By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

With the late-season antlerless deer season underway, time to wait for another chance afield was running out. The predictable attractiveness of the lush -and still green – brassica food plot had provided ample opportunities with snow on the ground and many chances were well within range with my modern Knight smokepole over the past few weeks. My second whitetail was harvested on November 28th and immediate reloading of the stout Barnes bullet had me wondering if the three-week old load would still ignite. They have never failed to shoot with the 209 shotshell primers but the notion of a misfire with an older load always seems to creep into my mind. But, I had made my mind up on the 22nd day of December to fill a tag, if the deer cooperated.

I set up a decoy about 100 yards from my blind hoping it would draw some interest from the more curious in the crowd. It was already past 5 PM and shooting light began to wane but the Leupold glass atop the rifle brightened prospects. One by one deer began filing onto the stage at the far end of the food plot. At the other end of the field, more hungry deer rushed to the turnips for evening sustenance amid the snow cover. I then moved the muzzleloader into position and began focusing on body sizes and lengths of snouts. Careful to single out a mature doe, which had tuned into the unfamiliar silhouette of my feeding decoy cutout, I waited for the doe to move from its head-on position.

The smokepole belched a cloud of temporary blindness and the field emptied in seconds. Even though I couldn’t be sure of the hit at 130 yards, the unmistakable sound of the projectile’s audible thumping downrange gave me confidence. Without delay, I headed to the scene before natural light completely vanished and found specks of blood in the snow. I noted the tracking direction of the victim and departed. That’s when I phoned my friend, Joe, keeper of his wonder dog, Cocoa, for assistance.

Cocoa began her deer fetching career last year on a New Year’s Eve doe mission that was worth repeating. Actually, we have used the services of Cocoa several times already this season with 100 percent success. In fact, I now purposely rely on Cocoa to keep her in shape and to personally witness the nose that knows.

I gathered all the field-dressing necessities and Joe jumped into the front seat and Cocoa in the pickup’s bed. She knows she’s in for some wild action with this arrangement far from her confining comforts of a small city yard in Lansing. Once on the trail, she began a furious nose-down scamper to the downed deer. In 60 seconds it was all over – well, almost. The chore of field dressing had to be suspended, while we restrained the frenzied hound from the animal she claimed for her own. She doesn’t have an off button, so we tied her to a sapling for our mutual benefit.

It’s ironic that only a few years ago I couldn’t comprehend the level of enjoyment a houndsman shared with me about treeing cougars out West. I sure get it now.

Counterfeit Leupold Riflescope WarningLeupold® is issuing a customer alert to purchasers of products, particularly via Internet sales, in regards to bogus Leupold products that are apparently being illegally imported from the People’s Republic of China. These products bear many of the marks and trade dress of current Leupold & Stevens riflescopes making them very hard to distinguish externally from authentic Leupold products.

In recent months, counterfeited Leupold Mark 4® riflescopes have begun to arrive with increasing regularity at the firm’s Beaverton, Oregon, headquarters for service. These products are not manufactured by Leupold and are not covered by the Leupold Full Lifetime Guarantee.

Leupold employs serial number tracking for all its riflescopes, so if a customer finds a scope that is suspect, he or she can simply write down the serial number and call 1-800-LEUPOLD to confirm if it is indeed authentic.

In general, most of the scopes appear to originate from Hong Kong (People’s Republic of China), and have “Leupold Mark 4” laser engraved on the bottom of the turret in a silver etch, while the black ring on the objective is etched in white and does not include the name “Leupold.” An authentic Mark 4 riflescope will always be engraved black on black and have the name “Leupold” engraved on the black ring.

The NRA and the CRPA Foundation have joined forces under their California Legal Action Project (LAP) to provide legal assistance for high school student Gary Tudesko in his fight to be readmitted to Willows High School. Sixteen-year-old Tudesko was expelled on November 19th for having unloaded shotguns in his pick-up truck that he legally parked on an off-campus, public street near the Willows High School campus. The high school is in a small rural community near Sacramento. The unloaded shotguns were in his truck because he had gone duck hunting in the early morning hours before school. The case has garnered significant national media coverage as an example of zero-tolerance policies run amuck. (See article in Chico Enterprise Record; see article in Sacramento Valley Mirror; see David Workman article; and see Fox News Video Interview of Tudesko and his mother at www.calgunlaws.com)

The shotguns were discovered in the pick up truck by scent-sniffing dogs on October 26th during a questionable school search. Police ran the license plates and determined Tudesko was the owner, then called Tudesko out of class. Tudesko cooperated and readily told the Principal about the shotguns and his early morning hunting trip.

The school first suspended Tudesko for five days, then extended the suspension indefinitely until an expulsion hearing was held. Tudesko’s mother, Susan Parisio defended her son during the November 19th public hearing on his expulsion. She challenged the school district’s legal jurisdiction to enforce the Education Code’s prohibition of guns on campus for her son having unloaded shotguns locked in an off-campus vehicle parked on a public street. Nonetheless, Willows High Principal Mort Geivett told the local School Board that, as a matter of law, it had no choice but to expel Tudesko. The Board did just that. (Notice of Expulsion is posted at www.calgunlaws.com).

Geivett claimed the school had jurisdiction over students traveling to and from school, as well as students off-campus during lunch, and that the school had jurisdiction over off campus vehicles because students could not possess firearms within 1000 feet of campus. But Geivett confused the Penal Code with the Education Code. With a number of exceptions, it is a potential criminal violation of the Penal Code, specifically the Gun Free School Zones law, to knowingly possess a gun within 1000 feet of a school. But that law has nothing to do with the sections of the Education Code Tudesko is charged with violating, which generally prohibit possession of firearms on school grounds. (Education Code sections Tudesko allegedly violalted posted at www.calgunlaws.com). Tudesko’s truck was parked off school grounds. And Gary was not traveling to or from school at the time of the search of the off-campus truck. He was in class. Moreover, schools do not enforce criminal / penal statutes like the Gun Free School Zones law, the District Attorney does. And the District Attorney and Willows Chief of Police have already stated there would be no charges filed against Tudesko, likely because there was no intent to violate the law.

Tudesko is now appealing the local school district’s expulsion order to the Glenn County Board of Education. A hearing is scheduled for January 15, 2010 at 10 a.m. at the Willows Administration Building located at 311 S. Villa Ave, Willows, CA 95988.

Tudesko is now being defended by civil rights lawyers Chuck Michel and Hillary Green of the Long Beach based law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. (www.michellawyers.com)

Legal issues aside, Tudesko is in this position because of a short-sighted bureaucratic approach to enforcing the school’s “zero tolerance” policy toward firearms, which is in many schools and cases is misapplied. (See Zero Tolerance Memo from Department of Education: [url]http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/zerotolerance.asp[/url and at www.calgunlaws.com]). Time and again these policies have resulted in a triumph of irrational political correctness over common sense and justice. Given that Tudesko had gone duck hunting that same morning with friends (hence the two shot-guns), had bird-shot loads as ammunition, had both firearms unloaded, had intentionally parked off-campus to avoid any issues, and had several people corroborate his story, school administrators should have acknowledged that the circumstances did not warrant expulsion. (See Administrator Discretion for Expulsions at www.calgunlaws.com and: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/expulsionrecomm.asp)

Gary Tudesko needs your help and support. Please attend the hearing if possible, and at least contact the Board of Education on Gary’s behalf through the “one click” e-mail tools at www.calnra.com or by calling the Board of Education at (530) 934-6575, or fax your note of support to (530) 934-6111

Information about Gary, media coverage, copies of legal submissions, and other documents are being posted at www.calgunlaws.com.

Although the attorneys are largely working pro bono, even so there are significant costs and other fees associated with this type of defense. Donations to the CRPA Foundation / NRA LAP are appreciated. If you are able and want to help fund Gary Tudesko’s defense, as well as other LAP efforts, please visit the CRPA Foundation(http://www.crpa.org/_e/dept/06/The_CRPA_Foundation.htm) website and make a tax deductible donation today.

The NRA/CRPA Legal Action Project is a joint venture between the NRA and CRPA Foundation to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys litigate to fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, assist individuals like Gary, and educate state and local officials about the programs at their disposal that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

When the conversation turns to controlling Michigan’s deer numbers in high density areas, some well-intentioned hunters point to the “Earn-A-Buck” system in Wisconsin. It is a simple concept: deer hunters must harvest an antlerless deer before being qualified to take a buck. Sounds great in theory but Wisconsin hunters bellyached so much about it that the program was abolished this season. However, that hasn’t prevented our Natural Resources Commission (NRC) from the notion of reinventing this wheel in our state.

It’s understandable in that we have made no measurable progress to control the burgeoning herd. The NRC cited the following examples of reasons for this season’s decline in harvest totals of 20 to 30 percent in the Upper Peninsula (UP), Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP) 15 to 25 percent and the Southern Lower Peninsula (SLP) 5 to 10 percent:

Last winter’s severity made for substantial losses of deer in the UP and NLP.
Deer didn’t move because of the warm weather.
Rutting activity took place at night.
By November 15th only 20 percent of standing corn was harvested, whereas 80 percent is typically the case.
Excess female deer in the SLP so buck didn’t have to engage in a heavy chase.
Some hunters couldn’t adjust to hunting without bait.
Non residents of the UP and NLP hunted only a day or so, then went home.

At its December 3rd meeting the NRC concluded that the ONLY effective way to obtain antlerless harvest goals is to implement the Earn-A-Buck program. Sure. Just like the Obama administration’s only road to nation-wide prosperity is to plunge this country deeper into debt while growing government. Right!

The rub in Wisconsin? Simple. Hunters don’t like the idea of passing up trophy bucks. In haste, some may shoot the first bald deer they see to qualify for the privilege of hunting a buck, and in so doing are apt to eliminate future wallhangers by killing button buck fawns. In the end, it’s quite possible to actually achieve total herd goals, but the mandate to get an antlerless deer out of the way first will work against herd balance rationale by killing off buck fawns. The question remains whether the Earn-A-Buck strategy is the only solution to herd management.

Who among the decision makers in the NRC would argue that reducing the cost of an antlerless tag to $1 from the current $15 would result in an increased harvest of does? No Earn-A-Buck and no need kill in haste. Just make it easier in these tough times for herd management volunteers to help achieve sound management goals. Obviously, at $1 per antlerless tag, revenue would drop substantially, even though volume of sales would increase. So, let’s deal with that.

For the sake of argument, let’s say revenue to the state would drop $1 million. Before the program is implemented, insurance regulators could compute a baseline of the average annual cost of car/vehicle collisions over the past five years through insurance records. Insurance companies would then pay the state a percentage of actual savings but only if savings are achieved compared to the baseline. Maybe 50 percent of the savings could go to the state (or any other agreeable figure) to offset revenue decreases up to the baseline figure and the other 50 percent could go directly to policy holders. Again, this example is only to illustrate another concept that has the potential to not only reduce the deer in high-density areas but it will help more to balance the herd than the only other option actually being considered – not to mention refunding insurance premium dollars to those that drive. Of course, body shops, car dealers, and parts suppliers, to name a few, might object but too bad! Consumers certainly have better things to spend money on than exorbitant insurance premiums.

Hunters in Wisconsin had plenty of whine with their cheese and there’s no sound reason to believe it would be any different in Michigan. Earn-A-Buck might be better than what we have but it may not be as good as we can do.

Written by National Shooting Sports Foundation
Tuesday, 15 December 2009 19:33

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed Beretta U.S.A. and the firearms industry another victory by rejecting the Brady Center’s appeal of Adames v. Beretta U.S.A. Corporation challenging the constitutionality of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The PLCAA is the 2005 federal law passed by Congress in response to the flood of reckless lawsuits brought by the Brady Center on behalf of anti-gun mayors seeking to hold members of the firearms industry liable for the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products.

This is now the third time this year the Supreme Court has denied a challenge to the PLCAA backed by the Brady Center. In March 2009, the Brady Center was also involved in the appeals of Lawson v. Beretta and City of New York v. Beretta, both of which the Supreme Court refused to hear. Monday’s Supreme Court decision in the Adames case is another stinging setback to the Brady Center’s failed anti-gun political agenda to destroy the individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms — a right the Supreme Court declared last year in Heller was protected by the Second Amendment.

The Adames lawsuit was filed by the Brady Center on behalf of a family seeking to hold Beretta responsible for the tragic shooting death of their son, caused solely by the criminal acts of a teenage boy who gained unauthorized access to his father’s unsecured service pistol. The case was originally dismissed by a Chicago trial court, subsequently reinstated in part by the Illinois Court of Appeals, and then ultimately found to be barred under the PLCAA by the Illinois Supreme Court. By its decision yesterday, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to consider the Illinois Supreme Court’s well-reasoned decision that held the PLCAA was both constitutional and clearly applicable to this lawsuit.

Representing Beretta in the case was Craig Livingston of the Livingston Law Firm, who after being notified of the Supreme Court’s rejection of the appeal remarked, “And so ends a long legal battle — from the trial court in Chicago, through the Illinois appellate courts, and all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court — which served only to confirm what has been known since May 5, 2001, namely that this tragic shooting death was caused not by any defect in a Cook County Corrections Officer’s Beretta pistol, but rather by its reckless misuse on that fateful day by his teenage son.”

Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms industry, applauded yesterday’s Supreme Court rejection of the Brady Center’s appeal, stating, “Frivolous and unsupported lawsuits such as Adames that attempt to force manufacturers of firearms to pay for the crimes of others over whom they have no control are precisely what the PLCAA is designed to stop.”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 5,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.

Hunter Orange Exceptions Clarified

This year MUCC supported House Bill 4897 (Sheltrown, D-West Branch), which was also signed by the Governor into law. The law took immediate effect and made various changes to hunter orange requirements for the 2009 hunting season that are consistent with Michigan’s new crossbow regulations. The law also makes exceptions for falconers and stationary bobcat, coyote, or fox hunters, which MUCC supported through a 2007 resolution. Language that would have required hunter orange for ground blinds was stricken from the bill.

United Airlines
Reverses Position on Antlers

Dear Glen:

Below is a copy of a letter POMA just received from United Airlines. POMA commends United for listening and responding to customers concerns.

From United Airlines
Dec. 16, 2009

Hello All –

As you have recently contacted us, I wanted you to be the first to know that we have heard our customers’ feedback about our Antler and Animal Horn policy, and are responding. Soon we will begin accepting Antlers and Animal Horns as checked baggage again.

As many of you may recall or have seen on our Web site, in October 2008 we stopped accepting Antlers and Animal Horns because of the damage the tips caused to the cargo section of the aircraft and to the luggage belonging to our other guests.

We will soon publish new requirements – and ones we previously did not have – about packaging and cleaning Antlers and Animal Horns to ensure their safe, clean transport. These travel requirements will also provide information on the size of Antlers and Animal Horns we can accept based on the type of aircraft being flown (i.e., traditional jet vs. a regional jet) and the special handling fee, which we previously had in place and is similar to other items that require special care.

Stay tuned for further updates on the baggage section of united.com.

If you (media members) have any questions, please let me or my colleague Sarah know.

Kind Regards,
Robin Urbanski
United Airlines
312.997.8640 (office)

United Airlines sure knows how to restrict its passenger market. I wonder if the HSUS has members in the decision-making process.

From United’s Web Site:

Antlers & animal horns…
United Airlines does not accept antlers or animal horns as checked or carry-on baggage on any flights.

By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

Deer hunting season has wound down for many hunters, and for the time remaining, tactics may have to be altered to add venison to the freezer. Gone are the hunters who have no time. Gone are most successful hunters, who can enjoy bragging rights for another year from the comfort of their living rooms. Gone are all but the staunchest of archers. Gone are thousands of deer unlucky enough to have been harvested by the traditional throng of weekend warriors. Gone is the mild weather. Enter the hunter.

Opening day always holds promise of success for even the least experienced afield. Sheer numbers of hunters account for deer movement, sightings, and harvest numbers. However, as anyone still afield can attest, circumstances have changed. Any whitetail that has remained – regardless of its age – has gained valuable, yet inadvertent, educational experience courtesy of hunters and the surviving members of the herd.

One of the reasons I frown on September’s antlerless season is that fawns have not had an opportunity to be educated by their mothers in the ways of survival. In addition, they are a scant three to four months old and depend on their mothers for nourishment and survival skills. Taking deer that early seems a bit too cruel – even for this natural predator. While I believe that the herd needs to be balanced, I also believe there are better ways to do it – and, that’s where late season hunting has its place.

December deer are not found frolicking in the fields in broad daylight. But, as the cold winds blow and snow hides low-growing food sources, they enter survival mode and begin to venture into more open areas for nourishment. As the season progresses and temperatures turn icy, food becomes more scarce. The browse lines move farther and farther upward and become out of reach for all but the largest of deer. Apples have become fertilizer and cash crops have become cash. Less supply of sustenance and more demand offer a real-life lesson in field economics, as evidenced by the propensity of deer to venture into more open areas during daylight.

The realization of this fact, and those already mentioned, is why I feel no desperation to harvest deer in October and even November. For me, December hunting involves shelters, heaters, warm gloves and boots. It requires good optics to ensure adults are being targeted, and if in late antlerless season, to ensure bucks with shed their antlers are not mistaken for large does. For me, late season hunting also mandates a firearm capable of long-range accuracy from a steady rest, because I won’t be tormented in any treestand waiting for deer to walk under me. I salute those tough enough to endure the bitter elements head on but I’ll opt for precision shooting facilitated by comfort.

Fawns will have graduated from the ranks of rookies in December, although in so doing offer no meaningful reason to be taken, as long as adults are available. Heck, for all we know any button buck holds the potential to become trophy-class, if permitted to live. I also smile within, when spotting an adolescent buck in December, knowing he, as well, has a fair chance at adulthood. In fact, last muzzleloading season, three such bucks were within my range on the first day; each was permitted time to achieve his potential.

I say goodbye to early fall conditions and hello to a bountiful late-season harvest.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Re: House Bill 5380 – Deer Feeding Ban Extension

Dear State Representative,

Before you vote on the House Bill 5380 (H-4) as passed today from the House Committee on Tourism, Natural Resources, and Outdoor Recreation, I hope you’ll take into consideration MUCC’s position on the bill as presented in committee by MUCC Resource Policy Manager Amy Spray. It should also be noted that a vote was taken on the H-4 substitute before the Committee heard most testimony (including MUCC’s) citing significant reasons why the H-3 should pass over the H-4 substitute.

MUCC does not support the H-4 substitute, but fully supports the H-3 version of HB 5380 as originally introduced by Rep. Lahti.

We believe the original intent of this bill as introduced by Rep. Lahti is to give the Natural Resources Commission full authority to regulate the feeding of deer and elk according to sound-scientific principles. MUCC fully supports extending the sunset, or even eliminating it all together, so that our resources could be managed in an effective and transparent manner, with input from biologists. However, we do not support the H-4 substitute for the reasons below.

Deer hunting alone is a half-billion dollar industry in this state and an outdoor tradition enjoyed by more than 700,000 residents. Because deer are an integral part of Michigan’s ecosystem and economy, the conveyance of disease among deer, other wildlife, and humans should not be taken lightly. Just like baiting, deer and elk feeding congregates animals in a manner that increases the risk of spreading diseases. MUCC’s voting delegation confirmed their support for a ban to all baiting and feeding in the Lower Peninsula back in 2003, and reaffirmed it again in 2007 statewide. I have attached these resolutions.

The H-4 substitute would limit a feeding ban to only a county and the surrounding counties where an infected animal is found does not address the issue that was at the crux of the 2008 ban: captive cervids. A peninsula-wide ban was necessary because captive cervids, unlike wild cervids, have a (human-assisted) range of hundreds and even thousands of miles because of the breeding, selling, and exchanges that happens among the cervid farms, breeding facilities, and private hunting ranches. We know now that of the 460 captive cervid operations remaining in Michigan, more than 200 are not in compliance with their disease testing or fencing regulations. If there is a disease issue and an incidental (or intentional) release among one of these 200+ farms, our entire wild deer herd statewide is still at risk.

In addition, limiting a feeding ban to up to 18 months also flies in the face of science. Biologists know that there is a scientifically significant number of wild deer that must be tested in order to validate that there is no detectable trace of disease among the population. Hunting is the primary means for harvesting deer to test, and 18 months may only span one hunting season. This is a snapshot in time and is not enough time to effectively collect and analyze the number of samples necessary to determine there is not a disease concern.

Finally, the H-4 substitute limits the NRC’s ability to regulate feeding in response to an animal infected by only two diseases: CWD and TB. There are numerous wildlife diseases that can infect cervid species and possibly ones Michigan has not even encountered yet. There is no provision to deal with outbreaks of anything else.

Once again, Michigan United Conservation Clubs opposes the H-4 version of HB 5380, but supports Rep. Lahti’s original (H-3) version.

The 40,000 sportsmen and women of Michigan United Conservation Clubs believe that effective, transparent, science-based natural resource management is paramount to the collective conservation and recreational opportunities our organization supports for the benefit of future generations.

Thank you for your time and consideration of MUCC’s concerns before taking a vote on HB 5380.

Sincerely,

Dave Nyberg
MUCC Government Relations Manager