Hey Tom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

280

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2001
Messages
770
Location
montana
See Tom it wasn`t the evil Democrats that supported I143,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Montana Wildlife Federation joins state in game farm suit

By JENNY JOHNSON Staff Reporter

The Montana Wildlife Federation and other sports groups requested to join the state in its defense of a lawsuit alleging the state's enforcement of two-year-old game farm restrictions violates the rights of game farm owners and constitutes an illegal taking without just compensation.

Len and Pamela Wallace of Darby and two elk farm owners in Blaine County are suing for more than $22 million in damages resulting in the enforcement of Initiative 143, which banned for-fee game hunts, new game licenses and the transfer of existing licenses. The Montana Wildlife Federation and Sportsmen for I-143 Tuesday filed a request in Blaine County District Court in Chinook to partner with the state in defending the law's enforcement.

"We want to come in as co-defendants," said Craig Sharpe, executive director of Montana Wildlife Federation. "We feel we have a legally protected interest in I-143 and the other statutes because we were involved in the initiative. We also want to defend all claims or rules against those laws."

While the state is a political defendant in the suit, grassroots organizations such as Sportsmen for I-143 will provide other information to the legal argument against the suit, Sharpe said.

"We offer something different than the state does as far as defense," he said. "Sportsmen have a significant interest in the enforcement of I-143 - in the protection of public wildlife."

Voters in November 2000 approved game farm restrictions in Montana. The Wallaces, who own Big Velvet Game Farm on Rye Creek and owners of Circle Eagle Game Farm in Chinook, Bruce and Shirley Buhmann, argue that I-143 and the state's enforcement of the law both took and damaged the game farmers' private property rights, without compensation, "by specifically taking the only viable source of profitability."

The lawsuit claims an unconstitutional "takings" by the state for discrimination against game farms that raise elk and deer and charge money for shooting them. Asking for $22,758,000, the suit calls for damages of lost profit, lost investment, lost good will and other interest and attorney fees and costs.

The 16-page civil suit filled last month names as defendants the state of Montana, Attorney General Mike McGrath and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Director Jeff Hagener. Sportsmen for I-143 and the Montana Wildlife Federation will join that list if and when District Judge John McKeon approves the request.

Filed by Bozeman attorney Arthur Wittich on behalf of the Wallaces and the Buhmanns, the court papers say the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from taking private property for public purposes without just compensation and that the Montana Constitution prohibits the taking and damaging of property without just compensation.

Among numerous other legal arguments put forth, the suit contends that by banning transfer of the game farm licenses and their value as a result of the owners' investments, the state has taken the game farmers' property rights and licenses and the profitable use of the land and increased value of the land as a result of the licenses.

The Wallaces started Big Velvet Ranch up Rye Creek Road in 1992, when they bought the 3,800 acres out of bankruptcy. They went on to own the nation's largest managed private elk ranch and, from 1997 to 1999, harvested on average more than 100 mature bulls yearly and earned gross revenues of more than $1 million per year, according to court documents.

The suit is the second such case filed by game farmers against the state of Montana that involves takings allegations.

Sharpe said that the takings lawsuit by game farmers is an unwarranted waste of state and sportsmen's time and money. He disagrees that it is a takings issue because game farms can still operate a valid business selling meat, velvet antlers, selling animals to other game farms in other states or breed stock.
 

Moosie

Grand poopa
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
17,521
Location
Boise, Idaho
HEY TOM.... Should I go in and Edit 280's post saying that there is Yetti farming and Alien contacts like someone did ON H.I.S. that one time


MAybe i should update his Profile and LOCK it like his old one :D

HAHA !!!!!

BTW, 280, when are you coming back to BOISE ?!?!? :confused:
 

Tom

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2001
Messages
4,985
Location
San Antonio, Texas, USA
Here is the plot that shows the county by county plot of percent of voters for the ban on the verticle axis and the percent of voters for Gore on the horizontal axis in that year in Montana. It shows
1) Counties that tended to be for Gore were for the ban.
2) Counties that tended to be against the ban were not for Gore.
3) Most of the counties voted less than 50% for the ban. This means bigger city type counties are what got the ban passed and the counties in favor of it were in the minority.




Regardless of who paid for advertising and who got the petition signatures and who joins this law suit, that was the vote. It came out 51% to 49% for the ban. The plot shows a relationship of democratic counties and counties for the ban and that the minority (big city) of counties got the 51%.

I never found any data on county by county sportsman numbers to see how that was related to the vote. I imagine there are more sportsman in rural counties than there are in the counties with the city workers and businesses and such.
 

280

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2001
Messages
770
Location
montana
not sure when I will be back in boise but remember we are shooting the Dart system there in Meridan with bows and at stake for you is the pink slip on this place,,,lol,,,the top banner will read,,,,,
WELCOME TO 280`S HUNT TALK

btw tom your graph means shit,,,,
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
10,879
Location
Laramie, WY
What a worthless graph, shows very little data. I dont see any county by county data.

I cant tell, from that graph, how say Missoula county voted vs. Park county vs. Mineral county.

Its a useless piece of information.
 

Tom

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2001
Messages
4,985
Location
San Antonio, Texas, USA
Buzz, Each point represents one county. If you want the raw data its still at the Montana government web sites by county in excel files under election results at the department of state.

For example, Missoula had 21,474 votes for Bush, 17,241 votes for Gore, so I put them at 44% democratic, a big city type county.
They voted 30,965 for I143 and 14,125 against I143 or 69% for I143. They are the point 44 on the horizontal and 69 on the verticle axis.

Then Park county, a more rural one I guess, voted 4,523 for Bush, 2,154 for Gore or 32% democratic vs. republican on the president. Then they voted 3,552 for I143 and 3,633 against I143 or only 49% for I143.
They were the point 32 on the horizontal axis and 49 on the verticle axis.

If you do that for every county, you get the plot. These two counties you brough up illistrate the point of the graph. That big city and more democratic counties were for I143 and more rural and less democratic counties were against I143.

The I143 vote in Missoula county alone was enough to get the margin that I143 won by over all of the state. Its not the most usefull graph, but it makes a point about the vote doesn't it? I think you just don't like the point. 280 brought it up, so I posted it again, its the county data plotted, that's all.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 07-03-2002 10:41: Message edited by: Tom ]</font>
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
10,879
Location
Laramie, WY
Tom, yes it does make a point. It would seem that this issue had nothing to do with who people voted for president wise.

I would say there was an equal amount of support for 143 between both republicans and democrats. Because you are making a bold and unfounded assumption that all democrats voted for 143 and all republicans voted against it. Its apparent from your numbers that a good portion of the republicans crossed your imaginary line and voted for 143. I'd bet a lot did, as I'm also sure a good number of democrats voted against it as well. But, basically, there was quite a lot of support for it, no matter how people voted in the presidential election.

You are reading in too much of your own data and making assumptions without proof or numbers.

So, basically the graph doesnt really show much of anything. Other than 143 was passed by a majority of Montanans.

Beings how republicans and Bush won MT why did 143 pass? I mean if all the republicans voted against 143, and they are clearly a majority in MT, then it should have failed big. But that isnt what happened, perhaps its you that doesnt like what the numbers tell.
 

Silent But Deadly

New member
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
196
Location
Great Falls, MT
Any of you that live in Montana probably remember all the radio commercials that were against I-143. They had some guy with the "Small Town Montana" accent making it sound like I-143 would hurt the Montana Ranching industry, as I remember. Every time I heard these commercials, I wanted to vomit. They were obviously funded by the elk ranching Industry. I don't recall any commercials supporting I-143. I am sure these commercials had a major impact on the results. I would guess there was a large amount of uneducated voters, or voters that just didn't care one way or the other who voted against I-143 just because of these commercials. I wonder what the outcome would have been if the commercials would not have been a factor. Even with this, The majority voted in favor of I-143.
Tom, you liberal democrats were complaining that Bush won by such a slim margin also. :D
 

Moosie

Grand poopa
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
17,521
Location
Boise, Idaho
280, If it read "280's Hunttalk" you'd have a dead site.... Sorry but the facts are the FACTS
28 forums and threads set up talknig about WALLACE and Game farms is a bit boring.. You, being as dumb as you are, Should know that.......

LEt me buy you a beer/lunch when You come down. Either that or i CAN kick your A$$.. you can Choose, I'm easy :D :D !!

If you want I can even promise not to bring a camera :D :D
 

Tom

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2001
Messages
4,985
Location
San Antonio, Texas, USA
Buzz, You've missunderstood what it says. There is no such assumption. A picture is worth a lot of words and and tables of numbers and it displays the numbers. I told you where all the numbers are and gave you some for counties that you brought up. Here's some more numbers, if that's what you want, r>0.50, p<0.05, i.e. that means the linear relationship displayed by the numbers in the graph (see them on the vertical and horizontal axis) is a significant one. WW, this is not a complaint, and the source is not a liberal democrat. In fact, Montana is like 80 some percent republican and this is a county by county display of how they voted, that's the source. This issue passed because of its appeal to democrats (the upward slope) and city folks. Since most points are below the 50% support for I143, it had to be the fewer points above the 50% support for I143 were bigger counties, i.e. had bigger cities. The numbers for Missoula and Polk county that Buzz brought up illustrate this.

The only advertising I saw on I143 was the flier I picked up at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. I thought it was very biased, but most advertising is.

280 doesn't have anything to bet. He just wants to take from Moosie, kind of like the way I143 works.

WW, I'm not complaining, I'm discussing, shining a different light on the issue. Thanks for the info. about the commercials, I never saw any of them.
 

Washington Hunter

Active member
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
3,853
Location
Rochester, Washington
I-143 passed because of its appeal to people who care about wildlife. It's not a political, republican vs. democrat issue. People who have respect and an appreciation for wildlife voted for it, people who don't and think wildlife is only for their personal profit voted against it.
 

Tom

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2001
Messages
4,985
Location
San Antonio, Texas, USA
You guys keep saying that, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to think about it that way. Down here, we all know its different, the issue would never be twisted to be a wildlife versus profit issue. I don't know, to what extent, other than a few people here saying that's why they voted for it, that what you say is true. You don't mean that the 49% of Montanans that voted against think wildlife is only for their personal profit do you? That's an obvious reason why it doesn't seem to make sense. You're dishing out propaganda type statements and criticising the actual plot of the data for the votes.

I hear what you're saying, and I believe you mean it, but it doesn't mean I see it that way or that what this data shows is false. Unless you have data on why people voted the way they voted precise enough to explain a 51% to 49% vote, all I know is that it was a close vote. I think a lot of people must have voted against it because it didn't make sense, but its just my opinion, I wasn't even up there long, let alone be a voter.

If you had data on the number of sportsman per county, that would help make or break your point. Like, is there the number of liscenses per county or something like that? The counties probably don't match the hunting areas and I don't know where to get any data like that.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
10,879
Location
Laramie, WY
Washington Hunter has it right, it was just about wildlife.

Tom, for a stats professor you dont seem to be able to add all that well.

Lets see, according to your numbers 80 percent of Montanans are republican, or at least voted for Bush. Therefore, I dont see how the "democrats" passed 143? It just doesnt add up. Even Missoula County, which is a liberal county in Montana had a majority of votes for Bush, again according to your numbers. Yet the 143 vote was a LANDSLIDE in Missoula county in favor of 143. That tells me that at least 10,000 people who voted for Bush, also voted for 143 in Missoula County.

If all the people in Montana who voted for Bush, would have voted against 143 it would have failed by a 80-20 margin. Its intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer, that this issue was not decided by party line.
 

Tom

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2001
Messages
4,985
Location
San Antonio, Texas, USA
BuzzH, You guys are right, it wasn't decided by party line. The graph shows that the county by county vote for I143 was appealling to democrats and most of the counties were against it on a county by county count. Missoula was 69% for I143 in the vote and only 50 something percent for Bush, i.e. the democrats there made it the landslide in that county. The overall upward slope of the graph means the I143 vote was associated with the democratic vote. It makes sense, the democrats are for gun control and I143 was to stop using guns, so that's one reason for the upward slope of the graph.
 

280

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2001
Messages
770
Location
montana
Mcdonalds for lunch and a Brown Derby beer chaser (I know thats all you can afford),,,,I think I will pass,,,,,,,,,,,,
and you moosie dumb ass should realize that cwd and game farms are for more important to the future of hunting then ,,,,what was that thread,,,ohhh ya,,,,"Whats the dumbest thing you have done while hunting",,,now that is a very intelligent thread,,but why would I expect more from you?
 

danr55

Active member
Joined
Dec 18, 2000
Messages
4,327
Location
Mesa, AZ
What I see on the graph is the I143 lost in 34 counties and won 50% or more in 13 counties. Bush won in 42 counties.

That tells me that the most populous counties are the one that carried I143. That relates to the large cities voted for it and the less populated, rural areas voted against it. Sounds like the city folk voted for it (which would equate to the majority of the dems) and the country folk voted against it. The only correlation that I see is that Bush carried most of the counties and Prop i143 lost in most of the counties.

:cool:
 

BbarC

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2000
Messages
218
Location
Menard, Texas,USA
Gentlemen, game ranches, game farms, game preserves, etc. have been around for many, many years. Look at the "olden" days in England and Europe. They will be around for as long as there is a demand. The demand is there, it is huge, and it is growing. Like it or not lifestyles are changing creating the demand. If you want to hunt Africa or New Zealand today, you WILL hunt on a game farm, game ranch, game preserve, etc.!! EVERYONE has the right to make his or her mind up to do or not do certain things. If you don't want to hunt on a game ranch, game farm, game preserve, etc. THEN DON'T!, but let the other fellar make up his own mind!
We live in a Democracy and it would be great if EVERY voter would vote on EVERY issue, but sadly this NEVER happens.Things are sometimes settled and laws made by the vote of the vocal minority. This may or may not be the case in the Montana vote. We will probably never know.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 07-06-2002 09:05: Message edited by: BbarC ]</font>
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
10,879
Location
Laramie, WY
BbarC, that may be true, but I dont like the way game is managed in England, New Zealand, or Africa. They can all kiss my ass, along with the game farmers in MT.

By the way, there wont be any game preserves, game farms, game ranches, etc. in MT any longer, and thats a good thing. By the way, I made that decision for them.HAHA.
 
Top