Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Hunters should be able to decide

Hunters should be able to decide

Jul 01, 2008 - 04:06:03 CDT

By WAYNE LAAVEG
Park River

It's amazing that an avowed hunter like Roger Kaseman gives such little thought to protecting private property rights.

In his quest to criminalize the business of game preserves, he has lost sight of the individual rights that will be jeopardized by such a ban. Our property rights are the first victim of his crusade, but hunting rights are close behind. Despite his protests, the Humane Society of the U.S. is backing his efforts at putting a fair-chase measure on the ballot. This extreme animal rights group wants to see all forms of hunting banned, and they are here, working hard alongside the fair-chase folks toward that outcome. That is a clear and present danger to anyone who cares about hunting.

I would like to see hunters decide for themselves whether game preserve hunting is for them. That decision is for an individual to make, not for a law to dictate. Some things should be legislated, but game preserve hunting and property rights should not. My right as a property owner is to do as I see fit with my land. I, and those within our coalition, believe both of those positions deserve respect.

Kaseman and his group can choose not to hunt on a preserve, but their pronouncements on what is right and wrong when it comes to hunting should not be made into law and applied to all hunters. Such determinations are individual. Preserve hunting in North Dakota is legal, it is in demand and it is done on large plots of land in North Dakota where the animals have a chance to elude the hunter.

Additionally, the people of North Dakota have been here and done that. Not only are hunting ranches already regulated by the state health department, but the North Dakota Legislature overwhelmingly defeated a fair-chase bill introduced to the Senate in 2007. Should the fair-chase measure gather enough signatures to be on the ballot this fall, my goal is to make sure it fails again, and individual and property rights once again prevail.

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version Hunters should be able to decide

Comments

Rooer Kaseman wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:46 AM:

" Wayne, I was up late last night sending out requests for petitions that your letter generated. Every time your side does a letter like this, I get requests for petitions to circulate. Your Fargo news conference generated a bumper crop. The best publicity Fair Chase has is you guys trying to convince North Dakotans that what you do behind your fence is hunting and that you have a right to do it.

Something like 95% of the people I ask to sign the petition dont know that Canned Hunts are going on in ND. Most people refused to believe it no matter what I said. Until I showed doubters the home web pages of 2 operations picked at random and their price list. Talk about ticking people off. They cant sign fast enough.

If you think Canned Hunts are wrong but wont support the Fair Chase initiative, think about this: If by some unfortunate circumstance, an animal rights group does manage to outlaw hunting in every state of the union, Wayne and his canned hunt operation will be history, along with legitimate hunting.

Passing the Fair Chase initiative will remove the biggest propaganda weapon animal rights activists have available to use against legitimate hunting. Bastardizing fair chase by penning the animal and pretending that the kill is the hunt is the biggest weapon in the anti-hunting arsenal.

The truth is, neither fair chase hunters or Canned Hunt operators will decided this issue. Granny, living in Bismarck or Fargo or Ashley or Belfield, who never hunted, but supports hunting, or at least doesnt object to hunting, will decide the issue and the future of hunting. Which image will help her decide?

A family hunting free ranging game that can escape?

Or video of a Canned Hunt where the animal has zero change of escape?

The Fair Chase Initiative disarms the anti-hunting organizations. "

NorCal Cazadora wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:06 PM:

" Is killing animals legal, or not? Given that nearly 97 percent of American adults eat animal flesh, I'm guessing there's pretty strong support for the continued right of humans to kill animals, provided animals get the best treatment possible while they're alive, and are killed quickly when it's time to go.

So where does that leave the debate? HSUS is worried about "fair chase" and hunter ethics? Puh-lease. HSUS cares about anything it can latch onto that chips away at one more hunting right.

Reality is hunting comes in all degrees of challenge, and high-fence hunting is among the least challenging. If HSUS bans high-fence hunts, what's the next "easy hunt" HSUS will come after? Don't give away the farm, North Dakota. "

Nick wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:48 PM:

" Teddy Roosevelt and many other conservationist were hunters. Those hunters did more to protect our North American wildlife than any other group has ever or will ever do. If it weren't for the work that those hunters did, hunting wouldn't exist today. Several ideals were laid down by that group. 1. Wildlife is a public trust (for every man regardless of his income) 2. Wildlife markets should be illegal 3. Allocations of wildlife should be done by law 4. Wildlife should only be killed for legitimate reasons 5. Wildlife are an international resource that should be protected 6. Science, not politics, should decide management policies --My interpretation of these ideals is that pay to hunt (including high fence hunting) operations undermine and degrade every element of our hunting tradition. Commercializing something this special (it is a privilege that should be available for every US citizen) will destroy the sport we love. If you don't believe me, take a look at the European hunting situation. In Europe, $$$$$$$$$ = access to hunting. If you want to totally lose support for hunting, make it elite. "

NDr wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:12 PM:

" First the "Do Gooders" went after smoking. Many of them in Fargo who never ever go to a bar came out and voted to ban it there as well. Now we have people who think they're more "ethical" by hunting their way instead of the way some others hunt and they're now trying to use the laws and the passion of people to push their views on others. GET A GRIP!!! If you don't like hunting that way, don't do it. But someday this madness of people making laws to push their views on others has to stop. We are losing the individual freedoms our forefathers fought so bravely every single day because of these "Do Gooders" and the "Cause" people. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!! LIVE YOUR LIFE YOUR WAY AND LET OTHERS DO THE SAME!!! Wake up, this crap is the beginning to the end of a life of personal freedom. "

NDHunter wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:45 PM:

" Mr. Laaveg, Why should each hunter be able to decide when we have the Dirty 30 looking out for our best interests??? They seem to think they know what's right for everyone. "

SE Forty wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:48 PM:

" Stop calling it "HUNTING" and then maybe I will support your side. It is just Slaughter. "

This is nuts wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:58 AM:

" After searching the HSUS website I could not find much that I did not agree with!! As an avid hunter fisherman I am concerned about my hunting rights. What in the world do you guys believe you have the right to do that HSUS has fought?

Erecting a high fence is no different when it comes to the destruction of habitat as the draining of wetlands. "

lw wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:52 AM:

" HSUS's love for animals is a lot like Al Gore and going green. They are both as phony as the day is long. Several years ago, HSUS was asked by the Govenor of Colorado to assist in getting feed to stranded cattle during and after a massive snow storm. HSUS declined to help because they said the cattle were "headed for a grill anyway". It didn't matter to HSUS that, at that moment, the animals needed help. The Governor went on a radio show and ripped HSUS a new one because of it. I agree with Gun totin fool - you can't let HSUS in the door because, if you do, they won't leave until they can take ALL of your rights with them. It's not about helping animals when it comes to HSUS. "

B in M wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:54 AM:

" This part of the article is wrong:
"it is done on large plots of land in North Dakota where the animals have a chance to elude the hunter"

I'd like to see or even hear of a high fence in ND that has at least 640 acres (square mile). "

Edward wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:41 AM:

" Fair chase? Who is it fair for, the critter being shot? The critter don't know the difference and could care less. Only the idiots on hunting shows make hunting seem difficult. In reality it usually is just a good walk. Or is sitting in a tree stand difficult. Talk about blowing up a non-issue. "

Reader wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:24 AM:

" The animals need a voice for their protection. "

NDHunter wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:22 AM:

" Great letter!! What part of this doesn't the Dirty 30 get?? "

Gun totin fool wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:53 AM:

" The more research I do, the more I agree that this initiative must be defeated. I think canned hunts are disgusting and immoral, but they don't hold a candle to the overall agenda of the HSUS and other such anti-hunting groups. We don't need the anti-hunting extremists getting a toe-hold on this one so they can erode further hunting rights & priveleges. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.