MT's I-143 under attack

[BuzzH]

> Dear Wildlife Activist:
>
> The 2003 Legislature is still young and already the attack on Initiative I-143 has been started. Some of you have heard the word that Rep. John Brueggeman(R), Polson, requested a bill that would allow game farms to resume shooting of penned elk and deer plus allow the transfer and sale of game farms and their animals. The same game farmers that were in business when I-143 was approved by Montana voters have failed in the court challenges so they are prevailing on the lawmakers to do an end run around
the will of Montana voters in the legislature.
>
That request by Brueggeman was introduced by Rick Ripley(R), Wolf Creek as House Bill No. 379 (HB 3790) and is in the fast lane. It is being heard in the House Agriculture Committee on Tuesday January 28th, 2003 in Room 172 at the Capitol. Sportsmen and sportswomen need to pack that room and
affirm that we were serious about the issue in 2000 and still are today! In light of CWD declared a National Disaster, this bill appears short-sighted at best, malicious at its worst. HB 379 IS A SLAP IN THE FACE OF MONTANA VOTERS!!
>
PLEASE, Consider attending this committee meeting on Tuesday. It is imperative that we don't let the Game Farmers rush this bill past the Montana people. If you can't attend, please call the capitol switchboard,
406-444-4800 and urge your Representative to kill this bill.

MWF is adamantly opposed to raising this issue from the dead. Organize your friends and neighbors and head to Helena on Tuesday. MWF is prepared to help you get here, please feel free to call me at 1-800-517-7256 for
details.

> WHAT: HB 379
> WHEN: TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2003 3PM
> WHERE: HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
> ROOM 172 IN THE CAPITOL, HELENA
>
> HELP KILL THIS BILL BEFORE IT DOES ANY MORE HARM...
> ATTEND THIS COMMITTEE MEETING IF AT ALL POSSIBLE!!!
>
>
>
>
> Larry Copenhaver
> Conservation Director
> Montana Wildlife Federation
> Web-site: montanawildlife.com
> [406]458-0227
> [800]517-7256

 

[Michaelr]

Looks like we finally found something to agree on

 

[Tom]

"In light of CWD declared a National Disaster, this bill appears short-sighted at best, malicious at its worst."

Shooting them elk on those ranches would help get rid of them, its not the shooting them that causes CWD.
I guess he doesn't like people selling them, the game liscense, that is what he thinks is short sighted in this bill, he wants those people out of business completely, but that would be too costly for Montana. Is that it?

Those people are transferring ownership to corporations, I think, so their kids can have what they've built,
http://www.paintedrocks.org/newsandcommentary/00newsarchives/001101b-HIR-Game%20farmers%20trying%20to%20dodge%20I-143%20rules.htm

"HB 379 IS A SLAP IN THE FACE OF MONTANA VOTERS!!" The 51% that voted for it used the legislative process for I-143, now the 49% that voted against it want to use the legislative process and shouldn't? Its just a bill by a conservative republican to support those people. The city folks and democrats, not the rural land owners, that got it passed will kill this bill HB 379 most likely. I guess there's still of those repulicans around who didn't like I-143.

Keep us posted. The public hearing testimony will be something I bet. Can't wait to hear about it.

Are all the appeals and court cases done, like he says, they all failed? I never read what happened in the Montana supreme court. I think I read they were going there. What happened with that?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-24-2003 14:35: Message edited by: Tom ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Tom, dont get your rifle out just yet, I doubt you'll be using it anytime soon to shoot a penned bull in MT.

Next up...Toms useless graphs, charts and wierd science.

Why do you still think democrats passed 143? I never could figure that out when a vast majority of MT citizens vote republican?

I freaking hate game farms...I used to have a neutral position on them in Texas...but with Toms constant babble and bullshit about how great they are and his defense of them in MT, well kiss my ass...I'd like to see them banned in all 50 states. No exceptions.

Never try to tell Montanans how to manage their wildlife, it'll bite you in the ass.

 

[RockyDog]

Cant exploit something, blame a democrat.

 

[Michaelr]

I totally agree with Buzz on this one!!!

 

[Ithaca 37]

mike, Then I hope you notice that the letter in the first post is from the Montana Wildlife Federation. I'm pretty sure you and a few others here have been very critical of the National Wildlife Federation, which MT Wildlife Federation is an affiliate of.

It's the MT WF that's taking the lead on this issue. Are you going to agree with them and support them? Kinda tough to do with your philosophy that we shouldn't pay any attention to any web site that has a three times removed link to some other web site you don't like.

One of the big problems you and a few of your allies here have is that you can't think any more logically than a moth, so you're about as consistent as one.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-24-2003 17:45: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[Michaelr]

I was going to say something really rude but decided to not be like you!!
Have a nice evening ithaca

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One of the big problems you and a few of your allies here have is that you can't think any more logically than a moth, so you're about as consistent as one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now what was this!!!

Here is a good debate started and the name calling starts with out "Any" provocation!!! What's with that..
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Next up...Toms useless graphs, charts and wierd science. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you Buzz!!! You are the one that is always touting and spouting that you want proof and what not. I have never seen this guy hammer you with meaningless drivel. I know you have very bad issues concerning the fact that most of "Your" people LOST in the last election, but you don't have to come on here and slam every one else because you have personal problems

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I freaking hate game farms...I used to have a neutral position on them in Texas...but with Toms constant babble and bullshit about how great they are and his defense of them in MT, well kiss my ass...I'd like to see them banned in all 50 states. No exceptions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your hysteria is showing thru; you are a very hateful fellow aren't you!!!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Cant exploit something, blame a democrat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This quote is about ignorant if I've ever seen an ignorant quote. The true exploiters of this country is those that have been bringing in socialism for the last sixty years, they are the ones that are the true enemies of this country and work very hard to bring it down from the inside.
.
See you guy's I can cut and pasted things I have found and I don't take any thing out of context, or bring them from unreliable sources

I only use the truth of their own words!!! This is so easy and fun!!! Keep it comming guy's..

 

[The Hedgehog]

Only a limp-wristed turd burgler would want to shoot an elk in MT on a game farm.

 

[Tom]

Here's a question, for real. I-143 made it illegal to transfer the existing "game farm" liscenses.

Suppose your dad has one, lots of high fence, lots of expensive elk. He put his life's work into it. Its a fact, some of these exist. Now, suppose he dies, so the liscense is over. Now what is supposed to happen? Does I-143 take the elk, give them to the state where the deceased dad's liscense came from, put the family out of business?

I never understood the reasoning for I-143, except to say it doesn't make sense. 51% to 49% is how it passed, most of the counties were against it, a few "big city" counties got it passed. Buzz has seen the graph before. That difference asside, its history and some of disagree about it making sense.

What about the question? What happens to the elk when the dad dies, anybody know?
I'm not telling anybody what to do, I'm asking what was done, what is supposed to happen to those elk, when the guy with the liscense dies?

That may be what this bill is about, eh.

 

[Tom]

Read the bill, the Montana republican who introduced the bill is trying to protect Montana.

"WHEREAS, the alternative livestock ranchers in Montana applied for and received licenses from the State of Montana after relying on the status of existing laws and upon the encouragement of the Legislature and past administrations that alternative livestock ranching was a viable agricultural diversification; and

WHEREAS, the alternative livestock ranchers who obtained licenses prior to the passage of Initiative Measure No. 143 had vested property rights and have invested millions of dollars in their business licenses, animals, real property, and facilities; and

WHEREAS, the passage of Initiative Measure No. 143 substantially impaired and prohibited the intended business purposes for most, if not all, alternative livestock ranchers in Montana; and

WHEREAS, there are serious financial consequences to Montana should Initiative Measure No. 143 constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation; and

WHEREAS, this act is intended to reduce the state of Montana's liability should a court find that Initiative Measure No. 143 is an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation.



BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:"
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/2003/billhtml/HB0379.htm

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-27-2003 09:33: Message edited by: Tom ]</font>

 

[The Hedgehog]

First, if my dad had put any work, much less his "life's work" into a MT elk farm.. I'd give him a SERIOUS ass beating.

Who gives a shit where the elk go. They could burn them along with a few crosses on the front lawn.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom how can you not understand why the law was passed? You cant be that thick, can you?

As far as who passed it, again its freaking pointless to imply that it was just the "big" cities in MT that passed that law. It doesnt pan out, besides all that, last time I checked, MAJORITY RULES. Doesnt matter if it passed by one vote or one million votes. You and the game farmers need to get it through your thick heads, Montanans do not want game farms. Thats the only real point.

Personally I dont give a good damn what they do with their pen raised muntant elk when the game farm license expires. If they were smart, they'd sell out NOW.

 

[Tom]

That's pretty clear, Greenhorn would never let his dad do that, Buzz doesn't give a damn what they do, except that they should sell out ASAP. That republican who introduced HB379 is trying to deal with it a little better than those two responses is what I think.

Buzz, if I accept that Montanans don't want them, and I do, I-143 was voted on 51% to 49%, then how did they get started there in the first place? Its just a historical curiosity. What changed their minds? Was it CWD? Was it that the "game farmers" snuck in, then when recognized for what 51% of Montanans thought they were, they were shut down?

I guess that could be an explanation, they snuck into Montana under the guise of "alternative livestock", then the silent majority of 1% decided to vote them out because they shoot the "alternative livestock". Would that be accurate?

 

[BuzzH]

Allright.......one last time.......WOW! How many times does it take...???

There are several reasons, all very legit.

1. Yep CWD is one of them, along with a few other diseases that the game farm elk get like TB.

2. Shooting elk on tiny enclosures, which was the common practice on ALL The MT elk farms is an absolute disgrace to the sport. Especially in a state where ANYONE can hunt in the wild. I know you and many others find no problem with this, but people in MT, who are usually a higher class of individual, dont like it, dont accept it, and dont want it.

3. Genetic problems with Red deer/elk crosses. Several crosses escaped from game farms. This could have, and may have, lead to genetic contamination of MT's elk. In case you dont get it, I'd say MT's elk have the best genetics, of anywhere in the US.

4. This is one of the big issues, if not the biggest. MT hunters were paying for the administration of game farms out of LICENSE DOLLARS, to the tune of over 1 million. Money that was meant for WILDLIFE, not some jerkass running a game farm.

5. Illegal acts committed by game farmers and illegal markets created from the commercialization of wildlife. It has been documented, throughout the history of wildlife management, that commercialization of wildlife always leads to illegal markets. Elk game farms created a market for elk, which in turn created an illegal black market in elk as well. Thus threatening all elk in MT. There have been many cases in NM, CO, MT, against elk farmers capturing wild elk and selling them as private stock, the industry is highly unregulated.

ANY QUESTIONS????????

 

[RockyDog]

Montanan's dont really want see our elk/deer crossed with texas pussy elk/deer and our winter ranges isolated from the summer ranges by high fences just so some beandip in a 10-gallon hat with his pant legs tucked in his boots who thinks hes JR from the old show Dallas can come up and shoot his elk off the feedpile and take a Papa Hemingway safari photo with it afterwards.

Id rather my dad put his "lifes work" into a porn shop than an executive shooting pen.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-27-2003 11:41: Message edited by: RockyDog ]</font>

 

[Washington Hunter]

Hey Buzz, very good post...I think most readers should understand those excellent reasons for not allowing "hunting" on game farms in Montana. Now if we could only get it outlawed in all 50 states...

 

[Tom]

Not everyone sees it that way, no questions needing answers here, we just disagree, and that's ok. Your reasons maybe why the bill passed 51% to 49% but they don't hold much water, as I see it.

"How many times does it take...???" One good time.

"There are several reasons, all very legit." I agree the reasons below are issues worth dealing with, but I disagree that I-143 is a solution to them that I would choose, see below.

1. "Yep CWD is one of them, along with a few other diseases that the game farm elk get like TB."

I disagree. Its in the wild and not tested nor controlled there like on "game farm elk". "Game farms" didn't invent disease, they just test for it and control it.

2. "Shooting elk on tiny enclosures, which was the common practice on ALL The MT elk farms is an absolute disgrace to the sport. Especially in a state where ANYONE can hunt in the wild. I know you and many others find no problem with this, but people in MT, who are usually a higher class of individual, dont like it, dont accept it, and dont want it".

This is an opinion not worth arguing or discussing its so opinionated and unsubstantiated. Anyone can hunt in the wild, right every other year, or for lots of money, right, anyone. 5,000 acres can be called tiny or not, its an opinion, higher class people, what is sport and what is not, who shoots what, that is up to individuals judgements provided they follow the law or accept the consequences. Shooting an elk in the mountains or on a "game farm" are two completely different things and either one shot does not disgrace the other being shot. They are different.


3. "Genetic problems with Red deer/elk crosses. Several crosses escaped from game farms. This could have, and may have, lead to genetic contamination of MT's elk. In case you dont get it, I'd say MT's elk have the best genetics, of anywhere in the US."

This problem can be dealt with in many ways. It was my understanding animals like red deer were not legal in Montana, just get rid of them, just prevent the crossing. There can't be that many red deer up there to get rid of, if they are illegal. Just have the "game farm" "elk" pass some genetics test, that's what would address it. Keeping that problem small and controlled seems like its easy to deal with with the genetics test.

4. "This is one of the big issues, if not the biggest. MT hunters were paying for the administration of game farms out of LICENSE DOLLARS, to the tune of over 1 million. Money that was meant for WILDLIFE, not some jerkass running a game farm."

I've heard this and the other arguments, they don't make sense to me, here in Texas. I'm not even sure, if I was in Montana that they would make sense, I'd probably have been one of the 49% in the vote because of that. I'm sure Montana people collected many millions from visitors to those places, should have collected at least a liscense to shoot fee, which they did not. I've mentioned that many times, just collect a fee to shoot the things, use that money, not other money to manage the "game farms", that's what we do here. Montana collects a lot of its wildlife money from out of state people already and you would think it would be easy to collect a little to take care of a few game farms. Bad management on the part of Montana, that's a reason to get rid of those "game farms" there provided its done fairly. The I-143 vote was an attempt to do it fairly, I guess. It just doesn't look that way from here, far from it.

5. "Illegal acts committed by game farmers and illegal markets created from the commercialization of wildlife. It has been documented, throughout the history of wildlife management, that commercialization of wildlife always leads to illegal markets. Elk game farms created a market for elk, which in turn created an illegal black market in elk as well. Thus threatening all elk in MT. There have been many cases in NM, CO, MT, against elk farmers capturing wild elk and selling them as private stock, the industry is highly unregulated."

This is pretty half ass as I see it. It sounds like this, so called hunters have been caught poaching but that doesn't mean to get rid of all hunters. This argument, seems to be saying outfitters and private leases, which are another form of commercialization, will lead to illegal black market, therefore, we should get rid of outfitters and privately leased land. Sorry, it does not hold water with me, not for the outfitters, who serve a great purpose, not for the landowner, who provides hunting access, and not for the "game farm", who provides elk.
I never heard of a $12,500 "game farm" elk hunt, yet that is a price paid to hunt the wild ones on a private ranch there. There's lots of other commercialization in Montana hunting, forget that argument against "game farms". That's pretty commercial, $12,500 for an elk hunt, or over $1100 for a guaranteed tag, that a local resident gets for $50 or so. Outfitters and many other things are commerciallization, like the guaranteed out of state tag for big bucks. Like paying landowners for hunting rights. Lots of things are commercial, its the American way. If there is something illegal that happens, you prosecute that, you don't blame something else. Its like blaming guns for crimes, a stupid argument, most real hunters would disagree with.


"ANY QUESTIONS????????" Are you as tired of disagreeing on this as I am?

Buzz, do you understand that most counties in Montana voted against the I-143 ban? There were more counties against the ban in the vote than were for it.

Buzz, do you understand only a few counties made it pass with 51% of the total vote? Those few couties make the majority of 51% of cast votes on I-143.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Here's a 12.5K limp-wristed turd-tapper canned elk shoot. 3-days, pick your score, bring the family. The alternative to hunting.

http://www.monsterbulls.com/hunt/index.htm

If you want to promote the American Way with game farms.. get out your checkbook and pay for it. But for Christ's sakes stop crying when you made me pay for it for years.. then let me vote them out of business!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-27-2003 16:51: Message edited by: Greenhorn ]</font>