ThinkingAfield.org

Read more

Families Afield Packs a Big Economic Punch

(Columbus) – As states across the country scrape and claw for every dollar they can find to jumpstart the economy, sportsmen have found a solution that works for all involved: more hunters, as part of a groundbreaking program that sends hundreds of thousands of newcomers into the field.

Concerned about the impact of too many restrictions on the ability of sportsmen and sportswomen to pass on their hunting traditions to the next generation, a trio of national organizations launched a program designed to remove the red tape, and bolster hunting recruitment. The program, Families Afield, was kicked off in 2005 by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Wild Turkey Federation and the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. Their efforts have been joined by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and the National Rifle Association.

The purpose of the program is to promote passage of “Apprentice Hunting License” legislation. Under this new license, an experienced hunter can take a newcomer into the field to hunt under close supervision prior to the completion of a hunter education course.

To date, 30 states have passed Families Afield style laws, and brand new data shows that more than 598,532 apprentice license have been sold since the program began. And the safety rate of the supervised apprentices has exceeded that of the average hunter.

Even more encouraging was data from a study on the first class of apprentices from the state of Ohio that began in 2006. Over the three year period, roughly half of the purchasers of apprentice licenses continued hunting.

In today’s tough economic environment it is also important to consider the economic impact that Families Afield has built in such a short amount of time.

According to Today’s Hunter, published by the National Shooting Sports Foundation in 2008, the average hunter spends just under $2,000 per year on expenses related to hunting. This includes food, lodging, equipment, travel costs, licenses and more.

When the two pieces of research are combined, it is easy to appreciate the impact of Families Afield. By retaining half of the 598,532 apprentice hunters, with an average expenditure of $2,000, Families Afield has already had an estimated impact of nearly $600 million dollars!

The bottom line: Families Afield is a proven program that helps increase hunting numbers, while promoting a safe experience and provides much needed fuel to a slowly recovering economy. That’s why these organizations and hundreds of state and local sportsmen’s groups are supporting passage of apprentice hunting licenses in all 50 states.
More information can be found here:

Families Afield – www.familiesafield.org

National Shooting Sports Foundation – trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. www.nssf.org

National Wild Turkey Federation – Conservation of the wild turkey and other upland wildlife and preservation of our hunting heritage. www.nwtf.org

US Sportsmen’s Alliance – Protecting the rights of Americans to hunt, fish, and trap. www.ussportsmen.org

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation – Protecting and advancing America’s outdoor traditions through its unprecedented network of elected officials. www.sportsmenslink.org

National Rifle Association of America – www.nra.org

By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

When the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) describes the good it does in the name of their causes, it’s hard to argue. With over $100 million generated annually, even a tiny fraction of that amount effectively paints an image of animal welfare above all else. It’s a beautiful thing. But, more telling about its operation is what it doesn’t choose to disclose.

It says it’s against certain types of hunting that it defines as unfair. Good enough. Similarly, I hate what poachers do, because they have no regard for the science of game management; for the same reason, I have disdain for HSUS.
Here are some quotes from its website: “The vast majority of species that are hunted—waterfowl, upland birds, mourning doves, squirrels, raccoons, rabbits, crows, coyotes, etc.—provide minimal sustenance and do not require population control.” – HSUS Website 2003.

It rules out the notion that small game can constitute the main course in a balanced meal rich in lean protein sans hormones and chemicals. Taking a bag limit of squirrels or doves, or just using a freezer until there’s enough small game to satisfy a man-sized appetite solves that problem of “minimal sustenance”, does it not?

But, when it comes to crows and coyotes providing minimal sustenance, I think they’re off target a bit.

In a 1992 debate on WJNO Radio in West Palm Beach, Florida, Wayne Pacelle, currently HSUS President and CEO, then representing the Fund for Animals, openly admitted his goal to ban all hunting. Here some of what he stated in the debate:

Interviewer: “Where would your organization support black bear hunting – anywhere in the United States?” Pacelle: “Nowhere”

Interviewer: “Where does your organization support the hunting of deer – anywhere in the United States?” Pacelle: “Nowhere”

Interviewer: “Where, in the United States, does your organization support any hunting of any species?” Pacelle: “Nowhere”

Interviewer: “So the real agenda and goal of Fund For Animals is a total ban on all hunting everywhere?” Pacelle: “Yes.”

Granted, Pacelle wasn’t at the throne of HSUS when he made these statements but is there any hunting HSUS supports with him at the helm? If there is, I haven’t found out about it. Its focus is always to bite away at the edge of hunters’ rights like a savage piranha. And, donors’ money is no object.

But before the HSUS spends a dime, it practices selfishness in rare form. Like politicians that vote themselves raises, the HSUS staff is always Numero Uno.
Charity Navigator, America’s self-proclaimed premier independent charity evaluator, works to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic marketplace by evaluating the financial health of over 5,500 of America’s largest charities. Through federally mandated financial disclosures, potential donors can learn how specific organizations use their money.

Recently, HSUS has been downgraded to a 3-star rating. In fact, 24.2 percent of donations are used to solicit more money. And, its staff of lawyers and executives claim millions in wages and benefits. (Check out charitynavigator.org to learn the truth about your favorite non-profit organization.)

And, this from the most notorious opponent of HSUS, Center for Consumer Freedom: Seventy-one percent of Americans questioned in an opinion poll wrongly believe the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is an “umbrella group” for America’s local humane societies. Sixty-three percent incorrectly think their local “humane society” is affiliated with HSUS. And fifty-nine percent falsely believe HSUS “contributes most of its money” to local organizations that care for cats and dogs.”

They are all wrong. And, in my anecdotal experience, the numbers have been even higher!

The poll, which sampled the opinions of 1,008 Americans, was commissioned by the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) and conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) of Princeton, New Jersey.

What HSUS is good at is raising money from unsuspecting donors – and, of course through strategic litigation schemes against taxpayer-funded government agencies. It is an advocacy group representing itself far beyond any self-proclaimed cause. Just follow the money to its lucrative executive pensions and pay. That’s millions of dollars that donors could use more effectively.

To really help sad animal faces like those shown on TV, donate to your local Humane Society, which is not affiliated with the national masked bandit. Or, go ahead and plant balanced, nutritious food plots for wildlife. Both means of helping animals will have a profound, direct, and positive effect.

GW: I am so happy for the Buckeyes’ receiving my tax dollars for their ash tree project. I wonder if anyone in Ohio would share some of my tax dollars with me to replace hundreds of ash trees already removed from my property…

COLUMBUS, OH- Twelve communities heavily impacted by the emerald ash borer (EAB) in northwest Ohio received federal funding assistance through the Western Lake Erie Basin EAB Community Grant project, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Forestry.

Since the emerald ash borer was first discovered in northwest Ohio in 2003, millions of ash trees have been killed by this devastating invasive insect, which can claim the life of an otherwise healthy, mature tree in as little as three to five years. Due to the insect’s spread, many northwest Ohio communities are now confronted with the costly expense of dead ash tree removal and replacement.

These grants, which require a 50 percent local match, will help EAB-affected communities remove hazardous ash trees, as well as help assist in the restoration of lost canopy cover.

“These funds will help communities proactively implement their EAB management plans,” said Robert Boyles, chief of the Division of Forestry.

Healthy, safe and functional trees improve our cities and towns by enhancing clean air and water, increasing property values, reducing erosion and stormwater runoff, providing wildlife habitat, moderating temperatures and offering year-round enjoyment. For more information about the benefits of trees, urban tree care and the Western Lake Erie Basin Emerald Ash Borer initiative, visit ohiodnr.com/forestry.

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources ensures a balance between wise use and protection of our natural resources for the benefit of all. Visit the ODNR Web site at ohiodnr.com.

Today the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation publicly disavowed a misleading press release distributed on Friday, March 11th to congressional offices and other outlets. The press release blatantly misrepresents the position of these organizations regarding legislation to delist gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act.

The draft release was circulated by an individual representing Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife and Big Game Forever. The individual representing these two groups was immediately advised to remove the aforementioned organizations named in the release. Unfortunately, he did not, and the release was transmitted without correcting the inaccurate information.

The release in question claimed that the NRA, SCI and CSF along with the other organizations listed below are opposed to language relating to the delisting of gray wolves in spending legislation currently pending before the U.S. Congress. In fact, these organizations support that language, as well as every other measure that has been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate to date addressing this important issue.

Congressional offices and members of the media should exercise caution in accepting as fact, or repeating, any claims made by Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Big Game Forever or any person claiming to represent them. Due to the blatant misrepresentation contained in the press release circulated by these two groups, any claims they make in the future should be thoroughly investigated and independently confirmed.

Hares have an interesting place in the English language.

Have you ever heard the phrase “Mad as a March hare” and wondered where it came from?

March is the breeding season for hares, thus their odd behavior of boxing and jumping during this time of year. This is not a new phenomenon, and the earliest written testament to it was circa 1500, in Blowbol’s Test reprinted by W. C. Hazlitt in Remains Early Popular Poetry of England, 1864. It states, “Thanne [th]ey begyn to swere and to stare, And be as braynles as a Marshe hare.”

In hunting circles, the phrase derived from a male hare’s (bucks) tendency to travel several miles to breed with a female (doe) during the month of March. When a hunter’s dog would disturb the buck, he would return to his home area miles away with the dog often in pursuit. This meant the hunters would either lose their dog or have to travel miles to find it.

The phrase “hare-brained” refers to the same behavior. This is also old and is referenced in Edward Hall’s Chronicle, 1548: “My desire is that none of you be so unadvised or harebrained [sic] as to be the occasion that …”

Other interesting facts about hares include that the rabbit in Bambi named Thumper derived its name from a female hares’ tendencies with her young. Hares do not live in the ground like cottontails, so they have their young above ground and the babies (leverets) spread out to hide so that if one is discovered by a predator it will not find the entire clutch. When it is time for the young to nurse, the mother hare will “thump” her back foot rapidly to call them in to feed.

A bill in Louisiana would require sportsmen to show the serial number on their firearms before purchasing ammunition.

House Bill 8, introduced by Representative Juan LaFonta (D- New Orleans), requires any person selling ammunition to verify that the serial number of the gun for which the ammunition will be used has not been altered or destroyed. Only antique and war relic firearms would be exempt from this new requirement if they are rendered inoperable or if ammunition for these firearms is not available in the U.S. and not otherwise readily available through other means.

Essentially, this bill would require sportsmen to take their guns with them to their local gun shop anytime they needed to purchase ammunition. While there, the sales clerk would be required to check the gun’s serial number to make sure it wasn’t altered in any way before selling any ammunition. Sportsmen would have to go through this process every time they want to purchase ammunition. Those wanting to buy ammunition for more than one gun at a time would have to carry every with them to the store to be examined by the sales clerk.

“This bill is another example of legislation aimed at eliminating gun ownership by creating unnecessary, burdensome restrictions on a person’s ability to use a firearm,” said Jeremy Rine, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance associate director of state services. “HB 8 is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem.”

Take Action! Louisiana sportsmen should contact their state representatives and ask them to oppose House Bill 8. Tell them the bill is impracticable, unnecessary, and only serves to restrict law abiding gun owners. To find your state representative’s contact information, please visit the USSA Legislative Action Center at www.ussportsmen.org/LAC.

By Glen Wunderlich
Outdoor Columnist
Member Professional Outdoor Media Association

Last week’s column explained how animal rights and environmental groups get their hands on federal tax dollars. Through the Judgment Fund and Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), these groups flood the system with lawsuits in a shotgun approach and grab the winnings in the form of payouts for their legal cleverness. The system, that was designed to protect the environment and endangered species, has been co-opted into a brazen cash grab that actually hurts beneficial wildlife management.

When frivolous lawsuits are filed, government agencies don’t have the resources available to handle the barrage of enviro-litigation. Groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) understand this all too well. Their staff of some 20 lawyers count on the failure of the government to lose on issues of mandated response times, etc. and feed their never-ending thirst for taxpayers’ dollars. The net effect is that federal wildlife budgets are drained by paying for these lawsuits and therefore cannot be used to benefit game and non-game animal species, as designed. Hunter access to public land is curtailed for the same reason.

Public accountability and Congressional oversight have been forbidden by virtue of the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act.in 1995. Nobody knows just how many millions of taxpayer dollars have gone to throngs of extremist lawyers, but the madness could be coming to an end. Thanks to Wyoming Representative Cynthia Lummis (R) an amendment to the House’s continuing resolution passed in February would impose a six-month moratorium on payments to individuals and groups that bring successful lawsuits on the federal government.

After the amendment passed, Lummis said, “”I’m pleased that members of Congress recognized the need for a moratorium on these payments just so we can take a deep breath and learn where the money is going. We need to find out whether the law is being abused,” she said. “In the spirit of good government and transparency, we hope to learn if this fund is functioning how it originally was intended when it was passed in 1980.” It’s apparent that the EAJA has become a vehicle for manipulation by environmental groups that sue in the name of animal welfare and block various uses of public lands such as grazing and oil and gas leasing.

“It’s very important to the people of Wyoming and I think the people of this country as well,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R) of Wyoming. He also indicated he would promote such a provision through his chamber when it takes up the spending bill.
Certainly, a moratorium won’t make everyone happy any more than cutting taxpayers’ expenses in Wisconsin will. Kieran Suckling, executive director of CBD, one of the groups benefitting immensely from the payments, points out that the perception that environmental groups are the only ones benefitting from EAJA payments calls into question the fact that environmental lawsuits make up a tiny portion of EAJA recipients.

While that may be true, conspicuously absent from her retort is any mention of how much cash CBD has grabbed from hunters, fishermen, and any other taxpayer who do not agree with its tactics, let alone its principles.

“The Equal Access to Justice Act is probably the most important democratic tool that allows private citizens and non-corporations access to justice in America,” Suckling said, citing a minimum wage U.S. Postal Service worker who is able under EAJA to sue for sexual harassment as one theoretical example.

Theoretical examples are most likely how this waste of taxpayer money got started but until the government gets a grip on reality, shutting down the gravy train makes a lot of sense. I would think that the provision in the current EAJA to allow deep-pocket organizations the same shot at the “lottery” as the poor postal worker described above may need reconsideration too, because it’s hard to draw a meaningful parallel between the two.

The moratorium won’t solve any abuse issues; it’s a punt. But, if the government wants to be fair, as Ms. Suckling has lobbied for the poor, how about “loser pays?” When one of her group’s frivolous suits fails, it could be reclassified as payback time. At least there’d be some funds left for the postal worker.

Next week: A look at how the big-money animal rights non-profits spend all that money.

Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox rebut the President in a letter delivered to the White House on March 14, 2011. Read the letter below.

National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030

March 14, 2011

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We read your editorial submission to the Arizona Star. However, to focus a national dialogue on guns – and not criminals or mental health issues – misses the point entirely. Americans are not afraid of gun ownership. To the contrary, they overwhelmingly support the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. The primary reason why tens of millions of Americans own firearms is that they fear violent criminals roaming the streets undeterred.

We agree with your assertion that “Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing” in light of the shooting in Tucson. In truth, the professional corps of gun control lobbyists moved with lightning speed to exploit the tragedy. These included the Violence Policy Center (“In the wake of these kind of incidents, the trick is to move quickly”), the Brady Campaign (“Gabrielle Giffords Shooting ‘Inevitable'”) and Mayors Against Illegal Guns-MAIG (“Bloomberg, Mayors Outline Steps to Help Prevent Another Tucson Shooting”). Your article contains talking points nearly identical to the ones circulated by MAIG for weeks in pursuit of its longstanding gun control agenda. In contrast, it was the National Rifle Association that avoided “playing politics with other people’s pain” with our consistent response that only thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families were appropriate in the immediate aftermath.

We also agree with your statement that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. Your record as a public official, however, is anything but supportive of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. In fact, when Congress had an opportunity to voice its support for the basic right of lawful Americans to own firearms, you refused to join a bipartisan majority of more than 300 of your colleagues in signing the congressional amicus brief to the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. In addition, you previously stated (and have never retracted) your support for both Washington, D.C.’s and Chicago’s handgun and self-defense bans that the Court rightfully struck down in Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Further, you surrounded yourself with advisors who have advocated against the Second Amendment for years (Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel, to name just a few) and you nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, one of whom has already attempted to eliminate the Second Amendment right entirely. More recently, you selected Andrew Traver to head the BATFE, despite his long-standing association with groups that support onerous new restrictions on our rights.

If you do in fact believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right, we suggest you demonstrate that in your policies and those of your Administration, which you have not done to date. Simply saying that you support the right to keep and bear arms is mere lip service if not put into action.

The government owes its citizens its most vigorous efforts to enforce penalties against those who violate our existing laws. The NRA has members proudly serving in law enforcement agencies at every level. Rank and file law enforcement want to arrest bad people – not harass law-abiding gun owners and retailers.

As for enforcing the laws on the books, we strongly suggest you enforce those that actually take violent criminals off the streets. To start, we urge you to contact every U.S. Attorney and ask them to bring at least ten cases per month against drug dealers, gang members and other violent felons caught illegally possessing firearms. By prosecuting these criminals in federal court – rather than state court – strong sentencing guidelines would apply and charges would not be plea-bargained or dismissed, nor would criminals be released after serving only a fraction of their sentences. This simple directive would result in roughly 12,000 violent criminals being taken off the streets every year. Surely you agree that this would be a good first step.

Unfortunately, your Administration is currently under a cloud for allegedly encouraging violations of federal law. We suggest that you bring an immediate stop to BATFE’s “Fast and Furious” operation, in which an unknown number of illegal firearm transactions were detected – and then encouraged to fruition by your BATFE, which allegedly decided to let thousands of firearms “walk” across the border and into the hands of murderous drug cartels. One federal officer has recently been killed and no one can predict what mayhem will still ensue. Despite the protests of gun dealers who wished to terminate these transactions, your Administration reportedly encouraged violations of federal firearms laws – and undermined the firearm industry’s concerted efforts to deter straw purchases through the “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy” program. We hope you agree with our belief that this burgeoning scandal merits a full and independent investigation.

There are additional steps you can take to prevent tragic events such as the Tucson shooting from occurring in the future. One of these is to call on the national news media to refrain from giving deranged criminals minute-by-minute coverage of their heinous acts, which only serves to encourage copycat behavior. If media outlets won’t show a fan running onto the field during a baseball game because they don’t want to encourage that behavior by others – surely they can listen to law enforcement experts and refuse to air the photographs, video messages, or Facebook postings of madmen and murderers.

Another step is to encourage people to report red flags when they see them. In the case of Tucson, a man clearly bent on violence was not reported to the proper authorities by those who had good reason to believe he had serious mental problems. That’s not a deficiency in our gun laws, it’s a deficiency in our mental health system – and should be treated as such.

In closing, we agree that gun owners in America are highly responsible. This is in large part due to the NRA’s 140 years of dedication to promoting safe and responsible gun ownership, an effort on which we take a back seat to no one. We welcome any serious discussion on policies that focus on prosecuting criminals and fixing deficiencies in the mental health system. Any proposals to the contrary are not a legitimate approach to the issue.

Sincerely,

Wayne LaPierre
Executive Vice President
National Rifle Association

Chris W. Cox
Executive Director
NRA-ILA

ANOKA, Minn. – March 8, 2011 – Federal Premium® Ammunition introduces a new Mag•Shok® HEAVYWEIGHT® turkey load. The 20-gauge, 2-3/4-inch shells are on sale now for the fast-approaching 2011 spring turkey season.

Minimum Recoil, HEAVYWEIGHT® Power
New 20-gauge Mag•Shok® HEAVYWEIGHT turkey loads are ideal for young hunters and shooters who prefer less recoil. These shells provide 40% less recoil than 3-inch loads–but remain just as lethal in the field. The payload of 250 #7 HEAVYWEIGHT pellets equals the energy of #5 lead at 40 yards.

Fast, Far and Effective
The muzzle velocity is perfect for down-range performance at 1100 feet-per-second. And the rear-braking FLITECONTROL® wad delivers tight patterns for added lethality.

“We were able to reduce recoil, but still develop a load that patterns well, and will be very effective on turkeys,” said Rick Stoeckel, Federal Premium Brand Director. “These shells will appeal to young shooters and veteran turkey hunters alike.”

Federal Premium is also giving away a free hat and offering up to $20.00 back on the purchase of any Mag-Shok turkey load. Seehttp://www.federalpremium.com/promotions/promotions.aspx to learn more.

For more information on this new turkey load, additional Mag-Shok offerings or to view Federal Premium’s entire lineup, go to www.federalpremium.com.

Part No. and Description
PHT256F 7; 20-gauge, 2-3/4″, 1-1/8 oz, #7 HEAVYWEIGHT with FLITECONTROL 1100 fps