Dinkshooter
Well-known member
Big Fin said:
NIce post Big Fin. And I am serious.
Here's why elk ranches should be illegal in every state
- Thread starter Ithaca 37
- Start date
NIce post Big Fin. And I am serious.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Well said Big Fin. Tom, your turn for a NO SPIN reply to Big Fin's well made points.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Tom, you've been asking for pragmatism in lieu of emotion...Fin certainly pegged it for us.
Damn well said.
Damn well said.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Here's an interesting article for you Tom. Clone a couple hundred of these guys and I'm sure they would bring top dollar on a canned hunt farm.
Wisconsin Hunter Bags Deer With 7 Legs
FOND DU LAC, Wis. (AP) -- Rick Lisko hunts deer with a bow but got his most unusual one driving his truck down his mile-long driveway. The young buck had nub antlers - and seven legs. Lisko said it also had both male and female reproductive organs. "It was definitely a freak of nature," Lisko said. "I guess it's a real rarity."
He said he slowed down as the buck and two does ran across the driveway Nov. 22, but the buck ran under the truck and got hit.
When he looked at the animal, he noticed three- to four-inch appendages growing from the rear legs. Later, he found a smaller appendage growing from one of the front legs.
"It's a pretty weird deer," he said, describing the extra legs as resembling "crab pinchers."
"It kind of gives you the creeps when you look at it," he said, but he thought he saw the appendages moving, as if they were functional, before the deer was hit.
Warden Doug Bilgo of the state Department of Natural Resources came to Lisko's property near Mud Lake in the town of Osceola to tag the deer.
"I have never seen anything like that in all the years that I've been working as a game warden and being a hunter myself," Bilgo said. "It wasn't anything grotesque or ugly or anything. It was just unusual that it would have those little appendages growing out like that."
Bilgo took photos and sent information on the animal to DNR wildlife managers.
John Hoffman of Eden Meat Market skinned the deer for Lisko, who wasn't going to waste the venison from the animal.
"And by the way, I did eat it," Lisko said. "It was tasty."
Wisconsin Hunter Bags Deer With 7 Legs
FOND DU LAC, Wis. (AP) -- Rick Lisko hunts deer with a bow but got his most unusual one driving his truck down his mile-long driveway. The young buck had nub antlers - and seven legs. Lisko said it also had both male and female reproductive organs. "It was definitely a freak of nature," Lisko said. "I guess it's a real rarity."
He said he slowed down as the buck and two does ran across the driveway Nov. 22, but the buck ran under the truck and got hit.
When he looked at the animal, he noticed three- to four-inch appendages growing from the rear legs. Later, he found a smaller appendage growing from one of the front legs.
"It's a pretty weird deer," he said, describing the extra legs as resembling "crab pinchers."
"It kind of gives you the creeps when you look at it," he said, but he thought he saw the appendages moving, as if they were functional, before the deer was hit.
Warden Doug Bilgo of the state Department of Natural Resources came to Lisko's property near Mud Lake in the town of Osceola to tag the deer.
"I have never seen anything like that in all the years that I've been working as a game warden and being a hunter myself," Bilgo said. "It wasn't anything grotesque or ugly or anything. It was just unusual that it would have those little appendages growing out like that."
Bilgo took photos and sent information on the animal to DNR wildlife managers.
John Hoffman of Eden Meat Market skinned the deer for Lisko, who wasn't going to waste the venison from the animal.
"And by the way, I did eat it," Lisko said. "It was tasty."
Tom
New member
You all want me to respond to Big Fin. That's history, that's a basic response that comes to mind. Montana clearly managed these things wrongly to me and to the citizens of Montana, its history. I'd rather discuss how to manage better in the future. Insurance would not be better management, something more preventive of problems would be. They're phasing out the elk game farms in Montana, that's the best they could come up with. I didn't live and vote in Montana for that initiative, but I made suggestions here for the issues that were brought up back when it was being discussed.
Red deer and elk seem to be interacting in New Zealand, that would be something current to discuss, if there are problems with the interaction, there would be some data from there. Somehow, I doubt anyone here will find any problems, even if they existed, but you never know. People come up with some stuff sometimes.
The Canada test contradicted itself on that Idaho elk cow. The cow was imported into Idaho legally as an elk. No one here has suggested any improved test, let alone even explained that contradictory result. I'm the one that found that to post here, apparently they're thinking its a false positive from a sample, but not all samples on the elk cow, some were negative too.
In Texas, we collect a hunting/shooting fee from those who hunt a high fenced animal, whether it be native or exotic. That covers costs associated with parks and wildlife work. Escapes are open to be shot by anyone that sees them and has permission to shoot on the land where the escape is seen, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, every year. Only being a good neighbor with a tagged animal requires that the escape not be shot.
Its history, that's my basic response to what Big Fin talked about. Its not what is done down here. Its working here, it works other places. Montana is getting rid of it, that's how it worked out there.
Red deer and elk seem to be interacting in New Zealand, that would be something current to discuss, if there are problems with the interaction, there would be some data from there. Somehow, I doubt anyone here will find any problems, even if they existed, but you never know. People come up with some stuff sometimes.
The Canada test contradicted itself on that Idaho elk cow. The cow was imported into Idaho legally as an elk. No one here has suggested any improved test, let alone even explained that contradictory result. I'm the one that found that to post here, apparently they're thinking its a false positive from a sample, but not all samples on the elk cow, some were negative too.
In Texas, we collect a hunting/shooting fee from those who hunt a high fenced animal, whether it be native or exotic. That covers costs associated with parks and wildlife work. Escapes are open to be shot by anyone that sees them and has permission to shoot on the land where the escape is seen, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, every year. Only being a good neighbor with a tagged animal requires that the escape not be shot.
Its history, that's my basic response to what Big Fin talked about. Its not what is done down here. Its working here, it works other places. Montana is getting rid of it, that's how it worked out there.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
You need a second first Miller......I second your motion.....all in favor.....I!
Tom, do you notice that of the 20+ people that responded to this thread, only one agrees with your point of view? And he's got a financial interest in the topic, so his vote is disqualified.
I'm curious how you would define "problems". If a muddied up gene pool is not a problem to you, then what would be?Tom said:
noharleyyet
Well-known member
mtmiller said:Yep, we have. We have a quorum and a majority vote, No more game farms. Motion carries.
...next agenda item...scent lok & barrel de-resonators...fair or unfair?
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
noharleyyet said:...next agenda item...scent lok & barrel de-resonators...fair or unfair?
add cough silencers to that list
Tom
New member
I think the boogey man gene is the main problem here! I'm glad it seems I don't have it yet. We all have a financial interest, as well as other interests in these things, that's no reason to rule out a vote, whether it be a public tag or something else. I think that idea comes from the boogey man gene, throw out a vote like that.
AZ402
Well-known member
Tom said:I think the boogey man gene is the main problem here! I'm glad it seems I don't have it yet. We all have a financial interest, as well as other interests in these things, that's no reason to rule out a vote, whether it be a public tag or something else. I think that idea comes from the boogey man gene, throw out a vote like that.
:W: :W: :W: :W: :W: :W: :W: :W:
noharleyyet
Well-known member
....ok, consider it thrown out. 93 posts & we're down to the scientific premise of the 'boogey man' gene.
93 posts & we're down to the scientific premise of the 'boogey man' gene.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Last time my team Da Bears was in the big one I was in "collage". Go da Bears!
Tom
New member
Its a good thing this is no quorum for any vote. Its a quorum for the railroader committee though, that's what I think.
Its a quorum for the railroader committee though, that's what I think.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
...chit Tom, now you're sounding like a democrat. That's blasphemy from a Texan...or do you live in Austin?
That's blasphemy from a Texan...or do you live in Austin?
Regardless of how Montana handled it, this is not an issue of the past. This is an issue of the present and the future. So long as game farms exist and the operators are not forced to address the issue of risk, nothing will change, and this will be an issue of the present.
I would prefer to not over-regulate anything, and requiring insurance or some other risk coverage is not over-regulation. Allocation of cost and risk to those creating the cost and risk is fundamental to a capitalist democracy, which I am a staunch supporter of.
I suggest, and evidence would support, that if insuring was required, it would have great changes in management, which in Tom's post he say we should focus on.
Who would get the cheapest insurance? The guy who double fences, tests regularly, complies with tagging and identificiation, keeps good records, and runs a good ship. Are these not changes to management? Changes that would improve things significantly.
It then shifts the incentive of managment change to the market via costs/benefits. Good operators would have lower premiums, though still significant, due to the huge risks even good operators present. Bad operators would pay even more.
I have heard the argument that adding costs (insurance) does nothing to change management or improve operations. I think any reasonable person would disagree with that statement, given the incentives that would then be provided to operate at the lowest risk scenario. Then it is not the govenment harrassing the operator. It is he and the insurance company with whom he has contracted to assume the significant risk his operation imposes on others.
Would this not imrove future management and provide incentive for preventative measures as Tom says should be the direction we go? I think it would.
Or should we continue to fight over what level of regulation is necessary and allow poiticians to grant favors to their friends by letting the citizens pay all the costs?
So, I think it is an issue of the present, and would be worth considering by those states that currently allow game farms. If these operators could stay profitable after covering the risks of disease, escape, ect., then let them operate, but at full cost.
As much as I hate penned shooting, I know it is impossible to legislate morality. I think letting the market determine who survives and who fails is more "American" and more democratic. I am confident that if such requirement were imposed, the number of game farms would dry up real quickly - probably to the point of extinction.
No boogeyman here, just a dyed in the wool capitalist who loves to hunt.
Happy Hunting!
I would prefer to not over-regulate anything, and requiring insurance or some other risk coverage is not over-regulation. Allocation of cost and risk to those creating the cost and risk is fundamental to a capitalist democracy, which I am a staunch supporter of.
I suggest, and evidence would support, that if insuring was required, it would have great changes in management, which in Tom's post he say we should focus on.
Who would get the cheapest insurance? The guy who double fences, tests regularly, complies with tagging and identificiation, keeps good records, and runs a good ship. Are these not changes to management? Changes that would improve things significantly.
It then shifts the incentive of managment change to the market via costs/benefits. Good operators would have lower premiums, though still significant, due to the huge risks even good operators present. Bad operators would pay even more.
I have heard the argument that adding costs (insurance) does nothing to change management or improve operations. I think any reasonable person would disagree with that statement, given the incentives that would then be provided to operate at the lowest risk scenario. Then it is not the govenment harrassing the operator. It is he and the insurance company with whom he has contracted to assume the significant risk his operation imposes on others.
Would this not imrove future management and provide incentive for preventative measures as Tom says should be the direction we go? I think it would.
Or should we continue to fight over what level of regulation is necessary and allow poiticians to grant favors to their friends by letting the citizens pay all the costs?
So, I think it is an issue of the present, and would be worth considering by those states that currently allow game farms. If these operators could stay profitable after covering the risks of disease, escape, ect., then let them operate, but at full cost.
As much as I hate penned shooting, I know it is impossible to legislate morality. I think letting the market determine who survives and who fails is more "American" and more democratic. I am confident that if such requirement were imposed, the number of game farms would dry up real quickly - probably to the point of extinction.
No boogeyman here, just a dyed in the wool capitalist who loves to hunt.
Happy Hunting!
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Excellent post, again, Big Fin. I can't wait to see Tom's rebuttal this time.
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
Texans will just bring up something about Texas again in rebuttal.
