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

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.