A high fence initiate sponsor response

Pages

252 posts / 0 new
Last post
jhegg1's picture
jhegg1
Offline
Joined: 1/7/06
A high fence initiate sponsor response
I am Jim Heggeness, one of the sponsor’s of what has become to be known as the high fence initiative. Following is the petition title and the actual wording to be added to Chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code.
 
PETITION TITLE
This initiated measure would add a new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code effective November 1, 2012, providing that a person, other than an authorized government employee or agent, is guilty of a crime if the person obtains payment for the killing or attempted killing of privately owned big game species or exotic mammals in or released from a man-made enclosure.
 
FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE IF MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED, IT IS NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING ADDED. IF MATERIAL IS OVERSTRUCK BY DASHES, THE MATERIAL IS BEING DELETED. IF MATERIAL IS NOT UNDERSCORED OR OVERSTRUCK, THE MATERIAL IS EXISTING LAW THAT IS NOT BEING CHANGED.
 
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
 
SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows: Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited – Penalty – Exception. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.
 
There have been many misleading insinuations, or in some cases - outright lies, made on this forum about the petition and its’ sponsors.
 
I will address some of those here.
 
Allegation:  We are involved with or are receiving financial support for HSUS, PETA and other anti-hunting organizations.
 
Fact: This is pure hogwash! No sponsor that I know (and that includes Roger Kaseman and Gary Masching) is a member of, is involved with or has received financial support from any anti-hunting group. This is an outright lie perpetrated by the high fence supporters. For what it’s worth, I took three days of vacation from my job and paid my own expenses while working the State Fair in Minot.
 
 
Allegation: This measure can not be about fair chase because buffalo and pheasants were not included.
 
Fact: The measure states “…privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals…” Neither the buffalo nor the pheasant are classified as big game species in North Dakota. The logic behind this argument would lead one to believe that any animal not included in the initiated measure should have been. The only purpose for this type of argument is to create smoke screens. If the high fence supporters want to argue about the measure, argue about what the measure is, not what the measure isn’t.
 
The following are a few statements located on the Gary Mashing topic:
 
“On July 29th, 2010 Jim Heggeness and Roger Kaseman were BOOTED out of Commercial Building Two for inappropriate language and all the arguing going on. The other vendors complained to the fair board.”
 
These statements are very misleading. We had many “high fence supporters” come by and argue with us. This activity intensified after the high fence supporters timed us getting 12 signatures per minute. Another booth operator informed us of that activity. A person in the booth next to us objected to the noise. He was the source of some very inappropriate language. As a result, we were moved over to Commercial Building 1, where we continued to draw support for our measure.
 “It will not be the hunters of ND that put this on the ballot,it will be the signatures collected fron the Home and garden shows, from booth in arts and crafts at the county fairs,the same people that signed the petition will be signing the next one to out law more and more types of huntung and shooting.
 “This will never be decided by the hunters of ND it will be decided by the antihunting animal rights groups”
The people who put this measure on the ballot and who will decide the fate of it is the voters on North Dakota. It is too bad that this person doesn’t think the voters of North Dakota should have a say in their government.
 
 That being said, I think about the damage that people like Kaseman and others possibly cause by waving around pictures of an unfortunate instance where an animal is not ideally dispatched. Although they feel that they are doing their part to help end something that they necessarily don't agree with they in turn inflict damage to the creditablity of hunting by waving pictures of a gory scene of a controlled hunt gone awry. Although verbally communicated as a canned hunt by proponents of this measure when shown a picture, what the public perceives by the photo is not just a high fence hunt gone wrong but also an image associated with the word "hunting" in general. Although when presenting their case and pressing their point, people like Kasmen and others try to portray to the people they are targeting for signatures that this is not how they want hunting to be percieved when infact they are the very ones who have implanted an image and a blanket that covers the word "hunting" with one solitary unappealing image. Most of the public will walk away from that booth with only that image and the word hunting coinciding leaving a foul taste and poor opinion for any type of hunting. So I ask, who really is providing a black eye to hunting? Is it those that offer a controlled high fence hunt for monetary exchange with an occasional botched kill or is it those waving a graphic photo around to a public crowd and interjecting the word "hunting" with it's presentation to accomplish their goal?”
 
This is an interesting comment that you arrived at by planting both feet firmly in mid air and jumping to a conclusion. Fortunately, your assessment is incorrect. The most common comment received from people was “That’s not hunting!” The second most common response was “Do they do that in North Dakota?” The third most common response was “Is that legal?” What left the “foul taste” in people was the idea of shooting an animal in an escape proof enclosure and calling it hunting.
 
As a last comment, you all can see that the high fence supporters slinging all the mud here have not identified themselves. I guess it is just easier to mouth off when no one knows who you are. If you folks want to swallow the spin put out by the high fence boys, go for it. We just want to save our (and your) hunting heritage. The high fence boys want to prostitute it for their own personal gain. The choice is yours as to which side of the fence (pun intended) you want to be on.
 
Have a good day!
 
Jim Heggeness
beedoggs1's picture
beedoggs1
Offline
Joined: 12/11/08

Jim Heggeness - I don't really care if Tim bans me from this site for this comment, but you sir, are wrong. You are NOT a sportsman. I am not scared to identify myself, as you are to argue your points at the booths when you asked me to leave because I was interfering with your ability to collect signatures at the fair. I wanted to know why you wanted to make ON FARM SLAUGHTER OF PRIVATELY OWNED LIVESTOCK - ILLEGAL. You cannot claim that these animals are livestock as this bill would be listed under the AGRICULTURE CODE of the NDCC. If this is really about hunters ethics, then why is it not under the game and fish section?You would not debate the issue, rather ignore me. If I get banned from this site for these comments, so be it, but I will be watching and waiting for a response.

Dennis Beehler

I'll provide a phone number, physical address, or arrange a meeting in person with my fellow FBO members in attendance so we can get to the bottom of all of this for once and for all.

gonefshn's picture
gonefshn
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

Sorry Jim, but I for one will not be voting for your initiative.  I'm a big sportsman and would NEVER hunt an animal in an enclosed fence.  But I am SO SICK AND TIRED of people making laws pushing their narrow beliefs on everyone else.  If you don't agree with it.  Don't do it.  It's that simple.  Right now a majority of the people in this country don't hunt.  Crap like these politically correct initiatives are taking away so many people's rights all in the name of some good cause.  One thing just leads to another and I see this as just a start of people slowly eroding away the rights of others.  If I knew someone who hunted in a high fence for a trophy, I'd humiliate the hell out of them.  But using the laws to enforce ones view is slowly destroying our great country.

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

gonefshn Said:
Sorry Jim, but I for one will not be voting for your initiative.  I'm a big sportsman and would NEVER hunt an animal in an enclosed fence.  But I am SO SICK AND TIRED of people making laws pushing their narrow beliefs on everyone else.  If you don't agree with it.  Don't do it.  It's that simple.  Right now a majority of the people in this country don't hunt.  Crap like these politically correct initiatives are taking away so many people's rights all in the name of some good cause.  One thing just leads to another and I see this as just a start of people slowly eroding away the rights of others.  If I knew someone who hunted in a high fence for a trophy, I'd humiliate the hell out of them.  But using the laws to enforce ones view is slowly destroying our great country.

I agree.  This thing isn't passing anyway.  It scares the hell out of cattle industry and they touch the lives of everyone. 

 

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

Jim I appreciate you coming on this site, but there needs to be a little clarification in your statements. So if you would please answer these couple questions.

1. In the first failed attempt at collecting signatures prior to this current one, did someone contact HSUS regarding this measure, that resulted in someone from HSUS traveling to ND to converse with an "official" in the FC initiative?  Yes or no.
2. has any sponsor publically claimed that this measure is about the "black eye" shooting an animal  behind a fence and calling it hunting gives hunting itself? Yes or no. 
3. and just for the heck of it as a base line what some sponsors consider factual truth and how far they will go to get signatures, has any sponsor publically claimed these animals are shot in the hindquarters so as not to ruin the cape? yes or no

You can deny involvement with HSUS this go around because you learned from the mistake you made involving them the first time. That does not mean they are not simply waiting for this to be put on the ballot to become involved. To believe they will not is rather naive or inscincere especially when sponsors have publically stated they can not control who becomes involved in this measure.  It's kinda like handing a kid that has never been around guns a loaded gun and sending him out hunting in a group of people and when he shoots someone saying I didn't know that might happen or I don;t have any control over preventing that from happening.  Not a very credible position.

You can not state it is the act of shooting an animals behind a fence and calling it hunting that you have an ethical issue with, then puposely leave out buffalo or even pen reared pheasants (given the wording of the measure, "released from a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape" ) and expect anyone to give much credibility to your ETHICAL posititon simply because of a definition you choose to give these animals. To do so appears as serious backpedaling.  Especially considering your own above statement.   "What left the “foul taste” in people was the idea of shooting an animal in an escape proof enclosure and calling it hunting."

Which brings up the other question I have asked you did not answer regarding how these animals are currently classified in the NDCC as "domestic livestock" rather than "big Game" and how this meausre contradicts that classification and how that will be resolved. Nor how this measure will stop someone from simply selling another person a LIVE animal that that person then kills, and if these animals remain classified as "domestic livestock" in the NDCC how that may potentially affect the sale and slaughter of other "domestic livestock" .?

If I remember right in our other conversations, you did not believe by accepting the responsibility of being a sponsor of this measure it did not make you responsible for what your fellow sponsors may say or do. So for a final question if the SPONSORS of this measure that can possibly become state law are not responsible for what other sponsors are saying and doing who is?????

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

gonefshn Said:
Sorry Jim, but I for one will not be voting for your initiative.  I'm a big sportsman and would NEVER hunt an animal in an enclosed fence.  But I am SO SICK AND TIRED of people making laws pushing their narrow beliefs on everyone else.  If you don't agree with it.  Don't do it.  It's that simple.  Right now a majority of the people in this country don't hunt.  Crap like these politically correct initiatives are taking away so many people's rights all in the name of some good cause.  One thing just leads to another and I see this as just a start of people slowly eroding away the rights of others.  If I knew someone who hunted in a high fence for a trophy, I'd humiliate the hell out of them.  But using the laws to enforce ones view is slowly destroying our great country.

+1

could not say it any better. 

 Adn

fear_no_fish's picture
fear_no_fish
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/11/06

Why do you have to go to one of these farms and shoot one of these big game livestock? Would this prevent raising of these animals for food or would it just ban the customer shooting the animal they buy? Could the rancher kill it before you arive to pick it up? Eventhough I ask these questions, I do not classify going to a farm, shooting an animal, and taking it home high fenced hunting. Its the actual hunting behind a high fence is what worries me.

Here is my biggest worry. I think eventually most of the land in ND will be bought out and leased to paying customers leaving most of us without any hunting land. Would this law not allow the land owners to do more of this high fenced pay hunting? How much would this law protect more land being turned into big game high fenced hunting?

 

-Team Flightstoppers ND

jhegg1's picture
jhegg1
Offline
Joined: 1/7/06

Dennis,

I don't want you to get banned from here and I take no offense to your comments.

My sole point of being at the fair was to collect signatures, not argue with those who disagree with me. I did spend time talking with those who didn't agree with me (and lost signatures in the process). Once it became apparent that someone had their mind made up and just wanted to argue - I stopped the discussion. I'm sorry if you felt slighted over that.

You claim that I want to make on farm slaughter of livestock illegal and then state that these animals aren't livestock. I do not want to make on farm slaughter of livestock illegal and this initiated measure does not do that. I am not sure what point you are making with those statements.

As to where in the Century Code the measure is put, I was not at the discussions when that was decided - so I can not answer that question.

Again, for clarification, I think you have not said anything in your post that should get you banned.

jhegg1's picture
jhegg1
Offline
Joined: 1/7/06

gonefshn,

Of course, I disagree with you. The high fence operators are pimping out our hunting heritage for their own personal gain. I believe hunting should be fair chase and that is why I signed on the be a sponsor of this initiated measure. The high fence supporters will have you believe that this is a first step to curtailing all hunting activity and erode private property rights. Once this measure gets on the ballot, the sponsoring group is disbanded. We exist as a group no more. We obviously have no control over what other people do, but they will do what they want regardless of our activity.

Thank you for your comments.

jhegg1's picture
jhegg1
Offline
Joined: 1/7/06

eyexer,

The cattle industry has nothing to fear from this initiative.

jhegg1's picture
jhegg1
Offline
Joined: 1/7/06

Gabe,
I'm going to go eat dinner before I  tackle your questions.

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

says you

 

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




Jim,

1.  You guys may not be card carrying members of HSUS or PETA, but please explain the following:  Two years ago with the last petition drive, why did Roger Kaseman meet with HSUS Regional Director, David Pauli who blogged about coming to North Dakota and meeting with OFFICIALS; why were carbon copies sent via email from Karen Thunshelle, North Dakota HSUS representative, to Roger Kaseman, why did she send out emails with correspondence from Roger, and why did the Humane Society of the United States have an alert on their site last go round asking North Dakota Citizens to sign? 

2.  Big game species does not include farmed elk.
 

3.  With 12 signatures a minute, how did people even have a chance to find out what the initiative was about?  With that many a minute you must be well over the needed amount.  Congratulations!

4.  How can you honestly say the cattle industry will have nothing to fear and that this will not end on-farm slaughter?

The measure says "A person (doesn't say owner) is guilty... if the person (doesn't say owner) obtains fees from another person (doesn't say hunter of course, could be the owner or other buyer) for the killing of privately owned big game species (doesn’t say farmed elk) or exotic mammals (according to USDA classification buffalo are exotic mammals) confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape ( a kill chute would certainly qualify).

What kind of precedence will the wording of this measure set in regard to other livestock if it becomes law and is placed into the ND Century Code under the LIVESTOCK section.  




jhegg1's picture
jhegg1
Offline
Joined: 1/7/06

Gabe,

It is my understanding that during the "first failed attempt" Roger meet with someone from HSUS to inform them that we did not want to receive any support from them.

I myself have publicly stated that high fence operations give hunters and hunting a "black eye".

In regards to whether any sponsor has stated that high fence animals are shot in the hindquarter to save the cape:
I have not personally heard that. Has a sponsor stated that? I don't know.

I have no control over what HSUS, PETA or other anti-hunting organizations do. Neither do you.

As far as buffalo and pheasants are concerned, this is a dead horse. I did not write the measure and I was not present when the wording was discussed. Suffice it to say, the wording is what it is. I signed on as a sponsor because I believe in what this measure does. Based on people that I have talked to, I think a large portion of North Dakota voters do too.

These animals are also classified as big game. The sale and slaughter of livestock is covered under the Humane Slaughter Act located here:

http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusfd7usca1901.htm

As far as who is responsible for who says what, I am responsible for what I say. If you have questions about what other people have said, you need to address that with them. I can not make it any clearer than that.

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

Jim,

I would say get a life.

If you don't like HFH don't do it.

Plain and simple.

I am so sick of hearing " I don't like it so it should be outlawed."

I would hope I would never HFH, but if others want to  that's their right.

How many  thousands of people put in appications to hunt, cull, kill, or slaughter elk in the HFH known as TRNP.

Jim, if you spent more time hunting in the true wilds of the west you wouldn't be so worried about what your neighbor was doing.

You really have to questions why some people want to outlaw property owners rights.

I would like to add a new wringle to this debate.

If you want to hunt HF, including TRNP, Jackson Hole Elk Refuge, do it. If that's not what you are into don't do it.

Life is that simple. Police yourself.

bdog's picture
bdog
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/3/07
  • Below is the lastest PETA Attack on anyting that involves an animal. If you think they are not watching to see what can be outlawed in ND you are fooling yourself. They will not stop until man serves animals- period.

    Let's start with this petition and just kept going. AsK California about mountain lion hunting.

    Dodge Makes Monkey Disappear

    by Mike Krumboltz

     

     Auto company Dodge recently found itself in PETA's crosshairs after the carmaker aired a commercial starring a monkey dressed up like Evel Knievel. But, unlike many who draw the ire of PETA, Dodge fought back in a most amusing way.

    Below, the original ad that inspired PETA to pen an open letter condemning Dodge for using a monkey, "given the well-documented abuse that young chimpanzees and orangutans suffer in the entertainment industry." PETA goes on to write, "Dodge isn't going to dodge a bullet on this one. It needs to pull the ad — and we've contacted the company asking it to do just that." Here's the commercial with the monkey...

     

     

    Dodge apparently got PETA's message and decided to have a little fun. They made another similar commercial touting an upcoming summer clearance sale, only this time, instead of a monkey, they cast ... drumroll, please ... an invisible monkey. The blog Consumerist calls the redux "an act of surreal genius." Check out the new version below. And if the voice sounds familiar, it should. It's none other than Michael C. Hall of Showtime's "Dexter."

     

     

     

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

It's pretty simple....live and let live.  Just because I don't agree with things I am not going to push my beliefs on others.   America the beautiful....and land of the FREE.  Amen.

"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

ND 58201's picture
ND 58201
Offline
Joined: 4/27/04


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

Live and let live....sounds like a liberal motto...

I would not waste my time on here trying to answer loaded and phoney questions.  Get it on the ballot and let the people vote on it.

Patience Suchka.......

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

Jim here is the deal, an initiated measure needs a certain number of sponsors to be able to begin collecting signatures. You can not simply pass off concerns and consequences of this measure onto your fellow sponsors. You are all accountable one and the same. Each of you represent this measure and if one tells a lie in regards to it, it directly reflects on you. If you as a sponsor do not correct this lie then you are as accountable for it as the person that told it.  

In regards to the HSUS connection in the first attempt, you had better address pbers questions before expecting to simply lay this off as something Roger may or may not have said. 

In regards to the buffalo exclusion, They were initially included then purposely dropped. I would imagine those signers that had a "foul taste in their mouth" do not differetiate between shooting an elk in a fence or a buffalo in a fence when it comes to your discussions of what is hunting. So from a "protective" ethical standard how then can the sponsors of this measure? By not including buffalo it truly does appear you are choosing what is alright to shoot behind a fence and call it hunting and what is not while taking that ability away from others.  A pretty hypocritical stance if you ask me.

Roger Kaseman publically stated these animals are shot in the hindquarters so not to ruin the cape. Do you or any sponsors have any actual proof to back this emotional rhetoric up?

Dick Monson, another fellow sponsor has made claims in regards to the disease aspect that can not be factually backed up or are even reflective of the strict health regulations these operations are governed by here in ND. The examples he gives are all out of state occurances in states that do not have as stringent regulations set forth as does ND regarding these operations. He went so far as to insinuate the deer that tested positive for CWD in SW ND contracted it from a HF operation. Where's his proof?

And in fact you and I do have a degree of control over what groups like HSUS do here in ND. These groups know their agendas are not given much consideration here in states like ND. So if this measure had not been moved forward by your group, they would have no reason to spend their millions of dollars here in ND as they undoubtedly will if this is on the ballot. So PLEASE do not claim you have no control over what these groups do in our state because it is simply a COP OUT and a further example of not accepting the responsibilities of the consequences of your groups action.

And as to the cattle industry having nothing to fear from this measure, you might want to reconsider that statement. The simple fact the sponsors included this under the ND Ag Dept. section of the Century Code is concern enough. This measure is overwhelmingly opposed by members of the cattle industry for a number of reasons. The infringement on the property right of controling what one is able to do with animals that are classified as "domestic livestock" in the very section this law will be in , The opening of the door if a judicial ruling is required on this measure to determine how these "domestic livestock" can be sold or slaughtered in this section of the NDCC, as well as the independent nature of most cattlemen that are hunters that believe one group should not be able to dictate what a hunting experience must be for someone else.

If you accept the responsibility of signing onto a measure that may become state law one would think you should then understand fully how that law will be implemented in the states Century Code. So please explain how animals that are now defined as "domestic livestock" regulated under the Ag Dept will suddenly become "big game" that are regulated by the NDG&F, but wait these "big game" animals will not be regulated by the NDG&F, but rather the ND Ag Dept. that regulates "domestic animals" . So if they truly are "big game" animals shouldn't they be regulated by the NDG&F as is every other "big game " animal in ND? Or if they are regulated by the ND Ag Dept. should they be classified as "domestic livestock" as is evey other animal under this section. Clear as mud, what a basis for law to be formed from.  There is a reason there is a separation of these regulations and definitions of these animals, and this law will change that.

Jim please show in the NDCC where as you claim these "captive" animals are defined as "big game".

I respect people with differing opinions if they are factually truthful in their discussions of them and willing to accept the responsibilities tied to those opinions and the statements made regarding them. I respect differing opinions than mine if they are brought forth based on truth and fact. There simply is little about the rhetoric your fellow sponsors are spreading publically in their quest for signatures that fall in this catagory. Outside of Rogers admission this is truly about "bragging rights" and "hanging a head on the wall" .  But in regards to this measure I simply will not respect someone that believes they should be able to tell me or anyone else what one must take from the experience to call it hunting.

Starhunter's picture
Starhunter
Offline
Joined: 5/28/02

Jim, good explanation.

I am and always will be against high fence hunting because it destroys access to and the use of habitat by wildlife that uses it; it disrupts the natural flow of game.  I have a couple hundred acres and if my neighbor put up a high fence it would destroy my hunting.  

We are stewards of the land we own, we have the right to use it and profit off of it, but we don't have the right to remove it from the ecosystem and harm our neighbors right of enjoyment.

I will not only vote for a ban, I tell everyone I can the destruction it causes! 

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

jhegg1 Said:
gonefshn,

Of course, I disagree with you. The high fence operators are pimping out our hunting heritage for their own personal gain. I believe hunting should be fair chase and that is why I signed on the be a sponsor of this initiated measure. The high fence supporters will have you believe that this is a first step to curtailing all hunting activity and erode private property rights. Once this measure gets on the ballot, the sponsoring group is disbanded. We exist as a group no more. We obviously have no control over what other people do, but they will do what they want regardless of our activity.

Thank you for your comments.

At one time I was a supporter of the initiative, however after thinking this thing through, and having some conversations with others on FBO I have decided this is wrong Jim. There are a couple reasons I no longer support the initiative, and the biggest is perhaps that it's an initiated measure in the first place. Earlier you said this isn't only for hunters to decide, but for all voters of ND. That is absolutely correct, and that's what scares the hell out of me. You say your group will disband, and you may well do just that. But when an anti-hunter sees success in the initiated measure process they will do the same thing your group is doing and go right for the juglar.

With mourning doves a common resident in every city in ND they would be an easy target for them to get started. Show pictures of "unethical" hunters shooting those nice birdies everyone likes to listen to in the mornings and how do you think most non-hunters in the state will vote on a mourning dove hunting ban?

Some will say that won't happen in good old ND because of our rural roots, but how do they explain the ban on spring bear hunting in Ontario? Or the ban on hunting Mt. Lions in Colorado using dogs? Or the ban on HFH in neighboring Montana? Hunters are by far a minority in every state and province in north america and when non-hunters who don't understand hunting start voting on issues surrounding hunting hunters will lose. And lose big time, every time.

You guys are opening a can of worms that once opened will be damn hard to get the lid back on again. So don't give me that crap about preserving our hunting heritage. The committees shortsightedness may well be what ends our hunting heritage. Once anti-hunting groups see the benefit of using an initiated measure to bring something that should be decided by trained wildlife biologists to the voting box for uninformed voters to decide we'll be screwed. And I'll know who to thank.

Jon Mitzel has an excellent article in Dakota Country this month concerning this very thing, everyone would do well to read it and give Jon's comments some serious thoughts.

I don't believe this to be a threat to slaughtering cattle, or to have a damn thing to do with property rights, but it's certainly a threat to hunting itself. Shame on you for trying to push your beliefs on everyone else.

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

What's the position of the state's livestock and farm groups on the measure ?  I would probably let them make their own comments on how it will affect their industry ??  Any members of the groups out there??

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

under the law your neighbor does have that right. 

Starhunter Said:
Jim, good explanation.

I am and always will be against high fence hunting because it destroys access to and the use of habitat by wildlife that uses it; it disrupts the natural flow of game.  I have a couple hundred acres and if my neighbor put up a high fence it would destroy my hunting.  

We are stewards of the land we own, we have the right to use it and profit off of it, but we don't have the right to remove it from the ecosystem and harm our neighbors right of enjoyment.

I will not only vote for a ban, I tell everyone I can the destruction it causes! 

 

cdfrog74's picture
cdfrog74
Offline
Joined: 1/22/02

 Hey Jim,

Thanks for clearing those things up.  Sorry that people have been so rude to you.  I brought this topic up at a recent family get together.  Of the eight adults present (5 hunters, 3 non) everyone supports your measure.  First time that I can remember all of us agreeing on anything.  Can't wait for a vote and the end to HFH and all the bickering and fighting! Just wanted you to know you will have our support.

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

hunternd, the states livestock org. has significant concerns with this measure, as I mentioned in a previous post. Given the new tactic of these anti groups to find one sympathetic judge to make a judicial ruling (think wolf mngment or horse slaughter) rather than trying to convince a large segment of a population,  there is a conceivable problem with this measure falling under the Section of the NDCC that regulates "domestic livestock" . If a judge upholds this law that states it is illegal for a fee or renumeration to be received for the killing of an animal raised in or released from a man made enclosure designed to prevent escape,(exactly what is done in on farm slaughter of the domestic animals regulated under this section) and precedence is set,  it is conceivable a lawsuit could be filed to include all animals governed in this section under this ruling. Animal ag has fought these very tactics in other states. California style tactics. Mr Kaseman more than likely is familiar with them given the time he spent out there.

Remember NO other animals in this section of the NDCC are defined as big game, this regulatory separation has been maintained all along in the creation of state law.   There is a reason the NDG&F does not regulate "domestic livestock" and the  ND Ag Dept does not regulate "big game" that apparently the sponsors of this measure do not understand, or perhaps one or two do. This law will end that separation and the consequences of that will need to be delt with somewhere down the road. .

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

I do not agree with and will not ever hunt behind a "high fence", however I disagree even more with people who think they have to go through all this trouble to pass useless laws that do nothing more than irritate and take rights away from more people than they protect.  Do us all a favor and try to make alchohol illegal, you know, something that kills thousands of people every year.  You'd actually make a difference if you tackled that one.  But noooo, you have to make all this fuss over the few people that may be dumb enough to pay hi dollars to shoot a "farm animal"  WHO GIVES A $#!+ !!! 

You say you're protecting ethics.  Ethics lose their meaning and definition when it becomes law,  it is only ethical if you choose not to do something that you think is unethical, not just because it's illegal.  I wanna know what your real agenda is?  Nobody goes through this much BS and trouble because they're that worried about what farmer Bob is doing with his own land he paid for and pays taxes on.

North Dakota is "ethical" enough to prevent hi fence hunting from becoming a real problem.  Who cares if farmer bob gets $50,000 from some idiot yuppie doctor from Chicago to shoot his pet moose, good for him.

I'd like to see every moron that had too much time on their hands and managed to get a useless law passed behind a hi fence.   Unfortunately I think I'd have to stand in line to talk to the land owner for a very, very long time.

Remember...it's easy to make, impose, and enforce a new law, but near impossible to take it away.

Wouldn't you sleep easier at night if you spent your time fighting real evils and real problems in the world.  No, really...just think about it.  Is this really worth all this time, effort, and money?  Could it be better spend on some real issues, with real importance?  the homeless, alchoholism, drug use, REAL animal abuse, endangered specie conservation, safer automobiles, cures for cancer,  vampires, the boogie man, my habitual nose picking while at traffic lights...you know, REAL problems!

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

Jim,

I have a witness that was standing right beside me when you told me that on farm slaughter was already illegal, and any animal sold for slaughter must be done in an inspected facility. This just is not true. This would be another slap in the face to the ranchers of north dakota. Please don't lie on this site, it destroys credibility. I understand that you may not remember everything that you have said, I myself am guilty of that, but this is a topic that I am very passionate about, and I remember your words correctly, as does the other FBO member that was standing there with me.

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

EyeKllr Said:
Live and let live....sounds like a liberal motto...

I would not waste my time on here trying to answer loaded and phoney questions.  Get it on the ballot and let the people vote on it.

In a way it sounds that way....but not so much.  To me it means if you don't agree with something, it doesn't mean you should make it your agenda to put it down.  As long as you don't infringe on my freedom, I will let you go by alive and free.  If I see a big buck, and I have a tag....I will kill it.  I meant it to be more of a freedom statement rather than a literal statement...........sorry for the cloudiness of my point.

"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

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

If I own the bread and the meat; don't I have the right to sell the sandwich?

One step at a time...Be careful.

moosehunter09's picture
moosehunter09
Offline
Joined: 5/19/09

Jim,

please clarify your stance on individual property rights?

i, like many on this forum seem to be at odds with you based on or understanding of individual property rights. i would like to think that the vast majority of the people on here do not believe in HFH and would not support the operators product and this in-turn would render there product invaluable. however, we as Americans can not tell another person what they can and can not do as allowed them by law.

i hate to go back to the "give a mouse a cookie" argument but by now it should be clear that is where i am going. if you are successful in baning HFH then it sets a major precedent. what is next? pen raised birds? outfitted hunts? hunting dogs? firearms at all for the use of hunting? obviously radical examples but where is the line drawn? at what point is hunting "fair chase"? when do we not hav atleast some advantage over our quarry?    it is already happening with lead ammo... first it is to protect the watter fowl so no shooting ducks with lead (notice it is not"no hunting watter fowl over watter with lead shot" but simply "no hunting watter fowl with lead shot), then the California condor (eats lednfrom discarded innards of game animals).... soon non toxic bullets for big game.... whats after that? lead sinkers for fishing? lead cell batteries in our trolling motors for fear if the boat capsized they could contaminate the watter?

if you are so certain ND will go the way of Texas i would rather you support the boycott of a product you see as unfair or cruel while allowing the property owners to turn a profit on the land they own. i feel that circulating a petition that will effect property rights of a person by putting an initiative on the ballot for the uneducated public to vote on is a mistake. it is similar to the smoking ban in Fargo. i hate smokey bars, that is why i supported hooligans bar. i simply chose not to give the business that did not appeal to me my business.
 
in my opinion the time and energy would have been better directed towards obtaining more public land for everyone to enjoy while being a voice in the opposition of HFH.

thank you for your time
Tyler

 rEVOLution 2016

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

Jim, wether it seems like it or not, the fact you are willing to come on this site to answer questions is appreciated. It gives a little better direct insight to the mindset of the individuals behind this measure. So here is one more question if you would. If this measure is soley about Fair Chase as you have said, please explain why "exotic mamals were included in the wording, when buffalo were not?

There is NO season on "exotic mammals" here in ND to participate in under FC rules. Their inclusion suggests this is about something more than FC as claimed, and there in lies the basis for questioning why buffalo were included then dropped from this measure. If exotic mammals that have no season here in ND are included, why is it not conceivable that this law once inacted, could possibly be amended to include other non big game animals as well? 

Once again, thanks for coming on here, and if you are unable to answer these questions as a sponsor it would be appreciated if you could get one of your fellow sponsors that can to come on here to do so. The people of ND should have answers to their questions if they are to participate in the governmental procedure of forming law. That includes those on FBO as well as those at the home and garden shows.

Cowbell's picture
Cowbell
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/15/06

Jim,
I have one plain and simple question: If the voters of North Dakota shoot down this measure in the November election, will your group try to get it on the ballot again?

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

PikePits Said:
If I own the bread and the meat; don't I have the right to sell the sandwich?

Sure, but you shouldn't advertise it as a steak.

It's not that bad.

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

I am pleased with how everyone is being civil in this discussion.  I have enjoyed reading this thread.

Thank you.


 

 

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

 

 
Woodpecker's picture
Woodpecker
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

Before I ask this queston, please do not evade the question by saying: If you don't like it start your own initiative. You are merely trying to dance away from the direct question.
Also there are at least 4 places I believe in the US where these animals can still be No Fence hunted.

WHY NOT BISON?

I will check in on Monday for the answer. Thank you!

jhegg1's picture
jhegg1
Offline
Joined: 1/7/06

pber,

In response to your question about the definitition of big game. The ND Century code defines big game as deer, moose, elk,bighorn sheep, mountain goats and antelope. So, elk are definitely a big game species.

20.1-01-02. Definitions.

1. "Afield" means being away from one's home or camp. The term does not include

driving or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in violation of section

39-08-01 or equivalent ordinance.

2. "Any part thereof" or "the parts thereof" includes the hide, horns, or hoofs of any

animal specified and the plumage, skin, and every other part of any bird specified.

3. "Aquatic nuisance species" means any nonindigenous, obligate aquatic species of

plant or animal which is injurious to native and desirable aquatic species or which

has a negative effect on aquatic habitats, environment, or the economy of the state.

4. "Associated equipment" means:

a. Any system, part, or component of a boat as originally manufactured or any

similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement, repair, or

improvement of such system, part, or component;

b. Any accessory or equipment for, or appurtenance to, a boat; and

c. Any marine safety article, accessory, or equipment intended for use by a

person on board a boat; but

d. Excluding radio equipment.

5. "Big game" means deer, moose, elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and antelope.

In this title, unless the context otherwise requires:

jhegg1's picture
jhegg1
Offline
Joined: 1/7/06

pber,

With 12 signatures a minute, how did people even have a chance to find out what the initiative was about? 

Good question! I was surprised when I heard that number too. Perhaps you should talk to your fellow high fence hunt supporter who did the counting. A lot of people did know what the measure was about. They told their friends who came over to sign also. We talked to people who had questions. If they just wanted to stay there and argue - we asked them to move along.

jhegg1's picture
jhegg1
Offline
Joined: 1/7/06

pber,

What kind of precedence will the wording of this measure set in regard to other livestock if it becomes law and is placed into the ND Century Code under the LIVESTOCK section.  

None.

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

Jim,

Yes elk are big game, but not farmed elk. Let's take this a step further: 




 

TITLE 20.1

GAME, FISH, PREDATORS, AND BOATING

CHAPTER 20.1-01

GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

"SPECIES" includes any subspecies of WILDLIFE and any other group of wildlife of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when mature.

 

WILDLIFE:  "Wildlife" means any member of the animal kingdom including any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, nonmigratory, or endangered bird for which protection

is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile,

mollusk, crustacean, or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or

offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof.  WILDLIFE DOES NOT INCLUDE DOMESTIC ANIMALS AS DEFINED BY SECTION 36-01-00.1 OR BIRDS OR ANIMALS HELD IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.


TITLE 36


LIVESTOCK

CHAPTER 36-01

STATE BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH

 

3. "Domestic animal" means dog, cat, horse, bovine animal, sheep, goat, bison,

FARMED ELK, llama, alpaca, or swine.

 

 

So explain to me why in Senate Bill 2254 when this went before the legislators the wording was as follows.  Notice the use of farmed elk and nontraditional livestock.  If it was good enough for the legislators why not for the general public?

 

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1.
A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows: Nontraditional livestock and farmed elk facilities - Fee shooting prohibited -  Penalty. After the effective date of this Act, the shooting of nontraditional livestock or farmed elk for a fee or other remuneration on a licensed nontraditional livestock or farmed elk facility is prohibited. A person who willfully violates this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

 

 

 

jhegg1's picture
jhegg1
Offline
Joined: 1/7/06

pber,

To address your first question:

You guys may not be card carrying members of HSUS or PETA, but please explain the following:  Two years ago with the last petition drive, why did Roger Kaseman meet with HSUS Regional Director, David Pauli who blogged about coming to North Dakota and meeting with OFFICIALS; why were carbon copies sent via email from Karen Thunshelle, North Dakota HSUS representative, to Roger Kaseman, why did she send out emails with correspondence from Roger, and why did the Humane Society of the United States have an alert on their site last go round asking North Dakota Citizens to sign? 
 

I assume the following email I received from Dwight is what you are talking about:

Jim,
 
My sister contacted David Pauli who then put in touch with Karen. My sister is Paula Berger in this contact. pber 
 
On Fri, 7/11/08, Ron and Karen

This is part of another email I received from Dwight: 
Jim,
 
At the very bottom of this one is the part about the federal animal cruelty bill. Karen Thunshell is married to Ron Thunshell. Ron is a DVM and owns his pratice called Pinkerton Animal Hospital on north hill Minot. Karen runs the animal shelter. If you take a good look at Karens address book you will find some real half cracks.
 
 The Fargo-Moorehead Humane Society is also listed there.
 
 One of the sponsers now is Janine Jacobs. Janine works with the Central Dakota Humane Society in Bismarck. A few years ago she took a stock trailer to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina and brought back homeless dogs. Janine is a parole officer and works with Gary Masching, the co-chair of the HFI.
 
Now some may argue that this is not HSUS per se. These are just your local animal shelters. Ok if these local animal shelters want people to contribute, be tolerant, accept their life styles and support the local humane chapters, then should they be involved with something like this? Should they try to hide their involvement? Many of the people in Karens address book are activists. Partnering with Kaseman was beneficial to forward their agenda along.
 
In this email, Pauli refers to Karen as "...one of the citizen organizers of signature collections for this effort... " Voting ND citizens can legally collect signatures for any initiated measure, regardless of their affilitations. We have no control over that. I am or have been affiliated with the NRA, Delta Waterfowl and Ducks Unlimited. That does not mean that we were recieving support from those organizations.


 

 
Thanks so much for inquiring Paula.  We definitely need to get more people involved in helping us with signature gathering.  Whether its a full petition or even just a few signatures from family and friends.  I do have petitions spots set up around the state for people to sign.  Where are you located?  I have packets available with petitions from the secretary of state.  Each petition holds a 38 signature slots.  If your interested I would love to send you a packet and I would enclose all the rules for signing.  Because we are trying to get on the NOV. ballot there are specifics from the secretary of state about gathering.  This is such a good thing and we really must end this type of hunting in ND.   We have to get at least 12,844 signatures to get this on the Nov. ballot.  If you would like to join in our efforts I will mail you out a packet today just send me your address.  We are very close to our deadline so all petitions must be sent back to me in less than 3 weeks.  Thanks for Caring Paula.   www.northdakotafairchase.com  is the Fair chase website for you to research further if you need to.
 
Karen
NEVER UNDER ESTIMATE THE POWER OF ONE!!!
----- Original Message -----
 
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Fair Chase Initiative
 

Hi Paula...
 
Not sure which blog you are referring to... and I meet with ND officials on each of my 6-8 trips to Bismarck every year... so will have to answer this query in general based upon the subject line.
 
The North Dakota Fair Chase initiative is a campaign started by hunters and hunting groups in North Dakota.
 
As regional director of The Humane Society of the United States I strongly support their effort to bring the issue of "canned hunting"  to the public vote for consideraton ,self determination and potential self regulation.
 
I am ccing one of the citizen organizers of signature collections for this effort... I am certain they would send a petition to one of your friends and family network with the proper rules for signature collection. ( the petition must be signed in front of the signature gatherer , etc, etc)
 
There is also some good information on the fair chase website -  www.fairchase.org - i think, but could also be word searched under ND fair chase.
 
Sorry for brevity... I am currently working on wolverine issues in MT and some breaking large cruelty cases in UT and Idaho.  But appreciate you considering adding your voice to the thousands of North Dakotans that are asking for the opportunity for the North Dakota public to decide if they want the shooting of captive mammals to be part of the North Dakota identity.
 
thanks for any effort to help North Dakota residents decide their public policy on issues like this.
 
Dave
 
In a message dated 7/10/2008 4:34:33 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, writes:

Mr. Pauli,

 

Saw your blog about being in North Dakota and meeting with an official.  I am very much interested in this cause.  Who did you meet with there and how can I get a hold of them?  I am originally from ND and have several family members who I would like to tell about this. 

 

Paula

From: Ron and Karen>
Subject: Re: Fair Chase Initiative
To:
Date: Friday, July 11, 2008, 3:59 PM

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

Jim, the thing is,  the definition you give comes from the section 20.1 of the NDCC dedicated to the NDG&F and the regulation of WILD game animals. Not  sec 36 where this law will end up. In Sec 36 these CAPTIVE elk and deer are defined as "domestic livestock".  So if this measure is to be included in Sec 36. shouldn;t the definition there in be used to define these "captive" animals which is that of "domestic animals" ? The posititon of your group is contradictory. On one hand you argue these animals should not be classified as "domestic animals" but then on the other you claim that is what they are, hand fed pen reared animals that the shooting of which cannot be considered hunting. So which is it. Are they hand fed "domestic animals" that are already governed under the NDCC section dedicated to these types animals or are they wild "big game" that should be regulated under the section dedicated to that?

There actually is a Section 20.1 - 12  in the NDCC G&F section that deals with the regulation of "shooting preserves". So why wasn't this measure included under this section? One thing of note, when you claim this is about shooting animals that one can pursue in the wild under FC rules, the types of birds that are allowed to be hunted on the "shooting preserves" include pheasants, partridge, turkeys, and prarie chickens, all of which have seasons here in ND where they can be hunted following your fair chase rules in the wild. And the very name of the section these operations are governed under "SHOOTING PRESERVES", lends itself to believe if this measure is truly about shooting hand fed pen reared creatures giving hunting a black eye as your website implies and sponsors have stated, these operations as well should have been included. Perhaps if these birds had horns that had a B&C scoring system on them they would have been given more consideration under your ethical concerns. 

Jim, please do not pick and choose which questions you will answer but answer them all.  If we as citizens of this state are going to have a say in the governing process, we should be fully informed prior to making our decision.

iluvswnd's picture
iluvswnd
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/9/04

 

multi-species-angler Said:
I do not agree with and will not ever hunt behind a "high fence", however I disagree even more with people who think they have to go through all this trouble to pass useless laws that do nothing more than irritate and take rights away from more people than they protect.  Do us all a favor and try to make alchohol illegal, you know, something that kills thousands of people every year.  You'd actually make a difference if you tackled that one.  But noooo, you have to make all this fuss over the few people that may be dumb enough to pay hi dollars to shoot a "farm animal"  WHO GIVES A $#!+ !!! 

You say you're protecting ethics.  Ethics lose their meaning and definition when it becomes law,  it is only ethical if you choose not to do something that you think is unethical, not just because it's illegal.  I wanna know what your real agenda is?  Nobody goes through this much BS and trouble because they're that worried about what farmer Bob is doing with his own land he paid for and pays taxes on.

North Dakota is "ethical" enough to prevent hi fence hunting from becoming a real problem.  Who cares if farmer bob gets $50,000 from some idiot yuppie doctor from Chicago to shoot his pet moose, good for him.

I'd like to see every moron that had too much time on their hands and managed to get a useless law passed behind a hi fence.   Unfortunately I think I'd have to stand in line to talk to the land owner for a very, very long time.

Remember...it's easy to make, impose, and enforce a new law, but near impossible to take it away.

Wouldn't you sleep easier at night if you spent your time fighting real evils and real problems in the world.  No, really...just think about it.  Is this really worth all this time, effort, and money?  Could it be better spend on some real issues, with real importance?  the homeless, alchoholism, drug use, REAL animal abuse, endangered specie conservation, safer automobiles, cures for cancer,  vampires, the boogie man, my habitual nose picking while at traffic lights...you know, REAL problems!

J

jhegg1's picture
jhegg1
Offline
Joined: 1/7/06

Gabe,

You make an important point that I am going to address out-of-order.

Jim, please do not pick and choose which questions you will answer but answer them all.  If we as citizens of this state are going to have a say in the governing process, we should be fully informed prior to making our decision.
We agree! I am working my way down the list of responses and answering people in the order they responded - except for this comment. I want you to know that I am not picking and choosing questions to answer. I will answer them all to the best of my ability. That does not mean that everyone will like my answers. I will respond to each issue 2-3 times. If that does not resolve it in some peoples minds, then - for them - it can not be resolved.
jhegg1's picture
jhegg1
Offline
Joined: 1/7/06

beedoggs1,

Jim,

I have a witness that was standing right beside me when you told me that on farm slaughter was already illegal, and any animal sold for slaughter must be done in an inspected facility. This just is not true. This would be another slap in the face to the ranchers of north dakota. Please don't lie on this site, it destroys credibility. I understand that you may not remember everything that you have said, I myself am guilty of that, but this is a topic that I am very passionate about, and I remember your words correctly, as does the other FBO member that was standing there with me.

I do not remember saying that on farm slaughter of livestock is already illegal and that any animal sold for slaughter must be done in an inspected facility. As far as I know, that it is not true. If I did say that I was wrong and apologize to you and anyone else who may have heard that.

Hopefully, this will be the last time time I have to respond to questions out of order.

moosehunter09's picture
moosehunter09
Offline
Joined: 5/19/09

jim,

you skiped my question about the preoperty rights side of this issue. i do not support the HFH however i have a real problem with the blatant disregaurd for individual property rights.

if i have misconstrued what you are trying to do please set the record strait.

thanks again for coming on to this forum to answer questions
tyler

 rEVOLution 2016

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

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t36c01.pdf

Jim here is the section of the NDCC that this measure is intended to be included under. I did mispeak abit earlier when I said these captive elk are defined as "domestic livestock. In actuality they are defined as "farmed elk" and classified as "domestic livestock" in this section of the NDCC. Your measure does not deal with the definition, just the classification of them as "big game" so how can there be two separate and contradicting classifications of these animals in one Sec of the NDCC???   The inclusion of "exotic mammals" in this measure also puts it at odds with the language defining and regulating "nontradition livestock"   

http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t36c25.pdf

This is the section of the NDCC dealing specifically with defining these animals. If you notice Sec 36-25-06 states
Farmed elk are livestock and products of farmed elk are farm products for the purpose of FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS and collateral. The raising of farmed elk is agricultural production and an agricultural pursuit.
Sec-36-25-02 states the Board of Animal Health has the ability to adopt rules relating to the raising of farmed elk. 

So which "law" becomes the law of the state, and how will that be accomplished given the clearly contradicting intent of each respective law? 

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

So who are the officials that David Pauli, Regional Director for HSUS, meets with 6-8 times a year in BISMARCK, ND?  Are they state officials, federal officials?  Apparently David Pauli cannot take no for an answer?  I do not believe he met with Roger. 

Here is the article from Tom Remington right after this event occurred in 2008:

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/category/north-dakota-hunting-news/page/2/

North Dakota Fair Chase “Official” Meets With HSUS Regional Director

July 11, 2008

Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

*Scroll for Updates*

It would appear to me that the North Dakota Hunters For Fair Chase has some serious explaining to do and may also be in line to offer up an apology or two for not being very honest and transparent……but they won’t. It’s not part of their mission. Their goal is to tread on American’s rights while attempting to force their ideals down the throats of their neighbors in what now clearly indicates the desire to use whatever means available to them. In this case, accepting, if not asking, for the help of the Humane Society of the United States.

For those who may not know, the HSUS offers this statement on their website as policy regarding hunting.

As a matter of principle, The HSUS opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or sport because of the animal trauma, suffering, and death that result. A humane society should not condone the killing of any sentient creature in the name of sport. As a practical matter, The HSUS actively seeks to eliminate the most inhumane and unfair sport-hunting practices, such as the use of body-gripping traps, baiting, use of dogs, pigeon shoots, stocking of animals for shooting, and fee-hunting on enclosed properties.

The North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, with their self-righteous attitudes, claim to be concerned about passing on their hunting heritage to their kids.

….a group of men and women dedicated to preserving Fair Chase as an intricate part of our state and national hunting heritage, a heritage that we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

I have mentioned before that NDHFF uses quotes from Aldo Leopold to support their Marxist ideals but evidently they don’t pay much attention to all the words in the statement they posted at the very top of their website.

Voluntary adherence to an ethical code elevates the self-respect of the sportsman, but it should not be forgotten that voluntary disregard of the code degenerates and depraves him.” (emboldening is added)

Where in this statement does it say that if we don’t like the ethics of another hunter we should make laws in prohibition? Isn’t the whole value of the “ethical code” wrapped up in “voluntary adherence? And what makes it “wrong” or “unethical” is when that same person understands yet willing violates his own ethical code.

And where is the “ethical code” in meeting with and accepting support from the Humane Society of the United States, an organization that clearly states its goal is to end all forms of hunting, in their quest to legislate fair chase rules? Is there no ethical value in being honest anymore?

It certainly appears that North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase has some explaining to do. Repeatedly, representatives of the organization have either denied any involvement with HSUS or claimed they have no control over who supports or endorses the citizen’s initiative to ban hunting on game ranches.

We know that previously members of HSUS were helping to raise money and recruit names to go on the petition necessary to get the initiative on the November ballot.

We also know that Roger Kaseman, director of NDHFF, has more than one time made the following statements about HSUS in one form or another.

We have not and do not intend to seek the endorsement of any anti-hunting group.

……..we are not in bed with HSUS, nor will we be.

I am sure anti-hunting organizations will offer financial support for the campaign when we qualify the intuitive for the ballot. The committee is unanimous; we will turn down that support.

What HSUS places on their web site is beyond my control.

Who HSUS or any other organization endorses is beyond my control and beyond the control of any member of the Fair Chase Committee.

Just to take a closer examination of Kaseman’s statements, we can see a couple of things that are now turning out to be blatantly false statements.

Kaseman says NDHFF does not “intend” to seek endorsements and that he has no control over what HSUS or others place on their website. Perhaps true but never have I read anywhere that NDHFF has spoken out that it does not in anyway support ANY effort of the nation’s most radical anti-hunting group. NDHFF claims, as Kaseman iterates in his statements, that “I am not, nor is the Fair Chase Hunters organization an anti-hunting group.”

Further scrutiny of Kaseman’s statement reveals that back in February he seemed to have a crystal ball that told him that he was sure anti-hunting groups would offer financial support to their cause. Did he already know?

What’s interesting is that Kaseman states that the NDHFF committee had unanimously voted to turn down that support. Oh really? Somebody jumped ship I guess.

Kaseman also went so far in an editorial in the Bismark Tribune of accusing those opposed to his initiative of using deceptive practices because radio ads stated that HSUS was supporting the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.

One of the organizations fighting against the efforts of the Fair Chase Initiative is a group called Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights. They have issued a press release to announce that an “official” of North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, met with the Director of the Northern Rockies Regional Office of the Humane Society of the United States, Dave Pauli.

Pauli evidently writes a blog and in a post that was published on June 30, 2008, he said he traveled to Dickinson and Bismark, North Dakota where he met with an official of NDHFF.

After Baker I kept going east to Dickinson and Bismarck ND where i met with an official of the Fair Chase hunting movement who are trying to pass a ballot initiative to ban “canned hunting” practices in North Dakota.

Pauli admits to things that officials in other states trying also to ban ranch hunting have denied as vehemently as Kaseman has.

We helped pass a ban on this egregious practice in Montana in 2005 and are supporting similar goals in Idaho and Colorado.

And Pauli admits that the purpose of his trip to North Dakota was to support the Fair Chase Initiative.

The signatures have to be in by the end of July so I stopped at shelters and activists homes along the way to encourage them to support the ballot initiative.

It certainly doesn’t sound like Pauli’s meeting with this “official” of the NDHFF was to hear that the Fair Chasers didn’t want their support.

Once this information is readily available, what will we hear from the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase? More excuses? More lies? Helplessness?

I have no problem with any organization exercising their constitutional rights to petition the citizens and seek changes to laws. What I do have a problem with is when anyone has to use deceptive practices to achieve their goals. Those I will challenge.

It has now become quite clear that the North Dakota Hunters For Fair Chase is not honest. They have deceived the public and lied in saying that the committee would refuse any assistance from anti-hunting groups. They have accepted that help from this country’s most radical anti-hunting group that will not stop until they have succeeded in putting a ban on all hunting. This tells me that the NDHFF is an anti-hunting group hiding behind ethics and fair chase. Isn’t it ironic that a group emoting its holier-than-thou attitudes haven’t the scruples to be honest and forthcoming in their efforts to effect radical change in North Dakota?

North Dakota voters, should the Fair Chasers get enough signatures, now have to take a closer look at what they have been told by this group. What can they believe? Can they be trusted?

Shawn Schafer of Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights says it quite well in referencing a partnership of HSUS and NDHFF.

Unfortunately, their partnership with HSUS has the Fair Chase group leading North Dakota down the path toward criminalizing hunting, says Shawn Schafer with Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights.  Whether you choose to hunt on a preserve or not, hunters should have a choice in the matter and property owners should have the right to offer this option. The Fair Chase initiative is clearly endangering the hunting tradition in North Dakota through this union, Schafer says.

I have to agree. The Fair Chase Initiative is being sold as a means to save and protect hunting heritage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

*Update*
This morning, David Pauli, regional director of the Humane Society of the United States, has a letter to the editor in the Bismark Tribune. Aside from the usual lies HSUS is famous for regarding preserve hunting, Pauli, without naming names, essentially publicly endorses the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase. He also glorifies the unification of hunters and anti-hunting groups to fight for the cause.

Time and time again, hunters, humane groups, environmentalists and just plain sound-thinking people have joined forces for the common good.

Sound-thinking people? Doubtful!

Tom Remington


shannon's picture
shannon
Offline
Joined: 8/23/06

Today it is high fence hunting, next it is high powered rifles, then it is fair chase hunting, and finally it is gun ownership.  I happen to think calf roping is tough on the animals.  Should I try to get a law passed eliminating it from rodeo.  Of course not.  I simply will not do it. 

Regardless of if you like it or not land some land owners are supplementing income in this manner.  Who are you to decide how someone can make a living?  One of the many things you fail to understand is that this issue goes way deeper than the ethics of high fence hunting. 

Cowbell's picture
Cowbell
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/15/06

Back to top, hoping for an answer to my question.

Ladd's picture
Ladd
Offline
Joined: 2/1/07
By posting this I am not intending to enter into the debate on this or trying to encourage people to issue a bunch of lengthy fatwa’s about this or that.   One point of civics, however.   It’s been my observation that if a measure passes the next legislature cleans up any conflicts in the century code to make the statutes conform with intent of the measure.   The measures purpose will be given priority because it expresses the will of the people. In fact, this happens all the time.   On the smoking measure; WSI; the bank privacy measure, and others that passed there were conflicts with definitions and other things in statutes.   Bills are put in, usually by the relevant state agency, to “smooth” out the code so the measure doesn’t create confusion.   Therefore, if this measure passes you will likely see bills sponsored by state agencies to clean up any conflicts in titles 20.1 and 36 as far as what definitions are what.   Measures are never detailed enough to amend all the relevant statutes and it’s up to the state agencies who have to enforce the law in the area to ensure it gets clarified.   That might be one reason the AG’s office approves the measure’s language before signatures are gathered, so if it passes they try and make sure up front that they can amend other laws to make it fit?

 

You might recall the measure to reduce income taxes Duane Sand was pushing a couple years ago.   Before the election is was discovered that the measure missed some tax brackets or something to that effect.   Legislators public stated that they would fix the problems in the measure if it passes.      Therefore, no matter what side of this issue you are on, if it passes you can be certain that deer and elk fenced hunts will be prohibited and no defenses will be left in titles 20.1 or 36 that these species are defined as something not covered by the measure.

 

It’s just the way things work ………….

Pages