$22 million? looks like its not over,,,,,,,,,,

danr55

Active member
Joined
Dec 18, 2000
Messages
4,327
Location
Mesa, AZ
Sounds to me like the "stupid public" should be voting on an initiative to make the Fish and Game Commission conform to certain professional appointments rather than making them elective offices or political appointments. Would you take your vehicle to a political appointment to have the brakes done?

:cool:
 

ELKCHSR

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
13,769
Location
Montana
Buzz!!!
As I have stated before....
This country was set up on free enterprise. europe has ruled by mob on occassion..It's in every history lesson and what how whole cities were sacked and pillaged do to mob rule. Let's see..Was it just...probably so..Was it the right thing to do...probably so...was it "right" probably so..In this country we work on a whole different set of rules...Firstly the constitution, and then the bill of rights...In most of your posts, you could give a rat's hooy about either one of these documents....Or their contents...It is these same thoughts and processes that are running this country into the ground..Yes we still have the best country in the world. But there are a lot of things that could make it much better and not taking some of the same old tried and failed things from other countries pasts, that just will not ever work with no amount of good intentions, and making us live them, really help this country...I really think not...Doe's that mean we are also to just keep slowly erasingand tromping all over these documents, just to appease the unknowing masses. The ranched elk were livestock..nothing more...Now explain to me why they have any say in livestock matters of any sort?...
I am serious and not playing games here....If it is a bad thing..there are a lot of beurocrocies that have no problem quarenting things, and what not, if there is a problem.... I don't see us getting to get to vote on any ballot any where when there is an outbreak of any other disease of any other animal..Matter of fact, I don't thing there has really been any...Maybe Ithica could answer this...But what I am saying...It doe's not in any way shape or form need to be put on a ballot..same as saving salmon, or trees or what not..... :eek:
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
11,031
Location
Laramie, WY
ELKCHSR, last time I checked having the citizens of any state vote on a ballot issue is not against the constitution or the bill of rights. I dont think YOU understand either. If you do, then tell me where it states in either document that states are not allowed to vote on ballot initiatives.

Beings how 143 has already been upheld by the Montana courts, I'd say there is nothing unconstitutional about the law. I'd make you a large wager that Wallace is going to lose his ass on this current law suit, just like he has on all the others he's filed.

By the way, what makes you think I ignore or know nothing about the constitution or the BOR? If anything, I suggest you brush up on both of them, and I dont mean listening to Limbaughs interpretation of them either.
 

Tom

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2001
Messages
4,985
Location
San Antonio, Texas, USA
There's state constitutions and state courts, then there's the US constitution and the federal courts. The US Supreme Court is the highest court, not any state court. Buzz, if we take your argument, and all the services Wallace ever provided was to out of staters (ignoring the local markets, jobs and tax, etc. income created), then what Montana and its voters did was restrict interstate commerce protected in US law. If so, that's the clause of US code that people think will eventually hold up against some states practices against outrageous out of state fees and hunters in the federal courts. Apparently, Wallace's attorneys tried that argument in the court they were in but didn't show it. The Crow Indians didn't even try to argue.

The plan of action that I read about now for CWD says something interesting. The "game farm" people are planning on ERADICATING it from their herds, i.e. getting rid of it and keeping it that way. The wildlife people are talking about keeping it below 1% of the animals with it in the wild and it will always be there, a ticking time bomb, to defuse. Hopefully, when the disease is understood better, something better will be done there in the wild herds. We really don't know if it transfers to humans, it was an eroneous report earlier in some magazine that it did. The Texas Parks and Wildlife commission is talking about a sampling plan throughout the state to monitor all of our animals. That would be better than just testing wildlife ranch animals for sure.

Ithaca37 thinks 143 was "ahead of its time". Well, often some of the first things done are not the best things done. I143 put a severe restriction on the spread of CWD by restricting shipments of elk and put an end to to the Montana game farm problems with elk, but ending the liscensing of those people. Those are two problems addressed by 143 early, but maybe not addressed the best way. If it were on the balot somewhere today, I would hope it would be written differently. We have lots of elk ranchers in other parts of the country. Those people and those states wildlife and animals people will find the way to deal with elk ranch problems better in the future and all elk will benefit from it. The Montana elk ranchers are out of it, they are ending their businesses and services there as soon as the current liscensee retires, as I understand it.

CaHunter, good post there, it has some good points.

Washington Hunter, ok, you don't think anyone should own an elk. For that reason, shooting one that you own before you shoot it is unconsciencable to you. Shooting it with a hunting liscense and a tag, that says you will own it after its dead makes it ok. That position seems pretty irrelevent to me and I don't think about it much. It just seems filled with problems and too unrealistic to consider. In every state, we own them when we shoot them and tag them, every state has lots of other animals that we own. Owning an animal, doesn't take away its majesty and beauty, etc. Some species of animals have been preserved only because people have owned them and taken care of them. I'm all for it because I've seen it work wonderfully.

Even our public herds are well cared for by private individuals. I've read there are more of them on private land than on public land in the US, so its very clear to me that private management and ownership of animals is a good thing and is here to stay. I think, as long as we have public land and hunter and other dollars to support them, public animals are here to stay too.

I hope Ol Bob and others make a million with thier elk, but I know he'll love it, however much, he makes or looses with them. :D
 

MarvB

New member
Joined
Apr 5, 2001
Messages
3,388
Location
Below the snowline...but above the smog!
Only thing I've got to throw in on this is that for those who do think that wildlife issues should be decided by a "popular vote" can just mosey on over to Kaliforny and play with all the pretty kitties that were protected by much a vote (and on a 51-49% margin :rolleyes: )
 

Washington Hunter

Active member
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
3,868
Location
Rochester, Washington
If wildlife biologists in Montana had the power to make any decisions, I'm sure they would have said no game ranching in this state, period. So while it's not necessarily a good idea to let the general public vote on wildlife issues which they know very little about, was there another option? I doubt it. I don't live in Montana, and I don't personally know any wildlife biologists in Montana, but I'm 100% sure that if given the choice they would not have wanted game farms in their state. So you don't want the general public voting on game farms, how about getting an initiative passed that will let wildlife biologists, the ones who work for Montana FWP, make all decisions and pass all laws necessary to manage wildlife in the state of Montana? Take that right away from the voters and let the professionals do what they are paid to do. And NOT the fish and game commision made up of ranchers and outfitters (as Buzz said)
 

Raveneaux

New member
Joined
Dec 22, 2000
Messages
30
Location
Klein, Texas
I'm glad to see Wallace go down fighting whether he loses or not. Montana's law is confiscation without compensation plain and simple. Len Wallace (like him or not) is standing up for a number of game ranch owners who do not have the financial resources to fight the state in this case. What I've always found so hypocritical about the Montana law is that it does not really ban game farms per se, it just bans the shooting of ranch elk - (come on here, correct me if I'm wrong). A meat/velvet operation is still legal right?... so if I put an elk in a squeeze cage, saw off its antlers for the velvet and then cut its throat, butcher it for steaks and sell the meat, then that is legal. :rolleyes:
 

Tom

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2001
Messages
4,985
Location
San Antonio, Texas, USA
Raveneaux, You're right, but when that guy retires his kids don't get the business, as I understand it. Plus, the guy can have a feed lot full of elk, if he wants, no density restrictions, those are some things that could have been done better from my point of view too. Washington Hunter, I get the impression the wildlife biologists in Montana don't have much experience with how to run a wildlife ranch well. Other states have biologists who have been doing it well for years and could be learned from. Everything wouldn't apply from other biologists, but much would.

Ithaca37, do you think I143 was as good as it could be or in retrospect would you have done it differently, if it was up to you, if that is even a fair question? What do you think?
 

BbarC

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2000
Messages
218
Location
Menard, Texas,USA
Kinda stayed away from this BUT,
I'm looking out my window right now and I can see 2 big 6x6's , 2 5x5's and 7 spikers less than 50 yards away. If my state tried to take this away from me, I would be pissed!!!!!My elk are all fat and HEALTHY and have all they want to eat, a mud hole to play in, shade trees , have no predator threat, and are not in a "little" pen. They have lots of room to run and roam in. They are not abused !They do not lack any of the majesty of elk I have seen many times in the high meadows of Colorado.I have dozens and dozens of people stop every month to see them and feed them and many of these people would not have the oportunity to ever see an elk if I did not have them. I never charge people for this privilege.My elk are not hunted on this property , but I have sold elk to ranches that do hunt them and I have NO problem with that. I do buthcher some and sell the meat and jerky and do very well with that, but it is not a "bonanza" business. Yeah, If some joker wanted to "vote me out of this' , I WOULD be pissed too!!!!!!Ol Bob
 

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
With 20-20 hind vision 143 could have been written better. That's one of the problems with initiatives--they usually don't go thru much of a debate/amendment process. They are written, approved by the Attorney General, and the signature gathering starts. What you see is what you get. The Legislature had plenty of chances to address the problem with their own legislation but did nothing. Of course, the elk farmers could have lobbied for legislation written favorably for them, too.
 

Silent But Deadly

New member
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
196
Location
Great Falls, MT
Ol Bob.
Do those bulls you see out your window have price tags on their ears?
I don't have a problem with petting zoos in Texas. These rich farts that came to Montana to shoot elk in a petting zoo can afford to fly down to Texas and knock themselves silly.
Len Wallace can kiss my big hairy bean bag. He isn't hurting a bit for money.
 

280

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2001
Messages
770
Location
montana
*280 sits back laughing*

Why is it the only guys sticking up for Wallace and game farms on this forum are from Texas?(oops,,,,,, and Calif)

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-25-2002 10:07: Message edited by: 280 ]</font>
 

Greenhorn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2000
Messages
7,107
BbarC,

Though I honestly hope your business thrives in Texas, I'm glad it's not in MT. I-143 had some huge flaws, but when the sportsmen here were given the chance to kick a dirty industry (here that is) that they are unwillingly funding, we put on the steel toed boots. Wallace will loose his ass once again.

As for your elk farm, I can't comment on the comparison you make to Colorado as I've never been to either place. I did see a number of very good bulls the other day here in MT, 5 of them that will all be 6X6 or better when they finish growing the bone. I highly doubt that being parked along your woven-wire fence would of had the same appeal to me.
 

BbarC

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2000
Messages
218
Location
Menard, Texas,USA
Greenhorn, I always respect your input.Little jealous I can't watch those bulls there with you. Respect the fact that voters passed the bill in Mt. But I think it was poorly written and might have had different outcome if properly written.
I also doubt that most of the staunch "antis' on here have EVER seen or been on a properly run and maintained game ranch for elk or any other species. Therefore their opinions have been formed with little or no real information.
Weekend warrior, mmmmm interesting profile... interests=maiming animals!Little scary!! PETA would love you for their advertising.
Invite any of you , any time down to visit a well run operation here. Ol Bob

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 06-25-2002 10:34: Message edited by: BbarC ]</font>
 

Silent But Deadly

New member
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
196
Location
Great Falls, MT
BbarC,
I obviously am not too concerned about Peta using my profile as an advertisement. It is funny you would mention that. Do you allow hunting on your game farm? Don’t you think that a game farm hunting operation is a little bigger target for the Peta pukes than some harmless words written on the Internet? If I cared what Peta thought, I would be against all game farm hunts. I just can’t stand to see them in Montana. Maybe in Texas they are a little different than the ones here, but I have no interest in ever seeing one. I can go to Yellowstone if I want to see a big bull from my window. I just get tired of all the sympathy people have for Len Wallace.
 

Tom

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2001
Messages
4,985
Location
San Antonio, Texas, USA
Here's 3 bills the Montana legislature passed in 1999 and 2000 related to these issues. There were other bills that didn't make it to new law also.

One of these earlier laws created a study, to make recommendations on financing for fish and wildlife issues. Anybody know the results of that study? I think its report was to be given back in 2000.

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/specsess/0500/billhtml/SB0007.htm


http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/billhtml/HJ0033.htm

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/billhtml/SB0361.htm


280, you've missed or blocked a few other states here. Its not just a Texas and Ca thing to defend for sure. Montana elk ranching is pretty much history now as its being phased out. Its not in many other states where its a viable, developing, well run, business that provides livelihood and enjoyment to many. That's where its future is for sure.
 

Silent But Deadly

New member
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
196
Location
Great Falls, MT
Tom,
Prostitution is also much a big part of Montana history. Unfortunately for me, but fortunate for the majority, it is no longer leagal in the state. In Nevada its a viable, developing, well run, business that provides livelihood and enjoyment to many. And there, it will stay for a long time.
 

Tom

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2001
Messages
4,985
Location
San Antonio, Texas, USA
WW, you think prostitution and game farms are similar? Why, because you pay for prostitution and you pay for a game farm animal? Why, because you don't marry a prostitute and you don't marry a game farm animal? Why, because there is no long term committment? Its a rediculous thought to me, we also pay for tags, we also don't marry animals from the public hunts. You really want to discuss this rediculous thought? Tell me something intelligent about it.
 
Top