Hello???? H E L L O ! ! ! Anybody there?
- Thread starter MarlandS
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
Danr, I could never figure this out, maybe you're amazing brilliance could help my stupid unconstitutional MT dumb ass out...
Bush won MT in the presidential election...by a large margin.
Do you agree with that or do I have to post the numbers?
If thats the case, and all the conservative/republicans were against 143, why did it still pass? There must have been a huge defection by the republican party to pass 143, because the presidential vote wasnt even close...HMMMM????
Also, where is your graph that says people who voted for Gore dont hunt? I wonder how many of those democrats in MT hunt? Probably at least one or two.
Really it doesnt matter, as long as it passed.
Bush won MT in the presidential election...by a large margin.
Do you agree with that or do I have to post the numbers?
If thats the case, and all the conservative/republicans were against 143, why did it still pass? There must have been a huge defection by the republican party to pass 143, because the presidential vote wasnt even close...HMMMM????
Also, where is your graph that says people who voted for Gore dont hunt? I wonder how many of those democrats in MT hunt? Probably at least one or two.
Really it doesnt matter, as long as it passed.
D
Deerslayer
Guest
Danr....."Unless the majority of the hunters live in the major cities, then they arent' the ones who passe I 143. The majority of the counties voted against it"
Danr......do you think most hunters live in the sticks? Man, that is whacked! I have always lived in large cities and most all of my hunting buddies do too. And the trebd is even greater in Montanna. True, many rural citizens love to hunt, but a whole shitload of city dwellers in Montanna love to hunt as well, and had a hand in whacking game farms.
It can't happen soon enough in Co. I get sick and tired of seeing yet another infected game farm eradicated every other month here.
To corrilate the abolishment of game farms and the ultimate end of sport hunting is a stretch at best. It is the heart and sole of hunters and the hunting community that has allowed sport hunting to continue to thrive in this country...something hunters are willing to support generously and fight for whole heartedly. But game farms did not meet this support of the hunting community as a whole.......what does that tell you? If it had, there would still be game farms in Montanny, I would almost bet.
I will vote down game farming when I get my chance......and I will fight along with my fellow hunting brethern to see that sport hunting is here for my chidren's children...
Danr......do you think most hunters live in the sticks? Man, that is whacked! I have always lived in large cities and most all of my hunting buddies do too. And the trebd is even greater in Montanna. True, many rural citizens love to hunt, but a whole shitload of city dwellers in Montanna love to hunt as well, and had a hand in whacking game farms.
It can't happen soon enough in Co. I get sick and tired of seeing yet another infected game farm eradicated every other month here.
To corrilate the abolishment of game farms and the ultimate end of sport hunting is a stretch at best. It is the heart and sole of hunters and the hunting community that has allowed sport hunting to continue to thrive in this country...something hunters are willing to support generously and fight for whole heartedly. But game farms did not meet this support of the hunting community as a whole.......what does that tell you? If it had, there would still be game farms in Montanny, I would almost bet.
I will vote down game farming when I get my chance......and I will fight along with my fellow hunting brethern to see that sport hunting is here for my chidren's children...
It's obvious to me that the point of this entire discussion is wasted. You've won your battle with I 143, so revel in your victory. I am happy for the well being of the elk herds that it went the way it did. On the other hand, I am concerned that an avocational group was permitted to take the initiative process to the point that it stripped a man of his chosen vocation. I doubt that any form of government, any where else in the world would permit and avocational group to deify one species while demonizing another soley for the perpetuation of sport. It is at once a great thing and a terrible thing. For years I have been concerned with the elitist movements in the world and thier several attempts to force those they consider less than them to succumb to thier will. It seems that the fiscal differences are the only ones that truly exist.
I sincerely hope that in 40 or 50 or 100 years, when we no longer care about the survival of elk or the extermination of wolf, that all of this will have counted for something.
I sincerely hope that in 40 or 50 or 100 years, when we no longer care about the survival of elk or the extermination of wolf, that all of this will have counted for something.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Tell you what Danr, when we no longer care about the well-being of elk or wolves, this world wont be worth a squirt of piss to live in anyway. So, at that point, who the hell gives a rats ass about the constitutionality of legally using the initiative process to ban elk farms?
Thanks for avoiding the "tough" question I asked too.
Oh, and for the last time, I'm typing slow, so that you get it this time...I-143 DID NOT TAKE ANYBODIES VOCATION AWAY...try to comprehend that. Read the law.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-02-2003 13:00: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
Thanks for avoiding the "tough" question I asked too.
Oh, and for the last time, I'm typing slow, so that you get it this time...I-143 DID NOT TAKE ANYBODIES VOCATION AWAY...try to comprehend that. Read the law.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 03-02-2003 13:00: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>
Ten Bears
New member
If "I-143 DID NOT TAKE ANYBODIES VOCATION AWAY",what do the former do now with there elk and farms?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Ten bears, they can sell them to other farms, they can sell the velvet, they can sell the meat, they can sell to other farms out of MT (if other states still allow it, most dont).
Any questions?
Any questions?
Ithaca 37
New member
We could sure save a lot of time if posters would read I-143 before they attack it.
Ten Bears
New member
ITHACA, You show me were I posted anything in opposition to I-143(kinda like what you tell me to do all the time).
I said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'm against game farming in the first place, but if we're gonna have them, why not let some "city folk" have there "hunt"? Are they really hurting the sport of hunting? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't see were the "evils" of the industry have been improved for the good of the wild elk. If <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...they can stil have their elk, they just can't sell canned hunts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> they can sell them to other farms, they can sell the velvet, they can sell the meat, they can sell to other farms out of MT.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While it stops the proliferation of farms for hunts, how does it preserve the integrity of the wild herds?
I said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I'm against game farming in the first place, but if we're gonna have them, why not let some "city folk" have there "hunt"? Are they really hurting the sport of hunting? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't see were the "evils" of the industry have been improved for the good of the wild elk. If <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...they can stil have their elk, they just can't sell canned hunts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> they can sell them to other farms, they can sell the velvet, they can sell the meat, they can sell to other farms out of MT.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
While it stops the proliferation of farms for hunts, how does it preserve the integrity of the wild herds?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Wow, is it really that hard to figure out? Please for god sakes read the law before you ask all the questions. Everyone has been quick to point fingers and make wild claims about 143 before they even took the time to read it.
143 abolished the transfer of game farm licenses, so once all the current operators croak, thats it, no more game farms in MT.
Also, as the game farmers quit, for whatever reason, they're licenses are gone.
I think 143 was pretty fair to the poor down trodden elk farmers...
As far as the shooting end of things, at the time 143 was passed there were only 8-10 shooting farms in the state. So, 90 percent werent effected at all by 143. The shooting farms are what turned most hunters off to game farms...they did themselves no favors by allowing 10 farms to have shooting operations.
It also disallowed any further game farm licenses from being issued. The number of elk farms had soared in the few years before 143 was passed.
143 abolished the transfer of game farm licenses, so once all the current operators croak, thats it, no more game farms in MT.
Also, as the game farmers quit, for whatever reason, they're licenses are gone.
I think 143 was pretty fair to the poor down trodden elk farmers...
As far as the shooting end of things, at the time 143 was passed there were only 8-10 shooting farms in the state. So, 90 percent werent effected at all by 143. The shooting farms are what turned most hunters off to game farms...they did themselves no favors by allowing 10 farms to have shooting operations.
It also disallowed any further game farm licenses from being issued. The number of elk farms had soared in the few years before 143 was passed.
Ten Bears
New member
So it does have a VOCATIONAL impact. Those farms that have invested time and money building a family business have been stopped from passing the business along to the next generation(?). Essentially the bill will force the family operation out of business, in time.
Can you post a link for me to read?
Can you post a link for me to read?
BuzzH
Well-known member
No it does not have a vocational impact.
Those people have from now until they die to profit from elk, wont effect them at all.
It also gives them from now until they die to change professions and line their kids out in other businesses, etc etc etc.
Also keep in mind that there were very few of the farms that raised elk as their only source of income...most were doing it as a hobby and for the novelty of raising elk.
Those people have from now until they die to profit from elk, wont effect them at all.
It also gives them from now until they die to change professions and line their kids out in other businesses, etc etc etc.
Also keep in mind that there were very few of the farms that raised elk as their only source of income...most were doing it as a hobby and for the novelty of raising elk.
If I recall the very first post about I 143, it was ranting and raving about how good it was that some guy named Wallace(?) was run out of town. As I recall, and I'm not saying that I remember this correctly, but this guy tried to give his Elk to one of the local tribes and he was not permitted to do so. Eventually, I believe the elk were killed. If that information is correct, then someone was indeed stopped vocationally from pursuing a livelihood. If that information is not correct, and no one was impacted by the passage of I 143, then this entire issue was my misunderstanding and I apologize for taking issue with it....
Ten Bears
New member
So, the "moral majority" has imposed "its" will on an otherwise legal minority.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Ten Bears, didn't you know that they can stil have their elk, they just can't sell canned hunts.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Danr, Wallace was not run out of town. He could have continued to ranch elk until he or his old lady died. He picked up shop and moved by his own choice.
What he did was try to break the agreement with his game farm license. One of the agreements to his game farm license was that he could only sell live elk to other licensed game farms. That was part of every license issued to game farms...before 143 was passed, for obvious reasons.
Wallace was basically being a pecker head and tried to "give" elk to the tribes thinking that was legal. While the tribes were within their rights, Wallace was not,as per his game farm license and agreement with the FWP. He was breaking the law, and the courts shut his ass down on the tribal deal. He was just trying to show the State they couldnt tell him what to do with his elk, he was wrong about that.
Basically he was trying anything he could to screw with the State of Montana and the FWP. He could have kept raising elk and selling elk, but he chose instead to make a big stink about 143, well it didnt work out real well for him.
What he did was try to break the agreement with his game farm license. One of the agreements to his game farm license was that he could only sell live elk to other licensed game farms. That was part of every license issued to game farms...before 143 was passed, for obvious reasons.
Wallace was basically being a pecker head and tried to "give" elk to the tribes thinking that was legal. While the tribes were within their rights, Wallace was not,as per his game farm license and agreement with the FWP. He was breaking the law, and the courts shut his ass down on the tribal deal. He was just trying to show the State they couldnt tell him what to do with his elk, he was wrong about that.
Basically he was trying anything he could to screw with the State of Montana and the FWP. He could have kept raising elk and selling elk, but he chose instead to make a big stink about 143, well it didnt work out real well for him.
I can appreciate the position of the state, given the circumstances as you've explained them. The news article made it appear as though this entire process was directed at Wallace and Elk ranching in general.
If, as you state, the people in business were allowed to remain in business in perpituity, then I guess I really don't have a specific argument against what's been done. Seems some facts had been omitted from all the articles I've read about this.
One of the liabilities of relying on the media for information... Strange how that happens...
Thanks for the rest of the story..
If, as you state, the people in business were allowed to remain in business in perpituity, then I guess I really don't have a specific argument against what's been done. Seems some facts had been omitted from all the articles I've read about this.
One of the liabilities of relying on the media for information... Strange how that happens...
Thanks for the rest of the story..
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Ten Bears, I just have to ask...are you, or are you not, against game farms? Because you continue to quote yourself-"I'm against game farming in the first place" yet you won't stop arguing IN FAVOR of elk farms. Do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing? If so, that's ok, gotta keep S.I. alive!
I'm just wondering...
I'm just wondering...
Similar threads
