Canned Hunting

[obert]

There is a very interesting situation arising in ND with canned hunting. Some are trying to ban canned hunting and there is some very heated arguments on it. Some see canned hunting as a real threat to real hunting, some see it as a property rights issue (people should be able to do what they want with their land). They even have a Hunters for Free Chase Committe. So, just wanted to get Nebraska opinions here. Is canned hunting a property owners right or is it not? What about Nebraska and canned hunts, should they be banned?

Interesting stuff, I included a little bit of reading below.

Canned ‘hunting’ operators resort to deception, diversion
By Roger Kaseman,
Published Tuesday, July 01, 2008


In a series of letters to editors across the state, and in a deceptive radio ad, Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights is attacking a petition drive for an initiated measure sponsored by North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase, a measure that would end canned “hunting” in North Dakota.
A canned hunt guarantees a “hunter” will kill a trophy deer or elk. Canned hunt operators can guarantee a kill because they hand raise the target deer and elk in an escape-proof pasture making the “hunt” foolproof.
The people behind the radio ad and letters are canned hunt operators. The right these citizens want to protect is their alleged “right” to pen deer and elk in an escape-proof pasture and then sell the captive animals to sham “hunters” for fraudulent “hunts” the animals can’t escape.
Two hundred years ago, buckskins sold for a dollar each. Buck became a synonym for dollar. Commercialization of wildlife encouraged market hunters to slaughter deer for a buck a hide.
A hundred years ago, with deer and most other game teetering on the verge of extinction, Theodore Roosevelt introduced ethics into hunting, a move that saved our wildlife. Roosevelt outlawed market hunting and the commercial trade in wildlife and followed that with the concept of fair chase, an innovation as important to the restoration of wildlife as ending the commercial trade in wildlife. In fair chase, the animal can escape the hunter unhampered by a fence.
Under current state law, Roosevelt’s ethics do not apply inside “the fence.” Neither do game laws. An individual with a suspended hunting privilege can “hunt” captive deer or elk at one of these shooting galleries; no hunting license required. According to a top 10 list posted on a canned hunt operator’s Web site, reason
No. 10 for “hunting” his pasture: “No overzealous game wardens – you will not be stopped, searched or questioned at our reserve.”
The deceptive radio ad paid for by the canned hunt operators mentions the fair chase initiative and then launches an attack on radical East Coast animal rights groups.
Why the deception and diversion?
The canned hunt operators don’t want voters to know what they do behind their fences. They hypocritically assert a right in an ad clearly aimed at denying North Dakotans their right to vote on the fair chase measure.
The deceptive radio ad and the equally deceptive string of letters assert that the fair chase initiative is an incremental step toward banning all hunting. That is baloney. Canned hunt operations sell bucks for dollars, commercialization of game that Roosevelt outlawed as a first step toward saving our wildlife, and a far greater threat to hunting.
Members of the North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase Committee, hunters, landowners and a variety of occupations are dedicated to preserving our hunting heritage, a heritage based on the fair chase of wild game. We oppose sham “hunts” behind the fence and the corrupt image of hunting this practice presents to the general population.
Canned hunt operators don’t believe in, or practice, fair chase. Their high fences prove that. Their ad and letters make clear that they don’t trust the people of North Dakota to make an informed decision on whether we want these operations in this state.
To be accurate, Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights ought to call themselves “Citizens to Preserve Canned Hunting.”



Kaseman, Linton, N.D., is chairman, North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase.

[flatcoats]

i think any hunting that isnt fair chase hurts the image of hunters. the last thing true hunters need is another bad rap toward the general public that are undecisive about what they think about hunting. we'll never change anti's, but high fence hunting of any kind does more harm than any thing else in the sport. honestly, who thinks its cool to step inside of a fenced in yard and kill a buck....real tough. its no different than when you go to the shows and they have the trout in the plastic pools for the kiddies to catch

[GenericAngler]

Canned Hunts only make sense in the "Most Dangerous Game" sense (where the pray can think and fight back). Not against penned in and defenseless animals. I am with flatcoats on that...it is not a good PR move for true hunters.

[Alex T.]

If so much wasn't put on the kill and the trophy,canned hunts wouldn't be an issue. Too many guys must kill the biggest animal for their ego and to pound their chest more than anything;the thrill of the hunt and the times involved with it just don't matter anymore. Now,I know of a canned hunt operation here in Nebraska( or he was in operation a a couple of years ago anyway) that would book about 25-30 hunts per year with a hunt starting at $2000 and going up to over $9,000 depending on the size of the antlers.Alot of quick money to be made. I laugh at guys that need to hunt like this and think(actually believe)they accomplished something. Just looked;he's still doing the hunts and now has buffalo hunts, texas dall sheep and fallow deer.....when available.

Alex

[Mako]

I'm not a hunter, but I'm sure it's kind of like this.

Which would excite me more? Finding a deer in the woods, or finding a deer at the zoo. I know they will be at the zoo. Still fun to see sometimes, but not much excitement in that. I still get kind of excited to find one out in the woods when I'm going for a hike. I guess some people just like going hunting at the zoo. But as people say, it's not hunting. It's just killing when you know it's there and guaranteed that it's there.

[flatcoats]

i think it should be flat out outlawed...but the only problem is that antis would feel this is a step towards eradicating all types of hunting....so even though we dont find it ethical, or challenging, to people that have no flippin idea of reality....this would be a win for them....a fine line we must walk.

[obert]

Would it though? I'm starting to believe more and more that these people making money off canned hunts are trying to lead people to believe that, when I'm not 100% sure that is true. I think it would be a benefit to separate fair chase hunters from these canned hunts. Canned hunts take away habitat, take away the chance for middle/low income people to enjoy hunting and I really believe hurts the fair chase hunters. Not mention the problems that go on inside these operations that only fuel the antis and hurts the rest of us.

[flatcoats]

what they could do is tax them so heavily that it drives most out of business, and then take the taxes and purchase actual quality hunting properties for the general public.

[BPbowhunter]

I'm against all forms of canned hunting. Plain and simple.

I don't even really like the idea of the texas ranches either. Yeah sure they may be plenty of acres for a "fair chase" hunt to occur, but when it comes down to it, they're are still fenced in, and I don't agree with that.

[littleben]

While some "canned" hunts might be in a "pen" I have seen several high fence enclosures that were 3 to 6000 acres, with the animals in very natural and rugged habiat, the fact they are there is no guantee you can find them. The hoofed animals in an enclosure are typically "owned" by the operator, so he can choose his method of take, and within reason the rules and seasons. Typically the regualtions are developed by state agencies, but ultimatly you are shooting a criter that the operator owns, not a lot different than hunting a steer on a cattle ranch. So really we are not dealing with hunting regualtions as much as regualtions regarding the ownership of wild game.

[obert]

Define how the operator owns the animal please. I'm not sure I'm understanding that part

[Ty Stromquist]

Originally Posted by obert

Define how the operator owns the animal please. I'm not sure I'm understanding that part

I in no way am for these but I believe everyone needs to go to south Texas. You wont even find a place to hunt without a high fence "canned hunt". Its just like little ben talks about. I believe we were on 10,000 acres hunting hogs........... but inside that fenced in area were hundreds of exotics that he "owns". They are animals that were raised by the owner of the land.

I personally couldnt believe people would pay money to shoot something in a zoo but whatever your bag is baby..........

[obert]

How do you fence in 10,000 acres and have only animals you've purchased on there?

[littleben]

I can only speak to the facilities I am familier with, but in those cases the enclosure operator orginally purchased the "hooved" animals from the state, thereafter would bring in breeding stock females and purchase semen to artificially inseminate them, of course the semen was from some huge bucks. (also privately owned).

Buying the game from the state must not be the only way it works, cause I have heard of instances where the state comes into a new enclosure after the fence is up and kills every hooved animal, then the operator stocks with his private game...

[obert]

First, thanks for the response Ben.

Second:

Buying the game from the state must not be the only way it works, cause I have heard of instances where the state comes into a new enclosure after the fence is up and kills every hooved animal, then the operator stocks with his private game...

I can understand this, but have a problem with spending the money to use state employees to do this.

And third: I thought the animals were property of the people of the state? I'm a little unsure of how anyone could buy them?

Have been to South Texas many times. Let's just say I'm glad I was born and raised in Nebraska.

[littleben]

I aggree, I really don't get why people would pay money for the canned hunt/shoot. I don't even like going on guided hunts, I don't like letting someone else train my dog, or hauling my deer to a locker for processing for me doing all this myself is a big part of "hunting". I don't hunt pheasants much, but when I do I prefer released birds, cause I am only going to pheasant hunt 3 hours a year, I would like to shoot somthing. I think each person has to do all these things his own way and don't feel that just becasue I think a certain way about how I want to hunt, doesnt' mean I am right and everyone else is wrong. Bottom line, I am not opposed to canned hunts, cause I don't know enough bout the issue to make an informed decsion.

[elkstalkr]

Its really not for me, but I certainly don't think it should be outlawed!!! Is it a true hunt, not in my opinion, but whatever trips your trigger.

I'll be honest, I have shot animals behind a fence before. (One free hunt and one greatly reduced price) Was it challenging NO! Did they taste good YES!!

To me shooting animals behind a fence is no worse than going to the market and buying meat. Animal is just as dead and ends up on my plate. Person (you or the butcher) doing the killing is the only difference.

Anti's simply have a problem/guilt trip about killing animals in any fashion. Canned hunts or no canned hunts these people all want us to be vegetarians anyway.

[laughingwatr]

In Nebraska you cannot fence in any "wild" deer or elk as it is against the law. Also, you cannot have deer behind a high fence in Nebraska, only exotics and elk and the elk are regulated by the Dept. of Agriculture as livestock. I believe this is similar to North Dakota and these animals are private property owned by someone like any livestock. The most compelling argument against high fence is the inhibiting of natural migration, disease, and escape resulting in comingling of wild and sort of domestic animals. There are high fence elk that are crossed with red stag for horn improvement and that is probably not something we would want in a wild elk herd.

From an ethics standpoint, there are pelnty of people that shoot tame deer all the time and say that's OK because it could have gotten away which is fine by me as long as it's legal. What we are talking about here is livestock that is owned by a private individual on private property and feeling the need to decide how he handles these animals including the slaughter of such animals. Sounds exactly like the HSUS or PETA to me. I have 3 buffalo scheduled to be slaughtered next week and I'm going to go out in the pasture and shoot them. If I said I'm hunting them does that make me bad? If I said I field slaughtering them does that make it OK? My fence is only 4 1/2 feet high and they can get out if they want so is this fair chase even though they will just stand there and let me shoot them like a lot of deer and elk do? Does the fact that this is a buffalo not an elk or deer make it OK when the elk are considered livestock and are held to much higher regulatory standards than buffalo or cattle? There are thousands of people that hunt enclosures and our society has created this demand. We live in a "the end justfies the means" country so telling somebody what they can do with their private property will only help the people that want to end all hunting.

[obert]

I think it all comes down to whether or not it is affecting others negatively. Lot of personal agendas being pushed here. Even have the rumors that the free chase association in ND is siding with HSUS to get this banned. Also a rumor that all the articles in one of the papers were one canned hunting owner writing as different names to make it look like he has ND resident support. Personally, I'm glad it is an issue and is being discussed. It shows how important our hunting heritiage is in our states (ND,SD,NE etc.).

*edit*

Very nice post laughingwatr. Except that I believe it hurts hunting/hunters a great deal to associate livestock shooting with hunting. As the govt. separates this operations with the Dept. of Ag, I think us hunters should also separate ourselves from these operations. They don't help our fight IMHO.

[Pro-Hunt]

Fighting the urge to get involved smiley needed ASAP!!!!!!!

The way I feel about the farce of livestock killing being pushed off as hunting has about gotten me banned on a couple forums already!!!!!
This will be my last post on the subject because I don't think I can keep being as nice as I was on the other sites. LOL