http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/newsbriefs/index.shtml
Sleeping With The Enemy:
If there is one thing that is certain in the fight to preserve the Second Amendment, it is that the gun confiscation movement would prefer to “divide and conquer†the various subsets of gun owners and their related specialties.
For example, the appeal to elitism amongst trap and skeet club members, versus the more socially “unacceptable†firearms uses (practical shooting, long-range big bore shooting, etc.) is a case in point. It has long been known that urban society will “tolerate†the shotgun club crowd (at least until they are the last of the gun-owner groups standing), being that it generally is a sport populated by folks who can afford $ 4000 shotguns, among other things. Other pursuits, such as hunting and practical shooting, tend to get the evil eye from the arbiters of urban-oriented social acceptability.
Fault lines to guard against future exploitation can be deduced from yesterday’s article by John Balzar in (what else?) the Los Angeles Times. Cleverly titled “Bloodlust revisitedâ€, Balzar tries to give the old journalistic “pat on the back†to a pair of hunters who appear to be following in the footsteps of the aristos over at Trout Unlimited.
In his article, Balzar highlights the sentiments of David Petersen and Mike Buss. Petersen is noted to be an outdoors writer from Colorado, while Buss is retired from his job in the Canadian Government (Yep, the same folks who have spent $ 1 billion Canadian on a gun control scheme that is not even close to working). Buss and Petersen appear to be trying to take the primitive hunting tackle movement to the next floor in the Elitist’s Hall of Fame, namely that of a secularly-originated “religion†(Apparently Hegel is still in favor amongst Canadian bureaucrats).
Balzar’s article proposes that modern hunters are currently “rethinking†what it is to hunt, and what are the ground rules that could somehow make the sport “ethically†acceptable to those critics who are otherwise too dainty or squeamish to prepare their own meat. Fair chase etiquette is apparently to be taken to the next “logical†conclusion, i.e. that modern smokeless arms give too much of an advantage to the hunter. Of course, if hunting were to be somehow restricted to primitive tackle only, then the “justification†for the proletariat to have such mechanisms would be further diminished.
But to this poster, Balzar/Buss/Petersen’s arguments towards “ethical†hunting ring falsely to the ear. While it may be acceptable for Petersen to test his stalking and skulking skills through the use of the re-curve bow, or for Buss to use flintlock technology, those of us who place a higher value on the merciful kill are less likely to concede the point. While satisfying to the ego, archery and primitive black powder technology also run the risk of a less immediate death of the prey animal.
Take for example, archery tackle. Unless a low probability shot were to somehow cut the cervical vertebra, death to a game animal comes from hemorrhage over time after a vital center has been pierced by the arrowhead. With black-powder technology, especially of the flintlock variety, the lower energy levels available make it incumbent for the hunter/shooter to place the bullet exactly so as to avoid the risk of a crippling shot. What is more, the hunter’s ability to fire a follow-up shot on larger game is inhibited by the slower reloading times of even the most modern in-line designs (Lewis and Clark discovered this problem the hard way, upon their first encounter with a grizzly bear on an island in the middle of the Missouri River).
The probability of a merciful kill is thus lower with primitive tackle, thus leading to lower success rates and, ultimately, fewer people participating in the outdoor sports. Where this will leave whitetail deer populations, who have been relatively free of the screw-worm and other population-regulating influences, can only be imagined by those who have an academic understanding of the Great Kaibab Deer Die-Off of 1924. (Perhaps Balzar et al are determined to let the automobile become the premiere predator of modern game mammals.).
In contrast, modern arms and ammunition are generally more capable, with proper shot placement, to result in a “one shot kill†in a much more generous target zone. This is due primarily to the greater available terminal energies of ammunition using smokeless powder and complex bullet designs.
The upshot of the argument is thus whether one, such as Buss or Petersen, places more value on the artificial rules of the chase, rather than that of maintaining a certain acceptable minimum level of ethic towards a merciful demise of the food animal in question.
As for the rest of their argument, that of the “enjoyment†of the natural setting, it is typical of the elitist to think that a hunt experience is not a real one unless one tracks gear and hoof prints 50 miles into a wilderness area. Where this leaves the families who have hunted deer on the Smith Mesa in Southern Utah for 7 generations, or the single hunter whose favorite Pennsylvania whitetail stand is a spit and a stone’s throw from the family farmhouse, remains to be seen.
In reality, the ethic of the hunt lies in heart of the hunter, not in the artificial relationship of the hunter to some pre-designated terrain coordinate. Or by following some modern outdoors equivalent to Hoyle, for that matter. “Ethical†hunting can (and will) take place wherever squirrels gather (except for restricted urban environments), or where Mr. Bobwhite calls from a hedgerow, or where even cottontails run circles with a beagle or two in pursuit. “Ethical†hunting can (and will, Lord willing) take place in wilderness areas, national forests, BLM land, farm and ranch land, and a whole host of smaller plots to be found from coast to coast so long as game is not wasted, nor made to unduly suffer in the course of the hunt.
Of course, this is not to mean that one and all are to countenance the actions of that minor collection of boobs and morons that seem to spoil the outdoor experience. Like in every pastime (baseball fans who throw bottles at players is one interesting example), it is incumbent for the participants to behave responsibly. But from groups like the NRA, to governmental agencies such as the Colorado Division of Wildlife, there are many who already have stressed adherence to the rules of safety as well as that of respect for the land and the game animals involved. It is not like that the Canadian supporters of the group Hunting Heritage Hunting Futures have a monopoly on righteousness on this issue (Gall is another matter.). Colorado itself, from where Balzar went to view the wilderness hunt for his article, stresses very much in its Hunter’s Safety classes the need to not act boorish around non-hunters while proceeding to, or returning from, the field. It is thus disingenuous for Balzar to imply that issues regarding hunting etiquette remain unresolved (Colorado has, in fact, been warning hunters for years about the downside of offending non-hunters, either accidentally or on purpose).
Whether Balzar is a hunter, or not, can only be guessed at by his verbal commentary noted on a RealNetworks download at the LA Times website. But it is clear to this poster that the Times’ propensity to commit journalism against any shooting sport has not diminished in the slightest. It is thus up to firearms activists to be at the ready to explain the rules of etiquette of any of the shooting sports, be it big game hunting or simple can plinking. Hunters have been dealing with ethics and game issues since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Unfortunately, we have had much less time in dealing with kinds of Luddites and preservationists that are now infesting mainstream Media outlets, and wildlife management agencies, across the Fruited Plain. Hopefully this latest attempt to diminish a shooting sport will fall well short of its intended goal.
Sleeping With The Enemy:
If there is one thing that is certain in the fight to preserve the Second Amendment, it is that the gun confiscation movement would prefer to “divide and conquer†the various subsets of gun owners and their related specialties.
For example, the appeal to elitism amongst trap and skeet club members, versus the more socially “unacceptable†firearms uses (practical shooting, long-range big bore shooting, etc.) is a case in point. It has long been known that urban society will “tolerate†the shotgun club crowd (at least until they are the last of the gun-owner groups standing), being that it generally is a sport populated by folks who can afford $ 4000 shotguns, among other things. Other pursuits, such as hunting and practical shooting, tend to get the evil eye from the arbiters of urban-oriented social acceptability.
Fault lines to guard against future exploitation can be deduced from yesterday’s article by John Balzar in (what else?) the Los Angeles Times. Cleverly titled “Bloodlust revisitedâ€, Balzar tries to give the old journalistic “pat on the back†to a pair of hunters who appear to be following in the footsteps of the aristos over at Trout Unlimited.
In his article, Balzar highlights the sentiments of David Petersen and Mike Buss. Petersen is noted to be an outdoors writer from Colorado, while Buss is retired from his job in the Canadian Government (Yep, the same folks who have spent $ 1 billion Canadian on a gun control scheme that is not even close to working). Buss and Petersen appear to be trying to take the primitive hunting tackle movement to the next floor in the Elitist’s Hall of Fame, namely that of a secularly-originated “religion†(Apparently Hegel is still in favor amongst Canadian bureaucrats).
Balzar’s article proposes that modern hunters are currently “rethinking†what it is to hunt, and what are the ground rules that could somehow make the sport “ethically†acceptable to those critics who are otherwise too dainty or squeamish to prepare their own meat. Fair chase etiquette is apparently to be taken to the next “logical†conclusion, i.e. that modern smokeless arms give too much of an advantage to the hunter. Of course, if hunting were to be somehow restricted to primitive tackle only, then the “justification†for the proletariat to have such mechanisms would be further diminished.
But to this poster, Balzar/Buss/Petersen’s arguments towards “ethical†hunting ring falsely to the ear. While it may be acceptable for Petersen to test his stalking and skulking skills through the use of the re-curve bow, or for Buss to use flintlock technology, those of us who place a higher value on the merciful kill are less likely to concede the point. While satisfying to the ego, archery and primitive black powder technology also run the risk of a less immediate death of the prey animal.
Take for example, archery tackle. Unless a low probability shot were to somehow cut the cervical vertebra, death to a game animal comes from hemorrhage over time after a vital center has been pierced by the arrowhead. With black-powder technology, especially of the flintlock variety, the lower energy levels available make it incumbent for the hunter/shooter to place the bullet exactly so as to avoid the risk of a crippling shot. What is more, the hunter’s ability to fire a follow-up shot on larger game is inhibited by the slower reloading times of even the most modern in-line designs (Lewis and Clark discovered this problem the hard way, upon their first encounter with a grizzly bear on an island in the middle of the Missouri River).
The probability of a merciful kill is thus lower with primitive tackle, thus leading to lower success rates and, ultimately, fewer people participating in the outdoor sports. Where this will leave whitetail deer populations, who have been relatively free of the screw-worm and other population-regulating influences, can only be imagined by those who have an academic understanding of the Great Kaibab Deer Die-Off of 1924. (Perhaps Balzar et al are determined to let the automobile become the premiere predator of modern game mammals.).
In contrast, modern arms and ammunition are generally more capable, with proper shot placement, to result in a “one shot kill†in a much more generous target zone. This is due primarily to the greater available terminal energies of ammunition using smokeless powder and complex bullet designs.
The upshot of the argument is thus whether one, such as Buss or Petersen, places more value on the artificial rules of the chase, rather than that of maintaining a certain acceptable minimum level of ethic towards a merciful demise of the food animal in question.
As for the rest of their argument, that of the “enjoyment†of the natural setting, it is typical of the elitist to think that a hunt experience is not a real one unless one tracks gear and hoof prints 50 miles into a wilderness area. Where this leaves the families who have hunted deer on the Smith Mesa in Southern Utah for 7 generations, or the single hunter whose favorite Pennsylvania whitetail stand is a spit and a stone’s throw from the family farmhouse, remains to be seen.
In reality, the ethic of the hunt lies in heart of the hunter, not in the artificial relationship of the hunter to some pre-designated terrain coordinate. Or by following some modern outdoors equivalent to Hoyle, for that matter. “Ethical†hunting can (and will) take place wherever squirrels gather (except for restricted urban environments), or where Mr. Bobwhite calls from a hedgerow, or where even cottontails run circles with a beagle or two in pursuit. “Ethical†hunting can (and will, Lord willing) take place in wilderness areas, national forests, BLM land, farm and ranch land, and a whole host of smaller plots to be found from coast to coast so long as game is not wasted, nor made to unduly suffer in the course of the hunt.
Of course, this is not to mean that one and all are to countenance the actions of that minor collection of boobs and morons that seem to spoil the outdoor experience. Like in every pastime (baseball fans who throw bottles at players is one interesting example), it is incumbent for the participants to behave responsibly. But from groups like the NRA, to governmental agencies such as the Colorado Division of Wildlife, there are many who already have stressed adherence to the rules of safety as well as that of respect for the land and the game animals involved. It is not like that the Canadian supporters of the group Hunting Heritage Hunting Futures have a monopoly on righteousness on this issue (Gall is another matter.). Colorado itself, from where Balzar went to view the wilderness hunt for his article, stresses very much in its Hunter’s Safety classes the need to not act boorish around non-hunters while proceeding to, or returning from, the field. It is thus disingenuous for Balzar to imply that issues regarding hunting etiquette remain unresolved (Colorado has, in fact, been warning hunters for years about the downside of offending non-hunters, either accidentally or on purpose).
Whether Balzar is a hunter, or not, can only be guessed at by his verbal commentary noted on a RealNetworks download at the LA Times website. But it is clear to this poster that the Times’ propensity to commit journalism against any shooting sport has not diminished in the slightest. It is thus up to firearms activists to be at the ready to explain the rules of etiquette of any of the shooting sports, be it big game hunting or simple can plinking. Hunters have been dealing with ethics and game issues since Teddy Roosevelt was president. Unfortunately, we have had much less time in dealing with kinds of Luddites and preservationists that are now infesting mainstream Media outlets, and wildlife management agencies, across the Fruited Plain. Hopefully this latest attempt to diminish a shooting sport will fall well short of its intended goal.