High Fence Hunting On the Ballot

Pages

612 posts / 0 new
Last post
eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

seems like there's a whole lot of non-truths being cast around by this group.  there is no doubt, with a little education, the fine people of ND will see right through this non-sense come nov.

 

sportsman  |'s picture
sportsman |
Offline
Joined: 3/10/09

mauserG33-40 Said:
This will get to be very nasty when the out of state money from animal rights group starts to flow into ND.   

There is already WAY too much out of state crap coming from both sides where this issue is concerned.

It's not that bad.

hunternd's picture
hunternd
Offline
Joined: 5/19/04

Now that this is officially going to be on the ballot - where can concerned sportsmen, property owners, and ag producers go to help defeat this measure??  Is there an organized group opposing it?? 

Heck , I'm even willing to send a few bucks to help buy some thruthful ads about  how destructive this bill is.  It's very clear that the promoters have been less than honest.

As a previous poster mentioned - good timing with fall hunting seasons coming up. Should make for some happy landowners?? 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

 For the most part though, he explained, people are energetically opposed to such operations when they know what’s involved.

“The reaction from the people was very positive,” said Gary Masching, a member of the committee gathering signatures. “People were thanking us for doing this. When we showed them Article 11, Section 27 of the North Dakota Constitution they would look at that and bring more people over to sign. I would say it was running 75-80 percent of people wanted to sign this and get rid of it.”

While the game farms have promoted the initiated measure is a violation of their property rights, Article 11, Section 27 proclaims the right of the public to preserve and manage wild game for the public good. 

gst said.
Now for you supporters of this measure, here in black and white is an example of the disingenuous statements that these sponsors have now admitted to making in gathering signatures. These  "farmed elk" do NOT fall under the scope of Article 11, Section 27 as they are not defined as "wild game"any where in the NDCC. To give the impression they are is if not a direct lie, at the very least a disingenuous statement. The website of this FCgroup makes a specific effort to paint the picture these animals are not "wild game" but completely tame animals(the picture of the little girl feeding an deer an apple) but yet they tell the public they are "wild game. And now a sponsor (Gary Masching, who now admits to stretching the truth as much as some of the other sponsors) admits to telling the public these animals are" wild game" covered under this article. Please give a "rational" "logical" reason why this is not disingenuousl;y promoting their measure.

Sportsman, would you care to address this statement by Gary Masching? Ron, Gordon Kahl ,anyone?????

Timbuk-2's picture
Timbuk-2
Offline
Joined: 9/3/10

To you high fence supporters:  Tell me why every wildlife management agency, every professional wildlife management group, and every reptuable wildlife conservation organization opposes high fence hunting?  This conversation has been dominated by a half dozen people who, while accusing the fair chase people of not being truthful are themselves fountains of half truths, distorted facts,  and outright lies.  The only ones supporting high fence hunts seem to be those involved in the business of selling wildlife, and a few landowner rights extremists.   Personally, I'll take my lead from the NDGF, USFWS, RMEF, and others who hold the welfare of hunting and wildlife as thier first priority .

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

Timbuk-2 Said:

To you high fence supporters:  Tell me why every wildlife management agency, every professional wildlife management group, and every reptuable wildlife conservation organization opposes high fence hunting?  This conversation has been dominated by a half dozen people who, while accusing the fair chase people of not being truthful are themselves fountains of half truths, distorted facts,  and outright lies.  The only ones supporting high fence hunts seem to be those involved in the business of selling wildlife, and a few landowner rights extremists.   Personally, I'll take my lead from the NDGF, USFWS, RMEF, and others who hold the welfare of hunting and wildlife as thier first priority .

I don't think you have any ideal the number of people opposed to this bill.  The overwhelming majority just choose to remain silent about it.  If you remember this has come before the voters a couple times already and was rejected.  So obviously there is a majority against this measure. 

 

Timbuk-2's picture
Timbuk-2
Offline
Joined: 9/3/10

When?

Captain Ahab's picture
Captain Ahab
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/1/08

gst Said:

pber Said:
This just posted on Nodak Outdoors:  http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85231

Fair Chase

Postby RogerK » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:00 pm



Secretary of State approved the Fair Chase Measure today.

13,860 people signed the petition.

13,860 peopla can't be wrong.

Measure 2.

How sweet it is!

Dwight, how do you like me now?

Roger Kaseman

 

 

I don't know if it is just me, but I would prefer someone a little less childish bringing forth the laws that could potentially govern the people of this state.

I read an article in Dakota Country that Roger wrote.  He does seem a little off to be a leader.  I wonder if he thinks he is Toby Keith?

"Diligence is the mother of good luck."

"The constitution only gives people the right to pursue hapiness.  You have to catch it yourself."

"Well done is better than well said."

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

All by:  Benjamin Franklin.

"The solution to any problem - work, love, money, whatever - is to go fishing, and the bigger the problem, the longer the trip should be."

Author: John Gierach

Timbuk-2's picture
Timbuk-2
Offline
Joined: 9/3/10

Hey eyexer:
When has this issue been before the voters?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

i'll disagree w/ you 2 timbuk 2... 95% of the people opposed to this law have absolutely nothing to do w/ HFH and probably wouldn't step foot behind a HF.  they are the same type who would tell you to your face that HFH is not "hunting" and your "trophy" is no trophy in their eyes.  but, they support a person's right to make that choice for themselves and they support a landowner's right to make a few $ off of the slaughter of their livestock if someone is willing to pay them for it.  this law does nothing to ban the raising of these animals and/or any of the issues associated w/ raising them.  the only thing it does is ban the sale of the kill.  which is nothing more than rubbing the stomach of some holier than thou ethical and moral angels in an effort to make them purrrrrr...they can rub their own tummys as far as i am concerned... they won't get any help from me in their attempt to make themselves feel good.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Timbuk 2 If you want to have your comments taken with any degree of credibility, if you acuse someone of  lying or misrepresentinng facts, you had better give specific examples.  A number of others on this site have made that accusation towards me and when asked to provide specific examples of that have not done so. There are still someplaces in this country where if you acuse someone of lying you had damn well better be able to back up your claim or you'll end up on your ass.I guess typing on a computer screen you don't have to worry about that.

Now if you want to address theissue of lying, explain how the animals involved inthe HFH are "wild animals" that are protected by Article 11 Sec. 27, but the animals thatare not raised for hunting purposes apparenty are not?

espringers, it all depends wether the proponents of this measure are successfull in getting these animals reclassified, which must happen for this measure to be effecive. If they are and these "farmed elk"  are reclassified as "big game"as the sponsors want,(if they are not there will be 2 oposing definitions of the same animals in the same Sec. of the NDCC)  they will fail under the Federal Lacey Act which prohbits the sale of big game in accordance with state law. That is why as this is now officially on the ballot, there should be someone giving an explanation of how this measure will be implemented into the NDCC and wether this Federal Lacey Act will be a part of it's implementation. Roger Kaseman himself has suggested it will be the Lacey Act that is ultimately what enforces this measure. And if it is and these animals are classified as "big game" it will not matter for what purpose they are being raised for,the sale of themwillbeprohibited thru this Federal Lacey Act.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Timbuk-2 Said:

To you high fence supporters:  Tell me why every wildlife management agency, every professional wildlife management group, and every reptuable wildlife conservation organization opposes high fence hunting?  This conversation has been dominated by a half dozen people who, while accusing the fair chase people of not being truthful are themselves fountains of half truths, distorted facts,  and outright lies.  The only ones supporting high fence hunts seem to be those involved in the business of selling wildlife, and a few landowner rights extremists.   Personally, I'll take my lead from the NDGF, USFWS, RMEF, and others who hold the welfare of hunting and wildlife as thier first priority .

Because they look at it from a hunting ethics point of view, rather than private landownership rights point of view. And the NDGF, USFWS, RMEF, could definitely not care less about private land rights, so its easy for the those groups to ignore certain rights. Somethings are just bigger than hunting.

Bowhuntin's picture
Bowhuntin
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/17/03

Timbuk-2 Said:

To you high fence supporters:  Tell me why every wildlife management agency, every professional wildlife management group, and every reptuable wildlife conservation organization opposes high fence hunting?  This conversation has been dominated by a half dozen people who, while accusing the fair chase people of not being truthful are themselves fountains of half truths, distorted facts,  and outright lies.  The only ones supporting high fence hunts seem to be those involved in the business of selling wildlife, and a few landowner rights extremists.   Personally, I'll take my lead from the NDGF, USFWS, RMEF, and others who hold the welfare of hunting and wildlife as thier first priority .

So I can read the NDGF policy statement regarding their opposition of HFH exactly where?

I'm damn near embarrassed to say I signed that petition a couple years ago and planned on signing it this time around at one time. Luckily I see it for what it is, or more importantly see those who are pushing it for what they are. I read Kasemans egotistical, ignoramous posts on "the second class outdoor website" and it proved beyond a doubt that he truly is an egotistical individual who wants to push his ideas of right and wrong on everyone else. I'm glad there is a website like that for guys like him, imagine having someone like him on FBO.

I still don't buy into the argument that this is about property rights. It's about someone trying to legislate ethics, and that doesn't work very well. First it will be HF operations, then baiting, then shooting pheasants on the ground, then using trail cameras, and on and on it will go.

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

I'm referring to the past attempts to get enough voters signatures to get it on the ballot.

Timbuk-2 Said:
Hey eyexer:
When has this issue been before the voters?

 

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Ron(Hardwaterman) you have made statments some who oppose the FC Petition are not fully truthfull in thier anwers to questions. You have been asked this several times on Nodak without answering or showing the proof.  Maybe you would be more comforable answering it here on FB.   Fully and truthfull please if possible!!

Ron, here is the wording of the measure as it was on the previous measure:

Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited – Penalty – Exception: "A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.

Here is the wording of the measure as it is on the current measure:

Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited – Penalty – Exception: "A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.

Show me exactly where the wording has been changed and show me where it states that selling it as a hunt is illegal

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85231&start=40

 

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Ron you made the statements now answer!!!   Or are most of your statements this transparent??

 

PikePits's picture
PikePits
Offline
Joined: 10/16/09

The Lacey Act I believe, is a class II felony Dealing with illegally harvested game crossing state lines. While it is a Federal crutch, it carries a bigger bark than it's bite. Like in the movie "The Firm"; Mail fraud carries as much weight as Racketeering.

One step at a time...Be careful.

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

PikePits Said:
The Lacey Act I believe, is a class II felony Dealing with illegally harvested game crossing state lines. While it is a Federal crutch, it carries a bigger bark than it's bite. Like in the movie "The Firm"; Mail fraud carries as much weight as Racketeering.

Although I don't know the law in detail, I'm guessing that would only be a small portion of the law.

 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

The Lacey Act is applicable when, as in this instance, there is a state law dealing with
"big game". This measure, state law, makes it illegal to receive a fee or renumeration for the killing of a big game animal in or released from an manmade enclosure desifgned to prevent escape so the Lacey Act becomes applicable. NO mention of being limited to a "canned hunting" situation. So if these animals are redefined in sec 36.1 as big game instead of domestic animals  or farmed elk how can someone receive a fee or renumeration for the killing of ANY elk rasied in or released from a manmade enclosure designed to prevent escape without being in violation of this law and the subsequent Federal Lacey Act? 

I asked the question how will this measure as written prevent the sale of a live aimal to someone whothen kills "his" live animals he now owns? It was a SPONSOR, Roger Kaseman himself, that has claimed on Nodak Outdoors in response to this question that the Lacey Act will be implemented to carry out enfrocement of this measure. Either he has talked with an attorney to know this and it is indeed the case, or it is just another lie.
sportsman  |'s picture
sportsman |
Offline
Joined: 3/10/09
Re: A high fence initiate sponsor response

on 2010-08-22 14:23:21
mauserG33-40 Said:
Ron the Fair Chase/HSUS petition suporters says this is about the ethics of the HF operators,why should'n the ethics and the intergrity of the sponsors or lack of be questioned??  

  

gst, here is an example of lies coming from your side. It is not listed as a joint petition but because mauser "thinks" it is, he spouts it off as a fact when it is not.

It's not that bad.

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

sportsman | Said:

Re: A high fence initiate sponsor response

on 2010-08-22 14:23:21
mauserG33-40 Said:
Ron the Fair Chase/HSUS petition suporters says this is about the ethics of the HF operators,why should'n the ethics and the intergrity of the sponsors or lack of be questioned??  

  

gst, here is an example of lies coming from your side. It is not listed as a joint petition but because mauser "thinks" it is, he spouts it off as a fact when it is not.

Most could draw thier own conclusion

Time is Running Out!
Please Help Ban Canned Hunts 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

Read the 3rd Paragraff

 

Monday, June 30, 2008

Where's Dave? Director of HSUS NRRO

 
Eastern Montana Habitat for Hounds

Hello my animal artist friends... Where in the world have I been?

Well most my travels have been in Eastern Montana laying the groundwork for an exciting Habitat for Hounds project in August with the Eastern Montana Humane Society in Baker. The EMHS attempted to build a humane society building there last fall but ran out of funding, and energy before the project could be completed. The frame above has been sitting idle for months. My visit is jump starting the event to have a community ole fashioned barn raising in August to finish this building and get it ready to accept animals from around Eastern Montana. This will be the only Humane Society in the entire South Eastern portion of Montana.

There is much planning and networking to be done. The HSUS innovations section is offering a grant to help pay for the concrete work , utilities, extra floor drains for a total cash donation of about 12K. We are asking a state animal welfare group to issue a challenge grant and if they do... we should be locally able to raise the funds needed to give this community a modest but effective humane society. A few days ago the EMHS came to Billings to pick up my emergency animal shelter trailer to set up temporary housing for the animals already in their care. So we really are hoping everything comes together to push this project along the right path.

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. This is where ranchers or elk farmers put animals into small enclosures and those with more money than ethics can pay four or five thousand to shoot the tame elk, deer, zebra or exotic goat when the animal is not wild or cannot escape. We helped pass a ban on this egregious practice in Montana in 2005 and are supporting similar goals in Idaho and Colorado. There is a strong agricultural and personal property rights lobby that is trying to derail the publics opportunity to decide if they want this unethical form of trophy shooting ( note not using hunting) in their state. 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.

Ahhhh but it is also spring...so when I travel my menagerie of orphaned and rehab critter care fall to my lovely bride of 19 years and my two daughters. Here Maggie, my eldest at 16, is helping to care for one of the many raccoons and other critters that pass through the Pauli home. This spring, so far we have handled or rescued, five raccoons, one fox with broken elbow, on Raven, more than Forty entrapped ducks and duckling (most are rescued and released immediately), one nighthawk ( a bird in the Whipper Will family), and a half dozen rattle or other native snakes. As we close in on July...we are hoping things slow down... but the first two weeks with fireworks, activity in the wild...we always see an increase of "orphaned baby everything's"

In my next Blog entry I will tell you about some exciting upcoming projects building fences for Prairie Dogs in South Dakota, Live-trapping Badgers and Wolverines for research projects, and my upcoming trip to D.C. for the Taking Action for Animals conference and to visit the infamous and not approved Pony Penning Days at Chincoteague Island , VA.
 

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

well I guess that pretty much nails down the lid on the coffin of "the HSUS isn't helping gather these signatures or financing this action".LMFAO.  They sure know how to talk out both sides of their azzes. Zero credibility with these guys.

 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

eyexer Said:
well I guess that pretty much nails down the lid on the coffin of "the HSUS isn't helping gather these signatures or financing this action".LMFAO.  They sure know how to talk out both sides of their azzes. Zero credibility with these guys.


   Zero.

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, stated:

“"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States… We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." – Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990.

http://www.maineguides.org/referendum/a ... otes.shtml

I am sure Wayne Pacelle meant every word of his statement

 

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

mauserG33-40 Said:

Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, stated:

“"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States… We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." – Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990.

http://www.maineguides.org/referendum/a ... otes.shtml

I am sure Wayne Pacelle meant every word of his statement

 

Of course he did.  And he's using the pawns in ND to carry out his dirty work unbeknown to them. 

 

mauserG33-40's picture
mauserG33-40
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

eyexer Said:

mauserG33-40 Said:

Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, stated:

“"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States… We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." – Wayne Pacelle, quoted in an interview published in the magazine Full Cry, October 1990.

http://www.maineguides.org/referendum/a ... otes.shtml

I am sure Wayne Pacelle meant every word of his statement

 

Of course he did.  And he's using the pawns in ND to carry out his dirty work unbeknown to them. 

Yes pawns and maybe one big employee

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

you know, the HSUS is a non-profit.  The records are open to the public.  I think somebody should audit them.

 

Bowhuntin's picture
Bowhuntin
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/17/03

I for one hope the HSUS starts campaigning for this initiative. Bring their money and take this over for all I care, it would show everyone what this is really about. Eat the elephant one bite at a time, that's the agenda of the HSUS and Caseman and the rest of those pushing this have fallen into their trap.

Protect hunting for our grandchildren they say. How can they be so naive? If I started an initiated measure thinking it would save hunting, and the HSUS jumped in bed with me I'd take a second look at what I was doing in a hell of a hurry.

Fritz the Cat's picture
Fritz the Cat
Offline
Joined: 5/24/08

 

Measure is a Trojan Horse

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Facts are stubborn things and the fact is that Measure 2 or the captive-hunting initiative is the single greatest threat to property rights in North Dakota today.

If passed, Measure 2 would have far reaching consequences that will extend well beyond shutting down game farms. It would open the door to efforts that would seek to ban trapping, bow hunting and even some types of bird hunting. But beyond just limiting our cherished hunting freedoms, Measure 2 shreds the rights of landowners and has the potential to devastate our state's livestock industry. If that's not enough, Measure 2 is a trial lawyer's dream: it would roll out the welcome mat to out-of-state animal rights groups as they tie up North Dakota in legal knots, litigating case after case in pursuit of imposing their radical agenda upon our state. And if there is one thing we know about animal rights groups, it is that they are never content until they impose their world-view on everyone. Because of this, Measure 2 opens the door to laws that will limit on-the farm slaughter, cripple our state's private meat industry and eliminate diversified livestock operations such as bison and elk farms.

Of course, proponents say that their goal is to simply shut down game farms. To our opponents, we say our farms provide a legal service for countless outdoor enthusiasts. These farms serve a growing demand that pumps hundreds of thousands of dollars into our state's rural economy and farm families have been able to supplement their incomes by operating game farms. And contrary to what the other side may tell you, game farms are not a new phenomenon -- they've been operating in our state for decades as allowed under state law and supervised by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the state Department of Agriculture.

The typical private North Dakota game farm averages between 600 and 1,200 acres. That said, our animals roam freely within the ranch. They are raised in a safe environment that is in accordance with state law. The North Dakota State Board of Animal Health closely -- and sensibly -- regulates the industry, regularly inspecting the farms to ensure animal safety. And while game farms comply with state law they must also comply with the laws of a free market that demand that those who use these ranches are provided a challenging and enjoyable experience. Because of this, ranch operators must offer good terrain, a challenging layout and a balanced animal population. Those who use game farms are provided a quality experience but they are not guaranteed to harvest an animal. In fact, many leave empty handed.

Game farms do not just serve those from urban areas who don't normally have access to hunting land. They also provide opportunities for youth hunters who are just beginning to hunt and opportunities for the elderly and the physically challenged -- including disabled veterans -- that they would not be able to otherwise enjoy.

Measure 2 is a Trojan Horse. It is poorly written and leaves much room for interpretation. Some who are supportive of Measure 2 view it as a stepping-stone to placing more restrictions on hunting and ranching. How do we know this? Because we have seen it in other states where similar laws have been passed. The only certainty with Measure 2 is that it will open the door to more laws that will take away the citizen's freedom to choose where they hunt, the landowner's right to decide how they use their land and the rancher's right to decide what livestock to raise.

Measure 2 may sound good to some, but it is far from good policy. It would create a law in search of a problem that does not exist. It would empower out-of-state animal rights extremists. And it would detrimentally affect our state's way of life.

Protect your property rights. Vote no on Measure 2.

(Shawn Schafer is co-chair of Citizens to Preserve ND Property Rights and president of the North Dakota Deer Ranchers Association.)

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/columnists/article_98c75138-b5e3-11df-b4fb-001cc4c002e0.html?mode=story

Captive hunting is sham hunting

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Many North Dakotans are unaware of the commercial shooting operations across the state, operations that pen deer and elk inside escape-proof pastures for the sole purpose of offering the animals up as targets to rich out-of-state shooters who engage in what can only be called a sham hunt. The out-of-state shooter picks the size of the animal off the Internet before traveling to the operator's pasture where the client shoots the animal. The fee paid is based on antler size. No hunting is involved since the animal is fenced in. These operations are nothing more that shooting galleries with live targets.

North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is a grassroots organization of hunters dedicated to preserving our hunting heritage, a heritage based on the fair chase of free-ranging deer and elk. We oppose the corrupt image of hunting that the atrocious practice of shooting deer and elk inside escape-proof fences presents to the public.

In the wild, we spot, stalk and, with a little luck, take a deer that we are obligated by law to tag.

By law, the shooting gallery operator is obligated to tag his target animals with an ear tag at birth. The hunt is over before the baby deer or elk gets to his feet for the first time.

The practice of shooting deer and elk fenced inside a pasture creates a bankrupt image of hunting and hunters. That image is why members of the Fair Chase committee spent the last year collected signatures for an initiated measure that will outlaw the practice of penning deer and elk and offering them up as targets to rich out of state clients. If we do not end this practice, the high fence or game farm industry will grow into a monster that will bring shame on the citizens of this state. The North Dakota high-fence shooting industry is in its infancy. A look at states with long experience with these operations shows us what we can expect if we do not end this practice.

Artificial insemination. Already happening. At least one North Dakota operator advertises trophy quality bucks, the product of artificial insemination.

Whitetail Deer registry, up and running. The North American Deer Registry records pedigrees used to track antler producing genetics so shooting gallery operators can breed for antler size so they can charge a higher fee for their targets.

Cloning. Texas A & M University has cloned more than 300 whitetail bucks. Cloning allows a client can shoot the same buck several times.

Embryo transplants are coming, not to improve a food product, but to manipulate genetics for larger antlers.

Crossbreeding for larger antlers.

Inbreeding for the same purpose.

Shooting gallery operators manipulate genetics for profit the way a corrupt Wall Street banker manipulates investments; anything goes.

North Dakota high fence, shooting-gallery operators peddle the myth that they offer "wild" deer and elk for their clients' shooting pleasure inside pastures enclosed with an escape proof fence. They claim they do fair chase "hunts" inside their fence. Look at their websites. Read their advertising. They offer a 100 percent guarantee of success. The moment you see a 100 percent guarantee of success on any sort of hunt, you know it's a scam. The fence is the scam.

High-fence operators can't offer fair chase hunts. If the high-fence operator did offer a fair chase hunt, he could not offer a 100 percent guarantee of success. The animal might get way. The high-fence operator would have to deliver on his 100 percent guarantee; no trophy deer, no pay. Zero income will not impress the banker that holds the mortgage on the buck.

The 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal said, "The virtue of hunting is not in possessing game, but in pursing it."

Pascal sums up the difference between a shooting-gallery or high-fence operation and the legitimate fair chase hunting of free ranging deer supported by North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase. The moment you fence a deer or elk behind wire and start to feed it, the animal loses its fear of man and stops being wild. It is the wild in wildlife outside the fence we are trying to protect with an initiated measure.

(Roger Kaseman of Bismarck is the chairman of the sponsoring committee which put Measure 2 or the captive-hunting initiative on the ballot. He is also chairman of North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.)

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
Joined: 2/28/07

Ah, just what ND needs, a judge to determine the fate of hunters in our state. 

 

Pages