“Bastardizing The Hunting Heritage”
April 24, 2008
Roger Kaseman heads up a group of elitist hunters in North Dakota who believe they are the only ones on earth who understand what hunting and hunting heritage is and should be. As such they are attempting to get a citizen’s initiative on this coming November’s ballot that would outlaw preserve hunting.
There have been debates ongoing in North Dakota over this measure and recently Kasemen was quoted in the In-Forum News saying that hunting in any enclosure for any game animal is unethical and is “bastardizing the hunting heritage”.
“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.â€
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
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
Preventing a rancher from harvesting in any way his own private herd of DOMESTIC game animals is part of the plan, it’ll go further to shut his family’s ranch down- which is the point. And it’s a FREE country!
I’m not sure when it happened, but somewhere along the line this particular organization apparently wrote the definition of hunting. Come again? I think that in order for them to not be “bastardizing hunting” they need to be out hunting with rocks. According to their reasoning, if you hunt with a gun now, as opposed to a stick, then you are “bastardizing hunting”
Why must all of these hunting groups and organizations fight amongst themselves. I say if it is legal, and it can be hunted, then I say go ahead and hunt it; no matter what form it is in.
While these guys are wasting their time causing an inner fight amongst the hunters of the state, PETA and other such organizations are just licking their chops at the possibilities.
We need to unite together or none of us will be able to hunt any longer.
Sorry to flood the comments but I spend a moment again at their site as I hadn’t visited in a few months and noticed yet more that is quite disappointing to me as a supporter of NRA and life-long sportswoman. Their supporters page shows four groups, three of which are groups notorious for being “sportsman” organizations that in reality are “conservationist” groups working for “saving wildlife/habitat.” We’re all familiar with RMEF’s reputation as of late are we not? Also they try to disprove claims that they’re falling in line with animal rights activists by stating “look at these pictures of our board, you can see they’re hunters!!!” Well for one there are several photos of the same person, desperation maybe?
Their “newsletter” and most of the rest of the site has been unchanged for months, and statemenst such as “One box of shells to get rid of this blight on hunting.” must leave a nasty taste in the mouths of many on any end of the spectrum.
As Tom has reported and anyone can see they’re doing just as Arthur so intelligently stated, they are “wasting their time causing an inner fight amongst the hunters of the state, PETA and other such organizations are just licking their chops at the possibilities. We need to unite together or none of us will be able to hunt any longer.”
Sportsmen, meat hunters, trophy hunters, outdoorsmen, and everyone could gain a lot and lose much less if there were more folks with sense such as Tom.
Reed - The point you bring up is a legitimate one and one by the way which has been brought to the attention of this group since the beginning of their endeavor.
They insist it is the “legal” terminology that they want and are sticking to it. In that claim, they state that what you are saying is not at all true.
Reed - I’m going to have to go digging again, but I recall somewhere that they believe this somehow exempts bison although I don’t see how. I agree with you as do many other people, pretty much as you describe it and yes, one has to question the intelligence of the ND AG for approving the wording of the initiative.
When such displays of ignorance are exemplified one has to wonder if it is in fact ignorance or orchestrated.
[...] “Bastardizing The Hunting Heritageâ€Roger Kaseman heads up a group of elitist hunters in North Dakota who believe they are the only ones on earth who understand what hunting and hunting heritage is and should be. As such they are attempting to get a citizen’s initiative … [...]
Shooting animals in a pen is NOT hunting.
Legally harvesting animals in any setting is the business of those who pull their trigger, if they choose to take that animal in a controlled setting, over food plots, with scents, with high-powered rifles or a recurve- it’s their deal and they’ll call it what they want regardless of who gets glad or mad. Again, it’s no one’s place but their own to decide for them what they call it or how they do it. Technically to hunt is to persue with intent of capture, yet each person has their own “definition” of what hunting is to them, and it’s their business and choice, thanks to American Freedom and Rights. No one should lose their rights and/or freedoms due to another’s dislike of their business so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others.
Hey Jack what if the pen is 650 acres?
Secondly does it have to equal hunting or else it be banned? Or can it be legal and just call it something else?
These are the barriers I run up against on a personal level. When does hunting become slaughtering? And if it does become slaughtering to we simply recognize that or make it illegal?
The State of ND encouraged property owners to start hunting operations. Now that they have prosperous business and thousands of dollars invested, a radical moves in from California and trys to change ND laws. The US Humane Society is very involved; http://www.hsus.org/legislation laws/bal…rth Dakota This is just the first step, next will be pheasants and buffalo. Do not support the proposed ND ballot measure to eliminate so called “canned hunts”.
What if it’s just a little itty bitty piece of poop? Is it still poop?
If it’s trapped in a pen, it’s trapped in a pen. If it’s trapped in a pen, it’s not hunting. Trapped in a pen is for cheaters and liars. They want to brag about hunting, they want to call themselves hunters, they just don’t want to hunt.
If it’s owned, it’s not wild. If it’s not wild and it’s trapped in a pen, bought and paid for, who could call that hunting? I’ll tell you who. People who are profiting from it and need to justify it, make it pretty and give their clients a good story to tell.
Gee I don’t see where peolple with this industry call their stock “wild.” What’ll be your “poop” when wild stocks are gone due to diseases domestic game species are tested and vaccinated for or wolves eat them all up? And what constitues “cheaters”? Will “cheating” be raising pheasants in pens and releasing the “tame” birds for hunters with you? Cuz that’s next, and fish stocking/ponds, guides, then which form of harvesting animals will go once people such as yourself open that door a little more like you’re doing now? Interesting how you qualify yourself to know what others think, what they want, and why they do things. I wish I had that power. What other freedoms are you hoping are taken away from people? In what other way do you wish to see people’s rights being infringed upon? And most importantly, if you feel you are somehow defending the “hunting heritage,” then tell us what else are you doing to protect hunting? Are you addressing proven & existing threats to hunting rights? Because it seems you’re working to chip away at it starting with this issue…
Once again some “do gooder” working maybe with animal right groups is telling the state of ND how to hunt. God forbid some one makes a profit. Easy to point the finger at other people. Anyone can make a $10 web site and critized others for trying to make a living. Theodore Roosevelt had a great saying “its not the CRITIC who counts but the man in the arena.” What is the plan from the animal rights group divide and conquer! Seems Roger Kaseman took the bait now the real question is did he take any money from HSUSA?????????? Maybe we should practice the old saying NUNYA it is private property the deal is between private citizens therefore it is NUNYA business. Keep hunting the way you want and leave other alone. Or work with the animal rights groups to help close any form of hunting they can. Gullible people. Next Roger will want to bring wolves into the state since he is working with the animal rights side might as ruin the state completely. As a ND resident you don’t speak for me Roger.
Tough issue, I am against high fence hunting!
Tom, good topic. We’ve had this discussion on this blog a couple of months ago and it was just as heated then. An ex-guide (hunting and fishing) felt that his guiding “dudes”, directly to animals that he had studied, scouted and knew their habits was no different than “canned hunting”. He did all the “hunting” for them, all they had to do was pull the trigger and get their picture taken with the animal. This took place in the middle of the Frank Church Wilderness Area in Central Idaho. No fences, no food plots, etc and still he doesn’t think it is “fair chase”. These animals weren’t fenced in but isn’t someone else doing all the work for you and all you have to do is pull the trigger, not really “fair chase hunting”? Hey, Alice, how far down this rabbit hole do you want to go? What’s that cheering in the back ground? Sounds like some pale, undernourished vegetarians having a party, and YOU are their honored guest. You know who “YOU” are.
Tom, if I remember right, you said something to the effect, that you have “still” hunted and not covered more than 100 acres and deer were all around you and because of trees, hills, bushes etc. you didn’t see them, but they were there. You could put a fence around that area still not see these animals. I think this comes down to preference. If you want to hunt in the wilderness area, with no guide and by yourself that’s YOUR preference, if you want to go on a guided trip in the back country, that’s YOUR preference, if you want to hunt 10000 acres of private fenced land that’s YOUR preference, and if you want to go to a ranch and walk out in a field and shoot a bison at 20 yards, that’s YOUR preference.
[...] Dakota who believe they are the only ones on earth who understand what hunting and hunting heritahttp://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/04/24/bastardizing-the-hunting-heritage/SCC rules random sniffer-dog searches are unlawful CTV.caThe Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday [...]
[...] Dakota who believe they are the only ones on earth who understand what hunting and hunting heritahttp://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/04/24/bastardizing-the-hunting-heritage/ND Fair Chase, What Have You Done? - Printable VersionRoger kaseman heads up the North Dakota [...]