Saturday, December 18, 2010

White House delayed rule on guns to Mexico
By Sari Horwitz and James V. Grimaldi
Saturday, December 18, 2010; A06


This spring, President Obama promised Mexican President Felipe Calderon that he would work to deter gunrunning south of the border. Behind the scenes, White House officials were putting the brakes on a proposal to require gun dealers to report bulk sales of the high-powered semiautomatic rifles favored by drug cartels.

Justice Department officials had asked for White House approval to require thousands of gun dealers along the border to report the purchases to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF investigators expected to get leads on suspected arms traffickers.

Senior law enforcement sources said the proposal from the ATF was held up by the White House in early summer. The sources, who asked to be anonymous because they were discussing internal deliberations, said that the effort was shelved by then-White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, a veteran of battles with the gun lobby during the Clinton administration.

Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Emanuel, who is running for mayor of Chicago, said Emanuel "did not stop the policy from being implemented." Emanuel "has never taken a back seat to anyone when it comes to standing up to the NRA to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals," LaBolt said.

White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said, "We don't comment on interagency policy deliberations, but the president is committed to cracking down on violence on the Southwest border."

The plan - which officials knew would be strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association - was perceived as too volatile just before midterm elections, the sources said.

Last month, ATF Deputy Director Kenneth Melson asked the Justice Department to try again, law enforcement officials said.

"We appreciate the support of the Department of Justice and the administration as we seek to stem the flow of firearms to Mexico," ATF chief spokesman Scot Thomasson said.

On Friday, the ATF published the emergency proposal in the Federal Register. The proposal requires dealers to report to the bureau anytime they make two or more sales over a five-day period of semiautomatic rifles that have a caliber greater than .22 and a detachable magazine. It would be valid for six months.

Dealers have been required for decades to report the sales of multiple handguns to the ATF.

The gun lobby responded angrily to the emergency proposal.

"The timing of this announcement, following the midterm elections, has not gone unnoticed by industry," said Ted Novin, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a group that represents gun dealers and manufacturers.

"We remain opposed to further burdening America's law-abiding firearms retailers with yet another onerous regulation that will do nothing to curb crime," Novin said.

"Furthermore, multiple sales reporting of long guns will actually make it more difficult for licensed retailers to help law enforcement as traffickers modify their illegal schemes to circumvent the reporting requirement."

In May, Obama assured Calderon that the administration would assist Mexico in curbing drug cartel violence, which has led to 30,000 deaths in Mexico.

LaBolt said that Emanuel recommended Andy Traver of Chicago to be nominated by Obama to be director of the ATF and was the "point man" in the Clinton administration when Congress passed an assault weapons ban and required background checks for gun sales. Clinton later blamed those bills for the GOP takeover of Congress in 1995.
horwitzs@washpost.com grimaldij@washpost.com

Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706912_pf.html

Friday, December 17, 2010

Gun regulators propose emergency plan
By James V. Grimaldi and Sari Horwitz
Friday, December 17, 2010

To stem the flow of guns to Mexico, federal firearms regulators are proposing an emergency requirement that certain gun dealers along the southwestern border report bulk sales of so-called assault weapons beginning as soon as January.

Dealers would be required to alert authorities when they sell within five consecutive business days two or more semiautomatic rifles greater than .22 caliber with detachable magazines, according to the draft obtained by The Washington Post. Semiautomatic rifles such as AK-47s and AR-15s are favored by drug-trafficking organizations fighting the Mexican government.

ATF chief spokesman Scot Thomasson declined to comment.

The plan by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives revives a proposal that has languished at the Justice Department and in the Obama administration for several months, according to people with knowledge of the proposal who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter before it becomes public.

The idea of such a requirement is so controversial to many gun owners that administration officials proceeded cautiously for fear of provoking the National Rifle Association, sources said.

The proposal could mark the gun lobby's first major showdown with the administration.

On Thursday, Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, lambasted the plan as an attempt to create a national gun registry.

"This administration does not have the guts to build a wall, but they do have the audacity to blame and register gun owners for Mexico's problems," Cox said. "NRA supports legitimate efforts to stop criminal activity, but we will not stand idle while our Second Amendment is sacrificed for politics."

One of those pushing the administration to act was New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's office and his policy adviser, John Feinblatt, who first proposed such a requirement early in the administration. "Sixteen months ago, we called for it," Feinblatt said. "It's time to do it."

Under the plan, the ATF, which enforces federal gun laws and regulates firearm dealers, would send what is called a "demand letter" to dealers along the border asking them to report the multiple sales, ATF officials said.

Emergency approval would last six months, after which the requirement would end unless other action were taken, the draft states. Approval from the Office of Management and Budget "has been requested by Jan. 5, 2011," the document states.

The ATF is expected to publish in the Federal Register on Friday a notice about the plan, which would affect about 8,500 gun dealers. Although the ATF proposes that the rule would begin as early as January, comments about the proposed rule will be accepted for the next two months.

grimaldij@washpost.com horwitzs@washpost.com
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Politics

Amtrak Begins Letting Firearms in Checked Bags on Some Trains

By Craig Schulz
Published December 15, 2010
| FoxNews.com


Starting Thursday, Amtrak passengers traveling with firearms can once again bring their weapons on board certain trains. 

At the direction of Congress, the railroad set into motion a plan that allows passengers traveling to and from stations with checked luggage facilities to pack their firearms in locked, hard-sided containers. They had been banned following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. 

Like baggage checked at the airport, once the passenger drops the bag off he or she does not have access to it until it is picked up at the final destination.

Amtrak spent about $2 million over the past year developing the policy, training the workforce, reconfiguring cars and upgrading other equipment in preparation for this change. 

Following are important rules to keep in mind when traveling with a firearm on Amtrak:

-- Passengers must give Amtrak 24-hours notice that they will be checking firearms or ammunition.  Notice must be given by calling Amtrak (1-800-USA-RAIL). Online reservations are not accepted.
-- All firearms and/or ammunition must be checked at least 30 minutes prior to departure.  Some stations require baggage be checked earlier; 
-- Firearms and ammunition can only be transported on trains and at stations where checked baggage service is offered.  Not all stations or trains offer this service.
-- Firearms must be unloaded and in an approved, locked hard-sided container.  The passenger must have sole possession of the key or combination for the lock.  The container may not weigh more than 50 lbs.
-- Passengers must travel on the same train that is transporting the checked firearms/ammunition.
-- At check-in, passengers will be required to complete and sign a two-part declaration form;
-- BB guns and compressed air guns, including paintball markers. will be treated as firearms and must comply with the firearms/ammunition policy;

Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., wrote the provision requiring Amtrak to change its policy into an appropriations measure in December 2009. He says its an important step forward in allowing hunters and sportsmen the same travel options available to everyone else.

"While airlines offer an option to transport a properly stored gun, rail passengers have not had the same opportunity," Sen. Wicker said.  "I applaud Amtrak for its work for nearly a year to ensure firearms can be transported safely."

But anti-gun advocates at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence aren't sure Amtrak's policy is the safest method for transporting guns safely, citing the lack of any hearings on the issue as a cause for concern.

"We're not opposed to the transporting of guns on Amtrak if it can be done in a way that's secure," said Daniel Vice, senior attorney with the Brady Center.  "Our concern is that this amendment was attached to a funding bill with virtually no hearings on the safety and security of the policy."

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

NRA-led gun lobby wields powerful influence over ATF, U.S. politics

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/article_eac60416-0868-11e0-8b0d-001cc4c03286.html

NRA-led gun lobby wields powerful influence over ATF, U.S. politics
Behind the scenes, federal agents in charge of stopping gun trafficking to Mexico have quietly advanced a plan to help stem the smuggling of high-powered AK-47s and AR-15s to the bloody drug war south of the border.

The controversial proposal by officials at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives calls for a measure strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association: requiring gun dealers to report multiple sales of rifles and shotguns to ATF.

The gun issue is so incendiary and fear of the NRA so great that the ATF plan languished for months at the Justice Department, according to some senior law enforcement officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity but would not provide details.

The NRA got wind of the idea last month and warned its 4 million members in a "grassroots alert" that the administration might try to go around Congress to get such a plan enacted as an executive order or rule.

An ATF spokesman declined to comment about the matter. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. declined to be interviewed. Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said "the administration continues to support common-sense measures to stem gun violence."

In the past few days, the plan has quietly gained traction at Justice. But sources told The Post they fear that if the plan becomes public, the NRA will marshal its forces to kill it.

Such is the power of the NRA. With annual revenue of about $250 million, the group has for four decades been the strongest force shaping the nation's gun laws.

The fate of the Mexican gunrunning rule is only the most recent example of how the gun lobby has consistently outmaneuvered and hemmed in ATF, using political muscle to intimidate lawmakers and erect barriers to tougher gun laws. Over nearly four decades, the NRA has wielded remarkable influence over Congress, persuading lawmakers to curb ATF's budget and mission and to call agency officials to account at oversight hearings. The source of the NRA's power is its focus on one issue and its ability to get pro-gun candidates elected.

The result is that a president such as Obama, whose campaign platform called for tougher gun laws, finds his freedom of action circumscribed. The issue has bedeviled Democrats for years, especially after defeats in the 1994 midterms and the 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee.

"That was the shift of the tectonic plate for the Democrats on the gun issue," said James Cavanaugh, former ATF special agent in charge in Nashville. "The thing that really, really, really scared the Democrats was Al Gore losing his home state, and the reason was the gun issue. They all know it."

The gun lobbyists are well aware of their power. "The White House is sensitized enough to understand it really is the third rail of American politics," said Richard Feldman, a former lobbyist for the NRA and a gun industry trade representative who has discussed gun policy with White House officials. "They have figured out that it is a lightning-rod issue, and they don't want it to injure them."

Led by Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, who was paid $1.26 million in 2008, the NRA in the past two decades has spent more than $100 million on political activities in the United States, according to documents and interviews, including $22 million on lobbying and nearly $75 million on campaigns.

Only two groups have spent more on campaigns since 1989 - the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, according to a review of campaign financing by The Washington Post.

In this year's midterm elections, 80 percent of the 307 House and Senate backed by the NRA were victorious, a Post analysis of the NRA's endorsements shows. About half of incoming House members got NRA backing, the analysis shows. In the Senate, the NRA says the number of A-rated senators is now 50.

NRA officials say their efforts protect the rights of gun owners. "We don't represent criminals who misuse firearms," said Chris W. Cox, director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "We don't represent dealers who willfully and knowingly violate the law. We represent honest, law-abiding people, including honest dealers who are often targeted in an unfortunate way."

Last year, the NRA perturbed ATF agents by sending dealers an article by an industry lawyer. "You never, ever have to speak to an ATF agent or inspector," the article said. "You have the absolute right not to answer any questions that an inspector may pose to you."

Another reason morale is low, ATF agents say, is the firearms bureau has been without a permanent director since 2006, when Congress required the position to be confirmed by the Senate. The effect was to give the gun lobby power to block a director - one senator can hold up any nomination, and the Senate needs 60 votes to overcome that opposition.

Last month, about two weeks after the midterm elections, Obama nominated a director: Andrew Traver, special agent in charge of ATF's Chicago field division.
The NRA strongly opposes Traver because he is "deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities," an NRA news release said. The group cited his work with the Gun Violence Reduction Project, a nationwide initiative of police chiefs, and the Joyce Foundation, which promotes stricter gun laws.

With the NRA in opposition, Traver's nomination is unlikely to be approved by Congress.

"It is clearly the most powerful lobby in the United States," said William Vizzard, a former ATF agent who is now a criminal-justice professor in California. "The NRA has shaped gun policy and shaped the ATF."

The NRA's shift

Don Davis, 77, has run Don's Guns and Galleries in Indianapolis for 37 years and says he is one of the highest-volume dealers in the region. A big supporter of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, Davis resigned from the NRA many years ago. "They used to be an organization for the hunter and the fishermen," he said recently. "Then they got into politics. They're so political, that's what they do with their money. Today if you say anything about a gun, they use their money to run against you."

The story of how a group created in 1871 to sharpen the marksmanship of soldiers transformed into a modern political juggernaut begins after serious gun control gained momentum in the United States following the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

The NRA's shift came at a time of increasing urban gun violence and debate about firearm laws. It also coincided with the creation of the modern-day ATF. The agency had been born as a bureau within the Treasury Department in 1972. By the middle of that decade it was moving from busting moonshiners in Appalachia to enforcing gun laws in U.S. cities.

The NRA created a political arm in 1975, largely in response to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which expanded licensing and recordkeeping requirements for gun dealers and placed limitations on handgun sales. Shortly after, hard-liners wrested control from moderates during an NRA conference known as "the revolt in Cincinnati."

In 1978, the NRA was ready when the Carter administration proposed a rule requiring quarterly reports on gun sales from licensed firearms dealers. NRA opposition produced 350,000 letters and comments. One letter was addressed to the Gestapo, while another included a tea bag to invoke the Boston Tea Party.

Congress killed the rule and also prohibited ATF from "consolidating or centralizing" gun dealer records in a computer database, which the agency wanted to do to analyze gun traces for trafficking patterns. Congress also cut $4.2 million from the ATF budget, the amount needed to fund a computer system.

The message was clear and searing.

"It scared ATF so badly that for the next 10 years, if you said 'computer,' everybody ran and hid in the closet," Vizzard said.

When Ronald Reagan came into office, the NRA nearly succeeded in its longtime goal of abolishing ATF. Reagan wanted to eliminate the agency and transfer its powers to the Secret Service and the Internal Revenue Service. But NRA leaders decided they preferred the weak devil they knew to stronger new regulators. Quietly and somewhat awkwardly, they lobbied to undo their accomplishment. "As long as ATF existed, the firearms lobby could utilize it as a symbolic opponent," Vizzard said. "Without an ATF, the firearms lobby lost a key actor in the ritual drama - the villain."

Under Reagan, the NRA's power grew. In 1986, the NRA won passage of a law that limited ATF inspections of gun dealers to once a year, reduced certain violations to misdemeanors and raised the standard of proof needed to revoke a dealer's license.
The NRA said the act was necessary because ATF was too tough on honest dealers, many of whom are small mom-and-pop operations. ATF agents said the effect was to make it much more difficult to shut down rogue gun dealers.

With the election of Bill Clinton, the gun lobby faced its greatest challenge. He shepherded new laws, beginning with criminal background checks on purchasers and a 10-year ban on sales of assault weapons. One of the laws was named for James Brady, the former White House press secretary who was shot in the 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan.

"Clinton was the most unfriendly president to the firearms industry," said Lawrence Keane, general counsel to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents gun manufacturers.

Some rural Democrats with good NRA ratings sided with Clinton. In 1994, the NRA helped the GOP unseat so many Democrats that Clinton blamed his party's loss of Congress on the gun issue. The NRA spent $114,710 to help Rep. George R. Nethercutt (R-Wash.) upset House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D).

"The NRA had a great night," Clinton wrote in his autobiography. "They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. . . The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out."

The cold war between ATF and the NRA went hot in 1995 when LaPierre, in a fundraising letter, called federal agents "jack-booted government thugs." Referring to ATF raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Texas, LaPierre wrote, "Not too long ago, it was unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens."

The letter backfired. Many NRA members contended LaPierre had gone too far. Former president George H.W. Bush, a gun enthusiast and decades-long member, resigned from the NRA. Bush accused the NRA of slurring a "wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us."

In the wake of that rare NRA misstep, the group turned to a new public face and president: Charlton Heston.

At the 2000 NRA convention, the former actor brought the audience to its feet with his attack on gun control advocates. In a memorable speech attacking presidential candidate Al Gore, Heston raised a replica of a Colonial musket over his head and said, echoing a bumper sticker, "From my cold, dead hands."

When Gore lost the 2000 election, many Democrats blamed it on pro-gun-control positions he had taken in the past.

Gun control activists tried a new tack: lawsuits. After watching the success of litigation against tobacco companies in the 1990s, the city of Chicago seized on a novel legal theory to sue gunmakers and stores, arguing that handgun marketing endangered public health. Bob Ricker, a former NRA counsel turned whistleblower, testified that the industry was complicit because there are gun dealers "who through willful, negligent or irresponsible actions contribute to the illicit gun market."

Industry lawyer Keane said Ricker, who died in December, was not credible, because he was a paid consultant. In response to the lawsuits, gun industry attorneys said that dealers should not be held liable for how their guns are used and that the lawsuits were an attempt to shut down the industry.

The gun lobby played a congressional trump card. In 2003, Todd Tiahrt, a Republican congressman from Kansas, surprised members of both parties with a last-minute amendment to a spending bill to exempt ATF's gun-trace database from the Freedom of Information Act. The effect was to take the heat off gun dealers with the most traces and deny the information to lawyers, academics and journalists. The Tiahrt Amendment, along with a later industry immunity bill, largely killed the litigation.

The Obama effect

In January, on the massive convention floor of the Sands Expo & Convention Center in Las Vegas, attendees and vendors from 75 countries milled amid the giant, dazzling booths featuring elaborate displays of weaponry, from Glocks to Bushmasters.
The annual SHOT Show - the Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade Show, the largest trade event for the shooting sports and hunting industries — drew about 60,000 buyers and manufacturers. Business was booming.

"Despite the worst recession in a generation, we have thrived," National Shooting Sports Foundation President Steven Sanetti said at the event's state-of-the-industry dinner.

The reason? Barack Obama.

Critics say the NRA and other gun organizations used Obama's candidacy and election to scare gun owners and boost their memberships. In TV ads and on the Internet, the NRA warned that Obama planned to ban handguns and close 90 percent of gun shops.
"Never in NRA's history have we faced a presidential candidate . . . with such a deep-rooted hatred of firearm freedoms," LaPierre wrote in a fundraising letter in 2008. He declined to be interviewed for this story.

Obama never said anything about banning handguns or closing gun shops. His campaign platform promised to pursue long-standing proposals to address urban violence: reinstating the assault weapons ban, outlawing "cop killer" bullets and closing the "gun-show loophole" that permits firearm sales without background checks.

The campaign said Obama favored "commonsense measures" to protect gun rights "while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them." Obama also said he would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.

The NRA created a Web page that is still active, www.gunbanobama.com, to attack Obama's gun record. The site states, "Hillary was Right: You Can't Trust Obama With Your Guns." It then links to a mailer that Hillary Rodham Clinton used in the Democratic primary against Obama.

Recognizing his vulnerability in swing states, Obama began to run an alternate campaign to calm the worries of gun owners, said Ray Schoenke, a former Washington Redskins lineman who founded a moderate gun rights group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, as part of the Obama effort.

The Obama campaign paid for Schoenke's travel to 40 events in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Colorado to address pro-gun voters.

"The opposition said Obama was going to take away everyone's guns, tax ammunitions, tax guns, register guns and reinstate the assault weapons ban," Schoenke said. "We said, 'He is not going to do any of these things.' And he didn't."

When Holder, then Obama's nominee for attorney general, repeated Obama's gun control platform at his confirmation hearing last year, 65 Democrats wrote Holder vowing to "actively oppose" any effort to restore the assault weapons ban. It was taken off the table, along with the other proposals.

Schoenke said he was in touch with the White House after Holder's comments, and he was assured that Obama would not be making a move toward stricter gun laws unpopular with gun groups. "We basically said it ain't gonna happen," Schoenke said recently. "And it hasn't happened."

In his first 20 months in office, Obama has virtually been silent on guns.
When the Obama administration passed its budget last year, it left the Tiahrt Amendment virtually intact. It expanded police access to the gun trace data but tightened restrictions on public disclosure of the data.

Gun control advocates are disappointed.

"President Obama's first-year record on gun violence prevention has been an abject failure," said the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The NRA, whose membership has tripled since 1978, says it remains on guard.
"We're up against, in the next two years, an Obama administration embedded with people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy this great American freedom," LaPierre said on an NRA election-night webcast, "and we're going to have our work cut out for us."

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Last modified: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:25 AM CST
Justice Breyer’s remarks on guns revisionist thinking
By the Daily News
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is an ideologue, a judicial activist who rules by his own political and personal philosophy, rather than the rule of law and what our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights more than 200 years ago.

The left-leaning justice recently made remarks that further the suspicion that has been held for years - he doesn’t rule in regard to the Constitution, but rather a far-left political philosophy.

On Sunday, Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, said the founding fathers never intended guns to go unregulated.

Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court’s decision to overturn the Washington, D.C., handgun ban in 2008 case “D.C. v. Heller.”

Language in the Heller decision,however, acknowledged the constitutionality of some restrictions on guns.

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that founding father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution might not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.

Mr. Breyer, you couldn’t be more wrong. Breyer even went on to ask: “What is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns, torpedoes? Handguns?”

There are limitations on the right to keep and bear arms just as their are limitations on freedom of speech and of the press, as well as other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Madison, along with other patriot founders of our nation had something very compelling reasons for protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

Perhaps Mr. Breyer should look at the murder rate in the nation’s capital - many were killed because of the handgun ban. The city of Chicago and several other large cities that ban handguns also see very high murder rates, many people would likely still be alive today if they had the right to possess a handgun in those cities, as the founders intended, to defend themselves.

Mr. Breyer seems to be engaged in an exercise of revisionist history.

It is unlikely that the former 13 colonies would have ratified the Constitution without the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment.

The 13 former colonies had recently secured their independence after a protracted and bloody struggle against British tyranny.

A laundry list of grievances against the British crown and Parliament as outlined in the Declaration of Independence is insightful.

Given a genuine concern that they might exchange one government that ran roughshod over their rights for another, the insistence on the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification is hardly surprising.

Americans of that day were well aware of the important role of an armed citizenry at Lexington and Concord at the dawn of the revolution.

Moreover, Americans relied on their guns to protect their homes and settlements during the French and Indian wars.

During the revolution, settlers had to depend on their guns for protection against marauding bands of Indians incited by the British.

Perhaps Breyer should read the account of the siege of Fort Boonesborough in our own state of Kentucky.

But perhaps not, since Breyer seems more partial to history of the revisionist variety.
http://bgdailynews.com/articles/2010/12/14/opinion/our_opinion/opinion1.txt

Monday, December 13, 2010


As Hunting Declines, Conservation Efforts Suffer
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Classroom desks and office cubicles stand empty. Hunters in blaze orange stand out like drops of bright paint against brown fields. Parking lots at bars are crowded with pickup trucks draped with deer carcasses.

This is Wisconsin’s gun deer season, a tradition as engrained in the state’s identity as beer, brats and cheese. But as the years slide by, fewer people seem to care.

Hunting’s popularity has waned across much of the country as housing tracts replace forests, aging hunters hang up their guns and youngsters sit down in front of Facebook rather than venture outdoors.

The falloff could have far-reaching consequences beyond the beginning of the end for an American tradition, hunting enthusiasts say. With fewer hunters, there is less revenue for a multibillion-dollar industry and government conservation efforts.

“As paradoxical as it may seem, if hunting were to disappear, a large amount of the funding that goes to restore all sorts of wildlife habitat, game and nongame species alike, would disappear,” said Steve Sanetti, the president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Hunting generates billions in retail sales and pumps hundreds of millions of dollars into government conservation efforts annually through license sales and federal taxes on firearms and ammunition sales.
But fewer hunters are involved in the sport each year. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that 33 states had declines in hunting license sales over the last two decades. The sharpest drop was in Massachusetts, where there has been a 50 percent falloff in hunting license sales during that time.
Millions of Americans still hunt, of course, and some states have had increases in license sales over the last 20 years. But the overarching decline has outdoor advocates worried.

Suburban sprawl has consumed prime hunting land, forcing many hunters to choose between driving for hours to get to the woods or staying home.

Gerald Feaser, a Pennsylvania Game Commission spokesman, said his state’s urban footprint had nearly doubled since the early 1980s.

“Whole farms turned into housing developments or shopping malls,” he said. “Once that land is lost, you can’t get it back.”

Fewer youngsters are taking up hunting, too.

“Fifty years ago, a lot of kids would hunt and fish and be outside,” said Mark Damian Duda, the executive director of Responsive Management, a natural resources research group in Virginia. “Now it’s easier to sit in your playroom and play video games.”

The drop-offs have hurt state conservation agencies that rely heavily on revenue from license sales.
In Massachusetts, the lost revenue has hampered the state’s habitat restoration efforts and its ability to repair its vehicles.

Michigan has had a 31 percent drop in license sales over the last 20 years, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. As a result of the ensuing revenue losses, wildlife officials have not been able to fill 35 vacant positions and have taken a less-detailed approach to managing the deer population.

In Pennsylvania, license sales have dipped 20 percent over the last two decades. The state’s game commission has cut spending by about $1 million in the last two years, cutting back efforts to repopulate pheasants, leaving 30 positions unfilled and asking employees to repair their own vehicles, Feaser said.
Decreasing license sales in Wisconsin, one of the nation’s destination spots for deer hunting, has not been as drastic, falling 2.5 percent over the last 20 years. But the drop-off has grown steeper in the last decade. License sales for the state’s traditional November firearms deer hunt dropped 9 percent from 2000 to 2009.
To help stave off the losses, states and outdoors groups have been increasing their efforts to retain and recruit hunters. The United States Sportsmen’s Alliance, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the National Wild Turkey Federation began the program Families Afield in 2005, which calls for states to scale back youth hunting regulations. Thirty states have since reduced or eliminated minimum hunting ages, said Bill Brassard Jr., a National Shooting Sports Foundation spokesman.

Michigan officials have offered more hunting workshops for women and children. They also hope to use a federal grant to bolster participation in a decades-old program that pays some landowners up to $10 an acre to let hunters onto their property. Only about 50 farms out of potentially thousands participate, state officials said.

Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources is researching how to use social networking to recruit youngsters into the sport.

But the hunting fabric continues to fray.

Jeff Schinkten of Sturgeon Bay, Wis., is the president of Whitetails Unlimited, a national conservation organization that works to preserve deer hunting. He said his 33-year-old son, Oliver, recently gave up the sport after years of seeing no deer and taking care of a newborn child.

“I miss my son and wish he was out here,” Schinkten said. “Hunters better be concerned. If it keeps going like this, it’s not going to be good. We lose hunters, we lose license sales. It’s just a vicious circle.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/13/sports/13deer.html?_r=1&src=twrhp&pagewanted=print

 

Sarah Palin's bad shooting: Maybe it was a good thing.

| Dec 12, 2010

Since Alaska former, half-term Gov. Sarah Palin appears to be among everyone's favorite topic of discussion these days, here's something for hunters to talk about: The so-called varmint rifle with which she shot at and repeatedly missed a caribou in TLC's "Sarah Palin's Alaska'' was a .225-caliber Winchester. Given that, were the misses a bad thing or a good thing?

Here's some data to help the debate:

The .225 Winchester is a big sister of the .223 Remington, which is generally considered underpowered for hunting whitetail deer. A really, really big whitetail buck is about the size of the small caribou cow Palin shot. There is considerable debate among hunters about shooting deer with any of the .22-caliber center-fire cartridges, of which the .225 is one.

This said, however, it must be noted the semi-automatic Ruger Mini 14 rifle is popular in the Alaska Bush, and the Mini 14 shoots the .223. The cartridge has been used to kill a lot of caribou. It is also somewhat notorious for wounding losses.

"Wounding loss is quite high because caribou are a herd animal,'' one study from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game concluded. "If a caribou is not knocked down with the first shot, it may be lost in the herd and another caribou shot until one eventually drops.''

The .223 is not prone to knock caribou down on impact even if they are vitally wounded, but that is not a vital concern in Arctic Alaska, where there are about half-million caribou and very few people. The limit on caribou there is five per day, and some biologists have privately made an argument that wounding loss in some places might be a good thing. The Western Arctic caribou herd has for years been growing at a pace that threatens to overtax its range. Dead animals don't graze.

But wounding loss isn't why the Mini 14 is popular. It is popular in rural Alaska for the same reason it is popular among coyote-shooting ranchers in the West. It's comparatively cheap, reliable, shoots well, has a big magazine, doesn't kick much, and fires ammunition that doesn't cost a lot. Part of the reason for the latter is that the smallish .223 cartridge contains less brass and power than larger cartridges. Part of the reason is the cartridge started life as a U.S.

civilian version of 5.56x45mm NATO military cartridge, and the availability of Army surplus ammo drives down price.

You can order a box of 50 .223 from Cabela's Inc. today for $21.99, or at least you could if you had access to UPS ground shipping.

Shooters in the Alaska Bush, where there are no roads, don't, but they'd love to be able to buy .223 at that price. Still, in the Bush, as anywhere else, .223 ammo is cheaper than ammo for most any other centerfire.

Sarah Palin clearly doesn't face an economic incentive to shoot a small gun.

She's now a millionaire. There aren't many of those in rural Alaska. Most rural residents shooting .22-caliber centerfire rifles have an economic reason to do so. Consider that the cheapest .30-06 ammo on the Caleba's website today goes $19.99 for a box of 20 with full-metal jacket bullets, and hunters reading this know FMJ bullets aren't the best for hunting caribou. They tend to punch holes in animals instead of mushrooming after impact and maximizing the killing damage done.

Killing damage as it relates to bullet diameter and bullet behavior after impact is a much debated subject, but in general there is agreement that the bigger the hole the better as long as the bullet stays intact. Little bullets are at a disadvantage in killing because they cannot expand the hole as much. A .225 Winchester or .223 Remington bullet (.22 caliber) might mushroom to the diameter of that .30-06 full-metal jacket (.30 caliber) on impact, but a good quality .30-caliber partition bullet of the type normally used for hunting will mushroom to the diameter of a .44 caliber or more. (If you want intellectual ammo for a debate with friends, you can get a primer on bullets here.)

Bullet size is, of course, only part of the issue. The other big factor is energy, a measure of power. Energy is dictated by the weight of the bullet and the speed at which it is traveling when it hits.

Speed is more important than weight; energy = mass + velocity squared.
So here are some numbers for speed and energy for cartridges at 100 yards, the distance at which one might expect to shoot a caribou:

-- .30-06 Winchester, 180-grain partition bullet, 2,588 feet per second, 2,677-foot pounds of energy.
-- .225 Winchester, 55-grain pointed soft point, 3,066 fps, 1,148 ft. lbs.
-- .223 Remington, 60-grain Nosler partition bullet, 2737 fps, 998 ft. lbs.

You can see there that the .225 Winchester is slightly more powerful than the .223, but less than half as powerful as the .30-06. By way of comparison, the .30-30 Winchester, an old mainstay among deer hunters in the north woods of the Lower 48, pushes a 150-grain bullet out of the muzzles at only 2,390 feet per second and produces an energy of only 1,296-foot pounds at 100 yards. It is slightly more powerful than the .225 Winchester, but not by much.

Some would consider the .30-30 marginal, if not inadequate, for shooting caribou, though it -- like the .223 -- has killed a lot of those animals. Many would consider all of the .22-calibers -- from the .22 Hornet through the .223 to the .22-250 Remington to the .223 Winchester Super Short Magnum -- to be inadequate for deer, let alone caribou. And, in fact, some states ban anything smaller than the .243-caliber for deer hunting.

Still, it has been observed, that in the hands of a good shot who has a little luck any big game animal on the North American continent -- up to and including a grizzly bear -- can be killed with a .22 rimfire with a 40-grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1,255 feet per second and a meager energy production of 140-foot pounds at the muzzle. That's down to 92-foot pounds at 100 yards.

Suffice to say, what a hunter could do and what a hunter might want to do are two very different things. One would have to be crazy to go hunting grizzlies with a .22 rimfire. A .22 centerfire for caribou is, however, open to a lot more discussion, maybe even some debate.

In Palin's defense, shooters unanimously agree, the deadliest rifle is the one you shoot best. The odds of wounding go down and the odds of killing go up as cartridge size increases, but only to the point where rifle recoil becomes punishing and a hunter afraid of it starts to flinch and miss the target. Palin obviously knew enough about the recoil problem to inquire about the "kick'' of the rifle she was handed after giving up on her .225 (a childhood rifle, like kind a father would buy a daughter?) after all those misses.

Had she hit the caribou with the .225 -- given the shooting display -- her hunting party would likely have been chasing a wounded animal across the tundra. That is not a criticism of Palin. There is unlikely to be anyone in Alaska who has done much caribou hunting who hasn't at some point found herself, or himself, chasing a wounded caribou across the tundra. Responsible hunters like to be more humane than wolves in their killing of Alaska big game, but it doesn't always work out that way.

Still, a big gun generally helps. The rifle Palin was handed in the end was a .300 Winchester Magnum, the big brother of the .30-06. It is the gun with which she finally made the kill. The 300 Win Mag sends a 180-grain bullet hurtling down range at more than 3,000 feet per second. It produces nearly 3,000 ft. lbs of energy at 100 yards. It is equivalent to getting dumped on by a ton and a half of force. It will kill quickly and cleanly. That is what has made it among one of the more popular cartridges in the 49th state.

Some years back, Lee Rogers, then the range master at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game's Rabbit Creek Range in Anchorage, conducted a survey of the rifles used by 1,848 Alaska hunters. He found the most popular big-game cartridge in use was the tried and true .30-06, but it was followed closely by the .300 Winchester Magnum and the more powerful .338 Winchester Magnum. Lee reported those three cartridges combined were used by almost six out of 10 Southcentral hunters.

Lee also looked at cartridges by caliber, a Fish and Game publication noted. The 30-caliber came in first with the .338-caliber a distance second followed by the 7-mm-caliber. Rodgers did not report meeting any hunters practicing with or sighting any .22-caliber centerfire rifles in preparation for the hunting season.

All of which leaves this question hanging out there: Did Sarah Palin go off under-gunned?
Contact Craig Medred at craig(at)alaskadispatch.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/voices/medred/7805-sarah-palins-bad-shooting-maybe-it-was-a-good-thing?showall=1

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Always on the hunt, Palin shown what to do

PAUL JENKINS
COMMENT

(12/11/10 18:43:02)



Please, Lord, if somebody ever decides to shoot at me, let it be Sarah Palin. Amen.
 
That short prayer came to me as I watched the fourth episode of her faux-reality show, "Sarah Palin's Alaska," which had our half-term governor and former vice presidential candidate blasting away at a hapless and seemingly not very bright cow caribou somewhere in the Frozen North.
 
Palin, a likely presidential contender in 2012, was joined in the hunt by her 72-year-old father and a family friend. She had all the looks of somebody who has not spent much time in the woods or put in time behind guns, especially those she was using in the hunt.
 
Instead of coming off as a mama grizzly, she appeared tentative, uncomfortable, unprepared. She looked like what she was -- TV talent. It made me remember a song that author and journalist Harry Hurt III penned at the Pipeline Club in Valdez as we unwound every day while covering the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Most of the doggerel -- I cannot recall the tune -- is a blur of Jack Daniel's and fatigue, but its title has stuck with me, "She's an indoor girl in an outdoor world."
 
Do not get me wrong. I like hunting. I like guns. I like shooting, but it is painful to watch the Palin video, hard not to feel a tinge for the hoodooed caribou, which died only after being subjected to hearing more bullets whizz by than an L.A. gang-banger hears in a short lifetime.
 
When Palin's party stumbles upon the doomed animal, her dad hands her a rifle. "Does it kick?" she wonders aloud. Wouldn't she know that if she had shot it before? She asks him when to shoot. Bang! The confused caribou trots this way and that, looking for all the world as if it is in a big carnival shooting gallery. Bang! Palin's dad working the rifle's bolt for her. Bang! "Something's not right here," he says. Really?

Excited whispers. Confusion. Directions. You can almost hear the caribou, "What the ...?" Bang! The shots are high. Bang! Five misses. Five. She finally swaps rifles with the family friend. Stands up to shoot; kneels down on packs. The caribou apparently is suicidal or feeling very lucky and does not run away. Bang! Finally, thankfully, the animal goes down as if hit by a sledgehammer and becomes winter protein. There's not much help from Sniper Sarah in the quartering process, some note.
 
In the end, of course, the rifle is blamed. There's a surprise. Sights are off. But the questions about why an unprepared hunter is on the tundra shooting a rifle that was not zeroed or checked before the hunt were never asked or answered.
 
None of it has done hunting, shooting or Alaska any good. Nobody likes a sloppy killing. In the aftermath, there have been the expected headlines: The Washington Post's "The hunting and the snark," or Ted Nugent's "Sarah Palin is my hero," or the Atlantic's "Doubts live on after the hunt," or my favorite, by Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, "Pass the caribou stew," on a column likening the caribou to Obama. The video also triggered outrage among the usual effete suspects, including the crazies at PETA.
 
But the story is in the story. All but Dowd seemed to miss the boatload of delicious allegory about Palin's life and politics wrapped up in the episode. It was Palin on the hunt; on the hunt always. First, it was small-town politicos in Wasilla who befriended her, then GOP Chief Randy Ruedrich, then Frank Murkowski, who appointed her to a cushy job, and finally, a shot at Barack Obama. Older white men carrying her guns, loading them and handing them to her, advising her, telling her when to shoot, showing her how to do the job. Letting them do the work. Out of her element. Indoor girl in an outdoor world. Missed shot after missed shot after missed shot. Blaming someone or something else when it all goes south. Killing a scrawny little caribou to sell the image. Jumping the ship of state after only two disinterested, unengaged years, going for something bigger. Out of her element. Peddling the lie. The mama grizzly. Sarah the Sniper.
 
In the end, with Palin, the story is always in the story.
 
Too bad a caribou had to get in the way.
 
Bang!
http://www.adn.com/2010/12/11/v-printer/1599846/always-on-the-hunt-palin-shown.html