Interested in Workable Ideas

[Skipper]

It's pretty evident that we are getting nowhere at the rate we are going. Lou and his crew have spent the last several months on here calling me, Kevin, David, and anyone else involved in this issue members of Peta and equating us with the devil. None of which is true. True, we've bit back a time or 2, but it is really aggrivating when people put words in your mouth that you never said and thoughts in your head that you never thought.

The basic premise is this. We want to make it illegal in the State of Kentucky for the things that went on in that Bellar Video to happen. Obviously making it illegal won't stop it anymore than making a county dry stops residents from obtaining alcohol. However, once something is made illegal, the people doing the right thing, and in this case it's participating in Fair Chase hunts for deer and elk, hopefully won't be equated with those who choose to break the law. As it is, with the Cervid farmers calling their "hunts, slaughters, shootings, harvestings, or whatever" hunts, we all as hunters run the risk of having the public equate what we do as hunters with what they do behind fences.

The much bigger problem is, if you showed that video to every hunter in the state, I would venture to say that the vast majority would say that the methods used to harvest deer in the video are not acceptable. If hunters can't accept those methods, you can darn well bet that the 14% or so of the people in this state who are animal rights activists won't either, and worse than that, the 60% who neither hunt nor side with the animal rights activists will not accept it either. The long and short is, if these methods become common place in Kentucky, and nobody from either the hunting community or the Cervid Farming industry does anything to stop it, then the 14% and 60% will join together and stop both Cervid Farming and Hunting and the 26% of us won't matter one way or the other.

I am not against someone raising deer as an agricultural enterprise. If they can make a living selling antler shed, hides, meat, deer pee, or whatever other products they get from deer, then so be it. I'm not against that, and I don't think anyone else is either. However, by their own admission, none of the above products from their animals are profitable, and if that was all they could do, they would be out of business. There are 2 different sets of the Cervid Farms in this state in a similar way to there are 3 levels in the cattle business. There are the breeder operations which are similar to cow/calf beef operations. They breed the bucks which they then sell to other operations which have "hunting, harvesting, slaughtering, whatever" facilities. These facilities would match up with the feed lots in the cattle business. I'm not sure if there are middle of the road cervid farms which would match up with the backgrounders in the beef business or not. Some of the Cervid Farms have the capability to operate both breeding operations and harvesting facilities.

A little background on how we became involved:

At the LKS convention in Paducah, Dan Fister's district presented a resolution at the policy development meeting that basically said that any of the "hunting, harvesting, slaughtering, whatever" facilities would have to have a minimum of 200 acres with no internal fences (hence getting rid of the putting a deer in a 1 or 2 acre pen, placing a shooter in a treestand, and filming his "hunt, slaughter, harvest, whatever" for posterity's sake.) The resolution further stated that no drugs of any kind were to be administered to the deer to be "hunted, harvested, etc". When this resolution was presented, of all things, Lou was sitting beside me in the meeting hall. Neither of us knew one another until someone told me who he was. I figured when that resolution came up for a vote, Lou would be all over it, lobbying for it's defeat. As it turns out, he wasn't. The resolution passed with little or no opposition. The reason was, he knew more than the rest of us did about the law in the State of Kentucky.

At the same policy development meeting, another resolution passed the league that recommended that the governor's executive order banning the importation to Kentucky of cervids be continued. The purpose of that is to attempt to prevent CWD from entering the state. This resolution also passed.

At the next Commission meting, the League's policies were taken to the commission by President Wells and the other directors. For several reasons, the Commission got into a shouting match with Ronnie over a lot of things, one of which is the Cyberhunters web site and the perception that the League was using it to undermine the commission. I've never been to that section of the web site, and do not intend to go to it, but here nor there, the Commission ended up rejecting 99% of the Leagues policies. When we found out about it at our next 9th Federation meeting, we were a little aggrivated at what went on and what didn't happen for the sportsmen in this state. We asked that the Commission clarify on several of the resolutions why they did not take action.

The Commission basically told us regarding the high fence hunting regulations that: There are 90 Captive Cervid operations in the state of Kentucky. 4 of those 90 are labeled as Hunting Preserves and as such are regulated by the KDFWR. There is a standing regulation that there will be no more permits issued for Hunting Preserves. The 4 that we do have were issued sometime in the 1960's and or 1970's. They said that it was felt like shortly after they issued those 4, that it was a mistake, and they ceased to issue the permits.

The other 86 Captive Cervid Operations fall under a completely different category. Until 2002, all Captive Cervid Operations were regulated by the KDFWR. In 2002, KALA with Lou as it's point man were able to convince the Farm Bureau Federation to petition the legislature to change jurisdiction of those 86 Captive Cervid Operations to the Kentucky Department of Agriculture. They were also able to get the definition of the Captive Cervids (deer and elk) changed from Wildlife to Livestock.

[Skipper]

Since in Kentucky, the KDFWR doesn't control Captive Cervid operations, and the deer or elk on those farms are not considered Wildlife, the League's resolution to regulate them is a moot point because it can't be done under the current system. The fact is, there are regulations currently in effect on Hunting Preserves that are similar to what we asked for. So, really the resolution we had wouldn't do anything to stop what it is we want to stop.

Something all of us need to understand, CLEARLY. The activities taking place on that Bellar Video ARE LEGAL in Kentucky under our current laws. They may or may not be taking place. I don't know, I just know that they are legal. I certainly do not have the time to visit 86 deer farms across this state and monitor their activities for a year to see what they do. I know for a fact that I have been told by the cervid farmers of "hunts, harvests, whatever" that took place that were eerily similar to the Bellar Video. The story of the Ford Executive that they told us at the 9th meeting, where he paid $15,000 to kill a specific deer so he could get his picture taken with it and hang it's head in his office told me that these activites may indeed be going on in this state.

Following our education on Kentucky law and why the League's resolution was canned by the Commission, I and the others involved in the 9th Federation began to make calls and ask questions to find out what we could do. We spoke with Jim Lane, John Gassett, Dan Fister, and many others including some impartial to Kentucky, wildlife directors from other states such as Georgia who are dealing with similar issues. The conclusion we came to was this. In order to stop this in the state of Kentucky, 2 things have to happen.

1. Control of these "Hunting, harvesting, whatever" facilities has to be put back into the domain of the KDFWR. Unless it is, the commission can regulate themselves to death, but none of the regulations will be enforacable.

2. Deer and Elk have to be reclassified from Livestock back to Wildlife as they were prior to 2002. So long as they are livestock, they can be "hunted, harvested, whatever" however whoever wants to do it.

We have taken steps to bring a resolution back to the Farm Bureau Federation Convention to do those 2 things and had no problems getting it passed at our local level. We have also contacted others throughout the state in an attempt to build support through other county Farm Bureaus. We are now waiting on the state convention. The reason for this is obvious. FB has the largest lobby in the state. We, the 9th Federation, nor the Leauge, have anywhere near enough money to compete with KALA when it comes to lobbying the legislature.

As a backup plan to that, we wanted to secure a petition to present to the legislature signed by sportsmen requesting the 2 changes so that these activities can be regulated and made at least agreeable to the sportsmen in this state.

Lou and his crew would have you believe that we are a group of radicals going out on our own. I assure you, we aren't. What is happening is we are being attacked on all fronts up to and including our own meetings by the Cervid Farmers in an all out attempt to stop us. The sad thing is, it's beginning to work. If we have any hope whatsoever of winning this battle, the sportsmen in this state are going to have to come together and stand up and be counted. The half dozen of us who are serious about making our Federation matter to sportsmen can't compete when we have a room full of deer farmers fillabustering out meeting and preventing us from passing our own motions.

As I've tried to make clear, I'm not against people farming deer or elk. I am against the activities that went on in that Bellar Video, and if stopping those activities mean putting 86 deer farms in the state out of business because they can't make a living without those activities, then so be it. If they can make it selling meat, hides, antlers, and deer pee, then go for it.

The problem for the League, the Commission, and the Sportsmen in this state is the Cervid Farmers are busy on their own. They have already petitioned the League to support ending the ban on new permits for Cervid Facilities, ending the importation ban of cervids into Kentucky, and to support the definitions of deer and elk behind fences as Livestock. At our last 9th Federation meeting, they presented a motion to us to support ending the ban on new permits, ending the importation ban, and to support the definition of deer and elk as livestock. Power is in numbers, and when they bring that many to our meeting, we are outvoted. I am also very aware the KALA and Lou are also bringing their own resolutions to the Farm Bureau convention in Louisville requesting support of ending the ban on new cervid facilities permits, ending the importation ban, and continuing the definition of Livestock. They have also brought a similar request to the KDFWR Commission. This year, Lou ran for one of the KDFWR's 9 Commission seats, and I am well aware that they have plans to attempt to take seats on the League's district directors. They already have Mark Rogers in their right pocket, and if we loose others in the League who are willing to stand for Sportsmen, the Leauge is in more trouble than it has ever been in it's history, IMO.

The long and short is, unless we get the 300,000 sportsmen standing up against this in this state and putting effort into stopping it, in the next few years we won't have 86 cervid facilities, we will have 400 cervid facilities. It may be the case that the 86 we have now don't participate in the activities of the Bellar crew, but you can darn well bet that with the amount of money on the line, if you open this up to anyone who wants in, someone will jump into it with both feet.

As Terry said, it is perfectly clear that the Cervid Industry, and KALA are not interested in finding a solution to stopping what went on at Bellars Place from happening in Kentucky. If the Sportsmen aren't willing to stand up and do it, then you can bet that the 60% and 14% will, and they won't stop with the Cervid Farms. Once they get started, they won't stop until all hunting in Kentucky is stopped. This is not a fight for Peta, or a fight against the Cervid Farms, it is a fight for Sportsmen to Preserve their right to hunt.

Skip Walden
9th District KWFF

[grouseguy]

Skipper,

You whine about people putting words in your mouth and thoughts in your head that were never considered, and then in the same post you do the same to others. Also, calling people out in public with unsupported and untrue claims will not gain you any support. In fact, your hypocrisy has destroyed any credibility that you may have had at some point.

You seem to have a comprehension problem in that you simply will not take what has been written at face value and must assign your own ulterior motives to anyone who dares to see the issue from a different perspective.

Let's get right to the heart of this matter...not very many people care about this activity because it doesn't affect them in any way. I have absolutely NO interest in utilizing one of these facilities, but obviously others do, and what they do does not affect me in the least. I hunt for my own enjoyment PERIOD, and the fact that someone chooses to shoot an animal on a game preserve does not reduce my enjoyment of my own experiences.

IMHO, you are completely 100% WRONG on this issue and the way you are treating other sportsmen. You are doing much more harm to what you claim to support than what you're attempting to ban. In other words, your cure is worse than the disease.

Right now, I'm in Wisconsin, waiting out a rain shower so that I can go grouse hunting with my son and father....that is the type of activity that I am proud to participate in and draw genuine joy from. If you choose to allow the actions of others to infringe upon your own enjoyment that you get from our sport, then be miserable on your own time, and quit trying to impose your morals and beliefs on others. At the very least, its time for you to at least quit making me a player in your own fantasies simply because I happen to see the issue from a different perspective.

[BUCKHEAVEN]

Hello Skipper,

It is clear that your intentions are only to put cervid farmers out of business. My intent is to work together with individuals that really want to resolve issues that affect all the sportsman including the cervid farmer.

Cervid farmers are farmers and your radical views that put farmers out of business will not play well in a farmers convention.

I am willing to work with the LKS because I care about cervid farmers and feel that is important to be in tune with the LKS. Believe me it its in self interest for the cervid farmer but its critically important for the hunters and sportsman in Kentucky. Harvesting facilities that follow humane harvesting practices is not only the moral thing to do but is the only way to run a business.

The views that you have are radical and the use of the Bellar film will end up biting you in the ass. These are the same tactics used by animal rights groups and you will end up hurting everyone the sportsman most of all.

Skipper you are your own worst enemy

[Skipper]

Just because a group of people in a community want to see to it that Adult Bookstores are regulated in a paticular way doesn't mean that those same people are against Bookstores.

There are what? 250,000 farmers in this state, maybe more. There are 86 cervid farmers. I would suggest that if the other 249,914 farmers understood that your operations have the potential to end hunting in Kentucky which would result in an explosion of the wild deer population in this state thus creating more problems for the rest of us with crop damage, highway accidents, and the like, their thought might be completely different.

Skipper

[BUCKHEAVEN]

Just because a group of people in a community want to see to it that Adult Bookstores are regulated in a paticular way doesn't mean that those same people are against Bookstores.

There are what? 250,000 farmers in this state, maybe more. There are 86 cervid farmers. I would suggest that if the other 249,914 farmers understood that your operations have the potential to end hunting in Kentucky which would result in an explosion of the wild deer population in this state thus creating more problems for the rest of us with crop damage, highway accidents, and the like, their thought might be completely different.

Skipper

Skipper, Skipper,

For your information KFB has 450 thousand families. KFB takes care of farmers issues and it does not matter if you are one farmer or 100 farmers.
There has been much talk among farmers about crop damage and why they don’t get rein burst by KDFWR. There has been much talk about car collisions with wildlife and how it affects our insurance rates and why does the KDFWR not controll the exploding deer populations. There has been much talk about hunters trespassing and causing damage to private property.

Are you sure you want to energize 450,000 farmers with threats?


Not a good move Skipper not for the sportsman in Kentucky.

[Taxi Mike]

Skipper:

Buckheaven's point is sharp and accurate!

As much as I enjoy "discussing the issues" point by point (not as generalities) yours are becoming dull and inaccurate.

Your biggest shot is the Bellars tape. Immoral unethecical and not a hunter or hunter issue by your own definition.

You should see the tapes KDFWR have aquired of hunters shooting the robo deer!

What kind of foul play would we scream if the anti's proclaimed this is what we are opposed to and the only way to get it is to stop liscensing those guys and allowing them to drive around with guns in their vehicles!

"be careful what you do in the name of fair chase lest you become the pursued!!!!"

[daking]

Mike, you make a couple of fundamental errors in your last post:

1) There seems to be overwhelming agreement that what is depicted in the Bellar tape was despicable. The deer ranching industryhas tut-tutted the Bellar operation now that it's been exposed. What did the industry do to police itself in a manner to squeeze out Bellar before he gave them all a black eye? Why has the industry opposed regulation by the KDFWR that would go a long way towards ensuring that situations like Bellar don't go on. Their mantra has been "it's our land and it's our livestock to do with as we please". Well, in the absence of some self discipline among the industry, there is but no choice then to regulate it.

2) Sure, there are tapes of slugs shooting up robodeer. Those folks were caught and cooked as a result of the evidence gathered on the tape. That's why there are laws against the activities that lead to the contents of the robodeer tape. What's more, the hunting community recognizes that these laws have a purpose and will more often than not turn in the bad apples in their own barrel. How many folks turn in violators on the turn in a poacher line? Plenty, I'd bet. The deer ranch industry has shown no organized effort to police their own. In the case of Bellar and the moron caught on tape shooting robodeer, we all get to see violaters at their worst. The difference is that hunters accept the active participation of law enforcement in their sport and even aid LE by turning in violaters. From what they've shown us, the deer ranchers want less laws, less enforcement and showed no willingness to clean their own house.

Terry Sullivan

[daking]

Oh, and one more thing, Mike. For my own education, why is it that SCI will recognize trophies taken on canned hunts and B&C and P&Y will not. All three are seemingly upstanding organizations. I wonder what is the difference in their point of view.

[daking]

Troll, I believe that you are wrong. As painful as this discussion becomes, the advocation of principles that directly affect hunting, fishing and resource conservation are at the very core of what the league does. Read the conservation pledge that every member of the league tacitly takes as a member.

It's easy to wave off this sort of issue as something about which we should not concern ourselves. Controversy is not a pleasant business. These are the issues that will shape the future of our sports. They are EXACTLY what the league should consider.

Or in other words.....if it is easy it probably doesn't need doing.


Terry.


Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die to get there.

[Skipper]

Mike,

I don't know who you are or how you came to misinterpret my post which was as accurate of a chronology of the events that have taken place up to this point regarding this issue.

I have no earthly idea how a poacher shooting at a robo deer has anything to do with equating to an activity that is legal under Kentucky law. Shooting at the Robo deer is obviously illegal, that is why it is placed where it is, and it is filmed on video so that the footage can be used in prosecuting the offenders. Under our current laws, it is legal to place a deer in a dog lot, allow a paying customer to climb into a treestand dressed as a deer hunter and shoot a deer that has no chance whatsoever of getting away. Further, we have been told repeatedly at our meetings by the cervid farmers that "We (cervid farmers) think that the methods depicted in that tape is awful, and further, we do not call what happens on our farm 'hunting', we call it harvesting or some other term." A few minutes later, we were told by the same person that, "We use the term 'hunt' in our advertising because it sells better to our customers than if we used the term 'harvest'". Is there any wonder why people might be slightly confused, and possibly equate this with hunting?

Lou,

If the cervid farmers were in the business of producing food, fiber, and other animal products such as deer pee, insulin, or whatever, I wouldn't have the slightest problem with Cervid Farmers. However, they are by your representative's own admission, not in that business. They are in the business of raising "trophy" bucks so that well to do people can proceed directly to the final step in their "hunt" without having to go through what most sportsmen consider part of the sport, and that is, scouting and hunting for game.

Personally, I feel like you are using the farmers the same way you are attempting to use the sportsmen in this state by accusing us of being members of PETA since we won't support canned hunting. Most farmers that I know produce food and fiber and have never given consideration to getting into an operation that's purpose is to turn an animal into not much more than a rifle target. Most farmers know that there are plenty of organizations watching them and their actions. All too frequently, we hear on the news of a horse farmer being caught starving horses. Here in Whitley County a few years ago we had a cattle farmer set a poor example and ended up getting into a pot load of trouble for starving several dozen beef cattle to death. I have never herd the other horse or cattle farmers raising a ruckus claiming it was his horse to do with as he pleased or his cattle. Mostly they recognize that what happened wasn't right, and would like to distance their operations as far from the one in the news as they can. While no livestock farmer has a moral problem with slaughtering an animal for it's intended purpose, I have never seen a beef cattle farmer sell the right to shoot a steer in a pen, take a video of it, and mount the prized head above somebody's fireplace. I have helped slaughter hogs before. We did it as humanely as possible with no fanfare, slick advertising to come shoot a hog, and I can't recall anyone ever posing with a farm raised hog for a photograph.

Further, this business of trying to say that deer are a substitute for tobacco is about as ridiculous as anything I have herd yet except I suspect there are reasons for that claim that likely involve accessing phase 1 and phase 2 grant monies out of the Master Settlement. In the first place, you can still raise all of the tobacco you want to contract with a company to buy, there's just not a program today. Of course the price is about 50 cents a pound less than it was, but you aren't paying 50 cents a pound to lease it either. Maybe a little less money, but less aggrivation. Secondly, tobacco was and still is profitable. According to your admissions, deer farming isn't and it is taking a lot more effort to make it legal to do. I believe if I were looking for a profitable enterprise to take the place of tobacco farming, it wouldn't be deer anymore than it would be the 5 cent a pound cabbage people in our county got convinced to grow.

Skipper

[BUCKHEAVEN]

Skipper,

You continue to misquote everything that I say. Is it that you are not capable of understanding the cervid farming issues or do you just want to disrupt any possible consensus between the cervid farmers and the LKS? I certainly hope the folks at the 9th the new and the old sportsman can better explain the issues to you.


I think the your morals on “MISQUOTING’ are so disgusting that we should have a petition that outlaws you and anyone else that misquotes like you from ever righting another word on this or any other public publication. We should contact our legislature and make sure we shut you down. This is just absolutely disgusting; it will destroy and discredit the written record, as mankind knows it today, except maybe the newspapers.

Hell now I’m getting as wacky as you.

[Skipper]

Hell now I’m getting as wacky as you.


:confused:

Skipper

[Taxi Mike]

Skipper:

I'd bet is you went back to the begining of these forums and reread the vario0us issues with an open mind instead of with a jaundiced eye (looking for statements that substantiate your position) you would find the middle ground you are looking for.

1. Farmers use the term hunt because it sells better and hunters use the term harvest because that sells better also!

2. There are those that are in this to try to defend and define hunting by condeming harvest.)

3. If there is really a market for putting deer in dog pens and shooting them then the public is probably more hardeded than any of us give them credit for. (1 greedy "wanna-be a hero does not make a market). It's a non issue but if you really want to waste your time go to the farmers that agree with you and get it done it's their business and they will help you.

4. Hunters are vunerable! You and I both know it which is why this is an issue. As an old vet I can tell you that being vunerable is a good reason to work low and quiet creating allies, not jump up and squawk about why you ought not be a target.

etc.....

If you truely enjoy the hunt go back and reread: Hunt and you shall find the truth and facts are there, or if you just want blood continue to try to corral your target and blast away!

[spurs]

Why is it that any time mention is made about the cervid farmers being regulated by F&W the response is " Fish and Wildlife is trying to put us out of business" In what way has Fish&Wildlife attempted to do this? Could it be that these so called canned hunts would be deemed as illegal or unethical? Could it be that stiff and severe penalties would be given upon convictions of violations or acts that may threaten our deer herds or privalege to hunt? Before anyone get their panties in a knot. Its a simple question, that requires a simple answer

[Taxi Mike]

DA'King:

"Most people didn't Tut-Tutt Bill Clinton or cigars in the oval office untill the perversion was discovered"! Proper and prudent american people accept that good things and reasonable activities can be subverted and perverted with or without law! If we banned every activity that has ever been abused I dare say this forum, hunting and everything we do would be outlawed!!!

Next:

You are correct about all three being reasonable organizations. However your incorrect supposition based upon the term "canned hunts" is misleasding and irrisponsible.

As the leading sportsmans organiztion protecting hunters rights worldwide SCI has specific policies and statements addressing same.

There is no such thing as a "canned hunt" similar to your observe that hunters addressed the robo deer issue and those that don't fall within the acceptable limits are poachers SCI understands that "if it's canned it is not hunting."

There are actually many more than just the 3 record keepers you noted. Primarily because there are a lot of people with similar interests but different views. P&Y, B&C, RW, SCI, Burkett etc. All go about their merry way and don't try to justify themselves by calling for the abolishment of the others. Probably because as you noted they are "reasonable"

[Taxi Mike]

Spurs:

Why is it that anytime the Fund for Animals offers up suggestions to preserve wildlife sportsmen bristle?

The premis in these discussions is how to abolish some farming practices for and by the design of "sportsmen" just because the "sportsmen" feel they have a special interest!

The Fund has special interests also my friend!!!

We as sportsmen have adamantly stood against the legislature's notions to allow agriculture or insurance a legislative say in wildlife and likely will find a strong need to continue to do so!

Yet you beg to open a channel to allow sportsmen to regulate farming interests and don't seem to fathom that in channels things flow both ways!

[spurs]

Taxi Mike:
I fail to see how your statement is an aswer to the previous question. This does not state how the Dept. of Fish & Wildlife is trying to put cervid farmers out of business. This may however, show why you are opposed to the F&W.
The F&W was after all the agency that issued the permits to hold deer in captivity to begin with. As far as the various animal rights groups are concerned, I think the best protection that you, myself, and yes, even the cervid ranchers, has against the efforts of these groups, is the Fish & Wildlife. We all know that if anything even remotely resembling the Beller case was discovered by these groups,that years of court injunctions and court apperances by attorneys representing the deer farmers could follow. Of course they would lose the battle, but possibly win the war, by having cervid farming closed for years. Not a good situation for anyone. A look at what happened to the US Forest Service in the Daniel Boone is a good example. One radical group totally shut down timber operations for years. This also stopped food plot planting and other habitat improvement programs. They eventually lost,but look at the years and money lost. And it still ain't over, even now our forest are a tinder box that could explode at any time, partially because of the actions of these groups.Now, I'm not saying anything this radical will happen, only that it could. Even with the F&W as the regulating agency,but F&W is probably better able to deal with this, than is AG.

[BUCKHEAVEN]

Spur,
An agency (KDFWR) that does not want an industry (cervid industry) to exist cannot regulate that industry because they will regulate it out of business. There is no secret that the KDFWR managers don’t want cervid farming to exist. They express that all the time. To me the answer as to why they feel this way is easy. The KDFWR does what the bosses tell them to do in this case is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Have you ever heard money talks and bullshit walks. The RMEF has a position statement against cervid farming. The cervid farmer’s welfare will never be a concern to the KDFWR. As long as the RMEF is in control, the sportsman will be second and the cervid farmers will be in the back of the bus, no - outside the bus. Don’t get me wrong they have done some great conservation work and the elk relocation would have been a great idea if they would not have imported the elk from the borders of Colorado were CWD is most prevalent. How come you don’t hear a beep from KDFWR as to how close the wild CWD deer found in West Virginia is to the imported elk herd in Eastern Kentucky? I would be asking did we cause this? Is it possible that importing 1500 elk from areas that CWD is prevalent and letting them loose in the wild may have cause CWD in West Virginia? Was this a prudent thing to do?

As far as sportsman issues go the RMEF is first and every one else is second. Maybe if you stick together the LKS can someday get back the influence on sportsman issues they use to have with the Commission and KDFWR. There is a lot more to wildlife than elk.

The only agency that will promote and protect the cervid farmer is the Department of Agriculture and the farm organization (KFB) around the State of Kentucky. To me that is crystal clear and there is no other realistic option.

Can you imagine the positive influence we would have for the Kentucky sportsman if we reach a working consensus? The LKS with a strong voice for the sportsman with KDFWR and KALA with a strong voice in agriculture circles to protect sportsman issues? I am trying to reach a consensus so we can all work towards the same goals for the sportsman in Kentucky. So all sportsman can have a strong voice in wildlife and agriculture.

Putting us out of business can not and will not be part of that formula.

[Taxi Mike]

This may however, show why you are opposed to the F&W.


Spur:

My friend! Please do not put words in my mouth. I have never stated or acted in any way to cause you to state that I am "opposed to F&W".

You would be hard presses to find more than a hand full of people that have put in much more volunteer time and energy into protecting and promoting hunting or working with our F&W.

"Caring" is not limited to those that would do the wrong thing for the right reason!

[Bowhunter10]

Why is it that any time mention is made about the cervid farmers being regulated by F&W the response is " Fish and Wildlife is trying to put us out of business" In what way has Fish&Wildlife attempted to do this?


Spur,

Search this site and you will find many regulations imposed and actions taken by the KDFWR, specifically designed to put cervid farmers out of business.

One such regulation states: That you cannot restock a hunting preserve with any hoofed animal. This means that a preserve owner with an attached breeding facility cannot open the gate of his breeding pen and release animals into his preserve.

This is like telling a cattle farmer he can't open his barn yard gate and turn his cows out to pasture.

Clearly, without a doubt, this is not an effort to control any disease. It was put in place by the KDFWR to put cervid farmers out of business.

Remember: you cannot restock with any hoofed animal. This includes livestock that is not affected by CWD.

I'll be interested to see the spin you put on this regulation to make it seam reasonable for the control of CWD.

If you think that this regulation is appropriate for cervid farmers, Should the same regulation be put in place on cattle farmers to control mad cow?

If you think this regulation is appropriate for cervid farmers, Should the same regulation be put in place on sheep farmers to control scrapies?

[Skipper]

I spoke to a biologist with Georgia's Wildlife Resources Division about the situation in West Virginia. He said that according to the map of Cervid farms they have with their CWD Coalition, that area of West Virginia has a relatively large concentration of Cervid Farms. My Georgia friend has been a long time critic of the elk program, but even he said, it was very unlikely that this case came from the elk herd, a more likely to have originated in one of the captive herds in the area.

Skipper

[BUCKHEAVEN]

Skipper,

You had to go all the way to Georgia to get that information! What a joke.

All you have to do is talk to Virginia and Tennessee officials that have opposed the Kentucky elk restoration because of the high risk of CWD to their own States.

Who in their right mind would think cervid facilities behind 8-0 fence with a few deer or elk are more of a CWD risk than releasing 1500 elk to the wild that came from areas that have CWD.

[Skipper]

Skipper,

All you have to do is talk to Virginia and Tennessee officials that have opposed the Kentucky elk restoration because of the high risk of CWD to their own States.

Lou, my friend you are barking up the wrong tree with that one. You need to spend $26 on a subscription to Tennessee Valley Outdoors Magazine. They'll even send you a free hat with it.

From one of my recent Elk Restoration articles published June 2005

Tennessee also has a significant herd of elk located in the Royal Blue area of the state. The original plan for Tennessee was to stock approximately 400 animals and build a population of 1400 to 2000 before issuing permits. Unfortunately, a major snag came up with the Tennessee program. Fears of spreading Chronic Wasting Disease have caused most all states to prohibit the importation of or transportation through of live cervids (deer or elk). As a result of that, the stocking program in Tennessee came to a screeching halt but not before 167 elk had been released. Fortunately, the program hasn't been completely abandoned by problems with CWD. In the late 1980's and early 1990's, the US Forest Service, TWRA and KDFWR went in together to study elk reintroduction at Land Between the Lakes. Limited releases took place there so that biologists could study the suitability of the land for elk habitation and what would be required to be successfully in the processes involved in moving wild elk from one location to another. Today, LBL is home to a healthy herd that does what all healthy herds do, and that is reproduce. The elk that were released into the Smokey Mountains at Cataloochie are offspring of the LBL herd. Two stockings of 25 head each occurred in Cataloochie in 2001 and 2002. Today, that herd numbers in excess of 60 animals, but the stockings there have come to a halt because Cataloochie is in North Carolina and transporting cervids between states is illegal. The good news for Tennessee is since LBL is partially in Tennessee, there is no legal problem transporting elk from LBL to other areas of Tennessee, so the surplus elk from LBL are being diverted to Royal Blue and Sundquist to supplement the growing herd in Tennessee. Today, Tennessee has slightly over 200 head of elk roaming on the approximately 125,000 acres that make up Royal Blue and Sundquist WMA’s.

I spoke with Stan Stooksbury, Manager of Royal Blue WMA, about the status of the herd in his area. He indicated that they were doing well, and that the herd had risen to over 200 head, but that as the herd expands and some elk are showing up from Kentucky’s herd they were becoming increasingly more difficult to count an exact number. As the animals age, the transmitters and ear tags are being lost or have quit working, and they are having to rely on observation more and more. Stan said that he had a group that regularly browsed on his crabapple trees in his yard including a fine 400+ pound yearling calf from the 2004 calving season. We also discussed the available forages during the winter months, and like what I have been hearing from Taylor Orr and David Ledford in Kentucky, the good news is in this part of North America, on a poor year we have more available forage through the winter months than does the Rocky Mountain Region during the summer months. Stan also indicated that as coal is becoming a more valuable resource and since the TVA owns the coal under Royal Blue, as new mines open it will bring about opportunities to reclaim strip mines with more beneficial forages. Through the 60’s and 70’s many mine lands were reclaimed with fescue and seresa. These have proven to be very poor for both wildlife and livestock. As the new operations are reclaimed they will be restored with warm and cool season grasses that are of much more benefit to the elk. As a result, mining is not necessarily a bad thing for the elk and may prove to eventually help bolster the herd.

Oh, about Virginia, I have spoken with them as well dating back to an article I wrote in 2004. As recently as this year I spoke with some of their officials at the Bristol RMEF show concerning the elk. You are correct, the Virginia folk have about the same opinion as you do on the elk, that is, they wish they would all go away. That said, they are making some good money for their department selling elk tags on the Kentucky herd, so be it, their department and others might not be enthused with the idea, sportsmen in Virginia are enjoying the opportunity to hunt them.

You actually have no idea who I've talked to and who I haven't regarding elk. It doesn't seem to me that the TWRA has a problem stocking elk in Tennessee other than the fact that they haven't been able to complete the planned number they had originally intended due to the CWD scare. As for CWD, the disease has an incubation period of 18 months. The last elk were stocked in Kentucky in 2002. We are now a minimum of 36 months beyond the last stocking.

Skipper

[Bowhunter10]

Lou, my friend you are barking up the wrong tree with that one. You need to spend $26 on a subscription to Tennessee Valley Outdoors Magazine. They'll even send you a free hat with it.

From one of my recent Elk Restoration articles published June 2005



Oh, about Virginia, I have spoken with them as well dating back to an article I wrote in 2004. As recently as this year I spoke with some of their officials at the Bristol RMEF show concerning the elk. You are correct, the Virginia folk have about the same opinion as you do on the elk, that is, they wish they would all go away. That said, they are making some good money for their department selling elk tags on the Kentucky herd, so be it, their department and others might not be enthused with the idea, sportsmen in Virginia are enjoying the opportunity to hunt them.

You actually have no idea who I've talked to and who I haven't regarding elk. It doesn't seem to me that the TWRA has a problem stocking elk in Tennessee other than the fact that they haven't been able to complete the planned number they had originally intended due to the CWD scare. As for CWD, the disease has an incubation period of 18 months. The last elk were stocked in Kentucky in 2002. We are now a minimum of 36 months beyond the last stocking.

Skipper

This is an artical writen by Charles Searcy for the Tennessean

Skipper,
Here's a quote from Ben Layton Cheif Of Wildlife for Region III of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.
Quote{ Those Kentucky animals are from Utah and other midwest states where studies of CWD havn't been going on as long as they have in Canada, where we get our elk.}

Skipper,
This is on the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries web site.
Kentucky & Tennessee have stocked Elk, but at a risk. Because there is no live animal test when the relocations occured, there was no way to guarantee that elk moved to the states were free of CWD. Kentucky obtained Elk from an area of Utah within 100 miles of an area now known to harbor mule deer infected with CWD.

This is not a risk Virginia has been willing to take. To put Virginia's hunting economy and thousands of jobs at risk by promoting elk restoration despite a very real CWD risk would be irresponsible.



If the Incubation period for CWD is 18 months why do we haft to be monitored (every animal that dies is tested) for 5 years?
If you think they have tested every Elk that has died in the wild you are badly mistaken. During one study by KDFWR 48% of the GPS colars failed to work shortly after the Elk's release.

[BUCKHEAVEN]

Bowhunter 10,

Thanks; I really did not want to dig up the articles.

Skipper,

Try posting articles as your back up like Bowhunter10. The way you have mis-quoting me and others it is hard to figure out if you are making up the stuff or not.

Bowhunter10 clearly backed up my statement.

Barking up the wrong tree!

[Skipper]

I don't know how a debate over canned hunting has managed to morph itself into a debate over the logic of stocking elk into the eastern states. Whatever you want to turn it into suits me though.

I freely admit, I've never spoken with Ben Layton, but over the years I have spoken with several in the TWRA about their elk program. I've not seen the entire article written by Charles Searcy for the Tennessean that Bowhunter10 referrs to, and am not doubting that there are those in Tennessee, the TWRA and elswhere who wish the elk restoration had never happened in Kentucky or Tennessee. The same can obviously be said about Kentucky. You have no idea who I have and haven't talked to in Tennessee regarding their elk program. So far, I have yet to talk to someone involved with the program in Tennessee or Kentucky for that matter that wasn't up beat about it and excited to point out to me what has been accomplished in a relative few years. How long have wild elk been roaming in LBL? Have we had a report yet as to CWD being found in LBL?

Oh, about Virginia, I have spoken with them as well dating back to an article I wrote in 2004. As recently as this year I spoke with some of their officials at the Bristol RMEF show concerning the elk. You are correct, the Virginia folk have about the same opinion as you do on the elk, that is, they wish they would all go away. That said, they are making some good money for their department selling elk tags on the Kentucky herd, so be it, their department and others might not be enthused with the idea, sportsmen in Virginia are enjoying the opportunity to hunt them.


I think I said that Virginia wasn't entused with the elk.

I suspect that sometime in the 1950's when Kentucky began to restore deer there were people who said the same thing about deer that you are saying about elk, but you are greyer headed than I am and may know more about that. I know that there are people today who do not like the wild turkey roaming around Kentucky. The fact is, if it hadn't been for sportsmens organizations over the years putting efforts into restocking programs the United States in general would be without wildlife. Does anyone want to go back to 1900 when there were less than half the number of deer Kentucky now has scattered throughout the 50 states? Ducks were nearly extinct? There were were only a few thousand elk left in a couple of locations in the western states? Wild turkey were nowhere around here?

Are you done firing shots at the elk program and ready to talk about a workable solution to the problem of Canned Hunting or are we going to continue with these diversionary tactics?

[daking]

Skipper, I'm with you on the diversionarytactics. It would seem that the elk restocking is a bit of a red herring. As I said earlier, the wisdom of it can be debated and the body of knowlege that was available when it began is a whole lot smaller than today's knowlege. If one mistake is made, do we say everyone else gets a free pass at the same mistake? If we didn't realize the danger then but know it now, do we allow a dangerous practice to continue because it was done before? Tell it to the asbestos industry, folks. We used it for years. When it was found to be a carcinogen, the asbestos industry took the hit. That's the way things go.

The other unanswered question is if the cervid ranching community desires such a laissez-faire regulatory environment for their business, who will keep them honest? The industry may not like the Bellar tape, but it's out there. With modest laws in place that fiasco was allowed to happen. Are we to leave the industry to regulate itself? Where are the cervid ranchers who tried to prevent Bellar from giving them a black eye? They tut tut about it now, but they didn't do anything to prevent it.

It stretches my credulity to see the cervid ranchers looking to partner with the League to find a "workable solution". I've sat in too many meetings where the cervid industry's participants have stated that the deer and the land belong to them and they should be allowed to do what they please. Why on God's green earth would the League have any sympathy for their cause? We don't have a hell of a lot of sympathy for allowing the removal of mountain peaks to mine coal. It would save the mining companies a hell of a lot of money if they could top the mountains rather than mine into them. It's been proven over and over that such mining violates the riparian rights of those downstream....just like the introduction of a diseased deer would violate the rights of the landowner adjacent to a deer rancher who has the expectation that the deer on his PRIVATE land would not be infected by a non-native disease.

The real question is why is the League even talking to the cervid industry? In an environment where they've taken an all or nothing stand, the League has been given no option (in my humble opinion) but to resist any effort to liberalize the laws regarding cervid ranching.

That's what I think. I'm sure they see it differently. I'm waiting for them to explain it any clearer than their business is the cervid equivalent of pushing overburden off of coal into a mountain stream

Terry Sullivan

[Taxi Mike]

Are you done firing shots at the elk program and ready to talk about a workable solution to the problem of Canned Hunting or are we going to continue with these diversionary tactics?__________________


Skipper:

I thought "canned hunting" was a diversionary tactic!

By sports standards it certainly does't qualify as a "problem" based upon one incident by a "media hero"!

[Skipper]

Skipper:

I thought "canned hunting" was a diversionary tactic!

By sports standards it certainly does't qualify as a "problem" based upon one incident by a "media hero"!

Mike,

I could under understand a representative of Boone and Crockett or Pope and Young making such a statement, but as I understood earlier, you work for Safari Club International which does recognize scores for deer taken behind fences. It seems kind of counter to your organization's beliefs.

Skipper

[spurs]

We are the stewards of Kentucky's fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. We manage for the perpetuation of these resources and their use by present and future generations. Through partnerships, we will enhance wildlife diversity and promote sustainable use, including hunting, boating, fishing, and other nature-related recreation. This is the mission statement of the Ky. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. I have read several post on here that evidently feel the Dept of F&W are not to be trusted. After reading and thinking about this statement I feel the Dept. is doing exactly what the citizens of Ky has entrusted them to do. If, the Dept trust and agrees with evidence they have that cervid farming canbe detrimental to free ranging deer and elk; they have, by their own mission statement, an obligation to try and be the regulating authority.

[BUCKHEAVEN]

[quote=Skipper]I don't know how a debate over canned hunting has managed to morph itself into a debate over the logic of stocking elk into the eastern states. Whatever you want to turn it into suits me though.

http://www.kentuckyhunting.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif petition ? (http://www.kentuckyhunting.net/forums/showthread.php?p=179823#post179823)

Elkguy Skipper tells me you already have a petition written up about the Highfence hunting (canned hunts) I would like to see it If I could, some of our members have be



Skipper,

We were talking about why by the cervid industry feels KDFWR/RMEF is putting us out of business.

Tell us Skipper, why did you tell 9th fair chase hunter that elk guy representative for RMEF had the petition to put high fence farmers out of business?

9th fair chase why did you ask elk guy representative for RMEF for the petition to put high fence farmers out of business?

Really guys what do you expect. RMEF has a position statement against high fence cervid farms and now they are initiating a petition to put cervid farmers out of business according to you all.

[BUCKHEAVEN]

If, the Dept trust and agrees with evidence they have that cervid farming canbe detrimental to free ranging deer and elk; they have, by their own mission statement, an obligation to try and be the regulating authority. [/quote]

Spur,

I could not agree with you more if you had individuals that determined that with sound policy.
Pushing RMEF policy/agenda is not doing a service to the sportman or the cervid farmer.
You make my point why we cant be under KDFWR. KDFWR has no clinical evidance to that effect on our farms in Kentucky.

[spurs]

This is true no evidence of CWD has been found in Ky, in either wild or captive herds. This is a good thing! Keeping it that way would be a better thing! If you were riding around a race track at 180 mph, would you rather be the driver, or the passenger? I think this is the position the Dept is in. They want control of their own destiny.

[elkguy]

Buckheaven,

I have stated on here before that the RMEF is not, nor will we be, circulating a petition regarding deer and elk farming. Please stop trying to insult us and trying to pull us into this fight. We are focused on habitat conservation and hunter opportunity. I do not have a lot of time to deal with your issues. I am working with state and federal agencies, land companies, mining companies, etc etc to conserve habitat and expand hunting opportunities.

You keep mentioning the RMEF position statement on game farming. It is 11 years old and was written in 1994.

The CWD infected deer in West Virginia are closer to the Atlantic Ocean than they are to KY elk.

We have been asked by the state of Tennessee within the last 10 months to help them pay for importing elk from Canada. We mutually agreed to not import any animals for at least 2 years because of the current uncretainty regarding CWD issues. We will reassess the situation in 2 years and decide what to pursue then.

Please leave us out of this fight.

Thanks

[Skipper]

Tell us Skipper, why did you tell 9th fair chase hunter that elk guy representative for RMEF had the petition to put high fence farmers out of business?

9th fair chase why did you ask elk guy representative for RMEF for the petition to put high fence farmers out of business?

Really guys what do you expect. RMEF has a position statement against high fence cervid farms and now they are initiating a petition to put cervid farmers out of business according to you all.
Reply With Quote

We have never said we want to put Cervid Farmers out of business. We have said that we want to put them out of the canned hunting business. Can cervid farming survive without canned hunting? I have no idea, but if the lack of canned hunting makes cervid farming unprofitable, then I don't know if we need that industry or not.

Skipper

[Bowhunter10]

Spur,

Search this site and you will find many regulations imposed and actions taken by the KDFWR, specifically designed to put cervid farmers out of business.

One such regulation states: That you cannot restock a hunting preserve with any hoofed animal. This means that a preserve owner with an attached breeding facility cannot open the gate of his breeding pen and release animals into his preserve.

This is like telling a cattle farmer he can't open his barn yard gate and turn his cows out to pasture.

Clearly, without a doubt, this is not an effort to control any disease. It was put in place by the KDFWR to put cervid farmers out of business.

Remember: you cannot restock with any hoofed animal. This includes livestock that is not affected by CWD.

I'll be interested to see the spin you put on this regulation to make it seam reasonable for the control of CWD.

If you think that this regulation is appropriate for cervid farmers, Should the same regulation be put in place on cattle farmers to control mad cow?

If you think this regulation is appropriate for cervid farmers, Should the same regulation be put in place on sheep farmers to control scrapies?



Spur,
You ask what regulations are putting farmers out of business. I have posted one example, Please respond. Don't forget to answer the last two questions, as I have local cattle farmers which are very interested in your opinion.

[BUCKHEAVEN]

We have never said we want to put Cervid Farmers out of business. We have said that we want to put them out of the canned hunting business. Can cervid farming survive without canned hunting? I have no idea, but if the lack of canned hunting makes cervid farming unprofitable, then I don't know if we need that industry or not.

Skipper

Skipper,

As it relates to RMEF, did you believe they had a petition to put canned hunts out of business?

[BUCKHEAVEN]

Buckheaven,

I have stated on here before that the RMEF is not, nor will we be, circulating a petition regarding deer and elk farming. Please stop trying to insult us and trying to pull us into this fight. We are focused on habitat conservation and hunter opportunity. I do not have a lot of time to deal with your issues. I am working with state and federal agencies, land companies, mining companies, etc etc to conserve habitat and expand hunting opportunities.

You keep mentioning the RMEF position statement on game farming. It is 11 years old and was written in 1994.

The CWD infected deer in West Virginia are closer to the Atlantic Ocean than they are to KY elk.

We have been asked by the state of Tennessee within the last 10 months to help them pay for importing elk from Canada. We mutually agreed to not import any animals for at least 2 years because of the current uncretainty regarding CWD issues. We will reassess the situation in 2 years and decide what to pursue then.

Please leave us out of this fight.

Thanks

Elk guy,

I understand. It seems your buddies think otherwise.

[Taxi Mike]

Quote:
Skipper:

I thought "canned hunting" was a diversionary tactic!

By sports standards it certainly does't qualify as a "problem" based upon one incident by a "media hero"!

Mike,

I could under understand a representative of Boone and Crockett or Pope and Young making such a statement, but as I understood earlier, you work for Safari Club International which does recognize scores for deer taken behind fences. It seems kind of counter to your organization's beliefs.

Skipper


Skipper:

Again, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said nor do I in fact "work" for SCI. I am a member of SCI, the NRA, and the League to name but a few of those organizations I belong and support.

I would also suggest again that you go back and reread the posts, (possibly with an open mind) and then when you think you understand perhaps you should ask if you have my statements correct before going forward with your "understanding"!

This is the way many modern civilizations come to understandings and compromise.
Not by starting with a preconcieved notion and trying to achieve that goal through assertion of assumptions.

[Taxi Mike]

spurs (http://www.kentuckyhunting.net/forums/member.php?u=3372) http://www.kentuckyhunting.net/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_187676", true);
Fawn
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 23


http://www.kentuckyhunting.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif
We are the stewards of Kentucky's fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. We manage for the perpetuation of these resources and their use by present and future generations. Through partnerships, we will enhance wildlife diversity and promote sustainable use, including hunting, boating, fishing, and other nature-related recreation. This is the mission statement of the Ky. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. I have read several post on here that evidently feel the Dept of F&W are not to be trusted. After reading and thinking about this statement I feel the Dept. is doing exactly what the citizens of Ky has entrusted them to do. If, the Dept trust and agrees with evidence they have that cervid farming canbe detrimental to free ranging deer and elk; they have, by their own mission statement, an obligation to try and be the regulating authority.


Spurs: A departments mission statement is a good thing to keep them focused on their tasks. The Constitution of the United States probably has greater relativity!


Amendment V


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

[Skipper]

This is the way many modern civilizations come to understandings and compromise.
Not by starting with a preconcieved notion and trying to achieve that goal through assertion of assumptions.

Could you please show me where either you or Lou are willing to compromise? So far, I haven't seen an offer of compromise on your part. All I have seen is, they are our deer and elk, we will do with them as we please, anyone who says otherwise is trying to take away my right to do as I please.

Skipper

[Taxi Mike]

Skipper:

I'm compromising with you simply by doing for you what you refuse to do or may not be capable of doing. I went back and reread this single thread and found your answer three different times, I recall a number of other offers and concessions in various other threads.

BuckHeaven 10-16-2005, 01:54 PM
Can you imagine the positive influence we would have for the Kentucky sportsman if we reach a working consensus? The LKS with a strong voice for the sportsman with KDFWR and KALA with a strong voice in agriculture circles to protect sportsman issues? I am trying to reach a consensus so we can all work towards the same goals for the sportsman in Kentucky. So all sportsman can have a strong voice in wildlife and agriculture

BuckHeaven10-13-2005, 10:34 AM; It is clear that your intentions are only to put cervid farmers out of business. My intent is to work together with individuals that really want to resolve issues that affect all the sportsman including the cervid farmer.


BuckHeaven10-13-2005, 10:52 AM ; I am willing to work with the LKS because I care about cervid farmers and feel that is important to be in tune with the LKS. Believe me it its in self interest for the cervid farmer but its critically important for the hunters and sportsman in Kentucky
.

[Taxi Mike]

Skipper:

I'm compromising with you simply by doing for you what you refuse to do or may not be capable of doing. I went back and reread this single thread and found your answer three different times,

I recall a number of other offers and concessions in various other threads but in compromise both sides give so how about in the spirit of compromise and good faith you go back and find a couple of BuckHeavens offers and concessions.

BuckHeaven 10-16-2005, 01:54 PM
Can you imagine the positive influence we would have for the Kentucky sportsman if we reach a working consensus? The LKS with a strong voice for the sportsman with KDFWR and KALA with a strong voice in agriculture circles to protect sportsman issues? I am trying to reach a consensus so we can all work towards the same goals for the sportsman in Kentucky. So all sportsman can have a strong voice in wildlife and agriculture

BuckHeaven10-13-2005, 10:34 AM; It is clear that your intentions are only to put cervid farmers out of business. My intent is to work together with individuals that really want to resolve issues that affect all the sportsman including the cervid farmer.


BuckHeaven10-13-2005, 10:52 AM ; I am willing to work with the LKS because I care about cervid farmers and feel that is important to be in tune with the LKS. Believe me it its in self interest for the cervid farmer but its critically important for the hunters and sportsman in Kentucky
.

[Skipper]

Ok, so you are willing to work with us. NOW What be the plan you would propose to see to it that what went on in the Bellar video is not legal in the State of Kentucky? So far, the only responses we have gotten to that question is some tantrem stating that we are trying to put deer farmers out of business. Can Deer farmers make a living doing something other than what went on in that situation in Indiana? Or is supporting that sort of activity necessary to sustaining a healthy deer farming industry in Kentucky? If there is a way to be a profitable deer farming operation without turning deer and elk into rifle targets, then so be it, let's proceed to make these activities illegal, but If there isn't a way to be a profitable deer farm without canned hunting, then I don't think a compromise is possible.

Skipper

[LoweBow]

Guys. I have stayed out of this because I've had enough arguments over the last months to last a lifetime.
My guess would to be to define a "canned hunt". If this is what some see as the problem a definition would help others make a logical assessment of the situation. Is it defined by drugs? Acreage? The animal itself? etc...

I do believe that this is thin ice as just this weekend on Ky Afield kids were shown hunting in Fred Pape's high fenced farm. Were those hunts "canned"? I don't think so, but if was "high fenced". Start by defining the 2.
That's my $.02.

[String Music]

Wrong statement.....Fred doesn't hunt inside his fence. Nobody does yet, maybe someday?

The kids hunted outside the fence. KYDFWR employees had explicit instructions to leave the property if any kids or anyone else attempted to hunt inside the fence.

I would agree that the first step would be to define a canned hunt, or for the game farmers to STOP offering hunts. If they want to allow a slaughter of a farm animal, then call it a slaughter in their advertisements and brochures, not a hunt.

[Taxi Mike]

String and LoweBow seem to be on target and reflecting reality and sentiment of most average hunters I have spoken with on the issue.

If KDFWR and or the Legislature wants to create a definition of hunting and say that to be defined as hunting: "these are the parameters" it would probably placate those with concern or insecurity about what they are purportedly doing.

Much of the rhetoric I have seen from the Deer and Elk ranchers seems to indicate that they have tried to define what they do as agricultural slaughter, harvest or herd management. All of which are valid descriptions.

As I have noted in the past I believe that trying to define a "canned hunt" would be somewhere between very difficult and ludicrous since it is a paradoxical term.

[Skipper]

I've seen more than a few livestock slaughters in my time, but I have never seen one where the slaughterer was dressed in camo, sitting in a treestand, using a high powered rifle and filming the whole process for posterity, following it up of course with a photograph of the slaughterer with his/her trophy.

Is that what they want to call slaughter or harvesting?

Skipper

[String Music]

As long as it's advertised as such, and not called hunting, why would we care?? The image of hunting is what is at stake here, nothing else. That is, as long as the rules remain in place to protect the wild herd from disease.

[Taxi Mike]

Skipper:

You might better serve our hunting community by outlawing the wearing of camo in bars, and other public places and possibly including the internet.

Folks can certainly get the wrong impression of "hunters" by seeing and listening to a larger contingency of sudo "hunters" in those places than worrying about one would be "media hero" on a video that nobody saw or cared about untill hunters started crusading it around to serve their misguided agenda!

[daking]

Mike,

Are you kidding? "Pseudo" television celebrity? Houston is one of the most recognized TV hunters/anglers going. Had that tape not been made as part of a criminal investigation, you can be sure Houston's version of it would have been aired on his show, with him cast as the great white hunter. What happens if Bellar is exposed AFTER that. What a time PETA would have with that.

Contrary to what you might think, the outcry against high fence hunting is not a small group of whack jobs. It's the rank and file hunter who worries about he or she being tarred with the Jimmy Houston brush. To say that the hunter opposition to high fence hunting gives the animal rights cult red meat for the fight is preposterous. It does just the opposite. PETA and such would have a field day with the Houston tape because they would be able to paint all of us with it. Far better for us to expose a rather egregious episode and castigate the guilty and to isolate the blame to the guilty than for all of us to share his guilt.

Mike, from the Kentuckiana SCI site, I am aware that a high fence hunting operation that has been generous to your youth programs may well be legislated out of business. I am proud that he supports youth and I'm sorry that his business is going to take a hit. He has to shoulder the responsibility for part of that hit for choosing a business with such a risky business model. Just because he did something nice doesn't mean he should be exempted from rules that Indiana feels necessary to maintain the viability of hunting in the Hoosier state.

Finally, I've noted before that SCI will in some instances, record trophies that are taken in what one could call a fenced hunt. B&C and P&Y do not. Why is that?

Terry Sullivan

[String Music]

I don't know why it is, but I suspect because the SCI knows that a fence doesn't nessasarily mean it's no longer a fair chase hunt. What we're seeing is no mention of enclousure size. Is 10,000 acres too small for a fair chase hunt??? What about 1200 acres like Bellar had? Or 200 acres or 80 acres. Where do you draw the line. The record book gives credit to the animal not so much to the hunter, as it should be. Yes, some hunters or so called hunters have made use of their records, even though some are tainted.

The outcry should not be about the fence, but what happens behind it. If hunters don't condone what Jimmy H. did in Indiana, they can easily put him out of business. I haven't seen that as an issue yet, if it's there, where??? NWF should have made sure those responsible for the incidents at Bellar's Place get their monies worth by making the world aware of what they did. If the people don't like it, then ESPN, The Outdoor Channel and others would soon hear about it. Don't believe that happened.

For most people, this is still a non-issue. Make Legislators involved and have them pass restrictive laws against all forms of hunting, trapping, or even fishing then they will get excited to the point of getting involved themselves. But then it will be too late.

Work on the problem not the parts that aren't causing problems.

[LoweBow]

The outcry should not be about the fence, but what happens behind it.


thank you.
Sorry if I was wrong about the Pape info, but I know 1st hand that hunting has gone on inside the fence for a few years now. I believe a few years ago if not last year a youth hunt took place there. I'm glad to hear they filmed outside, but w/ that many acres fenced I don't see why it would have mattered.
I've hunter large ranches in Texas (2000-5000 ac) as high fencing is more of a norm than the unusual as here in KY. Them critters were wild and nothing "canned" about them.

Personally I feel your statement quoted above couldn't be truer.

[String Music]

I'll just add that Fred says it isn't being hunted and hasn't been hunted. I'd venture to say that if it happened, he doesn't know about it, which is doubtful? His enclosure is 800 acres or so, and he has 2200 or so not fenced.

[Skipper]

The original resolution asked for by the LKS was for a minimum of 200 acres enclosed with no internal fences. Kentucky already has some regulations on "Shooting Preserves" which are the 4 operations still regulated by the KDFWR including a minimum of 300 acres. Either way, I think that is somewhat reasonable. 200 acres is probably easier on them to obtain, but the 300 is already on the books.

Skipper

[String Music]

I'd bet ALL the farmers with less than 200 acres or even 300 acres would be against that proposal???

[spurs]

Kar 2:041 shooting preserves and foxhound enclosures
Section 1 Definitions
(2) Hoofed Animal means ungulate wildlife except wild hog and javelina
No mention of cattle or livestock made here.
Also the necessity,function and conformity establishes a special license for nonresidents to hunt on shooting preserves and gives the department the authority to regulate commercial and private shooting preserves. This administrative regulation establishes procedures to insure that detrimental exotic game spevies are not introduced, to insure uniformity of shooting preserves operating procedures, and to protect native wildlife.

[Papaw]

Spurs read all of 301 kar 2:041

Section 4:(2) New permits shall not be issued for shooting preserves for hoofed animals.

Section 9: Hoofed animals (1) A shooting preserve permit holder shall not import into or release a hoofed animal.

200 or 300 acres what difference does it make KDFWR took the position with their regulations that there would be no hunting preserves for hoofed animals and the existing ones will go out of business by attrition of their animals.

[Taxi Mike]

Terry:
"castigate the guilty and to isolate the blame to the guilty " is a noble endeavor however I fail to see how sportsmen can plead that case by denouncing legitimate businesses and casually say that "I'm sorry that his business is going to take a hit." The same pompous attitude that antis take everyday against some legitimate animal use.

Next: I did not call anyone a " "Pseudo" television celebrity? Houston is one of the most recognized TV hunters/anglers going." I did say he was a "would be "media hero"". And I will stand by my previous statements that sportsmen would be better served cleaning up their house by "castigating the guilty" in this case writing shows and advertisers asking for truth and responsible media. ( Of course it's common practice to blame South America for our drug problems vs. addressing our peoples problems" )


Finally to your reissue of the question: " I've noted before that SCI will in some instances, record trophies that are taken in what one could call a fenced hunt. B&C and P&Y do not. Why is that? "

I can again share with you from my previous posting: "There are actually many more than just the 3 record keepers you noted. Primarily because there are a lot of people with similar interests but different views. P&Y, B&C, RW, SCI, Burkett etc. All go about their merry way and don't try to justify themselves by calling for the abolishment of the others. Probably because as you noted they are "reasonable"".

Respectfully I remain.......

[daking]

Mike, it's not a matter of casually saying "I'm sorry his business is going to take a hit". A deer rancher enters the business at his own risk, knowing that there is an issue with CWD and that the canned hunt industry is by no means stable. As a businessman, you know that tomorrow is guaranteed to no business. I'm in the home inspection business. Kentucky passed some rather restrictive laws governing my industry. Do I have a right to operate unfettered by these laws? No. What it boils down to is that I either do what the law says or close my doors. From the Bellar example, that industry (which has steadfastly chafed under regulations and shows no meaningful efforts to police itself) put itself at risk to be regulated out of existance. So I guess what I really mean to say is that while I take no joy in someone taking a business hit, I'm not sorry either. It's the way of the business world.

Terry

[Taxi Mike]

Terry

Re: "A deer rancher enters the business at his own risk, knowing that there is an issue with CWD and that the canned hunt industry is by no means stable."

That, actually is a pretty sorry assessment!

First of all no one knew that the single incident you continue to paint the entire industry with existed until it happened. The many ranches I have taken the time to visit and the many ranchers I have discussed the issue with in order to formulate a valid and realistic opinion do not reflect what is being portrayed.

I have copies of documentation from State Game officials to inquiries that stated that in fact what they proposed to do was legal and acceptable that prompted those individuals to invest their monies.

Also everyone of those ranchers that I spoke with were very fluent in the facts and issues of CWD and vigorously followed not only the legal requirements but also the suggested additional action to protect their herds and investments. (Much the same as I would think you and most other prudent businessmen would!)

You are correct that the "canned hunt" industry is by no means stable and only an unscrupulous fool would get into that proposition just as only a similar unscrupulous fool would get into the "rip off artist" aspects of home inspection or any business. You are no fool and I have regards for your ethics and values. I simply believe that similar respect for the real victims and issues is a better approach to the subject.

[Skipper]

Mike,

Anyone foolish enough to believe that entering into any livestock venture classified as "Alternative Livestock" should have enough sense to know that the reason it is classified as "Alternative" is that it is a high risk venture. The cattle business is pretty straight forward although people do come up with sever different models of operating a specific farm, the market for the product is pretty much a given. The idea is to either produce breeding stock or to produce market animals that are sold for slaughter. The slaughter houses have the markets for the products from that point, be it beef, leather, fat renderings, bone meal or gellatin from the hooves that eventually makes gummy bears.

The cervid business on the other hand requires that markets for the product to be found. Not everyone wants to buy breedstock, and likely fewer processors want them for meat and other products because there just isn't a retail market strong enough to take what could be produced. They start looking for alternative markets for their produce and you end up with Canned Hunts.

Some years ago when people got into the ostritch and emu business there was all kinds of excitement over it because the breedstock was selling very high, but as the market for breedstock became saturated other markets didn't develop. Few people wanted to pay $50/pound for an ostritch burger. Soon, you could produce all the ostritches you wanted and there was no market for them, or the market was so depressed that the operation wasn't profitable.

The lesson to learn is, if you want to get into the farming business, you'd better make sure there is a solid market for the produce that is destined to remain stable. That takes a big variable out of it and makes your only job to figure out how to produce your product cheap enough for there to be a profit in it.

I do similar work to what Terry does, although for a different purpose. The fact that in 90% of Kentucky, the local governments do not require building permits and even if they do, rarely have inspectors to guarantee the construction is done to code leads to home buyers and mortgage holders requiring inspections. Just yesterday, I ran into a deck on the back of a house built with 2x6 joists on 3'9" centers. It is pretty obvious that that is both dangerous and not to code. Have you ever seen what kind of lawsuits can become of a July 4th party where an improperly built deck fails because there are 25 people on it for a bbq, and the construction was not up to code? I have and it's not pretty. The same can be said of the cervid industry. If they want to do things such as canned hunts and the public in general is not accepting of the practice, then they can expect legislation to follow.

Further, I would submit that these activities were not legal in Kentucky 3 years ago, and KALA and Lou knew that. They took steps to make these activities legal through the legislature. I would think it would have been a safe bet then, that once the public learned the score, they would react the way many sportsmen are.

Skipper

[Taxi Mike]

Skipper:

As the ag expert I'm disappointed that you did not include the fact that Bison, 8 subspecies of buffalo, beefalo and Senepol most recently but vertually all of the other 260+ varieties of cattle, the 102 recognized species of domestic goats, 282 varieties of sheep, 4 subspecies of reindeer, 6 varieties of camel, 10 types of donkeys, llamas, and too many to count species of fowl were all considereded alternative livestock at onetime or another. And most of mankind would appreciate the fact that some fool (as you call them) took a risk!

Your economic advice is similarly lacking in the recognition and appreciation for those with foresight and dreams that have been the back bone of the American success story.

You say that; "Just yesterday, I ran into a deck on the back of a house built with 2x6 joists on 3'9" centers. It is pretty obvious that that is both dangerous and not to code." First of all I hope you din't hurt yourself and secondly not to code is significantly different than outlawing decks, builders or home inspectors that aren't watching where they are going!

From there you wonder in and out of litigation, legislation and the free market without distinction so I really am worried!

When you ran into that deck what did you hit?

[Skipper]

not to code is significantly different than outlawing decks, builders or home inspectors that aren't watching where they are going!

Lets see, 8 or 9 years ago the state started licensing HVAC contractors because of substandard installation of heat and air units.

Then came plumbers and electricians. Currently, most of the professional trade contractors have to be licensed and insured. To be licensed, they have to pass a test in their proficiency of the trade. How far off do you recogn we are from licensing all contractors? The answer is of course not far. Why? Put simply, the licensing and insurance requirements the state puts on them isn't intended to change the ones doing what is required by code/law. It is intended to bring the jake legs in line who would build a deck on a house on 3' 9" centers.

Now when this licensing business started, I herd a lot of contractors griping about it, but I also herd the more reputable ones saying, well, it will clean up the industry.

Like it or not, the same applies to this cervid business. If the cervid farmers don't want to stand up and say to their own people, "We aren't going to tolerate canned hunting" then someone else is.

Skipper

[Taxi Mike]

Skipper:

It might be helpful to define the difference between people and animals. Our constitution calls for protection of people and peoples rights. Hence laws to protect people from shoddy building and home inspections. It does not give similar consideration to animals, though that is exactly what Animal Rights is all about!

Humane treatment is what we as a society dictate for animals. Now the single issue we are addressing here brings to bear "humane treatment". And while most of us find the actions of one of our "Hunting Icons" hidious, irresponsible, unsportsmen like, etc. etc. etc.

I am certain that what ever tag you put on it in the inhumane catagory can be an equally or greater indictment against dozens of other activities you accept, participate in or haven't given thought to.

For instance:

Is drugging an animal to examine it's wounds inhumane?
Is shooting a mortally wounded animal to put it out of it's suffering inhumane?
Is holding an animal in a pen inhumane?
Is filming an animal inhumane?
What about "harvesting an animal for it's trophy appeal"?

One thing for sure, I'm positive it's not hunting and I hold the perpetrator responsible, "especially since he was the guy with a gun, and camo, pretending to be a hunter and goes about the county representing us!"

The deer rancher was a guy with several problems. Including a mortally wounded animal he had invested lots of money in. and "very poor judgment". But had he simply drugged the animal, examined it, and shot it, that would have been a standard practice in animal management.

Make no mistake the general public should not be asked to judge the "humane" issue of shooting animals, with gun, bow etc. because the distinction line to them would not be a fence as readily as it would be the number that are wounded in wild hunting!

Farmers in general have addressed human treatment issues and from everything I've seen the cervid ranchers came to the same realization as sportsmen as to the public threat of similar situations to the one mistake made by an individual when tempted by a "big time hunter"!