MT's I-143 under attack

[Tom]

Buzz, As I understand it, there were not any red deer in Montana, those were illegal before I-143, so they would not be a problem there.

I would have voted against I-143 probably because of the reason Danr gave. The game ranches were legal businesses supported by Montana before I-143, then they tried to put them out of business and not compensate them much. I see lots of other ways the issues could have been dealt with and I'm amazed they were not tried, that's why I continue to discuss it basically. That is, I have questioned I-143 because high fence ranches do so well down here and because there were lots of things that could have been done, besides shut down the shooting on them and end the liscenses with the current owners.

Buzz, why didn't you ever answer the question about the island I had above?

 

[BuzzH]

Tom, I'll answer the question when I see any relevance in it. Apples and oranges.

Coulda-shoulda-woulda-, well they didnt do any of the things you mentioned there Tom. So, their complacency and their lack of concern who was paying for their sorry asses, bit them in the ass. Dont put the blame on the state, put the blame on the game farm industry for cutting its own throat. By the way, just because they work in Texas doesnt mean they work in MT. You're also wrong about the red deer, MT game farms had them. A couple red deer crosses escaped near Helena MT from a game farm in about 1994-95.

Danr, I cant get over the game farms? Wrong, we/I did when we/I voted them out of the state.

You and some others feel like the constitution was trampled because 143 passed. I suppose you feel the same way about any zoning requirements. By God, all those do is take away freedom. I'd really like to see you squawk when your next door neighbor turned his house into a bar, slaughter house, pig farm, etc. All you're doing by telling him he cant is taking his freedom, you must be a commi-socialist-liberal-anti-constitutional-freak for taking that opportunity away. I dont know how you sleep at night.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-01-2003 18:45: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[danr55]

Now you're getting closer to the point. My neighbors freedom should only be bound by the freedoms of his neighbors. As long as his activities don't infringe on my freedoms, then he should be able to do as he likes. The bar wouldn't be bad, but the pig farm may have a detrimental effect on property values. That is infringement on my freedom. I don't suppose you can draw any parallels between the two, but in my view, the law you passed is contrary to personal freedom and had no adverse effect on any persons.

What makes your opinion that Elk shouldn't be kept on a game farm different from soemone elses opinion that elk shouldn't be hunted? Neither are any more than personal opinion. Right now, the rule of law is in your favor. That could change in the next 4 or 5 years....

Can you illustrate how the game farm had any adverse affect on any personal freedoms of anyone? I bet I can illustrate how that law acted as an infringement on the personal freedoms of the owner.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-01-2003 20:02: Message edited by: danr55 ]</font>

 

[Tom]

Ok, I can understand why you guys voted against it. You didn't use it, you didn't like it, you didn't want to solve the problems for something you wanted nothing to do with, so you voted against it. Something like that.

The island, with wildlife on it, and the high fence ranch, with wildlife on it are like two kinds of apples or two kinds of oranges, they're not as different as apples and oranges, that's the point and relevance there. The island is an example, where a guy like me can't understand your objections to the high fence ranch. All the wildlife put in a place they have little likelyhood of getting out of, do not, all of a sudden, turn domestic. They especially won't turn domestic, or turn into livestock if you continue to treat them like wild animals in the place that they can not get out of. The places here that I call wildlife ranches are like that, animals stay wild, despite being put in a fence. If you chase them near a fence, they are likely to run into the fence and kill and/or maim themselves, so we are not allowed to chase them near a fence or even chase them around much at all, if the landowner is smart, and most of them are, they want healthy big animals. We have to stalk them or wait them out behind a tree or in a blind or in a tripod when the cover is thick. Some big ranches drive around safari style, then do the stalk, once something is spotted. The ranches are not wilderness areas, so we don't do it on horseback at any of them, that I know of. Its a lot like real hunting that you public mountain hunters talk about, once you're near the animals areas and have lots of sign and start hunting real seriously.

If you just want to get any animal a place like this have and don't care about the price, you don't have to scout much, just go to the first one you come into contact with and you'll likely get something. If you want a really good animal, or a really good price, or a really good hunt, or good accomodations, or something like that, you have to scout to find that. Talk to people, call people, go see places, check records of animals at different places. Its not as different as real pulic land mountain hunting as you make it out, in your imagination. I'm not convinced those argueing against them so much, have actually experienced them much, as so many of the comments against them seem so much like first impressions or the views of anti-hunters' propaganda when I read what you type.

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Elkchsr said, "Don't accuse any one on this site about being simple minded or the like"

Why? I dont think you could argue that there arent a bunch.

As far as being a resident, I was a resident when 143 was voted on and I voted for it. Further, I feel that having lived in MT for 32 years gives me the absolute right to have an opinion about what goes on there. Not to mention that as a nonresident MT hunter, I have a right to an opinion on what goes on there in regard to wildlife and its management.

By the way Elkchsr, just exactly how long have you lived in MT? From the way you post apparently long enough to know everything about everything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No Buzz!!
I only recently came back, I was born in Hamilton and visited regularly in my youth, and have just recently, (five years ago) came back.
You on the other hand have left the state, in other words, picked up your ball and left. So by law, that makes it a fact you really don't have a say any more, no matter what your poor feelings are on the subject. I have no problem telling whom I am, where I came from or my stances on subjects, and won't fault others for theirs, I didn’t realize that I had an opinion on every subject, there are quite a few that I browse thru but don’t say much if any thing. I do have ideas, and I do know right from wrong, if that is what you mean, well…. SO WHAT…. You on the other hand, have a very narrow view on reality. This is not healthy, you’ve even been posting of late as if you are going off the deep end, and I for one hope not, I enjoy this banter more than you could ever possibly know or understand. It keeps me sharp, for when I do run into your type, and keeps me well versed for the next bout. Not unlike the game Ithica play's all the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Anytime the government butts in and tells you how you can or can't make a living if you are not in violation of the laws of the land, then something is terribly wrong with society. The Government has reached too far. Imagine this... Wyoming and Montana suddenly become innundated with Kalifornicators who are all members of PETA. They put a referendum before the state legislature to forbid the taking of wildlife. NO HUNTING!.. It gets passed by a majority of the voters... maybe by one or two votes. Suddenly no more hunting. What do you do then??? Same principle...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a very good post and a very valid point!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Danr, the bunker air getting stagnant? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is one of the most ignorant posts to date, it is very typical of how any one on the far left thinks. If we aren't pro government to the point it is into our every being, then we are painted as outcasts and these very old clichés come to up. When we make valid points that these left wing radicals can't debate, because they in their hearts know it's right, then they come up with the name calling and extremely ignorant comments. For being as educated, as you seem to continually tout, this proves to all that are reading this board that you don't have a grip on reality any more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Danr, I cant get over the game farms? Wrong, we/I did when we/I voted them out of the state.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very typical, vote some thing in you have no intent on seeing thru and run!!!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You and some others feel like the constitution was trampled because 143 passed. I suppose you feel the same way about any zoning requirements. By God, all those do is take away freedom. I'd really like to see you squawk when your next door neighbor turned his house into a bar, slaughter house, pig farm, etc. All you're doing by telling him he cant is taking his freedom, you must be a commi-socialist-liberal-anti-constitutional-freak for taking that opportunity away. I dont know how you sleep at night. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is a huge difference between some thing that is already there when you moved in and some thing that some one wants to start after you are already established.
Very good points Dan!!!

 

[BuzzH]

Ignoring Elkchsr and his feeble, weak, and mindless babble...whatever simpleton.

Danr said, "Can you illustrate how the game farm had any adverse affect on any personal freedoms of anyone?"

Have you been reading this thread?

Hell yes they had an adverse affect. For starters every hunter, both NR and Resident, paid money in license fees for management of wildlife. One million dollars worth of those fees were used for game farm administration. Thats BS, and you damn right that affects me. My wildlife programs, that I PAY FOR, suffer so some game farmer can have his pet elk.

Thats for starters. Now lets say something like bovine TB or CWD spreads because of one. Your looking at a huge economic disaster in a place like MT, where a good portion of hotel, butcher shops, restaurants, etc. make a large portion of their income each year from hunter dollars.

Is that an affect? Yep, sure is. If my business relied on hunter dollars, I wouldnt want a single game farm in Montana. Most didnt and thats another reason why 143 passed.

You also fail to realize that there were/are less than 100 game farms in MT, and only a couple were in the business full time. To most it was a hobby, at best a small supplemental (but highly subsidized) source of income. Its also fair to note that only a handful allowed any type of shoot, most just sold their elk to other game farms, which they can still do.

I dont see how 143 is an infringement on any consititutional right, when ALL the game farmers operating in MT can still operate until they die or get out of the business. They can still raise elk, breed elk, sell elk, whatever. They just cant have want-a-be hunters blast them. It wasnt like MT flew its squadron of black helicopters onto every game farm in the state and burned down their operation. They grandfathered the ones already operating, so whats the problem?

 

[danr55]

So they haven't outlawed game farms, only canned hunts? I read the bill and was of the opinion that ALL domestic operations that involved the containment of Elk were outlawed. I apologize for the misunderstanding. If all they outlawed was canned hunts, then it makes even less sense.

If the concern is for the containment of elk and the resulting consequences, then why outlaw shooting of elk in a contained environment? Why not close ALL facilities that have contained elk? Closing some and permitting others to remain casts an even large pall on this entire exercise.

Sounds to me like the outfitters were afraid they were going to loose some $$ and just weren't going to let that happen. By permitting the existing game farms to remain open, this exercise has negated every argument you've presented related to Bovine TB and CWD. You haven't removed anything except some guys ability to sell his elk to individuals and charge a fee to shoot them.

As for the $$ spent on regulation, that could have been rectified by charging a fee back to the operators, based on the expense of the state to manage these operations.

Anyway you color this, it keeps coming up with the fact that some people didn't like the idea of game farms and the selling of captive elk and took it upon themselves to tell this guy that he couldn't make a living that way. Then, Bigbrother stepped in and ran him off. This is sure sounding like a personal vendetta....

What else you got?

 

[Point Creep]

It's appalling that so many so-called sportsman (residents or non-residants) are for having canned elk shoots in a place like MT. It's no wonder hunters have such a crummy stereotype.

 

[BuzzH]

Danr, you may be right. Personally, I wouldnt have played patty-cakes with them. I would have shut their asses down with flame throwers and black helicopters both.

But, my diplomacy would probably have been a little harsh for most, even in MT.

So, trying to be fair, and realizing that some people had already invested in elk farms, the writers of 143 decided to be nice and grandfather existing farms. Personally I would have given them 2-3 years to get out...or smell napalm one day after 3 years time.

However, what the law DID accomplish is not allowing any other NEW game farms to start up, and also, within 30-40 years time, there wont be a game farm left in MT (lots of them have already shut down). It also keeps shitbirds, who arent hunters, from blasting domestic elk, and giving legitimate hunters a bad reputation. Despite what you think, theres lots of people, me included, who find penned hunts pretty damn offensive.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-02-2003 09:43: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[BigHornyRam]

BUZZ FOR DICTATOR!

Buzz, if I-143 did not grandfather existing game farms, many people including myself would not have voted in favor of it. It would not have passed.

Give and take commrad Buzz, give and take.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul C., Tom, Elkchsr, Danr...cry me a river.

Meanwhile back in MT, game farms are done, going bankrupt, and I'm happy.

Thanks for voting for 143 Paul, why did you do that fellow commrad?

 

[danr55]

Greenhorn, Buzz, ET AL, I, for one, do not approve of canned hunts. I find any reference to them as hunting of any kind, abhorent. I do, however, believe that laws passed to spite a specific individual even more scarey.

This law, that permitted some folks to retain their penned elk, while others were not even permitted to give theirs away, is even scarier. It flys in the face of public domain and individual rights. It gives everyone connected with it the feeling that they have done something good, while all they have done is chip away a little bit at the Bill of Rights. Had the law been equally applied to all situations, it still would have been a bad law, but to direct it at one specific rancher, or group of ranchers because their livelihood threatened the outfitters and guides is a shame.

It's too bad that you guys can't see beyond hunting and beyond Montana to see a little more of the big picture.

As to stereotypes, I don't think that anyone with an open mind, willing to look beyond the end of their own nose and willing to consider things beyond what is immediately evident, could be considered stereotypical.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-02-2003 13:21: Message edited by: danr55 ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Danr, they could all keep their elk, it wasnt a vendetta against one individual, 143 applied to all 108 of them.

Danr, if you're so sure its a sin against the BOR, start up a lawsuit, raise some money, and fight it...get after it lad. My guess is, you'd be laughed out of court, just like the elk farmers were, when they tried that approach.

Long live I-143!

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-02-2003 13:40: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Tom]

I think hunters have "a crumy sterotype" because the public thinks that hunters enjoy killing things, and that's why they think we hunt. That's what it seems like most people I talk to have trouble getting over or understanding with hunting when they don't do it themselves. I've even met hunters who quit because they don't want to kill anymore, they have trouble with it, don't need to do it, and choose not too. The only people I've really talked with that wanted to ban anything like that is some of you guys, which is wierd. Around here, I don't meet animal rights people though.

Buzz, I'm thinking more along the lines of trying to put some sense into your mind on this issue rather than cry you a river.

Did any of those liscenses get transfered to a corporation? There were many that applied for that before I-143 passed 51% to 49%. A corporation could possibly go on for more than 30-40 years if the transfers were approved.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Tom I totally agree with your statement-

"I think hunters have "a crumy sterotype" because the public thinks that hunters enjoy killing things, and that's why they think we hunt."

And that is exactly why "hunting" elk on game farms perpetuates that idea. Don't you agree?

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Ignoring Elkchsr and his feeble, weak, and mindless babble...whatever simpleton. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's just amazing how you can't put up much if any posts with out some inane trash, maybe it makes you feel better or some thing, what it really does is show's your lacking in personal character, not much more.
You also keep coming up with I-143 sounding like it was a resounding victory, when it was a 49-51 split. That is so close that if brought up again in a different light, the fickle public could easily sway the other way the next time. It isn't a "great" victory on either side.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Paul C., Tom, Elkchsr, Danr...cry me a river.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why would we do that???

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This law, that permitted some folks to retain their penned elk, while others were not even permitted to give theirs away, is even scarier. It flys in the face of public domain and individual rights. It gives everyone connected with it the feeling that they have done something good, while all they have done is chip away a little bit at the Bill of Rights. Had the law been equally applied to all situations, it still would have been a bad law, but to direct it at one specific rancher, or group of ranchers because their livelihood threatened the outfitters and guides is a shame.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dan!!!
This is the very point, just not written as good as you do, that I try and allude to. This is the game that the left always play's, take a little here and a little there and eventually the whole is gone. I saw this going on in Washington for years on property rights...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And that is exactly why "hunting" elk on game farms perpetuates that idea. Don't you agree? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wouldn't agree this is a good reason to get rid of the farms, the day's of the "put them in a little pen and shoot the hell out of them" don't happen any more, or if they do, are found out and ridiculed to the point of stopping.
Buzz!!!
Let's see if you can cut on the ignorance of continually degrading others, and see if you can start making decent posts, I know you are fully capable. I've seen it. You won't change any ones mind with it, and it makes you to be the fool in the end!!!

 

[BuzzH]

Elkchsr, I dont have to change anyones mind, game farms are done in MT.

I win, you whine.

 

[Tom]

Wash.hunter, anytime a hunter kills an animal it perpetuates that idea unless they learn the other reasons we hunt. You have good reasons for hunting, that's great, tell people the positive stuff, ask them what they think. Don't forget them for other hunters also, get meat, get body parts, get in the outdoors, those all apply to a person on a high fence hunt too.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Buzz,

Your all or nothing mentality is why common sense rarely wins out. No wolves or too many wolves. Cut every tree down or lock up the forest. Every dog in this race has made valid points. Your narrow mind will not let you see other peoples views.

Why did I support I-143? Shooting wildlife for profit behind a fence is wrong, bad for hunting, and bad for Montana in MY OPINION. One opinion and one vote. Shutting down established businesses goes over the line.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul, I guess you should have looked a little closer at 143 if thats how you feel. You voted wrong I guess is what you're saying?

I voted for 143, but I was 100 percent sure of what I was voting on, sounds like you werent.

I guess knowing the intent of 143 makes me narrow minded...sure, anything you say.