High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

612 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tim Sandstrom's picture
Tim Sandstrom
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/03
High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

I recieved word that the high fence measure will be on the ballot as Measure #2.

So here we go...

beedoggs1's picture
beedoggs1
Offline
Joined: 12/11/08

so which group(s) are going to be opposing this measure? What can I do to help? I'll hand out flyers, put up yard signs, anything I can do to help defeat this measure.

SUPPORT LANDOWNER'S RIGHTS. VOTE NO ON #2.

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

This will give the anit hunter community,the animal rights community of ND a chance to get thier foot in the door to shut down all hunting and shooting in the future.
This should devide the landownerws and the hunters at a good time of the year just before hunting season.

This will get to be very nasty when the out of state money from animal rights group starts to flow into ND.   

 

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

I just saw a Game and Fish semi at a truck stop piled full of money from the HSUS.

 

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

Dakota Country, September 2010

Fair Chase Petitions Delivered to ND Secretary of State
Fair Chase group expecting strong opposition from high fence operations before ballot

By Bill Mitzel

The Fair Chase Committee of North Dakota presented 13,860 signatures to Secretary of State Al Jaeger on August 4 in an effort to get the measure opposing the captive hunting of native and exotic big game animals to the vote of the people. If approved by Jaeger’s office, the measure will appear on the November 2 ballot.

Such high fence operations are presently illegal in nearly half of the states in the US. The committee, led by Roger Kaseman of Bismarck, worked all year long to gather the signatures, setting up booths at public events. Kaseman said once the process of fair chase was explained to people, the signatures came easy. He said high fence hunting, or canned hunting as it is often called, involves ethical problems, among other things, that threatens the image of legitimate hunting throughout America and now North Dakota.

Traditional hunting does not involve hunting animals inside fences, as canned hunting provides. High fence hunting usually involving deer and elk, is pay-to-kill, often at huge sums going into thousands of dollars. There are about a dozen such operations in North Dakota, though there are over a 100 that produce deer and elk meat commercially and do not provide hunting. Such operations would not be affected by the measure on the upcoming ballot in November.

During his efforts across the state, Kaseman encountered a number of experiences involving the signature gathering process, including verbal confrontations, attempts at sabotaging the process, accusations of being connected with animal rights and more, most coming from a small group of high fence hunting operations. For the most part though, he explained, people are energetically opposed to such operations when they know what’s involved.

“The reaction from the people was very positive,” said Gary Masching, a member of the committee gathering signatures. “People were thanking us for doing this. When we showed them Article 11, Section 27 of the North Dakota Constitution they would look at that and bring more people over to sign. I would say it was running 75-80 percent of people wanted to sign this and get rid of it.”

While the game farms have promoted the initiated measure is a violation of their property rights, Article 11, Section 27 proclaims the right of the public to preserve and manage wild game for the public good.

The North Dakota Board of Animal Health regulates the canned hunting operations, as well as those exclusively in meat production, and at times has had its hands full in dealing with escaped animals who’ve caused damage on other property, in addition to presenting a potential health hazard from disease. Captive animals must be marked by their owners, but through the years have escaped their pens in various numbers.

For example, a report from members of the big game staff at state Game and Fish Department on June 10, 2002, highlights just some of the problems.

Said the report: “On June 4 we became aware of an instance involving dead captive animals found in a pit. At least eight of the 112 were adults with visible ear tags. None of the heads had been removed for CWD testing as required by North Dakota Board of Animal Health. This instance is disturbingly similar to a newspaper story from Colorado where a rancher reported losing elk to lightening strikes. Later, elk from this herd tested positive for CWD.”

Dozens upon dozens of other reports are on file that show escaped penned animals in which officials from various agencies had to help recapture. The animal owner is obligated to round up the animals when they escape but that isn’t always done. Some escaped animals have also traveled across state lines.

The Orlan Mertz commercial operation near Goodrich, known as the Sheyenne Valley Lodge, which was shut down and prosecuted in the fall of 2005 for extensive illegal activity, was regularly dealing with escaped animals according to filed reports, which often were not recovered and had the potential to join wild herds. In fact, a report from Jacquie Ermer to several officials in enforcement and other agencies, said:

“In a letter dated June 12, 2003, Dr. Schuler of the Board of Animal Health reported that farmed elk had escaped from the Orlan Mertz facility near Goodrich on May 23, 2003. Because Mr. Mertz was unable to recapture all of the elk that had escaped, Dr. Schuler authorized the Game and Fish Dept. and the USDA-Wildlife Services to seize, capture, or destroy the escaped elk belonging to Mr. Mertz. As of today, not all elk have been recovered.”

The report continued: “After a recent facility inventory inspection, Dr. Susan Keller (ND Deputy State Veterinarian) has notified me that the 26 elk are still at large and G&F is still authorized to seize, capture, or destroy the escaped elk. FYI, one elk was destroyed in northwestern MN a few weeks ago and a hunter killed one of the escaped elk near Walhalla last hunting season. A couple of elk were destroyed near Wilton by Wildlife Services personnel shortly after the escape last year. The remaining elk could be anywhere.”

The threat of captive elk joining a wild herd is not considered a viable option. There is also an understanding that free-ranging animals from a wild herd are sometimes killed in the process of trying to capture escaped animals.

“They (game farm operations) are subject to inspection when they set up the operation, they are subject to inspection a year later, and then every other year,” Kaseman said. “A lot of things happen over a year’s time, animals dying, animals escaping. I’ll tell you this. The Board of Animal Health does not have a handle on this. And if they do, that handle is very slippery.”

Large horns are a valuable commodity in the black market, Kaseman explained. Good breeding stock is also highly prized.

From the standpoint of the petition and trying to get the decision on high fence hunting to the vote of the people, Kasemen said he’s anticipating a strong battle between now and November.

“They’re going to launch a dirty campaign like has never been seen in this state,” he said. “It’s going to be personal and it’s going to be ugly. There were radio commercials on the air while we were at the state fair, they didn’t name us by our group, just “a” group collecting signatures, and then they went on to attack, trying to align us with The Humane Society of the United States and their agenda. According to my information, I was accused of being a member of the The Humane Society specifically sent into North Dakota to lead the effort to outlaw, not just their operations, but all hunting, all animal agriculture, circuses, and rodeos.”

“They accused us of being East Coast fanatics trying to get rid of all hunting and property rights,” said Masching.

Kaseman said he anticipated such degradation and prepared for it.

At the State Fair, Kaseman said he also dealt with those who approached his booth to sign the petition, who were obviously under the legal age of 18. The efforts were made by the canned hunting group, he believes, to be able to allege signature fraud in the lawsuit Kaseman says is coming from the commercial operations. No signatures are valid from anyone under 18.

Though the North Dakota legislature has bypassed issues relating to canned hunting in recent sessions, they did pass HB 1110 which eliminated feral hog commercial hunting under the exotic animals sections of the law. Masching said that passage mirrors what his group are trying to do.

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

“Hundreds of thousands of dollars,” Kaseman reiterated.

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

Kaseman said he expects a lawsuit from the high fence hunting group, and in fact, it may have been served as this is read. Once the petition signatures are accepted so that a ballot measure becomes reality in November, the problem then falls under state control.

“The Attorney General is going to have to defend it (at that point),” Kaseman explained. He believes the basis for their lawsuit will be fraud.

“We’re going to be able to show that there was no wrongdoing,” Masching said of the lawsuit if it’s filed. “We can account for all the people who were at the venues, and I think it (the lawsuit) will be a help to us, as has some of their other slander.

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

I don't believe there's anybody that believes that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on feral hog hunting in ND.  LMFAO

 

goatboy's picture
goatboy
Offline
Joined: 12/20/01

Give it up already..
But as we all know the squeaky wheel eventually gets the grease "can't stand it myself, the antis that is always trying to take take take"

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

eyexer Said:
I don't believe there's anybody that believes that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on feral hog hunting in ND.  LMFAO

Just curious, but while I too had raised eyebrows at the "hundreds of thousands" passage, it left me wondering just how much of our license fees went to combat the feral hogs and elk.  And, even more importantly, how much would be considered reasonable.

Do you have an idea of what should be a reasonable monetary burden on the NDGF (hunters) in the form of tracking down and removing feral species that escape from HFH operations?

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

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

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
I don't believe there's anybody that believes that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on feral hog hunting in ND.  LMFAO

Just curious, but while I too had raised eyebrows at the "hundreds of thousands" passage, it left me wondering just how much of our license fees went to combat the feral hogs and elk.  And, even more importantly, how much would be considered reasonable.

Do you have an idea of what should be a reasonable monetary burden on the NDGF (hunters) in the form of tracking down and removing feral species that escape from HFH operations?

I think they killed them all in the badlands, within a couple days if i remember correctly. Turtle mountains im not sure about. I imagine the Turtle mountains would take a little more time and cost a little more money than the badlands.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
I don't believe there's anybody that believes that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on feral hog hunting in ND.  LMFAO

Just curious, but while I too had raised eyebrows at the "hundreds of thousands" passage, it left me wondering just how much of our license fees went to combat the feral hogs and elk.  And, even more importantly, how much would be considered reasonable.

Do you have an idea of what should be a reasonable monetary burden on the NDGF (hunters) in the form of tracking down and removing feral species that escape from HFH operations?

$0.00!!!  that is the reasonable monetary burden the GF should bear if an animal escapes.  but, i am pretty sure the rules and regulations that are in place already put that burden on the HFH owner/operator.  even if it is not, it wouldn't take a lot of effort to get a judge to order reimbursement. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

pigsticker's picture
pigsticker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/05

Vote for Americans Rights!

Vote no on Measure #2 in November!


This is my BOOMSTICK!!!

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

Yeah, I don't remember hearing that they had a lot of trouble killing off the Badlands batch of hogs.  So let's say that 2 guys spent a total of 4 days (probably a gross underestimation) working on this (between the office and field) and they had to come out of Bismarck.  I don't know what the salary is for a typical NDGF employee that would be used for such a task, but assuming it wasn't the janitor it's probably safe to say that salary and benefits run about $30 an hour.  So 2 x 4 x 8 x 30 = $1920 for salary.  I suppose there are some other costs like per diem for living in a hotel, maybe another few hundred.

So perhaps the Badlands bunch was taken care of for less than $3,000.  If the Turtle Mountain herd was 5 times as difficult, we would be talking about another $15,000 in pig removal.

Only thing I am left with is the author of the story (or Kaseman) may have gotten it wrong and that the entire budget spent for ALL feral animals was $100k (the missing elk would suggest a much larger effort that eventually proved futile). 

So again I am left wondering how much of our license fees spent on this "ag" problem is too much?

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

beedoggs1's picture
beedoggs1
Offline
Joined: 12/11/08

It looks like Dakota Country is kissing Roger Kaseman's rear end. Well, Dakota Country, you can kiss my rear end. I won't be buying your magazine anymore, there are better publications out there that realize the importance of property owner's rights. Unless of course, they are pushing for everything to be posted land.

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

This just posted on Nodak Outdoors:  http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85231

Fair Chase

Postby RogerK » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:00 pm




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

 

pigsticker's picture
pigsticker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/05

Dakota Country has always been a boring magazine to me.

As for your calculations Allen, that seems within the realm however i'm sure they used helicopters or planes to locate the swine then probably had to remove or extract the carcasses and dispose of them. That would add significantly to the cost but still, hundreds of thousands seems quite expensive.

Wait, I just realized they were shooting govt issue ammo so those are like $11 per round. And if they needed a toilet seat to mount on the hitch for "emergency" control that would add approximately $1,647 or something like that.

 


This is my BOOMSTICK!!!

beedoggs1's picture
beedoggs1
Offline
Joined: 12/11/08

13,860 people can be wrong, can be lied to, and can be idiots. 13860 people is a very small number, 2% of the population? 2% doesn't pass anything. Let's see if his lies fool the rest of the state come November. Let the fight begin.

pigsticker's picture
pigsticker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/05

pber Said:
This just posted on Nodak Outdoors:  http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85231

Fair Chase

Postby RogerK » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:00 pm

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


Wow, how egotistical. He is really self impressed. I hope if he fails this time he'll realize he's "not all that" and give up his anti movement. Oh wait, he's sponsoring the anti-baiting measure coming up...How silly of me to think a pest would simply go away.


This is my BOOMSTICK!!!

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

pber Said:
This just posted on Nodak Outdoors:  http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85231

Fair Chase

Postby RogerK » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:00 pm



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

 

 

It must be 5 o'clock some where have another one Roger!   

Baiting is next for him and Dick.

 

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

They will never take away guns or hunting all at once, but little by little.  Just remember that when you go to vote, even if you don't agree, don't let them get a start.

There is no limit on a Good Time!!

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

Allen Said:
Yeah, I don't remember hearing that they had a lot of trouble killing off the Badlands batch of hogs.  So let's say that 2 guys spent a total of 4 days (probably a gross underestimation) working on this (between the office and field) and they had to come out of Bismarck.  I don't know what the salary is for a typical NDGF employee that would be used for such a task, but assuming it wasn't the janitor it's probably safe to say that salary and benefits run about $30 an hour.  So 2 x 4 x 8 x 30 = $1920 for salary.  I suppose there are some other costs like per diem for living in a hotel, maybe another few hundred.

So perhaps the Badlands bunch was taken care of for less than $3,000.  If the Turtle Mountain herd was 5 times as difficult, we would be talking about another $15,000 in pig removal.

Only thing I am left with is the author of the story (or Kaseman) may have gotten it wrong and that the entire budget spent for ALL feral animals was $100k (the missing elk would suggest a much larger effort that eventually proved futile). 

So again I am left wondering how much of our license fees spent on this "ag" problem is too much?

Well the game and fish guys make about $8.50-13 and hour. The hotels and gas money would probably be the most expensive.

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

Allen, a friend of mine from western ND shared a story of how to capture wild pigs. You go out and place a little corn in a pile, the next day after the pigs have ate the corn you put out a little more. Then you start building a pen a piece at a time around your corn. You continue to give the wild pigs a little more corn every day as you finish your pen. As you continue to give the pigs more and more corn, they eventually become dependent on the corn and slowly start quitting foraging for food on their own .Each day the pigs become a little more use to the pen you are slowly building around them and tolerate it because of the corn you provide. . Eventually as the pigs have become completely dependent on the corn you give them, and even the little piglets have not been taught how to forage because of the corn you have provided,  all the pigs end up in your pen. You simply shut the gate behind them and you can at that time do anything you may wish to or with the pigs.

Wait a minute, maybe it wasn't a story about catching pigs at all but merely  a comentary on todays society.

Now that this measure is not conjecture I have a couple  simple questions that so far only one person supporting this measure  has answered.

1. Should the creation of ND law be based on truth and fact?
2. Who will hold these sponsors to that standard?

And now that if a majority of people do vote in favor of this measure and it becomes law, perhaps someone that factually knows should truthfully explain step by step how it will be implemented as law, and the process by which it will be carried out. I don't think that is too much to ask.

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

pber Said:
This just posted on Nodak Outdoors:  http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85231

Fair Chase

Postby RogerK » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:00 pm



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

 

 

I don't know if it is just me, but I would prefer someone a little less childish bringing forth the laws that could potentially govern the people of this state.

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

gst Said:

pber Said:
This just posted on Nodak Outdoors:  http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85231

Fair Chase

Postby RogerK » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:00 pm



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

 

 

I don't know if it is just me, but I would prefer someone a little less childish bringing forth the laws that could potentially govern the people of this state.

I don't think it is just you gst,but I do wonder if this is the type of spokesman and leadership people like Jim Higgeness,Ron Gillmore,and 2 govenment employess
David Brant and Lloyd Jones,condone this type of behavior.   Is this just a personall vendita?

http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/elections/docs/petition20090821.pdf

Would someone on this list want to answer??

 

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

In all honesty it wouldnt cost a thing.  Just advertise that there are feral hogs running around and that we want them shot and I'd bet within a couple weeks they would be extinguished. 

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
I don't believe there's anybody that believes that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on feral hog hunting in ND.  LMFAO

Just curious, but while I too had raised eyebrows at the "hundreds of thousands" passage, it left me wondering just how much of our license fees went to combat the feral hogs and elk.  And, even more importantly, how much would be considered reasonable.

Do you have an idea of what should be a reasonable monetary burden on the NDGF (hunters) in the form of tracking down and removing feral species that escape from HFH operations?

 

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

gst Said:
Allen, a friend of mine from western ND shared a story of how to capture wild pigs. You go out and place a little corn in a pile, the next day after the pigs have ate the corn you put out a little more. Then you start building a pen a piece at a time around your corn. You continue to give the wild pigs a little more corn every day as you finish your pen. As you continue to give the pigs more and more corn, they eventually become dependent on the corn and slowly start quitting foraging for food on their own .Each day the pigs become a little more use to the pen you are slowly building around them and tolerate it because of the corn you provide. . Eventually as the pigs have become completely dependent on the corn you give them, and even the little piglets have not been taught how to forage because of the corn you have provided,  all the pigs end up in your pen. You simply shut the gate behind them and you can at that time do anything you may wish to or with the pigs.

Wait a minute, maybe it wasn't a story about catching pigs at all but merely  a comentary on todays society.

Now that this measure is not conjecture I have a couple  simple questions that so far only one person supporting this measure  has answered.

1. Should the creation of ND law be based on truth and fact?
2. Who will hold these sponsors to that standard?

And now that if a majority of people do vote in favor of this measure and it becomes law, perhaps someone that factually knows should truthfully explain step by step how it will be implemented as law, and the process by which it will be carried out. I don't think that is too much to ask.

I thought I recognized that story, it was from my book "How To Catch A Liberal"

 

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

beedoggs1 Said:
It looks like Dakota Country is kissing Roger Kaseman's ass. Well, Dakota Country, you can kiss my ass. I won't be buying your magazine anymore, there are better publications out there that realize the importance of property owner's rights. Unless of course, they are pushing for everything to be posted land.

After that story Bill Mitzel should rename his magazine the National Enquirer of Dakota Country.

 

Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

eyexer Said:
In all honesty it wouldnt cost a thing.  Just advertise that there are feral hogs running around and that we want them shot and I'd bet within a couple weeks they would be extinguished. 

Of course, the problem with that is there is now a law banning the shooting of feral pigs in ND.  Instead of shooting them at will, you now have to call NDGF.

I still don't understand that one unless it was pushed by a pig farmer who was afraid we would wipe out his herd.

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

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

pber Said:
This just posted on Nodak Outdoors:  http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85231

Fair Chase

Postby RogerK » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:00 pm



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

 

 

Wow, what a fool.

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

Allen Said:

eyexer Said:
In all honesty it wouldnt cost a thing.  Just advertise that there are feral hogs running around and that we want them shot and I'd bet within a couple weeks they would be extinguished. 

Of course, the problem with that is there is now a law banning the shooting of feral pigs in ND.  Instead of shooting them at will, you now have to call NDGF.

I still don't understand that one unless it was pushed by a pig farmer who was afraid we would wipe out his herd.

There's government overstepping it's bounds again,lol.

 

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

 For the most part though, he explained, people are energetically opposed to such operations when they know what’s involved.

“The reaction from the people was very positive,” said Gary Masching, a member of the committee gathering signatures. “People were thanking us for doing this. When we showed them Article 11, Section 27 of the North Dakota Constitution they would look at that and bring more people over to sign. I would say it was running 75-80 percent of people wanted to sign this and get rid of it.”

While the game farms have promoted the initiated measure is a violation of their property rights, Article 11, Section 27 proclaims the right of the public to preserve and manage wild game for the public good. 

Now for you supporters of this measure, here in black and white is an example of the disingenuous statements that these sponsors have now admitted to making in gathering signatures. These  "farmed elk" do NOT fall under the scope of Article 11, Section 27 as they are not defined as "wild game"any where in the NDCC. To give the impression they are is if not a direct lie, at the very least a disingenuous statement. The website of this FCgroup makes a specific effort to paint the picture these animals are not "wild game" but completely tame animals(the picture of the little girl feeding an deer an apple) but yet they tell the public they are "wild game. And now a sponsor (
Gary Masching, who now admits to stretching the truth as much as some of the other sponsors) admits to telling the public these animals are" wild game" covered under this article. Please give a "rational" "logical" reason why this is not disingenuousl;y promoting their measure.

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

Nebraska passed a law banning the shooting of feral swine period. Because they learned from Missouris' experiance. Across the river in Missouri the game and fish enlisted the sportsmen for help in eradicating feral swine. The problem kept getting worse. They finally figured out it was feral swine enthusiasts who were propagating, trapping and moving the pigs around. There is no season, no limits and no license required. Some people found it more fun than hunting whitetalis and quit hunting deer altogether.

Maybe Mauser could add or shed some light on this.

In ND, according to the Non-Tradional Livestock list, there is only one white guy raising Russian Wild Boar. He is near New Rockford.  What he does with them I don't know. The rest of the owners of these types of pigs are Native American.

Gary Masching in the Dakota Country arcticle said,

Though the North Dakota legislature has bypassed issues relating to canned hunting in recent sessions, they did pass HB 1110 which eliminated feral hog commercial hunting under the exotic animals sections of the law. Masching said that passage mirrors what his group are trying to do.
 

This is a piece of fiction. Somehow Gary Masching has trouble making the distinction between privately owned animals that are raised for food and fiber and animals that are free roaming.

The truth.

North Dakota H.B.1110
This bill establishes that the state board of animal health is responsible for the control and eradication of feral swine on state and private lands in North Dakota.  It defines “feral swine” as a “hog, boar or pig that appears to be untamed or undomesticated; appears to have reverted from a domesticated to a wild state; and is freeroaming.”  The bill prohibits the import, transport or possession of live feral swine and outlines provisions for notifying the board of the presence of feral swine.  The bill also prohibits the hunting or trapping of feral swine by anyone other than a state or federal agency or person authorized by a state or federal agency to engage in the control or eradication of feral swine.

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

seems like there's a whole lot of non-truths being cast around by this group.  there is no doubt, with a little education, the fine people of ND will see right through this non-sense come nov.

 

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

mauserG33-40 Said:
This will get to be very nasty when the out of state money from animal rights group starts to flow into ND.   

There is already WAY too much out of state crap coming from both sides where this issue is concerned.

It's not that bad.

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

Now that this is officially going to be on the ballot - where can concerned sportsmen, property owners, and ag producers go to help defeat this measure??  Is there an organized group opposing it?? 

Heck , I'm even willing to send a few bucks to help buy some thruthful ads about  how destructive this bill is.  It's very clear that the promoters have been less than honest.

As a previous poster mentioned - good timing with fall hunting seasons coming up. Should make for some happy landowners?? 

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

 For the most part though, he explained, people are energetically opposed to such operations when they know what’s involved.

“The reaction from the people was very positive,” said Gary Masching, a member of the committee gathering signatures. “People were thanking us for doing this. When we showed them Article 11, Section 27 of the North Dakota Constitution they would look at that and bring more people over to sign. I would say it was running 75-80 percent of people wanted to sign this and get rid of it.”

While the game farms have promoted the initiated measure is a violation of their property rights, Article 11, Section 27 proclaims the right of the public to preserve and manage wild game for the public good. 

gst said.
Now for you supporters of this measure, here in black and white is an example of the disingenuous statements that these sponsors have now admitted to making in gathering signatures. These  "farmed elk" do NOT fall under the scope of Article 11, Section 27 as they are not defined as "wild game"any where in the NDCC. To give the impression they are is if not a direct lie, at the very least a disingenuous statement. The website of this FCgroup makes a specific effort to paint the picture these animals are not "wild game" but completely tame animals(the picture of the little girl feeding an deer an apple) but yet they tell the public they are "wild game. And now a sponsor (Gary Masching, who now admits to stretching the truth as much as some of the other sponsors) admits to telling the public these animals are" wild game" covered under this article. Please give a "rational" "logical" reason why this is not disingenuousl;y promoting their measure.

Sportsman, would you care to address this statement by Gary Masching? Ron, Gordon Kahl ,anyone?????

Timbuk-2's picture
Timbuk-2
Offline
Joined: 9/3/10

To you high fence supporters:  Tell me why every wildlife management agency, every professional wildlife management group, and every reptuable wildlife conservation organization opposes high fence hunting?  This conversation has been dominated by a half dozen people who, while accusing the fair chase people of not being truthful are themselves fountains of half truths, distorted facts,  and outright lies.  The only ones supporting high fence hunts seem to be those involved in the business of selling wildlife, and a few landowner rights extremists.   Personally, I'll take my lead from the NDGF, USFWS, RMEF, and others who hold the welfare of hunting and wildlife as thier first priority .

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

Timbuk-2 Said:

To you high fence supporters:  Tell me why every wildlife management agency, every professional wildlife management group, and every reptuable wildlife conservation organization opposes high fence hunting?  This conversation has been dominated by a half dozen people who, while accusing the fair chase people of not being truthful are themselves fountains of half truths, distorted facts,  and outright lies.  The only ones supporting high fence hunts seem to be those involved in the business of selling wildlife, and a few landowner rights extremists.   Personally, I'll take my lead from the NDGF, USFWS, RMEF, and others who hold the welfare of hunting and wildlife as thier first priority .

I don't think you have any ideal the number of people opposed to this bill.  The overwhelming majority just choose to remain silent about it.  If you remember this has come before the voters a couple times already and was rejected.  So obviously there is a majority against this measure. 

 

Timbuk-2's picture
Timbuk-2
Offline
Joined: 9/3/10

When?

Captain Ahab's picture
Captain Ahab
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/1/08

gst Said:

pber Said:
This just posted on Nodak Outdoors:  http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85231

Fair Chase

Postby RogerK » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:00 pm



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

 

 

I don't know if it is just me, but I would prefer someone a little less childish bringing forth the laws that could potentially govern the people of this state.

I read an article in Dakota Country that Roger wrote.  He does seem a little off to be a leader.  I wonder if he thinks he is Toby Keith?

"Diligence is the mother of good luck."

"The constitution only gives people the right to pursue hapiness.  You have to catch it yourself."

"Well done is better than well said."

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

All by:  Benjamin Franklin.

"The solution to any problem - work, love, money, whatever - is to go fishing, and the bigger the problem, the longer the trip should be."

Author: John Gierach

Timbuk-2's picture
Timbuk-2
Offline
Joined: 9/3/10

Hey eyexer:
When has this issue been before the voters?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

i'll disagree w/ you 2 timbuk 2... 95% of the people opposed to this law have absolutely nothing to do w/ HFH and probably wouldn't step foot behind a HF.  they are the same type who would tell you to your face that HFH is not "hunting" and your "trophy" is no trophy in their eyes.  but, they support a person's right to make that choice for themselves and they support a landowner's right to make a few $ off of the slaughter of their livestock if someone is willing to pay them for it.  this law does nothing to ban the raising of these animals and/or any of the issues associated w/ raising them.  the only thing it does is ban the sale of the kill.  which is nothing more than rubbing the stomach of some holier than thou ethical and moral angels in an effort to make them purrrrrr...they can rub their own tummys as far as i am concerned... they won't get any help from me in their attempt to make themselves feel good.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

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

Timbuk 2 If you want to have your comments taken with any degree of credibility, if you acuse someone of  lying or misrepresentinng facts, you had better give specific examples.  A number of others on this site have made that accusation towards me and when asked to provide specific examples of that have not done so. There are still someplaces in this country where if you acuse someone of lying you had damn well better be able to back up your claim or you'll end up on your ass.I guess typing on a computer screen you don't have to worry about that.

Now if you want to address theissue of lying, explain how the animals involved inthe HFH are "wild animals" that are protected by Article 11 Sec. 27, but the animals thatare not raised for hunting purposes apparenty are not?

espringers, it all depends wether the proponents of this measure are successfull in getting these animals reclassified, which must happen for this measure to be effecive. If they are and these "farmed elk"  are reclassified as "big game"as the sponsors want,(if they are not there will be 2 oposing definitions of the same animals in the same Sec. of the NDCC)  they will fail under the Federal Lacey Act which prohbits the sale of big game in accordance with state law. That is why as this is now officially on the ballot, there should be someone giving an explanation of how this measure will be implemented into the NDCC and wether this Federal Lacey Act will be a part of it's implementation. Roger Kaseman himself has suggested it will be the Lacey Act that is ultimately what enforces this measure. And if it is and these animals are classified as "big game" it will not matter for what purpose they are being raised for,the sale of themwillbeprohibited thru this Federal Lacey Act.

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

Timbuk-2 Said:

To you high fence supporters:  Tell me why every wildlife management agency, every professional wildlife management group, and every reptuable wildlife conservation organization opposes high fence hunting?  This conversation has been dominated by a half dozen people who, while accusing the fair chase people of not being truthful are themselves fountains of half truths, distorted facts,  and outright lies.  The only ones supporting high fence hunts seem to be those involved in the business of selling wildlife, and a few landowner rights extremists.   Personally, I'll take my lead from the NDGF, USFWS, RMEF, and others who hold the welfare of hunting and wildlife as thier first priority .

Because they look at it from a hunting ethics point of view, rather than private landownership rights point of view. And the NDGF, USFWS, RMEF, could definitely not care less about private land rights, so its easy for the those groups to ignore certain rights. Somethings are just bigger than hunting.

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

Timbuk-2 Said:

To you high fence supporters:  Tell me why every wildlife management agency, every professional wildlife management group, and every reptuable wildlife conservation organization opposes high fence hunting?  This conversation has been dominated by a half dozen people who, while accusing the fair chase people of not being truthful are themselves fountains of half truths, distorted facts,  and outright lies.  The only ones supporting high fence hunts seem to be those involved in the business of selling wildlife, and a few landowner rights extremists.   Personally, I'll take my lead from the NDGF, USFWS, RMEF, and others who hold the welfare of hunting and wildlife as thier first priority .

So I can read the NDGF policy statement regarding their opposition of HFH exactly where?

I'm damn near embarrassed to say I signed that petition a couple years ago and planned on signing it this time around at one time. Luckily I see it for what it is, or more importantly see those who are pushing it for what they are. I read Kasemans egotistical, ignoramous posts on "the second class outdoor website" and it proved beyond a doubt that he truly is an egotistical individual who wants to push his ideas of right and wrong on everyone else. I'm glad there is a website like that for guys like him, imagine having someone like him on FBO.

I still don't buy into the argument that this is about property rights. It's about someone trying to legislate ethics, and that doesn't work very well. First it will be HF operations, then baiting, then shooting pheasants on the ground, then using trail cameras, and on and on it will go.

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

I'm referring to the past attempts to get enough voters signatures to get it on the ballot.

Timbuk-2 Said:
Hey eyexer:
When has this issue been before the voters?

 

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

Ron(Hardwaterman) you have made statments some who oppose the FC Petition are not fully truthfull in thier anwers to questions. You have been asked this several times on Nodak without answering or showing the proof.  Maybe you would be more comforable answering it here on FB.   Fully and truthfull please if possible!!

Ron, here is the wording of the measure as it was on the previous measure:

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.

Here is the wording of the measure as it is on the current measure:

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.

Show me exactly where the wording has been changed and show me where it states that selling it as a hunt is illegal

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85231&start=40

 

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

Ron you made the statements now answer!!!   Or are most of your statements this transparent??

 

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

The Lacey Act I believe, is a class II felony Dealing with illegally harvested game crossing state lines. While it is a Federal crutch, it carries a bigger bark than it's bite. Like in the movie "The Firm"; Mail fraud carries as much weight as Racketeering.

One step at a time...Be careful.

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

PikePits Said:
The Lacey Act I believe, is a class II felony Dealing with illegally harvested game crossing state lines. While it is a Federal crutch, it carries a bigger bark than it's bite. Like in the movie "The Firm"; Mail fraud carries as much weight as Racketeering.

Although I don't know the law in detail, I'm guessing that would only be a small portion of the law.

 

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

The Lacey Act is applicable when, as in this instance, there is a state law dealing with
"big game". This measure, state law, makes it illegal to receive a fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal in or released from an manmade enclosure desifgned to prevent escape so the Lacey Act becomes applicable. NO mention of being limited to a "canned hunting" situation. So if these animals are redefined in sec 36.1 as big game instead of domestic animals  or farmed elk how can someone receive a fee or renumeration for the killing of ANY elk rasied in or released from a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape without being in violation of this law and the subsequent Federal Lacey Act? 

I asked the question how will this measure as written prevent the sale of a live aimal to someone whothen kills "his" live animals he now owns? It was a SPONSOR, Roger Kaseman himself, that has claimed on Nodak Outdoors in response to this question that the Lacey Act will be implemented to carry out enfrocement of this measure. Either he has talked with an attorney to know this and it is indeed the case, or it is just another lie.
sportsman  |'s picture
sportsman |
Offline
Joined: 3/10/09
Re: A high fence initiate sponsor response

on 2010-08-22 14:23:21
mauserG33-40 Said:
Ron the Fair Chase/HSUS petition suporters says this is about the ethics of the HF operators,why should'n the ethics and the intergrity of the sponsors or lack of be questioned??  

  

gst, here is an example of lies coming from your side. It is not listed as a joint petition but because mauser "thinks" it is, he spouts it off as a fact when it is not.

It's not that bad.

Pages