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.”

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

canned hunting, high fence hunting, hunting in enclosures, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, preserve hunting, Roger Kaseman

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

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

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

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

Bismark Tribune, canned hunting, fair chase, high fence hunting, Humane Society of the United States, hunting ethics, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, people for the ethical treatment of animals, property rights, Roger Kaseman, wayne pacelle

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Below you will find a recent article written by Jim Beers. You’ll also find a short bio about Mr. Beers. His article helps readers to begin making a connection between the efforts of those manipulating the Endangered Species Act for personal agendas and those wanting to strip Americans of the Second Amendment rights.

I will also include two other parts along with Jim Beers’ article and bio. One is a bit of an introduction to his article and the last will be a response by someone who has read Beers’ piece.

This information raises some interesting questions about the connections of people once in high places moving to other organizations and landing in high places. You can draw your own conclusions.

First will be Beers’ bio, followed by his introduction, the article and then a response to that article.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.

Folks,

This is a copy of something I just sent to Charles Kay, a great biologist and friend. Since I just remembered that Charles is probably in Africa, I thought I would send this around.

Remember that the Director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service under Clinton oversaw the theft of $45 to 60 Million from the hunting and fishing excise taxes. Those funds that were intended by law FOR STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS were NEVER REPLACED AND OUR STATE AGENCIES NEVER REQUESTED THAT THEY BE REPLACED (don’t want to offend the boys and girls passing out all those federal grants). The stolen funds were used to pay for the capture, transportation, conditioning, and release of WOLVES IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK to ‘seed’ wolves in the Upper Rockies. That Director established The Defenders of Wildlife as the erstwhile federal “partner” responsible for “paying” for wolf depredations. This was and is merely a smokescreen to fend off complaints of the harm of wolves, only a small amount of livestock loss was ever remunerated and dogs and game herds and other losses were simply unavoidable casualties of this “war”. That ex-FWS Director went to work in a top job with The Defenders of Wildlife as soon as the law permitted (The National Wildlife Federation payed her a big salary while she had to cool her heels after resigning when the Republicans won the Presidential election). As you read the e-mails below, remember she still directs this wolf business for The “Defenders”, lobbies her former associates in FWS, and, I would guess, is a player in the upcoming election where if she is lucky (and we are not) she will be reincarnated in some other position in a “high place”.

Hopefully you may find this worthwhile. FYI

Jim Beers

Subject: Re: Wolves and The 2nd Amendment

Charles,

I believe the entire predator “push” from grizzly increases in range and numbers; to limiting methods of take of cougars (dogs, on-sight as depredating, seasons); to federal requirements (in the works as grant requirements) to make cougars invading places like Iowa, Kansas, etc. Protected Native Species and not classified as unprotected so that any take is difficult; to keeping black bears on the Threatened List in LA and FL (and adding other states opportunistically) and claiming large tracts of Florida as “Florida Panther” Critical Habitat — all are seriously jeopardizing the future of our 2nd Amendment Rights. Not only will game numbers (and hence seasons and harvest and license revenue and ancillary expenditures) decrease: areas open to hunting will decrease and hunter participation will necessarily decrease. Then there is the SAFETY EFFECT. Hunters that leave a kill to get equipment to haul it out or to get help will increasingly return to a predator on the kill. Hunters using bows for big game or turkey hunters or predator callers, all sit still and watch INTO the wind. There will be more run-ins with un-harassed grizzlies and cougars and black bears as food dwindles or as rabies or other disease outbreaks ravage the increasing predator population. What hunter will dare to sit and call after hearing how some guy was attacked FROM BEHIND by a grizzly or jumped by a wolf (a wolf once jumped a Russian lumberjack from behind WHILE HE WAS RUNNING THE CHAINSAW!)? What parent will let their kid go our after school to hunt alone after reading these accounts of attacks?

All of this will shrink the number of hunters and urban hunters especially. While the rural residents (both hunters and non-hunters) will increasingly want, need, and use guns - the anti-gunners will have a big leg-up as fewer and fewer urban folks hunt and become less vociferous in challenging the take-away activities of anti-gunners and urban mayors. Bottom line is a shrinking contingent of gun users and gun defenders with a concomitant increase in the need for guns in a shrinking rural American population that is more and more subject to the imaginary whims of urban voting blocs. Result? More rural residents from families and retirees to resource-dependent businesses and other entrepreneurs leaving rural environs. As an old bureaucrat it looks good for federal growth and bureaucrats that will have less opposition to buying more and more of rural America for everything from re-establishing Native Pre-Columbian Ecosystems to establishing “Corridors” and “Roadless” “Wildernesses” as more rural areas are evacuated. The only “winners” will be bureaucrats, politicians, and the modern rich land-buying aristocrats.
The environmentalists and the animal rights radicals never “win” because they will never be “happy” until they are the only ones left and that will never happen. I am reminded of that great line by Eli Wallach as the Mexican bandit chief in The Magnificent Seven. As Yul Brynner invites Wallach to move on and leave the villagers alone, Wallach snarls “If God did not want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep!”. For too long we have been sheep.

Jim Beers

Subject: Wolfs and The 2nd Amendment

Hi Guys,

A friend forwarded me you URL today. My name is xxx I live in Powell, WY. Like you over there, our elk herds are rapidly disappearing. I am working on a freelance article commissioned by Predator Magazine. The subject of the article is the politics of wolf reintroduction. In particular, the connection between Defenders of Wildlife and Handgun Control, Inc, now known as the Brady Campaign.

As you likely know, Defenders is one of the main players in this ongoing circus. They have funded most of the court cases that have kept and will keep wolves listed for the foreseeable future. in 2004 they won two key decisions, one in Federal District Court in Oregon, one in Vermont. Basically these two judges found that so long as there are no wolves in Oregon/Washington, they are still endangered in our area. These decisions were based on the way the US F&W drew the wold management boundaries, and the way that the Endangered Species Act spells out management requirements. On the 28th of this month, the US Fish & Wildlife Service will “delist” wolves. The day after that, DoW et al, will file a motion for injunction which will likely be granted. In order for delisting to proceed, the wildlife management groups in ID, MT, and WY fish &game will have to appeal theses precedents in Federal Appellate court. If they are successful there, DoW will appeal that decision. According to my sources inside the WY F&G they expect that will take 2-3 years. By then the damage will be done. Unless the states can have the original decisions overturned in Appellate court, wolves will remain protected far into the future. As you know, we are already standing on the brink of “too late”.

Wolves cannot be reintroduced in eastern Washington, because DoW was able to have the Mountain Caribou in that area listed as endangered. So, wolves cannot be reintroduced there until the caribou populations have recovered. That will never happen because caribou don’t want to be there in the first place.

So here’s the Catch. The way that U&S F&G has drawn their boundaries between elk species, if DoW can manage to get the Rocky Mountain subspecies listed as only “threatened”, they can stop sport hunting of that subspecies throughout its entire range!!

What better way to cut the financial legs out from under both the NRA and State fish and game organizations.

The connection between wolves and anti-gun groups comes in the form of one Charles J. Orasin. For more than 15 years he was the rabid VP of Operations for Handgun Control, Inc. IN a flurry of Congressional hearings regarding shady fund raising practices in 2000, he disappeared from HCI and reappeared at Defenders of Wildlife as their VP of Operations. Should we believe that he just abandoned his life’s work to kill the 2nd Amendment to go save wolves and sea turtles?

If you look at the string of Federal Court rulings they won after he got to DoW you see and alarming pattern. Did you know that 10-12 years before the wolf planting recovery programs were started, elk were transplanted into areas that exactly match the original wolf reintroduction proposals? Never make the mistake of thinking that reintroduction of wolves has anything to do with “balancing” the ecosystem. For 6 years, the US Fish & Wildlife Service fought Wyoming’s management plan tooth and nail. Seemingly over night, they reversed their position. Why?

In 2003, I read an article that said the National Park Service was considering a study on the impact of wolves on ungulate populations. When you call and ask them about it now, you get a lot of er….uh….well… we ..ah.. never did the study….”Why not?” er …uh…well… we don’t see an impact high enough to warrant spending the money on it. Yet, The studies in Wyoming and Idaho tell a different story altogether. I believe it is the alarming results of state studies that flipped the US F&G literally over night.

The 2007 study done by the WY G&F shows that 4 of Wyoming elk hers are close to calf survival rates that will not support its population WITHOUT growing predation from wolves/grizzlies/lions.

Predator Magazine is the only publication that has the hair to have a go at putting out the news that the Endangered Species Act is being manipulated by DoW and their ilk, not to save species, but to do away with the 2nd Amendment. Most folks think I’m just a crackpot, conspiracy nut. But, WHY did MR. Gun Control go to work for DoW? Why did their strategy change so suddenly upon his arrival. I can find but one answer. I sent your URL to Ralph Lemeyer at Predator Magazine. He was asking me to find some wolf kill photos for the article. I think you guys have that covered! I hope we can get together sometime to compare notes.

Best Regards, and keep Hammerin ‘em!

Posted by Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

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

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

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

chronic wasting disease, domestic elk, elk ranching, express times, fascism, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Elk Breeders Association, north dakota elk industry, Oregon elk ranching, trexler game preserve

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

On today’s Open Air with Tom Remington broadcast on Skinny Moose Radio I talk in detail about what I believed to be the top ten stories that most affected our hunting, fishing and outdoor lives. These stories may not have been the most written or talked about but they deal with issues that I think has or has the potential to have the most effect on our lives. I thought I would list out the top ten with a brief comment.

10. Pennsylvania Deer Management Problems - There are nearly one million licensed hunters in Pennsylvania and that is reason enough to list this issue as one that has broad consequences. If you will recall, Pennsylvania decided a few years ago to change the whitetail deer management program in order to reduce the deer herd to save the ecosystem and restore the forests. Not all hunters have liked the idea - enough so that one organization sued the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The debate rages on and the success or failure of this deer management plan could have sweeping affects on many other states that are watching.

9. Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease - EHD or blue tongue is a virus carried by small biting insects that can kill deer, sometimes in large numbers. This year’s outbreak was larger than normal and hit states in northern climes not accustomed to the disease. Thousands of deer nationwide were wiped out covering more than a dozen states. Drought and dry conditions were blamed for the increase. In some locales, dead and decaying deer carcasses were feared to be contaminating water supplies.

8. Increased Bear Attacks in the West and Bear Spray - A prolonged and severe drought and hot temperatures resulted in a substantial reduction in natural food supplies for black and brown bears. The result was more human/bear conflicts. Of course this had to become a political issue when groups tried to blame elk ranchers for causing the increased bear encounters because of improperly caring for their animals. In one instance, the USFWS was considering a suit against a photographer who regularly feeds wildlife in order to get pictures.

To go along with this increased activity, officials in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming began telling people that using bear spray was a more effective way of dealing with attacking bears than a gun. This set off a controversy particularly among hunters who vowed they would not put down their gun and pick up a can of spray should they be attacked by a bear.

Vic Workman, a member of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, made enemies within his ranks when he went public after being attacked by a grizzly saying that if he had tried to put his gun down and take out his spray, he more than likely would be dead.

7. Wolf Delisting - The announcement by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it plans to remove federal protection of the gray wolf via the Endangered Species Act, will have broad consequences on millions of people. Most people believe that when the feds make the official announcement, animal rights groups, environmentalists and anti-hunting groups will file lawsuits tying the process up for years. It has been reported that as many as 27 groups are already prepared to bring suit against the USFWS.

However the outcome falls, this entire process will end up costing taxpayers millions, maybe billions of dollars, in fighting lawsuits and implementing management plans that will continue to include some kind of private property compensation to ranchers and livestock owners. This process will continue to test the structure and viability of the Endangered Species Act as it becomes clearer that the Act needs help. It is being abused and manipulated in order to achieve personal agendas.

6. Sunday Hunting - A topic that just will never go away, has worked to divide the people. It has been shown in debates recently over Sunday Hunting in North Carolina that it is a divisive issue for various reasons. From religious convictions to the demands for equality under the law, hunters and non-hunters aggressively continue this debate and it isn’t going to end.

Pennsylvania is once again attempting to get a bill passed in the Legislature that would give the Game Commission the authority to permit Sunday hunting. Once again that debate is dividing the people of the Keystone state.

It’s an interesting debate that affects a lot of people but in a strange way. There are only 11 states that don’t allow Sunday hunting. In the other states that do allow it, there is no debate to end it nor are there any significant outcries about Sunday hunting. As a matter of fact, Sunday hunting goes about its business quite nicely with very little fanfare, yet in these states that don’t allow it, the outcry is very loud on both sides.

This is sure to continue to be an issue that affects many people.

5. New Jersey Bear Hunt - Probably until New Jersey ever sees fit to elect an new governor who is not dead set against hunting, there will not be any bear hunting the the Garden State. Corzine and his puppets have successfully managed to convince enough people not directly effected by the overgrown black bear population to support his anti-hunting agenda.

Shortly after Corzine took office, his newly appointed head of the Department of Environmental Protection, Liza Jackson, took the court-approved Black Bear Management Plan and tossed it in the garbage. Corzine having the backing of the courts managed to get rulings in his favor and instead of a hunt that would generate revenue for New Jersey, they opted for millions more in tax dollars in order to continue wasting it on non-lethal bear management practices that don’t work.

The antis have a very strong foothold in the state of New Jersey. I’m sure they will continue their “end all hunting” campaign there and try to put an end to other species of hunting.

4. Supreme Court To Hear District of Columbia vs. Heller - In a move that is sure to have perhaps the most affect on the citizenry of this country in decades, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear the appealed case of District of Columbia versus Heller, more commonly known as the Washington, D.C. gun ban case.

Earlier last year a District Court ruled that Washington, D.C.’s ban on guns was unconstitutional, setting the stage for a debate within the land’s highest court. How the court will rule remains only speculative but it is believed they will take up the case in the spring or early summer.

This ruling will, one way or another, effect every person living or visiting within the boundaries of this nation. The ruling should come right smack dab in the middle of the presidential race for the White House and could actually determine who becomes the next president.

Yes, this is big - bigger than most people are thinking.

3. Scent Lok Clothing Lawsuit - A class action lawsuit was filed this year against the makers of Scent-Lok clothing charging that the company knew the product didn’t work and continued its advertising campaign claiming it as being 100% effective. The suit also claims that Scent-Lok conspired with major companies that sell the products to cover up their knowledge about the failures of the product in order to deceive consumers.

This lawsuit will be tied up in the courts for sometime and could lay the ground work for how other companies will be allowed to advertise their products.

2. Jim Zumbo - The Jim Zumbo fiasco showed us several things, two of which I would like to touch on. The first is that it showed all of us the speed and power of the Internet. A tool that Jim used to communicate to his readers was also the razor-sharp weapon that pierced his femoral artery causing near instant death of a career.

Zumbo posted a blog condemning the use of “military-style” weapons for hunting and within hours he was crucified. Outdoor Life refused to stand behind him as was followed by his sponsors and other companies. The actions by those using the Internet to condemn Zumbo’s words were quick and powerful.

The second issue that surfaced from this debate was one that addressed freedom of speech. Many were outraged because Zumbo spoke his mind and was fired because of it failing to comprehend that his responsibility was to those who signed his check.

The bottom line here was that within a flash, millions of Americans were wrapped up in a debate over Second and First Amendment issues.

1. Rex Rammell and the Chief Joseph Elk Ranch - Clearly for me, this was the most written about issue for 2007 and one that I feel mushroomed into a cloud much bigger than a few escaped elk. What began as elk getting out of the confines of an elk ranch in southeastern Idaho has not found an ending yet.

What many of us thought was a simple event of a rancher needing to go find his livestock turned out to be a political and social quagmire. Politics got ugly when then Gov. Jim Risch ordered his people to go to the areas around the Chief Joseph Ranch and shoot to kill any elk that belonged to owner, veterinarian Rex Rammell of Rexburg, Idaho. Standing on the unfounded fears of inferior genes and disease, Risch justified his actions. A lawsuit brought by Rammell over the loss of his elk is still pending.

This set off a firestorm of events with politicians and members of some animal rights and hunting groups mounting campaigns against the Idaho domestic elk industry trying to strong arm them out of business. What began some time ago to shut down the elk industry almost overnight now had just the tool they were looking for to scare the public into believing that raising elk on ranches is a public health issue.

This debate is not over as it is expected that many of the same players will launch a citizen’s initiative to put an end to elk ranching once and for all. How far these groups and individuals are prepared to go remains to be seen. In an event last spring, an anonymous source witnessed leaders of well-known Idaho conservation groups discussing the prospects of creating a public health scare in order to promote their private agendas.

Ranch hunting has raised the level of debate several levels and has moved from Montana through Idaho and on to Oregon and North Dakota. Groups in Oregon are waging a campaign to shut down the cervidae industry and another group in North Dakota is seeking signatures as I write in order to place an initiative on the November ballot to stop elk and deer farming.

A simple elk escape has spread to states where some are seeking to legislate ethics and others are contemplating overstepping their own bounds of ethical behavior to create public health scares to promote agendas. This debate is far from over and will prove to be more of a dividing block for the hunting community than anything constructive.

Tom Remington

assault weapons, bear attacks, bear spray, blue tongue, canned hunting, district of columbia versus heller, EHD, endangered species act, Epizootic hemorrhagic disease, First Amendment, gov. jim risch, Gov. Jon Corzine, gun rights, high fence hunting, hunting ethics, Idaho elk ranching, Jim Zumbo, Liza Jackson, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, New Jersey bear hunting, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Open Air With Tom Remington, Outdoor Life, Pennsylvania Game Commission, pennsyvania deer management problems, Remington Arms, Rex Rammell, scent lok, Second Amendment, Skinny Moose Radio, Sunday hunting, top ten news stories, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, united states stupreme court, vic workman, wolf delisting

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Remington

Aldo Leopold, citizens inititative, high fence hunting, hunting ethics, mitch feininger, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a complex issue when land gets shut down by the landowner and the wildlife on that land belongs to all the people. Generally speaking for centuries the landowner has understood hunting and have welcomed hunters onto their land to help manage the wildlife. That landscape is changing and presents a problem into the future that we have to find out how to deal with now. Offering up 10 suggestions to keep landowners happy is a step in the right direction