There was a vote Nov. 2nd in North Dakota on whether to ban canned hunts. The proposal was mentioned in a topic here at the time. I thought the results would be good to know, but after not being able to find them using the search feature, I looked it up on-line.

Here it is - http://results.sos.nd.gov/resu...t=BQ&type=SW&map=CTY

Rather interesting, no? Check out the proposal's wording - "any man made enclosure". It was EXTREMELY broadly worded and in my opinion would have outlawed ALL kinds of high fence operations or even under a "liberal interpretation" of the law, private club hunting. It would have meant for practical purposes, no high fences period.

It was defeated, but fairly narrowly. In MANY states it would have passed. Since a pro hunting state like ND came close to passing it, outside groups will surely take note and we therefore have not heard the last of it. By "outside groups" I mean of course the usual suspects...liberal democrats, those who hate gun owners, anti-hunters, and militant vegetarian rights fanatics.

If "canned hunts" can be put up to a public referendum so too can traditional forms of hunting.

This is all very fragile when you come down to it...a good thing to not forget.

Hell, if someone wants to hunt high fenced ,go for it.Not my cup of tea ,but then again,never say never!!!

Another slippery slope started down by the self-rightous. If passed, you then have got to have lengthy debates on how tall is a tall fence. Then, of course, you have to decide how big the fenced area has to be, ie, if you have 800 acres under fence, you're illegal, whereas if you have 801 acres under fence you're okay. When the greenies see these bitter arguments about ethics and differing methods of hunting, they just smile and smile.
Remember, when they take our guns and abolish hunting, we did it to ourselves.
Quote Pogo: "we have met the enemy and he is us."

quote:

Originally posted by Shack:
There was a vote Nov. 2nd in North Dakota on whether to ban canned hunts. The proposal was mentioned in a topic here at the time. I thought the results would be good to know, but after not being able to find them using the search feature, I looked it up on-line.

Here it is - http://results.sos.nd.gov/resu...t=BQ&type=SW&map=CTY

Rather interesting, no? Check out the proposal's wording - "any man made enclosure". It was EXTREMELY broadly worded and in my opinion would have outlawed ALL kinds of high fence operations or even under a "liberal interpretation" of the law, private club hunting. It would have meant for practical purposes, no high fences period.

It was defeated, but fairly narrowly. In MANY states it would have passed. Since a pro hunting state like ND came close to passing it, outside groups will surely take note and we therefore have not heard the last of it. By "outside groups" I mean of course the usual suspects...liberal democrats, those who hate gun owners, anti-hunters, and militant vegetarian rights fanatics.

If "canned hunts" can be put up to a public referendum so too can traditional forms of hunting.

This is all very fragile when you come down to it...a good thing to not forget.

If high fenced hunts are outlawed, then how long will it be before slaughtering cattle is outlawed???

I hate laws like this, not because I like canned hunting (I despise it), it's because we are susposed to be free, and hear we are limiting freedom. It would one thing if this law was preventing something that was hurting other people, but shooting a big dumb animal doesn't qualify in my book. It's saying because of my high morals (sic), you have no right to pursue your own happiness.

I also don't care if people choose to shoot animals behind an enclosure. Didn't Montana ban highfence hunting? Or as I recall those operations couldn't call it "hunting." Maybe someone from MT can fill us in on the details.

So would you support a ban on calling shooting big game in side of an enclosure "hunting." BUT not ban some ones "right" to allow people to pay and shoot an animal. I mean its only a word.

Some will argue that some of these enclosures are vast, and some studies have shown how buck have eluded hunters. But the reality is if you pay you will kill. If the payer doesn't kill the operation will not get return business.

I am not against them and maybe someday I would partake in the fun of shooting a huge bull elk and let the ranch hands drive up in the pickup and the next day when I am ready to leave there is a pile of wrapped frozen meat. My fathers cousin did this on the way out to deer hunt wih me this fall. He had a great time and you know how after the trigger is pulled the work starts-- not this route. He's 70 his buddy that also came out shot a bison. They had fun and had some awesome pics, but it wasn't a "hunt."

A bad law that didn't pass-- we should always be so lucky.

the more laws we have limiting hunting (even "canned" hunting), the more laws we will have limiting hunting opportunities. at the end of the day, hunting will be severely limited, then it will be stopped completely.

rarely, very rarely, are more laws a good thing!