Comparing game-farm hunting with such morally degrading activities as having sex with a minor and growing marijuana is ludicrous!

It’s pretty obvious that Mr. Makitoko is not only against high-fenced hunting but also using a feeder to attract deer. This is a practice that is legally used in Texas and other states. I’m curious what else Mr. Makitoko is against and willing to attempt to end.

He has demonstrated what I’ve been saying for months — if you attempt to end someone else’s hunting method based on your own version of “ethics”, you had better be prepared for another group to zero in on your sport as well. Those who use game feeders, but also support a ban on high-fenced hunting should take notice. Mr. Makitoko may be after your hunting method next.

“You wouldn’t know, because your column clearly shows your acceptance of dumbed-down hunting. When is the last time you rattled antlers? When is the last time you scouted a deer? When is the last time you hunted without paying somebody to put you on your target?

Probably the more important question is: When was the last time you ponied up your last paycheck, sat in the cage with your “target” and killed it after the click-click of the feeder started?”

You don’t know anything about me. As a matter of fact, I don’t rattle antlers. Why? My personal ethics tells me, as was taught to me by my father, that luring a deer into an opening while rattling antlers isn’t right.

I’ve never paid anyone in my life to hunt and hope the day never comes when I HAVE to. I have never hunted with or hired the services of a guide. I have hunted big game since I was old enough to follow my father around in the woods. I have shot my share, none of which have ever occurred while sitting in a tree stand, blind, rattling antlers, blowing deer calls, putting out scents, wearing scent-lok clothing……shall I continue?

If you weren’t so quick to become the all-knowing, all-mighty hunter that you are in support of your personal ideals, you would have spent some time reading some of what I write and you would have known all this information.

In a very recent article I wrote that I was willing to bet that my own personal hunting ethics far exceeded the fair chase ethics of probably everyone whose name is listed as sponsoring the North Dakota ballot proposal.

So, please! If you wish to discuss the merits of the initiative that is fine and this is one place to do it. You have no business coming to this site and in one broad stroke of your biased and angry brush, attempt to paint a picture of me as being something I am not.

Spin it however you want Tom, your article is clearly biased against the measure. High-fenced killing is bad.

1) Bad for the sport and tradition of hunting by eliminating fair chase.

2) Bad for making the pursuit of a big game animal a “rich man’s” activity.

3) Bad for the health of the wild herds when trophy caged deer, living sometimes up to 100 head/acre, develop diseases like TB, CWD and other afflictions which can be spread to native herds by thru-fence contact. (I assume, as an outdoors “journalist” you’re familiar with the CWD disaster in Wisconsin since 2003, spread by captive herds)

4) Bad for setting an example for our youth that hunting involves sitting in a pen with a deer, waiting for the feeder to turn on, lining up and killing the first big buck that walks in front of the blind.

You’re quoting Mr. Schaefer, but I take it you have never met him. The guy is as dull as a butter knife. If the PURPOSE is to get MEAT for sale, that is not addressed in the wording, and therefore NOT ILLEGAL. There are already laws governing the LEGALITY of SLAUGHTER AND PAYMENT FOR IT in North Dakota.

This proposed measure is for the exchange of TWO THINGS: MONEY FOR A KILL. It’s not an exchange of MONEY FOR MEAT. The problem is that guys like Schaefer who have no grasp for the law, read in whatever they want to make their point, when the law is clearly silent for that reason to be specific about its intent.

You oppose this measure, like so many others because you are mistaken in your belief that it allegedly infringes on landowner’s rights. You couldn’t be more wrong.

What this measure does is look to abolish a behavior that the majority of the public feels is wrong. That’s how the legal and democratic process works.

Similar to when North Dakota outlawed sex with a person under the age of consent, or when the state outlawed the growing of marijuana, they were activities that society found reprehensible. How many landowners stood up screaming “You can’t regulate what I do on my land!” This is regulation of a morally corrupt practice, not regulation of land use.

What’s really behind this proposal you ask? You wouldn’t know, because your column clearly shows your acceptance of dumbed-down hunting. When is the last time you rattled antlers? When is the last time you scouted a deer? When is the last time you hunted without paying somebody to put you on your target?

Probably the more important question is: When was the last time you ponied up your last paycheck, sat in the cage with your “target” and killed it after the click-click of the feeder started?

Best Regards,
Gohon Makitoko
Bismarck, ND