# Is Kellam a Regular?



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

'Canned hunting' is not hunting
By Robert Kellam, 
Published Sunday, December 31, 2006
Canned hunting is a term that is used to describe the killing process by which a producer of captive - sometimes tame - elk, deer, moose etc., releases an animal selected by price, into a pen with 8-foot fences dictated by North Dakota law. The purchaser for the meat or the trophy or both kills the animal in the pen by often using his weapon of choice typically without any skills test. The producers call it hunting. The selected animal has no possible means of escape and a 100 percent guaranteed kill by the producers is often boldly assured. In the minds of most hunters, it is 180 degrees of separation from hunting. It is not hunting - it is killing.

A quote from a neighboring state's governor puts it in perspective:

"In Montana we said it's a bad idea to pen up a bunch of elk, feed them oats and have fat bankers from New York City shoot them while they've got their heads in a grain bucket." - Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer

Montana banned canned hunting; so have California, Delaware, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Wisconsin, Wyoming, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York and Texas. (The list of states of full or partially banned canned hunts was obtained from an Internet search.)

There are myriad reasons to institute a ban on the canned hunting of cervids (deer family) in North Dakota, not the least of which is the ethics of hunting. Fair chase is the principle of hunting ethics that the vast majority of hunters in North Dakota follow.

Other reasons for banning this practice are disease and genetic pollution.

The disease issue is of great importance in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, New York and the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Chronic wasting disease has infected a number of game farms in theses states and provinces. Cleanup is most often at taxpayer expense.

Genetic engineering/pollution is also a threat to wild cervids in North Dakota. Many elk are cross-bred with red deer to increase antler mass for a greater profit and a more impressive trophy. Several states have stringent regulations against red deer cross-breeding.

Genetic pollution in wild cervids is a possibility if the captive inter-bred animals escape or are released. Captive cervids do escape; several instances have taken place in North Dakota in recent years, to the best of my knowledge, none genetically engineered. Montana and Idaho are dealing with a large scale escape of elk into the wild with reported red deer traits that is yet to be resolved; breeding season in the wild is over with many escapees not accounted for.

Alternative livestock producers in North Dakota have started to raise landowner rights in defense of this industry, and rights are important. But they are not absolute; many are the greater good trumping individual rights.

Canned hunts have crept into our society for no more reason than money and a "bragging rights" trophy that is not even recognized by Boone and Crockett or Pope and Young, the organizations that keep the official record books for fair chase gun and bow hunting.

Alternative livestock became popular in past years because of the purported health benefits of the meat and because of the high prices garnered for the antlers for medicinal purposes and aphrodisiacs in Asian countries. It was a largely failed venture and never really caught the mainstream's attention.

Canned hunting became a way for some game farms to, as Gov. Schweitzer so aptly put it, "shoot them while they've got their heads in a grain bucket" to increase individual profits. The practice put wild populations at risk and further tarnished the view of all hunters by the non-hunting public.

In comparison, in North Dakota there are 116 game farms and 140,000 plus deer gun tags issued for fair chase deer hunting. There is no accurate count of the 116 operations that I know of that offer canned hunting. The tail is trying to wag the dog on this issue. That dog won't hunt.

Sen. Tim Mathern's, D-Fargo, legislation is a step in the right direction. Is it worth the risk to ignore the issue and leave it largely unregulated? It is not.

Kellam, Fargo, is an experienced hunter. E-mail [email protected]


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Kellam, Fargo, is an experienced hunter


The Forum can never get things right!!! :wink:


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I don't know if Bob Kellum is an experienced hunter or not. I've never met him! But I'm probably as experienced, or more 'experienced' than 99% of ND hunters, and what he says in his writings and posts is almost always, in my humble opinion, very true! And I suspect Bob is a pretty darned experienced outdoorsman!
What you are inferring is that to write about something you should have been experienced with it! Not necessarily. Like saying you have to have been mugged to be against mugging, or to be killed to be against homicide! Doubt you have to shoot a penned up animal to find this very repugnant! I sure don't have to.........


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Habitat Hugger, I am perhaps in the same ball-park as you. I have been toting iron since 1956. I regret that younger people can not experience the things you and I have. When I started predator calling in 1960 multiple fox would come to the call. Close was under ten yards. Today the sport suffers for profit. The sooner we clean house the more likely and the longer true sport hunting will survive. Call these high fence hunters brethren and we will look like callous killers which society will chastise.

Like you I have not met Bob either, but I have developed a lot of respect for him, and his opinions. His article was very good and absolutely correct. I think you will find that us old experienced hunters will all agree. At least those of us who don't have a fat New York banker on the hook.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*g/o wrote*



> Quote:
> Kellam, Fargo, is an experienced hunter
> 
> The Forum can never get things right!!! :wink:


Experienced hunter? I qualify if the qualifications are being older and hunting as much as I can in just about every season offered in ND. Never have and never will do a big game canned hunt though.

Thanks for the nice compliments guys. g/o was just having a little fun with me. No g/o I am not a regular. the forum goes out of their way to *NOT* report on outdoor issues. sometimes you just gotta rattle the cage and see who yells.

The debate in the legislature is going to hinge on property rights and the economic benefit to ND vs. Fair chase, genetic pollution and disease. Sportsmen will need to step up to the plate and be at the least as vocal as the opposition. I hope you step up to the plate.

Bob


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Hey Bob, just got the paper tonight, great job again. :beer: 


> "In Montana we said it's a bad idea to pen up a bunch of elk, feed them oats and have fat bankers from New York City shoot them while they've got their heads in a grain bucket." - Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer


 Boy, you'd have to love a man like that.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Bob,
Thanks for expressing your view in an eloquite manner. You speak for alot of us.
As you probably know the Forum purchased the GF Hearld which has had a very good staff of outdoor writers. I hope they are not stifled by their new owners. I have been keeping a watch to see if any thing will change.
Anyway Thanks again. And a Happy and Prosporus New Year to you and your Family.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Bob,
You just have to be more "regular" than g/o 8) 
Jim


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Bob,

Once again, an excellent letter. Ship it off to every major newspaper in the state.

:beer:


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Great letter Bob!
Only one little question. No Texas canned hunts??? Um!!! My buddy's dad owns and runs a very large exotic game hunting ranch in Texas, and it seems like half the state is covered in 8 foot game fence. But I don't know the laws down there, I'm only asking if the part about Texas banning canned hunts is correct.
:beer:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Texas has banned the canned hunting of some exotics like Rhino etc. It is a partial ban.

Bob


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Once again nice job Bob!! Keep up the good fight. :wink:


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

I don't always agree with Kellam, but I have respected his opinions in the past. After reading his editorial, which openly sides with A. an anti-hunting agenda, and B. a politician's personal agenda, He has lost my respect.

As a hunter/outdoorsman it's intellectually dishonest to support only the hunting methods you like and openly side with the opposition and attack the ones you don't. I have to say that this is about as intellectually dishonest a piece as I've seen this side of PETA's website.

As is typical in any anti-hunting argument, this editorial is long on rhetoric & emotion and short on facts that support the position. United we stand, divided we fall...


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

NDterminator

Canned shoots are NOT hunts!!! Outlawing these disgusting practices seems reasonalbe to most all real hunters.

The only guys I know who are in favor are either the guidies, or rich city guys who can't harvest an animal with fair chase.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

It is one thing to support all hunting but to blindly support all SHOOTING.....A totally different animal. Canned shoots are not hunting.

Oh yea, on the topic thread............Bob is lucky if he can just stay regular at his age!!!!!!! :lol:


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

You hit the nail on the head there Rowdie. Sorry Terminator but killing in a enclosed high fence is not hunting in the vast majority of the sporting publics view.

Great Article Bob!!!!!!

Thanks for putting into words the way a very large portion of the sporting community feels and not the vocal minority.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Term, it suprises me a bit to be saying it, but I cannot disagree any more strongly. Blind support is blind, and when you walk through an issue with blinders on the walls you find HURT!!!! We absolutley must police our own, and no one else is going to do anything to help us....

Very nicely said Bob.

Tom


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*NDT wrote*



> I don't always agree with Kellam, but I have respected his opinions in the past. After reading his editorial, which openly sides with A. an anti-hunting agenda, and B. a politician's personal agenda, He has lost my respect.
> 
> As a hunter/outdoorsman it's intellectually dishonest to support only the hunting methods you like and openly side with the opposition and attack the ones you don't. I have to say that this is about as intellectually dishonest a piece as I've seen this side of PETA's website.
> 
> As is typical in any anti-hunting argument, this editorial is long on rhetoric & emotion and short on facts that support the position. United we stand, divided we fall...


I know from previous posts that you like the idea of canned hunts and you have stated on many occasions that it is far from easy hunting when you go down to Texas ( I think that is where you said you go) It is legal there and currently it is legal in ND. I don't know you at all and probably never will. I am pretty certain that you are a sportsman that has a pretty darned good yellow lab and you enjoy hunting with your wife. So I hope you enjoy your experiences. I mean that I hold no malice toward you or anyone else for taking part in a legal outdoor experience. That being said I do not have to agree with your opinion and I do not have to agree with the practice of canned hunting Just as you do not have to agree with mine.

I guess i am an easy target because i made the choice to not hide behind a user name and to freely express my opinion. I wrote an article and in response all you can come up with is to try and demean my reputation and say that I am siding with PETA?? You can do better than that. Point out in the article the areas where I stated inaccurate information. Knock yourself out present an opposing view, The Forum or some other paper would probably print it.

Enjoy the outdoors.

Regards
Bob


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

The "united we stand, divided we fall" mentality doesn't hold water. In fact, it is counterproductive. Very few people are anti hunters, very few people are hunters. The vast majority of people in the US don't hunt, yet are not opposed to it, provided that it is done legally, ethically, and in the sole interest of managing game populations. The only criteria this meets is as of now it is legal. If we accept and condone every questionable manner of taking game, we risk alienating the large portion of people in the middle. Accepting the lowest standard of ethics demeans us all and makes every hunter look like a bumbling idiot. We really need to clean up our act.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Muzzy said:


> Accepting the lowest standard of ethics demeans us all and makes every hunter look like a bumbling idiot. We really need to clean up our act.


 Hats off to you and Bob!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Some good points are made By Mr. Rost

EXCEPT if I shoot at an "unsuspecting" animal and miss (and i do miss just like everyone else) it has a chance to get away. If I spot and stalk an animal it has the ability to bound over the next hill and be gone. Good counterpoint letter.



> VIEWPOINT : Don't ban 'canned hunting'





> By Glenn Rost,
> Published Saturday, January 06, 2007
> PARK RIVER, N.D. - The ban on "canned hunting" proposed by Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, is bad legislation and should be trash canned. If one follows the logic that whatever one dislikes must be made illegal, where does one stop?
> 
> ...


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

From "Hunting Democracy" by Daniel Herman


> "...the games we play (fair chase) refelect the sort of people we are."





> "...canned hunts bother most Americans, not only because they unsporting, but because they are aristocratic. The ethos of the canned hunt is not to over come hardships associated with hunting, but to eliminate it."





> "...canned hunts haunt Americans, moreover, because those that favor canned hunts tend to go wherever they can find the most game, or biggest game, in whatever way is most convient, regardless of cost."





> "When we argue about hunting, we argue about something that matters. We are arguing about who we are and what sort of society we wish to live in."


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

g/o said:


> Other reasons for banning this practice are disease and genetic pollution.





Bob Kellam said:


> The debate in the legislature is going to hinge on property rights and the economic benefit to ND vs. Fair chase, genetic pollution and disease.


What I don't get is the reasoning on how captive animals used for canned hunts are more susceptable to spreading disease than ANY OTHER captive animal??? You know, all the other elk that are being raised in the state for reasons other than being shot. How are they any less likely to spread disease? How many elk operations are in the state that have nothing to do with canned hunts? I was under the impression that animals used for canned hunts made up a very small percentage of elk raised in the state? Am I incorrect on that?

Because if that's the case, then unless you plan on banning elk farming/ranching as well as canned hunts (immediately instead of phasing them out over a generation); using the argument that canned hunts pose a risk to our wild herds as a justification to push this legislation is a moot point...actually even misleading as to what the true motives of this legislation are.

It's a legislative ban based on ethics. Do not spin it any other way...

There will still be LOTS of captive elk living in ND if this thing passes.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*The truth about N.D. elk industry*
By Ken Wagenman, 
Published Sunday, January 14, 2007
Those opposed to game farms are making a lot of noise again. This time they have gained an ally in Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, who has agreed to sponsor a bill that would virtually put many hard-working, honest North Dakota producers out of business. However the rhetoric and misinformation are the same.

In a Dec. 31 column in The Forum, it was suggested a handful of states have banned "canned hunting" as it is called. One state that caught my attention was Texas. That state has a huge preserve hunting industry including everything from deer and elk to many exotic species. Of course attention to facts and truthfulness are not often the allies of one attempting to stir the pot of public opinion. I would like to address several of the issues raised with factual information.

Proponents of this legislation emphasize three areas of concern: disease, genetics and hunting ethics.

Disease has been and always will be of great concern to livestock producers and wildlife managers. It is no secret that occasionally disease shows up in both sectors of the animal world. Some would like you to believe game farms are teeming with disease and are a grave threat to wildlife. Here is the truth.

North Dakota has had domesticated elk for more than 40 years. Today we have yet to diagnose our first case of chronic wasting disease after testing literally thousands of these elk over the last eight years. The elk ranchers also adhere to a strict system of testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis, which has rewarded them with a clean bill of health.

We will never eliminate disease, especially in the wild. But cooperation between North Dakota Board of Animal Health and North Dakota Game and Fish has served us well in keeping our landscape disease-free. Farmed elk do not pose any greater threat of disease than do other forms of domestic livestock, especially since they share many of the same diseases.

Potential genetic pollution is also raised as a reason to ban game farms. If genetics and disease are viable concerns, why is the proposed bill only to ban hunting preserves and not to end the game farm industry immediately? Makes me wonder what is the true motivation of these groups.

The genetics inside the fence are the same, if not better, than those outside the fence.

Again, the truth is elk producers certainly select their breeding herd from the heartiest, largest, best-producing genetics available to them. This has resulted in the production of bulls that really wow the hunting public. This is not "genetic engineering" but simply selective breeding that demonstrates the true potential of these majestic beasts. In contrast to that, you have a wild herd that has also been genetically modified. Only in this case, the result is the opposite. For many years trophy hunters have been allowed to harvest the largest bulls from the herd, allowing the lesser bulls to do the bulk of the breeding. The net result of this is a wild herd that doesn't have the genetic potential to produce what we see coming out of domestic herds. This has also contributed to the demand for trophy bulls on game preserves.

One other aspect of the genetic/disease issue is the potential to selectively breed for disease resistance. So far all attempts to control CWD in the wild have failed. There is evidence to suggest - it has worked in sheep with a similar disease - that genetic resistance is a possibility. Testing and breeding to this end could certainly be a part of the domestic industry in the future.

Hunter ethics is the other great debate. The definition of these terms is widely varied. Many hunters will use every legal means available to them to increase their odds of success. This may include technology, firearms, clothing, and even dogs and baiting. Others would argue in favor of more traditional methods, such as a long bow, to increase the challenge of the hunt.

I often hear the excuse that preserve hunting may turn the nonhunting public against all hunters. My response is the perception of the nonhunting public of hunters has nothing to do with preserve hunting. Certainly free-chase hunters are responsible to the public as to how they harvest the public's resource. However, the animals in a hunting preserve are no more the public's resource than are my house, my car or any other livestock.

I would argue that we certainly harvest our animals in a timely and humane fashion, often much more so than what goes on with free-chase hunting. We do not allow animals to be wounded and suffer for days or weeks on end.

If preserve hunting of elk and deer is outlawed in North Dakota, will this apply to buffalo ranches, pheasant farms, etc.? How is it any more "ethical" to shoot a buffalo out in a pasture than an elk in a preserve or a farm-raised pheasant, for that matter?

The state of North Dakota has done much to encourage the development of the elk industry. Now a small group of radical sportsmen are proposing that after the state encouraged the development of this industry, it should regulate it out of business - and that without any compensation. That's unethical.

Wagenman is past president of North Dakota Elk Growers Assoc. He recently moved to Spearfish, S.D., but remains involved in the elk business in North Dakota. E-mail [email protected]
...........................................................................................................


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

> The state of North Dakota has done much to encourage the development of the elk industry.


Like what? I don't recall hearing about the state promoting Elk or any other alternative livestock. Can someone show me how the state has promoted the Elk industry?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> What I don't get is the reasoning on how captive animals used for canned hunts are more susceptible to spreading disease than ANY OTHER captive animal???


I think all wild game farms are a threat to native species, but I think those willing to provide canned hunts are the type of people to be carless in other ways if it provides a larager profit. There willingness to provide such distateful "hunts" is a reflection on their willingness to stretch all rules and regulations for profit. 
There are no wild herds of cattle to protect, but there are wild elk and deer to be concerned about. Unlike domesticated animals they have not had thousands of years to adapt to captive rearing behaviorally and more importantly physiologically. In terms of adaptation wild animals are just that wild, and all game farms pose a disease threat. Any game farm that gets into genetics to increase profit further endangers the wild genetics within the herd. It is much like game farm mallards. If they escape and cross with wild birds the wild birds for the next couple of generations are to stupid to build a nest, they drop eggs all over. (At least this was my experience with the 400 breading pair of Frost Mallards that I worked with back in the early 1970's). 
Canned hunts pose that same disease risk, plus the genetic engineering for large antlers are a risk to the native gene pool, and thirdly they endanger hunting in general through the social aspect that the general public may think all hunting is this distasteful. The canned hunts pose the same risk for disease, and slightly more for genetic modification, plus the abhorrent practice itself makes them more susceptible to societal control. Held up to public view they can not survive. North Dakota may put dollars before acceptable behavior, but it soon will be a national issue anyway.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

It was cut out of the editorial. The Bank of ND has sponsored PACE loans to help elk ranchers buy stock. AgPUC has given grants to elk ranchers to help them buy equipment. The legislature voted overwhelmingly to classify farmed elk as domestic livestock. ND has sent a clear message to elk ranchers that they are welcome to invest and build this business in this state.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

4590,
I guess we will have to change that then, won't we.
Jim


----------

