And you guys continue to insist incorrectly that canned shooting does not tarnish or harm the image and thus the potential of loss of fair chase hunting! Go figure!!

eyexer Said:
what groups like HSUS do is support groups like FC from afar and once groups like FC do their initial dirty work for them, you know the softening of the resistance, they will then start grinding away at the rights of North Dakotans to do things like trap, bait, use trail cams, bow hunting, etc. 

Hardwaterman Said:
No mauser that belongs to you plain and simple! polling done by leading outdoor magazine confirm what I have said. Nothing in your rhetoric backs up any support for canned shooting in the majority period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not a single poll done has shown support for it, none,nadda, zip,zero!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MT last state to have this on a ballot also included the farmed elk operations and it still passed.

Never Implicate Yourself When Incrementalizing Others’ Freedoms Away

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

A new revelation; I, as a city slicken land owner that hates high fence, will be voting no!

The one and only reason being, I think we as hunters need to respect the wishes of the land owners that own the majority of the land in North Dakota; the farmers and ranchers.

The major farm organizations have spoken and I feel I need to respect their wishes!

Crap!!  I retract all my previous arguments and statements! 

Hardwaterman Said:
No mauser that belongs to you plain and simple! polling done by leading outdoor magazine confirm what I have said. Nothing in your rhetoric backs up any support for canned shooting in the majority period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not a single poll done has shown support for it, none,nadda, zip,zero!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MT last state to have this on a ballot also included the farmed elk operations and it still passed.

pber Said:
Ron,

The last state and ONLY state ever to have this as an initiated measure never included "farmed" elk operations, as elk in Montana were not in the livestock section of the century code.  They were considered alternative livestock. 

Hardwaterman Said:

And you guys continue to insist incorrectly that canned shooting does not tarnish or harm the image and thus the potential of loss of fair chase hunting! Go figure!!

Hardwaterman Said:
And eye, hf SHOOTING are grinding away at my rights by undermining the image of hunting in the non hunters eye! These people are a vast majority of voters and while you and others keep wanting to make this a local issue. It really plays out more on a national level. One cannot defend HF shooting to the non hunting folks and we face a far greater risk of hunting period being banned or severely controlled via Washington than locally.

.

Hardwaterman Said:
 
That is the message that Kaseman is stating, not the BS that pber, and gst are attempting to spin it at.

Starhunter Said:

A new revelation; I, as a city slicken land owner that hates high fence, will be voting no!

The one and only reason being, I think we as hunters need to respect the wishes of the land owners that own the majority of the land in North Dakota; the farmers and ranchers.

The major farm organizations have spoken and I feel I need to respect their wishes!

Crap!!  I retract all my previous arguments and statements! 

Starhunter Said:

A new revelation; I, as a city slicken land owner that hates high fence, will be voting no!

The one and only reason being, I think we as hunters need to respect the wishes of the land owners that own the majority of the land in North Dakota; the farmers and ranchers.

The major farm organizations have spoken and I feel I need to respect their wishes!

Crap!!  I retract all my previous arguments and statements!