What some consider the world’s most difficult puzzles to solve, are those where large written documents are essentially shredded and the participants must put all the shredded pieces back together again. The Department of Interior’s third stab at removing gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) Distinct Population Segment (DPS) from federal protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), while not capable of standing up to the world’s most complicated puzzles, appears to be much more complicated than it needs to be, leaving me wondering if this is the intent in order to leave room for costly and time consuming lawsuits. Sigh!

During the last attempt to delist wolves, a lawsuit, Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, was awarded to the plaintiffs that failed at removing gray wolves from federal protection. Judge Paul Friedman ruled that he was going to place protection of the wolves back under the ESA until such time as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), i.e. Department of Interior, could show how they had the legal authority to create a Distinct Population Segment of gray wolves, or any other species, for the purpose of delisting that same species.

Shortly after that ruling, I wrote that Friedman’s decision was not at all based on scientific evidence and that the Judge had no legitimate reason to return wolves to protection other than the fact that as a judge, he could.

For what it’s worth, the Solicitor for the Department of Interior, on December 12, 2008, issued an official opinion as to how the USFWS has authority under the ESA to create a DPS in order to delist a species.

In the most recent proposal to delist wolves, the USFWS briefly explains their authority:

Our authority to make these determinations and to revise the list accordingly is a reasonable interpretation of the language of the Act, and our ability to do so is an important component of the Service’s program for the conservation of threatened and endangered species. Our authority to revise the existing listing of a species (the gray wolf in Minnesota and the gray wolf in the lower 48 States and Mexico, excluding Minnesota) to identify a Western Great Lakes DPS and determine that it is healthy enough that it no longer needs the Act’s protections is found in the precise language of the Act. Moreover, even if that authority were not clear, our interpretation of this authority to make determinations under section 4(a)(1) and to revise the endangered and threatened species list to reflect those determinations under section 4(c)(1) is reasonable and fully consistent with the Act’s text, structure, legislative history, relevant judicial interpretations, and policy objectives.

The information presented to support the USFWS’ authority to create a DPS for the purpose of delisting a species within that DPS is not new information. The same information existed in 2008 and yet somehow the USFWS in Humane Society of the United States v. Kempthorne, couldn’t sufficiently explain to Judge Paul Friedman where it got it’s authority; another example of ineptitude or corruption in representing the people in the court of law.

This is but one issue that could possibly derail an attempt to delist gray wolves. If lawsuits, which are as sure to happen as the sun rising in the morning, are intended to stop the delisting, will the explanations given in this proposal satisfy Judge Friedman’s query as to where USFWS gets its authority?

Unfortunately, this proposal to delist is further complicated by adding to it a determination by the USFWS not to recognize another species of wolf cohabiting in the same DPS. Why was it necessary to do this? Why couldn’t the USFWS made a separate announcement or proposal that it did not feel that sufficient scientific evidence existed to determine the existence of another species of wolf(eastern wolf)?

As complex as proposals to delist a species can get, why would the USFWS choose to clutter up this delisting with information pertaining to separate petitions? Efforts like this leave people like me wondering if the real intention of the USFWS is to derail the delisting for personal agendas, etc.

While I and others place our attention of things like whether the USFWS has sufficiently satisfied the courts to explain their authority to create DPS’s for delisting, and whether or not a proposal cluttered with explanations aimed at nefarious petitions and claims of the existence of a brand new species of wolf, in the end all that will matter is what one judge thinks.

Sportsmen in the WGL region shouldn’t spend too much time just yet honing their wolf hunting and trapping skills.

Tom Remington

MISSOULA, Mont.–Winterkill, habitat problems and wolves have driven elk numbers down in some areas. But many of America’s roughly 800,000 elk hunters have reason to be optimistic about upcoming seasons, based on hunt forecasts compiled by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

(Note: The following data, compiled from state and provincial wildlife agencies, reflect biologists’ best estimates of elk populations. Each year, animal rights activists blatantly misrepresent these data to prop up their argument for keeping wolves perpetually on the Endangered Species List. It’s a fact that where wolves are concentrated, elk herds are being impacted. Calf survival rates in certain areas are too low to sustain herds for the future. Wolves must be managed, same as elk. In spite of the misuse, RMEF believes these data are valuable to hunters and will continue to provide them.)

Following are condensed forecasts for 29 states and provinces. See full-length versions at www.rmef.org/hunting/features. For even more detailed coverage, see the Sept./Oct. 2011 edition of the RMEF member magazine, Bugle. To join, call 800-CALL ELK.

RMEF members have now helped to conserve or enhance 5.9 million acres of habitat for elk and other wildlife.

In the forecast intro, Bugle Hunting Editor P.J. DelHomme notes, “When RMEF launched in 1984, there were 550,000 elk in North America. Fifteen states and four provinces had elk hunts. Today almost 1.2 million wild elk roam the continent and 23 states and six provinces are holding elk hunts. There’s also been a huge surge of bulls entering the record books, with world records for Roosevelt’s, tules and non-typical Rocky Mountain elk all falling in the past decade.”

This may indeed be the Golden Era of elk hunting. Good luck this autumn!

Alaska
Elk Population: Etolin (GMU 3) 300-400, Kodiak Archipelago (GMU N/A
Bull/Cow Ratio: GMU 3 19/100
Nonresidents: $85 license, $300 elk permit
Hunter Success: GMU 3 13 percent, GMU 8 N/A
Highlights: Most elk in GMU 3 reside within the formidable South Etolin Island Wilderness on Etolin Island, where 48 hunters braved the bush to kill six bulls last season. Calf recruitment is good at 51 calves to every 100 cows. Numbers for GMU 8 on the Kodiak Archipelago were not available at press time, but the area has yielded some impressive Roosevelt’s bulls in the past few years. Visit www.wildlife.alaska.gov.

Alberta
Elk Population: 33,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: $255, must hire a guide
Hunter Success: N/A
Highlights: Elk populations in the foothills of the Rockies, especially west of Rocky Mountain House, this year felt the combined impact of months of deep snow and predation by wolves, mountain lions and grizzlies. However, range is expanding as elk pioneer new territory to the south and east, with some respectable bulls among them. Meat hunters should look at agricultural zones where liberal permits for cows are available. Outfitters receive roughly 10 percent of the draw tags. Visit www.srd.alberta.ca.

Arizona
Elk Population: 25,000-35,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 35/100
Nonresidents: $151 license (nonrefundable) plus $595 elk permit
Hunter Success: 31 percent general, 39 percent muzzleloader, 24 percent archery
Highlights: The Wallow fire burned over 520,000 acres in Units 1 and 27 and many elk have been displaced to other areas. A silver lining? These units could see even more monster bulls in coming years if forage responds as it did following the massive Rodeo-Chediski fire in 2002. A mild winter meant low stress on elk but also led to a dry spring–hence the massive wildfires. Arizona Game and Fish Department’s “Hunt Arizona” offers a great resource on harvest data, drawing odds and hunting pressure. Visit www.azgfd.gov.

Arkansas
Elk Population: 440
Bull/Cow Ratio: 40/100
Nonresidents: Auction and landowner tags
Hunter Success: 63 percent
Highlights: Elk permits are available to landowners in a five-county area, with 23 permits issued under a quota system. Anyone who owns property in those counties, whether or not they are a resident, qualifies for the drawing. Nonresidents who buy a lifetime license also are eligible for the drawing. Public land hunters will find elk using an increasing number and quality of managed forage openings on the Ozark National Forest and Gene Rush WMA. Visit www.agfc.com.

British Columbia
Elk Population: 63,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 25-30/100
Nonresidents: $180 license plus $250 elk permit, must hire a guide
Hunter Success: N/A
Highlights: Rocky Mountain elk herds are thriving, with the agricultural zones in the Peace River region a great bet. For a backcountry experience, look to the Omineca region in north-central BC. If you’ve always dreamed of hunting a trophy Roosevelt’s bull, the stars are aligned for a great season. No limits or quotas have changed since last season, and limited-entry tags are still a tough draw at roughly 35/1. Outfitters are allotted a percentage of those tags and you can bypass the long odds by booking a hunt. The $430 cost for a license and permit is a relative bargain. Visit www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw.

California
Elk Population: 11,400 (1,500 Rocky Mountain, 6,000 Roosevelt’s, 3,900 tule)
Bull/Cow Ratios: 20/100 to 90/100
Nonresidents: $151 license (nonrefundable to enter drawing) plus $1,200 elk permit
Hunter Success: 75 percent
Highlights: The West’s best hunter success rates and world-class bulls of all three sub-species await those who beat tag lottery odds ranging from 100/1 to 1,000/1. This could be the year a tule world record is broken. The largest brutes are in the East Park Reservoir and Grizzly Island units. Good spring rains should have racks in prime shape. For a backcountry experience, try Marble Mountain Wilderness, which offers 35 bull tags, 10 antlerless and 5 late-season muzzleloader/archery either-sex tags. Everyone has a shot here, as 10 of those tags (nine bull and one cow) are randomly drawn while the other 30 are weighted for preference points. Visit www.dfg.ca.gov.

Colorado
Elk Population: 283,400
Bull/Cow Ratio: 32/100
Nonresidents: $354 cow, $554 any elk
Hunter Success: 22 percent
Highlights: Colorado is an ideal destination with more than 23 million acres of public land, almost twice as many elk as any other state, over-the-counter bull tags (OTC), and an informative call-center. Rifle tags for bulls in the 2nd and 3rd season are unlimited and sold at outlets all over the state. Leftover draw tags went on sale August 9 and some may still be available. OTC rifle tags for cows are limited, but OTC antlerless archery tags are wide open in the northwest and southeast corners. The past few years have been moist with heavy snows and wet springs, which have kept forage lush and antler growth robust. Visit www.wildlife.state.co.us/Hunting.

Idaho
Elk Population: 103,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 23/100
Nonresidents: $155 license, $417 elk tag
Hunter Success: 19 percent
Highlights: The Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness is being hammered by wolf predation exacerbated by a long slide in forage quality. Elk populations are far below management objectives in the Lolo and Selway zones and slightly below objectives in the Sawtooth zone. Elk and hunting aren’t what they used to be in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, either. Statewide, elk tag sales fell from 92,565 in 2008 to 84,765 in 2010–a decline of about 8 percent. But not all the news from Idaho is bad. Populations at or above objectives in 20 of 29 elk hunt zones, and the statewide population actually broke a long plummet and grew by 2,000 animals from last year. Hunters should look to the southern and western portions of the state, as well as areas like the Owyhee-South Hills Zone, where hunters can now chase antlerless elk August through December. Visit www.fishandgame.idaho.gov.

Kansas
Elk Population: 250-275
Bull/Cow Ratio: 40/100
Nonresidents: Tenant permits and one Commissioner’s Permit, usually sold at auction
Hunter Success: 36 percent
Highlights: This past season was a tough one for Kansas elk hunters. On Fort Riley, where most of the state’s elk roam, hunters had their second-lowest success rate since the hunt began there in 1987. This year, 10 either-sex and 15 antlerless tags are available. Mammoth bulls exist but don’t come easily. The state’s other main elk herd roams the opposite corner far to the southwest in the Cimarron National Grasslands. The Grasslands themselves are closed to hunting, but over-the-counter unlimited permits are available for surrounding private lands. Visit www.kdwp.state.ks.us.

Kentucky
Elk Population: 10,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 35-40/100
Nonresidents: $10 to apply, $130 license, $365 elk permit
Hunter Success: 65 percent
Highlights: The toughest part here is beating the odds in the drawing. This year, 61,500 applicants vied for 800 elk hunting permits, with 80 permits reserved for the nearly 19,000 nonresidents who applied. But elk look to be plentiful. A calf recruitment ratio of roughly 85/100 means nearly 2,000 more elk hit the ground each year. Also, hunting success was down last year as the acorn crop was big and the elk stayed in the hardwoods and out of the open, plus ice and snowstorms coincided with key weekends. This year, managers have dropped the 4-point or better antler restriction. Visit www.fw.ky.gov.

Manitoba
Elk Population: 6,100
Bull/Cow Ratio: 45/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 20-60 percent rifle, 5-10 percent archery
Highlights: You have to live in the province to draw an elk permit, and they’re avidly sought. Some very large bulls roam this country. The Duck Mountain, Interlake and Porcupine regions are all consistent trophy producers. The province has numerous elk seasons running from late August through December. Visit www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/hunting/.

Michigan
Elk Population: 780
Bull/Cow Ratio: 60/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 70-90 percent
Highlights: Managers have the elk population where they want it and are in maintenance mode, which explains why available elk permits dropped by roughly 30 percent. Applications this year were down slightly, with 35,000 people vying for 55 any-elk and 100 antlerless tags. Improving timber management and habitat on public land should mean more elk hunting opportunity in the future. Visit www.michigan.gov/dnrhunting.

Minnesota
Elk Population: 175
Bull/Cow Ratio: 50/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 72 percent
Highlights: Less than 1,000 hunters applied in 2010 for the dozen once-in-a-lifetime elk tags available (at $250 each). But a widely publicized monster bull scoring 458-4/8 was found in Minnesota last year, and word got out that this state can grow massive trophies. No word yet on whether applications rose. The state has two herds. Managers counted 35-40 elk in the Grygla herd, which is a couple more than what the management plan calls for, and 141 elk in the “border herd.” Visit www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/elk.

Montana
Elk Population: 150,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 5-25/100
Nonresidents: $812
Hunter Success: 16 percent
Highlights: The biggest news for nonresidents is the 37 percent jump in the price of an elk permit. A ballot initiative last November abolished 5,500 outfitter-sponsored licenses and forced all nonresident hunters into the drawing. For those who drew a bull tag in the Bear Paws or Big Snowies, the higher fees could be money well spent, as the bulls there are growing old and big. Winter was tough in parts of central and eastern Montana, but elk in the legendary Missouri River Breaks came through fine. Hunters would be smart to look at Region 3, which yields almost 50 percent of the annual elk harvest, including some big bulls. Wolves have taken a brutal toll on some herds. In the Danaher Basin of the Bob Marshall Wilderness, cow/calf ratios are just 9/100, down from a long-term average of 24/100. Herds in the West Fork of the Bitterroot and the lower Clark Fork watershed are in steep decline, and the famed northern Yellowstone herd continues to plummet. Visit www.fwp.mt.gov.

Nebraska
Elk Population: 2,300
Bull/Cow Ratio: 50/50
Residents only
Hunter Success: 61 percent
Highlights: Landowners are allotted one-third of all elk tags, and this year, both landowners and the general public will have the best opportunity in a decade with 294 tags, up 22 from last year. For public-land hunters, the rugged Pine Ridge in the northern panhandle offers good odds as three units there hold more than half the state’s elk herd, two-thirds of the total permit allocation and more than 100,000 acres of public land.
Visit www.outdoornebraska.ne.gov/hunting.

Nevada
Elk Population: 13,500
Bull/Cow Ratio: 32/100
Nonresidents: $142 license plus $1,200 tag
Hunter Success: 47 percent
Highlights: Through the drawing, an elk tag costs well over a grand, and that’s a steal compared to the 89 private landowner tags that sold for more than $7,800 on average last year. But 66 percent of the bulls killed last year were six-points or better, many of them jaw-droppers. Nevada’s herd has grown dramatically, swelling by 10 percent this year alone. That’s great news for residents who get 4,600 tags–a good thousand more than last year. Nonresidents are allotted 133 and odds of drawing one were 1/44 in 2009. Visit www.ndow.org/hunt.

New Mexico
Elk Population: 75,000-95,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 40-45/100
Nonresidents: $555 standard bull, $780 quality bull
Hunter Success: 33 percent
Highlights: A mild winter and expected monsoons should have elk in top shape this fall. The state is split roughly into 30 percent “quality” units (big bulls, small odds) and 70 percent “opportunity” units. Hunters looking for plenty of opportunity should focus on the north-central units including Unit 36 where elk herds continue to grow and managers have issued more permits. For last-minute nonresident hunters with cash to spend, landowner tags are your ticket. Hunters will have a little more time to get their bull this year, with shooting hours expanded to 30 minutes before sunrise and after sunset. Visit www.wildlife.state.nm.us.

North Dakota
Elk Population: 1,200
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: One raffle tag available
Hunter Success: 49 percent
Highlights: For the past few years, North Dakota has had far more elk than managers wanted. That changed last fall and winter as hunters in Theodore Roosevelt National Park culled 406 elk out of an estimated 950. Managers still hope to get numbers under 400 and another shoot is likely this year. Outside of the park, elk can be found in the northeast corner and along the west-central border, with estimated numbers at around 450. Other small herds are scattered in pockets throughout the state. This year, managers will issue 500 tags–355 any-sex and 145 antlerless tags. Visit www.gf.nd.gov/hunting.

Oklahoma
Elk Population: 2,200
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: $306
Hunter Success: N/A
Highlights: Only 85 public-land permits were available this year, down from 330 last year. The largest herd and best opportunity is on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. A few small herds are scattered in the northeast and southeast corners of the state with one permit available for those areas. Residents looking to pull one of these once-in-a-lifetime tags have less than a 1 percent chance. But there is no quota on private-land elk and hunting access can be had for a fee. Visit www.wildlifedepartment.com.

Ontario
Elk Population: 700
Bull/Cow Ratio: 30/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: N/A
Highlights: Thirteen years after RMEF helped reintroduce elk to Ontario, the province will hold its first modern elk hunt this year. Between 300-775 elk reside in the Bancroft-North Hastings area in the southern end of the province where the hunt will take place. Lucky hunters now hold 24 bull tags and 46 cow tags for the late-September hunt. Visit www.ontario.ca/hunting.

Oregon
Elk Population: 125,000 (65,000 Rocky Mountain, 60,000 Roosevelt’s)
Bull/Cow Ratio: 19/100 Rocky Mountain, 13/100 Roosevelt’s
Nonresidents: $141 license, $501 tag
Hunter Success: 16 percent Rocky Mountain, 12 percent Roosevelt’s
Highlights: Much of eastern Oregon saw record snowfall in the mountains, and biologists are hopeful that elk populations came out unscathed. Bowhunters can prowl most of the east side with only a general tag. For rifle hunters, nearly everything east of the Cascades is permit-only, save for a second-season rifle hunt in a few units of the northeast. Roosevelt’s elk tags are still over-the-counter (except for the far northwest and southwest corners), herds are strong and there are some beasts on the hoof. This season, hunters 17 and under are required to wear a hunter orange hat or vest when hunting any big game with any firearm. Visit www.dfw.state.or.us.

Pennsylvania
Elk Population: 750
Bull/Cow ratio: 28/100
Nonresidents: $101 license, $250 elk tag
Hunter success: 80 percent
Highlights: It’s been reported before and here it is again: Pennsylvania could produce a bull this year that breaks not only state but also world records. Along with antler size, elk populations and hunter opportunity are growing. With the herd up 7 percent over last year, the state is offering 10 more antlerless tags for a total of 18 bull permits and 38 antlerless. Odds for drawing remain slim (around 1/1000), but if you do pull the coveted tag, the state boasts the highest success rate in North America. And more than half of the elk live on over a million acres of public land. Visit www.pgc.state.pa.us.

Saskatchewan
Elk Population: 16,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 20/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 23 percent
Highlights: It was a tough winter across much of the province, and the central and northeast areas saw high deer mortality and some elk mortality. Near the town of Hudson Bay, though, where the prairie meets the forest, managers have implemented a bulls-only season, followed by an either-sex season–all of which can be had with over-the-counter tags. In the south, elk populations are on the rise and each year seems to bring new hunting opportunities. New in 2011 are antlerless seasons in zones 21, north of Regina, and 52, south of Prince Albert. Visit www.environment.gov.sk.ca/hunting.

South Dakota
Elk Population: 3,200
Bull/Cow Ratio: 34/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 53 percent
Highlights: There are several small prairie herds scattered across the state, but managers want to see the Black Hills herd grow to roughly 4,000. They aim to increase hunter opportunity in the long term, which means decreased hunter opportunity in the short term. Managers cut any-elk rifle tags by 25 to 470. Antlerless tags took an even bigger hit, dropping from 570 to 395. Visit www.sdgfp.info/wildlife/hunting.

Tennessee
Elk Population: 300-400
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: 1 permit to nonresidents and 1 auction tag
Hunter Success: 60 percent
Highlights: Tennessee’s elk population is holding steady but the ultimate goal is a herd of 2,000 animals. Managers are working to expand and improve elk range while keeping hunt permits conservative. Only four permits are available for residents. Last year, two of those hunters failed to fill their tags. Visit www.state.tn.us/twra/elkmain.html.

Utah
Elk Population: 72,500
Bull/Cow Ratio: N/A
Nonresidents: $80 license plus $280 to $1,500 permit
Hunter Success: 17 percent
Highlights: Utah has produced a staggering number of record-book bulls over the past decade. The state’s largest herds are found in the Wasatch, Plateau and Fish Lake units, which should produce some serious antler growth this year on the heels of a particularly wet spring. The fact that the overall population continues to grow as well is testament to good management. The state issued 1,200 more cow tags and 1,250 more spike permits this fall. Odds are still tough for limited-entry tags. Nonresidents get 10 percent of available rifle tags. Visit www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame.

Washington
Elk Population: 55,000-60,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 12-20/100
Nonresidents: $434 (will increase to $497 before season starts)
Hunter Success: 8 percent general, 39 percent for special limited-entry permits
Highlights: The state’s elk population is divided about evenly between Roosevelt’s in the west and Rocky Mountain elk to the east. In the famous Blue Mountains of southeast Washington, resident and nonresident hunters alike will find over-the-counter spike tags readily available. Highly-prized permits for branch-antlered bulls will be far tougher to come by. The Yakima herd has improved and this year the area has increased antlerless permits. In the Mount St. Helens area, managers are still trying to decrease herd numbers with more special permits for antlerless elk. Both nonresident and resident hunters should take note that elk tag fees will jump nearly 15 percent effective September 1 to help cover budget shortfalls. Visit www.wdfw.wa.gov/hunting.

Wyoming
Elk Population: 120,000
Bull/Cow Ratio: 23/100
Nonresidents: $591 permit, $302 cow-calf permit, $1,071 special permit
Hunter Success: 44 percent
Highlights: Last year, hunters harvested 25,600 elk, up from the five-year average of 21,000. Biologists say mature bulls continue to thrive in most hunting units and the statewide population remains above management objectives. The dark exception is the state’s northwest corner. Elk numbers in the Clark’s Fork and Cody herds are still down due to predation and poor habitat. The Jackson herd that summers in Yellowstone is well off the mark, too, and managers are being conservative on tags. Roughly half the hunting units just outside the park have set quotas, one is closed and rest are limited to antlered elk only. Visit www.gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/hunting.

Yukon Territory
Elk Population: 250-300
Bull/Cow Ratio: 24/100
Residents only
Hunter Success: 52 percent
Highlights: With two distinct herds, Takhini and Braeburn, the territory held its first elk hunt in a quarter-century in 2009, and followed it with a second hunt last year. Those hunts were overwhelmingly successful–too successful. Hunters had a 73 percent success rate on bulls and a 31 percent success rate on cows. So this year managers are offering cow-only permits to lighten the pressure on bulls while reducing overall herd numbers down to management objectives. The target bull/cow ratio for the area is 50/100. Visit www.environmentyukon.gov.yk.ca.

I got these pictures in my email yesterday from a reader. The information contained says the photos were taken near Golden Valley, North Dakota. The deer have reportedly hung out on this farm all winter (3 winters in a row) “uninvited”, eating up the hay, while dropped antlers are causing punctured tires.

All photos can be “clicked” to enlarge.

Tom Remington

Roger Kaseman and his comrades fighting to steal away property rights and end North Dakotans’ right to free enterprise, were defeated on Measure 2 in the November election by a margin of 57%-43%.

Tom Remington

If for no other reason, vote no on North Dakota ballot Measure 2 because no honest, self-respecting human being, say nothing about someone posing as a hunter, would hop in bed with the Humane Society of the United States; a despicable, extremist organization that has only one goal and that is to end hunting everywhere.

And the supporters of Measure 2 want to talk about ethics?

Tom Remington

Sometimes you and I become so embroiled in the finer points on issues that we might become guilty of overlooking the obvious. We often hear about court cases in which a ruling that is handed down by a judge leaves us puzzled, angry or frustrated, questioning what the judge was thinking. The other day as I listened to a person speaking on liberty and how government control is destroying what many of us so cherish, I heard a statement that left me pondering. This person said that judges aren’t going to make rulings in which their adjudication limits their own powers. I guess it’s telltale that one has to think like a criminal to understand a criminal. As such, a judge would never openly declare his or her intent to gain power while abstaining from proper jurisprudence.

There are people in this country, in your state, your county, your town, your neighborhood and perhaps right next door, who want to rob you of your rights. Difficult to fathom isn’t it? Those of us who are independent, who live to be free, struggle to find understanding in anyone who works to destroy what God gave us, often perceive these actions by others as some kind of mental disorder. After all, who doesn’t like God’s gift of liberty?

Treasonous is a harsh description of the actions of such people but sometimes the ultimate goal is the same. I have often said that there are kings and pawns in this seditious act to bring down America in order to raise her back up as a socialistic-communistic country. Heavy hitters are behind the scenes orchestrating much of the effort, pushing the pawns around to carry out their game.

Part of that effort is the employment of what I have often heard referred to as “useful idiots”. These are those who can’t or won’t see the big picture but seem eager to pick up the sword and fight the small battles; these battles of course being part of the strategy of incrementalism.

How often do we hear someone exclaim, “There is no way the people would ever let the government take away my rights”? In most every case, that statement is true to a point and that is why those seeking your destruction have learned the fine art of incrementally chopping away, little by little, until one day, often completely unaware, you discover another freedom gone.

Only an idiot would admit while performing their act of incrementation what their ultimate goal is. By doing such you alert the sheep that danger might be present. What works well for incremental masters is the recruitment of useful idiots to do their bidding. These patsies sound quite sincere when they decry their innocence of participation in rights destruction; “we are doing this for our children”; “we are doing this to save our heritage”; “we are doing this for the good of everybody”.

Such is one case in North Dakota. One Roger Kaseman, heading up a Marxist organization called North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, is trying to get a citizen’s initiative passed on Nov. 2 that would put an end to anyone in that state trying to raise elk and deer. He calls it an end to “high fence” hunting. He denies he’s out to steal away anyone’s property rights and insists on foisting his personal morals and ethics on the rest of us by law, all for the cause of protecting his hunting heritage.

In a recent email sent out to many of North Dakota hunters, Kaseman tries to make his case that his action will have nothing to do with animal rights/anti-hunting groups’ agendas to put an end to all hunting, trapping and fishing. He bases his declaration on North Dakota’s constitutional amendment that protects the citizen’s heritage of hunting, trapping and fishing. He also labors through what he perceives as the steps necessary anyone would have to take to put an abrupt end to these outdoor pursuits.

Is he that naive? Or perhaps he believes the rest of us are that stupid. Perhaps Mr. Kaseman should be reminded that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution acknowledges and guarantees the right of every citizen in America to keep and bear arms. I ask, has that right been incrementally whittled down where in some states the restrictions on gun ownership are so great, it is extremely difficult to buy and own one? But what about our constitutional amendment? It will never happen? Are we now to deliberately state that we’ll never have our guns taken away from us because our constitution says so?

Evidently that is what Roger Kaseman is trying to convince fellow hunters of.

It is insane to argue that Measure 2 is a step toward banning all hunting when the state constitution prohibits any law that bans hunting.

History shows us what the results are when, as citizens, we rest in the comfort of a constitution and become complacent in our duties to participate in a government of and by the people. One day we wake up and discover our precious rights have been taken away, often because a useful idiot played right into the hands of those orchestrating the big board.

Tom Remington

GPIM Radio Podcasting presents a 31-minute debate between Roger Kaseman, head of N. Dakotans for Fair Chase and Shaun Schafer, president of ND Deer Ranchers Association, on Measure 2. Voters will be asked to vote on this measure which is an attempt to ban shooting elk and deer in enclosures.

A good percentage of this broadcast is the taking of phone calls from listeners. If the representation of callers is any indication of how the vote will turn out, the Measure will not pass.

From my own perspective and feedback I have received over the years on this issue, it is a toss-up as to whether hunting on game ranches is a good thing or a bad thing. However, when you start telling American people what they can and can’t do with their lands and businesses, the overwhelming majority will defend those rights.

To listen to the podcast, click this link. It will take you to an archived page on the GPIM website. Simply press the play button.

Tom Remington

I have written and commented in the past about a group of neo-Marxists in North Dakota trying to foist their personal convictions on others through government regulation that cripples economic growth and robs Americans of their rights, granted by God, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I’m talking about Measure 2, a citizens’ initiative that aims to stop property owners from offering hunting opportunities on their ranches, most as a means to supplement their incomes. The end result will be that these ranchers, good Americans like all the rest of us, will, more than likely, be run out of business.

Behind this farce is a group called Hunters for Fair Chase. Roger Kaseman is the self-appointed leader of this group and last week he had an editorial published in the Grand Forks Herald (subscription).

The citizens of North Dakota will have to decide what they believe is in the best interest for all. When these folks go to the polls, they will have to ask themselves if regulating everything a property owner can do is what they would like to have happen to themselves. Once the truth is told to them, the outcome is certain. Measure 2 will be soundly defeated.

In Kaseman’s editorial, his attempt at persuading voters his Measure 2 is the tool that will insure his hunting and that of future generations, he opens by painting an inaccurate picture of reality on the ground but that’s what people do when they can’t support their agendas with truth.

But this isn’t the worst of the editorial. He reminds me very much of our present President, Barack Hussein Obama, who during his campaign stated that the Founding Fathers who wrote the U.S. Constitution, got it all wrong. Obama was quoted as saying the Constitution and Bill of Rights is about what you can’t do.

Few people know the history behind the writing of the Constitution and that’s a shame. James Madison has been credited as the author of it. Madison was a mentor of Thomas Jefferson’s and they argued at length as to whether or not the Constitution, when originally written, should also contain the Bill of Rights. This is one reason the Bill of Rights came at a later date.

Thomas Jefferson believed that all free Americans understood, as he wrote in the Declaration of Independence, that our liberties come from God and nowhere else. Madison felt it necessary to make sure certain rights where in writing.

The problem President Obama and others, who believe it is their right to rule over others, have with the Constitution is that the authors of that document knew the people understood their God-given rights but they also knew from past experience that those in positions of authority want to take those rights away and thus the Constitution is about what government cannot do. It limits the power of government.

When you see life from the perspective that people need to be controlled, told what to do and how to do it, as Mr. Obama does, it is easy to see why he would think that the Framers’ words to limit government control were all wrong. What has been lost for people like Barack Obama is that all of our rights are granted to us by God; not by the President of the United States; not by the Congress; not by the governor of your state; and certainly not by your neighbor.

Roger Kaseman distorts the very Document that brought this country together and made it great, in order that he, can control the people. He twists the meaning in an attempt to convince people that you can’t have a right unless government grants it to you through legislation or a citizens’ initiative. Kaseman states the following:

First, they argue that the measure will interfere with their property rights. But ask them which article or section of the Constitution grants them the unfettered right to operate their shooting galleries as they see fit, and they can’t answer.

What court decision, state or federal, supports their claim to this right?

This kind of demented and backwards perspective is dishonest and dangerous to freedom-loving Americans. Obviously Roger Kaseman knows not from where his liberties come. He believes that none of us have liberties unless he and others like him, give them to us. Where have we seen this before?

One would have to ask if anyone should trust a person who thinks this way?

The second issue that Kaseman attempts to discredit is whether or not passing Measure 2 would result in “open[ing] the borders of North Dakota to radical animal rights groups, and that these groups will outlaw all hunting and all animal agriculture.”

To some degree, Mr. Kaseman is correct in that it wouldn’t suddenly open the door to allow actions to take place in North Dakota to outlaw hunting. It’s already taking place and Measure 2 is simply one more increment in getting the job done.

Read what he says as being the reasons this sort of thing won’t happen.

Think about that for a moment. This argument presumes North Dakotans are gullible enough to believe that should Measure 2 pass, animal rights groups will invade the state and impose a dictatorship that would outlaw hunting and animal agriculture.

That would require both a complicit Legislature and a compliant citizenry. But neither a complicit Legislature nor a compliant citizenry exist in this state. Never have.

No group could convince either the people or the Legislature to outlaw hunting and animal agriculture. But the high-fence operators argue that gullible North Dakotans would let just such laws be passed.

Kaseman radicalizes and embellishes his statement to try to persuade his readers but does he even realize it is the very things he claims won’t happen already have?

Those who hate America and everything it stands for learned a long time ago that you can’t yank the rug out from under us to steal our freedoms. After all, liberty and independence are the two items that insures that America will always be free and remain the greatest nation on earth. Try entering my house in order to take my guns away and you’ll have quite a fight on your hands. But work at taking my guns away one regulation at a time and with patience, it will happen. After all, what’s one more small regulation going to do?

Passing Measure 2 isn’t going to put an immediate end to hunting or ranching. But it is one more small step in that direction.

Americans got comfortable in their surroundings of independent liberties. It is in fact the complacency Kaseman says won’t happen that already has. This complacency exists today in every American to some degree and within our legislators to a higher degree, resulting in complicity that Kaseman says doesn’t exist.

One wonders if Mr. Kaseman is aware that North Dakota is a willing member and participant with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). This organization is now mostly run with environmentalists and pseudo-conservation groups like Defenders of Wildlife. AFWA promotes non consumptive wildlife management and utilizes money from Pittman-Robertson in order to fund non hunting programs. Pittman-Robertson money is used to fight to continue the listing of endangered species which is in turn used as a political tool to limit or end hunting opportunities. It would appear that North Dakota’s “complicity” has already resulted in limiting Mr. Kaseman’s and all other North Dakotans of their hunting, trapping and fishing opportunities. At the present rate, hunting will end in most states within 5-10 years. This isn’t an attempt at scaring people. It’s the truth and it is there to discover for those not “complacent” or “complicit”.

My advice to the voters of North Dakota is to not put stock in anything a man says who doesn’t understand the Constitution and from whom his rights are granted. Open your eyes and look around and ask yourself, how much of your life as a free American is limited, regulated and controlled by government. Do you want more of this? On the surface you may see passing Measure 2 as a good thing but how will you feel when the next measure comes along that directly affects you and robs you of your freedoms while stealing away your livelihood?

Remember, sometimes to preserve your rights puts you in a uncomfortable position.

Tom Remington

Marxists are alive everywhere in America today and finally Americans are getting very sick and tired of it. They are fed up with politics as usual and they want to see a return to smaller government and an embrace of the U.S. Constitution as it was written and intended. They want far less government intrusion into their lives. This revolution of sorts will be most brought to the forefront this November when voters take to the polls. We are already witnessing an attitude among voters they are fed up with the usual politics and too much regulation. Expect a sweeping reform that will put Marxist wanabees and good ole boy politics out of business. Enough is enough.

The people who live in North Dakota are no different than most states. People there want and enjoy their liberty and the freedoms granted them by God in their pursuit of happiness, life and liberty. If they are like the rest of us, the last thing they want to see on this November’s ballot is an initiative that is spelled out in big, bold letters that somebody else wants to further regulate your life and plunder your liberties.

That is the meat and potatoes of Measure 2, an effort by a group looking to place themselves above others in order to rule over them. This of course is part of the Marxist theory, one that strives to overturn the very principles that made this country great in order to force the citizens to become subjects while they decide what is best for you.

Measure 2, formulated for the second time by Hunters for Fair Chase, aims to run elk and deer ranchers out of business because they believe they have a copyright on “fair chase”, “ethics” and the humane treatment of animals.

For decades Americans have sat by while their God-given rights have been taken away. Slowly but surely this has happened. We need to accept a certain amount of the blame for our complacency that allowed such a thing to happen. It appears many Americans have been slapped across the face are are now fully aware that their lives as free humans are in the middle of being snatched away.

We now in this country have a Government or Government sponsored groups or individuals that are preparing to or have already succeeded in destroying free America. You as a parent, no longer can make decisions on how to raise your children. You will be forced into buying a Government run health plan, the first time in history. Our government now wants to dictate how much money you can earn while stealing most of what you make from you in order that they can continue their quest for total domination. The Government believes it knows how you should eat and will ban foods in order to control us. The Government will decide what drugs, if any, you can take or give to your children. The Government now decides what kind of car you will drive and the light bulbs you must use. The Government indoctrinates our children. Our kids are no longer taught how to add and subtract or about history, or how to dissect a frog. Instead they are brainwashed about our environment and all the evils of man.

Environmental groups, that rightfully can be described as agencies of our Government, have been very successful in stealing your rights. You lose property rights, you pay higher prices for gas, food, utilities, and virtually everything we do in our lives daily because of overreaching environmentalism.

The Endangered Species Act now destroys our heritage of hunting, fishing and trapping.

The list I have compiled is small. What is happening to free Americans is not small. When North Dakotans take to the polls in November they are going to be asked if they want to run good families out of business for the purpose of fulfilling the fantasies of a ragtag group of Marxists who believe they own the authority to foist their ideals onto free North Dakotans.

Hunting ethics are what I, as a free American, teach my children as they grow up. My neighbor should have no business telling me how to raise my kids. The Hunters for Fair Chase want to draw an imaginary ethics line in the sand and determine who can and cannot cross it. They believe themselves to be in a class above you, a class that is more intelligent than you and they decide where that ethics line gets drawn. They decide what is humane treatment of animals.

They think shooting any animal within a fenced in area is unethical and inhumane, whether that fenced in area is 100 square feet or 100 square miles. They decide that because you are not intelligent enough to make that decision on your own.

If it is unethical to enter a person’s private property and shoot an elk that belongs to the landowner, why is that unethical and walking into the forest and setting up a bait station, then sitting in a tree stand waiting to ambush the game, is not? Isn’t it then unethical to use artificial lures and calls to trick your target into an ambush? Isn’t it unethical to hunt with dogs? Isn’t it unethical to use a scope to sight and kill your game? Isn’t it unethical to use natural boundaries to corner and trap your game in order to increase a hunter’s odds at success? Isn’t it unethical to use clothing that masks you scent? Isn’t it unethical to use a GPS, compass, radio, etc.? Where does this imaginary line stop and why does the Hunters for Fair Chase get to decide?

This Measure isn’t about ethics. It’s about who gets to be in control. Who becomes or remains the ruling class and who becomes the subjects.

Hunters for Fair Chase are exercising their right to petition the citizens for a measure to change the law. It will be up to the voters to sort out truth from fiction and make a decision as to what is good for themselves and the communities they live in. I predict that the citizens of North Dakota, once they realize another Marxist group is looking to further crush their rights, will overwhelmingly reject a measure of this kind.

Tom Remington

Measure #2, to be found this November on the North Dakota ballot, is a citizen sponsored initiative that would effectively ban hunting behind fences. North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase is the organization behind the initiative. This is also their second attempt at such a voter measure. The previous attempt failed due to a lack of signatures on a petition in 2008.

Measure #2 on this November’s ballot will read as follows:

Initiated Statutory Measure No. 2
SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 36-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:
Fee killing of certain captive game animals prohibited – Penalty – Exception. A person is guilty of a class A
misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when
government action is otherwise required or authorized by law.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Act becomes effective on November 1, 2012.
YES – Means you approve the measure as stated above.
NO – Means you reject the measure as stated above.

Unfortunately for the voters, it seems that some voters discovered after they had signed the petition it wasn’t exactly what they believed, according to what was written on the petition, they were signing. It is ultimately the responsibility of anyone to know what they are signing, but unless you are completely aware of all the existing statutes, etc., voters ultimately must rely on what is written on a petition as at least being accurate. After all, it is approved by the Secretary of State. And herein is the rub.

For clarity’s sake, let’s go back to the first petition submitted to the North Dakota Secretary of State’s office for approval in Aug. 2007. That entire petition can be viewed at this link.

The latest petition was submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State on August 21, 2009. The entire text of that petition can be found at this link.

Mind you that essentially the two petitions are identical with the exception of language that explains to the person signing the petition about what the proposed new law is. In 2007 the instructions to the signatory read:

IF MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED, IT IS NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING ADDED. IF THE MATERIAL IS OVERSTRUCK BY DASHES, THE MATERIAL IS BEING DELETED. IF NO MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED OR OVERSTRUCK, THE MEASURE CONTAINS ALL NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING ADDED.

For the record, this explanation is correct. The approved petition for 2009 has a similar explanation and format of the proposed bill but the wording is incorrect. Here’s how it reads:

IF MATERIAL IS UNDERSCORED, IT IS NEW MATERIAL WHICH IS BEING ADDED. IF THE MATERIAL IS OVERSTRUCK BY DASHES, THE MATERIAL IS BEING DELETED. IF MATERIAL IS NOT UNDERSCORED OR OVERSTRUCK, THE MATERIAL IS EXISTING LAW THAT IS NOT BEING CHANGED.

I emboldened the last sentence as it shows distinctly language that is in error. This isn’t simply a typo. This is language that leads any person wanting to sign this petition as believing what is written is already existing law.

Article III, Section 2 of the North Dakota Constitution reads:

Section 2. A petition to initiate or to refer a measure shall be presented to the secretary of state for approval as to form. A request for approval shall be presented over the names and signatures of twenty-five or more electors as sponsors, one of whom shall be designated as chairman of the sponsoring committee. The secretary of state shall approve the petition for circulation if it is in proper form and contains the names and addresses of the sponsors and the full text of the measure.

What is clear is that the Secretary of State’s office must approve the petition “as to form”. Just what precisely does that mean? We know that, among other things, the petitioners must provide at least 25 legal “electors” to circulate and attest to the signatures contained on a petition. Does the SOS also verify the text contained on the petition? It would appear to me that SOS must approve a petition to be accurately written as well as “to form”. If not, this leaves the door open to fraud and deceit.

Now voters are left wondering whether the Secretary of State’s office knowingly and/or irresponsibly allowed a petition to be circulated that was incorrect, if not illegal, or both. Or, that the petitioners knew they could get away with changing the wording if they thought it would help their cause. This adds all sorts of confusion to exactly what Measure #2 is.

All that I am able to verify is that the wording on the petition approved by the Secretary of State, is incorrect and overly misleading to anyone who would read it. Have we now gotten to the point where we can’t even trust that a simple petition is accurate and legal?

The campaigning that will be behind this initiative will be emotional and heated. Compound that with the fact that a petition that passed with a minimum number of signatures, and voters are left with a bitter taste in their mouths about this whole thing.

The voters will ultimately decide. Unfortunately, the voter loses.

Tom Remington