High Fence Hunting On the Ballot Recent Comments

re: High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

2010-10-10 09:32:48

posted by: mauserG33-40. Ron It is good to see a sponsor from the first HF measure comes forward and gave his reason for not sponsoring the secound measure. No HSUS envloment in the FC measures? This is a post on Nodak by Bruce Hansen (Plainsman) Admit Ron the FC group has been in bed with the HSUS from the beginning.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=86288
.................................................................................................................................................

Re: Measure 2 Help for a dummy

by Plainsman » Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:35 am

I remember seeing adds against high fence hunting way back in the 1980's. To be honest those could have come from an animal rights group, or anyone else for that matter because I don't remember. Those who started these operations should have known they were taking a risk. Since I worked in wildlife and am interested in wha't happening I have watched these things. For the past ten years this has been coming more and more to the forefront.

Maybe some ranchers/farmers should have sat down with these guys when they drew up the petition. If I remember offers were made to the high fence people, but they simply thumbed their nose because they thought they had the legislature in their pocket. Many say just don't call it hunting. I think that was also brought up to the high fence crowd and they just laughed. They have had their chance to change slightly, now the big change is coming. To bad they were so arrogant.

Now if you would just give the same kind of honest answer about why you are not involved with this measure this time around that you gave me awhile back if you recall.

You have a big mouth gst, and I will never tell you anything again. Just so people don't read to much into this I will answer it. I was ticked that Roger even talked to HSUS because I have zero respect for HSUS or PETA. I also had some better ideas, but they came to me and asked me to support it again without even a chance to read it. That I thought was disrespectful so screw them. Anyway, just because a few acted like a$$eS doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. I will still vote for it, but I will not get anymore involved with those people than I will you again. You want to talk in pm's then run your mouth about what is said. You betrayed trust and I have no reason to answer any questions for you anymore
.......................................................................................................................................................

At least Hansen could see what will happen with the HSUS.

We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States… We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." – Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990

re: High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

2010-10-08 13:20:04

posted by: mauserG33-40.

pber Said:

db is right. Everyone needs to talk to people or write letters to the editors. It really needs to be emphasized what this measure is about and what it will do. People need to know these animals are privately owned domestic animals called "farmed elk" and deer.

I found out yesterday as I was talking to various people that some have already voted yes by absentee ballot because:

1. They thought this measure was to save endangered species.

2. They thought this measure was to save "wild" animals.

3. They thought this measure was to save hunting.

www.ndpropertyrights.com

sportsman | Said:
pber is right. I have been talking to several people about this measure also.

Is it possable the voters of ND have been mislead by this group.

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

It is Hard to believe with a measure being about ethics. Some of these people that sponsor this measure are government employees,paid from the taxes of the people who have been mislead.

It is much clearer now why now of the sponsors will NOT answer questions about this measure.

re: High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

2010-10-08 13:11:49

posted by: gst. Sportsman, I am not going to ask you wether you tell people this is unethical or not when you are talking with them because I believe that is each individuals choice to make and you certainly have the right to make that arguement. But I am curious if you tell people these are legally defined privately owned domestic animals that the state gives the same consideration as other privately owned livestock, or as Sponsor Gary Masching claimed they are wild animals that belong to the people?

If you are advocating for this measure with truthful honest facts, I actually support your right and ability to do so, and even have a degree of respect for the fact you are involved. As I have said repeatedly , I believe the creation of law should be based on truthful facts. If SOME of the sponsors had simply stuck to this standard, much of ths debate would not have been necessary.

re: High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

2010-10-08 11:20:44

posted by: sportsman |. pber is right. I have been talking to several people about this measure also.

re: High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

2010-10-08 10:27:00

posted by: pber.

db is right. Everyone needs to talk to people or write letters to the editors. It really needs to be emphasized what this measure is about and what it will do. People need to know these animals are privately owned domestic animals called "farmed elk" and deer.

I found out yesterday as I was talking to various people that some have already voted yes by absentee ballot because:

1. They thought this measure was to save endangered species.

2. They thought this measure was to save "wild" animals.

3. They thought this measure was to save hunting.

www.ndpropertyrights.com

re: High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

2010-10-07 22:21:40

posted by: rhameboy.

Think everyone needs to read this again....

SPOT ON db

db Said:
Guys quit using words that I need to look up in the dictionary to known what they mean. And then I have a really old dictionary and the word aptly is not in there. But apt was.
gst I am on your side. I stood at the state fair and listen when they requested these young kid's signature. I listen as he told them by signing this petition you would ensure that hunting will remain open to the public in North Dakota. That HFH will take it away from from the people of ND. Statements and others made for the sole purpose of obtaining the signature.
The yes boys do not like it and do not think you should do it because of their standards, period. Is HFH moral (I believe that is the right term now, not ethical)? I do not known. It is in the eye of the beholder. For me it is find. If a person raises an animal and sells it to someone to shoot. Fine. Is it hunting? No. Would I do it. I will decide if the time comes. It is what it is. Does it hurt the image of hunting? Maybe, but it has been going on for some time now and I do not remember an outrage over it before a guy from California came here. So both sides tell half truth for the vote. So us "NO" boys need to get the truth out there to those that have no ideal what is going on. Today I again did visit with a number of people. Asked how they were voting on measure #2? Needed to explain and a no came out right away. Requested them to tell others So far I have had only one person say yes. He then asked me if they would take his trail camera away? So Swift what is right about HFH? Maybe helping provide a living for some family? Help me with that answer. What is wrong besides the moral issue? But I do not say what is right about it and find I do not have to say anything. What is wrong is how many other moral/ethic question will we ask the voters to decide on before we are done deciding what is moral/ethic in this state. When will we accept the fact that our neighbor knowns what is moral/ethic? thanks db

re: High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

2010-10-07 21:54:53

posted by: BringingTheRain.

db Said:
Guys quit using words that I need to look up in the dictionary to known what they mean. And then I have a really old dictionary and the word aptly is not in there. But apt was.
gst I am on your side. I stood at the state fair and listen when they requested these young kid's signature. I listen as he told them by signing this petition you would ensure that hunting will remain open to the public in North Dakota. That HFH will take it away from from the people of ND. Statements and others made for the sole purpose of obtaining the signature.
The yes boys do not like it and do not think you should do it because of their standards, period. Is HFH moral (I believe that is the right term now, not ethical)? I do not known. It is in the eye of the beholder. For me it is find. If a person raises an animal and sells it to someone to shoot. Fine. Is it hunting? No. Would I do it. I will decide if the time comes. It is what it is. Does it hurt the image of hunting? Maybe, but it has been going on for some time now and I do not remember an outrage over it before a guy from California came here. So both sides tell half truth for the vote. So us "NO" boys need to get the truth out there to those that have no ideal what is going on. Today I again did visit with a number of people. Asked how they were voting on measure #2? Needed to explain and a no came out right away. Requested them to tell others So far I have had only one person say yes. He then asked me if they would take his trail camera away? So Swift what is right about HFH? Maybe helping provide a living for some family? Help me with that answer. What is wrong besides the moral issue? But I do not say what is right about it and find I do not have to say anything. What is wrong is how many other moral/ethic question will we ask the voters to decide on before we are done deciding what is moral/ethic in this state. When will we accept the fact that our neighbor knowns what is moral/ethic? thanks db

Omg. Who's from California? Those people are already ruining MT. ND does not, i repeat, does not need or deserve to go down that road.

re: High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

2010-10-07 21:42:56

posted by: gst. sportsman, I have never supported anyone regardless of whose "side" they are on distracting the discussion from the facts regarding this issue by making personal attacks or name calling. If you can show where I have personally done that please do. The "side" I have repeatedly claimed is I believe laws should be created based on truth. Do you believe the sponsors that are trying to create this law have held themselves to that standard. Please answer that one question. Anyone?

db, I apreciate your posts. I too take every chance I get to converse with people regarding this measure. Almost to a person the people I know and am around are opposed to this measure for many of the reasons listed on here. They have come to those conclusions on their own, long before I ever talked to them. However there are many who do not have the ties to agriculture or understand the value of making ones own choices or have stopped to fully think about the consequences of this measure that have bought into the emotional rhetoric like what you and others have mentioned listeninng to these sponsors claim. Swift admits the answers to the questions I posed would likely be relevant in the inevitable court case that will arise from this measure. If the intent of the sponsors is as simple and pure as some are trying to claim the answers to these questions should not affect their position in regards to this measure. Yet no sponsor has answered them all. That to many says alot.

There have been people that have accused me of lying on this site. When challenged to provide direct examples they have not been able to do so. It is because I have not. Supporters of this measure have demanded people take their ball and go home and quit asking questions. The very way one garners information on a subject or issue IS BY ASKING QUESTIONS AND HAVING THEM ANSWERED. I have tried my best to answer questions asked of me. If the sponsors or supporters of this measure do not want to answer questions or dismiss them as irrelevant simply because the answers will not help their measure they should have never begin the process of imposing their personal beliefs onto others and asking the ND people to vote on it. EVERY ND CITIZEN HAS THE RIGHT AND SOME MIGHT SAY DUTY TO QUESTION THE CREATION OF LAWS THAT GOVERN THEM AND WHY THEY ARE BEING CREATED. I believe the creation of law should be based on truthful factual statements. I believe the intent of laws should be clearly defined as well as how they will be implemented and the consequences of their implementation be made clear to the voters before they vote on them. None of these things have been done in regards to this measure. Simply passing a law to get something done without knowing the full consequences is foolish. One only has to take a look at the national political scene to realize this. Why would anyone want this to happen here in ND?

Once again, if the intent and consequences of this measure are as simple and pure as some claim, what harm can come from answering a handful of questions?

re: High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

2010-10-07 15:53:23

posted by: Db. Guys quit using words that I need to look up in the dictionary to known what they mean. And then I have a really old dictionary and the word aptly is not in there. But apt was.
gst I am on your side. I stood at the state fair and listen when they requested these young kid's signature. I listen as he told them by signing this petition you would ensure that hunting will remain open to the public in North Dakota. That HFH will take it away from from the people of ND. Statements and others made for the sole purpose of obtaining the signature.
The yes boys do not like it and do not think you should do it because of their standards, period. Is HFH moral (I believe that is the right term now, not ethical)? I do not known. It is in the eye of the beholder. For me it is find. If a person raises an animal and sells it to someone to shoot. Fine. Is it hunting? No. Would I do it. I will decide if the time comes. It is what it is. Does it hurt the image of hunting? Maybe, but it has been going on for some time now and I do not remember an outrage over it before a guy from California came here. So both sides tell half truth for the vote. So us "NO" boys need to get the truth out there to those that have no ideal what is going on. Today I again did visit with a number of people. Asked how they were voting on measure #2? Needed to explain and a no came out right away. Requested them to tell others So far I have had only one person say yes. He then asked me if they would take his trail camera away? So Swift what is right about HFH? Maybe helping provide a living for some family? Help me with that answer. What is wrong besides the moral issue? But I do not say what is right about it and find I do not have to say anything. What is wrong is how many other moral/ethic question will we ask the voters to decide on before we are done deciding what is moral/ethic in this state. When will we accept the fact that our neighbor knowns what is moral/ethic? thanks db

re: High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

2010-10-07 12:38:25

posted by: sportsman |.

gst Said:

the supporters of this measure invariably focas making it personal rather than discuss the issue at hand.

the likes of Ron or other "yes men" as they have been aptly called.

Exactly what the opponents to this measure do. Making it personal with attacks, name calling, insinuations at ties to organizations such as HSUS and PETA (not just attacks at Kaseman either), etc. gst, I don't think your side is any less guilty of trying to make it personal. In fact, you do it more.