ODFW News: No Sale of Shooter Bulls

[Pete]

For Immediate Release April 18, 2008

Fish and Wildlife Commission votes to prohibit sale of shooter bulls

SALEM, Ore. – The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission voted unanimously to prohibit cervid ranchers from knowingly selling “shooter bulls” to facilities in states that allow the hunting of privately-held wildlife, as part of its formal rule-making on the state’s cervid ranching rules (OAR 635-049-0000).

“Any kind of hunting operation that is not under the guise of fair chase is a threat to the fraternity of hunting,” said Dr. Dan Edge, Commission Vice-Chair and head of OSU’s Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife.

The Commission declined to require double-fencing of captive elk ranches and directed staff to consider other alternatives that would make the minimum standard better than the current requirement, such as adding an interior electric fence. It deferred a decision on requiring bonding of elk ranchers to indemnify the state against an escape or disease outbreak.

Before making policy decisions, the Commission heard public testimony from 22 people on both sides of the issue. Because of the complexity and length of the Div. 49 rules, the Commission only provided policy direction today, and asked staff to rewrite proposed rules along those policy lines for formal adoption at the May 9, 2008 meeting in La Grande. No public testimony related to the rules will be taken at this meeting.

Other policies adopted today include:
vElk ranch licenses will be relinquished if licensee does not hold cervids for more than 180 consecutive days.
vThe import of gametes and embryos will be specifically allowed. The ban on the import of live cervids continues.
vLicensees will be responsible for the state’s expenses from an escape or release of captive cervids, though the department has discretion in determining whether to require repayment based on circumstances surrounding the incident.
vDeaths must be reported to ODFW and ODA within 24 hours of discovery; all dead cervids must be tested for disease within 24 hours of discovery.
vLicense will specify species, subspecies and or hybrid that can be held.
vPolicy maintains current limit of 16 Type 1 commercial elk ranching licenses.
vNew policy adds decommissioning requirements including perimeter fencing, so wild cervids cannot enter a captive facility until it is deemed disease-free.

“This Commission is not in any way attempting to put anybody out of business,” stated Chair Marla Rae in her summary of the Commission’s policy on elk ranching. “The Oregon State Legislature has already said that the private holding of cervids is a lawful activity. It is up to this Commission and department to regulate that activity so that it does no harm to wildlife populations.”

In keeping with that, the Commission voted to change the overall policy statement of the Commission from one of opposition to commercial elk ranching to one of concern about the unregulated holding of cervids posing a disease or genetic risk to the public’s wildlife.

[baltz526]

make it unprofitable to kill the buisness, is what i read here. oregon seems determined to chase off profitable buisnesses. no matter if they build computers or raise elk.

[Joe]

I think this is the key....

“Any kind of hunting operation that is not under the guise of fair chase is a threat to the fraternity of hunting,” said Dr. Dan Edge, Commission Vice-Chair and head of OSU’s Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife.

I don't want to see anybodies business loose revenue but to me hunting is essential to life and mental well being! Far more important than a couple people making a buck.

[baltz526]

selfish is what most people are. until a new regulation takes money out of your familys mouth. then you can ask for relief

[rimrock]

At the basic fundamental level I really don’t know that the difference is between pen-raised birds or a pen-raised elk. Hunters get upset if the “antis” try and take away pen-birds but don’t on elk…that does confuse me.

I think both are fine, within the existing rules. Is something lacking in the existing rules for elk? Why eliminate one (elk) and not the other (birds)? I vote don’t do either.

[baltz526]

what is the difference between you putting your hard earned money into a retirement account, then having the buisness you trusted spend the money? and the state taking a legal animal you raised and putting a sale restriction on it? both are taking hard earned dollars out of a persons pocket. how about this: i find a piece of equipment to dig big holes in another state, i get all the permits to transport it into oregon, get a buisness license to operate it in oregon, set it up, hire 10 guys to operate it, train them, then start work and have oregon pass a regulation that says i can only charge $50 per hour to dig big holes with it. i do not think oregon goverment has the right to pass regulations like this, anymore than i think you can come in my yard and steal my chickens after a raised them for my family to eat.

[lake creek charlie]

While i agree that oregon is the most anti business state on the west coast, it is against every fiber of my 50 years hunting in oregon body to raise elk and sell them so some rich cat can HUNT? him..... If you want the public to be even more disgusted with hunting this would be a great way IMHO

[westcoastsrt4]

as a state employee i remind myself everyday that i'm there to serve the public, i'm there to help them not to hinder. i think ODFW forgot that part of the job a long time ago

[Lefty]

Originally Posted by lake creek charlie

While i agree that oregon is the most anti business state on the west coast, it is against every fiber of my 50 years hunting in oregon body to raise elk and sell them so some rich cat can HUNT? him..... If you want the public to be even more disgusted with hunting this would be a great way IMHO

Well said!

[Beginners luck]

Originally Posted by westcoastsrt4

as a state employee i remind myself everyday that i'm there to serve the public, i'm there to help them not to hinder. i think ODFW forgot that part of the job a long time ago

Im right there with you on this one

[Joe]

Originally Posted by rimrock

At the basic fundamental level I really don’t know that the difference is between pen-raised birds or a pen-raised elk. Hunters get upset if the “antis” try and take away pen-birds but don’t on elk…that does confuse me.

I think both are fine, within the existing rules. Is something lacking in the existing rules for elk? Why eliminate one (elk) and not the other (birds)? I vote don’t do either.

I think if people paid to shoot a bird in it's cage most hunters as well as the anti's would object. Birds can fly and at least have a chance at a life in the wild. That is where all our "Native" Chinese Ringneck pheasant originated is it not.

To me this is a conversation that should never have been necessary. The bottom line is greed will make people do things they know in their heart is wrong and then they spend all their energy trying to defend it.

I would have liked to see the double fence rule implemented but I guess we have to hope the experts are doing the right thing. I would sure hate to see our elk populations destroyed due to a disease outbreak that could have been prevented...

[lake creek charlie]

I would have liked to see the double fence rule implemented but I guess we have to hope the experts are doing the right thing. I would sure hate to see our elk populations destroyed due to a disease outbreak that could have been prevented[QUOTE][/QUOTE] Im also worried about this. Our government over regulates everything, but only when they find fat pockets. This is a no brainer to me STOP IT

[baltz526]

importation of any item or object accross the oregon border should be restricted. boats with mussels, tractors with weed seeds, food with bugs, logs with bugs, autos with weed seeds, horses with west nile, cows with everything, humans with deseases. stop them all! oh! wait a minute, wouldn't that be the restriction of interstate commerce, regulated by the federal goverment. if oregon put a restriction on the interstate transfer of prized beef cows, who do you think would be leading the charge to stop this regulation

[ghost grizzly]

Originally Posted by rimrock

At the basic fundamental level I really don’t know that the difference is between pen-raised birds or a pen-raised elk. Hunters get upset if the “antis” try and take away pen-birds but don’t on elk…that does confuse me.

I think both are fine, within the existing rules. Is something lacking in the existing rules for elk? Why eliminate one (elk) and not the other (birds)? I vote don’t do either.

If pen raised birds carried a disease that would wipe out wild bird populations I suspect they would put the kibash on bird preserves also.

[Ghost hunter]

Originally Posted by rimrock

At the basic fundamental level I really don’t know that the difference is between pen-raised birds or a pen-raised elk. Hunters get upset if the “antis” try and take away pen-birds but don’t on elk…that does confuse me.

I "Think" the differance is ones more affordable for most

[Old Coot]

To expand on Westcoastsrt4's comment above: Please note that this decision was NOT made by the Oregon Department Of Fish and Wildlife, nor it's employees. This was the decision of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife COMMISSION, a little panel of political appointees who are the czars of fish and game in this state and who determine the actions and directions of the Department.

The public EMPLOYEES are now left to carry out the dictates of the COMMISSION and deal with the consequences, such as taking boatloads of crap from people unhappy with the actions of the COMMISSIONERS.

To some people this may seem like a very fine point, but depending upon which end of the phone you are on, it can actually be a very big deal.

[ghost grizzly]

Originally Posted by Old Coot

To expand on Westcoastsrt4's comment above: Please note that this decision was NOT made by the Oregon Department Of Fish and Wildlife, nor it's employees. This was the decision of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife COMMISSION, a little panel of political appointees who are the czars of fish and game in this state and who determine the actions and directions of the Department.

The public EMPLOYEES are now left to carry out the dictates of the COMMISSION and deal with the consequences, such as taking boatloads of crap from people unhappy with the actions of the COMMISSIONERS.

To some people this may seem like a very fine point, but depending upon which end of the phone you are on, it can actually be a very big deal.

Agreed!!
and one has to ask how many of these "political" appointees actually have a wildlife or fisheries biology degree??

a logger, a farmer, a rancher, a commercial fisherman, a PR person, a lawyer.... hmmmm!!!

Something smells like seal dung!!

[joemomma]

Originally Posted by lake creek charlie

While i agree that oregon is the most anti business state on the west coast, it is against every fiber of my 50 years hunting in oregon body to raise elk and sell them so some rich cat can HUNT? him..... If you want the public to be even more disgusted with hunting this would be a great way IMHO

Very well said!

[Smoked Salmon]

Are there any other examples of fee-hunt animals that can be exported live from Oregon to other states? If not, or if others are specifically disallowed, I see nothing wrong with bringing a previously unregulated activity into line with the rest of the rules.

Baltz - Just because something hadn't been regulated, doesn't mean it can't be regulated, or shouldn't be regulated. I'm sorry if this means you will lose money, I really am, but every business owner begins with a knowledge that there is inherent risk. It is your choice now to adapt to the new regulations, or to give up and throw in the towel. I'm no lawyer, but I bet there is some way you could work around the current regulations in order to make your ranch a profitable one.

[baltz526]

i see no difference in a prize beef bull being exported to another state, to be auctioned and slaughtered then served on the table of a commisioner of the odfw. there is no difference between a farm raised buffalo and a farm raised elk or goat for that matter. other than the elk is tested extensively for disease. my complaint is, if you pass a regulation that removes the profitability of any buisness the state needs to give fair warning and offer grandfathering of existing stock. then assist the buisness in recouping lost dollars invested in the buisness for the infrastructure related to the newly regulated aspect of the buisness. GET IT the state is stealing from these buisnesses by regulation.

[johndeeregreen]

One more news release from a gov. agency that resembles TOILET PAPER.

The people on here that like gov. walking and spitting on our rights makes me puke. Just because you don't do it does not make it wrong. I don't drink, maybe I sould try to lobby to make it illegal.

[Smoked Salmon]

I'm sad that you feel I can't have a different opinion than yours.

But, I can live with it.

[boatman]

Everyone has a right to different opions and thought,ideas. BUT why do some feel they have to make a law or rule. LIVE and LET live. LeRoy

[RustySocket]

Originally Posted by lake creek charlie

While i agree that oregon is the most anti business state on the west coast, it is against every fiber of my 50 years hunting in oregon body to raise elk and sell them so some rich cat can HUNT? him..... If you want the public to be even more disgusted with hunting this would be a great way IMHO

Seem to me that this is exactly what we do with hatchery fish. What's the difference?

[Capin' Dan]

Just one more win for the anti's yes I feel birds and then fish will be next many folks already want it that way. That is how we continue to loose battles and fishing and hunting oppurtunities because we can not form a front or aligence to battle these because we are fighting amoungs ourselves. I would find it hard to support some fishing because they don't support my hunting and so on and so on until we hunt on video games only.

Yes LIVE AND LET LIVE and I am shouting it for all to hear.
And for those who wish to destory my hunting heritage and beliefs

[Bill Monroe]

Originally Posted by Capin' Dan

Just one more win for the anti's yes I feel birds and then fish will be next many folks already want it that way. That is how we continue to loose battles and fishing and hunting oppurtunities because we can not form a front or aligence to battle these because we are fighting amoungs ourselves. I would find it hard to support some fishing because they don't support my hunting and so on and so on until we hunt on video games only.

Yes LIVE AND LET LIVE and I am shouting it for all to hear.
And for those who wish to destory my hunting heritage and beliefs

Actually, it's a loss for the anti's.
Canned, high-fence hunting...wait, I mean shooting...of captive animals is one of their major sources for ammunition...(as is the BITE ME attitude).
Neither rests well with a fair-chase minded, non-hunting public and if you doubt that strength, harken back to the bear-cougar vote folks.
Fortunately, we still have the majority of the public on our side.
Why risk that?
Dan Edge was spot on (sorry Baltz...with all due respect).

[BeaBeaver]

Beyond Fair Chase by Jim Posewitz (a book all hunters should read) puts the shooting of captive or domesticated big game at the top of the list of unfair and unethical activities. If we want to preserve OUR heritage of hunting, the notion of fair chase has to be at the very core of who we are as a group.

[baltz526]

i'm a buisness owner, my wife is a buisness owner. oregon is becoming a non-buisness friendly state. who supplies the jobs that create the average oregon resident employment income? small buisness's like ranches create jobs in rural oregon. every time a new pressure on a small buisness reduces it's profitability, people lose jobs. i understand the fears of the sportspeople, but with the removal of a elk ranch you also lose lots of other things most people do not think of. you might think these issues are small, i know they are not. regulations that change life quality to the worst for a few, are bad for all of us.

[CombinationLicense]

There's something that everyone seems to be forgetting in this discussion - The hunting or shooting of captive cervids is already illegal in Oregon. This ruling is simply an attempt by Oregon bureaucrats to influence what happens in states where the practice is legal. It will actually have NO impact on what happens in those states because they will just purchase "Shooter Bulls" from someone else. It's obvious that the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission feels that cervid ranching is NOT a threat to Oregon's wild elk herds because they chose to NOT implement the proven most effective method of preventing horizontal transmission of disease - double fencing. There are some positive changes included in the rule package but what they really did is cave in to the "Holier than thou" crowd and make a symbolic jesture regarding the sale of shooter bulls. Ranchers that own shooter bulls will just sell them to a middle man and the middle man will then sell them to the shooting preserves. That way the ranchers can claim that they have no knowledge of the final destination of the bulls and business as usual will resume.



"CL"

[RustySocket]

Originally Posted by CombinationLicense

There's something that everyone seems to be forgetting in this discussion - The hunting or shooting of captive cervids is already illegal in Oregon. This ruling is simply an attempt by Oregon bureaucrats to influence what happens in states where the practice is legal. It will actually have NO impact on what happens in those states because they will just purchase "Shooter Bulls" from someone else. It's obvious that the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission feels that cervid ranching is NOT a threat to Oregon's wild elk herds because they chose to NOT implement the proven most effective method of preventing horizontal transmission of disease - double fencing. There are some positive changes included in the rule package but what they really did is cave in to the "Holier than thou" crowd and make a symbolic jesture regarding the sale of shooter bulls. Ranchers that own shooter bulls will just sell them to a middle man and the middle man will then sell them to the shooting preserves. That way the ranchers can claim that they have no knowledge of the final destination of the bulls and business as usual will resume.



"CL"

In essence punishing a legitimate business owner, to appease some bleeding hearts. Silly waste of resources isn't it.

[Smoked Salmon]

I wonder what all the brothel owners did when prostitution was made criminal.


Raising animals so they can be shot on private hunting preserves has absolutely nothing to do with my hunting heritage or beliefs. You know why? Because I'm not related to royalty, who are traditionally the ONLY user group that enjoyed the privilege of this type of "sport."

It is a shame that they stopped short of mandating the double fencing, CWD is a real worry. But, until they fence the borders, they can't expect stringently tested captive animals from being any more danger than out-of-state strays.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by CombinationLicense

There are some positive changes included in the rule package but what they really did is cave in to the "Holier than thou" crowd and make a symbolic jesture regarding the sale of shooter bulls.

Holier than thou? Because people want to protect honest fair chase hunting they are Holier than thou? Guess I've heard it all now....

[49erjimmy]

Originally Posted by westcoastsrt4

as a state employee i remind myself everyday that i'm there to serve the public, i'm there to help them not to hinder. i think ODFW forgot that part of the job a long time ago

I totally agree. I know the people monitoring these forums don't want any negativity on the site but it is very hard to avoid when the subject of ODFW comes up. ODFW's primary goal seems to be the betterment of ODFW rather than serving the public. I'm not sure that pointing out problems with the governing body of Oregon's fish and wildlife is a bad thing! That said I personally don't like the idea of someone raising a giant bull elk with special grains and nutrients and then selling it to a game ranch where somebody pays big bucks to "hunt" it and get his name in a record book. Anybody that would hunt like that could lie about where they shot it. But that is just one person's opinion.

By the way, we need more state employees that feel the way you do when you begin your job each day.

[Hunt'nFish]

I personally commend the commision for the rule change.

The notion that high fence canned hunts is "hunting" is whacked.
Im glad to see Oregon cervid ranchers will not be allowed to support this anymore.
In Oregon we HUNT wild, free ranging animals. Isn't that the true definition of "spirit of the wild"?
And NO, I don't support SCI. .......... SCI Record Books....what a joke!
Hunt'nFish

[CombinationLicense]

Let's not be twisting words here guys - For the record, I have NEVER said the preserve harvesting of any animal is sport hunting. Not elk/deer, not game birds, not buffalo, not exotics - period! To make any distinction between the captive species is ludicrous and hypocritical - captive is captive and it's all the same. It's not hunting, it's harvesting an animal akin to slaughtering a pig, cow or chickens raised for that purpose.

In my earlier post I noted that there were other provisions of the cervid rule change that are good for hunters that I support. I just believe that the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission overstepped their bounds by attempting to influence how other states manage their wildlife. I don't recall seeing anywhere in the Oregon Wildlife Policy that it's within the Commission's scope of authority to mandate how other states utilize animals. How would you like it if some other state's department of natural resources saw fit to mandate how we hunt (or take) animals in Oregon? Get the point?

IMHO, rather than passing an ineffective rule that's sure to be circumvented, the Commission could have done more for our wildlife by mandating double fencing since it's a proven method of prohibiting horizontal disease transmission. After all, that is what this rules package is supposed to do isn't it?



"CL"

[BrianMaguire]

I think it was a more fair outcome to the elk farmers than I think they should have rcvd. Penned wild game brings no good to any of us. Look at Deer hair loss syndrome, it came from an Asian deer, held by the same type of operation. What will that cost us all in th end? was it worth it to allow that persons business to do that to us?

[OutdoorBum]

[quote=Hunt'nFish;1972811]I personally commend the commision for the rule change.

The notion that high fence canned hunts is "hunting" is whacked.
Im glad to see Oregon cervid ranchers will not be allowed to support this anymore.
In Oregon we HUNT wild, free ranging animals. Isn't that the true definition of "spirit of the wild"?


Took the words right out of my mouth... And I empathize with Baltz, but unfortunately, many things done for the greater good will negatively impact someone...in this case its Baltz, and as a business owner I know what new regs do to you...a tough pill to swallow no doubt. But I'm on board with HuntnFish on this one.

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

I think it was a more fair outcome to the elk farmers than I think they should have rcvd. Penned wild game brings no good to any of us. Look at Deer hair loss syndrome, it came from an Asian deer, held by the same type of operation. What will that cost us all in th end? was it worth it to allow that persons business to do that to us?

Hey Brian, I understand that what you're saying is the "standard line" about how the "old world louse" that's associated with DHLS was introduced in the northwest. What I don't understand is why NOBODY is willing to stand behind that statement or prove it? I've asked ODFW directly about it and they acknowledge that there is no evidence to support the statement and that they don't actually know where it came from. Could have just as soon been an illegally introduced animal that was someone's pet as from a game ranch - according to ODFW at least.

Can you please cite your source? Maybe you know something that ODFW doesn't?



"CL"

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by CombinationLicense

Can you please cite your source? Maybe you know something that ODFW doesn't?

Ok, its an Asian louse, it is from Sika deer, it started in Washington, there are Sika deer farms in Washington what more do you need? There are three possibilities. either it came from a game farm deer, it was released by someone on purpose or it got here naturally from Asia. You tell me which one it was. I think we have enough for a jury conviction. If you need it on film getting transferred to wild game no one is going to have that but a reasonable person would agree, with the evidence we have, that it came from a game farm, in Washington.


there is also another Red Deer louse that is loose in Eastern Washington, it too came from a game farm.

[Capin' Dan]

Many times I think Oregon should be split into two states. We should have the I-5 corridor as something entirely different than Oregon. Then we should have the rest of Oregon as its very own state the one it is famous for. The outdoors, A place where farmers Tree as well as beef and Veggies are able to make a living without the folks in the populated areas trying to tell them how to live their lives and in most cases clueless as to what it takes to live in much of that area.

I do not high fence hunt but I think if someone wants to shoot an animal and pay the price that is their business and the farmer that raised that animal. I saw a post on here the other day about a fellow that went out and shot a buffalo he didn't get blasted about it. I see folks post on here all the time about catching recently released trout they didn't get blasted, I see post about folks shooting pheasants recently released once again same as above. Folks show pics of their hatchery salmon But for some reason anyone wanting to shoot an Elk they get blasted. Fair chase get a knife and go after it don't sit on a hill side and blast it at 500 yds. Don't call it in while they are vulnerable during the rut and then drive an arrow through it. Ducks place some decoys out and call them in and blast them as they are landing all of these things could also be brought into question as well Fair Chase Ethical I think if someone is following the rules and laws then they are ethical and believe me it hurts no one for someone to shoot an elk on a game ranch.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Capin' Dan

Many times I think Oregon should be split into two states. We should have the I-5 corridor as something entirely different than Oregon. Then we should have the rest of Oregon as its very own state the one it is famous for. The outdoors, A place where farmers Tree as well as beef and Veggies are able to make a living without the folks in the populated areas trying to tell them how to live their lives and in most cases clueless as to what it takes to live in much of that area.
.

I agree, as long as that Utopia of living off the land and the game is just off the private land and private graze, oh and they pay the same share of the upkeep on the roads and schools, no farm defered taxes. You can't take the public land, public water, or the public animals with you. When the nation or the states assets are involved then everyone, including people from New York have an equal say in how they are dealt with, they are not yours, mine, or theirs, they are all of ours and we all have a say. Cutting everyone else out of the management is a very liberal almost welfare point of view. Its a sense of entitlement without just compensation.

Hey if someone messes up and spreads CWD through the elk herds in Oregon, well too bad, it was their right to grow shooter bulls and that we ALL take the risk that comes with it. Ahhh utopia.

As much as private rights seem to make a good argument the sanity of the people sometimes has to say, no thats stupid. Well intentioned, smart people do stupid things all the time, sometimes stuff just happens, and dumb people do stupid things all the time. Should it be my right to store nuclear waste on my property? I swear I have it all figured out. Or should the the public be able to say "no, that's a bad idea, you put us all at risk, you can do it but you have to do this list of things first".

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

Ok, its an Asian louse, it is from Sika deer, it started in Washington, there are Sika deer farms in Washington what more do you need? There are three possibilities. either it came from a game farm deer, it was released by someone on purpose or it got here naturally from Asia. You tell me which one it was. I think we have enough for a jury conviction. If you need it on film getting transferred to wild game no one is going to have that but a reasonable person would agree, with the evidence we have, that it came from a game farm, in Washington.

there is also another Red Deer louse that is loose in Eastern Washington, it too came from a game farm.

So you’re the source! LOL

With evidence like that I’m not surprised that ODFW’s keeping their mouth shut. You’re right that there would be a jury conviction – but it would be in favor of the game farms when they sued for libel! C’mon, there had to be some sort of investigation where infected animals were found on a game farm with a documented escape history - Something? Anything?



I’m all for placing blame where it belongs but also think that there needs to be some verifiable proof before you can cast that blame. Be glad to listen when you've got something to talk about though...

“CL”

[baltz526]

i have been playing the devils advocate to some extent. people in general are a selfish lot, if you do not point out the pain and suffering that happens when, what seems to be a simple solution to a percieved problem, is forced on a group of people. DO NOT take it lightly when your decision makes drastic changes in other peoples lives. if this group of people is acting in a legal manner and the state changes the law, these people are do relief from the effect of the law change. if the greater good is being used to remove this group of peoples legal rights, the majority should pay damages to the few effected.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by CombinationLicense

So you’re the source! LOL

With evidence like that I’m not surprised that ODFW’s keeping their mouth shut. You’re right that there would be a jury conviction – but it would be in favor of the game farms when they sued for libel! C’mon, there had to be some sort of investigation where infected animals were found on a game farm with a documented escape history - Something? Anything?
I’m all for placing blame where it belongs but also think that there needs to be some verifiable proof before you can cast that blame. Be glad to listen when you've got something to talk about though...
”

OMG, and you are serious. LOL, I guess you don't believe in anything that does not bonk you on the head. Is the earth still flat? Defending something to absurdity is pointless to argue against.

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

OMG, and you are serious. LOL, I guess you don't believe in anything that does not bonk you on the head. Is the earth still flat? Defending something to absurdity is pointless to argue against.

A supposition in the absence of fact is called a theory. A theory by definition is an unproven opinion or conjecture. No matter how likely, it’s still a theory until proven by fact. Every time this discussion comes up you foist this same supposition on the group as fact and downgrade anyone that challenges the theory. Resorting to personal attacks indicates a weak position and you’re doing it again.

I never said that the louse didn’t come from a game farm, nor did I say that it did. The truth is that I don’t know where it came from and neither do you. I’ve just asked you to cite supporting documentation to prove that what you’re saying is fact and not theory, not an uncommon request in debate. Instead, I get my intelligence insulted as you again attempt to dismiss a differing point of view. Not a tactic I appreciate at all...



“CL”

[Joe]

So tell me CL, when it is proven beyond any doubt that the game farms imported the deer specific lice from Asia how exactly are they going to undo the destruction that they caused? For crying out loud, deer are dying as we type away here! Lice are all host specific........the lice came along with the domestic deer. The saddest part is the people that imported them are still makking money and WE (deer hunters) have lost a good part of our deer herd. If that doesn't bother you then your obviosly not a deer hunter!

How much of our natural resources should we sacrifice in the name of greed???????

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by Joe

So tell me CL, when it is proven beyond any doubt that the game farms imported the deer specific lice from Asia how exactly are they going to undo the destruction that they caused? For crying out loud, deer are dying as we type away here! Lice are all host specific........the lice came along with the domestic deer. The saddest part is the people that imported them are still makking money and WE (deer hunters) have lost a good part of our deer herd. If that doesn't bother you then your obviosly not a deer hunter!

How much of our natural resources should we sacrifice in the name of greed???????

Of course it bothers me Joe and I've listened to everything ODFW has had to say about the problem over the last five years or so. The fact is that no matter where it came from there is NOTHING that can be done about it. The ODFW and WDFW's method for dealing with it is to let it run it's course and HOPE that the surviving population develops an immunity to it. Whoever is proven to be responsible should be held accountable for any and all costs associated with trying to clean up the problem. In all likelihood the problem originated from an imported deer, but was that deer held legally on a game farm or was it held illegally as someone's pet that eventually got away? It seems a shame to vilify an entire industry without proving that the industry is to blame. In fact it sounds similar to the firearms industry being blamed for gun violence... Find the culprit, prosecute the culprit - that's what I'm saying, no more no less.

"CL"

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by CombinationLicense

A supposition in the absence of fact is called a theory. A theory by definition is an unproven opinion or conjecture. No matter how likely, it’s still a theory until proven by fact. Every time this discussion comes up you foist this same supposition on the group as fact and downgrade anyone that challenges the theory. Resorting to personal attacks indicates a weak position and you’re doing it again.

I never said that the louse didn’t come from a game farm, nor did I say that it did. The truth is that I don’t know where it came from and neither do you. I’ve just asked you to cite supporting documentation to prove that what you’re saying is fact and not theory, not an uncommon request in debate. Instead, I get my intelligence insulted as you again attempt to dismiss a differing point of view. Not a tactic I appreciate at all...
“CL”

You seem to require facts, i.e. they must bonk you on the head. If you need facts on everything then how do you get anything done? Evolution is a theory, we treat it as fact, yet it is theory. People attack the "theory" for their own purposes, how do you argue with that? You can't, your argument is akin to that, unless I personally let the louse go I can't prove it, nor can anyone, but in the civilized world we use theory. If you attack the premise of what the civilized world views as science and not being able to unequivocally prove facts for everything you are no better than the "intelligent design" whackos using an unassailable argument that it is so friking ridiculous it was cast off 600 years ago. Medieval superstition would probably be an equal in argument. You can't prove fairies don't spread lice, so how can you tell me that that is not the cause?

Is there anyone else, besides Combo, that does not believe that Asian deer louse came from a deer farm in Washington?

[arlie]

Originally Posted by Pete

For Immediate Release April 18, 2008

Fish and Wildlife Commission votes to prohibit sale of shooter bulls

SALEM, Ore. – The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission voted unanimously to prohibit cervid ranchers from knowingly selling “shooter bulls” to facilities in states that allow the hunting of privately-held wildlife, as part of its formal rule-making on the state’s cervid ranching rules (OAR 635-049-0000).

“Any kind of hunting operation that is not under the guise of fair chase is a threat to the fraternity of hunting,” said Dr. Dan Edge, Commission Vice-Chair and head of OSU’s Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife.

The Commission declined to require double-fencing of captive elk ranches and directed staff to consider other alternatives that would make the minimum standard better than the current requirement, such as adding an interior electric fence. It deferred a decision on requiring bonding of elk ranchers to indemnify the state against an escape or disease outbreak.

Before making policy decisions, the Commission heard public testimony from 22 people on both sides of the issue. Because of the complexity and length of the Div. 49 rules, the Commission only provided policy direction today, and asked staff to rewrite proposed rules along those policy lines for formal adoption at the May 9, 2008 meeting in La Grande. No public testimony related to the rules will be taken at this meeting.

Other policies adopted today include:
vElk ranch licenses will be relinquished if licensee does not hold cervids for more than 180 consecutive days.
vThe import of gametes and embryos will be specifically allowed. The ban on the import of live cervids continues.
vLicensees will be responsible for the state’s expenses from an escape or release of captive cervids, though the department has discretion in determining whether to require repayment based on circumstances surrounding the incident.
vDeaths must be reported to ODFW and ODA within 24 hours of discovery; all dead cervids must be tested for disease within 24 hours of discovery.
vLicense will specify species, subspecies and or hybrid that can be held.
vPolicy maintains current limit of 16 Type 1 commercial elk ranching licenses.
vNew policy adds decommissioning requirements including perimeter fencing, so wild cervids cannot enter a captive facility until it is deemed disease-free.

“This Commission is not in any way attempting to put anybody out of business,” stated Chair Marla Rae in her summary of the Commission’s policy on elk ranching. “The Oregon State Legislature has already said that the private holding of cervids is a lawful activity. It is up to this Commission and department to regulate that activity so that it does no harm to wildlife populations.”

In keeping with that, the Commission voted to change the overall policy statement of the Commission from one of opposition to commercial elk ranching to one of concern about the unregulated holding of cervids posing a disease or genetic risk to the public’s wildlife.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by CombinationLicense

Of course it bothers me Joe and I've listened to everything ODFW has had to say about the problem over the last five years or so. The fact is that no matter where it came from there is NOTHING that can be done about it. The ODFW and WDFW's method for dealing with it is to let it run it's course and HOPE that the surviving population develops an immunity to it. Whoever is proven to be responsible should be held accountable for any and all costs associated with trying to clean up the problem. In all likelihood the problem originated from an imported deer, but was that deer held legally on a game farm or was it held illegally as someone's pet that eventually got away? It seems a shame to vilify an entire industry without proving that the industry is to blame. In fact it sounds similar to the firearms industry being blamed for gun violence... Find the culprit, prosecute the culprit - that's what I'm saying, no more no less.

"CL"

I hear you on blaming the responsible party and I agree but the fact that one slip up occurred makes me very uneasy with any domestic raising of game animals in Oregon. I'm all for private enterprise but sometimes regulations need to be brought into play.

In reality we can probably never prove which game farm started the problem since their deer would not have been bothered by the lice. All deer have parasites it's just that our deer have no resistance to their lice. I know this is off track of what this thread is about so I'll be quiet now.

[arlie]

Well let's look at what we are talking about. People raising bull elk so that people with little or none hunting skills can use their wealth to allow them to feel like they are hunters. I applaud those who recognize how pathetic and perverse this practice is. Come on! Hunting is only good when it is done right! Anything else is a pathetic shell. Get out of your 40K rigs and bust the brush, bone up on your skills and enjoy the fruits of doing it right! So what if you aren't always successful, hunting is what you put into it. It is a measure of the man but not always in the way that is portrayed by popular view. Be a little better than the commercialized direction, you'll be a better man for it.

[CombinationLicense]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

You seem to require facts, i.e. they must bonk you on the head. If you need facts on everything then how do you get anything done? Evolution is a theory, we treat it as fact, yet it is theory. People attack the "theory" for their own purposes, how do you argue with that? You can't, your argument is akin to that, unless I personally let the louse go I can't prove it, nor can anyone, but in the civilized world we use theory. If you attack the premise of what the civilized world views as science and not being able to unequivocally prove facts for everything you are no better than the "intelligent design" whackos using an unassailable argument that it is so friking ridiculous it was cast off 600 years ago. Medieval superstition would probably be an equal in argument. You can't prove fairies don't spread lice, so how can you tell me that that is not the cause?

Is there anyone else, besides Combo, that does not believe that Asian deer louse came from a deer farm in Washington?

Nice try Brian, but you're evading the debate by setting up a "straw man" argument, IE: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2] Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it[3]. Such a target is, naturally, immobile and does not fight back, and is not as realistic to test skill against compared to a live and armed opponent. It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.

Originally Posted by Joe

I hear you on blaming the responsible party and I agree but the fact that one slip up occurred makes me very uneasy with any domestic raising of game animals in Oregon. I'm all for private enterprise but sometimes regulations need to be brought into play.

In reality we can probably never prove which game farm started the problem since their deer would not have been bothered by the lice. All deer have parasites it's just that our deer have no resistance to their lice. I know this is off track of what this thread is about so I'll be quiet now.

Thanks Joe, I agree we'll probably never know what game farm was the culprit or if it was a game farm that was responsible at all. Hence my unwillingness to blindly follow the often repeated rhetoric...

"CL"

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda

[Rank Amateur]

Bottom line fellows, the odds are with the fact that if we had not allowed game farming, HLS probably would not be here. It was one of the unforseen effects. How many other unforseen effects are out there to bite us. With global trade we may face even more threats, I doubt we will stop that.

With HLS, no animal needed to escape, no fences contain this critter.

[baltz526]

no animal needed to escape. as fast and far as it has spread, it seems that some traveling animals spread it. like horse riders or goat weeder herds. i know this outbreak started about the same time i started reading news articals about the goat herds being used as weed eaters. did goats or horses spead it from an original single infected imported animal, i have no idea, but it seems more likely than a contained animal spreading the infection over several hundred miles from a central starting place just on deer.

[Washington Hunter]

CombinationLicense, You are missing the point. It doesn't matter exactly where the lice that cause HLS came from. The point is there are risks in having domestic wildlife and those risks should be kept to a minimum. The best thing would be no private ownership of wildlife anywhere on this continent, but it looks like the game farm industry has already gained too much of a foothold, and we can't get rid of them that easily. Other states like Colorado, Texas, Idaho, etc. are being overrun by these "farms." Thankfully Washington and Oregon at least have some regulations that are keeping their numbers down.

[Maverick Maxcat]

It's amazing how much arguement there is, and how much b.s. is pulled into play to support a weak position. I was there at the meeting. While many things were discussed, the shooter bull ban was a meaningless handout to the lady from HSUS, nothing more. Before it was passed, the commission confirmed with their lawyer that this would not be a permanent mark on the bulls. As it is, I'm setting up "Mark's Elk Exchange" in Idaho this summer, for the purpose of trading elk. I can buy all the bull I want, since they are for "trading". I'll resell them for shooters, of course! Just pull 20% out of the rancher's pockets for my "service", money going to Idaho instead of Oregon. How rediculous can you get! Prostitution is illegal in Oregon, scary and disgusting, but legal in Nevada. Maybe we should make every Oregon resident heading for Nevada sign a contract not to be involved with prostitution, since it's illegal here and we don't think anyone should, even in another state. Same arguement....comes down to minding your own business. Don't do it if you disagree, but don't stomp on someone else's rights just because you don't like it. If you're that fired up, go lobby the other states to make it illegal there. After all, that's how democracy works

Managing the risk to Oregon's wildlife was the over-riding focus of the rule changes. Things like strict enforcement on rules, continuation of the ban on importation of live cervids, genetic purity, mandatory death reporting and disease testing. Oregon's domestic elk are CWD and TB free, and the commission realizes that they have to get it from somewhere else before they are a risk to wildlife. They are effectively "quarantined", with no chance to ever mingle with elk from another state. This, along with economics, is the reason double fencing wasn't required. The most likely way CWD will enter Oregon is from a wild cervid, either a migrant or a hunter-killed animal.

[Ryan Pultz]

Mark Glad to see you chime in on this. Hope the new endeavor in Idaho works out for ya! rp

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Maverick Maxcat

It's amazing how much arguement there is, and how much b.s. is pulled into play to support a weak position. I was there at the meeting. While many things were discussed, the shooter bull ban was a meaningless handout to the lady from HSUS, nothing more. Before it was passed, the commission confirmed with their lawyer that this would not be a permanent mark on the bulls. As it is, I'm setting up "Mark's Elk Exchange" in Idaho this summer, for the purpose of trading elk. I can buy all the bull I want, since they are for "trading". I'll resell them for shooters, of course! Just pull 20% out of the rancher's pockets for my "service", money going to Idaho instead of Oregon. How rediculous can you get! Prostitution is illegal in Oregon, scary and disgusting, but legal in Nevada. Maybe we should make every Oregon resident heading for Nevada sign a contract not to be involved with prostitution, since it's illegal here and we don't think anyone should, even in another state. Same arguement....comes down to minding your own business. Don't do it if you disagree, but don't stomp on someone else's rights just because you don't like it. If you're that fired up, go lobby the other states to make it illegal there. After all, that's how democracy works

Well at least we don't have to get any of the stink on our hand's from your endeavour here in Oregon.

Funny how the comparison to prostitution keeps coming up. I bet it holds true that the caliber of folks that like to harvest "trophy" livestock think prostitution is the real deal.

BTW - It has NOTHING to do with minding your own business! It has to do with the integrity of ethical hunting which obviosly some people will gladly sacrifice to make an easy buck.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

Originally Posted by Joe

Well at least we don't have to get any of the stink on our hand's from your endeavour here in Oregon.

Funny how the comparison to prostitution keeps coming up. I bet it holds true that the caliber of folks that like to harvest "trophy" livestock think prostitution is the real deal.

BTW - It has NOTHING to do with minding your own business! It has to do with the integrity of ethical hunting which obviosly some people will gladly sacrifice to make an easy buck.

I was wondering how long it would take somone to figure out a way around the rules.


I guess with that being pointed out then there is no need for me to say see why you need regulated?


if your willing to go around the law to get what you want then whats to say your not going to do things that are hazardous to our elk heards to get what you want?



if you start a business thats not regulated when you start it and its a new type of business then wouldnt ya be smart enough to think that regulations might come in the future?

you think there was any regulations on commercial fishing when it started 150 years ago?

was there any regulations on elk hunting in 1858 when oregon was made a state? heck no thats why we had to import elk and ban hunting for them for a good many years.

everything needs regulated when it affects other things thats the way life is.

I think elk ranchers shouldn't be whining so much it could have been a lot worse you could have had to install double fencing and they could have made you lop the horns off any bull you sell before you sell it.




Quasi

.