Proposed North Dakota Ballot Initiative Would Ban Growing, Hunting Game
Posted by Tom Remington on August 16, 2007
People who seem to believe it is their God-given duty to cram their personal beliefs down the throats of others continues in this country with no end in sight. According to an article in the Bismark Tribune out of North Dakota, the Secretary of State, Al Jaeger, has received a proposed ballot initiative from some unidentified “hunting” group that wants to ban not only hunting on ranches but also to ban the growing of animals, such as deer and elk, on farms.
The ballot initiative will need to be written up with a brief description and then supporters will need to gather 12,844 signatures from registered North Dakota voters.
Roger Kaseman is chairman of the campaign to ban the hunting and ranching. The attorney, Paul Germolus representing the sponsors of the initiative says, the group is doing this because they don’t think hunting on a ranch is ethical.
“The pursuit of captive game animals does not equate to ‘hunting’ in any sense of the word,” Germolus’ letter says. “Rather, it is the mere shooting of killing of animals that lack any means of escape. More aptly described as ‘canned shooting,’ the practice defies long-standing principles of fair chance and ethical hunting.”
And there are probably some other people who feel the same way. I happen to think that the attitude of some lawyers isn’t in the best interest of the American Bar Association but I don’t feel it is my God-given responsibility to ban it. If a person doesn’t think it is ethical to hunt that way, then stay home. Go do your thing. Nothing is being accomplished by stripping Americans of their right to run a business.
But this particular group, like many of the others, goes far beyond anything to do with hunting ethics. They want to ban the ranching itself.
Shawn Schafer, of Turtle Lake, said the measure’s language would even prohibit ranchers from raising big game to be butchered and sold for the meat. Schafer and his brother, Clark, operate the Schafer Whitetail Ranch, and Shawn Schafer is president of the North Dakota Deer Ranchers group.
Game preserves offer ranchers the opportunity to use land that is often marginal for farming or raising traditional livestock, Schafer said. The Schafer ranch raises white-tailed deer, which the Schafers sell to a private hunting preserve in Missouri. The ranch does not offer hunts on the premises.
“This really, really infringes upon the private property rights of producers, the farmers and ranchers of this state,” Schafer said. “We’re able to take that land, fence it in, and offer a service to a customer who apparently must enjoy it. Customer satisfaction will regulate this market better than anything.”
Earlier this year, the North Dakota Legislature defeated a proposed bill that would essentially accomplish the same thing as this ballot initiative is seeking. One of the reasons stems from the fact that the state has actively assisted farmers in their business quests to ranch game. That measure only garnered 3 votes in the Senate. Most Senators understood this is a huge property rights infringement.
People need to speak up. There is no good reason to pass such a proposal. This is simply a matter of a group of people wishing to force their values onto others while disregarding the Constitutional right of a landowner to conduct business on his land. I don’t care if you don’t think hunting in an enclosure is hunting or whether you think it’s canned, unfair, unethical or anything else. Ethics can’t be regulated, although it is people like this group in North Dakota, who think it should be. I hope they are prepared to have others regulate their lifestyles and businesses simply because someone else doesn’t like it.
Hunting on ranches is having zero negative impact on the heritage of hunting. It’s a non-issue. The only affect any of this is having is driving a wedge between sportsmen. This is something more than protecting hunting heritage and the good name of the sport. If it was, groups like this would be spending their time and money on real projects - education, recruitment, retention, public relations campaigns and landowner issues. These are valuable programs. Why worry about whether some rancher in North Dakota is trying to eke out a living by raising a few head of deer or elk.
I have said it a million times and I’m sure I’ll say it a million more. I don’t hunt ranches and have no plans in the future but with people like this who think they are doing good, ranches may be just the only thing left to hunt on. The reason is because many of these same people who want to stick their noses into other people’s business are the same ones who post their own land. They are control freaks who feel it necessary that the world conform to their standards. As this trend continues, it won’t be long before their actions will come back and haunt them. There will be no land left to hunt on and the so-called ethical people of this world will rule.
The good people of North Dakota should speak up now and hopefully this group will never obtain enough signatures to reach the ballot.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
[...] National Hunting News Wolves At WorkCan BTAFE Decide Who Is Bonafide Press?Proposed North Dakota Ballot Initiative Would Ban Growing, Hunting Game [...]
August 17th, 2007 at 8:39 am
So judging by your standards dog fighting should be legalized? Might want to share your insight with Michael Vick.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:30 am
And how do you reach the conclusion that “by my standards” Michael Vick’s dog fighting is the same as ranch hunting?
August 17th, 2007 at 9:35 am
exactly. ranch shooting is NOT hunting…but you already knew that.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Right. By reading the article, I said that if a person doesn’t think hunting on a ranch is hunting, then that is fine and I respect that opinion.
But that has nothing to do with Michael Vick that I can see.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I don’t care if you don’t think hunting in an enclosure is hunting or whether you think it’s canned, unfair, unethical or anything else. Ethics can’t be regulated, although it is people like this group in North Dakota, who think it should be.
______________________________
then why should dog fighting be illegal? they own the dogs and the property.
August 17th, 2007 at 9:51 am
I guess in fairness, I am speaking of HUNTING, the ethics of hunting, not ethics in general. I didn’t think that it necessary to actually list that out specifically considering this is a hunting site and the topic concerns hunting in fenced-in enclosures.
I’m not speaking of all ethics as one can see you open up too many debates to be able to stroke them all together with one sweeping motion.
With that said, you would have to agree that there is a difference between training dogs to fight, often to the death, than whether it’s “fair chase” to hunt on an enclosed ranch.
The result of both acts are quite different.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Tom Remington
Get your facts straight before you load and lock and shoot off your mouth. Measure in no way affects raising elk or deer. Measure aims at hand raised, hand fed trophy elk and deer set up as targets behind escape proof fences for any guys with a fat wallets by 100% guaranteed success shooting preserves, aka, the killing fields. Troy Lee Gentry killing a tame bear named Cubby in a 3 acre enclosure is an example.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
You do realize that all laws are regulation of ethics, right? This argument is flawed in so many ways. Do you believe in laws that ban rape, murder, stealing, etc.? If so, then you believe that ethics can be regulated. If not, how do propose to deal with people who do such things? Should such behavior simply be accepted since those who perpetrate these acts seem to feel justified in doing them?
Sorry if I seem harsh, but stating that ethics can’t be regulated is a very serious statement with far reaching implications.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
This is a hunting blog and therefore I think he is talking about hunting ethics. I’m following and think its quite a valid argument.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
First of all Mr. Kaseman, you want to talk about someone coming off locked and loaded and shooting their mouths off, you should reread the article and then reread what you wrote. I reported on an article in the Bismark Tribune about an issue stated there and in particular that of Mr. Schafer and their interpretation of what they believe the ballot initiative states. If I had a copy of your ballet proposal, then I would have been in a position to make my own judgment as to what I believe it is trying to accomplish. Had I done that, it would have been clear that I was stating my opinion of my interpretation of the initiative. Such is not the case here. If you have a problem with those issues then I suggest you go off on Mr.Schafer and the Bismark Tribune as those statements and positions are theirs not mine. I didn’t manufacture the story in the Bismark Tribune.
If this is the approach you intend to take in promoting your ballot initiative to convince the public your ideals are worthy of legislation, you have a long road ahead of you. A bit more tolerance on your part as well as being a bit more thorough in what you read and how you comment can get you much more. As the saying goes, you can attract far more bees with honey than with water.
As far as Ithaca’s statement pertaining to ethics, if you reread all the other comments you will see that another reader also decided that I must be talking about the ethics of rape, murder, dog fighting and the like. Stick to the topic at hand. Fair chase is some different than rape and murder, wouldn’t you say?
I guess in writing articles that are being read by the public I have to assume that readers can’t follow the discussion that on a hunting blog discussing the issue of hunting in enclosures, and I state that ethics can’t be regulated, it’s a stretch to think I’m talking about all ethics in general and a bit absurd to think such.
I think it is a far cry to compare hunting on a game ranch and the ethics involved with rape and murder and the ethics of such. Please.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
It was from the beginning about hunting ethics. And I brought up the fact that property rights for shooting an elk behind a fence is parallel to Mike Vick killing his fighting dogs. If one should be allowed so should the other.
August 17th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I am not trying to force my views on others I am just stating that it is wrong to kill fenced in animals like deer or elk and nobody can make me believe it is the same as raising cattle. Hunting on ranches in my opinion does make a impact on hunting when it is advertised that you can shoot deer and elk.Saying that you or anyone does not agree with what somebody else is doing is in my mind not sticking noses where they don’t belong it is just voicing your opinion. I am not saying to close the ranches down, all I am saying is that I do not believe in shooting game animals that are fenced in. Everyone has a right to voice there opinion after all this is the United States of America, but it does change things when they try to force their beliefs on others.
If anyone hasn’t figured it out by now I do not believe in what they are doing with deer and elk and Yes I do believe the ranches need to make a living. This is my opinion for what it is worth and I sure don’t have a problem speaking my mind and then sleeping at night.
I will continue to hunt the way I was taught and I will teach my son the same way and that is 100% wild 100% fairchase and that means no fences.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Telling it like it is Rick, and I respect your opinion. You said, “100% wild 100% fairchase”.
By that I assume you mean that you will teach your children what you believe to be 100% and 100% fair chase by your standards within the laws of the land?
August 18th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Laws of the land is the key word there Tom. That is what I believe in. There are boundries in almost anything we do as sportsmen and it is important not to cross them because if we do we would be no better than the people who try to bend and reshape those boundries to suit themselves.
What they do in North Dakota is what they do. I voiced my opinion and some might agree with it and some might not but, at least I know what I believe to be what is right and what is wrong. That is what I try to teach my boys.
August 18th, 2007 at 9:42 am
…. Secretary of State, Al Jaeger, has received a proposed ballot initiative from some unidentified “hunting” group that wants to ban not only hunting on ranches but also to ban the growing of animals, such as deer and elk, on farms.
Your words Mister Remington, not mine, or anyone connected with me or our fledgling organization. Had I read an article that made charges like you quoted above, my first act would have been to find out the truth. I would have talked to the other side before I drew a conclusion.
For your edification and for the edification of your readers, here is verbatim the proposed initiative:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:
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.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act becomes effective on November 1, 2010.
Where do you get a “ban the growing of animals, such as deer and elk, on farms” out of that?
My beef isn’t, and can’t be with the Bismarck Tribune or the reporter that wrote the story. Both are honest and decent. They fairly and accurately reported what our opposition told them. I spoke to the reporter late Wednesday evening, apparently too late to make their deadline so the story is one sided, but I’m sure accurate.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Thank you for posting the proposed initiative. It was Mr. Schafer who stated and I reported from the article that the proposed initiative would ban the farming of elk, deer, etc. Reread the article. Here is what I said of which you left out a few key words, “According to an article in the Bismark Tribune out of North Dakota, the Secretary of State, Al Jaeger, has received a proposed ballot initiative from some unidentified “hunting” group that wants to ban not only hunting on ranches but also to ban the growing of animals, such as deer and elk, on farms.”
The key words here are, “According to an article in the Bismark Tribune”.
Your proposal as I understand it, is a flat outright ban on any and all hunting ranches. I see nothing in it that spells out size or what is defined as, “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.”
Your words - “Measure aims at hand raised, hand fed trophy elk and deer set up as targets behind escape proof fences for any guys with a fat wallets by 100% guaranteed success shooting preserves, aka, the killing fields. Troy Lee Gentry killing a tame bear named Cubby in a 3 acre enclosure is an example.”
That certainly isn’t what I read in the proposed initiative that you posted here today.
Don’t accuse me of reporting information that is not fact. What the Bismark Tribune wrote and I passed on does not somehow make me a liar and them, “honest and decent”.
I think the real backbone of what’s behind your initiative comes from the attitude you exemplify in your original post.
“for any guys with a fat wallets”
You seem to have a problem with people willing to pay money for something you don’t approve of.
If you are so dead set against North Dakota having high-fence hunting, then you should be honest with the people and explain the real reasons for such and share science and any other reasonable facts to support your initiative other than you don’t like it.
But the first thing you need to do is come clean and tell readers here that your original statement that the initiative was to stop things like “Troy Lee Gentry shooting a tame bear named Cubby in a 3 acre enclosure.”
If that is the truth, then you need to rewrite the proposed ballot initiative. Being that you are spreading that misrepresentation here, I can only assume that this will also be your tactic when it comes to convincing the North Dakota public to vote for your intiative.
This is the same tactics used by groups such as the Humane Society of the United States and PETA, among others.
Are we to assume that you have no real grounds to base your initiative on other than you don’t like it, so your are appealing to the public through emotions and deception?
If this is the entire ballot initiative and not just a summation, then I concur that I read nothing here that would ban farming elk and deer.
I will contact Mr. Schafer and ask him where he got his information from.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:42 am
So you don’t think hunting ethics can be regulated? Do you disagree with hunting regulations? All hunting regulations are legislation of ethics. Hunting season are regulation of ethics, as are bag limits. They are legislation of the notion that is unethical to over-hunt animal populations. There are restrictions on caliber used for deer hunting because it is generally believed to be unethical to use inadequate force to take game as this could cause escessive suffering.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
So once again we appear to have a bunch of uneducated, untrained, self proclaimed experts on game farming and their practices…..The reality, is is that most of these individuals have most likely not even stepped foot onto a real live game farm. Our elk are worked, vaccinated and tagged in chutes used for cattle and other livestock.
If yoiu even knew the first thing about herd management or domestic elk you would know that the #1 rule is to never tame down male elk. When they mature and their hormones take effect they can and will kill you. This is just responsible herd management, common sense.
In addition, I do not hunt nor do I think I could ever kill an animal for sport, however I am in NO position to tell you what 100% HUNTING is. I ask all of you 100% fair chase hunters? I bet you don’t wear any camoflauge when hunting because it would be unethical to “trick” those poor wild elk into approaching you and standing in front of your weapon, right? And you wouldn’t want to dare step foot up in a blind, cause that wouldn’t be REAL 100% fair chase hunting would it? Or even worse, what if you used an artificial scent to attract these poor helpless creatures? Boy, I am glad you don’t use any of those practices, because according to your self proclaimed standards, you would be doing just about the same thing as those darm enclosure hunters, now wouldn’t you?
For the gentleman responsible for the ND initiative, get a life , get a real cause. If you didn’t learn anything from Idaho last year, Ill send you some transcripts. Your argument is weak, and you do not realize the can of worms you will open if you pursue such an initiative. Do NOT coming crying to others around you when these same groups which are promoting this initiative, turn on you and then infringe upon your hunting rights.
The ND elk and deer growers will align with their friends in surrounding states, and you will be dealing with all of us, not just a few in ND. You might want to tend to your own garden before entering the yards of others.
Knowledge is Power, Educate yourself before speaking.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
My analogy in regards to the above referenced 100% hunting, is only to show you all how ridiculous this argument is. I don’t care if people use scents, etc. It’s just the point that who’s to say one type of hunting is ok, but another is not? I do not hunt, but I refuse to take the socialist approach in regards to this issue and inflict my personal preferences/opinions onto others.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
So, Ithaca - I find it really a distraction to sit here and discuss the semantics of ethics. In many of my previous writings I have discussed at length the reasons why hunting, as this is a hunting website, is regulated. One is the consideration of public safety and two, are rules necessary for the good scientific management of game.
Nearly the entire argument forged by those opposed to hunting in enclosures has to do with the ethics of fair chase. You tell me how simple it is to regulate the ethics of fair chase.
Now, if you want to spend your time here splitting hairs as it pertains to ethics and the definition of the word, etc. go right ahead. This has nothing really to do with an important issue such as this.
I find it interesting coming from a self-proclaimed libertarian, that you stand up in support of those who want to regulate your world when it comes to hunting in enclosed ranches, yet you have no room for concessions when it comes to Second Amendment.
Fair chase is a self perceived act of hunting. If as might be Mr. Kaseman’s case, he has issues with small enclosures, tying animals up before shooting them, or drugging, etc. then setting up some guidelines, which seems to be a more socially acceptable way of dealing with such issues rather than taking the all or nothing approach with little consideration for property rights and the ability of some people to make a living.
Perhaps making a statement that ethics shouldn’t be regulated is too broad for some who read here. Even if I made the statement that hunting ethics shouldn’t be regulated, there would be those like yourself who would want to argue the definitions of ethics and point out that essentially every law man has ever made is a regulation of ethics.
I’ll curb back my broad sweeping statements about ethics and make them precisely focused and you can either find something else to do or join in the discussion from a practical perspective. (By the way, that was meant more in jest than anything)
August 18th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
opinions very !
August 18th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I don’t know how anyone can say we are a bunch of uneducated, untrained self proclaimed experts. I never claimed to be an expert and for someone to assume I am is out of line.
This conversation/debate is not worth wasting my time with.
August 18th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
You’re exactly right Rick, and the rest of the citizens of ND will feel the same way that this whole “debate” is a HUGE waste of everyone’s time, and money.
August 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
If this issue is such a waste of time and money, explain the vote in Montana. (The people passed, and the state supreme court upheld the carbon copy of the law we are trying to pass.)
August 18th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Kristy makes an excellent point about the likes of the Humane Society of the United States coming after other types of hunting if the N.D. measure is passed. Certainly it isn’t ethical to use a primitive weapon like a bow or muzzleloader to attempt to kill a large animal like a deer or elk. Right? It certainly isn’t ethical to shoot a cow elk or doe deer because that animal might be carrying a fetus, and by killing the female, you are also killing its offspring. Right? It isn’t ethical to call ducks to a pond where they feed and sleep and then shoot them. Right?
Once you claim that fenced hunting is unethical (by your standards) and you want to end the practice, someone else is perfectly within their right to target your sport using the same justification. Ethics in hunting is a delicate subject. When so-called hunters get behind a single issue to restrict someone else from exercising their right and privalege to hunt what they want and how they want, the sport of hunting could tumble like a house of cards. Real hunters who support the proposed N.D. initiative are falling prey to the HSUS goal of “divide and conquer.” Animal-rights activists are targeting hunters now and regular cattle ranchers later. They have a treasure chest of more than $200 million. Like Islamic terrorists, activists are very patient and are willing to take small, incremental steps over many decades to achieve their goals.
I hope voters in N.D. realize if they support the ending of fenced hunting they are also supporting the slow, eventual death of hunting too.
August 18th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
“This has nothing really to do with an important issue such as this.”
Ethics has everything to with it. That is the core of the argument on either side. But, we can ignore that and focus on bashing animal rights activists if you would prefer(which is a fruitless waste of time and frankly stoops to their level). This discussion has NOTHING to do with property rights. The question is not whether or not you can have fences or if you can have animals in fences, the question is: “Is it ethical to take game outside of a fairchase setting without the same oversight and regulation present in the slaughter house industry?” These people are raising animals for slaughter. There is a difference between hunting and slaughtering.
Furthermore, I did not say in any of my posts that fenced hunting needs regulation. I don’t see anything wrong with sending a bill to the people to decide. That is what democracy is all about.
Food for thought:
“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. ”
-Ben Franklin
Don’t like the direction the country is going in, do something about it. Why aren’t people proposing a bill to counter this one? And if all else fails and you see these types of actions as an erosion of the fundamental rights of the people and a n abuse of governmental power, than do as the lamb and forge an new path the country.
“yet you have no room for concessions when it comes to Second Amendment.”
Not only is the second amendment a protected CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT it is also my god given right. Show me where hunting in any form, particularly with fences (since it pertains to the present discussion) appears in the constitution.
You state that high fence operations do nothign to hurt hunting. These facilities cater to individuals looking harvest “a trophy”. Trophy hunting is precisely what the HSUS and others get pissed off about. These operations serve only to make hunters look like individuals bent on killing animals and not outdoors people who value and respect nature. However, the mere existence of these operations is testament to the fact that there are plenty of hunters out there whose focus is only on killing “a trophy” and nothing else.
August 19th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Ithaca37:
With all due respect, your argument is very weak. This has everything to do with property rights. The elk and deer in question to not belong to the citizens of North Dakota; these are the private property of ranchers. These animals are raised eventually to be harvested. How a rancher chooses to harvest his own livestock is his business. Whether you like it or not, these animals are not being raised to be released to the wild like some modern “Born Free” movie. An elk rancher harvests his elk behind a fence with no chance of escape. If you oppose fenced hunting, then you obviously oppose the fenced harvesting of elk too because the end result is the same. Right?
Since you brought up the idea of slaughter houses, imagine how ridiculous it would be for a group of people to approach the industry and demand the cattle no longer be killed. Instead these fanatics would demand that cattle be allowed to die of natural causes before being processed because that is more “ethical.”
Go out and look at HSUS’ website. They are targeting farming and ranching too, not just hunting or “canned hunting.” They make demands for larger cages for farm-raised animals like chickens, pigs, and cows. They advocate for humane eating to “help animals at every meal.”
Ithaca37 if your are successful at ending the fenced hunting of elk and deer in N.D., you can expect HSUS to look at other forms of hunting in the state and later come after farming and ranching methods. Those who raise livestock will have you to thank for helping further the HSUS agenda under the guise of “ethics.”
August 19th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Ithaca - I have read your arguments for months about Second Amendment. You have zero tolerance for anyone who would do as you suggest “Don’t like the direction the country is going in, do something about it. Why aren’t people proposing a bill to counter this one? And if all else fails and you see these types of actions as an erosion of the fundamental rights of the people and a n abuse of governmental power, than do as the lamb and forge an new path the country.”
There are bill after bill brought before this country to control the ethics of gun ownership, as you would prefer to call it, and you crucify, verbally, anyone who would consider downing such a thing. Yet when some of us want to defend the rights and privileges we have to defend property rights and the right to prosper, you dare say we aren’t doing it correctly.
I would assume from your advice that the way to counter the acts of those wishing to force their ideals down our throats is to not do anything except propose a bill to counter theirs? That is childish and naive.
The good people of North Dakota who have forged forward to make a living out of raising elk and deer as a means of providing for themselves and their families are now wrong to step forward and lash out against those who want to snatch that away from them simply because they don’t consider it fair chase?
You have a lot to learn in life if you cannot see that this issue drives at the very heart of property rights.
August 19th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Erik, you can’t have it both ways.
You write that “these animals are raised eventually to be harvested.” That’s a 100% guarantee of death at the hands of a so called “Hunter.” Ask any Fair Chase hunter if nature guarantees him a trophy. Ask any hunter that hires a guide to pack him into the Rockies if that guide will guarantee, not just an elk, but a trophy elk, or the guide will refund the hunter’s money back. Both the guide and hunter will laugh you out of the room and maybe even out of the state. Failure is very much a part of Fair Chase. If you have no chance of failure, it’s not a hunt, it’s a slaughter.
You can’t win by arguing that, “How a rancher chooses to harvest his own livestock is his business.” If you shift your argument strictly to slaughter, all sorts of Department of Agriculture rules kick in. The Department of Agriculture regulates the slaughter of livestock. Shooting a cow in a pasture is not in their rule book. It’s unacceptable.
And for those of you having trouble defining Fair Chase, it’s simple. The animal has the opportunity and means to escape. The far end of a fenced pasture doesn’t count as escape; the next township, the next county, or even the next state, is the only thing that counts.
The slip in ethics to the point where people, supposed hunters, can’t tell the difference between Fair Chase and fenced, between ethical and unethical, is indicative of scandals like Enron and a other scandals like it. Pick your favorite. There are enough to go around. They all started with an ethical choice and deteriorated from there.
August 19th, 2007 at 11:43 am
[...] Comments Roger Kaseman: Erik, you can’t have it both ways. YouTom Remington: Ithaca - I have read your argumentsErik: Ithaca37: With all due respect, your [...]
August 20th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Roger gets it.
I didn’t say proposing a bill was the only way to counter such a proposal. Protest, (sort of what you are doing here) is a perfectly good means by which change can be enacted and often times a very successful one. But in order to protest something, you have to offer facts to demonstrate why someone should listen to you instead of the people you are protesting against. Here, no offense, you nothing solid to back up your claim. Declaring “property rights” isn’t good enough to convince people to not support this measure.
However, on the subject of the second amendment I can provide court rulings, statistical evidence, etc. to support my claim as well as principle. Furthermore, the Second amendment is a constitutional right that clearly excludes infringement. If people don’t like the 2A then they need to contact their senators and have them AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. As I stated before, hunting is NOT a constitutional right and therefore is open to regulation without the extreme of amending the constitution. You are comparing apples to oranges and that is a sign of a weak argument.
These operations are raising animals for slaughter and are doing so without the oversights of the Dept. of Agriculture. Which, as Roger pointed out totally kills most of the arguments made on here.
I know all of this is in the spirit of discussion, but I will point out that in a debate character attacks such as those conducted on me (BTW no hard feelings or anything) are usually resorted to when one’s own argument has no foundation to stand on. This has nothing to do with me or the Second Amendment and has everything to with ethics and whether or not these operations are raising animals for slaughter without the necessary Dept. of agriculture oversight.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:48 am
[...] nasty and heated debate has already begun in North Dakota over a proposed ballot initiative that is intended to put an end to high-fence hunting. The Attorney Generals office has yet to come [...]
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
[...] to get a citizen’s initiative on this November’s ballot that they say is aimed to stop hunting behind fences. There has already been ample debate about the intent of the bill as sponsors are saying their [...]
August 27th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Roger:
You’re pretty loose with my words. It’s interesting how you interpreted my statement “these animals are raised eventually to be harvested.” What I meant is this animals are livestock, eventually to be slaughtered by a rancher. So, you may save these animals from being “hunted” but you won’t save them from being harvested. You remind me of an animal-rights activist that releases all animals from a mink farm only to have the animals die of starvation or freeze to death in the wild.
You are also playing it pretty loose with the facts when you compared an elk farm (for example) to a commercial cattle operation. You said “Shooting a cow in a pasture is not in their (the Department of Agriculture’s) rule book. It’s unacceptable.” So, now even an elk rancher can’t harvest his own animals in his pasture???
Regarding your definition of fair chase. You certainly must be against Fish and Game stocking ponds with game fish, right. There is no opportunity for escape there either.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Erik:
Nothing loose about my words, but plenty loose in your logic.
I want to dispel any notion that I’m against slaughtering any animal that tastes good. In a few days I will place in my freezer a steer raised for the purpose of satisfying my lust for grilled steaks, hamburgers and barbequed ribs.
Check my freezer right now and you’ll find venison and moose that I personally killed, gutted, boned and wrapped. I prefer venison to beef and young moose to venison, and elk above all.
I’ll admit that I am a bleeding heart; bled with a shot to the heart from my .270. One moose and four deer bled this way last year. I have tags to bleed 5 deer this year.
Fish and Game stocking ponds with game fish with no opportunity for escape? I’m sure people that support your argument are shaking their heads over that non-sequitur. (CLUE: Fish can’t escape the ocean either.)
An elk rancher can harvest his own animals in his pasture any way he sees fit. When our initiative passes, that same rancher can still harvest his elk any way he sees fit; he just can’t take money for the act from a so called “hunter” and call it a “hunt”. Killing an animal behind a fence the animal can’t escape and killing that animal for pay demeans and prostitutes hunting, a sport I’m passionate about, a sport I want to pass on to my grandchildren wild and natural, not something canned and packaged and supplement fed.
Roger Kaseman
September 1st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
[...] escape-proof fences”. If you would like to catch up on previous articles, you can find them here, here, here and [...]
November 26th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
[...] Tom Remington A nasty and heated debate has already begun in North Dakota over a proposed ballot initiative that is intended to put an end to high-fence hunting. The Attorney Generals office has yet to come [...]
December 1st, 2007 at 11:13 am
[...] Tom Remington A nasty and heated debate has already begun in North Dakota over a proposed ballot initiative that is intended to put an end to high-fence hunting. The Attorney Generals office has yet to come [...]
December 1st, 2007 at 2:45 pm
[...] Tom Remington A nasty and heated debate has already begun in North Dakota over a proposed ballot initiative that is intended to put an end to high-fence hunting. The Attorney Generals office has yet to come [...]
December 20th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
[...] escape-proof fences”. If you would like to catch up on previous articles, you can find them here, here, here and [...]
December 27th, 2007 at 5:00 pm