# Roger Kaseman and Measure 2 Email



## waterfowl wingnut (Sep 19, 2009)

Anyone else get this email?



> Fellow Sportsmen and Sportswomen:
> 
> Hunting is under attack in North Dakota, not by radical animal rights groups, but by people that pass themselves off as hunters promoting hunting. The attack comes from High Fence Canned "Hunt" operations that started up in North Dakota over the last few years.
> 
> ...


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I got it.
:******: :******:


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

Dick Monson wrote a letter to the editor in the G.F. Herald stating it is the state's hunters behind the petition. But I can't find a single hunter in this part of the state that is for it.

Dick Monson, Valley City, N.D., letter: North Dakota must not become north Texas
The Fair Chase Hunting Measure No. 2 deserves a resounding yes from every voter Nov. 2. 
By: Dick Monson

VALLEY CITY, N.D. - The Fair Chase Hunting Measure No. 2 deserves a resounding yes from every voter Nov. 2.

This measure brought forward by North Dakota hunters would prohibit the canned shooting of captive big game species penned inside escape-proof fences. The measure is endorsed by many hunting organizations and wildlife professionals.

Farmers and hunters are victimized by canned shooting. Canned shooting operations try to disguise fee killing as "hunting" and "farming" to justify their existence. It is cheap camouflage.

It gives both hunting and farming black eyes in the public's mind. Farmers and ranchers proudly raise domestic livestock for a useful and needed purpose, not for artificial trophy killing wrapped in a net wire fence.

As a North Dakota farmer and hunter, I believe we need to clean our own house of these operations for our own good.

If the measure fails, what happens next? Probably a huge expansion of canned shooting, growing from a dozen North Dakota operations now to hundreds in the future, with a Texas- style of animal targets that we can only guess at.

In Texas, canned shooting offers dozens of foreign animal species that often escape into the wild. It has led to chaos in the region's wildlife populations and is destroying public hunting in that state.

Fair chase hunting is just fair play where a hunted animal has a chance to escape. Everyone understands it.

Fair play is a concept central to our North Dakota character. Canned shooting is unethical and immoral. If we sell our standards so cheap, what values do we have left?

A yes vote on this measure safeguards the activity of hunting and farming for future North Dakota generations.

Dick Monson


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

No, I did not get this email. I'm glad that I'm not on his spam list.


----------



## magnum3.5 (Sep 19, 2003)

> redlabel
> No, I did not get this email. I'm glad that I'm not on his spam list.
> 
> X2
> ...


----------



## knutson24 (Feb 16, 2009)

Ya I got it twice. I'd realy like to know how in the world my email address was provided to him!


----------



## slough (Oct 12, 2003)

I'm haven't really followed the debate on this as I'm not real passionate either way. Why is it that most are opposed to this legislation? Infringment on landowner rights? Worried that this would be a step towards banning real hunting? I don't really agree with the high-fence game but I guess if people really want to pay to shoot a farm animal, that's their weird choice. I guess I wouldn't mind seeing it banned either but enlighten me...


----------



## bornlucky (Jul 24, 2007)

I got the email, too and was surprised it got past my junk mailbox filter. Those of you who got this email, do you belong to ND Bowhunters ***'n? Or is it possible that this site or Fishing Buddy might share email addresses? I haven't read the privacy policies from either site or from the NDBhA. I am not making accusations. Just asking questions.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But I can't find a single hunter in this part of the state that is for it.
> 
> I can't either. Most hunters feel if someone wants to shoot a penned critter let them. We had a pretty lengthy chat about in Penn Bar Friday night with some hunters and everyone was in the same opinion.


You should not throw your credibility away as a worthless thing. Which form was that poll Kurt was running? It was nearly equal. I often find people falling over each other to kiss up in the name of landowner rights, then hear a different story in private. I don't know if they are dishonest type people, or simply avoiding the hastle they will get from people like those in the Penn Bar your talking about. If I talk to people in groups it's about 50/50. If I talk to people one on one, even when they don't know my stand, it turns to about 70/30 in favor of measure #2.

Some of the hunters I talk with mention slippery slope, but more see it as a chicken little "the sky is falling" complex.

I didn't get he email, but thanks for posting so I can send money.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

I most certainly don't throw my credibility around as a "worthless thing" but I am finding the exact same thing in the DL area. I have not talked to a single HUNTER(person who actually hunts) that has admitted to me they will vote for this measure. The only folks who have said they did or will vote for this worthless measure are folks that don't hunt.

I was rather ****** off when I saw that e-mail in my spam box!!!


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Savage260 said:


> I was rather ticked off when I saw that e-mail in my spam box!!!


So the other 20 emails about ED didn't tick you off??? :laugh:

Why are you so worked up over a peice of junk mail? Hit delete and forget about it! :wink:


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

SO it is YOU sending me those ED e-mails, you SOB!!! :lol: I take it they worked for you so you are letting the rest of us know about it? :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

This Measure 2 crap was sent to my personal e-mail by some one, not generated by a computer. I didn't ask for it, I didn't want it, and I don't agree with it. If the folks trying to defeat this measure sent an e-mail to my personal address I would be PO'ed too! The information is out there if I want it I will find it, but don't force it on me.

Who is worked up? I opened it read the first two lines, saw it was a bunch of BS and deleted it. These folks come on here and spew their BS for months and months on the subject, yet I can't shoot off ONE post saying I am PO'ed that these idiots sent me an e-mail?

COME ON MAN!!!! 8)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> yet I can't shoot off ONE post saying I am PO'ed that these idiots sent me an e-mail?


Sure you can, but if you can't find a single hunter who supports measure 2 I will not believe anything else you tell me either. Since the poll Kurt had going was about 45/55 it's a clear indication your wrong. Maybe you only talked to people you know are against it. Maybe you only talked to one hunter. One thing I am certain of: you exaggerated beyond what I can believe. I'm sorry, but I just can't choke that comment down.

Look at every other controversial subject you can think of. Now ask yourself how often does everyone agree with you? Yup, that's what I thought.


----------



## D_Hage (Nov 10, 2004)

I would say I am against penned hunting. But I wouldn't mind going to a shooting preserve if pheasants aren't in season  After all, they fly.

Shooting big game that I know are there, and the people have given a nick name because they watch the animals daily activities isn't something I could get in to. I have gotten the e-mails too. I am guessing he got them from nodakoutdoors. because that is where I recognized the name from.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I am guessing he got them from nodakoutdoors.


As far as I know that's not possible.


----------



## knutson24 (Feb 16, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > I am guessing he got them from nodakoutdoors.
> 
> 
> As far as I know that's not possible.


I don't disagree with you plainsman but I find it very ironic that this is the only forum I visit and I magically start receiveing these emails to an email address I use only to know if I have received messages or replies to my posts from this sight. Otherwise I strictly use my work address.

However I did reply to one of the emails and asked that they stop soliciting me for money and I haven't recieved an email since. Prior to that I received one almost every other day for two weeks.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have one of those addresses also, but I sometimes don't check it for months. I use it for nodak, ebay, pay pal etc. Maybe I better check it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I had 121 messages, but nothing to do with measure 2. Two of them looked like Arabic letters. I don't think I have my security set high enough.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Plainsman, it is very sad that you won't take what I say at face value. I have no reason to lie to you. I am not taking a poll, but the hunters I have talked to have said NO to this measure. If I knew how they felt I wouldn't be asking them, now would I? The folks I have talked to that have said they will vote yes have been non hunters. I have not talked to a lot of people, just random folks as the situation has come up. I really don't care if you believe me or not. I am not going to make up a story about it.


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

Got the email and sent a check.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

At least one source that Kaseman got our e-mail address from is the ND Game and Fish....


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, it is very sad that you won't take what I say at face value.


Tell me any other subject where you have found 100% agreement among hunters. I just find that situation very hard to choke down since it's about 50/50 with hunters I talk to. It's about 80/20 with landowners when you talk to them in a group, but about 50/50 when you talk to them in private. Perhaps you should ask them one on one with no one else around.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, so why should someone believe your numbers, and yet you not believe someone elses????? That in itself makes me question someones credibility! :wink: Is there a requirement for the people voting on Kurts polll to be hunters? If this measure has the overwhelming support of the states hunters, tell me why it could not generate enough signatures the first go and barely had enough this time. The NDG&F had a recent article that over 100,000 hunters will take to the fields here in ND this fall. It would have taken only 13% of these hunters to have had enough signatures yet the sponsors admit to having gone to home and garden shows to gather enough signatures.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

So lets start a poll here?!?!


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,

I can answer this "question" for you.



> If this measure has the overwhelming support of the states hunters, tell me why it could not generate enough signatures the first go and barely had enough this time.


Thank you for providing us with the "overwhelming support of the states hunters". The first go we had enough signatures. Unfortunately, we didn't have the sponsor list attached to the initiated measure and the Secretary of State disallowed those petitions - as he should have. The second go, we had enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot - 'nuff said!

Jim


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, so why should someone believe your numbers, and yet you not believe someone elses?????


Pleeeaaaase get real. OK for those of you who have lived for at least ten years let me ask you this. How many controversial subjects have 100% of the people on one side? Does that sound real? If it was so overwhelming it wouldn't be controversial would it? If it was that skewed do you think these people would waste their time arguing? This question is so void of statistical thought and social reality that I am still asking myself why anyone would ask it.

I have a question, do you think any hunters signed the petition? Do you think any hunters will vote for it? I have news for you, the only 100% that I am aware of is the 100% hunters in the Fair Chase group. I'll bet you will not believe that will you. Actually I think you will, but you will say it isn't true.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Still pathetic, Plainsman. You have never met me, although you do know what I do for a living. You think I would put my credibility and integrity on the line over some BS like this measure? THE HUNTERS I HAVE TALKED TO HAVE TOLD ME THEY WILL NOT VOTE FOR MEASURE 2. Can I get any clearer than that? :eyeroll:

No, I have not conducted a poll, no, I have not talked to a bunch of people about this, and NO I don't believe it could ever possibly be 100%. Even if it is 50/50, THE HUNTERS I HAVE TALKED TO HAVE TOLD ME THEY WILL NOT VOTE FOR MEASURE 2. Simple as that.

You sound almost as bad as gst with his 8 simple questions. I have been told by this handful of people what I have been told, I am sorry you don't agree with it, I can't change it. Don't just stick your fingers in your ears and say LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA. It is what it is.

P.S. the only people who have been willing to ADMIT TO ME they will vote yes have been NON HUNTERS. Does this mean all non hunters vote yes? OBVIOUSLY NOT  Does this mean all HUNTERS will vote NO? OBVIOUSLY NOT :roll:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Savage 260,



> You sound almost as bad as gst with his 8 simple questions.





> P.S. the only people who have been willing to ADMIT TO ME they will vote yes have been NON HUNTERS. Does this mean all non hunters vote yes? OBVIOUSLY NOT  Does this mean all HUNTERS will vote NO? OBVIOUSLY NOT :roll:


Good responses! I had almost given up on you as a lost cause.

Jim


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Does this mean all HUNTERS will vote NO? OBVIOUSLY NOT


That's reasonable. My guess is you asked these guys in front of landowners, or they know where you stand. Many people today don't have the nerve to voice their opinion and will tell you whatever they think it is you want to hear. I have had hunters tell me they will vote for it, only to voice the opposite opinion when a landowner joined in the conversation. Evidently that person was a kiss up.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Jim, I figured you would have given up, as I have already cast my NO vote on the measure. I still don't know why this measure was started, and I am not into the "my ethics are better than your ethics" party. If it was disease control and there was proof that it would make a difference, then I would have to vote for it, but any thing less just won't do. I don't believe HF is hunting, but neither do I consider taking game at 600+ yds "hunting". Are we to put limits on the distance people can shoot to "preserve our hunting heritage"? I also don't consider prairie dog shooting to be "hunting" either, but I sure as heck won't push to ban that!!! 

Plainsman, your first guess is wrong. I don't like to discuss things like this in front of a group because it makes people uncomfortable. As far as I can remember not a single conversation was held with more than just 2 people, me being one. The other guess is correct. I am not afraid to voice my opinion, and I do agree some might not speak up. This can't account for every one just as the folks I have talked to can't account for every hunter or non hunter. It does seem that many will say what they think others want to hear.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I am a hunter, and I will be voting yes on measure #2.

Well Savage260, now you know of at least two hunters will will vote for this measure. Myself and Plainsman, I'm sure there are others.

And just to be clear. I do not care if someone wants to go to a farm and shoot their own critter, don't care that it is a buffalo, deer, elk, moose, or cow. The issue I have is calling it a hunting experience, selling it as a hunting experience. If the high fence operators want to change their advertising to something like:

" Shoot elk (or whatever) on privately owned farm/ranch. All animals are privately owned and enclosed within 500 acres. (or whatever space is available) Guaranteed success! $5000.

I'd be inclined to vote no. But as it stands, with the operators selling it as a hunt, I can't agree with it.

Just my opinion, YMV.

huntin1


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Lots of stuff that lots of guys call hunting that I dont.

I guess if I was as arrogant as some, id want to ban that stuff I dont do completely.

Heres one hunter voting NO on measure #2. If im lucky, some liberal jacknut HSUS/NDHFC volunteer will be working the polling site and let me vote eight or nine times. :lol:


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

*NO*!!!!!! And all effort to convince all friend and aquaitances to do the same!!!


----------



## bigbrad123 (Dec 22, 2005)

Not sure how i will be voting on this, but I will say I think high fenced/canned SHOOTING (I refuse to call it hunting) is ridiculous (for the record, I am a hunter). HOWEVER, I also will say I'm not sure I should have the right to tell people what to do with their land and I'm not real keen on how the original email above is worded. I don't think canned shooting will threaten our heritage or hunting rights because most people can't afford it and refuse to do it other than the rich and lazy. If this measure included taxing the hell out of canned operations and re-directing those tax dollars into REAL hunting operations (ie: habitat, etc), then I'd say I would vote YES in a heartbeat. I'm not sure I will vote yes (although tempted based on my hatred for lazy SOB's who can't get out and scout, walk, and respect the land like REAL hunters), just know that anyone who runs a canned operation and chooses to pay the outrageous fees to shoot there is a piece of sh*t in my opinion.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I will be voting yes and I'd also like to get some yard signs showing the dead elk in the high chain link fence.
Oh and most I know are voting yes.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Fool more non hunters into believing the propaganda. Might want to add a pic of my last mulie taken on public land too. Died within 15 yds of a fence. The fence wasn't very high but since you are trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes you can certainly give it a shot. Some one might actually believe it!


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

There is a knitting show in Devils Lake, maybe you should bring your pictures and show them so you can try to get enough votes!


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

I am afraid that "preserving our hunting heritage" is going to be tough no matter how this measure #2 goes. We keep seeing more junk like this in fields every where. This is what is KILLING our hunting heritage!!!









Humm....#2...what else is #2 known as? CRAP....Coincidence?


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

The email addresses most likely came from GNF. E-mail and home address is open record, the only way to change that is to change the law, it isn't GNF's decision.


----------



## mhennebry (Nov 3, 2010)

The email address' were purchase through the Game and Fish, Something needs to change. This is the reply I received from NDGF and I do understand it is not their fault.
_Subject: RE: private information

Recently supporters of the "Fair Chase Initiative" requested the e-mail addresses of licensed North Dakota hunters. The Game and Fish Department complied with this request as mandated by the States Open Records law - which requires the Department to provide these lists. A listing of all e-mail addresses was provided and the group was assessed a fee for the cost of compiling this information.

Please note that the Game and Fish Department recognizes your concern. In fact, anticipating the potential for license buyers objecting to the release of personal information, the Department requested the introduction of House Bill 1100 during the 2005 legislative session. HB 1100 would have exempted the release of license buyer information to the public under the Open Records law, along with other information and data on certain species of wildlife. The portion of the bill dealing with this information was amended out of the bill. Thus we are mandated by state law to do so._


----------

