# ND Fair Chase, What Have You Done?



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/0 ... -you-done/

North Dakota Fair Chase, What Have You Done?
Posted by Tom Remington on April 7, 2008

Some of the arch enemies of hunting and fishing are groups such as the Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and a entire host of other off the wall animal rights groups whose priorities are quite skewed, to be polite about it. To stay abreast of what the whackos are doing, I subscribe to alerts from some of these groups. Also on occasion I visit the sites and see what projects or movements they might be supporting at any given time.

This all takes me back the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase group who are trying to put a stop to high-fence hunting in their state. They have drafted a referendum they hope to put on the ballot in November of 2008 and are in the process of collecting some 13,000 legitimate registered North Dakota voter's signatures. Am I to assume they are having a difficult time in accomplishing that?

On April 4, 2008, President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States sent out a newsletter seeking help to stop canned hunting in North Dakota.

Dear Friend,

North Dakota voters have the opportunity to stop the trophy shooting of captive animals trapped behind fences - an inhumane and unsportsmanlike practice opposed by hunters and non-hunters alike - but only with your help. These "canned hunting" operations offer wealthy customers the opportunity to kill tame, captive animals for guaranteed trophies. Get involved today in stopping this unethical practice.

Both hunters and non-hunters condemn canned hunting, but it has not yet been outlawed in North Dakota. Be part of the team that puts this critical issue on the November statewide ballot! The campaign must collect 12,844 valid signatures by the end of July, and we need your help.

If you have volunteered to gather signatures already, thank you! If not, please sign up today. Email Karen at [email protected] or call 701-839-6210.

Just a little of your time will help give North Dakotans the chance to vote to stop canned hunting this fall.

Sincerely,

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States

Ooops!! This is not good for this elitist group, especially after having made these statements at the Bismark Tribune's forums on February 26, 2008. Roger Kaseman heads up the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase and in this thread, he was spelling out what he referred to as the truth behind his efforts.

Here are the facts:

I am a lifelong hunter. I have been hunting for 47 years.

I am not, nor is the Fair Chase Hunters organization an anti-hunting group.

I am not, nor are any members of the organization anti-land owner right. A majority of the members are either hunters, or landowners, or both.

We have not and do not intend to seek the endorsement of any anti-hunting group.

Contrary to Show Me's accusation, we are not in bed with HSUS, nor will we be.

I am sure anti-hunting organizations will offer financial support for the campaign when we qualify the intuitive for the ballot. The committee is unanimous; we will turn down that support.

What HSUS places on their web site is beyond my control.

Who HSUS or any other organization endorses is beyond my control and beyond the control of any member of the Fair Chase Committee.

If the NDHFFC will turn down the support of any anti-hunting group, then all of us are anxiously awaiting the public refusal of help from HSUS. Kaseman makes a good point when he says that he has no control over what organizations endorse his group or what they might put on their website but this might go a little bit beyond that.

According to what I have been able to dig up so far and what I found also at the Bismark Tribune's forums, it appears that someone called the "Karen" listed at the phone number on the HSUS newsletter. According to the poster at the Tribune's forums, Karen said she was working for Roger Kaseman and had been contacted by him seeking assistance.

So, Karen is a private North Dakota resident just trying to the initiative up for the residents of North Dakota to vote on. Is it common practice to use HSUS resources for "private" citizens to "help get the fair chase initiative up to the voters"? She further directs Mr. Curren to send his donation to Roger Kaseman. Not HSUS mind you but directly to Roger Kaseman of the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase Committee.

Anyone who has an ounce of respect for the hunting and fishing industry and everyone who supports and subscribes to it, would publicly deny any support of any kind from this group or any other like them. Kaseman is correct. He can't control what HSUS puts on their site but he sure as heck can stand up in a public forum a denounce any kind of support from the likes of these people. Will it happen?

If Kaseman and the rest of the "unanimous" committee who said, "we will turn down that support", were truthful and have not changed their minds, we can look forward to a public refusal of HSUS' help. Any short of a complete disassociation from HSUS or any other animal rights groups will certainly tell the voters of North Dakota who is really behind this movement.

This link will take you to more articles on the North Dakota initiative and other fair chase issues.

Tom Remington


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I can only speak for myself. It's a complex world and things are not always as they appear on the surface. I would accept donations from individuals if I was chairman, but I would not accept it from an anti hunting organization. I would accept it from individuals because I have no way of knowing their affiliation. For example you could be opposing this harder than anyone publicly, but behind the scenes supporting it through HSUS. Who knows? What could possibly be a better way to hide your true intention? I don't think we can send out people to investigate every contributor. Unless you know someone personally you don't know if they belong to the Brady group, or the National Rifle Association. Personally I belong to the National Rifle Association.

All the scare tactics are fueled by one thing ----- money----- big, easy bucks (no pun intended).

The involvement that HSUS has taken upon themselves without our involvement lends itself to an old cliché "even a blind pig finds and occasional acorn". Do you seriously think they like what I write?


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

> The involvement that HSUS has taken upon themselves without our involvement lends itself to an old cliché "even a blind pig finds and occasional acorn". Do you seriously think they like what I write?


Who are you kidding, "without our involvement"; Looks like your chairman contacted them!!

Don't worry Bruce, I do not think you have to worry about being taken seriously.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> All the scare tactics


Again?? Kind of reminds me of when the calvary made a raid it was a campaign but when the Indians made a raid it was a massacre. Now if it is spoken by the fair chase movement it is facts but if spoken by the opposition it is a scare tactic. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson said:


> > All the scare tactics
> 
> 
> Again?? Kind of reminds me of when the calvary made a raid it was a campaign but when the Indians made a raid it was a massacre. Now if it is spoken by the fair chase movement it is facts but if spoken by the opposition it is a scare tactic. :eyeroll:


I suppose it works both ways doesn't it?

After trying the campaign route and giving up I am more for the massacre now.  You have to resort to humor when there is nothing else to talk about, and it simply turns to bickering. Right?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> After trying the campaign route and giving up I am more for the massacre now.


I think there is one thing we can both count on. Someone is going to lose their scalp when this is over.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Don't forget the other part of my post.



> You have to resort to humor when there is nothing else to talk about, and it simply turns to bickering. Right?


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Colorado Anti-Hunting Bill Dead&#8230;.For Now
A bill that was sponsored by Colorado democrat Rep. Debbie Stafford and supported by the Humane Society of the United States, to end hunting in enclosures died in the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee on February 6, 2008.

HB1096, a bill that many said was poorly worded and very vague, was suspended indefinitely in the Colorado committee and many hope it is never revived in any way but you can be assured Coloradoans have not heard the last from at least the Humane Society of the United States whose aim is to stop all hunting.

While many Colorado residents, hunters, ranchers and supporters of property rights can breathe a brief sigh of relief, they surely cannot let their guard down. HSUS and all anti-hunting and animal rights advocate groups look for any opportunity they can to suck the life out of Americans by stealing away their rights and heritage.

This is one more bill we are happy to see die!

Tom Remington


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I guess this means when this issue is resolved the supporters of high fence hunting which includes many outfitters and hunters should be banned from any other causes like DU, the Rocky mountain Elk foundation, Delta Waterfowl and etc. Sorry it doesn't work that way. When common goals are found it is for the benefit of both sides to cooperate. That doesn't mean we have to agree with or even like each other on every issue. When the goal is accomplished we can go our seperate ways. Everyone does this on a regular basis in everyday life. It's called compromise.

"keep your friends close and your'e enemies closer"


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

LT said:


> > The involvement that HSUS has taken upon themselves without our involvement lends itself to an old cliché "even a blind pig finds and occasional acorn". Do you seriously think they like what I write?
> 
> 
> Who are you kidding, "without our involvement"; Looks like your chairman contacted them!!
> ...


No sir, I did not contact them.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> No sir, I did not contact them.


So you are welcoming the support they give you ? I guess I would contact them if I didn't want their support and tell them to get your name off the HSUS website.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

We do not post private messages on this website.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Okay, I will just post the link then to the e-mail message which is contained in Mr. Remington's article here:

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2008/0 ... -you-done/

This same message is on the Bismarck Tribune site, which I believe Mr. Curren posted there himself.

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/forum/sh ... hp?tid=180

I see the e-mail message has been removed from my original post containing Mr. Remington's article.

If I have overstepped the boundaries by posting a message on here that was posted several places on the internet, I apologize.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

No problem.It is just a rule here and it is a good one.....PM's are just that.....PM's.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

> No sir, I did not contact them.


I get it now Roger; it is kind of like a relay team, you contacted Karen, who contacted HSUS. Did you get the copy of the email from Karen where she is acting as your agent? It shows that she sent you a copy.

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/forum/sh ... hp?tid=180


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

You have wrong information or else you are making it up. My bet is on the latter.

The day the Fair Chase Committee filed with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State issued a news release on the initiative. AP sent the story out nationwide. I assume somebody at HSUS read the story and posted information on Fair Chase on the HSUS web site.

Assuming that the Bill or Rights is still in effect, HSUS has a perfect right to post what they please on their site without permission from Fair Chase, which HSUS didn't seek and we didn't give since contrary to your wacked out conspiracy theory, nobody at Fair Chase solicited an endorsement from HSUS or even talked to HSUS about an endorsement. Have not and will not.

As far as Karen is concerned, show me where she said that Fair Chase contacted her for support? Karen meets the legal requirements for circulating a petition; over 18 and a ND resident for over 30 days. She volunteered with Fair Chase. Fair Chase lined up and is still lining up people to carry petitions. We did not, do not, and will not ask any volunteer for their political, religious, or social affiliations. If you are over 18, have been a resident of the state for over 30 days, you can sign the petition or volunteer to carry the petition. Karen meets these requirements.

I'm not waiting for Dewey Curren's promised donation. It was a ruse on his part. That's a polite way of saying he lied. I will retract the charge when I see a check made payable to Fair Chase Hunters with his name signed to it. I won't hold my breath. (The check has to clear.)

If you are opposed to Fair Chase, nothing I write here will change your mind. If you oppose Fair Chase, you support penning hand raised, hand fed deer and elk behind escape proof fences and then bringing in people to shoot them for a fee determined by the points the antlers score. That is your default position.

If you are on the fence on Fair Chase and the HSUS web posting is an issue, think about Dog fighting.

Do you approve of dog fighting, or do you oppose it?

Think about cock fighting.

Do you approve of cock fighting, or do you oppose it?

Think about shooting deer or elk behind fences.

Do you approve the practice, or do you oppose it?

Think about internet hunting.

Do you oppose internet hunting or do you approve the practice?

HSUS opposes all of the above.

For better or worse, we are on the side of the high fence issue as HSUS. If you are on the fence on this issue, remember, Fair Chase would faced the HSUS issue regardless of what we did or didn't do.

The high fence crowd cannot defend what they are doing. If they can't defend the practice, then they have no argument to offer, and without a valid argument, they stoop to personal attacks and insinuation to try to discredit the Fair Chase initiative and the people behind it.

The high fence operators raise the issue of property rights. That sounds legitimate. But ask them to cite a constitutional, statutory, or court precedence to support their claim, and they can't do it. Why?

"Game Ranchers do not have an absolute or unfettered right to operate an alternative livestock ranch as they see fit. Alternative livestock operations are dependent upon licenses from the state. A license is not a vested right. It is a privilege granted by the state. A license ... comes from the state, and may be withheld completely."

I didn't make the statement up. It's a quote from the decision a United States District Court judge handed down when Montana Game Ranchers sued in an attempt to overturn the an initiative Montana voters pass to ban high fence operations. The judge slam-dunked the high fence operators. NOTE: The Montana initiative went a lot further than the North Dakota initiative; it banned everything behind fences, including raising elk and deer.

Folks, the issue is about a small group of operators penning hand raised, hand fed deer and elk behind escape proof fences and then bringing in people to shoot them for a fee determined by the points the antlers score. It isn't about who sides with who.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Think about internet hunting.
> Do you oppose internet hunting or do you approve the practice?


Who cares? It doesn't exist. Never did exist. But you already know that don't you. Talk about using scare tactics. That makes anything else you claim or say suspicious at best. So why should anyone believe anything else you say.



> HSUS opposes all of the above.


HSUS opposes *all* forms of hunting including fair chase.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Roger from HSUS they also oppose these;



> Rearing Pheasants
> 
> Releasing Pheasants
> 
> ...


How does fair chase feel about these?


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Roger, so did you or did you not contact Karen? I also contacted her and asked her if you had contacted her, yes or no. Her answer to me was that she saw no relevance in who contacted who first. When I cannot get an answer from someone on a yes or no question, to me, that is very telling.

I would like to remind you of some of the things that you said at the Jamestown meeting.

"People are signing. If we were selling cars, if we were selling real estate or toothpaste, we would be millionaires in a weekend, because it is an easy sell. All you have to do is tell people they put elk and deer in a fence and bring in someone to shoot them. I will tell you who is not signing, I had three ladies not sign, they were animal activists, you cannot get them to sign anything."

"As far as the issue of handicapped hunting, we were in Fargo and I signed three guys, they were in wheelchairs, they signed voluntarily. The one guy said they took me hunting, released a pheasant in front of me, I shot it, and he looked up at me and he says I did not like it. I knew exactly what he was saying."

"As far as a kid dying, it happens; but I do not believe I would risk a kid's ETERNAL SOUL in the last days of his life teaching him how to cheat." (This was in response to Mr. Swanke talking about a leukemic child that had come to his ranch as a wish through Hunt of a Lifetime.)

You told us to google Mr. Kafka and Spoaklie and that we would grow to hate those men. You led us to believe that this was over with in Montana. One gentleman told you it was still being appealed in the Montana Supreme Court and it has been there for around 18 months. He told you that millions have been spent challenging this and do we want this here in North Dakota. You then told him YES!! Well the crowd made their feelings LOUD AND CLEAR to you, "GO BACK TO CALIFORNIA."

I think you need to watch this link: (It can be found at this page, http://www.montanacourts.org/argument_archive.asp)

Buhmann v. Montana
ORAL ARGUMENT - 05-473 BRUCE BUHMANN, SHIRLEY BUHMANN, CIRCLE EAGLE GAME FARM, LEN WALLACE, PAMELA WALLACE and BIG VELVET RANCH, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE STATE OF MONTANA, MIKE McGRATH and JEFF HAGENER, Defendants and Respondents. and SPORTSMEN FOR I-143, MONTANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, Defendants, Intervenors and Respondents.

Oral argument was heard on Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme Court, Helena, Montana.

(Hon. Deborah Kim Christopher sitting in place of Justice John Warner and Hon. Wm. Nels Swandal sitting in place of Justice Brian Morris) oral argument limited to TAKINGS issues.

http://audiovideo1.law.umt.edu:8080/Buhmann, et. al. v. Montana 9-13-06

It is very lengthy but at about an hour into it, you will get to see the Montana Wildlife Federation lawyer speak. The judge asks him if this was about disease then why were these farms allowed to exist. The lawyer basically says that yes they were allowed to still have their animals, but that was the only way they could do this without it being a TAKINGS.

This puts the state in a Catch 22 situation. If they over rule this, how is this going to look, who is going to compensate these ranchers? How is this going to look after millions have been spent fighting this in court?


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

By the way, why would you want to show a dying kid how to cheat?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Private message sent to me.


Won't answer questions but knowingly puts out false information and violates forum rules. Doesn't say much for character does it.



> By the way, why would you want to show a dying kid how to cheat?


You're right. Let him just sit there and stew in his own mess. :eyeroll:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

KEN W said:


> We do not post private messages on this website.


And another on this thread



> No problem.It is just a rule here and it is a good one.....PM's are just that.....PM's.


Pay attention Roger, and Jim :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

I will type real slow so that you get what I mean:

I DID NOT CONTACT ANYBODY FROM HSUS.

NOBODY FROM FAIR CHASE CONTACTED HSUS FOR AN ENDORSMENT.

PEOPLE VOLUNTEERED AND ARE STILL VOLUNTERRING. I DID NOT, DO NOT, AND WILL NOT ASK VOLUNTEERS FOR A DETAILED RESUME OF THEIR POLITICAL, SOCIAL, PROFESSIONAL OR PRIVATE LIFE. IF THE VOLUNTEER IS OVER 18 AND A ND RESIDENT, AND IF THAT VOLUNTEER IS DISGUSTED WITH HIGH FENCE OPERATIONS, WELCOME TO THE FIGHT.

Fair Chase is fighting a dirty business. The private message I posted is a sample of dozens of messages and emails I am getting. Compared to some, this one is mild. I have had one death threat and one threat of bodily injury. My delet button is about wore out. I didn't expect anything less from people with ethical and moral standards so low that they pen domestic animals behind escape proof fences and have them killed for money and then have the audacity to call it "hunting".

I don't plan to go back to Califorina any time soon. I was raised in this state a few miles from where I sit. My parents, grandparents and great grandparents are buried here. An older brother and my first hunting partner is buried here. I moved home to North Dakota from Califorina. I thought I moved back among decent, hard working, hnest people and the vast majority of them are. But there are a few that aren't decent. I hear from them every day when I open my email. That's what this fight is about.

I've never run from a fight. I'm having way too much fun getting under the high fencer operator's skin to start now.

They can't defend what they are doing.

What they are doing lumps decent, Fair Chase hunters with what the high fence operators do inside their fences. High fence operations give radiacl organizations like PETA political ammunition to use aginst all hunters and hunting in general. They point to high fence killing and tell the world this is how all hunters are. I resent that. I love hunting. What goes on behind high fences is not hunting. I am going to do everything in my power to eliminate operations like that from this state.

Roger Kaseman


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

*Roger Wrote:




I've never run from a fight. I'm having way too much fun getting under the high fencer operator's skin to start now.

Click to expand...

You think this is funny. That sounds typical. You also thought it was so funny the night of the Jamestown meeting to say in front of about 150 people, "I never forget a face, but there is one face I would like to forget, that is my ex-wife." Roger, not too many people found that funny!!!




Fair Chase is fighting a dirty business. The private message I posted is a sample of dozens of messages and emails I am getting. Compared to some, this one is mild. I have had one death threat and one threat of bodily injury.

Click to expand...

Roger, it sounds like you may have more enemies than just the elk/deer ranchers, your ex-wife included.

*


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Fair Chase is fighting a dirty business. The private message I posted is a sample of dozens of messages and emails I am getting. Compared to some, this one is mild. I have had one death threat and one threat of bodily injury. My delet button is about wore out. I didn't expect anything less from people with ethical and moral standards so low that they pen domestic animals behind escape proof fences and have them killed for money and then have the audacity to call it "hunting".


Lets see now Roger,


> people with ethical and moral standards so low that they pen domestic animals behind escape proof fences and have them killed for money and then have the audacity to call it "hunting".


 Are giving you death threats and threats of bodily injury? Uh Huh And the legislatures are telling you they were bribed, and threatened by these people also. Come on Roger, were you with Hillary in Bosnia also when the bullets were buzzing over her head????????????????

Please Roger keep a talking, is it a chance we can get you on television and the radio with these claims?


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

g/o, you aren't making much sense. Give me your home address and I'll come by and help you find your Prozac.


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

Does anyone know where they are at for signatures for this?? It has been interesting reading and if this makes the fall ballot canned hunting will be done here.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

*Roger wrote:*



> NOTE: The Montana initiative went a lot further than the North Dakota initiative; it banned everything behind fences, including raising elk and deer.


Roger, are you saying that there are no elk or deer behind high fences in Montana? Roger, you have already established that you are a man of integrity, now lets debate facts!!

The judge asked the lawyer for the Montana Wildlife Federation why they did not just flat out ban the existence of these ranches if disease was an issue? The lawyer then responded that if they had done it that way, it would have been considered a TAKINGS. They were allowed to keep their animals, otherwise it would have been a TAKINGS. The judge then responded so instead you just took away one of their main sources of income, how is that not doing the same thing?

http://www.montanacourts.org/argument_archive.asp
Buhman vs Montana


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

Eric Hustad said:


> Does anyone know where they are at for signatures for this?? It has been interesting reading and if this makes the fall ballot canned hunting will be done here.


We have 5000 signatures notarized and around 2,000 to 3,000 that haven't been turned in. We need 12,844 valid signatures. We are shooting for 20% over that amount to make sure we have enough. We're going to make it and end canned shooting.

Roger Kaseman


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

LT said:


> *Roger wrote:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great, let's debate it. I'll let the federal judge that decided the case speak for me:

Plaintiffs' taking claims were not based on an outright taking of their property. They argued a reduction in value of the property as basis for the claim &#8230; that it is not necessary to be wholly deprived of all opportunity for use or income from the property to make the claims. *Plaintiffs' premise is unsound*. &#8230;*they have cited no case and this Court has found no decision supporting the proposition that a constitutional taking claim may be asserted on the basis of a diminution in value, as distinct from a total loss of value, of the property. Developed law leads to the opposite conclusion.*

The Court &#8230; concluded none of the State's actions violated any constitutional right of Plaintiffs.

Keep clutching at straws. Montana high fence is dead.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Roger, Are there or are there not elk and deer behind high fences in Montana??

Roger, it is NOT DEAD yet in Montana, as this is the oral arguments from the MONTANA SUPREME COURT. No decision has been made there as of yet.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

*Roger Wrote:*



> The private message I posted is a sample of dozens of messages and emails I am getting. Compared to some, this one is mild. I have had one death threat and one threat of bodily injury.


Roger, you posted a PM from someone that was banned from the board in February. How could he post a PM to you on April 21, 2008, when he is no longer able to post under the handle of angus 1.

RogerK
guest
Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 32 
Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:52 am 
Post subject:

Private message sent to me.

angus 1 
To: RogerK 
Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:27 pm 
Subject:


----------



## north14 (Oct 1, 2004)

I am appalled that a group of so called sportsman ( ND Fair Chase) appear to be in bed with organizations such as HSUS or PETA.


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

Thanks for the update Roger. Most people could care less about hunting and as a group we face a tough battle with that anyway. Canned shooting makes it that much worse as it as people who don't know think it's hunting. When it gets on the ballet it won't be close


----------

