cjcj
New member
Minefield! OH OH scratch that "fruedian" slip
What i really meant to say was double fence even "electrify" sounds good to me.
Officials kill bull elk for approaching herd
- Thread starter Ithaca 37
- Start date
Moosie
Grand poopa
Washinton Hunter. there is states that have Elk that don't have a Tag for it. Does that make those Elk any less of a BIG GAME animal ? There is States that have Deer ya can't hunt... So on, So forth.
Using that Logic, A horse is a Big game animal. Just one without a tag
.
I'm not going to Argue whether Hunting a Elk in a Pen is right or wrong, Because you and your Clan will never Change there mind So I'd rather use the time to go Kill chit.
Please type HUH ? Again, Cuz I'm sure ya didn't get it once again.....
Using that Logic, A horse is a Big game animal. Just one without a tag
I'm not going to Argue whether Hunting a Elk in a Pen is right or wrong, Because you and your Clan will never Change there mind So I'd rather use the time to go Kill chit.
Please type HUH ? Again, Cuz I'm sure ya didn't get it once again.....
A-con
New member
Why shoot the wild elk ?
Next time, shoot all the game farm elk.
Next time, shoot all the game farm elk.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Huh?
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Moosie, yeah I have no time to argue either...my brother will be here in 12 minutes, and we're gonna go kill an elk. Wish me luck!
Moosie
Grand poopa
You posted at 6:49, 12 mins would make that 7:01AM... Were in the hell do you hunt to get into elk that late in the day ? A game farm ?
GGOD LUCK !!!! Take pictures so I can see you with a Wild elk
(Crop the fence out
)
At any rate, I don't se why a Double fence wouldn't work. Whether they Bitch or not, The government can give them 2 choices, 2 fences or NON at all. Then everyones happy (Except Buzz and ithica, but they need viagra and geritol to make them happy
)
GGOD LUCK !!!! Take pictures so I can see you with a Wild elk
At any rate, I don't se why a Double fence wouldn't work. Whether they Bitch or not, The government can give them 2 choices, 2 fences or NON at all. Then everyones happy (Except Buzz and ithica, but they need viagra and geritol to make them happy
LOL! Oscar, your solution implies that elk ranchers are willing to agree to any reasonable regulations to prevent the spread of CWD. Do you think that's the case? Double fencing, although not a solution, would be a good compromise. Who do you think should pay for it? Do you think any elk rancher that is not willing to pay out of his own pocket to double fence his property should be shut down?
There's a couple of elk farmers on this site. I'd like to hear from them, whether they would be willing to pay to double fence their property to stay in business.
Oak
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-22-2003 13:29: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>
There's a couple of elk farmers on this site. I'd like to hear from them, whether they would be willing to pay to double fence their property to stay in business.
Oak
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-22-2003 13:29: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>
Moosie
Grand poopa
I'm suggesting that If the Govenment came in and Said they were going to shut down Elk ranching like they did in Montana. "UNLESS" better precations were made (I.E. Double Fencing, Collaring, Or Whatever) then the Rancher has the Option to either Comply with the options or bail out of the BIZ. Give's them an Option is ALL.
I got nothing Against someone Raising an Elk and having Someone come Shoot it in a PEN. To each their own. Maybe someday in the Future I'll buy some Property and Would lie kto Buy an Elk to Roam in the Backyard like a Horse . I'd like to Have that Option Open. Why shut it all down because we're stuck on a ONE track mind set like the Radicals ?
I got nothing Against someone Raising an Elk and having Someone come Shoot it in a PEN. To each their own. Maybe someday in the Future I'll buy some Property and Would lie kto Buy an Elk to Roam in the Backyard like a Horse . I'd like to Have that Option Open. Why shut it all down because we're stuck on a ONE track mind set like the Radicals ?
So you think that the ranchers should pay for the fencing, right? Hey, I think that is a great compromise. I don't think anyone else should have to pay for it, I don't think they should approve NEW game farms (nobody is being pushed out), and I don't think the licenses should be transferable. Does that sound reasonable? That sounds like a COMPROMISE everyone should be able to live with. Better than the RADICALS shutting them all down.
Oak
Oak
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Moosie, it was 5:49 a.m. my time, and we we were hunting 30 minutes away from my house. Didn't see any elk, just old sign. And there are no tame elk around here, we have laws against that.
I did miss a little 2 point blacktail twice at 50 yards with my muzzleloader. Found out later the damn peep sight I just installed a couple months ago got knocked off somehow and at 50 yards was 5 to 6 FEET off. At least it was a clean miss!
Ithaca 37
New member
I guess I don't understand how the double fence is foolproof. Can someone explain it to me? Suppose there's a storm that blows down a tree across the inner fence and some farm elk get to the outside fence and stick their nose up to it to sniff a wild elk who wandered in like the bull that started this topic. Couldn't CWD get spread that way? Who here is willing to jeopardize the whole Idaho wild elk herd so some game farmers can play their games with tame elk?
It's not foolproof, but if you put that requirement on them, like Oscar suggests, most of them will not be willing to comply and will be out of business anyway. And they wouldn't be forced out of business, they'd be making the choice. That would keep taxpayers, or worse, hunters from having to pay to buy them out.
Oak
Oak
cjcj
New member
I have to say that the Moose has a great idea [double fence] nothing is 100% "foolproof" what if`s don`t count here, what if Ithaca and Buzz sneak out and cut the fence down, [get my point] a double fence if done properly, would be a very effective "Tool" to keep the critters in check.
A-con
New member
OK, double fence AND an insurance policy, lets say three million $( for up to 100 head, and another 3 mil for over 100 ) if a farm sperads CWD to the local wild elk, and it can be proven, payable to what ever state agency that trys to prevent CWD.
Make em liable.
For that kinda bread, a DNA test could proove where the CWD came from.
Make em liable.
For that kinda bread, a DNA test could proove where the CWD came from.
Ithaca 37
New member
Once the CWD gets introduced it seems like it's impossible to contain it. What kinda luck is CO having containing CWD in the NW part of the state?
What good is 3 million bucks gonna do if CWD is introduced?
What good is 3 million bucks gonna do if CWD is introduced?
*A marathon post, but I encourage you to read it ALL before responding...*
I'd have to ask the same question Ithaca asked. What good is the money going to do once the wild population has CWD? The agent of CWD spread is a prion which is made only of protein, which means there is no DNA (no way to prove where it came from).
Colorado isn't trying to control the spread of CWD in the NW part of the state Ithaca, because of the low prevalence there. In the NE, they have had limited success in keeping infection rates low by targeting "hotspots" of infection with intensive culling.
The double fencing solution isn't a new one. The big question is, who will pay for it (nobody here has answered that question yet). Most elk farmers aren't willing to pay. They seem to think that it's an unnecessary burden to them. Here are some examples:
In Montana:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mark Taylor, a Helena attorney and spokesman for the Montana Alternative Livestock Producers, said elk and deer ranch operators believe that state regulations are reasonable and achievable. Add too many requirements, such as double-fencing, and he said it would become cost-prohibitive to run a game farm and ultimately would shut people out.
"It all goes back to reasonableness," Taylor said. "The producers have an interest not only in their respective interests but also they are very concerned about Montana's environment as well. As with any industry, the goal of the producers is to have an industry that is responsible and have producers that are responsible, both from a management and a business perspective."
Wildlife advocates say that if game farms aren't prohibited, the state should crack down further on the industry, especially since the deadly chronic wasting disease was confirmed to exist in Montana. For example, they want mandatory double-fencing around existing game farms, want a stop on new licenses until there is a test for chronic wasting disease in live animals and want a block on intrastate and interstate transportation of game farm animals until the test is available.
But the game farm industry said those additional requirements would be extreme, especially since chronic wasting disease isn't limited to their operations. It says new rules were implemented this year imposing such requirements as tougher record-keeping, more stringent fencing requirements and better animal tagging.
"It is stricter than any state in the U.S.," said Kim Kafka, a Havre-area elk and cattle rancher. "There isn't another state that isn't as strict, and guess what, it still isn't good enough."
http://www.billingsgazette.com/region/991212_reg01.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In Wisconsin: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>An estimated 30 percent of deer farms participate in a voluntary CWD testing program. Solin added that many deer farmers are cooperative, but some are not. That makes the investigation difficult.
He called for all new farms to install 10-foot fences, and for farms not enrolled in the voluntary CWD monitoring program to double-fence their properties.
Currently fence regulations for elk, red, fallow, and sika deer are the responsibility of the township. Solin said fences are not being maintained and fence inspection should be returned to DNR.
Other requested changes include:
• Mandatory reporting of escaped deer and elk;
• Increased penalties for the illegal release of captive deer and elk.
Diana Susen, secretary and treasurer of the Wisconsin Commercial Deer and Elk Farmers Association, warned the committee against over-reaction to CWD and unreasonable restrictions that could kill the fledgling industry.
She criticized the news media for the "garbage" about CWD, and said the news media is "killing our business."
Susen said members of the association have been in the forefront of good animal husbandry and health practices, and they believe DATCP is best qualified to regulate practices for deer and elk inside fences.
Ott told Susen he supported the industry, but that her comments gave him concerns and he had the impression she was "in denial."
"With less than 40 percent of the industry a member of your association, and thus doing voluntary CWD testing, there are a whole bunch of folks out there creating problems for you," Ott said.
http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/news.detail/ID/de3e0098171169c4eef256 b214f1504f
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In Colorado: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To prevent the spread of CWD between wild and captive game, most agree double-fencing is necessary. The question is who should pay? Most elk breeders don't want to foot the bill because they believe their animals may be at risk from wild animals, not the other way around. They suggest a combination of state funds and volunteer labor.
The state wildlife agency already spent $29,000 double-fencing one private ranch, and has agreed to spend up to $290,000 to erect a second fence around another ranch, but it says it won't do any more. (This was hunters' license dollars spent to do this! The $290,000 was spent to fence one section of state-owned land that the rancher leases! But wait, it gets better...)
http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/cwd/killer/side3.cfm
Colorado wildlife officials have allocated $300,000 of the public’s money to double-fence the trophy shooting area at the Trophy Mountain ranch, part of which is a section of State Trust Land that the owner leases from the state of Colorado for less than $1,000 per year. The domestic elk at the Trophy Mountain were slaughtered by agriculture officials after the CWD infection was found, and $500,000 in USDA indemnities paid to ranch owner Mark Mitchell, who has recently restocked the shooting enclosure with several hundred new domestic elk. Under current Department of Agriculture regulations, there is no quarantine, no waiting period to restock, and no requirement that the ranch make any attempt to rid its grounds of CWD.
http://www.rmef.org/bugle/ND02Chronic.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, does it sound like the farmers are willing to do what it takes to stay in business?
Oak
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-23-2003 23:40: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>
I'd have to ask the same question Ithaca asked. What good is the money going to do once the wild population has CWD? The agent of CWD spread is a prion which is made only of protein, which means there is no DNA (no way to prove where it came from).
Colorado isn't trying to control the spread of CWD in the NW part of the state Ithaca, because of the low prevalence there. In the NE, they have had limited success in keeping infection rates low by targeting "hotspots" of infection with intensive culling.
The double fencing solution isn't a new one. The big question is, who will pay for it (nobody here has answered that question yet). Most elk farmers aren't willing to pay. They seem to think that it's an unnecessary burden to them. Here are some examples:
In Montana:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mark Taylor, a Helena attorney and spokesman for the Montana Alternative Livestock Producers, said elk and deer ranch operators believe that state regulations are reasonable and achievable. Add too many requirements, such as double-fencing, and he said it would become cost-prohibitive to run a game farm and ultimately would shut people out.
"It all goes back to reasonableness," Taylor said. "The producers have an interest not only in their respective interests but also they are very concerned about Montana's environment as well. As with any industry, the goal of the producers is to have an industry that is responsible and have producers that are responsible, both from a management and a business perspective."
Wildlife advocates say that if game farms aren't prohibited, the state should crack down further on the industry, especially since the deadly chronic wasting disease was confirmed to exist in Montana. For example, they want mandatory double-fencing around existing game farms, want a stop on new licenses until there is a test for chronic wasting disease in live animals and want a block on intrastate and interstate transportation of game farm animals until the test is available.
But the game farm industry said those additional requirements would be extreme, especially since chronic wasting disease isn't limited to their operations. It says new rules were implemented this year imposing such requirements as tougher record-keeping, more stringent fencing requirements and better animal tagging.
"It is stricter than any state in the U.S.," said Kim Kafka, a Havre-area elk and cattle rancher. "There isn't another state that isn't as strict, and guess what, it still isn't good enough."
http://www.billingsgazette.com/region/991212_reg01.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In Wisconsin: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>An estimated 30 percent of deer farms participate in a voluntary CWD testing program. Solin added that many deer farmers are cooperative, but some are not. That makes the investigation difficult.
He called for all new farms to install 10-foot fences, and for farms not enrolled in the voluntary CWD monitoring program to double-fence their properties.
Currently fence regulations for elk, red, fallow, and sika deer are the responsibility of the township. Solin said fences are not being maintained and fence inspection should be returned to DNR.
Other requested changes include:
• Mandatory reporting of escaped deer and elk;
• Increased penalties for the illegal release of captive deer and elk.
Diana Susen, secretary and treasurer of the Wisconsin Commercial Deer and Elk Farmers Association, warned the committee against over-reaction to CWD and unreasonable restrictions that could kill the fledgling industry.
She criticized the news media for the "garbage" about CWD, and said the news media is "killing our business."
Susen said members of the association have been in the forefront of good animal husbandry and health practices, and they believe DATCP is best qualified to regulate practices for deer and elk inside fences.
Ott told Susen he supported the industry, but that her comments gave him concerns and he had the impression she was "in denial."
"With less than 40 percent of the industry a member of your association, and thus doing voluntary CWD testing, there are a whole bunch of folks out there creating problems for you," Ott said.
http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/news.detail/ID/de3e0098171169c4eef256 b214f1504f
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In Colorado: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To prevent the spread of CWD between wild and captive game, most agree double-fencing is necessary. The question is who should pay? Most elk breeders don't want to foot the bill because they believe their animals may be at risk from wild animals, not the other way around. They suggest a combination of state funds and volunteer labor.
The state wildlife agency already spent $29,000 double-fencing one private ranch, and has agreed to spend up to $290,000 to erect a second fence around another ranch, but it says it won't do any more. (This was hunters' license dollars spent to do this! The $290,000 was spent to fence one section of state-owned land that the rancher leases! But wait, it gets better...)
http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/cwd/killer/side3.cfm
Colorado wildlife officials have allocated $300,000 of the public’s money to double-fence the trophy shooting area at the Trophy Mountain ranch, part of which is a section of State Trust Land that the owner leases from the state of Colorado for less than $1,000 per year. The domestic elk at the Trophy Mountain were slaughtered by agriculture officials after the CWD infection was found, and $500,000 in USDA indemnities paid to ranch owner Mark Mitchell, who has recently restocked the shooting enclosure with several hundred new domestic elk. Under current Department of Agriculture regulations, there is no quarantine, no waiting period to restock, and no requirement that the ranch make any attempt to rid its grounds of CWD.
http://www.rmef.org/bugle/ND02Chronic.html
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, does it sound like the farmers are willing to do what it takes to stay in business?
Oak
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-23-2003 23:40: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>
Ten Bears
New member
I say the farmers can pay for their own double or triple rap system. After all, they would not only be safe guarding the spread of disease from their herd to the wild critters, but also the possible spread from wild critters to theirs. I don't think it's the gubbermints job to protect farmers from the problems their business creates. I would bet that most knew what they were in for when they started, they just want a buy out at inflated rates......
cjcj
New member
Is the CWD situation inevitable? if it is then no amount of protection/money will stop it "but" you can slow it down.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
None of this would even be an issue if private ownership of wildlife was illegal, which it should be. Why do people insist on domesticating every last species on earth?
Ten Bears
New member
Cuz they wants to pet their cute little heads, and look into their big brown eyes.....
