“Bastardizing The Hunting Heritage”
April 24, 2008
Roger Kaseman heads up a group of elitist hunters in North Dakota who believe they are the only ones on earth who understand what hunting and hunting heritage is and should be. As such they are attempting to get a citizen’s initiative on this coming November’s ballot that would outlaw preserve hunting.
There have been debates ongoing in North Dakota over this measure and recently Kasemen was quoted in the In-Forum News saying that hunting in any enclosure for any game animal is unethical and is “bastardizing the hunting heritage”.
“By allowing these operations, we’re basically bastardizing the hunting heritage,” he said. “I don’t care how they spin it … If you put a deer or elk in an escape-proof fence, that’s not hunting.”
To bastardize something means to corrupt it, reduce its quality or to lower in character. Kaseman says high-fence preserve hunting is doing just that. It’s difficult to argue with his opinion because it is his opinion and that of a handful of others like him. They believe that enclosure hunting is ruining the heritage of hunting. Certainly this group is entitled to their opinions and they have a right in a free society to petition the people to enact new laws. Why pick on a handful of ranchers trying to make a living in their almighty attempt to govern the lands of North Dakota?
If we go back in history and examine hunting, we will find that hunting was a necessary means of survival and a difficult task at that. Man used anything he could get his hands on for a weapon, i.e. rocks, sticks, etc. Since that time we can just as easily say that man has been “bastardizing” hunting heritage by someone’s standards of ethics and definition or ideals of what hunting heritage is supposed to be. Many can argue that when hunting became a sport, hunting heritage became bastardize, after all, true hunting heritage was a necessary part of survival. We reduced the quality of hunting considerably when we made it a sport and not part of survival. By Kaseman’s standards perhaps we should return hunting back to its rightful heritage.
And what have we as a society done with hunting since the days that sticks were made pointed with sharp pieces of flint and shale? That’s easy. Take a look around. It’s all right there in front of us to see but for people like Kaseman and his following, they choose only to set aside preserve hunting as the one thing that is “bastardizing the hunting heritage”. Surely there are more legitimate bastardizations his group could spend their time on.
Trampling on the rights of legitimate land owners and businessmen will do more to rip apart that one important element to assure the continuation of the sport. For without access to the lands of private individuals, hunting becomes diminished greatly. Some argue there is always public land to fall back on but in places where that is the only land to hunt on, interest is dwindling fast.
I believe it is one of the most selfish and self righteous things a group calling themselves a pro hunting group can do. They spit in the faces of the landowner because they think preserve hunting is unethical, all the while the vast majority of them practice the bastardization of hunting.
Personally, I resent their actions and condemn the reasons they use for taking the steps they have. I respect the rancher who is making every attempt at running a legitimate business. I am grateful for the generosity of all landowners that grant permission for hunters to access their land. When Kaseman and his ilk try strong arm tactics that fly in the face of landowners, this affects me and millions of other hunters nationwide who give countless hours and energy into creating hunter/landowner relations. They are destroying those efforts.
To bastardize means to reduce in quality and lower in character. The North Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase have placed themselves above everyone else and are doing far more to bastardize hunting heritage than a handful of Americans trying to realize part of the American dream.
Tom Remington



I also believe that a landowner has the right to high fence his property. I believe in game management. I believe we are killing bigger deer than ever. I don’t believe hunting behind a high fence is unethical.BUT, what I’m seeing is that large land owners are choking out small land owners. What I mean is : A guy who has a 5,000 acre ranch that surrounds another guys 300 acres puts up a high fence then that guys hunting is ruined. People who have hunted on their land for generations wake up to find that the guy next door ruined it. Deer here will travel back and forth through these small pieces of property and never really have a core bedding area in it. Without free travel they will never come back. All the sudden your neighbor is holding the hunting herd for ransom and you can’t hunt them unless you pay him thousands of dollars. I have taken good (P&Y)deer on 12,000 acre ranches but I’ve also taken them on pieces as little as 58 acres. If someone put a high fence next to that 58 acres I would be finished. Should I be happy that the guy next to me is running a ” legitimate business” even though he destroyd the hunting for my children? I think not.
Tom Remington- The great American hunting heritage Kasemen is referring to was started by hunting heroes like George Bird Grinnell and Theodore Roosevelt. They went to great lengths to articulate what was, and was not, ethical, honorable hunting, and they put in down on paper. Their efforts are one of the most amazing chapters in American history, and your ignorance of it is disgusting. High fence hunting fails the definition of the american sporting ethic, and so do you.