Comments on: “Bastardizing The Hunting Heritage”

By: Paul D

Paul D — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:29:20 +0000

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.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:54:14 +0000

Tough issue, I am against high fence hunting!

By: Bruce

Bruce — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:25:55 +0000

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.

By: Erin

Erin — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:08:08 +0000

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…

By: Jack Ryan

Jack Ryan — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:51:27 +0000

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.

By: Laura

Laura — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:02:26 +0000

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”.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:56:46 +0000

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?

By: David

David — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:02:06 +0000

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.

By: Jack Ryan

Jack Ryan — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:20:08 +0000

Shooting animals in a pen is NOT hunting.

By: Tom Remington

Tom Remington — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:37:34 +0000

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.