Go Back   QDMA Forums > General QDM > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #141  
Old 02-28-2012, 06:24 PM
BigBuck's Avatar
BigBuck BigBuck is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 2,416
Default

Believe me when I say I HATE the govt limiting ANY freedoms, but we do NEED regulations, especially to protect our natural resources.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 02-28-2012, 06:36 PM
sharkey sharkey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney. Australia.
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Brown Jr. View Post
Sharkey, while I appreciate your input on the subject, I have to tell you that the number of individuals who hunt or purchase deer behind a high fence is so small as compared to those of us who don't, I'm not sure that QDMA could even measure a negative effect.

Keep in mind that the leadership of QDMA made its mind up long ago not blow with the wind in terms of popularity. As a point of fact, the organization is run by biologist or as I like to call them scientist. Furthermore, QDMA has made a commitment that the organization will always be run by biologist, forsaking the super sharp sells person who could probably go out and easily put them over the 100,000 membership mark.

My point is this, QDMA has always operated on the fringe in terms of membership and sponsorship. And truth be told, it's an exclusive club that at this point few people have the desire or energy to carry out the principles that QDMA preaches. As I stated in my earlier post, if anything, I see this as a galvanizing moment for QDMA, one in which the common deer hunter can finally see QDMA for what it really is. The ONLY non-profit, conservation organization in the world that works each and everyday to protect the whitetail deer.

G'day John
I'm aware of the principles of QDMA.I'm old enough to remember your start.
Where did your start up capitol come from?
Where did Dr Murphy do his PhD?

The concern I have is this fight seems to be dividing deer folk into pro & anti high fence camps,not focussing on the real issue which is an abatement plan for this disease.I have just read Brian's April 2012 editorial & this just reinforces my view.

I'm not anti science or taking precautionary measures when the science isn't as rigerious as we'd like.However blaming an entire group of whitetail stakeholders,when guilt is yet to be proven,may not be the wisest route to an abatement action.

We need people working on this disease not against each other.It will take concessions from all stakeholders to control this disease.

All the best from your mates downunder.
Sharkey
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 02-28-2012, 06:44 PM
Munsterlndr's Avatar
Munsterlndr Munsterlndr is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Traverse City, MIchigan
Posts: 1,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBuck View Post
What about high fence deer hunting?
Isnt that a form of deer farming?

You mean shooting a deer behind a high fence? I don't consider it hunting. It's more like shopping with a rifle. Should QDMA be concerned when someone goes down to the corner butcher and buys a side of beef? That side of beef was raised at a cattle operation that could potentially pose a threat to the free ranging deer herd. In my opinion the only difference is that at the high fence enclosure the animal is being killed with a bullet or an arrow instead of a pneumatically driven steel bolt. Neither situation is hunting, either way, the animal is just as dead.
__________________
Member:
QDMA
MCF
Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 02-28-2012, 07:04 PM
banc123's Avatar
banc123 banc123 is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member. Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hunt S.E. GA
Posts: 16,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaveCreek View Post
Wanting some clarification on QDMA's statement. In referring to captive deer (slash) breeding industry, is this solely in reference to pen-style facilities, for the purpose of breed & sell operations... or does this extend into even, say a landowner who has a 2,000 acre property high-fenced? No breeding pens, no selling, just a fenced property where animals are allowed to breed of their own free will, aside from any animal harvest that would occur.

The hyphenation on the "captive deer-breeding industry" has made me wonder what exactly was in scope here. The opposed, proposed policies all seem to be directly in regards to actual "breeding operations." Just trying to figure out if the scope of QDMA's stance went beyond that or not.

I'm NOT really opposed to QDMA's stance, but I also don't think they release their statements as professionally (written) as they could. That's my main concern.

A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 4 of Title 4 of the O.C.G.A., relating to prevention and control of disease in livestock, so as to provide for regulation of importation of white-tailed deer from other states into this state for breeding purposes; to define certain terms; to provide for deer breeding permits; to provide for terms and conditions; to regulate deer breeders and deer breeding facilities; to prohibit certain acts; to amend Chapter 5 of Title 27 of the O.C.G.A., relating to wild animals, so as to change certain provisions relating to importation restrictions relative to live cervids and prohibitions on possession of cervid carcasses and to change certain provisions relating to wild animal licenses and permits generally; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

The entire bill -House Bill 1043
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 02-28-2012, 07:11 PM
Bad Faulkner's Avatar
Bad Faulkner Bad Faulkner is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 1,424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
G'day John

The concern I have is this fight seems to be dividing deer folk into pro & anti high fence camps,not focussing on the real issue which is an abatement plan for this disease.I have just read Brian's April 2012 editorial & this just reinforces my view.Sharkey

We're already divided, I assure you.
__________________
gregoire...I'm not a fundie. you moron. Go watch more TV.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 02-28-2012, 07:14 PM
banc123's Avatar
banc123 banc123 is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member. Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hunt S.E. GA
Posts: 16,692
Default

I noticed this update on GA House Bill

Footnotes
2/27/2012 Withdrawn from Agriculture and Consumer Affairs and recommitted to Game, Fish & Parks


It could be in Ga., yesterday it was withdrawn from Agriculture and recommitted to Game, Fish, Parks

Which sounds like it been redirected ?
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 02-28-2012, 07:14 PM
Bad Faulkner's Avatar
Bad Faulkner Bad Faulkner is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North Myrtle Beach, SC
Posts: 1,424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munsterlndr View Post
You mean shooting a deer behind a high fence? I don't consider it hunting. It's more like shopping with a rifle. Should QDMA be concerned when someone goes down to the corner butcher and buys a side of beef? That side of beef was raised at a cattle operation that could potentially pose a threat to the free ranging deer herd. In my opinion the only difference is that at the high fence enclosure the animal is being killed with a bullet or an arrow instead of a pneumatically driven steel bolt. Neither situation is hunting, either way, the animal is just as dead.

But it is represented as hunting for many of the participants. And probably rationalized as no different than cattle slaughter by its participants in this same manner. Everybody likes to jump tracks on to different logic trains.
__________________
gregoire...I'm not a fundie. you moron. Go watch more TV.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 02-28-2012, 07:49 PM
banc123's Avatar
banc123 banc123 is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member. Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hunt S.E. GA
Posts: 16,692
Default

Lets go back to the thought that many people brought up, that we hunters should stick together and opposing this bill puts hunter against hunter.

Since the GA. Bill specifically states there is NO HUNTING allowed on the grounds of these facilities covered under the bill; they would be in violation of the proposed new bill if they offered a hunt on the grounds much less held one ; how could opposing this bill that regulates a non hunting facility put hunters against hunters ?

The bill's core purpose is the regulation of imported deer for breeding and the sale of live deer (imported or not) and their breeding parts (eggs, seaman etc..) . Not to regulate hunting.

Where is the hunter against hunter ?

Last edited by banc123 : 02-28-2012 at 08:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 02-28-2012, 10:54 PM
John Brown Jr.'s Avatar
John Brown Jr. John Brown Jr. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edgefield, SC
Posts: 897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
G'day John
I'm aware of the principles of QDMA.I'm old enough to remember your start.
Where did your start up capitol come from?
Where did Dr Murphy do his PhD?

The concern I have is this fight seems to be dividing deer folk into pro & anti high fence camps,not focussing on the real issue which is an abatement plan for this disease.I have just read Brian's April 2012 editorial & this just reinforces my view.

I'm not anti science or taking precautionary measures when the science isn't as rigerious as we'd like.However blaming an entire group of whitetail stakeholders,when guilt is yet to be proven,may not be the wisest route to an abatement action.

We need people working on this disease not against each other.It will take concessions from all stakeholders to control this disease.

All the best from your mates downunder.
Sharkey

Shark,
Totally understand your take and concerns. And while I do agree that issues such as this one can serve to divide hunters, I believe that we have come to a point when, as hunters we are rapidly approaching a time when we'll all have to make some tough decisions. Eventually we hunters will have to decide where we stand on multiple issues that will effect our ability to pursue whitetail deer.

I'm not a biologist nor a scientist. I've never had start up capitol and I don't have a college diploma hanging in my office. However I have great faith and confidence in Brian Murphy, Joe Hamilton, Kip Adams and the multiple other biologists who help guide the orgarnization.

I'll take the word of the leaders of QDMA over that of those who stand to be effected from an economic standpoint. For me, it's pretty easy but as Bad said, I like to over simplify.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 02-28-2012, 11:04 PM
bruiser73 bruiser73 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: McKinney Texas
Posts: 261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banc123 View Post
You burn it and the fire escapes and destroys neighbors land, you're liable.
You mine it, you'll have to pass all the mining legal ins and outs, can't just start mining.
You build a damn, the depart of natural resource will be in the mix quick

Whoops damn circus for hobos, your hobos start to be a nuisance, you're liable.

Owning land does not give someone the right to do whatever they want on it. Thats a myth and legally just not true. You can do what ever the law allows you to, nothing more.

Thanks for the wisdom
And it's my right to take the risk of liability and if I break law then I go to jail.
Try coming out here and telling a 3rd generation rancher they can't do what they want on their land...good luck with that.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 02-28-2012, 11:12 PM
MDuffy's Avatar
MDuffy MDuffy is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Gallatin County, IL USDA Zone 6b
Posts: 9,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruiser73 View Post
Thanks for the wisdom
And it's my right to take the risk of liability and if I break law then I go to jail.
Try coming out here and telling a 3rd generation rancher they can't do what they want on their land...good luck with that.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and is just an egotistical challenge.

The whole purpose of this stance is to create opposition to a potential new law. It will stop being your right when the law takes it away in TX. You won't be allowed, by law, when that day comes to assume that liability.

I always chuckle at the 'I'd like to see them try to take my......away', it's as if you are going to all the sudden become a bada$$ outlaw if a new law is put in effect that you don't agree with. It's as if they are going to go down with their guns blazin'
__________________
Matt



Check us out at www.thecountrylodge.com

Providing affordable hunts and lodging in Gallatin and White Counties in Southern Illinois!!
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 02-29-2012, 01:28 AM
USFWC's Avatar
USFWC USFWC is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas...and beyond.
Posts: 4,191
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDuffy View Post
That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and is just an egotistical challenge.

The whole purpose of this stance is to create opposition to a potential new law. It will stop being your right when the law takes it away in TX. You won't be allowed, by law, when that day comes to assume that liability.

I always chuckle at the 'I'd like to see them try to take my......away', it's as if you are going to all the sudden become a bada$$ outlaw if a new law is put in effect that you don't agree with. It's as if they are going to go down with their guns blazin'

You'd be surprised how well Texas is set up to secede from the union. The guns won't be blazin', but I wouldn't doubt they'd be putting up a fence all around Texas.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 02-29-2012, 01:40 AM
deep south deep south is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: alabama
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banc123 View Post
Lets go back to the thought that many people brought up, that we hunters should stick together and opposing this bill puts hunter against hunter.

Since the GA. Bill specifically states there is NO HUNTING allowed on the grounds of these facilities covered under the bill; they would be in violation of the proposed new bill if they offered a hunt on the grounds much less held one ; how could opposing this bill that regulates a non hunting facility put hunters against hunters ?

The bill's core purpose is the regulation of imported deer for breeding and the sale of live deer (imported or not) and their breeding parts (eggs, seaman etc..) . Not to regulate hunting.

Where is the hunter against hunter ?

Does this mean they won't be hunting any of the deer that are raised at these facilities even if the deer are sold and moved to other grounds ? I would think the answer to this would be yes they would be hunted. Maybe you just didn't think of this scenero but I must say it seems obvious ! End result is hunter against hunter
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 02-29-2012, 02:42 AM
deep south deep south is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: alabama
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDuffy View Post
That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread and is just an egotistical challenge.

The whole purpose of this stance is to create opposition to a potential new law. It will stop being your right when the law takes it away in TX. You won't be allowed, by law, when that day comes to assume that liability.

I always chuckle at the 'I'd like to see them try to take my......away', it's as if you are going to all the sudden become a bada$$ outlaw if a new law is put in effect that you don't agree with. It's as if they are going to go down with their guns blazin'
I was reading the April 2012 editorial by Brian Murphy

He said " To be clear, I am referring specifically to confined deer breeding operations rather than all high-fenced hunting facilities, especially large, well-managed ones containing native deer.

Does this mean that QDMA doesn't have a problem with high fence hunting now? Why the change of heart. And when he mentions especially large ones I would have to assume he is referring to Texas ranches. They are King of High Fences. You know what they say "Don't Mess With Texas" A lot of power, money & deer out there. It is a billion $$ industry and you will never see the day where the right of high fence ranches and feeding corn are taken away from those people by the law. Chuckle aii you want but while there may not be any guns blazing literally, QDMA doesn't want to pick that fight. And I'm not even from Texas, Texans are light years ahead of the rest of us with their deer management, both high fence & low fence ranches. They manage some high fence ranches that are over 10,000 acres in size. A far cry from the wood lots you have up north.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 02-29-2012, 08:32 AM
edmhunter edmhunter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lockport Il.
Posts: 339
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deep south View Post
I was reading the April 2012 editorial by Brian Murphy

He said " To be clear, I am referring specifically to confined deer breeding operations rather than all high-fenced hunting facilities, especially large, well-managed ones containing native deer.

Does this mean that QDMA doesn't have a problem with high fence hunting now? Why the change of heart. And when he mentions especially large ones I would have to assume he is referring to Texas ranches. They are King of High Fences. You know what they say "Don't Mess With Texas" A lot of power, money & deer out there. It is a billion $$ industry and you will never see the day where the right of high fence ranches and feeding corn are taken away from those people by the law. Chuckle aii you want but while there may not be any guns blazing literally, QDMA doesn't want to pick that fight. And I'm not even from Texas, Texans are light years ahead of the rest of us with their deer management, both high fence & low fence ranches. They manage some high fence ranches that are over 10,000 acres in size. A far cry from the wood lots you have up north.

Why is this discussion keep going about high fences? What does this have to do with the topic? High fences do not cause any problems to wild deer heards.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 02-29-2012, 08:40 AM
banc123's Avatar
banc123 banc123 is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member. Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hunt S.E. GA
Posts: 16,692
Default

Quote:
Thanks for the wisdom
And it's my right to take the risk of liability and if I break law then I go to jail. Try coming out here and telling a 3rd generation rancher they can't do what they want on their land...good luck with that.

Actually a right is something that is protected by law or Constitution. The choice of breaking the law is not a right in this country. It maybe a privilege of choice to follow the laws or not, but there is no right granted to not follow laws.

i.e. I don't have the right to speed and suffer the consequences if I get caught. I have the privilege of choice and risk of consequences of a ticket.

If you narrow it down to the topic at hand, expanding the deer breeding industry to new areas, I think its pretty safe to say it would be difficult for a 3rd generation rancher to make the choice to ignore it would be illegal to start a deer farming operation and start it anyway. We aren't talking about taking away things people already do under the laws. Thats different and agree much harder to do without revolution like feelings. Which is why not expanding helps not open that door should it become necessary to close it later.

Totally understand the passion around government or anyone trying to take away rights. Here the subject is changing something from not legal to legal. Weighing the risk and making an informed decision is the question.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 02-29-2012, 08:58 AM
banc123's Avatar
banc123 banc123 is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member. Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hunt S.E. GA
Posts: 16,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deep south View Post
Does this mean they won't be hunting any of the deer that are raised at these facilities even if the deer are sold and moved to other grounds ? I would think the answer to this would be yes they would be hunted. Maybe you just didn't think of this scenario but I must say it seems obvious ! End result is hunter against hunter

Sure, somewhere in one of these threads is a response to that.

If its thought through, its pretty clear these facilities will breed and raise deer that would then be sold to high fence operations to be hunted.

The question then becomes is opening a new door to "stock the shelves" of these other type operations good for the whitetail resource, good for conservation, good for the hunting heritage or good for the future of deer hunting ?

Wonder if we were able to survey every "hunter" in Ga. (maybe everyone who bought a hunting license last year) and asked them "Do you have an interest to harvest deer in Ga, within a high fence operation, that was bred and raised in deer breeding facility located in Ga. and sold to your high fence operator, for the purpose of your harvest ? " [Using Ga as an example]

What % would say yes ? If we think that answer is a high %, then yes we are risking hunter against hunter. If its a low %, then I wouldn't say it creates a hunter against hunter conflict. There will ALWAYS be some regulations that a small % don't like.

The risk is pretty low of creating new hunter to hunter conflict.

Last edited by banc123 : 02-29-2012 at 09:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 02-29-2012, 09:08 AM
banc123's Avatar
banc123 banc123 is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member. Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hunt S.E. GA
Posts: 16,692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deep south View Post
He said " To be clear, I am referring specifically to confined deer breeding operations rather than all high-fenced hunting facilities, especially large, well-managed ones containing native deer.

Does this mean that QDMA doesn't have a problem with high fence hunting now? Why the change of heart.

I think that continues to be a misunderstanding. The new bills have NOTHING to do with high fence hunting. The bills are to open the door for deer breeding, sale of breeding parts (eggs/seamen) and the sale of the bred and raised deer. 1 of the 7 bills does contain a piece that allows hunting within the facilities. The others either only address deer breeding, sale of eggs/seamen, sale of live deer or changes to what agency oversees the regulation. Its not about opposing high fence hunting operations.

If you're changing topics to QDMA's stance on high fence and is that changing, don't think it has.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 02-29-2012, 09:19 AM
Jeff23 Jeff23 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 722
Default

You know the crazy thing about all this? For all the supposed "proof", "evidence" and knowledge that exists about CWD, they can't even say for sure a)how it started b)how it can be spread c)how it can mutate or d)if it really is having a significant effect on the real-life, long-term survivability of a herd. I could also argue that Mr. Singeltary Sr.'s post is a perfect example of how the testing the captive deer industry is performing is highly successful. They caught an outbreak and contained it, with no evidence of "wild" deer being infected. What a win!
Further, CWD exists. Period. The toothpaste isn't going back in the tube. (Emerald Ash borer wasn't going to be eradicated either, regardless how many bumper stickers were passed out.) There are a million and three ways CWD can go from place to place. They find it, they do some testing, life goes back to normal. Sorry, that's just the way I see this issue, given the realities of our mobile society. The sky ain't falling, Chicken Little. Heck, some of you guys most vehemently against captive deer could be bringing back CWD from your midwestern hunting trips in some deer crap on your boots (let alone in the brains...oh wait-surely everybody obeys the law and doesn't transfer brain and spinal tissue across state lines). Life goes on. Essentially all deer will die of something else (most likely hot lead poisoning) well before the CWD will kill them, and I would be more likely to die from something that was transmitted to me by some inocuous, everyday activity than contracting something from a deer.
And to the guy who is paying $18,000 for a 180": send me a message; I want to get in on that action! (They're going for a couple grand right now, for your information.) We'll keep paying $65 for the CWD testing for every deer from our deer farm that dies, our herd will stay clean, the others will be killed by hunters somewhere, this argument will continue, and the QDMA will continue until our infighting has eradicated "wild, free-range" hunting in this country, leaving private ranches as your only hunting option (see: most of Europe).
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 02-29-2012, 09:27 AM
M.Magis M.Magis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cambridge, OH
Posts: 1,151
Default

Ever hear the phrase ďdonít pÖ on me and tell me itís rainingĒ ? Well, donít tell me this isnít about high fence hunting. We all know it is, itís just an attempt to chop it at the knees rather than take it head on. There is absolutely no logical, biological, or scientific reason that deer farming shouldnít be allowed. None. If this wasnít about high fence hunting they wouldnít be focused on just deer. What about fox, mink, chinchillas? Oh wait, that doesnít threaten the future income of the QDMA. Not surprisingly, the QDMA is once again trying to encourage strong-arm tactics to support their agenda. Itís a shame whatís become of them the last 15 years.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.