We keep hearing disturbing noises about proposed increases in hunting license fees. We are continually told that the expenses to operate state game and fish agencies increase, and that hunting and fishing license fees haven’t been increased since (fill in your own year).

In a highly informal poll on our home page, we asked hunters how they felt about increases in hunting license fees. The choices are:

Justified and still a good buy

Justified but painful

Hunters are being nickel-and-dimed to death.

So far, 63 percent have chosen “Hunters are being nickel and dimed to death.”

One thing that is easy to find on the Internet these days is unemployment figures. In March, the unemployment rate rose from 8.1 to 8.5 percent, and 3.3 million jobs have been lost in the last five months. (Source http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf).

In economic times like these, fee hikes to hunt and fish may actually result in fewer people hunting and fishing and a further decrease in revenue. Nationwide, the economy did not seem to drive the number of hunters down last season—West Virginia even saw an increase in the number of hunting licenses sold. But if enough people are out of work, significant increases in the fees could change that, quickly.

So I would like to propose the following ways for states to raise revenue for their game and fish departments without putting a bigger bite on hunters:

1. Consider spending less money on programs like organic butter churning, photography workshops, and butterfly identification.

2. Implement mentored hunting laws that make it easier for youngsters, or even adults, to get involved in hunting.

3. Many outdoor enthusiasts use hunting lands, without paying fees to do so. Start charging hikers, birders, mountain bikers, and mushroom-gatherers to use the lands that hunters have been paying for all along.

4. Don’t automatically gouge nonresident hunters by increasing their fees. Too many complaints about that already.

5. Increase fines for repeat poaching offenses.

Perhaps most of all, state game and fish agencies need to be doing everything they can to create more opportunities for hunters, and to make it easier for people to hunt. That will translate to more hunters and more revenue from sales of hunting licenses. In fairness, many states are taking such steps—youth-only hunting days are common and youth-mentored hunting laws are becoming more popular. Kentucky gives out free elk tags to any private landowner who opens up 5,000 acres of his property to public hunting. Granted, not everyone has 5,000 acres, but this concept is something other states should look at.

Bottom line—it is still too tough for the average guy to find a place to hunt, still too tough for the average guy to find a range where he can sight-in, and the overall number of hunters in this country is still declining.

What ideas can you suggest?

An April 3rd article on MPNnow.com, entitled “How Safe is Rifle Hunting”  reports on Ontario County (NY) passing a resolution to allow rifles for big game hunting in certain areas. Local hearings and state approval are still needed but at least the ball is rolling.

First, let’s give the county credit for wanting to give hunters the freedom to choose the firearm they get to purchase and use.

In debating the issue, most of those concerned seem obsessed over the fact that a rifle bullet travels farther than a shotgun slug, and their perception that rifle bullets might put residents or homes in danger.

While is generally true that a shotgun slug doesn’t travel as far as a centerfire bullet, studies in Pennsylvania show that under some circumstances, a ricocheting slug can actually travel farther than a centerfire bullet. One hunter quoted in the article alludes to this. And performance of modern sabot slugs is far, far advanced over the slugs our granddads used, even if they are not quite the equal of centerfire bullets.

Unfortunately, nobody taking part in the discussion seems to get that the distance that a shotgun slug can travel, compared to a rifle bullet, is not really what determines hunter safety.

What determines hunter safety is the hunter.

And it’s hunter responsibility that is making the sport safer than ever. Firearms-related hunting accidents declined more than 75 percent from 1997 to 2007, according to the International Hunter Education Association. Probably the biggest single reason for that is hunters who follow the rule, “Be sure of your target, and what’s beyond.” Of course there are other factors, too. But if a stray bullet hitting a home is Ontario County’s main concern, think of how many new homes were built in the United States in that 10-year period when hunting accidents were dropping 75 percent.

We’ve all experienced the frustration of development encroaching on hunting lands. But if the number of accidents is dropping, then we are obviously not letting that encroachment stand in the way of safety. I hope the citizens of Ontario County do get the freedom to hunt with rifles. And I hope they realize how opponents will be scrutinizing them, ready to pounce on the slightest infraction as a reason to take that freedom away.

One of the groups actively working to take away our hunting rights, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), has a dirty little secret that was brought to light March 25 by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). 

According to documents obtained by the CCF from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care in 2008. PETA killed 2,124 pets last year alone and a total of 21,339 dogs and cats since 1998.

Incredibly, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk posted a blog on her group’s website on March 30 defending PETA’s euthanasia program. Said Newkirk in her post, “It’s easy to point the finger at those who are forced to do the ‘dirty work’ caused by a throwaway society’s casual acquisition and breeding of dogs and cats who end up homeless and unwanted, but at PETA, we will never turn our backs on neglected, unloved, and homeless animals—even if the best we can offer them is a painless release from a world that doesn’t have enough heart or homes with room for them. It makes it easy for people to throw stones at us, but we are against all needless killing: for hamburgers, fur collars, dissection, sport hunting--the works.”

So the group that wants to stop you from going hunting with your kids or enjoying a burger says it’s OK that it killed 95 out of every 100 pets it took in last year because there are already too many dogs and cats as it is? You can spell hypocritical “P-E-T-A” in my book.

In an ironic twist, CCF petitioned Virginia’s State Veterinarian last year to reclassify PETA’s Norfolk headquarters as a slaughterhouse.