In case you missed it, Wisconsin found more than 10,000 new hunters this past season.

And they were all between 10 and 11 years old.

These hunters entered the woods as a result of the state’s new youth-mentored hunting law. Such laws, which NRA has backed in more than 25 states, generally allow a youngster to go hunting prior to taking a hunter education class. The laws don’t eliminate the requirement for hunter education—which some anti-hunting groups claim--they allow it to be postponed for a year or two. Typically, the kids involved have already had some training or at least exposure to hunter safety from their parents. The advantage is that the kids and parents don’t have to start buying tons of gear or devote time traveling to a hunter ed class, when a youngster may not even be certain he wants to hunt. The mentored experience allows him or her to try hunting and see if the interest is there to continue.

While the state laws can vary a bit, special restrictions generally apply: A qualified, licensed adult hunter must be within sight or arm’s reach of the youngster while hunting and only one firearm may be present. The whole idea is to make it as safe an experience as possible, and since not a single one of Wisconsin’s mentors and kids was involved in a shooting accident last season, it’s apparently working. Some states are even expanding the program so that adults new to hunting can try the mentored route.

 While some preliminary data from Southwick Associates show that hunting license sales in 12 states are on the increase again, the overall number of hunters is probably still declining. Any safe step a state can take that makes it easier for kids, or for new adults, to get out and hunt is good for hunter recruitment. Beyond that, anything that gets a kid outside, particularly with a parent, is perhaps even more important. Despite many youth hunting programs run by NRA and other groups, there is virtually nationwide acknowledgement that kids today are simply not getting outdoors enough.

Maybe it’s just my opinion, but I don’t think there is a better way for kids and parents to spend time together than to go hunting. And there’s no law that says you have to be a parent, either. If your state offers youth-mentored hunting and you know any youngster who is not getting the chance to hunt, think about becoming a mentor. Your game and fish department can tell you if it’s allowed where you live. Read more about Wisconsin’s experience here.

This following letter appeared Dec. 14 in the online version of the Missoulian. It’s a witty, sarcastic and sad commentary on the impact wolves are having on the ecological and social landscape in the northern Rocky Mountains. Urban-dwelling anti-hunters can romanticize about wolves, but, as this letter shows, the people who live in the backcountry of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming actually have to deal with them.

For sale: One elk-hunting cabin in the East Fork of the Bitterroots. Cabin has been used successfully during hunting seasons for over 50 years by scores of Montana families. Cabin includes large meat-hanging crossbeam which has served well in the past years. This beam hasn’t been used for several years.

This rustic cabin is situated in the Billie Springer Memorial Park, which is a community comprised of Armed Service veterans. Until recently, this area was prime for big game hunting and was very popular during the fall months, September through December. While the number of huntable animals has dropped off, the cabin would be an ideal base for those interested in observing wolves (Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Defenders of Wildlife; tribal moose harvesters; the U.S. Forest Service et al). Proceeds from sale will go to local food banks.

Mark Stergios,

Missoula

Fairfax County, Va., recently began working with two organized bowhunting groups to manage a far too-high population of deer in a couple of the county’s parks.

The move is a representative example of what happens in many states when suburban whitetail populations exceed their carrying capacity.

What happens is that people lose touch with reality.

In some cases, like Friends of Animals President Priscilla Feral, maybe they had already lost touch. Commenting on Fairfax County’s cooperation with bowhunters, Feral said, “Bowhunting is a repulsive, violent assault on animals who should be left alone. A deeper question is whether we should be in control of the deer population at all.”

Kimberly Sisco, a board member with a local Wildlife Rescue League, told the Fairfax Times, “The fact is, once the arrow leaves the bow, there is no way to predict what will happen next. The bottom line is that there is no safe place for bowhunting in a suburban area.”

Since neither of these people mentioned anything resembling a fact, let’s look at some.

A healthy deer density in Fairfax County is considered to be about 20-30 deer per square mile.  That can vary, of course, depending on site-specific conditions. In Colvin Run Stream Valley, site of one of the county’s managed bowhunts, there are 60-100 deer per square mile. A place called Riverbend Park has 213 deer per square mile, and Bull Run Regional Park has 419 deer per square mile. The figures are from the 2009 Annual Report on the Environment, Fairfax, County, VA, which also stated: “It is apparent that Fairfax County has a serious overabundance of deer.”

Deer compete for food and space. When an overabundance of deer intensifies that competition, deer eat up everything in sight, causing ecological damage to forests and eventually facing malnutrition, disease and/or starvation. And if even one deer gets a disease it can spread much faster in areas of high deer density.

Moreover, an overabundance of deer can increase the potential for Lyme disease and result in massive loss of residential shrubbery and vegetable gardens. Finally, the number of deer-automobile collisions inevitably rises. Fairfax County alone averages between 4,000 and 5,000 such collisions a year. About 150 people a year die from such accidents nationwide, and repair costs average $3,050.  

So, in answer to Feral’s question—to put it mildly—yes, we do need to be in control of the deer population. The fact that she fails or refuses to see this proves what a “friend of animals” she and her group really are.

As for the inevitable safety issues raised over suburban hunts, Fairfax is again a good example. Eric Huppert is president of Suburban Whitetail Management of Northern Virginia (SWMNV), the group handling the hunt at Colvin Run. (Belvoir Bow Hunters is conducting the other county hunt, at Laurel Run.) 

“We’ve worked with Fairfax County since1998, and no one has ever shot anything other than a deer,” Huppert said.

SWMNV hunters fully recognize that hunting in Fairfax County parkland is not like hunting in a national forest, and there are a number of rules they follow to ensure safety. Anyone who wants to join the club must prove completion of the International Bowhunting Education Course, and pass a marksmanship test where you shoot broadheads at a six-inch circle from 20 and 30 yards.  All hunters use tree stands placed at least 15 feet high; there is no ground hunting. And no shots are to be taken beyond 20 yards. Not only does the range restriction help ensure safety, it shows some sensitivity to the neighbors, too. “We don’t want to have to trail a deer through the community,” Huppert said.  SWMNV hunters use compound bows and crossbows only. They also carry one million dollars of insurance, which is required by Fairfax County.

None of the people who oppose Fairfax County’s hunts has cited even one actual accident or incident of property damage caused by a bowhunter.

Huppert and his group also go above and beyond in trying to be good citizens. While hunter harassment is not as common as it used to be, thanks to laws NRA helped pass, SWMNV hunters have had to deal with it. One hunter had his tires slashed. Another was surprised to hear a resident setting off firecrackers to scare away deer. And there has been verbal abuse, too.

“We don’t even engage these people,” Huppert said. The tire slashing was reported to police, and the verbal abuse is not allowed to escalate into anything dramatic.

The bowhunting groups work for free, actually generating revenue for the state through the license fees they pay. The “sharpshooters” that local governments sometimes bring in to cope with too many deer are usually paid.

“We don’t charge. We never will,” Huppert said. The group also routinely donates between 60 and 70 percent of the deer they shoot to Hunters for the Hungry programs.

Mild winters, high reproduction rates, a lack of predators, local laws against discharging a firearm and anti-hunting sentiment all contribute to the suburban deer problem in Fairfax and many other cities and towns throughout the country.  And whether it’s bows or firearms where legal, a controlled, regulated hunting season continues to be the single most effective answer to it.  Even beyond what’s happening in Fairfax County, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries instituted an urban archery season in 2002. Made available to every incorporated city and town in the state, and to Fairfax and York counties, the generous split season ran from Sept. 5 to Oct. 2, 2009, and will go from Jan. 4 to March 27, 2010. 

While that’s a lot of days to hunt, we are facing a lot of opposition to hunting. Every time an issue like this makes the papers—and this one has made the Washington Post, the Fairfax Times and the Reston Connection that I know of—hunters should be burying editors with letters and online comments filled with facts that support suburban hunting.

Fairfax held a couple of public meetings to address the hunts, and some of the animal rights’ advocates who showed up don’t even reside in the state, according to Huppert. Misguided as these people are, they are passionate.

It would be a mistake to let them be more passionate, or more active, than we are.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: SWMNV has 90-100 members but, “We are always looking for action-oriented people,” said President Eric Huppert. “While everyone wants to hunt, people willing to work the phones, pitch in with the administrative work, etc. are needed, too.”  Visit http://www.deerdamage.org for information on joining.

NRA often gets calls this time of year from people who want to hunt, but are unable to find a hunter education course. Or else they tried to get into a course earlier in the year, but could not find one close enough to home, or that fit their schedule.

Hunter education is a good thing, obviously. NRA actually helped get it off the ground in 1949, working with the state of New York. Since then, our proven hunter education principles have been adopted by one state and province after another, and our hunter safety materials are used in many classes. The value of hunter safety training can be easily seen in the decline of hunting accidents. Between 1997 and 2007, hunting accidents declined nearly 77 percent, from 1,038 to 239, according to the International Hunter Education Association ( IHEA).

But it’s a problem when well-intentioned people, simply trying to fulfill a state’s regulations, can’t get into the course they need to do so.

More and more, this seems to be a particular problem for young people who are trying to balance school, weekend jobs, sports, extracurricular activities, and sending 400 text messages a day. But it’s a problem for adults, too, who might have to take a course to satisfy an out-of-state license requirement. In Colorado, for example, anyone (resident or non-resident) born on or after Jan. 1, 1949, must have a hunter safety card to get a license. (Cards from other states are accepted.)

It is thus disturbing to hear Wayne East, executive director of IHEA, say, “Like the overall number of hunters, the number of hunter ed instructors is dropping, too. Part of the problem is aging,” he said. “And there is a need to recruit instructor teams, not just individual instructors.” 

And even in states like Virginia, where the number of hunters is actually increasing gradually, “There are still local shortages, especially in some localities,” said Virginia Hunter Ed Coordinator David Dodson.

While suggesting to hunters, “Don’t wait until the week before the season to find a course,” East also said that states recognize the problem and are taking steps to address it.  Many states now allow NRA-backed youth-mentored hunts, which, contrary to what anti-hunting groups claim, do not eliminate hunter education requirements, but defer them for a year or two. While exact rules vary, youth mentored hunts typically require that an experienced, licensed hunter, over 21, have immediate control of the youth throughout the hunt, and only one firearm be present. Essentially, the responsibility to ensure the youth acts safely is accepted by the mentor. The hunter education course is still required, but can come later. (Check your state’s regulations on youth-mentored hunts before embarking on one.)

More and more states are also starting online hunter ed classes. Students might still have to spend two to six hours of class in the field in front of an instructor, but the rest can be done online.

Last year, West Virginia found a really good solution by mandating that elective hunter education courses be offered in the schools for students in eighth through the 12th grades. This decision made it a lot easier for kids to schedule hunter education and relieved parents of yet another chauffeuring responsibility. Other schools systems need to be looking at this option.

While states have paid staff to coordinate hunter education programs, the vast majority of instructors are volunteers, and the requirements to become certified vary by state. Virginia, for example, requires an 18-hour training program and a background check.

That’s not a bad investment for any experienced hunter who wants to do something to help bring more people into the tradition we love. If you’ve never considered becoming a hunter education instructor, give it some thought. At least contact your state’s hunter education coordinator to see what it takes. Or contact IHEA for help at 303-434-7233 or visit www.ihea.com.

Of course, you can also get involved in training youngsters by serving as a volunteer or coach in NRA’s Youth Hunter Education Challenge. Call 703-267-1508 to learn about starting a YHEC program in your area, or send an e-mail to maguilar@nrahq.org.

There’s a story in the Dec. 15 issue of USA Today saying that the gray wolf population in Yellowstone National Park has dropped to 116 animals, down 33 percent from an all-time high of 174 in 2003.

That decline is due largely to the fact that wolves have killed a heck of a lot of elk in Yellowstone—the park’s elk herd has dropped from 17,000 to 6,800 since wolves were reintroduced—and are now having a more difficult time finding food. According to Doug Smith, leader of the Yellowstone Wolf Project that studies and manages the animals, wolves are killing one another more frequently in the park as they compete for elk, their primary food source.

The story also points to other potential causes of wolf mortality, such as parvovirus, mange, and humans. Wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains were removed from the Endangered Species List earlier this year, and hunting seasons for the animals commenced in Montana and Idaho this fall.

But one line in the story, referring to state management plans for wolves, is troubling. The writer states that the group Defenders of Wildlife “faults the states' management plans to reduce wolves from 1,650 to 450.”

That is utterly false.

Montana’s wolf quota was 75, and hunters only killed 72 wolves—out an estimated statewide population of 500—in a hunt that ended in mid-November. Idaho’s quota is 220 wolves out of a population of 850 in that state. To date, approximately 120 wolves have been killed in Idaho in a season that is scheduled to run until March.

So, even if Idaho reaches its quota, hunters will have killed less than 300 wolves, which is nowhere near Defenders of Wildlife’s claim that the states will reduce the total wolf population from 1,650 to 450. (Wyoming has approximately 300 wolves, which are still protected by the Endangered Species Act and cannot be hunted.) Even when you factor in “problem” wolves, such as the ones that harass livestock, that have been or will be killed by state agents, you still don’t come close to the numbers offered up by the anti-hunters.

And when you consider that wolf populations grow by about 20 percent each year through reproduction, next spring’s pups will offset the wolves killed by hunters this year, resulting in population stability, not decline.

Approximately 25,000 hunters and shooters threw their name into the hat for a chance to win a Henry Lever Action Youth Model .22 during our November Gift Giveaway.

Accompanying the avalanche of entries we received were many heartfelt promises to give the gun to a daughter or grandson, which is exactly what Henry Repeating Arms hoped for when they donated the rifle—and 49 others—to NRA Youth Programs back in September.

It’s encouraging to see so many people who want to get kids involved in hunting and shooting, and I wanted to share just a small sampling of the touching e-mails we received from NRA members who wanted to win the gun so they could pass it on to a youngster.

“I would love to have this rifle for my son. He is 8 years old and has Asperger’s Syndrome (high-functioning Autism and ADHD). Every doctor says being outside, active, and with animals is good therapy. He loves to go to the gun range with me, carve wood with me, work on cars with me, do yard work with me—and now is wanting to go hunting with me.”

“I’d love to win this Henry rifle as a Christmas gift for my 13-year-old grandson. I taught his dad to shoot and respect the rules; his dad is teaching him the same thing. His dad (my son) is also an NRA member of several years standing, and the gift of a rifle for my grandson would be a good way to begin his own NRA membership.”

“Dear NRA: Thanks for the opportunity in possibly winning the Henry Lever Action Youth Model .22 rifle. I was planning on buying my son one when, like most unfortunate Americans, I got laid off from my job. My son still talks about it, but he understands and is good about it. If he wins this it would be an awesome Christmas gift. Thanks again for the opportunity.”

“This is the perfect starter gun for my eldest granddaughter. She is the daughter of a Marine (my eldest son) who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and was honorably discharged at the end of his tour. She and her dad would be thrilled to start out her shooting experience with an American legend.”

The winner of the rifle, Bob Jerdon of Northampton, Pa., has plans to give it to his 9-year-old son for his 10th birthday. Fittingly, Mr. Jerdon was in a tree stand on the opening day of Pennsylvania’s firearms deer season when we notified him he had won the rifle.

In response to the overwhelmingly positive feedback we received from last month’s giveaway, we are offering a SECOND Henry Youth Model .22 as our gift for the month of December. To get your name into the drawing, send an e-mail to huntersrights@nrahq.org and put “Gift Giveaway” in the subject line. We’ll draw the winner at random at the end of the month.

Even if your name isn’t drawn, please take the time to visit www.henryrifles.com, where you can get a free copy of Henry’s color catalog and see the full line of high-quality, American-made guns the company offers for kids and adults alike.

The Burlington Free Press ran a letter to the editor Oct. 28 in which the writer advocated that “before the next annual killing season, other residents be awarded legal permits to kill hunters…” The letter was written by Ethan A.H. Sims of Shelburne, Vt., in response to the opening of Vermont’s moose season.

Here’s the full text of Sims’ letter:

Take a Few Hunters Along with the Moose

On this beautiful day we learn that about 1,251 hunters are taking to the woods with legal permits to “pursue prized quarry.” Certainly the members of various humane organizations do not approve. I suggest that before the next annual killing season, other residents be awarded legal permits to kill hunters who will be out to kill these beautiful, non-destructive animals. Or the government could just rule out all this primitive killing.

ETHAN A.H. SIMS
Shelburne

After overwhelming outrage from the hunting community, the newspaper has written an apology for running the offensive letter and has since removed it from its website.

The commissioner of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wayne Laroche, has also weighed in on this issue via an op-ed that ran in Thursday’s Burlington Free Press. Laroche’s piece justly condemns Sims’ ignorant letter and uses it as an opportunity to educate the public about the important role that hunters play in wildlife management. To read the full text of Laroche’s op-ed, click here.

Sims’ threatening letter, which borders on being criminal, especially if any hunters are actually harmed, shows just how far anti-hunters will go to end hunting. The newspaper was wrong for printing it and indeed owes every hunter in this country an apology.

On the other hand, Laroche and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife should be applauded for their response to this issue and for taking the time to educate the public about the benefits of hunting and the overwhelming justification for a moose hunt. 

After months of heated debate on how best to handle the overpopulated deer herd in Kansas City’s Shawnee Mission Park, the Johnson County Park and Recreation District has decided to allow sharpshooters and bowhunters to thin the herd.

That decision, as expected, has drawn objections from animal rights activists and anti-hunters. Instead of hunting the deer, some local residents have offered their own suggestions for handling the park’s deer problem.

From the Kansas City News:

One woman, who lives nearby, suggested scores of animal rights activists line up along the bank of the man-made lake and fan out methodically through the park, banging pots and pans to startle the deer out of the 1,200-acre green space.

Another resident proposed trucking in unseemly amounts of lion manure from the Kansas City Zoo, spreading it around Shawnee Mission Park and repelling the deer with the stench of their predators’ poop.

Most famously, the members of Bite Club of KC, submitted the concept of a Deer Auto-Assembler, which would create a deer preserve, possibly with an observation tower for animal-loving tourists.

The scary part is these were serious suggestions, which illustrate just how little animal rights activists understand wildlife management. None of these “solutions” get to the heart of the problem, which is that there are too many deer in the park and they have over-browsed their habitat. Scaring the deer out of the park by banging pots and pans (which would be virtually impossible and, at best, temporary) doesn’t solve the problem. Scaring deer out of the park with manure from lions (which aren’t a whitetail deer’s natural predator anyway) doesn’t solve the problem. And the park is already a deer preserve—that’s how they got overpopulated in the first place. 

Actually removing deer from the park is the only real solution, and that means thinning the herd through hunting. It’s a step that should have been taken years ago before the population got out of control. It’s what’s best for the park, the health of the deer and, whether they realize it or not, the people who live near the park. Doing nothing, which is essentially what the antis want, is what created the problem in the first place.

If the park is truly serious about managing its deer, then this hunt should be held annually and not just this year. To do otherwise makes about as much sense as banging pots and pans or dumping lion feces to scare the deer away.

The Salt Lake Tribune ran a story last week largely praising Utah’s Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit (CWMU) program. Run since the mid-1990s, the program allows landowners to obtain and sell hunting permits in exchange for opening their land to public hunters.

CWMUs are run much like traditional wildlife management units, with state biologists determining the number of tags that will be issued for each unit, and public hunters using accumulated bonus points to apply for and draw tags to hunt a specific CWMU.

In exchange for that public access, landowners are allotted hunting permits for mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, moose and antelope, which they can then use on their own or sell to other hunters, sometimes for as much as $15,000 per tag.

The revenue generated from the sale of hunting tags has made landowners more cognizant of managing their properties for wildlife. It’s also kept them afloat when they could no longer support themselves via farming and livestock alone. Profits from hunting have allowed families to keep their ranches, which in turn has preserved open space. And countless residents make their livings on CWMUs as property managers, guides, meat packers, and camp cooks.

All of this is good for wildlife, not to mention the state’s economy.

But while the CWMU program has opened more than 2 million acres of private land to the public that likely would not have been made available otherwise, there are drawbacks to the program.

Some people have been critical of allowing private individuals to profit from the sale of hunting tags. Their argument is grounded in the concept that wildlife, as a public resource, is owned by all citizens of Utah. 

There have also been concerns about landowners treating public hunters as second-class citizens compared to their paying customers, and in some cases those concerns have been justified. But, per CWMU rules, public hunters who draw tags must be given the same access to a unit as those hunters who bought their tag from the landowner. There’s even a complaint process for public hunters who feel they’ve been snubbed by landowners in favor of their paying clients. 

Others have noted that public lands have been added to some CWMUs, meaning that the average hunter can no longer hunt that land without paying exorbitant fees or drawing a CWMU tag, while landowners in those CWMUs have profited. The success rate for drawing an elk tag for the state’s largest CWMU, the 215,477-acre Deseret Land and Livestock Ranch, is 1 in 75, for example. By law, only a minimum of 10 percent of CWMU tags must be reserved for resident hunters.

And what about those hunters who would have been given permission to hunt private property before the CWMU program came into existence and are left out in the cold now that hunting on private land has become big business? Why would a private landowner let you come and hunt for free, as he may have before, if he can sell a tag to a paying customer for thousands of dollars?

As a commenter to the Salk Lake Tribune article noted, “CWMUs may be a good thing for the land owners however the deck is stacked against the average sportsman. … Our family has traditionally hunted in [northern Utah]. 60% of our public lands that we’ve hunted have been ‘added’ to a CWMU. To hunt those areas that are still public I would need to pay the CWMU manager $10,000 per permit. My family would too. For this year that would be $180,000 just to hunt the areas we did 7 years ago. Keeping in mind the areas are still public land.”

When it comes to the average hunter who doesn’t have loads of money to spend on a hunt, or like the hunter above who has been locked out of public land that is now part of a CWMU and doesn’t want to wait years to draw a tag, the program does appear to have its drawbacks.

Perhaps a better option for Utah hunters looking for a place to hunt are the 60,000 acres enrolled in the state’s walk-in access program, which gives landowners financial incentives to open their land to all sportsmen. Utah is also home to millions of acres of federal land that can be used by hunters.

That’s not to say there’s no value in the CWMU program, or that it’s a bad idea. It’s certainly good for wildlife and wildlife habitat, not to mention landowners and hunters with deep pockets. But when it comes to the average hunter, access to those 2 million acres is no sure thing, especially when you consider that only 14 percent of the state’s 3,200 CWMU big game tags were awarded to Utah residents in the 2009 permit drawing.

What’s your take on this program?

I saw a story today on foxnews.com called, “Rude: The New Norm.” The article focused on recent headlines grabbed by Kanye West and Serena Williams.

But if Fox really wants to see “rude,” they should take a look at the comments made by almost any animal rightist when talking about hunters. Take this article about animal rights’ groups protesting Florida’s alligator hunt, which began in August.

Florida has more than one million alligators (and apparently pythons aren’t far behind) and the state’s management plan allows for a hunter harvest of about 7,000 animals. Residents have found alligators in their swimming pools, driveways, front and back porches, local swimming lakes and ponds. Last year, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission got 14,000 complaints about nuisance alligators. They even have criteria on what constitutes a “nuisance” gator—generally, it needs to be at least four feet long before it even qualifies. The state record gator is just over 14 feet long.

You’d think the residents would throw a party for the hunters who are willing to pay a fee and go after such a formidable quarry.

 But, no. Here are just a few of the comments about hunters from that story:

“They (hunters) need to find a new hobby. Totally outrageous. Taking their children (hunting) should be considered child abuse.”

 “They don't need the crocodile meat “ (Remember, this is an alligator hunt.) – “they can always live of (sic) plants. This is a hunt for the sake of boosting neanderthal instincts - wonder what the average IQ of the hunters/family members/authorities are? Bravo to the protesters.”

 “I wonder if redneck tastes like chicken.”

“What gets me is these slovenly morons are allowed to breed.”

“…Well, there ain't near a brain cell 'tween 'em all...and yes, it is amazing they are allowed to breed. Frightening, isn't it!”

Frightening indeed, that the citizens who oppose alligator hunting realize they cannot come up with one rational argument, and are left with nothing but insults and confusion over what animal they are talking about.