As a young hunter growing up in the field 20 years ago, morning doves were synonymous with the kick off to autumn. At that time, dove hunting opened earlier than any other major bird season, so doves were top priority for a week or two until we could hunt sharp-tailed grouse and partridge.

I think the emergence of an early Canada goose season a few years back has taken some of the early fall spotlight once directed at doves. However, doves were, and still are today, a respected and highly popular game bird.

Their small body size and manic flight pattern combine to put doves near the top in terms of degree of difficulty to bag. Veteran dove hunters have always related that shooting a limit of doves with a box of shells (25) is a pretty tough challenge.

In recent years, I haven’t specifically hunted doves as much as I once did. What used to be full day dove hunts have become a couple of hours or an evening walk along the edge of a sunflower field to hopefully get a crack at a few doves making their way between feeding fields and their roost.

Mourning doves typically nest from April through September, and may raise more than one batch of young during the nesting season in the North. In warmer climates, they can rear five or six clutches. The typical nest contains two white eggs, with an incubation period of 13-15 days. Young are in the nest from 12-15 days before they can fly.

Currently, biologists across the country are trying to learn more about doves. 26 states participating in a three-year study, during which more than 85,000 mourning doves will be trapped and banded. Biologists hope to determine harvest rates, estimate annual survival, provide information on geographic distribution of harvest, and develop and refine techniques for future banding.

The banding project got started in 2003, when doves were trapped in and fitted with small metal leg bands.

Mourning doves are the most numerous migratory game bird in North America and more doves are harvested by hunters than all other migratory game birds combined. Dove hunting is serious stuff in most states. In 2003, for example, the No. 1 dove harvest state was Texas, where hunters bagged 3.9 million birds.

Mourning doves aren’t as actively pursued elsewhere as the are in Texas. In 2003, only about 35,000 doves were shot in the state or North Dakota. People don’t often recognize doves as viable targets because they are so small. Plus, a good portion of the birds leave the state before the season even opens on September 1.

As the mourning dove banding study continues and data is analyzed, more questions will be answered. So far, doves banded in North Dakota have been taken Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Mexico.

An interesting find this summer is that researchers have recaptured several birds banded in the state last year. These returns identify doves that survived a long migration south, a return trek north, and a host of other hurdles that include predators, weather and hunters.

This fall, as you cruise by doves perched above a waiting sunflower field, imagine the places those birds may have been.

Without a blink I can look you in the eye and relate growing up I never imagined the issue of in the field harassment to be an issue for legal hunters. IA poacher caught illegally spotlighting deer and drawing the ire of a local would seem justifiable, but the other possibility was not on the mind of this young hunter in the Midwest.

Now as a mid-life adult, I’ve resolved that nothing will surprise me. And while growing up in the mid 80s I was exposed to the increasingly obstructive tactics of anti-hunting organizations which conceived the reality of a law abiding hunter being accosted. These “anti” groups generated headlines for their organizations by protesting and disrupting legal activities. What followed were states reacting to protect their hunter citizens from these insurgents. As a hunter you can thank your state law makers if your protected from law against being harassed while legally in the field.

Interestingly enough reading a Q&A with California Department of Fish and Game’s Carrie Wilson many hunters continue to wonder such a basic question.

Q: Is there some kind of regulation that makes it unlawful for someone to interfere with or harass a hunter or angler who is hunting or fishing lawfully?

Yes, according to Game Warden Lorraine Doyle, the Fish and Game Code has a section which protects hunters and anglers rights to lawfully fish and hunt for game in California.

And in California as compared to say Wyoming you may be glad that protection is afforded where anti-hunting groups and individuals may be more likely to intentionally attempt to disrupt a hunt. Speaking of intent, here in lies the problem as don’t think just having a regulation on the books ensures you as a legal and protected by law hunters, will never encounter a problem.

(a) A person shall not willfully interfere with the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of shooting, hunting, fishing, falconry or trapping at the location where that activity is taking place.

(e) In order to be liable for a violation of this section, the person is required to have had the specific intent to interfere with the participation of an individual who was engaged in shooting, hunting, fishing, falconry or trapping.

(f) For purposes of this section, “interfere with” means any action which physically impedes, hinders or obstructs the lawful pursuit of any of the above-mentioned activities, including, but not limited to, actions taken for the purpose of frightening away animals from the location where the lawful activity is taking place.

I’m drawing out some legal holes to better help hunters understand the legal descriptions of what is going to be considered when a situation evolves. First and foremost the legally engaged hunter should not be overlooked. Say your in the field and the state law requires you to have signed your license and you’ve forgotten to take sign your name and technically failing to do so you are not legally engaged in the activity of hunting. I know it’s a loophole, but you can understand these groups seeking to slip off from prosecution will expose any potential legal culpability. What about the definition of shooting and hunting? If you are in the field and not pulling the trigger are you hunting? I hate to imagine the attorneys deciphering the intent of this.

Another portion of this which jumps out to me is physically impedes, hinders etc. Which could make the argument verbal harassment is not a violation or protection through this specific law. I’d venture to say within this realm if your legally hunting waterfowl and someone intentionally scares away the ducks, you’ll again be at the mercy of the system where the legally acting hunter was disrupted but not to the extent prosecution for hunter harassment would take place, as you were not harassed but the quarry was and proving the intent is another variable which waters this down even more.

I’ve come to the point in this discussion for all practical purposes during hunting if your not physically assault in the field, you’ll find little protection and you might almost make the argument those interfering with the hunt would have more protection in terms of their legal right to interfere with your hunt. And for the matter if your physically assaulted while hunting or not hunting you’ll find protection from laws protecting all citizens and that’s not good enough.

click here for a full list of states with hunter harassment protection

It’s the backside of August and two of my favorite pastimes – hunting and football – are about to mix like peanut butter and jelly, or better yet, sausage and sauerkraut for this full-blooded German.

While hunting, fishing, trapping and other outdoor activities are my profession, football, among other sports, is a nonwork outlet so for me, nothing could be better than weekends in autumn.

There’s little I enjoy more than a Friday evening scout for doves, ducks or whatever season is open and, on the way home, pulling into a local high school football game. It only gets better if it’s a game between schools that have no more than nine players on each side of the ball.

Saturdays provide opportunities for a quick stop to take in a few quarters of an outdoor college football game, or to time an afternoon break to listen to local college football teams grind it out on the radio.

Sometime in the future, perhaps by the time my children are old enough to participate, I wonder if those high school athletic events might also include activities that are more closely related to hunting and fishing.

Let me explain. Hopkins High School in Minnesota already has a school-sponsored trap and skeet team. Across the country in recent years, the National Archery in Schools program has been a resounding success, and is starting to develop. In North Dakota, the Prairie Rose State Games added family fishing as a noncompetitive activity for the 2006 statewide event. The PRSG also include archery, rifle silhouette, skeet and sporting clays shooting events.

I realize there’s a distinct difference between hunting and competitive shooting with bow or gun. I’m not a fan of hunting or fishing contests that reward those who can shoot the most grouse or catch the most walleye. In fact, I’m on the opposite end of the spectrum.

But find me a kid who can’t throw a spiral or hit a home run, yet can put a nice-sized fish in the live-well or a drop a rooster with one shot, and he or she can experience the same confident smile and internal sense of accomplishment that come from a touchdown pass or three-point basket.

I enjoy high school football and other sports, but not everyone plays them, and for those who do, the activity is not necessarily a life-long pursuit. Shooting sports are all-inclusive, and they are easily continued after high school days are over.

I’m not suggesting there’s a greater benefit from archery in schools or high or competitive skeet shooting than playing football or volleyball. But I do know that some kids who would not take part in the “traditional” sports might stand in line to sign up for something like archery.

Hunting and fishing will always involve a core segment of the population. However, as our state population becomes more urban and less rural, we need to develop more opportunities for introducing hunting, angling or trapping to kids who most likely would not otherwise become involved.

Hunter education is a large part of training new hunters, but most of those who take part generally have the means and ways of getting out into the field. A growing number of wildlife clubs offer junior club activities. Youth-only hunts have served to give young hunters a jump start.

It’s seldom that I hear of a hunter or angler who didn’t begin hunting or fishing until later on in life. For the most part they were exposed early on, enjoyed it, and will continue throughout life.

Organized activities centered on skills that hunters and anglers also use can develop confidence, character and an interest in spending time outdoors. As you spend time hunting or fishing this fall, and listening to or watching high school football, l imagine how much better your archery or shotgunning skills would be if you’d have spent a couple hours a day, five days a week practicing with skilled instruction.

I’d be flat out lying if said I wasn’t waiting for the inevitable question this election season, the proverbial, “who would you rather spend time in a duck blind(or fishing boat) with Barack Obama or John McCain? For starters I’m not sure what the answer to the question is supposed to reveal? Is the purpose of the question to determine who hunters or anglers will vote for? I don’t think so and disagree with the presumption of this indicating which way the outdoor vote will swing.

The answer to such a broadly interpreted question could indicate who a person wants to learn more about, tag as camp cook or leave in the duck blind after the hunt. Answers may be truth, lies or a part of a joke.This fall before the election rhetoric heats up(it will even more after Labor Day) as you take a break from the hunt or landing the boat, ask first the question and then follow with, “so is that your vote?” and you’ll have a better gauge than most other responses. As you can well imagine the surveys and political analysis will continue throughout the fall.

About half of those polled say they like McCain and would love to go on a hunt with him — compared to 29 percent who feel the same way about Obama.

“Sportsmen view John McCain as good company in the great outdoors,” said Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which helped underwrite the survey. “They’re just not sure how much fun Barack Obama would be in a duck blind.”??

For me choosing a partner from the two political candidates is nothing more than the answer to the question. I’d choose Obama to take out fishing or hunting. Let’s get that out of the way right away as I have this personal mental image Obama may not have a strong background in hunting or fishing but would be willing to try either. And regardless if he’s running for President or the local park board when it comes to spending time outdoors I almost prefer to introduce or expose the less experienced hunter before a veteran. So there’s my answer but I can tell you my response doesn’t mean “Leier will vote Obama” so we can end that debate before it hatches. Don’t get me wrong I’m not minimizing our potential impact underscored by the recent report by the Congressional Sportsmens Foundation which highlights the weight a united outdoors voting block can have.

• there are 40 million sportsmen of voting age in the U.S., nearly a third of the entire vote.

• Nearly 8 in 10 hunters always vote in presidential elections, while 6 in 10 always vote in non-presidential elections.

• 80% of sportsmen consider themselves “likely voters.”

• Approximately 20% of the entire population of major swing states - Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida - hold either a hunting or fishing license, or both.

That said I’m not convinced we’re voting as a block, but again that doesn’t insinuate we’re anything less than a strong cog in the electoral campaign of 2008.
Here’s why this question seems more irrelevant now than in years past. Gun rights issues are a hot button issue, have been for my entire voting life and that political line in the sand will note go away. And personally I’m glad.
So now follow my thinking as I explain why I have reservations this more conservation philosophically weighted question is light in 2008.
I’m just not certain that gun rights is much of a deciding or party splitting issue. When was the last time the NRA endorsed a Democrat? How many of your staunch NRA supporters or gun rights activists have voted for a liberal in the past? I’m convinced they are voting Republican from here to eternity. That’s not a bad thing I my mind, I’m not saying that at all, but this fact along with the weight of political deciding issues such as energy development, foreign policy and the economy are demanding the lions share of political discussion and that’s not wrong, it’s a function of our current society and the pressing issues facing a wide swath of the voting public.

So when I break down issues to the foundation I’m of the mindset that a presidential candidates stance on conservation will not swing a voter to the degree their plans for topics like homeland security, energy development and the war will trump. And the single voting facet of gun rights will vote Republican. It’s a pretty safe assumption.

Which brings me back to the question of sharing a duck blind? I’d take my kids in a heartbeat.

post from Nate right here asking the proverbial question
Congressional Sportsmens Foundation
NRA campaign for gun rights

I’ve realized few people can accept the fact genetic mutations in animals often times are terminal. The real wild world is less forgiving than humans and I hope we always have more compassion on each other than on an animal. It’s pretty basic, but often times we seem to put to high of a value on one single animal and even risk our own safety to do so. The past few decades it seems many people have fallen to believe any animal can and should be saved, which doesn’t make any sense. I blame it on TV and the tertiary propaganda of animals rights groups slowly convincing us every animal is important.

We must accept mainstream fish and wildlife populations are managed as a whole and not individual animal. What I mean is unless we are discussing a whooping crane, California condor or another endangered species it doesn’t make much sense to save one white-tailed deer injured when struck by a car or a robin flying into a window. Which is what has me shaking my head at the amount of time, money and resources spent to save a six-legged deer. Let’s face the facts. Animals have genetic variances which can create albinism, multiple appendages and a host of other physical abnormalities. It’s fundamental that in terms of genetic mutations and birth defects animals can and do face similar challenges as humans.

A six-legged deer found in Rome last month underwent successful surgery Monday night to remove the two extra appendages, and if all goes as planned, it will hopefully be walking around on a more-normal four legs in the very near future.

I’m sorry, but a six-legged deer in my eyes is just that a deer with six legs. Maybe in a side show at a carnival or for pure sake of curiosity it will attract due attention. It is something odd and peculiar and there’s a good chance it may either be extremely fast and out run any known predator or a better chance it may hardly be able to walk and feed itself, thus dying. Do I feel bad for the deer? You bet I do. But do I think it’s a wise use of resources to capture and surgically remove a couple legs? No. And you’ll never convince me otherwise. I’ve seen and hear of four legged animals living with three, maybe not as long or as enjoyable as a normal four legged, but who are we to decided? And say in the case of an albino deer odds are the individual deer will not depend on blending in with habitat to survive a hungry predator and may have increased chance of mortality. It’s white in a brown world and pretty much a moving target for any predator or even hunter seeking.

I know many will disagree with my philosophy, but I’m not slighted by it. Let me ask you, if the deer dies the next day, week or month after the extra legs were removed was it worth it? It’s one deer (with 6 legs) and not a human or even an endangered species. In fact I could very well convince others how wrong this really is, even if most public sentiment can live with justifying spending time and money to remove two legs from a deer.

The deer, nicknamed “Spyder,” endured three and a half hours of surgery and appeared to be coming out of surgery “just fine” and is expected to recover, Pate said around 11 p.m.

I’m not going to win many hearts over when I related how many animals I’ve personally euthanized. In fact I’ve never really counted as in my eyes, it’s not more than a cog in a wheel of the circle of life. It really is pretty basic foundation of life. Whether your discussing humans or animals, some are born strong and others weak. I’ll spare you the details of the possible variants. If you don’t believe take a picture of your family and examine as to how you’re genetically similar yet so different.

I’ll spare the details of my own personal instances of euthanizing animals, they are too numerous. No I don’t agree with putting down an animal just because it’s different. That’s not the point. The fact is realizing these animals may not survive and we’ve not done long term good by wasting money on one individual deer.

read the full story of the 6 legged deer here

Meanwhile in Australia the decision was made  to put down a whale

The plight of the whale, which Australians have nicknamed “Colin,” has dominated news coverage here since it was first sighted Sunday and began trying to suckle from boats it apparently mistook for its mother.

“The calf was in much worse condition than they originally thought and the injuries were a lot worse than they thought as well, probably from a shark attack,” she said. “We have taken the hard decision to put it down, unfortunately.”

Not going to win many fans but it’s the right call here’s the full story on the baby whale right here 

The foundation for wildlife

In the most basic terms, the foundation for strong, healthy fish and wildlife populations can be fleshed down to habitat. It’s really the core of what will maintain and sustain a population.

And when the foundation of modern day wildlife management is considered, most hunters associate Aldo Leopold as one of the builders of modern day wildlife management principals. As water is to fish and buffaloberry to sharp-tailed grouse, Leopold’s philosophy and insight have shaped generations of wildlife research and management decisions.

Even many nonhunters are familiar with President Theodore Roosevelt and his contributions to our country’s conservation conscience. His vision of protecting key places, and creating national wildlife refuges and national forests, was a monumental step toward ensuring that wild things and wild places would still be around 100 years later.

Over time, the building blocks established by Roosevelt, Leopold and others helped bring North America’s wildlife back from decimation. Many wildlife species we enjoy today have experienced some type of successful rebuilding over the last century.

A number of factors contributed to this phenomenon of wildlife restoration, and over the past several years, conservation leaders have come to sort of define these factors in a set of principles called the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

The North American model has seven principles that have played a significant role in the ability of North American citizens to revitalize wildlife. Many major conservation organizations have pledged to support and defend these principles as the best way to ensure sustained wildlife populations. Six of the seven principles outlined below are specifically listed in the Game and Fish Department’s strategic plan.

Here’s a brief look at the seven principles of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

Wildlife as a Public Trust Resource – In North America, all wildlife is a public resource. In some states, this public ownership is defined in state statute, which also provides for management by government agencies.

Elimination of Markets for Wildlife – Conservation laws that eliminated the sale of dead wildlife, and their strong enforcement in the United States and Canada, saved many species from further slaughter and possible extinction.

Allocation of Wildlife by Law – Every citizen in good standing, regardless of wealth, social standing or land ownership, is allowed to participate in the harvest of wildlife within guidelines set by lawmakers. In addition, everyone has a say in how wildlife is managed.

Wildlife Can Only be Killed for Legitimate Purposes – In North America, we can legally harvest certain wild animals under strict guidelines for food and fur, self-defense and property protection.

Wildlife is an International Resource – Wildlife and fish migrate freely across boundaries between states, provinces and countries. Treaties between governments to recognize a cooperative responsibility for managing these species to the benefit of all countries.

Scientific Management – Scientific information gathered by professionals is the basis for successful wildlife management, and helps us make good decisions.

Democracy of Hunting – Every citizen has an opportunity, under the law, to hunt and fish in the United States and Canada. Because of that opportunity, citizens have a stake in wildlife, and those who participate have contributed billions of dollars to conservation efforts over the past century.

As I mentioned, understanding and implementing these principles is vital to maintaining and enhancing the wild things and places we as society so cherish. It’s my hope in coming years you’ll learn, hear, read and see more about the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation as decisions about the future of our natural resources are made.

Reclamation is a term which is pretty much synonymous with the fact something was ‘wrecked’ and is or will be in the process of being fixed or reclaimed. And while many environmentalists and conservation minded groups and citizens cringe at the thought of area’s going through a process where the end result is the land needs to be fixed or reclaimed, the fact is reclamation only works if the intentions and the follow through are held to a standard.

Logging, strip mining, oil well drilling or other landscape changing activity can occur over decades and not only changes the physical landscape but obviously the foot print is big, extensive and long lasting, where many would rather not even see the shadow of the foot coming towards them. Many in a perfect world would rather the actual process which led to the reclamation not even occur. Fish and wildlife, grasslands and woodlands are all an after thought until the resource is extracted and the reclamation begins. But maybe, just maybe reclamation isn’t so bad?

CINCINNATI - A site once home to a Cold War-era uranium processing plant and the focus of a contentious struggle to clean up toxic waste has re-emerged as a haven for wildlife and a memorial to those who worked to make the area safe.The Fernald Preserve and its visitors center will make their public debut Wednesday at the former site of the government center that processed uranium metal for nuclear weapons from 1952 to 1989. Shrouded in secrecy for years, the site gained national notoriety in the 1980s with media reports on site emissions and residents’ concerns over radioactive contamination of air, soil and groundwater.

I’m sure this doesn’t erase from memory of people’s minds the intrusion which rocked their world years ago, but it has to give a degree of relief that in this day and age when the usefulness of the site is exhausted, they don’t simply just leave. No, society won’t allow it and thanks to a philosophy in the United States of ‘leaving the campsite better than you found it’ future generations will not only enjoy the outdoor ambiance but a piece of history of our nation is providing educational opportunities for the next residents and visitors.

This site in the Midwest is a prime example of decades in the middle of the cold war and the secret process which in this day and age would probably be met with even more fervent scrutiny and resistance. Let’s be honest we all have a mentality of ‘not in my backyard’ many support exploring and developing more domestic energy sources, but when it comes to a drastic impact in our sandbox, we dig in and fight. It’s hard to argue with millions of tons uranium.

More than 4.7 million tons of low-level waste remain at Fernald in a fenced-off, 110-acre pile encased in thick liners and caps made of synthetic material, clay, rock and clean soil. The 65-foot-high, grass-covered mound snaking along an edge of the preserve is about the length of two Empire State Buildings laid end to end.

Even benefits are visible physically with infrastructure that may have not been feasible had the industrial action not been required to reclaim and mitigate. Across the nation the Bureau of Reclamation boasts projects and sites where the reclamation process, while it is measure in years and decades can yield benefits after years or dissension among local residents and landowners.

A corrugated metal warehouse was transformed into a visitors’ center that traces the site’s history from its years as an American Indian habitat. Some exhibits highlight the plant’s workers, known as “Cold War warriors” for their contribution to the nation’s defense.

We are using native plants and grasses identified in an 1819 land survey to return the site to the way it was then — a haven for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and insects,” said Sue Walpole, spokeswoman for S.M. Stoller Corp., Legacy Management’s contractor.

I don’t argue with the long term impact extractive development can have. It’s obvious, but in this day and age the reclamation success stories are proof positive we’re building a better future for all.

full story Where bombs were born birds now flock is right here
more about the Legacy Fairfield site right here

 Across the nation urban wildlife/human interactions continue to command attention and when it comes to managing wildlife hunters have a century of success and remain one of the most efficient and economical tools for urban or rural wildlife management efforts. Here’s a piece which highlights a couple different mid-sized cities past and future efforts with urban deer archery seasons.

About 20 years ago in North Dakota the city of Bismarck, working with the State Game and Fish Department, developed an urban archery hunt to help control a growing deer population within the city limits. Two decades later, the deer population is much lower, reports of human-deer conflicts are reduced, and very few problems have been documented.

Recently, Fargo city officials also adopted an ordinance which drew on experiences of Bismarck and other municipalities across the United States that have used archery hunts to reduce urban deer numbers. Grand Forks city leaders have begun looking at limiting recreational wildlife feeding as a first step to reduce incidents of negative human-wildlife interaction.

Measures such as these will likely become more frequently considered as humans continue to develop residences in what was previously a rural or undeveloped area, especially wooded river bottoms. In addition, deer and other wildlife, as long as they are not threatened, often adjust to human presence in their living space.

When deer populations in areas like city fringes and parks become such that residents frequently express safety concerns or complain about raided gardens, city officials often look to the Game and Fish Department for help. In the country, allowing more licenses in an area, or recruiting more hunters, is the fastest and cheapest solution. However, hunting with either bow or gun within city limits is typically not allowed, and ordinances to create special hunting seasons are often met with at least some resistance.

Those few skeptics commonly ask about other means of controlling the deer herd, such as trapping and relocating deer, or tranquilizing them with a “dart gun” and moving them to the country. On the surface these options seem reasonable, but they are best used for moving single or just a few animals from areas where they are out of place.

The cost of trapping and relocating urban deer is high and is borne by the citizens and taxpayers. In a day and time where any funding with taxpayer money is scrutinized, certainly this option is met with strong opposition.

The darting option involves injecting controlled drugs into a deer via a dart fired by a special gun. The considerations for this option include a deer that isn’t completely subdued and makes it back into the population; the deer being consumed by other hunters or nontarget species before the drug leaves its system; or the dart missing the deer and winding up lost in a back yard where someone could step on it.

Another option is sharpshooters with silenced rifles taking out as many deer as possible. Even with highly trained shooters, safety is an issue in residential areas and the cost is excessive, so this option isn’t even in the mix in most instances.

Which leaves hunting with a bow. Initially, some people have safety concerns about bowhunting as well, but with hunters elevated in a tree stand, arrows are directly downward. Shots are usually taken at extremely close ranges and an arrow off the mark most often sticks a few inches into the ground, allowing the hunter to easily find and retrieve it.

Bowhunting, when it is allowed through special ordinance, doesn’t cost the taxpayers much because hunters buy licenses and do all the work. The regulations in Bismarck, and those that will apply in Fargo, allow taking of antlerless deer only, so population control is targeted. Attendance at a special training course for the Fargo season is also required, which addresses safety concerns.

An unhunted deer population with adequate habitat and food can double in size about every two years. At come point, action to control the population growth is necessary. Within city limits, bowhunting is a safe and economical means to address our human expansion into the wild.

Is it perfect? No, but very few solutions to anything in life ever are or will be. We do the best we can with the tools we have, and hunting remains a primary tool in the shed of wildlife population management.

I can’t help but to think  when it comes to the 2008 Presidential election I’m on target in my assessment of issues and candidates priorities for voters. I’m 36 with a wife and three young kids living in a small Midwest city. Which in my mirror seems pretty middle of the road representation. The reason I bring this up is unless you’ve been living in a cave, under a rock or have enjoyed the past six months on an African safari(which would be a nice alternative) you’ve been subject to increasing barrage of campaign advertisements and news stories . And I think we all swallow hard at the reality this my friends is just the beginning. To expect this to subside is to wish it were the day after the election and not weeks before the National Conventions in Minneapolis and Denver. And folks I think your heads will nod in unison, then is when it REALLY ramps up.

So with all that said, issues and stories generating headlines are for obvious reasons the current state of our economy, homeland security, the war in the Middle East, energy policy, food prices and health care among others. I won’t exhibit political fever induced delusions demanding conservation, the environment and gun control should be at the top of the priority. Let’s face the cold hard facts in this day and age it’s hard to argue with the hot button political agenda as a pretty accurate assessment of our current nations key issues. I do ask, should it end there?

Is it right to chip away at the health of our environment to lower food prices in the short-term or cut gas prices at the pump a small percentage by long term commitments to questionable conservation policy decisions? If a candidate is pro-gun but has a spotty track record for what you deem critical conservation measures; which weighs heavier? Those choices are what have me wrangling my hands as I make my personal voting decisions.

In truth the Presidential election is one of legions of future leadership positions which will be elected this November. So without spending time subjecting you to who or why to vote for a specific candidate I’ll give you a different perspective. I’m resolved the real impact can be made locally and at the state level. Think of this in terms of putting a team together and not hiring a head coach. Sure the head coach or President is the man calling the shots and making key decisions, but in terms of a game the rest of the players on the field (state elected) are those who determine if the game is won or lost in the long run.

It’s across the board elected officials which will influence and impact our conservation, hunting, fishing and gun rights future. If you don’t believe me ask yourself how many times you’ve put your cup of coffee down in disbelief at a judges ruling or decision such as the Washington DC gun ban? If you’ve followed the saga of polar bear wrangling over their inclusion into endangered species protection. These are just two examples of many issues you’ll hold in regards as to their lasting impact on how you spend your time outdoors, your kids and grandchildren. Which could also sway your opinion that maybe judicial elections and nominations are just as important as the President

The same goes for your US Senators and Congressional Representatives as some pundits will point to their key votes on environmental issues or gun rights, as why or why not their service is good or bad for you. Do me a favor and spend a few minutes of your own time on the Web and do a bit of homework which will help find true support in their acceptance of contributions or ranking on specific issues like gun control from the NRA. Again I’m not suggesting you vote with anyone’s opinion but your own. Knowledge and facts will help shape and form your opinion and is more sound based on your research rather than advertisements and endorsements from foes or supporters slanted to enhance or overlook depending on their perceived voter impact.

And it doesn’t stop there, as your state legislative assembly may or may not hold November elections you’re also provided impact which can shape your own local issues and those which can even serve as a model for broader based policy .

So as summer wears on I urge you to refuse giving into the political exhaustion which will set in. Now is NOT the time to rest.