A California Sierra Club chapter is trying to change California’s bear-hunting laws to require hunters to pick up their hunting dogs’ poop. They also want hunters to keep their hounds on leashes at all times, even when chasing bears.

What is the reasoning for these changes, you ask? According to the Sierra Club, doggie doo is a threat to endangered species. Wouldn’t John Muir be proud?

Sept. 27 in the Visalia Times-Delta:

Earlier this month, Richard Garcia, an executive member of the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club, asked the Tulare County Board of Supervisors to support his group’s efforts to persuade the California Fish and Game Commission to change bear-hunting rules in the state. They want hunters to keep their dogs on leashes at all times and to remove their dogs’ feces from hunting areas.

Dogs and their feces, which can spread disease, threaten such animals as the Pacific fisher, American marten and California wolverine—all members of the weasel-ferret family—and the Sierra Nevada red fox, Garcia said. …

Dog owners in Tulare County parks are required to keep their animals leashed. In the national forests, dogs must be leashed at campgrounds and either on leashes or under their master's voice control on trails. The exception: Licensed hunters can let their dogs run free to chase bears and some other game, according to the California Department of Fish and Game. …

The supervisors have not taken any action on Garcia’s request. According to Richard Golightly, a wildlife biologist at Humboldt State University, fecal matter from dogs has not been demonstrated to be a problem in the wild.

Garcia cited a study on Pacific fishers in California contracting canine diseases. But one of the researchers on that study, Mourad Gabriel, said the findings so far don’t support dog feces being the cause.

Garcia goes on to say that the Sierra Club isn’t trying to end bear hunting in California. Does anyone else think that statement is BS—or perhaps DS? First of all, requiring bear hounds to remain on leashes at all times defeats the purpose of hunting with them. Have you ever met a person who could run fast enough to keep up with a hunting dog chasing a bear or any other animal? Neither have I. If a human could run that fast, we wouldn’t need dogs for bear hunting.

Secondly, all animals, including other canines like coyotes and wolves, poop in the woods. That’s about as natural as it gets. If biologists are saying dog doo isn’t a problem, why is the Sierra Club so concerned about it? Perhaps the group’s veiled concern for the Pacific fisher and Sierra Nevada red fox is a front to end bear hunting, especially with dogs.

Also, why is the Sierra Club only targeting poop from hunting dogs, and not all dogs in national forests? As I see it, their real goal here is to end bear hunting. If they are able to get laws passed that hunters cannot possibly follow, such as keeping dogs leashed at all times, then hunters can’t legally hunt with hounds. Dogs are a near necessity for bear hunting in California’s rugged high country. If they make dogs and dog feces out to be a threat to endangered species, then they can gain ground in ultimately getting bear hunting stopped.

If the group’s anti-hunting approach to New Jersey’s bear problem is any indication, that is exactly what the Sierra Club wants. 

What’s your take on the Sierra Club’s proposals?

The New York Times ran an article on Saturday that, somewhat surprisingly, painted a fairly honest picture of concerns within the hunting community about declining participation.

While the story gave a good overview of the factors that have played a role in that decline and what they mean to hunting’s long-term future, one sentence—or more accurately, one word—failed to capture the true essence of the problem.

The sentence reads:

“While declining interest and shrinking wildlife habitat may be the main threats to the pastime, hunting and gun groups are worried by the occasional efforts to restrict it, like the ban on mourning dove hunting in Michigan that was promoted by animal rights advocates.” [Emphasis mine]

In hunters’ terms, shrinking wildlife habitat means the farm you used to hunt now has a housing development or strip mall on it. It’s getting more and more difficult to find a place to hunt, and that, perhaps more than anything else, is causing us to loose hunters.

Equally menacing, however, are efforts to restrict hunting, and characterizing them as occasional greatly understates the threat. NRAhuntersrights.org exists because efforts to restrict hunting are constant and unyielding, and it’s imperative that hunters be made aware of them.

It’s no exaggeration to say that there are groups out there trying to ban hunting every single day, and the NRA is out there stopping those threats in their tracks, be they ballot measures, lawsuits, misinformation campaigns or direct lobbying efforts.

If you read these pages with any frequency, you know that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are two of the major groups trying to end hunting. 

HSUS president and CEO Wayne Pacelle said as long ago as 1990 that his group is “going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”

They have followed through on that promise through incremental strikes on hunting rights. If a community is overrun with deer and proposes a bowhunt, HSUS opposes it. If a local park is littered with droppings from its resident goose population and officials propose a goose hunt, HSUS say it’s unnecessary and unsafe. There’s no form of hunting they accept, and they use any means necessary to keep hunters from hunting. Pacelle himself said, “If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would.”

They’ve attacked dove hunting in Michigan and Rhode Island, mountain lion hunting in California and Oregon, prairie dog hunting in Colorado, and bear hunting in such states as New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, California, Kentucky and Oklahoma. Along with CBD, they’ve also sued to keep wolves on the Endangered Species List, which stopped badly needed wolf hunts from being held this year and perhaps beyond.

And just recently, CBD has made a push to ban all lead hunting ammunition nationwide, a goal also shared by HSUS, proving it is a backdoor restriction aimed at getting people to ultimately quit hunting.

More and more restrictions on hunting are continuing to drive hunters from the field. Whether it’s efforts to close thousands of miles of access roads on public lands or the jungle of confusing regulations enacted each year that require a law degree to decipher, hunters are constantly being bombarded with new restrictions.

Saying that efforts to ban or restrict hunting are simply “occasional” downplays how important it is to remain vigilant against forces that are trying to restrict, and indeed snuff out, the tradition that we cherish.

Every now and then I’ll hear some animal rights’ group claim that, ”Hunting is no longer relevant in the U.S.” or “Americans are losing interest in hunting.”

While overwhelming evidence exists to prove them wrong, it's refreshing to see a major newspaper present such evidence for a change.  A USA Today article entitled, “Even during a recession, hunting is a bulletproof industry,” sales of sporting firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment are reported as “soaring.”

Sales of such gear “generated $27.8 billion in economic activity in 2009 vs. $19.1 billion n 2008,” according to a report from the National Shooting Sports Foundation and quoted in the article.

Moreover, sales of hunting licenses are increasing in some states, too.

Of course, animal rights’ groups will say anything to disparage hunting, truth be damned. It’s nice to see mainstream media reporting some facts about hunting--for those who are interested in the truth.

Mary Ellen Mara-Christian, a hunter from Massachusetts, killed an alligator last week in South Carolina’s Lake Moultrie that measured 13 1/2-feet long. The gator was so big, in fact—it weighed 1,025 pounds and was estimated to be 60-70 years old—that it landed her in the national spotlight.

Considering that a “big” alligator will measure 10 feet, the story of Mara-Christian’s mammoth gator is worthy of the attention it’s received. However, not all of the attention has been kind. Plenty of individuals have used the convenient anonymity of the Internet to blast Mara-Christian for killing the gator.

The New York Daily News ran a story last week on the negative feedback Mara-Christian has received online. Here’s an excerpt from that story:

Internet commenters are outraged at the Massachusetts woman who became a news sensation after killing a 1,025-pound alligator in South Carolina this week.

“This woman should be in jail, not on TV,” one commenter writes on Carolinalive.com, a South Carolina news channel website.

“This is trophy hunting at its worst,” writes another on Cbsnews.com. …

“They tortured that alligator for hours. That's just plain sick,” a commenter writes on Bostonherald.com.

Readers of that Daily News article then took their turn to bash Mara-Christian. Here’s a selection of their comments:

“Some Serial Killer felt the same exhilaration when he killed that 115lb woman in the woods,” wrote a reader with the user name kimdayne.

“…if the female is so tough let her fight with her hands... that animal didn’t have a gun to protect it’s self. She should be put down like a sick, hurt, dog.. once to the head!! There are too many people in this world.. I pick her to get rid of!!!!,” wrote gkB.

“Disgusting, disgusting, horrible, lady hang your head in shame. Women showing how ‘macho’ they are by torturing animals, FKing sick, go away, leave the world to decent people …
in 2010 people have better understanding and respect for the earth and its inhabitants. Your backwoods, stilted 'deliverance' way of thinking is over. Pack your bags, buy a ticket, move away,” opined stoptheoilspill.

“I think she should be forced to take on an alligator of equal size with only a knife, in shallow water...That will prove to me how tough she is,” commented Rheinheart.

Offensive, uninformed comments like these illustrate the uphill battle that we as hunters face when it comes to protecting our traditions. Most of the outrage has been directed at the fact that it took Mara-Christian two hours to secure and kill the gator, and when she did she used a .22-caliber handgun and then a knife to finally put the old monarch down. However, there are a few points worth noting:

1. Mara-Christian killed the alligator according to South Carolina law. It is illegal in South Carolina to kill an unrestrained alligator. The alligator must first be captured with a restraining line and brought alongside the hunter’s boat before it can be killed. South Carolina requires that a hunter then use a bangstick or a handgun of any caliber to dispatch the alligator, with a shot to the base of the skull recommended. No other firearm may be in a hunter’s possession while hunting alligators, and it’s not unusual to use a .22LR to make the close-range killing shot.

2. The alligator was record-book long and weighed more than 1,000 pounds. Mara-Christian is 5-feet-5-inches tall and weighs 115 pounds. On top of that, this was her first alligator. Two hours seems like a reasonable amount of time to restrain and kill such a large gator.

3. According to the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, there are 100,000 alligators in the state, yet they only issue 1,000 alligator tags. This is not a species on the brink of extinction, and the state tightly regulates the number of alligators hunters can kill each year. The DNR even uses agent trappers to take approximately 300-350 problem alligators annually, highlighting the need to manage the population.

Considering that she did nothing wrong (although it’s standard operating procedure for the people leaving these comments to try and stop anything they disagree with), it’s unfortunate that Mara-Christian has been derided and indeed threatened for taking such an impressive gator—her first no less.

What sticks with me is the hypocrisy of those individuals who claim they follow some moral high road, yet advocate unspeakable things be done to an innocent woman who followed the laws and customs of a lifestyle they know nothing about.

And it was all brought on because she killed one of the biggest alligators you’ll ever see.

Click here to see the gator for yourself, and let us know what you think.

Update: Click here to see a photo gallery of Mara-Christian's gator at OutdoorLife.com.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has a growing—although not necessarily glowing—reputation as a sue-happy group. The Arizona Capital Times led off a Sept. 13 article on the CBD with a headline proclaiming that the Tucson-based group has made an “industry of suing on behalf of wildlife.”

And they’re right. CBD is the same group that’s sued repeatedly to keep gray wolves on the Endangered Species List and petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban all lead ammunition and fishing tackle nationwide.

They’ve sued on behalf of kangaroo rats in California, picture wing flies in Hawaii, and spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest—and that’s just the beginning. CBD has filed a staggering 12 lawsuits since July 1 on wildlife-based issues. 

In its article, the Capital Times characterized CBD’s agenda as a “litigation-based approach to conservation.” The fact that lawyers make up one-third of CBD’s 68-member staff shows that litigation is indeed the name of the game for this group.

That mentality—getting conservation issues tied up in courts—takes such decisions out of the hands of trained biologists and wildlife managers and puts them into the hands of judges. It’s a strategy that’s built upon misleading data and emotion, not sound scientific principles. Incredibly, the public and judges buy the CBD’s nonsense.

With regards to the lead issue, the EPA issued a press release Aug. 27 announcing that it had rejected a petition filed by radical environmental groups to have lead ammunition banned under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The CBD and others attempted to make a case that language in the act exempting shells and cartridges did not prevent the agency from regulating lead or other components of ammunition. EPA rejected that interpretation, saying it did not have the authority to regulate ammunition, but left open the second part of the petition that demands a ban on lead fishing tackle.

CBD hasn’t taken its defeat on the ammunition issue lightly. It has sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the EPA asking for all the documents related to the agency’s partial denial of its lead-ban petition.

“We are going to get to the bottom of the politics behind the EPA decision—we are not going to let the agency simply walk away from the preventable poisoning of birds and other wildlife,” said Jeff Miller, CBD conservation advocate, in a news release. “We remain committed to making sure toxic lead is removed from the environment, and we’re continuing our campaign to see that through.”

While CBD hasn’t come out and said it’s going to sue the EPA over its decision not to ban lead ammunition, hunters should be on notice that a lawsuit could be forthcoming. Based on their track record, it sure seems like CBD is laying the groundwork for yet another court battle.

NRA’s Women On Target hunting program recently accomplished two firsts in its 10-year history: its first bear hunt and its first hunting excursion in Alaska.

The trip took place Aug. 17-23, and the six women in attendance took three black bears, two brown bears, and a coyote. When they weren’t downing bruins, the women also found time for some silver salmon fishing.

Alaskan Safari and Trading LLC was the outfitter on the hunt. The women flew into the Kenai Peninsula and then took float planes into their camps. Below are a few photos from their once-in-a-lifetime adventure. Stay tuned to NRAhuntersrights.org for a full write-up of this truly exceptional hunt!

If you’re interested in taking part in a Women On Target hunt, one spot remains for the program’s next excursion—a pheasant hunt at Oak Creek Sporting Club in Brainard, Neb., Oct. 22-24. For more information on this and the other remaining hunts on the 2010-early 2011 Women On Target hunting excursion schedule, contact Ann Marie Foster, NRA Women’s Hunting Programs coordinator, at 703-267-1413 or WomenOnTargetHunts@nrahq.org, or visit www.nrahq.org/women/hunting/excursions.asp.

PETA has given Samsung its GOODY Award for an anti-hunting video the electronics manufacturer produced to promote its Bluetooth technology.

The video, titled, “Deer Rudolph and Eagle Eye team up to escape Redneck Hunter,” paints a negative, untrue picture of hunters. The unrealistic ad shows a hunter miss a buck and, in disbelief, look down the gun’s barrel. After subsequent misses (with the hunter aiming for the buck’s eye), the hunter begins swearing and firing wildly, a sequence that ends with him shooting the hat off a game warden’s head. 

We learn at the end of the video that a bald eagle flying overhead has been “phoning” the deer on the ground using a Bluetooth device and warning it to avoid the hunter.

If nothing else, it’s unbelievable that Samsung would choose to perpetuate negative, false stereotypes about hunters and hunting with such an offensive ad. Ridiculous advertising like this only serves to typecast hunting as a dangerous, “redneck” sport among those that have never been exposed to what real hunting is all about.

Of course, PETA uses its propaganda to fuel that misconception, too.

“Samsung’s ad reflects society’s evolved attitudes toward animals and shows that compassion is a far better marketing tool than cruelty,” said PETA Executive Vice President Tracy Reiman in a news release touting the award it present to Samsung. “Hunting has no place in a modern society that is striving to protect animals and be kind.”

The simple fact that PETA is endorsing this video shows just how crazy it is.

Both PETA and Samsung must have ignored the research showing that 73 percent of Americans support hunting, or the fact that hunting strengthens family bonds, maintains healthy, abundant game populations, and mitigates crop damage that benefits farmers (and even vegans).

Watch the ad and tell us what you think. Does it change your perception of Samsung? Does it make you think twice about buying the company’s products?