A couple weeks back in Podunk, USA I earned myself a speeding ticket. I was driving over the speed limit, was registered on radar and so it goes. I’d guess about every three years or so I do something stupid like that. The time before was failure to come to a complete stop, again, it was no big deal in my mind, and I didn’t get to worked up about it. I admit my violation, pay the fine and move on. But there seems to be a societal difference between getting a citation for a minor non-criminal violation and breaking a game law. I’m not sure why, but I do know when I was the guy with a pen and drivers license writing up the ticket and relating the crime, from failure to leave proper identification on a duck while transporting  to fishing without a license. The reaction from the hunter or angler getting the ticket never seemed to be as congenial–even with a known violation. I’m not talking about getting a ticket for not signing a duck stamp to validate or an unknown law catching you off guard.

Let me differentiate the scenario between my work uncovering a convicted felon or wanted fugitive, that’s not what I’m talking about either. This is the accountant or teacher who  gets a little greedy and afoul of the law while hunting or fishing. These are the people who know what they did was wrong, and expect a warning or don’t see the point in getting a ticket. One that sticks out in particular is a typical warm Saturday morning along the banks of the river and I found a husband and wife fishing and her license is expired by a month. Both him and her admitted they knew the license had expired, had been fishing for hours but had chose not to renew her fishing license. They began begging for me to give them a warning, let them go buy a license etc. Were they going to do it later in the day, next week or in a few months? Who knows, but she was informed I would be giving her a citation for fishing without a license and just like that the space shuttle went into orbit leaving a rationale stable minded thinking man and woman on the ground ranting, raving and complaining. I never took those verbal disputes personally and extensive training and practice diffusing these for the most part kept me from escalating the verbal exchange–the more I listened and less I argued the sooner they tired of berating me.

Which returns to my question about the difference between a citation for speeding or driving compared to breaking a minor game law? I don’t understand how a driver with multiple speeding tickets might shrug another ticket off as the cost of doing business so to speak, but a ticket by the game warden often finds the same individual begging for a warning or second chance. Does society hold hunting and fishing violations in a darker light than other crimes? I’m beginning to think so. I think for some, there’s a degree of acceptance for people who’ve had multiple speeding tickets, even convictions for diving under the influence, the personal humiliation or association by society as a bad person is less than if you’re caught poaching. Which may attach more of a lying, sneaky untrustworthy stigma than does the safety risks of driving impaired or exceeding speed limits. What do you think?Coming Friday we’ll peel back the onion on another peculiar poaching issue

Its easy to sit indoors and watch winter idly pass as temperatures hover near zero. Spending time with family or attending boat shows and sporting events are just a couple of alternatives to braving the elements. I admit, at times it’s difficult to convince myself to venture out beyond frost-covered windows.

In the 21^st century, however, advances in clothing and equipment have made just about any excuse not quite good enough. For example, power augers will pop holes through three feet of ice in no time, so anglers can spend more time fishing and less time panting from drilling holes with a hand auger.

Nowadays, it’s just as easy to fish in late winter as it is early on when the ice is only a few inches thick.

As with any outdoor activity at any season, the right equipment is important to enjoying Mother Nature’s winter products. Mosquito spray and sunscreen are as important to a summer camping trip as food and a sleeping bag. The same holds true for wool socks and warm gloves for ice fishing in February. Fishing poles, bait and a power auger are not the only necessities, and I’m surprised at the number of people I’ve encountered who would enjoy their activity a lot more if they’d just put a little more time into protecting themselves from the elements.

The following tips will help ensure a comfortable winter outing. They won’t help you catch fish, but at least cold fingers and toes won’t cut short your trip.

Layered clothing

Dressing in layers serves several roles. Your first layer should be made of a wicking type fabric, which moves moisture away from your body. Keeping your body dry is the first step in remaining warm in sub-zero temperatures.

A wool sweater followed by a heavy down coat completes a functional three layers. Layering helps forms air pockets that trap warm air escaping from your body, which helps insulate against the cold. Secondly, layers can be removed or added to maintain a degree of comfort in varied conditions.

When ice fishing, a heavy down-filled jacket will keep the coldest temperatures at bay while you drill holes and prepare equipment. If you have a heated shelter, then you can shed the heavy outer garment once inside.

While cotton is comfortable against the skin when dry, its value depreciates when used in extreme temperature situations, especially if it gets wet from sweat. Wool is a much better choice as a second layer, because wool is breathable and dries quicker when moisture accumulates. If cotton is your only option, be sure to pack extra clothes, as you’ll be thankful for a change into dry clothing should your cotton turtleneck dampen.

Cold fingers?

Many gloves skimp on insulating the entire length and width of each finger. Whether ice fishing, cross-country skiing, or just exploring winter, numb fingers cut many outings short.

If you plan to spend extensive time outdoors during winter, splurging on high-quality gloves may be worth it.

The agony of de-feet

Recall your childhood and trying to slip into last year’s boots by curling your big toe underneath your foot. If you nod in confirmation, you’ll also remember how quickly your toes began to numb. Warm toes are second only to fingers in rank of digits susceptible to freezing temperatures. While ice fishing, your feet will maintain contact with ice for extended periods of time. Pick boots with a good thick insole to block cold coming up through the bottom.

While it’s easy to make excuses for not enjoying all four seasons, modern conveniences with practical clothing give us five more months enjoyable time outdoors.

I’ve focused on access and the issue of lead in venison the past couple weeks for good reason, they’ll be issues impacting how we spend or don’t spend our time outdoors well into the future. While gradually removing lead ammunition and difficulty in accessing available public and private hunting land must remain a priority we also need to take a bit of time and realize the end result of barriers to hunting are seen in the bottom line of recruiting and retaining hunters. Over the last 12 months Delta Waterfowl has woven together a series of reports The Vanishing Hunter. I’ve followed this closely and tip my hat to a couple of ‘friends’ Dan Nelson and Tori McCormick who wrap this up with an elementary explanation  and after reading I found myself with a disgruntled, half-cocked smile of realization and a nod of frustrated acceptance….they hit it.

By journey’s end, the input from this diverse group of experts led us to one, inescapable conclusion: “it’s the culture, stupid”.Hunting isn’t a video game, a business or the final destination of an ego trip; it’s a culture, the roots of which, as Aldo Leopold wrote, are, “…bred into the very fiber of the race.”The first step in securing the future of hunting, the research suggests, is reconnecting with those ancient roots.

I’ll give them credit for an exhaustive investigation to determine exactly where the problem lies–aside from the statistical analysis of lagging hunter numbers–the intuitive question of why? Why are hunter numbers shriveling? And like asking why the mallard numbers are stronger than canvasback, it’s not a simple explanation, but a combination of factors and Delta identifies three big ones.

three major trends it says run counter to hunting participation: urbanization, the aging population and the declining proportion of the U.S. population that is white.

The first two of these have been dissected for years and few argue their merits. How do you argue the migration from a rural to urban society as a strong factor in losing hunter numbers? And the baby boomer generation continues to advance in age  minute by minute and that too has been identified with a number of concerning factors not just in terms of hunting, but society as a whole.
But Delta brings to the front an issue few have ventured to point out, the issue of our nation’s heritage and race. I didn’t write it, they did. Don’t call  me racist, don’t call them racist. When you put the amount of time they did into this study, it’s results, not racism. In fact we need to acknowledge and thank them for not shying away from potential criticism for relating what others would just as soon stump in the sloughs like an overlimit pintail and look the other way.  Here’s where the facts back them up.

In 2005, the hunting initiation rate for children in non-Hispanic homes was three times higher than in Hispanic homes, and five times higher in white households than non-white.  Those demographics prompted RM/NSSF to caution: “Developers of programs targeted at non-whites need to keep in mind than non-whites have lower participations rates to begin with and also have higher rates of desertion once recruitment occurs.”None of that discourages Ed Reed, a 35-year-old Afro-American who’s an alternative school principal from Natchez, Mississippi, who believes non-whites are good candidates to become waterfowl hunters.A lifelong deer hunter, Ed didn’t take up duck hunting until he was invited by colleague Patrick Wells.  “From the very first exposure, I was captivated,” Ed says.  “I was immersed in all things waterfowl.”Ed worries that young Afro-Americans don’t have enough role models to encourage them to take up waterfowling.  “I rarely see and representation in magazines, catalogs or the DVDs I watch,” he says, adding he was pleased to see black actor Morgan Freeman as a spokesman for Ducks Unlimited.

I’ve long been an advocate of putting solutions on the table, and if you take the time to read through the series undoubtedly you’ll acknowledge first hand the work being done for our hunting heritage from government managers relaxing regulations and conservation organizations promoting youth opportunities and political bodies providing incentives, the issue for years behind and ahead will be on target. Here’s a final point  which I personally and radio, writers, TV, bloggers and web hosts can’t dismiss.

If the hunting culture is unraveling as some suggest, the outdoor media certainly must shoulder much of the blame.  The media’s focus on how-to/where-to/what-to at the expense of conservation and why-to runs contrary to the underlying reasons most people take up hunting.As the Responsive Management/NSSF study noted, “No amount of resource-related satisfaction will succeed in recruiting new participants in the absence of social satisfaction.”The social aspects of hunting—plucking birds, telling stories that have survived generations, a youngster’s first duck or an old-timer’s last—are likely to be remembered long after the weight of the strap has been forgotten, yet most television shows and magazine articles typically depict only the killing, with little or no mention of the culture or aesthetic pleasures necessary to cement us to hunting.

Now let’s get to work.
Delta Waterfowl’s Vanishing Hunter part V

Less than a year ago a fire of controversy was lit with the discovery of lead in venison. Let me take that back. There’s no surprise deer or elk shot with lead bullets has trace’s of lead in it. Like saying a sandwhich at the beach had some sand it. That’s an expected occurrence and few people put down the sandwhich and leave the beach. But even worse is the scenario if sand was outlawed from beaches by somone who doesn’t spend time on the beach and has never stopped to experience the peace of the waves and warmth of unfiltered UV rays. Indeed when lawmakers across the nation are setting sights on banning lead ammunition without extensive testing, the guys and gals on the beach need to protect their sandbox. On the horizon is the inevitable tide of emotion and misinformation used to convince other non-users our beaches no longer need sand or in this case, lead bullets should no longer be used.

A Minnesota lawmaker says she will introduce legislation to restrict the use of lead ammunition. Recent studies found lead bullet fragments in venison, and a number of eagles have died from lead poisoning. Some hunters are voluntarily giving up lead bullets. Others say the whole issue is being blown out of proportion.

Count me in the ranks of those who continue to fight against the lack of scientific backing by political agendas pushing to ban lead ammunition using such emotional connections as bald eagles to carry their torch. Last I checked the bald eagle population was no longer endangered. Even if bald eagles are dying from lead poisoning can it be directly linked to the use of lead ammunition?

She’d never really connected those two activities until this year, when she saw several eagles die from lead poisoning. She believes they likely ingested the lead while eating piles of deer guts left in the woods by hunters.

“believes…”?!!! that’s what bothers me. Show me “proof”. Not what she thinks is causing the death of eagles. I’d ask how many deer die from gut shots as the primary hit? My point is deer are targeted in the lungs or heart. Not the gut. How many gut piles have a slug in them? Show me that data. Obviously she doesn’t understand deer hunting.

Mark Johnson, executive director of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, doesn’t agree.

“I don’t think there’s a need for government regulation, and I don’t think there’s a traumatic influence here that is needing government regulation,” Johnson said.

Johnson says there’s no question that lead is a neurotoxin, but he says there’s not enough research to show lead bullet fragments are poisoning people.

That’s the bottom line. Few argue the concern with lead, but don’t use eagles in Minnesota or California condors to play on the emotion of citizens and deter hunters. Put the facts and indisputable science on the front page, not hidden beneath the sand, and the acceptance by the hunting community will open, but using anything less is an insult to the legitimate hunting and conservation community, the same people who’s license fee’s and excise taxes provide the funding the Fish and Wildlife Service and State agencies use to protect eagles and condors. Makes ya think doesnt it?

Minnesota Public Radio getting rid of lead
Utah:lead threat to condors

Back in 1999 I slumbered out of bed at 4AM to see how the new millennium would shake out in Sydney, Australia, Tokyo and creep across Asia and the rest of the sleeping world, we all remember the doomsday predictions of a computer meltdown with the transition and I guess I wanted to see if it would occur. It didn’t, but ever since then I’ve ramped up my early bird status to around a 330-445AM . I don’t even need an alarm clock, I’m on auto-pilot and have grown to enjoy the wee morning hours. Don’t worry for the mos part I’m in bed before 10PM so I get my 5 or 6 hours of sleep. New Years Eve morning had me thinking like the rest of the past year. Personally and professionally, I’ve little to complain about. What stuck out at me from the outdoors? Here’s a few couple

Lead in venison–it began in my back yard of North Dakota and the ripple turned to a tidal wave of emotion which drownd out common sense and facts were mired in a pool of misinformation. The final results were CDC lead blood test in nearly 800 volunteer venison consumers in North Dakota whose blood lead levels were not above the national established level of concern. Even more problematic from consumer and wildlife managers was the inability to even point towards the venision of being the reason for higher lead levels found in the blood of venision eating cases. There’s not data to say the lead levels were increased from eating venison or another exposure to lead. Unfortunately the agenda from some to push towards removing lead bullets from deer hunting by has been pointed as an agenda from antihunting interests. As we closed out 2008 the biggest impact was felt by the food pantry’s which were boxed into a corner to remove thousands of pounds of donated venision from food shelves. The acceptance level of donated venison was reduced to whole cuts, not cheaper and more easily distrubted ground venision and in some cases only archery taken deer were accepted.

I’ll leave this topic with a bit of professional concern after reading this stroy early today from Pittsburgh TribLIVE.

In the meantime, The Wildlife Society — the professional organization representing the nation’s wildlife biologists — has crafted a draft position paper on lead ammunition and fishing tackle.

The paper suggests advocating “the replacement of lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle use and production with non-lead products, with an ultimate goal of complete replacement.”

The Wildlife Soceity is similar to the NFL Players Assocation–it’s the professional organization of wildlife scientists, biologists and managers. I’m an on/off member and this really concerns me. This position paper isn’t final, but it does send a signal of concern over the future of lead ammunition, and again I question what and who stands to gain or protected. We’ll keep our eye on this for 2009.

The Endanged Species Act continued to make headlines as the court proceddings continued to find states at odds with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and poltiical haggling over the status of wovles created bizzare and unheard of listings, de-listings, court challenges, scientific reviews and state management plans resulted in exhaustive expenditures of time and money for the future management of these top end predators. As it stands we’ll be hearing continued discussion on the listing or delisting of wolves in 2009.

Wyoming’s wolf management plan is again coming under fire as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has informed Gov. Dave Freudenthal that they will exclude Wyoming from their plan to remove the grey wolf from the Endangered Species List.
While it was speculated that wolves might be delisted in early December after the end of the public comment period set up by the FWS, no delisting proposal has materialized. This week, Grey Wolf Recovery Coordinator Ed Bangs said the wolf delisting may take place after the first of the year.

It really frustrates me as a license and fee paying hunter to follow this sage of states allocating time and money only to find the FWS and courts changing the status, resulting in confusion between not only state managers but the general public. A degree of closure is needed, but that means this will continue in 2009 as one to watch.
Wyoming might be left behind in wolf listing

Monday I wrote about the state of Minnesota selling off existing public land  due to a mandate from the Minnesota State Legislature. I had to read it a couple times as it really goes against the grain of conventional wisdom. So keeping with my  personal commitment to keep threats to the future or our outdoor recreation at the front of our mind and on the screen of your computer I continued.  And while researching the problems facing Minnesota I came across an interesting perspective from Iowa. Downstream  from Minnesota in the Hawkeye state the  Iowa Game and Fish brings to the table paying to hunt, which at first glance, is the par for the course conversation beat the dead horse facet of landowners collecting fee’s in exchange for hunting or access. My eyes fluttered back and forth and then focused like a small buck trailed by the wall hanger–the conversation came with a twist– where state’s provide legal protection for free access, but once the r in  free is out of the equation and the word is now  fee, the permissive landowner also collects a degree of liability from the paying clients or customers.

You pay to go to the movies. You pay to play a round of golf. You pay to enjoy dozens of other recreational activities. Why shouldn’t you pay for the privilege of hunting on a farmer’s property?

But things are changing. Farmers and landowners have realized that pheasants, deer and other wild game on their property have value. Some hunters are willing to pay to gain access to land that offers good hunting. Some landowners now view wildlife as another revenue-generating “crop.”

Willie Suchy, IDNR wildlife research supervisor, noted that farmers and landowners might want to look at more than the potential for immediate profits. “Iowa’s statutes are such that if a farmer or landowner grants permission to hunt for free, they’re not liable (for damages) if the hunter is injured on the property,” he said. “As soon as they take any monetary payment, the farmer or landowner can be held liable for injuries. That is a big, big issue.

I’m from a family of landowners and the discussion of leasing out land for hunting in exchange for money never makes it past the first course–it’s about like brussel spouts, it’s not on our plate and we’re not looking for it. Do I blame others? Not one bit I understand the financial decisions need to be made, but those opting to accept money in exchange for hunting access, must also accept the fact along with payment the receipt is understanding a legal level of responsibility from the paying customer. No longer is the hunter responsible for their own well being, but the owner of the land has now taken upon themselves to identify possible hazards such as sink holes or down fences which could injure the paid accessing hunters. I’m not here to debate whether you think it’s right or wrong, unless the law is changed, our personal agreement matters little.

But states need to do more than simply identify the legal and liability issues. One key is for state wildlife agencies to look at generating interest from landowners to continue providing non-fee access. Some states have walk-in hunting access where land is evaluated on habitat and hunting suitability levels with a payment from the department to the landowner. where it’s not a singular hunter-landowner exchange for access, but a graduated payment from the agency to the landowner for existing and healthy woodlands, CRP and suitable hunting opportunities.  It’s not going to be easy, but already innovative ideas are moving forward in Iowa.

Tax credits for allowing public access would reduce their taxable income and ultimately reduce their taxes. Signing up for a state-sponsored program would also provide liability protection.”

I can relate first hand that landowners still grant permission to hunt on their private property, but a level of gratitude extends the appreciation beyond a casual thank you. Really when it comes down to it each landowner has their own expectations. While some really don’t’ care who’s out hunting the back acreage, others are happy finding a few  packages of deer sausage and a Christmas card thank you. It comes down to expressing your gratitude and if the owner isn’t satisfied, they’ll look for other avenues and for some landowners it morphs into a fee hunting contract which can result in reduced access for some hunters unable or unwilling to pay.

I’ll agree gun ownership and disease issues  loom large in the future of hunting and outdoor recreation, but as big of a threat biological impacts are, access casts a huge shadow across the prairie, and as the landscape changes wildlife managers will need to keep one eye on the sky and the other on the ground.
Iowa Game and Fish

I wrote a piece a little while back for ESPN Outdoors on the truth about cormorants, I’ve always sunk my teeth into these controversial topics and enjoyed pealing back the onion to see the full story.

Double-crested cormorants don’t get much respect these days. While I don’t expect to generate much sympathy for the cormorant, I do wonder about the recent level of disdain and disgust often associated with the mere mention of this fish-eating bird’s name.

Cormorants never were all that popular. While people might speak highly of a great blue heron or pelican or common loon — all birds that also eat fish — cormorants seldom receive that same kind of admiration. But the level of animosity has certainly escalated in the last decade, during which cormorant populations all across the Midwest have increased significantly. These birds have become so numerous that they’ve been blamed — sometimes rightly so — for reductions in fish populations in many locales. The cormorant is just one of many natural predators that eats some of the same fish, birds or mammals that anglers and hunters pursue. Great-horned owls eat pheasants. It’s hard to say if there are more owls now than 100 years ago, but I do know the pheasant population has increased. To blame owls for eating pheasants is like taking exception to the guy grabbing a sofa off the boulevard during city clean up day, only because you wanted that gem for yourself. The historic cormorant increase is linked to a combination of events. Nationally, scientists point to the federal ban on the chemical DDT as a turning point for cormorant populations, which had dwindled into the 1970s. In the Midwest, biologists point toward a wet cycle that began more than a decade ago as a major factor. Since 1993 in North Dakota and other nearby states, water levels in thousands of wetland and lake basins have increased, flooding and killing mature trees that had grown up around previous shorelines. Cormorants nest and roost in bare, dead trees within or next to water. Within a few years, cormorants had a lot more nesting habitat available. In addition, the high water that flooded the trees in the first place began to support fish, so there was also much more food available. It’s a classic example of how nature’s predator-prey cycle has a built in lag. The prey in this case is the fish inhabiting the bodies of water. For several years, anglers in North Dakota happily enjoyed the bounty of dozens of “new” fisheries before the cormorants started to become noticed as a major competitor. Someday, when all those dead trees finally fall to the ground, and those flooded water basins shrink, the cormorant population will naturally decline. In the meantime, there are considerable ongoing discussions about whether people should step in and begin cormorant population control now. The heart of the matter

	Cormorants nest and roost in bare, dead trees within or next to water. As those trees fall or the habitat degrades in other ways, the number of cormorants will naturally decline.

Cormorants eat fish like a deer eats alfalfa. One study showed a single cormorant can eat a dozen fish in a day. While cormorants would be hard pressed to swallow the same size fish that anglers typically target, they can eat a whole bunch of smaller fish. And they don’t differentiate if the fish is a walleye fingerling, next year’s keeper perch, or a fathead minnow. A study in Minnesota showed cormorants do feast on walleye and perch, but also in the diet are less desirable species, namely ling and sucker. Cormorants influence more than just fish and fish populations. Their colonies are known to exclude other bird populations that rely on the same type of habitat, and there are even concerns in some areas of the United States that cormorants could be detrimental to federally threatened or endangered fish species. Cormorants are migratory birds under protection of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The North Dakota Game and Fish Department has petitioned the service, so far unsuccessfully, for broader tools for decreasing the cormorant population. Some groups have called for cormorant population reduction via shooting in areas where dozens, if not hundreds of these birds congregate to feed. Fish and Wildlife Service research in the Great Lakes region has shown that cormorants will avoid such danger by just moving to another area where they are not harassed. While that might immediately reduce pressure on an individual body of water, control measures over an entire region would be necessary for effective population reduction. Am I an advocate for the cormorant? Not necessarily, but they do have a place in the world. And that place may be the same secret fishing spot to which you’re headed, for the same reason: To catch some fish.

The Outdoornewsguy will be a guest on Cam and Company on NRA News tonight at 8:40PM CT discussing a recent column on giving credit to the people that helped you get outdoors. You can listen/watch on http://www.nra.com. and Sirrius Satellite Patriot radio 144

I spend enough time reading through news, research and opinions of biologists, scientists and wildlife managers to have a pretty good grasp on the multitude of hurdles the future of our outdoors recreation is faced with. Chronic wasting disease and tuberculosis in deer herds, the potential for bird flu, west nile and other avian diseases at times weigh me down to the point I wonder if the demise is inevitable? It isn’t, but you get the feeling with all these new threats and concerns we’re minutes not decades away from another punch in the stomach which could crumple wildlife and hunting to the floor. Even more is how relatively new most of these issues are, it’s scary to think many of these like CWD and bird flu are years and not decades old.

But one future threat is from an area we’ve too often overlooked and is simply labeled access, but as easy as the label is applied, when peeling back the onion– similar to managing disease issues–we’ll find layer upon layer which make the future of access to the outdoors every bit as important. Let’s face it, habitat and a strong deer population is part of the equation. So is the right to own the firearms. But if land to hunt is in accessible, what does it matter? Even worse is the case in Minnesota where existing public land is actually being sold back. You read correctly. Auctioned off, disposed, returned, call it what you want, but the first step to providing access is either rental or land ownership and in Minnesota cherished public land stands to be divested.

MANKATO, Minn. - Wildlife habitat on Minnesota’s private land has ebbed and flowed with the vagaries of farm programs and politics.But most Minnesotans believe that once an area was purchased by or donated to the state and designated as a Wildlife Management Area, it would be there forever.But the consequences of a law passed in 2005 by the Legislature now loom large and threaten that basic tenet.Three years ago, legislators passed a bill that required that, by June 30, 2007, enough state-owned land must be identified and sold to raise at least $6,440,000, with the proceeds going to the general fund. The bill was re-authorized two years later, setting the deadline at June 30, 2009.

In this day and age wildlife managers struggle to remove barriers such as illegal posting and blocking of vehicle and foot access points to existing public lands or rented walk in hunting access. In most states along and east of the Mississippi River public land is scarce compared to the huge blocks of government owned and controlled land of the west, where public ownership provides the land and the managers task is to maintain and improve access or hunting and habitat quality. But the challenge facing Minnesota hunters and conservationists is mandated by legislation which will divest public land for a few million dollars in the face of a state deficit of billions of dollars. If you’ve followed the scrutiny and legal wrangling over government land acquisition, the subtraction of acreage from public ownership should send hunters, hikers, bird watchers and any public land users to the front lines to save what hasn’t been lost already.

I’m familiar enough with the legal and political process of our day to understand once a bill is set into the state law books, as hard as it is to pass legislation, repealing it is even more cumbersome. Law’s deemed archaic and outdated more give elected officials reason to act accordingly and review if the bill is relevant, but a bill as recent as this is not easy to convince the lawmaking body they made a mistake and should change course a few years after introducing and voting by a degree of majority to enact the bill. It’s essentially telling the assembly they screwed up, should admit it and change it. Exactly. We all know that chain of events is about as easy as convincing your wife you need more time with the guy’s. What can and should be done is ensuring this is the last of the divesting of public lands. If it’s a case of marginal or low quality habitat and hunting acreage, then provisions need to be put in place to replace or enact a no net loss of public lands.

Finally I offer this scenario: Pittman Robertson funds are collected by the Federal Government and used by states to purchase public land, in this scenario those lands purchased and paid for by hunters will then be sold and that money put back into the states general fund to pay for a new road packer which is what it feels like has been done to the hunters. Run over and flattened. Maybe the law is illegal?

Minneapolis Star Tribune: Hunters concerned over sale of land

 If you’ve ever been in a strange town or just a bit out of your element you know how the philosophy of ‘when in Rome’ works. You intentionally follow what you see others are doing, an attempt to blend in rather than risk drawing attention to yourself–like a Lutheran in a Catholic church, they are easily spotted while the rest of the congregation is kneeling, they’ll be seated in the pew. I’ve always felt similar, even in hunting a little different slough than past years, I don’t want to screw it up for the regulars. So I’m a bit taken back when I began peeling back the onion and exposing a few high profile poaching cases. First stop, South Dakota where three non-residents from the land of the cheese evidently embarked on a pheasant hunt and found themselves in a stick mess.

PIERRE, S.D. – An anonymous tip led to the arrest of three Wisconsin hunters charged with poaching a deer near Java.

Sully County Conservation Officer Don McCrea says the three were in South Dakota to hunt pheasants but used a lighted scope on a rifle to shoot a five-point buck last week.

He says they took the deer back to the lodge where they were staying, cut off the rack and back straps and then dumped the carcass in a rural area.

McCrea says Dallas Lasche of Fall River, Wis., is charged with seven hunting violations. Jacob Merrill of Beaver Dam, Wis., and Benjamin Ballweg of Fall River, Wis., have two charges pending against them.

First off I really don’t understand if your pheasant hunting the Dakota’s why a deer would be such an enticing target? It’s not like white-tailed deer are scarce in Wisconsin, shooting poaching a deer a few states away makes no sense, and the fact they cut of the rack and back straps show’s an obvious arrogance. If you want camp meat, maybe they’d have better luck eating a few of the bountiful pheasants?

Next up is in Florida where a few poachers evidently decided if one is good, why stop at one?

The suspects also told officers they shot at numerous other deer that night but didn’t know how many or if they hit any of the others. And they told officers about other deer they had killed before that night and also outside the law.

Ultimately the two-week investigation which began the night before Thanksgiving, resulted in three additional males, including another juvenile, being charged with more than 50 wildlife law violations.

Gross multiple violations makes me sick and taints the scores of legal hunters across the nation. When such violators are tracked down there’s a good chance years of past poaching incidents have gone unchecked and habitual offenders must be sent a message that random killing spree’s will not be tolerated and punished to the full extent. Speaking of laying down the law with an expensive combination of fine’s and punishment, what kind of hunter pay’s six figures, travels across the nation and still runs afoul of the law?

Michael J. Malik, a Michigan resident, appeared before the Arizona Game and Fish Commission at its December meeting in Casa Grande for shooting a trophy-quality, 7×7 bull elk too close to residential property without landowner permission.Malik paid $135,000 at an auction for Arizona’s 2006-07 “special” elk tag at a Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation annual convention. Special tag holders have the added privilege of pursuing their designated big game for one full year.

This one really has me scratching what’s left of my balding head. Wouldn’t you guess with nearly 150 grand invested in the tag heading the letter of the law would be on top of the priority list? Seriously, if you’ve invested extensively, what take a reckless chance? Even more incentive is the recent multi-state violator compact. Where one revocation in Arizona spreads out across the nation, removing the option of simply spending your money in another state.

The commission also revoked his hunting, fishing and trapping privileges in Arizona for five years, and he must successfully complete a hunter education course prior to having his license privileges restored.The commission’s action to revoke Malik’s license for five years has far-reaching implications. Arizona is a member of the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact with 32 other states, including all western states and Malik’s home state of Michigan. Until his license privileges are restored in Arizona, he will not be able to legally hunt in any of those 32 states.

Indeed I think even more than in church or on vacation, “when in Rome… do as the Roman’s” is some pretty sound advice, the last thing you need is to tarnish your name, state and the hunting community.

Michigan poacher fined 15,000 for illegal mountain goat kill 

Tip busts Wisconsin poachers in South Dakota
Poachers lay waste in Florida 

Man pay’s $135,000 for tag, then busted for violation