North Dakota Fair Chase “Official” Meets With HSUS Regional Director

It would appear to me that the North Dakota Hunters For Fair Chase has some serious explaining to do and may also be in line to offer up an apology or two for not being very honest and transparent……but they won’t. It’s not part of their mission. Their goal is to tread on American’s rights while attempting to force their ideals down the throats of their neighbors in what now clearly indicates the desire to use whatever means available to them. In this case, accepting, if not asking, for the help of the Humane Society of the United States. Read more

“On Property” By James Madison

My god it is late at night - much later than I am accustomed to for doing work but when feeling compelled, as I am at this moment, I have to at least begin this article and finish it in the morning. If I wait until morning, I fear little sleep and good rest.

Today, I was reading two opinion pieces in the Bismark Tribune out of North Dakota. One piece was written by Roger Kaseman, perhaps the self-appointed leader of the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase. Kaseman uses “deceptive” practices in order to convince readers that a group, also in North Dakota, called the, “Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights”, is using “deceptive” practices in doing battle against the Fair Chasers who want to outlaw hunting on game ranches. (Make sure you read all the comments that follow) Read more

“Bastardizing The Hunting Heritage”

Roger Kaseman heads up a group of elitist hunters in North Dakota who believe they are the only ones on earth who understand what hunting and hunting heritage is and should be. As such they are attempting to get a citizen’s initiative on this coming November’s ballot that would outlaw preserve hunting.

There have been debates ongoing in North Dakota over this measure and recently Kasemen was quoted in the In-Forum News saying that hunting in any enclosure for any game animal is unethical and is “bastardizing the hunting heritage”. Read more

North Dakota Fair Chase, What Have You Done?

Some of the arch enemies of hunting and fishing are groups such as the Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and a entire host of other off the wall animal rights groups whose priorities are quite skewed, to be polite about it. To stay abreast of what the whackos are doing, I subscribe to alerts from some of these groups. Also on occasion I visit the sites and see what projects or movements they might be supporting at any given time.

This all takes me back the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase group who are trying to put a stop to high-fence hunting in their state. They have drafted a referendum they hope to put on the ballot in November of 2008 and are in the process of collecting some 13,000 legitimate registered North Dakota voter’s signatures. Am I to assume they are having a difficult time in accomplishing that? Read more

South Dakota Hunters Have A New Voice In Politics

Below is information and a press release about a newly formed organization in South Dakota, South Dakota Hunting Rights Advocacy, aimed at fighting to protect the hunting heritage of South Dakotans. As I looked over the site, I found this. Read more

Is Government Two-Faced When It Comes To Domestic Elk Industry?

Fascism takes on many forms some of which are difficult to spot. I see far too many groups and individuals attempting to force ideals onto others. When this happens an assortment of tactics are employed in order to manipulate the system and sway public opinion to achieve an end result.

Take for example the state of Idaho. Idaho is home to one of the best run domestic elk industries in the United States, in my opinion. It is well run, clean, disease free and brings a substantial economic contribution to the people of that state as well. Some people don’t like to see elk trapped behind fences even though elk have been domesticated world wide for centuries. Read more

South Dakota Inches Toward Crossbow Use For Hunting

A new bill, HB1116, has been introduced into the South Dakota House that would permit people who are 65 and older to hunt only antlerless deer with a crossbow. Current law allows the use of a crossbow for hunting under certain handicap cases.

(4) A person who is aged sixty-five or older and holds a resident or nonresident big game license that is valid for taking antlerless deer may use a crossbow or other legal bow equipped with a draw-lock device to take antlerless deer .
A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

I’m not sure the reason for such a law to be honest. Many in South Dakota believe there are too many deer and are looking at ways to reduce the deer population. I can’t see how this bill would do much of anything to aid in that purpose. The questions I have are, why 65 and older and why only for only antlerless deer?

Does this also mean no special safety course is required? All that a 65 or older hunter needs is a big game hunting license?

Tom Remington

Continued Efforts To Legislate Ideals

This past summer, I began a mild debate on a fledgling group in North Dakota whose bent is to outlaw “shooting captive deer, elk and other exotic mammals behind escape-proof fences”. If you would like to catch up on previous articles, you can find them here, here, here and here.

This group calls itself the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase. There will always be the debate about ethics and no two people can ever agree completely on what is ethical and what isn’t ethical when it comes to hunting or killing for that matter. What happens is when you have a group of individuals who believe they can set the standards on ethics, it creates a myriad of problems, most of which when combined will create far greater problems than anything they are tying to change.

I would like to take material from the NDHFC website to show a point. This is a quote this group uses as the keystone for their efforts.

“Voluntary adherence to an ethical code elevates the self-respect of the sportsman, but it should not be forgotten that voluntary disregard of the code degenerates and depraves him.” Aldo Leopold, “A Sand County Almanac”, 1949. Oxford University Press, New York.

I am left to wonder if anyone in this group recognizes the word “voluntary”? Is there a difference between seeking the voluntary adherence to an ethical code and forcing those to comply with someone else’s? I’ll repeat myself and say that ethics is difficult to define and is very personal. I’ll also rightly admit that the best way to teach or promote an ethical adherence is by example. Nothing will be taught by forcing some to have to follow the beliefs of others. This isn’t what this country was founded on.

And this is where I will get the argument that groups such as this have the right to bring initiatives to the voting booths and let the voters decide. I have never said anyone didn’t. The problems are varied and just as equally as these groups have a right to campaign the citizens of North Dakota into believing their “brave new world” is the answer, I have the right to present reasons why to the contrary.

I have no issue with the NDHFC group and their perspective on what they deem to be fair chase and ethics. If an individual wants to conform to those same imposed ethical standards, they certainly are free to do so. I just don’t believe legislating it is the way to promote it. Once again from the website.

We base our support of hunting on sound science and ethical behavior applied in the interest of wild game, not based on the economic and ethical expedience of those engaged in the practice of high fence killing. Shooting tame deer, elk and exotic mammals inside escape proof fences is unethical and a poor example for our children and grandchildren.

I believe it is safe to say that nearly every state fish and game department, hunting club, etc. base their support of hunting on sound science and ethical behavior. This is why each state has rules. These rules are to promote and protect the scientific management of our game animals and to promote public safety.

They show no support and therefore no regard for aspects of the state’s economy that they have taken upon themselves to deem as negligible. Those who, as free Americans, chose to engage in the industry of ranching animals such as deer, elk, etc., are now in danger of losing everything because a group wants power over them. I wonder how members of this group would feel if their livelihood was being taken away by the same means by others who want power over them?

Does the practice of hunting behind fences or the so-called “innocent slaughter” of these domestic animals set a poor example for our children and grandchildren? What do you say to the millions of ranchers across American who have “slaughtered” their animals for centuries? Now our farmers and anyone who has killed a head of cattle, sheep, goat, elk or deer is some kind of unethical monster that needs to be disbarred from our society? Is this group also in the practice of legislating how parents are to raise their children? Evidently they don’t feel that any of the rest of us know how to sit down with our children and explain about the realities of life. Instead we should disregard the rights of others, trample all over their property rights and put ranchers out on the street. This sets a far greater example to our children and grandchildren than explaining the truths behind ranching.

One has to question the content that the NDHFC puts up on their website. Here’s what they say about those who run elk ranches.

The Elk pictured above isn’t wild and will never be wild. When this bull grows “trophy quality” antlers, something the owner will guarantee by feeding the bull supplements that stimulate antler growth, the Elk will be a target for a so-called “hunter” for something the High Fence Industry mislabels a “hunt”. The practice of shooting these tame domestic animals inside escape proof fences is what we oppose and seek to ban with this initiative.

It is one thing to suggest to the public that someone paying a fee to shoot and kill an animal to take home and eat is unethical but I think that unless the laws that govern elk ranching in North Dakota are far different than other states, ranchers are not allowed under law to feed their animals illegal supplements for the sole purpose of growing antlers. Ranchers are smart and know their business. They know how to yield big antlers strictly from breeding practices. This false accusation that elk ranchers beef their animals up on steroids and other illegal drugs has gone on for some time. I would presume that if the NDHFC has proof of this accusation, they should make it public, otherwise they should remove this statement from their website.

This debate is far from over. The citizens of North Dakota will have to make the decision, providing NDHFC can get enough signatures to get their initiative on the November 2008 ballot. Unfortunately, the information the voters get won’t be all facts. Perhaps millions of dollars will be spent to accomplish what? I can tell you one thing it will accomplish. If this initiative were to pass, the likes of the Humane Society of the United States, PETA and tons of other animal rights groups will be foaming at the mouth to get into North Dakota and continue the onslaught to end hunting once and for all. If you don’t believe me, talk to people in other states who are dealing with similar issues or you can continue to bury your head in the sand.

I would like to know what a group like NDHFC would answer someone who asks this: HSUS, PETA, et. al. view all hunting and killing of animals as unethical. I assume you will not support these groups when they come to North Dakota to put a stop to your hunting or to some other group that wants to put an end to you or your friends’ businesses. If not, how can you justifiably do the same as these groups in forcing your ethics onto others and at the same time running somebody out of business? Isn’t this the epitome of hypocrisy?

I would like to leave readers with this statement that was made in an article in the Dickinson Press yesterday by Mitch Feininger, who, according to the article, supports the initiative and is a hunter.

“I have never been to one of these operations because I feel they are immoral and unethical,” he said. “One does not need to participate in something they consider immoral or unethical to consider it wrong.”

I don’t think it is illegal to visit an elk or deer hunting ranch nor do I think a visit is immoral. I’m assuming Feininger believes actually participating in a hunt of this kind as being immoral and unethical. It is too bad that people will blindly cast a ballot simply by what one group has told them. I am sure most ranch owners would welcome a visitor.

Tom Remington

10 Ways To Alienate A Farmer/Rancher/Land Owner

The above was the title of an article I found today at the Daily News, which I guess I can conclude that it comes out of North Dakota. The article goes quite nicely when the author lists 10 ways in which a hunter can anger a landowner with whom he might be seeking permission to hunt or already have permission to hunt on his land. Click this link and you can read his/her list of things we shouldn’t do as hunters.

It’s a bit of a mystery as to who wrote the article as I can find no one seeking to sign their name to it, so your guess is as good as mine. The problem with the article begins immediately after the list of 10 things that will tick off a landowner. The article should have been titled, “11 Ways to Alienate…….”, not 10.

After spending so much time sharing with readers about all the things we need to be careful of in dealing with landowners, he/she didn’t include crucifying them in the press. I’m not sure if this was his intention or not but this is the result.

His/her anger becomes directed at one particular landowner who, it seems, may be taking capitalism to extremes. If what this writer says is true, a particular herd of big horn sheep reside on this one rancher’s land and he’s decided to cash in by charging anyone who draws a tag to hunt a sheep from this herd $1,500 to access his land. The writer runs completely contradictory to the 10 items he/she lists.

These are once-in-a-lifetime licenses of which only three are issued per year (four if you count the auction tag). Those who draw a tag are not your typical wealthy sheep hunter. They’re hard-working North Dakotans who cannot afford to pay that kind of access fee. This rancher should be ashamed of himself and I don’t want to hear any baloney about it being his land. In this case, I don’t buy it.

Does the guy own the land or not? It may anger all of us that a landowner would do such a thing but whether the writer of this article likes it or not, this is his choice and right to do. This is not the approach anyone should be taking, especially one who just wrote an article in an attempt to educate hunters on good landowner/hunter relationships.

He further makes a statement I can’t believe is true.

The sheep and other wildlife were there before the rancher, and they’ll be there when he’s gone. I understand private property rights and any landowner’s desire to keep the crowds out during a general hunting season.

If I am to understand the reasoning here, the writer is saying that because the sheep where there first, he doesn’t have all of his rights as a landowner? Or is this just a case of him/her being mad because they can’t get what they want? I don’t think this writer does understand property rights. If he/she did, they wouldn’t be wanting to tar and feather this guy and talk so disrespectfully in the local press.

I’m not sure what it is the article writer is suggesting or implying that be done about the landowner.

Charging sheep hunters exorbitant access fees was happening in the Yellowstone River basin in Montana so the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department simply closed all hunting of bighorn sheep in that area. Everyone lost in that case, but particularly the hunters.

This kind of thing disgusts me and it will be the end of hunting as we know it.

I don’t think the writer is alone with feelings of disgust but this kind of approach in dealing with a problem like this is equally disgusting. The landowner obviously sees that these desired sheep are on his land. Precedence has been set all across America for landowners to cash in on hunting access. It is and has become big business. Is it right or wrong? Does it matter? A landowner has every right, at least so far, to grant access to his/her land as they see fit. Is this writer suggesting we should further strip a landowner of rights? Getting a landowner to change his mind by dissing him in a public forum is about as effective as a hunter muddying up a landowner’s road, shooting his livestock or any of the other 10 things the writer listed.

I guess this landowner is different because the prize on the land is bigger than a few pheasants or whatever?

I would certainly hope that rational thinking people have made every effort to work with this landowner and all other landowners across North Dakota. Hunters are at the mercy of the landowner. State fish and wildlife agencies hopefully understand that their jobs become exponentially more difficult when landowners shut their land down. Landowner relationship programs should be discussed to find ways to make everyone as happy as is feasibly possible. North Dakota doesn’t need to rewrite the book on this. Other states have implemented landowner relations and incentive programs.

What this writer might not realize is that all too often hunters exclaim, “We must all stick together. We must protect our hunting heritage, etc.” Landowners are also a group that sticks together. And when you start angering one or two, the bad feelings begin to spread. Is that the objective of the hunters?

The Landowners Association of North Dakota puts this statement of concern right in the middle of their home page.

ND has more than twice as many acres in wildlife refuges than any other state in the central flyway. There’s over 60 wildlife refuges in our state. How much more do we need??
Many of the “conservation” programs have more to do with raising wildlife than conserving soil and water resources.

And a bit further into their website, you can find this statement.

Government now owns more than 1/3 of the land in the U.S. and continues to acquire land at an astounding rate. How much land should government control? The US Fish & Wildlife Service has expanded its land holdings more than 30 times in the last 35 years, from 2.7 million acres in 1956 to 91.3 million acres in 1989. This is twice the size of the state of North Dakota. The Nature Conservancy organization buys land at the rate of more than 1,000 acres a day, which it then sells to the government for a profit. These organizations have been considered non-profit and tax-exempt. LAND believes that society is best served when property remains primarily in private hands. We believe that individual land ownership carries with it a devotion and appreciation that can never be matched by government.

This is an organization that appears to have some very deep feelings about property rights. They should be respected and worked with, not against.

This is a complex issue when land gets shut down by the landowner and the wildlife on that land belongs to all the people. Generally speaking for centuries the landowner has understood hunting and have welcomed hunters onto their land to help manage the wildlife. That landscape is changing and presents a problem into the future that we have to find out how to deal with now. Offering up 10 suggestions to keep landowners happy is a step in the right direction. Cursing them in the same breath, makes no sense to me no matter how much we think it is disgusting.

Tom Remington

N.D. Fish And Game Makes Suggestions For Thinning Elk In Teddy Roosevelt National Park

As the debate continues over the best ways to thin out a ballooned elk population in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, the state Fish and Game Department is making some suggestions.

Game and Fish director Terry Steinwand says the National Park Service should allow volunteer hunters a chance to go after the elk. He says they`ll need to have taken a hunter safety course and get special training for the elk hunt. They`ll need a hunting license. The licenses would be distributed by a lottery system, and the hunting season would run from November to February.

Now it’s beginning to make some sense. Let’s hope the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Parks Service begin to see things in this light as well.

Tom Remington

Next Page »