much credibility, regardless of who they quote on their website, when they refuse to be more open and willing to communicate, especially with those they claim to represent, the ND hunter. I'd imagine there are a few like minded individuals here in the state that are more than willing to impose their personal ethics onto everyone else by USING the nonhunting public to accomplish this and opening the door to groups like HSUS to spread their anti hunting agendas as well. Hopefully the rest of the ND hunting community is a little more open minded and will look past the rhetoric and disingenuious statements used by these groups and their sponsors and realize the cost of what is being done.

[jhegg]

gst,

[gst]

jhegg, Not hiding behind any thing, your co sponsor dick knows very well who I am, and where I'm from. Ron Gilmore in a thread on baiting "outed" who I am and where I'm from on this site. If this is all you want to focas on you are wasting everyones time. As I have stated many times I have no connection at all to any HF operations other than having a couple of friends that have one. I have repeatedly said on this site and others that I am merely someone that doesn't believe one group of individuals such as ND Hunters for Fair Chase should be imposing their ethical choices onto everyone else. I have stated repeatedly that I as well don't consider HF to be hunting, but I am not so arrogant or egotistical as to think everyone has to do or agree with me nor do I wish to force my choices onto everyone else. I believe ethics are a choice truly only an individual can make. One person may be just fine with shooting a rooster standing in a ditch, while someone else might find that dispicable. One person may find shooting at running game 400 yards away to be acceptable, another may find it appalling. What you may deem acceptable under "fair chase" may not be to someone else. But yet you assume your choices are right for everyone. And even worse you want to involve the nonhunting public who has little to no understanding about any forms of hunting in your attempt to to push your agenda and ethics onto others. And wether you try to distance yourself or your group from HSUS, on this particular issue you have the same agenda, and wether you accept it or not this gives even just a slight bit more credibility to their long term agenda to end all forms of hunting. And if you do not think they will enter into this debate at some point and use even more mistruthes than your group to further this issue, you and your group are fools.

Your group have used the bible of "fair chase" doctrine as the basis for this measure, and the publics perception as to what happens in these "shooting preserves" and the negatives of what the commercialization of hunting does to it's future. I have asked questions directed at each of these avenues. You and dick have chosen to not answer any questions directly, so I guess we're are back to square one. As a sponsor one would think you would want someone that actually can speak on behalf of your group to enter into the debate for the sake of credibility.

[jhegg]

gst,

[gst]

jhegg, as it is really no big deal to me, and apparently it is for you I'll make the same deal I did with Ron, if you will only answer the questions I've asked of you directly, without using the excuse you can't speak for your group(you are sponsoring proposed legislation with them) I'll tell you and the world here on ND outdoors my name and where I'm from.

Having been "identified" on this site once by somone that would rather focas on who someone is rather than the actual debate on the issue, much like is apparently happening once again, and given the propensity for you and Dick not to answer questions, I hope you understand why I would like to hear your answers prior to my "growing up" and posting my name and address.

Just out of curiousity, do you think the RAP program is a credible program?

[jhegg]

gst,

You say it's no big deal to identify yourself, but you haven't done it. Oh well....llet me start by answering a few questions.

I only have meet 2 people in the group. I know who another two or three are. I volunteered to be a sponsor because I think it is the right action to take. Based on that, I can not speak for the group - only myself. That's just the way it is.

My goal is to eliminate big-game animal "high fence" hunting, and I use the term hunting here very sarcastically.

I don't care if someone shoots an animal in a fence. We used to do that on the farm, but we sure as hell didn't call it hunting. We also did not pay a multiple thousand dollar fee if what we shot had horns. We killed our animals the most humane way we could - usually with a 22 long rifle to the back of the head.

I have a friend from Wisconsin that comes out here every other year to shoot a buffalo for the meat. He is big into antique large bore (8 gauge) double rifles and just wants to see what his guns can do. They kill a buffalo very nicely. He knows he is not "hunting". The rancher doesn't sell a hunt, he sells a meat animal. The cost is the same whether the rancher kills it or my friend kills it. I have no problem with that.

My complaint is the marketing of a "trophy bull" that is enclosed in a fence. Trophies have a high value to a hunter and others when harvested under fair chase conditions. That value is demeaned when taken under other conditions like high fence operations. Like it or not, that is my opinion and that is why I agreed to be a sponsor of this initiative.

I don't know if I can answer any of your other questions, but if you re-post them I will try. Realize, of course, that I am speaking for myself. I can not speak for people I do not know. And yes, it would be nice to know who you are.

Jim

[DG]

Here is one we missed:

http://spotted.bismarcktribune.com:80/photos/208508/

Roger Kaseman, left, of Bismarck introduces Jim Posewitz of Helena, Montana at a news conference in the North Dakota State Capitol on 10-16 afternoon dealing with fair chase hunting in the state. Posewitz spoke against hunting game animals in fenced enclosures and had a 32 year career with the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks. Posewitz is the executive director of the Orion the Hunter's Institute that promotes hunter ethics and the conservation heritage of hunting. Presently there is a petition being circulated in the state to have an initiated measure on the 2010 general election ballot for voters to decide on the issue. Kaseman said the petitions are being signed and compared the effort to baseball. “It’s too soon to do a count,” he said “it’s only the bottom of the first inning.”

Was this piece written a month ago? Look at posewitz face. Looks happy to be there. Ha!! So who is Posewitz? He is more than the man who wrote beyond fair chase. Take a look.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mtsportsmen

There is a little video clip of President Barack Obama. Not long but what is more interesting is the guy on right after him. Ray Schoenke. Remember him? He was on board sportsmen for John Kerry. This is what the National Rifle Association had to say about him.

AHSA was created with the specific intent to provide political cover for anti-gun politicians by allowing them to claim support from a “sportsmen’s” group. In truth, the anti-gun credentials of AHSA’s leadership is well documented. For instance, AHSA president Ray Schoenke has a long history of giving political donations to some of the most anti-gun politicians, including Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy. In 2000, Schoenke donated $5,000 to Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign) and the Ray and Holly Schoenke Foundation also made donations to the Brady Campaign. AHSA Board member John Rosenthal remains the leader of Stop Handgun Violence, the Massachusetts anti-gun group. And one of the leading organizers of AHSA is Bob Ricker, who has been a paid expert witness against gun manufacturers in a number of reckless lawsuits. (For more information

Read more at:

http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=232

Anyway, Posewitz name is right below the moniter it says:

Listen to our 60-second radio ad, "Tradition," featuring Montanan Jim Posewitz, a lifelong sportsman.

Anyway, how did Posewitz get involved with sportsman for Obama? It may have happened through his affiliation with Land Tawney.

Land Tawney started Montana Sportsman for Obama. This URL no longer works.

http://billingsgazette.com/art.....stands.txt

Anyway, Land used to be regional director for the national wildlife federation. Here is Dick Monson send off when Land quit. Conflict of interest you know. You can't work for a federally funded non-profit and be involved in partian politics at the same time.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=319397

Maybe Posewitz would like to see the contents of his book become federal law? He has some connections.

[barebackjack]

[gst]

jhegg, OK I'll accept that you signed on to something and are willing to let another group speak for yourself. Hopefully you are aware of how they are going about it. My questions are directed towards what they are saying in your name as a sponsor and my name as a ND hunter which they are claiming to represent. You and dick are the only members of this group and measure willing to come on here publically. Dick can't seem to answer any direct questions so it does fall on you to represent this measure and the positions this group is pursueing in your name as a sponsor. Instead of reposting the questions I would ask you to just go back and reread this thread. They are pretty obvious.

I asked you the RAP question for a reason. Apparently because there is no requirement to identify yourself in this program in your eyes it lacks any credibility???

I do promise just for a couple of you guys on here obsessed with who people are I will let you know as soon as you answer these questions.