Winchester Wins 2010 Cabela Lifetime Business Achievement Award

(Las Vegas) – Winchester Ammunition, one of the world’s most widely recognized and respected names in the shooting industry, has been chosen as the recipient of the 2010 Cabela Lifetime Business Achievement Award. The presentation was made today during a Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT) reception at the Treasure Island Hotel in Las Vegas.

The award was received by Dick Hammett, President of Winchester Ammunition and was presented by Ed Small, president of Big Rock Sports, Tommy Millner, president of Cabela’s Inc., and Bud Pidgeon, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) president.

“It is one thing to be recognized for high quality products,” said Hammett. “But it is truly an honor to be recognized for our work in protecting conservation. We look forward to continuing this legacy with company’s such as Cabela’s and groups such as the USSA.”

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its Outdoor Business Council created the award in 2006 to honor the Cabela family’s dedication to protecting outdoor sports, including hunting, fishing, and trapping. It is presented to companies that demonstrate the same passion and commitment to protecting America’s outdoor heritage as the Cabelas.

“This is our way of honoring the Cabela family and other leaders such as Winchester in the outdoor business community for their efforts to defend our rights,” said Pidgeon.

Winchester, founded in 1866, is one of the nation’s largest and oldest producers of ammunition. For more than 140 years, the name “Winchester” has come to mean many things to many people. To most folks it’s meant ammunition and the Gun that Won the West. For many others, however, it also rekindles images of fine hand tools and cutlery, fishing tackle and flashlights.

For years Winchester Ammunition has proven a dedicated supporter of conservation. Its support of USSA’s Outdoor Business Council, a coalition of businesses dedicated to protecting outdoor traditions, has made a large impact on hunting and shooting programs from coast to coast. Winchester has also been a key supporter of the Trailblazer Adventure Program, which has introduced over 900,000 youth and their families to outdoor pursuits such as hunting, fishing, trapping and shooting, since its inception in 2001.

Click here to watch a video describing the Cabela Lifetime Business Achievement Award and the history of Winchester Ammunition.

Cabela’s, known as the World’s Foremost Outfitter, has grown and prospered from simple beginnings to become the world’s largest direct marketer, and a leading specialty retailer, of hunting, fishing, camping and related outdoor merchandise.

For more information about Winchester Ammunition, visit www.winchester.com.

The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen.org.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Elk Foundation Grants to Benefit 19 Utah Counties

MISSOULA, Mont. Nineteen Utah counties are slated for wildlife habitat conservation projects using $262,462 in new grants from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

The 2009 RMEF grants will affect Cache, Daggett, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Kane, Millard, Piute, Rich, San Juan, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, Washington and Wayne counties.

All grants are funded by proceeds from Utah hunting permits sold at RMEF fundraisers.

“Thanks to our volunteers across Utah who helped drive the 2008 fundraisers that made these grants possible. When Elk Foundation banquets, auctions and other events transform into on-the-ground conservation work, it’s payday for all of our supporters who are passionate about giving something back to the outdoors,” said David Allen, Elk Foundation president and CEO.

Elk Foundation grants will help fund the following Utah projects, listed by county:

Cache County – Use herbicide to treat weeds and then reseed 255 acres of elk and mule deer range at Millville Wildlife Management Area.

Daggett County – Remove and mulch 390 acres of pinion-juniper to restore sagebrush habitat for elk in the Diamond Mountain area on BLM land; burn, chain and reseed 200 acres of winter range for elk and mule deer at Middle Fork Wildlife Management Area.

Duchesne County – Thin ponderosa pine forest to improve vegetative diversity and big game forage on 450 acres in Dry Gulch area of Ashley National Forest.

Emery County – Mechanically treat 1,000 acres to promote understory growth for elk, sage grouse and other wildlife in the Wildcat Knoll area of Manti-La Sal National Forest.

Garfield County – Rejuvenate meadows and aspen stands within ponderosa pine forest by prescribe burning 1,000 acres near Ahlstrom Hollow in Dixie National Forest; repair and replace sections of an exclosure fence to protect an emerging aspen stand near Antimony Creek in Dixie National Forest.

Grand County – Remove encroaching conifers and restore 2,115 acres of sagebrush communities in the Cedar Camp area.

Iron County – Prescribe burn and reseed 1,000 acres to reduce pinion-juniper and improve riparian habitat for elk and other wildlife in the Cottonwood Canyon area of Dixie National Forest.

Kane County – Repair wildlife drinkers by replacing underground storage tanks in Dixie National Forest.

Millard County – Remove pinion-juniper overgrowth to restore habitat for elk on 614 acres in the Canyon Mountain area of Fishlake National Forest; increase forage on elk winter range by treating 750 acres of encroaching conifer in the Kanosh Bench area of Fishlake National Forest; improve wildlife forage by treating 1,050 acres of pinion-juniper near Pahvant Mountain on BLM land; enhance grasslands by treating conifer on 837 acres near Pahvant Mountain on Fishlake National Forest.

Piute County – Partner with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to acquire 400 acres of crucial elk and deer winter range in the Kingston Canyon area.

Rich County – Restore a 35-acre aspen stand by prescribe burning and fencing in the Otter Creek area of BLM land.

San Juan County – Hand cut, pile and burn brush, and then aerially reseed 1,650 acres to improve habitat for elk and other wildlife in the Little Baullie Mesa area on BLM land; treat and reseed 53 acres of habitat in the Peters Canyon area on BLM land; thin 612 acres of encroaching conifer to improve forage for elk and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildlife east of La Sal on BLM land; use no-till range drill to re-vegetate 18 acres of crucial winter range for elk in the Upper Pack Creek area.

Summit County – Restore native browse and forage for elk and other wildlife by disking and reseeding 300 acres of elk winter range near Harris Canyon in the Henefer-Echo Wildlife Management Area.

Tooele County – Remove encroaching conifer to rejuvenate sagebrush and browse for elk on 1,400 acres n the Deep Creek Mountains on BLM land.

Uintah County – Reduce lodgepole pine density and increase vegetative diversity by prescribe burning 815 acres of elk habitat in Ashley National Forest; treat noxious weeds and cheatgrass, and then reseed native grasses, forbs and shrubs, on 153 acres in the Big Park area on BLM land; aerially reseed 80 acres to improve habitat for a variety of species in the Johnson Draw area; remove conifer and seed 555 acres in the Book Cliffs area on BLM land.

Utah County – Treat and prescribe burn 1,000 acres of oak-maple habitat to improve habitat for elk and other wildlife in Uinta National Forest.

Wasatch County – Aerially and ground spray and reseed 932 acres of knapweed to improve habitat for elk and other wildlife in the Wallsburg Wildlife Management Area.

Washington County – Remove encroaching pinion-juniper and aerially reseed native grasses and forbs to improve habitat for elk on 600 acres in the Eight Mile Bench area of Dixie National Forest.

Wayne County – Improve 4,298 acres of big game winter range by prescribe burning, mechanical thinning and reseeding in the Thousand Lake Mountain area of Fishlake National Forest.

To date, partners for 2009 projects in Utah include Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, other agencies, corporations, landowners and organizations.

Since 1984, the Elk Foundation and its partners have completed more than 285 conservation projects in Utah with a value of more than $27 million.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Maine Black Bear Tooth Harvest Data Available

When bear hunters register their bears in Maine, they are asked to volunteer a tooth from their catch. These teeth are collected by biologists at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. They can easily determine the age of the bear and other data that helps them in making decisions on bear management.

The age data collected from the 2008 bear hunt is now available for those interested. If you volunteered a tooth from your bear, you can now find out how old it was.

To view this data, visit the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife website. From this landing page scroll down and you’ll find a link “age of the bear they harvested“. It’s an Excel Spreadsheet.

The oldest bear taken was a female that was 28-years old. The oldest male bear harvested was 20.

MDIFW collected 1,037 volunteer teeth or about 38% of the total harvest.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

QDMA’s 2009 Whitetail Report Now Available

On January 15 at the SHOT Show in Orlando, Florida, the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) unveiled the Whitetail Report, a detailed look at the status of whitetail populations and deer hunting in North America. Intended as a reference for the outdoor media, the Whitetail Report focuses on emerging issues and current challenges facing the whitetail. The document includes useful facts, statistics and science compiled by QDMA that will provide outdoor communicators with article ideas, valuable reference material, and quotes to use throughout the coming year.

To download the Whitetail Report, visit http://www.qdma.com/media/

Among many topics in the 68-page report, you will find:

• Trends in yearling-buck harvest rates and antlerless harvest, including state-by-state statistics.

• A look at the top states in harvest of mature bucks (3 1/2 years old or older).

• Trends in youth hunter recruitment and other deer-hunter demographics.

• The economic impact of deer hunting compared to other forms of hunting.

• The latest on the impacts of hemorrhagic disease (HD) and chronic wasting disease (CWD).

• Deer-vehicle collision data, and other suburban deer management issues.

Plus, many other current issues, as well as supplemental information on Quality Deer Management techniques, whitetail biology and the latest in deer research.

The white-tailed deer is the foundation of the entire hunting industry. Of active North American hunters, 78 percent hunt whitetails, more than the combined percentages for wild turkey, pheasant, quail, waterfowl, grouse, elk, mule deer and coyotes (survey by Responsive Management and the NSSF, 2008). QDMA created the Whitetail Report to provide outdoor writers, editors and communicators with a yearly health report for whitetails and – by extension – the hunting industry.

About QDMA
The Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) is a nonprofit conservation organization that works to educate and encourage hunters and landowners to practice biologically sound deer and habitat management techniques. Founded in 1988, QDMA has more than 53,000 members in 50 states, Canada and abroad. For more information, visit www.QDMA.com or call (800) 209-3337.

Posted by Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Infectious Prion Proteins Jumping Species

Infectious prion proteins, those nasty little things that cause mad cow disease, Creutzfeld-Jakob disease and chronic wasting disease have been found to jump from one species to another and in so doing causes a new infectious form of the protein. This is good and bad news I would think. Good in that science is one step closer to understanding the disease of chronic wasting disease and bad because new questions arise in whether or not CWD can be transmitted to humans.

We know that mad cow disease has transmitted to humans but there is currently no evidence to suggest that animals infected with chronic wasting disease can infect humans.

Chronic wasting disease has shown up in deer, elk and moose in several states and we really have yet to get a firm understanding of whether the disease occurs naturally or the exact method of transmission. We do know it’s extremely difficult to sanitize infected areas, especially in the soil.

From Nature.com:

Generally, prions are limited to a specific host and a few related species. But prions sometimes cross the species barrier to infect new hosts. Notably, prions from cows have hopped to humans, causing disease in 208 people, mostly in the UK. Now, scientists wonder if the prion-induced chronic wasting disease (CWD), which afflicts elk and deer in the US, could jump to humans. Since prion diseases have long dormant periods, the fact that there are no human cases of CWD doesn’t necessarily indicate that people won’t develop symptoms in the future.

Studies are now underway to see if normal prion protein from humans can be infected with deer protein.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

New Chronic Wasting Disease Test Not All It’s Being Promoted As

Earlier this month in a story about groups suing to stop the feeding of wild elk at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson, Wyoming, I also reported that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Colorado State University researchers say they have developed a test for chronic wasting disease that can be done on live animals. This is a test of rectal tissues of live animals that can yield promising results on detecting CWD. It seems that the report I read wasn’t completely forthcoming on more specific details of the test. Whether intentional or not, I have no idea.

Rich Forrest of the Chronic Wasting Disease Foundation at www.stopcwd.org, has sent out a memo to interested parties expressing his concerns about the report and further explaining more details about the test.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE

I am concerned that the impression (is being created) that this new rectal test will be a panacea for cervid farmers. Basically, the one test that will allow animal movements everywhere. NOT SO. THIS IS NOT THE LIVE TEST THAT WE CERVID FARMERS NEED, yes, this is a live test, but of rectal lymph tissue which ONLY registers the disease at the same stage as a brain test. ONLY AN ANIMAL IN THE LAST STAGES OF THE DISEASE SHOW UP POSITIVE. and for that it is good, better and perhaps easier than killing them and taking the brain. BUT if positive, the animal is already on its way to being dead and is already shedding the disease to the environment and to other critters, so basically it’s negative herdmates are still terminal. Even a whole herd negative test is not conclusive. This test cannot find early stage infections. EARLY stage disease does not have readily detectable abnormal prions, hence one can have an infected herd and NOT SHOW a positive! NO GOVT AGENCY WILL CLEAR A NEGATIVE FOR TRANSPORT IF THEY STILL SUSPECT POTENTIAL DISEASE NEARBY. Even a healthy herd under a sphere of influence CWD quarantine will likely remain quarantined even with a whole herd negative! The problem lies with the test relying on finding abnormal prions and ( I believe) the erroneous thinking that they cause the disease. In my humble opinion (generally ignored by govt research funding agencies) is that they are finding a late stage symptom of the disease NOT THE CAUSE. Only in the last half of the disease are these prions present in sufficient numbers to be found. They NEED TO FIND THE REAL CAUSE, then a test could find it at an early stage. Should NADEFA require a greater explanation please feel free to contact.me

Rich Forrest
THE CWD FOUNDATION
www.stopcwd.org

I for one upon reading the report about the test, was lead to believe this was an early stage test. Perhaps I should have done a better job at researching about this test before reporting on it.

Needless to say, this is still a better test than having to kill an animal to do it and we can hope that this is also another step toward the eventual cure we are all looking for.

Forrest mentions in his memo that he believes the detection of abnormal prions is only a symptom of the disease and not the cause. He may be right. For those interested, you can visit the website at www.stopcwd.org and Forrest has many studies you can read about the disease and his theories on causes and transmission.

My concerns, which are the same as thousands of others, is that many times government funded research may be more interested in finding ways to continue the inflow of money rather than working more fervently to find a cure. We should all be asking if these research facilities are moving in other directions looking for cause as Forrest suggests.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Groups Sue To Stop Elk Feeding Fearing CWD. New Live Test For CWD Near

Earthjustice, on behalf of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, Wyoming Outdoor Council and the National Wildlife Refuge Association, filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. to stop the feeding of wild elk at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson, Wyoming. The groups state that continued feeding is inviting an outbreak of chronic wasting disease, which is prevalent in areas as close as 70 miles away. Other diseases are already in existence there.

According to the New York Times, crowding animals together increases the likelihood of spreading disease ten fold.

Wildlife biologists warn that feeding the animals that crowd together at the National Elk Refuge and at 22 other state feeding grounds in Wyoming is likely to worsen any outbreak of chronic wasting disease. Conditions at feed lots increase disease rates up to 10 times those found in the wild because diseases are passed rapidly among animals in close contact.

Much of the actions and reactions of biologists toward chronic wasting disease come even though there is a lot about the disease that is unknown or misunderstood. As an example of that, the New York Times article states that killing animals stops the spread of the disease.

Discovered in a Colorado research facility in the 1960s, chronic wasting disease has forced biologists to kill hundreds of infected wild deer from Wisconsin to Wyoming and thousands of others that are not infected to keep the disease from spreading.

Perhaps misstated here, authorities have killed the animals thinking it would help but the evidence this is true is debatable. In Colorado, the practice of killing animals was called off after efforts showed little if any affect to the spreading of the disease. In Wisconsin, killing continues but many there don’t believe it is helping at all and is quite costly.

Much remains unexplained about the disease which doesn’t help in being able to do anything constructive to stop the spread. It is believed now that whatever is responsible for the transmission of the disease remains in the soil in infected areas for years. Some research indicates that the disease may be transmitted through feed, like hay, harvested in areas where the soil in contaminated. Some scientists also believe that CWD occurs naturally.

In the meantime, some good news reported from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Colorado State University. Researchers say they have developed a test for chronic wasting disease that can be done on live animals and results appear to be as good or even better than the existing tests done on the brain tissue of dead animals. This of course would be a huge step forward in being able to detect the disease.

Researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and Colorado State University (CSU) recently completed their third year of evaluating and validating the first live rectal-tissue biopsy method for detecting chronic wasting disease (CWD) in captive and wild elk. To date, researchers have collected over 1,500 biopsies from captive elk in Colorado and used the technique to find 15 elk that were positive for CWD. As compared to proven post-mortem diagnostic tests, this live test appears to be nearly as accurate.

With a live test, methods can be employed to help prevent the spread of the disease in both captive and wild animals but until science is able to accurately determine what causes CWD and exactly how it is spread, we mustn’t believe this new test is by any means a cure. Only a major step.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Monitoring Bears In Maine

The following is a link that will take you to a photo journal of Paul Cyr who traveled along with a group from Maine on a day of monitoring bears deep in their winter dens.

This is well worth the click to get over there as the pictures are quite incredible and the cubs at the age seldom seen by humans.

Thanks to Paul Cyr for sharing his photos and a link.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Learn More About The New TwisterNock by Tree Apron Products

John Stabley, the host of Stabley Outdoors got a chance to Interview Jeff Hajari, President of Tree Apron while attending the 2008 ATA Show.

To find out more about Tree Apron Products, visit them on the web at www.treeapron.com.

Listen to the interview now. (18min 47sec)

[AUDIO:http://www.skinnymoose.com/downloads/stabley-tree-apron.mp3]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Out of Control, Deer Send Ecosystem Into Chaos

This is the title of a lengthy article in today’s New York Times that many of you may be interested in reading about. It deals with the problems of too many deer in much of America and what is and can be done about it. I can’t say there’s much new in here for me but a considerable amount of discussion focuses on hunters changing habits, doing themselves a favor and forgetting about the bucks and taking does.

Read the article here.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Pittman-Robertson Act Provides Funds For Hunter Safety

On Monday of this week I reported that eight states (Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri and Ohio) were going to request grant monies available through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, also known as Pittman-Robertson, in order to conduct studies on tree stand safety. The article I wrote generated some discussion and comments, one coming from reader MadJack.

Yes the P/R Act was to improve hunting & wildlife habitat, NOT to WASTE in an attempt to control hunters & how they hunt! I believe this would be a direct violation of the Pitman Robertson Act as well as very unlawful.

More Government waste!

While I tend to agree with MadJack, I wasn’t aware that revenues generated through PR were used via the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fund programs for hunter safety and education. According to PR Act Title 16, Chapter 5B, section 669h, $8 million will be apportioned back to each state for certain hunter safety programs.

Of the revenues covered into the fund, $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 and each fiscal year thereafter, shall be apportioned among the States in the manner specified in section 669c(c) \1\ of this title by the Secretary of the Interior and used to make grants to the States to be used for–

(A) in the case of a State that has not used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) \1\ of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title–
(i) the enhancement of hunter education programs, hunter and sporting firearm safety programs, and hunter development programs;
(ii) the enhancement of interstate coordination and development of hunter education and shooting range programs;
(iii) the enhancement of bow hunter and archery education, safety, and development programs; and
(iv) the enhancement of construction or development of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges, and the updating of safety features of firearm shooting ranges and archery ranges; and

(B) in the case of a State that has used all of the funds apportioned to the State under section 669c(c) \1\ of this title for the fiscal year in the manner described in section 669g(b) of this title, any use authorized by this chapter (including hunter safety programs and the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges).

An act that was originally designed for the protection of wildlife and habitat, it has been amended many times in order that these funds can be used for other programs not directly related to it original purpose. As I understand the Act, monies are apportioned back to each state for the specific purposes described concerning hunter safety and education programs. If that money has been used up, USFWS grants additional monies collected via PR for further hunter education and safety programs.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

States Want Money For Tree Stand Research

Eight states are seeking money that comes from excise taxes on sporting equipment to study tree stand accidents. Some feel that tree stand accidents cause more injury and death than any other hunting related mishaps.

The question from me has to be is the use of this money for this purpose a wise choice?

We all want to see hunting be as safe as it can be. But who should be paying the bill in this case? We have to first ask ourselves why is it there are tree stand accidents? Do these accidents come from a poorly designed piece of equipment or from improper use or a combination of both?

There are many more questions that can’t be answered easily but should we be using tax money paid by the sportsmen to do work that should be done by the companies that manufacture the tree stands? Regardless of whether the equipment could be designed better or more educating needs to be done about using tree stands, isn’t this at least equally the responsibility of the manufacturers?

One suggestion I read about, which I think makes sense, is that it should be mandatory to report all accidents that result from tree stands. It needs to be clearly stated what exactly a “tree stand” is. It has to involve any means by which a hunter leaves the ground in order to achieve a better perspective. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a manufactured tree stand.

With mandatory reporting, then information can be gathered to find what is causing the accidents. Once this information is put to use, then we can determine in what direction we need to take. I would also think it would be in the best interest of those who make tree stands to get involved. If they are making a poor product, if they want to stay in business, improvements are needed. If the vast majority of accidents come from concocted tree stands and/or improper usage, then it is also in the best interest of tree stand companies to educate users to the safe use of tree stands. In other words, they will sell more products.

I would much prefer to see any research and studies paid for by the manufacturers and not the users and/or state fish and game departments.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Undesirable Fish Versus Undesirable Predators

I have a question of which nobody has been able to give me a satisfactory answer, so I thought I would toss it out to the masses and see where the ball drops. Let me first qualify the question to some degree.

Let me take an example of fact. In Maine it has been determined and readily admitted by officials with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, the in the northern and eastern parts of the state, there is a serious whitetail deer shortage. While the state strives to reach a 12 – 18 deer per square mile in most parts of the state, sections in the state I have mentioned struggle to attain 2 or 3 deer per square mile.

Just recently officials convened a task force to look into ways of dealing with the problem. While no official statements have been made regarding this problem, I have heard from some members of that task force that the consensus was too many coyotes.

You know what? That shocks absolutely nobody. If you went and polled every outdoorsman in the state of Maine I think you would have gotten a similar conclusion. So, the question becomes, what do we do about it?

I’m not here today to make suggestions per se on what to do about the coyote problem. I’m hear to ask a question.

Part two of qualifying my question. Recently I received an email from someone whom I will allow to remain anonymous, who informed me of a pond somewhere in Maine that was recently poisoned to kill off all the fish. In the spring, game fish will be reintroduced to the waters of that pond. This is a common practice by biologists in Maine and nearly every other state in the Union.

If you haven’t made the leap yet, let me help you. Biologists think nothing really of killing off hundreds or maybe even thousands of fish that are really quite useless to man in order to restore a fishery, yet cannot bring themselves to kill off hundreds or maybe even thousands of coyotes that are destroying a state’s deer herd.

So, the million dollar question is, why is it acceptable to kill thousands of crap fish to save a game fish and it’s not acceptable to kill a crap coyote in order to save a game animal?

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Bear Spray Versus Bullets

It appears that the states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have jumped onto a bandwagon suggesting that everyone, including hunters, carry and use bear pepper spray, for protection while in the woods. As a matter of fact, Idaho’s fish and game departments, along with the support of the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council, are promoting it. To the right is an ad that appeared in the Idaho Falls Post Register a few days ago.

What first raises an eyebrow for me is the fact that an ad appeared in an Idaho newspaper that carries the logo of three institutions – The Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. While many would concur that it would be commonplace to find the SC and NRDC working hand in hand, one has to question when an agency whose main function is to provide hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities to licensed Idaho residents, would be teaming up with known environmental groups much opposed to those activities.

Let’s set the record straight before we proceed any further. For people hiking and journeying into the woods in grizzly bear country, it seems that the most likely alternative you have for protection against grizzly bear attacks is bear pepper spray. There seems to be, at least from my perspective, some discrepancies in the truthfulness of the effectiveness of the spray, which I will explain and whether or not the advice to use the spray over the use of a gun, particularly for hunters, should be followed as is being recommended.

I will admit that I can be a stickler for details and along with that I think it is responsible for all parties to be completely forthcoming when advising the public on issues such as bear safety.

If you want to take the time, you can get quite a bit of information about the use of bear spray but there is one slight problem when conducting any research. I’ll help you out with providing links where I found most of my information.

One problem that shows up right away is that those agencies recommending the use of bear spray before hunters use their guns for protection, is they are all getting their information from one source, that source being the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. This holds true as well for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Note: I had difficulties in reaching their website at the link provided through a Google search or from the Forestry Service website.)

What appears to be the only real testing is that done by Dr. Stephen Herrero and Andrew Higgins of the University of Calgary, Alberta. While their testing is interesting fodder for the bear spray industry, the results cannot be used as a definitive claim that bear pepper spray works best for all occasions all the time and herein lies one of the problems I am having with taking at face value that I should opt for the use of spray over my gun in my hands while hunting.

The U.S. Geological Survey published the results of a grizzly bear/pepper spray report completed by Tom S. Smith, Ph.D for the U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Science Center in Anchorage. Smith makes the following statement in regards to the spray testing done by Herrero and Higgins.

Although not under tightly controlled conditions nor observed by scientists, these results strongly suggest that red pepper spray deterrents work well. It would have been interesting to see if any difference existed between the various brands of spray but the data set is far too small.

As I said, this is interesting stuff but should we be claiming this as the gospel and telling people that bear pepper spray is going to save them before a gun will?

In a fact sheet put out by the USFWS called, “Bear Spray Vs. Bullets“(pdf), the following statement is made regarding statistics about injuries associated with grizzly bear attacks on those using spray versus those using a gun.

The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality — based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero reached similar conclusions based on his own research — a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used.

A closer look at the results could lead someone to render different results because they omitted results from within the same survey. Those conducting the study admit that the data is limited and that the number of incidences for unarmed people with pepper spray is considerably less than reported attacks on hunters. Also, if you examine the graph provided, I could say that if you want to increase your chances of living to tell your family and friends about your attack by a grizzly, ditch the pepper spray and carry a gun. 56% of grizzly attacks on those without a gun resulted in death while only 44% of those who were armed with a gun died.

Many will think I’m a bit paranoid but within the text of this report by Smith of the U.S. Geological Survey, we hunters can read this statement.

Not only are firearms in of themselves a hazard to carry but consider for a moment that a bear has charged and you’ve killed it.

This further goes on to explain what happens in Alaska when you opt to kill an attacking grizzly bear out of self preservation. I fail to accept the statement that a firearm is a hazard to carry for a hunter. Think about it a moment. This report that these state agencies are using to tell hunters to opt for bear spray over guns was clearly written for those venturing into the woods for something other than a big game hunting trip.

While not questioning the study, one has to better understand the conditions under which the study was conducted to determine how that effectively relates to the elk hunter in the wilderness of Montana. I don’t have the answers but I sure have a lot of questions.

Isn’t it a safe bet that bears within the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park will react differently to people than to those some distance outside the park hunting elk in remote areas? It seems that Herrero and Higgins alluded to this somewhat when they commented that:

Regarding brown/grizzly bear incidents associated with curiosity of searching for human foods and garbage, in 100% (20/20) of the cases the spray had the effect of stopping the behavior that the bear was displaying immediately prior to being sprayed. The bear left the area in 90% of the cases.”

Here, both researchers are saying that bears searching for human food are more accustomed to humans and I think it would be reasonable to expect the bears to generally act less aggressively toward a human than say a hunter who stumbles onto a grizzly startling it and causing the bear to attack.

Let’s be honest here. No complete studies have been done that I can find, that would allow me to put my signature on a statement warning hunters to drop their rifles and pick up their bear spray if being attacked. There are just too many variables and unanswered questions.

Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks website has information about who should use bear spray and how to affectively use it. This is good information but just as I have been reluctant to agree with our wildlife experts who continue to repeat the same old mantra time and again, that bears don’t attack people, I will not freely jump on this wagon to tell hunters to drop their guns and aim their spray.

While some of the information put out by agencies about being bear aware is good useful information, it is incomplete and could be construed as misleading. The U.S. Geological Survey’s report states the following about the use of spray under certain windy conditions.

In a number of bear-human encounters (on the low side of things admittedly) people have used bear pepper sprays to deter menacingly curious bears. In such instances it seems entirely possible to maneuver about until you have the wind in your favor.

Shouldn’t this further go on to state that the odds that anyone would have the time or the presence of mind to maneuver themselves around a menacing bear to get upwind, practically slim and none?

What if while being attacked you face a stiff head wind? You spray at the charging bear and get a face full of pepper spray. Then what? Granted we all know that not all conditions are conducive to the use of pepper spray which is one reason I am questioning the blank statement encouraging the use of spray over bullets.

There are other factors to consider. No studies that I have found give any data on what if any effects temperature has on the spray. As I was asked by one reader who e-mailed me,

Has the IGBC tested bear spray in cold weather? My old Ruger 77 will perform whether it’s 55 degrees or 10 degrees, but all bear spray companies note that “cold” affects bear spray performance. How much? What’s the range of a can of bear spray that’s been at 65 degrees for 3 hours Vs the range of a can of bear spray that’s been at 10 degrees for 3 hours? You could keep bear spray warm by carrying it in a chest holster under your jacket, but I doubt if a charging grizzly would call a “time out” so you had time to unzip your jacket and reach for your bear spray.

All excellent questions and there’s more. I’ve never been attacked by a bear of any kind but the stories I have reported about quickly have taught me that when a bear attacks, you have but a split second to react. If I am hunting elk in the reaches of Montana and realize I am being attacked by a grizzly, I don’t think my instincts are going to allow me to put down my gun and reach for my spray. I doubt that I would have enough time to do that if I wanted to.

Don’t get me wrong, if I am going hunting in grizzly country, no matter where it is, I’m taking my rifle, of which I intend to use and strapped to my belt will also be a can of pepper spray.

I have been told that the Sierra Club is providing inert bear spray cans for practice during hunter training classes, etc. This is good as buying pepper spray and practicing how to use it and take aim can get a bit costly. In one article I was reading, it recommended arming every member of your outdoor party with at least one can and recommended two. They also suggested that if you plan to be out for any extended period of time, you take some extra canisters along. With a suggested retail price starting around $35.00 – $40.00 a can, I can see that should I take my wife and 6 grandchildren on a hike, I’m looking at a minimum of $300 just for spray.

Don’t get me wrong, I place a much higher value on my grandchildren and wife than that but I can say that this would definitely be a deterrent to hiking in grizzly country.

I want to clarify my position one more time. I am not against bear pepper spray for use as self-protection against grizzly bear attacks. I’m also not opposed to suggesting that hunters also carry pepper spray for protection in addition to their hunting weapons. What I am opposed to is state agencies doing as it appears Montana and Idaho have done and that’s telling hunters that pepper spray is more affective in preventing injury and saving your life than their gun. Until more reliable data from tests and studies are done, I think it irresponsible for anyone to be making that recommendation.

As all agencies and manufacturers of bear spray tell us, there is no substitute for proper planning and preparedness. When you are going to be out in grizzly bear country, whether hunting or hiking, arm yourself with some industry approved bear spray and learn how to use it. While hunting and carrying a rifle, you will have to decide from the information presented to you which you honestly feel is the best tactic to employ while being attacked.

I can concur that certain circumstances of bear encounters while hunting would better call for the use of spray over bullets – say a menacing bear not in an all out attack. But if I have rifle in both hands stocking game and a bear charges from a few yards away, my faith is going to be in placing a bullet.

Let’s have some better testing under all conditions by completely independent sources before running ads in newspapers warning hunters to drop their weapons and take out their bear spray cans while being attacked by a grizzly bear.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

A New Solution To Non-Game Program Funding?

My good friend and colleague, George Dovel, has put together one of the most eye opening articles I have read in a long time. The article contains information that deals with anti-hunting issues, land loss, property rights, the abuse by some states to illegally use money from hunting and fishing license to fund programs outside of fish and game, the Wildlands Project, Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act and an entire host of other topics.

This article is long but is worth the read. I would highly suggest that anyone who cares at all about hunting, trapping, fishing and the outdoors, read this article. Much of the topics discussed are centered in the state of Idaho but I don’t want you to think for one second that you couldn’t just as easily insert the state you live in. All of these things happening can and are taking place right in your back yard. It’s time to open our eyes.

I am going to provide you with a couple of different ways you can obtain it. You can begin the story here and follow the link to read the rest. On that page you can copy and paste the article into a word processor program and print it out. Also at the bottom of this page is a link to a pdf version of the story for your convenience.

I want to take a moment and thank George for granting me permission to republish this article in its entirety at the Black Bear Blog and other Skinny Moose Media websites.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

News and Comment by George Dovel

About George Dovel: Following several decades of close association with state and federal wildlife mangers as a helicopter and fixed-wing pilot, a qualified volunteer on assorted wildlife research projects and a member of several fish and game advisory committees, George Dovel offers a unique perspective on what has happened to wildlife resource management. With record low big game and upland bird populations existing throughout the U.S. in 1969-1973 he edited and published The Outdoorsman which is credited with helping to restore scientific game management. The new crisis in game management throughout the West resulted in resurrecting The Outdoorsman in March 2004 to provide factual information for outdoorsmen and their elected officials.

On July 3, 2007, a public meeting of an ad hoc committee formed to discuss future funding for IDFG took place at F&G Headquarters in Boise. Chaired by Senate Resource Committee Chairman Gary Schroeder, the members included House Resource Committee Chairman John A. “Bert” Stevenson, Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC) Co-Chair Senator Dean Cameron and former F&G Commissioner Representative Fred Wood. <<<<<Continue to the rest of this Article>>>>>

Click here to download a pdf version of this article.

Tom Remington

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Next Page »