This is a warning to outdoor users about a potentially deadly biological event that could result from one’s curiosity to poke at and kick through scat from wolves, coyotes and foxes. Of course not everyone knowingly does this but many hunters, trappers and simply the curious, want to know what these animals have been eating.

Back in the end of November I gave you a link to a story, “Of Wolves and Worms”. That story introduced many of us to the subject of worms being found in wolves in the Greater Yellowstone area.

According to a new study out in the October issue of the Journal of Wildlife Diseases, three-millimeter-long tapeworms known as Echinococcus granulosus, are documented for the first time in gray wolves in Idaho and Montana. And the authors didn’t just find a few tapeworms here and there… turns out that of 123 wolf intestines sampled, 62 percent of the Idaho gray wolves and 63 percent of the Montana gray wolves were positive. (Ew!) The researchers wrote: “The detection of thousands of tapeworms per wolf was a common finding.” (Again… Ew!!) This leads to the interpretation that the E. granulosus parasite rate is fairly widespread and established in the Northern Rocky Mountain wolves.

There is discussion about how some think the worms ended up in the wolves in this region but the article tends to downplay any serious concerns people should have from coming in contact with these tapeworms and the eggs they leave behind.

In the comments section of the article, Will Graves, author of the book “Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages“, left his thoughts on his own research discoveries about the dangers to humans of these parasites.

In the first paragraph in my letter to Mr. Bangs dated 3 October 1993 on the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) which was titled “The Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho,” I warned about the damages and problems wolves would cause to Yellowstone and other areas by carrying and spreading parasites and diseases over larger areas. Some of these parasites are damaging not only to wild and domestic animals, but can also be dangerous to humans. One of these parasites is Echinococcous Granulosus and Echinococcus M. Since 1993 I have been working to tell people what I have learned from about 50 years of research on the characteristics, habits and behavior of Russian wolves. From that research I came to the conclusion that one of the most serious consequences of bring wolves into the US would be the wolves carrying and spreading around damaging/dangerous parasites and diseases. I did my best to explain this in my book titled, “Wolves in Russia – Anxiety Through the Ages” edited by Dr. Valerius Geist. Details about my book are in my web site: wolvesinrussia.com.

After several years effort, I finally recently obtained help from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Parasitic Research Center in Beltsville, MD. This research center will try to conduct research on the blood taken from wolves in our western states. Oneparasite they will be researching is to determine if wolves carry and spread the parasite Neospora Caninum around. It is established that coyotes and dogs carry this damaging parasite.

I remember that about two years ago there was a report about one wolf carrying Echinococcus Granulosus in Montana.

Much more research is needed about the danger wolves bring to our environment. Some of the parasites carried by wolves are dangerous to humans.(emphasis added)

Around this same time that Will Graves posted his comments, he contacted me by email and asked if I could somehow be of assistance to him in obtaining blood samples from wolves taken during the Idaho and Montana wolf hunts. The word went out quickly and hopefullyGraves gets what he needs to help him in his research. This can become extremely valuable information for all of us.

In the meantime, Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary and Dr. Charles Kay, of Utah State University, who holds degrees in wildlife ecology, environmental studies and wildlife biology, exchanged thoughts on the discovery of worms in Yellowstone wolves in emails I received.

Well, Charles? What else is new? What did we warn about, how we were censored as alarmists………………………
And yes, a colleague assured us that all that is not a problem for us, but for some native types. Nothing to worry about, really. Remember how, early on, we put out a warning – do not kick dry wolf feces or poke about in such looking for evidence of food habits. Do not handle wolf feces as it will disturb the tiny Echinococcus eggs that float up like little dust cloud to envelop you, and you are very likely to ingest some of that “dust”. This know-how, which we older Canadian types carried away from our parasitogy lessons was poo-hood by some American colleagues. Wolves are after all, harmless! Remember the question we posed: is it really such a great idea completing ecosystems when the progression is herbivores, carnivores, finally diseases and parasites?

It is not my intention nor that of Drs. Geist and Kay to attempt to instill unnecessary fear in people but to educate, as it was back in the day before wolf reintroduction. There are very important lessons and warnings that all should heed and take into consideration when in the woods or maybe even in your own back yard.

Dr. Geist emailed me the other day and asked me if I would be kind enough to post this information so that anyone and everyone will be aware of the potential for some very serious health issues.

Urgent: could you make a point of it that now, that we know that the majority of wolves are infected with Echinococcus, that all hunters control their curiosity and not poke about in wolf or coyote feces to find out what these predators ate. these feces are saturated with tiny, lightweight Echinococcus eggs that rise like dust plume from the disturbed feces and envelop the poking hunter. If the air-born eggs are ingested, the an infection is possible, and having Echinococcus cysts grow inside oneself is not a desirable condition. Trust me!

He followed that up with more information about the dangers.

As to the pathogenicity of Echinococcus granulosus: Yes, I noticed that Foayt, leaning on Raup’s research in Alaska, toned down the dangers from this northern form. My understanding based on what we learned from an old, experienced parasitologist at the University of British Columbia is that it’s nothing to fool around with. It’s serious! In my career as a biologist in touch with the north, I have heard nothing else. I have not, however, done a recent literature search. Foayte’s assessment may be on even though it conflicts with mine. Either way, getting an Echinococcus cyst of any kind is no laughing matter as it can grow not only on the liver or the lungs, but also in the brain. And then it’s fatal.

There is however, another much more alarming angle. Echinococcus multilocularis is a nightmare, and much more virulent than Echinococcus granulosus of any strain. We cannot encapsulate this cyst, and it grows and buds off like a cancer infecting different parts of the body incessantly. Were some of the wolves infected with multilocularis? Coyotes and foxes carry it and it has been spreading. Do canids in Idaho, Montana, etc. have it? It’s found in Alberta. Regardless, now is the time to send out an SOS to ALL outdoor users. Hold your curiosity in check, do not poke into the feces of wolves, coyotes and foxes. If you do you will release clouds of Echinococcus eggs which will envelop you, and you may ingest the eggs, bring the eggs home and endanger your family. This is nothing new to me and I have lived with this constraint on my curiosity for over 40 years. This is just a know how that maintains your personal and your family’s safety. Also, never feed uncooked offal to your dog as it may become infected with Echinococcus and infect you and your family. Echinococcus cysts love to be in lung and liver, and if consumed by dogs you have a health hazard on your hands. And such cysts now grow in deer and elk where you live. Somebody should take a second look searching out Echinococcus multilocularis.

You and I probably have no idea in the world whether these worms exist in the woods we hunt, trap, hike, etc. but good advice given by Dr. Geist should tell us it’s not something we should mess around with. Squelch the curiosity to dig in the poop and just assume there could be hidden danger.

I want to take a moment to thank Will Graves, Dr. Val Geist and Dr. Charles Kay for caring enough about the rest of us to be willing to share their findings and experiences.

•    Gear: Clothes, utility tools, ATV’s…
•    Favorite weapons: guns, bows, sticks, stones…
•    Best Duck Blind or Hide…
•    You, family or friends dressed for the hunt…
•    Where you hunt

All I need is a digital picture in any PC compatible format and a description of the picture.  You can make the description as long or short as you would like.  If there is a story behind the picture we would love to hear about it.

Send Pictures to:

Todd Krater
U.S. Hunting Today
Managing Editor
todd@ushuntingtoday.com

Note: If you want a picture posted and do not have a digital copy I would be willing to scan it for you.  Please contact me for details.

US Hunting Today reserves the right to refuse any picture for any reason as well as edit it where appropriate.

Immediate Release Valerie Naylor
701-623-4466

December 17, 2008

Draft Elk Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement Released

Theodore Roosevelt National Park has released a Draft Elk Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and is soliciting public comment.

The draft plan/EIS analyzes four action alternatives for initial herd reduction, as well as a “no action” alternative and one alternative that could be used in combination with others for herd maintenance. The draft EIS does not identify a preferred alternative.

“The alternatives represent a range of reasonable options for managing the elk population,” said Superintendent Valerie J. Naylor. “Because we want to encourage public input on the alternatives presented, we are not going to select a preferred alternative until after the public comment period.”

One alternative for initial herd reduction focuses on sharpshooting elk, using government employees, contractors, or skilled volunteers. Under a second alternative, elk would be rounded up and euthanized. A third alternative focuses on rounding up elk, testing a representative sample for chronic wasting disease, and shipping live elk to other entities. Shipping live elk has been done twice before by the park, prior to concern about chronic wasting disease (CWD). Now, shipping could only take place after a representative sample (approximately 375 elk) are killed, tested, and found to be negative for CWD. In all cases, elk meat would be donated to food banks or other organizations after testing. A fourth alternative encourages hunting opportunities outside park boundaries and would require cooperation from the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and local landowners.

Hunting within the park boundaries is not allowed under the law and is not being considered.

“This plan will not only establish elk population levels that are in balance with the park’s ecosystem,” said Naylor, “but it will determine how we will maintain that population level to protect natural resources within the park and land uses outside the park boundary.”

A series of public meetings, including a presentation on Theodore Roosevelt National Park’s elk management planning process, will be held across the state to provide project information and gather comments about the draft plan/EIS. Meetings dates and locations will be announced after January 1.

More information and an on-line version of the EIS are available at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/thro. Comments can be submitted via the website or they can be mailed to Superintendent, Theodore Roosevelt National Park, P.O. Box 7, Medora, North Dakota 58645 or e-mailed to thro_forum@nps.gov.
Printed copies of the EIS are available for review at park visitor centers.
Contact the park at 701/623-4466 for a hard copy or an electronic copy on a compact disc (CD).

-NPS-

__________________________________
Bill Whitworth
Chief, Resource Management
Theodore Roosevelt National Park
P.O. Box 7
Medora, ND 58645
701-623-4730 ext 3407

For those who may not know, the HSUS offers this statement on their website as policy regarding hunting.

As a matter of principle, The HSUS opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or sport because of the animal trauma, suffering, and death that result. A humane society should not condone the killing of any sentient creature in the name of sport. As a practical matter, The HSUS actively seeks to eliminate the most inhumane and unfair sport-hunting practices, such as the use of body-gripping traps, baiting, use of dogs, pigeon shoots, stocking of animals for shooting, and fee-hunting on enclosed properties.

The North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, with their self-righteous attitudes, claim to be concerned about passing on their hunting heritage to their kids.

….a group of men and women dedicated to preserving Fair Chase as an intricate part of our state and national hunting heritage, a heritage that we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

I have mentioned before that NDHFF uses quotes from Aldo Leopold to support their Marxist ideals but evidently they don’t pay much attention to all the words in the statement they posted at the very top of their website.

“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.” (emboldening is added)

Where in this statement does it say that if we don’t like the ethics of another hunter we should make laws in prohibition? Isn’t the whole value of the “ethical code” wrapped up in “voluntary adherence? And what makes it “wrong” or “unethical” is when that same person understands yet willing violates his own ethical code.

And where is the “ethical code” in meeting with and accepting support from the Humane Society of the United States, an organization that clearly states its goal is to end all forms of hunting, in their quest to legislate fair chase rules? Is there no ethical value in being honest anymore?

It certainly appears that North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase has some explaining to do. Repeatedly, representatives of the organization have either denied any involvement with HSUS or claimed they have no control over who supports or endorses the citizen’s initiative to ban hunting on game ranches.

We know that previously members of HSUS were helping to raise money and recruit names to go on the petition necessary to get the initiative on the November ballot.

We also know that Roger Kaseman, director of NDHFF, has more than one time made the following statements about HSUS in one form or another.

We have not and do not intend to seek the endorsement of any anti-hunting group.

……..we are not in bed with HSUS, nor will we be.

I am sure anti-hunting organizations will offer financial support for the campaign when we qualify the intuitive for the ballot. The committee is unanimous; we will turn down that support.

What HSUS places on their web site is beyond my control.

Who HSUS or any other organization endorses is beyond my control and beyond the control of any member of the Fair Chase Committee.

Just to take a closer examination of Kaseman’s statements, we can see a couple of things that are now turning out to be blatantly false statements.

Kaseman says NDHFF does not “intend” to seek endorsements and that he has no control over what HSUS or others place on their website. Perhaps true but never have I read anywhere that NDHFF has spoken out that it does not in anyway support ANY effort of the nation’s most radical anti-hunting group. NDHFF claims, as Kaseman iterates in his statements, that “I am not, nor is the Fair Chase Hunters organization an anti-hunting group.”

Further scrutiny of Kaseman’s statement reveals that back in February he seemed to have a crystal ball that told him that he was sure anti-hunting groups would offer financial support to their cause. Did he already know?

What’s interesting is that Kaseman states that the NDHFF committee had unanimously voted to turn down that support. Oh really? Somebody jumped ship I guess.

Kaseman also went so far in an editorial in the Bismark Tribune of accusing those opposed to his initiative of using deceptive practices because radio ads stated that HSUS was supporting the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.

One of the organizations fighting against the efforts of the Fair Chase Initiative is a group called Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights. They have issued a press release to announce that an “official” of North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, met with the Director of the Northern Rockies Regional Office of the Humane Society of the United States, Dave Pauli.

Pauli evidently writes a blog and in a post that was published on June 30, 2008, he said he traveled to Dickinson and Bismark, North Dakota where he met with an official of NDHFF.

After Baker I kept going east to Dickinson and Bismarck ND where i met with an official of the Fair Chase hunting movement who are trying to pass a ballot initiative to ban “canned hunting” practices in North Dakota.

Pauli admits to things that officials in other states trying also to ban ranch hunting have denied as vehemently as Kaseman has.

We helped pass a ban on this egregious practice in Montana in 2005 and are supporting similar goals in Idaho and Colorado.

And Pauli admits that the purpose of his trip to North Dakota was to support the Fair Chase Initiative.

The signatures have to be in by the end of July so I stopped at shelters and activists homes along the way to encourage them to support the ballot initiative.

It certainly doesn’t sound like Pauli’s meeting with this “official” of the NDHFF was to hear that the Fair Chasers didn’t want their support.

Once this information is readily available, what will we hear from the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase? More excuses? More lies? Helplessness?

I have no problem with any organization exercising their constitutional rights to petition the citizens and seek changes to laws. What I do have a problem with is when anyone has to use deceptive practices to achieve their goals. Those I will challenge.

It has now become quite clear that the North Dakota Hunters For Fair Chase is not honest. They have deceived the public and lied in saying that the committee would refuse any assistance from anti-hunting groups. They have accepted that help from this country’s most radical anti-hunting group that will not stop until they have succeeded in putting a ban on all hunting. This tells me that the NDHFF is an anti-hunting group hiding behind ethics and fair chase. Isn’t it ironic that a group emoting its holier-than-thou attitudes haven’t the scruples to be honest and forthcoming in their efforts to effect radical change in North Dakota?

North Dakota voters, should the Fair Chasers get enough signatures, now have to take a closer look at what they have been told by this group. What can they believe? Can they be trusted?

Shawn Schafer of Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights says it quite well in referencing a partnership of HSUS and NDHFF.

“Unfortunately, their partnership with HSUS has the Fair Chase group leading North Dakota down the path toward criminalizing hunting,” says Shawn Schafer with Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights. “Whether you choose to hunt on a preserve or not, hunters should have a choice in the matter and property owners should have the right to offer this option.”
“The Fair Chase initiative is clearly endangering the hunting tradition in North Dakota through this union,” Schafer says.

I have to agree. The Fair Chase Initiative is being sold as a means to save and protect hunting heritage. Nothing could be further from the truth.

*Update*
This morning, David Pauli, regional director of the Humane Society of the United States, has a letter to the editor in the Bismark Tribune. Aside from the usual lies HSUS is famous for regarding preserve hunting, Pauli, without naming names, essentially publicly endorses the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase. He also glorifies the unification of hunters and anti-hunting groups to fight for the cause.

Time and time again, hunters, humane groups, environmentalists and just plain sound-thinking people have joined forces for the common good.

Sound-thinking people? Doubtful!

Tom Remington

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)

The second opinion piece was written by Willard Swanke, claiming to be the owner/operator of an elk ranch in North Dakota. Swanke believes that ranchers own their livestock and the property he keeps them on and has the right to harvest is animals as he sees fit.

Neither editorial brings anything new to a long running debate about ethics and property rights. Convincing one side or the other the come to their senses is much like asking the Pope to convert to Judaism.

Although the battle seems to be between elk ranchers and landowners seeking to protect their property rights and those in Kaseman’s camp eager to rule the universe and force their ideologue down the throats of others, the reality is that each side is trying to win public opinion. After all, Kaseman’s Krusaders are attempting to get enough signatures to force a citizen’s initiative vote in November. Fore Kaseman to realize success, he and his gang must convince the voters of the evils behind ranch hunting. For Swanke to shut down their efforts, he and other ranchers must convince the public they have rights.

Part of Kaseman’s argument against the Property Rights group is that he claims they have no right to offer hunts to paying customers. He claims there are no “laws” or “rights” that guarantee the ranchers, therefore the practice should be issued good riddance as he fears keeping it alive will destroy his hunting heritage.

What often gets lost in all of these debates is history. I’m not talking history of last year or a couple years ago. I’m talking about history back to the beginning of time. God created man with the intent that man be free. If not, He would not have given us choice. One of the consequences of having choice is we end up with people who bully, whine, cheat, steal, are greedy, jealous and anything else bad we can think of.

Before I proceed from here, I’ll have to say that if one exercises their freedom to not believe they are a creation of God, I certainly cannot expect them to agree with or understand much of this discussion.

Lost in our history from generation to generation is the fact that this country was founded upon the belief that God is the Creator. He is referred to often in many things written in our founding documents. Human beings are creatures of God, free to choose, free to have possessions, to own land, to grow and prosper.

People today too often believe that if a right isn’t specifically spelled out in the Constitution or enacted by our Congress, it is not protected and/or has no value. I should point out that everyday of my life and that of millions of others, we enjoy hundreds of freedoms not spelled out in some law book. It is becoming necessary I guess to spell out every right and its limitations as respect for those freedoms is waning.

After spending time reading the above mentioned opinion pieces and the many comments that went along with them, I was about to close up shop for the day and go to bed. Here it is, a few hours later still, and I’m pounding away on my keyboard to at least get the initial draft done.

I just couldn’t give up before doing a quick glance through some of my favorite websites. The last site I visited, was that of Hugh Hewitt, one of my favorite conservative writers. I found a guest article posted by Donald Kochan called, “James Madison’s “On Property”". It was like manna from heaven as it would pertain to the debate in North Dakota over ranch hunting, property rights and the effort to ban them.

Kochan directs his readers to an essay written and posted at a University of Chicago web page. The essay was written by James Madison about property rights. As Kochan points out, the essay is short but powerful.

Here’s a couple of excerpts from Madison’s essay.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite cause.

If you read the entire piece, you will see that Madison talks about opinions, thoughts and religion as a form of one’s property, to be valued and respected. While it seems he places an almost ultimate value on possessing property, he does not indicate that differing opinions should be stifled. What he does say is that when we bring in government to make rules to regulate and take away a man’s possessions and property, this becomes an “unjust” government.

Here’s a bit more.

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

Wow! Incredibly powerful material. Why have we not continued to teach our children the history, the meaning of a truly free society, one that respects the rights and possessions of others? Why is there no value in that any more? Why are we bent on destroying that which has made us great?

If we are to define, restrict and force government into our lives to a point where we are told how to live, where to live and in what manner we must conduct ourselves at all times, surely we have lost our freedom and with that will follow the loss of desire to be creative and prosper.

Tom Remington

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”.

“By allowing these operations, we’re basically bastardizing the hunting heritage,” he said. “I don’t care how they spin it … If you put a deer or elk in an escape-proof fence, that’s not hunting.”

To bastardize something means to corrupt it, reduce its quality or to lower in character. Kaseman says high-fence preserve hunting is doing just that. It’s difficult to argue with his opinion because it is his opinion and that of a handful of others like him. They believe that enclosure hunting is ruining the heritage of hunting. Certainly this group is entitled to their opinions and they have a right in a free society to petition the people to enact new laws. Why pick on a handful of ranchers trying to make a living in their almighty attempt to govern the lands of North Dakota?

If we go back in history and examine hunting, we will find that hunting was a necessary means of survival and a difficult task at that. Man used anything he could get his hands on for a weapon, i.e. rocks, sticks, etc. Since that time we can just as easily say that man has been “bastardizing” hunting heritage by someone’s standards of ethics and definition or ideals of what hunting heritage is supposed to be. Many can argue that when hunting became a sport, hunting heritage became bastardize, after all, true hunting heritage was a necessary part of survival. We reduced the quality of hunting considerably when we made it a sport and not part of survival. By Kaseman’s standards perhaps we should return hunting back to its rightful heritage.

And what have we as a society done with hunting since the days that sticks were made pointed with sharp pieces of flint and shale? That’s easy. Take a look around. It’s all right there in front of us to see but for people like Kaseman and his following, they choose only to set aside preserve hunting as the one thing that is “bastardizing the hunting heritage”. Surely there are more legitimate bastardizations his group could spend their time on.

Trampling on the rights of legitimate land owners and businessmen will do more to rip apart that one important element to assure the continuation of the sport. For without access to the lands of private individuals, hunting becomes diminished greatly. Some argue there is always public land to fall back on but in places where that is the only land to hunt on, interest is dwindling fast.

I believe it is one of the most selfish and self righteous things a group calling themselves a pro hunting group can do. They spit in the faces of the landowner because they think preserve hunting is unethical, all the while the vast majority of them practice the bastardization of hunting.

Personally, I resent their actions and condemn the reasons they use for taking the steps they have. I respect the rancher who is making every attempt at running a legitimate business. I am grateful for the generosity of all landowners that grant permission for hunters to access their land. When Kaseman and his ilk try strong arm tactics that fly in the face of landowners, this affects me and millions of other hunters nationwide who give countless hours and energy into creating hunter/landowner relations. They are destroying those efforts.

To bastardize means to reduce in quality and lower in character. The North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase have placed themselves above everyone else and are doing far more to bastardize hunting heritage than a handful of Americans trying to realize part of the American dream.

Tom Remington

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?

On April 4, 2008, President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States sent out a newsletter seeking help to stop canned hunting in North Dakota.

Dear Friend,

North Dakota voters have the opportunity to stop the trophy shooting of captive animals trapped behind fences — an inhumane and unsportsmanlike practice opposed by hunters and non-hunters alike — but only with your help. These “canned hunting” operations offer wealthy customers the opportunity to kill tame, captive animals for guaranteed trophies. Get involved today in stopping this unethical practice.

Both hunters and non-hunters condemn canned hunting, but it has not yet been outlawed in North Dakota. Be part of the team that puts this critical issue on the November statewide ballot! The campaign must collect 12,844 valid signatures by the end of July, and we need your help.

If you have volunteered to gather signatures already, thank you! If not, please sign up today. Email Karen at rthunsh@srt.com or call 701-839-6210.

Just a little of your time will help give North Dakotans the chance to vote to stop canned hunting this fall.

Sincerely,

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States

Ooops!! This is not good for this elitist group, especially after having made these statements at the Bismark Tribune’s forums on February 26, 2008. Roger Kaseman heads up the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase and in this thread, he was spelling out what he referred to as the truth behind his efforts.

Here are the facts:

I am a lifelong hunter. I have been hunting for 47 years.

I am not, nor is the Fair Chase Hunters organization an anti-hunting group.

I am not, nor are any members of the organization anti-land owner right. A majority of the members are either hunters, or landowners, or both.

We have not and do not intend to seek the endorsement of any anti-hunting group.

Contrary to Show Me’s accusation, we are not in bed with HSUS, nor will we be.

I am sure anti-hunting organizations will offer financial support for the campaign when we qualify the intuitive for the ballot. The committee is unanimous; we will turn down that support.

What HSUS places on their web site is beyond my control.

Who HSUS or any other organization endorses is beyond my control and beyond the control of any member of the Fair Chase Committee.

If the NDHFFC will turn down the support of any anti-hunting group, then all of us are anxiously awaiting the public refusal of help from HSUS. Kaseman makes a good point when he says that he has no control over what organizations endorse his group or what they might put on their website but this might go a little bit beyond that.

According to what I have been able to dig up so far and what I found also at the Bismark Tribune’s forums, it appears that someone called the “Karen” listed at the phone number on the HSUS newsletter. According to the poster at the Tribune’s forums, Karen said she was working for Roger Kaseman and had been contacted by him seeking assistance.

From: Ron and Karen (rthunsh@srt.com)
Sent: Sat 4/05/08 3:54 PM
To: dewey curren (dcurren77@hotmail.com)
Cc: Roger Kaseman (lsrkbek@bektel.com)

Dear Mr Curren.

Enjoyed talking to you. As I stated when we talked I am a private North Dakota resident just trying to help get the fair chase initiative up to the voters. The Humane Society is just trying to help ensure that all residents…including non hunters get a chance to express their view on this issue. But it is a program solely of the Fair Chase Committee. Thank you so much for your inquiry on this important issue.

Therefore any donation you wish to give to support the right to vote on this unethical practice should go to:

Roger Kaseman, Fair Chase Committee

8120 17th Avenue S. E.

Linton, North Dakota 58552

701-245-4875

So, Karen is a private North Dakota resident just trying to the initiative up for the residents of North Dakota to vote on. Is it common practice to use HSUS resources for “private” citizens to “help get the fair chase initiative up to the voters”? She further directs Mr. Curren to send his donation to Roger Kaseman. Not HSUS mind you but directly to Roger Kaseman of the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase Committee.

Anyone who has an ounce of respect for the hunting and fishing industry and everyone who supports and subscribes to it, would publicly deny any support of any kind from this group or any other like them. Kaseman is correct. He can’t control what HSUS puts on their site but he sure as heck can stand up in a public forum a denounce any kind of support from the likes of these people. Will it happen?

If Kaseman and the rest of the “unanimous” committee who said, “we will turn down that support”, were truthful and have not changed their minds, we can look forward to a public refusal of HSUS’ help. Any short of a complete disassociation from HSUS or any other animal rights groups will certainly tell the voters of North Dakota who is really behind this movement.

This link will take you to more articles on the North Dakota initiative and other fair chase issues.

Tom Remington

SDHRA was founded by a group of outdoor enthusiasts who strongly believe that hunting is a sacred, inalienable right; a basic tenet of our existence that teaches the intelligence, beauty and power of nature, while engendering respect for all life, responsibility to society, social authority, and spiritual power. In concert with that belief, SDHRA is actively engaged in legislative, administrative, and limited legal advocacy to protect and enhance the rights of South Dakota residents to lawfully hunt on publicly and privately owned land within the state…..

From the information I have been able to gather from their website and the press release below, it appears that we have a winner. This group actually seems interested in protecting hunting for everyone and not geared to some select special interest other than hunting.

They’ll certainly have my support if they hold true to their pledge.

Here’s the press release:

South Dakota Hunters Have a New Voice in Politics

The South Dakota Hunting Rights Advocacy (SDHRA) is a newly formed nonprofit group committed to enhancing the stature of the state’s resident hunters. The organization, based in the State’s capitol, was created to proactively monitor proposed legislation and administrative rule changes that impact hunting and explore ways to make the sport more available to casual resident hunters.

According to Board Chairman, Lennard Hopper, “The organization is really the culmination of years of discussion about the need stand up for the rights of the ‘average’ South Dakota hunter. A lot of casual hunters are being squeezed by commercial ‘pay to hunt’ operations; public land is often miss-posted by adjacent property owners attempting to retain game populations for “paying” customers. The irony is that the game they’re trying to contain is managed with public tax dollars by the Department of Game, Fish and Parks for the benefit of all residents of the state.” Hopper states that the organization is “not opposed to game farms and
‘canned’ hunts, they’re great for the State’s economy. Its just that we want to make sure that all public hunting areas are both accessible and clearly posted and that administrative rules do not place the interests of nonresidents ahead of resident hunters.”

Another issue Hopper sees is that South Dakota law has functionally disenfranchised parents from effectively sharing the tradition of hunting with their children. According to Hopper, age restrictions, established in the name of safety, circumvent the knowledge that parents naturally have regarding when a young son or daughter is ready to get started hunting. “We’ve been supporting a bill right now in the legislature to get youth out sooner, as well as some ideas to include youth that may otherwise be overlooked.” The organization is presently assembling a plan to provide hunting opportunities to boys and girls in single parent and non-hunting families, who have an interest in hunting.

The organization is funded entirely by donation. Additional information is available at the organization’s website at http://www.sdhunting.org.

February 26, 2008

Pierre, South Dakota

Issued by: South Dakota Hunting Rights Advocacy

125 Norbeck Dr.

Pierre, SD 57501

Tom Remington

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.

These people who have the problem, in some cases have organized and attempts have been made within the Idaho Legislature to shut down the domestic elk industry. Threats of running a campaign for a ballot initiative looms over the family’s heads who own elk ranches.

One of the tactics used, mostly to scare people, is the threat of disease. Elk can contract several diseases one of which seems to get the most attention, is chronic wasting disease. CWD is similar to mad cow disease but has never been found to be of the same threat to humans. In Idaho, the sale or importation of elk is strictly regulated. Animals are well cared for and tested for disease. Currently there is no live animal test for chronic wasting disease so every elk that is killed on a ranch must be tested for disease. No chronic wasting disease has ever been detected in any elk on any ranches in that state.

In North Dakota, a group calling themselves sportsmen, are in the process of gathering signatures for a citizen’s initiative to end all cervidae ranching in that state. Once again those wanting to shut down the industry spend a substantial amount of time trying to convince the public that disease from these ranches will infect the wild populations.

There is currently legislation being considered in Colorado that would create similar restrictions and a handful of other states have already passed legislation banning the industry in part or in whole.

Truth be known, no one is certain where the disease originated. Some studies suggest the disease is a “natural” occurrence that has been around perhaps since day one and goes through cycles. Some believe it originates on these ranches. Studies have indicated that the disease more easily is spread when animals, such as deer and elk, are congregated in large numbers. It is believed the disease is passed from animal to animal via bodily fluids but recent studies show that may not be the only way. Prions, which carry the disease, has been found in the soil and in some cases it is believed that it has been there a long time. Studies on the disease continue.

What some people don’t quite understand is that nobody seems to know which came first – the disease from inside out or from outside in. Because most all animals trapped behind fences are tested regularly for disease and testing of wild ungulates is spotty at best in some locations, wouldn’t it make sense that the disease would be discovered first on a ranch or a laboratory?

In states like Idaho, the fish and game there are dead set against the elk industry and would like to see it shut down. They too espouse the notion that the domestic elk industry poses a threat to the wild deer, elk and moose populations through the spread of disease.

What if the table is turned? What if the government agencies became the ranchers? What if local, state or federal governments owned elk or deer ranches? Would they then be as concerned about their own animals infecting wild animals on the outside of their fences? Or would their focus turn to protecting their animals inside the fences?

Oregon is another state where groups are trying to put an end to the elk ranching industry. These groups along with state officials lament over the idea that these ranches, like in Idaho and North Dakota, will spread disease. No cases of chronic wasting disease have been discovered in Oregon or Idaho for that matter, whether on a ranch or in the wild.

So, here we have a state claiming that fencing in elk will cause disease and that it can be spread to animals outside the fences. The thought process behind this is that animals can touch nose to nose through the fence or that in some cases, deer will be able to jump fences and get in.

Yet, in Eastern Oregon, near La Grande, the government runs a substantial elk ranch there. What is there concern? Disease getting in or disease getting out? Perhaps they don’t really have any concern at all about disease.

Thanks to reader Mark, he sent me an article he found in the Express-Times out of Pennsylvania. I chuckled when I read the first two paragraphs.

The elk herd at Trexler Game Preserve will get a higher fence meant to keep out company under a proposal that was expected to gain Lehigh County Commissioners’ approval Wednesday night.

Specifically unwanted are white-tailed deer that can transmit the fatal chronic-wasting disease to elk at the county-owned preserve.

The Trexler Game Preserve is owned and operated by the county. Their concerns are that deer FROM THE OUTSIDE, will jump the fence and get in threatening their herd of elk with chronic wasting and other diseases. How bizarre! Yet intelligent enough to consider protection one’s investment.

Are we to conclude that the government can run disease-free preserves and a private rancher can’t while under the regulations of the same governmental agency?

When I spoke with elk ranchers in Idaho about this same scenario, I discovered that many ranchers were quite concerned about their investment in elk being threatened by disease contracted from outside their fences. As I said before, Idaho has no known cases of CWD in the wild or on ranches. Should CWD show up in wild deer, elk and moose, this certainly will raise the fear factor considerably with the elk ranchers.

At the Trexler Game Preserve in Pennsylvania, officials there are putting funds together to raise the fence around the elk herd to 10 feet at an estimated cost of nearly $50,000. This will prevent the deer from jumping the fence but does very little in terms of keeping the animals from touching through the fence – an event that little is known as to how often if any it actually takes place and how real a threat it is.

So, now I have to wonder. In what direction would officials be focusing their concerns about disease if this involved a private game preserve? Would their concerns be about disease getting out or disease getting in?

Tom Remington

(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