Hello???? H E L L O ! ! ! Anybody there?

[BuzzH]

Ten, wake up, there wont be any new game farms in MT for a long time. The people have spoken.

They're gone...long gone....YEAH, I win again!

 

[danr55]

Buzz, the demand for antler velvet, bear gall bladders, ground deer penis, Elk teeth, hides and hooves is older than this country. Most of those are used in the orient for aphrodisiacs and/or other medicines. Game farms did not create those markets....

 

[Calif. Hunter]

That's why I don't post here anymore.

Oh well, when 51% of everyone else decides that hunting is bad, then Buzz won't get his own personal way anymore. And because 51% said so - it will be right. Buzz said so himself.

 

[BuzzH]

Sour grapes because elk farms are out...I wont be shedding an tears for them.

Cali- you dont get it. Hunters passed 143 for good reason.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

No doubt that everyone who voted for I-143 thought it was the right thing to do. And so will those who eventually vote to eliminate hunting someday. I figure it probably won't happen in my lifetime, although it is coming close to that here - a bill to ban hunting any mammals with dogs and another to ban dove hunting. The governor wants to raise hunitng license and tag fees tremendously to help reduce the deficit. And as our population increases, more of these wackos who can afford it move to Montana, Colorado, Idaho and so on "to get away from the city." I just hope to be able to take my son hunting...and it won't be to a game farm.

 

[danr55]

Buzz, you either don't read or don't understand. Unless the majority of the hunters live in the major cities, then they arent' the ones who passe I 143. The majority of the counties voted against it. It was the voters in the cities that carried the issue. The same folks who voted for Internet Algore 4 Pres.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-28-2003 13:51: Message edited by: danr55 ]</font>

 

[Washington Hunter]

Dan, I don't see why it matters whether they lived in the city or not. What does that have to do with I-143. It passed by a majority vote. Where a person happens to live is irrelevant.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Another thing...I bet the Montana wildlife department was in favor of I-143. And if you think about it, they should be making the decision on whether they are allowed or not. I wouldn't trust the people to make decisions on complex wildlife management issues. But luckily, I-143 passed. Hunters everywhere should be thankful for that.

 

[BuzzH]

Danr, do I have to drag up the list again? You know the one where practically every sporting club, sportsmens group, etc. all were in favor of 143? If I remember right there was at least 40-50 wildlife organizations in MT that strongly supported 143.

Where do you think 143 would have gone without the votes of hunters in MT? Remember how close it was? A few thousand could have swung the vote.

I think you need to quit believing Toms worthless charts. Does Toms graph tell you how many people hunt and voted for Gore? Does Toms graph tell you how many people from "big" MT cities hunt? I didnt think so. Who cares how many counties supported it or who voted for mickey mouse for president, it doesnt mean squat.

The only facts I need are the ones that tell me that a vast majority of hunting related organizations were behind 143 for good reason. The MT FWP couldnt get involved, but I've talked to lots of biologists and they arent shedding tears about game farms being done in MT.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Currently, Oregon has a group fighting to eliminate game farms in that state. It's called MADelk (Measure Against the Domestication of elk.) Here is something from their website, it gives their mission statement and a list of organizations that are members of the coalition. Some are anti-hunting organizations, but others like the Oregon Hunter's Association is made up of nothing but hunters. Here's a link to their website: www.madelk.org/index.htm

MADelk coalition

Our Mission Statement:
In order to preserve and protect wildlife and the public commons, prohibit commercialization and domestication of elk and deer species native to Oregon.


Coalition Members by Organization

(in alphabetical order)

Animal Protection Institute
Audubon Society of Portland
Center for Food Safety
Defenders of Wildlife
Foundation for North American Wild Sheep (FNAWS) Oregon Chapter
The Fund For Animals
Hells Canyon Preservation Council (HCPC)
The Humane Society of the US
International Center for Technology Assessment
Izaak Walton League of America, Oregon Division
Multnomah Anglers and Hunters
National Wild Turkey Federation, Yamhill County Chapter
Oregon Humane Society
Oregon Hunters Association (OHA)
Oregon Natural Desert Association
Oregon Natural Resources Council
Orion the Hunter Institute
Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN)
Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club
WildernessHunter.org

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-28-2003 14:58: Message edited by: Washington Hunter ]</font>

 

[danr55]

Buzz, as I recall the difference was less than 2% or about 1200 votes. I saw your list of sportsmans organizations that supported the bill. I think your problem is that you are looking at everything very superficially.

There are several questions that need answering if you want to do a complete analysis of the vote. Regardles of how many organizations spoke out in favor of the bill, how many members were in those organizations and how many of them voted?
How many of the people who voted for the bill are actually hunters and how many of them are transplanted or home grown greenies sitting back and enjoying the hunters fighting each other.

As for Tom's chart, I hardly think it's worthless. That's a big mistake,usually made by people who don't understand statistics. If you can coorelate the number of voters who supported the bill with the number of animal rights folks in the big cities and coorelate that same number with the number of democrats who are not only anti hunting, but anti gun and anti war and anti everything that I feel is important, you might just find that it wasn't the hunters who supported that bill at all. You have to come out of that little protective north west out back cloud and look at the changing face of America. Not everyone in Montana is a cowboy anymore. They don't all love conservative ideas and right wing politics. They don't all believe that hunting is a right that we are born to and that when that dies, a part of Americana dies. They are not all in favor of individuals succeeding or failing on thier own valition. Some of them would just as soon we socialize medicine and forgive Iraq and Al Queda and not fight a war at any cost. Some of them think that Internet Algore would have made a great president.... Those just happen to be the same ones who think I 143 is a good idea. That's what Toms chart shows.... Enough...

 

[Washington Hunter]

Dan, what difference does it make if the people who supported I-143 were hunters or not? The thing about elk farms is that they are so obviously wrong, that anti-hunters and hunters can actually agree on the issue and work together to get rid of them. The few hunters that support game farms is what is going to give hunters in general a bad name. When non-hunters see hunters giving their support for canned hunts, how do you think that looks? It perpetuates the idea many people have that all hunters are bloodthirsty killers. If hunters want to promote a good image and keep the support of people who don't hunt, we need to all support getting rid of all game farms.

 

[BuzzH]

Danr, the only numbers and the only thing really worth analyzing is that 143 passed by a majority, everything else is pure BS.

It wasnt democrats or algore lovers who passed that vote in MT, it simply wasnt, yet you and Tom are hell bent to prove it.

I know the majority who voted for 143 would also vote in FAVOR of hunting...no worries about that from me.

Montana isnt a shithole like the place you live, no comparison.

 

[Ten Bears]

Blind faith, just because you say so.

 

[BuzzH]

Whatever you say ten bears.

 

[Ten Bears]

I'm sorry, that should have read:

Blind faith, just because you say so?

Sorry about that.

 

[danr55]

Well Buzz, I don't like to call anyone wrong or say that they don't know what they are talking about, but it would seem that the evidence in this case says both about your last statement. Not the highly intelligent statement about Arizona being a shithole, but the one about the people who voted for 143 not being the same ones who supported Gore.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Dan, do I have to say it again? Who cares if somebody who voted for I-143 also voted for Gore? I-143 passed and you as a hunter should be grateful.

 

[danr55]

You and Buzz keep beating the "...it was passed by hunters..." drum and I just don't think that's so... Hunter's may have played a part in it, but from the looks of things, the majority of the people who voted for it would tend to be democrat/liberal types who tend to not be hunters... That's why I keep bringing that up. Other than that, it doesn't much matter who voted for it.

You think it's good for Elk, I think it's bad for democracy... That's all...

 

[Washington Hunter]

But you do agree that it's good for elk and the future of hunting, right? As long as we can agree on that, everything's cool